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-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
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
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
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
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
other may be said to be Idolaters the hearts of the best men 〈◊〉 too often going forth too farr in desires after and secret dependence upon things beneath the Lord which yet they are watching and warring against waiting and longing for the day in which they shall be câ—mpleatly swallowed up in the will of God T is in respect of the sâ—cond particular before instanc'd in that we assert the present Ministers of England to be Idolaters To the proof whereof we now addâ—ess ourselves Answ. The Conclusion is not the same with that which at first Ch. 1. was undertaken to be defended That it is not lawful for the Saints to hear the present Ministers of England nor doth it necessarily follow that if we may not have communion with persons nor own them as our teachers but separate from them That we may not hear them preach the Gospel An excommunicate person I am not to have communion with nor to own the Teachers of forreign Churches as suppose the Lutheran as my teachers yea I may be bound to separate from such as suppose a Popish Priest as Jansenist preaching the doctrine of original sin of efficacious grace or the Gospel concerning redemption by the blood of Christ whom yet I may lawfully hear handling those truths according to the received doctrine of St. Augustin Nor is the maâ—or true if the Idolatry be in that way which he here calls Idolatry the worshipping of God in any other way than what he hath prescribed nor if the Idolatry be secret and not open nor though it be open if by infirmity he fall into it and repents or be not censured as such or teacheth nor such Idolatry nor requires any communion with him in his Idolatry Nor do the Texts prove his maâ—or 1 Cor. 5 11. forbids no oâ—her communion than eating and that eating which might be with Idolaters of this wâ—â—ld v. 10 and therefore not eating the Lords Supper Nor doth it any moâ—e forbid eating with a Bâ—other called an 〈◊〉 than with a Brother called a fornicatour or covetous 〈…〉 or an extortioner and therefore if this Text prove a necessity of separation from such in holy exercises as Prayer or the Lords Supper it forbids doing these things with a covetous person or railer and then a Christian Brother must have cognizance of such sins and be a Judge of every one he communicates with which were absurd and therefore it can be meant of no other than arbitrary familiar converse as in eating where I am at liberty to eat or not to eat and of private judgement of discretion which each one is to exercise in the choice of his company But nothing to the owning of a Teacher or shunning to hear him For here the person is considered only as a Brother not a Teacher in Office 1 Cor. 10 14. is less to the purpose for it requires only to flee from Idolatry not from Teachers that are any way Idolatrous so as not to hear them 2 Cor. 6.14 15 16 17 18. requires not to be yoaked with Infidels not to have part with them not to agree with Idols to come out from among Infidels to be separate not to touch the unclean thing that is the Idol which may be done and yet a person some way guilty of Idolatry may be heard yea owned as our Teacher and we may have some communion with him in holy things as in Prayer and the Lords Supper and praising God which are not Idolatrous That which is premised by this Author before his confirmation of the minor requires some Animadversions upon it The definition of Idolatry which hitherto hath been received by all Protestants that I know of is that which Dr. John Rainold hath delivered in his 2 d. Book de Idololatria Ecclesiae Romanae c. 1. that it is the exhibiting of Divine Worship to a Creature and hath proved it from Rom. 1.25 where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether it be read instead of the Creatour as explained by the Authors of the writing of the Constitutions of Clemens by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is cited by Grotius in his Annot. or Praeterito Creatore the Creatour being forsaken or neglected as Beza after Hilarius or besides the Creatour as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 besides that which is laid 1 Cor. 3 11. or as the Vulgar Potius quam Creatori rather than to the Creatour or as ours more than the Creatour shews that there is a worship and service proper to the Creatour and herein was the Idolatry of the Gentiles and all other that they worshipped and served the creature with that which was due only to the Creatour And therefore I conceive it not to be Idolatry where Divine Worship is not exhibited to a creature that is directed to some person or thing substance or accident real or imagined which is not the Creatour of all things It is true that Heathen-Idolaters did many of them make the Creatour of all the utmost bound or terminus of their Image-worship as the Apostle saith Acts 17.23 that the Athenians did ignorantly worship the unknown God and yet were Idolaters because their worship was first of the Image as the next terminus or object to which it was exhibited And the same is true of the Israelites worshipping of the calf though they worshipped God in it Exod. 32.5 because though they did not worship the Calf terminatively that is so as to intend to direct their worship to it as the utmost bound of it or last or chief object yet it was the molten Image which they worshipped Psal. 106.19 Exod. 32.8 It is indeed most gross and absurd Idolatry when the creature is worshipped terminatively and therefore the worship of Baal is accounted worse than the worship of the golden calves at Dan and Bethel 1 Kings 16.31 because it was terminated lastly to the Sun or to the Devil who was worshipped by Molech to whom they sacrificed their Sons and Daughters Psal. 106.37 38. And this Idolatry was the Idolatry of the Canaanites and a great part of the world and of the Jewes at last as St. Stephen chargeth them with Acts 7.41 42 43. Nor do I think it true which this Author here and p. 63. saith that there are few or none that worship the creature Terminative sith not only of old the host of Heaven was worshipped by most of the Idolaters as may be gathered out of the Scriptures and is largely demonstrated by Mâ— Selden in his Syntagma de Diis Syris but also at this day the Devil himself is worshipped in the East and West-Indies in some Northern Countries and Southern if the relation of Travellers Historians and Chorographers be true It is granted that it is somewhat more refined Idolatry when we offer up any worship or homage proper and due to God only before any creature as the medium or representative of God For then the worship is directed to it as Gods Deputy to receive it for him and so the
1. The whole Worship of God may according to these mens principles be discharged without any Sermon at all and it is manifest it is frequently so at one time or other in most of the Assemblies of England 2. Those their Prayers are also bounded and limited by the 55th Canon of the Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical 3. We had alwayes thought that Christ having given gifts unto men did require the use of those gifts at all times when ever persons were called to the performance of that service for which they were designedly given by him by vertue of the fore-mentioned precepts When Christ hath given a gift of Prayer unto his children and charged them to stirr up the gift given them and not to napkin their Talent we had verily thought that when ever they had been called forth to the performance of that duty he did really intend and expect that they should be found in the exercise of the gift given and see as yet no reason to change our apprehensions in this matter Answ. The major Proposition is not in all cases true The resting on the Sabbath day was a positive duty charged by God yet the sacrificing which was an obstruction of that duty called by our Lord Christ Prophaning the Sabbath Matth. 12.5 was Worship of Gods appointment Following of Christ and preaching the Gospel were Worship of Christs appointment and yet they were obstructions to positive duties required to be done to Parents Wives and Children Therefore it is not true unless the thing which is an obstruction be such of its own nature of it self and not by accident and so necessarily and universally such an obstruction But not to insist on this the minor Proposition is many wayes faulty 1. It is supposed that the Common-Prayer Book worship is a different sort of Worship from such as is used by those which exercise the gift of prayer as he terms it which is absurd For then so many several forms of words as are used should be so many several sorts of Worship all expressions that are not immediately inspired should be Will-worship and so preachers several methods and expressions in preaching should be several sorts of Worship This is that which I assert That the same petitions the same Confessions and Thanksgivings for matter are the same prayer and Worship though in various expressions and that the same prayers read out of the Common-prayer Book and the prayers of the preachers framed by themselves and uttered if they ask the same things in other phrases are the same prayers and Worship And they that can joyn with the one and say Amen to them may as lawfully and safely without sin joyn with and say Amen to the other 2. This Authors phrase doth intimate that ability to conceive compose and utter in variety of expressions petitions to God is the gift of prayer and the exercise of it is the exercise of that gift which is false sith the gift of prayer is by the moving of the affections directing the mind exciting faith as the Text alledged by this Author Rom. 8.26 proves the Spirits work being there to acquaint us what we are to pray for and to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to over-intercede for us with groans unspoken or as it is read which cannot be uttered And therefore noâ— in the inspiration of words or method or fitting a person with various or unpremeditated expressions Yea those who express not who do not compose their petitions in any order or method as in Ejaculatory prayers such as Nehemiahs prayer was Nehem. 2.4 Hannahs 1 Sam. 1.13 Hezekiahs Isai. 38.14 Those who premeditate before they pray as David did Psal. 19.14 have as truly and perhaps more rightly and do exercise the gift of prayer as those who in never so extemporary manner enlarge themselves in various expressions and petitions It is true the Author of the Discourse concerning the interest of words in Prayer ch 2. tells us The gift and grace of Prayer are two things This he derives from the spirit of adoption That he defines to be an ability of mind to form words expressive of such desires of our hearts as are according to the will of God conjoyned with a faculty of memoâ—y and of expression and elocution which he saith is partly natural partly by industry attainable But the gift of Prayer here by our Authors words pag. 62. is the donation of the Spirit and usually the exercise of it in expressions unpremeditated or conceived in opposition to praying by a book or written set forms kept in the memory is termed praying in the Spirit and so no natural or acquired ability which is to be observed that the ambiguity of expressions may not deceive the unwary Reader Now if this be observed they that pray in a set form and those that read the Common-Prayer may be truly said to pray in the Spirit if their heart goe with their words and to exercise the gift of Prayer if the gift of Prayer be as the Discourse cited doth describe it 3. The gift of Prayer by alleging Ephes. 4 11 should seem by this Author to be accounted a ministerial gift proper to them for so were the gifts mentioned Ephes. 4.11 which if so then it is not common to the Saints nor the exercise of it a positive duty chaâ—ged by Christ to be performed by the Saints except they be Ministers and so it is not lawful for them except they be Ministers to seek or to use the gift of Prayer If they have it by this Authors arguing they are to exercise it as well as Ministers and it is as unlawful for them to pray by a book as for the Ministers they so praying worship in a way not appointed by God and are Idolaters as well as the Ministers and separation is to be from them as well as from Ministers Whereas iâ— the gift of Prayer be partly natural partly acquired then it is lawful for Ministers or other Saints to make use of any lawful means which may acquire that gift such are any that may be a Directory to know what they aâ—e to pray for that may advantage them for remembring composure or elocution conference imitation of others reading meditation self-examination and if the Common-Prayer Book be a help as some conceive it is it may be lawfully used or any others treatises or forms of Prayer for the obtaining of it And if so the Common Prayer Book worship may be so far from being an obstruction to the positive duty of exercising the gift of Prayer that it may further it by acquainting us with many things we should ask for as the Homilies also may be helps for the knowledge of what Doctrine Preachers are to teach their people And then this Authors Argument may be thus retorted That Form may be lawfully used for Worship which may be a means to further any positive duty charged by Christ to be performed by the Saints But such may be the forms of Prayers
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
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
apprehension we have of his omnisciency goodness wisdome and truth who neither can be deceived nor deceive that he only knoweth all things that we are to call no man our Father upon the Earth for one is our Father which is in Heaven Mat. 23.9 As on the contrary when Ahazias 2 Kings 1. sent to Baalzebub the God of Ekron to enquire of that Idol he worshipped Baalzebub and when Saul enquired of one that had a familiar Spirit and not of the Lord 1 Chron. 10.13 14. He worshiped that familiar Spirit Our Lord Christ is that Prophet whom God requires us to hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto us Acts 3.22 God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the Fathers by the Prophets hath in these last dayes spoken to us by his Son Heb. 1.1 2. And they that hear his word as the person to whom all things are delivered by the Father Mat. 11.27 as he in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdome and knowledge Col. 2.3 as that great Prophet who was to come into the World Luke 7.16 do worship Christ in hearing As on the other side he that heareth any other as Rabbi or master in that sense in which Christ asserts himself to be the only Master Mat. 23.8 10. as the Papists do who enquire of the Pope as infallible when he speaks or determins from his Chair doth worship him as his great Prophet Rabbi or Master which Christ forbids as an usurpation of his prerogative This worship of Christ is immediate even when we enquire of his minde by hearing other teachers who bring his word to us though not called as the Apostles and some others in the first planting of the Christian Churches as he that attends to a Kings Proclamation read or brought by never so inconsiderable a person declares by his Loyal hearing of it his honouring of his Prince not of the reader Câ—ier or messenger Yea God is worshipped and Christ honoured by hearing the Gospel read as the word of God as immediately and truly though not so solemnly by a boy at home as by a Pastor of a Church Sect. 2. Of hearing how instituted worship and to be devolved on the Scriptures of the New Testament Instituted worship of Christ is such as is by Christs institution Now institutions saith a civil Lawyer are praeceptions by which men are instructed and taught as the books of Ouintilian inscribed Institutions of Orators of Lactantius Divine Institutions of Erasmus the Institution of a Christian Prince of Aldus Institutions of Grammer of Calvin Institutions of religion Instituted woâ—ship of Christ under the Gospel is that which is by Christs praeceptions taught directed or appointed in the times of the Gospel since Christs coming in the Flesh. Which may be meant of that natural or moral worship which belongs to God or Christ such as are prayers to God giving thanks to him such like Of this it is true in respect of the explicite way of prayer or thanksgiving in the name of Jesus Christ or such peculiar manner as belongs to the New Testament the whole thereof is to be divolved upon the Scriptures of the New Testament that is as I interpret his words the direction or precept concerning it is to be taken from the Scriptures of the New Testament yet not excluding the directions and precepts of the Scriptures of the Old Testament nor the light of nature so far as that worship is perpetual and general to all people and times as being either natural or moral Of which sort I take hearing the word of God to be though some peculiarities there are which the Almighty hath tied us to in the New Testament in hearing as Mat. 17 5. This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased hear ye him Luke 10.16 He that heareth you heareth me and he that despiseth you despiseth me and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me Yet these passages do not exclude the precepts or directions of the Old Testament but presuppose them to be heard and learned in respect of the matter therein contained and the persons that reveal it so our Lord Christ Luke 16.29 They have Moses and the Prophets let them hear them 2 Peter 1.19 we have also a more sure word of prophecy whereunto you do well that ye take heed as unto a light that shineth in a dark place Nor do I meet with any prohibitions of hearing any but False-Prophets Mat. 7.15 deceivers Titus 1.10 that teach other doctrin 1 Tim 1.3 2 John 10 another Gospel Gal. 1.8 9. Our Lord Christ Caveat is Mark 4.24 Take heed what ye hear not warning them to avoid any that preacheth the same truth that he delivers though he more especially tyed his Disciples to hear his Apostles and such other as were sent by them to him yet when all the Church at Jerusalem except the Apostles which consisted of many thousands were scattered abroad by persecution and went every where preaching the word Acts 8.1 4. It was no sin to hear them they were not the strangers meant John 10.5 whom his Sheep were to flee from but rather they were bound to hear them in preaching his Gospel though not by any peculiar calling designed for that work as their function it being Christs declaration that his Sheep hear his voice John 10.27 Nor are the many precepts or directions in the Old Testament about hearing or reading Isai. 8.20 in the books of the Psalmes and Proverbs and other parts of Holy Scriptures vacated but that they remain still rules to us about hearing in the New Testament times and therefore it seems not to me to be a reasonable postulatum or demand that in the present enquiry of the Lawfulness of hearing the present Ministers of England the whole thereof be devolved upon the Scriptures of the New Testament Sect. 3. Hearing not a meer positive or ceremonial worship But perhaps the Author means by instituted worship of Christ such as is meerly positive or as we use to speak ceremonial such as are Baptism and the Lords Supper which are only worship of God by institution in the New Testament which is probable to be his meaning by what he adds not perplexing our selves nor the Consciences of any with what was or may be supposed to be permitted unto the Saints before the time of reformation whilst the worldly Sanctuary was yet standing the carnal ordinances pertaining thereunto in being at least by the providence of God not sully dissolved as afterward both it and they were being buried in the ashes and ruines of that Temple to which they were inseparably annext But if he make hearing of the present Ministers such an instituted worship of God or Christ he seems to me very inconsiderate hearing of preachers being a moral and perpetual worship common to all times and persons not a meer positive or ceremonial as being baptized or receiving the Lords supper are and therefore by reason
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
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
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
to my wants sometimes both are joyned 2 Cor. 9.25 the administration of this service or the ministration of this Ministry and the higher powers are termed Rom. 13.4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 6. that is the Minister or Officer of God In ecclesiastical matters both words are used and are applied to Christ who is termed the Minister of the Circumcision Rom. 15.8 a Minister of the Sanctuary Heb 8.2 and to Ministers of Christ Acts. 13.2 2 Cor. 11.23 the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is oft restrained to the office of a Deacon Phil. 1.1 1 Tim. 3.8 But the Ministry we are enquiring of is neither that of a Servant that waits on his Master nor of a contributor that supplieth anothers wants of outward necessaries nor the performing of the function of a Magistrate by doing acts of publique justice nor the ministry of Christ which was and is peculiar to him nor the Ministry of Angels who are also termed Gods Ministers and Ministring Spirits Heb. 1.7 14. Nor the office of Deacons as their office is termed serving tables distinct from the Ministry of the word Acts. 6.1 2 4. But that Ministry to which Matthias was elected Acts 1.25 and of which it is said 1 Cor. 3.5 who then is Paul and who is Apollos but Ministers by whom ye believed even as the Lord gave to every one and is meant Ephes. 4.11 12. where it is said that Christ gave some Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists and some Pastors and Teachers for the work of the Ministry This Ministry was performed by the Apostles Prophets and Evangelists somewhat extraordinarily either in respect of their gifts or their commission which are now ceased That Ministry we now enquire of is that of ordinary Pastors and Teachers as now sent To these sundry Ministries are usually assigned to 〈◊〉 Ministry of the word of Baptism of the Lords supper of confirmation ordination government by admonitions censures and if there be any other work allotted to those whom the Scripture terms Bishops or Elders But our quaerist in this his writing medling only with that part of Ministry in this main question disputed by him which is by Preaching I understand his quaerie to be meant of that part of the Ministry Now this Ministry is usually expressed by the Ministry of the word Acts 6.4 the Ministry of the Gospel of God Rom. 15.16 the Ministry of the New Testament not of the letter but of the Spirit 2 Cor. 3.6 8. of righteousness v. 9. the Ministry of reconciliation 2 Cor. 5.18 Stewards of the Misteris of God 1 Cor. 4.1 and sometimes our Ministery without any other adjunct 2 Cor. 6.3 and an Oeconomy or dispensation 1 Cor. 9.17 more fully Acts 20.24 the Ministery which I have received of the Lord Jesus to testify the Gospel of the grace of God Which shewes the Author of this Ministry whereupon he requires 1 Cor. 4.1 Let a man so account of us as of the Mynisters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated Minister Acts 13.5 of Christ and Stewards of the mysteries of God The finis cui or those for whom this Ministry is appointed are the Saints and therefore it is said to be for the perfecting of the Saints or joynting together of them and the edifying of the body of Christ Ephes. 4 12. wherefore St. Paul saith of himself that he was made a Minister of the Church according to the dispensation of God which is given to mee for you to fulfill the word of God Col. 1.24 25. which shewes that he was not a Minister for one particular Church but for any part of it where his lot was to Preach and that he was not Minister of the Church by their election or mission or direction for these were of God and Christ Jesus but for the Church or Saints as the subjects to and for whom he was appointed to fulfill the word of God even the mystery which had been hid from ages and from generations but then was made manifest to his Saints to whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles which is Christ in you the hope of glory v. 26 27. to which purpose he speaks also of himself Ephes. 3.6 7 8 9. which yet is not to be restrained so to the Saints but that the Ministry of the Gospel was to be to them that were not Saints I am a debtor saith he Rom. 1.14 both to the Greeks and to the Barbarians both to the wise and to the unwise and 1 Cor. 1.23 We preach Christ unto the Jewes a stumbling block and unto the Greeks foolishness and 2 Cor. 2.14 15. Thanks be to God which alwayes causeth us to triumph in Christ and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ in them that are saved and in them that perish So that the Ministry of the word though it be primarily for the Church and the Saints yet is the preaching of the Gospel the Ministry of Christ even to unbelievers as Ezekiel was a Prophet to the rebellious Nation of Israel when he spake Gods word whether they did hear or forbear Ezek 2.5 And hence I inferre that there may be a true Ministry not only in but also out of a Church of believers Sect. 19. A true Gospel Ministry may be in a false Church so deemed Secondly A Church may be said to be false many wayes 1. Because it was irregularly constituted that is not gathered by consent or Church-covenant or baptism but by humane Laws in forcing men to meet together in one Congregation or more because dwellers in such a Precinct or born or living in such a Countrey In this respect I conceive the Quaerist makes a national Church a false Church 2. Because it is an hypocritical company which doth indeed make them a false Church before God yet quoad nos they are a true visible Church if there be no falsehood in that which is descernible by men 3. Because it is Schismatical so as to break off from other parts of the Catholique Church without a justifiable cause whether out of ambition passion misapprehension or any other such like undue motive 4. Because it is heretical or Heresy is broached and upheld by a party in it Now I confess that it can hardly be that there should be a true Ministry in a Church tainted with Heresy Yet sith our Lord Christ writes to the Church of Pergamos as one of his seven Golden Candlesticks though there were that held the Doctrin of Balaam and of the Nicolaitans Revel 2.14 15. and in like manner the Church of Thyatira or the Angel of it suffered the Woman which called her self a Prophetess to teach and seduce his Servants to commit Fornication and to eat things Sacrificed to Idols I inferre those Angels were true Ministers though in a Church in some sort false that is tainted with
heretical or false doctrin And sith the Church of Corinth was manifestly Schismatical 1 Cor. 1.11 12. Yet Apollos a true Minister to them or who else were their Pastors And sith the Church of Sardis is charged as having a name that it lived but was dead yet the Angel of it one of the seven Stars in Christs right hand then may there be a true Ministry in such false Churches Revel 3.1 that is schismatical or hypocritical not consisting of real Saints And if it be that what is charged on Laodicea Rev. 3.15 16 17. were by reason of defect in Church constitution and disciplin as Mr. Brightman conceived then also a false Church in respect of such irregularity may have a true Ministry But because this is only an argument ad homines to such as concurre with Mr. Brightman in his conceit I will prove that in a National Church or a Church irregular in its constitution or discipline miscalled false may be a true Ministry of Christ. 1. If the truth of the Ministry depend upon the truth of the Church or it's regularity then where is no true regular Church there is no true Ministry But that is false sith there may be a true Ministry where there is no Church at all and therefore no true Church Ergo the truth of the Ministry depends not on the truth of the Church but a true Ministry may be in a false Church 2. If there be a true Ministry though to or in a National visible Church or Catholique then that extent which is conceived to be inconsistent with a true Gospel Church makes not the Ministry false but Peters and Pauls Ministry to the Jews or Gentiles Churches were true Ministries though the Churches were National or Catholique even set by God in the Church 1 Cor. 12.18 Ergo. 3. If Ministry to Churches Hypocritical Schismatical and in some sort Heretical may be true Ministry much more to a Church National irregular in constitution and discipline those being greater degrees of falsehood than this But the antecedent is before proved from the Epistles to the Corinthians to the Churches of Pergamos Thyatira and Sardis Ergo the consequent is true 4. If the regular constitution disciplin of the Church the election of the Church or their sending be extrinsecal or accidental not necessary or essential to the truth of the Ministry then may there be a true Ministry in such a Church as this Author calls false But the antecedent is true sith the Apostles were true Ministers afore the regular constitution and discipline of Churches without their Election or mission therefore the consequent is also true 5. If the denomination of true Ministers be from the truth of their Doctrin and no other form denominating them and there may be a Ministration of true Doctrin in such a supposed false Church then there may be a true Ministry in such a false Church for where the form denominating is there the Subject is rightly denominated from it But the antecedent is true both from all the Texts before alledged which place the truth of Ministry in the Doctrin taught and no other thing and in that the Colossians learned the grace of God in truth from Epaphras he is termed St. Pauls Fellow-Servant and for them a faithfull Minister of Christ Col. 1.6 7. and reason and experience confirms the possibility of preaching true Doctrin in a National mis-called false Church therefore the consequent is also true 6. If false Prophets false Apostles false Brethren be only denominated from their false Doctrin then they are not false Ministers but true who teach the truth of the Gospel notwithstanding their defects or the Churches in which they are But the antecedent is true as may be evinced from 2 Pet. 2.1 2 Cor. 11.13 Gal. 2.4 5. 1 John 2 1â— 21 22 26. 2. John 7. and many more places which denominate them false Prophets false Teachers false Apostles false Brethren Antichrists not Ministers of Christ from their erroneous Doctrin therefore from it and not from defects of Churches or other things are they false Ministers and if they preach true Doctrin true Ministers though in an irregular Church There being nothing offered against this to be answered I pass on to this Authors next Quaerie Sect. 20. Gods love to us is not less in not determining the whole of his Worship to us as to the Jews 3. Saith he Whether God doth not bear as much love to and exercise as much faithfulness over his New Testament Churches as over the National Church of the Jews Answ. No doubt of it yet doth not God shew his love nor exercise his faithfulness over his New Testament Churches in the same way or course of Providence as he did and perhaps will do over the National Church of the Jews He doth not gather the New Testament Churches by a mighty hand and a stretched-out arm as he did when he brought Israel out of Egypt by the hand of Moses but by the calling of his Word and operation of his Spirit Nor doth he make them Conquerours by Arms but they overcome the old Serpent by the blood of the Lamb and by the Word of their Testimony and they love not their lives unto the death Rev. 12.11 Nor doth God now settle his Church in one fruitful Land under one earthly King as he did the Jews under David and Solomon but in all Countries where they are called protects and feeds them by the Great Shepherd of the Sheep the Lord Jesus Christ and his Spirit in that estate and station wherein they are called Nor is it improbable that in the future calling of the Jews God will shew more remarkable Providences for their re-ingraffing into their own Olive than ever he hath yet shewed towards the Churches of the Gentiles It is added If so then 4. Whether he hath not as of old he did with reference unto the then Church determined the whole of the Worship appertaining unto them to whose Institutions without any Humane additions it is the duty of souls solely to conform Answ. The whole of the Worship appertaining to the New Testament Churches is either inward or outward To the New Testament Churches God hath determined the whole of his inward Worship as of old he did with reference unto the then Chuâ—ch or rather he hath more fully determined the Worship of himself by exercise of Faith and hope in Prayer and Thanksgiving having now more 〈◊〉 opened the mystery of his Will in the way of access to him and accepting of our service than he did to the Jews before Christs coming But for the outward Worship though he have set down sufficiently what we are to place his Worship in and wherein he hath determined by Precept or Example that hath the force of a Precept what is to be done by us that alone we are to account his Worship and to conform solely to it as his Institution without any Humane Additions or Alterations yet in respect of
of a Church and justly be disrobed of that appellation we justly plead against the Church of Rome pleading that they are the Church built on Peter against which the Gates of Hell shall not prevail Mat. 16.18 that the promise is not to that or any other particular visible Church but to the invisible Church of Gods elect and we alledg that St. Paul writing to the Church at Rome tells them Rom. 11.20 21. well because of unbelief they were broken off and thou standest by faith be not high minded but fear For if God spared not the natural branches take heed lest he also spare not thee But we add that not every nor many corruptions of some kinde do unchurch there being many in faith worship and conversation in the Churches of Corinth and some of the seven Churches of Asia who yet were Golden Candlesticks amidst whom Christ did walk But such general avowed unrepented of errors in faith as overthrow the foundation of Christian faith to wit Christ the only mediator between God and man and salvation by him corruptions of worship by Idolatry in life by evil manners as are utterly inconsistent with Christianity till which in whole or in part they are not unchurched Sect. 24. Every error makes not a false Prophet Our quaerist proceeds Eighthly whether the Ecclesiastick and spiritual rulers Governours and Officers of such a collapsed Church may not righteously as of old be accounted and esteemed as false Prophets that go about to cause the people to forget the name of the Lord or his pure worship by their Lies or unscriptural traditions innovations and ceremonious Pageantries Answer St. Peter foretold 2 Pet. 2.1 There were false Prophets among the people even as there shall be false Teachers among you who privily shall bring in damnable heresies even denying the Lord that bought them Jude 4. ungodly men turning the grace of our God into Lasciviousness and denying the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ 1 John 4.1 Many false Prophets are gone out into the World 2 John 7. Many deceivers are entred into the World who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh This is a deceiver and an Antichrist 1 John 2.22 who is a lier but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ He is Antichrist that denieth the Father and the Son If any Ecclesiastick and spiritual rulers Governours and Officers of a collapsed Church do in this manner go about to cause the people to forget the name of the Lord or his pure worship they are righteously as of old to be accounted and esteemed as false Prophets But if they hold the foundation that is Jesus Christ and teach the worship of God in the name of Christ without Idolatâ—y in their worship or heresie in their Doctrine though they build upon the foundation layd by the Apostle hay and stubble 1 Cor. 3.12 that is some errours of their own and some additions to the worship of God from unwritten traditions or other supposed power about ceremonies they are not righteously as of old the Prophets of Baal and Balaam and other seducers to be accounted and esteemed as false Prophets that go about to cause the people to forget the name of the Lord or his pure worship I add that if the addition of some humane ceremonies to the pure instituted worship of God and some errours to the sound Doctrin of faith do make the Teachers or Rulers of a Church false Prophets in te ipsum haec cudetur faba neither this Author nor any of the Pastors or Teachers of the Congregational Churches but may be judged false Prophets Sect. 25. Separation by reason of some corruptions unwarrantable It is added 9. Whether separation from such a Collapsed Church in respect of its worship Ministers and Ministry be not only justifiable but as of old the duty of the Lords faithfull Remnant that desire to worship him according to his appointments Answer Separation from a Church somewhat erroneous or corrupt in worship or conversation yet neither Idolatrous in worship nor Heretical in Doctrin nor requiring that to their communion which would be sinful especially if it be total from all parts of worship all attending on Ministers and Ministry at all times is unjustifiable utterly dissonant from any of the rules or examples which either of old the Prophets or holy men or Christ and his Apostles have prescribed is for the most part the fruit of pride or bitter zeal and tends to strife and confusion and every evil work James 3.16 Sect. 26. It is prudence to joyn in worship and hearing where some errours and corruptions remain Yet once more saith the Quaerist Yea 10. whether supposing a Church so called thus dreadfully as aforesaid departed from the pure institutions of Christ never to be according to truth a visible instituted Church of Christ and the Lords poor people living in the Nation never by their free consent members thereof as it is on the pretended Churches part most unheard-of-cruelty to compel them so it be not on the part of the free born Children of God most stupendious folly and disvaluation of the institutions of Christ and ingratitude to God for the light and liberty from the yokes of men received imaginable to joyn affinity with it in worship or attend upon the self invented Ministry that appertains thereunto Many more questions of the like nature and importance might be added Answer Compulsion of men may be cruelty But it is neither pendious folly nor disvaluation of the institutions of Christ nor ingratitude to God but true Christian prudence warranted by the Counsel of St. James and the Elders at Jerusalem by the yielding and practice of St. Paul Acts 21.18 c. Acts 16.3 1 Cor. 9.19 20 21. by Christs example Mat. 17.27 for persons living in a Nation for their peace to joyn in affinity with such a Church which hath some humane inventions in worship and to attend upon that Ministry which appertains to it when they preach the Gospel for the main though not without some mixture of errours and neither require them to practice that which is in it self evil nor binde them to assent unto that which is erroneous What more Questions of the like nature and importance this Quaerist might add I know not I thought it necessary to answer these as being praelusory to the main Question and tending to forestall the reader with unmeer prejudice Having removed these stumbling blocks out of the way I proceed to examine the rest of the writing CHAP. 1. ARG. I. Sect. 1. Some scruples of conscience are of ill consequence AS a preamble to his dispute the Author writes thus This is that which the Lord hath said I will be sanctified in all that draw nigh me and before all the people will I be glorified The great care of Saints in matter of worship is to sanctifie the name of the Lord therein This is the great thing that God looks at the omission whereof
expression there and Jer. 7 31. of Gods not commanding must be expounded by a figure of Speech frequent in Scripture wherein Words or Phrases often signifie more than is expressed which must be understood of that place Jer. 7.31 where the thing God is said not to have commanded is that which he had most strictly forbidden and severely punished to wit the building the high places of Tophet which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire and therefore is rightly paraphrased by Mr. Gataker in the large English Annot. on Jer. 7.31 Which I commanded them not or which I never commanded but exprâ—sly forbad and professed to abhor Levit. 18.21 and 20.3 Deut. 12.31 and 18.10 And therefore these Texts are ill alledged to prove the Lords condemning of that which is done onely beside the warrant and direction of the Word and that it is not lawful for the Saints to practise that which being but an accidental part adjunct or circumstance of instituted Worship hath not warrant by command in the Scripture He adds 8. of the same mind with us in this matter are the renowned Witnesses of Christ in all ages generally all that write upon the second Commandment speak fully hereunto Answ. This assertion cannot be proved nor is it likely to be true such those few testimonies alledged of Cyprian Beza Luther and Whitaker are impertinent That of Cyprian Epist. 63. to Caecilius is manifestly meant of that which is prescribed by Christ and not of adjuncts undetermined the whole Epistle being against the Aquarii who would have water only in the Lords Supper whom Cyprian refutes asserting that Christ used and commanded Wine mingled with Water erring therein Bezas words in his Annot. on Philip. 1.1 that it is unsafe to decline from the Word of God though but an hairs breadth are to be understood of things determined therein Luthers words on 1 Pet. 4.11 as they are cited which I have not the Book to examine are meant of Doctrines or Decrees which he would not have subscribed to or taught unless in the Word of God The place where Dr. Whitakers words are is not quoted they seem to be against the Popish use of Oyl in their Sacraments which they conceive to confer grace and add it to Baptism in which Christ hath appointed no other Element but Water and therefore I conceive them not to assert that which is the Major to be proved that the practice of adjuncts of instituted Worship undetermined is unlawful without a Command in Scripture That many others may be added to these I doubt not but that they speak home to his Proposition I believe not Voet. Polit. Eccles. part 1. l. 2. h. 1. c. 7. sect 2. Ecclesiae in genere potestatem ceremonias adiaphoras assumendi in cultu divino adhibendi nemo hactenus negarit qui ei tribuit potestatem clavium cum ea potestatem regiminis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Declaration of the Congregational Elders Ch. 1. saith there are some circumstances concerning the Worship of God and Government of the Church common to humane actions and societies which are to be ordered by the light of Nature and Christian Prudence according to the general rules of the Word Sect. 4. Prejudice is no argument nor personal motives good proof He adds The Minor or second Proposition consists of two parts 1 That Hearing is part of instituted Worship one would wonder should it be denied however 't is evident it is so from the light of this single demonstration That in which we wait upon God in the way of an Ordinance for the Communication of good beyond the vertue of any creature to conveigh to us is part of the instituted Worship of God for what I wait for not being in the thing it self in which I am waiting no ground can be assigned for my expecting good through it but Divine Institution but in the Hearing of the Word we wait upon God in the way of an Ordinance for the Communication of good beyond the vertue of any creature to conveigh to us Therefore Answ. I do grant Hearing the Word of God to be one part or sort of Gods instituted Worship in the sense delivered by me in the Answer to the Preface in the three first Sections because it is required by God and tends to shew our subjection to him as our Soveraign Lord and our acknowledgment of his transcendent Wisdom and Infallibility and is for these ends an address immediately to God on whom only we wait to know his Will though brought us by his created Messenger whose Doctrine we receive not as his Word but as the Word of the living God nor believe or obey it any farther than it appears to be his But I do not take the argument here produced to be demonstrative sith there be many things as Marriage Eating Drinking Ploughing Sowing c. in which we wait upon God in the way of an Ordinance for the Communication of good beyond the vertue of any creature to conveigh to us and yet are not parts of the Instituted Worship of God 2. Saith he That hearing the present Ministers of England is not warranted in the Scripture This will be manifested when we come to the ventilating and scanning of those places which are usually produced for the abetting of the practice of some in this matter in the mean while we crave liberty to profess that it is not opinionativeness singularity vain-glory uncharitableness or any thing of that nature as some are apt uncharitably enough to censure but the dread and awe of God who is a jealous God and especially in point of worship and an holy fear of offending him that hinders us from complying in these matters could but one word tittle or iota be produced from the Scriptures of God for the warranting the hearing the present Ministers of England we should quickly lay our mouths in the dust confess and bewail our folly in refusing to conform thereunto but this we are fully assured those that dissent from us are not able to do what they say therein shall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be sifted to the uttermost Answ. The hearing the present Ministers of England while they teach the Doctrine of Gods Word is warranted in Scripture which forbids only the hearing of False Prophets Mat. 7.15 Antichrists that seduce that bring not the doctrine of the Apostles 1 Joh 2.18 26. and 4.1 5 6. 2 Joh. 7.10 which if he prove the Ministers of England to be his Minor is proved but not either by personal exceptions against their entry on their Ministry or their sinful practices nor by ventilating or scanning of those places which are usually produced for the abetting of the practice of some in this matter For though Ministers be as bad as Judas yet they may be heard preach the Gospel as he was and though the places alledged should prove
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
as those 1 Cor. 5.11 2 Cor. 12.20 21. not those practices charged on the present Ministers here by this Author are meant by disorderly walking 2 Thess. 3.6 which is also confirmed by 1 Thess. 5.14 where after the Apostle had beseeched them v. 12 13. to know them which laboured among them and were over them in the Lord and admonished them and to esteem them very highly for their works sake which shews he expected not of them other works for the earning of their Bread than their labour in the Word and Doctrine he adds now we exhort you Brethren warn them that are unruly the same word which is 2 Thess. 3 6. translated disorderly whom he distinguisheth from thâ— feeble minded and weak and therefore is meant of Brethren who sinned openly and wilfully and not of Ministers who do yield to that which is controverted even by learned and godly men whether it be evil at all and if it be evil it s not of such a kind as the Apostle any where censures so as he doth this disorderly walking and it s most likely is practised out of ignorance errour fear or other motive which may befall an holy and upright man Nor is there any force in this Authors reasoning that the practice of the Ministers must be disorderly walking unless they can shew an Apostolical written Tradition for those things they practise For 1. it doth not appear that the Tradition 2 Thess. 3 6. of the Apostle is any other than the command v. 10. that if any would not work he should not eat which is not improbable from the connexion of the following verses with this which also makes it probable that the disorderly walking v. 6. is no other than being idle and busie-bodies the Apostle acquitting himself from behaving himself disorderly v. 7. in that he wrought with his hands that he might not be chargeable to any of them v. 8. and then they need to bring no other tradition to acquit themselves from disorderly walking than their labouring in the Word and Doctrine according to 1 Tim. 5.17 18. 2. If the Tradition be further extended to those mentioned 2 Thess. 2.15 It will not be necessary that they may be acquitted from disorderly walking that they produce for themselves an Apostolical written Tradition for a Liturgie Surplice or Crossing they think it concerns him that accuseth them as walking disorderly in doing them that he produce an Apostolical Tradition against the use of them For being as they conceive in themselves things indifferent they think it enough that there is no Apostolical precept forbidding them and then they have this Apostolical Tradition for them Rom. 4.15 where no Law is there is no Transgression If it be replied in things that pertain to Gods Worship there must be an express Institution or else the practice of it is walking disorderly besides what is said before in answer to the first Chapter Sect. 3. it may be retorted where is your Apostolical written Tradition by Institution for your Church Covenant Infant Baptism Election of Ministers by most voices excommunication of members in a Congregational Church by the major part with many more To use your own words if you have not as there is nothing more certain you are disorderly Walkers and to be separated from as well as the present Ministers if the Apostles argument be valid We command you to withdraw from such as walk disordâ—rly But who I pray are these disorderly Walkers how shall we know them they are sayes the Apostle such as walk not after the tradition received from us Eadem in te cudatur saba As much may be said of the Separatists if by Apostolical Tradition be meant an Institution for every thing used in Worship and Church Government 3. This Authors Argument if it proceed thus Every one that hath not a written Apostolical Tradition for what he doth or that doth otherwise than the Apostles Tradition requires walks disorderly which is the force of his reasoning then every one that sins in any kind is a disorderly walker for sure he hath no Apostolical Tradition for any sin and then this Author if he be not a Perfectist nor thinks himself excluded from the number of those of whom it is said James 3.2 In many things we offend all and 1 Joh. 1.8 If we say that we have no sin we deceive our selves must acknowledge himself a disorderly walker and to be separated from 4. The present Ministers I imagine will be apt to alledge for themselves that they have Apostolical written Tradition even for those practices for which they are accused as disorderly walkers to wit Rom. 13.1 Heb. 13.17 and be ready to recriminate this Author and those of his mind as disorderly walkers in separating from their Brethren disobeying their Ministers and Governours commanding things lawful and to be separated from as practising of division To conclude this matter Were it granted that the present Ministers of England were disorderly walkers and that they were to be withdrawn from yet this doth not prove that they might not be heard as gifted Brethren or that the best of them cannot by Saints be accounted as Brethren in respect of Gospel Communion Partly because the withdrawing themselves from every Brother that walks disorderly cannot be meant of exclusion of himself from hearing praying or receiving the Lords Supper if such a one be present unless it be determined that every one must not only examine himself before he comes to the Lords Supper which the Apostle requires 1 Cor. 11.28 but also every Brother even his Minister with whom he is to joyn in Gospel Communion yea and hath power to excommunicate his Brother or liberty notwithstanding the Institution of Christ to exclude himself which sure is no Apostolical Tradition but a far more disorderly walking than most of those things the practice whereof is made by this Author the Ministers disorderly walking Besides the injunction to every Christian to withdraw himself not to keep Company 2 Thess. 3.6 14. being expressions which note not acts imposed by Church Governours but such as they ought of their own accord to practice are to be understood of such familiar private arbitrary Communion in entertainments and other societies as they are at liberty to do or not to do or might do were it not for this consideration not such Communion as if they omit they omit the Worship of God which he hath appointed and so break his Commandment Partly also because if the withdrawing were upon publick censure of the Community yet it must not be according to their own rule without a gradual proceeding of endeavouring conviction and precedent admonition which being not done to the present Ministers of England to separate from them even the best in hearing and other Gospel Communion is irregular and unjustifiable I go on to examine what follows CHAP. 3. ARG. 3. Sect. 1. That which is by some termed Antichristian is not alwayes unlawful THose that act in
a special manner as in respect of their Office drawing near to God engaged to offer spiritual sacrifices of Prayer and Praise which the Apostles conceived to belong to them in special manner together with the Ministry of the Word Acts 6.4 and 13.21 yea the Apostle Paul Rom. 15.16 useth this expression that this grace was given to him of God that he should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word applyed to Christ as a Priest Heb. 8.2 and joyned with Sacrifice Phil. 2.17 the Minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ministring as a Priest the Gospel of God that the offering or sacrificing of the Gentiles might be acceptable and therefore in respect of his Office he might have been called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Priest though not properly yet allusively and so may Ministers now as the Christian Church is called the Temple of God the Israel of God the heavenly Jerusalem c. And if as some conceive the word Priest be derived from the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it may be judged the fitter word than Minister which is more apposite to signifie a Deacon than an Elder Selden de Syned vet â—braeo l. 1. c. 14. p. 583. Vocem nostram Priest Teutonum Belgarumque Priester uti Gallorum Prebstre Prestre Italorum Prets a Presbytero deformatam nemo puto non concedit p. 585. Nec pueruli nesciunt voces istas Seniorem Priest Presbyterum Elder ex sui tam naturâ Usuque primario significatione apertissimâ non magis differre quà m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 consulem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 principem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Regem aut quae alia sic invicem omnino eadem sunt As for that which is added that the present Ministry of England is bounded by men in their Office so as that they must Preach what they would have them and cease when they would have them I think it is not without example in the best ordered Churches I do conceive that in the Churches of the Separatists they would tie their Ministers to Preach according to their Confession and that if any taught otherwise than according to the declaration of the Faith and Order of the Congregational Churches in their meeting at the Savoy Octob. 12. 1658. they would restrain him or withdraw from him Sure the Apostle would have Timothy to abide at Ephesus that he might charge some that they teach no other Doctrin 1 Tim. 1.3 and Titus to reject an Heretick Tit. 3.10 and 1 Cor. 14.30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by let the first hold his peace v. 28. If there be no Interpreter let him keep silence in the Church Which is sufficient proof that even those that are Gifted extraordinarily may be bounded by Order and they that teach otherwise than they should may be silenced Which if the Prelates or others do when they should not they are accountable to Christ who will judge them for it But it is no proof that their Ministry is not from Christ who submit to the commands of men that have power over them forbidding them to teach some truths and forbearing to teach when it cannot be with safety and fruit to the Church of God themselves and them which are without It is added So is it 3. to their admission into this their office viz. by a Lord-Bishop without the consent of the Congregation in which they are as Officers Answ. In the Answer to the second Chapter of this writing Sest 3. hath been shewed that the praeelection or consent of the Congregation in which a Minister is to act as an Officer is not so necessary to his Office or to the communion with him in it but that he may be owned and act lawfully as their Minister in some cases without it The admission of the present Ministers of England hath not alwayes been by Lord Bishops some have been made by Suffragan Bishops not Lords and instituted I think by Dean and Chapter and if ordained or instituted by a Lord Bishop yet not as Lord but as Bishop which is not alwayes without the election of the Congregation who are in some Parishes Patrons and in others there is supposed in Law an implicit consent in their Ancestors yielding that power to the Patron to present and an after consent by receiving him that is instituted as their Minister In some Peculiars and Donatives there 's no institution from a Lord Bishop required nor alwayes any other than a Licence to preach from the Bishop But whether these usages be right or wrong notwithstanding them yet may the Offices of the present Ministers of England be from Christ though this Author further argue to the contrary thus Sect. 3. The term Priest proves not symbolizing with the Popish Order of Priests The very truth is both in their Names Office and Admission thereunto the present Ministers of England symbolize not with the Ministers of Christ but the Popish Order of Priests so that if these do Act by vertue of an Antichristian Office-power then do they as he that runs may read in the ensuing paralled particulars 1. They are both called and own themselves Priests which though some may make light of light of yet considering that it is a term borrowed either from the Priests of the Law the assertion of such a Priesthood being a denial of Christ come in the flesh or from the Priests of the Heathen in conformity to whom as the Druides of old our Priests wear their white Garment or Surplice or from the Antichristian Church so called of Rome such Idolatrous Superstitious names being commanded by the Lord to be abolished Hos. 2.15 Zâ—ch 13.2 wants not it's sufficient weight the retention whereof being also a sore suspicion of too great a compliance with if not a willingness to return to that from whence they are derived Of the same mind with us herein is Hierom upon the 2. of Hosea the Hebrew Doctors Kimchi and Aben-Ezra the Chaldee Paraphrast Ribera though a Jesuite Zanchi Danaeus Sanchius Polanus River and almost all that write upon the said Scripture The last mentioned viz. Learned Rivet hath these words in his Corollaries from Hos. 2.15 16. There are many names which in themselves are good enough and might be used but God abhorreth the use of them because they have been abused to Idolatry he instanceth indeed in the word Mâ—ss but Priest or Altar being of the same aâ—â—ay upon the same foot of account is to be rejected The reformed Churches in Helvetia in their Harmony of Confessions are of the same mind The Ministry say they and the Priesthood are things far different the one from the other he himself viz. Christ remaineth only Priest for ever and we do not communicate the name Priest to any Minister least we should detract something from Christ. Answ. Every one saith Mr. Selden de Syn. Ebrae l. 1. c. 14. p.
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
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
of the Offices of Christ when contradicted by practice is nothing to the salvation of the person so professing in the sense in which St. Paul saith 1 Cor. 13 2. Though I have the gift of Prophecie and understand all mysteries and all knowledge and though I have all faith so that I could remove mountains and have no charity I am nothing that is as v. 3. it profiteth me nothing and no further are to be drawn the words of the Apostle Tit. 1.16 than that which is expressed in the Text that to such persons nothing is pure but their minds and consciences are defiled and so to the Interrogation I answer such a ones plea shall not be admitted before God or in an Ecclesiastical censure or a private judgment so as that he shall have the approbation or benefit of a real subject to Christ yet all this doth not prove that his doctrine impugnes the Offices of Christ or that his doctrine may not be heard to the profit of the Hearers J. Owen of the duty of Pastors p. 24. God oftentimes out of his care for his flock bestows gifts on some for the benefit of others on whom he will bestow no graces for the benefit of their own souls P. 43. People must beware of false Prophets How shall they do this but by trying their doctrine by the rule Nor is it true that Christ hath decided the question as he would have it as if Christ had said that false Prophets are to be descried by their virtous life not by their doctrine He saith indeed they are known by their fruits but that these fruits are only their evil life he saith not No where is any one said to be a false Prophet that doth not take upon him to prophesie he may be a bad man that teacheth no false Doctrine but not a false Prophet Judas was a wicked man a Devil but no where termed a false Prophet yea he was one of those that Christ sent to preach and one of those of whom he saith Mat. 10.40 He that receiveth you receiveth me and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me In the Old Testament Jer. 5.3 23.16 17 25 26. Micah 3.5 false Prophets are said to be such as prophesied Lyes in Gods name and he sent them not that they taught lying divinations the Visions of their own heart they cried peace when there was no peace they attempted to draw them after other gods Deut. 13.2 In the New Testament 2 Pet. 2.1 There were false Prophets among the people even as there shall be false Teachers among you who privily shall bring in damnable heresies denying the Lord that bought them 1 Joh. 4.1 Many false Prophets are gone out into the World and they are said to be such as confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh that they speak of the World v. 3 5. That is true which Mr. John Ball in his Trial of the grounds of Separation ch 13. pag. 312. hath If we look into the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament we shall never find the Prophets called true or false in respect of their outward calling I add or only their vitious lives but in respect of their doctrine Yea though a man should by his doctrine deny the Offices of Christ only by remote consequence as by teaching something as appointed by Christ which was not or denying something to be instituted by Christ which was so appointed yet should he not be accounted a false Prophet but an erring man who while he layes the foundation rightly yet through ignorance or inadverrencie builds Hay and Stubble thereon as the Apostle speaks 1 Cor. 3.12 And therefore that which this Author doth so confidently pronounce as if it were as clear as the Sun and denied by none but those whose eyes the God of this World hath blinded That those that do really that is in their practice though not in their preaching oppose any of the Offices of Christ are not to be heard no not when they preach saving Truths of the Gospel but separated from not only in respect of private or Church Communion in the Lords Supper or Prayers but in attending on the Ministry of the Word delivered by them which is his major proposition is so far from being light that it seems rather to me some of that smoak of the bottomless pit whâ—ch the God of this World raiseth to hinder many poor souls from hearing that Word wherein the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ the image of God doth shine unto men Nor were not professing enlightned people as he calls them held by prejudice or guided by affection more than by judgment could they grant this proposition For if according to this Authors dictates he that really that is in heart or practice opposeth any of the Offices of Christ is to be separated from then every one who disobeys his Commands believes not his Words that is an hypocrite yea that sins or errs in any thing Christ hath revealed or commanded is to be separated from and not to be heard and so all must turn Seekers or Quakers if they do not meet with a Teacher who is perfect without sin or errour As for what this Author saith for demonstration of it that such are Antichrists 1 Joh. 2.22 and 4.2 3. 2 Joh. 7. and that Beza is of the same mind and that they that hear them strengthen their opposition unto the Offices of Christ and partake with them in their sin is false For neither doth St. John nor Beza in his Annotations count any for Antichrists there meant but such as by their doctrine oppugne Christs Nature or Office which he terms the false Doctrine of the Antichrists nor is he at all guilty of the sins of the Minister who is evil in his life by hearing him preach truth yea though he preach some errours and it be probable that when he hears him he shall hear some errour preached by him unless some other way he abet his sin or errour or omit his duty in seeking to amend him But let us attend the proof of his minor Sect 2. Every not hearkning to Christs Order is not a denial of his Office 'T is the second thing may sound harsh in the ears of some as did some sayings of Christ but if truth where God shall give the seeing eye and hearing ear 't will be received viz. 2. That the present Ministers of England do oppose and deny some of the Offices of Christ viz. His Kingly and Prophetical Office which we come to the proof of Arg. 1. Those that hearken not to the Revelation Christ hath made and as supreme Lord and Law-giver hath enjoyned to be observed touching the Orders and Ordinances of his house deny the Prophetical and Kingly Office of Christ Deut. 18.18 Acts 3.22 Isa. 9.6 But the present Ministers of England hearken and conform not to the Revelation Christ hath made touching the Orders and Ordinances of his house Therefore
Answ. Though I doubt not but I could retort this Argument upon this Authour whom by sundry passages in this Book I judge to be one that hearkens not to the Revelation Christ hath made and as supreme Lord and Law-giver hath enjoyned to be observed touching the Order and Ordinance of his house even that most express Mat. 28.19 Mark 16.15 16. one of the principles of the Doctrine of Christ and part of the foundation Heb. 6.1 2. Yet I shall wave that and answer directly by denying the major of which I give these reasons 1. Because denial is more than not hearkning to the one is by positive contradiction the other may be only by Omission 2. The not hearkning may be out of ignorance incapacity to understand dulness slothfulness fearfulness mistakes prevalency of temptation without any enmity of heart habitual stubbornness or willful gainsaying which are requisite to a plain denial of the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ. 3. There may be sundry Orders of his House revealed by Christ which are controverted whether they be such or no there may be some acknowledged to be Orders of his House yet thought not of such moment as that the peace of the Church should be broken by contending for them or judged not perpetual but temporary or not binding the Ministers to observe till the Magistrate reform as in the case of putting down Images or conceiving in cases of necessity or for avoiding of Scandal they may not hearken to them as in Davids eating the Shew-bread the Apostle Pauls not hearkning to the Order of discontinuing Circumcision and a Jewish Vow and Offering in these and perhaps more cases a person may not hearken to the Revelation Christ hath made and as supreme Lord and Law-giver hath enjoyned to be observed touching the Orders and Ordinances of his House and yet be so far from denying the Prophetical and Kingly Office of Christ that he may be sound in the Faith and a zealous and faithful maintainer of them by holding forth the truth of the Gospel unto the death And therefore I take the major proposition of this Argument to be manifestly false which he seems by not proving to take for manifest truth Sect. 3. It is not proved that Christs Soveraign Authority is rejected by the present Ministers But he goes on thus 'T is the minor or second Proposition that in the thoughts of some is capable of a denial but the verity thereof shines forth as the Sun in its brightness in the review of the Orders and Ordinances of the House of Christ appointed by himself and the present frame and deportment of the present Ministers of England with respect thereunto which of them have they not made void by their Traditions This is that which Christ hath said 1. That all power for the Calling Institution Order and Government of his Church is invested solely in him as the alone Lord Soveraign Ruler and Head thereof Mat. 28.19 1 Tim. 6.14 15. Joh. 3.35 Acts 3.22 and 5.31 'T is upon this foot of account that Christ chargeth his Disciples not to be called of men Rabbi nor to call any Father viz. not to impose their authority upon any or suffer themselves to be imposed upon by any in the matters of their God Mat. 23.8 9 10. because one is their Master and Lord viz. Christ. Hence also the Apostles lay the weight of their exhortations upon the Commandment of Christ 1 Cor. 11.23 and 14.37 Proclaim all to be accursed that preach any other Gospel Gal. 1.8 yea though Angels from Heaven should they live and speak as such charge those to whom they write not to receive any into their houses that bring any other doctrine much more not to receive them as their Teachers 2 Joh. 10. Yea the Spirit of the Lord in the close of the last Revelation of his Will it pleased this great King and Law-giver in such a way to give forth testifies that if any man shall add unto these things the Lord shall add unto him the Plagues that are written in his Book Rev. 22.18 Do the present Ministers of England conform unto this great Institution in words indeed they do so But what meaneth the bleating of the Sheep and lowing of the Oxen in our ears Do they not own other Lords Heads and Governours that have a Law-making power and would enforce the Consciences of the free-born Subjects of Christ over his Churches besides him what doth this less than evidently proclaim their disobedience and rebellion which is as the sin of Witchcraft against the King of Kings and the rejection of his Scepter and Soveraign Authority over them But of this more hereafter Answ. It is no strange thing to find in this Author high Charges backed only with confident assertions and no proofs so that men comparing the one with the other may think he wrote his Dreams rather than Meditations For what are we to think otherwise when we read such passages as these the verity of his minor proposition shines forth as the Sun in his brightness Which is no more than is to be said of the first universal indubitable principles of the light of Nature or Reason which are indisputable and yet he saith in the thoughts of some it is capable of a denial and when he should prove it so clear in stead of an Argument proves all with Interrogations which if the Reader deny he is put to a stand But to shew the vanity of his arguings to his Question which of the Orders and Ordinances of the house of Christ appointed by himself have not the present Ministers of England he means all even the best of them as his words ch 2. and arguings against them indiscriminatim do evince have they not made void by their Traditions I answer by another Question Which of them have they so made void Sure the Ordinances of searching the Scriptures hearing the Word praying to the Father in the name of Christ believing on the Son with many more which are the chief Orders and Ordinances of the house of Christ appointed by himself have not been made void by the Traditions of the Ministers of England that now are at least not by all or the best of them that I know or hear of But he imagines he can prove it by an induction of particulars of which he names only seven though to make his induction full without which it is no good Argument he should have reckoned seven times seven But perhaps he thinks if he can make good the charge in these seven it will be without question his charge is true of the rest Let us then view each of these in order and see how well he hath acquitted himself therein The first of these Orders or Ordinances of Christ is that all power for the Calling Institution Order and Government of his Church is invested solely in him as the alone Lord Soveraign Ruler and Head thereof Which I grant as a truth though I assent not to
his Paraphrase on Mat. 23.8 9 10. as if Christ did forbid the Apostles to impose their Authority upon any in the matters of their God which they did Act 15.25 28. But how comes this to be an Order Ordinance Institution of the house of Christ appointed by himself Such Orders I took to be Precepts of Christ to us but this seems to be Gods gift to him Mat. 28.18 Joh. 3.35 and 5.22 26 27. and 17.2 Acts 3.22 and 5.31 Ephes. 1.22 c. no Precept to us But let it imply a Precept to us Do not the present Ministers of England conform to it He grants they do so in words but not in deeds Why so They own other Lords that have a Lawâ—making power and would enforce the Consciences of the Free-born Subjects of Christ over his Churches besides him and thereby proclaim their disobedience and rebellion which is as the sin of Witchcraft against the King of Kings and their rejection of his Scepter and Soveraign Authority over them This is a high charge and if true would unchristen them but I see no proof of it so that I take this to be only a piece of Oratory such as Tertullus used against St. Paul Acts 24. which is so much the more venomous in that it is in generalibus without instancing in particulars which is the sign of a Diabolical Calumniatour Yet I shall not let it pass The Lords he means are either the King or the Bishops The King is owned by the Ministers in the Oath of Supremacie the Bishops in the promise at their Ordination wherein they promise the Lord being their helper to obey reverently their Ordinary and other Ministers unto whom is committed the charge and government over them following with a glad mind and will their godly admonitions and submitting themselves to their godly judgements The Law-making power of the King is with the Parliament of the Bishops in the Convocation the enforcing of the Conscience though it be an uncouth phrase as supposing the Conscience can be enforced by man which is impossible is meant of Causative Compulsion by enjoyning men to act or speak according to such Statutes or Canons as are imposed on them under certain penalties How many and which of these Acts or Speeches are rebellion and rejection of Christs Authority is to be demonstrated and not persons of place and Authority to be thus criminated after the manner of Railers and Scolds And sure it is not easie to prove that though such Acts and Speeches were imagined to be such Rebellion yet that they are so in them unless it could be proved they did them presumptuously 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a proud heart and an high hand which if this Author hath not learned the Maxime Calumniare audacter aliquid haerebit methinks he should tremble to attempt But sith he tells us of this more hereafter I intend to observe his motion He goes on Sect. 4. Ministers oppose not the Will of Christ by not joyning in the Separation pleaded for 2. Saith he This great Prophet and King hath also revealed and proclaimed That 't is his Will that those whom he hath called by his Word should separate from the World walk together in particular Societies and Churches having given up themselves to the Lord and one another according to the Will of God for their mutual edification and comfort in the Lord. The truth of this soveraign Institution of Christ he that runs may read in the Scriptures hereunto annexed 1 Cor. 1.2 and 5.12 2 Cor. 6.17 Rev. 18.4 Joh. 15.19 and 17.6 Acts 2.40 and 19.9 Phil. 1.5 Acts 2.41 and 17.4 2 Cor. 8.5 with many more In the proof of this we might be copious but that we study brevity The diligent Reader knows where to find this Theam at large treated of by learned Ainsworth Bartlet Cotton Rogers c. How do the Ministers of England acquit themselves in respect of this solemn appointment of the Lord alass who sees not that they are in their practice at open defiance herewith have it in derision and contempt making no difference betwixt the Holy and Prophane admitting persons led captive by the Devil at his will that openly blaspheme the spirit of the Lord and deride its effectual operation in the Consciences of men into their society Are any too vile except such as truly fear God and desire to press after holiness to be admitted by them into their Communion Is not their Church-state so unlike is it to the Institution of Christ a very Babel a Den of Dragons and Hold of unclean Beasts Answ. This Crimination proceeds on these suppositions 1. That Christians should separate from the Parish Assemblies and joyn together in the Congregational way by Church-Covenant which they call separating from the World 2. That Ministers are bound to reject and not to admit to the Communion those that are profane and to admit only real Saints in the judgment of Charity and that by opposing the way of separation and promiscuous admission to the Communion they infringe the solemn appointment of the Lord. For my part having read somewhat in Mr. Ainsworths and Mr. Cottons Writings both concerning the way of the Separatists in the Low-Countries and the Independents in New-England I do not either in the Scriptures here alledged find such a solemn appointment of Christ either that private persons or Ministers are to make such a Separation as these Authors do press upon the Consciences of others nor hath experience either in the Low-Countries or Old or New-England given such encouragement to sober minded Christians as to engage them in that way but rather many divisions declinings into errour and other evils have given too much cause for men to doubt whether it were ever a Plant of Gods planting It is granted that it is the will of Christ that those whom he hath called by his Word should separate from the World And this they are to do in respect of their Worship so as not to have Communion with them therein and this I doubt not may be proved from 2 Cor. 6.17 and some other of the Texts alledged But then by the World are meant professed Infidels such as denied the Lord Jesus and worshipped Idols or at least such as were professed Unbelievers as John 15.19 and 17.6 Acts 2.40 and 19.9 the Jews were and yet the Apostles did not refuse to go to the Temple to pray nor to go into their Synagogues or to take a Vow and purifie themselves at the Temple notwithstanding the corruptions of their Priests Service and People and their open opposition to the Christian Faith But that ever it was the Will of Christ that Christians should separate from the true Worship of God and the Professors of true Faith in Christ because of either known evil in the Coversation of those present or only suspected or reported is without all colour of Precept or Example in the Holy Scripture It is true the people of God are invited Rev.
conclude that these persons and their Abettors were guilty of Rebellion against their Rules and did really deny the lawfulness of their Authority This is the present case if men shall be found traversing paths in the possession and practice of Orders and Constitutions that are foreign to the edicts of Christ yea contrary thereunto shall we not as rationally conclude that these persons are really opposers of his soveraign Authority and Government doubtless so Answ. To the major proposition of the fourth Argument Those that oppugn or deny any of the Offices of Jesus Christ are not to be heard but separated from Answer is made before The major of this argument here needs elucidation and limitation Orders and Ordinances which not only are not of Christs revealing but contrary thereunto are not all of one sort Some are in points of Faith some of practice some in things not fundamental some in fundamental Owning submitting and subscribing to them is either out of ignorance inadvertency infirmity through fear or some other motive or voluntary more or less which may be aggravated by many circumstances and effects Likewise the denying really and opposing of the Offices of Christ may be virtual or formal directly or by consequence by a factious setting up an open Antichrist or by neglecting the proper Authority of Christ. It is true every sin and every errour doth in some sort and degree oppugn the Offices of Jesus Christ Every disobedience to a lawful Magistrate every subjection to an Usurper hath in it somewhat of denying or oppugning his Authority Yet he that should deny that for every such sin or errour a person can be a good Christian or for every such disobedience or subjection a person can be a true subject should too Stoically make a parity in sins and neither hold good Divinity nor teach good Policy It is true he that shall openly and factiously set up another universal Monarch of the Church make other Mediatours to God besides Christ teach any other way of justification than by faith in Christ that shall expresly forbid the observation of what Christ hath commanded as for instance the Lords Supper or any other plain Command of Christ such do deny really and oppose openly the Offices of Christ. But there may be some errours in Faith and teaching of some use in positive Rites as may be a real denying or opposing interpretatively Christs Offices as in teaching Circumcision as necessary at that time Acts 15.5 in owning submitting and subscribing to some use as may be not only not revealed by Christ but also is by nearer or remote consequence a denial of Christs Offices and yet the persons observing it as v. g. the reservation of the Bread in the Eucharist sending it to the sick absent as many did in former times either out of ignorance fear or such like motives and yet these neither to be reckoned for such as either in heart or profession or practice deny the Offices of Christ as enemies to him nor to be shunned as such but may be his true subjects though weak ones Peters denial of Christ his dissimulation Gal. 2. shewed not enmity but infirmity and instability And many sincere Christians may out of errour or weakness teach and practise many things not only a while but also all their dayes and that with much contention and zeal which may inferr a denial of Christs Offices or his Nature as for instance Lutheran Consubstantion and yet are not to be judged opposers of the Kingly and Prophetical Offices of Christ so as to be disclaimed separated from and rejected as no true Christian Brethren or Teachers And therefore the major proposition here may be variously conceived and without some limitations and explications is not to be received But he tells us Sect. 2. Ministers submitting to Canons is unjustly censured 'T is the minor or second Proposition that may be under suspition among some viz. That the present Ministers of England the very best of them do own submit and subscribe to Orders and Ordinances that are not only not of Christs revealing but contrary thereunto in which two things are incumbent on us to prove 1. That the present Ministers of England do own submit and subscribe to Orders and Ordinances that are not of Christs revealing This being a charge as to matter of fact the production of a few particulars that lie near at hand for its confirmation will give it a speedy dispatch 1. They own submit and subscribe to the Orders and Offices of Arch-bishops Bishops Deans Arch-deacons with many others appertaining unto this Hierarchie as Orders needful and necessary in the Church of Christ and promise subjection and obedience unto them Eccles. Canons Can. 7. 2. They own and submit Can. 4. to a Liturgy or prescript Form of Worship devised by men and imposed solely by their authority to which they tie themselves neither diminishing nor adding any thing in the matter or form thereof 3. They own subscribe and engage to conform to all the Orders Rites and Ceremonies prescribed in the said Book of Common Prayer Can. 36. such as bowing at the Name of Jesus using the Cross in Baptism kneeling at the Lords Supper which though we do not some would say smells very strong of the Popish Leven and is but one Peg beneath the adoration of their Breaden god wearing the Surplice c 4. They own that the Office of a Deacon is the first step or degree to the Ministry Can. 32 36 to which they are tâ— submit and subscribe before they are made Priests 5. That no person be admitted to expound the Scriptures though indeed worthy of the Cure of Souls as they speak Can. 49. without license from the Bishop thereunto 6. That there be some lawful Ministers which are no Preachers Can. 49 57. 7. That these unpreaching Ministers Can. 57. may lawfully administer the Ordinances of Baptism and the Lords Supper 8. That persons refusing to have their children baptized by such dumb Ministers or receive the Communion from them worthily deserve Excommunication if they shall persist herein Can. 57. 9. That Confirmation by Diocesan Bishops is an Ordinance of God Can. 60. 10. That it appertains to the Office of Ministers to marry Can. 62. 11. That the Bishop of the Diocess may lawfully for a while suspend a Minister from his Ministry for refusing to bury the Dead Can. 68. 12. That 't is not lawful for Ministers to preach or administer the Communion in private houses except in times of necessity Can. 71. 13. That no Minister may lawfully appoint or keep any solemn private Fasts or be wittingly present at any of them nor hold any Meetings for Sermons in Market-Towns or other places which if he do and persevere therein he may lawfully be deposed from his Ministry Can. 72. 14. That Ministers ought to be distinguished by their Vestments and Apparel as Gowns Hoods Tippers Square Caps and in their journeys Cloaks with sleeves called Priests Cloaks Can 74.
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
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
intent of the Apostle being to shew that by partaking thereof they shew themselves of one body or community with all Christians and so may not partake of the table of Devils ver 21. Christ did institute the Lords Supper to his Disciples but that so many or a number above two are necessary so as that otherwise it should not have the nature of that Sacrament cannot be thence inferred 1 Cor. 11.33 Acts 20.7 do prove it should be administred when all Communicants come together but whether it want the nature of the Sacrament if but two be together specially in a case extraordinary may be questioned As Acts 2.42 it is said They continued in breaking of bread so ver 46. it is said they did it from house to house therefore not the whole Church in Jerusalem brake Bread in one house but by companies in several houses and so as they could commodiously which is an argument that the smalness of the number takes not away the nature of the Sacrament if the thing appointed by Christ be done Sect. 7. A prescript Form of words in Prayer devised by man is not contrary to Rom. 8.26 1 Cor. 14.15 1. That a prescript Form of words in Prayer a ceremonius pompous Worship devised by man and abused to Idolatry is according to the will of God and may lawfully be used under the New-Testament dispensation contrary to Mat. 15.9 and 28.20 John 4.23 Deut. 12.32 Jer. 51.26 Rom. 8.26 1 Cor. 14.15 Answ. That which the present Ministers own and subscribe to as containing in it nothing contrary to the word of God and that it may lawfully be used with promise to use it is the Book of Common-prayer This Author impeacheth it as contrary to the will of God and not to be lawfully used under the New-Testament dispensation 1. Because there is a prescript From of words in prayer 2. The worship is Ceremonious 3. That it is Pompous 4. Devised by man 5. Abused to Idolatry What part of it is or was abused to Idolatry should have been expressed If he mean kneeling at the Lords Supper that is his tenth instance to be considered again if that which is said already in answer to this Chapter Sect. 3. be not sufficient if he mean the whole Book because out of the Popes Portuis that is answered before in answer to Chap. 3. Sect. 4. His allegation of Jer. 51.26 seems to be brought to prove it unlawful to use any thing in the worship of God abused to Idolatry But it is so impertinent that were any conscience made how Scripture is applyed or shame to abuse Readers with texts impertinent it had been omitted it being only a prediction of the ruine of the City of Babylon not of the Temple of the Idol that it should not be built again by reason of the Opression and Idolatry of the Inhabitants not a prohibition to the Jews that they should not use the stones of Babylon to build a Temple to God at Jerusalem because abused to Idolatry Why the worship of the Common Prayer is termed Ceremonious or Pompous is left to be ghessed If he mean it as it is used in Cathedrals and Collegiate Churches and Chappels there is no constitution for it as such to which Ministers are required to subscribe if because of the ceremony of the Surplice and Cross and the Singing of Psalms or because it is with external words and gestures the first of these being an adjunct only to the Minister doth not make the Worship it self Ceremonius or Pompous and the second being only a monitory sign annexed to a rite of worship is not fitly termed Worship the third methinks should be allowed as commanded Ephes. 5.19 Col. 3.16 external words and gestures if agreeable to the examples of holy men should not be excepted against nor are they contrary to John 4.23 which excludes only the legal shawdowy worship of the Law and that which is only external and so hypocritical otherwise external Worship is required 1 Cor. 6.20 But I suppose the chief exception is that the Ministers own and use a prescript Form of words devised by man which he conceives contrary to the other texts alledged by him how pertinently is to be considered To Mat. 15 9. and Deut. 12.32 answer is made Chap. 1. Sect. 3. Mat. 28.20 requires Teachers to teach Disciples of Christ to observe all that he hath commanded But proves not that no prescript Form of Prayer devised by man may be lawfully used For then it would follow that conceived Forms of Prayer may not be used for they are devised by men they are not immediately from Gods Spirit as is apparent by the phrases and matter oft times used nor are they commanded by Christ but rather a set Form is commanded to wit the Lords Prayer Luke 11.2 and therefore the use of a prescript Form of words in Prayer devised by man is not contrary to Christs revelation Mat. 28.20 For all that Christ hath commanded may be observed by those who use it and it is more agreeable to Christs command to use one prescript Form of words of Prayer which he hath directed Mat. 6.7 8 9. Rom. 8.26 is more impertinently alledged For it is not said The Spirit helps our infirmities by suggesting to us the Form of words we shall use but by making known what things we shall ask in his secret impulse on our spirits not in ordinary motions of our tongues and by exciting in us grones and sighes that are unutterable and therefore this text is so far from proving that it is unlawful to use a prescript Form of words in Publick Prayer because of this promise of the Spirit to suggest without meditation such words as shall be spoken that it is quite another thing which is here meant First it is not meant of publick Prayers but of secret private Prayers Secondly it is not meant of private ordinary Prayers but as Cameron in his Treatise of the nature and condition of the Church observes The Apostle distinguisheth some and those singular Prayers of Believers from the rest to wit when the minde constituted in anguish and the same erected by trust in God prayes as wrapt beyond it self such as were Moses his Prayers who when he is not said to have prayed in Scripture yet God so be speaks him as if he had cryed to wit the Spirit did pray in Moses the understanding prayed not the Spirit that is the understanding conceived not distinctly the prayers And 1 Cor. 14.15 which is the other place cited by this Author I will sing with the spirit I will sing also with the mind To wit I believe none sings with the will for to sing is a work of the understanding but the Apostle hath opposed the Spirit to the Understanding because the Spirit in that place signifies the Understanding so affected as that it cannot distinctly explain what it hath conceived Therefore in the same Chapter above he exhorts that he who speaketh with tongues that
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
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
abstain from all kind of evil or adulterate not from that which appears ill if it be not for to what purpose then is his skill or touchstone but from that which is ill what ever it appear From all which a reason may be gathered for Dr. Hammonds Exposition and Tremellius his Interpretation out of the Syriack ab omni voluntate malâ fugite fly from every evil will or as in his Marginal note negotio malo sive re malâ evil business or evil thing and then kneeling at the Lords Supper will not be proved contrary to this Precept till it be proved to be of it self an evil thing and not only what hath an appearance of evil in it 2. But if it be yielded that it is to be rendred shew or appearance and not sort or kind yet it may be doubted whether as the Vulgar and Tigurin it be not rather to be read ab omni specie mala from every shew or appearance which is evil rather than ab omni specieâ—mali from every shew or appearance of evil though it be not evil Beza in his Annotation on the place saith We may also interpret it ab omni specie malâ from every evil shew or appearance and that more usual For otherwise it seems it had been to be written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the article being adjoyned and the precept is then to abstain from that which is an appearance it self evil not from an appearance not evil but indifferent and so not from kneeling at the Communion 3. For the appearance of evil that we are to abstain from it may be doubted whether it be meant of an appearance in doctrine or in practice Chrysostome and the Greek Scholiast and others apply it only to false doctrines or lies of false Prophets as if the Apostle had said though you are not to quench the spirit v. 19. nor to despise prophesyings v. 20. yet you are to trie all doctrines and to hold that which is good v. 21. and to abstain from that doctrine which appears evil Against this Mr. Jeans only objects that an accurate and exact coherence is not necessary in those short precepts and to understand the words of appearance in practice also suits well with the coherence Which I will not gain-say but only say if this be granted yet if the Interpretation of abstaining from all appearance of evil in practice be not necessary but that it may be limited to doctrine the allegation of it to prove that kneeling at the Lords Supper is an appearance of evil from which we are to abstain is not cogent sith it is not in a point of doctrine to which this text may be limited but in practice of which it is uncertain whether this Text be meant and therefore is not directly opposite to it as is here asserted 4. Were it granted that this Text is meant of the appearance of evil in practice to which it is not denied Interpreters of all sorts do apply it yet it may be doubted whether the Apostle means it of that which appears evil to another or to a mans self Surely the words and series of the Text do best suit with this Interpretation Abstain from that which appears to your selves to be evil For having said try all things whether doctrines you hear taught or practices to which you are moved by your own thoughts or others examples or perswasions to direct them what to do he adds hold that which is good that is what you find upon trial to be good and abstain from all evil appearance or appearance of evil which so appears to you upon your trial Which sense as it hath the concurrence of good Authors so doth it seem to me to be the genuine meaning of the Text. 1. Because it best suits with the coherence and scope of the Apostle For it is plain that the Apostle makes these two precepts of holding that which is good and abstaining from every appearance of evil the consequents of trying all things to which it tends For to what end should men try all things whether doctrines or practices but that they may hold the one and abstain from the other now as it is undoubted that they are to hold fast that which upon trial appears to themselves to be good not what appears to another for to what purpose should they themselves trye if they must hold what others think good and not themselves So for evil they should abstain from what appears evil to themselves who try not what so appears to others 2. The absurdities which follow on this that I must abstain from all that appears evil to another seem great and unavoidable 1. Because it would require an impossible task For it is impossible for me to know what appears to another evil sith I cannot know his thoughts and therefore cannot discern what appears to him good oâ— evil nor if I could know somewhat that appears evil to another is it possible for me to know all that so appears and yet the Apostle requires me to abstain from all appearance of evil and that without exception of any man Which is made impossible if understood of appearance to others in respect of the thing abstaining from all that appears evil to another being impossible without destroying our being the eating of our meat clothing of our bodies and doing other necessaries for our subsistence appearing evil to some or other either out of ignorance hatred prejudice superstition envy or some other malignant quality though the thing we do were never so right 2. That which Dr. Hammond in his Treatise of Scandal p. 9 10. observes that appearance of evil is so uncertain and unconstant a thing that to abstain from it universim cannot be the matter of any possible command and that which is of ill report with one or of evil appearance to one may be of good report and appearance of good to a thousand others is considerable For then a person must either do nothing or act that which is appearance of evil to some when it appears good to others and to himself which must of necessity create innumerable perplexities or rather impossibilities if the Apostles precept be so understood Nor am I satisfied with what Mr. Jeans saith This fear will quickly vanish and be discovered to be idle and vain when anon we shall explain that distinction of appearance of evil into real and imaginary For besides that I conceive that no appearance of evil to another can be said to be real per se ex natura operis from the nature and condition of the fact it self when that of it self and in its own nature is a very probable sign of evil as he explains it p. 82. but that which is from actions of themselves sinful and then we are not to abstain from them as appearances of evil but as evil all other appearances that are from actions lawful or indifferent are but imaginary that is from others misconceits and censures
thereupon and so his distinction as to this thing is rather to be accounted vain and idle than the fear he mentions were the distinction good yet the fear will not quickly vanish nor be discovered to be idle and vain sith if we must abstain from all appearance to others of our evil we must abstain from all appearance of evil whether it be real from the condition of our work of it self or imaginary by accident through others interpretation which must cause perplexities unavoidable without number Yea 3. That may appear to be evil to others which is our necessary duty as Christs doctrine and actions did to the Pharisees the Apostles preaching to the Jews yea to good men as Peters going in to Cornelius Acts 11.1 2. the Magistrates punishing some vices according to his duty may seem evil to good Subjects the obeying Laws of Governours Commands of Parents and Masters do often seem evil to some that are sincere-hearted but weak in judgment yea the necessary defence of truth may be opposed and appear as evil to godly learned and otherwise judicious Divines If we must abstain from every appearance of evil to others we must abstain from these duties Gods Laws will cross one another and we must infringe or suspend one or otherwise be necessitated to sin Governours must revoke their Laws and Subjects cease to obey Gods Laws and so all confusion and Anarchy must follow Lastly Were the precept so meant that we must abstain from every thing of ours which is an appearance of evil to another our Christian liberty were evacuated there being nothing we do which will not appear evil to some or other and many things lawful and indifferent will appear evil even to the best It s true there are many cases in which we are to forbear our liberty of which before Mr. Jeans his first Edition of his Treatise I wrote in the fourth Chapter of my Book of Scandalizing but the forbearance of our liberty I did not ascribe barely to the appearance of evil to others but to the scandal that is ruine or harm to another consequent thereon And to prevent the frequent abuse of the Text 1 Thess. 5.22 I wrote thus p 284. Lastly if it were granted that the Apostle for bids us to abstain from all that which appears to be evil to another yet no Interpreter that I meet with understands it of such appearance of evil as is conceited to be such upon some erroneous principles in him that conceives it to be such Or by reason of the meer phansie or rigid austerity or evil will or such like cause of him that thinks it evil but they usually apply it to such causes or signs of manifest evil as are means of drawing to some notorious sin as going to hear a Mass which is a cause and sign of Idolatry or wanton dalliance which is a cause or sign of whoredom And they apply hereto that saying of Julius Caesar that Caesars wife should be free not only from evil but also from the suspition of it So that even in their intent this Scripture is not appliable to this purpose as if the Apostle did prohibit a Christian to use any thing that another thought evil whether he thought so upon probable reason or no reason upon some ground or none And to speak truth the application of this Text in that manner as it is by some as if the Apostle did forbid us the use of any thing though in different in it self when it appears as evil to another without any further restraint is very absurd and so unreasonable as that it will bring a yoke upon mens consciences impossible to be born sith there is scarce any thing a man can do but some or other Infidel or Christian weak or strong in the faith Orthodox or Superstitious will think it to be evil that saying by experience being found true quot homines tot sententiae so many men so many minds nor shall a mans own Conscience only make a thing evil to him but the conscience of any other man in the World Out of all which I gather that the Ministers tenent or practice in receiving the Lords Supper kneeling is not directly opposite to this positive precept as being what hath an appearance of evil in it unless it be in it self evil or evil in their own opinion or else a probable sign and cause of their adoration of the Papists Breaden god Whereas this Author himself in this Chapter p. 40. does not say though 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 In answering which passage sect 2. of this Chapter I shewed that it could not be taken for such by any that will candidly and charitably interpret their actions as for other reasons very clear and convincing so from the words of the Rubrick at the end of the Communion which I here subjoyn Whereas it is ordained in this Office for the administration of the Lords Supper that the Communicants should receive the same kneeling which Order is well meant for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgement of the benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy râ—ceivers and for the avoiding such prophanation and disorder in the holy Communion as might otherwise ensue yet lest the same kneeling should by any persons either out of ignorance and infirmity or out of malice and obstinacy be misconstrued and depraved it is here declared 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 For the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural substances and therefore may not be adored for that were Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians And the natural body and blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven and not here it being against the truth of Christs natural body to be at one time in more places then one Thus the Common Prayer Book That which is said that the receiving of the Lords Supper kneeling is a gesture used by the Papists in the adoration of their Breaden god is denied by Dr. John Burges in his Treatise of the lawfulness of kneeling in the act of receiving the Lords Supper cap. 21. p. 67. p. 479. of the Rejoynder where he thus saith With us the Bishops or Ministers communicate kneeling as well as the people But with the Papists the Pope when himself performeth the office receiveth sitting as being a type of Christ the Mass Priests receive standing reverently by the Canon of the Mass and for this he cites in the Margin Ord. Rom. apud Bâ—bl Pat. Col. â—om 8. p. 390. Colum. 1. liter â— edit Colon. 1618. The People indeed receive it kneeling as we do as did also the Priest till such time as the Doctrine of Transubstantiation bâ—got the
Government because of his sons iniquity and out of fear of Nahash King of the Ammonites desired a King as other Nations because Moses Joshuah and all the Judges were immediately chosen by God and raised up extraordinarily for a time to do special services without ordinary succession and accordingly acted and ruled by extraordinary immediate motions and revelations from God in which respects the Government of the Israelites before Sauls reign was not unfitly termed by Josephus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gods rule and when they would needs chuse a King or have Samuel to make them a King to judge them like all the Nations 1 Sam. 8.5 19 20. God said they rejected him that he should not reign over them v. 17. where the desire of having a King is not simply condemned as unlawful nor because they desired a Kâ—ng over the Church as such as if they might lawfully enough have desired a King over them as a political Head but not as Head of the Church as such for neither is there any intimation of any such limitation of their desire but on the contrary they desired that they might also be like all the Nations and that their King might judge them and go out before them and fight their Battels 1 Sam. 18.20 Nor is there the least hint of any reprehension of their desire that they would have a King over them as a Church to appoint them Religion and Worship as other people neither was it spoken that they rejected God as though the Lord did not reign where there is set up a Monarchical Government for it is Gods Ordinance and Kings have their power and authority from him according to that Prov. 8.15 16. By me Kings reign and Princes decree justice c. and they are his Deputies and Lieutenants by whom he ruleth In which regard the people might have lawfully desired a King if they had done it with upright hearts oâ— lawful grounds to good and warrantable ends in a right manner and in due time For the Lord had promised that when they were settled in the Land of Canaan he would when he thought good set a King over them out of whose loyns the Messiah should come and also sheweth how he would have him qualified and what he required of him Deut. 17.17 18. and he had promised unto Abraham that Kings should come out of him Gen. 17.6 And Jacob in his prophetical blessing saith That the Scepter should not depart from Judah nor a Law-giver from between his feet until Shiloh did come i. e. the Messias Gen 49.10 And David speaking of himself as a type of Christ saith Psal. 2.6 Yet have I set my King upon my holy hill of Zion And therefore this is not simply condemned as a sin in it self to desire a King but because they did it with an ill mind affecting innovation as being weary of Gods Government which he had established till himself pleased to change it and in a prâ—posterous and tumultuous manner before he had given any intimation of his pleasure and to a wrong and evil end that they might be like to the Heathen Nations and out of their confidence in a King as able to protect them and their diffidence in God as insufficient to defend them in his own way unless he would be directed in a course of their prescribing and finally because they would not wait upon him for the accomplishment of his word in his own due time but with all importunity press him to do at their own pleasure Thus the Assembly Annotations Whence the impertinency of the allegation of this Text either against Kingly Government or their Headship over the Church is manifested Noâ— is it more to the purpose which is added that to God even as to their political Head a sicle was paid yearly as a tribute called the sicle of the sanctuary For 1. If this payment be meant of that which is mentioned Exod. 30.12 13 14 15 16. it doth not appear by the Text that it was a yearly tribute paid to God as their political Head but a Tax put on them when Moses took the summ of the children of Israel after their number then they should give every man a ransome for his soul unto the Lord when he numbred them that there might be no Plague among them half a shekel after the shekel of the sanctuary the offering of the Lord to make an attonement for the souls which he was to appoint for the service of the tabernacle of the Congregation that it might be a memorial unto the children of Israel But if it be yielded that it was after made a yearly tribute as the Jewish Doctors say and a perpetual Ordinance according to what Mr. Ainsworth on Exod. 30 16. out of Maimony cites and that it continued so till the destruction of Jerusalem as Josephus relates in Book 7. ch 28. of the Jewish War yet this proves not that it was paid to God under that notion as to their political Head It is true that the tribute or custome called Didrachma that is shekels mentioned Mat. 17.24 25. is conceived by very many learned men to be that which was paid to the Lord for the use of the Temple as a tribute to him which is largely argued by Cameron in his praelections on that Text with whom Diodate Hugo Grotius Dr. Hammond concurr and before them Hilarius cited by Maldonat who thinks it was paid to the Romans and cites Hierome Bede and of this mind are many others as Beza Piscator Pareus But if Camerons opinion were certain yet it may seem rather to be paid to God as Head of the Church then as a political Head as this Author speaks sith it was paid for the service of the Temple 2. Were that which this Author saith granted him it should rather seâ—ve against him than for him For if it were paid to God as their Political Head it rather proves God to be the alone political Head and so against that which he saith true indeed as they were a political Body they had visible political Governours who when they ceased their policy was at an end than that God was the Churches alone Head and King and that it is false that the Kings of Israel were Heads of the Church and therefore his sayings do interfer That the Kings of Israel had a Headship over them to make Laws introduce Constitutions of their own framing in matters relating to Worship is conceived to be proved from 2 Chron. 20.3 21. 29.27 30.1 2 4 5 23. 31.2 3. with many more which I find not yet to be enervated by the Answers I have met with I proceed to examine that which follows CHAP. 6. ARG. 5. Sect. 1. False doctrine only makes a false Prophet not to be heard HE thus writes Argument 5. Those who have the characters and properties of false Prophets and Priests upon them are not to be heard but separated from But the present Ministers of England have
transgressing the precept Matth. 7.15 Beware of false Prophets What he said before against the Ministers mission chap. 3. is answered before What is pleaded about a succession from the Church of Rome is represented by many that understand not the occasion and plea as odious and a proof of the Antichristianism of their calling But they who peruse what Mr. Francis Mason against Champney and others who have answered the Papists question Whence had the Protestant Ministers their calling have written will be otherwise minded It follows Sect. 3. The Ministers not proved to commit Adultery and walk in lyes as Jer. 23.14 is meant 2. That they commit Adultery and walk in lyes Jer. 23.14 which none as I ever yet met with interpret literally of corporal whoredome and adultery but mystically of spiritual adultery a departure from the wayes and institutions of the Lord in worship to the devices and inventions of men in the Margin In an old Translation of the New Testament dedicated to Edward the Sixth the Author thereof in his Notes on Matth. 21. sayes They which in their Ministry and preaching do otherwise then God had commanded them are no true Disciples of Christ a sin usually in the Scripture expressed for the nature and greatness of it under that notion Jer. 3.8 Ezek. 23.37 Rev. 2.22 which is also in Scripture called a lye Isa. 28 15. Amos 2.4 John 8.44 the whole worship of Antichrist being patched up with such dirty inventions is so called 2 Thess. 2.11 That this character also doth rightly appertain unto the present Ministers of England the best of whom do in the sence of the spirit in the forecited Scripture commit adultery and walk in lyes hath already been proved and more hereunto shall afterwards be spoken 't were well if upon some of them it had not a literal accomplishment which of the Institutions of Christ have they not mixed with their inventions from how many have they gone a whoring is not a great part of their worship drops of the Whores Cup of Fornication and shreds of the great lye of Antichrist who that hath soberly and unbiassedly considered of these things but must acknowledge it Answ. To acquaint this Author with somewhat obvious enough yet it seems this Author met not with it I will set down the Annotation of Mr. Gataker on Jer. 23.14 inferiour to none of the Annotators of the Bible They commit Adultery Do as Eli 's sons did 1 Sam. 2.17 22. whence Adultery became so rise in the land ver 10. And walk in lyes or walk up and down with lyes Hebr. with falshood or a lye as Isa. 28.15 they utter their lyes not in Baals name but in mine and so father their lyes upon me chap. 14.14 see ver 26. Hebr. committing Adultery and walking with a lye that is at full committing they commit Adultery and walking they walk about with lyes they make a common trade and practice of either a form though defective yet very significant see on Isa. 59 11.13 See these two vile practices joyned together in the false Prophets again chap. 29.23 For those that here restrain the term of Adultery to Idolatry spiritual Adultery seem therein to wrong the Text. Now if this be the meaning of the committing Adultery it may be a signal character of a wicked man but not of a false Prophet as such But if it be understood of spiritual Adultery every departure from the wayes and institutions of the Lord in worship to be devices and inventions of men is not in this Prophet nor in any other termed committing Adultery but when that Divine Worship which is appropriated to God is given to that which is not God as may be shewed out of the 2. and 3. Chapters of Jeremiah where ch 3. 8 9. it is said they committed adultery with stocks and stones Ezek. 23.37 with Idols Now if he can prove that the present Ministers do thus commit Adultery are Idolaters in their Worship I will yield they and their Worship are to be separated from and if they teach it not to be heard What he saith he hath proved before is answered before what he saith in the next Chapter will be then discussed The words in the Margin may be right yet impertinent As for walking in lyes I grant it to be a signal character of a false Prophet understanding it of lyes in doctrine opposite to the principles of Theology and if he can prove the present Ministers do walk in such lyes I shall yield them to be false Prophets and not to be heard But yet he hath not done that nor goes about it That which he produceth out of Isa. 28.15 Amos 2.4 John 8.44 2 Thess. 2.11 proves not every device and invention of men in worship to be meant by lyes Jer. 23.14 Isa. 28.15 By lyes some understand their Idols some their treachery in dissembling and compliance with the adverse party some their crafty shifts and wily devices Mr Gataker conceives most likely their strength raised and wealth gotten by fraudulent and deceitful courses Amos 2.4 Diodati Annot. Their lyes namely their Idols false worships and superstitions John 8.44 is meant of any lyes but chiefly that which is opposed to the truth of Gods word in the Gospel not meant as this Authour applies it 2 Thess. 2.11 is manifestly understood of a lye opposite to the truth by which they might be saved that is the Gospel v. 10.12 and so notes anti-evangelical doctrine though I deny not the whole worship of Antichrist being patch'd up with such dirty inventions may be so called But to his Queries I answer To the first which of the Institutions of Christ have not the present Ministers mixed with their inventions 1. It concerns him that accuseth to shew which they have so mixed 2. That I think the Institution of preaching the Gospel which is that about which is the present question they have not so mixed Sure if they preach such doctrine of Faith as they subscribe to they do not mix their doctrine with their own inventions yet if any do while he holds the foundation though he build some hay and stubble he is not to be charged to walk in lyes I conceive the Preachers of the Congregational Churches have been as guilty of Antinomian Arminian and other errors as the Prelatical To the 2. From how many have they gone a whoring 1. It concerns him that accuseth to shew 2. They have not gone a whoring from the Lords Supper to the Mass by Transubstantiation and the unbloody propitiatory Sacrifice for Quick and Dead and adoration of the breaden-god To the third Is not a great part of their Worship drops of the Whores Cup of Fornication and shreds of the great lye of Antichrist The whores Cup of Fornication and great lye of Antichrist are according to Brightman Mede and others their idolatries in Invocation of Saints Worshipping Images Reliques the Crucifix the Host in their Herisies about Justification Merit the Popes Supremacy and
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
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
2 Chron. 6.41 2 Chron. 5.13 2 Chron. 29.30 In the Titles of Psal. 92. and 102. Jerem. 33.11 Ezra 3.11 Zech. 3.2 Jude 9. Revel 12.3 4. Revel 15. 3. Hos. 14.2 3. Isai. 12.1 Deut. 21.8 and 26.5.10 Isai. 26.1 Mr. Ainsworth himself than whom none was more opposite to any set Form as appeared by his avouching in his writing to Mr. Paget the Reasons in the Separatists Apology p. 69. against using the words of the Lords-Prayer in prayer to which Mr. Paget hath answered in his Arrow against the separation of the Brownists p. 69. c. in his Annot on Exod. 12.8 reciting the Form of the later Jews at their Passover saith Vnto these phrases the New Testament seemeth to have reference when it speaketh of the cup of blessing 1 Cor. 10.16 And of singing an Hymn Mark 14 26. And after These Observations of the Jews while their Common-wealth stood and to this day may give light to some particulars in the Passover that Christ kept as why they lay down one leaning on anothers bosome John 13.23 a sign of rest and security and stood not as at the first Passover neither sate on high as we use Why Christ rose from supper and washed and sate down again John 13.4 5.12 Why he blessed or gave thanks for the bread apart and for the cup or wine apart Mark 14.22 23. And why it is said He took the cup after supper Luke 22.20 Also concerning the Hymn which they sung at the end Mat. 26.30 And why Paul calleth it the shewing forth of the Lords death 1 Cor. 11.26 As the Jews usually called their Passover Haggadah that is Shewing or Declaration From which Observations we may gather that our Lord Christ did use the forms in Blessing which is a part of Prayer which the Jews without particular command of God had taken up And that St. Paul alludes to them expressing the use of Christians by the phrases of the Jews which shews the Christians used their forms Yea that the Apostles in many things of their ministry retained the customes in their Synagogues in matters of Worship and Ecclesiastical Government is avouched by Mr. Stillingflete in his Irenicum part 2 d. ch 6. After Mr. Selden Dr. Lightfoot Dr Hammond Mr. Thorndike and many others Which things do abundantly prove that this Author doth too too inconsiderately write That there are not the least footsteps of a stinted form of service in the worship of God to be found in the New Testament No not in the whole Book of God amongst the people of the Jews No nor yet was there any such a way of worship thought of much less imposed in the first and purer times of the Gospel for several centuries of years after the dayes of Christ and his Apostles I do not gainsay what this Author writes about the Liturgies fathered on some of the Apostles and some of the Ancients Neither will I justifie the use or imposition of them as they have been in the later ages only this I say which is sufficient for the present purpose 1. That neither the words of Justin Martyr in his 2 d. Apology to Antâ—ninus That the President did send forth prayers and thanksgivings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he had ability the people testifying their consent by saying Amen Nor the words of Tertullian alleged by this Author out of his Apologetique against the Gentiles c. 30. That the Christians prayed for the Emperour looking towards Heaven and without a monitor because from the heart do necessarily exclude stinted forms of Prayer The words of Justin Martyr may be understood of the intention of the affections or duration of prayers which may be in stinted forms nor is it unlikely but that thanksgivings were some of them such as in their Psalms which they sung which Pliny mentions in his Epistle to Trajan in that age and those it is likely were stinted forms And they might pray without a monitor or prompter which excludes the suggestion of others and from the heart includes of their own accord and yet pray in stinted expressions Yea the things mentioned that they prayed for seem to intimate Set forms agreeable to the things he mentions as prayed for 2. However it is apparent if not from Tertullians Book of Prayer yet out of Cyprians Book concerning the Lords Prayer that Christians did and conceived they ought in publique prayer to use the prescript words of the Lords Prayer and that they had some other forms then whieh are still retained which those words intimate Therefore also the Priest a Preface being premised before Prayer prepares the minds of the Brethren by saying Lift up your hearts that when the people answer We lift them up to the Lord they may be minded that they ought to think on nothing else but the Lord. Which if it prove not an entire Liturgy to have been then in use yet a worship of God by a stinted form of Words was sure thought on in Cyprians time and that this Author writes too confidently when he saith The least footsteps of such a way of worship are not found nor were thought of in those times It follows Sect. 5. Common-Prayer-Book worship shuts not out of doors the exercise of the gift of Prayer To which we add 2. That Worship which is an obstruction of any positive duty charged by Christ to be performed by the Saints is not a worship that is of his appointment But this is undeniably true of the Common-Prayer Book worship Therefore That Christ did upon his Ascension give unto his Church Officers as signal characters of his love to and care of it will not be denied Ephes 4.11 is an evidence hereof beyond exception That to thâ—se Officers he gave gifts and qualifications every way suiting the emplâ—yment he called them forth unto cannot without a most horrid advance against the wisdome faithfulness love and care of Christ towards the Beloved of his Soul be gainsaid That he not only expects but solemnly charges upon these Officers an improvement of the gifts bestowed upon them for the edification of his Body is evidently compriz'd and very frequently remarked in the Scripture 2 Tim. 1.6 1 Cor. 12.7 Ephes. 4.11 Prov. 17.16 Luke 19.20 To imagine after all this that any Worship should be of the institution of Christ that should shut out of doors as unnecessary the exercise of the gifts given by him to be made use of in the solemn discharge of the worship of his house is such an imputation of folly to him as may not be charged upon any person of an ordinary capacity or understanding Yet this is righteously to be imputed to him absit blasphemia if the Common-Prayer-Book worship be a Worship of his appointment The exercise of the gift of Prayer to mention no more being wholly excluded hereby Nor will it in the least take off the weight of this Argument to say That liberty is granted for the exercise of this gift before and after Sermon For
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
preach the Gospel and the improving it by converting others to faith and obedience not of so mean a thing as an ability of conceiving and uttering Forms of prayer without book As for the 4 th thing offered The lawfulness of the Saints praying in a Form is neither because they have not the Spirit nor that having the Spirit he is not a sufficient help to them in their approaches to God but because in such praying neither is any thing done forbidden by God nor any thing omitted thereby which God requires for the performing the duty of prayer The Spirit I grant is sufficient to help in our approaches to God and doth help Rom 8.15.26 But that it is done by enabling by immediate inspiration to utter matter of prayer for the benefit of others is not meant in those places And indeed such a mistake hath filled some with high conceit of themselves and others with admiration of such to their mutual perditions Whereas this is but a common gift or rather an acquired ability often used with cunning to deceive others of which there are many footsteps in the affected expressions otherwise which shew their pâ—aying is not from the Spirit of God but their own spirit But of the impertinency of this Text I have spoken before in answer to ch 5. sect 7. It follows Sect 10. The Forms of Prayer imposed are not made necessary essential parts of Woâ—ship Answ. The 〈◊〉 Pâ—oposition mâ—ant of making it doctrinally necessaâ—y by vertue of Gods appointment so as that the omission of it at any time when the worship is performed should be sin or using any other Form should make it not Gods worship or not acceptable to him might be granted But being understood of making a thing the condition of an action by vertue of the authority of Governours so as that at some time and place it is not to be done without it by persons that are their subjectâ— under a civil penalty the major is denied In which sense the use of the Liturgy is imposed which doth not make it any other than a circumstance of Divine worship not such an adjunct as is a necessary part thereof This Author granted before here sect 8. Circumstances in the worshâ—p of Christ atttending religious actions as actions without assignment of time and place no action to be managed by a community can be orderly performed by them Therefore if the Governours assign a time and place undetermined by God it is that which they may do lawfully and not requiring them as necessary by vertue of Gods institution nor of all but only of their own subjects they are made but circumstances not necessary parts of Divine worship So if for avoiding of inconvenience publique praying be forbidden in the night and in some places and it be commanded to be done at such hours of the day in such a place these hours and place are made no other than circumstances of the religious action no Religion is placed in them â—hey are not made parts of worship but adjuncts alterable as it may stand with conveniency There is the same reason of imposing a Liturgy for uniformity to prevent dissonancy or some other inconvenience which may be incident to some persons as of requiring Prayers without it If neither be determinatively instituted by Christ but commanded for conveniency they both remain circumstances â—ot necessary parts of Divine worship notwithstanding the imposition by Governours Sacrificing on the Altar at the Tabernacle and Temple was a part of the worship because commanded by God and so would the Liturgy be if it were commanded as that was But that the Liturgy is not so it appears from the words of the Preface to it The particular forms of Divine worship and thâ— rites appointed to be vsed therein being things in their own natuâ—e indifferent and alterable and so acknowledged it is but râ—asonable that upon weighty and important considerations according to the 〈◊〉 exigency of times and occasions such changes and alterations should be made therein as to thâ—se that are in place of Authority should from time to time seem either necessary or expedient Nor do I think it true That any considerable Minister of England would affirm the Common-Prayer Book to be an essential part of worship or make it such as this Author imputes to them nor in use of it is it alwayes so observed but that it gives place to preaching to reading Briefs for collections and some other occasions and yet if they did so strictly observe it this doth not prove they esteem it a necessary essential part of worship by vertue of Gods command but that they conceive they ought to obey their Governours Laws not judging others who use it not But whatever be the judgement or practice of the present Ministers yet the words of the Preface which are more to be regarded than any particular Ministers opinion whereof some it s confess'd have too much magnified it do shew that the imposition makes it not such as this Author chargeth on them And this is enough to acquit the use of it from Idolatry even in this Authors own sense sith they do not place the worship of God in the Form but in the Kind of worship commanded by God and so the minor of his Argument is denied For though the Form of the Common-Prayer Book be not prescribed yet the way of worship therein that is Prayer Praises the Lords Supper are worship preâ—cribed by God If the Author mean by way of wor-ship the forms and modes the way of worship by Preachers conceived or extemporary prayers this Authors form of preaching and other worship is not prescribed by God and the Separatists are Idolaters as well as the Ministers of England and so his Argument is retorted as before He goes on thus Sect. 11. Acting in the holy things of God by an Office-power and modes of Idolaters may be without Idolatry To which we add Argument 2. Those who act in the holy things of God by vertue of an Office-power received from Idolaters and offer up to him a Worship meerly of humane composition once abused to Idolatry with the modes and rites of Idolaters are guilty of the sin of Idolatry But the present Ministers of England act in the holy things of God by vertue of an Office-power received from Idolaters and offer up to him a Worship meerly of humane composition oâ—câ— abusâ—d to Idolatry with the modes and rites of Idolaters Therefore The major or first Proposition carrying a brightness along with it sufficient to lead any one into the belief of the truth thereof one would think may be taken for granted Two things are asserted therein 1. That such as act in the holy things of God by vertue of an Office-power received from Idolaters are themselves such at least in respect of that their Office-power so received by them That Jeroboams Priests were all of them Idolaters we suppose will not be denied Supposing some or more to
Antichristianism declining to Popery or of Separation for that reason the Presbyâ—erian Churches making the like plea for themselves That the first Reformers had ordinary calling even according to the Papists own Canons and the Episcopal Divines pleading only the same thing more fully Yet it is not true which this Author saith That either the one or other make the succession from Popish Bishâ—ps one of the best pleas they have for the justâ—fication of their ministâ—y For though they plead this succession against the clamorous and violent actings of the Popish party which Petrus Molinaeus in his 3 d. Epistle to Bishop Andrews mentions to have been in France by Arnola the Jesuite and the writings of Champney Wadsworth and others shew to have been in England yet they have justified their ministry without it as may be seen in Amos Alsâ—ed Bâ—del and others And for the present Ministers of England I conceive they will deny that they act by vertue of an Office-power from the Combination and Assembly of Idolaters in the Church of Rome their Office-power being not such as Priests are ordained to in the Church of Rome to offer Sacrifice propitiatory for quick and dead but to preach the Gospel administer Sacraments and Discipline according to Christs institution And in the solemnity of their Ordination the Româ—sts rites being relinquished by the Ordainers who are not a Combination or Assembly of Idolaters but professors of the true Faith and haters of popish Idolatry though some succession of their Predecessors from Idolaters be alleged to stop the mouths of Papists who pervert their proselytes by impuâ—ation of novelty to the reformed Churches and their Ministers rather than by proving their Doctrine out of Scripture As for that which is obâ—ected That Christ would never entrust such to send forth Officers to act in the holy things of God for his Church it is without reason objected sith many of them might be and in charity we are to conceive were the servants of God who abode in the communion of the Roman Church Dr. Ames himself in his Animadversions on the Remonstrants Scripta Synodalia Artic. 5. c. 7. saith We believe there were and yet are many who have not so farr separated themselves from the Papists but that they are polluted with their manifold Idolatry who yet have their part in the Kingdom of God Even in the dayes of King Henry the 8 th and Q Mary all the Bishops were not like Gardiner Bonner and such as were inhumane persecutors Why Christ should not entrust Cranmer Tonstall and such like to send forth Officers to act in the holy things of God as well as Judas to be an Apostle I find not cause The baptism received in the Church of Rome the Brownists in their Apology p. 112. acknowledge to be so farr valid as not to need rebaptization and why not then the Ordination by their Bishops Bishops and Ministers though they be evil men and unduly get into power yet as it is with other Officers their actings are valid as Caiaphas Ananias and such like persons who by bribes unjustly and irregularly usurped the High-Priests Office yet their sentence and ministration were not therefore disannulled He who said We received the Bible from the Church of Rome it is not likely meant it to have been received by vertue of their authority but their ministry Preachers having been sent by the Pope to instruct the Saxons in the Faith But whatever was meant by that speech this we may safely say That if the Office-power of the present Ministers had been as it is not received by succession from the Church of Rome and so from Idolaters yet being no other Office-power than what hath been instituted by Christ it no more proves the present Ministers Idolaters than the receiving of baptism or the Scriptures by the ministry of men in that Church It is further added Sect. 14. The Common-Prayer Book worship was not abused to Idolatry 3. Nor can it be denied but they offer up to God a VVorship meerly of humane composition as the Common-Prayer Book worship hath been proved to be once abused to Idolatry with the mâ—â—es â—nd rites of Idolaters That the Commonâ—Prayer Book worship is a worship that was once abused to Idolatry being the worship of that Church whose worship at least in the complex thereof is so cannot with the least pretence of reason be denied That the whole of it is derived from and taken out of the Popes Portuis as are the Common-prayers out of the Breviary The administration of the Sacraments Burial Matrimony Visitation of the Sick out of the Ritual or Book of Rites The Consecration of the Lords Supper Collects Epistles Gospels out of the Mass Book The Ordination of Arch-bishops Bishops and Priests out of the Roman Pontifical hath been aâ—â—erted and proved by many VVhich might be evidenced if needful beyond exception not only by comparing the one with the other but also from the offer was made by Pope Pius the 4th and Gregory the 13th to Q. Elizabeth to confirm the English Liturgy which did it not symbolize with the service of the Church of Rome they would not have done Yea when the said Queen was interdicted by the Popes Bull Secretary Walsingham procures two Intelligencers from the Pope who seeing the service of London and Canterbury in the pomp thereof wonder that their Lord the Pope should be so unadvised as to interdict a Prince whose service and ceremonies did so symbolize with his own VVhen they come to Rome they satisfie the Pope That they saw no service ceremonies or orders in England but might very well serve in Rome upon which the Bull was recalled Not to mention what we have already minded viz. the testimomy of King Edward the 6th and his Council witnessing the English service to be the same and no other but the old the self-same words in English that were in Latine which was the worship of England and Rome in Queen Maries dayes it is evident That the present Minsters of England offer up a worship to God once abused to Idolatry That they do this with the rites ceremonies and modes of Idolaters viz. such as are in use in that Idolatrous Church of Rome needs not many words to demonstrate What else is the Priests change of voice posture and place of worship enjoyned them Not to mention their holy Vestments Bowings Cringings Candles Altars c. all which as it s known owe their original unto the appointments thereof In the margin Maccovius loc com append de adiaph p. 860. saith Non licet mutuari aut retinere res aus ritus sacros Idololatrarum sive Ethnicorum sife Pontificiorum c. etsi in se res fuerint adiaphorae quia vitandam esse omnem consormitatem cum Idololatris docemur Lev. 19.4.27 and 21.5 Deut. 14 1 It remaineth That the present Mâ—nisters of England acting in the holy things of God by vertue of an Office-power received from Idolaters and offering
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
acquits it from idolatry which at another time he imputes to it To which might be added That whereas in the beginning of this very chapter he â—eckons up as many sorts of Idolatry as either he could or thought fit at least for his design of making the present Ministers of England Idolaters and indeed more than he should yet this sort of Idolatry of worshipping and adoring God in by or before a creature respectivè or wiâ—â— relation to the creature as the objectum significativè à qua or the motive of the adoration or worship of God is noâ— mentioned there by him nor is this Kneeling any of them For neither is the kneeling at the Sacrament the worshâ—p â—f the creature terminatively Nor before it as the medium or representative of God Nor the ascription of the Godhead or 〈◊〉 properties to any creature Nor the worshipping of God in any other way than what he hath prescribed For it is kneeling in prayer or thanksgiving to God which he hath appointed Nor is it the oblation of worship or service to God that hath ben offered up to Idols for which there is no prescription in the Scripture For if it be such it is that which was done to the breaden-God But that he will not say it is for ch 5. p. 40. He would not say it smells very strong of the Popish leaven and is but one pegg beneath the adoration of their breaden God therefore he makes it more than one pegg beneath it and so beneath that oblation or service that hath been offered up to Idols Besides as I have before said the Papists themselves are not enjoyned to adore the bread at the putting into their mouths but at the elevation of the host iâ— not consisting with their principles to worship that which is not above them Nor is it the most refined Idolatry as he speaks when the heart goes forth in desires after any thing beyond what is limited by the Lord or trusts and relyes on any creature besides God For this Kneeling if it be Idolatry is outward not inward of the members not of the 〈◊〉 and therefore it may be more truly charged on 〈◊〉 Author that he knew not what he said when he accused Ministers and people of Idolatry for receiving the bread and wine at the Lords Supper kneeling though he had said enough before to acquit them from it And may he not be said not to know what he said who writes so ambiguously indistinctly and confusedly as that his Reader cannot well discern his meaning For whereas worshipping God in by or before a creature respectivè or with relation to the creature may be understood before it respectivè or with relation to it as the terminus or object to which iâ— is directed as worshipping before Luke 4.7 is woâ—shipping of Satan Matth. 4.9 and the relation to the creature may be as conceiving God included in it as in the consecrated host or represented by it as by the golden calâ— or a crucifix or as pertaining to God being consecrated to him as Gâ—deons Ephod or Popish reliques of Saints or hallowed grains or the like without Gods institution in these and such like relations the adoration being directed to the creatures whether as the only object to which or the intermediate object whether properly or improperly of it self or by accident if this Author had distinctly set down that he meant his major in one or more of these respects his Readers would have known what he had said and would have granted his mâ—jor and denied his minor But he thought it best to hide his major in ambiguous speech and to express himself more intelligibly in his instance in the minor That Kneeling is adoration oâ— worshipping of God before the creaâ—ure respectivè or with relation to the creature as the objectum significativè à quo or the motive of the kneeling But in this sense I deny his major and that he may not think me bereft of my wits but that I know what I say I give him this reason of my denial I find the Holy Ghost inviting the Jews to worship at Gods footstool his holy hill Psal 99.5.9 which were creatures and there they were to bow down to God in by or before these creatures respectivè or with relation to them as the objectum significativè à quo that is that thing which was an object signifying Gods presence there and the motive of their bowing down to God which if they had not been there that is the Ark Temple Altar they would not have done and there was no Idolatry therein And to stop the evasion that it was so when God appointed it though this would not avoid the instance the bread and wine being of Gods appointment and the use of them in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper as well as the Altar Ark Temple were they were instituted to be memorative signs of Christs body and blood communicated to the receivers by faith yet I find that adoration or worshipping of God before the creature respectivè or with relation to it as the objectum significativè à quo and the motive of the adoration hath been performed occasionally without institution and yet no Idolatry committed When the Isâ—aelites at mount Carmel 1 Kings 18.38 saw the fire of the Lord fall and consume the burnt offering and the wood and the stones and the dust and lick up the water that was in the trench they fell on their faces and they said The Lord he is God the Lord he is the God Here was adoration of God before the creature respectivè or with relation to it as the objectum significativè à quo signifying the Lord to be God and as the motive of that adoration which if it had not been there they would not have done it and yet no Idolatry committed Another instance is 2 Chron. 7.3 When all the children of Israel saw how the fire came down and the glory of the Lord upon the house they bowed themselves with their faces to the ground upon the pavement and worshipped and praised the Lord saying For he is good for his mercy endureth for ever Here was adoration and worshipping God in by or before a creature not having special institution abiding in their sight as the objectum significativè à quo or the motive of their adoration and worship of the Lord and yet no Idolatry I confess that when the worship is before it so as it is directed to it as upon the sight of the bread or a crucifix the host or a crucifix is worshipped whether terminatively or as the representative of another it is Idolatry As If Job when he had seen the Sun when it shined or the Moon walking in brightness his heart had been secretly enticed and his mouth had kissed his hand as it is Job 31.26 27. it had been Idolatry For then the Sun had been not only objâ—ctum à quo the motive or occasion but also objectum ad
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
be filled with trembling that hath ever with seriousness read that terrible Commination of Christ Matt. 18.6 Who so shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me it were better for him that a milstone were hanged about his neck and he were drowned in the depths of the Sea especially when those that are thus scandalized are able to demonstrate that their offence is not any peevish humour or foolish nicety but what is too really administred by the actions of their Brethren When they shall hear Christ commanding them to separate from every thing of Antichrist Revel 18.4 and therefore from his ministry and they are in conscience perswaded the Ministers of England are such which they judge they are able to demonstrate When they consider how the Laws of their dear Lord and Law-giver are made void by the traditions of these â—â—eâ—ended Ministers whose Kingship they see them visibly opposing When they find upon them the characters of false Prophets and Apostles and are able to manifest that they are deeply guilty of the sin of Idolatry from whom they are enjoyned by Christ to turn away Yea when they take a view of the frame of the Spirits of their now Conforming-Brethren in dayes past and the principles were then owned by them That they did then some of them at least separate from the Assemblies of England as not true Churches of Christ and accounted the Common-Prayer Book Priests persons not meet to preach unworthy to be attended upon in their so doing and see them now saying A confederacy with and attending upon the ministry of those very persons and things from whom not only Christ hath commanded them to separate but these very Brethren did formerly decry and at least seemingly abominate they judge they have just ground of Offence given them Nor can it be denied but it is indeed so Answ. It were indeed very grievous to a Christian if it were their sin and such as brings them under the terrible Commination of Christ Matth. 18.6 to do what many of the sincere Lambs of Christ much more those whom this Author counts such are stumbled grieved and scandalized at for that very reason if no more could be said therein It were to make every honest-hearted Christian though simple a Law-giver to me a Pope a Lord over my conscience an infallible Judge so that what he determines I may not do or omit because it wil grieve or offend him without any other reason why I must not do or omit it This sure would take away Christs King-ship really and invest every sincere Lamb of Christ with it which this Author makes so hainous a thing in the present Ministers as to justifie separation from them it would be to ascribe dominion to them over my faith to spoyl me of my Christian liberty and to make me in almost every thing I do uncertain what I may do lest I grieve some of them whom I have found to be so scrupulous and so censorious as that they are offended if there be a prejudice against a person at every thing he doth or saith if it agree not with their minds To deliver the consciences of people from such a slavery worse than the bondage of the Mosaical Law which this principle brings to I conceive my self bound to do my best and to decry it as Antichristian I think I have read seriously Christs Commination Matth. 18.6 and I presume my Treatise of Scandalizing shews it to be meant of other Scandalizing than such as this Author means to wit such as is opposite to receiving them v. 5. and is with despising and persecution of them v. 10. causing their perdition v. 8 9. I dare not say that the offence of the sincere Lambs of Christ is out of a peevish humour or foolish nicety I hope it will not be denied that they are weak many of them I am sure none of them are infallible or free from undue passions and prejudice And this is enough to quiet my conscience in doing what I do notwithstanding the offence of many honest Christians yea and holy learned Preachers I find cause I confess to mourn on their behalf and to pitty them whom I have heard or seen offended at my actions which they never examine nor by conference or otherwise enquire into the reasons or equity of them taking reports upon trust and judging them evil without any brotherly affection or sober consideration I may truly say my peace of conscience would be desperate if I must judge of my self as they judge of me I will not mention my own experiences lest I should be thought to particularize but I find an Author one Paybody in a Treatise about Kneeling at the Lords Supper Printed 16.9 part 3. ch 5. p. 438. saying concerning the Professors of his time opposing Kneeling and I think opposers of the present Ministers now are too like them thus Let not our Brethren be offended that I say Many of their Professors are set on work by humour and prejudice For 1. They which profess in great resolution without grounds or reasons that is which meerly profess in imitation of certain men of note or for company of the best sort of Christians as they judge opposers to be or out of ill opinion conceived of conformable persons or Church government are led by humour and prejudice 2. So are they which cannot abide to be instructed or directed by them of contrary judgement despising the words and writings of such before thâ—y know them 3. They which upon discourse hearing many things which they cannot satisfie their consciences in do yet never seek to have their doubts resolved but rest in one song say what one can to the contrary 4. They which dare avow the necessity of confessing against Kneeling upon pain of eternal damnation charging other men in the deepest obligation that may be to stand out and yet upon some other mans declaration of the lawful liberty of Kneeling at some time can be content without gain-saying to profess they never studied the point 5. They which make no conscience of slandering back-biting conformity to the world in vanitiâ—s of apparel pleasure and scandalous covetousness unfaithfulness in their callings unjustice in their dealings and such like in opposing Kneeling are led by humour 6. They which have confessed themselves to be convinced of the lawfulness and yet will not or would but for their discredit in the world specially among the persons of that side But there is nothing more manifest than that many of your Professors are thus and thus disposed and carried which I doubt not but I can particulaâ—ly maintain so farr as outward expressions can discover the inward meaning or purpose Now I know you would not have us bound to abstain from Kneeling may I not say Heaâ—ing for avoiding the scandal of such persons But saith this Author Their offence is too really administred by the actions of their Bâ—ethren But who do suggest these actions to be a
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
way that what in their preaching and practice he and they did pull down and destroy conceâ—ning the Pâ—elatical conforming Preachers their communion and Church government and worship by the Common-Prayer Book they do not by conformity in hearing and communion build up because if they should do so they should cause the opposite party whom he counts the enemies of the Lord to triumph that they have brought them to recantation and returning to what they had left and to blaspheme or speak evil of the holy way of endeavouring Reformation they formerly took in the day of liberty because they are now fallen into a day of trouble On the other side That this Author and those of his way being satisfied that God is calling all godly sober Christians to have nothing to do with but to separate from this generation of men that is Ministers that conform to the Common-Prayer Book and Episcopal Government and that these now hearers of them were once satisfied of the same that yet they should disobey this calling of God and hold communion with them have most just cause of offence for their so doing But I presume the godly sober Christians in the Objection were never satisfied with this way of separation which this Author saith God calls them to but though they have been for Reformation yet not for such violent practises and preaching as it may be gathered this Author hath been for as to pull up root and branch of the old form of Government to unsettle all the Ministers to set up itinerant Preachers any gifted Brethren though many of them never studied Divinity but had gotten some ability by hearing Preachers and other wayes to speak of practical points without any ability to convince gainsayers and that they should take away the frame of parochial Churches and gather Churches out of Churches which should though but a few be an entire Church within themselves for government without appeal or subordination to any other Minister or Synod that they should be tyed to use no Form no not the Lords Prayer in effect that there should be as some were wont to speak overturning overturning overturning without setling any thing making the Pastors eligible by every small company that should call themselves a Church who should admit and excommunicate by most voices censure their Pastor desert him allot him maintenance and deprive him as they saw cause Sure the godly sober Châ—istians who now are offended at this Authors separation were then offended as many of their writings then did shew and the Apology of the ejected Non-conformists lately hath shewed p 136. of the 2 d. Edition and particularly at that eminent Independent who would not have the Lords Prayer used in the prescript form of words p. 10. which and the like courses they conceive were in the day of liberty evil and occasions of the day of trouble and if persisted in likely to bring more trouble on themselves and others who neither then nor now did oâ— do approve of such rigid separation or deformation of all instead of Reformation conceiving a middle way might agree better with truth and peace They condemn such heavy censures of them that aâ—e of the opposite party as if they were the enemies of the Lord a generation of men they were called by God to have nothing to do with but to separate from them sith they are Christians of the same Faith they judge that this Author and such as acted as he seems to have done should have brought glory to God and peace to their own consciences if they had un-said those things which abusing their liberty they vented heretofoâ—e and did endeavour to promote union as they have done division and this would tend to their honour as Augustine's Retâ—actaâ—ions did and would not cause the enemies of the Lord to triumph and blaspheme but both them and all sober godly Christians to rejoyce and bless God for their so doing who are now justly offended at these Separatists pertinacy and have by their moderate conformity in hearing Ministers who preach the Gospel and joyning in the publique worship of prayer and the communion given no just cause of offence to this Author or any other Nor do they think iâ— their duty to meet together as a sepaâ—ate Church Nor do they conceive that Heb. 10 â—5 requires such assembling but that the foâ—saking thâ— assembling there meant was the forsaking the assemblâ—ng of Christâ—ans and going back from Christianity to Judaism as the whole series of the Text shews and that their joyning in the publique assemblies in England is agreeable to the precept there and that it â—ends noâ— to Apâ—stacy But the Assemblies according to the Separatists pâ—inciples are Schismatical and that spiritual Saints will be offended at them at giving just cause of Scandal nor can they expect peace by so doing Nor is that which is here made a rule 〈◊〉 that way that hath most of the crâ—ss in it right suffeâ—ings being nâ—t â—ight unless the cause be for God Sometimes the â—onforming 〈◊〉 sometimes the Popish Prâ—estâ— have been under sufferings yet I suppose this Author would not have men go their way and therefore his rule is not sale until the cause for which we are to suffer be proved to be for God Sect. 7. Hearing the present Ministers may be without participation with them in sin Arg. 8. That which Saints cannot do without being guilty of partaking with others in their sin is utterly unlawful for them to do But the Saints cannot attend upon the ministry of England without being guâ—lty of partaking with them in their sin Therefore The major Proposition is clearly bottom'd upon Scripture Psal. 50. â—8 Ephes. 5.7 1 Tim. 5.22 2 John 11. Revel 18.4 which mâ—ght be abundantly demonstrated were it needful Sure that God who commands me to abstain from all appearance of evil 1 Thes. 5.22 never enjoyned expects noâ— that I should be in the practice of what without sin cannot be performed by me The 〈◊〉 Pâ—â—pâ—sition That the Saints cannot attend upon the mâ—â—â—stry of England without being partakers with them in theiâ— sin will admit of a speedy dispuâ—â—h Two things are briefly to be enquired into 1. What that or those sins are we suppose the Ministers of England to be guilty of 2. How it will appear That any person's amending upon their ministâ—y renders him guilty of partaking with them therein Of the former we have already treaâ—â—d and proved beyond what any are able to say to the contrary That they are guilty of the sins of worshipping God in a way that is not of his appointment of acting in the holy things of God by vertue of an Antichristian pâ—wer office or calling of opposing really the Prophetical and Kingly Office of Christ of using and conforming to modes and rites in worship not appointed by the Lord that have been abused to Idoâ—atry c. Nor is it denied by our conforming Brethren but with some of these things the present
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
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
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-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
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
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
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
received from a Bishop Suffragan who is not a Lord and therefore the adding of the title Lord to Bishop being only a civil title they being made Barons of the Land by the King and nothing pertaining to their Ordination but only giving them power to vote in Parliament or Convocation with other dignities is only brought in here ad faciendum populum to create envy or hatred against them in the Common people or others who are prepossessed with prejudice against them What their Office is as Bishops may be best discerned by the Book of Consecration which I gather from their promises and the prayers then used to be the instruction of the people committed to their charge out of the Holy Scripture and to teach or maintain nothing as required of necessity to eternal salvation but that which they shall be perswaded may be concluded and proved by the same faithfully to exercise themselves in the same Holy Scriptures and call upon God by prayer for the true understanding of the same so as they may be able by them to teach and exhort with wholesome Doctrine and to withstand and convince the Gainsayers to be ready with all faithful diligence to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange Doctrine contrary to Gods Word and both privately and openly to call upon and encourage others to the same to maintain and set forward as much as shall lie in them quietness love and peace among men and such as be unquiet disobedient and criminous within their Diocess correct and punish according to such authority as they have by Gods Word and as to them shall be committed by the Ordinance of the Realm to be faithful in Ordaining Sending or Laying hands upon others to shew themselves gentle and merciful for Christs sake to poor and needy People and to all Strangers destitute of help These are their Offices which they are required to perform at their Consecration whatever their practise be it pertains not to the present point this is the Office they undertake and it is as much wonder to me that any sober man should assert this to be Antichristian as it is to him that some should deny it I deny not but there are many that have termed Bishops Antichristian nor have there been wanting who have said as much of persons of Presbyterian and Congregational principles but such use of this term I have alwayes condemned even when Bishops were lowest as tending to nothing but to inflame the minds of Dissenters in opinion with hatred one against another but I have not met with any sober Writer or considerate man who in conference hath judged their Office as it is undertaken by them to be Antichristian I deny not that many learned men at home and abroad have disputed whether Bishops are by Divine Right an Order above Presbyters nor have there been wanting even of the Bishops themselves who have denied it Somewhat I have read on both sides but shall leave that controversie now and only examine what this Author saith to prove the Office of Lord Bishops to be Antichristian We shall saith he propose briefly a word or two in this matter 1. That Office that is not to be found in the Scriptures of the institution of Christ but is contrary to express precepts and commands of his is Antichristian But the Office of Lord-Bishops is not to be found in the Scriptures is contrary to express precepts Therefore Answ. I think the Major is not true if universal The Office of some Religious Votaries is not to be found in the Scriptures of the institution of Christ but is contrary to express Precepts and Commands of his and yet may not be Antichristian in that special sense in which the Scripture useth the word Antichrist nor as I suppose this Author useth it unless he make every sin to be Antichristian But because the Minor is that which he insists on I pass to his proof of it The minor Proposition consists of two parts 1. That the Office of Lord-Bishops is not to be found in Scripture of the institution of Christ He gave indeed Apostles Prophets Pastors and Teachers Ephes. 4.11 of Pastors and Teachers we read Rom. 12.7 8. Ephes. 4.8 Bishops also and Deacons without the interposition of any other Order we find 1 Tim. 3.12 Deacons we have appointed Acts 7. Elders Acts 14.23 those who are Bishops we find called Presbyters Tit. 1.5 7. and those who are Presbyters we find termed Bishops Acts 20.28 Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishops but where the Office of Lord-Bishops was instituted by Christ we are yet to seek indeed some appearances of a spirit striving to ascend into this chair of wickedness was seen in Diotrephes and others in the Apostles time but these were the Antichrists that were then gone abroad into the world The Scripture before mentioned Ephes. 4.11 speaks as fully to the Officers and Offices instituted by Christ as any we meet with Fail they in their deduction of their Office from hence and they will undoubtedly prove successless in their attempts Let us then fix here a little mention we find here of Apostles Prophets Pastors and Teachers none at all either here or elsewhere of Lord-Bishops But perhaps their Office though they are called by another name is comprehended in some one or other of these let that then be considered Are they Prophets that in the sense of the Spirit in this place they will not pretend to Are they Pastors or Teachers This is too great a debasement of their Lordships their Parochial Priests over whom they preside are supposed to be Offiâ—ers in that degree What then are they Apostles Their successors they do indeed boast themselves to be and are so accounted by their abettors and so doth the Pope himself but how prove they their Succession from them if they derive it through the Papacy who sees not the invalidity thereof How lubricous and uncertain is that their Succession How do they therein proclaim their shame and yield the matter in Controversie What clearer argument that they are Antichristian if the Pope be the Antichristian Head over many Countries as is by the generality of Protestants believed and will not by themselves be gainsayed But in what sense do they pretend to be the Apostles Successors Do they succeed them as Christians that is not the thing in question they stand or fall in respect thereof to their own Master herein we have no controversie with them as not willing to judge any thing before the time Do they succeed them in respect to their Offâ—ice let them prove that and take the cause The Apostles were first immediately sent by Christ secondly extraordinary Officers Commissionated to the Preaching of the Gospel throughout the Nations of the World Are their Lordships such what can be imagined more frivolous or false Where find we any Apostles after the departure of those that were immediately by Christ called to that Office Did the Apostles ordain any as their