men or rudiments of the world by which the Jewish Rites to be meant is apparent from Col. 2.16 17 20. Gal 4 3 9. 6. Saith he It carries with it a sad reflection upon the authority of the Scripture as not thorowly furnished to make the man of God perfect Answ. The authority and use of the holy Scripture is delivered by St. Paul 2 Tim. 3.15 16 17. that they were able to make Timothy wise unto salvation through faith in Christ Jesus that they were profitable for doctrine for reproof for correction for instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect throughly furnished unto all good works Whence is rightly deduced against the Romanists the perfection and sufficiency of the Scripture without unwritten Traditions for all Doctrinals of Faith and Manners and Worship in respect of Essentials But it is no ill reflection upon its authority to say that some accidentals of instituted Worship undetermined in Scripture ordered by men according to general Rules in Scripture are warranted by permission without command of those particularities in holy Scripture 7. The Lord condemns not onely that which is done against the warrant and direction of the Word but also that which is done beside it Deut. 4.2 and 12.32 Mat. 15.9 Lev. 10.1 their sin lay not in this that they offered strange fire which was forbidden but which God commanded them not Prov. 30.6 Jer. 7.31 Answ. I suppose that this Author when he saith the Lord condemns not only that which is done against the warrant and direction of the Word but also that which is done besides it means it of warrant and direction by command and in instituted Worship otherwise he should hold that nothing is indifferent which is too absurd and therefore I shall not charge him with it till he do expresly assert it But if his meaning be as I conceive that God condemns all that which is done besides the Warrant and Direction of the Word by a command in the New Testament even in accidentals of instituted Worship which must be his proposition if he argue to the purpose his assertion is false and not proved by any of the Texts alledged Not Deut. 4 2. which is to be understood of Doctrines Commands or Institutions as from God Thus Ainsworth in his Annot. on Deut. 4.2 not add Hereby all Doctrines of men are condemned Mat. 15.9 and the all-sufficiency and authority of Gods Word stablished for ever Gal. 3.15 2 Tim. 3.16 17. Add thou not unto his words lest he reprove thee and thou be sound a Liar Prov. 30 6. Which place is to be understood not of particularities of Instituted Worship undetermined for then the reason should have been thus Lest he reprove thee and thou be found superstitious but of Gods Commands Promises or Predictions of which he had said v. 5. Every Word of God is pure he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him and is opposed to the practice of false Prophets who pretended revelations as from God which they had not from him and therefore were reproved by him and found Liars Which is also confirmed by that parallel place Rev. 22.18 19. Mat. 15.9 is the same with Mark 7.7 before alledged and is taken from Isa. 29.13 and both by the Prophet against the Seers of his time the Rulers and Prophets to whom the vision of God was as a sealed Book and they understood not or taught not according to his Law but made shew of drawing nigh to God whilest their fear towards him that is their Worship of him or obedience to him was taught by the precepts of men and by our Lord Christ urged against the Pharisees who were guilty of the same hypocrisie and indeed proves that all Doctrines are condemned wherein that is taught or commanded or urged as Gods Worship which is onely by the Command of men but condemns not every particularity of accidentals in instituted Worship undetermined by God because from men who reach it not nor observe it as Gods Worship by his Command Which Exposition is agreeable with that which this Author puts after in the Margin In a Translation of the New Testament in Edward the sixths time the Author of the Notes on Mat. 15. saith God will not be woâ—shipped after the Doctrine and Precepts of men but as he himself hath prescribed and taught us in his Word The same is to be said of Deut. 12.32 where God having warned the Israelites that they should not do so unto the Lord their God as the Nations destroyed by them served their Gods adds whatsoever thing I command you observe to do it thou shalt not add thereto nor diminish from it Which hath the same sense as the Words Deut. 4.2 well expounded in the English large Annotations Deut. 4.2 shall not add not as a Comment or Exposition to a Text but man must not add any thing to Gods Word either for words or meaning contrary to it nor as Gods Word with an intent to make that of Divine Authority which is but humane as the Papists do by Apocryphal Writings and unwritten Traditions See Chap. 12.32 and 18.20 Diminish by denying any part of it to be of Divine Authority or concealing any part of it either for words or meaning or by partial Belief of it or obedience to it God is not to be believed obeyed or served in part and by halfs but as he is to be loved wholly Chap. 6.5 Which Precept is not to be restrained to immediate Worship but to be extended to all other duties enjoyned not only to the Priests by whom the solemn Worship of God was to be administred but also the King who was to have a Copy of the Law and not to turn aside from the Commandment to the right hand or to the left Deut. 17.20 and yet might make Orders about Civil Government not expressed in the Law Yea were the prohibition Deut. 4.2 and 12.32 restrained as it is not to worship it cannot be taken for a prohibition of all Orders made by men concerning Gods Worship as might be proved from Josh. 22.34 2 Chron. 20.3 and 30.23 Esther 9.27 31. and other places if there were need but such as were different from Gods commands in things determined by him or in things indeterminate when urged as Gods command and made his Worship wherein it is to be considered that God was more strict to the Israelites being more full in Ordinances concerning Ceremonies Typical and peculiar to them than he is to Christians whom he hath released of their burden of rites Lev. 10 1. The sin lay in this that they offered strange fire which was forbidden as even Mr. Ainsworth acknowledgeth Annot. on Lev. 10.1 Strange fire that is other fire than God had sanctified on his Altar As strange incense was expresly forbidden Exod. 30.9 So strange fire was not commanded but implicitely forbidden by Lev. 1.7 6.12 as afterward God plainly sheweth in Levit. 16.12 So that both the
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
received from a Bishop Suffragan who is not a Lord and therefore the adding of the title Lord to Bishop being only a civil title they being made Barons of the Land by the King and nothing pertaining to their Ordination but only giving them power to vote in Parliament or Convocation with other dignities is only brought in here ad faciendum populum to create envy or hatred against them in the Common people or others who are prepossessed with prejudice against them What their Office is as Bishops may be best discerned by the Book of Consecration which I gather from their promises and the prayers then used to be the instruction of the people committed to their charge out of the Holy Scripture and to teach or maintain nothing as required of necessity to eternal salvation but that which they shall be perswaded may be concluded and proved by the same faithfully to exercise themselves in the same Holy Scriptures and call upon God by prayer for the true understanding of the same so as they may be able by them to teach and exhort with wholesome Doctrine and to withstand and convince the Gainsayers to be ready with all faithful diligence to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange Doctrine contrary to Gods Word and both privately and openly to call upon and encourage others to the same to maintain and set forward as much as shall lie in them quietness love and peace among men and such as be unquiet disobedient and criminous within their Diocess correct and punish according to such authority as they have by Gods Word and as to them shall be committed by the Ordinance of the Realm to be faithful in Ordaining Sending or Laying hands upon others to shew themselves gentle and merciful for Christs sake to poor and needy People and to all Strangers destitute of help These are their Offices which they are required to perform at their Consecration whatever their practise be it pertains not to the present point this is the Office they undertake and it is as much wonder to me that any sober man should assert this to be Antichristian as it is to him that some should deny it I deny not but there are many that have termed Bishops Antichristian nor have there been wanting who have said as much of persons of Presbyterian and Congregational principles but such use of this term I have alwayes condemned even when Bishops were lowest as tending to nothing but to inflame the minds of Dissenters in opinion with hatred one against another but I have not met with any sober Writer or considerate man who in conference hath judged their Office as it is undertaken by them to be Antichristian I deny not that many learned men at home and abroad have disputed whether Bishops are by Divine Right an Order above Presbyters nor have there been wanting even of the Bishops themselves who have denied it Somewhat I have read on both sides but shall leave that controversie now and only examine what this Author saith to prove the Office of Lord Bishops to be Antichristian We shall saith he propose briefly a word or two in this matter 1. That Office that is not to be found in the Scriptures of the institution of Christ but is contrary to express precepts and commands of his is Antichristian But the Office of Lord-Bishops is not to be found in the Scriptures is contrary to express precepts Therefore Answ. I think the Major is not true if universal The Office of some Religious Votaries is not to be found in the Scriptures of the institution of Christ but is contrary to express Precepts and Commands of his and yet may not be Antichristian in that special sense in which the Scripture useth the word Antichrist nor as I suppose this Author useth it unless he make every sin to be Antichristian But because the Minor is that which he insists on I pass to his proof of it The minor Proposition consists of two parts 1. That the Office of Lord-Bishops is not to be found in Scripture of the institution of Christ He gave indeed Apostles Prophets Pastors and Teachers Ephes. 4.11 of Pastors and Teachers we read Rom. 12.7 8. Ephes. 4.8 Bishops also and Deacons without the interposition of any other Order we find 1 Tim. 3.12 Deacons we have appointed Acts 7. Elders Acts 14.23 those who are Bishops we find called Presbyters Tit. 1.5 7. and those who are Presbyters we find termed Bishops Acts 20.28 Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishops but where the Office of Lord-Bishops was instituted by Christ we are yet to seek indeed some appearances of a spirit striving to ascend into this chair of wickedness was seen in Diotrephes and others in the Apostles time but these were the Antichrists that were then gone abroad into the world The Scripture before mentioned Ephes. 4.11 speaks as fully to the Officers and Offices instituted by Christ as any we meet with Fail they in their deduction of their Office from hence and they will undoubtedly prove successless in their attempts Let us then fix here a little mention we find here of Apostles Prophets Pastors and Teachers none at all either here or elsewhere of Lord-Bishops But perhaps their Office though they are called by another name is comprehended in some one or other of these let that then be considered Are they Prophets that in the sense of the Spirit in this place they will not pretend to Are they Pastors or Teachers This is too great a debasement of their Lordships their Parochial Priests over whom they preside are supposed to be Offiâ—ers in that degree What then are they Apostles Their successors they do indeed boast themselves to be and are so accounted by their abettors and so doth the Pope himself but how prove they their Succession from them if they derive it through the Papacy who sees not the invalidity thereof How lubricous and uncertain is that their Succession How do they therein proclaim their shame and yield the matter in Controversie What clearer argument that they are Antichristian if the Pope be the Antichristian Head over many Countries as is by the generality of Protestants believed and will not by themselves be gainsayed But in what sense do they pretend to be the Apostles Successors Do they succeed them as Christians that is not the thing in question they stand or fall in respect thereof to their own Master herein we have no controversie with them as not willing to judge any thing before the time Do they succeed them in respect to their Offâ—ice let them prove that and take the cause The Apostles were first immediately sent by Christ secondly extraordinary Officers Commissionated to the Preaching of the Gospel throughout the Nations of the World Are their Lordships such what can be imagined more frivolous or false Where find we any Apostles after the departure of those that were immediately by Christ called to that Office Did the Apostles ordain any as their
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
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
as those 1 Cor. 5.11 2 Cor. 12.20 21. not those practices charged on the present Ministers here by this Author are meant by disorderly walking 2 Thess. 3.6 which is also confirmed by 1 Thess. 5.14 where after the Apostle had beseeched them v. 12 13. to know them which laboured among them and were over them in the Lord and admonished them and to esteem them very highly for their works sake which shews he expected not of them other works for the earning of their Bread than their labour in the Word and Doctrine he adds now we exhort you Brethren warn them that are unruly the same word which is 2 Thess. 3 6. translated disorderly whom he distinguisheth from thâ— feeble minded and weak and therefore is meant of Brethren who sinned openly and wilfully and not of Ministers who do yield to that which is controverted even by learned and godly men whether it be evil at all and if it be evil it s not of such a kind as the Apostle any where censures so as he doth this disorderly walking and it s most likely is practised out of ignorance errour fear or other motive which may befall an holy and upright man Nor is there any force in this Authors reasoning that the practice of the Ministers must be disorderly walking unless they can shew an Apostolical written Tradition for those things they practise For 1. it doth not appear that the Tradition 2 Thess. 3 6. of the Apostle is any other than the command v. 10. that if any would not work he should not eat which is not improbable from the connexion of the following verses with this which also makes it probable that the disorderly walking v. 6. is no other than being idle and busie-bodies the Apostle acquitting himself from behaving himself disorderly v. 7. in that he wrought with his hands that he might not be chargeable to any of them v. 8. and then they need to bring no other tradition to acquit themselves from disorderly walking than their labouring in the Word and Doctrine according to 1 Tim. 5.17 18. 2. If the Tradition be further extended to those mentioned 2 Thess. 2.15 It will not be necessary that they may be acquitted from disorderly walking that they produce for themselves an Apostolical written Tradition for a Liturgie Surplice or Crossing they think it concerns him that accuseth them as walking disorderly in doing them that he produce an Apostolical Tradition against the use of them For being as they conceive in themselves things indifferent they think it enough that there is no Apostolical precept forbidding them and then they have this Apostolical Tradition for them Rom. 4.15 where no Law is there is no Transgression If it be replied in things that pertain to Gods Worship there must be an express Institution or else the practice of it is walking disorderly besides what is said before in answer to the first Chapter Sect. 3. it may be retorted where is your Apostolical written Tradition by Institution for your Church Covenant Infant Baptism Election of Ministers by most voices excommunication of members in a Congregational Church by the major part with many more To use your own words if you have not as there is nothing more certain you are disorderly Walkers and to be separated from as well as the present Ministers if the Apostles argument be valid We command you to withdraw from such as walk disordâ—rly But who I pray are these disorderly Walkers how shall we know them they are sayes the Apostle such as walk not after the tradition received from us Eadem in te cudatur saba As much may be said of the Separatists if by Apostolical Tradition be meant an Institution for every thing used in Worship and Church Government 3. This Authors Argument if it proceed thus Every one that hath not a written Apostolical Tradition for what he doth or that doth otherwise than the Apostles Tradition requires walks disorderly which is the force of his reasoning then every one that sins in any kind is a disorderly walker for sure he hath no Apostolical Tradition for any sin and then this Author if he be not a Perfectist nor thinks himself excluded from the number of those of whom it is said James 3.2 In many things we offend all and 1 Joh. 1.8 If we say that we have no sin we deceive our selves must acknowledge himself a disorderly walker and to be separated from 4. The present Ministers I imagine will be apt to alledge for themselves that they have Apostolical written Tradition even for those practices for which they are accused as disorderly walkers to wit Rom. 13.1 Heb. 13.17 and be ready to recriminate this Author and those of his mind as disorderly walkers in separating from their Brethren disobeying their Ministers and Governours commanding things lawful and to be separated from as practising of division To conclude this matter Were it granted that the present Ministers of England were disorderly walkers and that they were to be withdrawn from yet this doth not prove that they might not be heard as gifted Brethren or that the best of them cannot by Saints be accounted as Brethren in respect of Gospel Communion Partly because the withdrawing themselves from every Brother that walks disorderly cannot be meant of exclusion of himself from hearing praying or receiving the Lords Supper if such a one be present unless it be determined that every one must not only examine himself before he comes to the Lords Supper which the Apostle requires 1 Cor. 11.28 but also every Brother even his Minister with whom he is to joyn in Gospel Communion yea and hath power to excommunicate his Brother or liberty notwithstanding the Institution of Christ to exclude himself which sure is no Apostolical Tradition but a far more disorderly walking than most of those things the practice whereof is made by this Author the Ministers disorderly walking Besides the injunction to every Christian to withdraw himself not to keep Company 2 Thess. 3.6 14. being expressions which note not acts imposed by Church Governours but such as they ought of their own accord to practice are to be understood of such familiar private arbitrary Communion in entertainments and other societies as they are at liberty to do or not to do or might do were it not for this consideration not such Communion as if they omit they omit the Worship of God which he hath appointed and so break his Commandment Partly also because if the withdrawing were upon publick censure of the Community yet it must not be according to their own rule without a gradual proceeding of endeavouring conviction and precedent admonition which being not done to the present Ministers of England to separate from them even the best in hearing and other Gospel Communion is irregular and unjustifiable I go on to examine what follows CHAP. 3. ARG. 3. Sect. 1. That which is by some termed Antichristian is not alwayes unlawful THose that act in
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
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
communion with a Minister that preacheth the truth prayes to God in the name of Christ for things agreeable to Gods will administers the Lords Supper in remembrance of Christs death because of his personal sins Partaking with a Minister in these things in this case is not having fellowshâ—p with the unfruitful works of darkness or being partakers 〈◊〉 whoâ—â—mongers or unclean persons or covetous Idolaters forbidden Ephâ—s 5 7.17 It is nothing for but against this Authors puâ—pose which the Apostle chargeth Timothy 1 Tâ—m 6.3 4 5. That he should withdraw himself that is not 〈…〉 to himself in the work of the ministry such as 〈◊〉 otherwise than St. Paul had instructed Timothy that consenâ— not to whâ—lesome words the words of our Lord Jesus Christ 〈◊〉 the Doctrine which is according to godliness As for the last Text though it be still in the mouths of the Separatists and is ridiculously applyed to every thing that they call Babylon as Bishops Common Prayer Ministers of any party besides their own Tythes at the last by the Quintomonarchians to all the pâ—esent Rulers so it is by this Author often uâ—ged still besides the purpose of the holy Ghost it being only a warning for the people of God to come out of Rome whether by local departure from the City or by leaving the communion of the Papacy in Doctrine and worship which is nothing to a separation from hearing or joyning with the Ministers in holy things because of their personal sins Nevertheless this Author cracks of abundant demonstration and as if nothing in the world carried a greater brightness and evidence with it than this That the hearing the present Ministers of England is to be partakers with them in their sins just as if one should say He that heard Judas preach the Gospel was partaker with him in his theft which is more like the inference of a man crazed in his intellectuals than a sober minded man But because some mens confident words prevail with some persons addiâ—ted to them more than sound reason let 's consider what brightness is in his application Is not our so doing saith he a secret consenting with them and encouraging of them in 〈◊〉 evil deeds Marvellous brightness clear evidence No wonder he applauds himself like an Archimedes and cryes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have found I have found the Demonstraâ—â—on and that his followers add their plaudite thereto 〈◊〉 we moâ—â—s do not see the brightness of this consequence A Christian Professor goes to hear a Minister that preacheth the Word of God truly therefore he consents to his intrusion into his place he doth openly hear therefore he doth secretly consent he applyes himself to learn the word of God from him therefore he encourageth him in his evil deeds It is too favourable a censure to say his Argument is a baculo ad angulum as if a man argued the staff stands in the corner therefore it will rain to morrow he seems to me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to speak contradictions He that goes to hear him preach Gods Word doth consent with him that teacheth in doing well and encourage him to preach the truth not as this Author saith in evil deeds it may more truly be said that this Author and other Separatists are guilty of sin in not consenting with the Preacher but discouraging him in well doing Did not Ministers heretofore and perhaps this Author complain that their auditories were thin that good people withdrew from publique exercises to pâ—ivate meetings that this was a discouragement to them in their work and is it now to go hear them an encouragement in their evil deeds Is not this to blow hot and cold with the same breath We silly Ignaro's think we ought not to discourage any who preach the truth of the Gospel be they Episcopal Presbyterian Independent Antipaedobaptist by our absence or exceptions against him for his personal failings but to countenance and encourage him by our presence and otherwise and think we have the example of St Paul Philip 1.18 to warrant us therein and marvel that such should argue thus who blame them that silence good Preachers for not assenting to the Liturgy not considering that they may thus argue If we should permit the Separatists to preach we should consent secretly with them and encourage them in their evil deeds such as they conceive their gathering a separate Congregation and taking their mission from it to be Yet we have more of this doughty Demonstration in a Socratical way of disputing by questioning Is this to discharge those duties incumbent upon us if we indeed look upon them as Brethren for their reclaiming It seems it can hardly go down with this Author to call them Brethren their conformity hath unchristened them But I answer If it be not the discharging their duty for the reclaiming them which as it is stated would perhaps be rather their sin than their duty yet it is to discharge their duty in hearing Gods Word which is so farr from hindring them in the discharge of any duty incumbent on them for the reclaiming of Ministers from any sin they are to reprove in them that it rather fits them for it For the hearing them shews they do not as this Author count them their or the Lords enemies which makes a reproof to be better taken and is agreeable to the Apostles rule even when we shun the company of any that is unruly to count him not as an enemy but to admonish him as a brother 2 Thes. 3.15 But doth indeed this Author think it the duty of every hearer to reclaim or else separate from every Minister that either enters into his ministry unduly or doth not discharge his function as he should Suppose a John de Cluse is unduly made an Elder or a Johnson excommanicate his Brother and Father rashly an Ainsworth disagree with Johnson or Robinson about private communion with the members of the Church of England a Wheel-wright vent Antinomian errours must every hearer reclaim them or separate from them or be guilty of their sin They that leave the Church of England to be in Congregations of such principles would find it to be matter of repentance to avoid Episcopal government to be under popular would be like Tinkers work to stop one hole and to make two under shew of better Discipline to introduce Anarchy and confusion But enough of answer to this wild Argument in which the Author accuseth deeply but brings no proof only puts questions for proofs and would have the Defendant prove himself Not guilty when it concerned the Accuser to prove his Indictment I hasten to the remainder CHAP. 9. ARG. 9. Sect. 1. Separation of some from other Christians is no institution of Christ. THat the doing whereof doth cast contempt upon the wayes and institutions some or more of them of our Lord Jesus and hardens persons in a false way of worship rebellion against him is utterly unlawful for the
argument from testimony negatively is not of force especially in matters of fact it is not related therefore it was not done and most of all concerning Christs acts of which it is noted that many things are not written John 21.25 Sect. 4. Christ allows hearing the Pharisees while they taught the Law of Moses Yet again saith this Author But let this also be granted that we may hear this Argument speak its uttermost The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses seat this seat is a ministerial seat and they sit not here by virtue of any lawfull authority but are meer intruders what follows from hence Why this if it were lawfull to hear the Scribes and Pharisees persons vicious in their lives corrupt in their doctrine having no lawfull call to the place they possessed then it undeniably follows that its lawfull to hear the present Ministers of England though they have no lawfull authority or call to the office they assume It must it seems then 3dly be granted that when Christ sayes what they say unto you do he is to be interpreted to command or at least to permit an attendance upon their Ministry But this is that we deny and dare confidently aver That it never entred into the heart of Christ to permit much less to command any to attend upon the Ministry of the Scribes and Pharisees nor is any such thing in the least intimated in the words under consideration For first the words are in the original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. which may more strictly be rendred the Scribes and Pharisees have sate in Moses chair all things therefore whatsoever they have said unto you c. i. e. whatever in times past you have heard delivered by these men according to the mind of God do you not now reject because of that hypocrisie pride covetousness c. you are made to see is predominant in them I reply the Argument is framed not as here by this Authour but as I before formed it The command to do what they bid implies a permission to hear else how could they do as they bid Though the words v. 2. may be rendered have sate in Moses chair yet the words v. 3. according to the Greek language and I think according to all interpreters must be rendered whatsoever they shall say unto you it being a precept concerning their future actions and the word render'd sit being in the first Aorist is best rendered as noting an indefinite time and so is to be conceived as signifying a continued time past and present they have and still do sit But were it granted that the bidding were meant of the time past the argument were of force they heard therefore they may hear Christ not disapproving their former hearing but giving a reason which infers a continued permission to hear them because they sate in Moses chair that is taught the law of Moses so that he makes this the entire reason of their observing and consequently of hearing in that they bid them observe the law of Moses which while they did they were to hear them and observe them not when they taught for doctrines the precepts of men which is indeed the genuine reason of his caveat there and elsewhere especially in the Sermon on the Mount Matth. 5. 6. 7. in which having said Matth. 5.17 Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets I am not come to destroy but to fulfill he then adds that one Jot shall not pass from the law till all were fulfilled that he would not have the least Commandement broken by practise or Doctrine yet with monition that their righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees if they would enter into the Kingdom of Heaven and accordingly clears the law from their false glasses warns his Disciples of their hypocritical practises of their corrupt doctrine and traditions directs persons to observe the rites of the law while he was on earth and to acquit himself from being an enemy to the law a little before his death though he had late experience of their opposition yet minds his Disciples that they should not neglect their teaching out of the law though they were not to imitate their practise Whence may be clearly discerned that Christ would have them heard teaching out of the law of God notwithstanding other defects or corruptions and that the resolution of this case is a plain rule to us that we may lawfully hear such as teach truth notwithstanding other defects and corruptions in their lives and Ministry It is added Sect. 5. Hearing Pharisees teaching Moses law not attendance on their Ministry as Pastors is allowed by Christ. Let the words be as they are rendered whatever they bid you observe and do that observe and do Yet 2ly who that hath but half an eye can chuse but see that an attendance upon their Ministry is remote enough from being their intendment We had alwayes thought that they might have been sufficiently acquainted with and been in a capacity of hearing and knowing what had been said by these men through their particular occasional meeting and discourse with them though they had never spent one hour in attending upon their Ministry which that our Saviour did not enjoyn no nor so much as permit by that expression we suppose may be clearly demonstrated from the ensuing considerations 1. There are not a generation of men of whom the Lord Iesus doth speak more contemptuously and charges with greater enormities than he doth of that generation of Scribes and Pharisees In this very Chapter he informs us of their hypocrisie ver 5.23.25.27 28 29. and pride ver 6 7. and tells us plainly that they shut up the Kingdom of Heaven against men neither entering in themselves nor suffering those that are entering to go in ver 13. that they make their Proselytes twofold more the Children of Hell than themselves ver 15. that they are blinde guides ver 16.19.24.26 perverters of the Scripture such as make void the Commandements of God by their traditions ver 16 17 18. that they are serpents a generation of vipers that cannot escape the damnation of Hell ver 33. yea such as shall kill crucifie scourge persecute the Messengers of the Lord ver 34. And can it be imagined that Christ should have no more tenderness to poor souls than to direct them to an attendance upon such persons as these for teaching Credat Apelles Apella likely Are these likely motives to perswade or enforce aâ—y thereunto Yet this is what he immediately subjoyned having said whatever they bid you observe that observe and do 2. The Doctrines owned by them are known The tessera of their sect was justification by the works of the law which is diametrically opposite to the work Christ was then upon and the doctrine Preached by him 3. That they denied Christ to be the Messiah blasphemed him in his doctrine as the deceiver of the people in his life
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
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