the Nations of the World to be a People near to him his peculiar Treasure above them all Statutes and Ordinances to walk by both with relation to Civils and Ecclesiasticks which they were indispensably bound to conform to without adding to or detracting therefrom That the management of all their affairs was singly to be bottomed upon and conform to these Statutes and Judgments is very frequently asserted in Scripture Exod. 21.1 Lev. 18.4 19.37 20.22 25.18 26.15 43. Deut. 4.1 5 8. 5.1 7.11 11.1 32. 12.1 26.16 30.16 1 Chron. 16.12 28.7 Psal. 89.30 Ezek. 5.6 36.27 Dan 9.5 Answ. It is granted that the Lord gave unto the people of the Jews Statutes and Ordinances to walk by both with relation to Civils and Ecclesiasticks or as usually they speak Ceremonials and that they were bound to conform to them and so much the Texts alledged do prove But that they were bound indispensably to conform to these Statutes without adding to or detracting therefrom and that the management of all their affairs was singly to be bottomed upon and conform to these Statutes and Judgments is not asserted in those Scriptures there being not one of them that saith that they were bound indispensably to conform to them Our Lord hath determined to the contrary in justifying his Disciples plucking the ears of Corn on the Sabbath Davids eating the shew bread and entring into the house of God and confirming his determination by the words of the Prophet Hosea 6.6 in his dissertation against the Pharisees Mat. 12.3 7. in which there was a dispensation with and detraction from the Laws of the Sabbath and the Shew-bread about Ecclesiasticks for a time in some Case And for addition to Laws Ecclesiastical the assemblies keeping other seven dayes besides those prescribed in the Law of the Passover 2 Chro. 30.23 and to civils that ordinance of David 1 Sam. 30.25 Shew that in both some additions might be by the Prince Captain or private persons to both sorts of Lawes with Divine approbation And that the management of all the affairs of the people of Israel both civil and ecclesiastical was not singly to be bottom'd upon and conform to those statutes and judgments but that in both sorts of affairs humane prudence and the Rulers Authority might order many things may be cleared from sundry instances of David Jehoshaphat Hezekiah and others which there will be occasion more fully to discusse in examining the allegations brought by this Author to prove the major of his first argument Ch. 1. of this treatise Sect. 7. The election or ordination of Levites is no rule for election or ordination of Ministers now Secondly saith he that persons were appointed by the Lord to be chosen by the Congregation for the publick administration of ordinances and worship cannot be denied Thus were the Levites Exod. 13.2 12 13. and 22.29 Numb 3.12 called therefore the Wave-offering of the Children of Israel Numb 8.9 10 11. because given up by them to the Lord as their offering by solemn ordination and imposition of hands Answer it is true that the Levites were wholly given unto God from among the Children of Israel to do the service of the Congregation but it is not true that they were appointed by the Lord to be chosen by the Congregation God saith Numb 8.16 in stead of the first-born of all the Children of Israel have I taken them to mee And upon what occasion God took the Levites in stead of the first born is to be seen in Exod. 32.26 29. Deut. 33.9 Saith Ainsworth annot on Numb 3.12 So that here appears no choice of the Congregation so as that it was left to them to take or to leave those It is true also that Numb 8.9 it is said that Moses shall bring the Levites before the Tabernacle of the Congregation it was therefore his business to present them and that he should gather the whole assembly of the Children of Israel together and that he should bring the Levites before the Lord and the Children of Israel that is some of the chief of them as the first born in the name of the rest shall lay or impose hands on the Levites saith Ainsworth annot on Numb 8.10 And then it follows v. 11. Aaron shall offer or wave the Levites before the Lord for an offering or wave-offering of the Children of Israel that they may execute the service of the Lord. And then Aaron was to make an atonement for the Levites and Moses should set the Levites before Aaron and before his Sons and offer them for an offering unto the Lord and that he should separate the Levites from among the Children of Israel and the Levites should then be Gods v. 13 14. The reason of the laying on of the hands of the Children of Israel upon the Levites was to signifie their obedient yielding them to God in their stead to do the service of the Children of Israel in the Tabernacle of the Congregation and to make an atonement for the Children of Israel that there might be no plague among the Children of Israel when the Children of Israel came nigh unto the Sanctuary v. 19. But these were not the Priests they were distinct from the Levites to wit Aaron and his Sons who were called of God Heb. 5.4 without the Prophets laying on of hands Now it was the Priests office to do that work in which was the worship of God to wit the offering Sacrifice sprinkling the blood and such other duties the Levites were imployed to do other services as the bearing of the utesils and such like in respect of which they were to attend on the Priests Deut. 10.8 therefore it is said by God v. 19. I have given the Levites as a gift to Aaron and his Sons So that the choice was Gods the presenting Moses his act the yielding them by imposition of hands signifying their offering them to God in stead of themselves was the act of the first-born the wave offering and cleansing them Aarons act which may more truly be called their solemn ordination than the imposition of hands by the first-born But were it true that in this act of imposing their hands there was election and ordination this waâ— not a successive election or ordination as is when one dies and another is chosen and ordained in his room as oft as there is such vacancy when one Minister dies and another comes in his stead For this election or ordination if it may be so called was but once and of the whole company together and so is no pattern for election or ordination of Elders successively by a particular Congregation or the major part of them Sect. 8. The Texts enjoyning the observation of things appointed prove not that some things undetermined might not in Gods worship be ordered by men Thirdly saith he that persons thus invested into the office of Priesthood were not left to the liberty of their own
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
THEODVLIA OR A JUST DEFENCE Of HEARING the SERMONS And other Teaching of the present Ministers of England Against a Book unjustly entituled in Greek A Christian testimony against them that serve the Image of the Beast In English A Christian and sober Testimony against sinful Complyance Wherein the unlawfulness of Hearing the present Ministers of England is pretended to be clearly demonstrated by an Author termed by himself Christophilus Antichristomachus By JOHN TOMBES B.D. Luke 9.49 50. And John answered and said Master We saw one casting out Devils in thy name and we forbade him because he followeth not with us And Jesus said unto him Forbid him not for he that is not against us is for us LONDON Printed by E. Cotes for Henry Eversden under the Crown Tavern in West-Smithfield 1667. PErlegi hunc librum cui titulus Theodulia in quo nihil reperio doctrinae disciplinaeve Ecclesiae Anglicanae aut bonis morihus contrarium Joh. Hall S. T. B. Rev. in Christo Patri Humfredo D. Episc. Lond. à sac dom Ex aedibus Fulhamiens Calend. Maii 1667. To the Right Honourable EDWARD EARL of CLARENDON Lord Chancellour of ENGLAND THE great favour your Honour hath vouchsafed me and the great Candour your ingenuity hath shewed in accepting some former Writings have imboldned me to present this also to your hands not only that it might be some part of a plea for my self as not averse from Union and Peace but also that it may somewhat conduce to a closing of that miserable breach which that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as St. Basil termed it the unmeasurable drawing things in contrary ways hath made among us as hoping that though difference of Opinions should be incurable yet the discords of Protestants of the same Faith are not incurable To the remedy of which no person after his Majesty by reason of your eminent authority and prudence is likely to contribute more than your self Whereto if the Lord make your Lordship instrumental it may be so blessed a work as may tend much to your Honour and comfort in the day of the resignation of your spirit into the hand of him that gave it The sad face of things in Europe chiefly by reason of differences about Religion makes it seem a deplorable thing and should move every right-hearted Christian to endeavour the composing of Differences salva veritate that a deluge of Popery or Mahometanism may not overwhelm us As for my self I expect no other event than obloquy from persons of this Authors mind and such like it being the usual lot of men that seek to part a fray to displease both parties though I am not conscious to my self that I have herein written or done any thing which might be a just grievance to any my study being neither to uphold a rising party nor to depress the dejected but to promote Truth and the publick Peace to which I have addicted my self and in order thereto subscribe my self Your Honours devoted and deeply obliged Servant in our Lord John Tombes TO THE CHRISTIAN READERS Especially those to whom at any time I have Preached the Word of God Sect. 1. Prefaces needful by reason of Readers prejudice IT was the Order of the Court of Areopagites at Athens that Pleas before them should be without Proems lest their passions being stirred by Oratory their judgment should be perverted and favourable inclination to a person should cause a sentence to be passed by them not congruous to the merit of the cause And it were well if in all Controversies about matters of Religion there were so strict a Law observed that in all disputes whether by Writing or Conference all such Prefaces or Expressions be severely prohibited and restrained as tend to create prejudice and partial propension to one part more than to another But experience too much informing us that even in Morals and matters of Religion though the consequent be their Peace or undoing the guiding aright or misleading their Consciences yea the salvation or perdition of their souls Treatises have their fate pro captu Lectoris as the Readers or Hearers are affected each thing is received secundum modum receptivitatis recipientis as the quality and mind of the Receivers disposeth them insomuch that any corrupting errour from some whom they affect is received by many and the clearest truths are rejected by persons preoccupated with prejudice either against the thing or person that doth deliver them Which makes it very necessary to blow away such duâ—â— out of the ballance of mens minds as might makâ— the Scales of their Understanding unequal what they are to weigh what is presented to it I list not to give instances by mentioning such experiments as either former or this present Age have yielded of the ill effects that debates have had through prejudices on both sides against persons and things caused by such preconceits as either education relations advantages or engagements forestall men with being unwilling to rake out of the Grave again such Occurrences of this kind as I hope are buried and wish they may not be revived Nevertheless sith I have too much intelligence that personal exceptions have caused such misprisions as are likely to hinder the equal judging of the present controversie whereby as the Writer is wronged so the Reader is much more wronged by himself when he refuseth to examine the matter though of much concernment to him because he is by fame or other motive disâ—ffâ—cted to the Author I am induced to speak something of my self and the occasion of this Writing and the History of this Controversie being necessitated thereto by the strange Title and Preface of the Book I am now to examine Sect. 2. Prejudice against the Author as favouring Separation causless I find by very many evidences that my Writings about a point which few can concoct have caused such an aversness in the spirits of a great number even of those that seem to be inquisitive into truth that my later Writings even those which have been recommended to the World by the chief of my Antagonists though not much contradicted yet have not found such receptions as such arguments were deemed to require Which had discouraged me from this kind of imployment did not the expectation of my giving account about the improvement of the talent committed to me by my Lord and Master make me judge that being restrained from publick Preaching I ought to use it in this way out of hopes of serving my generatian therein Being busied in some other Arguments I met with the Book which I here examine and not long after with another having this Title Prelatical Preachers none of Christs Teachers whereby I perceived that the seeds of most rigid separation were sown and did spread themselves much among many whose good I conceived my self bound to endeavour and not only for their sakes but also for the publick Peace as much as in me lies to pluck up such roots of bitterness Which I rather
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
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
Tim. 2.1 and 3.15 Jude 20. 1 Cor. 12.7 11. Mat. 25.24 1 Pet. 4.10 11. 1 Cor. 12.15 and 14.12 24. Ephes. 4.3 7 15 16. Acts 2.42 Rom. 15.14 Ephes. 5.19 Col. 3.16 1 Thess. 5.14 2 Thess. 3.15 Heb. 3.13 to which might be added the frequent examples of the Saints in the Old and New Testament 2 Chron. 17.7 8 9. Job 2.11 Mal. 3.16 Luke 4.16 Acts 13.15 1 Cor. 14.24 to 34. and the practice of the Primitive Church as witness Origen in his Epistle to Celsum Terrullian in his Apologie Justin Martyr in his Apologie and many others Answ. The censures of the Doctors of this day and their wresting 1 Cor. 14.40 are too general and not to be answered save to tell the Author that it is good for a man not to be wise in his own conceit nor to be too free in censuring others lest he fall into Diogenes his evil when he trampled on Plato's pride with greater pride But to the rest of the charge I say That I know none of the Ministers of England that forbid the Saints to Prophesie one by one nor do I know of any at this day that have the gift of Prophesie which I gather from 1 Cor. 12.28 29. and 13.2 8 9 10. and other places to have been an extraordinary gift by immediate revelation of the Spirit whereby some hidden thing is discovered See Lysord's Apologie for the Ministery pag. 27 28. If there were any that could Prophesie indeed neither Prelates nor others may or can hinder them But when persons mistakingly call all speaking to men to Edification Exhortation and Comfort from 1 Cor. 14.3 Prophesying as if these terms were reciprocal and under presâ—nâ—e thereof vent many mistakes and fancies the restraint or regulating of such exerciseâ— may be no transgression of Christs command And though the performing of the duties in the Texts alledged ought to be cherished and furthered and such Meetings as do really tend thereto should be countenanced sith there may be abuses which are to be prevented by Governours though sometimes there be injustice and liberty too much restrained and complaints made to God in secret yet should not invectives be used to alienate the minds of people from their Teachers or Rulers nor any unlawful practice used tending to Sedition or disturbance but by patience and quietness we should possess our souls expecting help from God in due time as did the Primitive Christians with happy success Yet once more saith this Author Sect 9. Ministers service may be Divine and Spiritual in the use of the Liturgy Yea 7. What should I mention that grand Institution of this Soveraign Lord and Lawgiver that nothing be offered up to the Father but what is of his own prescription Divine and Spiritual without affectation of Legal shadows John 4.24 of worldly pomp or carnal excellency 2 Cor. 1.12 and 2.17 1 Cor. 2.12 and 6.13 1 Cor. 12.28 Isa. 33.22 Jam. 4.12 Matth. 15.6 9. Heb. 8.5 1 King 13.33 12 13. Jer. 7.31 Numb 15.39 Deut. 12.1 4 31. It 's evident the present Ministers of England conform not to the Orders and Ordinances Christ as the great Prophet and Lawgiver to his people hath appointed them to walk by and therefore really disown the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ. Answ. It is true no Prayers or Praises or other Religious exercises should be offered to the Father but what is of his own prescription in respect of the service it self matter or manner which he hath prescribed But when he hath left it free to use a prescript Form of words or to pray without such a stinted Form where he forbids not the use of Musick in praysing of God and no Idolatry or Superstition is used or furthered by Ordinances and Utensils for the celebration of Gods Ordinances notwithstanding these the service of God may be Divine and Spiritual without affectation of Legal shadows of worldly pomp or carnal excellency contrary to the texts alledged If any be faulty in that way it is to be imputed to the persons not either to others not guilty nor to the Liturgy prescribed much less such Ministers as offer up Prayers and Prayses to the Father in the name of Christ for things agreeable to the Will of God and use the Lords Supper without Idolatry are to be charged to disown really the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ. Sect. 10. Things objected against the Ministers are not such as justifie Separation This Author addes But perhaps to these things some may say These are but small matters good men differ among themselves herein To which we answer 1. That they are part of the Instituted Worship of God the Orders he hath left his children to conform to hath already been proved to say That any part of the Instituted Worship of Christ is a small matter is no small derogation to the wisdom of the Lawgiver that gave it forth 2. What if it should appear that as small as these things seem to be they are the grounds of the late Controversies of God pleaded with fire and sword in most of the Europaean Kingdoms This may perhaps a little stay sober persons from so rash a conclusion that these are small matters A serious review of the late Contests of God in the Nations with the consideration of the grounds and rise of them will to persons of sobriety sufficiently evince the truth of the suggestion 3. As small matters as these have been severely punished by the Lord He is a jealous God and stands upon punctilio's if I may so call them in his Worship hence is that expression Ye cannot serve the Lord for he is a jealous God Josh. 24.19 What should I mention the case of Uzziah 2 Chron 26.16 of Corah Dathan and Abiram Numb 16. of Uzzah whose sin lay meerly in whose judgment was singly upon this foot of account his not seeking the Lord after the due order 1 Chron. 15.13 God commands that when the Ark was removed it should be covered by the Priests that no hand touch it that it be carryed on mens shoulders Numb 4.11 15. which Order was violated when they brought it from the house of Abinadab 't was uncovered and upon a Cart after the manner of the Egyptians 1 Sam. 8.7 for which breach of Order Uzzah is struck dead 4. As small matters as these when once commanded by the Lord are of that force as not only to deface the well-being but to overturn the true being of the Worship of God Take one pregnant instance herein The Lord commanded the Israelites by Moses to bring their Sacrifices to the place that he should chuse and offer them there which in it self was but a circumstance of place yet all the Sacrifices offered elsewhere were a stink in the nostrills of God and not accounted by him as any Worship performed unto him 5. But the Objection is altogether impertinent we are not debating the greatness of the sin but the truth of what is charged upon
quod or the terminus ad quem to which it had been directed But if he had only taken occasion upon the sight of the Sun to worship God as David did Psal. 8.3 magnifie or worship God the Creator it had been no Idolatry though the Moon or Sun were the objectum à quo significativè or the sight 〈◊〉 it the motive to it Till Divine worship be given to a creature it is not Idolatry although in the kind or means of worship there may be Will-worship and in the opinion of those that count their act or the object to be holy when it is not there may be superstition of the mind and in the use of such things or forbearing their use superstition in the members That which this Author saith of his major Proposition as generally owned by Protestants I do not believe it to be true understanding it as he doth of relation only to the creature as objectum significativè à quo or the motive of the adoration and not the object to which it is directed As for this minor it may be denied even in his own sense for the adoring of God though it be at the receiving the elements yet the elements are not objectum significative à quo or the motive of their kneeling according to the Common-Prayer Book which saith That the order in the Office for the administration of the Lords Supper that the Communicants should receive it kneeling is well meant for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgement of the benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy receivers and for the avoiding of such profanation and disorder in the holy Communion as might otherwise ensue That thereby no adoration is intended or ought to be done either unto the Sacramental bread and wine there bodily received or unto any corporal presence of Christs natural flesh and blood Which intimate that the elements are not the objectum significativè à quo or the motive of their kneeling but the benefits of Christ in the Lords Supper given to all worthy receivers And that not the sight of bread or wine which is not seen till the cup be in their hand but the remembrance of Christs death and the remission of sins by his blood by saith are the motive to kneel to God with prayer and thanksgiving to him without any honour of the bread and wine though received eaten and drunk to remember Christs death as the procuring cause of those benefits As for his Reason if the elements were not there they would not kneel therefore they are the objectum significativè à quo or the motive of their kneeling partly the Antecedent is not true for they kneel before they receive the elements brought to them and after they have eaten and drunk while they are in the meditation of Christs death and the benefits by it using holy ejaculation in prayer and thanksgiving to God partly the consequence may be denied For though they would not kneel were not the elements there yet this is not sufficient to prove their presence the motive of kneeling any more than the presence and speech of the Mâ—nister who delivers them with prayer and exhortation to whom yet this Author makes not the kneeling to have relation And indeed it is not the presence of the elements when they are received that is while they are in the Ministers hand or their own or in their mouths which is the objectum significativè à quo but the actions with the elements at the consecration by the Minister which signifie Christs death and the use by themselves in eating and drinking whereby are signified their nourishment by Christ unto life eternal which are the motive to that gratitude and trust in Christ which in kneeling they exercise by prayer As for the words of Didoclavius with Maccovius his assent they are the words of an Adversary to the Ministers in this cause and therefore not fit to be alleged as a proof in this matter Nor if they were true would they prove kneeling to be Idolatry but to be some way against the second Commandement for avoiding Idolatry We might more justly and more to the purpose allege the words of Dr. Ames in his Triplication to Dr. Burges his Rejoynder ch 4. sect 4. p. 382. There is no Non-conformist which refuseth to kneel unto Christ in the celebration of the Lords Supper And the Conformists deny they require kneeling to any other than God and the Lord Jesus Christ. As for their bowing and cringing at the Altar it concerns them to speak for themselves who use it neither do all the Conformists use it no not in Cathedrals if my information be right nor is there any established Law for it and those that use it do avouch they do it not to any other than God and therefore are not to be charged with Idolatry whatever other fault they are chargeable with by reason of it It follows Sect. 16. The Crimination of the Ministers as Idolaters is not excusable Object To what hath been hitherto offered in this matter if it be said That the charging the present Ministers of England with Idolatry is exceeding harsh and that which is an argument of a very unchristian and censorious spirit Though this makes nothing to the enervating of what hath been offered yet we answer 1. That many words of Christ himself were accounted hard sayings and not to be born and that by such hearers as were once his admirers and did with seeming great affection attend upon his ministry That such poor worms as we should be recharged herewith it is no great marvel it is enough for the Disciple to be as his Master 2ly We have in this matter said nothing but what is in Thesi over and over asserted by most or all Protestant Writers upon the second Commandement who assert fully That the worshipping God in a way not prescribed by him is Idolatry such as do so are Idolaters With our application hereof unto the present Ministers of England if they are guilty as that they are hath been abundantly demonstrated why should any be offended To speak truth when our silence would be prejudicial to the souls of our Brethren me-thinks should not be accounted unchristian or censorious In the margin are these words Calvin Perkins Ames Maccâ—vius Altingius Wendeline Paraeus Explicat Cate. p. 3. Q. 96. p. 528. saith Quid postulat secundum praeceptum Res. Ne Deum ullâ imagine aut figurâ exprimamus neve nullâ ratione eum colamus quà m qua se in suo verbo coli praecepit 1 Sam. 15.23 Deut. 12.30 Mat. 15 9. And afterwards he addeth Huic secundo praecepto contraria sunt ea quae vero cultui divino adversantur 1. Idololatria quae est culius numinis fictitius aut superstitiosus Sunt autem Idololatriae duâ— species praecipuae una crassior cum fictitium numen colitur haec species prohibetur in primo praecepto aliquâ ex parte in tertio
Ministers of England may be justly charged That they worship God after the way of the Common Prayer Book with modes and rites used in the Papacy cannot be denied Nor can their undue administration of that great ordinance of our Lord Jesus of bâ—eaking bread to all according to thâ— form therein prescribed That they are Ordained and some of them re-ordained by the Episcopacy is also known I ask are these things the sin and evil of thâ—se men or are they not If they are not Why did not our preaching Brethren receive the Ordination from the Bishâ—ps these received Yea why do not our half-conforming Brethren attend upon the reading of the Service used joyn with them in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper as administred by them Doth not their absenting themselves herefrom abundantly demonstrate that they in their consciences are perswaded that t is the sin and evil of the preseâ—t Priests of England thus to act and from such a mission in the worship of the Lord Answ. The major Proposition is granted To what he saith he hath already proved answer is made before That the present Ministers are justly charged by him or that they worship God with modes and rites Popish that their bâ—eaking bread to all according to the form prescribed is undue or their Ordination requires proof The not receiving Ordination may be from another cause than perswasion in conscience that t is the sin and evil of the Ministers that they act by such a mission perhaps they cannot subscribe to what is required They may forbear the Communion not because Ministers sin in not keeping back some but because they scruple the gesture prescribed Here then is no proof of their sin let 's see how if it were granted that they did sin participation in their guilt is proved As for the Second saith he That the hearing the present Ministers of England is that which renders a man guilty of being partaker with them in their sin the consideration of the several wayes persons may be justly charged with being guilty of partaking with â—thers in their sin will abundantly demonstrate the truth thereof To instance in a few particulars Then may persons be justly chaâ—ged as guilty hereof 1. When they are found any way consenting with thâ—m in their sin Ps. 50.18 When thou sawest a thief then thou consentedst with him and hast been partaker with the adulterers T is not the doing of the act that was done by these wicked persons that is here called partaking with them but a secret consenting with them therein 2. When they do that which hath a real tendency to encourage persons in their sin 2 John 11. Receive them not into your houses bid them not God speed for he that biddeth them God speed is partaker of their evil deeds 3. When they neglect the doing of those duties which the Lord requires at their hands for the reclaiming of them from their sin such are watching over rebuking admonishing first privately then by two and in case of obstinacy and perseverance therein telling it to the Church which are duties eminently câ—mprised in the ensuing Scriptures 1 Thes. 5 14. Heb. 3.12 13. and 10.24 25. Levit. 19.17 Mat. 18 15 16 17. 4. When they notwithstanding all that they have done or can do being under an utter incapacity of proceeding further therein perceive them to persevere in their sin shall still continue to hold communion with them and not separate from them Rev. 18.4 Come out of her my people left being partakers of her sins ye receive of her plagues The abiding with obstinate persevering Offenders as it is against positive injunctions of the most High Rom. 16.17 2 Cor. 6.14 15 16 17. 1 Tim. 6.5 Ephes. 5.8 11. Rev. 18.4 So is it in the last place instanc'd in assigned by the Spirit to be one way of partaking with others in their sins Not to multiply more particulars let us in a few words make application of these remarkes to the business in hand Is there any thing in the world that carries 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 sin Is not our so doing a secret consenting with them and encouraging of them in their evil deeds Is this to discharge those duties incumbent upon us if we indeed look upon them as Brethren for their reclaiming Yea is this to come out of and separate from them What less So then except it can be proved that the particulars instanc'd in are not some of those wayes whereby persons do become guilty of partaking with other mens sins Or that to attend upon the present Ministers of England is not what doth symbolize with some one more or all of them which can never be done it evidently follows That t is not lawful for Saints to hear the present Ministers of England the doing whereof is apparently a partaking with them in their evil deeds Answ. I grant consent in sin doing that which hath a real tendency to encourage persons in their sin neglect of rebuking admonishing when they are our duty makes us guilty of others sins Nor do I except against the Texts brought to prove these except that Mat. 18.15 16 17. which I have said before in my Answer to the Preface of this Book sect 15. is a rule not of reproving all sorts of sins but only of particular injuries and that telling the Church is not telling a particular separate Congregation in the Independent way but such a number of Brethren as may be fit to compose the difference above two or three and that not of necessity so as if the Complainant did not do it should be his sin but as of indulgence and conveniency as being the way fittest to rectifie the Offendor The last way of partaking with other mens sins is not true to wit that if after admonition and obstinacy of the Offendor we joyn in hearing the Word of God praying with him receiving the Lords Supper we are partakers with the Minister that preacheth prayeth or administers the Lords Supper in his personal sins such as are acting by an unlawful mission or other using a sinful irregular way in his calling Nor do the Texts alleged prove it The first Rom. 16.17 is an admonition to them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine they had learnâ—d which is nothing to the avoiding of him that teacheth the same Doctrine that the Apostles taught because of his personal sins It may more fitly be applyed against such as this Author who causeth divisions and offences by his doctrine of Separation from them that hold and teach the true Faith which is contrary to the Doctrine of St. Paâ—l Râ—m 15.5 6. The coming out from among Infidels being 〈…〉 not touching the unclean thing that is the Idol or unâ—ighteousness 2 Cor. 6.14 15 16 17. is nothing to prove a separation from hearing or joyning in prayer or the
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
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