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
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
or are subject to them To the second though all in the Church are Brethren have no dominion oâ— authority over each others faith or conscience yet neither are all equal in the Church nor doth Luke 22.25 prove it The Apostles sure had power over the members of the Church to command 1 Cor. 7.10 to give orders 1 Cor. 16.1 to judge 1 Cor. 5.3 though no superiority over one another And though the King and Bishops or Convocation are Brethren yet are they Superiours Rulers Rom. 13.1 Heb. 13.17 and though they have no dominion or authority over each others faith or conscience so as that their Laws shall bind the conscience immediately and must be obeyed as precisely and fully as the Laws of God and Christ yet their Laws Edicts Commands Canons or Rules even in the worship of God in things undetermined by God and according to such Rules as the Scripture directs them to observe bind in some sort the conscience as the commands of Parents and Masters by virtue of the authority given them by God Rom. 13.5 1 Peter 2.13 14 16 18 19. though not in respect of the things commanded by them To the third the Church is not the body of any other than Christ as joyned to any or depending on any or subject to any absolutely as unto Christ yet may particular Churches in respect of that Ministration and Government which their Governours afford them be said to be the bodies of their Governors as a wife is in some râ—spect the body of her husband Ephes. 5 28. nor is there any impiety or blasphemy in so saying And in this sense the Apostles and Bishops or Elders were heads of the Church in the Apostles dayes which answers the fourth To the fifth their Headship is by donation from Christ in the places often alledged and in answer to the sixth though not as Christ is termed the Husband of Believers 2 Cor. 11.2 can any be termed Husband nor to govern feed and nourish to eternal life as Christ by influence of his Spirit or power to give eternal life 1 Cor. 6 17. John 17.2 nor their Father as God is said to be Ephes. 4.6 1 Cor. 8.6 Jam. 1.18 Joh. 1.13 yet the Apostles and all others may be in a qualified sense who are instruments to convert or build up others by the Word or Discipline be termed their Fathers in Christ 1 Cor. 4 15. and to govern feed and nourish them to eternal life as 1 Thess. 2.7 11. the Apostle saith of himself Whence I conclude in answer to his major that notwithstanding what he hath said it may by a sober person be denyed that an owning of a visible head or heads over the Church having power of making and giving forth Laws with respect to worship as the King Parliament Bishops or Convocation do may be no denial of Christs Soveraign authority and power Le ts view that which remains Sect. 12. Conformity to Laws opposite to Christ's proves not owning another King coordinate to him That saith he the present Ministers of England do own and submit to such an Headship is undeniable witness their Subscription Oath Conformity in Worship to Laws and Edicts made and given forth by the sons of men as Heads and Governours of the Church which are not onely foreign to but as hath been already demonstrated lift up themselves in opposition against the royal institutions of Christ. This being matter of fact the Individuals charged herewith must either acquit themselves by a denial of what they are impleaded as guilty or prove what they do is not criminous but lawful to be done The former being too notoriously known to admit of a denial 't is the latter must be insisted on what is therein offered is nextly to be considered Answ. Though I cannot justifie all that the present Ministers of England do in their Subscriptions and Conformity as if it were no way criminous but in every thing lawful to be done nor perhaps will all of them plead so for themselves as being mindful of the Psalmists words Psal. 19.12 Who can understand his errours cleanse thou me from secret faults Yet for the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance which are the only Oaths I know they have taken as I have so I do still plead that the taking of them is not criminous but may be lawfully done And I further say that were it yielded that the Laws and Edicts made and given forth by those sons of men he means as Heads and Governours of the Church not only foreign to but which I utterly deny he hath demonstrated that they lift up themselves in opposition against the royal Institutions of Christ yet might the Ministers be free from that which he chargeth them with as denying Christs Kingly Office and setting up another King besides Christ as his Peer sith it is clear that such Conformity and Subscription may be out of weakness or errour not out of Faction or Rebellion nor doth he who conforms or subscribes to the Laws or Edicts of an Usurper own his power when he yields subjection to his commands Those who obeyed the Laws of Richard the 3. of England did not thereby acknowledge him to be the King of right nor do all that submit to the decrees of the Trent Council or the Popes Edicts either own the one or the other as being just or the power as rightly claimed but for peace sake submit to what they cannot remedy Sect. 13. Headship of the Church under Christ is not monstrous It is added This is that some say Obj. 1. That they acknowledge another Head besides Christ cannot indeed be denied but the Headship owned and acknowledged by them is an Headship only under Christ. To which we answer Answ. 1. But this Headship is either of Christs appointment or 't is not if it be let it be shewn where it was instituted by him and as we said this controversie is at an end if it be not the assertion of such an Headship even in subordination to Christ over his Churches as such hinders not but persons owning submitting thereunto are guilty of denying the Kingly Office of Christ. 2. The Headship pleaded for by the Church of Rome is no other 3. '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 Law-giving power touching institutions of Worship that never came into his heart are flatly against his appointments as hath been proved 4. One Head in subordination to another doth as really make the Body a Monster as two Heads conjoined Answ. 1. The term Head of the Church is not used in the Oath of Supremacy but Supreme Governour and this is agreeable to Scripture Rom. 13.1 1 Tim. 2.2 1 Pet. 2.13 and how out of these and other Scriptures his Government is proved in that sense in which it is asserted by the Ministers is shewed by me in my Book of the serious consideration of the Oath of the Kings
received from a Bishop Suffragan who is not a Lord and therefore the adding of the title Lord to Bishop being only a civil title they being made Barons of the Land by the King and nothing pertaining to their Ordination but only giving them power to vote in Parliament or Convocation with other dignities is only brought in here ad faciendum populum to create envy or hatred against them in the Common people or others who are prepossessed with prejudice against them What their Office is as Bishops may be best discerned by the Book of Consecration which I gather from their promises and the prayers then used to be the instruction of the people committed to their charge out of the Holy Scripture and to teach or maintain nothing as required of necessity to eternal salvation but that which they shall be perswaded may be concluded and proved by the same faithfully to exercise themselves in the same Holy Scriptures and call upon God by prayer for the true understanding of the same so as they may be able by them to teach and exhort with wholesome Doctrine and to withstand and convince the Gainsayers to be ready with all faithful diligence to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange Doctrine contrary to Gods Word and both privately and openly to call upon and encourage others to the same to maintain and set forward as much as shall lie in them quietness love and peace among men and such as be unquiet disobedient and criminous within their Diocess correct and punish according to such authority as they have by Gods Word and as to them shall be committed by the Ordinance of the Realm to be faithful in Ordaining Sending or Laying hands upon others to shew themselves gentle and merciful for Christs sake to poor and needy People and to all Strangers destitute of help These are their Offices which they are required to perform at their Consecration whatever their practise be it pertains not to the present point this is the Office they undertake and it is as much wonder to me that any sober man should assert this to be Antichristian as it is to him that some should deny it I deny not but there are many that have termed Bishops Antichristian nor have there been wanting who have said as much of persons of Presbyterian and Congregational principles but such use of this term I have alwayes condemned even when Bishops were lowest as tending to nothing but to inflame the minds of Dissenters in opinion with hatred one against another but I have not met with any sober Writer or considerate man who in conference hath judged their Office as it is undertaken by them to be Antichristian I deny not that many learned men at home and abroad have disputed whether Bishops are by Divine Right an Order above Presbyters nor have there been wanting even of the Bishops themselves who have denied it Somewhat I have read on both sides but shall leave that controversie now and only examine what this Author saith to prove the Office of Lord Bishops to be Antichristian We shall saith he propose briefly a word or two in this matter 1. That Office that is not to be found in the Scriptures of the institution of Christ but is contrary to express precepts and commands of his is Antichristian But the Office of Lord-Bishops is not to be found in the Scriptures is contrary to express precepts Therefore Answ. I think the Major is not true if universal The Office of some Religious Votaries is not to be found in the Scriptures of the institution of Christ but is contrary to express Precepts and Commands of his and yet may not be Antichristian in that special sense in which the Scripture useth the word Antichrist nor as I suppose this Author useth it unless he make every sin to be Antichristian But because the Minor is that which he insists on I pass to his proof of it The minor Proposition consists of two parts 1. That the Office of Lord-Bishops is not to be found in Scripture of the institution of Christ He gave indeed Apostles Prophets Pastors and Teachers Ephes. 4.11 of Pastors and Teachers we read Rom. 12.7 8. Ephes. 4.8 Bishops also and Deacons without the interposition of any other Order we find 1 Tim. 3.12 Deacons we have appointed Acts 7. Elders Acts 14.23 those who are Bishops we find called Presbyters Tit. 1.5 7. and those who are Presbyters we find termed Bishops Acts 20.28 Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishops but where the Office of Lord-Bishops was instituted by Christ we are yet to seek indeed some appearances of a spirit striving to ascend into this chair of wickedness was seen in Diotrephes and others in the Apostles time but these were the Antichrists that were then gone abroad into the world The Scripture before mentioned Ephes. 4.11 speaks as fully to the Officers and Offices instituted by Christ as any we meet with Fail they in their deduction of their Office from hence and they will undoubtedly prove successless in their attempts Let us then fix here a little mention we find here of Apostles Prophets Pastors and Teachers none at all either here or elsewhere of Lord-Bishops But perhaps their Office though they are called by another name is comprehended in some one or other of these let that then be considered Are they Prophets that in the sense of the Spirit in this place they will not pretend to Are they Pastors or Teachers This is too great a debasement of their Lordships their Parochial Priests over whom they preside are supposed to be Offiâ—ers in that degree What then are they Apostles Their successors they do indeed boast themselves to be and are so accounted by their abettors and so doth the Pope himself but how prove they their Succession from them if they derive it through the Papacy who sees not the invalidity thereof How lubricous and uncertain is that their Succession How do they therein proclaim their shame and yield the matter in Controversie What clearer argument that they are Antichristian if the Pope be the Antichristian Head over many Countries as is by the generality of Protestants believed and will not by themselves be gainsayed But in what sense do they pretend to be the Apostles Successors Do they succeed them as Christians that is not the thing in question they stand or fall in respect thereof to their own Master herein we have no controversie with them as not willing to judge any thing before the time Do they succeed them in respect to their Offâ—ice let them prove that and take the cause The Apostles were first immediately sent by Christ secondly extraordinary Officers Commissionated to the Preaching of the Gospel throughout the Nations of the World Are their Lordships such what can be imagined more frivolous or false Where find we any Apostles after the departure of those that were immediately by Christ called to that Office Did the Apostles ordain any as their
or some confusion 2. However those Presbyters are not of the institution of Christ these being only in a particular instituted Church of Christ. Answ. If this be held no Presbyters in any Church but Congregational are of Christs Institution and then all the Presbyters of the French Dutch and other Churches under Presbyterial Government are excluded from being of Christs Institution as well as these Ordained by Bishops of the Church of England and then they by his Argument are no more to be heard than these and so Separation avowed from all Churches even Protestant besides those of their own way which is the pernicious errour to which this arguing tends But till it be proved I count his dictates fit to be rejected and proceed to the next Chapter CHAP. 4. ARG. 4. Sect. 1. They that deny not Christs Offices Doctrinally may be heard THus it is argued Those that oppugn or deny any of the Offices of Jesus Christ are not to be heard but separated from But the present Ministers of England oppugn and deny some of the Offices of Jesus Christ Therefore Before we come to clear the several parts of this Argument we shall crave liberty briefly to premise 1. That there is a two-fold denying or oppugning of the Offices of Christ Verbal and Professional Such was and is that of the Jews the Papists are not guilty hereof in words they own preach up plead for all the Offices of Christ as much as any so do all the present Ministers of England This is not then the denial of the Offices of Christ we implead them as guilty of 2. Real and actual when persons do that which enwraps in the Bowels of it an impugning and denial of the Offices of Christ. This the Romish Synagogue are eminently guilty of so are the present Ministers of England as shall we doubt not be clearly demonstrated in its proper place Secondly That a verbal professional acknowledgment of the Offices of Christ is nothing when contradicted in practice This the Apostle avowedly asserts in respect of the knowledge of God Tit. 1.16 They profess they know God but in works they deny him and may congruously enough be applyed to the matter in hand This as applied to the Combination and Synagogue of Rome some of themselves have long since ackowledged whilest they profess Christ to be King and submit not to the Laws he hath prescribed in his Word they make him an Idol and put a Scepter of Reed in his hand so some of their own But I interrogate What if a man should with the greatest earnestness profess and in the height of a confident spirit averr that he were born again of God washed sanctified in the blood of Christ and by the spirit of the Lord that he did receive and own Christ as his King and Law-giver when I see this man at the same time walking in a way of Rebellion against Christ in open contempt and defiance of his Laws and Government subjecting to the yoak of other Lords and Law-givers shall hiâ— Plea be admitted Surely no Quid verba audiam cum facta videam 'T is long since decided by Christ that false Prophets are to be descried not by their words they may speak like Angels cry Hail Master kiss him yet be false Prophets yea Judasses to him but by their fruits Let them profess a thousand times over that they own all the Offices of Christ if they are the mean while found in the practice of those things that are inconsistent with the truth of such a profession they are really deniers and opposers of the Offices of Christ. This is that then we affirm in this matter 1. That those that do really oppose any of the Offices of Christ are not to be heard but separated from This carrying a brightness along with it that is sufficient to convince all except such whose eyes the God of this World hath blinded that its original is from God we shall take for granted will not be denied by a professing enlightned people though otherwise it were easie to multiply arguments for its demonstration 1. To oppose Christ in any of his Offices bespeaks such as are guilty thereof to be Antichrists 1. Joh. 2.22 and 4.2 3. 2 Joh. 7. of the same mind with us herein is learned Beza upon the forecited Scriptures and none will surely be so inconsiderate not to say worse as to assert It is lawful to attend upon the Ministry of Antichrist 2. To hear such is to strengthen and encourage them in that their denial of and opposition unto the Offices of Christ and thereby become partakers with them in their sin The thought of which cannot but be grievous to the poor Lambs of Christ. But this will not be denied Answ. 1 I allow the distinction of verbal and real oppugning the Offices of Christ But it is false that the Papists are not guilty of a verbal denying of the Offices of Christ and that in words they own preach up and plead for all the Offices of Christ as much as any For though they do acknowledge Christ to be King Priest and Prophet yet their Doctrine and not their practice only doth overthrow all the Offices of Christ. As he that ascribes Kingly power to a subject doth make another King than the right King and so doth uâ—king him and as he that ascribes to a Creature that which is proper to God doth set up another God and so ungod the true God who can no more be multiplied than the Heavens can bear two Suns even so it is with the Papists while they assert that traditions unwritten are to be received with alike affection of piety and reverence as the written Gospel when the Pope ascertains them that he is infallible that he is judge of Controversies can determine what is to be held as an Article of Faith unerringly can make Laws to bind the Conscience by vertue of his Authority without the case of Scandal and Contempt can dispense with Gods Laws lawful oaths incestuous marriages prohibited by God by his indulgences can forgive sins authoritatively and absolutely that ascribe to every Priest a power to offer in the Mass a propitiatory unbloody sacrifice for the quick and dead to forgive sins in the Sacrament of Penance to enjoyn laborious works of penance which shall be satisfactious to God for sins while they make Saints deceased and Angels Mediatours between God and Man by their merits and agency with God for us they ascribe to Creatures the power proper to Christs Offices and so do make other Prophets and Priests to officiate as Christ they do verbally deny the Offices of Christ and not in words own preach up and plead for all the Offices of Christ as much as any as this Author most untruly suggests but do doctrinally evacuate them all of which no such thing can be charged on the present Ministers of England nor is at all demonstrated by this Author 2. I grant that a verbal professional acknowledgment
suppositions as ever objection in so weighty a case was built upon 1. 'T is supposed that Christ hath not determined in the Scripture how the affairs of his house should be managed with decency and order as well as commanded that they be so which is 1. No small derogation to the perfection of the Scriptures 2. To the wisdom and faithfulness of Christ debasing him herein below Moses though the Scripture in this respect prefers him before him 3. Diametrically opposite to the Scripture instanced in which stands as a two edged Sword to cut the throat of their cause in its approaches thereto for shelter of which take this brief account The Apostle having in the beginning of the Chapter prest the Church of Corinth to follow after spiritual gifts but especially that they might prophesie the liberty of the Saints therein being fully asserted and several directions thereabout given he condemns their disorderly practice in respect of this important duty and priviledge ver 26. and gives direction touching its regular performance and this he doth First Generally ver 26. Let all things be done to edifying which with a little alteration he represses ver 40. Let all things be done decently and in order Secondly Particularly by telling them how they ought to manage this affair in a way of decency order and edification wherein several rules are comprised too long to be here insisted on as in cases of speaking in an unknown tongue ver 27 28. of prophesying by two or three ver 29 30. of the duties of women with respect thereunto ver 34 35. that from hence a power invested in the Church for the binding of the consciences of men touching ceremonies in Worship should be regularly deduced is the first born of improbabilities and absurdities 1. Paul speaking by an infallible spirit of Prophecie advises the Church of Corinth that all things be done decently and in order therefore persons that have not pretend not to such a spirit may of their own heads bind our Consciences by Laws and Rules of their own in the service of God 2. Paul doth not only tell them that all things ought to be done decently and in order but discovers to them wherein that decency and order lies therefore the Church hath power to determine in this matter are such Non-sequiturs as will not in haste be made good I reply as the Argument is framed by me there is moment in the objection which is not built upon the principle he expresseth but this that however Christ hath not only commanded but also determined in generals in the Scripture how the affairs of his House should be managed with decencie and order yet in many particularities he hath not determined how the Worship of God and Rule of his Church should be managed with decencie and order as whether at the Communion there should be a Table spread with a linnen cloth the Service begin with a recital of the Institution or Prayer Publike Prayer begin with Confession of Sin or Thanksgiving or profession of our faith seating of persons in the meeting be with respect to their civil degrees or sexe or promiscuously Sermon begin at the reading of the Text and Prayer be after or before these with many more are indeterminate by Christ or his Apostles in the Scripture and yet are to be determined according to the Rule of Decency and Order either by each person himself in that which is private or by Rulers in that which belongs to the Community and Obedience is due to the determinations of Rulers in these things And it seems to me to use this Authors own phrase the first-born of improbabilities and absurdities that God should charge parents to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord Eph. 6.4 that we should first of all make supplications prayers intercessions giving of thanks for all men for Kings and for all that are in authority that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty 1 Tim. 2.1 2. that the Bishop should be one that takes care of the Church of God 1 Tim. 3.5 If these have no power in the Worship of God and rule of the Church to make Constitutions about things undetermined or that they may without any sin be disobeyed For as for the exception as if such power reaches only to things Civil not Ecclesiastical the contrary is proved by Bishop Sanderson in his sixth Lecture about the obligation of Conscience Nor is there any derogation to the perfection of Scripture or the faithfulness of Christ by such a grant For the sufficiency of the Scripture being in affording Doctrines of Faith and Rules of Life if as able to make a man wise unto salvation through faith in Christ Jesus as the Apostle speaks 2 Tim. 3.15 its perfection is acknowledged there is no lessening of its use though it be said that notwithstanding its sufficiency to its end yet Laws Domestical Civil National Ecclesiastical are necessary to be added for good order and Government And the faithfulness of Christ Heb. 3.2 is not placed in determining every particularity in Worship yea he was faithful in that he did not for then he should have put upon us such a yoke as Moses bid contrary to his Office Joh. 1.17 but in that he discharged the work his Father had appointed him as our High Priest in suffering and interceding for us and as the Apostle of our Profession in teachinng us the counsel of God fully in the Doctrine of the Gospel and that above Moses as being not as a servant in Gods house only as Moses but as a Son over his own house And it is to be considered what Bishop Sanderson observes that if Christs faithfulness must have been extended to the determination of all particularities equally to Moses he must have set down all particularities of Civil Government as Moses did in the judicial Laws of the Jews and so those Laws must be observed as some have attempted and the Common Law of England must be evacuated and a yoke put upon our necks from which Christ hath freed us And therefore a good Argument is hence deducible that God would have the ordering of things undetermined left to Governours because otherwise Christ should not have been faithful as Moses sith he hath not determined them yea should have been unfaithful if he had sith it was the Will of God that Christians should not have such a yoke of Rites put upon them as Moses did put upon the Jews Acts 15.9 10 Gal. 5.1 2 3 4. But the Text 1 Cor. 14.40 requires more consideration sith he saith it is diametrically opposite to that principle it is alledged to establish which is but a meer Dictate of his for which he brings no proof For neither is his account of the Apostles dissertation right it being not true that he asserts the liberty of the Saints in prophesying as if prophesying were the liberty of the Saints as such which
Canon of his standing for fear of shedding ought But I deny that kneeling in the very time of receiving was ever in the Church of Rome any Rite of or for adoration of the Sacrament it self or any creature and therefore not Idolatrous I deny not the errour of their minds concerning that they received into their mouths But I deny that they ever intended adoration of the species at that moment of time when they took it in their mouths But then turned themselves to God rather to give him thanks which was not uncomely Of which he gives three reasons 1. Because it was never yet enjoyned by any Pope that they should then kneel 2. In the Mass there is no direction for adoration of the Sacrament when it is received 3. For that it is an incongruous thing in their superstition to adore a thing which is not higher than their polls when they adore it because they cannot be said to humble themselves to that which is lower than they can cast themselves To this last reason nothing is returned by Dr. Ames in his Triplic ch 4. p. 429. and Dallaeus adv lat cult l. 9. c. 13. Id quod adoratur eo à quo adoratur celsius ac sublimius aliquid esse debere insito à natura ipsa sensu omnes mortales confitentur atque consentiunt To which is to be added that kneeling is used according to the Common Prayer Book with Prayer to God and at the receiving of the Wine as well as at the Bread which are not so with the Papists and therefore kneeling is not to be taken as adoration of the Bread as the Papists do And for that which is said that the Lords Supper is to be received kneeling is directly opposite to the practice of the Churches of Christ for several hundred years after Christ to the time of the invention and introduction of the Popish Breaden-god it is denyed by the same Dr. Burges in that and other following Chapters by the Bishop of Rochester Paybody and others about which and the judgment and practice of most of the reformed Churches at this day it is not necessary that I should make inquiry sith if it were so yet it proves nor that the present Ministers of England do oppose the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ by their submitting to kneeling at the Lords Supper Sect. 10. Forbidding to marry or eat flesh at certain times are not characters of Apostates as 1 Tim. 4.3 is meant It is added What should I mention the Constitutions and Canons before pointed to wherein 't is forbidden to any to Preach not licensed by the Bishops thereunto to marry or eat flesh at certain times with many more of the like nature all directly contrary to the soveraign edicts of Christ and some of them evident characters of the last dayes Apostates 1 Tim. 4.3 from whom Saints are warned by the Lord to turn aside ver 5. These we have produced carry an undeniable evidence with them that the present Ministers of England do own submit and subscribe to Orders and Ordinances that are contrary to the revelation of Christ and therefore deny his Prophetical and Kingly Office Answ. To that of forbidding to Preach answer is made in the examining this Chapter Sect. 2. Forbidding to marry and commanding to abstain from flesh at certain times upon politick considerations or for the better observing a religious Fast are not characters of the Apostates 1 Tim. 4.3 But may be justified by such passages of Scripture as Jonah 3.7 Joel 2.16 1 Cor. 7.5 Dan. 10.3 Nor do I think the most zealous Separatists but would restrain from Marriage and Flesh the members of their Churches in the times of solemn Fasts or would count it evil that the Magistrate forbids for civil ends abstinence from some kind of food which being the case of the prohibitions of the Civil Laws of England rather than the Canons of the Church which make it not a sin against God to marry or eat flesh then is unjustly made the character of Apostates 1 Tim. 4.3 which is more justly charged on the Monks and Popish Votaries who account it sinful to marry as if it were unchastness and more lawful to use Concubines than Wives for Priests as if they joyned with Pope Siricius terming such persons in the flesh and such as could not please God and place more holiness in eating Fish than Flesh which sort of people are very accurately proved to be there characterized by Mr. Joseph Mede in his Book of the Doctrine of Daemons intituled The Apostasie of the later times That the present Ministers of England are such or that precept which is not 1 Tim. 4.5 2 Tim. 3.5 From such turn aside belongs to them is not proved by this Author nor that they do own submit and subscribe to Orders and Ordinances that are contrary to the revelation of Christ or deny his Prophetical and Kingly Office French Protestants in the Synod of Charenton 1644. chap. 13. art 24. The Church shall not solemnise marriage in the dayes on the which the Lords Supper is administred nor on the dayes of a publick Fast. See this crimination retorted on the Separatists by Paget in his Arrow ch 6. sect 3. p. 155. n. 5. Yet he hath not done with this Argument Sect. 11. No such Headship is owned by the present Ministers as is a denial of Christs Offices To all that hitherto hath been offered in this matter we shall yet add as a further demonstration of the truth we are in the disquisition of Arg. 3. Those that acknowledge another Head over the Church beside Christ deny his Prophetical and Kingly Office but the present Ministers of England do own and acknowledge another Head over the Church beside Christ Therefore If the assertion of another King in England that as the Head thereof hath power of making and giving forth Laws to the free-born Subjects therein be a denial of his Kingly Authority as no doubt it is the major or first Proposition cannot be denied If Christ be the alone King of his Church as such he is its alone Head and Lawgiver If he hath not by any Statute-Law established any other Headship in and over his Church to act in the Holy things of God from and under him besides himself who sees not the assertion of such an Headship carries with it a contempt and denial of his Authority If there be any such Headship of the Institution of Christ let us know when and where it was instituted whether such a Dominion and Soveraignty over the Subjects of his Kingdom with respect to Worship be granted by them to any of the sons of men absolutely or conditionally if the first then must the Church it seems be governed by persons casting off the yoke of Christ trampling upon his royal Commands and Edicts for so it 's possible it may fall out those that aâ—tain this Headship may do as it 's evident many Popes of Rome the great
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