not against any Ordinance of Jesus Christ yet we are afraid that those poor Souls that know not how to spend the Lords day without hearing do too much Idolize that Ordinance of God and never knew what it was to spend that day with him 2. You need not sit at home if you are enquiring after God and communion with his people you may soon hear of some one or other of the Assemblies of the Saints whither you may repair to wait upon the Lord with them 3. But thirdly were it or should it be otherwise yet better be idle than do worse better do nothing than sin against God encourage others in their evil deeds pollute and wound thy own Soul grieve the Saints stumble and harden the wicked and cause them to blaspheme his Name Sanctuary and such as dwell therein But 4. There is no necessity of being idle if thou knowest not where to hear on that day hast thou no work to do save that 1. Art sure that God and Christ and Eternal Glory are thy portion and inheritance Thou walkest in the light of assurance or thou dost not If thou dost is one day in seven too much to spend in the solemn admiration of grace that ever so vile a creature as thou should be accounted worthy of such unexpressible kindness and glory What O what will Eternity be then If thou dost not are not these worthy of thy utmost diligence to get assurance of What stand idle and an interest in God Christ and Eternal Glory to make sure of 2. Art thou sufficiently acquainted with thine own heart Dost know so much of thy self as thou needest to know Or judgest thou this to be a work that requires not thy utmost diligence and attendance 3. Hast thou no sin to be mortified no want to be supplyed no grace to be quickned and strengthned in thee 4 Hast thou as much communion with God as thou desirest Hast heard as often from him by the teaâ—hings of the Spirit the incomparably and infinitely best teacher as thou dost wish Or dost think that God will not manifest himself to and teach in a corner a poor Soul that 's there waiting for him alone because there be no Assemblies of Saints he knows of to whom he might joyn himself and he dares not have Communion with Adulterers If thou have not fellowship with God thou desirest and teachings from him as who hath stir up thy self to lay hold on God groan and cry after him till he hath brought thee into his chambers and afforded thee richer displayes of his glory 5. Art thou altogether ready trimmed without more ado for the coming and Kingdom of Christ Jesus what should I mention those important duties of reading the Scriptures meditation on them c. hast thou all this to do and much more that might be added and yet nothing to do on the Lords day set about these things in good earnest and when thou livest in the light of assurance without the least doubt or clouding when thou art sufficiently acquainted with thine own heart the will and Scriptures of the Lord when thou hast as much communion with God in retirement as thou desirest and teachings from his Spirit when thou hast no sin to be mortified nor grace to be quickened and strengthened when thou art quite ready for the day of Christ and needest no further fittings we shall consider what may be further said to this Objection but till then it cannot be pleaded when souls have all this work to do that they must sit at home idle if they go not to hear the Preachers of this day But thus far of the Objections that are by some made against the assertion of the unlawfulness of attending upon the present Ministers of England which are all of any moment we have yet met with what of weight is in them must be left to the judgement of the Christian Reader to determine We shall add no more but this that we have spoken our judgement and conscience herein as in sincerity in the sight of God with what meekness Christian tenderness and fear of giving any just offence to the truly conscientious he knows The sole of our aim in the whole is That Christ may be glorified in the recovery of any poor lamb that is turned aside to the flocks of the companions in this cloudy and dark day that others that have hitherto kept themselves from Idols might be further established in the will of God and strengthened to follow Christ in his temptations that they may inherit that kingdom and glory prepared for them before the foundation of the world May we but in the least contribute by Divine blessing hereunto whatever becomes of these papers or however they be by others accounted of we have our end and shall rest satisfied I reply this objection I find made not onely by some of the common sort of professors but also particulaly by Mr. Crofton and made by him as an argument wherefore he did and ought to joyn in hearing and praying in publick on the Lords day notwithstanding the defects in the ministerial mode and method of the publick Ministers the worship of God substantially existing in matter and essential form in their Ministration and the Lords day being to be observed in publick as well as private where and when the Ordinances cannot be enjoyed in a purer manner His second in the book intituled Jerubbaal justified doth reduce his plea to this Syllogism Communion with the Church visible in Gods solemn publick worship is an essential part of the sanctification of the Sabbath and indispensable duty But communion with the English Church in the worship by her celebrated is communion with the Church visible in Gods solemn worship Ergo Communion with the English Church having no opportunity with any other in the worship of her celebrated is to me an essential part of the sanctification of the Sabbath and indispensable duty This Syllogism is defended in that Book to which I refer the Reader and consider the objection as here it is urged and answered The objection proceeds upon suppositions of the Separatists or Independents in the number of whom he is to be accounted as appears by his wordes in this Chapter in answer to the 7th objection where he saith Learned Ainsworth Cotton c. have been and are of the same apprehension with us in this matter Now in Mr. Cottons way of the Churches of Christ in New England it is put into the definition of a visible Church that they are a number that may meet every Lords day for all Ordinances and in the Declaration of the Elders and Messengers of the Congregational Churches at the Savoy Oct. 12. 1658. ch 22. art 8. The Sabbath is then kept holy to the Lord when men are taken up the whole time in the publick and private exercises of his worship and in the duties of necessity and mercy Among these art 5. The reading of the Scriptures preaching and
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
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
and more exceptions then the present Ministers It is added Sect. 3. The Pharisees were not Church-officers of Gods appointment But let this be granted Suppose 2. The Scribes and Pharisees to be the preachers and expounders of the Law in that day the seat mentioned to be a Ministerial seat Yet this will not at all help them in the matter in controversie except it be granted to them that the Scribes and Pharisees were not a lawful but a false Ministry that had surreptitiously climbed up into this Ministerial seat for who sees not the invalidity and nothingness of this argument 'T was lawful to hear the Scribes and Pharisees which were the lawful Church-officers of that day of the appointment of the Lord acting by vertue of an authority derived from him therefore 't is lawful to hear persons that have not any such authority from Christ but are meer intuders and Ministers of Antichrist as the present Ministers of England have been proved to be now this upon that supposition that they were Ministers we cannot yield to these reasons 1. The Pharisees are expresly said to be Priests and Levites John 1.19 and this is the record of John when the Jews sent Priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him Who art thou v. 24. And they that were sent were of the Pharisees which were the ordinary lawful Ministers of that day 2. These of all others were most apt to question the authority of such as taught the people So when John appears preaching and baptizing and professes to them that he was not the Christ nor Elias nor Prophet who was expected by the people of the Jews they immediately question his authority John 1.25 Why baptizest thou then which they could not be supposed to have the face to do if they themselves of all others had been the greatest intruders Nay 3. When they question Christ himself about his authority he asks not them from whence they had theirs which doubtless upon that occasion he would have done had they not been lawfully seated in the seat they did possess but from whence John had his who was esteemed as a prophet 4. We have the Lord Jesus many times crying out above all others against the Pharisees condemning them of pride hypocrisie avarice c. but not the least tittle of the usurpation of Moses seat is by him charged upon them or in the least intimated which doubtless would have been had they been guilty thereof I reply that this grant that the Scribes and Pharisees were preachers and expounders of the Law in that day will help the objectours in the matter in controversie though it be not granted to them that the Scribes and Pharisees were not a lawfull but a false Ministry that had surrepticiously climbed up into this ministerial seat For they are assured that this Author hath not proved nor can prove the present Ministers of England to be meer intruders and Ministers of Antichrist and therefore need not this supposition concerning the Scribes and Pharisees to prove Christs allowing the hearing of the present Ministers Only this is urged that there is as much exception and more against the Pharisees teaching than against the present Ministers and yet they might be heard therefore with better reason may the present Ministers be heard Nevertheless I deny that the Scribes and Pharisees which they were to hear were the lawfull Church Officers of that day of the appointment of the Lord acting by vertue of an authority derived from him it being certain that as he saith they were a particular Sect among the Jews no where appointed by God to this office of Priesthood or teaching but taken up by men as orders of Friers among the Papists though some of them were Priests and some of them Rabbins or teachers of the law and educated thereunto as teachers of Divinity are in the Schools among us at this day which if the Ministers of England had no further ordination being the condition of most or very many of the present Ministers in England might justifie the hearing of them as well as the hearing the Pharisees who had no better calling to that function As for the reasons of this Author the first is not valid For it proves only that some of the Priests and Levites were Pharisees not all St. Paul certainly was not though a Pharisee nor that those that sate in Moses chair were Priests for all were not there being many thousands of Pharisees who were not Rabbins St. Paul was a Pharisee the son of a Pharisee when he sate at Gamaliels feet Acts 22.3 yet not a Doctor of the Law sitting in Moses his chair Nor if they were Priests doth it prove they were the lawfull Ministers of that day For to say nothing of Christs Apostles who were at that day the lawfull Ministers with and under Christ himself it is certain the Priests of those times got their places as for instance the High Priest by undue and unlawfull wayes by bribing the Roman Deputy as Josephus reports and therefore if it were proved they were Priests yet they are not proved to be lawful Ministers Yea that which is said of their Ordination and Education by the most favourable Writers of the Jewes proves they had some kind of entrance into their profession according to the customs of those times which were of human invention but nothing of Gods institution that they should sit in the chair of Moses As for the Second reason there is no marvel they had the impudence to question Iohns authority though themselves intruders when they were puft up with conceits of their authority though they had none when they were so proud and impudent as to conceive themselves righteous and despise others Luke 18.9 and to allege it in prayer to God though their Consciences might tell them they were covetous and unrighteous yea to deride Christ when he told them they could not serve God and Mammon Luke 16.14 Nor is the Third reason of force For Christ might question their authority though he did not when they questioned Johns and he seems after John to have done it in calling them a generation of vipers blind guides with sundry other expressions disparaging of them and their traditions And his charging them with affectation and ambitious seeking of the chief Seats and to be called Rabbi Rabbi what is it but an evidence that they did unlawfully climb into Moses his seat which they did so ambitiously gape after As for the not in express words charging them with usurpation it is no marvail it is not related sith their instigation of Herod to take away John Baptists life related by Iosephus is not related as imputed to them by Christ in any of the Evangelists Besides how irrational this argument is we read not that Christ charged them with usurpation of Moses seat therefore he did it not every puny in Schools knows who hath learned that rule in Logick argumentum non valet ab authoritate negativè an
warranted and engaged to attend upon it The greater hopes we have of their goodness the more are all that love the Lord Jesus bound to encourage them in this way as being the the true way of Christ and to relinquish them and separate from them for this cause is very sinfull sith it is to separate from them for doing their duty To hold them as excommunicate to reprove to urge them to repentance not to receive them to conceive of them as brethren walking disorderly is uncharitableness and injustice That the incestuous person was a good man before he repented cannot be well conceived sith he committed such a sin as was not named among the Gentiles it was the sin of the Corinthians that they were puffed up and had not rather mourned that he that had done that deed might be taken away from among them it is no sin that the Saints do not mourn that the present Ministers who are confessedly good men may be taken away from among them it is their great sin if they do not bless God for them and pray for their establishment and good success in their Ministry That the Ministry is devised by any other than God is not shewed they that talk and write ignorantly not ever reading the book of Ordination which shews what their Ministry is make invectives against them and wildly wander from them upon false suggestions often to their perdition That to hear them is not to partake with them in sin is shewed in answer to this Authors 8 th argument chap. 8 th That their Ministry is usurped is not proved if it were it might be a true Ministry which if it be though it were usurped it is not the sin but may be the duty of him that exerciseth it It follows Sect. 11. The example of the learned godly Nonconformists is some inducement to hear the present Ministers Object 7. But many learned and good men and such as in Conscience could not conform to the Ceremonies of the Church of England have in dayes past and do now hear the present Ministers thereof To which we answer 1. That the greatest Scholars and most accomplished for humane wisdom parts yea visible holiness have not been alwayes on the Lords side following him in paths of his own appointment but many times have been found the greatest persecutors and opposers of Christ the most stupendiously ignorant of the will of God in respect of the truth and work of their generation of any persons in the world witness the Scribes and Pharisees the learned Rabbies and profound Doctors of that day with what virulency did they oppose Christ and the doctrine of the Gospel preached by him 2. That persons of as great holiness and renown for learning and all manner of accomplishments as learned Ainsworth Cotton c. have been and are of the same apprehension with us in this matter not to mention the reformed Churches who generally renounce the Ministry of the Church of England not admitting any by vertue of it to the charge of Souls as they speak But 3. To the Law and to the Testimony Isa. 8.20 if they speak not according to this rule though Angels for knowledge and holiness they are not to be received or heeded one word from the Lord is of more weight to hearts made truly tender than the example of an hundred professors can be 't is possible these may err be yea and nay but so cannot the truth of God which is alwayes the same and will abide so for ever 4. The Apostle hath long since determined this case 1 Cor. 11.1 Be ye followers of me as I am of Christ so far as Saints follow Christ I may and ought to follow them but no further so that the learning parts or holiness of any that attend upon the present Ministers of England is no warrant for me so to do nor will ever be a satisfactory answer to that enquiry who hath required these things at your hands I reply It is not denied that the most learned and zealous of the law such as St. Paul among the Jews the most excellent Moralists among the Gentiles have been great enemies to the Gospel afore their calling to the faith of Christ but the objection is of learned and good men among Christians who are never found the greatest persecutors and opposers of Christ. Possibly it may fall out yea and it hath fallen out that among Christians the greatest Scholars and most acâ—ompâ—â—shed for humane parts wisdoms yea for visible holiness have not been alwayes on the Lords side following him in paths of his own appointment but have been stupendiously ignorant of the will of God in respect of the truth and work of their generation I think â—ardinal Caietan was one of the greatest Scholars of his time yet saw not what Luther saw about justification by faith and Luther though he did much in that point yet saw not so much as Calvin in the point of the reâ—l presence in the Eucharist and therefore like well the 3 d. and 4 â—h answer here that we should adhere only to the Law and to the Testimony and be followers of the learned as they are of Christ. Yet I conceive that it is a wicked course which is taken by some so to disparage learning as if it were of no necessity Universities as of no use but rather Seminaries of ungodliness to say that men that have humane learning are the unlearned and unstable which do wrest the Scriptures 2 Pet. 3.16 as How the Cobler a much followed Preacher a great while ago in London vented in print that learned Scholars do make the Scriptures as a nose of wax are but Juglers and deceivers which are too too often insinuated into the minds of well meaning but weak minds whereby they are more addicted to such as How Tillinghast and other popular Orators and their injudicious discourses if stuffed with fained words and earnest affections then to the most solid proofs of the most learned whose interpretations of Scripture and handling of Controversies have cleared the truth and restored purity of Doctrine to the great benefit of the Church of God which these people understand not But it hapneth according to the saying Scientia nâ—minem habâ—â— inimicum nisi ignorantem And sure though I would have no Christian enslave his judgement to any man it were that Anthropolatria or sin of glorying in men forbidden 1 Cor. 3.21 against which I printed a little treatise in the the year 1645 foreseeing it would be the means of dividing Christians into parties nor would I have that which is propounded by men of none or lesser learning rejected because it is from them one Paphâ—utius may see that truth which a whole Council though such as the first Nâ—cene without him did not discern it was an evil spirit in Matthaeus Langius that made him disdain to be taught by Luther as is related in the History of thâ— Council of â—rent God doth out of the
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
the Nations of the World to be a People near to him his peculiar Treasure above them all Statutes and Ordinances to walk by both with relation to Civils and Ecclesiasticks which they were indispensably bound to conform to without adding to or detracting therefrom That the management of all their affairs was singly to be bottomed upon and conform to these Statutes and Judgments is very frequently asserted in Scripture Exod. 21.1 Lev. 18.4 19.37 20.22 25.18 26.15 43. Deut. 4.1 5 8. 5.1 7.11 11.1 32. 12.1 26.16 30.16 1 Chron. 16.12 28.7 Psal. 89.30 Ezek. 5.6 36.27 Dan 9.5 Answ. It is granted that the Lord gave unto the people of the Jews Statutes and Ordinances to walk by both with relation to Civils and Ecclesiasticks or as usually they speak Ceremonials and that they were bound to conform to them and so much the Texts alledged do prove But that they were bound indispensably to conform to these Statutes without adding to or detracting therefrom and that the management of all their affairs was singly to be bottomed upon and conform to these Statutes and Judgments is not asserted in those Scriptures there being not one of them that saith that they were bound indispensably to conform to them Our Lord hath determined to the contrary in justifying his Disciples plucking the ears of Corn on the Sabbath Davids eating the shew bread and entring into the house of God and confirming his determination by the words of the Prophet Hosea 6.6 in his dissertation against the Pharisees Mat. 12.3 7. in which there was a dispensation with and detraction from the Laws of the Sabbath and the Shew-bread about Ecclesiasticks for a time in some Case And for addition to Laws Ecclesiastical the assemblies keeping other seven dayes besides those prescribed in the Law of the Passover 2 Chro. 30.23 and to civils that ordinance of David 1 Sam. 30.25 Shew that in both some additions might be by the Prince Captain or private persons to both sorts of Lawes with Divine approbation And that the management of all the affairs of the people of Israel both civil and ecclesiastical was not singly to be bottom'd upon and conform to those statutes and judgments but that in both sorts of affairs humane prudence and the Rulers Authority might order many things may be cleared from sundry instances of David Jehoshaphat Hezekiah and others which there will be occasion more fully to discusse in examining the allegations brought by this Author to prove the major of his first argument Ch. 1. of this treatise Sect. 7. The election or ordination of Levites is no rule for election or ordination of Ministers now Secondly saith he that persons were appointed by the Lord to be chosen by the Congregation for the publick administration of ordinances and worship cannot be denied Thus were the Levites Exod. 13.2 12 13. and 22.29 Numb 3.12 called therefore the Wave-offering of the Children of Israel Numb 8.9 10 11. because given up by them to the Lord as their offering by solemn ordination and imposition of hands Answer it is true that the Levites were wholly given unto God from among the Children of Israel to do the service of the Congregation but it is not true that they were appointed by the Lord to be chosen by the Congregation God saith Numb 8.16 in stead of the first-born of all the Children of Israel have I taken them to mee And upon what occasion God took the Levites in stead of the first born is to be seen in Exod. 32.26 29. Deut. 33.9 Saith Ainsworth annot on Numb 3.12 So that here appears no choice of the Congregation so as that it was left to them to take or to leave those It is true also that Numb 8.9 it is said that Moses shall bring the Levites before the Tabernacle of the Congregation it was therefore his business to present them and that he should gather the whole assembly of the Children of Israel together and that he should bring the Levites before the Lord and the Children of Israel that is some of the chief of them as the first born in the name of the rest shall lay or impose hands on the Levites saith Ainsworth annot on Numb 8.10 And then it follows v. 11. Aaron shall offer or wave the Levites before the Lord for an offering or wave-offering of the Children of Israel that they may execute the service of the Lord. And then Aaron was to make an atonement for the Levites and Moses should set the Levites before Aaron and before his Sons and offer them for an offering unto the Lord and that he should separate the Levites from among the Children of Israel and the Levites should then be Gods v. 13 14. The reason of the laying on of the hands of the Children of Israel upon the Levites was to signifie their obedient yielding them to God in their stead to do the service of the Children of Israel in the Tabernacle of the Congregation and to make an atonement for the Children of Israel that there might be no plague among the Children of Israel when the Children of Israel came nigh unto the Sanctuary v. 19. But these were not the Priests they were distinct from the Levites to wit Aaron and his Sons who were called of God Heb. 5.4 without the Prophets laying on of hands Now it was the Priests office to do that work in which was the worship of God to wit the offering Sacrifice sprinkling the blood and such other duties the Levites were imployed to do other services as the bearing of the utesils and such like in respect of which they were to attend on the Priests Deut. 10.8 therefore it is said by God v. 19. I have given the Levites as a gift to Aaron and his Sons So that the choice was Gods the presenting Moses his act the yielding them by imposition of hands signifying their offering them to God in stead of themselves was the act of the first-born the wave offering and cleansing them Aarons act which may more truly be called their solemn ordination than the imposition of hands by the first-born But were it true that in this act of imposing their hands there was election and ordination this waâ— not a successive election or ordination as is when one dies and another is chosen and ordained in his room as oft as there is such vacancy when one Minister dies and another comes in his stead For this election or ordination if it may be so called was but once and of the whole company together and so is no pattern for election or ordination of Elders successively by a particular Congregation or the major part of them Sect. 8. The Texts enjoyning the observation of things appointed prove not that some things undetermined might not in Gods worship be ordered by men Thirdly saith he that persons thus invested into the office of Priesthood were not left to the liberty of their own
wits nor have they any dependance upon the will or Authority of the Sons of men one or other of them either in respect of the matter or manner of their worship the whole whereof was purely of Divine institution and Divine appointment Exod. 25.9 40. Numb 8.5 Heb. 8.5 1 Chron. 28 11. Exod. 8.27 Levit. 10.1 Exod. 39.1 5 7 21 26 31 43 and 40.23 25 27 29. Levit. 8.9 13 17 21 29. Numb 8.3 Exod. 35.10 29. and 36.1 5. Isaiah 29.13 Answer The Levites were not invested into the office of the Priesthood by solemn ordination imposition of hands of the children of Israel but Aaron and his Sons and therefore as it was an usurpation in Uzziah to burn incense to the Lord sith it appertained to the Priests the sons of Aaron that were consecrated to burn incense 2 Chron. 26.18 So it was the sin of Korah that not content with that service he was to do he would usurp the office of the Priests to come nigh the Altar and to burn incense or as it is Numb 16.10 to seek the Priesthood which was in degree above the Levites who were to minister unto the Priests but not to come nigh the Altar as Ainsworth proves in his Annot. on Numb 16.10 out of Numb 18.2 3. 1 Chron. 6.48 49. 1 Chron. 23.13 It is granted that neither the Levites nor the Priests in their office or service were left to their own wills nor had they any dependance upon the will or authority of the sons of men one or other of them either in respect of the matter or manner of their worship which was of Divine institution and Divine appointment Every circumstance of time place order habit and what ever else was particularly determined was to be strictly observed under pain of death if presumptuously done otherwise as in the case of Nadab and Abihu Hophai and Phinehas or culpable negligence as in the case of Uzzah and if it were by ignorance yet an offering was to be made for an atonement and thus much it is granted the Texts alledged do prove But neither these texts nor any other do prove that no circumstances about place time order undetermined by God were left to the liberty of the people or Prince or Sanhedrin or Priests in and about the worship of God among the Jewes who yet had their service more fully particularized in all things pertaining to it than we have The Priests were invested into the office of Priesthood by Moses according to the rites distinctly set down Exod. 40.12 13 14 15 16. Levit. 8. throughout The text Isai. 29.13 alledged in the first chapter out of Mark 7.7 will there fitly be considered that we may discusse whether the whole of their worship was purely of Divine institution and appointment in respect of the matter and manner of it Sect. 9. The defection of the Jews to Idolatrous inventions of men is of a more hainous degree than use of humane ceremonies with us Fourthly saith he that this Church gathered by the Lord and wonderfully separated from the rest of the world though they had him nearer to them than any people had his Law made known amongst them did notwithstanding quickly depart from his pure institutions mingling therewith the inventions of men and customes of the Nations after which they went a whoring is frequently remarked in the Scripture of this the Lord sorely complains Deut. 32.18 Jer. 2.32 and 13.25 and 23.27 Hos. 4.6 and 8.14 and 13.6 2 Chron. 13.16 Isa. 1.4 Jer 1.16 and 2.17 19. and 9.13 and 15.6 Deut. 29.5 1 Kings 11.33 and 18.18 and 19.10 2 Kings 22.17 Ezra 9.10 for this he severely threatens and punisheth them Deut. 29.25 Judg. 10.10 1 Sam. 12.10 2 Chron. 12.5 and 24.20 and 34.25 Jer. 16.11 and 19.4 the very truth is the contests of God with that people from first to last are to be bottom'd upon this foot of account Answer It is true that Church of Israel was gathered by the Lord and wonderfully separated from the rest of the world by great signs miracles providences and judgments which he shewed against their enemies and towards them especially by the hand of Moses and that he did not till Christ came so gather and wonderfully separate any Church from the rest of the World as he did them But after the ascension of Christ by the Preaching of the Gospel and other wayes he hath gathered out of all Nations his Church and wonderfully separated it from the rest of the world It is true also that the Israelites quickly departed from Gods pure institutions mingling therewith the inventions of men and customs of the Nations But those inventions of men and customs of the Nations which the Texts alledged mention were such as were expressely forbidden drew them to serve other other Gods and to forsake the Lord not such as are usually by seperatives called inventions of men to wit humane ceremonies confessed out of the case of worship in themselves to be things indifferent such as out of pretended prudence at least or publique authority are imposed for discipline order or decency without giving any Divine worship to a Creature Let all the Texts alledged be viewed and there is none of them that mentions the mingling such inventions of men no not those which our Saviour reprehends in the Pharisees Mark 7.3 4 8. which are farr worse as the departing from Gods pure institutions nor doth God contest with the people of the Jewes in those places alledged for other inventions of men and customes of the Nations than such as were Idolatrous and therefore the threatnings and punishments in those places are grossely abused when they are applied to the imposing or use of such ceremonies or discipline as are whether rightly or wrongly retained in the Church of England Sect. 10. Such testimony as the Prophets gave against the Jewish defection is not now to be given against the Conformists Fifthly saith he that notwithstanding their dreadful Apostacy from God they were usually confident that they were the only People had not forsaken the Lord nor done any evil and could not bear the Prophecies and rebukes of the Prophets and Servants of the Lord against their abominations whom they persecuted and put to death as at last they did the Prince of Life and Glory for no other cause but for telling them the truth and bearing testimony against their Innovations and Apostacy from God the usual practice of persons degenerated from the way and Spirit of the Lord Mal. 1.6 Jer. 7.4 Luke 3.8 John 8.39 Mat. 5.12 Act. 7.52 Answer All this is granted and if this Author can prove any such innovations and Apostacy from God as the Prophets Christ and his Apostles and other Servants of God rebuked in the Jewes in the People or Teachers who adhere to the doctrin worship or discipline of the Church of England this Author with others of his minde do well to bear their testimony against them as the Prophets did and
pretence whatsoever nor in any other sin by joyning in the practice and if the present worship of the Ministers of England be any such fornication or the hearing or joyning with them must be a partaking with them in any sin so farre at least they are to be separated from But neither the Texts alledged nor any other do require separation from the worship of God or the Ministers that are in some things corrupt even in their ministration when Hophai and Phinehas did corrupt the worship of God yet Samuel did lawfully minister before the Lord and Hannah did well in presenting him thereto and her self at the solemn Feasts and even-while there was burning incense and sacrificing in the High places those of Judah were not to separate from the service at Jerusalem which was to God and though the High Priests were unduly set up and sundry corruptions and superstitions in the Pharisees and the services of the Jews in our Lord Christs time on Earth yet did our Lord Christ joyn in the publick service of the Temple and perswaded the cleansed Leper to offer to them the gift that Moses commanded Wherefore I inferr that though there should be some degree of Corruption in Worship and that this should be a breach upon the soveraign Authority of God as every sin is and a grievous sin it is yet this might not be a sufficient cause of separation from the Worship Church or Ministers of it and that the allegation of the Texts produced will not be sufficient for the design of this Author in urging separation from the Ministers and Church of England But let us further attend his motions He adds Sect. 14. The arguing by analogy in positive rites not rational What may rationally be inferred from these positions so evidently comprized in the Scripture and by way of Analogy at least may be argued from them is evident to any ordinary understanding for our parts being resolved as was said to trie out the matter in controversie from such rules and soveraign Institutions as our dear Lord hath left his New Testament Churches to walk by we shall not stand to make that improvement of them as otherwise we might A few Queries upon the whole that hath been offered shall put a close to this Preface Answ. Whether the positions before set down be evidently comprised in the Scripture may be perceived by the examination of them what may be rationally inferred from them for his purpose of condemning the hearing the present Ministers of England is not evident to my understanding which I do not conceive to be any other than ordinary As for arguing by way of Analogy from the institutions of the Old Testament to those of the New Testament from supposed parity of reason how little rationality or force there is therein I presume he may perceive if he read the second part of the Review of my Dispute about Paedobaptism Sect. 2.3 wherein how infirm the way of arguing from such Analogy is is so far evinced that I judge that if the improvement he thinks he might make of his positions for his purpose be by that way of proof it will be found insufficient by an ordinary understanding whether he hath kept to his resolution of tiying the matter in controversie by the rules and institutions of the New Testament will appear by the examining of the ensuing Discourse I judge that to be the way whereby to settle mens Consciences about mere positive Duties or Sins under the Gospel and therefore am resolved to pursue his dispute pede pes yet clearing the way by considering his Queries in a velitary Skirmish before I set upon his Triarii or main Battle Sect. 15. The first Querie about a National Instituted Church answered His first Querie is Whether since the Apotomy or Unchurching the Nation of the Jews the Lord hath ever since so espoused a Nation or People to himself as that upon the account thereof the whole Body of that People or Nation may be accounted his Church Whether there be any National Church under the Oeconomie of the Gospel If so Let it be shewed when and where it was instituted by the Lord What is produced by some to this purpose is but upon a slight view thereof of no moment it is Isa. 49.21 Kings shall be your Nursing Fathers c. which Prophesie waits the time of its accomplishment hitherto both before and since the rise of Antichrist being made drunk by the Whores intoxicating Cup they have been for the most part cruel Butchers of the Saints and were we under its accomplishment a National Church would be far enough from being its result Of a Nations being born at once we shall not sure hear pleaded in this matter it being a Prophesie expresly relating to the Jews and their miraculous conversion if there be no such thing as a National Church of the Institution of Christ as most certain it is there is not the assertion whereof is wholly destructive of Gospel Administrations then Answ. As King James in his Remonstrance against Cardinal Perons Oration saith that the appellation and name of the Church serveth in this corrupt Age as a Cloak to cover a thousand new inventions meaning this of the Popish party so may we say also of others that by reason of the ambiguous use of the appellation and name of the Church and the dictates of men about it the minds of many are perplexed and perverted Wherefore in answering this first Querie which the Separatists do so much harp upon it is necessary that there be a distinct understanding of the notion of the Church and its Institution The Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which by use is now almost appropriated to the Christian Church hath been variously used both in the Greek Versions of the Old Testament in the Apocryphal Writings and in the New Testament It seems to me of little concernment in the present question to collect them all the Queries to be answered beâ—ng of the New Testament use Now in the New Testament excepting what I find Act. 19.32 39 40. where it is applied to Assemblies of Unbelievers whether tumultuary or orderly and Act. 7.38 where it is applied to the Congregation of Israel in the Wilderness in all places in the Acts of the Apostles the Epistles of the Apostles and Revelation of St. John it is meant so far as I discern of the Christians or People of God or their Meeting or Assembly As it notes the Christian Believers or People of God so it is taken sometimes for the Universal Church whether invisible or visible as 1 Cor. 12.28 Heb. 12.23 Ephes. 1.22 sometimes for the visible Church indefinitely but not universally as 1 Cor. 15.9 sometimes for the Church Topical and then it is taken for the Church of a City or Town or House and so we read of the Church at Jerusalem Act 8.1 of Corinth Ephesus c. in Philemons house Philem. 2. or of a Country or Nation and then
it is put in the Plural number as the Churches of Asia Galatia Judaea In the Evangelists History of the doings sufferings and sayings of our Lord Christ I find the Word Church used but in two places Mat. 16.18 and 18.17 Of the extent and meaning of both which Texts there is so much controversie not only between the Protestants and Papists but also among the Protestants themselves of different persuasions about Church Government that it would require a Treatise by it self to make a thorough discussion of those two Texts in order to the clearing of the Controversies that are started about them That Mat. 16.18 is undoubtedly meant of the Christian Church but whether Oecumenical visible or invisible or indefinite or topical is doubted It is without any proof appropriated to the Church of Rome or any particular Church as ordered under this or that peculiar form of Government but is to be taken for the number of Believers in Christ whether of Jews or Gentiles more or fewer abstractively from any political considerations and such external adjuncts and denominations as whereby usually Churches are in common speeches diversified In the other place Mat. 18.17 in as much as it is not said tell my Church but tell the Church and the term thy brother may as well be meant of a Brother as by birth or proselytism adjoyned to the Jews as St. Paul calls the Jews by birth his brethren kinsmen according to the flesh Rom. 9.3 in which sense it may seem to be taken in that place Mat. 5.23 24. which is a precept like to this for the reconciling of particular differences and righting of wrongs and the expression let him be to thee as a Heathen seems to intimate as of a Brother in Christian profession it may not without reason be doubted whether by the Church there be meant the Christian Church or an Assembly of the Jews in their Synedrium whether greater or lesser and if it be extended as a direction to Christian Brethren whether it be meant of their Assembly under an Ecclesiastical Consideration or Political that is the Christian Magistrate Institution of a Church by Preception or Command I find not neither Christ nor his Apostles that I know have given us any rule or law of bounding modelling or numbring Churches There is a precept Heb. 10.25 that Christians should not forsake the assembling of themselves together as the manner of some was But none about the defining how many should go to a Church or be accounted to belong to one Church no determination by any precept concerning Members belonging to a Church whether they should be fixed to one Meeting or ambulatory and moveable sometimes belonging to one Assembly sometimes to another of the same profession Nor do we find any Institution of Churches whether they ought to be Domestick Congregational Parochial Classiâ—al Diocesan Provincial Patriarchical or Oecumenical The ordering of such distinctions Christ and his Apostles so far as I deprehend have left to Divine Providence and Humane Prudence allowing more or fewer to a Church as the imes will permit the increase or diminution of Believers should be as Pastors may be had and their Partitions and Meetings be convenient for their edification and government It is true the Romanists would infer from Christs promise to Peter Mat. 16.18 Upon this Rock will I build my Church that St. Peter and after hâ—m the Bishop of Rome was made universal Bishop But that by Christs Church is meant the universal Church and by Christs building it is meant constituting an universal Bishop is an assertion without proof In some of the Ancients the Bishops of Rome have been stiled Oecumenical but so also have other Patriarchs We believe one Catholick and Apostolick Church but so denominated from their common confession or the same Faith not from union to and subjection under one visible Church head Mr. Paul Bayne as I remember long since disputed against Diocesan Churches for Parochial and in the Assembly at Westminster the dissenters against this proposition that many particular Congregations may be under one Presbyterial government from such distinction of Churches as the New Testament yields But the Arguments seem not to me to be cogent they declaring only what was done de facto not what was necessary to be done de jure That Text Mat. 18.17 is much urged by sundry sorts of Pleaders for their several wayes of Church-government But it is uncertain whether by Brother and Church be meant Christian Believers and the Christian Church and if Christian Believers and Church be meant whether the Church be meant of the Christian Civil Judicatory or Ecclesiastical Consistory or Congregational Assembly of Believers of all ranks or some select Arbitrators that of which the Church is to have cognizance being there no other than the sin of one Brother against another which v. 21 22. Luk. 17 3 4. shew to be meant only of private trespasses or injuries done by one to another who might remit or forgive them nor is any other act ascribed to the Church than an admonition to the injurious Brother to do right to him whom he hath wronged whereupon it is then allowed or appointed upon non-satisfaction to him or disobedience to the Church without any other juridical sentence mentioned that he that is thus disobedient should be to him that complained as a Heathen or Publican with whom the Jews would not have familiarity Nothing is said of being such to the Church or by vertue of its sentence juridical or being excluded à sacris which we are sure the Publicans were not Luk. 18.10 These things seem to me to evince that neither is here that instituted Church which the Assertors of Congregational Churches and Church-government urge as the only Churches and Church-government of the New Testament and inculcate as the pattern in the Mount and any other way to be as the setting of mans posts by Gods posts and separate from a National Church as a humane Invention Nor is here that Church-government instituted which they make the only Government appointed by Christ that the Congregation or the major part are to cast out exclude from Communion in Holy things in every Church though but of seven or eight every member that sins and will not obey the monition of the rest of the Congregation These things being premised I answer to the Questions in the first Querie fore-mentioned 1. That it is granted That since the Unchurching of the Nation of the Jews the Lord hath not yet that we know of so espoused a Nation or People to himself as that upon the account thereof the whole Body of that People or Nation may be accounted his We say that Christ hath redeemed us to God by his bloud out of every Kindred and Tongue and People and Nation and hath made us unto our God Kings and Priests Revel 5.9 10. We own no Church visible now but of Believers by their own personal profession We approve the 19. Article of
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
on If there be no such thing as a National Church of the institution of Christ as most certain it is there is not then 2. Whether National Ministers are the Ministers of Christ or whether there can be a true Ministry in a false Church as a National Church must be if not of Divine Institution upon what pretence soever it be so denominated Sect. 16. National Ministers may be Ministers of Christ and National Churches true Churches To this Querie I answer 1 That if by National Ministers be meant Ministers for the Nation or such as have inspection over the Nation whether for the maintenance or propagating of true Doctrine or Worship or holiness of life they may be Ministers of Christ though no such thing as a National Church were of the institution of Christ. As for instance I conceive Dr. James Usher when he was alive was a Minister of Christ when he was Primate of Ireland The assertion I prove thus If the Apostles were Ministers of Christ and National Ministers though a National Church were not instituted of Christ than National Ministers may be Ministers of Christ though a National Church be not instituted of Christ But the Apostles were such as for instance Peter had the Apostleship of the Circumcision Paul of the Gentiles Gal. 2.7 8. Rom. 11.13 1 Tim. 2.7 Therefore National Ministers may be Ministers of Christ. 2. Titus was a National Minister of the Cretians For this cause saith St. Paul Tit. 1.5 left I thee in Crete that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting and ordain Elders in every City as I had appointed thee and yet a Minister of Christ St. Pauls partner and fellow-helper concerning the Corinthians 2 Cor. 8.23 Ergo 3. They that may be Ministers of Christ though they be Ministers for the Body of Christ and all the Members thereof may be Ministers of Christ though National because the denial of a National Ministry is upon this supposition that a Minister of Christ is only for one particular Congregation but the Pastors and Teachers as well as Apostles Evangelists Prophets are given for the edifying of the Body of Christ till we all come in the unity of the faith unto a perfect man Eph. 4.11 12 13. Therefore for all or any and consequently for a Nation and not only for a particular Congregation 4. If any of the Saints as well as one particular Congregation have an interest in all the Ministers of Christ so as that they are truly theirs then Ministers of Christ may be National yea ought to be yea and Oecumenical if they could be serviceable to them in the things of Christ. But 1 Cor. 3.22 23. Paul and Cephas and Apollos were all the Corinthians and all others who were Christs therefore the same may be Ministers of Christ and National Ministers I know not whether this might be an argument ad hominem but this I take to be justifiable that a man may be a Commissioner for approbation of publick Preachers throughout a Nation and so a National Minister or an Itinerant Preacher to the Nation and yet be a Minister of Christ. 2. A National Church denominated so either from the agreement of all the Believers in that Nation in the same profession or from their subjection to some Common Rulers Ecclesiastical or Civil or Convening by Deputies in some National Synod though not of Divine Institution may be a true and not a false Church which I prove thus They may be a true Church who have all things essential to a Church and nothing destructive of its being such But Believers of a Nation or a National Church so denominated any of those wayes may have all things essential to a Church and nothing destructive of its being such Ergo. The Major is taken from the proper notion of the term True Church or its definition For the definition of a Church of Christ or a true Church is and can be no other than a Company or Number of persons believing in Christ or professing the Faith of the Gospel and obedience to God by Christ according unto it not destroying their own profession by any errours concerning the foundation or unholiness of conversation even according to the expression of the Congregational men in their Declaration Octob. 12.1658 ch 26. The Minor is also manifest by Reason and Experience A National Church so denominated may have the Truth of Doctrine of Faith the Truth of Worship the Truth of Holy conversation besides which there is nothing essential to a true Church For the defect of outward order were the order pretended indeed of Christs Institution yet could not nullifie the Church or destroy the Truth of it but only the regularity The Corinthians were a true Church 1 Cor. 1.2 even then when there were disorders in their Meeting 1 Cor. 14.26 in their Discipline 1 Cor. 5.1 2. in their Communion 1 Cor. 11.21 in their Faith 1 Cor. 15.12 in their Conversation 2 Cor. 1.1 and 12 2â— As for the outward form of their Combination by a Church Covenant or their number or their habitation or their descent these and such like things though for convenience they be requisite yet not essential to the Church or its Truth Yea the having of Baptism Organizing by Officers though more necessary and of Divine Institution yet are not essential to a Church or its Truth but that the Church without them may be a true Church though not so regular and well ordered as it should be Nor doth the having of National Rulers Ecclesiastical either single persons or in a Synod or Convocation make a false Church Those of the Congregational way have had Synods and submitted to Courts even in Ecclesiastical things of larger extent than a Congregation of one Town and Churches of a greater number and at greater distance of habitation than could meet in one place every Lords Day for all Ordinances and deny not a Catholick visible Church and therefore should not by reason of the number distance want of Officers of Divine Institution or because modelled by humane prudence call a National Church a false Church The proofs used by those that held that many particular Congregations may be under one Presbyterial Government Printed in the Year 1645. from the number of the Church at Jerusalem yet one Church Acts 8.1 under one Government besides what is found in the Scripture about the Churches of Corinth Ephesus are sufficient to evince that many Congregations may be one Church and that the unity and truth of Churches is to be taken from agreement and verity of Faith and that a National Church so denominated in respect of the agreement in profession or subjection to Government or convention by Deputies or Messengers in one Synod may be one National Church and a true Church of Christ. But it is objected That the first Church is of Christs Institution and that was of so many as might meet in one Congregation even the Church at Jerusalem that
to my wants sometimes both are joyned 2 Cor. 9.25 the administration of this service or the ministration of this Ministry and the higher powers are termed Rom. 13.4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 6. that is the Minister or Officer of God In ecclesiastical matters both words are used and are applied to Christ who is termed the Minister of the Circumcision Rom. 15.8 a Minister of the Sanctuary Heb 8.2 and to Ministers of Christ Acts. 13.2 2 Cor. 11.23 the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is oft restrained to the office of a Deacon Phil. 1.1 1 Tim. 3.8 But the Ministry we are enquiring of is neither that of a Servant that waits on his Master nor of a contributor that supplieth anothers wants of outward necessaries nor the performing of the function of a Magistrate by doing acts of publique justice nor the ministry of Christ which was and is peculiar to him nor the Ministry of Angels who are also termed Gods Ministers and Ministring Spirits Heb. 1.7 14. Nor the office of Deacons as their office is termed serving tables distinct from the Ministry of the word Acts. 6.1 2 4. But that Ministry to which Matthias was elected Acts 1.25 and of which it is said 1 Cor. 3.5 who then is Paul and who is Apollos but Ministers by whom ye believed even as the Lord gave to every one and is meant Ephes. 4.11 12. where it is said that Christ gave some Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists and some Pastors and Teachers for the work of the Ministry This Ministry was performed by the Apostles Prophets and Evangelists somewhat extraordinarily either in respect of their gifts or their commission which are now ceased That Ministry we now enquire of is that of ordinary Pastors and Teachers as now sent To these sundry Ministries are usually assigned to 〈◊〉 Ministry of the word of Baptism of the Lords supper of confirmation ordination government by admonitions censures and if there be any other work allotted to those whom the Scripture terms Bishops or Elders But our quaerist in this his writing medling only with that part of Ministry in this main question disputed by him which is by Preaching I understand his quaerie to be meant of that part of the Ministry Now this Ministry is usually expressed by the Ministry of the word Acts 6.4 the Ministry of the Gospel of God Rom. 15.16 the Ministry of the New Testament not of the letter but of the Spirit 2 Cor. 3.6 8. of righteousness v. 9. the Ministry of reconciliation 2 Cor. 5.18 Stewards of the Misteris of God 1 Cor. 4.1 and sometimes our Ministery without any other adjunct 2 Cor. 6.3 and an Oeconomy or dispensation 1 Cor. 9.17 more fully Acts 20.24 the Ministery which I have received of the Lord Jesus to testify the Gospel of the grace of God Which shewes the Author of this Ministry whereupon he requires 1 Cor. 4.1 Let a man so account of us as of the Mynisters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated Minister Acts 13.5 of Christ and Stewards of the mysteries of God The finis cui or those for whom this Ministry is appointed are the Saints and therefore it is said to be for the perfecting of the Saints or joynting together of them and the edifying of the body of Christ Ephes. 4 12. wherefore St. Paul saith of himself that he was made a Minister of the Church according to the dispensation of God which is given to mee for you to fulfill the word of God Col. 1.24 25. which shewes that he was not a Minister for one particular Church but for any part of it where his lot was to Preach and that he was not Minister of the Church by their election or mission or direction for these were of God and Christ Jesus but for the Church or Saints as the subjects to and for whom he was appointed to fulfill the word of God even the mystery which had been hid from ages and from generations but then was made manifest to his Saints to whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles which is Christ in you the hope of glory v. 26 27. to which purpose he speaks also of himself Ephes. 3.6 7 8 9. which yet is not to be restrained so to the Saints but that the Ministry of the Gospel was to be to them that were not Saints I am a debtor saith he Rom. 1.14 both to the Greeks and to the Barbarians both to the wise and to the unwise and 1 Cor. 1.23 We preach Christ unto the Jewes a stumbling block and unto the Greeks foolishness and 2 Cor. 2.14 15. Thanks be to God which alwayes causeth us to triumph in Christ and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ in them that are saved and in them that perish So that the Ministry of the word though it be primarily for the Church and the Saints yet is the preaching of the Gospel the Ministry of Christ even to unbelievers as Ezekiel was a Prophet to the rebellious Nation of Israel when he spake Gods word whether they did hear or forbear Ezek 2.5 And hence I inferre that there may be a true Ministry not only in but also out of a Church of believers Sect. 19. A true Gospel Ministry may be in a false Church so deemed Secondly A Church may be said to be false many wayes 1. Because it was irregularly constituted that is not gathered by consent or Church-covenant or baptism but by humane Laws in forcing men to meet together in one Congregation or more because dwellers in such a Precinct or born or living in such a Countrey In this respect I conceive the Quaerist makes a national Church a false Church 2. Because it is an hypocritical company which doth indeed make them a false Church before God yet quoad nos they are a true visible Church if there be no falsehood in that which is descernible by men 3. Because it is Schismatical so as to break off from other parts of the Catholique Church without a justifiable cause whether out of ambition passion misapprehension or any other such like undue motive 4. Because it is heretical or Heresy is broached and upheld by a party in it Now I confess that it can hardly be that there should be a true Ministry in a Church tainted with Heresy Yet sith our Lord Christ writes to the Church of Pergamos as one of his seven Golden Candlesticks though there were that held the Doctrin of Balaam and of the Nicolaitans Revel 2.14 15. and in like manner the Church of Thyatira or the Angel of it suffered the Woman which called her self a Prophetess to teach and seduce his Servants to commit Fornication and to eat things Sacrificed to Idols I inferre those Angels were true Ministers though in a Church in some sort false that is tainted with
heretical or false doctrin And sith the Church of Corinth was manifestly Schismatical 1 Cor. 1.11 12. Yet Apollos a true Minister to them or who else were their Pastors And sith the Church of Sardis is charged as having a name that it lived but was dead yet the Angel of it one of the seven Stars in Christs right hand then may there be a true Ministry in such false Churches Revel 3.1 that is schismatical or hypocritical not consisting of real Saints And if it be that what is charged on Laodicea Rev. 3.15 16 17. were by reason of defect in Church constitution and disciplin as Mr. Brightman conceived then also a false Church in respect of such irregularity may have a true Ministry But because this is only an argument ad homines to such as concurre with Mr. Brightman in his conceit I will prove that in a National Church or a Church irregular in its constitution or discipline miscalled false may be a true Ministry of Christ. 1. If the truth of the Ministry depend upon the truth of the Church or it's regularity then where is no true regular Church there is no true Ministry But that is false sith there may be a true Ministry where there is no Church at all and therefore no true Church Ergo the truth of the Ministry depends not on the truth of the Church but a true Ministry may be in a false Church 2. If there be a true Ministry though to or in a National visible Church or Catholique then that extent which is conceived to be inconsistent with a true Gospel Church makes not the Ministry false but Peters and Pauls Ministry to the Jews or Gentiles Churches were true Ministries though the Churches were National or Catholique even set by God in the Church 1 Cor. 12.18 Ergo. 3. If Ministry to Churches Hypocritical Schismatical and in some sort Heretical may be true Ministry much more to a Church National irregular in constitution and discipline those being greater degrees of falsehood than this But the antecedent is before proved from the Epistles to the Corinthians to the Churches of Pergamos Thyatira and Sardis Ergo the consequent is true 4. If the regular constitution disciplin of the Church the election of the Church or their sending be extrinsecal or accidental not necessary or essential to the truth of the Ministry then may there be a true Ministry in such a Church as this Author calls false But the antecedent is true sith the Apostles were true Ministers afore the regular constitution and discipline of Churches without their Election or mission therefore the consequent is also true 5. If the denomination of true Ministers be from the truth of their Doctrin and no other form denominating them and there may be a Ministration of true Doctrin in such a supposed false Church then there may be a true Ministry in such a false Church for where the form denominating is there the Subject is rightly denominated from it But the antecedent is true both from all the Texts before alledged which place the truth of Ministry in the Doctrin taught and no other thing and in that the Colossians learned the grace of God in truth from Epaphras he is termed St. Pauls Fellow-Servant and for them a faithfull Minister of Christ Col. 1.6 7. and reason and experience confirms the possibility of preaching true Doctrin in a National mis-called false Church therefore the consequent is also true 6. If false Prophets false Apostles false Brethren be only denominated from their false Doctrin then they are not false Ministers but true who teach the truth of the Gospel notwithstanding their defects or the Churches in which they are But the antecedent is true as may be evinced from 2 Pet. 2.1 2 Cor. 11.13 Gal. 2.4 5. 1 John 2 1â— 21 22 26. 2. John 7. and many more places which denominate them false Prophets false Teachers false Apostles false Brethren Antichrists not Ministers of Christ from their erroneous Doctrin therefore from it and not from defects of Churches or other things are they false Ministers and if they preach true Doctrin true Ministers though in an irregular Church There being nothing offered against this to be answered I pass on to this Authors next Quaerie Sect. 20. Gods love to us is not less in not determining the whole of his Worship to us as to the Jews 3. Saith he Whether God doth not bear as much love to and exercise as much faithfulness over his New Testament Churches as over the National Church of the Jews Answ. No doubt of it yet doth not God shew his love nor exercise his faithfulness over his New Testament Churches in the same way or course of Providence as he did and perhaps will do over the National Church of the Jews He doth not gather the New Testament Churches by a mighty hand and a stretched-out arm as he did when he brought Israel out of Egypt by the hand of Moses but by the calling of his Word and operation of his Spirit Nor doth he make them Conquerours by Arms but they overcome the old Serpent by the blood of the Lamb and by the Word of their Testimony and they love not their lives unto the death Rev. 12.11 Nor doth God now settle his Church in one fruitful Land under one earthly King as he did the Jews under David and Solomon but in all Countries where they are called protects and feeds them by the Great Shepherd of the Sheep the Lord Jesus Christ and his Spirit in that estate and station wherein they are called Nor is it improbable that in the future calling of the Jews God will shew more remarkable Providences for their re-ingraffing into their own Olive than ever he hath yet shewed towards the Churches of the Gentiles It is added If so then 4. Whether he hath not as of old he did with reference unto the then Church determined the whole of the Worship appertaining unto them to whose Institutions without any Humane additions it is the duty of souls solely to conform Answ. The whole of the Worship appertaining to the New Testament Churches is either inward or outward To the New Testament Churches God hath determined the whole of his inward Worship as of old he did with reference unto the then Chuâ—ch or rather he hath more fully determined the Worship of himself by exercise of Faith and hope in Prayer and Thanksgiving having now more 〈◊〉 opened the mystery of his Will in the way of access to him and accepting of our service than he did to the Jews before Christs coming But for the outward Worship though he have set down sufficiently what we are to place his Worship in and wherein he hath determined by Precept or Example that hath the force of a Precept what is to be done by us that alone we are to account his Worship and to conform solely to it as his Institution without any Humane Additions or Alterations yet in respect of
I have commanded you and lo I am with you alway even unto the end of the world Amen In which instruction of the Apostles is founded the function of the Evangelical Ministry as Pareus speaks in his Commentary consisting in Preaching the Gospel and Baptizing and teaching the obserservation of Christs commands which Offices the promise to be with them all dayes to the end of the World shewes to be perpetual till Christs second coming Who the Officers are of Christs designing may be best gathered from Ephes. 4.11 Some of which are undoubtedly to continue And that there should be a succession by ordination of some for the Churches is apparent from 2 Tim. 2. 2. Tit. 1.5 and that they should be ordained may be gathered from Acts 13.2.3 and 14.23 1 Tim. 4.14 and 5.22 that there should be some who should have inspection over others that they do not sow errours or otherwise corrupt the Churches may be granted from 1 Tim. 1.3 4. Tit. 3.10.11 and by the things charged on the seven Angels of the seven Churches Rev. 2.2 6 14 15 16 20. Rev. 3.2 3 15 16 19. To set down the History of Officers and Offices in after-ages to determin the disputes about their several degrees or orders is full of difficulty and to our present business unnecessary This only is sufficient for present to say in answer to the question now under hand That such as do these works which Christ or his Apostles have appointed to be performed for his Church are Officers designed by Christ and their ordination thereto agreeable to his design nor are those Officers or Offices an invention of new ones by the sons of men not only needless but a daring advance against the Soveraignty care and wisdom of God over his Churches though they have other names and titles and maintenance and immunities and dignities and additaments than the Scripture mentions They that are called Archbishops Bishops Deans Canons Prebendaries Parsons Vicars Curates Chaplains Masters of Colledges Hospitals Wardens Fellows Clerks Priests enjoy emoluments by Tithes or other revenues may be truly Officers of Christ if they be ordained to and do the works or Offices appointed by Christ and the Apostles to the Ministers of the Church of Christ as well as they who are termed Presbyters Presbyteries Teachers Pastors Lecturers Itinerant Preachers gifted Brethren whether they be chosen by a particular Congregation and ordained by an Eldership and receive maintenance by Collection augmentation stipend or other waies Sect. 22. The solemn deputation of Ministers is not the peculiar priviledge of Saints 6. Saith our Author whether the priviledges of Saints be not every way as great and extensive under the Gospel as those under the Law If so then whether the solemn deputation of men signally pointed out by the Lord for the administration of Holy things in his house by the body of his Church be not now as then their peculiar priviledge Answer The people of Israel were a holy people to God and conceived to be meant by the Saints of the most High Dan. 7.27 But that the solemn deputation of men signally pointed out by the Lord for the administration of Holy things in his house by the body of that Church was their peculiar priviledge is not proved but the contrary is manifest that the Priests and Levites were by Gods own choice set a-part as is before said Sect. 7. Saints now are either real or in appearance only The former as such are invisible and it is granted that they have priviledges in spiritual blessings in Heavenly things in Christ every way as great and extensive under the Gospel as those under the Law yea in some degree greater to wit in the clearer revelation of the mystery of Gods counsel and accomplishment of Gods promises by the Prophets and gift of his Spirit Saints in appearance only or the visible Church of the Jews had in some things greater priviledges such as those mentioned Rom. 9.4 5. Rom. 3.1 2. Gods revealing his minde by Urim and Thummim extraordinary Prophets and many more than Christians now and therefore no good inference can be made from the priviledge of the Saints then in the solemn deputation of Ministers of holy things if it had been such as this Author supposeth unto the same priviledg to the Saints now The solemn deputation of Apostles and other Ministers of the Gospel we finde not to have been the peculiar priviledg of the body of the Church in any part of the New Testament Their ordination is no where mentioned as done by the Saints or brethren which were not Officers nor is there any plain proof of their election by all or the major part of the members of each Church in the Scripture And though therâ— be in antiquity in the first ages relations of their election yet withall such stories of the tumults frayes and other disorders as necessitated an a teration of that course are related Considering how unquiet in judicious deceitful factious divided those are that usurp the name of Saints and perhaps are I see not how safe it were to commit the solemn deputation of Ministers to them without much regulation of them and ability of discerning of Spirits which is not a gift continued to the Churches who oft are as easily deceived by hypocrites and seducers as others and if it were the peculiar priviledg of Saints it were not to be denied to women contrary to the Apostles rule 1 Cor. 14.33 34. 1 Tim. 2.11 12. If it were such a peculiar priviledg to Saints to ordain or choose their Ministers so as they were not to own any but whom they choose then the lesser part of a Congregation were not bound to take him for their Minister who is not chosâ—n by themselves though chosen by the most each person might choose his Minister and withdraw for his Ministry at pleasure if not chosen by him and refuse to contribute to his maintenance which wâ—th many inconveniences too often exemplified in Churches gathered in the Congregational way cause such Churches to be often dissolved or to be multiplied into so many parties as make them unfit for any good order or use Sect. 23. Corruptions in non-fundamentals un-church not The Quaerist adds 7. Whether any Church in the world we speak of a visible instituted Church hath greater security against Apostacy from God and that sore judgment of having its Candlestick removed and being unchurched than that people of the Jews had if not then whether supposing a national Church to be of the institution of Christ it may not so come to pass that it may be so overspread with corruptions that it may lose the essence of a Church and justly be disrobed of that appellation Answer I grant that no particular Church visible whether National Provincial Classical Parochial or Congregational hath greater security of Apostacy from God than the Jewish and that any such Church may be so overspread with corruptions that it may lose the essence
of a Church and justly be disrobed of that appellation we justly plead against the Church of Rome pleading that they are the Church built on Peter against which the Gates of Hell shall not prevail Mat. 16.18 that the promise is not to that or any other particular visible Church but to the invisible Church of Gods elect and we alledg that St. Paul writing to the Church at Rome tells them Rom. 11.20 21. well because of unbelief they were broken off and thou standest by faith be not high minded but fear For if God spared not the natural branches take heed lest he also spare not thee But we add that not every nor many corruptions of some kinde do unchurch there being many in faith worship and conversation in the Churches of Corinth and some of the seven Churches of Asia who yet were Golden Candlesticks amidst whom Christ did walk But such general avowed unrepented of errors in faith as overthrow the foundation of Christian faith to wit Christ the only mediator between God and man and salvation by him corruptions of worship by Idolatry in life by evil manners as are utterly inconsistent with Christianity till which in whole or in part they are not unchurched Sect. 24. Every error makes not a false Prophet Our quaerist proceeds Eighthly whether the Ecclesiastick and spiritual rulers Governours and Officers of such a collapsed Church may not righteously as of old be accounted and esteemed as false Prophets that go about to cause the people to forget the name of the Lord or his pure worship by their Lies or unscriptural traditions innovations and ceremonious Pageantries Answer St. Peter foretold 2 Pet. 2.1 There were false Prophets among the people even as there shall be false Teachers among you who privily shall bring in damnable heresies even denying the Lord that bought them Jude 4. ungodly men turning the grace of our God into Lasciviousness and denying the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ 1 John 4.1 Many false Prophets are gone out into the World 2 John 7. Many deceivers are entred into the World who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh This is a deceiver and an Antichrist 1 John 2.22 who is a lier but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ He is Antichrist that denieth the Father and the Son If any Ecclesiastick and spiritual rulers Governours and Officers of a collapsed Church do in this manner go about to cause the people to forget the name of the Lord or his pure worship they are righteously as of old to be accounted and esteemed as false Prophets But if they hold the foundation that is Jesus Christ and teach the worship of God in the name of Christ without Idolatâ—y in their worship or heresie in their Doctrine though they build upon the foundation layd by the Apostle hay and stubble 1 Cor. 3.12 that is some errours of their own and some additions to the worship of God from unwritten traditions or other supposed power about ceremonies they are not righteously as of old the Prophets of Baal and Balaam and other seducers to be accounted and esteemed as false Prophets that go about to cause the people to forget the name of the Lord or his pure worship I add that if the addition of some humane ceremonies to the pure instituted worship of God and some errours to the sound Doctrin of faith do make the Teachers or Rulers of a Church false Prophets in te ipsum haec cudetur faba neither this Author nor any of the Pastors or Teachers of the Congregational Churches but may be judged false Prophets Sect. 25. Separation by reason of some corruptions unwarrantable It is added 9. Whether separation from such a Collapsed Church in respect of its worship Ministers and Ministry be not only justifiable but as of old the duty of the Lords faithfull Remnant that desire to worship him according to his appointments Answer Separation from a Church somewhat erroneous or corrupt in worship or conversation yet neither Idolatrous in worship nor Heretical in Doctrin nor requiring that to their communion which would be sinful especially if it be total from all parts of worship all attending on Ministers and Ministry at all times is unjustifiable utterly dissonant from any of the rules or examples which either of old the Prophets or holy men or Christ and his Apostles have prescribed is for the most part the fruit of pride or bitter zeal and tends to strife and confusion and every evil work James 3.16 Sect. 26. It is prudence to joyn in worship and hearing where some errours and corruptions remain Yet once more saith the Quaerist Yea 10. whether supposing a Church so called thus dreadfully as aforesaid departed from the pure institutions of Christ never to be according to truth a visible instituted Church of Christ and the Lords poor people living in the Nation never by their free consent members thereof as it is on the pretended Churches part most unheard-of-cruelty to compel them so it be not on the part of the free born Children of God most stupendious folly and disvaluation of the institutions of Christ and ingratitude to God for the light and liberty from the yokes of men received imaginable to joyn affinity with it in worship or attend upon the self invented Ministry that appertains thereunto Many more questions of the like nature and importance might be added Answer Compulsion of men may be cruelty But it is neither pendious folly nor disvaluation of the institutions of Christ nor ingratitude to God but true Christian prudence warranted by the Counsel of St. James and the Elders at Jerusalem by the yielding and practice of St. Paul Acts 21.18 c. Acts 16.3 1 Cor. 9.19 20 21. by Christs example Mat. 17.27 for persons living in a Nation for their peace to joyn in affinity with such a Church which hath some humane inventions in worship and to attend upon that Ministry which appertains to it when they preach the Gospel for the main though not without some mixture of errours and neither require them to practice that which is in it self evil nor binde them to assent unto that which is erroneous What more Questions of the like nature and importance this Quaerist might add I know not I thought it necessary to answer these as being praelusory to the main Question and tending to forestall the reader with unmeer prejudice Having removed these stumbling blocks out of the way I proceed to examine the rest of the writing CHAP. 1. ARG. I. Sect. 1. Some scruples of conscience are of ill consequence AS a preamble to his dispute the Author writes thus This is that which the Lord hath said I will be sanctified in all that draw nigh me and before all the people will I be glorified The great care of Saints in matter of worship is to sanctifie the name of the Lord therein This is the great thing that God looks at the omission whereof
must hear no meer gifted Brethren no Itenerant Preachers though approved by Tryers none but their own Officers and those rightly chosen and consequently they must before they hear them know their Election to be right and the particular Church electing them to be rightly instituted which tends to such dictraction of peoples minds and alienation of them from hearing as can end in nothing but meer Irreligion and make men Seekers or Quakers the mischiefs of which are too too conspicuous But I shall more directly answer this Argument and that so much the rather because the Text John 10. is abused by Papists to prove that they are not right Shepherds who have not authority from the Pope whom they make the One Shepherd v. 16. as Hart in his Conference with Dr. Rainold Chap. 6 from whom all Bishopâ— derive their power and all the Sheep are to hear and by Quakers and others to prove that they are not true Shepherds nor to be heard who receive any maintenance by Tithes or other stipend because they that do so are by them judged Hirelings and not Shepherds v. 12. It is granted that Christ is the door Joh. 10.9 but it may be doubted whether Christ be meant by the door Joh. 10.1 the reason of which is because then Christ should be said to enter by himself and the door to enter by the door To avoid which Maldonate in his Commentary conceives the door v. 1. not to be the same with the door v 9. but the door v. 1. to be the Scriptures of the Prophets whâ—â— foretold of the good Shepherd Ezek. 37.24 34.23 Jerem. 23.5 30.9 Isa. 40.11 by vertue of which Prediction he entred And indeed the whole purport of the Parable doth tend to this that he onely was the good Shepherd that is the Messiah foretold by the Prophets and that all other that pretended to be the Messiah or good Shepherd such as Theudas and Judas of Galilee mentioned Act. 5.36 37. and if there were any other like them were but Thieves and Robbers Strangers Hirelings though they took on them to be Shepherds they were but false Christs such as Christ foretels should arise Mat. 24.24 But let it be granted that the door is the same Joh. 10.1 and 9. the entering in v. 9. cannot be meant of entring into the Ministery lawful election of a particular Instituted Church For then it would follow that every one that enters into the Ministry by by election of a particular Instituted Church shall be saved and go in and out and finde pasture which is manifestly false Therefore entring is meant of every True believer and is by faith in Christ who is the right door by whom that is by his Doctrin men come to be his Sheep and he is their Shepherd But be it that the entring be into the Ministery and that entring be by vertue of Authority derived to them from him how is it proved they are not authorized by Christ immediately who work not Miracles Have not many especially in cases of necessity been Ministers of Christ by immediate inward call who have not wrought Miracles It were hard to conclude of Petrus Waldo and many other Reformers that had no power of working Miracles that they were not Ministers of Christ that I say nothing of gifted Brethren that they were Thieves and Robbers because they had no immediate calling by a particular Instituted Church Sure this would be to offend against the generation of Gods children who in the darkest times of Papal Tyranny took upon them to Preach the Gospel without a praevious election of a particular Instituted Church But how doth he prove that those that receive authority to Preach the Gospel mediately from Christ have it from some particular Instituted Church of Christ He alledgeth no other but this that to a particular instituted Church of Christ power is solely delegated for the electing of their own Officers But what then may not for all this power be given to some others to choose send and ordain Preachers for the unconverted who yet may be Ministers of the Gospel and may be heard as such Yea may not some others ordain Elders for particulâ—â— Instituted Churches Sure when St. Paul left Titus in Crete that he might set in order things that were wanting and ordain Elders in every City as he had appointed him Tit. 1.5 giving him direction whom to ordain he left it to him to choose Preachers for Instituted Churches who were to be heard and this by power delegated by Christ to him and therefore power is not solely delegated to a particular Instituted Church of Christ for the electing of their own Officers but that they may be chosen and ordained by some other for them by vertue of an authority derived tâ— them from Christ. But how proves he the power for electing their own Officers delegated solely to a particular Instituted Church of Christ He saith it is according to the tenour of the ensuing Scriptures whereof one is Acts 6.5 and that relates onely one act of choosing the seven Deacons by the whole multitude of the Disciples at Hierusalem who cannot be well counted such a particular Instituted Church as made up one Congregation to meet every Lords day for all Ordinances they were too numerous to be such nor were they organized under fixed Officers with such constitution as is now made necessary to a particular Instituted Church Nor did they choose the Deacons upon any conceived power delegated from Christ by vertue of any rule established by Christ or his Apostles which should be perpetual in all ages to all Churches but upon advice of the Apostles for their more liberty to attend on other work of more importance and their own liking nor if it were to be a perpetual rule for all Churches in all ages can it be any rule for choosing other Officers besides Deacons there being a peculiar reason why they should choose Deacons whose honesty prudence and mercifulness was to be discerned and not other Officers whose sufficiency to Teach and Orthodoxie were to be considered of which the whole multitude of Disciples then and the major part of a particular Instituted Church are rarely now competent Judges The other text Act 14.23 hath no colour to prove such a delegated power but from one word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which our Translation renders when they had ordained Beza after others Per suffragia creâssent Had created by suffrages and because the word arose from a custom among the Greeks of choosing their Officers by Suffrages or Votes signified by the stretching out of the hand conceives that Paul and Barnabas did not create the Elders in the Churches without the Churches election signified by stretching out of their hands to shew their consent to the elected and thence is inferred that so it should be now But this is but one example though it is not to be denied that in after ages which were times of Persecution the Elders were
chosen by the Church and therefore seems not sufficient to inferr a necessary perpetual rule of such election especially other passages shewing the Constituting or Ordaining of Elders without mentioning of any such election as Tit. 1.5 1 Tim. 5.22 And though the original and use of the word were from the custom mentioned and did in popular Elections signifie Election by suffrages yet as in other words so in this use hath enlarged its sense apples it to other creating than by such suffrage as is manifest by the use of it even in the same book Acts· 10.41 where the Apostle are termed Witnesses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chosen before of God who did not choose by suffrages of others and by Dr. Hammond in his Annot. on Act. 14.23 is shewed to be used in like manner in Philo Judaeus and other Authors besides Christians as the same with Electing Ordaining or Constituting without Suffrages of others and must be so understood in this very place because none are said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to stretch out their hand but Paul and Barnabas and it is said they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which cannot be well translated any other than Ordaining by laying on their hands on the Elders not by bare stretching out or lifting up their hands as was wont to be in Suffrages and it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to or for them manifestly distinguishing the Disciples from the Electors or Ordainers by stretching out or laying on of hands So that this place doth not prove Power solely delegated to a particular Church instituted for the electing of their own Officers and therefore if all were true which is added by this Author These men as it s known have no such authority pretend not to it have it in derision come barely with a presentation from a Patron and Ordination Institution and Induction from a Lord-Bishop things forraign to the Scripture and impose themselves upon the people whether they will or no. Yet they may be Ministers of the Gospel and heard as such notwithstanding this Argument Yet I add that it will be hard for this Author to prove that the Parish Churches in England are not particular Instituted Churches of Christ or that the Ministers are imposed on the People whether they will or no the contrary is true of many places especially in London concerning the Incumbents and Lecturers Nor is the Ordination of a Lord-Bishop such a forraign thing to the Scripture as this Author would insinuate the Bishop not Ordaining without other Elders joyning with him and giving him no other authority than to Preach the word of God and to Minister the holy Sacraments in the Congregation where he shall be lawfully appointed thereunto To shut up the Answer to this Argument As the Text Joh. 10.16 is abused by Hart to prove the Bishop of Rome to be the Supreme Pastor of the Church of Christ as Dr. Rainold sheweth in his Conference Ch. 6 divis 1. it being meant only of the Lord Christ and the Quakers abuse Joh. 10.12 to cry down Preachers as Hirelings because they receive Wages though it be according to Christs own determination Luke 10.7 the Lords Ordinance I Cor. 9.14 St. Pauls practice sometime 2 Cor. 11.8 and his Precept Gal. 6.6 and his Approbation 1 Tim. 5.17 18. The word Hireling Joh. 10.12 being not used as making it a sin for a Minister to receive hire but to distinguish Christ from other Shepherds who was not as Hirelings whose Sheep are not their own but was a singular Pastor owner of the Sheep of whom he was Pastor and those abuse Joh. 10.5 who urge it against the hearing of any Preachers but those of their own Church or way calling them Strangers whereas the strangers there are such as were Usurpers of Christs Office and were enemies to the Sheep not feeding them but perverting them So this Author abuseâ—â— John 10.1 9. by saying the present Ministers of England are Thieves and Robbers because they come not into their Ministry by the door that is by any authority to them from Christ that is not by election of a particular Instituted Church when this is but from an expression in a parable in which is not the scope or Doctrin intended by it and therefore not argumentative and neither is it certain that the door v. 1. is the same with the door v. 9. nor if it were is the door that whereby there is entrance into the Ministery but the Church nor the entrance by right election of others but by the persons true faith nor is the not entring in by the door brought as the reason or form denominating them Thieves and Robbers but only as some description of them from a concomitant nor are any meant there to be Thieves and Robbers who do direct to Christ or receive him for defect of regular calling but such only as obtruded themselves as the Messiah on the people with intent to make a prey of them Sect. 4. The present Ministers may be heard as Gifted Brethren There is yet more of the like stuff 2. Saith he 'T is not lawful to hear them as Gifted Brethren 1. The most of them are not Gifted Brethren Nor 2. Brethren being Canonical Drunkards Swearers Gamesters c. Answ. That any of them are such it is to be bewailed and in a Christian way the persons that are guilty are to be rebuked Levit. 19.17 not to be thus charged in Print in a Book vented in the dark tending not to amend them but to make them odious even with them that are too much inclined to censuring and reviling of those that dissent from them or are of an opposite party But how it appears that the most of the present Ministers of England are such as he stigmatizeth them I know not and I hope it is not true However if it were so it proves not that others better qualified might not be heard nor that these men may not bethren yea if he follow St. Pauls rule 2 Thess. 3.15 alledged a little after he is not to account them as enemies but to admonish them as Brethren and were all this and more true yet they might be heard preach the Gospel as Brethren Gifted as Judas was to be heard though declared by Christ to be a Devil Joh. 6.70 But what saith he of the rest 3. The best of them cannot by Saints in respect of Gospel Communion be so accounted For 1. There was never any giving up of our selves each to other according to the Will of God and Primitive example whence such a Brotherhood doth result Answ. By Saints I doubt not he means such as are members of a particular Instituted Church Congregational distinct from Parish Churches either under Episcopal or Presbyterial Government For such only are accounted Saints by him as give up themselves each to other according to the Will of God and Primitive example and by Gospel Communion no doubt he means hearing of them preach praying with
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
joyning together in their praying and praising God Mat. 21.16 Luke 19.39 40. Sure it can be no sin in any person to joyn in the true worship and service of God with any if he have no command to withdraw himself from that service because of their presence nor power to exclude them and yet is bound to the duties then performed Believers might prophesie and hear it though Unbelievers came in 1 Cor. 14.24 25. Christians are commanded to separate and not touch the unclean thing 2 Cor. 6.17 But those they are to separate from are no other than Unbelievers and the unclean thing is the Idol v. 15 16. not the true service of God because of the presence of some scandalous Brother The people of God are to come out of Babylon Rev. 18 4. but that is no other than Rome and that because of its Idolatry v. 2 3. Rev. 17.2 3 4 5 6 18. We are not to keep company with a man called a Brother if he be a Fornicator or Covetous or an Idolater or a Railer or a Drunkard or an Extortioner with such an one no not to eat 1 Cor. 5.11 But this prohibited keeping Company and eating can be meant of no other than arbitrary unnecessary society in civil things and eating common Bread because v. 10. that keeping Company which is forbidden to such Brethren is allowed in v. 9 10. to the Fornicators of this world which cannot be Gospel Communion keeping company in eating the Lords Supper but civil eating The Doctrine of defiling our selves by the presence of wickâ—d men at the Lords Supper hath begotten so much superstition in the minds of many well-affected people that they can scarce ever break Bread with comfort no not in the best Instituted Churches there being seldom such an unspotted Congregation but that some or other is known or reported or suspected to be guilty of some sin or errour which is made sufficient to exclude themselves from the Communion so that as they use to speak they are not free to break Bread and that before the fault be examined or the person judged upon trial to be guilty and impenitent which makes those very Churches which by themselves are counted purest and best Disciplined to be full of Brawls and rash censures and separations and without any regular Discipline of any long continuance These things being considered I answer that I know no evil in it to account the worst of the Ministers of England Brethren in respect of Gospel Communion if not under regular censure in Hearing Prayer Praising of God eating the Lords Supper nor evil to account them members of the same Church and of one Brotherhood according to the Rime which should not be derided by any holy sober Christians being only the Lords Prayer in Metre It follows Sect. 5. Tender Consciences may call the Bishops Reverend Fathers Nay 3. We cannot so acknowledge them but we must also acknowledge the Bishops for our Reverend Fathers for theirs they are which how abhorring it is to any tender enlightned soul may easily be conjectured Answ. The Bishops are acknowledged by the present Ministers of the Church of England as their Reverend Fathers in respect of their Ordination but as Brethren only in respect of Gospel Communion Nor do I think the Bishops affect the title of Reverend Fathers as if they were superiours over the Ministers or People in respect of the common Faith had dominion over their Faith or were Lords over Gods heritage or would be called Masters or Fathers in that sense in which our Lord Christ appropriates these Titles to himself and his Father Mat. 23.8 9 10. in which sense I acknowledge any tender enlightned soul should abhor to give it to them I conceive they are far from usurping that Title as the Bishop of Rome doth who now hath ingrossed the Title of Pope that is Father heretofore given to other Ministers even to Deacons and doth claim the Prerogative to be the Oecumenical Bishop and Universal Monarch as Christs Vicar over the whole Church as having power to make Laws binding the Conscience out of the Case of Scandal and Contempt to determine infallibly in point of Faith with much more wherein he sitteth in the Temple of God showing himself that he is God 2 Thess. 2.4 But I conceive the Title of Reverend Fathers is given to them and taken by them in no such sense but that they account not only the Ministers but also the meanest Christian their Brethren in Christ. Yet may they be called Reverend Fathers not only in regard of their Age and their success in begetting others through the Gospel in Christ Jesus as the Apostle of himself 1 Cor. 4.15 in which respect there have been and I presume some of them are rightly termed Fathers in Christ but also in respect of their Office and Dignity according to that of the Apostle 1 Tim. 5.1 Rebuke not an Elder but intreat him as a Father In which respects usual Titles may be given even to the unworthy as St. Paul did Acts 22.1 and 26.25 and such compellations and salutations have been used by holy persons Gen. 42.10 Dan. 6.21 as warrantable which Quakers and tender Consciences not enlightned but darkned by prejudice and undue suggestions abhor as giving flattering Titles to men disclaimed by Elihu Job 32.22 whose example and opinions are not imitable nor doth this Author any good Office to any in such affrightments whereby our Breach is widened and our Wound uncurable Sect 6. It is not proved that the best of the present Ministers are to be separated from as walking disorderly This Author goes on thus But to hear this Plea speak its uttermost let it be granted they are Brethren and may be so esteemed They are Brethren that walk disorderly or they do not That they walk disorderly cannot be denied by such as pretend to Reformation if submiâ—ting to Ordination or Reordination by a Lord Bishop covenanting and protesting with detestation against a Reformation according to the Scripture and the best Reformed Churches to own as consonant to Scripture a Lyturgie or stinted Forms of Prayer in the Church and read them to wear the Surplice c. be disorderly walking they are the very best of them beyond contradiction to be reputed in the number of disorderly Walkers And so after due admonition according to the Scripture and a perseverance in their sin to be separated from by vertue of positive and express precepts of Christ Mat. 18. 2 Thess. 3.6 Now we command you Brethren in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ that you withdraw your selves from every Brother that walketh disorderly and not after the tradition he received of us with what vehemency authority and holy earnestness doth the Apostle press separation from Brethren that walk disorderly We command you and we command you in the Name of the Lord Jesus and we command you Brethren by vertue of our relation to each other and that love and endearment that is betwixt
us as Brethren that you withdraw your selves c. I scarce know any one thing pressed by the Apostle with greater vehemency than what is here instanced in wherein we have also an undeniable convincing Argument that the persons of whom we are treating walk disorderly Those that walk not after the tradition received from the Apostles we may add and from the Primitive Church for above three hundred years after Christ but according to the traditions of the old Bawd and Strumpet of Rome are such as walk disorderly But the present Ministers of England walk not after the tradition received from the Apostles but after the traditions of the Whorish Church of Rome therefore they are such as walk disorderly What Apostolical tradition have we for stinted Forms of Prayer or Liturgies in the Church did they frame any those that are ascribed to some of them are all spurious as hath been over and over proved For Surplice Crossing in Baptism and many other Gewgaws used by them If they have any Apostolical written Tradition for these things let them produce it and we shall lay our mouths in the dust and for ever be silent as to a charge of this nature If they have not as there is nothing more certain they are disorderly walkers if the Apostles Argument be valid We command you to withdraw from such as walk disorderly But who I pray are these disorderly walkers how shall we know them they are sayes the Apostle such as walk not after the tradition received from us Answ. Though it belongs to the persons charged here to speak for themselves and not to me who am not chargeable with the accusation as here it stands yet conceiving they would say the same in effect which I shall say now I do that the invalidity of this Authors arguing may appear say thus much for them but chiefly for the truths sake I conceive they will deny that they covenant and protest with detestation against a Reformation according to the Scripture and the best reformed Churches and would challenge this Author to prove it that he may not be found a Calumniator that they would take on them the justifying of their submitting to Ordination or Re-ordination by a Lord Bishop their owning as consonant to Scripture a Liturgie or stinted Forms of Prayer in the Church their reading them their wearing the Surplice the Crossing in Baptism they would say after Baptism and deny these things to be disorderly walking according to the traditions of the old Bawd and Strumpeâ— of Rome and I doubt not but that they would maintain it that beyond contradiction they are not to be reputed in the number of disorderly walkers but that this Author is an egregious false accuser However whether they be faulty or not this I think I may safely avouch that these practices except the first which I assure my self they will deny whether justifiable or sinful are not of so great a degree of pravity as that barely for them they should be reputed in the number of disorderly walkers and so after due admonition according to the Scripture and a perseverance in their practice to be separated from by vertue of positive and express precepts of Christ Mat. 18. 2 Thess 3.6 either by a separation of Saints from them in Gospel Communion or private familiar society For the former precept Mat. 18.15 16 17. is only concerning such a sin whereby a person sins against his Brother that is doth him some personal injury Which appears both by the constant use of the phrase of sinning against another in the New and Old Testament as Acts 25.8 1 Cor. 8.12 Gen. 20.9 and 42.22 and 43.9 and 44. 1 Sam. 2.25 and 19.4 5. and 24.11 and particularly in the same Chapter v. 21. Luke 17.3 4. which were occasioned from Christs words Mat. 18.15 where Christ commandeth Peter and the rest of his Disciples to forgive their brother that sinneth against them seven times a day yea seventy times seven times Which can be understood of no other sins than personal injuries for these alone they were to forgive as trespasses against them as the Parable Mat. 18. shews v. 32.35 Mat. 6.12 14 15. of which sort those practices imputed to the best of the present Ministers are not Yet if they were the separation is not to be made without an admonition and gradual process which I think this Author hath not used towards them as I conceive his own words evince a little before we cannot as things stand perform the duties of Brethren to them according to Mat. 18. If the sins were such as Christ means Mat. 18.15 and their proceeding according to the direction there yet the separation whether enjoyned or permitted rather is no other than such as was by the Jews from Heathens and Publicans which was not from Communion in Holy things for the Publicans were allowed to go to the Temple to pray even with the Pharisees Luke 18.10 11. though they would not receive them and eat with them Luke 15.2 Acts 11.3 Which shews that the being to him that is injured as a Heathen and Publican Mat. 18.17 is no other than separation from eating and familiar reception not from Gospel Communion as this Author would have it and therefore the Text Mat. 18.15 16 17. is impertinently alledged to prove his separation from the present Ministers of England in respect of Gospel Communion Nor is 2 Thess. 3.6 alledged more to the purpose For 1. the disorderly walking there must be understood of sins of greater pravity than the rest besides the first which they will deny charged on them if they be proved sins as the vehemency authority and holy earnestness the Apostle doth press his command with doth evince For this vehemency is not an undeniable convincing argument that the persons of whom this Author is treating walk disorderly as he fansies but that they that walk so disorderly as the Apostle here means are so corrupt and their walking so evil that their converse with them in a familiar society as with others would not be for their safety or credit or the repute of Christianity Which will the more appear by the instance that is given v. 11. where he saith For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly working not at all but are busie-bodies which shews that the walking disorderly is not being in some disorder about Church Government and outward Rites proper to Ministers which are the instances of disorderly walking here brought by this Author but gross sins of any Brother not a Minister who was bound to work or else was not to eat v. 10. which Ministers were not bound to do as v. 9. 1 Thess. 2.6 1 Tim 5.17 18. 1 Cor. 9.6 7 11 12 13 14. shews nor were they for this not working so as not to earn their own Bread to be noted or signified and declined that they might be ashamed as is required v. 12.14 Gross sins then common to every Brother such
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
Mr. Selden De Diis Syris syntag 2. c. 1. in Heinsius his Aristarchus sacer on Nonnus c. 1. If Names abused to Idolatry or Superstition might not be used without such abuse the godly might not say as Isa. 63.16 Doubtless thou art our Father or we cry Abba Father or Our Father or Christ Father because Idolaters said to a stock thou art my Father Jer. 2.27 or say to the Lord thou art our God because Idolaters said our Gods Hos. 14.3 nor Christ be termed a Priest Lord Master because of the abuse of them to Saints deceased Popes Rabbins or others Surely the name Priest being the name of no Idol it cannot be proved from Zech. 13.2 Hos. 2.16 17. that it is commanded by the Lord to be abolished Nor do I think any of his Authors say it Hieroms words are Though it might well be spoken in respect of the signification of the word which signifies in common application an Husband as well as Ish yet I so hate the name of Idols that I will not have it said Baali but Ishi in â—espect of the ambiguity and likeness of speech lest while a man speaks one thing he mind another and mentioning an Husband he mean an Idol What the Hebrew Doctors and others named by this Author say upon this place of Hosea I cannot examine for want of the Books That which he produceth out of Rivet I assent to That which this Author saith that Priest or Altar are of the same allay with the word Mass and is upon the same foot of account to be rejected is not true sith Mass doth usually signifie not only the Service but also the consecrated Host as the chief thing in it which is an Idol and so is not the name Priest In the Helvetian larger Confession ch 18. 't is true they make a difference between the Ministry now and the Priesthood in the Old Testament and it is true that they assert Christs Priesthood as for ever and incommunicable and therefore give not the name of Sacerdos usually translated Priest to their Ministers not because they take the word Priest as it answers to Presbyter to be evil in the sense used in the Church of England as a Degree or Order above Deacons but as it is used in the Church of Rome as their words shew which are these For our Lord himself ordained not any Priests in the Church of the New Testament which having received a power from a Suffragan might offer daily the Host I say the very flesh and very blood of the Lord for the quick and dead but such as should teach and administer Sacraments This Author proceeds in his paralellism thus Sect. 4. The parallel particulars prove not the English Ministers symbolizing in office with Popish Priests 2. The Priests of Rome must be first Deacons ere they are Priests so must the present Ministers of England 3. The Priests of Rome must be Ordained to their Office by a Lord Bishop or his Suffragan so must the Ministers of England 4. The Priests of Rome must at their Ordination be presented by an Archdeacon or his Deputy with these Words Reverend Father c. Reverend Father I present these men unto thee to be admitted unto the Order of Priesthood so are the present Ministers of England 5. The Priests of Rome must be Ordained to their Office according to their Pontifical devised by themselves the Priests of England according to their Book of Ordering Priests and Deacons which is taken out of the Popes Pontifical as is evident to any that shall compare the one with the other and as hath been long since confessed by themselves in an Admonition to the Parliament in Q Elizabeths dayes in their second Treatise 6. The Popish Priests must kneel down upon their knees at the feet of the Lord Bishop that Ordains them and he must say to them blasphemously enough Receive ye the Holy Ghost whose sins ye remit or forgive they are remitted whose sins ye retain they are retained which exactly accords with the fashion of Ordaining the Priests of England 7. The Popish Priests are not Ordained in and before the Congregation to whom they are to be Priests but in some Metropolitan Cathedral City several miles from the place so are the Priests of England 8. The Popish Priests take the care of souls though not elected by them from the presentation of a Patron by the Institution and Induction of a Lord Bishop and do not the present Ministers of England the same 9. The Popish Priests wait not the Churches Call to the Ministry but make suit to some Prelate to be Ordained Priests giving money for their Letters of Ordination so do the present Ministers of England 10. The Popish Priests are Ordained to their Office though they have no flock to attend upon so are the Priests of England 11. The Popish Priests must swear Canonical Obedience to their Ordinary so do the present Ministers of England 12. The Popish Priests may at their pleasure without the consent of the People resign and give over their Benefices and betake themselves to some other of greater value A symmetrie with them herein is visible by the frequent practice of the Ministers of England 13. The Popish Priests though Ordained to preach must have special license from the Prelates so â—o do so must the Priests of England 14. The Popish Priests are subject to be silenced suspended deprived and degraded by the Prelates as are the present Ministers of England 15. The Popish Priests are not of like and equal power degree and Authority amongst themselves but are some of them inferiour to others herein as Parsons to Arch-deacons Arch-deacons to Lord Bishops Lord Bishops to Arch-bishops so the Priests of England 16. The Popish Priests must be distinguished from other people by their Vestments as Surplice Tippet c. so must the Priests of England 17. The Popish Priests are tied to a Book of stinted Prayers and a prescript Order devised by man for their Worship and Administration so are the Ministers of England and that to such an one as is taken out of the Popes Portuis as hath been proved by divers That the Common-prayer Book in Edward the sixth his time was so you have his with his Councils Testimony for it thus they write As for the Service in the English Tongue it hath manifest Reasons for it and yet perchance it seemeth to you a New Service and indeed is no other but the Old the same words in English which were in Latine If the Service of the Church were good in Latine it is good in English How little different the Common-prayer Book now in use is thereunto they that will take pains to compare the one with the other may be satisfied To these parallel particulars might be added sundry more wherein there is an exact symmetrie betwixt the Popish Priests and the present Ministers of England but ex ungue Leonem The sum of what we have been offering in this matter
1.24 and the Popes usurp whose decrees in points of Faith and determinations of doubts of Conscience and impositions of Laws binding the conscience are made unerring such Rule over Princes in secular Affairs with pomp outward grandure like Gentile Princes as the same Popes usurp rule for themselves not for Christ rule by force not by authority of Gods Word If any Lord-Bishop affect seek take upon him or exercise such Lordship or Dominion it may be censured for Antichristian yet not his Office but his practice is to be thus censured and this not to be imputed to his Order but his Person But to judge so of a person barely because of the Title of Lord which was given by Sarah to her Husband and propounded as meet 1 Pet. 3.6 or to deny any liberty to manage any civil business to an Ecclesiastical person because of those words of Christ is more than I conceive they have sufficient ground to do Sure such Congregational men as have been Heads of Colledges in the Universities or Vicechancellors or Leaders of Forces have given occasion to be termed Antichristian as well as Lord-Bishops if Lordly Dignity and Secular Rule merit that appellation As for 1 Pet. 5.3 the Annotation in the Book of the Annotations in English termed the Assemblies is thus Lords that is not imperiously commanding your own inventions instead of the Doctrine of the Gospel nor carrying themselves insolently and magisterially towards Gods people 3 John ver 9. which imports not an Office forbidden but the evil practice of them whose Office is allowed For this very Exhortation is given to those who were Elders among the Christians even St. Peter who entitles himself a fellow Elder to them and therefore contains not a Precept forbidding the Office of a Lord Bishop any more than of an Elder such as St. Peter was but the abuse of the Office nor doth it forbid Lordly Dignity but Lordly Rule whereas Bishops Rule should be Pedo non Sceptro not as Princes but as Shepherds If any Prelate use such Rule it is not his Office but his Practice which is to be termed Antichristian Sect. 7. The Office of Lord-Bishops not from the Papacy But this Author proceeds Not to multiply Arguments in a matter that others have so largely debated 2. That Office that is derived from and is only to be found in the Papacy is surely Antichristian if the Pope be the head of Antichrist this must not be denied But the Office of Lord-Bishops is derived from is only to be found in the Papacy Which of the Reformed Churches that have separated from the Papacy have retained it Did the woman in her flight into the Wilderness carry it along with her What more absurd then to run to the persecuting Whore and Beast for an Office of Ministry and what more evident demonstration of its being an Antichristian Office than its entertainment only by that false Antichristian Church and its utter rejection and detestation by the true Spouse and witnesses of Christ in all ages What is delivered over to us in this matter by some of them we shall briefly affix hereunto Hierome in his Epistle to Evagrius and in his Commentary on the Epistle of Titus professes That it is more by custom than by any institution of the Lord that Bishops are become greater than the Elders or Ministers Harm of Conf. Sect. 2. Tit. 11. So from him do the Churches of Helvetia proclaim whence they infer and that truly according to Act. 4.9 That no man by any right can forbid but that we should return to the old appointment of God and rather receive that than the custom devised by men Wickliff in his Answer to King Richard the Second citing Mat. 20.25 1 Pet. 5.3 sayes Lordship and Dominion is plainly forbidden to the Apostles and darest thou then usurp the same If thou wilt be a Lord thou shalt lose thy Apostleship c. The University of Geneva say Theses Genev. 71. These functions following we hold to be altogether false and destitute of all true foundation viz. the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome over all Churches the Cardinalship Patriarchship Archiepiscopalship and briefly the whole degree of Lord Bishops over their fellow Elders Marlorat in his Exposition on the Revel chap. 17.3 sayes That Archbishops Deans c. are in Office under Antichrist yea upon Chap. 9. that they are the tails of Antichrist Beza saith They could not be brought into the Church until they had driven him out who is the only Master Christ and there is neither holy Scripture nor Council nor antient Doctors which ever did know such Monsters Beza's Confess Art 7.14 The noble antient Oldcastle Lord Cobham saith That the whole Episcopal degree of Lord Bishops over their fellow Elders is altogether false and destitute of all true foundation yea that all other Functions and Offices besides Priests and Deacons are unlawful as being Sects devised by men destitute of all true foundation To these we might add honest Bale upon the Revelation viz. chap. 17. where he saith Canterbury and York are the Beastly Antichrist's Metropolitans and Primates and upon Chap. 13. that Archbishop Diocesan Archdeacon Dean Prebend Doctors Parson Vicar c. are very names of blasphemy For Offices they are not appointed by the holy Ghost nor yet mentioned in the Scripture Cartwright sayes of them that their Functions are not in the Word of God but of the Earth new devised Ministries and such as can do no good that their Office is the neck of the Popish Hierarchy come out of the bottomless pit of Hell Fenner proclaims them to be no natural members of the body of Christs Church as being of humane addition not born with her nor grown up with her from the Cradle The French and Belgick Confession sayes That they pass not a rush for them The Church of Geneva That the Hierarchie is Devilish confusion stablished as it were in despight of God and to the mocking and reproach of all Christian Religion The Seekers of Reformation in Q. Elizabeths time spake fully hereunto 2 Adm. to Parl. we have an Antichristian and Popish ordering of Priests strange from Gods Word never heard of in the Primitive Church taken out of the Popes Shop to the destruction of Gods Kingdom The Names and Offices of Archbishops Archdeacons Lord Bishops c. are together with their Government drawn out of the Popes Shop Antichristian Devilish and contrary to the Scriptures Parsons Vicars Parish-Priests are birds of the same feather to whom might be added many others Answ. 1. Though the Pope in these later ages especially since Boniface the third obtained of Phocas the Emperor more than 600 years after Christ that Rome the seat of blessed Peter the Apostle which is the head of all Churches should be both so called and accounted of all as Platina speaks and as Onuphrius addes Had the title of Universal Bishop conferred on him and it was added that the name of Pope which was
determined to be the more excellent of all Episcopal terms the Roman Bishops should alone retain it whereas before it was common to all Bishops hath been judged deservedly the head of Antichrist which Gregory the Great Bishop of Rome had not long before lib. 7. indict 2. Epist. 96. made Antichristian and the Usurper a forerunner of Antichrist yet the Bishops of Rome in the first ages were not so accounted and therefore it follows not though the later Popes be the head of Antichrist that the Office that is derived from and is only to be found in the Papacy is surely Antichristian there having been Offices perhaps derived from good Popes and continued only in the Church of Rome which deserve not that censure but approbation rather Nor is it necessary that every thing derived from Popes since they have been the head of Antichrist and continued only in the Papacy should be Antichristian the head of Antichrist may institute something that is not Antichristian 2. It is not true that the Office of Lord Bishops is derived from and is only to be found in the Papacy It is manifest in the first Nicene Council Canon 6. that then and before were Patriarchs Metropolitan Bishops and Lord Bishops with their Office and that Council was in the fourth Century about the year 326. And that in the Greek Eastern Russian Churches the same Office is continued And therefore though no other of the Reformed Churches had retained that Office besides the English yet there would be no need for the Bishops of England to run to the persecuting Whore and Beast for an Office of Ministery But it is also pleaded that the Lutheran Churches reformed that have separated from the Papacie in Germany Denmark Swethland have retained the same Office under the name of Superintendents which is the same in Latine with Bishops in Greek and that it is false that the true Spouse and witnesses of Christ have in all ages utterly rejected the Office of Lord Bishops and that it hath its entertainment only by that false Antichristian Church Yea it is manifest by the many Epistles written to the English Prelates by the reception at the Synod of Dort and innumerable other wayes that there hath been no such rejection or detestation either by any Church reformed or Eminent Writers of them except those of the Separation who have been also averse from the Discipline of the Protestant Reformed Churches beyond Sea and have given opprobrious Language to and of them as well as the English As for the testimonies here cited some of them as the Speeches of Hierome the Helvetian Confession of the Lord Cobham are only about the superiority of Bishops above Presbyters not of their Office most of them as that of Wickliffe used before by Bernard in his Tract to Pope Eugenius those of the University and Church of Geneva Beza's the Belgick French Confessions Marlorat Bale are against the Popish Hierarchy those of Cartwright Fenner and Authors of the Admonition were Speeches of Adversaries which in no Court pass for testimonies to which Arch-Bishop Whitgift and others have given answers long since It is added Sect. 8. The Ordination of Bishops is also of Presbyters Object One stone of Offence must be removed out of our way ere we pass on further it is this Though Lord Bishops are Antichristian yet it doth not follow that the Office and Ministry derived from them is so For they are also Presbyters and Ordain as Presbyters Answ. Give me leave to say that were not men resolved to say any thing that they might be thought to have somewhat to say we had not heard of this Objection For 1. That they act in the capacity of Presbyters in the matter of Ordination is false 1. Contrary to their own avowed Principles their Lordships think it too great a debasement to be degraded from their Lordly dignity to so mean an Office 2. Contrary to the known Law of the Land by which they receive power to act therein in which they are known and owned only in the capacity of Lord Bishops 3. Contrary to their late practice whereby they have sufficiently declared the nullity of a Ministerial Office received from the hands of a Presbytery in thrusting out of doors several hundreds of Ministers so Ordained Strange That it should be pleaded they act as Presbyters in the matter of Ordination and yet they themselves judge a Presbyterian Ordination invalid But 2. What if this should be granted it would avail nothing except it can be proved that they are and act as Presbyters of the Institution of Christ which these being only in a particular instituted Church of Christ will never be to the worlds end Thus far of the third argument Answ. 'T is true to some that have either renounced Episcopal Ordination as Antichristian or refused to hear Ministers Ordained by Bishops as acting by virtue of Antichristian Calling it hath been told that the Bishops were first Presbyters and Ordained Presbyters together with Presbyters and some of them that held that a Bishop and a Presbyter were not superiour in Order but in Degree did Ordain as Presbyters and that therefore if the Ordination of Presbyters be not Antichristian the Ministers should retain their Ordination by Bishops and the people hear them though that were yielded that Lord Bishops Office were Antichristian Now nothing is here replied to the allegation that Bishops Ordain with Presbyters the Bishop with the Priests present are to lay their hands on the Ordained according to the Book of Ordination Nor to this that some of the Bishops have acknowledged Episcopacy not to be an Order above Presbytery Nor to this that though the Bishop imposing hands do act as of superiour Order yet being a Presbyter his act is valid as he that conveighs a thing as conceiving himself as Heir and Executor if he be not Heir yet if he be only Executor and by that hath power to conveigh it the grant is good But he sayes 1. It is false they Ordain as Presbyters it is contrary to their principles Answ. Whether it be so in all is uncertain nor do I know how this Author can prove it unless they did declare it which is more than I have learned 2. It is contrary to the known Law of the Land Answ. 1. It is not true that the Bishops do receive power by the Law to act in Ordination in it are known and owned only in the capacity of Lord Bishops for the Ordination of Suffragan Bishops who are not Lords is valid by Law 2. The Law which gives power to act ties not Bishops to think themselves of a Superiour Order to Presbyters nor to act with such an intention or under such a notion 3. They have nullified Presbyterian Ordination and required Re-ordination by a Bishop Answ. They do not nullifie Ordination by a Presbyterie in foreign Churches but in England perhaps because the Laws require Episcopal Ordination and it is conceived necessary to avoid Schism
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.
18.4 to go out of Babylon But that their going out is by separation from the Service of God not Idolatrous or from a Church not Heretical by reason of some supposed or real corruption or disorder or defect in Government Service Members or Ministry is so far from the meaning of the Text that it needs no other refutation but the looking into the Text and comparing it with the foregoing Chapter Of withdrawing from such as walk disorderly 2 Thess. 3.6 enough hath been said before ch 2. sect 6. Nor is it made any where the Ministers Office to make such separation as the Separatists require 1 Cor. 5.12 is not spoken of Ministers as belonging to their Office to judge them that are within or if it be yet the putting away v. 13. is not made his act and how it is to be done is best discerned by v. 2. Christians are to walk together in Societies or Churches for their mutual edification and comfort in the Lord and this they are no doubt bound to do as occasion is towards all Christians And so much Phil. 1.5 Acts 2.41 and 17.4 may prove but that they are to conjoyn in separated Churches by the so termed Church Covenant as if they were not Members of other Churches nor to joyn in Prayer Praise of God hearing breaking Bread but with either that one Church or Company to which they have associated themselves or those that are of the same way of Church-order is neither proved from those Texts or 2 Cor. 8.5 which mentions no such Church-Covenant as it is alledged for nor any other And therefore the imputations here used to the Ministers and Churches without distinction are so unsavoury and from such an intemperate Spirit that I had rather cover them than rake in such a dunghil And I think respect to the fraternity this Author seems to be of should have made him wary in charging the Ministers with these things lest some of his adversaries should throw as much dirt on the face of the separated Churches out of Bayly's Disswasive Edwards Gangraena Welds History of Antimonianism yea the Preface to their Declaration Octob. 12. 1658. Besides what particular persons know by experience and the relations of the miscarriages of the ancient Separatists would furnish them withal Sect. 5. Election and Excommunication by the Church is not Christs Institution Yet this Author cannot hold but on he goes 3. Saith he That he hath entrusted them so called and united together with Power and given them Rules for the due and right exerting thereof for the carrying on the Worship of his house to chuse Officers over them to act in the holy things of God for and to them of which more shall be spoken in its proper place to admit Members to excommunicate Offenders c. all which we find shining forth in brightness in the ensuing Scriptures Act. 1.23 and 6.3 5. and 14.23 2 Cor. 8.19 Mat. 18.17 1 Cor. 5.4 Do the present Ministers of England conform unto this Institution of Christ nothing less is there any thing like this in the whole Oeconomie invented and practised by them Do they not to the utmost of their power labour to break this Bond of Christ asunder cast away this Cord from them by stirring up the Magistrate to persecute by Fines Imprisonments Banishment c. the precious people of the Lord that desire to be found in the practice of this Law of Christ branding them with the odious names of Phanaticks Sectaries Schismaticks c. Answ. The Election Acts 1.23 was of an Apostle and that by Lot and contains no Law or Institution of Christ which we are tied to follow Of the impertinent allegation of Acts 6.3 5. and 14.23 enough hath been said before ch 2. sect 3. The Election 2 Cor. 8 19. was of a person not to be a Pastor to themselves but to travel with St. Paul about the Contribution for the poor Saints and though it be a good precedent for the like occasion yet was but a Fact not a Precept Law or Institution of Christ necessary to be observed at all times much less binding as a perpetual rule in Election of Pastors or Teachers No other Excommunication is expressed Mat. 18.17 but what is permitted to the injured person of which more may be seen in the answer to this Authors Preface Sect. 15. The delivery to Satan 1 Cor. 5.5 is argued by Peter Moulin in his Vates lib. 2. c. 11. to have been more then our ordinary Excommunication to wit the permitting Satan to cruciate the body of the person that sinned which no Church now hath power to do nor indeed was the Church then to do it but the Apostle by his power Apostolical as having power over unclean spirits though absent yet with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ in their presence when gathered together which being in the Greek in the Genitive Case absolutely put notes not their acting but presence the Apostles determined to do it and therefore contains no Institution of Christ which Ministers are to practice What else is charged upon the Ministers it concerns them who are guilty to answer I know he cannot justly charge all with it It follows Sect. 6. No contempt of the authority of Christ is in the Church of England by setting up Officers and Offices 4. That the Officers of his appointment are onely such as these Pastors Teachers Elders Deacons Widows or Helpers who as they are in one particular Congregation so they have not any Lordship or Lordly Authority over each other being all Brethren Ephes. 4.11 Rom. 12.7 and 16.1 1 Cor. 12.28 Phil. 1.1 1 Pet. 5.1 2 3. Act. 6.5 and 15.2 and 20.17 and 28.21 28. 1 Tim. 3. chap. and 5.9 10 17. This Law of Christ so clearly revealed in the Scripture they are so far from subjecting to that they have neither the name nor thing required by him therein See up other Officers and Offices as if in open contempt and defiance of his Authority of which it may righteously be said He did at no time command them neither did it ever enter into his heart so to do Answ. It is true that those whom he calls Officers are mentioned in some or other of those Texts he cites and are some of them termed gifts given by God or Christ in or to or for his Church or Body But there are also other as Apostles and Prophets mentioned in some of the Texts as given also by God and therefore those whom he reckons are not the only Officers of his appointment nor all of them to be in one Congregation Apostles were certainly to go up and down and though they had not Lordship or Lordly Authority over others yet had they authority preeminence and some kind of superiority over others and if not in the same measure yet some superiority is still allotted to Pastors over Deacons which are acknowledged to be Officers to be still continued in the Church nor is it unlikely that those
Elders who were worthy of double honour 1 Tim. 5.17 had some preeminence above the rest nor doth the relation of Brotherhood hinder but that though in respect of the common Faith all of them are equal yet some may have some Power or Office committed to them which others have not and so may have authority over them That some Offices or Services may be added to those mentioned may be gathered from 2 Cor. 8.19 whether all the Officers or Offices be rightly ordered in the Church of England is not our present enquiry Much hath been said before in answer to the second and third Chapters of this writing which need not be here repeated That the present Ministers of England have neither name nor thing required by Christ in this law is notoriously false the names of Pastors Teachers or Doctors Deacons or Ministers and the Office of Preaching the Gospel continues therein both in the name and thing That they have set up other Officers and Offices as if in open contempt and defiance of Christs authority cannot be said but very unrighteously nor do the alterations or additions any more prove it then the setting up Catechists or Expositors or Lecturers in the primitive or later times proves open defiance and contempt of Christs authority He goes on in the same vein of crimination thus Sect. 7. Election of Ministers by the Common Suffrage of the Church is not proved to be Christs appointment 5. That these Officers be chosen by the common Suffrage of the Church of Christ and solemnly set apart by Fasting and Prayer this is evidently comprised in the ensuing Scriptures Act. 1.15 and 6 1 2 3 5. and 14.23 and 1.23 26. and 9.26 27. In conformity whereunto we find the Saints for many centuries of years after Christ in the peaceable possession of this their priviledge and right Clemens in his Epistle to the Church of Corinth p 57. saith Our Apostles also knew by our Lord Jesus Christ that Contention will be about the name of Episcopal charge Therefore for this reason having received a full predetermination they constituted such as were forenominated and in their instructive distribution delivered that if they were negligent other approved men should receive their Ministration being ordained by them or in the mean time by other choice men all the Church consenting thereunto Yea afterwards let some one among you Ingenious Merciful filled with Love speak if through me Faction and Contention Schisms I will depart Of which if you are willing I return and will do the things appointed by the multitude Wherein he fully asserts the priviledge of the Church or People of Christ we are pleading for And afterwards during the raign of Antichrist Christ hath not left himself without a witness nor his people without Champions to plead their right in this matter To instance but in a few That lively witness of Christ Martin Luther loudly proclaims That the voice of the People ought not to be severed from the chusing of Ecclesiastical persons And long before him Cyprian who lived about 260 years after Christ sayes Plebs obsequens c. The people that obey the commands of God and fear him ought to separate themselves from a wicked Pastor seeing the people themselves chiefly have either power to chuse Pastors that are worthy or to refuse those that be unworthy Cypr. Epist. 68. and tells us plainly That this is bottomed upon the authority of God That that is a just and lawful Ordination which is tryed by the judgment and voice of all viz. that fear and obey God Of the same mind long after was Francis Lambard the Companion of Luther in Germany in the Preface of his Book intituled The sum of Christianity who sayes Verily every Parish ought to have his proper Bishop the which should be chosen by the People and confirmed by the Commonalty of every Parish who if they swerve one jot or tittle from the Doctrine of the Gospel of the Kingdom ought to be deposed by the people and others more fit to be elected by them And in Chap. 5. of the said Book he professes That 't is the most gievous crime and by no means to be suffered that many children of Perdition do deprive the people of God of their just right and title viz. to chuse them a Pastor Peter Martyr in his common places refers the chusing and election of Ministers to the People as their undoubted right To whom we may joyn Mr. Bullinger who sayes That the Apostles exercised not tyranny in the Church in Ordaining Ministers without the consent of the People Bullin Decad. 5. Serm. 4. Tit. 1. 1 Tim. 5. Gualter also upon Act. 1.25 saith That those that profess the Gospel handle the matter as evil as the Monks and Popish Bishops in that they restore not again to the Church the liberty of chusing Ministers which by tyranny they took from them Of the same mind is Zanchie Calvin Beza Danaeus Tilenus Tyndal the Martyr with many others as Mr. Fox Cartwright Mr. Jacob c. We cannot omit the famous case of the united Brethren of Bohemia who concluding the whole Papacy to be purely Antichristian could not allow of the Ordination of their Ministers by any in communion with it and yet being perswaded of a necessity of continuing that Ordinance in a way of succession send some of the Greek and Armenian Churches who returning with dissatisfaction they thereupon commit themselves and their cause to God and chuse Elders from among themselves and by Fasting and Prayer solemnly set them apart to the work of the Preaching of the Gospel To these many more might be added The practice pleaded for as is evident is as antient as the dayes of the Apostles and the first election of ordinary New-Testament Officers continued in the Church till after the dayes of Constantine when Pride and Tyranny soon brought all things into horrible Confusion upon the pretext of Decency and Order yet in the worst of times have the witnesses of Christ born their testimony hereunto What say our Reverend Fathers and Ministers of the Church of England to these things Have they not an equal respect to this appointment of Christ as to those before instanced in Is there any thing like it almost practised by them in this great concern of separating persons for the Preaching of the Gospel of Christ Is not the liberty of the Brethren and Churches of Christ as much as lies in them wholly disanulled and broken by them Have they any such Call to the Ministry Do they at all value or esteem of it Are they in the practice of the Primitive Church or of the Reformed Churches of this day in this matter Is not the print of the feet of the old Strumpet of Rome the bloody persecutor of the Saints the cunning Deviser of a new self-invented and whorish Worship to be solely found in the paths they are in this matter traversing and can such be accounted as the subjects of the
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
also termed St. Pauls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fellow-labourers in the Lord Rom. 16.3 which proves that Christians did and might hear others besides Officers of particular instituted Churches yea that they might and did make use of the gifts of any though a woman that could expound to them the way of the Lord. 3. That this is against the practise of the Congregational Churches who do allow the hearing of gifted brethren that are not Officers who send Preachers to convert the natives such as Mr. Eliat Mr. Mayhew who yet are no Officers to them who hear the Pastors of other Congregations than those of which they are members which is not agreeable to this Authours principle That other than their own Officers are strangers to them and if it be as some have delivered That the Ministry is limited to that Church to which he is Pastor he cannot Preach as a Minister when they hear him nor they hear him under that consideration and if a Minister be an Officer onely to the people who chose him and they are bound to attend on his Ministery who chose him and not others then a Minister ceaseth to be a Minister when his Electors are dead or removed they that choose him not though he be elected by the major part are not to take him for their Minister nor may hear him sith his voice is the voice of a stranger 4. To be tied to attend on such mens Ministery and not to have liberty to hear others puts an yoke of bondage intolerable and pernicious on mens consciences 1. In that in case the Minister become empty or erroneous yet being his Minister and the major part adhere to him he must also attend on his Ministery who is weary of it and may not use the benefit of anothers Ministry more sound and profitable no not though it be of great consequence for the finding out the truth in that he doubts which is an art like to the practise of the Papists who will allow none of their Church to hear Protestant Preachers or confer with them or read their Books lest their errours should be detected Thus it might come to pass that if Mr. Ainsworth deliver errour his people might not go to hear Mr. Paget in the same Town who might discover his errour and there is the same reason concerning any in England as in London a Minister to an Independent Church must be heard though a man of mean abilities and perhaps an Antinomian and none other though a neighbour Godly Learned Conformist Preach truth profitably near to him 2. In case a member of a separated Church as a woman removed with her husband from London into the Countrey far from her Pastour have a Godly learned able Teacher who is a Conformist near her and no other she must not hear him because a stranger none of Christs Officers but must rather live without the benefit of the publique Ordinance though it be to the great decay of that spiritual life heat and vigour in godliness which she once had These and more evil consequences attend the Position of this Authour That those onely who are Christs Officers in his sense are to be heard Yet he goes on thus Sect. 5. Hearing the present Ministers casts no contempt on Christs Institutions Not to mention more let it be weighed whether the hearing of the present Ministers of England doth not cast contempt upon these Institutions of Christ. What is more evidently Preached by such a practise than 1. That separation from the Assemblies of England ' though in their Constitution carnal and worldly and the worship thereof although false and meerly of humane invention was and is our sin and evil 2dly That it 's not by vertue of any Soveraign institution of Christ the duty of Saints to meet together as a body distinct without going out to other Assemblies to worship with them for their mutual edification in the Lord. 3dly That particular Assemblies are not solely of the institution of the Lord Jesus but that National are also to be accounted as the true Churches of Christ though they have no footing in the Scripture of the New Testament from whence the pattern of Gospel-Churches is solely to be deduced Yea 4thly That the Officers of Christs appointment are not sufficient for the Saints but together with them the help of false and Idol-shepherds is to be sought after than which what greater contempt can be poured upon the forementioned Institutions of our dear Lord Yet who sees not all this to be the language which is heard and goes forth into the nations from the practise of our brethren in the matter we are debating If they look upon separation in the sense before minded to be of the institution of Christ can thâ—y offer a greater affront thereunto than to run into the Assemblies of the nation If they judge it their duty to meet together distinct from the world and it's worshippers why run they thereunto If they apprehend National Churches to be the result of humane prudence without bottom in the Scripture and the Ministers of Christ to be onely in contradistinction to the Ministers that are not of his appointment attended unto why give they the right hand of fellowship unto such Assemblies as profess themselves to be parts of such a National Church and hear Ministers that have relation thereunto who have received as hath been proved no mission from Christ to their Ministry If this be not evidently to pour contempt upon the Institutions of Christ and confessedly so we shall for ever despair of success in the most facile and righteous undertaking Answ. I acknowledge that he who granteth your Premisses cannot deny your Conclusion But none but dissemblers will attend on the Ministry of the present Ministers and hold the Assemblies of England in their constitution carnal and worldly and the worship thereof false and meerly of humane invention That the members of the Assemblies of the English Church are the world in contradistinction to the Saints That they are the worshippers of the world not of the true Churches of Christ That the Ministers are false and Idol-shepherds who have received no mission from Christ to their Ministry By this Answer this Authour may perceive that these charges are judged false criminations not at all proved by him nor are those things granted to be Institutions of Christ which he makes such And therefore if the practise of going to the Parish-Assemblies be a casting contempt on his way it is not on Christs Institutions but his unjustifiable separation And yet the truth is our hearing the present Ministers is for the performance of our own duty that we may hear the word of God and worship God truly and our doing this we account not any approbation of any thing evil in the Ministers or giving the right hand of fellowship to the Assemblies in any thing that is disorderly Nor do we condemn any thing but their sin in the separated meetings whose
of their converts are the cause thereof by their invectives begetting enmity and prejudice against them in the minds of men May it not be said to themselves Where are the souls that are converted comforted strengthened stablished by your Ministry Were not many if not most in your Churches wrought upon at first by other Preachers And if so may it not be said Ye your selves are the seal of their Ministry in the Lord nevertheless though God onely can tell exactly and fully what is the fruit of any mens Ministry yet I hope there are that can testifie their receiving good by the Ministry of some of the present Ministers and that however it be by reason of the many stumbling-blocks cast in the way God will yet have mercy on the people of England and give them hearts to receive the truth Preached to them in the love of it Sure this Authour should rather pray it may be so and encourage the Ministers to do the work of the Lord more faithfully and not weaken their hands by drawing their auditors from them As for that which he saith of the decaies of the auditors of the Ministers I joyn with him but add withall That so far as mine acquaintance or intelligence reacheth there is too great and sensible a decay of the spirit of love power and of a sound mind in the Congregational Churches of old and new England and that a spirit of bitterness consoriousness misreporting mistaking dissenters words and actions unrghteousness unpeaceableness is too abundant in them that I say nothing of their proneness to embrace Antinomianism Quakerism and other dangerous errours Iliacos intra muros peccatur extra The Lord pardon our evils and heal our breaches Yet there is one more Argument to be answered Sect. 9. Hearing the present Ministers is no step to Apostacy Argument 12. That the doing whereof is one step to Apostacy is not lawful to be done But the hearing the present Ministers of England is one step to Apostacy Therefore The major Proposition will readily be granted by all The beginnings of great evils are certainly to be â—esisted Apostacy is one of the greatest evils in the world The minor or second proposition Viz. That the hearing of the present Ministers is one step to Apostacy is evident 1. It cannot be done especially by persons of Congregational principles without a relinquishment of principles owned by them as received from God That the Church of England as National is a Church of the institution of Christ That persons not called to the office of the Ministry by the Saints are rightfull Ministers of Christ must be owned and taken for granted ere the Conscience can acquiesce in the hearing the present Ministers for we suppose 't will not be asserted by those with whom we have to do that there can be a true Ministery in a false Church or that false Ministers may be heard and yet the present Ministers are Ministers in and of the national Church of England and were never solemnly deputed to that office of the suffrage of the Lords people 2ly Nor can it be done without the neglect of that duty which with others is eminently of the appointment of the Lord to secure from Apostacy instanc'd in by the Author to the Hebrews Hebr. 10.25 Not forsaking the assembling of your selves together as the manner of some is but exhorting one another and so much the more as you see the day approaching in which the duty of Saints assembling themselves together as a body distinct from the world and it's assemblies â—s also their frequent and as often as may be exhorting one another as a medium to secure them by the blessing of the Lord thereupon from a spirit of degeneracy and Apostacy from God is clearly asserted whence it undeniably follows that the hearing of the present Ministers of England being inconsistent with the constant and diligent use of the means prescribed for the preservation of the Saints in the way of God for whilst they are attending upon their teachings they cannot assemble themselves according to the prescription of God in the forementioned Scripture is at least one step to the dreadfull sin of Apostacy from God and therefore it is utterly unlawful for Saints so to do And thus far of the Twelfth Argument for the proof of the assertion under our maintenance viz. That 't is not lawful for Saints to hear the present Ministers of England to which many others might be added but we doubt not to the truly tender and humble enquiring Christian what hath been offered will be abundantly sufficient to satisfie his Conscience in the present enquiry Answ. If by Apostasie be meant Apostatie from the living God and the Christian faith the major is granted and the minor is denied nor is there any thing tending to a shew of proof of it produced for it and if it should be meant of such Apostasie the thing is so notoriously false the hearers of such Ministers as â—e now Ministers in England having been as constant in the profession and practice of Christianity both against Popery and other ungodliness in times of persecution by Papists and at other times as other Christians in other ages that this Author would be hissed at as one extremely impudent in asserting so palpable an untruth But I conceive by his proof of the minor he means by Apostasie the relinquishing of the Congregational principles and practise Concerning which I conceive the major may be denyed it being not unlawfull but a necessary duty to depart from some of their principles and practises I mean such as are for separation in communion from dissenting Christians Yet I do not think but the Conscience may well acquiesce in the hearing of the present Ministers as teaching truth without relinquishment of the two principles owned by them as received from God I think if they will weigh what is here written they may find if not the congregational principles yet separation inferred from them to be an errour and to beget nothing but Superstition in their minds and sinfull uncharitable division in their practise Nor do I think it necessary that they which still adhere to that way of Communion need neglect the duty of meeting and exhorting one another according to Hebr. 10.25 the mistake of which is shewed in the answer to this chapter Sect. 2. They that hear the present Ministers some hours may hear other Ministers at other hours they that at one time hear them may at another time exhort one another Heretofore persons of Congregational Principles could hear in Parochial Assemblies Parochial Ministers why they may not do so still I understand not were it not that opinions of separation animated them to division and faction which the Lord amend and make them diligent to provoke one another to love and to good works I have now answered the Jury of Twelve Arguments which I have found brutum fulmen as the shooting off Ordinances without a bullet
of the Scribes and Pharisees as their Pastors nor need we It is sufficiene for our purpose that Christ allowed the hearing them teaching Moses Law and that proves it lawful to hear the present Ministers while and so far as they teach truth which hearing not constant attending on their Ministry was to be proved lawful as the question was stated by this Authour ch 1. and all along was his conclusion And that he hath not proved it unlawful nor evaded the Arguments from Mat. 23.1 2. Notwithstanding his irrision of this dispute I am of the mind the solid reader will say I think it not amiss to add here the words of Mr. John Norton Minister of Ipswich in New England in his answer to Apollonius of Middleburg in Zealand c. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Scribarum Pharisaeorum in Mosis Cathedrâ sedentium fuit corruptio al qua in publico Dâ—i cultu absque debitâ reformatione toleraâ—a quia Cathedra Mosis i e. officium docendi publicè in Ecclesiâ legem Mosis libros Prophetarum Sacerdotibus Levitiâ— ex instituto Dei ordinariò propria erat eos autem audire non ab eis separare jubet Christus Matth. 23.1 2. Of the Scribes and Pharisees sitting in Moses seat the embassage without commission was some corruption in the publick worship of God tolerated without due reformation because the chair of Moses that is the office of teacâ—ing publickly in the Churches the Law of Moses and books of the Prophets was ordinarily proper to the Priests and Levites by the appointment of God yet Christ commands to hear them not to separate from them Matth. 23.1 2. It follows Sect. 6. Christs and his Apostles going to the Jewish meetings is opposite to the Separatists opinion and practice Object 2. If it be said But we find Christ and his Apostles after him going frequently into the synagogues where the Scribes and Pharisees Preached Ans. We answer first That all that Christ and the Apostles did is not lawful for Saints to practice will not be denied many instances are near at hand for its confirmation should it so be 2 That 't is one thing to go into the synagogues and another thing to go thither to attend upon the Ministry of such as taught there This is the present case which that Christ or the Apostles ever did cannot be proved 3. They went thither to oppose them in and confute their innovations and traditions in the worship of God to take an opportunity to teach and instruct the people in his way and will which when any have a spirit to do and are satisfied that they are thereunto called by the Lord in respect of the present Ministers and worship of England we shall be so far from condemning them therein that we shall bless God for them But this is not to the purpose in hand the attendance of our brethren upon the Ministers of England is quite another thing that requires other arguments for its support than we have hitherto met with Parvas habet spes Troia si tales habet I reply It is clear from Luke 2.46 that our Lord went to the Temple at Jerusalem sate in the midst of the Doctors both hearing them and asking them questions Luke 4.16 That he came to Nazareth where he had been brought up and as his custom was he went into the synagogue on the sabbath-day and stood up to read that he cured persons there Preached in the synagogues that Peter and John went up together into the Temple at the hour of prayer the ninth Acts 3.1 That Paul and Barnabas went into the synagogue on the sabbath-day and sate down and did not speak to the people till after the reading of the Law and the Prophets the rulers of the synagogue sent unto them Acts 13.14 15. That on the sabbath St. Paul went out of Philippi by a river side where prayer was wont to be made and sate down and that this was his manner Acts 16 13. and 17.2 Now neither were these synagogues by any appointment of God that we find nor their meeting nor their rulers nor the order of their reading of the Law and the Prophets nor their Teachers nor their worship at the Temple without many corruptions and yet our Lord and his Apostles were present at them and joyned with them in hearing them read and such other services of Religion as were done to God Which is a good reason wherefore it should not be counted necessary to separate from the present Assemblies in England and the publick Ministers notwithstanding such corruptions in their worship such defect in their calling such pullutions in the places of meeting as are by this Authour and other Separatists urged as a sufficient reason of their separation The answers hereto are insufficient For 1. Though all that Christ and his Apostles did either out of peculiar power or Commission or instinct be not lawfull for us to do as toâ—whip buyers and sellers out of the Temple to sentence persons to death as Peter did Ananias and his wife yet what they did as men or part of the Jewish people in the worship and Church of the Jewes is a warrant to us in the like case to do in the assemblies of the Christians there being no cogent reason why we may not in these things do as they did and if these things may not be used for direction and setling our Consciences they are in vain written by the Spirit 2. Though Christ and his Apostles did not go into the Synagogues to attend on the Ministry of such as taught there yet they did there hear the Law and Prophets read and joyned in prayers which this Authour will not allow his brethren to do in the Church Assemblies of England 3. That Christ or his Apostles went into the Synagogues to oppose them in and confute their innovations and traditions in the worship of God is more than I remember to have read nor do I know that any that have or shall come into the assemblies of the Church of England to such an end as Quakers and other Separatists heretofore have done can be judged to do it out of any other spirit than a turbulent and evil spirit without any true calling by the Lord which might satisfie their Consciences And though we should bless God if liberty were granted more than is and opportunities taken to teach the people especially where there is want thereof in the way and will of God yet we should not rejoyce that mens particular opinions or such unnecessary truths as being unseasonably delivered would tend to division and not to edification should be vented especially in such auditories as are in the common sort of those assemblies and most of all where there are able preachers who constantly and rightly teach the Doctrine of the Gospel of Christ. It is added Sect. 7. Pauls rejoycing at the preaching Christ of contention warrants hearing the present Ministers Object 3. Paul rejoyceth at the
rejoyced in no way was the acting of Pilate or Herod or the Jewes to be abetted but to be abhorred though the Counsel of God was to be justified and extolled as was done Acts 4.24 c. Should the Pope send Jesuites to preach the Gospel and they should continue to preach it and no doctrine antievangelical I know no reason why the Saints might not attend on their Ministry To the 2 d. 3 d. and 4 th Answers I reply That the preaching of Christ in opposition to Paul makes it probable that they were not real Saints nor true Ministers in his sence such motives being contrary to that brotherly love which is in every real Saint 1 John 3.14 and that order of the Church by which is a lawfull mission which me thinks he should not conceive to have been in them that acted in a way of contention against St. Paul the Apostle of the Gentiles And for the Ministers of England I like better the words of Mr. Iohn Robinson in his Justification of the Separation p. 307. then these Authors words In the general I confess there is a proportion and so in that general and large sence wherein Mr. Bernard pag. 313. expounds the word sent or Apostle I do acknowledge many Ministers in England sent of God that is that it comes not to pass without the special providence and Ordination of God that such and such men should rise up and preach such and such truths for the furtherance of the Salvation of Gods elect in the places where they come They which preached Christ of envy and strife to add more afflictions to the Apostles bonds were in this respect sent of God and therefore it was that the Apostle joyed at their preaching How much more they that preach of a sincere mind though through ignorance or infirmity both their place and enterance into it be most unwarrantable And sure if they may in this sense be said to be sent of God it follows Saints may hear them which was to be proved It is added Sect. 8. The truth Ministers teach warrants the hearing of them Object 4. The Ministers of England preach truth and is it not lawfull to hear truth preached We answer 1. That 't is lawfull to hear truth preached is readily granted but this must be done lawfully and in the way of Christs appointment 2. All that preach truth are not to be heard nor will our discenting brethren say they are For 1. There was never yet any Heretical preacher in the world but he preached some truth is it lawfull to hear such This will not be said 2. The Devil himself preached truth yet Christ forbids him and commands that he hold his peace 3. The Popish Priests preach truth yet who will say 't is lawfull to attend upon their Ministry But 3. As the present Ministers of England preach truth so 1. They preach it but by halves and dare not for fear of the L. Bishops inhibition preach any doctrine though never so clearly revealed in the Scriptures and owned by them as the truth of Christ he commands them not to meddle with 2. The main truths they preach at least many of them are contradicted in their practice They 'l tell you that the Lord Jesus is the great Prophet and King of his Church but how palpably this is contradicted by them in their practice conforming to institutions and laws that are not of his prescription who sees not This we have abundantly demonstrated 3. With the truth they preach they mingle errours directly contrary to the Scripture and the revelation of his will therein Instances of this kind have been already exhibited to which may be added many more we shall mention but a few 1. That the Ministry Worship and Government which Christ hath appointed to his Church is not to be received or joyned unto unless the Magistrates where they are reputed Christian do allow it 2. That the Apocryphal books which have in them errors 2 Mac. 12.44 45. 14.41 42. Eccles. 46.20 Wisd. 19.11 untruths 2 Esd. 14.21 22 23. 2 Mac. 2.4.8 Tob. 5.11 12 13. with 12.15 Judith 8.33 10.9 with v. 12. 11.6.12 13 14 15. 1 Mac. 9.3.18 with 2 Mac. 1.13 to 17. and 9.1.5.7.9.28.29 blasphemy Tobit 12.12.15 with Rom. 8.34 1 Tim. 2.5 Rev. 8.3.4 magick Tob. 6.6 7 8. 9.2.3 with 3.7 8. 11.10 11 13. with 2.9 10. and contradiction to the Canonical Scriptures Judith 9.2 3 4. compared with Gen. 49.5 6 7. Esther in the Apocrypha chap. 12.5 15.9 10. with Ester Canonical chap. 6.3 5.2 Eccles. 46.20 with Isa. 57. 2. may be used in the publick worship of God 3. That the most wicked and their seed may be compelled and received to be members of the Church 4. That Marriage may be forbidden at certain seasons as in Lent Advent Rogation-week c. 5. That Baptism is to be administred with a cross in the forehead and that as a symbolical sign 6. That though the most notorious obstinate offenders be partakers of the Lords Supper yet the people that joyn with them are not defiled thereby 7. That there may be Holy days appointed to the Virgin Mary John Baptist to the Apostles all Saints and Angels together also with Fasts on their Eves on Ember-days Fridays Saturdays so called heathenishly enough and Lent 8. That the Cope Surplice Tippit Rocket c. are meet and decent ornaments for the worship of God and Ministry of the Gospel 6. That the Book of Common-prayer is the true worship of God 10. That Christ descended into hell as if Christ descended into the place of the damned as the Papists hold 11. That Lord Bishops can give the holy Ghost and power to forgive and retain sins 12. That Altars Candles Organs c. are necessary and useful in the Church of God 13. That all children when baptized are regenerate and received by the Lord for his own children by adoption Common-prayer-book of publick Baptism Yea 14. That children being baptized have all things necessary for their salvation and shall undoubtedly be saved So they profess in the Order of Conformation in the Common-prayer-book with much more that might be offered in this matter I reply 1. The grant That it is lawfull to hear truth preached is sufficient to prove it lawful to hear the present Ministers preach truth which he denies not they do unless he could prove it were contrary to the way of Christ's appointment to hear the truth from them 2. All that preach some truth are not to be heard yet all that preach the great truths of the Gospel notwithstanding some errours non-fundamental may be heard especially if the errours be seldom or never pressed on the hearers but left to them to examine and to be approved or disproved Heretical Preachers are not to be heard because they preach not the great truths of the Gospel but errours which overthrow the foundation so do the Popish Priests yet it were no sin to hear
mouth of Babes and Sucklings perfect praise as our Saviour Matth. 21.16 allegeth Psal. 8.2 against the Priests and Scribes indignation at the Childrens saying Hosanna yet I would have such things examined by the learned and godly especially either their own Pastors or such as are found or reputed learned and judicious and that as well what may be said against as what is said for the thing vented be weighed lest persons deceive themselves as too often they do by their propensity to take all for Oracles which is said by such as they do affect or magnifie And surely in doubtful cases and in points which are above the Sphere of common capacities to determine I mean such as require more insight in Languages History Arts and other reading than they can reach to by reason of defect in their natural abilities educations time to study means of attaining the use of books health or strength it is a safe way to rest on the received practice and determination of their learned Guides whom they have reason to judge faithfull and able and to be satisfied with their resolutions and reasons after a serious and modest arguing of the thing though every scruple be not removed As for that which is here said of Ainsworth Cotton c. I think they that knew and read what Vssher Ball Gataker and such like men were will not believe it Mr. Ainsworths differences between him and Johnson Robinson and Paget and their writings especially of this last shew him to have been much short of what this Author conceived of him What Mr. Cotton was I do not rely upon Mr. Baylies Dissuasive but I think Dr. Twisse his answer to him about reprobation Mr. Cawdrey about the keyes that I mention no other shewed him not such as whose judgement might be safely rested in And I scarce think either by the reading of his way of the Churches in new England or his commendation of Mr. Nortons answer to Apollonius he could be of the same apprehension with this Author in this matter That the Reformed Churches generally renounce the Ministry of the Church of England I think is a manifest untruth The passages at the Synod of Dort Peter Moulin his Letter to Bishop Andrews with many more of the like evidences of former and later times assure me this Author is deceived He adds Sect. 12. The Magistrates command to hear the present Mininisters is to be obeyed Object 8. But the Magistrate commands us and ought we not to obey Magistrates Answ. 1. That Magistrates have no power to command in matters of instituted worship where Christ is silent or to govern in his Church is affirmed by many 2. The commands of Magistrates when contrary to the will and way of Christ are not to be subjected to This case is long since stated and resolved by the Apostle Acts 4.19 20. and 5.29 and Spirit of the Lord breathing long before in his renouned witnesses Dan. 3.16 17. and 6.10 nor is it denyed by any that are sober and judicious Whether the hearing of the present Ministers of England be contrary to the word of God the will and way of Christ we leave from what hath been offered to the considerate reader to judge And shall only add what was long since asserted by Augustin de verb Domini Serm. 6. in this matter who was herein fully of the same mind with us Sed timeo inquies ne offendas majorem time prorsus ne offendas majorem non offendes Deum Quid enim times ne offendas majorem Vide ne forsan major sit isto quâ—m times offendere Majorem certe noli offendere quis est inquies major eo qui me genuit an ille qui teipsum creavit qui enim resistit potestati Dei ordinationi resistit sed quid si illud jubeat quod non debes facere timendo potestatem ipsos humanarum rerum gradus advertite si aliquid jusserit Curator nonne faciendum est Tametsi contra Proconsul jubeat at non utique contemnis potestatem sed eligis majori servire nec hinc debet minor irasci si major praelata est Rursum si aliquid ipse Proconsul jubeat aliud jubeat Imperator numquid dubitatur in illo contemptu illi esse serviendum Ergo si aliud Imperator aliud Deus quid judicatis Solve tributum est mihi in obsequio recte Sed non in Idolio in Idolio prohibet quis prohibet major potestas Da veniam tu carcerem ille gehennam minatur He tells us plainly that such as fear to offend their Superiours should much more fear to offend God who is greater than all The Emperours and Monarchs of the world threaten us with a Prison if we disobey them the Lord threatens us with Hell upon our disobedience of him I reply The Brownists in their Confession of faith art 39. say Princes and Magistrates by the Ordinance of God are Supreme Governours under him over all persons and in all causes within their Realms and Dominions and that it is their duty to enforce all their Subjects whether Ecclesiastical or Civil to do their duties to God and men protecting and maintaining the good punishing and restraining the evil according as God hath commanded whose Lieutenants they are here on earth and to prove this many Texts are cited by them of which confession Mr. Ainsworth said to be of the fame apprehension with this Author in this matter was a principal composer In the Apology of the Non-conformists by Irenaeus Eâ—eutherius in the admonition to the Reader the Kings Supremacy is acknowledged Which hath been more largely proved before in this Answer to the 5th Chapter of this book Sect. 11 12 13 14. And though it be not yeilded that Princes should exercise Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction or determine Doctrines of faith or impose what worship they will on the Subjects yet it is allowed by all I know except Papists that when the Magistrate commands men to be present at the true worship of God and to hear them that preach truth he doth what he ought and is to be obeyed therein This Author where in this Chapter p. 86. he supposeth Christ enjoyning his Disciples to attend upon the Scribes and Pharisees acting as Magistrates and conform to what is justly and righteously prescribed them as such must yield this that the Saints are to obey the Magistrate in this unless he can shew that it is an unlawfull thing to hear the present Ministers which he pretends he hath done but how vainly is shewed by this Answer and so his Answer here to this Objection to be insufficient And indeed it tends to the gratifying of Popish Recusants who alledge for their not hearing the non-conjunction with the Pope and Church of Rome as this Author doth the non-election and non-membership of the present Ministers in a Congregational Church to be in which as the only Instituted Church of Christ is made necessary as Papists do to be in Communion with
the Church of Rome And therefore if it be unlawful to hear the present Ministers the Papists have a just plea for their not coming to Church which evacuates all the Laws and Government requiring it It is added Sect. 13. Conformists Ministry hath been instrumental to Convert Souls Object 9. But the Ministers of England are true Gospel-Ministers for they convert Souls which the Apostle makes the Seal of his Ministry or Apostleship therefore it is lawful to hear them To this we say 1. That the Ministers of England are true Gospel-Ministers is absolutely denyed by us what is offered in this Objection proves nothing 1. Paul makes not the Conversion of the Church of Corinth singly a sufficient demonstration or convincing argument of his Apostleship he only useth it as what was most likely to win and work upon their affections who upon other accounts could not but know that he was an Apostle of the Lord Jesus 2. Conversion of Souls is no argument either of a lawfull call to an Apostleship or Ministry of Christ. For 1. Many have converted Souls that were not Apostles as ordinary Ministers 2. The Lord hath used private brethren women yea some remarkable providences as instruments in his hand for the conversion of many Souls yet who will say that private brethren women or Divine Providences are Apostles or Ministers of the Lord Jesus But 3. Should it be granted that conversion of Souls is an argument of a lawfull Ministry where are the Churches nay where are the particular persons converted by them We have not heard of any nor will it be an easie task for the Objectors to produce instances in this matter I reply That the Ministers of England who preach the Gospel truely are true Gospel Ministers may be denied absolutely but not justly their preaching the Gospel truely being it which alone is the form denominating a Minister a true Gospel Minister though more be required to his regularity Election by a Congregational Church Ordination by an Eldership or Bishop do not make a true Gospel Minister without it and it doth it notwithstanding some other defects But conversion of Souls is no certain sign of a true Gospel Minister or the defect of it an argument against it nor do I alledge 1 Cor. 9.1 2. to prove either Yet when the Gospel of Christ is truly preached and so blessed an effect follows on their labours who do so it is a good motive to the converted to hear them who have been instruments of their conversion and is an engagement to them to follow their doctrine and conversation 1 Cor. 4.15 16. Heb. 13.7.17 1 Thes. 5.12 13. And if this Author or any other do separate from them who have been instruments of their conversion and continue still to preach the Gospel truly because they abide in their station without renouncing Episcopal Ordination or accepting of an election by a congregational Church they do it unwarrantably and injuriously As for the words of the Apostle 1 Cor. 9.1 2. the Apostles aime is to shew he was as free and might use his liberty as much as any other Apostle being as truly an Apostle as any other which might besides other evidences from the effect of his Apostleship on them appear to them so that it is an argument of his Apostleship though not singly not as this Author conceives a motive to win upon their affections yet I think it an argument from and of some thing proper to the Apostle and the Corinthians and therefore would not meerly from conversion of Souls conclude a true Gospel Ministry in all that have been instruments therein As for the demand where are the Churches where are the particular persons converted by them It may perhaps be as justly demanded of this Author where are the Churches or particular persons converted by the Ministers of the congregational Churches in old or new England or Holland Mr. Robert Baylie of Scotland in his Dissuasive from the Errors of the time Mr. Thomas Edwards in his Gangraena tell stories of the fruit of separation which I will not avow as true yet so much of truth may be picked out of them as may stop the mouths of them that extoll those Ministers and decry the best of the Conformists who yet have been if not of late yet heretofore Fathers in Christ to the Members of the Congregational Churches and to the most eminent in the Churches of old or new England But this disparagement of some and extolling of others is an odious course tending to nothing but promoting of faction and weakning the hands of them that do the work of Christ and therefore do pray that this spirit of pride and bitterness may be extinguished than in love we may serve one another and that nothing be done out of strife and vain-glory but that in lowliness of mind each may esteem others better than our selves And I wish none had vented or read such criminations as those in the book entituled Prelatical preachers none of Christs teachers in which he breaks out thus p 61. They that were â—oundly right down without any abatement or need of explication Ministers of a Prelatical Ordination have amongst them in matters of true Religion sound knowledge and piety towards God reduced the generality of the Nation to a morsel of bread All those Idolatrous and Superstitious conceits and practises all the bloody ignorance and prophaeess all that customary boldness in sinning that hatred of goodness and good men which are the nakedness and shame of the land and render it obnoxious to Divine displeasure may justly call this generation of men either fathers or foster fathers or both p. 75. he terms their Ministry a Ministry which is no where approved or sanctified by Christ in his word but obtruded upon Christians with an high hand by those who are confederate both in spirit and in practise with the scarlet coloured beast and drunken with the blood of the Saints a description which belyeth not the Prelatical Priesthood and Ministry and then applies the description Revel 13.11 to them and the warning Revel 14 9. to those who joyn to them p 76 77. he makes the Bishops to comply with Antichrist in claiming and exercising a power of imposing on men what they please in matters of Religion or faith and worship under what penalties they please also makes those ordained and Ministers under them and by them to receive the mark of the beast p. 52. though God did before the discovery of the evil of Prelacy benefit Souls by them yet not after But enough of this there remains yet that which follows Sect. 14. To the observation of the Lords day hearing the present Ministers as the case now is may be requisite Object 10. But our Ministers are removed and we know not where to go to hear would you have us sit at home idle We cannot so spend the Lords day Answ. To which we would humbly offer a few things 1. That though we are