thought did appertain to me to do because I found that many that had heard of my judgment in another point did imagine that I must needs be also a Separatist from the Church and Ministers as now they are and where my practice is known to the contrary I have been censured as acting against my own tenet yea and my own light and taken to be and shunned as a deserter of that Cause for which I have appeared notwithstanding in many places of my Writings I have disclaimed Separation for that wherein I was dissenter from others alwayes foreseeing that a groundless Separation would be endless and therefore have still professed my desire of such a Reformation as might be without Separation from Brethren who are not heretical in the doctrine of Christian Faith nor Idolatrous in their Worship nor impose that on me for communion with them which I cannot yield to without sin against God and accordingly did in express words in the Addition to my Apology Sect. 4. declare my willingness to joyn with any Churches of Christ and unwillingness to be a Separating Member in any Church being willing to be a conjoyned Member with all the Churches of Christ in general and each in particular Apol. p. 5. I abhor Separation from my Brethren in this regard p. 10. I durst not gather a separated Church as not knowing how to justifie such a practice In refutatione positionis Dr. Henrici Savage Sect. 15. Sanctissimè in conspectu Domini corda scrutantis possum profiteri me in animo semper habuisse ut si fieri posset èsset reformatio absque separatione animorum exacerbatione Praecursor Sect. 15. I am conscious to my self of using what means I could for Reformation without Schism if possible Yea when some of those who agreed with me in that tenet which my Writings held forth differently from others were moved to admit me to their Communion and they excepted against it because I did not disclaim the Church of England nor renounce Ordination by a Bishop nor desert my standing as a Parish Minister nor my maintenance by Tith or Augmentation nor my hearing with the World as they used to speak nor some such like practices as were inconsistent with the principles of the Separatists I refused many years ago to joyn with them that would not otherwise admit me than upon such terms but did answer their exceptions against me and persisted in my refusal unto this day And how averse my spirit and wayes have been from division that Antagonist of mine whose former Writings had given occasion to men to conceive of me as a Sect-master yet hath in his two Epistles Printed before my two Books one against the Quakers about the insufficiency of each mans Light within him for his guidance to God being Nine Sermons on Joh. 1.9 and the other entituled Romanism Discussed against the Papists assertions about their Church and Pope declared his opinion of my inclinableneness to brotherly Communion and agreement notwithstanding our dissent They to whom I was a Teacher even in the times of our greatest Liberty can bear me Witness that I alwayes withstood by Writing and Conference such insinuations as tended to alienate their minds from Dissenters and alwayes advised conjunction in Church Communion and hearing such as taught the truth of the Gospel in respect of the foundation though in their Worship and Preaching some Hay and Stubble were superadded And therefore to shew my constancy in the same opinion and practice I have conceived my self obliged to appear in this matter at this time Sect. 3. The evils consequent on the tenet of Separation urge to an examination of it Which I conceived my self the more urgently provoked to by the direful imputation of serving the Image of the Beast which the Title of the Book chargeth on the Hearers of the present Ministers and the terrible predictions which in the Epistle to the Reader seem to be levelled against compliance in hearing the present Ministers as if it were likely to meet with the same judgment in the day of Gods wrath with the Antichristian Beast and seeming commiserations of such as did joyn in Communion with the publike Church Assemblies in praying and preaching as worshiping with the Nations waiting at the Posts of an Antichristian Ministry and through the power of temptation turned aside by the flocks of the Companions and expostulating with such as forsaking the fountain of living Waters for broken Cisterns that will hold no Water changing their glory for that which will not profit leaving the bread in their Fathers house and going a begging to the doors of Strangers casting contempt upon the pure Institutions of Christ and thereby provoking the Lord to send leanness into their soul giving occasion of grief and stumbling unto their Brethren pouring contempt upon the Offices Wisdom and Faithfulness of Christ hardning persons in a false way of worshiping of God to their eternal ruine disobeying the heavenly voice calling aloud to them to come from the Lions dens and Mountains of the Leopards to come out of Babylon admonishing them to arise depart hence this being not their rest but polluted to hasten their escape and be like the He-goat before the Flocks in their retreat from the Tents of these false Worshippers lest being partakers of their sin they receive of their plagues that are even ready to be poured forth Which is further pressed by intimating as if this may be the last warning such may have from God Which passages if I should my self read without commotion of mind as if they were brutum fulmen a great Thunderclap without any Thunderbolt yet I doubted whether they might not have such operation on many well-meaning persons as to affright them from any hearing or Communion with the present Church or Teachers as judging such compliance a damnable sin such as the Scripture makes drinking of the cup of Fornication of the Whore of Babylon receiving the mark of the Beast in their forehead and in their hand and in some an irremissible sin like that of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost which must needs produce these woful effects an irreconcilable enmity between the Separatists and such as hold Communion with the present Churches and their Pastors and if the Law should not be mitigated the utter ruine of many thousands in respect of their Liberties Estates and perhaps Lives or else the violation of their Consciences if being possessed with these notions out of fear or secular hope they yield to things of so direful an aspect which things have appeared to me of so great importance that I conceived both prudence and charity bound me to examine these pretences and to inform my self and others of what I found conducible to the preventing of those sad consequences which attend the compliance if it it be such as it is pretended to be and the unyieldingness to what Laws injoyn if it be not such an evil as it is accused to be That which
hearing of the word of God are reckoned and art 6. God is to be worshipped as in private families daily and in secret each one by himself so more solemnly in the publick assemblies which are not carelesly nor wilfully to be neglected or forsaken when God by his word or providence calleth thereunto Upon which and other suppositions it concerns every tender conscience which receiveth these principles to consider how they can acquit themselves from not observing the Lords day in publick assemblies where God is invocated in the name of Christ and the word of God truly taught especially in such places where they may enjoy these performed by the present Ministers and are deprived of their former Ministers and communion and cannot of themselves discharge these duties That which this Authour answers doth not solve the doubt That such persons conceive they cannot spend the Lords day without hearing is not out of any Idolizing the Ordinances of God but from those grounds which are by the declaration afore named and the generality of zealous Preacher pressed upon Christians That it is one duty of sanctifying the Lords day not onely to abstain from labour which makes onely Sabbatum asinorum a Sabbath that beasts have as well as men nor onely to exercise themselves in reading and prayer at home for that is every days duty but also to frequent the publick assemblies where God is worshipped which this Authour conceives injoyned Heb. 10.25 and is gathered from Exod. 20.8 Acts 20.7 Revel 1.10 1 Cor. 16.1.2 John 20.19.26 That many persons cannot in many places find such assemblies of the Saints as this Authour means is a thing out of doubt with me Were publick hearing a sin I confess it were better to do nothing than do that But that is not yet proved and I think it fit to acquaint the Reader That Mr. Norton of New England in that Answer to Apollonius his questions which is commended by Mr. Cotton Dr. Thomas Goodwin Mr. Philip Nye and Mr. Sidrach Simpson ch 13. doth thus determine Such things being observed as are to be observed it may be lawful to use forms of prayers administrations of Sacraments c. prescribed in the Church neither are the Churches which use them guilty of superstition will-worship and violating the second Commandment yea it is lawful to embrace communion with them where such forms in the publick worship are in use neither doth it lie as a duty on a believer that he separate and disjoyn himself from such a Church unless he would partake in the superstitious worship of Images Communion with a Church quâ utitur as it useth worship of it self unlawful is unlawful communion with a Church quae utitur which useth it to wit in other lawful worship is lawful and separation from it is unlawfull And to shew how evil the counsel of this Authour is to men to spend the Lord's day in a corner idle at home rather then go to hear in publick I think good to subjoyn some words of Mr John Paget in his Preface to the Christian Reader before his Book Intituled An Arrow against the separation of the Brownists Of the Brownists there are sundry sorts some separate from the Church of England for corruptions and yet confess both it and Rome and it also to be a true Church as the followers of Mr. Johnson Christian Plea p. 216 217. Some renounce the Church of England as a false Church and yet allow private communion with the godly therein as Mr. Robinson Justifie p. 339 340 247. and his followers Relig. Com. p. 1. c. Some renounce all religious communion both publique and private with any Member of that Church whosoever as Mr. Ainsworth Counterpoy pag. 197. and such as hearken unto him being deepest and stiffest in their Schism The evil of this separation is great First The minds of many are troubled and distracted hereby even of such as do not separate but have some liking thereof especially if it be true which Mr. Robinson writes of them Relig. comm preface to wit That they seeing it not to be for their purposes that the world should so esteem of them do undoubtedly strain and wring the neck of their consciences and courses to look the contrary way c. What can be more miserable then to have the necks of consciences thus broken by the doctrine of separation Secondly for those that separate but do not yet joyn unto them or being joyned do withhold from actual communion living alone and hearing the word of God in no Church as some do How great is their misery also Mr. Robinson himself ibid. p. 36.39 shews it at large noâ—ing them to be Idol-members such as break the commandment of Christ loose the fruit of his ascension and fail their own edification and salvation many ways c. Thirdly for those that being enjoyned to them do also live with them seeing they have in effect excommunicate themselves from all other Churches of Christ and consequently from the fellowship of Christ Jesus himself and from the participation of his grace and glory so far as he reveals the same by dwelling in those Churches It is therefore no wonder to hear Mr. Johnson treat on Matt. 18. Preface A. 2. complaining of the evils among them as emulation debate and other sins which daily arise and spread themselves to the great dishonour of God c. As for the directions given by this Authour how to spend at home the Lords day some of them are such as weak persons women and novices cannot make use of it yea they would be dangerous to them occasioning them to fall into errours Enthusiastick conceits some of them Antinomians count unnecessary and those that are good yet by the deprivation of society and publick teaching and heavily performed and they that take such courses do either very frequently decay in the exercise of godliness grow barren and liveless in prayer and holy conferences or turn Seekers Quakers Ranters Censurers Scoffers Libertines However were they all used yet they solve not the doubt arising from those principles which require publick hearing for hallowing the Lords day which is to be observed not onely for the benefit of our own edification but also for the glory of God and testification of our profession which is not done by private exercise of Religion And although some persons may more benefit themselves in knowledge by reading at home yet the example hinders others from the use of the publick Ordinances whereto we should by our practice encourage them For these and other reasons often urged by those who have been for separation it is not to be expected that such private exercises should be blessed or accepted of God when the publick are to be performed Both certainly should be done in their seasons not one exclude the other I have thus answered all I find in this Authour and do joyn with him in referring the thing to the Reader who if he will not cheat his
them receiving the Sacraments from them or breaking Bread in the Lords Supper with them or submitting to them or joyning in Ecclesiastical Discipline with them which is in effect to make an utter separation from them as no members of a Christian Church Now this assertion shews not a dram of Christian Love but very much antipathy in him who denies not p. 93. but that there are some amongst the present Preachers of this day that are good men and methinks he should tremble to exclude such from Gospel Communion here from whose Company he would be loath to be excluded hereafter But he doth not insanire sine ratione He implies in his first reason that giving up of our selves each to other he means by Church-covenant in the Congregational way is according to the Will of God and Primitive example which is either explicitely or implicitely to engage themselves one to another to walk together and to hold Communion in all Gospel Ordinances I will not say this is unlawful nor at no time necessary but that it is according to Gods Will by way of Institution for Church Communion or according to any Primitive example I do not yet find Gods Command for such a Church Covenant I remember not to have found alledged nor Primitive example besides 2 Cor. 8.5 which is far from the purpose the Macedonians giving their own selves to the Lord and then to Paul and Timothy by the Will of God being no Covenant between themselves to walk together in Christian Communion but a free addicting themselves to the Ministry to the poor Saints elsewhere in Judaea by making a Collection very liberally for them and urging St. Paul and Timothy to prosecute the Collection at Corinth with offer of assistance of some of their own to that end And the assertion whence such a Brother-hood doth result is groundless For though some have made the Church Covenant the Form of a particular Instituted Church as Mr. Norton in his Answer to Apollonius Ch. 2 c. and thence deduced the right to Communion and the relation of Brother-hood yet the Scripture makes all who hold the same Faith and are Baptized into Christ to be Brethren and Members of all the Churches of the World Gal. 3.26 27 28 29. 1 Cor. 12.12 13. and 10.16 17. Ephes. 4.4 5 6. whence it follows that the assertion of the resultance of Brother-hood in respect of Gospel Communion from such giving up of themselves each to other is opposite to the unity of Christians and doth rather tend to make particular Churches particular Parties than to advance the Communion of Saints in the Catholick Church Dr. Ames is more charitable Trip. p. 523. I doubt not to say according to my conscience that among those which live under the tyranny of the Pope and do not utterly separate from him through ignorance there be many Christians sincere according to their knowledge belonging to the true Catholick Church and so to be accounted our godly Brethren 2. Saith he We cannot as things stand perform the duties of Brethren to them according to Mat. 18. nor will they or can they in the state in which they stand to us Answ. This Reason depends upon many uncertainties if no Errours of which I have said somewhat before in Answer to the Preface Sect. 15. in the Addition to my Apologie Sect. 17. and much more is in Grot. Annot. in Mat. 18.15 16 17. Selden de Syned Ebrae lib. 1 c. 9. where it is argued that Mat. 18.17 cannot be understood of such Ecclesiastical censure as is now in use Certainly without all shew of reason the term Church Mat. 18.17 is restrained to a particular Instituted Church in the Congregational way as the Phrase is and the term Brother to one that is a member of such a Church and to say that men of the Principles with this Author concerning the Independent Discipline cannot as things stand perform the duties of Brethren to the best of the present Ministers of England whereof some are by him confessed to be good men according to Mat. 18. nor will they or can they in the state in which they stand to them is in effect to profess the same hatred or distance as the Scripture notes to have been between the Jews and Samaritans Joh. 4.9 contrary to Christs Doctrine in the Parable of the wounded man Luke 10.37 in that thereby is denied to one another the greatest work of Mercy commanded Levit. 19.17 Thou shalt not hate thy Brother in thy heart thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour and not suffer sin upon him But he goes on 3. If we acknowledge the best of them for such we must also acknowledge the worst of them For 1. They are all members of the same Church 2. Profess themselves to be one Brother-hood so saith their Rime upon the Lords Prayer Our Father which in Heaven art And makest us all one Brother-hood c. Answ. Gospel Communion is either private or publick There is private Gospel Communion in private reproof and I think as bad as the worst of the present Ministers of England be they are to be accounted by real though perhaps they be not by Pharisaically minded reputed Saints as Brethren in respect of Gospel Communion Even towards them is to be that exhortation Gal. 6.1 Brethren if a man be overtaken in a fault ye which are spiritual restore such an one in the spirit of meekness considering thy self lest thou also be tempted which sure humble Saints do There is private Gospel Communion in opening their minds one to another as it is said Mal. 3.16 Then they that feared the Lord spake often one to another and this St. James requires James 5.16 Confess your faults one to another and pray one for another that ye may be healed Now concerning this it follows not if we acknowledge the best of the present Ministers of England as Brethren in respect of Gospel Communion we must also acknowledge the worst of them Publick Gospel Communion may be in hearing them praying with him praising God receiving the Lords Supper exercising with them or submitting to them in respect of Church Discipline In some of these at least I know no sufficient reason why the Saints may not account the worst of the present Ministers of England as Brethren in respect of Gospel Communion Judas might be heard as an Apostle and if he were a Communicant at the Lords Supper as Mr. Seldens discourse in his first Book Chap. 9. de Syned Ebraeorum seems to me to evince there is warrant to receive the Lords Supper with the worst of them We find that those that made acclamation to Christ when he rode into Jerusalem were a mixt multitude of Disciples Children and such as came to the Feast though it is likely they were not Disciples viz. those Greeks that desired to see Jesus as may be gathered by comparing Mat. 21.9 15. Luke 19.37 Joh. 1.12 20 21. Yet our Lord Christ himself justified their
determined to be the more excellent of all Episcopal terms the Roman Bishops should alone retain it whereas before it was common to all Bishops hath been judged deservedly the head of Antichrist which Gregory the Great Bishop of Rome had not long before lib. 7. indict 2. Epist. 96. made Antichristian and the Usurper a forerunner of Antichrist yet the Bishops of Rome in the first ages were not so accounted and therefore it follows not though the later Popes be the head of Antichrist that the Office that is derived from and is only to be found in the Papacy is surely Antichristian there having been Offices perhaps derived from good Popes and continued only in the Church of Rome which deserve not that censure but approbation rather Nor is it necessary that every thing derived from Popes since they have been the head of Antichrist and continued only in the Papacy should be Antichristian the head of Antichrist may institute something that is not Antichristian 2. It is not true that the Office of Lord Bishops is derived from and is only to be found in the Papacy It is manifest in the first Nicene Council Canon 6. that then and before were Patriarchs Metropolitan Bishops and Lord Bishops with their Office and that Council was in the fourth Century about the year 326. And that in the Greek Eastern Russian Churches the same Office is continued And therefore though no other of the Reformed Churches had retained that Office besides the English yet there would be no need for the Bishops of England to run to the persecuting Whore and Beast for an Office of Ministery But it is also pleaded that the Lutheran Churches reformed that have separated from the Papacie in Germany Denmark Swethland have retained the same Office under the name of Superintendents which is the same in Latine with Bishops in Greek and that it is false that the true Spouse and witnesses of Christ have in all ages utterly rejected the Office of Lord Bishops and that it hath its entertainment only by that false Antichristian Church Yea it is manifest by the many Epistles written to the English Prelates by the reception at the Synod of Dort and innumerable other wayes that there hath been no such rejection or detestation either by any Church reformed or Eminent Writers of them except those of the Separation who have been also averse from the Discipline of the Protestant Reformed Churches beyond Sea and have given opprobrious Language to and of them as well as the English As for the testimonies here cited some of them as the Speeches of Hierome the Helvetian Confession of the Lord Cobham are only about the superiority of Bishops above Presbyters not of their Office most of them as that of Wickliffe used before by Bernard in his Tract to Pope Eugenius those of the University and Church of Geneva Beza's the Belgick French Confessions Marlorat Bale are against the Popish Hierarchy those of Cartwright Fenner and Authors of the Admonition were Speeches of Adversaries which in no Court pass for testimonies to which Arch-Bishop Whitgift and others have given answers long since It is added Sect. 8. The Ordination of Bishops is also of Presbyters Object One stone of Offence must be removed out of our way ere we pass on further it is this Though Lord Bishops are Antichristian yet it doth not follow that the Office and Ministry derived from them is so For they are also Presbyters and Ordain as Presbyters Answ. Give me leave to say that were not men resolved to say any thing that they might be thought to have somewhat to say we had not heard of this Objection For 1. That they act in the capacity of Presbyters in the matter of Ordination is false 1. Contrary to their own avowed Principles their Lordships think it too great a debasement to be degraded from their Lordly dignity to so mean an Office 2. Contrary to the known Law of the Land by which they receive power to act therein in which they are known and owned only in the capacity of Lord Bishops 3. Contrary to their late practice whereby they have sufficiently declared the nullity of a Ministerial Office received from the hands of a Presbytery in thrusting out of doors several hundreds of Ministers so Ordained Strange That it should be pleaded they act as Presbyters in the matter of Ordination and yet they themselves judge a Presbyterian Ordination invalid But 2. What if this should be granted it would avail nothing except it can be proved that they are and act as Presbyters of the Institution of Christ which these being only in a particular instituted Church of Christ will never be to the worlds end Thus far of the third argument Answ. 'T is true to some that have either renounced Episcopal Ordination as Antichristian or refused to hear Ministers Ordained by Bishops as acting by virtue of Antichristian Calling it hath been told that the Bishops were first Presbyters and Ordained Presbyters together with Presbyters and some of them that held that a Bishop and a Presbyter were not superiour in Order but in Degree did Ordain as Presbyters and that therefore if the Ordination of Presbyters be not Antichristian the Ministers should retain their Ordination by Bishops and the people hear them though that were yielded that Lord Bishops Office were Antichristian Now nothing is here replied to the allegation that Bishops Ordain with Presbyters the Bishop with the Priests present are to lay their hands on the Ordained according to the Book of Ordination Nor to this that some of the Bishops have acknowledged Episcopacy not to be an Order above Presbytery Nor to this that though the Bishop imposing hands do act as of superiour Order yet being a Presbyter his act is valid as he that conveighs a thing as conceiving himself as Heir and Executor if he be not Heir yet if he be only Executor and by that hath power to conveigh it the grant is good But he sayes 1. It is false they Ordain as Presbyters it is contrary to their principles Answ. Whether it be so in all is uncertain nor do I know how this Author can prove it unless they did declare it which is more than I have learned 2. It is contrary to the known Law of the Land Answ. 1. It is not true that the Bishops do receive power by the Law to act in Ordination in it are known and owned only in the capacity of Lord Bishops for the Ordination of Suffragan Bishops who are not Lords is valid by Law 2. The Law which gives power to act ties not Bishops to think themselves of a Superiour Order to Presbyters nor to act with such an intention or under such a notion 3. They have nullified Presbyterian Ordination and required Re-ordination by a Bishop Answ. They do not nullifie Ordination by a Presbyterie in foreign Churches but in England perhaps because the Laws require Episcopal Ordination and it is conceived necessary to avoid Schism
daughters that did prophesie Acts 29.1 mention is made of the woman praying or prophesying 1 Cor. 11.5 we cannot exclude them from extraordinary Ministry when God gives such a gift nor sith Priscilla instructed Apollos Acts 18.26 can we exclude them from private teaching of the most able if they be fitted thereto Sect. 9. Receiving the Lords Supper kneeling is not directly opposite to Christs practice or precept of the abstaining from appearance of evil 1 Thess. 5.22 10. That the Lords Supper is to be received kneeling which is directly opposite to the practice of Christ in the first Institution thereof Mark 14.18 22 23. and positive precept as being what hath an appearance of evil in it being a gesture used by the Papists in the adoration of their Breadâ—n god 1 Thess. 5.22 as also to the practice of the Churches of Christ for several hundred years after to the time of the invention and the introduction of the Popish Breaden god not to mention its contrariety to the judgment and practice of most of the reformed Churches if not all at this day Answ. This Constitution and the subscription to it by the present Ministers of England cannot be denied nor that it hath been a great stumbling block to many persons and as great a cause of separation from the Communion as it is ministred in the Church of England as any other thing But that it is directly opposite to the practice of Christ in the first Institution of the Lords Supper is denied by them For though it is said Mark 14.18 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we translate as they sate yet it is denied that this gesture is mentioned as binding Christians to the the same gesture in the use of the Lords Supper in subsequent times 1. Because this gesture seems not to have been of choice used by Chrisâ— that thence he might prescribe the same gesture he used in the Institution making his example in this as a constant rule but it seems rather to have been used occasionally because it was instituted after the Paschal Supper at which they used that gesture as they did eat Mat. 26.26 Mark 14.22 2. Because St. Paul 1 Cor. 11.23 where he saith he delivered to them what he received of the Lord he omits the mention of Christs gesture which he would not have done if he had judged it binding and necessary to Christians 3. He mentions the night in which Christ was betrayed v. 23. that he took the cup after he had supped v. 25. Luke 22. â—0 and it it is not judged necessary that the Lords Supper should be either annually on the night in which he was betrayed or weekly or monethly in the night or after supper no not though it be termed by the Apostle the Lords Supper 1 Cor. 11.20 therefore with 〈◊〉 reason the gesture should be urged by them as obligatory 4. If the gesture Christ used be obligatory to Christians then they must use the self same gesture he used but that was neither sitting nor standing which are used by the opposers of Kneeling but lying along on beds as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used Mark 14.18 intimates and is gathered from Joh. 13.23 and other relations of the use of those times which I think will not be denied it being by the learned generally acknowledged See Ainsworth on Exod. 12.8 And so kneeling is no more directly opposite to the practice of Christ in the first Institution thereof than other gestures nor however it be different from his practice then can it be truly said to be directly opposite to his practice unless he had commanded the gesture he then used to be observed or forbidden by his practice at that time kneeling The positive precept 1 Thess. 5.22 is urged very importunely not only in this point of knâ—eling at the Lords Supper but also very frequently on many other occasions in Sermons Writings and Conferences to deterr persons especially of scrupulous Consciences and weak Understandings from any thing to which persons and practices are disaffected and therefore for the setling of such persons judgment as are not averse to the unlearning their mistakes as I did many years since in my Book of Scandalizing cap. 4. sect 23. somewhat fully open the meaning of that Text so I shall again with some enlargement in this place it being no grievance to me to write the same things again but necessary and so much the rather because Mr. Henry Jeans in his second Edition of his Tract upon this Subject gives me occasion to examine more exactly the meaning of this Precept The chief difficulty is concerning 1. The Translation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. Concerning the appearance of evil which we are to abstain from and how far we are by that precept bound to abstain from it 1. Concerning the Translation it is doubted whether it should not be rather read abstain from every kind or sort of evil answering to genus and species as Cicero renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and as Porphyry in his Isagoge Aristotle Plato and other Logicians use it That it may be so saith Mr. Jeans Mat. Flac. Illyricus and Beza determine that it is so the Syriack Interpreter and after him Faber and after them our own great and learned Doctour Hammond resolve But I would fain know upon what ground they are thus singular against the current both of an Ancient and Modern Expositors Wherein he might have been satisfied from Dr. Hammonds own words in his Annot. on the place where having said the meaning will be from all sort or the whole kind of evil from all that is truly so be it never so small according to that in Pirke avoth be as careful in the keeping a light as a heavy Commandement to this sense he cites St. Basil on the beginning of the Proverbs Theophylact and Leonâ—ius But saith Mr. Jeans It is used but four times in the New Testament besides this place and in none of them in a Logical notion It is true and it is true also that in none of them it is taken in his sense for an appearance to the understanding but either for the shape or representation to the sight or the sight it self as it is rendred 2 Cor. â— 7. However it is sufficient for the justifying of the Translation that it is used in that notion not only in other Greek Authors but also in Ecclesiasticus ch 23.16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 two sorts of men ch 25.2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 three sorts of men and in the LXX Version Jer. 15 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 four kinds which acception is enforced by this reason which out of St. Basil Dr. Hammond thus expresseth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 21. try all things being taken from Merchants that which is evil v. 22. is opposed to that which will upon trial bear the touch A good Merchant will keep that which is good unadulterate metal but will
judge meet All unproved Of the last of we have already spoken and shall not here re-assume the debate thereof Touching the First That there are sâ—me things in the instituted Worship of Christ that are meerly circumstances thereof as such we crave liberty to deny which till the proof be attempted may suffice Circumstances in the worship of Christ attending religious actions as actions we grant but circumstances of Worship as such will never be proved To inferr that because time and place with sundry things of the like nature are circumstances in Worship therefore there are circumstances of Worship as such is frivolâ—us Those things being the attendments of religious actions common to any civil actions of the like nature to be performed by the Sons of men No action to be managed by a community can be orderly performed by them without such an assignment of time and place Publick Prayer being so to be managed as a religious action hath the circumstances before mentioned attending it and so it would were it a meer civil action to be performed by a community though it related not at all to the Worship of God Answ. It is not true that the Objection supposeth That some things in the instituted Worship of Christ are but meer circumstances thereof as such meaning that any particularity of that action which Christ hath prescribed for his Worship being instituted by him is a meer arbitrary circumstance and not a necessary part of that Worship It is held in the Lords Supper and all institutions of Christ in which particularities are expressed there should be strict observation of them as part of the Worship But in things not determined liberty is allowed to vary and therefore if Christ have not instituted that you shall pray without a Book or set Form Prayer by it may be lawfully done The distinction of circumstances in and of the Worship of Christ of religiâ—us actions as actions or as religiâ—us aâ—e but unnecessary niceâ—ies so long as the meaning of the Objection is manifest That the praying in this or that Form is not a part of the Worship as if without it the Worship were not or not according to Christs institution but an accident of it which may adesse vel abesse which is in effect if â— understand this Author the same which he grants That there are circumstances in the Wâ—rship of Christ attending religiâ—us actions as actions which are not in their particulaâ—ities expresly prescribed by Christ And if we agree in the thing it is but frivolous to wrangle about words Sect. 9. Praying in a Form may be praying in the Spirit 2. Saith this Author That t is lawful for Saints to pray in a Form i. e. to tye themselves to a written stinted form of words in Prayer is not yet proved nor like to be t is too large a field for us to enter into nor is it needful to do so till it be proved That to pray in the form of the Common-Prayer Book or imposed devised Liturgies is so Yet in transitu we crave leave humbly to offer That to pray in a Form as before explained is altogether unlawful being 1. A quenching of the Spirit of Prayer 2ly A rendring useless the donation of the Spirit as a Spirit of Prayer unto the children of God 3ly Directly opposite unto the many positive precepts of Christ before instanc'd in of stirring up the Gifts given to us of God improving the Talents he hath been graciously pleased to intrust us withall 4ly If it be lawful for Saints to pray in a Form t is lawful either because they have not the Spirit or that having the Spirit he is not a sufficient help to them in their approaches to God If the first they are not Saints Rom. 8.9 To assert the second is little less than blasphemy besides its direct opposition to Rom. 8.26 Answ. The position of this Author here by his words appears to be That not only it is altogether unlawful for Ministers but also for all Saints all that have the Spirit of God to pray in a Form And though he seems to mean by his addition that he counts it only then unlawful when they tye themselves â— whether by vow or customary use or once only to a stinted form of words in Prayer without variation written not conceived by him that prays and kept in his memory Yet his Arguments are against using any set Form by any Saint conceived by himself and kept in memory without writing though but once used For then the Spirit of Prayer is quenched its donation is rendred useless it s against the positive precepts of stirring up our Gift improving our Talent disabling the Spirit which are at no time to be done And if so no way of Worship of Christs institution and therefore Idolatrous and by this Authors Doctrine to be separated from and therefore this Authors principles carry him not only to separate from hearing the present Ministers but also from every Saint that not only often but once useth a set Form devised by himself in Family exercises as before meals or other times And if he be of Mr. Ainsworths mind in the controversie between him and Mr. Râ—binson of old he must not only separate from the publique communion of the Church of England but also from the private religious communion of every one that joyns in common Prayer or in private stinted forms of Prayer except they profess their repentance And if we should prove it lawful to pray in the form of the Common-Prayer Book or imposed devised Liturgy which seems no hard thing to do if we suppose the Ministers and Common-Prayer Book Worshippers not to have the Spirit for then by his Arguments they do not quench make useless neglect the gift of the Spirit and therefore are not forbidden a stinted Form which would overthrow this Argument against the Ministers yet we must do somewhat more we must prove it lawful for the Saints who have the Spirit to use once a stinted form of words though it be the Lords Prayer only Which I think will be done by this Argument That Prayer may be lawful to Saints in which neither is any thing done forbidden by God nor any thing omitted which God requires thereto but such may be praying in a Form Therefore To what this Author humbly offers I answer 1. That the things he offers proceed only upon mistakes That the praying the Spirit Ephes. 6.18 Jude 20. in the Holy Ghost is meant of extemporal unpremeditated unprescribed forms of words Whereas praying in the Spirit is meant of praying by the operation of the Spirit within not of Prayer in respect of the form of words wherein it is expressed which may be gathered concerning the former Text in that the Prayers there which are to be in the Spirit are all alwayes with all prayer and supplication watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication which cannot be well expounded of other Prayers than such as are
sufficient reason of separation but such as this Author who is indeed with others like minded the true Scandalizer or he by whom the offence cometh or else it is the offended persons own inference from the real or imaginary actions of their Brethren of a necessity of separation that scandalizeth him That which this Author brings here is farr from a Demonstration We find Revel 18.4 that St. John heard a voice from Heaven saying Come out of herâ— my people that ye be not partakers of her sins and that ye receive not of her plagues But to â—erch out of this passage this Proposition Christ commands them to separate from every thing of Antichrist and to inferr this conclusion and therefore from his ministry needs a Delian Diver or cunning Alchymist or Sophister that can deduce quidlibet ex quolibet It is plain that the Exhortation is to goe out of Rome called Babylon ch 17 18. Nor do I gainsay that it is meant of it as it is corrupted by the Papacy Nor do I question but the Papal monarchy is an Antichristian state and that though the plain meaning is no more but that Gods people whereof I doubt not some are and will be in Rome when it shall be destroyed should abandon that place afore it be destroyed to avoid participation of its sins and plagues yet too it may be understood of communion with the Papacy in their Idolatry and Heresies But it is a wild conceit to make every thing done or used by Popes to be a thing of Antichrist much more is it to make the ministry of the Ministers of England the ministry of the Pope when it is so directly contrary to the Pope and Popish Doctrine and Worship expresly abjured and abhorred by them How frivolous his proofs are of the present Ministers opposing visibly Christs Kingshâ—p having the characters of false Prophets of being guilty of Idolatry is shewed already What the frame of the spirits of the present Conformists is or hath been God only who is the searcher of hearts is fit to judge what their principles were formerly and are now is to be known either by those that have conversed with them or heard them preach or read their writings sure every sincere Lamb of Christ is neither fit nor able to judge or examine the truth of any number of Conformists spirits or principles and therefore if these alterations which are here mentioned be the ground of the offence that is taken against them it cannot be a just ground of their taking offence If it were there were just ground of offence given to separate from the Separatists Not to mention what of old was charged upon the Brownists whose spirits and principles were such as made many as holy persons as England yielded to dehort the godly from joyning with them in their way of Separation Nor what either Mr. Edwards in his Gangraena or Mr. Baillee in his Disswasive or Mr. Weld in his Story of the Antinomians have written of the state of the Congregational Churches The Elders and Messengers of the Congregational Churches in the Preface to their Dâ—claration of their Faith and Order in their meeting at the Savoy Octob 12. 1658. say It is true That many sad miscarriages divisions breaches fallings off from holy Ordinances of God have along this time of tentation been found in some of our Churches yet they do not at all stumble us as to the truth of our way had they been many more And avow this as their great Principle That amongst all Christian States and Churches there ought to be vouchsafed a forbearance and mutual indulgence unto Saints of all perswasions that keep unto and hold fast the necessary Foundations of Faith and Holiness in all other matters extra fundamental whether of Faith or Order Mr. Weld in his Answer to Mr. Rathband heretofore denied not the Congregations Parochial in England to be true Churches though impure And Mr Norton in his Answer to Appollonius ch 16. saith We reject the Separatists who distinguish not between the Church and the Impurities of the Church Whence the great crime of Schism Yet this Author not considering that the Congregational men disclaim his rigid separation avows separation as commanded by Christ from the Church of England as no true Church and condemns hearing the present Ministers as the Ministers of Antichrist though they preach the Gospel of Christ because of some defects conceived in their calling and some impurities real or imaginary in their worship as if it were saying A Confederacy forbidden Isai. 8 12. and a just ground of offence given to the sincere Lambs of Christ in that they do not separate from the Assemblies of England But he hath not yet done but adds Sect. 6. The Separatists give more just cause of Offence to godly sober Christians than the Conformists do to them If it be yet further said Obiect 2. But if I do not goe to hear the Preachers of this day many truly godly and sober Christians will be offended at my forbearance so that whether I hear or whether I forbear I shall offend To this I answer 1 That granting the case to be as is suggested though perhaps somewhat else upon a serious and strict search may be found to lye at the bottom of our Conformity beyond what is here pleaded I am very apt to believe were but a Toleration granted t is not the fear of offending any would cause our conforming Brethren to attend upon the ministry of the present Priests of England Yet supposing it to be as is intimated we ask 1. Do you look upon your going to hear as your duty or meerly as your liberty If the first let it be proved from any positive precept of Christ and we are satisfied if the second you are bound by many solemn injunctions which are at least reduceable to the moral Law not to use your liberty to scandalize your Brethren 2. Let both parties be weighed in an upright ballance such as you judge to be offended with you for not hearing and such as are offended thereat I am bold to say That the last mentioned for number holiness spirituality and tenderness do farr surmount the former who will really be scandalized at your forbearance 3. Let also the grounds of the offence on both sides be weighed the one are offended at you That you build not up in practise in a day of trouble and cause thereby the enemies of the Lord to triumph and blaspheme what in a day of liberty you did in your preaching and practice pull down and destroy The other because of your disobedience to what they are satisfied and you your selves once were God is calling you to viz. to have nothing to do with separate from this generation of men But 4. That t is your duty especially if in a Church-relation to meet together as a people called and picked by the Lord out of the Nations of the world cannot be denied The neglect of which is
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
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
the Minister be silenced or deprived for want of hearers 3. This would put power in hearers over their Ministers and overthrow all Church-government 4. It would introduce greater oppression of Ministers then either Prelats or their Canons bring upon them 5. Even the Ministers of Congregational Churches would be in danger of being deserted by their members their maintenance withdrawn they exposed to penury and other grievances as well as Conforning Ministers Nor do I think but that many even of them have found the bitter fruits of such popular licentiousness out of such principles of separation as well as others 6. Nor can there be any setled order of government in Church or civil State if the stated Ministers or Magistrates according to the present Laws though perhaps in some things unjust yet in the main upholding truth of faith and worship and the publick good should be deserted or disobeyed because every hearers or subjects conscience or minde is not satisfied 34 Such a plea as is made by these men is made by Papists for their Recusancy that the Ministers of the Church of England are not rightly called that they are in a Schism with other the like objections and then if the Plea of the Separatists be allowed they have this advantage That they should not be urged to hear the Ministers nor have the penalties of Recusancy imposed on them I say not that this reason would reach to the toleration of their Priests and Mass but onely if such a Plea should be allowed why the present Ministers should not be heard the same or the like justifies the Papists for not hearing them and condemns the inflicting penalties for Recusancy because if this Authour say true it is unlawful to hear the present Ministers The same may be said in behalf of Quakers Seekers profane persons ignorant people they are not to be required to hear the Ministers if it be unlawfull and so the Magistrate should sin if he command them to hear though Mr. Robinson himself in his Justification of Separation pag. 242. as Printed in the year 1639. writes thus That godly Magistrates are by compulsion to repress publick and notable Idolatry as also to provide that the truth of God in his Ordinance be taught and published in their Dominions I make no doubt It may be also it is not unlawful for them by some penalty or other to provoke their subjects universally unto hearing for their instruction and conversion yea to grant they may inflict the same upon them if after due teaching they offer not themselves unto the Church 35. That position which takes away a considerable and important part of Christians liberty and puts a yoke on their neâ—ks grievous to be born is not to be received it being contrary to that which the Apostle chargeth on Christians that they should stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free and not be again intangled with the yoke of bondage Gal. 5.1 Ye are bought with a price become ye not the servants of men 1 Cor. â— 23 But if we hold it unlawful to hear the truth of Gods word taught by the present Ministers we let go our liberty of hearing which Christ hath not debarred us of and make our selves servants to some whom alone we might hear to the insharing of us if they err so as that we may not hear them who may free us which is no small bondage to a Christian and tends to the calling Rabbines or Masters forbidden Matt. 23.8 10 and is an artifice by which Papists and others have still held people from discerning their errours and kept them in dependence on them and adherence to their party Therefore it should not be received by us 36. There is a negative superstition when men abstain from some things under a notion of Religion or worship of God which are not forbidden by God but left free and indifferent either not forbidden or if once they were now antiquated or outdated And of this soâ—â— was that Col 2.21 Touch not taste not handle not which was superstitious negative will-worship as Mr. Cawdrey in his Treatise of Superstition Sect 5. writes This the Apostle v. 20. blames as being dogmatized or yielding to mens ordinances as living in the world not dead with Christ from the elements of the world though it have a shew of wisdom in will-worship such was that of the Pharisees in not eating till they had washed their hands observing the tradition of the elders condemned by Christ Mark 7.7 as teaching doctrines the commandments of men which he counts worshipping God in vain and it hath these evil effects 1. That it occasions the neglect of Gods commands 2. It begeâ—s unnecessary perplexities in mens spirits 3. It puffs men up with conceit of more holiness then others 4. Makes them censorious of those that are not as scrupulous as themselves as if they were loose and profane That such is the opinion of the unlawfulness of hearing the present Ministers as it is maintained by this Authour I suppose is manifested by the answer and reasons foregoing and that it hath the evil effects here named is too evident by experience in the neglect of the publick communion in worship and other duties of love to them with whom communion in publick worship is not held in the doubts and opinions of not observing the present Ministers with any respect nor paying them dues imposed by Law in conceiving themselves the Saints others Antichristian with many bitter taunts scoffs reproaches revilings tales of and against them contrary to the fruits of the spirit of God mentioned Gal. 5.22 Therefore it is not be to received 37. Hereto is to be added That upon the same suppositions the opinion of denying the lawfulness of hearing the present Ministers as it is asserted by this Authour is an usurpation of Christs regal office in putting a law on the consciences of men arrogating that power which is proper to that one Lawgiver who is able to save and destroy James 4.12 binding heavy burthens and grievous to be born and laying them on mens shoulders Matt. 23.4 imitating therein Pharisaical pride and Papal dominion and such other practises as they condemn in others They that condemn those that permit not them to Preach who will not use Ceremonies are guilty of the like Imposition who permit not Christians to hear Preachers of the Gospel unless they be in a Congregational Church and be called by them and while they charge others with adding to the word the inventions of men are themselves guilty thereof 38. Nor is it a light matter but to be well pondered That by this means the knowledge of the word of God is much hindred and thereby the furthering of the kingdom of God the coming of which we are to pray for is neglected such as hold the opinion of not hearing the Ministers in publick thinking it enough if they can teach those of their society if by conference they instill any
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
thereof it is not a reasonable postulatum which he demands to be granted him that in the present enquiry the whole thereof be divolved upon the Scriptures of the New Testament Yea were it granted him yet it would disadvantage those separatists with whom he concurs in Judgment about Nonconformity and separation from the Church of England and the Ministers thereof who use many places of the Old Testament not only about the Sabbath and it's observation but also about Baptism and the Lords Supper Churches ministry and ceremonies in their enquiries and himself also in the present enquiry who useth about election of Ministers by the people and other things in this dispute out of the Old Testament and even the Levitical ordinances sundry places and therefore I conceive not any reasonableness in his postulatum of divolving the whole upon the Scriptures of the New Testament Sect. 4. The judgment of the Antients not useless in this controversie That which he also speaks not perplexing our selves nor the consciences of any with the judgments of men in Generations past wherein they cannot acquiesce though to take of the prejudices of some against truth upon the account of its seeming Novelty we may here and there manifest their harmony with us in the main principles of the ensuing structures may seem to be a reasonable postulatum or demand in respect of those who are not able to examine what is said by Fathers Councils Schoolmen Protestant and Popish writers forraign and domestick and I should have liked it well if he had wholly omitted any such citations in this book which hath been dispersed so farr as I can learn chiefly if not only among such Nevertheless if we would intimate as if in this and other controversies of the separatists and others there were not use of studying and alledging those writers I think his postulatum or demand unreasonable For as Dallaeus in his Learned Book against Popish worship hath done much service to the truth in shewing out of the Fathers that the Popish worship of Saints Angels the Host or bread in the Eucharist Crosses Images and Reliques according to the tradition of the Latins was unknown to the Christians of the three first centuries so it may be of good use to satisfie mens consciences that no such separation as now is from the present Ministers of England was allowed of by the first Fathers and Writers or any approved Council it being a thing of much moment in the arguments about the Lords Day and other Festivals the Sacraments Church and Ministry to understand what was the judgment and practice of the primitive Christians with whom Religion was more pure than in after times though corruptions too soon crept in among them Sect. 5. No approved practice of the Saints afore the Law Countenanceth separation from the present preachers in England Yet saith this Author inasmuch as some Beams of Light may be communicated unto the present Enquiry by a retrospection into the state of things in the time of the Old Law it shall not be grievous to us nor will it be altogether unprofitable to the Reader briefly to remark so far as may concern the matter in hand the state and management of affairs under that Oeconomy and Dispensation Not to mention the Administration of Holy things in the time of the Antediluvian Fathers nor the General Apostacy from the pure wayes of God in the dayes of Seth when according to their duty the faithful remnant the sons of God separated from the Wicked or the daughters of men and solemnly joyned themselves together to worship God according to his holy appointments Gen. 4.26 Let us take a brief view of things with relation unto the People of God after the giving of Moses Law when a Standard was set up for them to repair unto and they became being gathered into one as a City on an Hall conspicuous unto all Answ. How some beams of light may be communicated unto the present enquiry by a retrospection into the state of things in the time of the Old Law will not be easie to discern if the whole thereof be divolved on the Scriptures of the New Testament Yet it will not be grievous to me to examine what I find produced for his purpose I grant that Dr. Owen hath in his Book in Latine of the nature rise progress and study of true Theologie shewed divers Corruptions in the Ages before and after the Flood of Noah in Theologie and the pure Worship of God unto Moses his time and that the restitution of true Theologie was sometimes by a separation from the Wicked when there was a general Apostacy from the true wayes of God unto a prophaning of the Name of God as some conceive Gen. 4.26 is meant either by blaspheming or by setting up of Idol-worship as it was before Abrahams separation Josh. 24.15 But neither by him nor I think by any other is it shewed that a separation was approved from Preachers that teach no worse Doctrine than is held forth by the Articles Homilies and other avowed Books of the Church of England or from a Society or Church that was no more polluted by Idolatry or other Corruptions in Worship than are chargeable on the publick enjoyned Worship of the Church of England If Gen. 4.26 be meant of a Reformation by setting up separate Congregations as Dr Owen conceives in that Book l 2. c. 3. it was that therein they might call on the Name of the Lord which shews it was from them that did not call upon the Name of the Lord not from them that did as in the Worship of the Church of England is done And if Noah did reform by separation it was from Wicked men who had filled the earth with violence Gen. 6.13 which doth indeed make a necessary separation though it appear not but that Noah continued to preach to them and live among them 1 Pet. 3.20 2 Pet. 2.5 But is not the cause of the separation avowed by this Author from the Ministers and Church of England And though it be true that by the Law at Mount Sinai and other acts of Gods providence Israel became being gathered into one as a City on a Hill conspicuous unto all yet how then a Standard was set up for the people to repair unto needs some explication sith such as Job and such like holy persons if he or any other lived at that time seem not to have repaired to them nor were bound to repair to them unless they would be made Proselytes which the avoiding Idolatry of the Gentiles might require of them not such Corruptions onely as are in the Church of England But let us see what beams of light may be communicated unto the present enquiry by retrospection into the state of things in the time of the Old Law Sect. 6. Jewish Laws admitted some dispensation and addition First then saith he that the Lord gave unto the people of the Jews whom he had chosen out of all
wits nor have they any dependance upon the will or Authority of the Sons of men one or other of them either in respect of the matter or manner of their worship the whole whereof was purely of Divine institution and Divine appointment Exod. 25.9 40. Numb 8.5 Heb. 8.5 1 Chron. 28 11. Exod. 8.27 Levit. 10.1 Exod. 39.1 5 7 21 26 31 43 and 40.23 25 27 29. Levit. 8.9 13 17 21 29. Numb 8.3 Exod. 35.10 29. and 36.1 5. Isaiah 29.13 Answer The Levites were not invested into the office of the Priesthood by solemn ordination imposition of hands of the children of Israel but Aaron and his Sons and therefore as it was an usurpation in Uzziah to burn incense to the Lord sith it appertained to the Priests the sons of Aaron that were consecrated to burn incense 2 Chron. 26.18 So it was the sin of Korah that not content with that service he was to do he would usurp the office of the Priests to come nigh the Altar and to burn incense or as it is Numb 16.10 to seek the Priesthood which was in degree above the Levites who were to minister unto the Priests but not to come nigh the Altar as Ainsworth proves in his Annot. on Numb 16.10 out of Numb 18.2 3. 1 Chron. 6.48 49. 1 Chron. 23.13 It is granted that neither the Levites nor the Priests in their office or service were left to their own wills nor had they any dependance upon the will or authority of the sons of men one or other of them either in respect of the matter or manner of their worship which was of Divine institution and Divine appointment Every circumstance of time place order habit and what ever else was particularly determined was to be strictly observed under pain of death if presumptuously done otherwise as in the case of Nadab and Abihu Hophai and Phinehas or culpable negligence as in the case of Uzzah and if it were by ignorance yet an offering was to be made for an atonement and thus much it is granted the Texts alledged do prove But neither these texts nor any other do prove that no circumstances about place time order undetermined by God were left to the liberty of the people or Prince or Sanhedrin or Priests in and about the worship of God among the Jewes who yet had their service more fully particularized in all things pertaining to it than we have The Priests were invested into the office of Priesthood by Moses according to the rites distinctly set down Exod. 40.12 13 14 15 16. Levit. 8. throughout The text Isai. 29.13 alledged in the first chapter out of Mark 7.7 will there fitly be considered that we may discusse whether the whole of their worship was purely of Divine institution and appointment in respect of the matter and manner of it Sect. 9. The defection of the Jews to Idolatrous inventions of men is of a more hainous degree than use of humane ceremonies with us Fourthly saith he that this Church gathered by the Lord and wonderfully separated from the rest of the world though they had him nearer to them than any people had his Law made known amongst them did notwithstanding quickly depart from his pure institutions mingling therewith the inventions of men and customes of the Nations after which they went a whoring is frequently remarked in the Scripture of this the Lord sorely complains Deut. 32.18 Jer. 2.32 and 13.25 and 23.27 Hos. 4.6 and 8.14 and 13.6 2 Chron. 13.16 Isa. 1.4 Jer 1.16 and 2.17 19. and 9.13 and 15.6 Deut. 29.5 1 Kings 11.33 and 18.18 and 19.10 2 Kings 22.17 Ezra 9.10 for this he severely threatens and punisheth them Deut. 29.25 Judg. 10.10 1 Sam. 12.10 2 Chron. 12.5 and 24.20 and 34.25 Jer. 16.11 and 19.4 the very truth is the contests of God with that people from first to last are to be bottom'd upon this foot of account Answer It is true that Church of Israel was gathered by the Lord and wonderfully separated from the rest of the world by great signs miracles providences and judgments which he shewed against their enemies and towards them especially by the hand of Moses and that he did not till Christ came so gather and wonderfully separate any Church from the rest of the World as he did them But after the ascension of Christ by the Preaching of the Gospel and other wayes he hath gathered out of all Nations his Church and wonderfully separated it from the rest of the world It is true also that the Israelites quickly departed from Gods pure institutions mingling therewith the inventions of men and customs of the Nations But those inventions of men and customs of the Nations which the Texts alledged mention were such as were expressely forbidden drew them to serve other other Gods and to forsake the Lord not such as are usually by seperatives called inventions of men to wit humane ceremonies confessed out of the case of worship in themselves to be things indifferent such as out of pretended prudence at least or publique authority are imposed for discipline order or decency without giving any Divine worship to a Creature Let all the Texts alledged be viewed and there is none of them that mentions the mingling such inventions of men no not those which our Saviour reprehends in the Pharisees Mark 7.3 4 8. which are farr worse as the departing from Gods pure institutions nor doth God contest with the people of the Jewes in those places alledged for other inventions of men and customes of the Nations than such as were Idolatrous and therefore the threatnings and punishments in those places are grossely abused when they are applied to the imposing or use of such ceremonies or discipline as are whether rightly or wrongly retained in the Church of England Sect. 10. Such testimony as the Prophets gave against the Jewish defection is not now to be given against the Conformists Fifthly saith he that notwithstanding their dreadful Apostacy from God they were usually confident that they were the only People had not forsaken the Lord nor done any evil and could not bear the Prophecies and rebukes of the Prophets and Servants of the Lord against their abominations whom they persecuted and put to death as at last they did the Prince of Life and Glory for no other cause but for telling them the truth and bearing testimony against their Innovations and Apostacy from God the usual practice of persons degenerated from the way and Spirit of the Lord Mal. 1.6 Jer. 7.4 Luke 3.8 John 8.39 Mat. 5.12 Act. 7.52 Answer All this is granted and if this Author can prove any such innovations and Apostacy from God as the Prophets Christ and his Apostles and other Servants of God rebuked in the Jewes in the People or Teachers who adhere to the doctrin worship or discipline of the Church of England this Author with others of his minde do well to bear their testimony against them as the Prophets did and
they that persecuted them for so doing may expect the like judgments of God to fall on them as fell on the Jewes But if it be otherwise and the things inveighed against be not such as they make them and their bearing testimony be such as tends to infringe the publique peace but not to rectify any thing they are guilty of calumny and their practice not to be judged to proceed from holy zeale but evil passion Sect. 11. The conformist not chargeable as the false Prophets of the Jewes Sixthly saith he that they had all along their corruption in worship and degeneracy from the worship of God false Prophets who ran before they were sent prophesying smooth things to them in the name of the Lord seeing Lying vanities for them according to the desires of the hearts of them and their Rulers who were therefore in great esteem amongst them Isa. 9.15 and 28.7 Jer. 6.13 and 23.11 28. and 28.10 Hos. 9 8 Jer. 2.8 26. and 5.31 and 14.14 and 23.13 21. Ezek. 13.2 and 22.25 28. Mic. 3.5 6 7. Zeph. 3.4 2 Pet. 2.1 Answer All this is granted and if any of the Preachers in England prophesie lies in Gods name or bring in damnable heresies denying the Lord that bought them or are such as those whom the Texts alledged describe let them be branded as false Prophets But if they teach the fundamentals of Christian Religion truly and in respect of the substance of worship use no other than God hath appointed though they may in some points remote from the foundation erre and use some things in and about the worship of God which should not be yet do not overthrow the worship of God in substantials then are they false accusers who accuse them as if they were such as those Texts of Scripture alledged do describe Sâ—ct 12. Invectives against teachers and worship now may be from another spirit than that of the Prophets Seventhly saith he that in the height of their Apostacy God left not himself without a witness having one or other extraordinarily raised up and spirited by him to testify for his name and glory against all their abominations and self-invented worship reserving also a remnant unto himself that were not carried away with the Spirit of whoredoms and delusions 1 Kings 19.14 18. 2 Kings 17.13 Romans 11.3 4. Jer. 18.11 and 25.5 and 35.15 Answer That self invented worship was bowing the Knee to Baal 1 Kings 19.18 Rom. 11.3 4. serving Idols 2 Kings 17.12 burning Incense to vanity Jer. 18.15 going after other Gods to serve them and worship them Jer. 25.6 and 35.15 If there be found any such self-invented worship in the Church of England it will do well to testifie against it But if there be not such abominations and self-invented worship these texts will not justify Persons who have no other than ordinary calling to testify against them much less to censure them as whoredoms and delusions and they that practice them as carried away with the spirit of whoredoms and delusions And though persons may imagine they imitate Elijah are extraordinarily raised up and spirited by God and that they testify for Gods name and Glory when they call the Common-prayer Book an Idol the Ministers that conform Baals Priests the Communion the Mass with such like Billingsgate Rhetorick yet it is not unlikely but that it may be truly verified of such which our Lord Christ said to James and John when they would have fire commanded to come down from Heaven and consume the Samaritans even as Elias did ye know not what manner of Spirit ye are of and that it may be bitter and not holy zeal which moves them and their language judged by God not just reproof but unjust reviling Sect. 13. The forsaking of false Prophets and worship among the Jewes is no justification of separation from the present teachers and worship Eighthly saith he that it was the sin of that People to hearken unto the teachings of such as were not sent by the Lord though they pretended never so much to be sent by him and the unquestionable duty of the Lords preserving Remnant to separate from them as also from all the false devised worship of that day though commended by their Kings and Rulers 2 Kings 17.21 22. Hos. 5.11 The former is evident such Prophets were to be cut off from the middest of them Deut. 18.20 and they are expressely forbidden to hear them Deut. 13.3 Jer. 27.6 16. so is the latter their devised worship being a breach upon the soveraign Authority of God must needs be a grievous sin as the names of Adultery Whoredom Idolatry Fornication by which the Spirit of the Lord doth frequently set it forth abundantly demonstrates Psal. 73.27 Isai. 57.3.8 Jer. 9.2 EZek. 23.45 Hos. 3.7 and 7.3 Lev. 20.5 Jer. 13.27 Ezek. 16 17.20.30 Hos. 1.2 Rev. 14.8 and 18.9.19 20. which without controversie the people of God were to separate from and have no communion with any in upon what pretence soever which is solemnly charged upon them as their duty in the Scripture Hos. 4.15 Amos 5.5 Prov. 4.14 and 5.8 Cant. 4.8 Answer None are said in those Texts or any other I meet with not to be sent by the Lord who delivered the truth of God but they only in those places are denied to be sent by God who delivered falsehoods and such falsehoods as were inciting to Idolatry or contradictions to the messages of the true Prophets and such were not to be heard though they should be commâ—nded by Kings and Rulers who ought to cut them off when they spake in Gods name a word which he had not commanded them to speak or did speak in the name of other Gods Deut. 18.20 And if they sought to turn them from the Lord to serve other Gods they were not only not to hearken to them but also if they were never so near to them they should not spare them but kill them Deut. 13.9 which I presume he will not say of the present ministers of England and therefore me thinks he should have left out these allegations if he had well bethought himself how unfit they were to his present designe That devised worship which is termed Adultery Whoredom Idolatry Fornication is Levit. 20.5 Committing whoredom with Molech Psal. 73.27 being farre from God going a whoring from him Isaia 57.5 inflaming themselves with Idols under every green Tree slaying the Children in the Valleys under the Clefts of the Rocks Jerem. 9.2 treachery Jer. 13.27 abominations on the hill in the fields Ezek. 16.17 making to her self images of men to commit Whoredom with them v. 20. Sacrificing their Sons and Daughters to them to be devoured Ezek. 23.37 Committing Adultery with Idols Hos. 1.2 departing from the Lord Revel 14.8 and 18.9 such fornication as Babylon made all Nations even Kings of the earth to commit and from such it is without controversie the people of God were to separate and have no communion with any in upon any
pretence whatsoever nor in any other sin by joyning in the practice and if the present worship of the Ministers of England be any such fornication or the hearing or joyning with them must be a partaking with them in any sin so farre at least they are to be separated from But neither the Texts alledged nor any other do require separation from the worship of God or the Ministers that are in some things corrupt even in their ministration when Hophai and Phinehas did corrupt the worship of God yet Samuel did lawfully minister before the Lord and Hannah did well in presenting him thereto and her self at the solemn Feasts and even-while there was burning incense and sacrificing in the High places those of Judah were not to separate from the service at Jerusalem which was to God and though the High Priests were unduly set up and sundry corruptions and superstitions in the Pharisees and the services of the Jews in our Lord Christs time on Earth yet did our Lord Christ joyn in the publick service of the Temple and perswaded the cleansed Leper to offer to them the gift that Moses commanded Wherefore I inferr that though there should be some degree of Corruption in Worship and that this should be a breach upon the soveraign Authority of God as every sin is and a grievous sin it is yet this might not be a sufficient cause of separation from the Worship Church or Ministers of it and that the allegation of the Texts produced will not be sufficient for the design of this Author in urging separation from the Ministers and Church of England But let us further attend his motions He adds Sect. 14. The arguing by analogy in positive rites not rational What may rationally be inferred from these positions so evidently comprized in the Scripture and by way of Analogy at least may be argued from them is evident to any ordinary understanding for our parts being resolved as was said to trie out the matter in controversie from such rules and soveraign Institutions as our dear Lord hath left his New Testament Churches to walk by we shall not stand to make that improvement of them as otherwise we might A few Queries upon the whole that hath been offered shall put a close to this Preface Answ. Whether the positions before set down be evidently comprised in the Scripture may be perceived by the examination of them what may be rationally inferred from them for his purpose of condemning the hearing the present Ministers of England is not evident to my understanding which I do not conceive to be any other than ordinary As for arguing by way of Analogy from the institutions of the Old Testament to those of the New Testament from supposed parity of reason how little rationality or force there is therein I presume he may perceive if he read the second part of the Review of my Dispute about Paedobaptism Sect. 2.3 wherein how infirm the way of arguing from such Analogy is is so far evinced that I judge that if the improvement he thinks he might make of his positions for his purpose be by that way of proof it will be found insufficient by an ordinary understanding whether he hath kept to his resolution of tiying the matter in controversie by the rules and institutions of the New Testament will appear by the examining of the ensuing Discourse I judge that to be the way whereby to settle mens Consciences about mere positive Duties or Sins under the Gospel and therefore am resolved to pursue his dispute pede pes yet clearing the way by considering his Queries in a velitary Skirmish before I set upon his Triarii or main Battle Sect. 15. The first Querie about a National Instituted Church answered His first Querie is Whether since the Apotomy or Unchurching the Nation of the Jews the Lord hath ever since so espoused a Nation or People to himself as that upon the account thereof the whole Body of that People or Nation may be accounted his Church Whether there be any National Church under the Oeconomie of the Gospel If so Let it be shewed when and where it was instituted by the Lord What is produced by some to this purpose is but upon a slight view thereof of no moment it is Isa. 49.21 Kings shall be your Nursing Fathers c. which Prophesie waits the time of its accomplishment hitherto both before and since the rise of Antichrist being made drunk by the Whores intoxicating Cup they have been for the most part cruel Butchers of the Saints and were we under its accomplishment a National Church would be far enough from being its result Of a Nations being born at once we shall not sure hear pleaded in this matter it being a Prophesie expresly relating to the Jews and their miraculous conversion if there be no such thing as a National Church of the Institution of Christ as most certain it is there is not the assertion whereof is wholly destructive of Gospel Administrations then Answ. As King James in his Remonstrance against Cardinal Perons Oration saith that the appellation and name of the Church serveth in this corrupt Age as a Cloak to cover a thousand new inventions meaning this of the Popish party so may we say also of others that by reason of the ambiguous use of the appellation and name of the Church and the dictates of men about it the minds of many are perplexed and perverted Wherefore in answering this first Querie which the Separatists do so much harp upon it is necessary that there be a distinct understanding of the notion of the Church and its Institution The Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which by use is now almost appropriated to the Christian Church hath been variously used both in the Greek Versions of the Old Testament in the Apocryphal Writings and in the New Testament It seems to me of little concernment in the present question to collect them all the Queries to be answered beâ—ng of the New Testament use Now in the New Testament excepting what I find Act. 19.32 39 40. where it is applied to Assemblies of Unbelievers whether tumultuary or orderly and Act. 7.38 where it is applied to the Congregation of Israel in the Wilderness in all places in the Acts of the Apostles the Epistles of the Apostles and Revelation of St. John it is meant so far as I discern of the Christians or People of God or their Meeting or Assembly As it notes the Christian Believers or People of God so it is taken sometimes for the Universal Church whether invisible or visible as 1 Cor. 12.28 Heb. 12.23 Ephes. 1.22 sometimes for the visible Church indefinitely but not universally as 1 Cor. 15.9 sometimes for the Church Topical and then it is taken for the Church of a City or Town or House and so we read of the Church at Jerusalem Act 8.1 of Corinth Ephesus c. in Philemons house Philem. 2. or of a Country or Nation and then
the Church of England that the visible Church of Christ is a Congregation of faithful men in the which the pure Word of God is preached and the Sacraments be duly administred according to Christs Ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same The addition in the Confession of Faith of the Assembly Ch. 25. Art 2. that the visible Church universal under the Gospel consists of all those throughout the World that profess the true Religion and of their Children is not found in the Writings of the New Testament and those Texts that are alledged for it Ezek. 16.20 21. Rom. 11.16 Gen. 3.15 Gen. 17.7 if they were pertinent would as well prove a whole Nation to be Gods visible Church yea all mankind descended from Eve as the visible Church to consist of the children of them that profess the true Religion And the same may be said of them that assert an Ordinance of Infants visible Church-membership unrepealed that alledge Mat. 28.19 as proving Christs appointing Nations as such to be baptized that alledge the Jewish Proselytism as a pattern to us How far this Quaerist agrees with these may be discerned by other passages If he concur with those of the Congregational way about Church-members and their proof from the Covenant to Abraham Gen. 17.7 as made to his natural seed and so to all Believers natural seed I see not how he can avoid the asserting of a National Church like the Jewish which I grant is not agreeable to the Gospel according to which the visible Church of Christ is a Congregation of faithful men as the definition of the Church of England Art 19. expresseth it and hath been fully proved by me in the third part of my Review Sect. 52. c. 2. In answer to the Question Whether there be any National Church under the Oeconomy of the Gospel I say that though there be no National Church so as that the whole Nation and every member of the Nation be to be accounted of the visible Church of Christ by vertue of their Generation or Proselytism and such Covenant as was made to Abraham concerning his natural seed or to Israel at Mount Sinai or elsewhere yet the whole number of Believers of a Nation may by reason of their common profession be called a National Church as well as the whole Body of men throughout the World professing the faith of the Gospel and obedience to God by Christ according unto it not destroying their own profession by any errours everting the foundation or unholiness of Conversation are and may be called the visible Catholick Church of Christ as the Congregational men speak in their Declarat ch 20. Wherefore it is no more against the Gospel to term the Believers of England or Scotland the Church of England or Scotland than it is to term the Believers throughout the World the Catholick Church nor is it more unfit for us to term our selves Members of the Church of England in this respect than to term our selves Members of the Catholick Church nor is there need to shew any institution of the Lord more for the one than for the other Nor is there need to alledge Isa. 49.20 or Isa. 66.8 for such an Institution Nevertheless that the Prophesie Isa 49.23 Kings shall be your Nuâ—sing Fathers c. waits the time of its accomplishment is said with more Confidence than Evidence Many learned Interpreters think otherwise among whom Mr. Gataker in my judgment inferiour to none in his Exposition of Holy Scripture hath these words Annot. on Isa. 49.23 And Kings shall be thy Nursing Fathers and Queens thy Nursing Mothers fulfilled in those Persian Potentates Cyrus Artaxerxes Darius Ahaâ—uerus with the Queens also of some of them that patronised and protected Gods people and promoted Gods work with them Ezra 1.1 4. and 63.12 and 7.12 26. Neh. 2.6 8. Esth. 8.3 8. and much more in other Emperours and Kings together with their Queens as Constantine Theodosius and the like who both embraced the Christian faith themselves and maintained the profession of it Of some whereof see Rev. 17.12 16 17. And Mr. Mede on Rev. 16.17 hath these words For truly out of the same ten horns or Kings they shall be who at length shall hate the Whore whom they have so long born which partly we perceive to be fulfilled shall make her desolate and naked shall eat her flesh and burn her with fire Nor is it to be denied without ingratitude to God and Men that Kings and Queens since the rise of Antichrist though many of them made drunk by the Whores intoxicating cup have been cruel Butcherers of the Saints both before the Reformation and since even in our dayes have been nursing Fathers and nursing Mothers to the Church of Christ and that a National Church in the sense fore-mentioned hath been the result of its accomplishment and we hope in more ample manner will be the result of its fuller accomplishment As for the Text Isa. 66.8 that it is a prophesie expresly relating to the Jews and their miraculous conversion is not certain Mr. Gataker in his Annot. on Isa. 66.8 hath these words The most Interpreters both Jew and Christian understand these words of the strange sudden and unexpected delivery of the remainders of Gods people out of the Babylonian bondage by Cyrus Howbeit divers Interpreters understand them of the restitution and restauration of the Church under the Ministry of the Gospel when so many thousands were so soon and so suddenly converted without any great labour or pains-taking about them of those by whom they were converted Act. 2.41 4.4 and both these Expositions conceived as subordinate the one to the other may very well be admitted And therefore if the Author hear it not pleaded in this matter yet he may find another Exposition than that which he imagines that it expresly relates to a future miraculous Conversion of the Jews However if it did sith it is said Rom. 11.25 26. When the fullness of the Gentiles is come in all Israel shall be saved he might find something for a National Church in that Prophesie Isa. 66.8 As for those words in his Parenthesis that the assertion of a National Church of the institution of Christ is wholly destructive of Gospel administrations they are said with no more truth than proof though we should say a National Church in respect of its Government or Officers is of the Institution of Christ. For suppose it were asserted that Christ had instituted Patriarchs or Arch-bishops and Bishops and the Government of the Church of England or Scotland under them yet this might be without total destruction of Gospel Administrations The preaching of the Gospel administration of Baptism and the Lords Supper with other administrations of Christian Worship and Discipline have been and may be continued even where Archbishops and Bishops have been over a National Church as instituted by Christ. But let us attend his motions thus he goes
description of the outward fashion and order the breadth and measure that is the number situation disposition of the parts of the Spiritual Temple as he did to Moses David Soloman Ezra or others of the Material Temple A reed was indeed given to John and a command to measure the Temple of God Revel 11.1 but not that John should set down the figure or quantity of each particular visible Church or the number of persons that are to belong to one visible Church their nearness or remoteness of their dwelling one to another the choice of meeting places and of Ministers to them fixed or unfixed these and such like things were never done by St. John nor do Mr. Brightmans words cited by Mr. Parker import he did but St. Johns measuring of the Temple was his understanding the extent of it that is how large or how narrow the Church should be in after times in what estate of peace or persecution what accidents should happen to it as Mr. Mede Mr. Brightman and others do conceive in order to the fulfilling of that Prophesying which by eating the little Book Rev. 10.10 11 he was assigned to As for Mr. Brightmans words though they be not an oracle yet they may be granted without any detriment to the thing I assert For though it be true as he saith that the true Christian Church is shadowed by the type of the Old Temple of which the several parts were of old most accurately described and measured by the command of God to wit that men might know that this house was made by God that it is not of humane structure and therefore that men should not take upon themselves any whit to change things at their pleasure as if the Heavenly wisdome had not sufficiently provided concerning the most commodious manner of each thing yet it might be true which I assert that God hath not determined the distribution and order of particular Churches so but that he hath left many things therein to humane prudence But Mr. Parker addes some thing more What was the visible Church of the Jewes when that Nation was called to the faith Rev. 21.15 moreover he who spake with me saith John had a golden Reed that he might measure the City and the Gates of it and the Wall of it c. He that will neglect no part of the Jewish Church but designe most diligently the quantity longitude latitude hatr he cast off all care of our Church so as that he hath negligently left it's dimension to humane pleasure Further let it be marked in this last example of Divine care and wisdome that the Church is compared to a City And is any City so negligently administred by men that no regard is had of limits and bounds Answer That the holy City the New Jerusalem descending from God out of Heaven as a Bride prepared and adorned for her Husband is the visible Church of the Jewes when that Nation was or shall be called to the Faith or that the measuring the City and the Gates of it and the wall of it was to design the quantity of particular Churches or the frame and order of a particular Congregation as the first visible Church is scarce probable To me such kinde of arguments as are framed from Jewish Church State from their rites and ceremonial worship to inferre duties priviledges and orders about the Christian visible Church-state government and rites are of no force as savouring more of fancy than of judgment if Christ or his Apostles have not made those arguments before us Yet if any such argument were of weight sith the Apostle Rom. 11.25 26. would not have us ignorant of this mistery that blindness in part is hapned to Israel untill the fulness of the Gentiles be come in and so all Israel shall be saved as it is written there shall come out of Sion the deliverer and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob I might better argue for a national Church of Gods institution from the visible Church-state of the Jewes at their future calling than for a Congregational Church But I count neither firme nevertheless if God do design more diligently the quantity longitude and latitude of the Jewish Church at their calling hereafter and leave the dimension of our Church to humane choice this may be done out of more special Love to them who are in a peculiar manner beloved by reason of the Fathers Rom. 11.28 and not out of negligence nor so as to have cast off all care of our Church And though the Church be compared to a City the Heavenly Jerusalem Heb. 12.22 yet it may agree well with Gods wisdome and care to leave many things to the prudence of the present governours concerning the distincton of Churches and order of meetings as it may suite well with the wisdome and care of a good Prince who in his charter of incorporating a City sets down what Officers they shall have and what jurisdiction they shall exercise yet leaves it to the choice of some one or more to order their Companies meetings and many particularities of their government as shall be found most Convenient for them From this disgression in answer to Mr. Parker I return to our Author Sect. 18. The Ministry of the Gospel is a true Ministry of Christ. Thirdly He enquires whether there can be a true Ministry in a false Church which he supposeth a national Church to be as not of Divine institution and consequently the Ministry of the Church of England in that it is the Ministry of a national Church cannot be a true Ministry Before the query be resolved it is necessary that it be considered what is the Ministry of which it is enquired whether it be true or false what is the Ministry in a Church and the falsehood of the Church which may be a cause of the falsehood of the Ministry For explication whereof we are to observe 1 That the Ministry is all one with the imployment of a Minister and a Minister is a Latin word answering to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from whence comes the English word Deacon and notes the office of one reaching to another that which he wants or doth any other act whereby he gratifies or helps another and it is for the most part the work of a servant and implies inferiority whence those speeches of our Saviour Luke 22.26 he that is chief as he that serveth Mat 23.11 he that is the greatest of you shall be your Servant or Minister Mat. 20.29 the Son of Man came not to be ministred to but to Minister sometimes to acts which imply no inferiority of condition but freeness or readiness as it is said that when some women ministred to Christ of their substance Luke 8.3 There is another word which is used for the most part of them that do publick offices 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so it is said Phil. 2.25 the minister of my need or he that Ministred
the often severely punishes he children of men for now in order hereunto it 's necessary that in all our approaches to God we see to the institution of the Lord both in respect of the matter and manner of worship that it be according to Divine prescript else we cannot sanctâ—fy the name of God therein nor glorify him before the people Answer This is yielded that wherein God hath prescribed it is necessary we see to the institution of the Lord both in respect of the matter and manner of worship even to determined particularities but in those things which are not determined by God yet it is requisite they should be some way determined by our selves or others we and they are not so limited but that keeping to general rules there may be liberty of variation and there may be too anxious care tending to beget unnecessary scruples perplexities divisions and censurings even in and of Saints which experience hath too much proved to cause fluctuations in mens minds and inconstancy in their practice and to produce a brood of Seekers Quakers Ranters and prophane Atheists For which reason it is very advisable that persons of good meaning but weak judgments did less busie themselves in questioning such undetermined particularities in Gods worship and were received but not to doubtfull disputations Rom 14.1 and did satisfy themselves in such things by preferring the judgment of their faithful learned wise and holy Teachers and Rulers before their own when their own capacity is insufficient to settle their Consciences He proceeds thus Hearing as was said and shall beyond contradictions in its proper place be evinced is part of instituted worship it therefore more nearly concerns Saints than many are aware of to have their consciences resolved from the Scriptures of God in the matter under enquiry whether it be lawful for the Saints to hear the present Ministers of England 'T is the negative which we have received under our maintenance because we are satisfied Christ hath so to the proof whereof we now address our selves Answer Of hearing how it is a part of instituted worship somewhat hath been said in the answer to the preface Sect. 1.2.3 what more is to be added will come in it 's proper place I grant that it concerns Saints to have their consciences resolved from the Scriptures of God in the matter under enquiry and do therefore joyn issue with this Author and whereas he denies it lawfull for the Saints to hear the present Ministers of England meaning in their teaching of the Doctrins of faith and holiness according to that which is authorized in the Church of England I affirm it and address my self to the examination of this Authors arguments Sect. 2. There is warrant in Scripture to hear the present Ministers of England Argument 1. Is thus That which there is no warrant for in the Scripture being part of instituted worship is not lawful for the Saints to practise but there is no warrant in the Scripture for hearing the present Ministers of England and hearing is part of instituted worship Therefore Answer The term warrant being a Law term notes not only an injunction requiring that a thing be done but also an allowance or permission of a thing to be done with impunity or without blame and either way the thing warranted is lawfull Instituted worship as is before shewed is either moral or meerly positive and ceremonial Parts of instituted worship may be either subjective if instituted worship be conceived as totum universale an universal whole and so hearing of the present Ministers of England may be conceived either as one sort of instituted worship or one individual of that sort or parts of instituted worship may be integrant if instituted worship be conceived as an integral whole I do not deprehend hearing of the present Ministers of England is to be conceived as an integral part of instituted worship sith it is one act which without any other act is worship or parts of instituted worship may be essential or accidental instituted worship being conceived as an essential or accidental whole Those are parts essential of instituted worship without which it is not or is not rightly called instituted worship those are accidental parts which may be present or absent and yet the Worship be or rightly be so called These things being premised for answer to this Argument I lay down these Propositions 1. Every sort or kind of Instituted Worship of God hath warrant in the Scripture by precept of command if it be lawful 2. Those things which are determined by God â—n any part or sort of Instituted Worship of God are to be counted Essential parts so as that the omission or alteration of them or any of them makes the Worship not to be or to be rightly so called Worship of God 3. Those things which are in this sense Essential parts must have warrant in Scripture by precept express or by just consequence 4. Accidental parts or adjuncts of Instituted Worship undetermined are lawful if they have warrant in Scripture by permission so as that they are not contrary to any precept or rule in Scripture about such Worship 5. Hearing of the Word of God is a sort or part of Gods Instituted Worship 6. It is essential to it that we hear it as Gods Word with honest and good hearts with attention and reverence as being determined by Gods command 7. It is but accidental as being undetermined by God that we hear it from this or that person and therefore needs not warrant in Scripture by command to make it lawful 8. The hearing of the present Ministers of England Preaching the Word of God hath warrant in Scripture by permission as being not contrary to any precept or rule in Scripture about such Worship Searching and reading the Scriptures as the Word of God is a part or sort of Instituted Worship and accordingly hearing it read When God commanded the Levites to read the Law and all Israel to hear it at the end of every seven years in the solemnity of the year of release in the Feast of Tabernacles Deut. 31.9 10 11 12 13. The reading by such persons and hearing at that time was an essential part of Worship but Shaphans reading before Josiah 2 Chron. 34.18 and his hearing of it then was a part of Instituted Worship accidental because not determined by Command but ordered by Providence and yet warrantable by Permission Gods command being not exclusive so as to forbid any other but Levites to read it or the Israelites to hear it read by others at other times there being general Precepts requiring all to hear the Word of God at all times Deut. 5.1 and even the light of Nature dictating this That a message from God is to be heard whoever brings it of which the King of Moab was sensible Judg. 3.20 and the King of Niniveh Jonah 3 6. In like manner when Christ tells the seventy Disciples Luke 10.16 He that heareth
insufficient for what they are produced yet is not the Minor proved till the sin be shewed which is committed by hearing the present Ministers for where there is no Law forbidding there is no transgression Rom. 4.15 and not People affrighted by filling them with unnecessary scruples nor divided one from another upon such suggestions as this Writing yields nor drawn to separations and oppositions which tend to the undoing of men in their Estates hinder the publick Peace and the furtherance of the Gospel To prevent which it little avails that this Author acquaints us with his motive in his writing this piece For though all he sayes of himself were true as Charity binds me to believe it to be yet it serves only to create prejudice in the minds of well-meaning People who are led more by the opinion they have of the Writer than by the strength of his Arguments and for the most part hinders the impartial search for truth and makes men adhere faster to a party We know the opinion that was had of the holiness of the Pharisees was the greatest stumbling-block to the Jews against Christs Doctrine and the opinion of the holiness of Monks was the great furtherance of Popish Superstition and Idolatry and the opinion of many Teachers hath bred many Errours of which I gave warning many years since in a little Treatise Entituled Anthropolatria on 1 Cor 3.21 foreseeing as it hath come to pass that glorying in Teachers would be the mischief of the Churches from which it is time to take off People and to make them more diligent and serious in examining what is said on both sides as the Apostle admonisheth us 1 Thess. 5 21. Nevertheless I doubt not but in the progress of this dispute I shall shew Scripture warrant for hearing the Ministers of England that preach the Gospel notwithstanding the objections against them and accordingly proceed in answering this Writing that I may promote Truth and Peace which is my aim however I be censured hoping that in time God will direct honest-hearted persons to unlearn that mischievous course of esteeming res ex personis things by persons and give over that evil custom of too many who speak for or against opinions or practices according to the affection they bear to men and have no other argument why they refuse a thing but this that good people as they judge them are against it nor why they adhere to it but because they are for it Which is in effect to make them their Masters contrary to Christs Prerogative Mat. 23.10 and in some sort idolizing of them Nor do I think it unfit to mind this Author that it were adviseable that he did better examine his Tenet and Arguments sith as Gisbertus Voetius Professour of Utrecht saith Polit. Eccl. part 1 lib. 2. Tract 1. c. 7. Sect. 3. that it is the common opinion of all the Reformed Divines who notwithstanding the defect of Reformation of Rites and Government in the Church of England under Edward Elizabeth James have held fraternity with it constantly that consent in Ceremonies or the manner or form of Government is not necessarily required to retain or restore fraternity between Churches of the greatest greater or lesser diverse union and correspondence CHAP. 2. ARG. 2. Sect. 1. Preachers may be heard as teaching Truth IF it be lawful to hear the present Ministers of England it is lawful to hear them either as Ministers of the Gospel or Gifted Brethren But it is not lawful to hear them either as Ministers of the Gospel or as Gifted Brethren Therefore The major or first Proposition will not be denied That Christ hath appointed some as Ministers by vertue of an Office-power to dispense the Ordinances of the Gospel until his second coming is granted by all that it is permitted to others as their liberty enjoyned them as their duty having Gifts and Enablements from the Lord thereunto to improve those Gifts in Preaching Praying c. for the edification of the body of Christ though not solemnly invested into Office is assented unto at least by some of those with whom we have to do whence a lawfulness to hear them as Ministers or as Gifted Brethren doth necessarily arise Answ. I deny the Major or the consequence of the first proposition 1. Because the disjunction is of terms not opposite but coincident the same persons may be and are both Ministers of the Gospel and Gifted Brethren and may be heard under both considerations 2. The disjunction is not full sith a third member may be assigned that they may be heard as preaching or declaring the Word of God or speaking the truth of the Gospel which is the only consideration requisite to the Hearer to be respected in Hearing 1. Because God hath forbidden hearing of none but such as teach falshoods and therefore Hearers are not bound to decline Hearing any but such as they have reason to conceive teach contrary to Gods Word 2. Because Hearers are not all of them at any time nor any of them at all times enabled or fit to examine the Office Power or Gifts or Brotherhood of those they may hear 3. It is lawful to hear such as are neither in Office Power nor Gifted Brethren as it was lawful for Apollos to hear Priscilla Acts 18.26 Timothy to hear Lois his Grandmother and Eunice his Mother 1 Tim. 1.5 2 Tim. 3.15 the Iberian Prince the Captive Maid the Indians Frumentius 4. The Beraeans are commended for their examining St. Pauls Doctrine without examining his Office Power or his Gifts or Brotherhood Acts 17.11 5. If the Scriptures be the rule of the Doctrine we are to hear then are we bound to look to no more for the lawfulness of our hearing than the congruity or agreement of what we hear with it yea we sin if we do not hear it whoever he be that brings it as on the other side if any bring it not though he be a Minister in Office Power or a Gifted Brother yea or an Apostle or an Angel from Heaven he is not to be heard Gal. 1.8 9. 6. To forbid a man to hear him that preacheth or declares the Truth of God because he knows him not to be or conceives him not to be a Minister in Office Power or a Gifted Brother perhaps out of partial prejudice against him or upon false reports and surmises or because he is not of his Party may be a means to hinder a mans edification and salvation and to harden him to his perdition Which is not unusual but too too often many declining to hear them that preach sound Doctrine because they say they rail when they reprove their errours or vices and choosing to hear those that are of their way and preach according to that which they like or else turn Seekers denying any to be Ministers but such as speak by immediate and unerring motion of the Spirit or hearing none at all because of dissenting judgment from themselves Wherefore though
I grant that Christ hath appointed Ministers as is said and that it is wisdom to choose and hearken to such and most of all to the best and the most able and though the reading of Mr. Matthew Pool's Quo Warranto might deterr many who take upon them to preach constantly and publickly in solemn Assemblies as Gifted Brethren from their practice which they use Nor do I deny there may be liberty yea and duty occasionally especially when there is want of Ministers in Office to preach yet I deny that a lawfulness to hear them as Ministers or as Gifted Brethren doth necessarily thence arise For suppose a Minister or Gifted Brother should be Heretical yet he is not to be heard but shunned Tit. 3.10 Here by the way I take notice that if it be lawful to others then Ministers to preach as their liberty permitted to them Some practice that is a part of Instituted Worship is warranted in Scripture as the persons liberty by permission without command and therefore hearing of the present Ministers may be lawful and warranted in Scripture as mens liberty by permission without command which was my answer to this Authors first Argument against hearing them and is now confirmed by his Concession concerning the preaching of Gifted-Brethren Sect. 2. They may be heard as Ministers of the Gospel who are not rightly called It is added 'T is the minor or second Proposition that is capable in the thoughts of some of a denial which we prove per partes thus 1. 'T is not lawful to hear them as Ministers of the Gospel they are not such therefore may not be heard as such Ans. I deny this consequence if a man either ignorantly or fraudulently get into the place of a Minister of the Gospel or be unduly chosen or ordained yet if he have the place of the Minister of the Gospel and preach it truly he may be heard as a Minister of the Gospel though he be not such that is rightly called and stated in that Function The reasons whereof are 1. Because every Hearer is not bound to examine the entrance of the Teacher into his Function therefore it is enough to hear him as such that there is nothing appears to the contrary 2. Because it is above the ability of Hearers to judge of the Ministers Call in many Cases the resolution thereof depending upon sundry Controversies about the power of Election and Ordination which they are not able to discuss and there are many proceedings in getting Testimonials using means for obtaining Ordination Institution besides what concerns their Baptism which either they cannot or their time and estate will not permit them to enquire into and sure Christ hath not bound men to impossibilities 3. In all Governments and Societies the peaceable Possessour is presumed to have right till the contrary be evinced otherwise there would be perpetual unquietness and so Societies be dissolved Nor do I think even in the most Reformed no not in the Congregational Churches it would be permitted to a Member of the Society to decline the hearing of him who is taken for their Minister by the most though he conceive or know him to be unduely admitted into the Office Sure I am St. Paul did apply the Precept Exod. 22.28 to Ananias as High Priest Acts 23.5 though it was manifest that he was not such by any legitimate succession but by unrighteous practices and favour of the Roman Governour in Judaea Yea the Scripture makes Caiaphas to prophesie as High Priest though contrary to the Law not High Priest for life but that year Joh. 11.51 and if relations of the Histories of those Times be right no legitimate Successour in that Office but an Usurper and yet our Lord Christ did not except against him when he was convented before him as convented coram non judice or any other way excepted against his Office And therefore I judge that Christs example and St. Pauls are sufficient Warrant to us to submit to and hear them that are not right Officers when they peaceably possess the place and consequently it is lawful to hear them as Ministers of the Gospel who are not such rightly called But let us consider this Authors Plea against the present Ministers of England Sect. 3. Preachers may be Ministers of the Gospel who are not chosen by a particular Instituted Church That they are not Ministers of the Gospel but Thieves and Robbers is manifest such as come not in by the Door which is Christ Joh. 10.9 viz. by vertue of any Authority derived to them from him are not Ministers of the Gospel but Thieves and Robbers Joh. 10.1 from whom 't is the property of the Sheep to flee ver 4 But the present Ministers of England come not in by the Door Therefore That they come not in by the Door viz. by vertue of any authority derived to them from Christ is evident If they have received any such authority or Commission from him they have received it either mediately or immediately the latter will not be asserted nor without the working of miracles should it so be would it to the Worlds end be made good 'T is the former must be fixed upon viz. That they have received their Authority or Commission mediately from Christ but to as little purpose for those that receive authority to preach the Gospel mediately from Christ have it from some particular Instituted Church of Christ to whom power is solely delegated for the Electing of their own Officers according to the tenor of the ensuing Scriptures Acts 6.5 14.23 Answ. If this could be proved there need no more to prove That the present Ministers of England are not to be heard for if they be Thieves and Robbers the sheep will flee from them and ought to do so Joh. 10.5 But it is an ill sign of an inconsiderate and audacious spirit for so high a charge which he that fears God I think should tremble to bring against so many Preachers of a Reformed Church to bring so low a proof which if it be well considered may be not only urged against Presbyterian Preachers if he mean by particular instituted Church as his meaning appears to be by his Preface a Church gathered in the Congregational way by Church Covenant as they speak but also against his gifted Brethren who have not authority to Preach mediately by election of a particular Church but onely from their gifts And if it be said They are chosen by the Church yet this will not authorize them unless the Church have power to choose any besides their own Officers which this Author doth not pretend Now let it be considered what a heavy burden is put on the consciences of hearers They must hear no Thieves and Robbers no nor any Stangers if this Author argue rightly from this Text and all are Thieves and Robbers and Strangers who are not chosen by a particular instituted Church who have power onely to choose their own Officers therefore they
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
joyning together in their praying and praising God Mat. 21.16 Luke 19.39 40. Sure it can be no sin in any person to joyn in the true worship and service of God with any if he have no command to withdraw himself from that service because of their presence nor power to exclude them and yet is bound to the duties then performed Believers might prophesie and hear it though Unbelievers came in 1 Cor. 14.24 25. Christians are commanded to separate and not touch the unclean thing 2 Cor. 6.17 But those they are to separate from are no other than Unbelievers and the unclean thing is the Idol v. 15 16. not the true service of God because of the presence of some scandalous Brother The people of God are to come out of Babylon Rev. 18 4. but that is no other than Rome and that because of its Idolatry v. 2 3. Rev. 17.2 3 4 5 6 18. We are not to keep company with a man called a Brother if he be a Fornicator or Covetous or an Idolater or a Railer or a Drunkard or an Extortioner with such an one no not to eat 1 Cor. 5.11 But this prohibited keeping Company and eating can be meant of no other than arbitrary unnecessary society in civil things and eating common Bread because v. 10. that keeping Company which is forbidden to such Brethren is allowed in v. 9 10. to the Fornicators of this world which cannot be Gospel Communion keeping company in eating the Lords Supper but civil eating The Doctrine of defiling our selves by the presence of wickâ—d men at the Lords Supper hath begotten so much superstition in the minds of many well-affected people that they can scarce ever break Bread with comfort no not in the best Instituted Churches there being seldom such an unspotted Congregation but that some or other is known or reported or suspected to be guilty of some sin or errour which is made sufficient to exclude themselves from the Communion so that as they use to speak they are not free to break Bread and that before the fault be examined or the person judged upon trial to be guilty and impenitent which makes those very Churches which by themselves are counted purest and best Disciplined to be full of Brawls and rash censures and separations and without any regular Discipline of any long continuance These things being considered I answer that I know no evil in it to account the worst of the Ministers of England Brethren in respect of Gospel Communion if not under regular censure in Hearing Prayer Praising of God eating the Lords Supper nor evil to account them members of the same Church and of one Brotherhood according to the Rime which should not be derided by any holy sober Christians being only the Lords Prayer in Metre It follows Sect. 5. Tender Consciences may call the Bishops Reverend Fathers Nay 3. We cannot so acknowledge them but we must also acknowledge the Bishops for our Reverend Fathers for theirs they are which how abhorring it is to any tender enlightned soul may easily be conjectured Answ. The Bishops are acknowledged by the present Ministers of the Church of England as their Reverend Fathers in respect of their Ordination but as Brethren only in respect of Gospel Communion Nor do I think the Bishops affect the title of Reverend Fathers as if they were superiours over the Ministers or People in respect of the common Faith had dominion over their Faith or were Lords over Gods heritage or would be called Masters or Fathers in that sense in which our Lord Christ appropriates these Titles to himself and his Father Mat. 23.8 9 10. in which sense I acknowledge any tender enlightned soul should abhor to give it to them I conceive they are far from usurping that Title as the Bishop of Rome doth who now hath ingrossed the Title of Pope that is Father heretofore given to other Ministers even to Deacons and doth claim the Prerogative to be the Oecumenical Bishop and Universal Monarch as Christs Vicar over the whole Church as having power to make Laws binding the Conscience out of the Case of Scandal and Contempt to determine infallibly in point of Faith with much more wherein he sitteth in the Temple of God showing himself that he is God 2 Thess. 2.4 But I conceive the Title of Reverend Fathers is given to them and taken by them in no such sense but that they account not only the Ministers but also the meanest Christian their Brethren in Christ. Yet may they be called Reverend Fathers not only in regard of their Age and their success in begetting others through the Gospel in Christ Jesus as the Apostle of himself 1 Cor. 4.15 in which respect there have been and I presume some of them are rightly termed Fathers in Christ but also in respect of their Office and Dignity according to that of the Apostle 1 Tim. 5.1 Rebuke not an Elder but intreat him as a Father In which respects usual Titles may be given even to the unworthy as St. Paul did Acts 22.1 and 26.25 and such compellations and salutations have been used by holy persons Gen. 42.10 Dan. 6.21 as warrantable which Quakers and tender Consciences not enlightned but darkned by prejudice and undue suggestions abhor as giving flattering Titles to men disclaimed by Elihu Job 32.22 whose example and opinions are not imitable nor doth this Author any good Office to any in such affrightments whereby our Breach is widened and our Wound uncurable Sect 6. It is not proved that the best of the present Ministers are to be separated from as walking disorderly This Author goes on thus But to hear this Plea speak its uttermost let it be granted they are Brethren and may be so esteemed They are Brethren that walk disorderly or they do not That they walk disorderly cannot be denied by such as pretend to Reformation if submiâ—ting to Ordination or Reordination by a Lord Bishop covenanting and protesting with detestation against a Reformation according to the Scripture and the best Reformed Churches to own as consonant to Scripture a Lyturgie or stinted Forms of Prayer in the Church and read them to wear the Surplice c. be disorderly walking they are the very best of them beyond contradiction to be reputed in the number of disorderly Walkers And so after due admonition according to the Scripture and a perseverance in their sin to be separated from by vertue of positive and express precepts of Christ Mat. 18. 2 Thess. 3.6 Now we command you Brethren in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ that you withdraw your selves from every Brother that walketh disorderly and not after the tradition he received of us with what vehemency authority and holy earnestness doth the Apostle press separation from Brethren that walk disorderly We command you and we command you in the Name of the Lord Jesus and we command you Brethren by vertue of our relation to each other and that love and endearment that is betwixt
us as Brethren that you withdraw your selves c. I scarce know any one thing pressed by the Apostle with greater vehemency than what is here instanced in wherein we have also an undeniable convincing Argument that the persons of whom we are treating walk disorderly Those that walk not after the tradition received from the Apostles we may add and from the Primitive Church for above three hundred years after Christ but according to the traditions of the old Bawd and Strumpet of Rome are such as walk disorderly But the present Ministers of England walk not after the tradition received from the Apostles but after the traditions of the Whorish Church of Rome therefore they are such as walk disorderly What Apostolical tradition have we for stinted Forms of Prayer or Liturgies in the Church did they frame any those that are ascribed to some of them are all spurious as hath been over and over proved For Surplice Crossing in Baptism and many other Gewgaws used by them If they have any Apostolical written Tradition for these things let them produce it and we shall lay our mouths in the dust and for ever be silent as to a charge of this nature If they have not as there is nothing more certain they are disorderly walkers if the Apostles Argument be valid We command you to withdraw from such as walk disorderly But who I pray are these disorderly walkers how shall we know them they are sayes the Apostle such as walk not after the tradition received from us Answ. Though it belongs to the persons charged here to speak for themselves and not to me who am not chargeable with the accusation as here it stands yet conceiving they would say the same in effect which I shall say now I do that the invalidity of this Authors arguing may appear say thus much for them but chiefly for the truths sake I conceive they will deny that they covenant and protest with detestation against a Reformation according to the Scripture and the best reformed Churches and would challenge this Author to prove it that he may not be found a Calumniator that they would take on them the justifying of their submitting to Ordination or Re-ordination by a Lord Bishop their owning as consonant to Scripture a Liturgie or stinted Forms of Prayer in the Church their reading them their wearing the Surplice the Crossing in Baptism they would say after Baptism and deny these things to be disorderly walking according to the traditions of the old Bawd and Strumpeâ— of Rome and I doubt not but that they would maintain it that beyond contradiction they are not to be reputed in the number of disorderly walkers but that this Author is an egregious false accuser However whether they be faulty or not this I think I may safely avouch that these practices except the first which I assure my self they will deny whether justifiable or sinful are not of so great a degree of pravity as that barely for them they should be reputed in the number of disorderly walkers and so after due admonition according to the Scripture and a perseverance in their practice to be separated from by vertue of positive and express precepts of Christ Mat. 18. 2 Thess 3.6 either by a separation of Saints from them in Gospel Communion or private familiar society For the former precept Mat. 18.15 16 17. is only concerning such a sin whereby a person sins against his Brother that is doth him some personal injury Which appears both by the constant use of the phrase of sinning against another in the New and Old Testament as Acts 25.8 1 Cor. 8.12 Gen. 20.9 and 42.22 and 43.9 and 44. 1 Sam. 2.25 and 19.4 5. and 24.11 and particularly in the same Chapter v. 21. Luke 17.3 4. which were occasioned from Christs words Mat. 18.15 where Christ commandeth Peter and the rest of his Disciples to forgive their brother that sinneth against them seven times a day yea seventy times seven times Which can be understood of no other sins than personal injuries for these alone they were to forgive as trespasses against them as the Parable Mat. 18. shews v. 32.35 Mat. 6.12 14 15. of which sort those practices imputed to the best of the present Ministers are not Yet if they were the separation is not to be made without an admonition and gradual process which I think this Author hath not used towards them as I conceive his own words evince a little before we cannot as things stand perform the duties of Brethren to them according to Mat. 18. If the sins were such as Christ means Mat. 18.15 and their proceeding according to the direction there yet the separation whether enjoyned or permitted rather is no other than such as was by the Jews from Heathens and Publicans which was not from Communion in Holy things for the Publicans were allowed to go to the Temple to pray even with the Pharisees Luke 18.10 11. though they would not receive them and eat with them Luke 15.2 Acts 11.3 Which shews that the being to him that is injured as a Heathen and Publican Mat. 18.17 is no other than separation from eating and familiar reception not from Gospel Communion as this Author would have it and therefore the Text Mat. 18.15 16 17. is impertinently alledged to prove his separation from the present Ministers of England in respect of Gospel Communion Nor is 2 Thess. 3.6 alledged more to the purpose For 1. the disorderly walking there must be understood of sins of greater pravity than the rest besides the first which they will deny charged on them if they be proved sins as the vehemency authority and holy earnestness the Apostle doth press his command with doth evince For this vehemency is not an undeniable convincing argument that the persons of whom this Author is treating walk disorderly as he fansies but that they that walk so disorderly as the Apostle here means are so corrupt and their walking so evil that their converse with them in a familiar society as with others would not be for their safety or credit or the repute of Christianity Which will the more appear by the instance that is given v. 11. where he saith For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly working not at all but are busie-bodies which shews that the walking disorderly is not being in some disorder about Church Government and outward Rites proper to Ministers which are the instances of disorderly walking here brought by this Author but gross sins of any Brother not a Minister who was bound to work or else was not to eat v. 10. which Ministers were not bound to do as v. 9. 1 Thess. 2.6 1 Tim 5.17 18. 1 Cor. 9.6 7 11 12 13 14. shews nor were they for this not working so as not to earn their own Bread to be noted or signified and declined that they might be ashamed as is required v. 12.14 Gross sins then common to every Brother such
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
proposition stands as cannot be easily shaken or removed Answ. Though there be no one promise of a blessing in the whole Scripture upon persons attending on such a Ministry as theirs is that act in the holy things of God by virtue of an Antichristian Power Office or Calling whether real or supposed as such yet if any that so acts as suppose a Dominican Fryer or Jesuite in the Indies do Preach the Gospel truly there is a blessing promised in Scripture upon persons attending on such a Ministry Christ having said Luke 11.28 Blessed are they that hear the Word of God and keep it yet were there no promise of blessing the major is not proved unless this were true they are not to be heard but to be separated from to whose Ministry as such a blessing is not promised which makes unlawful the hearing of gifted Brethren unless they can produce such a promise yea every action indifferent should be unlawful unless it have a blessing promised to it What more he can say for his major yet rests in his breast and so needs no answer till it be produced I hasten to the proof of his minor Sect. 2. The names given to the Ministers of England prove not their Office not to be from Christ. The minor saith he wants not sufficient demonstration First the present Ministers of England are either from Christ or from Antichrist There is no medium a Linsey-woolsey-Ministry that is partly of Christ partly of Antichrist as 't is not to be proved by Scripture so will it not be abetted That they are not from Christ hath in part been proved already and may further be evinced 1. Their names are forraign to the Scripture where read we of Deacons in their sense Priests as distinguished from Christians in the New Testament Deans Cannons Petty-Cannons Prebendaries Arch-Deacons Lord Bishops Parsons Vicars c. these are only found in the Popes Pontifical whence they are derived Answ. It hath been abetted by Mr Bradshaw in his Answer to Francis Johnson his second reason against hearing the Ministers of the Church-Assemblies of England whose Arguments this Author hath revived though answered long since by Mr. William Bradshaw and the answers vindicated by Mr. Thomas Gataker from Mr. Cans reply that there is a medium and that a Ministry may be from Christ in respect of the thing Ministred though from Antichrist in respect of the way of entry into it yea he saith It is not necessary that the Ministry of Priests and Deacons though ordained by Antichrist himself should be the Ministry of his Apostasie but notwithstanding his Ordination their Ministry may be the Ministry of Jesus Christ as was the Ministry of Luther Huss Wickliffe and others I add that if by being from Christ or Antichrist be understood of outward calling as this Author seems to mean Ministers mâ—y be neither from Christ nor Antichrist and yet true Ministers as those that Preached Christ even of envy and strife yet St. Paul saith Philip. 1.15 18. Notwithstanding every way whether in pretence or truth Christ is Preached and I therein do rejoyce yea and will rejoyce But let us consider his proofs that the present Ministers of England are not from Christ. To the first I answer that the term Priests as distinguished from all Christians in the sense used by the Convocation of the Church of England is the same with Presbyters as appears by the Latin translation of the 39 Articles of the Church of England Art 32.36 extant by it self and in the Corpus Syntagma confessionum of the Protestant Churches and the Letters of Orders under the seals of Bishops in Latin and this is sure found in Scripture Act. 11.30 c. The other names note not any Ministry different from the Ministry of Christ but are used to signifie some difference in their maintenance or places which may be annexed to them and yet their Ministry from Christ. If this Authors reason were good the names are forraign to the Scripture therefore the things it would follow that Congregational Churches are forraign to Scripture Lecturers Sacraments Ruling Elders Itinerant Preachers c. because their names are not there But this Author adds So are 2. Their Officers Deacons attending tables we read of but Deacons Praying Preaching Administring Sacraments so called by virtue of an Office-power an order of the first step to the Priesthood we find not Priests in the Old Testament both true and false we read of In the New Saints are so called 1. In respect of Analogie to the ritual Priest of old whose prerogative it was to come near to God Deut. 21.5 to whom through Christ Saints have access with boldness Ephes. 2.18 3.19 James 4.8 2. In respect of their union and engrafture into Christ the great High-Priest over the house of God 3. In respect of that analogie there is betwixt what Christ hath done for them as Priest and by his Spirit worketh in them He offered up Sacrifice so do they Psal. 116.17 141.2 Rom. 12.1 Heb. 13.14 He was crucified died so are they Rom. 6.6 7 8 c. Gal. 2.20 4. As Priests they are anointed to the participation of do thereby attain to a kind of holy and intimate communion with Christ in all his glorious Offices Rev. 5.10 But an office of Priesthood in men for the Ministery of the Gospel that are to be branded by men in that their Office must Preach what they would have them and cease when they would have them as is the case of the present Ministry of England the Scripture is a stranger to Answ. Though the present Ministers of England men are to hear be more than Deacons yet this may be said that if it be supposed that the Office of a Deacon be not now to attend Tables as the first seven Deacons were Act. 6.2 yet according to the book of Ordination it is his Office where provision is so made to search for the sick poor and impotent people of the Parish to intimate their Estates Names and places where they dwell unto the Curate that by his Exhortation they may be relieved with the almes of the Parishioners or others If they be appointment to Pray Preach and Administer the Sacraments they have this to plead that Philip the Deacon did both Preach and Baptize Act. 8.5 12 38. that St. Paul requires of the Deacons 1 Tim. 3.9 That they hold the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience and v. 13. They that have used the Office of a Deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus and therefore may the Deacons Office be well conceived the first step to the Priesthood that is the Office of a Presbyter As for the word Priest as it answers to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the New Testament if the Saints as Saints may be termed Priests then may the Elders or the best of them surely be called Priests yea and that in
583. yields that our English word Priest and the Dutch Priester and the French Prebstre and Prestre and the Italian Prete to be formed from Presbyter Selden de Syn Ebrae l. 1. c. 14 p. 586 Certà in Ritualibus Anglicanis nostris Priests Ministers pro Presbyteris clim semper usurpata And besides what I said before out of the English 39 Articles and letters of Orders it doth appear from the very words of the Master of the Sentences Peter Lombard cited by this Author in this Chapter pag. 26. out of the Fourth Book of the Sentences distinct 24. divis 9. that the same whom the Papists call Priests they call Presbyters and say that they have the precept of the Apostle for them and that the Order of Priesthood or Presbytery the primitive Church had and therefore in this the Papists themselves use the word Priest in English but as the same with Presbyter or Elder from the Scripture or primitive Church not from either Jews or Heathens and therefore symbolizing in this name with the Papists if men had not mistaken it and clamourously and ignorantly inveighed against it had given no cause of suspition of compliance or willingness to return to the Idolatry of the Mass as it is used in the Church of England who have declared against Transubstantiation and the Sacrifice of the Mass in the Articles 28.31 in the Liturgy as it hath been lately revised and to which assent is required by all Ministers besides other wayes as amply as any other Protestant Church and therefore it is very evil that this Author doth insinuate into the minds of men such a suspicion of the willingness of the present Ministers to return to Popery because of retaining the name Priest which neither came from the Antichristian Church so called of Rome nor is an Idolatrous Superstitious name commanded by the Lord to be abolished Hos. 2.15 Zech. 13.2 This of Zech. 13.2 is not a command but a promise that God would cut of the names of the Idols out of the Land and that they shall be no more remembred which if it imply a command yet it is but of the abolition of the names of Idols not of the name of Priests whom I never found to be reckoned amongst Idols or that the name Priest is the name of an Idol The other text Hos. 2.16 17. is thus And it shall be at that day saith the Lord that thou shalt call me Ashi and shall call me no more Baali For I will take away the names of Baalim out of her mouth and they shall be no more remembred by their name which is a Prediction of what should be rather than a Prohibition and the reason of that Prediction seems to be this God would not be called Baali that is my Lord because that word noted a Husband as commanding or dealing hardly or rigorously with his Wife but Ishi according to the first notation of Ishah Gen. 2.23 one from whom the Wife comes as bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh and therefore is bespoken as a kind and gentle Husband which the words v. 14 19 20. lead to But if the reason of the not calling God Baali be as Grotius in his Annot Although Baal in common use signifie an Husband she shall not dare to use that name out of horrour of that name which hath been imposed on an Idol it may seem that the reason of not using should be not the unlawfulfulness of bespeaking God by that name according to the proper and original meaning but lest either she should in thought remember the Idol or be thought by others to continue that Idolatrous name For the words are not thou shalt not use the words at all thy Husband among men but thou shalt not call me Baali that is in thy Prayers and Confessions of me as thy God But if it be understood as a Prohibition according to the Law Exod 23.13 which I will not deny the 17. v. For I will take away the names of Baalim out of her mouth and they shall be no more remembred by their name to import it cannot be conceived that it forbids any more than the use of those names with honour or so as to trust in them as their worshipers did when they applyed them to their Idols as Psal. 16.4 is meant when the Psalmist saith He would not take up the names of their gods within his lips that is as Hos. 14.3 Neither will we say any more to the work of our hands ye are our gods Which sense the words before lead to that they should not any more prepare their silver or gold for Baal as v. 8. and as in the dayes of Baalim wherein she burnt Incense to them and she decked her self with her ear-rings and her jewels and she went after her lovers and forgot me saith the Lord v. 13. By which name of Baalim was meant the Sun and other Planets as may be proved out of holy Scripture and is shewed by Mr. Selden in his Syntagma de Diis Syris So that the forbidding the name of Baal or Baalim doth not appear to be any more than the using of these names as applyed to Idols with approbation of the Idolatrous Worship done to them or giving occasion in applying the name to God to conceive as if he were like the Idols or allowed their Worship even as the Apostle Eph. 5.3 forbids any naming of fornication uncleanness or covetousness with any shew of liking For that the Prophet meant not to prohibit the name of Baal to be given at all to God much less by a Woman to her Husband or Lord as the word did originally signifie may be gathered from that Isa. 54.5 who prophesied about the same time with Hosea where what we render thy Maker is thy Husband the Lord of Hosts is his name is in the Hebrew thy Baal or Baalim in the plural number and Nahum after him Nahum 1.2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Baal of wrath that is who is a Lord of wrath by our Translatours rendred furious and by God himself after him as we now read Jer. 31.32 I was a Husband unto them is in Hebrew I was a Baal to them saith the Lord. Yea were the prohibition such as that we might not give the names given to Idols to God we might not give God the title of Melec or King because the Idol of the Ammonites was called Molech Milchom or Malcham that is their King Zeph. 1.5 nor call God Jehovah because the Gentiles termed their God Jove or Jah because they termed their God Jacchus or Helion the High one because they termed the Sun Helios or Adonai because of Adonis all which to have been used in imitation of and derivation from these names of God is shewed in that imperfect relique of Mr. Hugh Stanford in the first Book of Mr. Parker De descensu ad inferos in Fullers Miscel. l. 2. c. 6. Dr. Hammond Annot. on Psal. 68.4 in
Mr. Selden De Diis Syris syntag 2. c. 1. in Heinsius his Aristarchus sacer on Nonnus c. 1. If Names abused to Idolatry or Superstition might not be used without such abuse the godly might not say as Isa. 63.16 Doubtless thou art our Father or we cry Abba Father or Our Father or Christ Father because Idolaters said to a stock thou art my Father Jer. 2.27 or say to the Lord thou art our God because Idolaters said our Gods Hos. 14.3 nor Christ be termed a Priest Lord Master because of the abuse of them to Saints deceased Popes Rabbins or others Surely the name Priest being the name of no Idol it cannot be proved from Zech. 13.2 Hos. 2.16 17. that it is commanded by the Lord to be abolished Nor do I think any of his Authors say it Hieroms words are Though it might well be spoken in respect of the signification of the word which signifies in common application an Husband as well as Ish yet I so hate the name of Idols that I will not have it said Baali but Ishi in â—espect of the ambiguity and likeness of speech lest while a man speaks one thing he mind another and mentioning an Husband he mean an Idol What the Hebrew Doctors and others named by this Author say upon this place of Hosea I cannot examine for want of the Books That which he produceth out of Rivet I assent to That which this Author saith that Priest or Altar are of the same allay with the word Mass and is upon the same foot of account to be rejected is not true sith Mass doth usually signifie not only the Service but also the consecrated Host as the chief thing in it which is an Idol and so is not the name Priest In the Helvetian larger Confession ch 18. 't is true they make a difference between the Ministry now and the Priesthood in the Old Testament and it is true that they assert Christs Priesthood as for ever and incommunicable and therefore give not the name of Sacerdos usually translated Priest to their Ministers not because they take the word Priest as it answers to Presbyter to be evil in the sense used in the Church of England as a Degree or Order above Deacons but as it is used in the Church of Rome as their words shew which are these For our Lord himself ordained not any Priests in the Church of the New Testament which having received a power from a Suffragan might offer daily the Host I say the very flesh and very blood of the Lord for the quick and dead but such as should teach and administer Sacraments This Author proceeds in his paralellism thus Sect. 4. The parallel particulars prove not the English Ministers symbolizing in office with Popish Priests 2. The Priests of Rome must be first Deacons ere they are Priests so must the present Ministers of England 3. The Priests of Rome must be Ordained to their Office by a Lord Bishop or his Suffragan so must the Ministers of England 4. The Priests of Rome must at their Ordination be presented by an Archdeacon or his Deputy with these Words Reverend Father c. Reverend Father I present these men unto thee to be admitted unto the Order of Priesthood so are the present Ministers of England 5. The Priests of Rome must be Ordained to their Office according to their Pontifical devised by themselves the Priests of England according to their Book of Ordering Priests and Deacons which is taken out of the Popes Pontifical as is evident to any that shall compare the one with the other and as hath been long since confessed by themselves in an Admonition to the Parliament in Q Elizabeths dayes in their second Treatise 6. The Popish Priests must kneel down upon their knees at the feet of the Lord Bishop that Ordains them and he must say to them blasphemously enough Receive ye the Holy Ghost whose sins ye remit or forgive they are remitted whose sins ye retain they are retained which exactly accords with the fashion of Ordaining the Priests of England 7. The Popish Priests are not Ordained in and before the Congregation to whom they are to be Priests but in some Metropolitan Cathedral City several miles from the place so are the Priests of England 8. The Popish Priests take the care of souls though not elected by them from the presentation of a Patron by the Institution and Induction of a Lord Bishop and do not the present Ministers of England the same 9. The Popish Priests wait not the Churches Call to the Ministry but make suit to some Prelate to be Ordained Priests giving money for their Letters of Ordination so do the present Ministers of England 10. The Popish Priests are Ordained to their Office though they have no flock to attend upon so are the Priests of England 11. The Popish Priests must swear Canonical Obedience to their Ordinary so do the present Ministers of England 12. The Popish Priests may at their pleasure without the consent of the People resign and give over their Benefices and betake themselves to some other of greater value A symmetrie with them herein is visible by the frequent practice of the Ministers of England 13. The Popish Priests though Ordained to preach must have special license from the Prelates so â—o do so must the Priests of England 14. The Popish Priests are subject to be silenced suspended deprived and degraded by the Prelates as are the present Ministers of England 15. The Popish Priests are not of like and equal power degree and Authority amongst themselves but are some of them inferiour to others herein as Parsons to Arch-deacons Arch-deacons to Lord Bishops Lord Bishops to Arch-bishops so the Priests of England 16. The Popish Priests must be distinguished from other people by their Vestments as Surplice Tippet c. so must the Priests of England 17. The Popish Priests are tied to a Book of stinted Prayers and a prescript Order devised by man for their Worship and Administration so are the Ministers of England and that to such an one as is taken out of the Popes Portuis as hath been proved by divers That the Common-prayer Book in Edward the sixth his time was so you have his with his Councils Testimony for it thus they write As for the Service in the English Tongue it hath manifest Reasons for it and yet perchance it seemeth to you a New Service and indeed is no other but the Old the same words in English which were in Latine If the Service of the Church were good in Latine it is good in English How little different the Common-prayer Book now in use is thereunto they that will take pains to compare the one with the other may be satisfied To these parallel particulars might be added sundry more wherein there is an exact symmetrie betwixt the Popish Priests and the present Ministers of England but ex ungue Leonem The sum of what we have been offering in this matter
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
and Preaching the same Gospel If any to stop the mouths of the clamourous Papists have derived their Succession from the Bishops under the Papacy by proving as Mr. Francis Mason did the Consecration of the Bishops after the Reformation by three Bishops allowed by the Romanists themselves after the ancient Canon though perhaps more than needs yea though they were Consecrated and Ordained by the Pope himself and some Cardinal Bishops yet if they were Consecrated or Ordained to no other work nor in any other manner than Priests and Biships are Ordained and Consecrated according to the order of the Church of England they would not be Antichristian For though it be not gainsayed but that the Pope is the Antichristian head over many Countries yet it is gainsayed that all that is derived from him or done by him is Antichristian I do not think it is Antichristian to confess the Apostles Creed though a person say he believes it because it is received from the Pope and Trent Council 5 That Bishops as a Superiour Order or Degree above Presbyters were not dream'd of in the World for several hundreds of years after Christ I think can hardly be made good though I will not meddle with that point which hath been debated so much by men of greatest and most exact skill in Antiquity with whom I conceive my self no way fit to be compared yet this I say that the not taking notice of Bishops distinct from Presbyters by Clement in his Epistle to the Corinthians published not long since by Patrick Yong is ballanced by the passages in Ignatius his Epistles if they be genuine concerning which the Reader may judge by what Arch-bishop Usher hath written in his Edition of those Epistles of Ignatius As for Lombard if the Primitive Church according to him extend not beyond the dayes of the Apostles as his words import they prove not that the Order of Bishops above Presbyters was not dreamt of several hundreds of years after Christ. But of this I will not contend it 's enough for my purpose if the Office be found in Scripture though not their Superiority 6. As for the words of Dr. Hammond I find them Dissert 4. de Episcopatu c 5. sect 4. though not fully cited by this Author and I acknowledge that he makes the state and frame of the Churches to have been accommodated to the state and condition of the Government of the Nations in the Empire yet withall he conceives that the reason of directing seven Epistles to the seven Angels of the seven Churches was because they were Metropolitan or Mother-Churches and conceives this division into Provinces Dioceses and depending Churches to have been transcribed from the samplar of the Jews by Moses Law Deut. 16.18 and 17.9 And therefore his words are not to be drawn to an acknowledgement of Lord-Bishops Primacy and Supremacy to have been the result of the design and contrivements of men much less that the Superiority of Bishops above Presbyters had its rise and occasion from the aims and designs of men to accommodate Ecclesiastical Affairs to the state and condition of Civil Government It is added Sect. 6. The office of Lord Bishops is not contrary to express precepts of Christ in the Scripture 2. That the office of Lord Bishops is contrary to express Precepts of Christ in the Scripture the truth of which he that runs may read in the ensuing Scriptures Mat. 20.25 Mark 10.42 Luke 22.25 1 Pet. 5.3 the English of vos autem non sic but ye shall not do so neque ut dominantes Cleris not lording it over God's Clergy or Heritage an ordinary Reader may easily conclude to be inconsistent with their Lordly Dignities Answ. This Author still shoots wide from the mark He undertook to prove that the Office of Lord-Bishops is contrary to express Precepts of Christ in the Scripture but he concludes against their Lordly dignity which is no more their Office than the honour ascribed to a Preacher or Reader in the University by giving them the titles of Master or Doctour in Divinity is their Office The term Bishops indeed implies their Office appointed by Christ to have inspection over the flock but the term Lord is only a tâ—tle given them by the King when he makes them Barons of the Realm which may be severed from the Office of Bishops as it hath been since the Reformation in England when Suffragan Bishops have been made without the addition of Lordship But however this Author conceives the having such titles as Lords to be contrary to the express precepts Mat. 20.25 Mark 10.42 Luke 22.25 1 Pet. 5.3 and he translates Vos autem non sic But ye shall not do so But this is more than either the words or translations do permit It is in Mat. 20.26 Mark 10.43 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It shall not be so among you or to you which explains best Luke 22.26 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But ye not so that is as our translation renders it But ye shall not be so and so notes not a Precept but a Prediction and shews Event not Duty which Mr. Gataker thinks in his Cinnus l. 1. c. 3. p. 36. after a discussion of several Interpretations to be the genuine meaning of Christ. But granting it to be a Precept is it a Precept to the Apostles only or to others The former hath countenance from the Text 1. From the occasion the request of the Mother of Zebedees children 2. The indignation of the Ten by reason of it 3. Christs calling of them to him and no other in Matthew and Mark. 4. Their contention of St. Luke 5. Christ's speaking to them who had been with him in his temptations 6. His allotting to them a Kingdom and to sit on twelve thrones But if it be to others it is doubtful whether to all Christians or only to Ministers of the Gospel and whether it forbid simply Dominion at all or such Dominion as the Rulers of the Gentiles exercised to wit Tyrannical or the affectation and inordinate seeking of it not the having or the exercise of Dominion In my Romanism discussed Article 7. sect 8. p. 172 173. I have set down ten Reasons to prove that the Rule meant in those Texts is not only Tyrannical Dominion but also the Dominion of one Apostle over another and the affectation and inordinate seeking of that rule which a person may have and lawfully exercise and this is forbidden not only to Ministers but also to all Christians but not a Christians having or exercising the Office of a King or Civil Magistrate nor the Apostles Rule over the Church of God or Ministers of a lower Order For then Christians should be forbidden to exercise that Office which is Gods Ordinance and the Apostles did ill in practising and appointing Rule over Christians yea of some Ministers over others in some cases But the Rule which is forbidden is Rule over the Faith of the Saints which St. Paul disclaims 2 Cor.
or some confusion 2. However those Presbyters are not of the institution of Christ these being only in a particular instituted Church of Christ. Answ. If this be held no Presbyters in any Church but Congregational are of Christs Institution and then all the Presbyters of the French Dutch and other Churches under Presbyterial Government are excluded from being of Christs Institution as well as these Ordained by Bishops of the Church of England and then they by his Argument are no more to be heard than these and so Separation avowed from all Churches even Protestant besides those of their own way which is the pernicious errour to which this arguing tends But till it be proved I count his dictates fit to be rejected and proceed to the next Chapter CHAP. 4. ARG. 4. Sect. 1. They that deny not Christs Offices Doctrinally may be heard THus it is argued Those that oppugn or deny any of the Offices of Jesus Christ are not to be heard but separated from But the present Ministers of England oppugn and deny some of the Offices of Jesus Christ Therefore Before we come to clear the several parts of this Argument we shall crave liberty briefly to premise 1. That there is a two-fold denying or oppugning of the Offices of Christ Verbal and Professional Such was and is that of the Jews the Papists are not guilty hereof in words they own preach up plead for all the Offices of Christ as much as any so do all the present Ministers of England This is not then the denial of the Offices of Christ we implead them as guilty of 2. Real and actual when persons do that which enwraps in the Bowels of it an impugning and denial of the Offices of Christ. This the Romish Synagogue are eminently guilty of so are the present Ministers of England as shall we doubt not be clearly demonstrated in its proper place Secondly That a verbal professional acknowledgment of the Offices of Christ is nothing when contradicted in practice This the Apostle avowedly asserts in respect of the knowledge of God Tit. 1.16 They profess they know God but in works they deny him and may congruously enough be applyed to the matter in hand This as applied to the Combination and Synagogue of Rome some of themselves have long since ackowledged whilest they profess Christ to be King and submit not to the Laws he hath prescribed in his Word they make him an Idol and put a Scepter of Reed in his hand so some of their own But I interrogate What if a man should with the greatest earnestness profess and in the height of a confident spirit averr that he were born again of God washed sanctified in the blood of Christ and by the spirit of the Lord that he did receive and own Christ as his King and Law-giver when I see this man at the same time walking in a way of Rebellion against Christ in open contempt and defiance of his Laws and Government subjecting to the yoak of other Lords and Law-givers shall hiâ— Plea be admitted Surely no Quid verba audiam cum facta videam 'T is long since decided by Christ that false Prophets are to be descried not by their words they may speak like Angels cry Hail Master kiss him yet be false Prophets yea Judasses to him but by their fruits Let them profess a thousand times over that they own all the Offices of Christ if they are the mean while found in the practice of those things that are inconsistent with the truth of such a profession they are really deniers and opposers of the Offices of Christ. This is that then we affirm in this matter 1. That those that do really oppose any of the Offices of Christ are not to be heard but separated from This carrying a brightness along with it that is sufficient to convince all except such whose eyes the God of this World hath blinded that its original is from God we shall take for granted will not be denied by a professing enlightned people though otherwise it were easie to multiply arguments for its demonstration 1. To oppose Christ in any of his Offices bespeaks such as are guilty thereof to be Antichrists 1. Joh. 2.22 and 4.2 3. 2 Joh. 7. of the same mind with us herein is learned Beza upon the forecited Scriptures and none will surely be so inconsiderate not to say worse as to assert It is lawful to attend upon the Ministry of Antichrist 2. To hear such is to strengthen and encourage them in that their denial of and opposition unto the Offices of Christ and thereby become partakers with them in their sin The thought of which cannot but be grievous to the poor Lambs of Christ. But this will not be denied Answ. 1 I allow the distinction of verbal and real oppugning the Offices of Christ But it is false that the Papists are not guilty of a verbal denying of the Offices of Christ and that in words they own preach up and plead for all the Offices of Christ as much as any For though they do acknowledge Christ to be King Priest and Prophet yet their Doctrine and not their practice only doth overthrow all the Offices of Christ. As he that ascribes Kingly power to a subject doth make another King than the right King and so doth uâ—king him and as he that ascribes to a Creature that which is proper to God doth set up another God and so ungod the true God who can no more be multiplied than the Heavens can bear two Suns even so it is with the Papists while they assert that traditions unwritten are to be received with alike affection of piety and reverence as the written Gospel when the Pope ascertains them that he is infallible that he is judge of Controversies can determine what is to be held as an Article of Faith unerringly can make Laws to bind the Conscience by vertue of his Authority without the case of Scandal and Contempt can dispense with Gods Laws lawful oaths incestuous marriages prohibited by God by his indulgences can forgive sins authoritatively and absolutely that ascribe to every Priest a power to offer in the Mass a propitiatory unbloody sacrifice for the quick and dead to forgive sins in the Sacrament of Penance to enjoyn laborious works of penance which shall be satisfactious to God for sins while they make Saints deceased and Angels Mediatours between God and Man by their merits and agency with God for us they ascribe to Creatures the power proper to Christs Offices and so do make other Prophets and Priests to officiate as Christ they do verbally deny the Offices of Christ and not in words own preach up and plead for all the Offices of Christ as much as any as this Author most untruly suggests but do doctrinally evacuate them all of which no such thing can be charged on the present Ministers of England nor is at all demonstrated by this Author 2. I grant that a verbal professional acknowledgment
18.4 to go out of Babylon But that their going out is by separation from the Service of God not Idolatrous or from a Church not Heretical by reason of some supposed or real corruption or disorder or defect in Government Service Members or Ministry is so far from the meaning of the Text that it needs no other refutation but the looking into the Text and comparing it with the foregoing Chapter Of withdrawing from such as walk disorderly 2 Thess. 3.6 enough hath been said before ch 2. sect 6. Nor is it made any where the Ministers Office to make such separation as the Separatists require 1 Cor. 5.12 is not spoken of Ministers as belonging to their Office to judge them that are within or if it be yet the putting away v. 13. is not made his act and how it is to be done is best discerned by v. 2. Christians are to walk together in Societies or Churches for their mutual edification and comfort in the Lord and this they are no doubt bound to do as occasion is towards all Christians And so much Phil. 1.5 Acts 2.41 and 17.4 may prove but that they are to conjoyn in separated Churches by the so termed Church Covenant as if they were not Members of other Churches nor to joyn in Prayer Praise of God hearing breaking Bread but with either that one Church or Company to which they have associated themselves or those that are of the same way of Church-order is neither proved from those Texts or 2 Cor. 8.5 which mentions no such Church-Covenant as it is alledged for nor any other And therefore the imputations here used to the Ministers and Churches without distinction are so unsavoury and from such an intemperate Spirit that I had rather cover them than rake in such a dunghil And I think respect to the fraternity this Author seems to be of should have made him wary in charging the Ministers with these things lest some of his adversaries should throw as much dirt on the face of the separated Churches out of Bayly's Disswasive Edwards Gangraena Welds History of Antimonianism yea the Preface to their Declaration Octob. 12. 1658. Besides what particular persons know by experience and the relations of the miscarriages of the ancient Separatists would furnish them withal Sect. 5. Election and Excommunication by the Church is not Christs Institution Yet this Author cannot hold but on he goes 3. Saith he That he hath entrusted them so called and united together with Power and given them Rules for the due and right exerting thereof for the carrying on the Worship of his house to chuse Officers over them to act in the holy things of God for and to them of which more shall be spoken in its proper place to admit Members to excommunicate Offenders c. all which we find shining forth in brightness in the ensuing Scriptures Act. 1.23 and 6.3 5. and 14.23 2 Cor. 8.19 Mat. 18.17 1 Cor. 5.4 Do the present Ministers of England conform unto this Institution of Christ nothing less is there any thing like this in the whole Oeconomie invented and practised by them Do they not to the utmost of their power labour to break this Bond of Christ asunder cast away this Cord from them by stirring up the Magistrate to persecute by Fines Imprisonments Banishment c. the precious people of the Lord that desire to be found in the practice of this Law of Christ branding them with the odious names of Phanaticks Sectaries Schismaticks c. Answ. The Election Acts 1.23 was of an Apostle and that by Lot and contains no Law or Institution of Christ which we are tied to follow Of the impertinent allegation of Acts 6.3 5. and 14.23 enough hath been said before ch 2. sect 3. The Election 2 Cor. 8 19. was of a person not to be a Pastor to themselves but to travel with St. Paul about the Contribution for the poor Saints and though it be a good precedent for the like occasion yet was but a Fact not a Precept Law or Institution of Christ necessary to be observed at all times much less binding as a perpetual rule in Election of Pastors or Teachers No other Excommunication is expressed Mat. 18.17 but what is permitted to the injured person of which more may be seen in the answer to this Authors Preface Sect. 15. The delivery to Satan 1 Cor. 5.5 is argued by Peter Moulin in his Vates lib. 2. c. 11. to have been more then our ordinary Excommunication to wit the permitting Satan to cruciate the body of the person that sinned which no Church now hath power to do nor indeed was the Church then to do it but the Apostle by his power Apostolical as having power over unclean spirits though absent yet with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ in their presence when gathered together which being in the Greek in the Genitive Case absolutely put notes not their acting but presence the Apostles determined to do it and therefore contains no Institution of Christ which Ministers are to practice What else is charged upon the Ministers it concerns them who are guilty to answer I know he cannot justly charge all with it It follows Sect. 6. No contempt of the authority of Christ is in the Church of England by setting up Officers and Offices 4. That the Officers of his appointment are onely such as these Pastors Teachers Elders Deacons Widows or Helpers who as they are in one particular Congregation so they have not any Lordship or Lordly Authority over each other being all Brethren Ephes. 4.11 Rom. 12.7 and 16.1 1 Cor. 12.28 Phil. 1.1 1 Pet. 5.1 2 3. Act. 6.5 and 15.2 and 20.17 and 28.21 28. 1 Tim. 3. chap. and 5.9 10 17. This Law of Christ so clearly revealed in the Scripture they are so far from subjecting to that they have neither the name nor thing required by him therein See up other Officers and Offices as if in open contempt and defiance of his Authority of which it may righteously be said He did at no time command them neither did it ever enter into his heart so to do Answ. It is true that those whom he calls Officers are mentioned in some or other of those Texts he cites and are some of them termed gifts given by God or Christ in or to or for his Church or Body But there are also other as Apostles and Prophets mentioned in some of the Texts as given also by God and therefore those whom he reckons are not the only Officers of his appointment nor all of them to be in one Congregation Apostles were certainly to go up and down and though they had not Lordship or Lordly Authority over others yet had they authority preeminence and some kind of superiority over others and if not in the same measure yet some superiority is still allotted to Pastors over Deacons which are acknowledged to be Officers to be still continued in the Church nor is it unlikely that those
Elders who were worthy of double honour 1 Tim. 5.17 had some preeminence above the rest nor doth the relation of Brotherhood hinder but that though in respect of the common Faith all of them are equal yet some may have some Power or Office committed to them which others have not and so may have authority over them That some Offices or Services may be added to those mentioned may be gathered from 2 Cor. 8.19 whether all the Officers or Offices be rightly ordered in the Church of England is not our present enquiry Much hath been said before in answer to the second and third Chapters of this writing which need not be here repeated That the present Ministers of England have neither name nor thing required by Christ in this law is notoriously false the names of Pastors Teachers or Doctors Deacons or Ministers and the Office of Preaching the Gospel continues therein both in the name and thing That they have set up other Officers and Offices as if in open contempt and defiance of Christs authority cannot be said but very unrighteously nor do the alterations or additions any more prove it then the setting up Catechists or Expositors or Lecturers in the primitive or later times proves open defiance and contempt of Christs authority He goes on in the same vein of crimination thus Sect. 7. Election of Ministers by the Common Suffrage of the Church is not proved to be Christs appointment 5. That these Officers be chosen by the common Suffrage of the Church of Christ and solemnly set apart by Fasting and Prayer this is evidently comprised in the ensuing Scriptures Act. 1.15 and 6 1 2 3 5. and 14.23 and 1.23 26. and 9.26 27. In conformity whereunto we find the Saints for many centuries of years after Christ in the peaceable possession of this their priviledge and right Clemens in his Epistle to the Church of Corinth p 57. saith Our Apostles also knew by our Lord Jesus Christ that Contention will be about the name of Episcopal charge Therefore for this reason having received a full predetermination they constituted such as were forenominated and in their instructive distribution delivered that if they were negligent other approved men should receive their Ministration being ordained by them or in the mean time by other choice men all the Church consenting thereunto Yea afterwards let some one among you Ingenious Merciful filled with Love speak if through me Faction and Contention Schisms I will depart Of which if you are willing I return and will do the things appointed by the multitude Wherein he fully asserts the priviledge of the Church or People of Christ we are pleading for And afterwards during the raign of Antichrist Christ hath not left himself without a witness nor his people without Champions to plead their right in this matter To instance but in a few That lively witness of Christ Martin Luther loudly proclaims That the voice of the People ought not to be severed from the chusing of Ecclesiastical persons And long before him Cyprian who lived about 260 years after Christ sayes Plebs obsequens c. The people that obey the commands of God and fear him ought to separate themselves from a wicked Pastor seeing the people themselves chiefly have either power to chuse Pastors that are worthy or to refuse those that be unworthy Cypr. Epist. 68. and tells us plainly That this is bottomed upon the authority of God That that is a just and lawful Ordination which is tryed by the judgment and voice of all viz. that fear and obey God Of the same mind long after was Francis Lambard the Companion of Luther in Germany in the Preface of his Book intituled The sum of Christianity who sayes Verily every Parish ought to have his proper Bishop the which should be chosen by the People and confirmed by the Commonalty of every Parish who if they swerve one jot or tittle from the Doctrine of the Gospel of the Kingdom ought to be deposed by the people and others more fit to be elected by them And in Chap. 5. of the said Book he professes That 't is the most gievous crime and by no means to be suffered that many children of Perdition do deprive the people of God of their just right and title viz. to chuse them a Pastor Peter Martyr in his common places refers the chusing and election of Ministers to the People as their undoubted right To whom we may joyn Mr. Bullinger who sayes That the Apostles exercised not tyranny in the Church in Ordaining Ministers without the consent of the People Bullin Decad. 5. Serm. 4. Tit. 1. 1 Tim. 5. Gualter also upon Act. 1.25 saith That those that profess the Gospel handle the matter as evil as the Monks and Popish Bishops in that they restore not again to the Church the liberty of chusing Ministers which by tyranny they took from them Of the same mind is Zanchie Calvin Beza Danaeus Tilenus Tyndal the Martyr with many others as Mr. Fox Cartwright Mr. Jacob c. We cannot omit the famous case of the united Brethren of Bohemia who concluding the whole Papacy to be purely Antichristian could not allow of the Ordination of their Ministers by any in communion with it and yet being perswaded of a necessity of continuing that Ordinance in a way of succession send some of the Greek and Armenian Churches who returning with dissatisfaction they thereupon commit themselves and their cause to God and chuse Elders from among themselves and by Fasting and Prayer solemnly set them apart to the work of the Preaching of the Gospel To these many more might be added The practice pleaded for as is evident is as antient as the dayes of the Apostles and the first election of ordinary New-Testament Officers continued in the Church till after the dayes of Constantine when Pride and Tyranny soon brought all things into horrible Confusion upon the pretext of Decency and Order yet in the worst of times have the witnesses of Christ born their testimony hereunto What say our Reverend Fathers and Ministers of the Church of England to these things Have they not an equal respect to this appointment of Christ as to those before instanced in Is there any thing like it almost practised by them in this great concern of separating persons for the Preaching of the Gospel of Christ Is not the liberty of the Brethren and Churches of Christ as much as lies in them wholly disanulled and broken by them Have they any such Call to the Ministry Do they at all value or esteem of it Are they in the practice of the Primitive Church or of the Reformed Churches of this day in this matter Is not the print of the feet of the old Strumpet of Rome the bloody persecutor of the Saints the cunning Deviser of a new self-invented and whorish Worship to be solely found in the paths they are in this matter traversing and can such be accounted as the subjects of the
Kingdom of Christ and the real owners of his Authority and Power Answ. That Bishops or Presbyters should be chosen by the common Suffrage of the Church of Christ in each City or Parish or select Congregation I find not to be the appointment of Christ in the Scriptures alledged or any other the impertinency of the Allegations to this purpose is shewed before Chap. 2. Sect. 3. In this Chap. Sect. 6. besides what is said in answer to the Preface Sect. 7.22 the only text not before considered Acts 9.26 27. and 16.17 if it were alledged were altogether impertinent there being no election of St. Paul but to be an Apostle and that by Christ not the Church on whom Ananias laid hands at the appointment of Christ only That he might receive his sight and be filled with the Holy Ghost and to remove the fear of him and non credence of his being a Disciple Barnabas and no other we read of took him and brought him to the Apostles declaring how Christ had converted him Which are altogether impertinent to prove election of Ministers by the common Suffrage of the Church and Ordination thereupon to be the appointment of Christ. It is granted before in the answer to the Preface Sect. 22. that there are relations in antiquity of the election of Bishops by the people which could be no other way then in times of Persecution when the Emperors were Infidels yet withal that even then things grew into such heats that sometimes the Emperor was fain to interpose for quietness and after when Wealth and Power by favour of Christian Emperours were added to Bishops sometimes bloody frayes and other evils made that Election so turbulent that it was found necessary to put it into the hands of fewer until the investiture of Bishops being wrested from the Emperours the Popes seized on it leaving the election of the inferior Clergy unto the Bishops or Patrons that had endowed the Ministers with Estates except in cases reserved to his Romans But where the Reformation is with the consent of Princes much of the power usurped by Popes is recovered by them in other places the people either chuse or consent to the election which being made the whole essence of the Ministerial Call by Congregational men and by Divine Right their opinion is opposed by the London Ministers in their Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangelici Printed 1654. Chap. 8 9. Nevertheless the Testimonies produced by this Author are not fully to his purpose those out of Clements his Epistle are not home the former speaks of constituting and appointing Ministers after the Apostles by other famous and discreet men as it is in Burtons English translation of that Epistle with the good liking and consent of all the Church which is less then Election constituting their Call The other contains only a voluntary offer to prevent breaches which is nothing to the asserting of a power in them rightly seated if it were such it would be more then this Author I think would yield that upon the command of the multitude a Minister is to relinquish his place The words of Luther Bullinger and perhaps the rest of the Protestants whose words are not set down meant no more than the not obtruding Ministers on the Churches of Christ as the Monks and Popish Bishops did who put on the People Priests unable to Preach the Gospel such as fed themselves and not the flock without choice or consent of the people Which if it be any where practised is unjustifiable as on the other side where people are corrupted with Error or Factiousness or Carnal Relations and Sâ—lf aims or are unskilful to judge of the disposition and abilities of a Minister it is unsafe or rather more dangerous to intrust the Church of Christ though a gathered Congregation with the election of their Minister by Common Suffrage without intervention of some discreet and able Ministers to ratifie or disanul it What Cyprian saith upon the occasion of the lapse of Basilides and Martialis Bishops in Spain of their rejection and the election of Sabinus and Felix was agreeable to the Canons then in use and to the state of those times what he saith of Divine Authority is not rightly proved The Scriptures of the New Testament and Old prove no Divine Institution of a certain way of electing or rejecting Ministers so as that there may not be variation from what he saith was in his time yet it is meet that according to the sayings of Cyprian Lambard Gualter or others respect be had to people that they be heard what they can say for or against their Minister and that he who is criminous or insufficient be not imposed on them to their souls hurt What our Reverend Fathers and Ministers of the Church of England say to these things may be seen in Whitgift's Answer to the first Admonition and Defence of the Answer Tr. 3. p. 170. Bilson of the perpetual Government of Christs Church Chap. 15. Andrews respons ad Bellarm. Apolog. Chap. 13. p. 313. after King James his Premonition Hooker Eccles. Pol. l. 5. sect 80. Field of the Church l. 5. c. 54. If the Prelates do any thing unjustly therein they must give an account to God the Ministers who consent not thereto are not chargeable both may be accounted as Subjects of the Kingdom of Christ and the real owners of his Authority and Power notwithstanding what is objected against them especially if the evil be either from the defect or iniquity of Laws Canons and Customs whereby that redress of Grievances in this kind which even the Prelates have complained of is stopped I confess that the continuance in force of so much of the Popes Canon Law or our Common Law as hinders a godly and able Ministry in every Parish hath been deplored and much endeavour hath been to amend things But the experience that hath been of the difficulty therein even when Congregational men have been most industrious to rectifie things should methinks abate the censures of this Author and rather cause men quietly to wait for a remedy using the benefit of the Ministry we have than by separation and popular election in gathered Congregations make things worse than they are Sect. 8. Prophesying is not opposed by the Ministers But this Author hath not yet done but tells us To these many other institutions of Christ may be added which they subject not to What should I mention 6. That Royal Command of our Soveraign King and Lawgiver which the profound self-philosophically wise but indeed foolish and unlearned Doctors of this day wrest to the countenancing of the disorders and confusion of Antichrist darkness so gross that it may be felt that all things be done decently and in Order 1 Cor. 14.40 viz. that the Saints may Prophesie one by one and ought to admonish exhort and build up one another in their most holy faith Rom. 8.26 and 12.6 1 Cor. 4.17 and 5.4 and 11.23 Ephes. 4.7 11 12. 1
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
with many more that might be added to which the Ministers of England are to subscribe and own as agreeable to the Word of God before their admission into the Ministry according to the 38. Canon Ecclesiastical Are any of these Ordinances and Constitutions of the appointment of Christ When or where were they instituted by by him That these are Posts set by the Lords Posts and Thresholds by his Thresholds of which the Lord complains Ezek. 43.8 who sees not That the present Ministers of England do conform and subscribe hereunto cannot be denied and thence an owning subscribing and submitting to Orders and Constitutions that are not of Christs appointment is evidently evinced Answ. Though I undertake not to justifie all that is in the Ecclesiastical Canons of the Synod at London Anno 1603. nor need the present Ministers nor perhaps will they or the Bishops themselves take it upon them yet that it may appear how falsly and injuriously this Authour hath dealt with them and how superficially he hath handled this Argument I say I. That he hath misrecited the Canons in all or most of the 14 particulars alledged 1. In the 7. Canon it is not said That the Orders and Offices of Arch bishops Bishops Deans Arch-deacons with many others appertaining unto this Hierarchy are Orders needful and necessary in the Church of Christ nor is it required therein that the Ministers promise subjection and obedience unto them But it is censured as a wicked errour to affirm that the Government of the Church of England under his Majesty by Arch-bishops Bishops Deans Archâ—deacons and the rest that bear Office in the same is Antichristian or repugnant to the Word of God and it is required of such as have thus affirmed that before their absolution from Excommunication they repent and publikely revoke it 2. In the 4. Canon Ministers are not required to own and submit to a Liturgy or prescript Form of Worship devised by men and imposed solely by their authority nor to tie themselves to it neither diminishing nor adding in the matter or Form thereof But it is judged a wicked errour to affirm that the Form of Gods Worship in the Church of England established by the Law and contained in the Book of Common Prayer and Administration of Sacraments is a corrupt superstitious or unlawful Worship of God or containeth any thing in it that is repugnant to the Scriptures and it is required of such as have thus affirmed that before their absolution from Excommunication they repent and publickly revoke it 3. In the third particular are sundry things liable to Exception 1. It is said that in the Book of Common Prayer Bowing at the Name of Jesus is prescribed which I find not there but in the 18 Canon 2. It is not well that when this Author does not yet he tells us some would say that kneeling at the Lords Supper smells very strong of the Popish Leven and is but one peg beneath the adoration of their Breaden God when he might know that not only the 28. Article of the Church of England and the Homily of the Peril of Idolatry and the Apology of the Church of England are fully against it but also the Compilers of the Common Prayer Book suffered Martyrdom for their refusal and abhorrency of such adoration and in the Rubrick of the Common Prayer Book as it is now established after the Communion there is a clear and sufficient Declaration against it which should if this Author had dealt candidly have been told ignorant people who are drawn into a separation upon this suggestion 3. It is true that in the 36 Canon subscription is required to this Article That the Book of Common Prayer and of Ordering of Bishops Priests and Deacons containeth in it nothing contrary to the Word of God and that it may be lawfully used and that he himself will use the form in the said Book prescribed in publike Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments and none other which I take not to be the same with owning submitting and engaging to conform to all the Orders Rites and Ceremonies prescribed therein 4. It is said Canon 32. The Office of a Deacon is a step or degree to the Ministry according to the judgment of the ancient Fathers and the practice of the Primitive Church and the subscription is required in the 36. Canon to the Book of Ordination as I have set it down here but they are not required by that subscription to own this assertion That the Office of a Deacon is the first step or degree to the Ministry 5. In the 49. Canon it is said No person whatsoever not examined and approved by the Bishop of the Diocess or not licensed for a sufficient or convenient Preacher shall take upon him to expound in his own Cure or elsewhere any Scripture or matter or doctrine But they do not speak though judged worthy of the Cure of Souls they may have a Cure of Souls by indirect means or by reason of the imperfection of the Law to debarr them or by reason of the want of sufficient Preachers as was in the beginning of the Reformation or for want of maintenance for able Preachers to undertake it who are not judged worthy of the Cure of Souls 6 and 7. Neither of the Positions are Canons 49 57. though their Ministration of Baptism and the Lords Supper is made sufficient And the 8. particular is in Canon 57. 9. Can. 60. It is not said That Confirmation by Diocesan Bishops is an Ordinance of God but that it hath been a solemn ancient and laudable custom in the Church of God continued from the Apostles times that all Bishops should lay their hands upon children baptized and instructed in the Catechism of Christian Religion praying over them and blessing them which we commonly call Confirmation and that this holy action hath been accustomed in the Church in former ages 10. It is not said Canon 62. that it appertains to the Office of Ministers to marry but they are only regulated therein 11. The Bishop is to suspend according to Can. 68. Ministers refusing to bury but the lawfulness of it is not there asserted though presupposed 12 13. Ministers preaching administring the Communion in private houses except in times of necessity some appointing of Fasts holding Meetings for Sermons are forbidden Can. 71 72. but it is not there determined that they are forbidden because of the unlawfulness Inexpediency or inconvenience may occasion a prohibition of that which is not unlawful 14. It is not asserted Can. 74. that Ministers ought to be distinguished by the habit there prescribed but that ancient Churches thought it fit II. Were all true which this Author hath alledged in these 14 particulars yet it is not true which he saith that either in the 36 or 38. Canon Ecclesiastical Ministers are to subscribe to and own all these Orders and Ordinances as agreeable to the Word of God III. To the Questions Are any of these
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
was the peculiar gift of Prophets v. 31 32. which now the Saints have not noâ— can now claim as many do arrogantly as if it were their liberty inferring from v. 3. that because it is said he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification and exhortation and comfort therefore every one that speaketh unto men to edification and exhortation and comfort did prophesie which is like as if because it is said 1 Cor. 8.1 charity edifieth therefore it should be inferred that whatever edifieth is charity nor is it right that the Apostle v. 40. represseth his direction v. 26. that being another direction and a general one after and besides the particulars v. 27 28 29 30 34 35. Nor if it were as he saith is there any thing to prove that all the particular wayes of Decency Order and Edification are there set down or that none are permitted to the care of After-Rulers Nor is the Argument as I have framed it evacuated who have not endeavoured to prove thence a power invested in the Church for the binding of the Consciences of men touching Ceremonies in Worship but do wave the controversies about the Ceremonies of the Cross Surplice and Kneeling about which the Writings of Bishop Morton Burges Ames and others are extant nor do I alledge the words as Doctor Hammond expounds them rendring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to appointment in which he is opposed by Mr. Jeans but only thus argue There 's a general rule after divers particulars instanced in left by the Apostle in the close of his dissertation which were of no use if he had set down all wayes of Decency and Order and left none to be determined by others therefore yet there remain particularities of Decency and Order about Divine Worship and Church-Rule to be determined by men which that it belongs to Rulers I gathered from other places As for the Arguments as he frames them I know none that avows them neither do I think any doth express himself thus Paul speaking by an infallible spirit of Prophesie adviseth the Church of Corinth for though I doubt not but Paul spake by an infallible Spirit in that advise yet that is fitter to be termed Apostolick than of Prophesie nor do I conceive any of them whom he opposeth would unadvisedly thus conclude Persons that have not pretend not to such a spirit may of their own heads bind our Consciences by Laws and Rules of their own in the service of God nor do I think any would say Paul doth not only tell them that all things ought to be done decently and in order but discovers to them wherein that decency and order lies For they conceive this false except about the point of Prophesying in that place and that the Apostle gives only a general rule and leaves the particularities of Decency and Order to be determined by others chiefly Rulers nor would they thence inferr therefore the Church hath power in this matter but rather thus plead That which belonging to Decency and Order is commanded in general but not in the particularities determined is in respect of Communities left to be determined by their Rules but so is the Apostles command 1 Cor. 14.40 Therefore c. The major rests on this That what is to be determined in or for a Community is supposed to belong to their Rulers This Author goes on thus Sect. 5 All particularities of Decency and Order in things sacred are not determined in Scripture But let this be granted suppose that 't is the priviledge and duty of the Church to make Laws and Constitutions for the binding of the consciences of men in matters of Decency and Orders this Church herein is bounded by the Scripture or it is not If it be for which he cites in the Margin these words of Macovius in loc com cap. 83. p. 851. The Laws by which the Governours of the Church are to judge are such as are prescribed in the Word of God bounded by the Scripture then when it hath no prescription therein for its commands it s not to be obeyed and so we are where we were before that Decency and Order is to be determined by the Scripture If it be not bounded thereby then whatever ceremonies it introduceth not directly contrary thereunto they must be subjected to which how fair an inlet it is to the whole farrago of Popish inventions who sees not Answ. I say not 'T is the priviledge and duty of the Church to make Laws and Constitutions for the binding of the Consciences of mâ—n in the matters of Decency and Order but that the particularities of Decency and Order not determined in Scripture may by Canons to that end be prescribed the general rules in Scripture the Laws of Nature Right Reason other laudable Customs and just Laws being duely observed and that persons are to obey them not as bound in conscience directly and by the things themselves but indirectly and by accident because appointed by Rulers to whom God requires obedience in those things which being rightly understood both horns of the dilemma are avoided they being bounded in the Scripture in the general are to be obeyed as other humane Laws and the particularities not being there determined the wayes of Decency and Order not determined by Scripture are to be received and yet it follows not that whatever Ceremonies Rulers introduce not directly contrary to Scripture must be subjected to much less a fair inlet made to the whole farrago of Popish inventions For if indirectly they be contrary to Scripture or otherwise hurtful or not subservient to the ends of such Laws or become by reason of their number or imposition such a yoke as Christ hath freed us from there may be a relaxation from them more than from other humane Civil Laws and for all or some of these reasons the whole farrago of Popish inventions is to be excluded though other Ecclesiastical Laws of the Church of England be subjected to Wherein I meddle not with the Question about the Ceremonies controverted and therefore may let pass that which this Author adds yet were this also yielded them they were never a jot nearer the mark aimed at except it can be proved that supposing a power of introducing Ceremonies to be invested in the Church thence a power for the institution of new Orders and Ordinances the introducing of Heathenish Jewish and Superstitious practices in the Worship of God may be evinced there being no necessity that in answering his Argument I should avouch the imposition or use of those Ceremonies which the Non-conformists argue against Nor need I reply to what he adds And yet should all this be yielded them none of which will they be able to prove to the Worlds end how will they manifest those Lordly Commands and Constitutions are the Constitutions of a truly constituted Church of Christ a strong supposition hereof is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the present Objection and yet sail they in the
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
not acknowledged Arch-Bishops over the whole Church as the Pope but in their own Province nor are they termed Arch-Bishops as if other Bishops had their authority from them as the Pope claims but they only have a Primacy or Precedency with some other Prerogatives by that title Nor are they or other Bishops made Lords as Christ over the whole Church or have such dominion ascribed to them over the Church they oversee as is forbidden 1 Pet. 5.3 Luke 22.25 26. and is usurped by Popish Bishops but are Lords only by the Kings Grant as is said before in Answer to Chap. 3. Sect. 5 6. not in the Church of Christ but in the Kingdom and Parliament and therefore this acknowledgement is not contrary to the revelation of Christ there being no contrariety or contradiction unless there were an opposition in the same respect as Logicians determine Christ is said 1 Tim. 6.15 to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the only Dynasta or Potentate and yet without contrariety or contradiction the Eunuch Acts 8.27 is termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dynasta or Potentate as in the reading in the margin of our translation But were there contrariety yet it is not shewed that what is acknowledged is a Law Constitution or Ordinance which do usually determine not what may be but what shall and must be nor that Ministers own it by subscription 2. That men may and ought to be made Ministers only by these Lord-Bishops which is contrary to Heb. 5.4 John 10.1 7. and 13.20 and 14.6 Act. 14.23 with 6.3 5. Answ. It is true it is acknowledged by the present Ministers of England that men may be made Ministers by these Lord-Bishops but not that they may and ought to be made Ministers only by these Lord-Bishops sith Ministers are allowed who are made by Suffragan Bishops who are not Lords and for the Churches Reformed of Foreigners dwelling in England Ministers made by Presbyters only But this is not a Law Constitution or Ordinance to which Ministers subscribe nor if they did is there any contrariety therein to the revelation of Christ. Heb. 5.4 it is said And no man taketh this honour that is of being High-Priest unto himself but he that is called of God as Aaron But this is impertinently alledged being not spoken of the Gospel Ministery but of the Priesthood of the Law and the High-Priest and of his Calling by God immediately and therefore if that which the Ministers acknowledge be proved contrary to the revelation of Christ by this text the making of Mâ—nisters in Congregational Churches by their Eldership is alike contrary sith they are not called of God as Aaron Of the impertinency of John 10.1 7. enough is said before in the Answer to Chap. 2. Sect. 3. Joh. 13.20 He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me is no more contrary to Bishops Ordination than to Presbyters John 14.6 speaks not at all of making Ministers but of the way whereby Christians have access to God Of Acts 14.23 and 6.3 5. enough hath been said in Answer to Chap. 2. Sect. 3. 3. That Prelates their Chancellors and Officers have power from Christ to cast out of the Church of God contrary to Mat. 18.16 17. 1 Cor. 5.4 Answ. That there is a Law Ordinance or Constitution of this to which Ministers subscribe I finde noâ— Of the texts Mat. 18.16 17. 1 Cor. 5.4 enough hath been said in Answer to the Preface Sect. 15. to Chap. 4. Sect. 5. whence the impertinency of the alledging these texts may appear 4. That the Office of Suffragans Deans Canons Petty-Canons Prebendaries Coiristers Organists Archdeacons Commissaries Officials Parsons Vicars and Curates are lawful and necessary to be had in the Church evidently contrary to 1 Cor. 12 18 28. Rom. 12.7 Ephes. 4.11 The Officers instituted by Christ are sufficient for the edification and perfecting of the Saints till they all come unto a perfect man unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ ver 12 13. in what sense the forementioned being not one of them of the institution of Christ may be owned as lawful or necessary without an high contempt of the Wisdom and Soveraignty of Christ cannot by such dull persons as my self he conjectured That any others see them any way useful to the Church of Christ may be imputed to such a sharp-sightedness as was that of Caius Caligula to whom when he enquired of Vitellius whether he saw him not imbracing the Moon 't was answered Solis Domine vobis-diis licet se invicem videre Answ. Where this imagined Law Ordinance or Constitution is or when and how the present Ministers do own acknowledge submit and subscribe to it as this Author suggests is not here shewed by him nor do I know where to finde it Oâ— the Office of so many of these as are ordained Presbyters or Priests as the term is in the English Liturgy enough hath been said in answering the 3 Chapter Sect. 3 5. c. that though their names are various yet their Office is the same with some of those who are of Christ 1 Cor. 12.28 Rom. 12.7 Ephes. 4.11 and consequently lawful and necessary the rest are not reckoned among the Orders of Ministry in the Church but counted Services which are acknowledged not necessary and whether they be useful or not it matters not in respect of the present enquiry if there be no Law Constitution or Ordinance to make them lawful and necessary to be had in the Church which the Ministers subscribe to as I think there is not 5. That the Office â—f Deacons in the Church is to be imployed in publick praying administration of Baptism and preaching if licensed by the Bishop thereunto contrary to Act. 6.2 Ephes. 4.11 Answ. That at first the institution of Deacons was to serve tables Acts 6.2 not to preach the word of God yet Steven and Philip being imployed in Preaching and Philip in Baptizing it is not contrary to Christs revelation in those texts or any other that they should be imployed in those works 6. That the Ordinance of breaking Bread or the Sacrament of the Lords Supper may be administred to one alone as to a sick man ready to die which is diametrically opposite to the nature and institution of that Ordinance 1 Cor. 10.16 and 11.33 Mat. 26.26 Act. 2.42 and 20.7 Answ. The Communion is in time of infectious diseases allowed to be administred to one only besides the Minister which whether it be fit to be done is left to the Minister That it is diametrically opposite to the nature and institution of that Ordinance is not easily proved 1 Cor. 10.16 A Communion is proved in that Sacrament but ver 17. and 1 Cor. 12.13 rather proves the Communion to be therein with all believers throughout the world though absent than only with the present partakers and if so though but two joyn the Minister and the sick man the Communion there meant is held with all Christians the meaning and
is with the Spirit pray that he may interpret that is not only speak with the Spirit but also with the Mind Therefore it is manifest that the prayers Rom 8.26 1 Cor. 14.15 are meant of such as are in extraordinary raptures and ecstacies such as the Prophets sometimes had and St. Paul speaks of 2 Cor. 12.1 2 3 4. and cannot be applied to the ordinary publike prayers of the whole Congregation Thirdly the help of the Spirit cannot be meant of suggesting a Form of words because it is said the spirit it self maketh intercession for us with groans unutterable and 1 Cor. 14.15 is such praying in the spirit as may be without the understanding of him that prays or others even such as he that occupieth the room of the unlearned cannot say Amen to seeing he understandeth not what the Speaker saith Fourthly The praying with the Spirit is such as is unfruitful of it self v. 14. and not to be affected of it self nor can be a matter of duty sith it is motus liberi spiritus as the School-men speak rightly a motion of the free Spirit such as lumen propheticum prophetical illumination is which is such a gift as that it may be our duty to use it when we have it not our duty to acquire it Upon all which reasons it is apparent that these Texts are much perverted against the use of a prescript Form of words in Prayer devised by man because of the Spirits help Rom. 8.26 praying in the Spirit 1 Cor. 14 15. sith they cannot be meant of ordinary publike prayers and of praying in words unpremeditated as immediately suggested by the Spirit of God Sect 8. The admission of vitious persons to Communion justifies not separation 8. That wicked and ungodly persons and their seed are lawful members of the Church and if they consent not willingly to be so they may be compelled thereunto contrary to Psal. 110.3 Acts 2.40 41 47. and 19 9. 2 Cor. 6.14 17. and 9.13 Answ. This Author shews not where the Law is nor when or how the Ministers subscribes to a Constitution of this instance not know I where to find either It is said Psal. 110.3 Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power But it doth not therefore follow that men may not be compelled by pecuniary mulcts or other penalties to come to Common Prayer or the Communion For however the question be resolved about liberty of Conscience and toleration in the New Testament yet David meant not that there must none be then compelled if so neither Asa nor Josiah did well in urging the people to swear to cleave to God and to stand to it 2 Chron. 34.32 If understood of the times of the New Testament it proves that members of the Church should be a willing people but not that no other may be lawful members or admitted or caused by commands of Rulers or penalties to joyn with the Church in Gods Worship For then it must be the duty of them that admit members into the Church to know that they whom they admit are a willing people which I think none now can do It is true Acts 2.40 Peter exhorted the Jews to save themselves from that perverse generation of them that opposed Christ and v. 41. Then they that gladly received his Word were baptized and v. 47. The Lord added to the Church such as should be saved but how this proves that wicked and ungodly persons may not be admitted as lawful members of the visible Church Christian nor compelled thereunto I discern not Sure Judas was admitted to the Apostleship and to the Passover if not to the Lords Supper Ananias and Saphira were taken as lawful members Simon Magus baptized we find none blamed for admission to the Lords Supper of disorderly Corinthians And for compulsion from Idolatrous Worship and other evils if Parents may correct these in their children Princes may do it in their Subjects and if Parents may by penalties compel their children to conform to true Religion so may Princes The separation Acts 19 9. is nothing to countenance the separation from the Service and assemblies of the Church of England for that separation was not because of the presence of professed Christians of vitious life but because of divers who were hardned and believed not but spake evil of the way of Christ before the multitude and so endeavour to disturb them in the practice of Christian Religion The words 2 Cor. 6.14 whether we read it be not unequally yoked or unevenly ballanced to the other side with Infidels and whether we expound it of marriage or familiar converse or as the words v. 16. What agreement hath the Temple of God with Idols do plainly evince it to be meant do not joyn with the Idolaters in their Idol Temples to eat there things offered to Idols which he had forbidden 1 Cor. 8.7 10. to partake of the table of Devils 1 Cor. 10.21 it is manifest from v. 15. to be meant of professed Infidels opposite to him that believeth and therefore cannot be understood of not joyning in prayer and the Lords Supper with a professed Believer though of vitious life Nor can the separation from among men v. 17. be understood of any other than professed Infidels nor the the touching the unclean thing be any other then joyning in service of Idols mentioned v. 16. and therefore is manifestly impertinent to the separation from Believers by profession in the service of God by reason of their personal wickedness The last Text 2 Cor. 9.13 is less to the purpose For what shew of consequence is there in this Christians glorifie God for others professed subjection or the subjection of their Confession or consent to the Gospel of Christ therefore wicked persons and such as consent not willingly are not to be taken for lawful members of the Church nor may be compelled thereto It is added 9. That women may administer the Sacrament of Baptism contrary to 1 Cor. 14.34 1 Tim. 2.12 Matth. 28.18 19 20. Ephes. 4.11 Answ. That it is true that in Q. Elizabeths time Baptism by Women in supposed case of necessity was in the English Churches either tolerated or allowed and the like hath been in the Lutheran Churches and Mr. Hooker in his fifth Book of Ecclesiastical Policy sect 62. saith somewhat for it yet since the Conference at Hampton Court in the beginning of King James his reign to the Rubrick of private Baptism in the Common Prayer Book the words lawful Minister were added which still continue the Baptism of Women is not allowed by any constitution nor owned by the present Ministers that I know and therefore this instance is unjustly here recited Yet thus much may be said that notwithstanding Women are excluded from any Ordinary Ministery of the Word or Sacraments in the Church by the Texts alledged 1 Cor. 14.34 1 Tim. 2.12 and from baptizing Mat. 28.18 19 20. Ephes. 4.11 Sith we find that Philip the Evangelist had four
Canon of his standing for fear of shedding ought But I deny that kneeling in the very time of receiving was ever in the Church of Rome any Rite of or for adoration of the Sacrament it self or any creature and therefore not Idolatrous I deny not the errour of their minds concerning that they received into their mouths But I deny that they ever intended adoration of the species at that moment of time when they took it in their mouths But then turned themselves to God rather to give him thanks which was not uncomely Of which he gives three reasons 1. Because it was never yet enjoyned by any Pope that they should then kneel 2. In the Mass there is no direction for adoration of the Sacrament when it is received 3. For that it is an incongruous thing in their superstition to adore a thing which is not higher than their polls when they adore it because they cannot be said to humble themselves to that which is lower than they can cast themselves To this last reason nothing is returned by Dr. Ames in his Triplic ch 4. p. 429. and Dallaeus adv lat cult l. 9. c. 13. Id quod adoratur eo à quo adoratur celsius ac sublimius aliquid esse debere insito à natura ipsa sensu omnes mortales confitentur atque consentiunt To which is to be added that kneeling is used according to the Common Prayer Book with Prayer to God and at the receiving of the Wine as well as at the Bread which are not so with the Papists and therefore kneeling is not to be taken as adoration of the Bread as the Papists do And for that which is said that the Lords Supper is to be received kneeling is directly opposite to the practice of the Churches of Christ for several hundred years after Christ to the time of the invention and introduction of the Popish Breaden-god it is denyed by the same Dr. Burges in that and other following Chapters by the Bishop of Rochester Paybody and others about which and the judgment and practice of most of the reformed Churches at this day it is not necessary that I should make inquiry sith if it were so yet it proves nor that the present Ministers of England do oppose the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ by their submitting to kneeling at the Lords Supper Sect. 10. Forbidding to marry or eat flesh at certain times are not characters of Apostates as 1 Tim. 4.3 is meant It is added What should I mention the Constitutions and Canons before pointed to wherein 't is forbidden to any to Preach not licensed by the Bishops thereunto to marry or eat flesh at certain times with many more of the like nature all directly contrary to the soveraign edicts of Christ and some of them evident characters of the last dayes Apostates 1 Tim. 4.3 from whom Saints are warned by the Lord to turn aside ver 5. These we have produced carry an undeniable evidence with them that the present Ministers of England do own submit and subscribe to Orders and Ordinances that are contrary to the revelation of Christ and therefore deny his Prophetical and Kingly Office Answ. To that of forbidding to Preach answer is made in the examining this Chapter Sect. 2. Forbidding to marry and commanding to abstain from flesh at certain times upon politick considerations or for the better observing a religious Fast are not characters of the Apostates 1 Tim. 4.3 But may be justified by such passages of Scripture as Jonah 3.7 Joel 2.16 1 Cor. 7.5 Dan. 10.3 Nor do I think the most zealous Separatists but would restrain from Marriage and Flesh the members of their Churches in the times of solemn Fasts or would count it evil that the Magistrate forbids for civil ends abstinence from some kind of food which being the case of the prohibitions of the Civil Laws of England rather than the Canons of the Church which make it not a sin against God to marry or eat flesh then is unjustly made the character of Apostates 1 Tim. 4.3 which is more justly charged on the Monks and Popish Votaries who account it sinful to marry as if it were unchastness and more lawful to use Concubines than Wives for Priests as if they joyned with Pope Siricius terming such persons in the flesh and such as could not please God and place more holiness in eating Fish than Flesh which sort of people are very accurately proved to be there characterized by Mr. Joseph Mede in his Book of the Doctrine of Daemons intituled The Apostasie of the later times That the present Ministers of England are such or that precept which is not 1 Tim. 4.5 2 Tim. 3.5 From such turn aside belongs to them is not proved by this Author nor that they do own submit and subscribe to Orders and Ordinances that are contrary to the revelation of Christ or deny his Prophetical and Kingly Office French Protestants in the Synod of Charenton 1644. chap. 13. art 24. The Church shall not solemnise marriage in the dayes on the which the Lords Supper is administred nor on the dayes of a publick Fast. See this crimination retorted on the Separatists by Paget in his Arrow ch 6. sect 3. p. 155. n. 5. Yet he hath not done with this Argument Sect. 11. No such Headship is owned by the present Ministers as is a denial of Christs Offices To all that hitherto hath been offered in this matter we shall yet add as a further demonstration of the truth we are in the disquisition of Arg. 3. Those that acknowledge another Head over the Church beside Christ deny his Prophetical and Kingly Office but the present Ministers of England do own and acknowledge another Head over the Church beside Christ Therefore If the assertion of another King in England that as the Head thereof hath power of making and giving forth Laws to the free-born Subjects therein be a denial of his Kingly Authority as no doubt it is the major or first Proposition cannot be denied If Christ be the alone King of his Church as such he is its alone Head and Lawgiver If he hath not by any Statute-Law established any other Headship in and over his Church to act in the Holy things of God from and under him besides himself who sees not the assertion of such an Headship carries with it a contempt and denial of his Authority If there be any such Headship of the Institution of Christ let us know when and where it was instituted whether such a Dominion and Soveraignty over the Subjects of his Kingdom with respect to Worship be granted by them to any of the sons of men absolutely or conditionally if the first then must the Church it seems be governed by persons casting off the yoke of Christ trampling upon his royal Commands and Edicts for so it 's possible it may fall out those that aâ—tain this Headship may do as it 's evident many Popes of Rome the great
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 points of the Trent Council A great part of the worship of the Ministers of the Church of England is in their prayers to God their praises of God in Psalms and Hymns in their teaching and instructing of the people Let this Author shew any part of this worship of the Ministers of England to be a drop of the Whores Cup of Fornication or a shred of that great lye of Antichrist even according to the exposition of the Authors named or any other sober Author yea though he be biassed towards the Congregational way such as Mr. Cotton Mr. Thomas Parker or any other of that party or else let him be branded lege Remnia as an egregious Calumniator As for that inserted passage 't were well if upon some of them it had not a litteral accomplishment it had been honest dealing if he knew any that he had either reproved them or complained to their Superiors but thus obliquely to insinuate it to the Readers too apt to entertain any suggestions against the present Ministers whether true or false was neither the part of a charitable Christian nor of a candid Moralist Sect. 4. The Ministers are not proved to strengthen the hands of evil doers as Jer. 23.14 is meant 3. Saith he That they strengthen the hands of evil doers that none doth return from his wickedness Jer. 23.13 That the present Ministers of England really do so is capable of an ocular demonstration perhaps they do in their Sermons reprove sin thunder out the Judgments of God against the transgressors of his Law as much as any but alas what is this to condemn them in the state wherein they stand without repentance to the pit of Hell in the Pulpit and by and by to saint them in the Chancel and tell them there without exception that the Body of Christ was broken for them his Blood shed for them O how many millions of souls are and have been thereby hardened to their own undoing and their hands strengthned in wickedness What should I mention their admission of the Children of all to Baptism without exception their owning them as Church-Members yea die they never so wickedly as Brethren of whose joyful resurrection they profess they have a sure and certain hope thereby proclaiming their undoubted perswasion that they are a people in covenant with God not to take notice of the terrible reflections and uncharitable censures are publickly past by them upon men truly fearing God because they cannot conform to them How desparately are the hands of the wicked hereby strengthned so that none indeed doth return from his wickedness How rare a thing is it to hear of one soul that is brought over to God by all their preaching so that visibly that judgment of God seems to be upon them ver 32. therefore they shall not at all profit this people Answ. They confirm them in their wickedness and so keep them from repentance by bearing them in hand that they shall do well enough whatsoever Gods messengers tell them that though they do continue in their sins see Ezek. 13.22 is Mr. Gatakers paraphrase of this passage of the Prophet And this Author is not ashamed to say that the present Ministers of England really do so is capable of an ocular demonstration when his next words acquit them Perhaps they do in their Sermons reprove sin thunder out Gods Judgments against transgressors of his Law as much as any if so they do not strengthen the hands of evil doers by bearing them in hand that they shall do well enough though they do continue in their sins And that which he acknowledgeth they do is enough to acquit them from that character of the false Prophets here charged upon them which perhaps might more truly be imputed to those who have taught Arminian and Antinomian errors which have been too rife in the Congregational Churches In the point of Baptism I can acquit the one no more than the other nor will I justifie the censures of men truly fearing God I have some grounds to think that it is oft a matter of mourning not only to the present Ministers but also to some of the Bishops and that they wish that there were a remedy in that and in the admission of many ignorant and evil doers to the Lords Supper and they conceive by the warning before the Communion the enlargement of power to the Minister in the Liturgy as now it is in the joynt confession of Sin and preaching before the Communion besides conference and examination which may be used to redress it some provision is made against it however Laws restrain them from doing more which being made against Recusant Papists are thought fit to be continued though used concerning others who are not such That expression of the breaking of Christs Body for them and shedding his Blood is known to be but a charitable speech upon the supposal of the persons repentance and faith the truth of which is above the Ministers cognizance professed by them they use and if Judas were at the Lords Supper it was used by Christ and being understood as those speeches 1 Cor. 8.11 Through thy knowledge shall thy weak brother perish for whom Christ died Heb. 10.29 Hath counted the Blood of the Covenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing are not liable ro exception If any do undoe themselves by mis-understanding it the same thing happened to Christs hearers John 6.61 66. and is to be remedied by expounding the meaning and warning persons that they do not abuse it to their destruction That the Ministers own men as brethren die they never so wickedly is not true if by legal censure or judgment they are declared criminal if not the Ministers are not allowed to exclude persons from brotherhood upon their own opinion without proof and judicial sentence if they do call them brethren so all men are and those that profess Faith may be charitably accounted Christian Brethren In the words used at Burial the Minister doth not profess he hath a sure and certain hope of the joyful resurrection of all them that are interred but the words are in sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life without application of it to the person then to be interred and therefore these allegations are too short of proving Ministers strengthening the hands of evil doers as false Prophets If their success in preaching be not as were to be wished it is the same that the Prophets complained of Isa. 49.4 Isa 53.1 and was verified of Christ John 12.37 38. And if it fall out that people are hardened notwithstanding their Ministers do preach as here it s not denied they do it is from themselves and I wish their hardening and destruction be not to be charged on this Author and such others as are of the separation who by declaiming against them as Antichristian alienate the spirits of people from them so as to refuse to hear the word which I count a most
according to the word of God but after the prescript of man for the matter of their doctrine they may be false Prophets but this is not so much as offered to be proved concerning the present Ministers of England and therefore it is untruly said that it cannot be denied that there is a perfect harmony between them and those false Prophets As for their removals from places of less to places of greater value it is a thing which may be objected to Preachers and Pastors of the Congregational Churches and may be upon just cause and therefore of it self proves not so much as a covetous minde whether it be out of gaping and greedy desire after preferments God may be the only judge If preparing War be meant of suing for their dues by Law it may be just nor is a Minister bound to live upon alms or voluntary contribution the Elders of the separated Churches have found by experience how great a misery it is for a Student though godly and painful to live of the benevolence of their Churches nor is it any sin for a Minister more than for another man to make use of the Magistrate and Law to gain his due according to the Law of the Land And however some have instilled into peoples heads the unlawfulness of requiring or paying Tithes or other dues to the present Ministers as they did before to Non-Conformists yet there is no colourable plea for not paying them it being not unlawful for me to pay what is unjustly demanded there being therein no doing of wrong though there should be a suffering of wrong And therefore it is but vainly pretended that they cannot in conscience put into Ministers mouths when there is no appearance of sin in doing it and if their Consciences be misled by erroneous Casuists poor men may thank them for their vexations and beware of hearkening to them and not clamour against the Ministers as the only cause of their trouble if out of meer obstinacy they deny to pay they are to blame themselves It is added 6. That they sadden the hearts of the righteous Ezek. 13.22 what need I turn aside to make application of this to the Prophets of this day who that is serious doth not experiment the truth thereof in his own soul to see the Name and Ordinances of God prophaned the ceremonies and inventions of man subjected unto by such as pretend to be Ministers of Christ would make an heart of stone to bleed much more those whose hearts are made tender by the Lord. Those of our Brethren that as yet attend upon their Ministry will tell us they are troubled at their compliance and conformity All that look in the least after reformation say they could wish it were otherwise so that this character also is visibly upon them Answer By lyes sadning the hearts of the righteous as Ezek. 13.22 is granted to be a character of a false Prophet but this Author omits that and makes that a character of a false Prophet which is not and applies that to the Ministers which he goes not about to prove they are guilty of Perhaps those righteous persons he means are sadned out of mistakes as conceiving the Name and Ordinances of God prophaned when they are not as the Israelites were when they mistook the Reubenites fact in building an Altar Josh. 22.11 12. Perhaps it may be without their fault perhaps the Ministers are sadned as well as they perhaps the sadness is from such erroneous suggestions as are instilled into the people by such as hold the same principles of separation with this Author perhaps men as righteous as they who are sadned do without any sadness attend upon their Ministry perhaps they are sadned that they stumble at that they need not perhaps they are more sad at such principles of division as pervert them that are counted otherwise righteous than at any thing they perceive practised by the Ministers of England If sadning the hearts of righteous by the inventions of men be a character of false Prophets and that for it the Ministers of England are to be judged such the renting of errors and fancies which have been in the Congregational Churches and even by their Teachers the many unnecessary scruples janglings oppositions arrogant wilful carriages deceitful and unrighteous dealings in Members which have sadned the hearts of many sober and better composed spirits and made them weary of their societies the heart bleedings for professors abominations are indeed as signal characters of false Prophets in their Churches as of the Ministers in the Church of England being such Though there were an utter oblivion of what of old was done by Separatists in England the Low Countries in new England yet what hath been done in England in our times and is yet in the memory of many yet alive should have stopped this Authors mouth and made him forbear to object that against the Ministers of England which may perhaps more fully be retorted on those whose Ministry he would have attended on The Elders and Messengers of the Congregational Churches meeting at the Savoy Octob. 12. 1658. in the Preface to the decclaration of their Faith and Order do of their own accord say It is true that many sad miscarriages divisions breaches fallings off from the holy Ordinances of God have along in this time of temptation especially in the beginning of it been found in some of our Churches Yea such insinuations as this Author urgeth against the Ministers of England would have proved not only the Ministers of the reformed Churches of late but even the Angels of the seven Churches of Asia the teachers of the Churches of Corinth and other the best Churches in the Primitive times to have been false Prophets But I forbear He addes 7. That they mix the word of God with their dreams Jer. 23.25.29 in the Margin The notes on Matth. 28. in the foresaid Translation are Here do all Preachers learn what they should teach nothing else but Gods word nothing else but that the Lord hath commanded them not their own dreams and inventions So do the present Ministers of England as hath been proved Sect. 7. Pressing rigid Conformity no proof of the Ministers being false Prophets Answ. This needs no further answer than what is before given 8. Saith he That they come in Sheeps cloathing having the horns of a Lamb but are inwardly ravening Wolves and speak like Dragons i. e. pretend to the Holiness and Meekness of Christ and Saints but are inwardly full of raven and cruelty yea terrible in their Edicts and Laws stirring up and making use of the powers of the world to persecute kill and destroy the Saints Mat. 7.15 Revel 13.11 which second Beast is no other than the false Prophet mentioned Revel 19.20 as might easily be demonstrated As face answers face in a glass so do the present Ministers of England the false Prophets there spoken of Are not all the Persecutions Imprisonments Slaughters and Butcheries of
though it shewed him to be negligent But is nothing to our Ministers who are not now to count any man or creature common or unclean Act. 10.15.28 Whether they have power to keep any professing the Faith from the Lords Supper it may be doubted Granting it that they have yet this Author will not allow it I presume to each single Minister and if not it is unjust to account them false Preists for not doing it But of this before in this Chapter Section 4. Sect. 9. The Ministers are not the false Shepherds meant Ezek. 34.4 It is added 10. That they exercise not pity to the weak broken scattered Sheep of Christ nor shew bowels in their recovery but with force and cruelty rule over them Ezek. 34.4 One would think the former part of the Chapter were rather an History of what is practised by the false Shepherds of this day than otherwise so perfect an agreement is there betwixt their practice and this prophecy of the Lord. They tell us 't is our weakness and distemper that we conform not to their worship that we are persons gone astray we profess to them that we would not give way to spiritual distempers nor stray one step from the wayes of God might we but know it we would thank any to convince us of our mistakes and reduce us to the true sheepfold if we are gone astray Do they seek after us in a spirit of tenderness labour to convince us and carry us in their bosomes like tender Shepherds to the true fold What less With force and cruelty they rule over us threaten us with Excommunications Imprisonments Banishments dispoiling us of what God hath graciously given us yea condemning us to death in all which through the grace of God we can rejoice though they thereby abundantly demonstrate that they are the successors of the false Shepherds here spoken of Answ. Though Diodati the Annotator in the large Annotations Junius The Marginal Notes of the Geneva Translation say he meaneth by Shepherds the King the Magistrates Priests and Prophets yet after Piscator Grotius and others I think this passage is only appliable to the Kings and other Civil Rulers of Israel the Prophets not ruling over the people with force and cruelty but beguiling them with lies and deceit Which with sundry more passages of the Chapter upon my reading of it do convince me that this Author doth misalleadge it sith the Ministers of England are not Successors of the Civil Magistrates nor are the Prince and Governors here termed false Shepherds but negligent and unmerciful which are not the signal Characters of a false Prophet or false Priest and therefore this Text is impertinent to prove the Ministers to be such As for the practice he chargeth the Ministers with sith it is in generals a distinct answer cannot be made to it nor can any but the accused well answer it Possibly that which this Author counts force and cruelty may be necessary though severe discipline I do not justifie the neglects or menaces mentioned in any nor is it unlikely but that there are men of violent spirits in the Hierarchy and Ministry of England to whom this evil is imputed nor do I think this Author can acquit all those that are Elders or other members of the Congregational Churches Iliacos intrà muros peccatur extrà It is to be lamented that such sad things should happen as he recites For my part I have even when the Congegational men had most liberty had conferences with persons in which I shewed my dissent from them in respect of the Separation with my Reasons and have often in writing answered their Arguments for it which I can yet produce yet found them still inflexible This writing was begun by me out of compassion of those to whom I was once a Preacher whom I found seduced by it and have endeavoured without any bitterness to convince this Author of his mistakes yet I doubt whether he will thank me for it I rather expect to be told for writing this Book as I was for writing of some other pieces that I am an Apostate temporizer flatterer adversary to the Saints and such like imputations They that know what hath been done in New-England and old England even at Oxford to Quakers for inveighing against their Teachers and Governors should be somewhat more moderate in censures of the present Ministers and Governors who when they read this very Chapter will be apt to think that the soul of the Quakers is by transmigration gotten into this Author My Prayer to God is that on all sides there may be such a calm and considerate spirit that we may forbear one another and in love endeavour the rectifying of each other not bite and devour one another lest we be consumed one of another and so we be Homo homini lupus not Shepherds Sect. 10. The Ministers of England are not the second Beast foretold Revel 13.11 But there 's more behind What should I mention saith he 11. That they come up out of the Earth Rev. 13.11 are raised up by men of earthly spirits and principles 12. That they exercise the power of the first Beast or make use of the civil power for their supportment ver 13.13 That they make an Image to the Beast ver 14.15 i. e. Erect an Ecclesiastical state of Government in a proportioâ—ableness to and resemblance of the Civil State 14. That they compel all under the penalty of death to worship or bow down to this Image of the Beast or Ecclesiastical Government in its Courts Canons Laws and Ceremonies devised by it v. 15. 15. That they compel all to receive a mark either in their right hands or foreheads secretly or openly one way or other to acknowledge subjection unto this Beast without which they may neither buy nor sell being cut off from the Church by their Excommunications for their stubborness v. 16 17. All which Characters of the second Beast or false Prophet he that runs may read upon the present Hierarchy and Ministry of England It remaineth then that the present Ministers of England have the characters of the false Prophets and Preists upon them and therefore are not to be heard but to be separated from Answ. Though the Book of the Revelation be a holy Divine writing and hath been of great use to support the spirits of Christians under the great Persecutions which have befallen them and is still of very great importance for the animating of believers either to patience in sufferings or watchfulness in time of temptation yet such abuse there hath been made of it to uphold many wild conceits many irregular practises notwithstanding the confessed obscurity and the frequent refutation of such conceits as men have with much confidence delivered by the manifestation of their vanity in the event that sober men have wished it were either less read by some or more considerately weighed and more warily applyed The passages here alledged have been so abused
by men of opposite parties against dissenters especially by those of the separation against not only the Prelates and Prelatical Preachers but also the Presbyterian that they have served for no other purpose but to inflame the minds of one against the other The first and second Beast Rev. 19. are differently conceived Dr. Hamond conceives the first Beast to be the Heathen Roman Emperors upholding the Idol worship the second Beast the Augurs Priests and Magicians such as Apollonius Tyranaeus was so conceives the accomplishment already past The Author of an Essay on that part of the Revelation which begins at chapter the 13. conceives it meant of one to come Molinaeus in his Vates l 5. c. 17. with Mede and others understand it of the Pope and Roman Clergy There is no probability that this second Beast should be meant of the Hierarchy and Ministry of England or that they should be the false Prophet mentioned Rev. 19.20 which is said to work miracles before the Beast and with the Beast was cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone which to say of men of whom some he acknowledgeth to be good men is so horrid an imagination as had not this Author been transported with extreme passion me thinks he should have trembled to have let it enter into his thoughts much less to have written and printed it Nor can the conceits be free from these and such horrid consequences that then the first Beast must be Civil Powers and they to be cast into the lake burning with fire that the Hierarchy and Ministry of England cause the Earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first Beast whether the Roman Emperors or Pope or Civil Powers or Idols that al that be subject to the Image of the Beast which is made the Ecclesiastical Government shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his Indignation and shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy Angels and in the presence of the Lamb and the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever with more of the like which are so monstrously uncharitable to be conceived of such men and so utterly destitute of all colour of proof that I can scarse censure it so mildly as to term it dotage but rather take it to be the speech of a furious Bedlam His applications also are so frivolous and wild as that they should be abhorred rather than answered How doth it appear that to come out of the Earth is to be raised by men of earthly spirits and principles How doth it appear that men raising them whether Princes or Patrons are men of such spirits and principles When were they raised by such To exercise the power of the Beast is not to make use of the Civil Power for its support which were indeed no evil but may be good and the wisdom of men but to act with the same power the first Beast used in making war with the Saints If the Ecclesiastical State as it resembles the Civil be the Image of the Beast and to erect it be the character of the false Prophet and this be so evil then it is much more evil to erect the Civil State which is the Prototype which me thinks he should fear to say How doth it appear that the proportionableness to resemblance of the Ecclesiastical state of Government to the Civil is not therefore the better and more desirable When did the Ministers compel all under the penalty of death or outlawry to acknowledg subjection to the Hierarchy Are there not many persons and places of peculiar and exempt Jurisdiction many persons that either by indulgence or connivence though not acknowledging such subjection live as free as those that do Do all great as well as small rich and poor free and bond receive such a mark I am weary with refuting such palpable gross untruths and do wonder with what face without the least proof a man that would be accounted a Saint should attempt to obtrude them upon the world much more that he should do it to the Church of God and upon such absurd premisses conclude thus It remaineth then that the present Ministers of England have the characters and properties of the false Prophets and Priests upon them and therefore are not to be heard but separated from CHAP. 7. ARG. 6. Sect. 1. All Idolatry is by exhibiting Divine Worship to a Creature THose that are guilty of Idolatry Saints may not have communion with much less own them as their Teachers but ought to separate from them But the present Ministers of England are Idolaters Therefore The major or first Proposition will not be deined because bottom'd upon express commands from Christ 1 Cor. 5.11 and 10.14 2 Cor. 6.14.18 Before we descend to the confirmation of the minor or second Proposition we shall crave leave to premise That Idolatry may be considered under a threefold notion 1st Most gross and absurd Idolatry when the creature is worshipped terminatively this few are guilty of the Israelites of old worshipped not the Calf terminatively but God in it therefore they are said to proclaim a feast to Jehovah Exod. 32.5 Rab. M. Maimonides de Idolat 8.2 3 c. observes That never any Idolater was so silly as to think that an Idol of wood stone or mettal was a God that made the Heaven and Earth but through them all Idolaters intend to worship God 2ly Somewhat more refined Idolatry viz. in respect of what we but now instanc'd in when we offer up any worship or homage proper and due to God only before any creature as the medium or representative of God Such was the Idolatry of Israel in the Golden Calf Brazen Serpent c. Of this are the Synagogue of Rome amongst all the combinations of men in the world most eminently guilty To this Head may be added 1. The ascription of Godhead to any creature as to Herod Acts 12.22 2. The ascription of the properties of the Godhead to any creature 3. The worshipping of God in any other way than what he hath prescribed which all that write upon the second Commandment say is the Idolatry therein forbidden 4. The oblation of worship or service to God that hath been offered up to Idols for which there is no prescription in the Scripture 3ly Most refined Idolatry when the heart goes forth in desires after any thing beyond what is limited by the Lord or trusts and relyes on any creature on this side God In the first sense there are as was said few or no Idolaters in the world The Papists come as near thereunto as any praying to the Cross the Virgin Mary Saints Angels c. expresly affirming that the Virgin Mary may be worshipped with that worshâ—p which they call Cultus Latriae which yet they say is due only to God In the last sense there are none but at one time or
in the Liturgy of the Church of England Therefore The major is grounded on the rule given by Divines about the Decalogue That which requires a duty requires the means conducing thereto The minor is proved in that the Common-Prayer Book directs what things are to be prayed for by reason of the brevity of Collects the Responds the frequent use the plain expressions help the memory and elocution wherein the acquired gift of Prayer consists therefore it is not an obstruction but a help to the gift of Prayer But this Author though he may perhaps count this tolerable in others yet not in Ministers let 's view what he saith of them He alledgeth Eph. 4.11 and would inferr from thence That all Ministers have the gift of Prayer and are to use it that the Common-Prayer Book worship shuts it out of doors as unnecessary and therefore is not of Christs appointment But 1. The Text expresseth not the several sorts of Qualifications but the several sorts of Officers 2. If it be supposed that ministerial gifts are also implyed yet whether extraordinary or ordinary may be doubted 3. If ordinary gifts there may be a question Wheâ—her the gift of Prayer as he means it were one that is Whether Christ hath required that every Minister should be able on all occasions to express himself without any stinted form either conceived by himself or composed by others to make known the requests which it concerns his people to whom he is Pastour in the most solemn and publick auditory to ask of God in their behalf in words and elocution fitting the matter and auditory I doubt not but the Minister should be able to express the requests of the people as he should be able to declare the mind of God to the people yet neither the one nor the other is of necessity to be done or the Minister tied to do it every way but the best way he is able or at least that way as is fit for the end of his expressions to wit the peoples understanding not the ostentation of his parts The Apostles could preach without study but Timothy was to give attendance to reading to meditate to give himself wholly to thâ—se things whereby his profiting might appear to all and yet had a gift given by prophecy 1 Tim. 4.13 14 15. Ministers are to preach the Word now but they are not tyed to preach without notes without study without other helps which God affords Nor are Ministers bound to express themselves alwayes without pre-conceived or prescribed forms in prayer and yet they may faithfully discharge their work Now God doth not give gifts as he did in the Apostles times and therefore the same readiness and exuberancy of expressions or composure of petitions is not to be expected of Ministers now as was of them 4· I add That though the Apostles said Acts 6.4 We will give our selves continually to Prayer and to the ministry of the Word And St Paul 1 Tim. 2.1 exhorts Thaâ— first of all supplications prayers intercessions and giving of thanks be made for all men for Kings and all that are in authority Yet we read not that this is made the Ministers work to express the common necessities of the Church in a publick auditory or any rules about the form or manner of praying Nor do we find that either Christ or his Apostles used any forms of prayer before or after their preaching and therefore conceive not this to be the proper work of a Minister or that either way of praying is determined and therefore both may lawfully be used by the Minister or other Christians Nor doth the one way of Worship shut out of doors the other or the Minister by using the Common-prayer Book exclude conceived prayer by the speakers If they were tyed by the Governours to use no other than the Common-prayer Book expressions yet this is not to be imputed either to the Common-prayer Book or its way of worship or to the Ministers but unto those who do so rigidly impose it I add further That were there a prohibition of using any other than the Common-prayer yet this were not a shutting out of doors Christs institution unless it were proved Christs institution that at all times in Prayer no stinted form should be used Nor doth it shut out of doors the gift of Prayer unless it be proved they only have the gift of Prayer who use their own conceived expressions which if so not only those who use the forms of Prayer though with never so much fervency of spiâ—it which they read or remember in the Common-Prayer Book or in the Practice of Piety or any other such Book of mens composure but also those who use the words of the Psalms or the Lords-Prayer yea that do say Amen to the words of any Preacher before Sermon or any that gives thanks afore meals should shut out of doors the gift of Prayer or the exercise of it sith he useth not the gift he hath to wit the ability of mind to form words and to utter them which is the definition of the gift of Prayer before given There are many in the Congregation perhaps yea some Women that can form and utter words as fit for Prayer as the Minister will not this Author have this gift of Prayer shut out of doors and yet not conclude that a positive duty is obstructed thereby Besides there may be a restraint of a duty as unseasonable sith affirmative precepts bind not ad semper to be done at all times perhaps time will not permit or weather or some accidents or more necessary business and yet the gift not shut out of doors as unnecessary but as only inconvenient at that time Do not the most able Preachers sometimes omit the exercise of their gifts and yet count not them shut out of doors as unnecessary Yea doth not the Apostle 1 Cor. 1â— put some restraints upon Prophecying to keep order Did he then shut out of doors as unnecessary the gift of Prophecy I have read that the Separatists in the Low Countries have spent so much time on the Lords day in debating causes and matters of Discipline that they have omitted exercise of their gifts in some other Ordinances and yet I presume they have not shut them out of doors as unnecessary If at one meeting of Christians no other thing had been done but the reading of St. Pauls Epistles as he appointed Col. 4.16 yet were not the exercise of Aâ—chippus his ministry thereby shut out of doors as unnecessary but only suspended for that time And this would be no Napkining up of his Talent nor such exclusion of the gift of preaching or prophecying as with others this Author clamouâ—ously inveighs against The 55 th Canon directs Preachers what they should pray for doth not limit or bound them in the words or matter It saith They shall move the people to joyn with them in prayer in this form or to this effect as briefly as conveniently they
act in the Worship of God by vertue of an Office-power received from them were these to be accounted in that respect Idolaters It seemeth so Nor can there be the least pretence of reason to the contrary Certainly such as act by vertue of authority committed to them in matters Civil from Rebels are equally guilty of Rebellion as those from whom they derive that their authority The case is here the same 2. That such as offer up to God a Worship meerly of humane composition once abused to Idolatry with the modes and rites of Idolaters are Idolaters If these be not such I must profess I know not who are That there are few or none that worship the Creature terminative will not be denied the most of Idolaters in the world are such upon the account of their worshipping the true God through mediums of their own dâ—vising with rites and modes that never entred into the heart of God to prescribe To assert that any should symbolize with Idolaters herein who are solely upon this foot of account such and not be guilty of the sin of Idolatry is absurd and irrational The major Proposition then as was said may be taken for granted Answ. Not so without better proof and thus understood That they still abuse it to Idolatry and That the modes and rites be of themselves Idolatrous without these limitations the major is denied Those that were ordained Priests by Papists and used the Common-Prayer Book after in the dayes of Edward the 6 th were not Idolaters though this Author will not acquit Latimer Cranmer Ridley Hooper and others from Idolatry then yet I shall boldly do it And to what this Author saith I reply That the Office-power no not though it were from Idolaters for Idolatrous purposes doth not make persons actually Idolaters till they do actually exhibit Divine worship to a creature Suppose a person be ordained a Priest to offer Sacrifice propitiatory for the quick and dead in the Mass yet if he â—epent thereof and never do adore the Breaden-God he is not an Idolater Yea suppose he act in baptizing preaching marrying burying according to the rituals of the Romanists by vertue of his Ordination as a Priest or as this Author speaks his Office-power without exhibiting any Divine worship to a creature which in some of these may be yet is he not thereby an Idolater The reason whereof is manifest because he is not an Idolater to whom the definition of Idolatry agâ—ees not And this is the reason why if Jerobâ—ams â—riests though consecrated for the worship of Idols did not worship them they were not to be accounted Idolaters Nor are those that act by vertue of authority committed to them in matters Civil from Rebels equally guilty of rebellion as thâ—se from whom they derive that their authority unless they act rebelliously if they act for the restitution of their Pâ—ince the publique peace they are accounted good Subjects and not Rebels though at first they derived their authority from Rebels Nor doth the worshipping of God by a Form meerly of humane composition make Idolaters though it have been abused to Idolatry with the rites and mâ—des of Idolaters unless theâ—e be Idolatry in the Form and the rites and modes be Idolatrous in their use because notwithstanding this no Divine worship may be given to a creature So though the Form of Baptism in the Roman Church were meeâ—ly of humane composition used with Crossings Cream Oyl Spittle if these rites were used though by them abused to Idolatry not as they do so as to give Divine worship to a creature the Users in this manner however guilty of Will-worship or Superstition yet would not be justly chargeable with Idolatry no not though they should in â—ome sort symbolâ—ze with Idolaters that is be assimilated to them or in some sort comply with them Much less is it true that they are Idolaters who use that which is of Diâ—ine appointment to the right use because Idolaters aâ—uâ—ed it to Idolatry He that should use the Lords Prayer or the Psalms to worship God with them should not be an Idolater because Witches have invocated the Devil by the Lords Prayer or the Papists the Virgin Maâ—y by the words of the Pâ—alms in Bonaventures Psalter That which he saith here That few or none worship the creature terminative he doth revoke the next page save one finding Bellarmines assâ—rtion l. de Imag. c. 21. That the Images themsâ—lves â—erminate the veneration given them as they are in themselves considered and not only as supplying the 〈…〉 that which they represent But had not this passage pâ—oved it the Idolatry of the Papists in worshipping the Hâ—st invocating Angels Saints the worship of the Devil by Americans the Sun and Moon of old would prove that most of â—dolaters do worship the creature terminative From that which is said I inferr That his majâ—r may be denied wiâ—hout 〈◊〉 or irrationaliâ—y But I pass to his minor of which he saiâ—h thus Sect. 12. The English Ministers oppâ—sâ— Pâ—pish Idolatry as other Protestants Whether this be true of the prâ—sâ—nt Ministers of England is next to be considered of which briefly 1. That the Romish Church so called are Idolaters their Woâ—ship in the complex thereof Idâ—laâ—ry will not we suppose be denied by any that call themsâ—lves Pâ—otestants the most learned of whom have asserted an◠〈…〉 And then allegeth thâ—â—â— Hymns O felix pueâ—pera O crux spes unica Boâ—aâ—scius the Jâ—suite that is 〈◊〉 lib. 3 Amphith Honor. c. ult ad Divam Hallensem 〈◊〉 Jâ—sum haeâ—eo lac inter meditaâ—s interque cruoâ—em c. Aqu. Sum parte 3. q 25. Bell. de Imag. c. 21. Fâ—arâ— seus de mendâ—za in viridatio utriusque eruditionis lib. 2. pâ—oâ— 2 The vsual ascription in Bellarmine Baronius Laus Deo Virginique matri Mariae Answ. In which I agree with him That the Papists are guilty of most horrid Idolatry and could he shew any such things in the Common-pâ—ayeâ— Boâ—k or the Service of the Ministers of the Church of England I should agree to his Separation But when no such thing is to be found in the Liturgy or Service of the present Ministeâ—s of England And when he knows the Hâ—mily of the Peril â—f Idolatry and the writings of the leaâ—ned Bishops and Dâ—vâ—nes of the Church of England are as much against â—hâ—ir Idolatry as other Protestants to insinuate into the peoples minds as if the present Ministers of England did symbolize with these Idolaters of whose Idolatry they shew so much detestation is a most viperous calumniation and most unworthy of a Christian. But he goes on thus Sect. 13. The Ministers of England act not by vertue of an Office-power from Idolaters 2. That the present Ministers of England act by vertue of an Office-power from this Combination and Assembly of Idolaters they themselves will not deny Succession from hence being one of the best pleas they have for the justification of their ministry
up to him a worship meerly of humane composition once abused to Idolatry with the rites and modes of Idolaters are deeply guilty of the sin of Idolatry Answ. That the Common-prayer Book worship is a worship meerly of humane composition however the Form of words be is denied and not proved by this Author whose mistakes in confounding them are before shewed Nor is the worship of the Common-prayer Book proved to have been abusâ—d to Idolatry because the Foâ—ms of words were taken out of the Popish Service Books any more than that the Scriptures or Creed found in them were abused to Idolatry because thence taken The worship being agreeable to Gods Word cannot be abused to Idolatry Nor doth the Form of words used in the Mass-book or Bâ—eviary which is otherwise holy and â—ight if it had never been in those books cease to be holy and right when the Idolatrous Forms are left out any more than Gold found in a Dunghill remains Dung and ceaseth to be Gold when the filth is washed away from it To that of the Common-prayer Book being taken out of the Popes Portuis and King Edwards words answer is made in the Answer to the 3d. chapter sect 4. The offer of the Pope and the report of his Intelligencers pâ—oves that the Pope had nothing to except against the Common-Prayer Book or the Service of the Church of England but not that they are every way the same with that which is used in the Church of Rome Concerning its being taken out of the Popes Portuis at least for the greatest piece Arch-bishop Whitgift in his Aâ—swer to the first Admonition p. 82. said long agoe It maketh no matter of whom it was invented in what book it is contained so that it be good and profitable and consâ—nant to Gods Word Well saith Ambrose Omne verum à quocunque dicitur à Spiritu Sancto All truth of whomsoever it is spoken is of the Holy Ghost As for the Book of Ordination he anâ—wers the words of the second Admonition p. 201. thus It is most false and untrue that the Book of ordering Ministers and Dâ—acons c. now used is word for word drawn out of the Popes Pontifical being almost in no point correspondent to the same as yâ—u might have seen if you had compared them tâ—gether But ignorance and rashness drives you into many errours As for the rites and modes and ceremonies objected those which are in the Church of Rome Idolatrous are not observed or used by the Ministers who minister according to the Common-Prayer Book to whom conformity with the Popish Priests therein is injuriously imputed and they are so farr from being found deeply guilty of the sin of Idolatry that the very aâ—guings of this Author rather acquit them than convince them As for the words of Maccovâ—us they are not right we may retain the goods used to Idolâ—try and apply them to holy uses though they have been abused by Idolaters yea and abused to Idolatry as the Temples Bells Tables which have been abused to the Idolatry of the Mass as is largely proved by Mr. Pageâ— in his Arrow against the separation of the Brownâ—sts in answer to Mr Ainsworth ch 7. Nor is it pâ—oved by Maccovius out of the Texts alleged here That the sacred rites of Idolaters though they be things in themselves indifferent are not to be retained but that all conformity with Idolaters is to be avoided For none of the Texts speak of things in themselves indifferent Turning unto Idols and making to themselves molten Gods forbidden Levit. 19.4 being gross Idolatry the rounding the corners of their heads marring the corners of their beards v. 27. making baldness upon their head shaving off the corner of their beard cutting their flesh Levit. 21.5 making baldness bettween their eyes for the dead being heathenish customes which were Idolatrous as Ainsworth Annot. on Levit. 21.5 Such as those 1 Kings 18.28 Or as Salmasius in his Book of long hair the rounding of the corners of their hâ—ads to have been in honour of the Moon Or shewing heathenish sorrow for the dead all sinful in themselves and therefore not indifferent But there is yet one more Charge behind Sect. 15. Kneeling in receiving the Sacramental elements is not Idolatry Argument 3. Adoration in by or before a creature respectiâ—è or with relation to the creature is Idolatry such as so adore or wâ—â—ship Gâ—d are Idolaters But the present Ministers of England do adore or worship God in by or before a creature respective or with relation to the creature Therefore The major or first Proposition being generally owned by Protestants it being the very same Maxim they make use of and stop the mouth of the Papists with in the point of adoring God mediately by the creature we shall not stand upon the proof of it none that know what they say will deny it The minor Proposition viz. That the present Ministers of England do adore or worship God in by or before the creature respectivè or with relation to the creature will receive a quick dispatch Not to mention their bowing and cringing at the Altar That they kneel at receiving of the Sacrament is known That they with their Communicants should do so is enjoyned by their Church That their so dâ—ing is an adoration or worshipping of God before the creature respectivè or with relation to the creature is too manifest to admit of a denial Nothing being more certain than that the Elements are the objectum à quo or the motive of their kneeling which if they were not there they would not do And in the margin Didoclavius p. 755. saith Genusâ—ectere non modò excludit ritus institutionis sed etiam praeceptum secundum de Vitanda Idololatria multis modis violat VVhich Maccovius assents to loc com p. 861. Answ. Whether this Authors Antagonists know what they say this Author seems not a fit Judge unless either he knew better what himself saith or could better clear his meaning than he doth that his Readers might know what he saith In this Argument he doth accuse the present Mnisters of England and their Communicants of Idolatry in kneeling at the receiving of the bread and wine in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper and yet ch 5. p. 40. he had said Kneeling at the Lords Supper though we do not some would say smells very strong of the Popish leaven and is but one pegg bâ—neath the adoration of their breaden-God Here he expâ—esly makes that Idolatry undeniable as being adoration or wâ—â—ship of God in by or before the creature to wit the elementâ— respectivè or with relation to the creature as objectum significativè a quo or the motive of their kneeling which if it were not they would not do So that one while he will not say it smâ—lls strongly of the Popish leaven nor that it is but one pegg beneath the adoration of their breaden-God and if so did he know what he saith he
and urging that against the present Ministers which the holy Martyrs rejoyced in and the Ministers think themselves happy that they are found like them Me-thinks when you wrote this chapter you should have thought of that which is Psal. 73.15 If I say I will speak thus behold I should offend against the generation of thy children And have taken heed how you had perswaded to separation for that which in the Martyrs you make their infirmity and in charity you might so conceive of the present Ministers whereof many of them even of the Bishops and such as were in exile with the King and others at home and abroad have shewed their constant adherence to the Doctrine of the Church of England particularly against the adoâ—ation of the consecrated host when they were tempted to joyn with the Papists I wish you did not strengthen the hands of the Papists by this your pleading rather than help to reduce them from their great abominations and that you did not weaken the Protestant party by hindâ—ing the union that should be among men that agree in the main though they dissent in some things considerable in this time wherein the common Cause is endangered by divisions If the Martrys were but peeping out of the gates of Babylon it may seem they were not in your opinion escaped thence if some of the filth of the great Whores fornications did cleave to them how is it they are now with Christ where no unclean thing enters That they should repent of that which they offered to justifie a little afore they dyed is not likely It would be more for your comfort and the Churches peace if by getting out of Babylon you did not run to the contrary extreme of Fanaâ—icism and in seeking Reformation you did noâ— unsettle all and that you did review this Argument in which I find strong accusation and weak proof CHAP. 8. ARG. 7 th and 8 th Sect. 1. Every Offence of others makes not sinful that which otherwise is lawful T Is not lawful for Saints to do any thing for the doing whereof there is no positive pâ—ecept in the Scripture that is an offence grief scandal and cause of stumbling to their Brethren But the hearing the present Ministers of England as there is no positive precept in the Scripture for it so it is an offence grief scandal and cause of stumbling to the Brethren Therefore The major or first Proposition is bottom'd upon express precepts in the Scripture Rom. 14.13 15 20. 1 Cor. 8.9 13 and 10.24 Answ. There are varieties of circumstances and cases incident to the point of Scandal which make the action from which it ariseth to be lawful or unlawful there are several effects of Scandal and divers degrees considerable there are several states of persons offending and offended All which and more besides do require caution in denying or granting the major Proposition Of these I wrote many years agoe a Treatise of Scandalizing sold by Richard Râ—yston at the Sign of the Angel in Ivy-Lane in London from whence many limitations may be fetch'd by the intelligent Reader wherewith to limit the major Proposition without which it is not to be granted nor is it to be proved from the Texts alleged Nevertheless because if â— should take them in here I should enlarge and encumber the present Dispute too much I think to let the major pass at present and to wave also the exception which might be taken at the form of the Argument the conclusion either not being that which is to be proved but by consequence or if it be there be four terms in the Syllogism and to examin what he saith for his minor Sect. 2. Hearing the present Ministers may be the Saints duty The minor or second proposition saith he consists of two parts 1. That for hearing the present Ministers of England there is no positive warrant in the Scripture if there be let it be produced and this controversie is at an end The contrary thereunto hath all along been manifest in this present dâ—scourse It cannot enter into our hearts to imagin that the Lord Jesus having instituted Officers of his own for the management of affairs in his house should ordain that any of his houshold should attend upon the Ministry of such as are not of his institution as hath been abundantly demonstrated touching the present Ministers of England that they are not nor is it by many pleaded as their duty so to do but onely as their liberty which they judge they may or they may not do without sin Answ. What warrant there is to hear the present Ministers of England hath been shewed and that which hath been produced to the contrary examined especially ch 1. 2. The institution of Christ concerning Ministers and what concerns their calling hath been also discussed especially in answer to the preface and the 2 chapter in which places is shewed that warrant by permission is sufficient to justify the hearing of Ministers that the positive precept for hearing determins not hearing of Ministers as thus called but as teaching the word of God that such election and ordination as this Author requires are not necessary to make make men instituted officers of Christ that while the present Ministers preach the word of God the Saints may and ought to attend on their ministery and that they are not bound to examine their outward calling but to leave that to Rulers and themselves only to examin their doctrine that they may as lawfully attend on their ministry if edifying them in the faith as on the ministers of a gathered congregation that they ought rather in obedience to Rulers and to avoid Schism and to prevent the intangling of themselves with private and novel opinions which are more easily vented in private meetings then in publique and more readily entertaineâ— by private persons few of whom are learned and judicious than in more publique and solemn auditories to hear ministers that preach the truth in publique congregations caeteris paribus if their abilities and faithfulness be alike than to hear ministers in gathered churches privately meeting And with these explications I asseâ—t it not onely the Saints liberty but also their duty to attend upon the ministry of the present Ministers of England It follows Sect. 8. Sinful scandalizing is not by hearing the present Ministers 2. That for the Saints such as are visibly so profess themselves to be such to hear the present Ministers of England is an Offence Grief Scandal and occasion of stumbling to their Brethren This is too evident to be denyed to how many thousands in England for whom those that as yet attend upon the present Ministry thereof dare not but think Christ dyed is the practice of some herein a Grief Scandal and occasion of stumbling Their Groanes and Tears alone and together upon this foot of account will better demonstrate the truth thereof than our words can Yea how many poor souls have been drawn by reason
of the practice of some leading bretheren in this matter against the checks of their own consciences to a conformity herein to their after grief and wounding Vpon whose doors 't is to be feared and we wish they would in the fear of God lay it to heart may be written The bloud of souls Answ. The term of visible Saints hath been too much contracted by being almost appropriated to the members of those Churches which are termed Congregational in contradistinction to Presbyterial and Prelatical or if applyed to any of the more zealous of the Presbyterial way of disciplin yet scarce vouchsafed to any of them who are for Episcopal government or conformable to the worship and ministry of the Church of England who are commonly termed Antichristian persons without in Babylon and for men to profess thâ—mselves visible Saints is in effect all one as to say they are of a gathered Church all others being counted without Which abuse of words as it smels of arrogance in appropriating to themselves the title which is common to all true believers and uncharitableness in conceiving of others as no visible Saints because they are not entered into that which is termed Church covenant so is it injurious to others though godly from whom such are estranged as no visible Saints but they are censured and declined as persons without that have nothing in them of God yea as adversaries to the power of Godliness meer formalists if they speak for the common-prayer book or any thing favourably of any of the Bishops and this serves for a design of keeping them to themselves without joyning in prayer and hearing in publique which they call hearing with the world out of the Church This I conceive to be the reason of this Authors expressions here of the saints visibly so scandalizing their bretheren by their hearing the Ministers that now preach publickly By which it may be seen that he regards not much who do hear the present ministers of England so that they do not as if it were not necessary to deterre all others from hearing them if they be false Prophets and Idolaters as this Author accuseth them yea and to oppose them even unto the death if they be such so that this argument is unnecessary if the other be good and rather supposeth all that is formerly disputed to be weak yet this point of scandal may serve turn to affright them from communion with the publique Ministery and keep them to themselves though it prove never so injurious to their peace and outward estate and sinful by reason of the Schism that is continued by it For this reason I shall examin this Argument also as it is here delivered and so much the rather because I have found by experience that when in this and other doubts of conscience I have in conference with honest but scrupulous christians satisfied them concerning the lawfulness of that which they doubted of yet in this I could hardly quiet their consciences that they might do without sin what they scrupled to do because they should offend good people the scandalizing of whom our Saviour and the Apostle Paul make a hainous sin and procuring an heavy curse For which reason I printed the treatise of scandalizing forementioned more then twenty years ago in the epistle dedicatory whereof are these words In my small reading and experience I finde few doubts of conscience concerning mens patent actions in the resolving of which the difficulty hath not most of all rested on this point of Scandal At present I shall not open the word scandal nor insist on the definition of Scandal nor the sorts of scandalizing or causes of it or the various cases concerning it leaving the Reader to that Treatise or to what else hath been since written by D. Henry Hammond of scandal Ma. Henry Jeanes of abstinence from appearance of evil and others for a fuller understanding of this point but assert that notwithstanding what is here said of the offence of brethren and the sad consequence of blood guiltiness which this Author would have it conceived the hearing the present Ministers tends to yet neither the so termed visible Saints nor any other by hearing the present Ministers do sin against the precepts of non-scandalizing given by Christ or his Aposte St. Paul Matth. 18.6 Luke 17.1 2 Rom. 14.13.15.20 1 Cor. 8.8.9.13 and 10 24. Which I prove thus 1. That is not scandalizing forbidden in these texts which is neither by giving evil example in doing that which is intrinsecally or of it self evil though none were offended nor by enticing practices or persecution impelling to evil nor by abuse of liberty in things lawful to the harm of another which are all the wayes I know of scandalizing there forbidden if there be any other shewed I think however it will not reach to the present case that which this Author seems to reduce it to is the last in that he puts in a Parenthesis in the minor these words there is no positive precept in Scriptures for it But it is not to be reduced to that sort of scandalizing for the hearing of the present Ministers of England cannot be accounted a matter of liberty or indifferency but either duty or sin hearing the word of God being an express precept in the general and so is obeying them that are Rulers now the ministers preaeh the word of God and our Rulers command us to hear them and this they have power to do and in this they have power over their subjects as parents have over their children and masters over their servants and are to be obeyed in that which is not evil but good and therefore the scandalizing is not by abuse of liberty in things indifferent nor is it scandalizing in doing a thing in it self evil or impelling to it as hath been shewed in the foregoing chapters of this answer Therefore the offending Bretheren what ever it be by hearing the present ministers is not the scandalizing forbidden 2. That is not Scandalizing forbidden in those Texts which doth not tend to any of those evils for preventing of which those precepts of not scandalizing were given But the hearing of the present Ministers tends not to any of those evils for prevenâ—ing whereof those precepts of not scandalizing were given This is proved because it tends not to any sin but to the performance of duty in hearing Gods word nor to any such sorrow or vexation as the precepts would have prevented which were such as made either persons to be discouraged in Christianity or to walk uncomfortably in the profession of it as by view of the Texts may appear But to neither of these effects doth the hearing of the present Minister tend This Author saith It makes visible Saints to grieve as their grones and tears alone and together demonstrate But how doth the Hearing the present Ministers tend to it Sure neither in the nature of the action noâ— in the will of him that hears if the person
Sect. 2. Meeting of separated Christians as a distinct body is not Christs institution Secondly That Saints separate from the world should frequently meet togâ—ther as a distinct body therefrom for the edification and building up of each other in the way and will of God according to the gifts bestowed upon them is so evidently asserted as the institution of our alone King and Law-giver in the Scripture that it cannot be gainsaid Mal 3.16 1 Thes 5.11 Heb. 3.12 Jude 20. Heb. 10.24 25. 1 Cor. 12.9 Acts 12.12 18.23 Ephes 5.19 James 5.16 1 Thes. 5.14 Answ. It is granted That Saints separated from the world that is professed unbelievers should frequently meet for the edâ—fication and building up of each other in the way and will of God But it is neither agreeable to Scripture nor allowable that one party of Christians should call another part of Christians the world and the men of the world who own the true Faith of God and worship him because they are not of the same way of Church-government and worship Nor is it either in the Scriptures alleged or any other that such should meet as a distinct body from other Christians holding the true Faith and worshipping the true God in Christ as if they were a severed body from other Christians The Separatists I think do not rebaptize but hold Baptism in the Church of England as being into the universal Church right so in the Brownists Apology p. 91. Robinsons Justification against Bernard p. 349. and else-where which if this Author hold he must hold that the Saints of the gathered Churches are one body with other Christians according to that of St. Paul Ephes. 4.4 5. There is one body and one spirit even as ye are called in one hope of your calling one Lord one Faith one Baptism one God and Father of all who is abâ—ve all and through all and in you all 1 Cor· 12 12 13. For as the body is one and hath many members and all the members of that one body being many are one body so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body whether we be Jews or Gentiles whether we be bond or free And therefore it is against the institution of Christ that Christians of one profession in point of Discipline and Worship should meet as a distinct body separate from other Christians of different perswasions unless there were another Faith Lord Baptism God whom they worship Nor do the Texts justifie such separate meetings Not Mal. 3.16 in which is mention of speaking one to another but not as a distinct body from other believers The same may be said of 1 Thes. 5.11 Heb. 3.12 13. Jude 20. The Assemblies Heb. 10.24 25. were not meetings of a distinct body from other believers but from Hebrew Infidels 1. Cor. 12.9 or rather it speaks of gifts given to profit withall but not of meeting much less as a distinct body from other believers Acts 12 12. mentions a meeting for prayer but not as a distinct body from other believers Acts 18.23 Ephes. 5.19 James 5.16 1 Thes. 5.14 mentions employing of Gifts for our own and others good not a Church meeting as a distinct body from other Christians It follows Sect. 3. Separated Congregational Churches in opposition to National are not of Christs institution Thirdly That particular Congregations or Assemblies of Believers gathered into one body for the celebration of the worship of God in opposition to any National Church or Churches whatsoever is of the appointment of Christ is alike evident as the former Act. 1.1 3. 12.1 13.14 15.22 18.22 20.14 28. 1 Cor. 1.2 6.4 Act. 9.1 1 Cor. 16.19 Rom. 16.4 2 Cor. 8.1 Gal. 1.2 Acts 16.4 5. 14.23 1 Cor. 11.12 14.4 5.12 19 2 Cor. 1.1 Rev. 1.2 3 11. Answ. In these Texts there is mention made of Churches where the Christians in different cities or in a Province are mentioned and of the Church where Christians of one city are mentioned though it be made a question whether the Church Acts 15.22 18.17 be not a Provincial Church But that this proves an appointment of Christ That the Assemblies of Believers gathered into one body for the celebration of the worship of God by their voluntary agreement under Pastours of their own choice in opposition to any national Church or Churches whatsoever should be accounted the only lawful and regular Churches of Christ appears not For there is no mention in any of the Texts of any institution of Christ or his Apostles but only thence may be gathered that it was then the manner of speech to call the Christians that dwelt together in one Town the Church of such a place though it is probable they were not gathered into one body or congregation for the celebration of the worship of God under select Officers but that they were called the Church of such a city as that of Jerusalem from their habitation where they had many meetings from house to house for celebration of the worship of God as from Acts 2.46 47. and other places was gathered by the Presbyterians in their Answer to the dissenting Brethren Nor was then any such distinction of congregations of Christians as that in one city as the Independents in London and elsewhere did distinguish them such a number should belong to such a Pastour and be termed his Church and another number be another Church in the same city but the Elders of the Christians in Jerusalem are termed the Elders of the Church there Acts 15.4 23. 21.18 Not one an Elder of one part another of another part Sometimes there is mention made of the Church in the house of such persons 1 Cor. 16.19 Rom. 16.5 Philem. 2. And yet this proves not that particular congregations or assemblies of believers gathered into one body in a house for the celebration of the worship in opposition to any city church or churches whatsoever is of the appointment of Christ and therefore no such appointment of Christ as here is asserted can be gathered from the phrase of calling the christians in one city the church there the christians in a Province or Nation the churches A national or universal church may be as well collected from 1 Cor. 12.28 where it is said God hath set some in the church first Apostles secondarily Prophets thirdly Teachers sith the Apostles were for the universal church But for my part I conceive the distinction of churches only prudential not by any constitution of Christ or his Apostles And that however Mr. Robâ—râ—sâ—n in his Catechism Mr. Cotton in his Way of the Churches of new-New-England have put it into their definitions of the visible Church that it consists of so many as may meet every Lords-day for all Ordinances And Mr Norton in his Answer to Apollonius ch 3. makes such a church the only lawful political church And this hath been continually inculcated that it is necessary
separation we declare against although we should not think it evil to hear their Ministers Preach the word of God or to worship God with them We are of opinion that it is a gross errour which is often in the mouths of Separatists That they may not hear with the world nor pray with the world whence it hath come to pass that some have left off praying in their Families Catechizing their children instructing their servants unless members of their Churches which tends to bring in irreligion and profaneness and is contrary to the precepts of Scripture Ephes. 6.4 Deut. 6.7 c. contrary to the practise of Christ and his disciples who heard Christ Preach with the scribes and Pharisees praised God with the multitude even the children Christ approving it Luk. 19.37 40. Matth. 21.9.15 16. And however we approve not any evil in the Ministers or their Ministration nor do assent to any unfitting thing therein yet we rejoyce that Gods word is taught and his Name invocated in any company by any persons and think we have the Apostles example to warrant us Philip. 1.18 and do wish that God would not lay to the Separatists charge besides other sins which we think are nor a few in these withdrawings from Communion and invectives their ingratitude for that benefit others have and they might have from that Ministry they so much oppose If this Authour or those of his way suffer contempt reproach and hard usage though we wish it may not be yet it may be told them That not Christs Institutions are contemned but their own intemperate carriage is rebuked which is not likely ever to succeed well but to be a hindrance to the work of Christ and the peace of his Church Yet this Authour proceeds Sect. 6. Hearing the present Ministers hardens none in sin As for the second particular That hereby poor souls are hardned in a false way of worship what can be thought less supposing the worship in the Parish-Assemblies of England to be so as hath been proved when they shall see professors that were wont to pray and preach together to profess and protest against Common-prayer-book Priests and worship to cry up or at least approve of Laws made for their Ejection if guilty of no other crime than Conformity to the Worship they now conform to and practise now stock unto their Assemblies and bear their Priests What can they imagine less than that these persons thus acting in a direct contrariety to their former judgement and practice do now see they were mistaken and are beginning at least to return unto those paths from whence they departed and that these ways in which they and their forefathers have walked are the good old way in which rest is to be found Wo unto the world because of offences wo also unto them by whom they come Answ. The hearing the present Ministers to be no false way of worship is that which is now asserted the contrary is not yet proved by this Authour They who are chargeable with former miscarriages are to answer for themselves The hearing the present Ministers which is defended as lawful is not justly offensive nor for it onely do men fear the doom of Scandalizers It is added Nor is the 3d particular viz. That hereby poor souls are hardened in their rebellion and blasphemy against God the Spirit his Tabernacle and them that dwell therein to be in the least questioned we every day hear to the breaking of our hearts stout words spoken against the Lord because of the practise of some in this thing What say the wicked of the world less than that Religion which many pretend to is but a fancy that the professors thereof are but a generation of hypocrites that will turn to any thing to save themselves that the spirit by which they are acted is but a spirit of Phanaticism and delusion Yea how do they bless themselves that they are not nor ever were and resolve so much more they will never be of the number of such professors Ask them a reason of all this and they wonder you should ask them and speedily reply to you Do you not see how many of you for fear of persecution have deserted your former principles and are returned to our Assemblies and the Ministry thereof and that any of you stand out 't is from hence evident that it is from a spirit of pride and obstinacy and not as you pretend from divine tenderness and the leadings of the Spirit of the Lord And what can we say to all these things Must we not with grief and sorrow confess That there is indeed too great an occasion administred to them for their thus speaking though this will be no plea for them in the day of Christ. Blessed are they that are not offended in him It remaineth then that inasmuch as the hearing the present Ministers of England pours out contempt upon the ways and Institutions of Christ hardens persons in a false wâ—y of worship rebellion and blasphemy against the Lord it 's utterly unlawful for saints to be found in the practice thereof Answ. Such kind of consequences as these are incident to persons of any party who have been earnest for that whch after they have relinquished So have Papists insulted over Protestants upon the returning of any seeming zealous Protestant into the Roman Church If my memory fail me not the Authour of Fiat Lux imputes the like things to Protestants upon the coming over of some to their party Yet the Answerer and others know how in that and the like cases to reply to such that mens instability shews their own weakness not the thing in which they have been zealous to have been either good or bad that any take advantage from their fact to harden themselves it is by accident not from the nature of their action if it were good and lawful otherwise that in such cases men are not to condemn or commend the thing which is done because of the actions of the person but to examine things by the rule which is the onely remedy against such events It is true that it is just cause of mourning and dejection when such things happen But not to measure truth or falshood by such motives and considerations nor conclude a thing to be evil because of such accidents To which I add That this Authour doth not well to call the obloquies against his party speaking against Religion blaspheming God the Spirit tabernacle and them that dwell therein whose ways may be reproached by reason of their zeal for their way and yet no reproach to God his Spirit Religion Tabernacle and the indwellers It would be more for their benefit if he and others of his mind and others who have occasioned such blasphemies against Religion did excuâ—â—re semetipsos search themselves whether their own present violence of spirit unpeaceableness out of pretended zeal for God or their and others now conforming intemperate heat have not opened the
mouths of adversaries and if they have to be humbled for it as David was when Sâ—imei curst him and so make advantage of an opposite persons enmity to amend themselves And indeed it were very unequal that we should either be afraid to do a thing because of clamours or continue in that which we cannot justifie because mens mouths will be opened against us and perhaps hardened in their own way Such kind of blasphemies as they are termed are vented against non-Conformists Sepâ—ratists as turbulent persons and yet this Author would not have it thought that they by their course harden poor soâ—ls in rebellion and blasphemy against God Why then doth he charge this upon the Conformists as an argument by it self as if it poâ—red contempt and hardened others and not impute the same to his own way But he tells us Sect. 7. Gods people are not called out of the temples in England as places of false worship To all that hitherto hath been said we shall yet briefly add Argument 10. God calls his people out of and strictly chargeth them not to go to the places of false worship Therefore 't is unlawful for the Saints to attend upon the present Ministers of England The antecedent is clearly proved Hos. 4.15 Amos 4.4 The reason of the consequence is because we cannot go to hear the present Ministers of England without we go to their places and Assemblies of false worship as the Common-prayer-book-worship hath been proved to be Answ. This argument proceeds upon the opinion of the rigid Separatists termed Brownists who in their Apology p. 75.76 have this as their Twelfth Position That all monuments of Idolatry in garments or any other things all Temples Altars Chappels and other places dedicated heretofore by the Heathens or Antichristians to their false worship ought by lawful authority to be rased and abolished not suffered to remain for nourishing superstition much less imployed to the true worship of God Exod. 20.4 5 6. 23.13 Esa. 30.22 Gen. 35.2 3 4. Deut. 12.2 3 30 32. 17 18 19 20. 2 Kings 10.26 27 28. and 18.4 23.12 13 14 15. 2 Chron. 17.6 Acts 17.23 19.26 27. Jude v. 23. with Lev. 13.47 51 52. Rev. 17.16 18 11 12 c. which is asserted by Mr. Ainsworth in his answer to Mr. Bernard about the Twelfth Article page 128. and in his Letters to Mr. John Paget and since by Mr. Robinson in his Justification of the separation from the Church of England against Mr. Bernard about the Twelfth and last errour imputed to them p. 354. p. 356. where he writes thus I see not but as the Religion of the Papists in the opposition it hath to Christianity is rightly called Antichristianism so the Religion of the Ten Tribes in the opposition it had to the Law given by Moses may fitly be called Antijudaism And for the Baalims then and there worshipped they were even as the lesser Gods at this day which are called Patrons among the Papists The Devil to the end he might bring in again the old Idolatry craftily borrowing the names of the Apostles and Martyrs by whom it was in former times overthrown and driven away and by this means it hath put on another person that it might not be known Whereupon it followeth by proportion That as the temples altars and high places for those Baalims and other Idols were by godly Kings to be raced down and taken away and no way to be imployed to the true worship of God so are the temples with their appurtenances built to the Virgin Mary Peter Paul and the rest though true Saints yet the Papists false Gods and very Baalims to be demolished and overthrown by the same lawful authority and in the mean while as execrable things to be avoided by them which have none authority to deface or demolish them p. 357. The moral equity of those Commandments in the old Testament touching the demolition and subversion of idolatrous temples and other the like superstitious monuments doth as well bind now as then Which Commandments are also in effect renewed in the new Testament where the faithful are charged to touch none unclean thing 2 Cor. 6.17 to keep themselves from Idols 1 John 5.21 which they cannot do except they keep themselves from their appertenances to hate even the garment spotted by the flesh Jude 23. not to receive the least mark of the beast Revel 14.9 but to go out of Babylon Revel 18.4 which is also called Sodom and Egypt spiritually as for the other sins reigning in her so for her idolatry amongst the rest From whence it is that many at this day term the Temples the high places decline them bury not in Churchyards with other actions of separation in speech and gesture opposite to what other Protestants conform to And though the chief leaders of the Congrestational Churches not long ago did Preach and hear in the publique Temples in England yet it seems this Authour now holds it unlawful to attend upon the present Ministers of England not onely because of their calling and worship but also because of the places in which it is performed and therefore seems to revive the controversie about the use of places once polluted by Idolatry Concerning which I shall not need to answer what either the Brownists in their Apology or Mr. Robinson hath said about this point the thing being so fully argued and the arguments of Mr. Ainsworth and others answered by Mr. John Paget in his Arrow against the separation of the Brownists from Chap. 6. to the end of the Book wherein the supposed moral equity of those Judicial Laws is shewed not to be such and that it is a great derogation from the benefit of the Gospel purchased by Christ's death to intangle the consciences of Christians with such Jewish opinions as if any creature were now polluted by Paganish or Popish Idolatry as that it might not now be enjoyed by Christians and imployed for God contrary to what the Apostle determines concerning meat offered to an Idol 1 Cor. 10.25 26 27 28 29 30. 1 Tim. 4.4 nor do any of Mr. Robinsons Texts serve for the purpose he brings them 2 Cor. 6 17. the unclean thing not to be touched is not the place where Idols have been worshipped but the Idol it self v. 16. which by going to places heretofore abused to Idolatry but now the Idol and it's worship is removed and the living and onely true God onely served is not touched in the Apostles sense but then onely when the Idol is kissed adored or otherwise worshipped They who joyn not in any Idol-service or honour keep themselves from Idols as is required 1 John 5.21 although they go to the places heretofore abused to Idolatry The garments spotted by the flesh however it allude to legal pollution yet it is not meant of material garments as belonging to an Idol but by it is meant any tokens or means of sinful lusts Revel 14.9 and 18.4 have been
Prelatical Preachers as well as to those of the separated Churches while they Preach the same word of God the promise being not made to the hearing of the men because of their personal qualities their Church-relation or any such consideration extrinsecal to the faithful discharge of the work of Preaching but to the teaching of Gods word in hearing of which men have been blessed though the Teachers themselves had no blessing the hearers have been saved when the Preachers themselves have been castaways as S. Paul speaks And if we look to experience of former times there is ground now to expect a blessing froâ— conforming Preachers as well or rather more then from Preachers of the separated Churches Sure the conversion consolation strengthening establishing of souls in the truth haâ—h been more in England from Preachers who were enemies to separation whether Non-conformists to Ceremonies or Conformists Presbyterial or Episcopal even from Bishops themselves then from the best of the Separaratists I think all that are acquainted with the History of things in this last age will acknowledge that more good hath been to the souls of men by the Preaching of Usher Potter Abbot Jewel and some other Bishops by Preston Sibs Taylour Whately Hildersham Ball Perkins Dod Stock and many thousands adversaries to the separated Churches then ever was done by Ainsworth Johnson Robinson rigid Separatists or Cotton Thomas Hooker and others though men of precious memory promoters of the way of the Churches Congregational And therefore if the Bishops and conforming Preachers now apply themselves as we hope when the heat of contention is more allayed they will to the profitable way of Preaching against Popery and profaneness exciting auditors to the life of faith in Christ duties of holiness towards God not onely in publique but also in private Families and righteousness love peace towards men there may be as good ground if not better considering how much the spirits of Separatists are for their party and the speaking of the truth in love edifying in love is necessary to the growth of the body Ephes. 4.15 16. to expect by them a blessing in promoting the power of godliness than from Separatists And as for this Authours reasons to the contrary The first of them is from a fond application of what is said of Gods dwelling in Sion which is meant of the special presence there in that his Temple and service was upon that hill in the time of the old Testament to the Congregational Churches as if Gods blessing were appropriated to them and excluded from the Assemblies of England they were not the Sion of God in their present constitution nor Christs Candlestick or Garden in which he walks but a wilderness that Babel Revel 18.4 And saith we are not surer of any thing than we are of this which if true it is an article of his Creed of which he is as sure as that Jesus is the Christ. But he gives no proof of it to assure us of it but that we may take him to be phrenetick or to be in a dream and notwithstanding his confidence he can make no better proof of this then the Romanists can for the new Article of their Creed Subesse Romano Pontifici est de necessitate ad salutem It is indeed said Heb. 12.22 That the Hebrew Christians were come to mount Sion in opposition to mount Sinai that is to say say the Annot. to the Church under the Gospel as Gal. 4.26 whereof mount Sion was a Type Psal. 14.7 50.20 Esa 2.3 and where the Gospel was first proclaimed without that terrour wherewith the Law was delivered Esa. 2.3 But why the Assemblies of England should not be the Sion of God as well as the separated Churches no reason is given but the vain conceit that of late he and others have entertained of appropriating that title to Churches of their way whose maintenance of Ministers by Collection they call the provision of Sion Psal. 132.15 in opposition to maintenance by Tithes counted Babylonish with such like language whereby many well-meaning Christians of weak judgement are misled Sure if the Church be called mount Sion from the Preaching of the Gospel the Assemblies of England may be called Sion Christs Candlesticks and Garden as well as any Christians in the world and if the Constitution of Churches is by faith their Constitution is as good as the Constitution of the separated Churches And methinks the separated Churches which have consisted of persons converted and instructed and edified in the Assemblies of the Church of England should have acknowledged that Gods blessing may be in them their own calling therein proving it if there were any spark of ingenuity and love of truth in them and not as this Authour express such malignity as to make them a very wilderness and that Babel out of which the Lord commands his people to hasten their escape Revel 18.4 which how grossly it hath been abused by this Authour sundry times before hath been shewed for which I now onely say The Lord rebuke thee As for the second reason the worship of England is no more polluted and not of his appointment then I have shewed to have been in the Jewish Corinthian some of the Asian Churches whom Christ yet walked in the midst of as his golden Candlesticks and yet Gods blessing did belong to them And why should we not expect Gods blessing to be on the Assemblies of England in which the true faith is preached and the true worship of God is constituted notwithstanding errours or pollutions remaining in them That Jer. 23.32 is wrongfully applied to the present Ministers of England is shewed before in answer to Ch. 6. Sect. 2. And how shamefully mirum ni contra conscientiam Revel 18.4 is applied to a call of Gods people out of the Church of England when it is by the holy Ghost interpreted Revel 17.18 of that great City which then reigned over the Kings of the earth and acknowledged by Papists the Jesuites themselves to be Rome hath been often shewed before In his last reason that which he saith That God is not in respect of his special presence and grace in the midst of the Parochial Assemblies of England is a speech of a man of an uncharitable venemous spirit but we hope such as that which Solomon speaks of Prov. 26.2 As the bird by wandring as the swallow by flying so the curse causeless shall not come And to his question Where are the souls that are converted comforted strengthened stablished that are waiting at the doors of their house I say that though there were none such yet this proves not God not to be present in them if they complain of the little effect of their Preaching is it any other then we meet with elsewhere Isa. 49.4 Isa. 53.1 John 12.38 Rom. 10.16 Isa. 65.2 Rom. 10.21 Micah 7.1 2. Luke 7.31 32 33 34. Matth 23.37 May they not say That these very men that upbraid them with the paucity
of their converts are the cause thereof by their invectives begetting enmity and prejudice against them in the minds of men May it not be said to themselves Where are the souls that are converted comforted strengthened stablished by your Ministry Were not many if not most in your Churches wrought upon at first by other Preachers And if so may it not be said Ye your selves are the seal of their Ministry in the Lord nevertheless though God onely can tell exactly and fully what is the fruit of any mens Ministry yet I hope there are that can testifie their receiving good by the Ministry of some of the present Ministers and that however it be by reason of the many stumbling-blocks cast in the way God will yet have mercy on the people of England and give them hearts to receive the truth Preached to them in the love of it Sure this Authour should rather pray it may be so and encourage the Ministers to do the work of the Lord more faithfully and not weaken their hands by drawing their auditors from them As for that which he saith of the decaies of the auditors of the Ministers I joyn with him but add withall That so far as mine acquaintance or intelligence reacheth there is too great and sensible a decay of the spirit of love power and of a sound mind in the Congregational Churches of old and new England and that a spirit of bitterness consoriousness misreporting mistaking dissenters words and actions unrghteousness unpeaceableness is too abundant in them that I say nothing of their proneness to embrace Antinomianism Quakerism and other dangerous errours Iliacos intra muros peccatur extra The Lord pardon our evils and heal our breaches Yet there is one more Argument to be answered Sect. 9. Hearing the present Ministers is no step to Apostacy Argument 12. That the doing whereof is one step to Apostacy is not lawful to be done But the hearing the present Ministers of England is one step to Apostacy Therefore The major Proposition will readily be granted by all The beginnings of great evils are certainly to be â—esisted Apostacy is one of the greatest evils in the world The minor or second proposition Viz. That the hearing of the present Ministers is one step to Apostacy is evident 1. It cannot be done especially by persons of Congregational principles without a relinquishment of principles owned by them as received from God That the Church of England as National is a Church of the institution of Christ That persons not called to the office of the Ministry by the Saints are rightfull Ministers of Christ must be owned and taken for granted ere the Conscience can acquiesce in the hearing the present Ministers for we suppose 't will not be asserted by those with whom we have to do that there can be a true Ministery in a false Church or that false Ministers may be heard and yet the present Ministers are Ministers in and of the national Church of England and were never solemnly deputed to that office of the suffrage of the Lords people 2ly Nor can it be done without the neglect of that duty which with others is eminently of the appointment of the Lord to secure from Apostacy instanc'd in by the Author to the Hebrews Hebr. 10.25 Not forsaking the assembling of your selves together as the manner of some is but exhorting one another and so much the more as you see the day approaching in which the duty of Saints assembling themselves together as a body distinct from the world and it's assemblies â—s also their frequent and as often as may be exhorting one another as a medium to secure them by the blessing of the Lord thereupon from a spirit of degeneracy and Apostacy from God is clearly asserted whence it undeniably follows that the hearing of the present Ministers of England being inconsistent with the constant and diligent use of the means prescribed for the preservation of the Saints in the way of God for whilst they are attending upon their teachings they cannot assemble themselves according to the prescription of God in the forementioned Scripture is at least one step to the dreadfull sin of Apostacy from God and therefore it is utterly unlawful for Saints so to do And thus far of the Twelfth Argument for the proof of the assertion under our maintenance viz. That 't is not lawful for Saints to hear the present Ministers of England to which many others might be added but we doubt not to the truly tender and humble enquiring Christian what hath been offered will be abundantly sufficient to satisfie his Conscience in the present enquiry Answ. If by Apostasie be meant Apostatie from the living God and the Christian faith the major is granted and the minor is denied nor is there any thing tending to a shew of proof of it produced for it and if it should be meant of such Apostasie the thing is so notoriously false the hearers of such Ministers as â—e now Ministers in England having been as constant in the profession and practice of Christianity both against Popery and other ungodliness in times of persecution by Papists and at other times as other Christians in other ages that this Author would be hissed at as one extremely impudent in asserting so palpable an untruth But I conceive by his proof of the minor he means by Apostasie the relinquishing of the Congregational principles and practise Concerning which I conceive the major may be denyed it being not unlawfull but a necessary duty to depart from some of their principles and practises I mean such as are for separation in communion from dissenting Christians Yet I do not think but the Conscience may well acquiesce in the hearing of the present Ministers as teaching truth without relinquishment of the two principles owned by them as received from God I think if they will weigh what is here written they may find if not the congregational principles yet separation inferred from them to be an errour and to beget nothing but Superstition in their minds and sinfull uncharitable division in their practise Nor do I think it necessary that they which still adhere to that way of Communion need neglect the duty of meeting and exhorting one another according to Hebr. 10.25 the mistake of which is shewed in the answer to this chapter Sect. 2. They that hear the present Ministers some hours may hear other Ministers at other hours they that at one time hear them may at another time exhort one another Heretofore persons of Congregational Principles could hear in Parochial Assemblies Parochial Ministers why they may not do so still I understand not were it not that opinions of separation animated them to division and faction which the Lord amend and make them diligent to provoke one another to love and to good works I have now answered the Jury of Twelve Arguments which I have found brutum fulmen as the shooting off Ordinances without a bullet
of the Scribes and Pharisees as their Pastors nor need we It is sufficiene for our purpose that Christ allowed the hearing them teaching Moses Law and that proves it lawful to hear the present Ministers while and so far as they teach truth which hearing not constant attending on their Ministry was to be proved lawful as the question was stated by this Authour ch 1. and all along was his conclusion And that he hath not proved it unlawful nor evaded the Arguments from Mat. 23.1 2. Notwithstanding his irrision of this dispute I am of the mind the solid reader will say I think it not amiss to add here the words of Mr. John Norton Minister of Ipswich in New England in his answer to Apollonius of Middleburg in Zealand c. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Scribarum Pharisaeorum in Mosis Cathedrâ sedentium fuit corruptio al qua in publico Dâ—i cultu absque debitâ reformatione toleraâ—a quia Cathedra Mosis i e. officium docendi publicè in Ecclesiâ legem Mosis libros Prophetarum Sacerdotibus Levitiâ— ex instituto Dei ordinariò propria erat eos autem audire non ab eis separare jubet Christus Matth. 23.1 2. Of the Scribes and Pharisees sitting in Moses seat the embassage without commission was some corruption in the publick worship of God tolerated without due reformation because the chair of Moses that is the office of teacâ—ing publickly in the Churches the Law of Moses and books of the Prophets was ordinarily proper to the Priests and Levites by the appointment of God yet Christ commands to hear them not to separate from them Matth. 23.1 2. It follows Sect. 6. Christs and his Apostles going to the Jewish meetings is opposite to the Separatists opinion and practice Object 2. If it be said But we find Christ and his Apostles after him going frequently into the synagogues where the Scribes and Pharisees Preached Ans. We answer first That all that Christ and the Apostles did is not lawful for Saints to practice will not be denied many instances are near at hand for its confirmation should it so be 2 That 't is one thing to go into the synagogues and another thing to go thither to attend upon the Ministry of such as taught there This is the present case which that Christ or the Apostles ever did cannot be proved 3. They went thither to oppose them in and confute their innovations and traditions in the worship of God to take an opportunity to teach and instruct the people in his way and will which when any have a spirit to do and are satisfied that they are thereunto called by the Lord in respect of the present Ministers and worship of England we shall be so far from condemning them therein that we shall bless God for them But this is not to the purpose in hand the attendance of our brethren upon the Ministers of England is quite another thing that requires other arguments for its support than we have hitherto met with Parvas habet spes Troia si tales habet I reply It is clear from Luke 2.46 that our Lord went to the Temple at Jerusalem sate in the midst of the Doctors both hearing them and asking them questions Luke 4.16 That he came to Nazareth where he had been brought up and as his custom was he went into the synagogue on the sabbath-day and stood up to read that he cured persons there Preached in the synagogues that Peter and John went up together into the Temple at the hour of prayer the ninth Acts 3.1 That Paul and Barnabas went into the synagogue on the sabbath-day and sate down and did not speak to the people till after the reading of the Law and the Prophets the rulers of the synagogue sent unto them Acts 13.14 15. That on the sabbath St. Paul went out of Philippi by a river side where prayer was wont to be made and sate down and that this was his manner Acts 16 13. and 17.2 Now neither were these synagogues by any appointment of God that we find nor their meeting nor their rulers nor the order of their reading of the Law and the Prophets nor their Teachers nor their worship at the Temple without many corruptions and yet our Lord and his Apostles were present at them and joyned with them in hearing them read and such other services of Religion as were done to God Which is a good reason wherefore it should not be counted necessary to separate from the present Assemblies in England and the publick Ministers notwithstanding such corruptions in their worship such defect in their calling such pullutions in the places of meeting as are by this Authour and other Separatists urged as a sufficient reason of their separation The answers hereto are insufficient For 1. Though all that Christ and his Apostles did either out of peculiar power or Commission or instinct be not lawfull for us to do as toâ—whip buyers and sellers out of the Temple to sentence persons to death as Peter did Ananias and his wife yet what they did as men or part of the Jewish people in the worship and Church of the Jewes is a warrant to us in the like case to do in the assemblies of the Christians there being no cogent reason why we may not in these things do as they did and if these things may not be used for direction and setling our Consciences they are in vain written by the Spirit 2. Though Christ and his Apostles did not go into the Synagogues to attend on the Ministry of such as taught there yet they did there hear the Law and Prophets read and joyned in prayers which this Authour will not allow his brethren to do in the Church Assemblies of England 3. That Christ or his Apostles went into the Synagogues to oppose them in and confute their innovations and traditions in the worship of God is more than I remember to have read nor do I know that any that have or shall come into the assemblies of the Church of England to such an end as Quakers and other Separatists heretofore have done can be judged to do it out of any other spirit than a turbulent and evil spirit without any true calling by the Lord which might satisfie their Consciences And though we should bless God if liberty were granted more than is and opportunities taken to teach the people especially where there is want thereof in the way and will of God yet we should not rejoyce that mens particular opinions or such unnecessary truths as being unseasonably delivered would tend to division and not to edification should be vented especially in such auditories as are in the common sort of those assemblies and most of all where there are able preachers who constantly and rightly teach the Doctrine of the Gospel of Christ. It is added Sect. 7. Pauls rejoycing at the preaching Christ of contention warrants hearing the present Ministers Object 3. Paul rejoyceth at the
rejoyced in no way was the acting of Pilate or Herod or the Jewes to be abetted but to be abhorred though the Counsel of God was to be justified and extolled as was done Acts 4.24 c. Should the Pope send Jesuites to preach the Gospel and they should continue to preach it and no doctrine antievangelical I know no reason why the Saints might not attend on their Ministry To the 2 d. 3 d. and 4 th Answers I reply That the preaching of Christ in opposition to Paul makes it probable that they were not real Saints nor true Ministers in his sence such motives being contrary to that brotherly love which is in every real Saint 1 John 3.14 and that order of the Church by which is a lawfull mission which me thinks he should not conceive to have been in them that acted in a way of contention against St. Paul the Apostle of the Gentiles And for the Ministers of England I like better the words of Mr. Iohn Robinson in his Justification of the Separation p. 307. then these Authors words In the general I confess there is a proportion and so in that general and large sence wherein Mr. Bernard pag. 313. expounds the word sent or Apostle I do acknowledge many Ministers in England sent of God that is that it comes not to pass without the special providence and Ordination of God that such and such men should rise up and preach such and such truths for the furtherance of the Salvation of Gods elect in the places where they come They which preached Christ of envy and strife to add more afflictions to the Apostles bonds were in this respect sent of God and therefore it was that the Apostle joyed at their preaching How much more they that preach of a sincere mind though through ignorance or infirmity both their place and enterance into it be most unwarrantable And sure if they may in this sense be said to be sent of God it follows Saints may hear them which was to be proved It is added Sect. 8. The truth Ministers teach warrants the hearing of them Object 4. The Ministers of England preach truth and is it not lawfull to hear truth preached We answer 1. That 't is lawfull to hear truth preached is readily granted but this must be done lawfully and in the way of Christs appointment 2. All that preach truth are not to be heard nor will our discenting brethren say they are For 1. There was never yet any Heretical preacher in the world but he preached some truth is it lawfull to hear such This will not be said 2. The Devil himself preached truth yet Christ forbids him and commands that he hold his peace 3. The Popish Priests preach truth yet who will say 't is lawfull to attend upon their Ministry But 3. As the present Ministers of England preach truth so 1. They preach it but by halves and dare not for fear of the L. Bishops inhibition preach any doctrine though never so clearly revealed in the Scriptures and owned by them as the truth of Christ he commands them not to meddle with 2. The main truths they preach at least many of them are contradicted in their practice They 'l tell you that the Lord Jesus is the great Prophet and King of his Church but how palpably this is contradicted by them in their practice conforming to institutions and laws that are not of his prescription who sees not This we have abundantly demonstrated 3. With the truth they preach they mingle errours directly contrary to the Scripture and the revelation of his will therein Instances of this kind have been already exhibited to which may be added many more we shall mention but a few 1. That the Ministry Worship and Government which Christ hath appointed to his Church is not to be received or joyned unto unless the Magistrates where they are reputed Christian do allow it 2. That the Apocryphal books which have in them errors 2 Mac. 12.44 45. 14.41 42. Eccles. 46.20 Wisd. 19.11 untruths 2 Esd. 14.21 22 23. 2 Mac. 2.4.8 Tob. 5.11 12 13. with 12.15 Judith 8.33 10.9 with v. 12. 11.6.12 13 14 15. 1 Mac. 9.3.18 with 2 Mac. 1.13 to 17. and 9.1.5.7.9.28.29 blasphemy Tobit 12.12.15 with Rom. 8.34 1 Tim. 2.5 Rev. 8.3.4 magick Tob. 6.6 7 8. 9.2.3 with 3.7 8. 11.10 11 13. with 2.9 10. and contradiction to the Canonical Scriptures Judith 9.2 3 4. compared with Gen. 49.5 6 7. Esther in the Apocrypha chap. 12.5 15.9 10. with Ester Canonical chap. 6.3 5.2 Eccles. 46.20 with Isa. 57. 2. may be used in the publick worship of God 3. That the most wicked and their seed may be compelled and received to be members of the Church 4. That Marriage may be forbidden at certain seasons as in Lent Advent Rogation-week c. 5. That Baptism is to be administred with a cross in the forehead and that as a symbolical sign 6. That though the most notorious obstinate offenders be partakers of the Lords Supper yet the people that joyn with them are not defiled thereby 7. That there may be Holy days appointed to the Virgin Mary John Baptist to the Apostles all Saints and Angels together also with Fasts on their Eves on Ember-days Fridays Saturdays so called heathenishly enough and Lent 8. That the Cope Surplice Tippit Rocket c. are meet and decent ornaments for the worship of God and Ministry of the Gospel 6. That the Book of Common-prayer is the true worship of God 10. That Christ descended into hell as if Christ descended into the place of the damned as the Papists hold 11. That Lord Bishops can give the holy Ghost and power to forgive and retain sins 12. That Altars Candles Organs c. are necessary and useful in the Church of God 13. That all children when baptized are regenerate and received by the Lord for his own children by adoption Common-prayer-book of publick Baptism Yea 14. That children being baptized have all things necessary for their salvation and shall undoubtedly be saved So they profess in the Order of Conformation in the Common-prayer-book with much more that might be offered in this matter I reply 1. The grant That it is lawfull to hear truth preached is sufficient to prove it lawful to hear the present Ministers preach truth which he denies not they do unless he could prove it were contrary to the way of Christ's appointment to hear the truth from them 2. All that preach some truth are not to be heard yet all that preach the great truths of the Gospel notwithstanding some errours non-fundamental may be heard especially if the errours be seldom or never pressed on the hearers but left to them to examine and to be approved or disproved Heretical Preachers are not to be heard because they preach not the great truths of the Gospel but errours which overthrow the foundation so do the Popish Priests yet it were no sin to hear
either of these speak truth The Devils we are to have no communion with God having put an utter enmity between the serpent and the seed of the woman 3. If the present Ministers of England preach truth but by halves it is lawful to hear them preach those halfs The Bishops allow them to preach all truths needful to salvation all that is contained in the Creed Lords Prayer and Ten Commandments in the 39 Articles the two Tomes of Homilies nor are men inhibited in Schools or Convocations or at some times in books published in Latine to discover any truths of God so it be done without disturbance or other evil consequence That some truths needful to be known are not permitted to be published to the vulgar auditories may have the same reason as Christ had for not acquainting his disciples with many things he had to say to them because they could not then bear them John 16.12 Some things may seem very clearly revealed in the Scriptures to some and be owned by them which are pernicious as that the Saints have all right to government that they are to smite the civil powers as part of the fourth Monarchy that justified persons are not under the command of the moral Law some disputable as about the thousand years reign That God cannot forgive sins without satisfaction to his justice Church-constitution Covenant Government and many more which it is agreeable to the Apostles rule Rom. 14.1 their practice Acts 15.28 not to vent in all sorts of auditories and if the Bishops do restrain Preachers especially those that are young raw injudicious but violent and apt to cause division they do agreeably to the Apostles rule to the example of all Churches where Government is not popular which breeds confusion yea I think the Separatists have found by experience some restraint necessary and that the universal liberty of Conscience or of prophesying as it is termed is intolerable and if Bishops who are men and may be more rigid then they should hold the reins in too hard yet there is no reason why the people should refuse to hear that truth which is necessary and sufficient to salvation because they cannot hear every truth which perhaps out of faction or a childish inconstancy or having itching ears they desire to know As for what is said about the Ministers contradicting their preaching by their practice it is answered before in the Answer to the 5 th Chapter And yet were it granted their personal evils are not sufficient to make the hearing of the truth unlawful to the hearers As for the errours they are said to mingle with the truths they teach they are not such as overthrow the foundation if they were errours and taught by them and therefore this is no sufficient reason why they may not be heard preaching necessary truths Yet to shew the futility of this allegation I shall consider each of the supposed errours The first I doubt not they will deny and require this Authour to prove it For the second it is not for ought I know preached by any of the Ministers That the Apocryphal books which have in them errours may be used in the publick worship of God nor do I think if they should so do could it well consist with their subscription to the sixth Article of the Confession of the Church of England which excludes them out of the Canon of holy Scriptures which contain all things necessary to salvation and saith The Church as Hierome saith doth read them for example of life and instructions of manners but yet doth it not apply them to stablish any doctrine And what Dr. Rainold the Bishop of Durham that now is with many of the English Protestant and conforming Divines have written about the Apocryphal Books is sufficient to clear the present Ministers from suspicion of complying with the Papists who according to the Decree of the Trent Council ses quarta put most of them though they leave out some of them into the Catalogue of sacred Books containing that truth and discipline of the Gospel which is saving and to be preached to every creature and receive and venerate them with equal affection of piety and reverence as other books of holy scripture And although the passages alleaged by this Authour are liable to exception nor do I think it fit for me to justifie or excuse them yet this I say to shew there is not a sufficient reason to withdraw from hearing the present Ministers preaching or praying 1. Some of the books are not appointed to be read at all 2. Some of those that are appointed to be read are capable of an easier censure and better construction then is put upon them by this Authour 3. That those which are not so capable of excuse yet are appointed to be read on such days and in such places as those that alleadge this for a reason of not hearing the present Ministers need not be present 4. That it was once resolved as lawful by Dr. George Abbot after Archbishop of Canterbury in his answer to Dr. Hill the Papist p. 317. from the Preface to the second Tome of the Homilies for the Minister instead of the Apocryphal books to read some other part of the Canonical Scripture of the old Testament Which things being considered there seems not for this to be a sufficient reason of not hearing the present Ministers or charging them as this Authour doth The third errour I conceive they will deny to be their tenent But concerning this and the 4th 5th 6â—â— 8th 9th 11th errours so much hath been said before chiefly in the answer to the 5 th 6 th 7 th chapters of this book that I need not here make a particular answer concerning each of these severally yet I say the things are not matters of the Ministers Doctrine however they be of their practice and therefore cannot be a reason of not hearing their Sermons And they who make this a sufficient reason not to hear or to pray or receive the Lords Supper with a person by reason of some errour he holds or teacheth or some undue practice on Gods worship or conversation with other men go against all rules and examples in holy Scripture and approved Christians and such a one must suppose Preachers infallible every Communicant unblameable or each Christian to have power to excommunicate if the person faulty be not amended upon his reproof that he must know what Tenents his Teacher holds and what is the conversation of each Communicant ere he can warrantably hear the one or communicate with the other Which with sundry other superstitious conceits or unnecessary scruples put an intolerable burden upon mens consciences and will as well prove withdrawing from the Ministers and Churches Congregational necessary as from the Conformists As for the 7th errour it will be denied by them to be their Tenent that there may be Holy days appointed to the Virgin Mary John Baptist c. For though they
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
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
mouth of Babes and Sucklings perfect praise as our Saviour Matth. 21.16 allegeth Psal. 8.2 against the Priests and Scribes indignation at the Childrens saying Hosanna yet I would have such things examined by the learned and godly especially either their own Pastors or such as are found or reputed learned and judicious and that as well what may be said against as what is said for the thing vented be weighed lest persons deceive themselves as too often they do by their propensity to take all for Oracles which is said by such as they do affect or magnifie And surely in doubtful cases and in points which are above the Sphere of common capacities to determine I mean such as require more insight in Languages History Arts and other reading than they can reach to by reason of defect in their natural abilities educations time to study means of attaining the use of books health or strength it is a safe way to rest on the received practice and determination of their learned Guides whom they have reason to judge faithfull and able and to be satisfied with their resolutions and reasons after a serious and modest arguing of the thing though every scruple be not removed As for that which is here said of Ainsworth Cotton c. I think they that knew and read what Vssher Ball Gataker and such like men were will not believe it Mr. Ainsworths differences between him and Johnson Robinson and Paget and their writings especially of this last shew him to have been much short of what this Author conceived of him What Mr. Cotton was I do not rely upon Mr. Baylies Dissuasive but I think Dr. Twisse his answer to him about reprobation Mr. Cawdrey about the keyes that I mention no other shewed him not such as whose judgement might be safely rested in And I scarce think either by the reading of his way of the Churches in new England or his commendation of Mr. Nortons answer to Apollonius he could be of the same apprehension with this Author in this matter That the Reformed Churches generally renounce the Ministry of the Church of England I think is a manifest untruth The passages at the Synod of Dort Peter Moulin his Letter to Bishop Andrews with many more of the like evidences of former and later times assure me this Author is deceived He adds Sect. 12. The Magistrates command to hear the present Mininisters is to be obeyed Object 8. But the Magistrate commands us and ought we not to obey Magistrates Answ. 1. That Magistrates have no power to command in matters of instituted worship where Christ is silent or to govern in his Church is affirmed by many 2. The commands of Magistrates when contrary to the will and way of Christ are not to be subjected to This case is long since stated and resolved by the Apostle Acts 4.19 20. and 5.29 and Spirit of the Lord breathing long before in his renouned witnesses Dan. 3.16 17. and 6.10 nor is it denyed by any that are sober and judicious Whether the hearing of the present Ministers of England be contrary to the word of God the will and way of Christ we leave from what hath been offered to the considerate reader to judge And shall only add what was long since asserted by Augustin de verb Domini Serm. 6. in this matter who was herein fully of the same mind with us Sed timeo inquies ne offendas majorem time prorsus ne offendas majorem non offendes Deum Quid enim times ne offendas majorem Vide ne forsan major sit isto quâ—m times offendere Majorem certe noli offendere quis est inquies major eo qui me genuit an ille qui teipsum creavit qui enim resistit potestati Dei ordinationi resistit sed quid si illud jubeat quod non debes facere timendo potestatem ipsos humanarum rerum gradus advertite si aliquid jusserit Curator nonne faciendum est Tametsi contra Proconsul jubeat at non utique contemnis potestatem sed eligis majori servire nec hinc debet minor irasci si major praelata est Rursum si aliquid ipse Proconsul jubeat aliud jubeat Imperator numquid dubitatur in illo contemptu illi esse serviendum Ergo si aliud Imperator aliud Deus quid judicatis Solve tributum est mihi in obsequio recte Sed non in Idolio in Idolio prohibet quis prohibet major potestas Da veniam tu carcerem ille gehennam minatur He tells us plainly that such as fear to offend their Superiours should much more fear to offend God who is greater than all The Emperours and Monarchs of the world threaten us with a Prison if we disobey them the Lord threatens us with Hell upon our disobedience of him I reply The Brownists in their Confession of faith art 39. say Princes and Magistrates by the Ordinance of God are Supreme Governours under him over all persons and in all causes within their Realms and Dominions and that it is their duty to enforce all their Subjects whether Ecclesiastical or Civil to do their duties to God and men protecting and maintaining the good punishing and restraining the evil according as God hath commanded whose Lieutenants they are here on earth and to prove this many Texts are cited by them of which confession Mr. Ainsworth said to be of the fame apprehension with this Author in this matter was a principal composer In the Apology of the Non-conformists by Irenaeus Eâ—eutherius in the admonition to the Reader the Kings Supremacy is acknowledged Which hath been more largely proved before in this Answer to the 5th Chapter of this book Sect. 11 12 13 14. And though it be not yeilded that Princes should exercise Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction or determine Doctrines of faith or impose what worship they will on the Subjects yet it is allowed by all I know except Papists that when the Magistrate commands men to be present at the true worship of God and to hear them that preach truth he doth what he ought and is to be obeyed therein This Author where in this Chapter p. 86. he supposeth Christ enjoyning his Disciples to attend upon the Scribes and Pharisees acting as Magistrates and conform to what is justly and righteously prescribed them as such must yield this that the Saints are to obey the Magistrate in this unless he can shew that it is an unlawfull thing to hear the present Ministers which he pretends he hath done but how vainly is shewed by this Answer and so his Answer here to this Objection to be insufficient And indeed it tends to the gratifying of Popish Recusants who alledge for their not hearing the non-conjunction with the Pope and Church of Rome as this Author doth the non-election and non-membership of the present Ministers in a Congregational Church to be in which as the only Instituted Church of Christ is made necessary as Papists do to be in Communion with
the Church of Rome And therefore if it be unlawful to hear the present Ministers the Papists have a just plea for their not coming to Church which evacuates all the Laws and Government requiring it It is added Sect. 13. Conformists Ministry hath been instrumental to Convert Souls Object 9. But the Ministers of England are true Gospel-Ministers for they convert Souls which the Apostle makes the Seal of his Ministry or Apostleship therefore it is lawful to hear them To this we say 1. That the Ministers of England are true Gospel-Ministers is absolutely denyed by us what is offered in this Objection proves nothing 1. Paul makes not the Conversion of the Church of Corinth singly a sufficient demonstration or convincing argument of his Apostleship he only useth it as what was most likely to win and work upon their affections who upon other accounts could not but know that he was an Apostle of the Lord Jesus 2. Conversion of Souls is no argument either of a lawfull call to an Apostleship or Ministry of Christ. For 1. Many have converted Souls that were not Apostles as ordinary Ministers 2. The Lord hath used private brethren women yea some remarkable providences as instruments in his hand for the conversion of many Souls yet who will say that private brethren women or Divine Providences are Apostles or Ministers of the Lord Jesus But 3. Should it be granted that conversion of Souls is an argument of a lawfull Ministry where are the Churches nay where are the particular persons converted by them We have not heard of any nor will it be an easie task for the Objectors to produce instances in this matter I reply That the Ministers of England who preach the Gospel truely are true Gospel Ministers may be denied absolutely but not justly their preaching the Gospel truely being it which alone is the form denominating a Minister a true Gospel Minister though more be required to his regularity Election by a Congregational Church Ordination by an Eldership or Bishop do not make a true Gospel Minister without it and it doth it notwithstanding some other defects But conversion of Souls is no certain sign of a true Gospel Minister or the defect of it an argument against it nor do I alledge 1 Cor. 9.1 2. to prove either Yet when the Gospel of Christ is truly preached and so blessed an effect follows on their labours who do so it is a good motive to the converted to hear them who have been instruments of their conversion and is an engagement to them to follow their doctrine and conversation 1 Cor. 4.15 16. Heb. 13.7.17 1 Thes. 5.12 13. And if this Author or any other do separate from them who have been instruments of their conversion and continue still to preach the Gospel truly because they abide in their station without renouncing Episcopal Ordination or accepting of an election by a congregational Church they do it unwarrantably and injuriously As for the words of the Apostle 1 Cor. 9.1 2. the Apostles aime is to shew he was as free and might use his liberty as much as any other Apostle being as truly an Apostle as any other which might besides other evidences from the effect of his Apostleship on them appear to them so that it is an argument of his Apostleship though not singly not as this Author conceives a motive to win upon their affections yet I think it an argument from and of some thing proper to the Apostle and the Corinthians and therefore would not meerly from conversion of Souls conclude a true Gospel Ministry in all that have been instruments therein As for the demand where are the Churches where are the particular persons converted by them It may perhaps be as justly demanded of this Author where are the Churches or particular persons converted by the Ministers of the congregational Churches in old or new England or Holland Mr. Robert Baylie of Scotland in his Dissuasive from the Errors of the time Mr. Thomas Edwards in his Gangraena tell stories of the fruit of separation which I will not avow as true yet so much of truth may be picked out of them as may stop the mouths of them that extoll those Ministers and decry the best of the Conformists who yet have been if not of late yet heretofore Fathers in Christ to the Members of the Congregational Churches and to the most eminent in the Churches of old or new England But this disparagement of some and extolling of others is an odious course tending to nothing but promoting of faction and weakning the hands of them that do the work of Christ and therefore do pray that this spirit of pride and bitterness may be extinguished than in love we may serve one another and that nothing be done out of strife and vain-glory but that in lowliness of mind each may esteem others better than our selves And I wish none had vented or read such criminations as those in the book entituled Prelatical preachers none of Christs teachers in which he breaks out thus p 61. They that were â—oundly right down without any abatement or need of explication Ministers of a Prelatical Ordination have amongst them in matters of true Religion sound knowledge and piety towards God reduced the generality of the Nation to a morsel of bread All those Idolatrous and Superstitious conceits and practises all the bloody ignorance and prophaeess all that customary boldness in sinning that hatred of goodness and good men which are the nakedness and shame of the land and render it obnoxious to Divine displeasure may justly call this generation of men either fathers or foster fathers or both p. 75. he terms their Ministry a Ministry which is no where approved or sanctified by Christ in his word but obtruded upon Christians with an high hand by those who are confederate both in spirit and in practise with the scarlet coloured beast and drunken with the blood of the Saints a description which belyeth not the Prelatical Priesthood and Ministry and then applies the description Revel 13.11 to them and the warning Revel 14 9. to those who joyn to them p 76 77. he makes the Bishops to comply with Antichrist in claiming and exercising a power of imposing on men what they please in matters of Religion or faith and worship under what penalties they please also makes those ordained and Ministers under them and by them to receive the mark of the beast p. 52. though God did before the discovery of the evil of Prelacy benefit Souls by them yet not after But enough of this there remains yet that which follows Sect. 14. To the observation of the Lords day hearing the present Ministers as the case now is may be requisite Object 10. But our Ministers are removed and we know not where to go to hear would you have us sit at home idle We cannot so spend the Lords day Answ. To which we would humbly offer a few things 1. That though we are
not against any Ordinance of Jesus Christ yet we are afraid that those poor Souls that know not how to spend the Lords day without hearing do too much Idolize that Ordinance of God and never knew what it was to spend that day with him 2. You need not sit at home if you are enquiring after God and communion with his people you may soon hear of some one or other of the Assemblies of the Saints whither you may repair to wait upon the Lord with them 3. But thirdly were it or should it be otherwise yet better be idle than do worse better do nothing than sin against God encourage others in their evil deeds pollute and wound thy own Soul grieve the Saints stumble and harden the wicked and cause them to blaspheme his Name Sanctuary and such as dwell therein But 4. There is no necessity of being idle if thou knowest not where to hear on that day hast thou no work to do save that 1. Art sure that God and Christ and Eternal Glory are thy portion and inheritance Thou walkest in the light of assurance or thou dost not If thou dost is one day in seven too much to spend in the solemn admiration of grace that ever so vile a creature as thou should be accounted worthy of such unexpressible kindness and glory What O what will Eternity be then If thou dost not are not these worthy of thy utmost diligence to get assurance of What stand idle and an interest in God Christ and Eternal Glory to make sure of 2. Art thou sufficiently acquainted with thine own heart Dost know so much of thy self as thou needest to know Or judgest thou this to be a work that requires not thy utmost diligence and attendance 3. Hast thou no sin to be mortified no want to be supplyed no grace to be quickned and strengthned in thee 4 Hast thou as much communion with God as thou desirest Hast heard as often from him by the teaâ—hings of the Spirit the incomparably and infinitely best teacher as thou dost wish Or dost think that God will not manifest himself to and teach in a corner a poor Soul that 's there waiting for him alone because there be no Assemblies of Saints he knows of to whom he might joyn himself and he dares not have Communion with Adulterers If thou have not fellowship with God thou desirest and teachings from him as who hath stir up thy self to lay hold on God groan and cry after him till he hath brought thee into his chambers and afforded thee richer displayes of his glory 5. Art thou altogether ready trimmed without more ado for the coming and Kingdom of Christ Jesus what should I mention those important duties of reading the Scriptures meditation on them c. hast thou all this to do and much more that might be added and yet nothing to do on the Lords day set about these things in good earnest and when thou livest in the light of assurance without the least doubt or clouding when thou art sufficiently acquainted with thine own heart the will and Scriptures of the Lord when thou hast as much communion with God in retirement as thou desirest and teachings from his Spirit when thou hast no sin to be mortified nor grace to be quickened and strengthened when thou art quite ready for the day of Christ and needest no further fittings we shall consider what may be further said to this Objection but till then it cannot be pleaded when souls have all this work to do that they must sit at home idle if they go not to hear the Preachers of this day But thus far of the Objections that are by some made against the assertion of the unlawfulness of attending upon the present Ministers of England which are all of any moment we have yet met with what of weight is in them must be left to the judgement of the Christian Reader to determine We shall add no more but this that we have spoken our judgement and conscience herein as in sincerity in the sight of God with what meekness Christian tenderness and fear of giving any just offence to the truly conscientious he knows The sole of our aim in the whole is That Christ may be glorified in the recovery of any poor lamb that is turned aside to the flocks of the companions in this cloudy and dark day that others that have hitherto kept themselves from Idols might be further established in the will of God and strengthened to follow Christ in his temptations that they may inherit that kingdom and glory prepared for them before the foundation of the world May we but in the least contribute by Divine blessing hereunto whatever becomes of these papers or however they be by others accounted of we have our end and shall rest satisfied I reply this objection I find made not onely by some of the common sort of professors but also particulaly by Mr. Crofton and made by him as an argument wherefore he did and ought to joyn in hearing and praying in publick on the Lords day notwithstanding the defects in the ministerial mode and method of the publick Ministers the worship of God substantially existing in matter and essential form in their Ministration and the Lords day being to be observed in publick as well as private where and when the Ordinances cannot be enjoyed in a purer manner His second in the book intituled Jerubbaal justified doth reduce his plea to this Syllogism Communion with the Church visible in Gods solemn publick worship is an essential part of the sanctification of the Sabbath and indispensable duty But communion with the English Church in the worship by her celebrated is communion with the Church visible in Gods solemn worship Ergo Communion with the English Church having no opportunity with any other in the worship of her celebrated is to me an essential part of the sanctification of the Sabbath and indispensable duty This Syllogism is defended in that Book to which I refer the Reader and consider the objection as here it is urged and answered The objection proceeds upon suppositions of the Separatists or Independents in the number of whom he is to be accounted as appears by his wordes in this Chapter in answer to the 7th objection where he saith Learned Ainsworth Cotton c. have been and are of the same apprehension with us in this matter Now in Mr. Cottons way of the Churches of Christ in New England it is put into the definition of a visible Church that they are a number that may meet every Lords day for all Ordinances and in the Declaration of the Elders and Messengers of the Congregational Churches at the Savoy Oct. 12. 1658. ch 22. art 8. The Sabbath is then kept holy to the Lord when men are taken up the whole time in the publick and private exercises of his worship and in the duties of necessity and mercy Among these art 5. The reading of the Scriptures preaching and
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
that are erroneous if they try them they may hear pretenders prophesying if they prove it much more those Ministers who preach the truth it is each Christians duty to try their doctrine nor their sin to hear their Sermons 29. This Authour himself ch 2. in the words before cited alowed the hearing of gifted brethren though not solemnly invested into office nor do I think he would think it unlawful to hear Parents or Masters Catechize or Readers in the University when they read Divinity Lectures or dispuâ—e in Divinity Schools and therefore by a like reason must allow the hearing of such Ministers who Preach the Gospel and are found in the faith and are regularly ordained according to the discipline of that Church in which they live and are taken for true Ministers by the godly and learned at home and the most able and pious Pastours and brethren of the Reformed Churches abroad 30. The reasons of this Authour and other Separatists against hearing the present Ministers may be retorted against themselves Mr. William Bradshaw having answered Mr. Francis Johnsons Arguments to prove this conclusion It is not lawful to hear or have any spiritual communion with the present Ministry of the Church-assemblies of England added Reasons or Arguments tending to prove That it is a sin to separate from the publick Ministry of the Church-assemblies of England directly contrary to Mr. Johnsons own Reasons and usually in that regard made in the same mood and figure which are to be seen in the unreasonableness of the separation p. 126. c. Printed 1640. in Mr. Gatakers Rejoynder against the Reply of Mr. John Canne And as for this Authours 12. Arguments it were no hard matter to prove That the Ministers of the separated Churches are not to be heard by some if not by all the middle terms he hath used to prove That the present Ministers of the Church of England are not to be heard As for instance That they come not in by the door but climb another way by usurping Ministry without any regular Ordination by other Ministers That they walk disorderly in separating themselves from true Churches they have Antichristian names or titles in being called Masters That they deny Christs Offices in submitting to and imposing Orders or Ordinances about worship not appointed by Christ as Church-covenant Paedobaptism c. That they are false prophets that deny them to be true Churches of Christ who hold the faith of Christ That some commands of the Ceremonial Law of Moses are Rules to us Christians That they are Babylon and Antichristian in their constitution and their practice in dividing from other Churches not submitting to their Teachers those who have begotten them through the Gospel without any well setled order among themselves that they therefore long agree not but crumble into many small companies and sometimes take them to be members of their Churches who dwell in remote places so that their gathered Churches extend as far some times as a Bishops Diocess that they ascribe the power of the keys to the whole Church confound Governours and Governed allow men not set apart to that function to teach publickly and that frequently if not constantly those to take upon them to prophesie who are no Prophets That they scandalize their brethren their Governours by their invectives That they partake of the sins of others in allowing them to usurp that power which Christ hath not committed to them That they cast contempt upon the ways of Christ to wit the Prayers and Preaching of the Ministers of the Church of England That they go to the places of false worship as Mr. Iohn Paget in his Arrow against the Separatists proves against Ainsworth that they cannot expect a blessing from God upon their separation it having no promise of God but is against the union that should be among Christians That it is a step to Apostacy is a forsaking of the assembly of the Saints to refuse to hear the present Ministers and to joyn in Prayers with them and too much experience hath proved what backsliding if not to Popery yet to other errours of Antinomians Familists Quakers Seekers Ranters hath been the fruit of Separation But I forbear recrimination and touching the sore which I rather desire may be healed and that our breaches may be made up and not widened to which this Authours reasonings tend 31. The grounds upon which this Authour and other Separatists deny the lawfulness of hearing the present Ministers are either false or doubtful as That nothing is to be done in the worship of God and Church-discipline without a particular institution That onely a Congregational Church is of Christs institution That a true Ministry cannot be in a false Church That a prescibed form of prayer by men is unlawful That we may not use any thing in Gods worship which hath been composed by Popes or used in the Church of Rome with many more whereof many are shewed in this answer to be false or uncertain and insufficient for this Authours separation and the fallacy of them manifested in so many other Treatises of Conformists and non-conformists extant in Print that I need not add any more in this place 32. On the other side the Ministers of the Church of England have so sufficiently proved the truth of their Ministry against Papists and Separatists and so firmly by wrirting and otherwise opposed Popery even the Prelates whom the Separatists do so much cry down as Antichristian Popish c. that were not men resolved never to lay down a calumny they have once taken up they would lay this down and forbear pressing separation upon such exceptions and imputations as this Authour hath gathered together in this his dung-cart to furnish the inconsiderate though perhaps otherwise well-minded in matters of Religion to cast into their faces 33 If it be not lawful to hear the present Ministers because they are not rightly Elected Ordained in and by a Congregational Church according to Christs institution as this Authour conceives or because they use the Common-prayer-book are faulty in their lives or some evil consequences as offence of some Saints contempts of some ways of God by accident ensue thereupon then it will follow that every hearer before he hears a Minister must 1. be able to judge of the validity of these Reasons whether they can warrant his not hearing 2. He must be able to judge every Minister or Preacher he hears whether he be rightly thus Elected Ordained or qualified 3. He must actually examine him afore he hears him 4. He must have power either to silence or withdraw from him if he be not so qualified and must use that power But 1. Such ability is not in every hearer nor indeed is it as the estate of things in this life is ordinarily possible it should be 2. Then Ministers Preaching and Ministry should be at the will of their Auditors For if one may forbear hearing all may upon the same reason and so
it is put in the Plural number as the Churches of Asia Galatia Judaea In the Evangelists History of the doings sufferings and sayings of our Lord Christ I find the Word Church used but in two places Mat. 16.18 and 18.17 Of the extent and meaning of both which Texts there is so much controversie not only between the Protestants and Papists but also among the Protestants themselves of different persuasions about Church Government that it would require a Treatise by it self to make a thorough discussion of those two Texts in order to the clearing of the Controversies that are started about them That Mat. 16.18 is undoubtedly meant of the Christian Church but whether Oecumenical visible or invisible or indefinite or topical is doubted It is without any proof appropriated to the Church of Rome or any particular Church as ordered under this or that peculiar form of Government but is to be taken for the number of Believers in Christ whether of Jews or Gentiles more or fewer abstractively from any political considerations and such external adjuncts and denominations as whereby usually Churches are in common speeches diversified In the other place Mat. 18.17 in as much as it is not said tell my Church but tell the Church and the term thy brother may as well be meant of a Brother as by birth or proselytism adjoyned to the Jews as St. Paul calls the Jews by birth his brethren kinsmen according to the flesh Rom. 9.3 in which sense it may seem to be taken in that place Mat. 5.23 24. which is a precept like to this for the reconciling of particular differences and righting of wrongs and the expression let him be to thee as a Heathen seems to intimate as of a Brother in Christian profession it may not without reason be doubted whether by the Church there be meant the Christian Church or an Assembly of the Jews in their Synedrium whether greater or lesser and if it be extended as a direction to Christian Brethren whether it be meant of their Assembly under an Ecclesiastical Consideration or Political that is the Christian Magistrate Institution of a Church by Preception or Command I find not neither Christ nor his Apostles that I know have given us any rule or law of bounding modelling or numbring Churches There is a precept Heb. 10.25 that Christians should not forsake the assembling of themselves together as the manner of some was But none about the defining how many should go to a Church or be accounted to belong to one Church no determination by any precept concerning Members belonging to a Church whether they should be fixed to one Meeting or ambulatory and moveable sometimes belonging to one Assembly sometimes to another of the same profession Nor do we find any Institution of Churches whether they ought to be Domestick Congregational Parochial Classiâ—al Diocesan Provincial Patriarchical or Oecumenical The ordering of such distinctions Christ and his Apostles so far as I deprehend have left to Divine Providence and Humane Prudence allowing more or fewer to a Church as the imes will permit the increase or diminution of Believers should be as Pastors may be had and their Partitions and Meetings be convenient for their edification and government It is true the Romanists would infer from Christs promise to Peter Mat. 16.18 Upon this Rock will I build my Church that St. Peter and after hâ—m the Bishop of Rome was made universal Bishop But that by Christs Church is meant the universal Church and by Christs building it is meant constituting an universal Bishop is an assertion without proof In some of the Ancients the Bishops of Rome have been stiled Oecumenical but so also have other Patriarchs We believe one Catholick and Apostolick Church but so denominated from their common confession or the same Faith not from union to and subjection under one visible Church head Mr. Paul Bayne as I remember long since disputed against Diocesan Churches for Parochial and in the Assembly at Westminster the dissenters against this proposition that many particular Congregations may be under one Presbyterial government from such distinction of Churches as the New Testament yields But the Arguments seem not to me to be cogent they declaring only what was done de facto not what was necessary to be done de jure That Text Mat. 18.17 is much urged by sundry sorts of Pleaders for their several wayes of Church-government But it is uncertain whether by Brother and Church be meant Christian Believers and the Christian Church and if Christian Believers and Church be meant whether the Church be meant of the Christian Civil Judicatory or Ecclesiastical Consistory or Congregational Assembly of Believers of all ranks or some select Arbitrators that of which the Church is to have cognizance being there no other than the sin of one Brother against another which v. 21 22. Luk. 17 3 4. shew to be meant only of private trespasses or injuries done by one to another who might remit or forgive them nor is any other act ascribed to the Church than an admonition to the injurious Brother to do right to him whom he hath wronged whereupon it is then allowed or appointed upon non-satisfaction to him or disobedience to the Church without any other juridical sentence mentioned that he that is thus disobedient should be to him that complained as a Heathen or Publican with whom the Jews would not have familiarity Nothing is said of being such to the Church or by vertue of its sentence juridical or being excluded à sacris which we are sure the Publicans were not Luk. 18.10 These things seem to me to evince that neither is here that instituted Church which the Assertors of Congregational Churches and Church-government urge as the only Churches and Church-government of the New Testament and inculcate as the pattern in the Mount and any other way to be as the setting of mans posts by Gods posts and separate from a National Church as a humane Invention Nor is here that Church-government instituted which they make the only Government appointed by Christ that the Congregation or the major part are to cast out exclude from Communion in Holy things in every Church though but of seven or eight every member that sins and will not obey the monition of the rest of the Congregation These things being premised I answer to the Questions in the first Querie fore-mentioned 1. That it is granted That since the Unchurching of the Nation of the Jews the Lord hath not yet that we know of so espoused a Nation or People to himself as that upon the account thereof the whole Body of that People or Nation may be accounted his We say that Christ hath redeemed us to God by his bloud out of every Kindred and Tongue and People and Nation and hath made us unto our God Kings and Priests Revel 5.9 10. We own no Church visible now but of Believers by their own personal profession We approve the 19. Article of