that are excommunicate of excommunicating suspending or inflicting other censures and penalties on any that offend yea on Princes and Nations Finally of all things of the like sort for governing of the Church even whatsoever toucheth either Preaching of Doctrine or practising of Discipline in the Church of Christ. Which his practice sheweth to be such as to dispense with the Laws of God as by legitimating incestuous Marriages releasing of lawful Oaths granting Indulgences releasing out of Purgatory Canonizing of Saints Consecrating of things for the expulsion of Devils with many more and iâ— it be true which is related in a Book lately printed to have been asserted by the party of Jesuites in the Colledge of Clermont in France that the Pope is not only infallible in matters of Faith but also in matters of Fact he is elevated to that height as to accomplish the prophesie which is 2 Thess. 2.4 But the present Ministers of England do abhorr the giving such power to the King Bishops or Convocation yea it is disclaimed by the King Bishops and Convocation as blasphemous and that power they ascribe to the Church is set down in the 34. Article of Religion Every particular or National Church hath authority to Ordain Change and abolish Ceremonies or Rites of the Church Ordained only by mans authority so that all things be done to edifying And that which they acknowledge belonging to the King as the only Supreme Governour of the Realm of England and of all other his Highness Dominions and Countries as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or Causes as temporal is thus explained Artic. 37. We give not to our Princes the Ministring either of Gods Word or of the Sacraments the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen do most plainly testifie but that only Prerogative which we see to have been given alwayes to all godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himself that is that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal and restrain with the civil Sword the stubborn and evil Doers Which is so far from being no other than the Headship pleaded for by the Church of Rome as this Author saith p. 47. that to shew the calumny of it I need use no other words than those of Dr. John Owen in his answer to a Popish Book entituled Fiat Lux ch 13. p. 271. The Declaration made in the dayes of King Henry the 8. that he was Head of the Church of England intended no more but that there was no other person in the World from whom any Jurisdiction to be exercised in this Church over his Subjects might be derived the Supream Authority for all exteriour Government being vested in him alone that this should be so the Word of God the Nature of the Kingly Office and the ancient Laws of this Realm do require And I challenge our Author to produce any one testimony of Scripture or any one word out of any general Council or any one Catholick Father or Writer to give the least Countenance to his assertion of two Heads of the Church in his sense an Head of Influence which is Jesus himself and an Head of Government which is the Pope in whom all the sacred Hierarchy ends This taking of one half of Christs Rule and Headship out of his hand and giving it to the Pope will not be salved by that expression thrust in by the way under him For the Headship of Influence is distinctly ascribed unto Christ and that of Government to the Pope which evidently asserts that he is not in the same manner Head unto his Church in both senses but he in the one and the Pope in the other I add that Mr. Philip Nye in his Book of the lawfulness of the Oath of Supremacy and power of the Civil Magistrate in Ecclesiastical affairs and subordination of Churches thereunto Printed 1662. though not published hath these words p. 46. For Persons and Causes Spiritual or Ecclesiastical that are properly and indeed such as first Table-duties which contain matters of Faith and Holiness and what conduceth to the eternal welfare of mens souls an interest and duty there is in the Civil Magistrate more suâ— to give Commands and exercise Lawful Jurisdiction about things of that nature And for Persons there is no man for his graces so spiritual or in respect of his gâ—fts and Office so eminent but he is under the Government of the Civil Powers in the place where he lives as much in all respects as any other subject Yea in the Apology of the Brownists Printed 1604. these words are alledged for their common defence out of the Letter of Henry Barrow to a Lady 1593. p. 92. I have every where in my writings acknowledged all duty and obedience to her Majesties government as to the sacred Ordinance of God the Supreme Power he hath set over all causes and persons whether Ecclesiastical or Civil within her Dominions Out of these things I infer that asserting the Kings Supremacy or the power of making Laws owned by the Ministers of England is not making another King besides Christ over his Church nor ascribing such a Headship to the King or Governours of the Church as is pleaded for by the Church of Rome and that for the Kings Supremacy those that dissent about Ceremonies and Church Government do acknowledge it as it is meant in the Oath taken by the Ministers Concerning which Supremacy if what I have written in the little Treatise Printed 1660. intituled A serious consideration of the Oath of the Kings Supremncy in the proof of the fourth and fifth Propositions be not sufficient to produce from the Scripture the institution of such an Headship with the conditions annexed thereunto methinks Dr. Rainold his argument which convinced Hart in the conference with him ch 10. div 1. and such other writings as have been written by Bilson Mason Bramhall and many more should have prevented this calumny of making thereby another head besides Christ equivalent to a denial of his Kingly Office And to his Objections I answer 1. to the first That we use not the title of Head but Supreme Governour yet when it was used it meaning the same it might be used as it was given to Saul 1 Sam. 15.17 though not as it it is given to Christ Ephes. 1.22 and 5.23 29 2 Cor. 11.2 Nor is the title of Head so appropriate to Christ but that it is given to the Man over the Woman 1 Cor. 11.3 to the Husband over the Wife Ephes. 5.23 and may in a qualified sense in respect of Government be given to the King over the Church in his Dominions as to Saul 1 Sam. 15.17 to the chief of Families as Parents or others of greatest authority or esteem as the heads of houses Exod. 6.14 in which sense Parliament men Judges Ecclesiastical Governours may be termed Heads of the Church or State they represent
Supremacy in the proof of the fourth and fifth Propositions and if the Church as the Church be comprised under every soul Rom. 13.1 they are Governours of the Church as the Church that is as they are a Company of mâ—n that profess Faith in Christ. Not as if we acknowledged that Kings had a lawful power to prescribe another Faith or Worship besides Christs but as Physitians are said to be subject to the King as Physitians because he can prescribe rules with penalties in the use of that Art they practise according to Hippocrates his Aphorisms so the King is Governour over the Church as such by prescribing rules about the profession and exercise of that Faith and Worship they learn only from Christ in things undetermined by him and serving for the ends which they are to aim at Nor do I perceive that in so doing any more iâ— usurped by them than is ascribed by this Author unto the Church from Mat. 18.17 18. mistaken by him and therefore owning such a power under Christ as given to the Church is as much a denial of Christs Kingly Office as when it is given to the King yea it is more absurd to ascribe such a power to the Church over the Church as such than to ascribe it to the King it being a confounding of Governours and Governed Head and Body which were monstrous 2. Though I deny not that the Headship pleaded for by the Church of Rome is pretended to be under Christ and the Pope terms himself Vicar of Christ yet it is in the foregoing Section shewed that they usurp a power not only equal but in some respects rather superiour to Christs in their dispensing with the keeping of lawful Oaths and allowing of incestuous Marriages none of which is claimed by those whom the Ministers acknowledge as Heads besides Christ and therefore it is false that the Headship pleaded for by the Church of Rome is no other than what the Ministers own 3. His proofs have been examined before and shewed defective 4. 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 used by St. Peter 1 Epist 2.13 14. or making more Fathers of the Church one under another Sect. 14. The Kings Supremacy is such as was allowed the Kings of Israel He ends this Chapter thus If it be said Object 2. That the Kings of Israel were the Heads successively of the then Church and therefore a visible Headship over the Churches of Christ in the New Testament is lawful We answer 1. That betwixt the Oeconomy of the Law and Gospel there is a vast disproportion many things were lawful in that day which to do or subject to now were no less than a denial of Christ come in the flesh 2. The Kings of Israel were types of Christ. 3. That the Kings of Israel were Heads of the Church is false God was its alone Head and King Hence their Historian saith their Government was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and when they would needs chuse a King God said they rejected him to whom even as to their political Head a Sicle was paid yearly as a Tribute called The Sicle of the Sanctuary True indeed as they were a political Body they had visible Political Governours who when they ceased their Policy was at an end but that these had any Headship over them to make any Laws introduce Constitutions of their own framing in matters relating to Worship will never be proved Answ. 1. That there is any such disproportion between the Oeconomy of the Law and Gospel as makes the same power which the Kings of Israel exercised lawfully to be now unlawful to the Kings of England is falsely and vainly asserted sith there is nothing therein ceremonial and temporary peculiar to the Jewish Oeconomy as appears in that all Nations have ascribed to their chief Rulers dominion about things sacred as is proved by me in the Assertion of the fifth Proposition in my Book of the Serious Consideration of the Oath of the Kings Supremacy from that which is ascribed to Cyrus Isa. 44.28 and 45.1 to the King of Niniveh Jon. 3.7 8. and others Ezra 6.7 c. and 7.13 c. Dan. 3.29 6.26 and that Christianity alters not civil relations or Estates 1 Cor 7.24 Parents and Masters have the like power Ephes. 6.4 5. Gen. 35.2 4. which things are more fully vindicated by Mr. Selden in his first Book De Syned Hugo Grotius in his Book De Imperio summarum potestatum circa sacra and others 2. It is true that David is made a type of Christ but that all the Kings of Judah much less that all the Kings of Israel are made types of Christ or that Christ alone was to have that power which they used or that the Kingly Power used by them ceased upon the coming of Christ in the flesh are all most palpably false sith the Scriptures of the New Testament do plentifully assert the Dominion of Civil Powers and our Lord Christ himself and his Apostles yielded subjection to them 3. That the Church of Israel was different from the Kingdom or people of Israel is one of the Placita or proper opinions of those who would establish from that example an Ecclesiastical Independent Government in the Church distinct from the Civil Government of the State But neither the arguments of Mr. Gillespy in his Aarons Rod blossoming Book 1. c. 3. nor any other I have met with convince me that it was so Sure both David and Solomon and other Kings did exercise power over Ecclesiastical persons as in deposing Abiathar and in Ecclesiastical things about keeping the Passover 2 Chron. 29.30 30.2 and many other things which were approved by God being related in the holy Story without reproof as arguments of their integrity And therefore if the Kings of Israel were as it is said of Saul 1 Sam. 15.17 heads of the tribes of Israel they were also heads of the Church of Israel being Governours of the same persons whether of the tribe of Levi or of other tribes and about the same things to wit those of the Worship of God though they were not to meddle with the peculiar Ministry of the Priests and Levites It is true that God alone was the Head and King of the Church of Israel in some sense He was their sole supreme absolute King that had power Legislative to assign what Faith Worship Judicatories and what other things were necessary for that Congregation originally and of himself de jure communi of right common to all Nations as their Creatour and de jure speciali out of right peculiar to that people as being brought forth out of the Land of Egypt Lev. 25.55 and being joyned in Covenant with him were not to set up a King over them without his appointment and de facto he was actually their sole King till the people weary of Samuels
Government because of his sons iniquity and out of fear of Nahash King of the Ammonites desired a King as other Nations because Moses Joshuah and all the Judges were immediately chosen by God and raised up extraordinarily for a time to do special services without ordinary succession and accordingly acted and ruled by extraordinary immediate motions and revelations from God in which respects the Government of the Israelites before Sauls reign was not unfitly termed by Josephus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gods rule and when they would needs chuse a King or have Samuel to make them a King to judge them like all the Nations 1 Sam. 8.5 19 20. God said they rejected him that he should not reign over them v. 17. where the desire of having a King is not simply condemned as unlawful nor because they desired a Kâ—ng over the Church as such as if they might lawfully enough have desired a King over them as a political Head but not as Head of the Church as such for neither is there any intimation of any such limitation of their desire but on the contrary they desired that they might also be like all the Nations and that their King might judge them and go out before them and fight their Battels 1 Sam. 18.20 Nor is there the least hint of any reprehension of their desire that they would have a King over them as a Church to appoint them Religion and Worship as other people neither was it spoken that they rejected God as though the Lord did not reign where there is set up a Monarchical Government for it is Gods Ordinance and Kings have their power and authority from him according to that Prov. 8.15 16. By me Kings reign and Princes decree justice c. and they are his Deputies and Lieutenants by whom he ruleth In which regard the people might have lawfully desired a King if they had done it with upright hearts oâ— lawful grounds to good and warrantable ends in a right manner and in due time For the Lord had promised that when they were settled in the Land of Canaan he would when he thought good set a King over them out of whose loyns the Messiah should come and also sheweth how he would have him qualified and what he required of him Deut. 17.17 18. and he had promised unto Abraham that Kings should come out of him Gen. 17.6 And Jacob in his prophetical blessing saith That the Scepter should not depart from Judah nor a Law-giver from between his feet until Shiloh did come i. e. the Messias Gen 49.10 And David speaking of himself as a type of Christ saith Psal. 2.6 Yet have I set my King upon my holy hill of Zion And therefore this is not simply condemned as a sin in it self to desire a King but because they did it with an ill mind affecting innovation as being weary of Gods Government which he had established till himself pleased to change it and in a prâ—posterous and tumultuous manner before he had given any intimation of his pleasure and to a wrong and evil end that they might be like to the Heathen Nations and out of their confidence in a King as able to protect them and their diffidence in God as insufficient to defend them in his own way unless he would be directed in a course of their prescribing and finally because they would not wait upon him for the accomplishment of his word in his own due time but with all importunity press him to do at their own pleasure Thus the Assembly Annotations Whence the impertinency of the allegation of this Text either against Kingly Government or their Headship over the Church is manifested Noâ— is it more to the purpose which is added that to God even as to their political Head a sicle was paid yearly as a tribute called the sicle of the sanctuary For 1. If this payment be meant of that which is mentioned Exod. 30.12 13 14 15 16. it doth not appear by the Text that it was a yearly tribute paid to God as their political Head but a Tax put on them when Moses took the summ of the children of Israel after their number then they should give every man a ransome for his soul unto the Lord when he numbred them that there might be no Plague among them half a shekel after the shekel of the sanctuary the offering of the Lord to make an attonement for the souls which he was to appoint for the service of the tabernacle of the Congregation that it might be a memorial unto the children of Israel But if it be yielded that it was after made a yearly tribute as the Jewish Doctors say and a perpetual Ordinance according to what Mr. Ainsworth on Exod. 30 16. out of Maimony cites and that it continued so till the destruction of Jerusalem as Josephus relates in Book 7. ch 28. of the Jewish War yet this proves not that it was paid to God under that notion as to their political Head It is true that the tribute or custome called Didrachma that is shekels mentioned Mat. 17.24 25. is conceived by very many learned men to be that which was paid to the Lord for the use of the Temple as a tribute to him which is largely argued by Cameron in his praelections on that Text with whom Diodate Hugo Grotius Dr. Hammond concurr and before them Hilarius cited by Maldonat who thinks it was paid to the Romans and cites Hierome Bede and of this mind are many others as Beza Piscator Pareus But if Camerons opinion were certain yet it may seem rather to be paid to God as Head of the Church then as a political Head as this Author speaks sith it was paid for the service of the Temple 2. Were that which this Author saith granted him it should rather seâ—ve against him than for him For if it were paid to God as their Political Head it rather proves God to be the alone political Head and so against that which he saith true indeed as they were a political Body they had visible political Governours who when they ceased their policy was at an end than that God was the Churches alone Head and King and that it is false that the Kings of Israel were Heads of the Church and therefore his sayings do interfer That the Kings of Israel had a Headship over them to make Laws introduce Constitutions of their own framing in matters relating to Worship is conceived to be proved from 2 Chron. 20.3 21. 29.27 30.1 2 4 5 23. 31.2 3. with many more which I find not yet to be enervated by the Answers I have met with I proceed to examine that which follows CHAP. 6. ARG. 5. Sect. 1. False doctrine only makes a false Prophet not to be heard HE thus writes Argument 5. Those who have the characters and properties of false Prophets and Priests upon them are not to be heard but separated from But the present Ministers of England have
either of these speak truth The Devils we are to have no communion with God having put an utter enmity between the serpent and the seed of the woman 3. If the present Ministers of England preach truth but by halves it is lawful to hear them preach those halfs The Bishops allow them to preach all truths needful to salvation all that is contained in the Creed Lords Prayer and Ten Commandments in the 39 Articles the two Tomes of Homilies nor are men inhibited in Schools or Convocations or at some times in books published in Latine to discover any truths of God so it be done without disturbance or other evil consequence That some truths needful to be known are not permitted to be published to the vulgar auditories may have the same reason as Christ had for not acquainting his disciples with many things he had to say to them because they could not then bear them John 16.12 Some things may seem very clearly revealed in the Scriptures to some and be owned by them which are pernicious as that the Saints have all right to government that they are to smite the civil powers as part of the fourth Monarchy that justified persons are not under the command of the moral Law some disputable as about the thousand years reign That God cannot forgive sins without satisfaction to his justice Church-constitution Covenant Government and many more which it is agreeable to the Apostles rule Rom. 14.1 their practice Acts 15.28 not to vent in all sorts of auditories and if the Bishops do restrain Preachers especially those that are young raw injudicious but violent and apt to cause division they do agreeably to the Apostles rule to the example of all Churches where Government is not popular which breeds confusion yea I think the Separatists have found by experience some restraint necessary and that the universal liberty of Conscience or of prophesying as it is termed is intolerable and if Bishops who are men and may be more rigid then they should hold the reins in too hard yet there is no reason why the people should refuse to hear that truth which is necessary and sufficient to salvation because they cannot hear every truth which perhaps out of faction or a childish inconstancy or having itching ears they desire to know As for what is said about the Ministers contradicting their preaching by their practice it is answered before in the Answer to the 5 th Chapter And yet were it granted their personal evils are not sufficient to make the hearing of the truth unlawful to the hearers As for the errours they are said to mingle with the truths they teach they are not such as overthrow the foundation if they were errours and taught by them and therefore this is no sufficient reason why they may not be heard preaching necessary truths Yet to shew the futility of this allegation I shall consider each of the supposed errours The first I doubt not they will deny and require this Authour to prove it For the second it is not for ought I know preached by any of the Ministers That the Apocryphal books which have in them errours may be used in the publick worship of God nor do I think if they should so do could it well consist with their subscription to the sixth Article of the Confession of the Church of England which excludes them out of the Canon of holy Scriptures which contain all things necessary to salvation and saith The Church as Hierome saith doth read them for example of life and instructions of manners but yet doth it not apply them to stablish any doctrine And what Dr. Rainold the Bishop of Durham that now is with many of the English Protestant and conforming Divines have written about the Apocryphal Books is sufficient to clear the present Ministers from suspicion of complying with the Papists who according to the Decree of the Trent Council ses quarta put most of them though they leave out some of them into the Catalogue of sacred Books containing that truth and discipline of the Gospel which is saving and to be preached to every creature and receive and venerate them with equal affection of piety and reverence as other books of holy scripture And although the passages alleaged by this Authour are liable to exception nor do I think it fit for me to justifie or excuse them yet this I say to shew there is not a sufficient reason to withdraw from hearing the present Ministers preaching or praying 1. Some of the books are not appointed to be read at all 2. Some of those that are appointed to be read are capable of an easier censure and better construction then is put upon them by this Authour 3. That those which are not so capable of excuse yet are appointed to be read on such days and in such places as those that alleadge this for a reason of not hearing the present Ministers need not be present 4. That it was once resolved as lawful by Dr. George Abbot after Archbishop of Canterbury in his answer to Dr. Hill the Papist p. 317. from the Preface to the second Tome of the Homilies for the Minister instead of the Apocryphal books to read some other part of the Canonical Scripture of the old Testament Which things being considered there seems not for this to be a sufficient reason of not hearing the present Ministers or charging them as this Authour doth The third errour I conceive they will deny to be their tenent But concerning this and the 4th 5th 6â—â— 8th 9th 11th errours so much hath been said before chiefly in the answer to the 5 th 6 th 7 th chapters of this book that I need not here make a particular answer concerning each of these severally yet I say the things are not matters of the Ministers Doctrine however they be of their practice and therefore cannot be a reason of not hearing their Sermons And they who make this a sufficient reason not to hear or to pray or receive the Lords Supper with a person by reason of some errour he holds or teacheth or some undue practice on Gods worship or conversation with other men go against all rules and examples in holy Scripture and approved Christians and such a one must suppose Preachers infallible every Communicant unblameable or each Christian to have power to excommunicate if the person faulty be not amended upon his reproof that he must know what Tenents his Teacher holds and what is the conversation of each Communicant ere he can warrantably hear the one or communicate with the other Which with sundry other superstitious conceits or unnecessary scruples put an intolerable burden upon mens consciences and will as well prove withdrawing from the Ministers and Churches Congregational necessary as from the Conformists As for the 7th errour it will be denied by them to be their Tenent that there may be Holy days appointed to the Virgin Mary John Baptist c. For though they
Circumstantials such as are Time Place Meetings Order in Doing and the like God hath not determined the whole of the outward Worship appertaining to the New Testament Churches as of old he did with reference to the then Church but hath left such things though needful to the well performing of the Worship he hath determined under general rules prescribed in holy Scripture to be set down by men who are Governours to whom obedience is due in order to the end of their directions though not with equal tie of Conscience as to Divine Institutions Nor doth God hereby bear less love or exercise less faithfulness over his New Testament Churches than he did over the National Church of the Jews but rather more 1. Because the determination of the whole of the Worship of God to the National Church of the Jews was the imposing of a yoke on them which neither the elder nor later Jews were able to bear Acts 15.10 and therefore God shewed more love and exercised more faithfulness over his New Testament Churches in not determining the whole of his Worship in Circumstantials as he did to the Jews 2. The determination of the whole of Gods Worship to the Jews in Circumstantials of outward Worship did bring in many things which were unprofitable and weak and made nothing perfect Heb. 7.18 19. And if God had so determined to us he had commanded things unprofitable weak which made nothing perfect therefore he shewed more love and faithfulness to us in not so determining 3. The things God had determined to the Jews about the Circumstantials and Rituals of his Worship were but shadows of good things to come which were not fit to be continued or to be supplied with any other Christ being come who was the Body or Substance Col. 2.16 17. Heb. 10.1 Therefore God in not determining such things to us hath shewed more love and faithfulness 4 Such Ordinances were carnal to endure only until the time of Reformation therefore it is a part of Gods love and faithfulness that neither the same in particular nor other are precisely determined to us by God this time of the Gospel being the time of Reformation Heb 9.9 10. 5. God so determined the whole of his Worship to the Jews because they were in their Minority and therefore were to be kept under those weak and beggerly Elements of the World as under Tutors and Governours until the time appointed of the Father Gal. 4 1 2 3 9. But the Christian Believers are as sons come to age and therefore fit to be released of them and such like and to be at more liberty in these things than they were before v. 7. 6. The time before Christs coming was an estate under Moses a Servant but now the estate of Christians is under Christ the Son Gal. 4.4 5 6 7 Heb 3.5 6. Therefore our freedom from such determinations as were upon the Jews is more congruous than to have them imposed on us and consequently a sign of more love in God 7. If such determinations of the whole of Gods Worship had been to us as were to the Jews we had not reaped the fruit of Christs death by which he did abolish them Eph. 2.14 15. Col. 2.14 and consequâ—ntly had tasted less of the love of God than we have if the same or such precise determinations of the whole of Gods Worship had been continued to us 8. The Apostles judged it a great benefit to the Christian Churches that they were exempt from them and it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to them to lay upon the Churches no greater burden than those necessary things mentioned Acts 15.28 29. therefore they counted it an effect of Gods love that he had not determined the whole of his Worship to us as he did to the Jews 9. This yields us also another reason why it is an effect of Gods greater love to the Gentile Churches that he hath not determined to them the whole of his Worship as he did to the Jews because those Gentile Christians being of divers Nations and Languages under divers Governments used to divers Customs could not conveniently if at all practice such an uniformity of Circumstances as they must have done if God had determined the whole of his Worship as he did to the Jews 10 To averr that God hath determined the whole of his outward Worship in Circumstantials as he did to the Jews is to infringe our Christian liberty and to bring us into such bondage as they were in who were under the Law which is not agreeable to that love which God hath born to the New Testament Churches and the New Covenant which he hath made under the Gospel Gal. 4.20 21 24. This Author adds Sect 21. Christ designs Officers and Offices for his Church not as were in the Jewish which are the same while their work is the same though some Titles be new Yea 5. Whether he hath not now as then designed the several Officers and Offices his wisdom thought sufficient for the management of the affairs of his house so that the invention of new ones by the sons of men is not only needless but a daring advance against the Soveraignty care and wisdom of God over his Churches Answ. 1. God did besides Moses and the seventy Elders Joshuah and the Judges David and other Kings for the Government of the People of Israel and Prophets raised up as he thought good for special purposes design Aaron and his sons and the Levites for the Services of the Tabernacle and Temple But he hath not designed such Officers or Offices as either Moses and the Jewish Sanhedrin David or the Judges or as the Priests and Levites and their Services were for the management of the affairs of his House that is the Christian Church it being Gods design not to gather this Church or to form it in that way and Government as he did the Jewish Christ did not gather his Church as the Jews were by Moses brought out of Egypt nor were erected into the form of a Political Body but of a School without either infringing the power of the Caesars and their Officers or withdrawing the People from the Officers belonging to the Temple though corrupt If any advance themselves or others into Offices from the Pattern of the Aaronical Priesthood or Services as the Papists who will have their Pope to be Universal Supreme Bishop in correspondence to the High Priest of the Jews to be absolutely obeyed as he was in the Synedrium to be infallible in his determinations to have power of adjudging to death for Heresie to make sacrificing Priests for Quick and Dead in imitation of the Levitical Priests I conceive that the invention of such new ones by Papists or any other of the sons of men is not only needless but a daring advance against the Soveraignty Care and Wisdom of God over his Churches the Temple and the Priesthood thereof being now by God taken away 2. God hath
his Paraphrase on Mat. 23.8 9 10. as if Christ did forbid the Apostles to impose their Authority upon any in the matters of their God which they did Act 15.25 28. But how comes this to be an Order Ordinance Institution of the house of Christ appointed by himself Such Orders I took to be Precepts of Christ to us but this seems to be Gods gift to him Mat. 28.18 Joh. 3.35 and 5.22 26 27. and 17.2 Acts 3.22 and 5.31 Ephes. 1.22 c. no Precept to us But let it imply a Precept to us Do not the present Ministers of England conform to it He grants they do so in words but not in deeds Why so They own other Lords that have a Lawâ—making power and would enforce the Consciences of the Free-born Subjects of Christ over his Churches besides him and thereby proclaim their disobedience and rebellion which is as the sin of Witchcraft against the King of Kings and their rejection of his Scepter and Soveraign Authority over them This is a high charge and if true would unchristen them but I see no proof of it so that I take this to be only a piece of Oratory such as Tertullus used against St. Paul Acts 24. which is so much the more venomous in that it is in generalibus without instancing in particulars which is the sign of a Diabolical Calumniatour Yet I shall not let it pass The Lords he means are either the King or the Bishops The King is owned by the Ministers in the Oath of Supremacie the Bishops in the promise at their Ordination wherein they promise the Lord being their helper to obey reverently their Ordinary and other Ministers unto whom is committed the charge and government over them following with a glad mind and will their godly admonitions and submitting themselves to their godly judgements The Law-making power of the King is with the Parliament of the Bishops in the Convocation the enforcing of the Conscience though it be an uncouth phrase as supposing the Conscience can be enforced by man which is impossible is meant of Causative Compulsion by enjoyning men to act or speak according to such Statutes or Canons as are imposed on them under certain penalties How many and which of these Acts or Speeches are rebellion and rejection of Christs Authority is to be demonstrated and not persons of place and Authority to be thus criminated after the manner of Railers and Scolds And sure it is not easie to prove that though such Acts and Speeches were imagined to be such Rebellion yet that they are so in them unless it could be proved they did them presumptuously 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a proud heart and an high hand which if this Author hath not learned the Maxime Calumniare audacter aliquid haerebit methinks he should tremble to attempt But sith he tells us of this more hereafter I intend to observe his motion He goes on Sect. 4. Ministers oppose not the Will of Christ by not joyning in the Separation pleaded for 2. Saith he This great Prophet and King hath also revealed and proclaimed That 't is his Will that those whom he hath called by his Word should separate from the World walk together in particular Societies and Churches having given up themselves to the Lord and one another according to the Will of God for their mutual edification and comfort in the Lord. The truth of this soveraign Institution of Christ he that runs may read in the Scriptures hereunto annexed 1 Cor. 1.2 and 5.12 2 Cor. 6.17 Rev. 18.4 Joh. 15.19 and 17.6 Acts 2.40 and 19.9 Phil. 1.5 Acts 2.41 and 17.4 2 Cor. 8.5 with many more In the proof of this we might be copious but that we study brevity The diligent Reader knows where to find this Theam at large treated of by learned Ainsworth Bartlet Cotton Rogers c. How do the Ministers of England acquit themselves in respect of this solemn appointment of the Lord alass who sees not that they are in their practice at open defiance herewith have it in derision and contempt making no difference betwixt the Holy and Prophane admitting persons led captive by the Devil at his will that openly blaspheme the spirit of the Lord and deride its effectual operation in the Consciences of men into their society Are any too vile except such as truly fear God and desire to press after holiness to be admitted by them into their Communion Is not their Church-state so unlike is it to the Institution of Christ a very Babel a Den of Dragons and Hold of unclean Beasts Answ. This Crimination proceeds on these suppositions 1. That Christians should separate from the Parish Assemblies and joyn together in the Congregational way by Church-Covenant which they call separating from the World 2. That Ministers are bound to reject and not to admit to the Communion those that are profane and to admit only real Saints in the judgment of Charity and that by opposing the way of separation and promiscuous admission to the Communion they infringe the solemn appointment of the Lord. For my part having read somewhat in Mr. Ainsworths and Mr. Cottons Writings both concerning the way of the Separatists in the Low-Countries and the Independents in New-England I do not either in the Scriptures here alledged find such a solemn appointment of Christ either that private persons or Ministers are to make such a Separation as these Authors do press upon the Consciences of others nor hath experience either in the Low-Countries or Old or New-England given such encouragement to sober minded Christians as to engage them in that way but rather many divisions declinings into errour and other evils have given too much cause for men to doubt whether it were ever a Plant of Gods planting It is granted that it is the will of Christ that those whom he hath called by his Word should separate from the World And this they are to do in respect of their Worship so as not to have Communion with them therein and this I doubt not may be proved from 2 Cor. 6.17 and some other of the Texts alledged But then by the World are meant professed Infidels such as denied the Lord Jesus and worshipped Idols or at least such as were professed Unbelievers as John 15.19 and 17.6 Acts 2.40 and 19.9 the Jews were and yet the Apostles did not refuse to go to the Temple to pray nor to go into their Synagogues or to take a Vow and purifie themselves at the Temple notwithstanding the corruptions of their Priests Service and People and their open opposition to the Christian Faith But that ever it was the Will of Christ that Christians should separate from the true Worship of God and the Professors of true Faith in Christ because of either known evil in the Coversation of those present or only suspected or reported is without all colour of Precept or Example in the Holy Scripture It is true the people of God are invited Rev.
pretenders hereunto have done If the second let one iota be produced from the Scripture of the Institution of such an Headship with the conditions annexed thereunto and we shall be so far from denying of it that we shall cheerfully pay whatever respect homage or duty by the Laws of God or Man may righteously be expected from us But this will not we humbly conceive in hast be performed and that because 1. The Scripture makes mention of no other Head in and over the Church but Christ Ephes. 1.22 5.23 29 2 Cor. 11.2 2. If there be any other Head he must either be within or without the Church The latter will not be affirmed Christ had not sure so little respect unto his flock as to appoint Wolves and Lions to be their Governours and Guides in matters Ecclesiastical nor can the former for all in the Church are Brethren have no dominion over each others Faith or Conscience Luke 22.25 3. If any other be Head of the Church but Christ then is the Church the Body of some others besides Christ but this is absurd and false not to say impious and blasphemous 4. There was no Head of the Church in the Apostles dayes but Christ. 5. If any be Head of the Church beside Christ they either have their Headship from an Original Right seated in themselves or by donation from Christ. To assert the first were no less then blasphemy if the second let them shew when and where and how they came to be invested in such a right and this Controversie will be at an end 6. He that is asserted in Scripture to be the Head of the Church is said to govern feed and nourish it to eternall life is her Spouse and Husband 2 Cor. 11.2 In which sense none of the Sons of men one or other can be the Head thereof and yet of any other Head the Scripture is wholly silent But of this matter thus far It cannot by any sober person be denied but an owning of a visible Head over the Church having power of making and giving forth Laws with respect to Worship such an Headship not being of the institution of Christ must needs be a denial of his Soveraign Authority and Power Answ. This Author in this Argument seems to me to hide his meaning as they say the Fish Saepia doth by casting out some black colour whereby the water is infected and she not discerned A Headship over the Church besides Christ's he makes the present Ministers to acknowledge in some of the sons of men but who they are he means what the Headship is and how it is opposite to Christs Kingly and Prophetical Office is not plainly expressed nor in what Subscription Oath or Conformity they own and submit to it Headship is a Metaphor and sometime notes Origination vital influence direction or guidance superiority power authority or government which may be in many things No Minister I think gives such a Headship to any of the sons of men as to Christ over his whole Body either so as to derive their being members having their faith or eternal life or dominion over their Consciences or Sovereign power authority to rule or dispose of soul or body as Christ hath And that which the Bishop of Rome claims over the Universal Church is utterly disclaimed by the present Ministers The Headship which is made a denial of Christs Headship ascribed by the present Ministers to some person on Earth is expressed in various phrases A Headship in and over his Church to act in the Holy things of God a Dominion and Soveraignty over the Subjects of Christs Kingdom with respect to Worship a visible head over the Church having power of making and giving forth Laws with respect to Worship which it 's said they own by conformity in Worship to Laws and Edicts made and given forth by the sons of men as Heads and Governours of the Church thâ—y own an Headship that is not in all things subordinate to Christ having a a Law making and Law-giving power touching Institutions of Worship that never came into his heart Headship over the Church to make Laws introduce Constitutions of their own framing in matters relating to Worship This can be conceived to be ascribed by the present Ministers to no other than the Bishops or Convocation or the King whose Supremacy in Causes Spiritual or Ecclesiastical seems to be that Headship here meant by the answer to the second Objection What Headship is ascribed to the Bishops or Convocation in making Laws or Constitutions about Worship to wit the accidentals thereof undetermined in order to the orderly decent performance of it to edification by the present Ministers hath been examined all along in the answer to this Book specially to the 4. and 5. Chapters Sect. 3. and as yet no such Headship is proved by this Author to be ascribed by the present Ministers as amounts to a denial of the Prophetical and Kingly Offices of Christ that the taking of the Oath of the Kings Supremacie or submission to his Edicts about matters of Worship is not owning such a Headship is further to be cleared And first I deny his major That those who acknowledge another Head over the Church beside Christ by acknowledging the King as Supream Governour in Causes Ecclesiastical or Spiritual as the Oath of Supremacy is proved by me in my Book of the Serious Consideration of the Oath of the Kings Supremacy ought to be understood particularly that he or with him the Bishops or Convocation may make Laws or Constitutions in the accidentals of Worship undetermined in Scripture observing the rules of Order Decency Edification deny Christs Prophetical and Kingly Office and to the proofs of it I answer This Author doth most injuriously suppose the power and authority asserted to the King of England in the Oath of Supremacie to make Laws or Canons about the Worship of God with the Counsel of a Synod or Convocation or Parliament is making another King besides Christ over his Church For there is no such thing acknowledged thereby which is proper to Christ to wit to be the universal Monarch of the whole Church to prescribe what Faith or Worship shall be given to God to be Infallible Interpreter of Gods Will and the Supreme Judge and Lawgiver who is able to save and to destroy or which is arrogated by the Popes of Rome and thus acknowledged by Hart the Jesuite in his Conference with Dr. John Rainold in the Tower of London ch 1. div 2. in these words The power which we mean to the Pope by this title of the Supream Head is that the Government of the whole Church of Christ throughout the World doth depend of him in him doth lye the power of judging and determining all causes of Faith of ruling Councils 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 of reconciling any
which when they have proved that ever the Lord Jesus did intrust an Assembly of the greatest Murderers Adulterers and Idolaters in the world with any power for the sending forth Officers to act in the holy things of God to and for the Church his Spouse will be admitted but that they shall never be able to do so hugely importunate are some of them herein that they are not ashamed to ask us VVhy Ordination may not be received from the Church so called of Rome as well as the Scripture To which we shall only say That when it is proved that we received the Scripture from that Apostate Church by vertue of any Authority thereof as such somewhat of moment may be admitted in that enquiry but this will never be done T is true the Bible was kept among the people in those parts where the Pope prevaileth yet followeth it not from hence that we received it from their Authority as Ordination is received If we did why did we not keep it as delivered from them to us in the Vulgar Latine So that of these things there is not the same reason It will not then be denied but the present Ministers of England act in the holy things of God by vertue of an Office power received by succession from the Church of Rome and so from Idolaters that Church being eminently so as hath been proved Answ. This Objection though it be but a slight thing and of no real force to nullifie or invalidate the Calling of the present Ministers yet because the well-affected Protestants are zealous against Popery as having learned the Pope to be Antichrist and that terrible threanings are in the Revelation against any communion with any thing that is suggested to them by those to whom they adhere to come from Rome or the Pope as being Antichristian it is needful that this thing should be cleared for rectifying the mistakes of people that their unadvised zeal against some things as Popish which are not may not occasion unnecessary Schism and such other evils into which persons perhaps otherwise of honest hearts cast themselves to their ruine It is known to those that study Controversies between Protestants and Papists that this hath been one grand Objection of the Papists against the Reformed Churches that their Ministers are not rightly Ordained and therefore they have no succession which by Bellarmine in his Book de Notis Ecclesiae c. 8. is made a Note of the Church and therefore they are not a true Church but schismatical The Answers given to this Objection are 1. For the truth of the Reformed Churches the succession in them of true Doctrine is sufficient to demonstrate them true Churches as I have asserted in my Romanism discussed against the Manuel of H. T. Art 2. 2. That Ministers may be sent of God who teach the Doctrine of God though they have not Ordination according to Church-Canons as was the case at the first beginning of the Reformation in which there was something extraordinary by reason of the long tyranny of Popes and the great corruptions in the Latine Churches 3. That their Ministers were at first ordained by the Popish Bishops and though they did after renounce the offering Sacrifice for quick and dead yet even by the Papists own Canons and resolutions of their Casuists their power to administer the Word and Sacraments according to the Word of God continued still 4. That those who had been thus ordained had power to ordain others for which the French and other Protestants of the Presbyterial Government allege That Presbyters may Ordain even by the confession of the Romanists and that Bishops though they be hereticks in their account yet they lose not the power of Ordaining no not when degraded of which more may be seen in Rivet sum Controv. tract 2. q. 1. Alsted suppl ad Chamier panstrat de memb Eccl. milit c. 8. Ames Bellar. Enerv. tom 2. l. 3. de clericis c. 2 sect 10. and many more who have still pleaded That notwithstanding the impurity of the Church of Rome yet the Calling which Luther Zuinglius and others had from Popish Bishops was sufficient without any other Ordination for an ordinary calling to the Office of a Minister and that those who have succeeded them have been true Pastours in their Churches The English Protestants who have had Bishops above Presbyters have advantage above other Protestants to plead for the regularity of the Ordination of their Ministers because they have been ordained by Bishops and those Bishops consecrated by other Bishops according to the â—anons of the Ancients in a succession continued from Bishops acknowledged by the Papists themselves To evacuate this plea saith Dr. Prideaux Orat. 8. de Vocatione Ministrorum The Papists would fain find a defect in the succession of the English Bâ—shâ—ps from the preceding Bâ—shops and in the solemnity of their consecration And being beaten off from the denial of Cranmers consecration by the producing of the Popes acknowledging of him Arch-bishop and the register of his consecration as also of other Bishops in King Edwards dayes After Christophorus à sacrâ—bâ—sco or Father Halywood of Dublin in Ireland Anthony Champney and James Wadsworth say That Arch bishop Parker Bishop Jewel and those others which were made Bishops in the beginning of Q. Elizabeth though theâ—e were an attempt of their consecration at a Tavern at the Nags-head in Cheapside yet could not they procure an old Catholick Bishop to joyn with them and therefoâ—e their consecration was disappointed To shew the falshood of this fable and to make evident the compleat solemnity of Paâ—kers and others consecration and the truth of the Ordination of the English Ministers even by the Canons of the Papists Bishop Bâ—del in his Answer to Wadsworth ch 11. and Mr. Francis Mason in his Vindication of the English Ministry have fully proved the solemnity of the consecration out of the Aâ—ch-bishops Begister to have been â—ight and the succession to have been legitimate even according to the Canon Law and the Ministers Ordination to have been good though not ordained sacrificing Priests for quick and dead against the exceptions of Bellarmine 〈◊〉 and such other of the Papists ' as have denied Protestant Ministers true Pastours and their Churches true Churches It is not unlikely that some of the Prelaâ—ical party have vented in writings and conference such expressions as carry a shew of their disclaiming the Churches which have not Bishops and extolling the Popish Churches Government and avouching their Ordination from Rome which hath caused a great aveâ—seness in many zealous persons from Bishops and the conforming Ministers and is taken hold of by this Author and other promoters of Separation as an engine sutable to that end But as those learned men Bedel Mason Prideaux and others have pleaded the succession of Bishops from the Popish Bishops and the Ordination of Ministers by them there is no cause given of that out-cry that is made of the Bishops
confirms himself in his superstitious errour and hinders his spiritual good and progress in Christianity and ensnares himself in an unjustifiable separation 2. He doth also truly scandalize others by his example confirming those that refuse to hear in their errour and schism whom he ought to oppose as St. Paul did St. Peter Gal. 2.11 when their shunning to hold communion with some as unclean tends to the establishing of an errour and schism as his did 3. By this refusing to hear the present Ministers through such suggestions as this Author instills into the minds of men against them people are driven from the publique Congregations and thereby the sheep of Christ are scattered some betake themselves to the meetings of Quakers where they are mis-led by the delusions of Satan under pretence of following the light within them other joyn with the Fifth monarchy men who pervert them with peruicious tenents and designes against Magistrates and in the best of the Separatists there is so much bitterness and enmity against dissenters from them instilled into their minds as quite breaks the bond of charity that should unite all Christs Disciplâ—s which surely is real Scandal 4. The Refuser to hear the pâ—esent Ministers doth really scandalize thoâ—e that aâ—e confoâ—mists in hearing who are therefore unrighteously judged censured and shunned as lapsed Brethren or meer Formalists and thereby are grieved and moved to mourn for this evil spirit that is between them and their Brethren The present Ministers are alâ—o much scandalized for the same cause and are much hindâ—ed in the performance of their ministry by reason of the opposition of the Separatists which experience hath too much shewed in former and later times to have hindred the fruits of many holy Preachers even Non-conformists labours and to have shortned their dayes so that upon the doors of the Separatists may be written with greater reason than upon the doors of the diligent conforming Preachers of the Gospel The Blood of Souls Therefore scandalizing by hearing the present Ministers is not forbidden in the Texts alleged 8. That Scandalizing is not forbidden in those Texts by avoiding of which the Magistrate is scandalized his government disturbed his power excited against others as disobedient to his Laws and for that reason many persons with their families undone in their liberties and outward estate For the offence of our Brother is not to be regarded by observing of that which will include in it disobedience to the command of the Magistrate which may be lawfully obeyed whereby his authority is nâ—glected his government disturbed division and ruine of families occasioned But so it is when the present Ministers are not heard as the state of things now is Therefore the Scandalizing by hearing the present Ministers is not forbidden in the Texts Rom. 14. 1 Cor. 8. and 10. It follows Sect. 4. It is not Scandal given but when the offensive action is done blameably If it be said Object That there is a twofold scandal 1. Scandalum acceptum a scandal or offence taken 2. Scandatum datum a scandal or offence given In respect of the former possibly many may be offended at their practice in the matter treated of and so would some or other whatever is done by them 'T is impossible but offences should come that there is any just offence given by them herein is denied To this we answer Answ. 1. That as we admit of the distinction so no doubt there is a truth in what is suggested thereupon that what ever I do some one or other will be offended at it there are a generation of men whom the doing of my duty will offend and cause to blaspheme thâ—se are not to be minded but to be pittied Christ himself was to some a rock of offence and stone of stumbling 2. But t is not yet proved nor like to be that the Scandal treated of is a Scandal taken and not given the very nature of â—candal given as is confest by all and evident beyond exception from the Apostles discourse 1 Cor. 8.10 lying in the doing of what is judged by me to be my liberty which other Saints are not fully perswaded of in their own minds to be so but are ready to conclude it to be my sin and evil and from thence have occasion of grief or stumbling administred to them This was the very case of the Church of Corinth upon the occasion whereof Paul writes to them 1 Cor. 8. some of them judged it their liberty to sit at meat in the Idols Temple others not being fully perswaded hereof were scandalized many wayes at this their practice which the Apostle therefore condemns as unlawful Answ. 1. That there is any generation of men whose offence is not to be minded is not the Doctrine of the Apostle but contrary to it 1 Cor. 10.32 33. Give none offence neither to the Jews nor to the Gentiles nor to the Church of God Even as I please all men in all things not seeking mine own profit but the profit of many that they may be saved Which practice of his he had expressed 1 Cor. 9.19 20 21 22 23· For though I be free from all men yet have I made my self servant unto all that I might gain the more And unto the Jews I became as a Jew that I might gain the Jews to them that are under the Law that I might gain them that are under the Law to them that are without Law as without Law being not without Law to Gâ—d but under the Law to Christ that I might gain them that are without Law To the weak I became as weak that I might gain the weak to all became I all things that I might by all means save some And this I do for the Gospels sake that I may be a joynt partaker thereof Where his avoiding of offence and pleasing all is not restrained to the Saints or the Church of God but is extended even to adversaries that opposed the Gospel to whom he would both forbear his liberty and do that which was otherwise not to be done as in the case of circumcising Timothy Acts 16.3 and taking on him a vow Acts 18.18 and purifying himself with others Acts 21.26 and 24.17 and other wayes Acts 26.25 26 27. while there was any likelyhood either of winning them to the liking of the Gospel or abating their opposition and procuring his own peace and safety But when it was dis-advantage to the truth of the Gospel he would not have Titus to be circumcised nor any compliance with the Jews in declining eating with the Gentiles Gal. 2.3 11 14 which yields us a rule whose offence we are to avoid with whom and when we are to comply in things lawful to wit with all either when we may win them to the embracing of the truth or the abating the opposition of adversaries or procuring our own peace Which is a good plea for them that by hearing the present Ministers do accommodate themselves in doing