they have not This belongs to Patrons lord-Lord-Bishops c. 2. The power of admission of Members and ejection of the Scandalous by excommunication they have not The first a man hath by buying or renting a piece of Land in the Parish and dwelling there the other is managed in the Bishops Courts by a sorry thing call'd a Chancellor it may be as deboist as the worst that is brought before him Now that with respect to these things Christ hath entrusted his Church with power we evince chap. 2 4. of S. T. 4ly That company of men that are not capable of performing those duties and cannot answer that end that Christ requires of his Churches for which he instituted them are not a true Church of Christ But the Parish-Assemblies of England are not capable of performing those duties Therefore 'T is the Minor needs proof The duties Christ requires to be performed by them the end he aimed at in instituting his Churches was 1. To set forth his honour and praise Eph. 3. 21. 1 Pet. 2. 9. 2. To promote the true Light and Knowledge of God Ephes 1. 8. 1 John 1. 6 7. 3. The mutual edification of one another in the things of God 1 Thess 5. 11. Eph. 4. 29. 1 Cor. 14. 26. Jude 20. I appeal to any unbyassed man in the world whether he thinks in his conscience that the Parish-Assemblies of England can perform these duties answer this end The contrary is most evident and too notoriously known to be true than to admit of a denial But I shall not enlarge on what is already so judiciously asserted and argued by others which Mr. T. is not able to evert The Ordination of Lord-Bishops of which he next speaks is forreign from Scripture if the Office it selâ— be This we prove chap. 3. of S. T. and Mr. T. once swore to extiâ—pate it as such and I am sorry to find him now pleading for it Whether I have abused John 10. 1 9. neither Mr. T. nor I must now be judge the judicious Reader will judge for us both and I doubt not according to truth Sect. 4. The Ministers of Engl. not to be heard as gifted-Brothren Judas not particularly declared by Christ Joh. 6. 70. to be a Devil The Animadverter abuseth the Author of the S. T. in affirming he â—ies up Saintship to particular Churches whom the Scripture makes Brethren Mr. T. reduceth the Brotherhood to a smaller scantling than we We cannot perform the duties of Brethren to the Ministers of Engl. and why If we own the best of them for Brethren we must own the worst Of Judas his receiving the Sacrament The mixt multitude making acclamation to Christ of joyning with other in Worship We separate no more from the Church of England than they do from us 1 Cor. 5. 1â— 'T is not lawful to break Bread with the visibly prophane proved Iâ— what sense the Bishops are styled Reverend Fathers They are not to be owned as such The Ministers of Engl. disorderly walkers proved They engage against Scripture-Reformation 2 Thes 3. 6. explained Of Obedience to Ministers Rom. 13. 1. Heb. 13. 7. opened We ought not to hear those from whom 't is our duty to withdraw Mr. T. his Aâ—guments to the contrary answered IN Sect. 4. our Animadverter replies to the proofs produced in S. T. for the confirmation of the second part of our Minor Proposition viz. That 't is not lawful to hear them as gifted-Brethren because 1. The most of them are not gifted nor 2. Brethren being Canonical Drunkards Swearers c. To this he saith 1. That any of them are such is to be bewayled in a Christian way the persons guilty are to be rebuked Lev. 19. 17. not to be thus charged in print in a Book vented in the dark tending to make them odious Answ 1. When he shall be pleased to manifest the Rule of Christ I have trangressed in thus charging them I shall as publickly acknowledge my error Those that sin rebuke before all 1 Tim. 5. 20. is some part of what I have to plead for my so doing 2. If the Book were vented in the dark I may thank them for it who would have such things stifled that their works may not be made manifest 3. I make them not odious they have made themselves so throughout the Nation 4. Mr. T. his hoping this is not true proves nothing the contrary is manifest to thousands He adds 2dly Were all this and more true yet they might be heard preach the Gospel as Brethren gifted Answ But knows he what he saith We affirm that they are not gifted nor Brethren that this should be true and more too and yet they might be heard as gifted Brethren is such a Paradox to me that comes but a little short if a little of down-right nonsense i. e. there are some may be heard as Brethren gifted that are neither gifted nor Brethren That Judas was declared by Christ to be a Devil John 6. 70. as he suggests is false He saith one of them was so but names him not 'T is true John tells us ver 71. that he spake of Judas but this neither he nor any of the rest knew till afterwards We add in S. T. 3dly The best of them cannot by Saints in respect of Gospel-communion be accounted Brethren For 1. There was never any giving up our selves each to other whence such a Brotherhood doth result To this Mr. T. answers 1. By Saints he means such as are members of a particular instituted Congregational Church distinct from the Presbyterian for such only are accounted Saints by him as give up themselves each to other c. Answ False and untrue I am amazed to see with what conscience this matter is managed by him no regard seems to be had to truth and honesty so he can cast dirt upon his Antagonist 2. 'T is contrary to my avowed principle and practice 3. I do verily believe that there are many Saints in England that are neither for the Presbyterian Parochial or Congregational way yea with Dr. Ames Trip. p. 523. afterwards cited by him I doubt not to say according to my conscience that amongst those which live under the tyranny of the Popâ—s and do not utterly separate from him through ignorance there be many Christians belonging to the true Catholick Church and so to be accounted our godly Brethren viz. upon the account of their Catholicism and so I believe there are in the Church of England somâ— amongst the Ministers thereof of whom I say still I deny not but they may be good men But yet we say 4. That upon the account of Gospel-Communion they cannot be accounted by us as Brethren because they are as Mr. T. saith rightly no members of a Christian Church i. e. any particular instituted Church of Christ That which is added by him makes much against him 1. 'T is false That the Scriptures make all who hold the same Faith and are Baptized into Christ
that they might not be heard as gifted Brethren Of which he gives us three learned reasons 1. Because the withdrawing themselves from every Brother that walks disorderly cannot be meant of their excluding themselves from Hearing Praying or receiving the Lords Supper if such an one be present Answ Right but though this withdrawment from such a Brother cannot be meant of exclusion from hearing whilst he is present yet I hope it may from hearing him who walks thus disorderly The same may be said of receiving the Lords Supper If he be there as a looker-on meerly this ought not to hinder any from waiting upon Christ in that institution though the Church of England in imitation of the old Pagan custom of the Druides c. of old interdicts the Priests saying service whilst an excommunicate person is there but if he shall be forced upon the Congregation as a member to joyn with them in that ordinance and much more as their Minister to celebrate it as is our case it is the duty of the Saints to surcease the performance of that duty for that season It was the keeping themselves from being polluted that caused them to sever from him that reason remaining which it doth till he hath testified his repentance their withdrawment is to continue He adds 2ly That the withdrawment mentioned 2 Thes 3. 6 14. is only from arbitrary communion in entertainments c. Answ This is an old shift of Mr. T. we have already refuted He further tells us 3ly If we omit it we omit the Worship of God and so break his Commandments Answ 1. This is a meer petitio principii we deny the ministration of the Sacraments according to the rights of the Church of England to be the Worship of God strictly so called 2ly There 's no need through grace of omitting the Worship of God if we worship not with them there are meetings of his people whither we may have recourse to worship him in his own way To what follows in this chapter we have already answered We attend his advance towards the discussion of our third argument of which in the next chapter CHAP. IIII. Sect. 1. Such as act from an Antichristian calling not to be heard proved 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what it signifies Who is Antichrist what is Antichristian explained The Ministers of England derive their Office-power from the Papacie The Bishops of England Petty-Popes 'T is unlawful to attend upon the teachings of Antichrist therefore upon the teachings of such as act by a power derived from him Christ calls his People to separate from every thing of Antichrist Rev. 18. 4. and 14. 9. explained Of trying the Spirits 1 Joh. 4. 1. of Christs instituting Officers of his owâ— No promise of a blessing in attending upon an Antichristian Ministry IN Chap. 3. of S. T. a third Argument is produced against hearing the present Mâ—nisters viz. Those that act in the holy things of God by vertue of an Antichristian Power Office or Calling are not to be heard but to be seperated from But the present Ministers of England act in the holy things of God by vertue of an Antichristian Power Office or Calling Therefore The Major is evident for 1. The Power Office and Calling of Antichrist is opposite and contrary to the Power Office and calling of Christ not to separate from such as act by vertue of such an Office-power is to stand by and plead for Antichrist against Christ The sum of what Mr. T. answers hereunto is If by Antichristian Power Office and Calling be meant the Papal Power and the acting in the holy things be by preaching the doctrine of the Trent Council in the points determined therein against Protestants by administring Sacraments according to the Roman Missal and Discipline according to the Canon-Law of the Popes the Major is granted and the Minor denied But if by Antichristian power c. be meant by vertue of ministry according to the Liturgy Articles of Religion and Homilies of the Câ—urch of England from the Ordination and Licence of the Bishops his Major is denied that which he calls Antichristian is not truly such and it is denied that what he calls Antichristian is opposite and contrary to the Power Office and Calling of Christ Answ 1. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as this Animadverter tells us found only in the Epistle of John and principally 1 John 2. 18. where the Apostle distinguisheth between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 between the mean Antichrists and the main Antichrist The best interpretation of the word seems to be a false Christ or â— Counter-Christ one that under the pretence of being for Christ doth really oppose Christ the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both in opposition and composition signifies For in the Scripture as Mat. 2. 22. Acts. 13. 7. and in Classical Writers as Homer Hesycheius c. in his Offices Ministry Discipline Worship He is Antichrist that under the pretence of acting for Christ doth indeed though covertly act against him in his name and under the vizard of his authority That is Antichristian that though it be pretendedly for and from Christ it really is not And in this sense the Major is to be understood Those that act in the holy things of God viz. Praying Preaching Administration of Sacraments c. by vertue of a Power Office and Calling that is not though pretendedly really from Christ are to be separated from as we plainly declare in the first proof of the Major proposition in S. T. which Mr. T. would have disproved if he could But in the stead thereof he labours to raise a dust with a multitude of words before the eyes of the Reader that he might not be able to perceive wherein the weight of the Argument lay 2ly He acknowledges the Major to be true if understood of the Papal Power Office and Calling so that he which acts in the Holy things of God i. e. in Preaching for whether it be the doctrine of the Trent Councel or otherwise is not in this case considerable for if he act from an Antichristian Office-Power 't is not his preaching Truth which would make that Antichristian Office-Power Christian administration of Sacraments according to the Roman Missal and discipline according to the Canon-Law by vertue of an Antichristian Papal Power is not to be heard but in this sense he denies the Minor And I cannot but wonder at the confidence of the man doth he not know that they derive their Office-Power from the Papacy he is not so ignorant as noâ— to know it Do not the Bishops of England exercise the same power over the Clergy and Laity as they are called thereof as the Pope doth over his so that they are upon the matter Papilli Petty-Popes Is this power Antichristan in the Papacy and not so in the Prelacy Is not the manner of administation of Sacraments in use amongst us taken out of the Popish Missal Mr. T. knows
hitherto asserted it may be lawful to attend them We say in S. T. 4ly That there is not a command in the Scripture enjoyning Saints to take heed of being deceived to try the spirits but is an abundant demonstration of the truth of the first Proposition To which Mr. T. subjoyns 1. If by acting in the holy things of God by vertue of an Antichristian power be meant their acknowledging the power teaching the doctrine owning the calling of him that is truly Antichrist 't is granted Answ To this we have already replyed 'T is enough to prove any person ought to be separated from if he act in the holy things of God by vertue of an Antichristian power though the doctrine he preach be true He adds 2ly The Scriptures mentioned forbid command he means only to reject Antichristian Doctrine and Worship not every thing said by any without proof to be a thing of Antichrist Answ 1. Very well If we prove then the Worship of the Church of England to be Antichristian it is to be reiected Now it being the Worship of the Papacy which is acknowledged by him to be so I cannot see how it can be otherwise 2ly The Scriptures mentioned fairly import not only a command for the rejection of the Doctrine and Worship which is Antichristian but them also that pretend to be but really are not of God The persons are to be proved and tryed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 try them as Goldsmiths try Gold whether it be pure and right and if you find them not to be so reject them 1 John 4. 1. We proceed and in S. T. say further 5ly The institution of Officers of his own by Christ to be continued to the end of the World Eph. 4. 11. evinceth the truth of the Major proposition To this our Animadverter answers 1. 'T is true some of the Officers mentioned Ephes 4. are to be continued to the end of the World in the way appointed by him but that there is any particular way of Election of ordinary â—astors and Teachers in those words appears not Answ Who saith there is 'T is sufficient they prove the continuation of the Officers in the Church to be an Institution of Christ Of the particular way of their election we have mentioned elsewhere as we have shewed 2ly 'T is well this Animadverter will acknowledg that there is a way appointed by Christ in which Church-Officers are to be continued which as I conceive is a part of Church-Government which therefore cannot be left to such an indifferency as he sometimes intimates He tels us 2ly How the Major is proved by it he discerns not unless this be the Argument Christ hath appointed these therefore no other are to be heard which overthrowes the hearing of Gifted-Brethren Answ We are contented with the form our words are by him cast into only with this alteration therefore no other are to be heard as Ministers acting by vertue of an Office-Power which makes nothing against the hearing of gifted Brethren We further add in S. T. 6ly That there is no promise of a blessing in the whole Scripture upon persons attending upon such a Ministry Mr. T. replies 1. Though there be no promise of a blessing upon persons attending on such a Ministry yet if they Preach the Gospel truly there is Luk. 11. 28. Answ 1. 'T is not probable they should Preach the Gospel truly as touching the present Ministers of England they do not so 1. They preach it from a false mission 2ly They preach it by halves as is known 3. They mixt many humane traditions therewith and thereby obscure the Gospel as Mr. T. himself in his Fermentum Pharisaeorum asserts 4ly There is no blessing promised to persons attending upon such a Ministry Luk. 11. 28. Christ speaks not there of any such Ministry the whole of his intendment is that no external pâ—iviledge though it were to bear him in the Womb c. who was a true Messiah renders a man glorious blessed and excellent as a conformity to the divine will which how much it is to his purpose others will judge He saith 2ly If there were no promise of a blessing the Major is not proved unless this were true They are not to be heard but separated from to whose Ministry as such a blessing is not promised which makes unlawful the hearing of gifted Bretheren unless they can produce such a promise Answ Let me seriously ask this Animadverter whether he doth not when he goes to hear go to meet with God in that duty and to receive a blessing from him This he will not sure deny now I would know further whence it is he expects to meet with God and be blessed by him in his so doing can he or any one in the world give any other reason but this Because God hath promised to meet and bless his people while they are waiting on him in his own wayes Whether the work be managed by a Minister of Christ as acting by Office-power or a private Brother acting by vertue of Talents received for the profiting and edification of the Body we are not destitute of a promise of a blessing Exod. 20. 24. Isa 64. 5. Mat. 18. 20. Eph. 4. 11 to 15. But if we run to a false Ministry to such as act from an Antichristian office and calling I know not any promise of a blessing but rather the contrary So that the Major Proposition remains unshaken notwithstanding Mr. T. his Battery against it His next attempt is against the Minor of which in the next Section Sect. 2. The present Ministers of England act in the holy things of God by vertue of an Antichristian power office or calling proved They are not from Christ There is a twofold Church Ministry Worship Of Luthers Ministry The names office of the present Ministers their admission thereinto forreign to the Scripture Of Suffragan Bishops THat the present Ministers of England act in the holy things of God by vertue of an Antichristian power office or calling which is the Minor Proposition of the last mentioned Argument we say in S. T. wants not sufficient demonstration 1. The present Ministers of England are either from Christ or from Antichrist there is no medium That they are not from Christ besides what is already proved may be further evinced To which our Animadverter answers 1. Mr. Bradshaw asserts that there is a medium and that a Ministry may be from Christ in reâ—pect of the thing ministred though from Antichrist in respect of the way of entry into it yea he saith it is not necessary that the ministry of Priests and Deacons though ordained by Antichrist himself should be the ministry of his apostasie but notwithstanding his Ordination their ministry may be the Ministry of Jesus Christ as was the Ministry of Luther Hus c. Answ 1. All that Mr. Bradshaw saith is not Gospel nor to be believed because he saith it 2dly That the thing ministred should render that Ministry that
Synods yet was he not set over others nor endowed with greater power than the rest cap. conf Helvet prior Arti 15. the French Churches say We believe that all true Pastors wheresoever they are placed are endowed with equal authority under that only head high and sole universal Bishop Jesus Christ and therefore it is lawful for no one Church to claim authority and dominion over another cap conf gal Confes. Art 30. So say the Belgick Churches Bely conf Art 31. So that Mr. T. out of his great love and dutifulness to his Mother the Church of England is not sparing to cast dirt in the face of the Churches planted by the Apostles themselves and most or all the Reformed Churches at this day who own no such inequality as he pleads for and therefore were are all of them not well-ordered Churches in comparison at the least to her and the Church of Rome where the Hierarchie is established To the 16th parallel about holy Vestments he is able to object on-thing worth the considering The 17th is The Popish Priests are tyed to a book of stinted Prayers and a prescript Order devised by man for their Worship and Ministration so are the Ministers of England and that to such a one as is taken out of the Popes Portuis To this Mr. T. replies 1. The Assembly of Westminster prescribed a Directory for Worship Answ 1. Quid hoc ad Rhombum I am not in the least concern'd to justifie all that was done by that Assembly and am apt to think they might in that matter have spared their pains 2dly The same Assembly abhorred the Common-Prayer-Book Service as a most detestable and filthy Idol preached printed against it procured its Abolition 3dly Every one that knows any thing knows that upon various accounts there is no likeness betwixt these two None were compell'd to the use of this or that form of words by the Directory as in the Book of Common-Prayer He adds 2dly Those prayers and portions of Scripture which are holy and good are never the worse because they were in the Popes Portuis no more than the acknowledgement of Jesus to be the Son of the most High God is the worse because the Devil used it Mar. 5. 7. Answ 1. Of the Scriptures and that glorious Truth of Christ's Eternal Deity as the Son of the most High God and the Common-Prayer-Book-Service there is not the same reason They were from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit originally Divine this of man devised upon the prevailing of Apostacy upon the Churches of Christ imposed with threatnings cruelties and slaughters upon the Children of Christ by his professed Enemy abused by a confessed Idolatrous generation of men if there be any such in the world That because the abuse of the Scriptures and the Truths contained in them doth not render them the worse therefore a devised Service that it the best is wicked and abominable in its imposition intolerable used by Idolaters is not the worse I chalenge Mr. T. to make good 2. Though the Scriptures are not the worse because portions of them are read in the Romish Idolatrous Service yet the following the Romish Synagogue in curtailing the Scriptures reading one part of a Chapter at one time another at another and manifestly misapplying them causing them also to give place to the Apochryphal Writings is abominable He goes on 3dly That which is suggested as if the Common-Prayer-Book now in use were little different from the Popes Missal he tells us is untrue Answ 1. The Animadverter is a little mistaken We affirm in S. T. that the Common-Prayer-Book-Service used in King Edward the 6th's dayes and the Popes Missal were not much different And for the proof of that we produced the Testimony of the King and Council which we thought M. T. would never have questioned That the Common-Prayer-Book now in use and that then used is not much different every body knows 2dly 'T is true all that is in the Pope 's Missal is not in the Common-Prayer-Book nor did any one ever assert this but the most that is in the Common-Prayer-Book is stolen out of the Popes Missal The Epistles and Gospels the Prayers or Collects the rites and usages therein joyned are so and this Mr. T. denyes not I had thought to have represented the truth of this to the eye of the Reader by exhibiting our English and the Popes Latine Masse at one view to him which I have by me faithfully collected and compared together But the swelling of this Treatise unexpectedly and the difficulty of printing any thing of this nature that is voluminous through the tyranny of the Prelates makes me wholly to lay aside that intendment to a fitter season if need be The summe of what we have been offering in this matter we say in S. T. is this 1. Those Ministers that in their names office admission into their offices are not to be found in the Scripture are not Ministers of Christ act not by vertue of an Authority Office-power Calling received from him 2. Those Ministers that in their names office admission into their office are at a perfect agreement with the Ministers of Antichrist such are the Popish Priests acknowledged to be are not the Ministers of Christ But such as have been abundantly demonstrated are the present Ministers of England Therefore The Minor Mr. T. saith is manifestly false he hath said nothing to prove it in the main Answ This is soon said had he proved it manifestly false be had done somewhat Whether any thing considerable hath been offered by us for the proof of the Minor others besides Mr. T. and I will now judge Sect. 4. The present Ministers of Engl. proved Antichristian They act from a Power Office and Calling received from a Lord-Bishop whose Office is Antichristian The opinion of the Learned touching them Their Office is not to be found in the Scripture Eph. 4. 11. Rom. 12. 7 8. 1 Tim. 3. 12. Acts 14. 23. Tit. 1. 5 7. Acts 20. 28. know them not They were not known in the Church for some hundreds of years after The Office of lord-Lord-Bishops wherein it consists Of Diotrephes his asserting Supremacy Our Bishops neither Evangelists nor Pastors nor Teachers nor Apostles proved Mat. 28. 19. explained Of the Rise of Episcopacy The Testimonies of Dr. Hammond Whitaker Reynolds Eusebius c. touching it WE further prove in S. T. The present Ministers of England act in the holy things of God by virtue of an Antichrâ—stan Power Office and Calling Because 2dly That they act from a Power Office and Calling received from a Lord-Bishop whose Office is Antichristian This the summe To which Mr. T. replies That neither himself nor any sober Writer judged them Antichristian Answ 1. Whether he once so judged of them his taking the Covenant to extirpate them wherein they are condemned as Antichristian will evince 2. What he or I judge them is not material that no sober Writer or considerate man that
which yet they do but rarely if at all is not the Succession pleaded for by our Prelates They care not for Preaching hinder oppose it many of them dreading it as the Engine in the hand of the Spirit that would shake their Kingdom and utterly overturn and demolish it so they may have their Lordships Pleasures and Pallaces 'T is not indeed Antichristian for me to confess the Apostles Creed because it is conveyed to our hands through the Papacy for however it cannot be so called because the Apostles were the Formers of it which they were not yet the matter thereof being except in one Article bottom'd upon the Scriptures I ought to confess it But this is remote from what he is pleading for viz. A personal succession of Bishops through the Papacy receiving their Power and Authority from the man of Sin which I say still whilst the Bishops pretend to they do therein proclaim their shame and yeeld the matter in controversie though their Advocate shamefully prevaricates that he may with a multitude of words cover their nakedness omitting the consideration of what was incumbent upon him especially to have removed out of the way viz. The Arguments produced to evince That the Apostles as Apostles had no successor in that their Office Which if it remain good the present Bishops most assuredly cannot be their Successorâ— as Apostles He adds 5thly That Bishops as a Superior order or degree above Presbyters were not dreamt of in the world for several hundreds of years after Christ he thinks can hardly be made good but he wisely reâ—reats with a Protestation that he will not enter the lists with respect to that point The truth is he knows it hath been proved and that with that strength of evidence that he cannot bear up against That Clemens his not takeing notice of them as distinct from Presbyters is ballanced by the passages in Ignatius his Epistles which I am perswaded he rejects as spurious and counterfeit I am sure it were easie to manifest them to be so it is already done by others is such a pitiful covert that a man would never fly to but in case of extreme necessity when he knows not what to say Lombards words import he grants that the order of Bishops above Presbyters was not known till after the Apostles dayes and if so they are no order of divine institution in which he once more perfectly yeelds the cause they are not of the institution of Christ in the Scripture Though he cannot prove that by the primitive Church Lombard means the Churches in the dayes of the Apostles his words seem to import somewhat more And Bellarmins himself acknowledgeth that the name of Elders was given in common to Bishops and Elders And Eusebius lib. 5. c. 24. calls Victor Anicetus Pius Telesphorus Xistus who was almost three hundred years after Christ Bishops of Rome Elders And the learned Whitaker ingenuously confesseth That betwixt an Elder and a Bishop there was of old no difference That such Bishops as are now in the Roman Church in the English Church we may as truly say were from the beginning is most false and can never be proved There were then more Bishops i. e. Pastors of one Church Act. 20. 17. contr 2. q. 5. c. 6. p. 284. But Mr. T. tells us 'T is enough for his purpose if the office be found in Scripture though not their Superiority Answ And is this your pleading for your Clients Seriously Sir you would discourage any person in the world from entertaining you as his Advocate when you are exposing your Client thus to ruin by your own pleadings at every turn The question is whether the office of Lord-Bishops which as such consists in there Superiority jurisdiction over the Priests and Ministers of England be of the institution of Christ Saith Mr. T. their Superiority is not Very good what needed so many words to no purpose 't is well however he will be so ingenuous as to confess at last that the juridicial office of Lord-Bishop is not of Christs institution The words of Dr. Hammond he grants to be as we recite them but thinks we misapply them But certainly if as the Dr. saith a Primary Metropolitical seat was constituted over Episcopal Seats and Churches viz. such as are Diocesan that their state and frame may be accommodated to the state and condition of the Government of the Nations in the Empire he that hath but half an eye will see that hence it follows that the Primacy and Supremacy of the Bishops over these Churches was the result of the designs of men to accommodate the state and frame of the Church to the state and condition of the Government of the Nations But the truth of this Assertion depends not upon the Doctors concession it s notoriously known and acknowledged by several others The distribution of Churches ordinarily followed the destribution of the Common-wealth so that when some Regions were subjected to the Civil jurisdiction in any City the same were ordinarily subjected also to the Ecclesiastical and as they were reckoned to be of the same Province in respect of the Civil so were they of the same Church or Diocess in respect of the Spiritual Government saith Rainoldes Confer with Hart. And the Council of Constantinople decreed That if any new City by the Authority of the Emperor was erected that the order of Ecclesiastical things should follow the Civil and Publick form Hence by the same Council Constantinople receives the Primacy because it was New Rome Can. 5. which before Old Rome enjoyed for that very reason But that you may understand how the Pope incroached on Bishops by degrees untill of an Equal he became a Soveraign first over a few next over many at last over all I must fetch the matter of Bishops Metropolitans and Arch-Bishops somewhat higher and shew how Christian Cities Provinces and Diocesses were alotted to them First therefore when Elders were ordained by the Apostles in every Church Act. 14. 23. through every City Tit. 1. 5. to feed the flock of Christ whereof the Holy Ghost had made them overseers Act. 20. 28. They to the intent they might the better do it by common councel and consent did use to assemble themselves and meet together In which meetings for the more orderly handling and concluding of things pertaining to their charge they chose one amongst them to be the President of their Company and Moderator of their actions And this is he whom afterward in the Primitive Church the â—athers called Bishop i. e. the President of the Presbyters who was thâ— Bishop of the chiefest City whom they called the Metropolitane For a Province as they termed it was the same with them that a Shire is with us And the Shire-town as you would say of the Province was called Metropolis i. e. the Mother-City In which as the Judges and Justices with us do hear at certain times the causes of the whole Shire So the Ruler of the
Province with them did minister Justice and made his abode there ordinarily Whereupon by reason that men for their business made great concourse thither the Church was wont to furnish it of Godly Polity with the worthiest Bishop eâ—dued with gifts above his Brethren And they reposed in him such assiance that they did not only commit the Presidentship of their Assemblies to him Concil Antioch â—an 20. Chalced. can 19. But agreed also that none throughout all the Province should be made Bishop without his consent nor any weightier matter be done by them without him Concil Nic. can 4 6. Concil Antioc can 9. Now the Roman Empire was governed in such sort that the Circuits of the Lord-Presidents had many Provinces within them and were called Diocesses Through occasion whereof the Bishops of those Cities in which these Lievtenants of the Emperor were resident The state Ecclesiastical following the Civil Wolfgang Luzu Comment Reip. Rom. l. 2. c. 2. did grow in power too Neither were they only named Arch-Bishops and Patriarks of the Diocess i. â— the chiefest Bishops and Fathers of that Circuit which the Lieutenant ruled but also obtained that the Metropolitans of the Provinces in their Diocess should be likewise subject and obedient to them as Bishops were to Metropolitans So the Arch-Bishop and Patriarch of Antioch had Prerogatives given him through the Diocess of the East wherein were seven Provinces Concil Const 1. can 2. Concil Antio in exord So nothing could be done in the Diocess of Egypt which under the Bishop had ten Metropolitans without the consent of the Arch-Bishop and Patriarch of Alexandria Conc. Chalc. Act. 4. so it was granted to the Arch-Bishop and Patriarch of Constantinople that the Metropolitans of the Diocesses of Pontus Asia Thracia within which were twenty eight Provinces should be ordained by him Finally so was it decreed that if a Bishop had any matter of Controversies with the Metropolitan of his own Province the Patriark of the Diocess should be Judge thereof Concil Chalced. can 9. 17. as also if any man did receive injury of his own Bishop or Metropolitan Thus were the Roman Popes as they are called now first Bishops over Elderâ— within their own City next Metropolitans over Bishops within their own Province Then Arch-Bishops and Patriarks over Metropolitans within their own Diocess And this is the Princely Diocess which I meant when I said that the Pope in the time of Pelagius was become Arch-Bishop of the Princely Diocess but he was yet but an Arch-Bishop He was not universal Pope and Patriarch of the whole World For although the Patriark of Constantinople being puffed up because in his City the Emperor himself was resident he would be called the Patriark of the whole world as the Emperor was called the Lord of the world Greg. Regist l. 4. Epist 39. yet the Roman Patriarks Pelagius Gregory did withstand his Pride Rainolds Confer with Hart c. 8. Beza also Thes Geneves tells us that the Fathers in the distribution of Churches under Bishops Arch-Bishops c. followed the type or pattern of the Roman Emperor And the learned Brightman in Rev. 13. 4. tells us that they are the worshipers of the Dragon in the Beast who wonder at the Pâ—imacy for the Political Majesty of the Dragon granted by the Councel of Chalcedon Act. 16. Indeed in Clements Constitutions we find if possible a more filthy source from whence their original is asserted In the place where they were before first-Flamines Petâ—r commanded Patriarks to be placed and in Cities where before were Arch-Flamines Arch-Bishops the rest were only Bishops That we had hâ—re in England twenty eight Head-Priests which they called Flamineâ— and three Arch-Priests among them which were called Arch-Flamines which had the oversight of their manners and were as Judges over the rest is known hence the pattern of our Arch-Bishops and Bishops Sect. 5. The office of Lord-Bishops contrary to express precepts of Christ Mat. 20. 25. Mark 10. 42. Luke 22. 25. 1 Pet. 5. 3. considered Of the titles of Dr. of Divinity c. The office of Lord-Bishops derived from and only to be found in the Papacy The Popes of Rome the head of Antichrist No Lord-Bishop till after Constantine Of the first Nicene Council whether there were any Lord-Bishops before what difference betwixt Lord-Bishops then and now Of the retention of the same office in the Greek Eastern Russian Churches The difference betwixt the Superintendency of the Lutheran Churches and our Bishops An Objection answered The Bishops of England act not in the matter of Ordination as Presbyters THat the office of Lord-Bishops is contrary to express precepts of Christ in the Scripture is the second part of our Minor Proposition which in S. T. we prove from Mat. 20. 25. Mark 10. 42. Luke 22 25. 1 Pet. 5. 3. To which Mr. T. answers 1. That we shoot wide of the mark Answ This we have already replied to His instance of the Titles of Doctor of Divinity in the Schools is not at all to the purpose They pretend not to any Ecclesiastical jurisdiction over Elders and Churches by vertue of their being invested into such titles as our L-Bishops do 2dly He considers the particular Scriptures instanced in to which what to reply he seems to be much at a loss 1. He would have the words of the Evangelists not to be a precept shewing their duty but a prediction manifesting the event of what should be Answ 1. This is expresly contrary to the letter of the Text. 2. The Lordship Supremacy Superiority call it what you please is a Lordship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 amongst themselves over one another that is interdicted and forbidden by Christ that it was lawful for them to exercise such a Supremacy this Animadverter will not say now this must be supposed if the words be not a precept but a prediction 3dly He expresly tells us in his Romanism discussed Art 7. Sect. 8. p. 174. l. 14. That Superiority is in these words plainly forbidden 2ly He is inclined to think that if it be a precept it is a precept to the Apostles only not to others Answ 1. Then not to the Pope then Mr. T. palpably abuseth this Scripture in his Roman discussed Art 7. Sect. 8. p. 173. where from hence he argues and enveighs against the Pope's Supremacy But 2ly as good he may say that the great Doctrines of Self-denial frequently pressed by Christ upon the Apostles is a precept only to them 3ly We find the Apostle charging the same thing upon the Elders 1 Pet. 5. 3. who knew the mind of his Lord in this matter it 's to be thought as well as Mr. T. He tells us 3dly If it be a precept to others besides the Apostles whether to all Christians or only to Ministers of the Gospel and whether it forbid simply Dominion at all or tyranical Dominion is doubtful Answ And yet the first he positively affirms within ten or eleven lines
not to be an order above Presbytery Answ 1. Who they are that have thus acknowledged I know not 2. Mr. T. saith not that any of the present Bishops do so 3. If they did in words their practice contradicts it exercising jurisdictions over the Presbyters or Elders 3dly Nor to this saith he that though the Bishop imposing hands do act as of superior order yet being a Presbyter his act is valid as he that convey's a thing as conceiving himself as Heir and Executor if he be not Heir yet if he be only Executor by that hath power to convey iâ— the Grant is good Answ 1. But this is Mr. T. his mistake I say expresly though it should be granted that they act as Presbyters yet their act is not valid because they act not as Presbyters of the institution of Christâ— of which he afterwards takes notice Though 2dly Mr. T. will never be able to prove that the Bishop imposing hands as a Bishop and acting under that capacity yet being a Presbyter his act is valid For. 1. when a Bishop he is no longer a Presbyter but one of an higher order and degree as a Presbyter is no longer a Deacon when once made a Presbyter 2. As a Bishop he hath no authority from Christ at all to act in the business of imposition of hands therefore acting as such his act is invalid which his once being a Presbyter cannot make otherwise because he is not now so nor acts as such but avowedly the contrary 3. His instance of a persons conveying a thing as conceiving himself as Heir and Executor is not pertinent For. 1. He hath originally and legally the same right if he be one as if both and pretends to a right to both in his conveyance 2ly Should he refuse his Executorship and make a Conveyance as Heir and he prove not to be so his Conveyance is naught Nay 3. if he make a Conveyance of what neither as Heir or Executor he hath any right to the Grant is undoubtedly not good This is evidently the case of our Lord-Bishops To the objection as proposed by us we answer 1. That they act in the capacity of Presbyters in the matter of ordination is false 2. Contrary to their avowed principles Mr. T. replies This is uncertain Answ And he may as well say it is uncertain that the Sun shines at noon-day The least smatterer in the usages of the Church of England and principles of these Doctors thereof see and know it to be certainly true 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-Bishop Mr. T. replies This is not true for the ordination of Suffragan-Bishops who are not Lords is valid by Law Answ A weak proof of such a crimination A Suffragan-Bishop is a Titular-Bishop when he acts in the matter of ordination he represents the Lord-Bishop whose Suffragan he is And the Law accounts his act not his own but the act of the Lord-Bishop whose Representee hee is And this Mr. T. could not be ignorant of We say 3dly 'T is 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 What saith Mr. T. Why 1. They do not nullify ordination by a Presbytery in forrain Churches Answ But this is not at all to the purpose have they not done so at home To attempt to do so in forraign Churches where they have no power were but to expose themselves to greater contempt as busy Bishops indeed 2dly In England they do it because the Laws saith he require Episcopal Ordination Answ But Sir the question is not upon what accounts they have so done in England but whether their so doing be not a manifestation that they act not in the capacity of Presbyters in the business of Ordination for if they did they fore-condemn their own act in condemning Presbyterian ordination their ordination being upon this supposition onely such 2dly He grants The Law requires Episcopal ordination if so it doth sure tie them that act in it to think themselves Bishops to act with such an intention and under that notion which not many lines before he denyed We further answer in S. T. 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 To which our Animadverter replies If this be held then all the Presbyters of the French Dutch and other Churches under Presbyterial goverment are not of Christs institution and so a separation avowed from all Protestant Churches except their own Answ 1. But this is no proof that the Bishops of England act in the matter of ordination as Presbyters of the institution of Christ which is the one and onely thing he should have heeded in his reply but of that he is wholly silent 2dly No doubt he thinks he hath sufficiently bespatter'd uâ— but if he account it a discredit to speak palpable untruths it will be his own 1. 'T is false that we avow separation from all Churches but those of our own way that our Assertion tends to such an end I challenge our Dictator to make good 2. The Presbyterians own particular Churches of the institution of Christ have their Presbyters fixed officers in and amongst them and that both in England and beyond the Seas What satisfaction he will think meet to make us for so foul an aspersion whereby he labours to render us odious to the Godly at home abroad we shall know by the next In the mean while we are ready to attend his motions in the next Chapter CHAP. V. Sect. 1. The fourth Argument in S. T. against hearing the present Ministers vindicated A twofold denial of the Offices of Christ Whether the Papists are guilty of a verbal professional denial of Christs Offices 'T is not lawful to hear such as are guilty of a verbal or real denial of Christs Offices The present Ministers oppose the Kingly and Prophetical Offices of Christ They do so who hearken not to that revelation Christ hath made touching the Orders of his House Deut. 18. 18 19. Act. 3. 23. Mat. 3. 17. Isa 9. 6. explained The vanity of Mr. T. his dictates to the contrary evinced IN Chap. 4th of S. T. we advance a fourth Argument against hearing the present Ministers which is this Those that deny any of the Offices of Christ are not to be heard but separated from But the present Ministers deny some of the Offices of Christ Therefore Before we come to clear the several
that heareth or receiveth Mat. 10. 40. him heareth or receiveth him that sent him viz. the Father as most certain it is I do not see that this can be accused of weakness and invalidity though such an one as Mr. T. cares not it may be to hear of viz. that he who heareth the Parish-Ministers heareth the Bishops and he who heareth the Bishops heareth the Pope from whom they originally received and derive their power and authority And yet it may be this may not be so distastful to this Animadverter as I had thought whom I already find pag. 344. pleading it lawful to hear the Jesuites a fair advance towards the personal hearing of his Holiness Thus insuccesful is Mr. T. in producing Testimonies every one of them speaking otherwise than he would have them and much to the disadvantage of the cause he undertakes the management of Nor do we say that the many Precepts in the Old-Testament about Hearing are vacated we rather establish them whilst we make it part of instituted Worship God was of old to be attended in his speaking in and by his Servants and Prophets whom he instituted and inspired to whom the Word of God came to communicate it to his People They that indeed came in his Name were to be heeded and hearkned unto and that by obligation from positive Law and Institution So are those that now come in the Name of Christ the alone Lord Lâ—wgiver and King over his House to whom all Power is given and intrusted by the Father who hath appointed his Stewards in his absence over his Houshold to give them their portion of meat in due season Luke 12. 42. Nor will those of the Houshold be ever able to acquit or justifie themselves before the Lord when he cometh if a thief or stranger break-in upon them and eject the Stewards appointed by him in their attendance upon him to say the meat he feeds us with is our Lord's meat which 't is true they should be ready to receive but from the hands destined and appointed to give it them 2dly Mr. T. supposeth that what is spoken of the Law and the Prophets Luk. 16. 29. is spoken as obliging to New-Testament-Saints but without the least attempt of proof If his own Ipse dixit will not carry the cause and persons will not suffer themselves to be guided by a worse if possible than the Popish phanatique Câ—edo or implicite Faith there is not much danger of his captivating any to his at present espoused opinion This being most usually the whole of what is tendred by way of evidence of what he is pleased confidently to aver from one end of his Theodulia to the other The contrary is evident 1. 'T is spoken to the Pharisees v. 14 15. 2dly One part of the aim and intendment of our Lord in the Parable seems to be to exalt the Institutions of God above whatever may be fixt upon by the children of men one or other of them as more probable to effect what they are instituted and appointed by the Lord for The rich man supposed that if one rose from the dead and testified to his Brethren they would repent v. 28. 30. No saith Abraham i. e. Christ If they will not hear Moses and the Prophets neither will they be perswaded though one arose from the dead Hereby testifying the unalterable obligations that lie upon persons what ever specious pretences of edification profit or the like may be urged by the sons of men to an attendment upon Divine Institutions Not as if the Lord would have his New-Testament Saints attend upon Moses's Appointments or go to Mount Sinai for the pattern of his Gospel-Worship 3dly v. 16. he expresly tells us that the Law and the Prophets were but until John and since that time the Kingdom of God or Gospel-Church-state frequently so called in Scripture is preached But suppose Mr. T. had evinced or should ever be able to do so that the words of Christ did respect New-Testament-Believers any otherwise than hath already been intimated by us he had need do one thing more before they will stand him in any stead viz. manifest that they are spoken by Christ with relation to Worship that therein New-Testament-Believers are to be regulated by Moses and the Prophets for if they respect onely the Doctrine taught by the peculiar Types of that day and the Truths dropped by them touching Christ the Messiah they make nothing at all to his purpose which when he hath done Erit mihi magnus Apollo Nor doth 2 Pet. 1. 19. the other place cited by him contribute the least mite of assistance to his dying cause The Apostle understanding by Divine Revelation as 't is thought that he must shortly dye v. 14. As he was resolved whilst he lived not to cease to call upon them and stir them up as v. 12 13. so he was willing to leave this Epistle with them to put them in remembrance of the great things he had taught and communicated to them v. 15. which he tells them v. 16. were not cunningly devised fables so artificially interwoven as though they seemed to be true they were most false store of which had been in those dayes invented by Jews and Poets Oh no! had they been so he could have had no comfort in the review of them now he was going off the stage of the world which he had not having followed these when he made known unto them the power and coming or the powerful coming or coming in the power of our Lord Jesus Câ—rist manifested to be so in the efficacy of his Doctrine working Miracles his Resurrection from the dead they were he tells them eye-witnesses of his Majesty The honour and glory whereof he proves by a double Argument 1. The testimony and witness the Father bare of Christ the honour and glory put upon him when that Voice came from Heaven when he was on the Mount transfigured before them viz. Peter James and John 2dly From the word of Prophecy lest they should think the former Apparition was a fiction of his own he acquaints them that the Prophets have testified of his coming and glory Of which Word of Prophecy he asserts 1. That 't is of no private â—nterpretation i. e. the holy men to whom it came gave it forth as they received it from God without putting any of their own glosses meanings private interpretations to it 2dly That to this they do well to take heed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to which taking heed ye do excellently worthily and as becometh Saints as unto a light that shineâ—h in a dark place Yet 3dly with this limitation as to the time of their so doing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 until the day dawn and the day-star arise in their hearts Which if we should interpret of the day of the Gospel and the more clear revelation of the administrations thereof which some learned and judicious men do as the Assembly in their Annotations on the place
Audi dicit Dominus non dicit Donatus aut Rogatus aut Vincentius aâ—t Hilarius aut Ambrosius aut Augustinus sed dicit Dominus And Epist 112. I will not have you follow mine authority to think it necessary that you believe any thing therefore because I say it And generally abhorred by the Reformed Churches The Helvetian Confession speaks roundly and fully to this matter Quapropter non patimur nos c. Wherefore we suffer not our selves in controversies of Religion or matters of Faith to be imposed upon with the bare opinions of the Fathers or determinations of Councils much less by received customs or the multitude of persons thinking the same things or by prescription of long time We admit no other Judge of Faith than God himself pronouncing by the holy Scriptures what is true what false what is to be imbraced what not We rest in the judgments of none but such as are spiritual taken from the Word of God Harmon Conf. cap. 2. Certainly Jeremiah and the rest of the Prophets grievously condemned the Councils of the Priests instituted against the Law of God and diligently admonished that we hearken not to Fathers or go in their wayes who walking in their own inventions decline from the Law of God Before the consciences of any can be satisfied in the judgment and practice of the Fathers primitive Writers two things they had need be assured of 1. That what is handed out to them be indeed their sayings and practices whose they are pretended to be For suppose my conscience ought to be satisfied in what they say or do yet I had need be assured that what I reade or hear of their sayings or practices be indeed theirs and not the interpolations or impostures of others fraudulently mixed in their Writings and imouted to them which this Animadverter knows to be no easie matter to assure any body of The most of them have unquestionably been exposed to corruption and adulteration by them into whose hands they have fallen from whom we have received them Particular instances whereof lie near at hand to be produced were it needful Of Ignatius his Epistles some talk much that they are at least wondrously corrupted if not wholly forged and counterfeit were easie to demonstrate To mention only what you have Epist. 2. Fear and reverence your Bishop as Christ for so the holy Apostles commanded you He that obeyeth the Bishop and Presbyters is within the Altar and abides pure but he who doth any thing without the Bishops and Presbyters is without the Altar defiled in his conscience and more miserable than an Infidel For what is a Bishop but one endued with the power of Christ who is God whose prescript as man he follows and obtains Authority more sublime than all Empire and Principality And what is the Presbytery but an holy Council the Counsellors and Assessors of the Bishop And Epist 7. speaking of the same persons Amongst all men I will not say none are more excellent but none can be found so like to God c. Expressions that the simplicity of that Age was wholly ignorant of and could not entertain without a blush nor think of but with great abhorrency of spirit The like may be said of other of the Ancients Ambrose is made to speak after this rate The Episcopal honour and dignity can be by no comparisons adaequated if you compare it to the fulgor of Kings and diadem of Princes this would â—e as much beneath it as if thou shouldst compare Lead to the brightness of Gold For thou mayest see the necks of Kings and Princes bowed down to the knees of Priests c. De Dignitat Sacerd. cap. 2. And cap. 3. There is nothing in this World to be found more excellent than Priests nothing more sublime than Bishops Which those who have in the least enquired into the state of affairs in that Age will be constrained to acknowledge to be counterfeit and spurious The like may be manifested of the rest and of these in other points but that design would require a Treatise by iâ— self larger than we intend this to be But 2ly suppose things with respect to them were otherwise than we have manifested them to be and we could be ascertained that thus they said and writ thus they did and practised we had need ere our consciences could be satisfied be ascertained of one thing more viz. That in their Writings they were as the Prophets and Apostles guided by an unerring Spirit that in their practice they were to be our examples for if I am not assured that what they write is infallibly true I am not to believe it for sure it will not be pleaded that there is any obligation lies upon me to imbrace what any man saith right or wrong because he saith it and yet except I believe it conscience will not cannot be satisfied in their indoctrination Now this is infallibly false Mr. T. knows who writ retractations of a great deal he had writ before and had he lived longer we might have see more Books of retractations And this they themselves acknowledg So Austine I cannot deny but there are many things in my Works as there are in the Writings of my Ancestors which justly and with good discretion may be blamed D. 9. Negat And Anselme writes that in their Books which the Church reads many times are found things corrupt and heretical Comment in 2 Cor. Let the wise Reader peruse their Books and he shall find this true that I say The same may be said of the practice of the Fathers Of what they did we have uncertain rumours wherein they acted exorbitantly and not according to rule they are not to be heeded So that not what the Father 's said and did is sufficient to satisfie my conscience in any point but only what Jehovah speaks in the Scripture All which I say not to detract from the true worth of the Worthies of old but to manifest the weakness of Mr. T. his Assertion That it will not conduce much or be of good use to satisfie mens consciences c. wherein truly it is of no use at all not being appointed by the Lord for such an end though I deny not but to other ends and purposes it may be useful as for stopping the mouths of Adversaries who glory in the Fathers and primitive Writers as if they were all for them To remove prejudices out of the minds of people against Truth upon account of its seeming novelty c. as I said in S. T. Nor shall I at any time refuse for the manifestation of the vain brag of persons that they have all Antiquity on their side though I cannot admit of what they say into my Creed because they say it the only foundation of Faith being the infallible speakings of God in the Scriptures to debate from thence the matters in controversie with Mr. T. And doubt not but it may be made manifestly to appear that things are
and what is his satisfaction to the removal of the offence given to the Church 4. The Parisian Doctors say truly Ecclesiam nunquam c. The Church cannot be taken for one person nor be govern'd by one Of which the Learned Chamier gives his reason How can it be that the Bishop should be the Church according to whose Ecclesiastical Authority things should be determined Mat. 18. when a long time after the Bishop himself by humane authority had his original of which Ambrose complains And as soon as the Lord had said tell the Church he speaks in the plural number all along afterward Verily I say unto you Whatsoever Ye shall bind on Earth c. Whence it plainly appears that the Church is not taken for one person but for many congregated together Pol. Eccles Yea Sutcliffe when disputing against Bellarmine saith Christ did not constitute the chief Tribunal in the hands of Peter but of the Church for not those who refused to hear Peter but those who refused to hear the Church were to be accounted as Heathens and Publicans De Pontif. Rom. l. 1. c. 5 6. Besides in matters of controversie Peter himself was subject to the Tribunal of the Church But a superiour cannot be judged by an inferiour If any controversie happened amongst the Apostles that could not be defined by particular persons but a Council of the Church was to be congregated This we see done Acts 15. Now one would think our present Bishops should not be so arrogant as to assume that power to themselves which when disputing with the Papists they will not allow to Peter 2dly In the judgment of our Brethren of the Presbyterian way Tell the Church is tell the Presbytery But they are I humbly conceive somewhat wide of the mark too My Reasons are 1. The Church is sometimes put for the Congregation as distinct from the Presbytery or Elders and Officers Acts 14. 23. 15. 22. never for these as distinct from the Congregation throughout the New-Testament 2. The Presbytery may be the party offending and then you must tell the Church that the Church offendeth i. e. go tell themselves But the Scripture is express that after private dealing with the offenders themselves upon non-amendment the Church as distinct from them is to be acquainted with it 3. What if the Presbytery themselves be offended whom shall they tell must they tell themselves If they are the Church they can go no further 4. Besides we find 1 Cor. 5. not the Presbytery alone but the whole Church concerned in the matter of Excommunication of which our Brethren confess Christ here treateth This Animadverter manifests his good will to interpret it of an Assembly of the Jews in their Synedrium or if extended as a direction to Christian Brethren whether to refer it to their Assembly under an Ecclesiastical consideration or Political i. e. the Christian Magistrate he seems to demur with an apparent inclination to the latter To the first of these Mr. Cotton answers †Treat of the Keys p. 40 An. 3. It is not credible that Christ would send his Disciples to make complaint of their offences to the Jewish Synagogues for is it likely he would send his Lambs and Sheep for right and healing unto Wolves and Tygres Both their Sanhedrim and most of their Synagogues were no better And if here and there some Elders of their Synagogues were better affected yet how may it appear that so it was where any of themselves dwelt And if that might appear too yet had not the Jews already agreed that if any man did confess Christ he should be cast out of the Synagogues Joh. 9. 22. To which we add 2dly Christ knew that within a little while the Synedrim and whole Church-Policy of the Jews would be at an end And 3dly in the mean while charges his Disciples to have nothing to do with them Mat. 15. 14. Tell them that they would persecute kill them and think in doing so they did God good service As it fell out afterwards accordingly So that it cannot with the least shew of reason be imagined that Christ should direct them to appeal to them and stand to their final determination 2dly The second desires not a reply Go tell the Church i. e. go tell the Magistrate is so wild an interpretation that the bare naming it is the giving it too much honour 1. The Magistrate is no where called the Church 2dly The Magistrate quâ talis hath nothing to do in the stating and determining Church-Controversies 3dly Sometimes and for the most part they have ever since been for above three hundred years afterward they undoubtedly were no members of the Church but enemies to it destroyers of it Mr. T. adds that he can find no Institution by preception or command of a Church i. e. there is no such thing as an instituted Church of Christ under the Gospel but 't is left to the prudence of men c. to determine whether they shall be Domestick Congregational Parochial Classical Diocesan Provincial Patriarchal or Oecumenical which how derogatory to the Honour and Sovereign Authority of Jesus Christ to his love and tenderness to his Children to his Faithfulness with respect to the obligation that lay upon him as Mediator to reveal the whole will of the Father to them others will judge For my part I am fully of his mind who some while since said That there were particular Churches instituted by the Authority of Jesus Christ ordained and approved by him that Officers for them were of his appointment and furnished with gifts from him for the execution of their employment That Rules Cautions and Instructions for the due settlement of those Churches were given by him that these Churches were made the only seat of that Worship which in particular he expressed his will to have continued until he came is of so much light in Scripture that he must wink hard that will not see it Which is as much as we need to say to this Animadverter in this matter what he saith herein being meer dictates of his own without proof which when he shall be able to evince that Christ hath not the Government of his Churches upon his shoulders that he is not sole King and Lord over them or having so hath not given them Rules to walk by of his own but left them to the liberty of their own wills or which is worse the wills of such as by Providence are permited to ascend the Throne though such as whilst they profess to know God in works deny him being abominable and disobedient and to every good work reprobate he will be supposed to say something in way of confirmation But of this more in Sect. 15. 'T is true de facto Parochial Classical Diocesan Provincial Patriarchical and Oecumenical Churches by the prudence of men c. have had and yet have their being it the World and the Animadverter deals ingenuously in acknowledging that their original
it is Is not the Discipline of their Church from the Canon Law with what forehead can he deny it Whence is the Hierarchy Ecclesiastical decrees Episcopal jurisdiction Procurations Dispensations Pluralities Non-residencies Popish-retained-Ceremonies their Excommunications by a Commissary Ordinations Absolutions Degradations Visitations Offerings Courts Silencing of Godly Preachers disquieting the Lords people for Non-conformity if not from the Cannon-Law These things are notoriously known to be from them So that Mr. T. grants the present Ministers may lawfully be separated from But this might be a slip of his pen before he was aware That it is our duty to separate from persons acting from an Antichristian Power Office or Calling we prove 2ly 'T is unlawful to attend upon the Teachings of Antichrist therefore upon the teachings of such as act by vertue of a power derived from him To this Mr. T. replyes If by teachings of Antichrist be meant the teachings of the present Doctrine of the Church of Rome and the power derived from him be meant the English Bishops Ordination it is impudency to say they derived their power from Rome Answ 1. We are not yet speaking of the Ministers of England to separate from those that act from an Antichristian power be they Ministers of Germany Holland if they so act in their Ministry they are to be seperated from and that because we may not attend upon Antichrist in his Teachings or Ministration doth Mr. T. deny tâ—is He saith indeed if they preach truth we may attend upon their Ministry though they so act Answ But this hath been often said without the least proof and as frequently replyed to and its inconsutilousness in its applâ—cation to the present Ministers who preach Popish Errours and are interdicted the preaching all truth manifested 'T is an assertion most derogatory to the Dignity and Authority of our Lord and King and not to be born by his Loyal Subjects Hath not he Servants enough of his own to do his work to preach his Gospel but he must be beholding to the greatest enemies he hath in the world to send forth Servants into his Vineyard 2dly The present Ministers of England deny their power from the Papacy or they do not if they do not it had been my mistake not impudency to say they did If they do as most certain it is they do and they themselves acknowledge it and plead it the Impudency is rather in Mr. T. to deny it I add in S. T. 3dly Christ calls his to separate from every thing of Antichrist Rev. 18. 4. 14. 9 10 11. Therefore from his Ministry or such as act by vertue of an Antichristian power To which our Animadverter replies 1 Rev. 18. 4. may be understood of a local departure from Babylon when her judgment of destruction from the Kings of the Earth draws nigh Answ 1. And who can hinder Mr. T. from making conjectures his it may be is no proof that it is However the ground of the Lord 's calling them out of Rome should it be granted him that by Babylon were meant the City of Rome is plainly intimated to be lest they should partake of their sins Not their dwelling in Rome but their complying with the Antichristian Ministry Worship thereof their abominable Rites and Ceremonies is that which is loathsom to the Lord. 2dly 'T is true God calls not his People to depart from every doctrine the Pope teacheth there is some truth remaining amongst them which is to be cleaved to because truth much less a rejection of the Bible These are but vain words empty flourishes this Animadverter knows full well that these things are not affirmed by those with whom he hath to do 3dly To a departure from her by forsaking Communion with her in Worship and leaving subjection to her Government he grants this Scripture may be extended which is all we need contend for The Worship of Rome and England are much the same as we prove The Church-government in use amongst us by Arch-Bishops Bishops issues from the same sourse and spring as is known Therefore a separation from the Worship and Ministry of England lawful by the Animadverter's confession 4thly When God commands to come out of her he must be interpreted to come out of every thing of her viz. that which is truly hers whatever hath not the stamp and authority of God upon it for the reason why the Lord would have his forsake any thing of hers is because it is hers and hath not his own Image and Superscription 'T is ridiculous to imagine that God should command a separation from her Worship and Government and not from her Ministry when this is a main part of her 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Church-Government He adds 2dly By the Beast and his Image Rev. 14. 9 10 11. is meant some Empire or State which promotes Idolatry the Roman Papacy the worshipping of which is undoubtedly the acknowledging of its power and subjection to their Idolatrous Decrees and Edicts The receiving his mark is a profession of our being the servants of the Pope to subject to his authority and after the citation of Mr. Brightman and Mr. Mede speaking to this purpose he saith which doth evince that the worship of the Beast and his Image is not retaining every usage of the Papists though superstitious and corrupt but acknowledging the universal Monarchy of the Popes adoring Images the Host c. Answ 1. But what doth evince that this is all that is intended by worshipping the Image of the Beast Mr. T. would bear his Reader in hand as if he had produced somewhat for the confirmation of his Assertion when he hath not said the least word tending thereunto The very truth is 2ly The Beast mentioned Rev. 14. 9 10. is the same with the Beast mentioned Rev. 13. 11. or the false Prophet Rev. 19. 21. or Antichrist consider'd in his Ecclesiastical State composed of head the Popes and members the rest of the Antichristian Clergy whether at Rome or elsewhere for as the learned Mede saith the Pope alone maketh not up the Beast except the Clergy be joâ—n'd with him since the Beast doth signifie a company of men composed of a certain order of members like as the Beast hath not one man alone the Image of the Beast cannot be a dumb Image 't is expresly said to be a speaking one viz. the Ecclesiastical policy that in its Cannon-Laws upon which both that of Rome and England is founded breatheth forth nothing but Excommunication against such as shall disobey them upon which they are deliver'd over to the Secular Power here with us though not to be burned yet to perpetual Imprisonment The worshipping the Beast and receiving the mark is subjection to an Antichristian Ministry and Church-polity from which it is the duty of the people of God to separate and if we prove not the Ministers of England to be so we acknowledg this Argument to be null and that notwithstanding any thing in it
would have them I think saith he 't is not without example in the best ordered Churches Answ 1. I remember Pope Leo the 10th in the Lateran Council Ses 2. decreed That none should preach concerning the coming of Antichrist but if the Lord shall reveal some things to others as by Amos he promiseth to do they ought not to divulge it before the Sea Apostolick hath examined it or if that cannot commodiously be the Bishop with some others he that doth otherwise let him be excommunicated From whence the Reader may easily conjecture from what quarter the present practice of the Bishops in this matter doth arrive 2dly 'T is true the Apostle would have Timothy to abiâ—e at Ephesus that he charge some that they teach no other doctrine 1 Tim 1. 3. and Titus to reject an Heretick Tit. 3. 10. and saith 1 Cor. 14. 30. If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by the first must hold his peace But that because Paul took all the care he could to hinder the spreading of error and the preventing disorderly prophesyings as more than one speaking at once therefore 't is lawful for the Bishops in an Antichristian way by force and violence to hinder the free passage of Gospel-truths is like the rest of this B. D. Logick for which I dare say the least Smatterer in that kind of learning will say he needed not to have taken any degree in the Schools 3dly That the practice instanced in is not without example in the best ordered Churches after an unusual rate of modesty with him our Dictator tells us he doth think but he might easily have informed himself otherwise 'T is such a piece of tyranny that â—ell ordered Churches cannot bear that persons sanctified and taught by the Spirit of the Lord sound in the Faith called also according to the appointment and way of Christ to preach the Gospel should noâ— be suffered so to do without the licence of an Antichristian Foundling a dumb Idol of the Popes make call'd a Lordain I should have said a Lord Bishop Many of the worthies of the Lord have protested against as the renowned John Hus the Churches in Bohemia the most eminent in the Council of Basil as abominable and Antichristian But Mr. T. further tells us that if the Prelates silence persons when they should not they are accountable to Christ but it is no proof that their Ministry is not from Christ who submit to the commands of men who have power over them forbiding them to preach some truths Answ 1. That the Prelates are accountable to none but Christ as this Animadverters expressions intimates I am sorry to hear from him the most flattring Canonist would not say more of the Pope himself 2ly 'T is a proof that the Ministry is not of Christ that is so bounded if Pauls words be true Gal. 1. 10. 3. That Lord Bishops have any power over the Ministers of Christ by vertue of any institution of his he cannot prove the submission of Ministers unto them in things Ecclesiastical when they are distitute of such authority is so far from being an extenuation that it is an aggravation of their crime We add in S. T. 3dly That the admission of the present Ministers into their Office by a Lord Bishop without the consent of the Congregation in which they act as Officers is also forraign to the Scripture What Mr. T. hath before said in opposition hereunto is already answered What he hath further to argue shall be now considered He tells us 1. The admission of the present Ministers hath not alwayes been by Lord-Bishops some have been made by Suffragan Bishops Answ 1. The most of the present Ministers Mr. T. denyes not nor can he have their admission from a Lord-Bishop 2dly The very truth is they all have so the Suffragan Bishops he speaks of is but the Lord Bishops Deputy who represents his Lordships person in that act of Ordination and therefore what is done by him is done by the Lord Bishop 3dly Admission by a Suffragan titular Bishop is forraign to Scripture as well as admission by a Lord-Bishop He proceeds 2dly Where the Parishioners are Patrons there is the election of the Congregation Answ There are but few Parishes that as Patrons present their own Ministers and yet those that do must not have any Minister but whom the lord-Lord-Bishop pleaseth his admission is still from him He further tells us 3dly In others there is an implioit consent in their Ancestors yielding that power to their Patron to present and an after-consent by receiving him that is instituted as their Minister Answ This is a vanity not worth the minding 1. He cannot produce any authentick Writing testifying such a reddition by our Ancestors 2. If he could though it may be supposed they may alienate what of right belongs to us as men which yet in many cases is false 't is impossible they should do so with respect of what appertains to us as Christians 3. The after-consent signifies nothing they must consent whether they will or no if they do not but testifie their dissent by abstaining from hearing them they are presented into their Ecclesiastick Courts excommunicated imprisoned ruined He adds 4thly But whether these usages be right or wrong notwithstanding them yet may the Offices of the present Ministers of England be from Christ Answ 1. This is a dictate without proof which we reject 2. That a Minister should in their names office and admission thereunto not symbolize with the Ministers of Christ and yet be his Ministers is absur'd and irrational to imagine This we have proved of the present Ministers and add that in all these they symbolize with the Popish ordeâ— of Priests which we at large demonstratâ— in S. T. what Mr. T. excepts against it shall be considered in the next Section Sect. 3. The present Ministers of England symbolize with the Popish order of Priests Of the name Priests The abolition of names once abused to idolatry Hos 2. 15. Zâ—ch 13. 2. explained Baali what it signifies Exod. 23. 13. Psal 16. 4. opened Of Orthodox Antiquity 't is no sufficient justification of what we do in divine things The Testimony of the Ancients M. T. his arguing and Baronius the Papist alike Ignatius his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The book of ordering Priests and Deacons is stolen out of the Popes Pontifical as is evident by the parallel drawn betwixt them THat the present Ministers of England symbolize witâ— the Popish order of Priests we evince in S. T. under several considerations 1. They are both called and own themselves Priests which being 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 from whom the word Orders is undoâ—btedly borrowed or from the Antichristian Church of Rome such idolatrous superstitious names being commanded by the Lord to be abolished Hos 2. 15 Zech
God and before God 9. Postremo Lastly the Bishop takes and delivers to them all the Book of the Gospel saying Receive power of reading the Gospel in the Church of God 10. Pontifex The Bishop shall say the Ministers and Chaplains answering Lord have mercy upon us O God the Father of Heaven have mercy on us O God the Son Redeemer of the world have mercy on us That it may please thee to blesse sanctifie and consecrate these elect ☞ We beseech thee hear us 11. They sing one and the same Hymn only the one is in Latine the other in English Veni Creator Spiritus Mentes tuorum visita c. 12. Pontifex The Bishop shall lay his hands upon the heads of each of them kneeling upon their knees before him saying to every one Receive the Holy Ghost whose Sins thou dost forgive they are forgiven and whose Sins thou dost retain they are retained 13. Pax The Peace of God be alwayes with you the blessing of God Almighty the Father Son and Holy Ghost descend upon you English Pontifical 1. We decree that no Deacons or Ministers be ordained but only upon the Sundays more heathenishly spoken then the Pope in his Pontifical immediatly following jejunia quatuor Temporum commonly cald Ember-weeks Constit Can. Eccl. can 31. 2. And this be done in the Cathedral or Parish Church where the Bishop resideth and in the time of Divine Service in the presence not only of the Archdeacon but of the Dean ibid. 3. And here it must be declared unto the Deacon that he must continue in that office the space of a whole year except for reasonable causes it shall otherwise seem good unto the Bishop The Book of ordering Priests and Deacons 4. The Bishop before he admit any person to holy Orders shall diligently examine him in the presence of those Ministers that shall assist him at the imposition of hands Can. 35. 5. None shall be admitted a Deacon except he be twenty three years of age and every man which is to be admitted a Priesâ— shal be full twenty four years old The Preface to the Form and Manner of making Priests and Deacons c. 6. The Archdeacon or his Deputy shall present unto the Bishop sitting in his Chair near to the holy Table such as desire to be ordained Deacons each of them being decently habited saying these words Reverend Father 7. The Bishop Take heed that the persons whom you present unto us be apt and meet for their learning The Arch Deacon shall answer I have enquired of them and also examined them and think them so to be 8. Then the Bishop shall say to the people Brethren if there be any of you who knoweth any impediment or notable crime in any of these persons let him come forth in the name of God and shew what it is 9. Then the Bishop shall deliver to every one of them the New Testament saying Take thee authority to read the Gospel in the Church of God 10. The Bishop with the Clergy and People shall sing or say the Litany O God the Father of Heaven have mercy upon us miserable sinners O God the Son Redeemer of the world have mercy on us That it may please thee to bless these they Servants ☞ We beseech thee to hear us good Lord. Come Holy Ghost our souls imspire And lighten with Celestial Fire c. 12. The Bishop shall lay their hands severally upon the heads of every one that receive the order of Priesthood the Receivers humbly kneeling upon their knees and the Bishop saying Receive the Holy Ghost whose Sins thou dost forgive they are forgiven and whose Sins thou doest retain they are retained 13. The Peace of God and the Blessing of God Almighty the Father Son and holy Ghost be amongst you and remain with you always Amen To which it were easie to adde other parallel particulars but these upon a slight view of the Roman Pontifical offering themselves being sufficient to confute that assertion of Whitgift and Mr. T. that the Book of ordering Ministers and Deacons is almost in no point correspondent to the Roman Pontifical we content our selves with them From whence the ingenuous Reader will soon determine to whom ignorance and rashness may justly be imputed We add 6thly 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 the Holy Ghost whose Sins ye forgive they are forgiven whose Sins ye retain they are retained which exactly accords with the fashion of ordaining the Priests of England To which Mr. T. replies in a long harangue not at all to the purpose giving us an account what Whitgift and Hooker say to this prâ—ctice confesses at last they offer some force to the Scripture to which they allude tells us those words may be used prayer-wise Answ 1. The Question is Whether in the particular instanc'd in there be an exact symmetry betwixt the Ordination of the present Ministers of England and the Priests of Rome This Mr. T. denies not but leads the Reader to the consideration of somewhat else 2. The use of the words John 20. 22 23. he grants to be an offering force to the Scripture and if so it is wicked and abominable to wrest the Scripture to our private interpretation is undoubtedly so 3. That they should be used prayer-wise is a most ridiculous evasion the manner of expression evinceth the contrary 4. Mr. Richard Hooker Eccles Polit. lib. 5. sect 77. as câ—ted by our Animadverter interprets it of the collation of the gifts of the holy Ghost which if we should interpret of the Office of Ministry it belongs as we have said to the Church not to such a thing as a Lord-Bishop to collate We proceed in the Parallel 7thly The Popish Priests are not ordained in and before the Congregation to whom they are to be Priests but in some Metropolitan Cathedâ—al City So the Priests of England To which Mr. T. replies 1. This is not alwayes so Answ I challenge him to give one instance of the contrary for these six or seven years last past 2dly It may be before the Congregation to whom the person is to be Priest Answ What may be is one thing what is another We say not only that it may be but that it ought to be yet we know it is not 'T is added in S. T. 8thly The Popish Priests take the care of Souls though nâ—t elected by them from the presentation of a Patron by the Institution and Induction of a Lord Bishop so the Ministers of England To which our Animadverter This is not always so nor when so Popish Answ 1. The first is most notoriously false and we challenge Mr. T. to make it good if he can 2. the latter remains to be proved by him to assert it is not Popish is a piece of beggary this Animadverter is much used to What he hath before said is
already answered We add 9thly The Popish Priests wait not the Churches call to the Ministry but make suit to some Prelate to be ordained Priest and giving money for their Letters of Ordination so the Priests of England Mr. T. replies To offer a person's self for ordination is in some case a duty 1 Tim. 3. 1. Isa 6. 8. Answ 1. The Scriptures produced prove not his assertion Isa 6. 8. is sufficiently remote from any such thing there 's not the least mention of Ordination therein it s only a testimony of Isaiah's readiness to obey the voice of the Lord in going forth to bear a testimony for him against an untoward rebellious people 1 Tim. 3. 1. only tels us that he that desires the office of a Bishop desires a good work i. e. as say our Annotators is inwardly moved by the Spirit of the Lord thereunto which he may do and yet I hope wait the Churches call thereunto Besides 2ly Should this be granted it signifies little till he prove that it 's the duty of any with the neglect of the Churches call to this Office to seek ordination thereunto from an unscriptural Prelate which is that we charge upon them which Mr. T. knows they do He tells us 2dly Giving money for their Letters of Ordination is only Wages to the Register for writing Answ 1. Be it so that they give money for their Letters of Ordination is all that is asserted by us which Mr. T. grants they do 2. 'T is well if there be no Simony as it 's call'd found amongst them 3. If provision be made against the Registers exacting over-much by the Canons of the Church of England he informs us that the same provision is made by the Popish Trent-Council The Parallel in this particular holds good We say 10thly The Popish Priests are ordained to their Office though they have no Flock to attend upon So the Priests of England Mr. T. replies The Priests of England are not to be ordained without some title according to Can. 33. even the Trent-Council hath made some provision thereabout Answ 1. Mr. T. doth well to consociate the Canons of the Church of England and the Church of Rome in the Trent-Council together they are in not a few things near of kin 2. However I cannot but stand astonished at his confidence in telling us that the Priests of England are not to be ordained without some title according to Can. 33. when that Canon saith expresly That they may if a Fellow or in right as a Fellow or to be a Chaplain in some Colledge in Oxford or Cambridg if a Master of Arts of five years standing that liveth of his own charge in either of the Universities if to be shortly admitted either to some Benefice or Curatship then void or if the Bishop do after his admission into the said office keep and maintain him with all things necessary till he prefer him to some Ecclesiastical Living 3. But it may be the Animadverter by title means some one of those things mentioned To which I shall only say that if so he doth openly prevaricate pretends to answer to what he speaks not one word such Titles are supposed to be without a Flock to attend upon What he adds of Ministers being necessary for Armies c. is nothing to the purpose This proves not that they may be ordained Ministers without a Flock to attend upon which they may have and by them be sent forth for the works mentioned for a season We know it hath been the practice of the Churches so to do 2. Privâ—te Brethren may act for the supply of the services mentioned and frequently have done so nor indeed do I conceive how any can act therein in any other capacity Which is not incongruous to Acts 23. 2. as this Animadverter suggests which speaks not a tittle of their ordination to the Office of Ministry which they had before but only a solemn commending of them by Fasting and Prayer to the Blessing of the Lord by the Church in the Service they were now setting upon in which they testified their consent by the laying on their hands as say our Annotators To the 11th Parallel viz. That the Priests of England must swear Canonical Obedience to their Ordinary as the Priests of Rome Mr. T. only saith That 't is true at their institution into Benefices they do so but it is so bounded that it is not intolerable 't is nothing like that which is required of the Papists Answ 1. The Parallel herein betwixt the English and the Popish Priests is acknowledged which is all we affirm 2. That the Oath is tolerable that 't is nothing like the Oath of Canonical Obedience tendred to the Popish Priests is only affirmed by Mr. T. without proof that was the copy and pattern of this as he cannot be ignorant The 12th Parallel touching their leaving their Benefices for advantage-sake without consent of the People The 13th touching their special Licence to preach without which they must not from â—he Prelates though thereunto before ordained The 14th touching their subjection to be silenced by the Prelates betwixt the Ministers of England and Rome he grants to be true nor saith he any thing by way of reply that deserves the taking notice of To the 15th viz. 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 Pastors to Archdeacons Archdeacons to Lord-Bishops Lord-Bishops to Arch-Bishops so the Priests of England Our Animadverter replies 1. Inequality is judged to be in the Elders of the Primitive Churches by the inscription of the seven Epistles to the Angels of the seven Churches of Asia Answ But this rather proves there equality to each is a several Epistle directed whereas had there been one Arch-Bishp or Superintendent over them one Epistle had been sufficient and had been no doubt directed to him He adds 2dly It hath been in some sort in all well-ordered Churches and is necessary to setled order Answ These are his dictates which he is not at leasure to prove The Church of Rome in the Apostles dayes of Corinth Ephesus were as I remember well-ordered Churches yet cannot be manifest any inequality amongst their Elders No Superintendent Lord-Bishop or Arch-Bishop as I read of 2dly What thinks he of the Church of the Waldenses were they well-ordered Churches They were from the beginning without this Superiority of Elders one above the other The like may be said of most or all the Reformed-Churches The Churches of Helvetia reckoning up the degrees of arch-Arch-Bishops Suffragans Metropolitans Deans Subdeans tell us plainly they are not sollicitous about them That the Apostles Doctrine touching Ministers is sufficient for them cap. Confes. Helvet poster c. 18. And afterward there is one and the same equal Power and Function in all the Ministers of the Church and though in process of time one was chosen from amongst the rest to preside in
ever he met with hath judged them Antichristian must be imputed to the shortness of his memory He haâ—h I suppose met with Zuinglius Keckerman who say little less The former Art 34. p. 254 255 tells us That for any to claim any Rule Power or Superiority over any Church of Christ which we know out Bishops do is Devilish Proud and Popish Arrogancy And Aretius in his Problems producing Christ's prohibition of Superiour power to his Apostles Mar. 10. 5. Luke 22. 25. saith None but Antichrist dare be so fancy as to usurp it Marlorat on Rev. 17. 3. saith That Arch-Bishops are in Office under Antichrist And on Chap. 19. The tailes of Antichrist Bale on Rev. 17 saith That Canterbury and York are the Beastly Antichrists Metropolitans And on Chap. 13. That Arch-Bishop Diocesan are very Names of Blasphemy Of these we spake pag. 28. S. T. who I dare say were sober Writers and considerate men Mr. T. his answer to their Testimony viz. That they writ thus against the Romish Hierarchy is ridiculous they writ against the Offices of Arch-Bishops as such which are not a whit the better because they constitute the English Hierarchy We mention Cartwright the seekers of Reformation in Queen Elizabeths dayes proclaiming them to come out of the bottomless Pit of Hell to be Antichristian Devilish These also must pass in the Roll of inconsiderate fellows yet others as wise as Mr. T. think otherwise of them For the proof of the Antichristianism of the Office of Lord-Bishops I propose a few things briefly in the S. T. as 1st That Office that is not to be found in the Scripture of the Institution of Christ but is contrary to express Precepts of his is Antichristian But the Office of Lord-Bishops is not to be found in the Scriptures is contrary to express Precepts Therefore The Major Mr. T. is nibling at but he doth but think he tells us if Universal it is not true The Office of the Religious Votaries he talks of is Antichristian If there be any Antichristian Office in the World that must needs be so that is introduced into the Church of Christ though not of his Institution directly contrary to express Precepts That this Assertion should necessitate any one to affirm every sin to be Antichristian though in a large sence as Antichristian signifies that which is against Christ every sin every errour is so is absurd to imagine The Minor I say consists of two parts 1. That the Office of Lord Bishops is not to be found in Scripture of the Institution of Christ This I manifest by considering the most remarkable places where the Officers and Offices that are of Christs appointment are enumerated in which we have a total silence of them Ephes 4. 11. Rom. 12. 7 8. 1 Tim. 3. 12. Acts 14. 23. Tit. 1. 5 7. Acts 20. 28. I add also that they were never dreamt of in the world for some hundreds of years after Christ We introduce the Testimony of Clemens Lombard Dr. Hamonds acknowledgment of their Rise To which Mr. T. answers The whole Discourse is impertinent the thing to be proved was that the Office of Lord-Bishops was not to be found in the Scriptures and the whole Discourse is about the Superiority of Order above Presbyters Primacy or Supremacy of Degrees among Bishops Answ 1. We have examined the particular places wherein mention is made of the Officers of Christs Institution and find no Lord-Bishops instituted in any of them which manifests that they are not If this be not taken for proof I know not what will If this be not to the purpose I am in dispair of producing any thing that he will account so 2dly The Office of Lord-Bishops as such consists in the Primacy Superiority and Supremacy mentioned as is known If Mr. T. grants this not to be found of the Institution of Christ in the Scripture he gives away the Cause 3dly They themselves do own and avow a great part of their Office to consist in the foresaid Primacy Jurisdiction And if this be not it I am sure some of them are seldom or never minding their Office these things are what is most attended by them Of whom we may complain as Bernard of old Vides omnem Ecclesiasticum Zelum forvere prâ— sola dignitate tuenda honori tantum datur sanctitati nihil aut parum Si causâ requirente paulo submissius agere aut socialius to habere tentaveris absit inquiunt non decet tempori non congruit majestati non convenit quam geras personam attendito De placito Dei ultima mentio est pro jactura salutis nulla cunctatio quod sublime est hoc salutare putamus quod gloriam redolet id justum De Considerat Lib. 4. His following Exceptions are not worth the heeding I mention Diotrephes in S. T. and say That some appearances of a Spirit striving to ascend into this Chair of wickedness was seen in him and others in the Apostles dayes To this Mr. T. But this was not the usurping the Superiority of Order of a Bishop above a Presbyter Answ Nor do I say it was I expresly affirm the contrary whâ—n I say that such a Superiority was not in the world for some hundred of years after Christ we only say that some appearances of that Spirit was seen in him which the Apostle affirms John Epist 3. Vers 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He loveth the preheminence among them attempts the Primacy so Beza Which if it be not an appearance of the Spirit mentioned I know not what is he endeavoured to rule all himself carried it proudly pragmatically arrogantly over the Church the Brethren John himself who was an Elder saith Mr. T. He that cannot see somewhat of our Episcopal Spirit in this is I fear willfully blind I am fure he must wink hard He takes notice that in reciting Ephes 4. 11. I twice leave out Evangelists which he knows not the reason of Answ Nor do I my self possibly it was an oversight it may be an omission of the Amanuensis However it was it was not I assure him any fear I had that he or any one could justly plead that our Prelates were Evangelists 1. I know that Title is declined by Pleaders for Episcopal Jurisdiction 2. Our Bishops do not the works of Evangelists They had no setled residence but travelled up and down with or after the Apostles to help forward the work of Christ that was set on foot in the world by them We find Titus who was an Evangelist somtimes at Crete Gal. 2. 3. At Dalmatia 2 Tim. 4. 10. appointed to meet Paul at Nicopolis Tit. 3. 12. Sent to Corinth 2 Cor. 12. 18. At Macedonia 2 Cor. 7. 5 6. Such an itinerant laborious life that our Bishops are unacquainted with 3. Evangelists were such extraordinary Officers as ceased with that Age for we find no directions given touching their future Election in in the Churches Mr. T. tells us Our Prelates
chalenge the term of Pastors and Teachers this I had said was too great a debasement of their Lordships he tells us This is a Satyrical Sarcasm no proof Ans 1. However it is evidently true Pastors and Teachers we have already proved are Officers appertaining to one particular Church 'T is certainly a debasement of their Lordships who preside as petty Princes over hundreds of Pastors and Churches so called to be reduced to a laborious over-sight over one 2dly I had said in S. T. That their Parochial Priests over whom they preside are supposed to be Officers in that degree The Argument is this which Mr. T. may take time to answer If the Parochial Priests over whom the Bishops of England preside be such Pastors and Teachers as the Scripture mentions then the Bishops of England are not cannot be such for they are an Order and Degree above them to them as their Superiours they promise and swear fealty But tho former according to the judgment of the Church of England is true Therefore The Story he after tells us of a Presbyters having in case of infirmity Assistants who notwithstanding may be called a Teacher is so remote from the business in hand that though some would cry out Quis temperâ—t a risu For my part I heartily pitty him 1st This is known not to be the reason of the Bishops having Parochial Priests under them were they never so strong it were impossible they should perform the Office of Pastors to the several Congregations in England 2dly The Presbyter is not an Order above his Co-adjutor as is the case of the Bishops he is a Co-Presbyter one of the same degree with himself So that of this we shall I suppose hear no mere We add in S. T. That they pretend to be and are so accounted by some the Apostles Successors but if they derive their sâ—ccession through the Papacy 't is an evident Argument they are Antichristian if the Pope be the Antichristian head over many Countries as Protestants affirm In respect of their Office we prove they are not their Successors Because 1. The Apostles were immediately sent by Christ 2. Extraordinary Officers sent forth to preach the Gospel throughont the Nations of the world 3. We find no Apostles after them 4. None appointed by them to succeed them 5. None are qualified with gifts for the discharge of such an Office and Christ sends not forth servants in any imployment but he furnisheth them with gifts suitable thereunto This the summe To which our Animadverter pretends to answer Sect. 5. Chap. 3. 1. Apostles he grants they may not be reckoned yet 2. They may be their Successors 1st Dr. Owen of Schism Cap. 6. Sect. 55. grants That persons adhering to ordination by succession from Popish Bishops may be right worthy Ministers of the Gospel but not upon the account of that their Successional Ordination but the eminent gifts God hath vouchsafed them and the Lords people submitting themselves to them in the administration of Ordinances And the Author of S. T. denies not they succeed them as Christians and if so they may be heard as gifted brethren which was denied by him Chap. 2. Answ 1. How all this proves the Bishops of England to be the Successors of the Apostles in respect of their Office which was what he pretends to attempt the proof of I know not 2. I deny indeed that they may be heard as gifted Brethren Chap. 2. and give my reasons of my so doing which I have vindicated from this Dictators exceptions That we are to have communion with all that we cannot deny to be Christians in that wherein they act not as such but by virtue of an Office-power we know they have not received from Christ Mr. T. will not in hast attempt the proof of He asks Why may they not succeed them in Office Answ I wonder he should ask such a Question En Tabulas The reasons thereof are given in the place he undertakes the confutation of They were it seems too weighty for him he wisely lets them alone without burthening himself so far with them as to attempt their removal The Apostles Office was indeed no other than that mentioned Mat. 28. 19 20. Mar. 16. 15. but that was 1st An Office of Preaching not of Lording and Loytering 2dly Into it they were immediately invested by Christ 3dly They were to preach the Gospel through the Nations of the World not to stretch themselves upon Beds of Ivory in a Lordly Pallace which was as much their Office as Preaching the Gospel upon the account whereof Paul saith He was a debtor both to the Greeks and to the Barbarians Rom. 1. 14. Christ its true promiseth his presence with them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But 1. I am not satisfied that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Consummation of this world is any more than the winding up or perioding of that Age. I am sure the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the space of 70 or 100 years and sometimes not near so many as Mark 13. 30. which came to pass within 50 years And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is no more than the perioding of the Jewish Paedagogie or Church state Heb. 9. 26. 2. I hope Christ is with them now so that there needs not a succession of persons in the same Office which we have proved there never was to whom Christ may make good his promise 3. The Lord promised Joshua never to leave him nor forsake him Josh 1. 5. This Promise he will not say doth necessarily suppose a succession of Officers in the place of Joshua which upon all accounts there was not The Apostle applies it to the Saints Heb 13. 5. And I am of the mind Christ doth as really fulfill that Promise Mat. 28 20. made originally to the Apostles when he vouchsafes his presence to the Saints to comfort quicken uphold defend them according as their exigencies do require as ever he did to the Apostles themselves So little reason is there of asserting the necessity of Officers as successors of the Apostles in their Office of Apostleship to vindicate the faithfulness of Christ in that Promise of his The succession we speak of which the present Ministers pretend to is a personal succession through Papacy i. e. that the Apostles ordained Bishops these ordained others downwards to this day a Catalogue of whom from time to time some pretend to That when Antichristianism overspread the world and the Pope as the Head thereof ordained and sent forth Ministers from whom they received their office-Office-power these should be notwithstanding not Antichristian is a fond conceit He could not communicate that he had not that he had any true power any other than a false Antichristian Office-power Mr. T. will not have the consideâ—ce to aver So that the whole fardle of words that ensue are not at all to the purpose A succession in doing the same work after them and preaching the same Gospel
afterwards and here and in his Roman discussed asserts that 't is not tyrannical Dominion but the Dominion of one Apostle over another that is interdicted So that the same thing is doubtful and not doubtful with Mr. T. in the writing a few lines And this he proves by no fewer than ten reasons in his Rom. discussed 2dly Here he tels us that 't is an affectation of the Rule which a person may have and lawfully exercise that is forbidden there that the Dominion or Rule it self is interdicted which he would do well to reconcile and answer his Arguments he there produceth for its confirmation The sum whereof is Christ would have none amongst them superiour but all equal he forbids not only tyrannical Dominion but also any Dominion at all over one another which is saith he apparent 1. From the occasion of the words Christ forbids what they sought for but they sought for chief Dignity Seniority and priority of Order as do the Bishops of England 2dly From the Subjects whose Dominion is forbidden viz. Kings that had lawfull Authority and therefore such Rule is forbidden as the best Rulers used amongst the Nations 3dly The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 although sometimes meant of meer lordly forcible Rule against the will and good of the person ruled yet here it cannot be so meant sith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to use Dominion at all and to have power at all over one another is forbidden Luke 22. 25. 4thly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the simple 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is used still of Rule without abuse is forbidden 5thly It is forbidden to be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. to affect that title which implies one to be under another and to be beholden one to another as persons that could gratifie one another which doth imply superiority in some sort 6thly The additional speech of Christ commanding in the stead of Dominion Mat. 20. 26 27. rather Ministry and Service shews he would have none among them superiour but all equal 7ly Christ's propounding himself as their example only in service 8â—y He requires such a mutual debasement as takes away the taking to themselves priority of order or place or rule over one anotheâ— Mat. 20. 26 27. Mark 10. 43 44. Luke 22. 26. 9ly This is confirmed by other places upon a like occasion Mat. 18. 1 2 3 4. Mark 9. 33. Luke 9. 46. In which Christ resolves them that they should be as a little child that assumes not Empire but is humble and accounts others as equal to him 10ly From Luke 22. 28. that Christ having forbidden superiority in any of them among themselves promises them a Kingdom afterward in recompence of their abiding with him in his temptations All which manifest 1. a Superiority interdicted 2. That the Superiority interdicted is not interdicted to all Christians as he would in his Theodulia bear us in hand for then Christians should be forbidden to exercise Civil Dominion and Power as Mr. T. his ten Arguments manifest But 3. a Superiority of order over one another as the Bishops of England exercise over their fellow-Ministers That the Apostles exercised any such Superiority over the Church of God or Ministers of a lower order as the Bishops of England exeâ—cise over them this Animadverter will never prove And if he were able so to do this would not justifie the Bishops in their exercise of such Superiority who are invested with no Apostolical Power that I know of 'T is true a rule over the Faith of Saints is disclaimed by the Apostle 2 Cor. 1. 24. but that this is not the whole of what is interdicted in the places before-cited he hath himself proved by ten Arguments but now repeated by us As for 1 Pet. 5. 3. he tells us what the Assembly in their Annotations say on the place viz. that is not imperiously commanding your own inventions in the stead of the Doctrine of the Gospel not carrying hemselves insolently and magisteriously towards Gods People 3 Joh. 9. Answ 1. All this is known to be practised by the present Bishops They command imperiously their own inventions to which the preaching of the Gospel must give place when there is not time for both as in the case of Liturgy-worship is known to be true How insolently and magisterially they carry it towards the people of the Lord the whole Nation is witness 2. The Elders being interdicted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to exercise Lordly Rule over the Heritage of God is certainly an interdiction of the introduction of any such Officer into the Churcâ— of God as against the will of the Lord's People should by vertue of an Office-power exercise a Lordly jurisdiction over them and their Ministers as a superiour order of Priesthood and certainly more forbidden than the office of an Elder Jurisdiction is not an abuse of our Prelates Office as is known though they too often abuse it by exercising it exorbitantly even contrary to their own Canons but a great a chief part of it wherein they do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exercise dominion over the People of God and that against their will by fore and violence to their utter undoing and that in execution of that office they have received and exercise according to their Canon Laws in their Courts Ecclesiastical We further prove in S. T. That the office of Lord-Bishops is Antichristian because derived from and only to be found in the Papacy none of the Reformed Churches have retained it the Woman in her flight into the Wilderness carried it not along with her it 's rejected by the true Spouse and Witnesses of Christ in all ages We instance in several as Hierom the Churches of Helvetia c. To this Mr. T. replies 1. Though the latter Popes viz. from the time of Boniface the third about the year 606. be the head of Antichrist yet it doth not follow that the office that is derived from and is only to be found in the Papacy is surely Antichristian there having been bad Officers perhaps derived from good Popes and continued only in the Church of Rome Answ 1. That the Popes of Rome were not the head of Antichrist till the time of Boniface the third this Animadverter will never prove 2dly Should it be granted him what good Popes he will find from the time of Sylvester about the year 320 I know not nor what Officers were derived from them Lord-Bishops there were none till afterwards When Constantine coming to the Throne the Man of Sin began by little and little according to the prophesie of Paul touching him 2 Thess 2. 7. to shew himself in the following Popes The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Letter viz. the Roman Pagan Emperours being removed out of the way about which time many report a Voice was heard Hodie Venenum c. This day Poyson is poured forth into the Church of Christ And from this time the noble and renowned
common consent Which that it was observed by the Apopostles of Christ the sacred History testifies Acts 15. And this is the Opinion of the most famous Doctors of the Canon-Law saith Durandus De Sanct. Minist Lib. 1. c. 11. He saith more truly perhaps than he was aware That as the whole Kingdom is said to meet in the Parliament so the whole Church may be said to meet in their Synod and no otherwise Now we know that the meeting of a company of Knights Gentlemen at Westminster is not the Parliament the Representative of the Kingdom Their free Election by the Body of the People of the Nation renders them so In like manner the Convention of a company of Prelates and Priests make not a Synod by our Animadverters own Argument but their Election by the People to meet and sit in Council together as their Representees which the Synod so called at London One thousand six hundred and three nor any National Synod ever since had not the Choice of the People was never minded never was their consent required So that in the sence he takes the word Church which yet is forreign to the Scripture as we say in S. T. the Church of England was never yet concerned In what follows in this Section Mr. T. himself will acknowledge I am not further concerned Sect. 2. The present Ministers oppose the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ whilst they own Laws contrary to the Revelation of Christ That they do thus evinced by the induction of particular instances Acts 8. 27. â— Tim. 6. 15. Jer. 51. 26. Luke 11. 2. Mat. 6. 7 8 9. Whether Christ there instituted a form of Prayer Rom. 8. 26. 1 Cor. 14. 15. Mark 14. 18 22 23. opened That Christ sate with his Disciples in the celebration of the Ordinance of breaking Bread evinced Of Kneeling The reason of its first institution It s opposition to 1 Thes 5. 22. manifested Of forbidding to Marry and commanding to abstain from Meats IN Sect. 6. Mr. T. proceeds to the examination of what is further produced in S. T. for the manifestation of the guilt of the present Ministers in their opposing the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ which we further prove because they own submit and subscribe to Laws Constitutions and Ordinances that are contrary to the Revelation of Christ This we prove by particular instances They own 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. 22 25. 26. To which our Animadverter replies 1. They do not acknowledge them in opposition to these Scriptures Answ But that is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mr. T. may be ashamed of such pitiful beggery He adds 2ly They do not acknowledge Arch-Bishops over the whole Church as the Pope but in their own Province Answ This is not at all material the authority of Arch-Bishops over a Province is as much against the Texts mentioned as over the whole Church 'T is not the extent of Authority Lordship that is therein condemned but the thing it self 3ly He further tells us They have no such dominion ascribed to them over the Church they oversee as is forbidden 1 Pet. 5. 3. Luke 22. 25 26. Answ 1. This is again to beg the thing in question 2ly We have proved the contrary He adds 4ly They are not Lords in the Church but in the Kingdom and Parliament Answ False and untrue I wish he speak not against knowledge in this matter 1. When invested into their Episcopal Sees they are stiled arch-Arch-Bishops of such a place or Province lord-Lord-Bishop of such a See 2. The Priests submit to them pray for them as their good Lords 3. They have Power Authority Precedency as such over the rest of the Clergy give forth Laws and Canons to rule and guide them to whom they promise obedience at their Ordination 4. They exercise jurisdiction authority over their respective Diocesses in their Ecclesiastical Courts and Consistories as such all evident Ensigns and Demonstrations of Lordly Dignities even in and over that which they call the Church That which he 5ly adds of the Eunuchs being called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 8. 27. without contradiction to 1 Tim. 6. 15. where Christ is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is frivolous 1. The Eunuch is not said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Potentate with respect to the Church of God over it he was not such but with respect to the Kingdom of Aethiopia where he was a Noble Man a Governor under Candace the Queen Our Bishops are Potentates in and over that which they call the Church of Christ 2. That any other besides Christ should exercise Lordship and Authority in the World is not interdicted as is their so doing in the Churches of Christ in the Scriptures mentioned He saith 5ly He hath not shewed that what is acknowledged is a Law Constitution or Ordinance nor the Ministers own it by subscription Answ True indeed I did not do so for I thought it needless to demonstrate that the Sun shines at noon-dayes Are not the Offices of Arch-Bishops Lord-Bishops Constitutions and Ordinances Have they not their Foundation and Establishment by Law Doth not Mr. T. know it Is he onely a stranger in our Israel Of the Truth of this there are not many in the Nation that are or can be ignorant That the Ministers own these whether by subscription or otherwise is not considerable Mr. T. deals injuriously whilst he suggests I say they own these with the rest of the particulars mentioned by subscription when I assert onely That they own submit and subscribe to i. some of them they manifest they own by Subscription others other wayes but they own submission to them all is too notorious to admit of a denyal They do so in their Ordination when they promise Canonical Obedience to them in their prayers for them subjection to their precepts from time to time transmitted to them which they dare not transgress 2ly That men may and ought to be made Ministers onely by these Lord-Bishops is we say in S. T. owned by the present Ministers which is contrary to Heb. 5. 4. John 10. 1 7. 13. 20. Acts 14. 23. with 6. 3 5. What Mr. T. adjoyns hereunto touching Ordination by Suffâ—agan Bishops hath already been removed out of the way How much they own a Presbyterian Ordination of which he speaks many good men in the Nation feel and find Of these things we have already spoken That Ordination by Lord-Bishops is established by Law is known and that exclusively to any other without them Hereunto the Ministers subscribe Can. 36. The Scriptures instanc'd in prove this to be contrary to the Revelation of Christ Heb. 5. 4. John 10. 1 7. 13. 20. manifestly evince That who-ever undertakes to be a Minister of the Lord in his Church must
be called of sent by him So was Aaron Acts 14. 23. 6. 3 5. manifest that the Way of the Lord's mission is not by lord-Lord-Bishops but by his Churches and People What he tells us he hath said in answer to any of these Scriptures we have replyed to Chap. 2. We add in S. T. 3ly That Prelates their Chancellors and Officers have power from Christ to cast out of the Church of God is owned by them contrary to Mat. 18. 16 17. 1 Cor. 5. 4. To which our Animadverter subjoyns He finds no such Law Answ It may be he is willingly ignorant hereof This he cannot but know that in the Name of Christ the Officers mentioneâ— do excommunicate out of the Church so call'd of Christ Do they do this without Law Is it not one of their Church-constitutions that they may do so Do not the present Ministers own them herein Whilst they cite present persecute their Neighbours for not coming to Divine Service as they call it it may be for refusing to pay them a four-penny-due in the Ecclesiastical Courts even to an Excommunication whose Act therein they afterwards publickly denounce and declare once and again in obedience to them What more evident The weakness of his answer to Mat. 18. 1 Cor. 5. we have already manifested We say further in S. T. That they own 4ly that the Office of the Suffragans Deans Canons are lawful and necessary to be had in the Church 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 v. 12 13. In what sense the forementioned being not one of them of the Institution of Christ may be owned as lawful and necessary without an high contempt of the Wisdom and Sovereignty of Christ I am not able to conceive this is the sum Mr. T. replies 1. He knows not where this imagined Ordinance is Answ That there are such Officers and Offices in the Church of England established by the Laws thereof he cannot be ignorant To say They are Antichristian or repugnant to the Word of God is censured by the Canons thereof Can. 7. That the Ministers own submit to some of them is known The vanity and impertinency of Mr. T. his pleading for them not to mention his perjury therein is discovered in our present Vindication of Chap. 3. from his exceptions against what is by us therein argued We say they own 5thly That the Office of 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. Mr. T. replies 'T is not contrary to Christ's Revelation that they should be imployed in those works Ans 1. But when Christ hath instituted the office of Deacons for this end to attend Tables or look after the provision and necessities of the Saints That any persons may own an Office of Deacons in the Church to be imploy'd by virtue of Office-power in any other work than that for which they are intrusted by Christ and called unto Office without an advance against that Institution of Christ is absurd to imagine 2. That the present Ministers own such an Office he doth not deny 3. What he speaks of Stephen and Philip he had said before and to it we have replied already and need noâ— add more A sixth Law or Ordinance that we say they own is this 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. Acts 2. 42. and 20. 7. To which Mr. T. This is not easily proved from the Scripâ—ures instanced in Answ Whether it be or not is left to the judgment of the judicious Reader to determine I am weary in pursuâ—â—g him in his impertinencies He grants a Communion is proved in that Sacrament 1 Cor. 10. 16. but vers 17. and 1 Cor. 12. 13. prove the Communion to be rather with all Christians Of which yet there is not one word in either of the places In vers 17. He speaks of the Church of Corinth that was one bread one body The other Scripture speaks nothing of Saints Communion one with another in this Ordinance 1 Cor. 11. 33. Acts 20. 7. he confesseth prove That it should be administred when all the Communicants Church or Brethren he should say are come together Whether its administration to one alone be not diametrically opposite hereunto as also to the very first Institution of this Ordinance Mat. 26. 26. let the Judicious judge Though it be said Act. 2. 46. that they brake bread from house to house it doth not follow there was none beside the Minister and the sick man the words import the contrary We manifest further in S. T. That they own 7thly a prescript form of Words in Prayer that a ceremonious pompous Worship devised â—y man and abused to Idolatry is according to the will of God and may lawfully be used under the New Testament Dispensation contrary to Mat. 15. 9. and 28. 20. John 4. 23. Deut. 12. 32. Jer. 51. 26. Rom. 8. 26. 1 Cor. 14. 15. By this prescript form of Words this ceremonious pompous Worship the Common-Prayer-Book Collegiat-Worship and Service is intended This I say is devised by man the owning whereof is contrary to Mat. 15. 9. and 28. 20. Deut. 12. 22. abused to Idolatry The owning hereof is opposite to Jer. 51. 26. It is Ceremonious and Pompous the abetting whereof is adverse to Joh. 4. 23. as is the owning of a prescript Form of Words to Rom. 8. 26. 1 Cor. 14. 15. To which our Animadverter replies 1. He should have told us what part of the Common-Prayer-Book was abused to Idolatry Answ The whole of it is so being Worship not appointed by the Lord and used in that Church that is the most Idolatrous Church in the world What he hath said in this Chap. Sect. 3. or in Chap. 3. Sect. 4. We have already answered His great out-cry of our abuse of Jer. 51. 26. produced to prove it unlawful to use any thing in the Worship of God abused to Idolatry will soon be evinced to be an empty sound Vox praeterea nihil 1. We have for our Companions in this Exposition persoâ—s not contemptible for wisdom and holiness who make conscience of applying Scriptures and abusing the Reader 2. Of all men Mr. T. iâ— the most incompetent for the management of this charge who most egregiously perverts Scriptures in this Treatise contrary to former Interpretations given by himself to them and to the plain intendment of the Spirit therein As we have in part manifested and may do further in our Appendix 3. He egregiously abuseth the Reader in this very passage whilst
said to be the Bodies of their Governours Whether the Apostles were the Heads of the Church Ojections answered Mr. T. his Exceptions thereunto considered 1 Tim. 2. 2. 1 Pet. 2. 13. expounded Whether the Kings of Israel were Heads of the Church Isa 44. 28. explained The Government of the Church and State proved distinct WE further manifest in S. T. That the present Ministers deny the Prophetical and Kingly Office of Christ thus 3dly Those that acknowledge another Head over the Church beside Christ deny his Prophetical and Kingly Office But the present Ministers of Engl. do own and acknowledge another Head over the Church beside Christ Therefore To which Mr. T. Sect. 11. The Author of S. T. speaks darkly and thence falls to conjecturing what I mean by the Head of the Church Answ To satisfie this Animadverter once for all By the Head of the Church I mean the King and Bishops that as Heads and Law-givers thereunto assume unto themselves a power to institute Laws and Ordinances of their own and create Officers in the Church which were never of the appointment of Christ which Danaeus and others make to be some of the essential parts of Church-Government and they are indeed so And if the owning such an Head-ship be not a denial of his Kingly Authority I must profess I know not what is This Mr. T. denies But 1. without giving us the least reason of his so doing 2. In contradiction to what is affirmed by himself p. 119. chap. 4. of his Theodulia 3. 'T is avowedly condemned by many sober judicious Protestant Writers and Churches as Rivet Calvin c. He tells us 2dly That no such Headship is owned by the present Ministers as the Pope claims Answ 1. The question is not whether such an Headship be owned by them as the Pope assumes but whether such an one as is not a denial of the Soveraignty of Christ 2. With respect to the extent thereof it is acknowledged there is no such Headship owned by them The King is not Universal Monarch of the Church Yet 3. For the kind of it it is the same i. e. Henry the 8th having cast off the Popes supremacy rests himself with it in his own Dominions Hence the learned Fuller in his History of the Church of England tells us That the King became the Popes heir at Law And it was indeed evidently so 1. Did the Pope claim a right to that Title Summum Caput Ecclesiae sub Christo The Supream Head of the Church under Christ 2. Did he account himself the Fountain of all Ecclesiastical Power 3. Did he undertake to make and dispense Laws pro libitu according as he saw meet So did H. 8. and his Successors the Kings of England with respect to the Church of England The Title of Supream Head or Governour under Christ is given to them They are the Fountain of all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction it being by Statute Law annexed to the Crown The Bishops Courts ought to be held all Processes to go out in their Name With a Synod of Priests or without sometimes they can make and dispense with Laws for the binding or loosing of the Members of the Church thereof Hear what the learned Rivet saith Explic. Decal Edit 2. p. 203. touching this matter taxing Bishop Gardener for extolling the Kings Primacy For he that did as yet nourish the Doctrine of the Papacy as after it appeared did erect a new Papacy in the person of the King And reverend Mr. Calvin And at this day saith he how many are there in the Papacy that heap upon Kings whatsoever right and power they can possible so that there may not be any Dispute of Religion but this power should be in one King to Decree according to his own pleasure whatsoever he list and that should remain fixed without controversie They that at first so much extolled H. King of England certainly they were inconsiderate men gave unto him Supream power of all things and this grievously wounded me alwayes for they were Blasphemers and yet the present Ministers avow the same when they called him The Supream Head of the Church under Christ Thus he in Amos 7. 13. What this Animadverter saith Hart the Jesuite acknowledgeth of the Pope with respect to the whole Church is for the most part acknowledged by the present Ministers of the King with respect to the Church of England The Power which we mean to the Pope the King and Arch-Bishop by this Title of the Supream Head is that the Government of the whole Church of Christ throughout the World of the Church of England doth depend of him In him doth lie the power of judging and determining causes of Faith of ruling Councils or National Synods as President and ratifying their Decrees of Ordering and Confirming Bishops and Pastors of deciding Causes brought him by Appeals from all the Coasts of the Earth all the parts of the Nation Of reconciling any that are Excommunicate of Excommunicaâ—ing Suspending or inflicting other Censures and Penalties on any that offend Finally all things of the like sort for governing of the Church even whatsoever toucheth either preaching of Doctrine or practising of Discipline in the Church of Christ of England which whilst the Animadverter goes about to insinuate as not appertaining to the King he advanceth himself against the Royal Prerogatives of his Crown and Dignity Nor doth the Explanation mentioned Artic. 34. and 37. contradict what we have asserted Jurisdiction and Power of exteriour Government is acknowledged to belong to him which comprehends the substance of what we are contending for In what follows we are not in the least concerned we abhor the Primacy of the Papal Antichrist we deny not the Kings Headship and Supremacy over the Church of England by the fundamental Laws of the Nation it appertains to him We only infer from hence 1st That the Church of England is no true Church because Headed by some one else besides Christ 2dly That whilst the present Ministers account it Christ's Church and own another Head over it besides himself they deny his Soveraignty and Kingship they make another King over it and thereâ—y really unking him We add in S. T. as a proof of the Major Proposition If the assertion of another King in Engl. 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 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 the assertion of such a 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 were it was Instituted Whether such a Dominion and
of Laws Institutions not of the appointment of Christ contrary thereunto who is the Fountain of all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and Church-Politie That Mr. T. sees such a Supream Governour to be agreeable to the Scriptures produced by him must be imputed to that acuteness of his whereby he may be supposed to tâ—anscend the rest of his Neighbours Ille solus sapiens reliqui velut umbra vagantur Of Rom. 13. 1. we have already spoken Though the Church be comprized under every soul yet it doth not follow that Magistrates are the Heads or such Supream Governours of the Church as are invested with power for the establishing and instituting of parts of Worship or commanding them in any thing relating to Worship as such of which the Apostle speaks not a tittle in that place Civil subjection as subjects of the Empire is the utmost can rationally from thence be argued for Those that were then Rulers and Governours were such as Nero Domitian who persecuted the Church design'd to root the Worship of Christ out of the world were Idolaters establisheâ— by force and violence an Heathenish Idolatrous Worship whom Christ never intended to intrust with any such power which is a sufficient answer to 1 Pet. 2. 13. which is exponed by our Annotat. Of Civil Government 1 Tim. 2. 2. is impertinently cited That because the Apostle there exhorts that Prayers be made for Kings therefore they have Ecclesiastical Power and Soveraignty committed to them over the Churches of Christ is a consequence that the very reciting of is confutation sufficient When I ascribe as he talks as much power to the Church as he doth to the King and Bishops I know not That I should make the Church the Head of the Church which is downright nonsense is not probable For the present I must crave leave to tell him he is utterly mistaken I ascribe no power of inventing Rites and Ceremonies devising Laws and Constitutions of their own relating to Worship as such to any one Church or Churches in the World I challenge him to make good his assertion I dispute against it as well as I can in S. T. Chap. 5. pag. 41 42. Whatever power I ascribe to the Church 't is only such as Christ hath entrusted her with that this should be as much a denial of Christ's Kingly Office as the ascription of a power over the Churches of Christ to any to whom he hath not committed such a power Mr. T. will not in hast be able to prove We further reply in S. T. 2dly The Headship pleaded for by the Church of Rome is no other viz. than a Head-ship under Christ To this Mr. T. 1. I grant the Church of Rome pleads for no other Headship But 2. They usurpe a power in some respects superiour to Christ in their dispensing with the keeping of lawful Oaths allowing of Incestuous Marriages Answ And the same may be said of the Heads of the Church of England I suppose this Animadverter may be yet of the mind that the Oath of the Solemn League and Covenant was a lawful Oath yet that can be dispensed with Marriages prohibited are not seldom allowed of by their Ecclesiastical jurisdiction We add 3dly 'T is not so as is pretended they own an Headship that is not in all things subordinate to Christ having a Law-making and a Law-giving Power touching Institutions of Worship that never came into his heart are flatly against his appointments as hath been proved We add in S. T. 4thly One Head in subordination to another doth as really make the Body a Monster as two Heads conjoyned To this Mr. T. The terms Head and Body being used only Metaphorically there 's no more Monstrosity in making a Head under a Head than in making a Governour under a Governour Answ 1. Should it be granted there were no Monstrosity in the thing it self yet there is in the expression in the Title an argument it was never from the Spirit of the Lord. 2. Bernard is of another mind Thou makest a Monster saith he if removing the hand thou makest the Finger to hang on the Head Thou makest the Body of Christ a Monster if thou placest the Members of his Body otherwise than he hath placed them in the Church Lib. 3. cap. 10. Con. ad Eugen. Much more to take a Beast a Lion or Bear as wicked and graceless men are whom yet Mr. T. seeâ—s to allow for Heads in the Churches of Christ and place them not only as Members in but as Heads over though under Christ the Church of God 3. The making of a Governour under a Governour in the Common-weale hath no Monstrosity in it because agreeable to the Will of God Principles of State-polity which a Head under a Head in the Church hath because dissonant contrary to the Law and Soveraignty of Christ its Supream Independant and alone Head A second Objection is in S. T. thus proposed by us That the Kings of Israel were the Heads succesively of the then Church and therefore a visible Headship over the Churches of Christ in the New Testament is lawful To which we Answer 1. That betwixt the Oeconomy of the Law and Gospel there is a vast disproportion many things were of old lawful which now to practice were no less than a denial of Christ come in the flesh 2. The Kings of Israel were Types of Christ which notwithstanding Mr. T. dictates that it is falsly and vainly asserted Sect. 14. till he prove the contrary we take for truths What he speaks with reference to the Kings of Israel and England we are unconcerned in That the Rulers of the Jews or any other Nations had de jure any such Dominion or Power over their Subjects as to make Laws introduce Constitutions of their own framing in matters relating to Worship and compel them by force and violence to subject thereunto Mr. T. hath not proved Isa 44. 28. Is a Prophesie of the Liberty the Jews should obtain under Cyrus to go up to Jerusalem to build the Temple of the fulfilling whereof you have an account Ezra 1. 1 2 3. But not a tittle of his Dominion about things sacred or introducing Constitutions relating to their Worship as such or compelling any to go up to Jerusalem is there mentioned He only removes the Babylonian yoke that was upon them and sets them at liberty to build the Temple of the Lord which the Kings before him would not grant them to do and Worship him according to his own appointments Isa 45. 1. is impertinently alledged relating only to the Victories and Conquests the Lord would afford unto Cyrus over the Cities and Nations of the World Jonah 3. 7 8. gives us an account of a Decree published by order of the King for a solemnization of a Fast and to turn from â—mpiety but this comes short of the proof of the Headship argued for which is an Headship having power of making and giving forth Laws touching Institutions of Worship Orders Rites
which one of their Reverend Prelates hath been moâ—e than once heard to say That the presence of Christ in the Sacramenâ— is not Symbolical but Realiter and upon that account we give adoration 't is like more are of his mind as horrible Idolatry as bowing before a Crucifix or Image 2. That Christ is not alone the Head of the Church 3. They seem to attribute greater efficacy to the Blood than the Body of Christ whilst they pray That their bodies may be made clean by his Body and their souls by his most precious Blood as they do in the prayer before that which is used at the Consecration 4. That Christ descended into Hell as if he descended into the place of the Damned as â—he Papists hold To which Mr. T. 1. 'T is in the Creed call'd the Apostles Answ 1. This is no part of Scripture Nor 2. ever composed by them whose name it bears Nor 3. is it certain when or by whom it was so done 4. To this very day it was never in any full and general Council confirmed and established So that its being in the Creed proves it not so authentick as that we are bound to believe it 5. What is said by Bishop Usher touching this matter I have not leisure to enquire since it 's put after his burial it can signifie no other descent but into the place of the damned which is as rotten a figment as ever was invented 3. Touching Man 1. They generally own I speak especially of them who are called the Church free-will And 2. an implicite Faith not in words but really and indeed whilst they say We must practise in Worship the determinations of the Church though we our selves see no reason for them because she hath determined them and that this is reason sufficient for our so doing i. e. We must in these things believe â—or Faith must preceed practice in the Worship of God as the Church believes 4. Touching Worship They hold 1. That Worship devâ—sed by man though abused to Idolatry is the Worship of God with which he is well-pleased 2. That God is more particularly to be worship'd in one place than in another and that these places being Consecrated are the Houses and Churches of God and upon that account holy and to be reverenced 3. That reading an Homilie or a few Prayers out of the Liturgie is a more excellent worship of God though no where commanded in the Scriptures than Preaching which must therefore give way to it 4. That none must be suffered publickly to worship God or privately except in their own Families but according to Forms of mans devising Which 5. they say Is the Worship of God 5. Touching the Sacraments 1. They seem to intimate that there are more than two when they say there are two only generally necessary to salvation 2. That Women may Baptize in casu necessitatis as the Papists hold and that such Baptism is valid 3. That Baptism is to be administred with a Cross in the fore-head 4. That all Children when baptized are regenerate and received by the Lord for his own Children by adoption Common-Prayer-Book of Publick Baptism 5. That Children being baptized have all things necessary for their salvation and shall undoubtedly be saved 6. That all that are baptized have received remission of sins Confirmation before the imposition of hands 7. They seem to make the imposition of hands a Sacrament when they say 'T is a sign to certifie Children of Gods grace and favour towards them Ibid. in the Prayer after the imposition of hands Yea they really do so if the definition they themselves give of a Sacrament be right viz. That it is an outward and visible Sign of an inward and spiritual Grace 8. So they to make Matrimony by that expression used by them consecrated the state of Matrimony to such an excellent mystery in one of the Collects in the form of the solemnization of Matrimony 9. They adore before the Elements of Bread and Wine 10. That the wicked and ungodly may receive it 11. That though the most notorious offenders be partakers of it yet the People that joyn with them are not defiled thereby 12. That the Body of Christ was broken the blood of Christ was shed particularly for them 6. Touching the Church 1. That under the time of the Gospel there is a National Church 2. That the most wicked and their seed may be compelled and received to be members of the Church which is notoriously known nor have they the face to deny it though Mr. T. talkes as if they would to be consonant to their principles and practice 3. That 't is not lawful to separate from this Church whoever do so are Sectaries Schismaticks to be excommunicated imprisoned a bloody error 4. That the Clergie is the Church as is the Pope and his Conclave to the Romanists 5. That these is another Head of the Church besides Christ 6. That 't is not in the power of the Church to choose their own Officers 7. That 't is in the power of Kings to appoint the highest Church-Officers 8. That lord-Lord-Bishops are Officers of the Church of Christ though no where of his appointment 9. That lord-Lord-Bishops can give the Holy Ghost and power to forgive and retain sins 10. That 't is in the power of a Priest to absolve from sins In the Visitat of the Sick 11. That 't is not in the power of the Church to excommunicate but the Bishop 12. That Pastors and Teachers are to be ordained by Lord-Bishops 13. That dumb Ministers are lawful Ministers of Christ 14. 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 Christians do allow it And this their practice preacheth forth 7. Touching things supposed indifferent 1. That 't is in the power of the Church i. e. the Bishops in their Convocation to make that which is in it self indifferent a necessary part of Worship 2. To devise what Rites it pleaseth and add to the Worship of Christ 3. That Marriage may be forbidden at certain Popish seasons as in Lent Advent Rogation week 4. That the Cope Surplice Tippet Rochet are meet and decent Ornaments for the Worship of God and ministry of the Gospel 5. That Altars Candles Organs are necessary and useful in the Church of God Mr. T. his thoughts are vain when he thinks that they will not assert this Certainly they will not be so imprudent as to aver that they lavish the Gold out of the Bag for the erection of that in the Service of God which is neither necessary nor useful 6. That there may be Holy Dayes appointed to the Virgin Mary John Baptist the Apostles all Saints and Angels together also with Fasts on their Eves on Ember dayes Fridayes Saturdayes so called heathenishly enough Mr. T. answers They will deny this to be their Tenent and câ—tes Whitgift c. telling
not What he adds is most frivolous 't were wicked and abominable in our addresses to God to call him Molech Milcom Malcham Jove but that therefore if the names of Idols be to be abolished we may not call him King Lord Jehovah because some of the fore-mentioned Titles so signifie and others as 't is thought were derived from these names of God is most absurd Christ is called Priest he is truly really so and upon the account of his once offering up himself for the sins of the people before any Mass-Priest was thought of in the world that therefore the name of Priests may lawfully be applied to a company of persons accounted Ministers of the Gospel which was a title assumed by the most idolatrous generation of men professing themselves to be of the same order when such as these pretend to be are no where in the Scripture so called will not in haste be proved We manifest in S. T. 1. a further agreement betwixt the Priests of England and Rome 2. They are both Deacons before they are Priests 3. Ordained to their Office by a Lord-Bishop or his Suffragan 4. Both presented by an Archdeacon or his Deputy with these words Reverend Father I present these men unto thee to be admitted to the Order of Priesthood Our Animadverter replies These are granted and avouched as not Popish but justifiable and agreeable to Orthodox Antiquity Answ 1. That these things are not Popish are avouched without proof They are exactly extracted out of the Pope's Portuis not retained in any one of the Reformed Churches but ejected as the sowr leaven of Popery 2dly That they are justifiable is said not proved Mr. T. should not talk thus confidently of Orthodox Antiquity when he knows 't is of all things the most difficult to determine what things are agreeable to Orthodox Antiquity 3dly Nothing will justifie what we do in matters Divine but the Scriptures Orthodox Antiquity is not sufficient Hear what Basil saith If whatever is not of Faith is sin as saith the Apostle but Faith is by hearing and hearing by the Word of God without doubt whatever is without Divine Scripture since it is not of Faith is sin So Hilarie ad Constant Augustine Tertullian de praescript cap. 15. 8. Hierom in Mat. 23. and Lactantius Humane Precepts have no weight which want Divine Authority lib. 3. c. 27. Theophylact saith 'T is Diabolical to account any thing Divine without the authority of Divine-Scriptures that is Divine which is Apostolical nor is it â—o be sought any where without the Scripture lib. 2. Paschal The saying of Ignatius is worthy to be written in letters of Gold 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ is our Antiquity Yet 4thly the Animadverter cannot justifie these things from Orthodox Antiquity any better than the Papists can justifie their Oyl Spittle Salt in Baptism their orders Eccâ—â—siastical of Exorcists Acolytes And indeed his arguing and Baronius's for these seems to be much a like although there is mention made in Scripture only of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons yet saith he Ignatius in those counterfeit Epistles you must understand that pass under his name mentions more so that it is necessary that either they were in the Apostles time or at least were approved of by them By such Orthodox Antiquity Mr. T. may soon justifie not only the forementioned practices of our Clergy but all the inventions of the Romish Bawd 'T is a trick of the Devil saith Augustine under the pretext of Antiquity to commend fallacies to us de quaest Vet. Nov. Testa q. 14. some things seem'd to be new that were indeed ancient as Christ's Doctrine to the Pharisees Christian Religion to Celsus and his Pagans some things seem to be ancient that are but the impostures cheats and fallacies of the later dayes We add in S. T. 5thly The Priests of Rome must be ordained to their Office according to their Pontifical the Priests of England according to their Book of ordering Priests and Deacons which is taken out of the Popes Pontifical To this Mr. T. returns the same answer that Arch-Bishop Whitgift gave the summe whereof is 1. That what is good in the Popes Pontifical if in our Pontifical our Pontifical is never the worse for having it Answ That nothing but Divine Institution in the Scripture of the Lord renders any thing good consider'd as it relates to the Worship of God as such we have already proved In such cases to talk of things as good for which no precept instituting them can be produced is to talk without book 'T is diabolical saith Theophylact. He proceeds 2dly 'T is most false that the book of ordering Ministers is word for word drawn out of the Popes Pontifical Ignorance and rashness drives you into many Errours Answ 1. Why the Book of ordering Ministers should be called a Pontifical if not from the chief Pontifice of Rome I understand not 2. We say not that the English Pontifical is taken word for word out of the Popes but that it is so i. e. for the substance thereâ—f 3. I have often observed that persons most guilty of ignorance and rashness have been most free in charging their Antagonists therewith Thus fares it with our Animadverter as is evident to the eye of an ordinary Reader from the view of the ensuing parallel Romish Pontifical 1. Tempora ordinationum sunt c. The times of ordination are the Sabbaths in omnibus quatuor temporibus Rom. Pontif. de ordinibus conferendis 2. Ordinationes Sacrorum Ordinum The ordination of holy Orders shall be in the times appointed and in the Cathedral Church the Canons of the said Church being present thereat shall be publickly celebrated in the time of Divine Service ibid. 3. They are taken to the order of Presbytery who have continued in the Office of a Deacon at least a whole year except for the profit and necessity of the Church it shall otherwise seem good unto the Bishop ibid. 4. Episcopus autem Sacerdotibus but the Bishop Priests being adjoyned to him and other prudent men skilful in the Divine Law and exercised in Ecclesiastical functions shall diligently examine the persons age of him that is to be ordained 5. Nullus ad ordinem None shall be admitted to the order of a Deacon before he be twenty three years old nor to the order of Presbytery before the twenty fifth year of his age 6. Archidiaconus offerens The Arch Deacon presenting those who are to be promoted to the order of Deacons each of them being decently habited unto the Bishop sitting in his seat before the Altar saith Reverend Father 7. Pontifex c. The Bishop shall ask Do you know them to be worthy the Arch-Deacon shall answer As much as humane frailty suffers me to know I know and testifie that they are worthy 8. Pontifex The Bishop shall speak to the Clergy and People If any one hath ought against thâ—se persons let him come forth and with confidence speak for