you heareth me he doth not restrain hearers from hearing others who delivered the same truth but the general speech Joh. 8.47 He that is of God heareth Gods words warrants the hearing of Gods word To the Argument I answer That if the major be meant of warrant by command and part accidental of Instituted Worship it is denied and the minor is denied in that branch That there is no warrant in the Scripture for hearing the present Ministers of England But let us view his proofs Sect. 3. Accidentals of Instituted Worship warranted without command in Scripture The major or first Proposition saith he is evident 1. From the nature of Instituted Worship which consists in this that it be of Divine Revelation else whatsoever it is it is not Instituted Worship Answ. This is true concerning the kind or sort of Instituted Worship and concerning the essential parts those things I mean which are determined and necessary but not true of accidentals parts or adjuncts of Worship undetermined these may be from Men and yet the worship be of God If Jehoiakim had heard and believed the Roll which was dictated by Jeremiah he had worshiped God though Jehudi's reading were by his appointment Jer. 36.21 2 From the verdict of Christ who pronounceth all the Worship of Man to be vain and fruitless and so unlawful that is bottom'd on any thing but Divine Revelation Mark 7.7 Answ. This is true that all those actions in which is placed the Worship of God having no appointment from God but onely from men are vain and fruitless and so unlawful and so much the Text alledged proveth But this proveth not that the Worship of God appointed by him is vain fruitless and unlawful because of some adjuncts or circumstances appointed by men which God hath left undetermined So though the receiving to hold Traditions of the Elders and Dictates of Pharisees as if they were of God and God were worshiped by them was vain fruitless and so unlawful yet the hearing of the Law of God read in the Synagogues which we find not to have been appointed by God but by the prudence and authority of Rulers was lawful and approved Luk. 4.16 17. Act. 13.15 27. Act. 15.21 3. If it be lawful to Conform to any one part of Instituted Worship without warrant from Scripture 't is also lawful to Conform to another a third the whole which would banish Instituted Worship out of the world Answ. The first consequence is granted yet the later is not necessary for though it be true If it be lawful to Conform to any one part of Instituted Worship without warrant from Scripture 't is also lawful to Conform to another a third the whole yet this would not banish Instituted Worship out of the world For when the Pharisees and all the Jews except they washed their hands oft eat not holding the Tradition of the Elders and when they came from the market except they washed they eat not And many things there were which they had received to hold as the washing of cups and puts brazen vessels and of tables Mark 7.3 4. Yet this did not banish the Instituted Worship of the Passeover and other worship appointed by God to the Jews out of the world 4. To assert that it is lawful to conform to any part of Instituted Worship without warrant from Scripture reflects sadly upon the wisdom and faithfulness of Christ for either he was not wise enough to foresee that such a part of worship was or would be requisite or had not faithfulness enough to reveal it though the Scripture compares him to Moses for faithfulness who revealed the whole will of God to the making of a pin in the Tabernacle Answ. It no way reflects with any disparagement upon the wisdom and faithfulness of Christ to assert that it is lawful to Conform to accidental parts or rather adjuncts or circumstances of Instituted Worship without warrant from Scripture by express command for though Christ was wise enough to foresee what parts of Worship were or should be requisite and had faithfulness enough to reveal what God did require and did make known by himself or his Apostles what kind of Worship should be observed by Christians and what parts were essential or necessary to be observed were determined in Scripture yet many accidental things adjuncts or circumstances of that Instituted Worship were left to the prudence and authority of men chiefly of Rulers which the Lord foreseeing that his Churches would be gathered out of many Nations of various Customs Dispositions Governments thought fit to be permitted to them though he did restrain the Jews more strictly by Moses which was their burthen and it is our ease that we have more liberty than they had Christ was faithful as Moses in that he revealed to us what was his Fathers will in spirituals more clearly than Moses but for externals appointed but few things and those easie in what else was to be added he left it to be ordered under general rules as it should be found convenient in after times And to argue in this manner if Christ did not appoint every accidental part of Instituted Worship he had failed in wisdom or faithfulness and had come short of Moses seems to me to be like their arguing who in the Canon Law say If Christ had not appointed an Universal Bishop to end Controversies as there was an High-Priest among the Jews Non satis discretus esset He had not been discret enough very presumptuously if not blasphemously shaping Christs wisdom after the model of our understanding and injuriously to us in bringing again Christian believers under that yoke of bondage from which Christ hath freed them 5. It pours out contempt upon the care of God over the New-Testament Churches as if it were less to these than to those under the Law and the Oeconomy of the Gospel as not so compleat as that of old the whole of whose Worship Orders and Ordinances as was said was bottom'd upon pure Revelation Answ. It is before proved in the Answer to the Preface Sect. 20. that it pours no contempt upon the care of God over the New-Testament Churches that the whole of Gods Worship Orders and Ordinances in circumstantials or accidentals which are liable to much variation in Churches of different Nations are not bottom'd upon pure Revelation Divine but in many things left to humane prudence yea it is an effect of Gods love and care over the New-Testament Churches that he hath not tied them in so many things to external rites and particularities of Instituted Worship as he did the Jews Nor is the Oeconomy of the Gospel less compleat than that of old for this cause but if I understand the Apostle Col. 2.8 9 10. this reasoning is either the same or every like that of the Philosophical or Judaizing Teachers to which the Apostles caution is opposed telling them that all fulness was in Christ they were compleat in him without the tradition of
Kingdom of Christ and the real owners of his Authority and Power Answ. That Bishops or Presbyters should be chosen by the common Suffrage of the Church of Christ in each City or Parish or select Congregation I find not to be the appointment of Christ in the Scriptures alledged or any other the impertinency of the Allegations to this purpose is shewed before Chap. 2. Sect. 3. In this Chap. Sect. 6. besides what is said in answer to the Preface Sect. 7.22 the only text not before considered Acts 9.26 27. and 16.17 if it were alledged were altogether impertinent there being no election of St. Paul but to be an Apostle and that by Christ not the Church on whom Ananias laid hands at the appointment of Christ only That he might receive his sight and be filled with the Holy Ghost and to remove the fear of him and non credence of his being a Disciple Barnabas and no other we read of took him and brought him to the Apostles declaring how Christ had converted him Which are altogether impertinent to prove election of Ministers by the common Suffrage of the Church and Ordination thereupon to be the appointment of Christ. It is granted before in the answer to the Preface Sect. 22. that there are relations in antiquity of the election of Bishops by the people which could be no other way then in times of Persecution when the Emperors were Infidels yet withal that even then things grew into such heats that sometimes the Emperor was fain to interpose for quietness and after when Wealth and Power by favour of Christian Emperours were added to Bishops sometimes bloody frayes and other evils made that Election so turbulent that it was found necessary to put it into the hands of fewer until the investiture of Bishops being wrested from the Emperours the Popes seized on it leaving the election of the inferior Clergy unto the Bishops or Patrons that had endowed the Ministers with Estates except in cases reserved to his Romans But where the Reformation is with the consent of Princes much of the power usurped by Popes is recovered by them in other places the people either chuse or consent to the election which being made the whole essence of the Ministerial Call by Congregational men and by Divine Right their opinion is opposed by the London Ministers in their Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangelici Printed 1654. Chap. 8 9. Nevertheless the Testimonies produced by this Author are not fully to his purpose those out of Clements his Epistle are not home the former speaks of constituting and appointing Ministers after the Apostles by other famous and discreet men as it is in Burtons English translation of that Epistle with the good liking and consent of all the Church which is less then Election constituting their Call The other contains only a voluntary offer to prevent breaches which is nothing to the asserting of a power in them rightly seated if it were such it would be more then this Author I think would yield that upon the command of the multitude a Minister is to relinquish his place The words of Luther Bullinger and perhaps the rest of the Protestants whose words are not set down meant no more than the not obtruding Ministers on the Churches of Christ as the Monks and Popish Bishops did who put on the People Priests unable to Preach the Gospel such as fed themselves and not the flock without choice or consent of the people Which if it be any where practised is unjustifiable as on the other side where people are corrupted with Error or Factiousness or Carnal Relations and Sâ—lf aims or are unskilful to judge of the disposition and abilities of a Minister it is unsafe or rather more dangerous to intrust the Church of Christ though a gathered Congregation with the election of their Minister by Common Suffrage without intervention of some discreet and able Ministers to ratifie or disanul it What Cyprian saith upon the occasion of the lapse of Basilides and Martialis Bishops in Spain of their rejection and the election of Sabinus and Felix was agreeable to the Canons then in use and to the state of those times what he saith of Divine Authority is not rightly proved The Scriptures of the New Testament and Old prove no Divine Institution of a certain way of electing or rejecting Ministers so as that there may not be variation from what he saith was in his time yet it is meet that according to the sayings of Cyprian Lambard Gualter or others respect be had to people that they be heard what they can say for or against their Minister and that he who is criminous or insufficient be not imposed on them to their souls hurt What our Reverend Fathers and Ministers of the Church of England say to these things may be seen in Whitgift's Answer to the first Admonition and Defence of the Answer Tr. 3. p. 170. Bilson of the perpetual Government of Christs Church Chap. 15. Andrews respons ad Bellarm. Apolog. Chap. 13. p. 313. after King James his Premonition Hooker Eccles. Pol. l. 5. sect 80. Field of the Church l. 5. c. 54. If the Prelates do any thing unjustly therein they must give an account to God the Ministers who consent not thereto are not chargeable both may be accounted as Subjects of the Kingdom of Christ and the real owners of his Authority and Power notwithstanding what is objected against them especially if the evil be either from the defect or iniquity of Laws Canons and Customs whereby that redress of Grievances in this kind which even the Prelates have complained of is stopped I confess that the continuance in force of so much of the Popes Canon Law or our Common Law as hinders a godly and able Ministry in every Parish hath been deplored and much endeavour hath been to amend things But the experience that hath been of the difficulty therein even when Congregational men have been most industrious to rectifie things should methinks abate the censures of this Author and rather cause men quietly to wait for a remedy using the benefit of the Ministry we have than by separation and popular election in gathered Congregations make things worse than they are Sect. 8. Prophesying is not opposed by the Ministers But this Author hath not yet done but tells us To these many other institutions of Christ may be added which they subject not to What should I mention 6. That Royal Command of our Soveraign King and Lawgiver which the profound self-philosophically wise but indeed foolish and unlearned Doctors of this day wrest to the countenancing of the disorders and confusion of Antichrist darkness so gross that it may be felt that all things be done decently and in Order 1 Cor. 14.40 viz. that the Saints may Prophesie one by one and ought to admonish exhort and build up one another in their most holy faith Rom. 8.26 and 12.6 1 Cor. 4.17 and 5.4 and 11.23 Ephes. 4.7 11 12. 1
Ordinances and Constitutions of the appointment of Christ when or where were they instituted by him I might answer by cross Interrogations Are the Church-Covenant gathering of Churches in the Congregational way by severing choice Members from the rest requiring an account of the manner of their Conversion making Election by the common Suffrage of the Members essential to a Minister imposition of hands tied to the Eldership of that Church maintenance by Collection every Lords day Excommunication by the major part of the Members with many more of the Orders of Congregational Churches Ordinances and Constitutions of the appointment of Christ when and where were they instituted by him It is not I presume altogether forgotten that such questions have been propounded to them by Mr. Ball Apollonius and many others and their answers judged insufficient And if they cannot shew Christs appointment for their Orders which they require why do they charge so deeply the Ministers of England as denying and opposing the Prophetical and Kingly Office of Christ for submitting to Orders which as well may be said to be of Christs appointment as their own or at least when they themselves may by the same reason be concluded to deny or oppose the same Offices But for a direct answer I grant they are not Ordinances and Constitutions of the appointment of Christ and yet judge they may be submitted and conformed to and required of Governours while they are regulated by Laws of Ecclesiastical Policy and do think that Mr. Hooker in his three first Books of Ecclesiastical Policy hath evinced thus much IV. To what is said that these are Posts set by the Lords Posts and thresholds by his thresholds of which the Lord complains Ezek. 43.8 who sees not I answer Diodate his Annot. on Ezek. 43.8 is this Their threshold that is to say they set their Idols and perform their service in my Temple in places and Chappels near to the places which are consecrated to my service See 2 King 16 14. and 21.7 Jer. 11.15 Ezek. 8.3 and 23.39 and 44.7 All the Interpreters I meet with and the words themselves shew that the thing complained of was another thing than making Orders and Constitutions without revelation and appointment of Christ for Ecclesiastical Rule such as those Constitutions in the Canons of the Church of England are which in Christian Churches have in like sort been made in the best times yea and some in the Jewish Church without reproof to wit Idolatrous practices by their Kings such as Ahaz and Manasseh were called Whoredoms v. 7 9. and abominations which they committed and defiled Gods holy Name and for which be consumed them in his anger and therefore tell this Author that I see not those Ordinances he mentions to be Posts set by the Lords Posts and Thresholds by his Thresholds complained of Ezek 43.8 but rather think him in a dream or phrensie that saith he sees it Yea further if it were granted that the complaint were against their Act as adding inventions of men to Gods Ordinances yet this cannot be understood but of such as are made Gods Worship or wherein that which God hath appointed is altered or corrupted And therefore I conclude that it is no small abuse of this Text which occurrs in sundry printed Sermons and other Books to make every Order of men about Gods Worship or the Governing of the Church to be thus branded and out of all infer that what he saith he hath evidently evinced is but a vain brag of this Author Let 's proceed in viewing what follows Sect. 3. Making Canons in things undetermined and subjection to them agrees with Scripture Object If it be said That though these Canons and Constitutions owned by the Ministers of England be not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be found in the Scripture of the Institution of Christ in so many words yet by consequence they may rationally be deduced from thence As where it is commanded That all things be done decently and in order 1 Cor. 14.40 which 't is the duty of the Church to make Rules and Constitutions about which when it hath done it is the duty of every son thereof to own or subject to without questioning its authority Answ. Though I assert not that the Canons and Constitutions Ecclesiastical of the Church of England may be rationally deduced from Scripture and therefore make not the Objection as here it is framed yet I assert that Canons and Constitutions Ecclesiastical concerning Divine Worship and Church Covernment may be made by Governours if they be not opposite to such Rules as are in Scripture about Gods Worship and the rule of his Church and be indeed subservient and Conducible to the well-ordering of such Worship and Rule and that the Members of the Churches under their Governours should submit to and yield obedience to them as to other humane Laws not conceiving the things commanded obligatory of their Consciences as things appointed by Divine Authority so as that it should be sin to disobey or omit them in any case But by virtue of the general Precept of Obedience Heb. 13.17 and in Order to the ends of their rule without any Contempt of their Authority or refractariness they should be either actively or passively obeyed though the things themselves be only indifferent and not of themselves or directly binding the Conscience And this I conceive to be proved 1. From Reason because without such regulations Church Societies can no more be continued by reason of the difference of minds and capacities than other Societies which is proved true by experience 2. From the practise of all sorts of Churches who have in process of time found it necessary to have Synods to this end 3. From the course God hath taken with the Christian Churches to whom he hath delivered the Doctrine of Faith and necessaries of Worship in the Scriptures but hath left many accidentals about Worship and Church Government undetermined therefore left them partly to each one 's own light in things concerning himself only partly to the Rulers Domestical National Civil Ecclesiastical in things that concern the several Communities 4. From the Texts 1 Cor. 14.40 Heb. 13.17 and other places For in that after all his discourse about ordering the use of their gifts he ends with this general rule he thereby shews that more things were to be ordered by that rule either by each one himself or by their Governours as he himself did resolve 1 Cor. 11.34 and appointed Titus and Timothy in the Epistles to them and enjoyned obedience Heb. 13.17 Now let us consider what is answered hereto He saith Sect. 4. It 's no derogation from Scripture or Christ that such Canons are made and obeyed Answ. That there is any thing of moment in this Objection though their Achilles in this matter and that which they are upon every turn producing is easily demonstrated The whole of it being built upon as uncertain principles yea upon as notoriously false
rejoyced in no way was the acting of Pilate or Herod or the Jewes to be abetted but to be abhorred though the Counsel of God was to be justified and extolled as was done Acts 4.24 c. Should the Pope send Jesuites to preach the Gospel and they should continue to preach it and no doctrine antievangelical I know no reason why the Saints might not attend on their Ministry To the 2 d. 3 d. and 4 th Answers I reply That the preaching of Christ in opposition to Paul makes it probable that they were not real Saints nor true Ministers in his sence such motives being contrary to that brotherly love which is in every real Saint 1 John 3.14 and that order of the Church by which is a lawfull mission which me thinks he should not conceive to have been in them that acted in a way of contention against St. Paul the Apostle of the Gentiles And for the Ministers of England I like better the words of Mr. Iohn Robinson in his Justification of the Separation p. 307. then these Authors words In the general I confess there is a proportion and so in that general and large sence wherein Mr. Bernard pag. 313. expounds the word sent or Apostle I do acknowledge many Ministers in England sent of God that is that it comes not to pass without the special providence and Ordination of God that such and such men should rise up and preach such and such truths for the furtherance of the Salvation of Gods elect in the places where they come They which preached Christ of envy and strife to add more afflictions to the Apostles bonds were in this respect sent of God and therefore it was that the Apostle joyed at their preaching How much more they that preach of a sincere mind though through ignorance or infirmity both their place and enterance into it be most unwarrantable And sure if they may in this sense be said to be sent of God it follows Saints may hear them which was to be proved It is added Sect. 8. The truth Ministers teach warrants the hearing of them Object 4. The Ministers of England preach truth and is it not lawfull to hear truth preached We answer 1. That 't is lawfull to hear truth preached is readily granted but this must be done lawfully and in the way of Christs appointment 2. All that preach truth are not to be heard nor will our discenting brethren say they are For 1. There was never yet any Heretical preacher in the world but he preached some truth is it lawfull to hear such This will not be said 2. The Devil himself preached truth yet Christ forbids him and commands that he hold his peace 3. The Popish Priests preach truth yet who will say 't is lawfull to attend upon their Ministry But 3. As the present Ministers of England preach truth so 1. They preach it but by halves and dare not for fear of the L. Bishops inhibition preach any doctrine though never so clearly revealed in the Scriptures and owned by them as the truth of Christ he commands them not to meddle with 2. The main truths they preach at least many of them are contradicted in their practice They 'l tell you that the Lord Jesus is the great Prophet and King of his Church but how palpably this is contradicted by them in their practice conforming to institutions and laws that are not of his prescription who sees not This we have abundantly demonstrated 3. With the truth they preach they mingle errours directly contrary to the Scripture and the revelation of his will therein Instances of this kind have been already exhibited to which may be added many more we shall mention but a few 1. That the Ministry Worship and Government which Christ hath appointed to his Church is not to be received or joyned unto unless the Magistrates where they are reputed Christian do allow it 2. That the Apocryphal books which have in them errors 2 Mac. 12.44 45. 14.41 42. Eccles. 46.20 Wisd. 19.11 untruths 2 Esd. 14.21 22 23. 2 Mac. 2.4.8 Tob. 5.11 12 13. with 12.15 Judith 8.33 10.9 with v. 12. 11.6.12 13 14 15. 1 Mac. 9.3.18 with 2 Mac. 1.13 to 17. and 9.1.5.7.9.28.29 blasphemy Tobit 12.12.15 with Rom. 8.34 1 Tim. 2.5 Rev. 8.3.4 magick Tob. 6.6 7 8. 9.2.3 with 3.7 8. 11.10 11 13. with 2.9 10. and contradiction to the Canonical Scriptures Judith 9.2 3 4. compared with Gen. 49.5 6 7. Esther in the Apocrypha chap. 12.5 15.9 10. with Ester Canonical chap. 6.3 5.2 Eccles. 46.20 with Isa. 57. 2. may be used in the publick worship of God 3. That the most wicked and their seed may be compelled and received to be members of the Church 4. That Marriage may be forbidden at certain seasons as in Lent Advent Rogation-week c. 5. That Baptism is to be administred with a cross in the forehead and that as a symbolical sign 6. That though the most notorious obstinate offenders be partakers of the Lords Supper yet the people that joyn with them are not defiled thereby 7. That there may be Holy days appointed to the Virgin Mary John Baptist to the Apostles all Saints and Angels together also with Fasts on their Eves on Ember-days Fridays Saturdays so called heathenishly enough and Lent 8. That the Cope Surplice Tippit Rocket c. are meet and decent ornaments for the worship of God and Ministry of the Gospel 6. That the Book of Common-prayer is the true worship of God 10. That Christ descended into hell as if Christ descended into the place of the damned as the Papists hold 11. That Lord Bishops can give the holy Ghost and power to forgive and retain sins 12. That Altars Candles Organs c. are necessary and useful in the Church of God 13. That all children when baptized are regenerate and received by the Lord for his own children by adoption Common-prayer-book of publick Baptism Yea 14. That children being baptized have all things necessary for their salvation and shall undoubtedly be saved So they profess in the Order of Conformation in the Common-prayer-book with much more that might be offered in this matter I reply 1. The grant That it is lawfull to hear truth preached is sufficient to prove it lawful to hear the present Ministers preach truth which he denies not they do unless he could prove it were contrary to the way of Christ's appointment to hear the truth from them 2. All that preach some truth are not to be heard yet all that preach the great truths of the Gospel notwithstanding some errours non-fundamental may be heard especially if the errours be seldom or never pressed on the hearers but left to them to examine and to be approved or disproved Heretical Preachers are not to be heard because they preach not the great truths of the Gospel but errours which overthrow the foundation so do the Popish Priests yet it were no sin to hear
thought did appertain to me to do because I found that many that had heard of my judgment in another point did imagine that I must needs be also a Separatist from the Church and Ministers as now they are and where my practice is known to the contrary I have been censured as acting against my own tenet yea and my own light and taken to be and shunned as a deserter of that Cause for which I have appeared notwithstanding in many places of my Writings I have disclaimed Separation for that wherein I was dissenter from others alwayes foreseeing that a groundless Separation would be endless and therefore have still professed my desire of such a Reformation as might be without Separation from Brethren who are not heretical in the doctrine of Christian Faith nor Idolatrous in their Worship nor impose that on me for communion with them which I cannot yield to without sin against God and accordingly did in express words in the Addition to my Apology Sect. 4. declare my willingness to joyn with any Churches of Christ and unwillingness to be a Separating Member in any Church being willing to be a conjoyned Member with all the Churches of Christ in general and each in particular Apol. p. 5. I abhor Separation from my Brethren in this regard p. 10. I durst not gather a separated Church as not knowing how to justifie such a practice In refutatione positionis Dr. Henrici Savage Sect. 15. Sanctissimè in conspectu Domini corda scrutantis possum profiteri me in animo semper habuisse ut si fieri posset èsset reformatio absque separatione animorum exacerbatione Praecursor Sect. 15. I am conscious to my self of using what means I could for Reformation without Schism if possible Yea when some of those who agreed with me in that tenet which my Writings held forth differently from others were moved to admit me to their Communion and they excepted against it because I did not disclaim the Church of England nor renounce Ordination by a Bishop nor desert my standing as a Parish Minister nor my maintenance by Tith or Augmentation nor my hearing with the World as they used to speak nor some such like practices as were inconsistent with the principles of the Separatists I refused many years ago to joyn with them that would not otherwise admit me than upon such terms but did answer their exceptions against me and persisted in my refusal unto this day And how averse my spirit and wayes have been from division that Antagonist of mine whose former Writings had given occasion to men to conceive of me as a Sect-master yet hath in his two Epistles Printed before my two Books one against the Quakers about the insufficiency of each mans Light within him for his guidance to God being Nine Sermons on Joh. 1.9 and the other entituled Romanism Discussed against the Papists assertions about their Church and Pope declared his opinion of my inclinableneness to brotherly Communion and agreement notwithstanding our dissent They to whom I was a Teacher even in the times of our greatest Liberty can bear me Witness that I alwayes withstood by Writing and Conference such insinuations as tended to alienate their minds from Dissenters and alwayes advised conjunction in Church Communion and hearing such as taught the truth of the Gospel in respect of the foundation though in their Worship and Preaching some Hay and Stubble were superadded And therefore to shew my constancy in the same opinion and practice I have conceived my self obliged to appear in this matter at this time Sect. 3. The evils consequent on the tenet of Separation urge to an examination of it Which I conceived my self the more urgently provoked to by the direful imputation of serving the Image of the Beast which the Title of the Book chargeth on the Hearers of the present Ministers and the terrible predictions which in the Epistle to the Reader seem to be levelled against compliance in hearing the present Ministers as if it were likely to meet with the same judgment in the day of Gods wrath with the Antichristian Beast and seeming commiserations of such as did joyn in Communion with the publike Church Assemblies in praying and preaching as worshiping with the Nations waiting at the Posts of an Antichristian Ministry and through the power of temptation turned aside by the flocks of the Companions and expostulating with such as forsaking the fountain of living Waters for broken Cisterns that will hold no Water changing their glory for that which will not profit leaving the bread in their Fathers house and going a begging to the doors of Strangers casting contempt upon the pure Institutions of Christ and thereby provoking the Lord to send leanness into their soul giving occasion of grief and stumbling unto their Brethren pouring contempt upon the Offices Wisdom and Faithfulness of Christ hardning persons in a false way of worshiping of God to their eternal ruine disobeying the heavenly voice calling aloud to them to come from the Lions dens and Mountains of the Leopards to come out of Babylon admonishing them to arise depart hence this being not their rest but polluted to hasten their escape and be like the He-goat before the Flocks in their retreat from the Tents of these false Worshippers lest being partakers of their sin they receive of their plagues that are even ready to be poured forth Which is further pressed by intimating as if this may be the last warning such may have from God Which passages if I should my self read without commotion of mind as if they were brutum fulmen a great Thunderclap without any Thunderbolt yet I doubted whether they might not have such operation on many well-meaning persons as to affright them from any hearing or Communion with the present Church or Teachers as judging such compliance a damnable sin such as the Scripture makes drinking of the cup of Fornication of the Whore of Babylon receiving the mark of the Beast in their forehead and in their hand and in some an irremissible sin like that of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost which must needs produce these woful effects an irreconcilable enmity between the Separatists and such as hold Communion with the present Churches and their Pastors and if the Law should not be mitigated the utter ruine of many thousands in respect of their Liberties Estates and perhaps Lives or else the violation of their Consciences if being possessed with these notions out of fear or secular hope they yield to things of so direful an aspect which things have appeared to me of so great importance that I conceived both prudence and charity bound me to examine these pretences and to inform my self and others of what I found conducible to the preventing of those sad consequences which attend the compliance if it it be such as it is pretended to be and the unyieldingness to what Laws injoyn if it be not such an evil as it is accused to be That which
Christ in the Scripture Sect. 7. The Office of Lord Bishops not from the Papacy Sect. 8. The Ordination of Bishops is also of Presbyters Chap. 4. Arg. 4. Sect. 1. They that deny not Christs Offices doctrinally may be heard Sect. 2. Every not hearkening to Christs Order is not a denial of his Office Sect. 3. It is not proved that Christs Sovereign Authority is rejected by the present Ministers Sect. 4. Ministers oppose not the will of Christ by not joyning in the separation pleaded for Sect. 5. Election and Excommunication by the Church are not Christs Institution Sect. 6. No contempt of the Authority of Christ is in the Church of England by setting up Officers and Offices Sect. 7. Election of Ministers by the common Suffrage of the Church is not proved to be Christs appointment Sects 8. Prophecying is not opposed by the Ministers Sect. 9. Ministers service may be Divine and Spiritual in the use of the Liturgy Sect. 10. Things objected against the Ministers are not such as justifie separation Chap. 5. Sect. 1. All owning of orders different from or contrary to Christs proves not a denial of his Offices Sect. 2. Ministers submitting to Canons is unjustly censured Sect. 3. Making Canons in things undetermined and subjection to them agrees with Scripture Sect. 4. It s no derogation from Scripture or Christ that such Canons are made and obeyed Sect. 5. All particularities of Decency and Order in things sacred are not determined in Scripture Sect. 6. It s not proved that the Ministers of England own constitutions contrary to the Revelation of Christ. Sect. 7. A prescript Form of words in Prayer devised by man is not contrary to Rom. 8.26 1 Cor. 14.15 Sect. 8. The admission of vitious persons to Communion justifies not separation Sect. 9. Receiving of the Lords Supper kneeling is not directly opposite to Christs practice or precept of abstaining from appearance of evil 1 Thess. 5.22 Sect. 10. Forbidding to Marry or eat Flesh at certain times are not Characters of Apostates as 1 Tim. 4.3 is meant Sect. 11. No such headship is owned by the present Ministers as is a denial of Christs Offices Sect. 12. Conformity to Laws opposite to Christs proves not owning another King co-ordinate to him Sect. 13. Headship of the Church under Christ not monstrous Sect. 14. The Kings Supremacy is such as was allowed the Kings of Israel Chap. 6. Arg. 5. Sect 1. False Doctrine only makes a false Prophet not to be heard Sect. 2. The Ministers not false Prophets because not sent as Jer. 23.21 Rom. 10.15 is meant Sect. 3. The Ministers not proved to commit Adultery and walk in lyes as Jer. 23.14 is meant Sect. 4. The Ministers are not proved to strengthen the hands of evil doers as Jer. 23.14 is meant Sect. 5. The Ministers are not proved such daubers as those Ezek. 22.28 Sect. 6. Ministers changing of places sadning some mens hearts not characters of a false Prophet Sect. 7. Pressing rigid Conformity no proof of the Ministers being false Prophets Sect. 8. The charge Ezek. 22.26 reacheth not the Ministers of England Sect. 9. The Ministers are not the false Shepheards meant Ezek. 34.4 Sect. 10. The Ministers of England are not the second Beast foretold Rev. 13.11 Chap. 7. Arg 6. Sect 1. All Idolatry is exhibiting Divine Worship to a creature Sect. 2. All will-worship of God is not Idolatry Sect. 3. This Authors Argument as well proves himself an Idolater as the Conformist Sect. 4. Prayer in a stinted form may be worship of God of his appointment Sect. 5. Common-Prayer Book worship shuts not out of doors the exercise of the gift of Prayer Sect. 6. Common-Prayer Book worship is not of pure humane invention Sect. 7. Common-Prayer Book worship is the same with the worship of the Reformed Churches Sect. 8. No particularity instituted is a meer circumstance yet particularities undetermined are Sect. 9. Praying in a form may be praying in the Spirit Sect. 10. The Forms of Prayer imposed are not made necessary essential parts of Worship Sect. 11. Acting in the holy things of God by the Office Power and Modes of Idolaters may be without Idolatry Sect. 12. The English Ministers oppose Popish Idolatry as other Protestants Sect. 13. The Ministers of England act not by vertue of an Office Power from Idolaters Sect. 14. The Common-Prayer Book worship was not abused to Idolatry Sect. 15. Kneeling in the receiving the Sacramental Elements is not Idolatry Sect. 16. The crimination of the Ministers as Idolaters is not excusable Sect. 17. The Martyrs are unjustly made Idolaters by this Author Chap. 8. Arg. 7. and 8 Sect. 1. Every offence of others makes not sinful that which is otherwise lawful Sect. 2. Hearing the present Ministers may be the Saints duty Sect. 3. Sinful scandalizing is not by hearing the present Ministers Sect. 4. It is not scandal given but when the offensive action is done blameably Sect. 5. Offending some sincere Christians by hearing the present Ministers is not the scandalizing threatned Matth. 18.16 Sect. 6. The Separatists give more just cause of offence to godly sober Christians than the Conformists do to them Sect. 7. Hearing the present Ministers may be without participation with them in sin Chap. 9. Arg 9 10 11 12. Sect. 1. Separation of some from other Christians is no institution of Christ. Sect. 2. Meeting of Christians as a distinct body is not Christs Institution Sect. 3. Separated Congregational Churches in opposition to National are not of Christs Institution Sect. 4. To attend only on the Ministry of Ministers of Congregational Churches is not Christs appointment Sect. 5. Hearing the present Ministers casts no contempt on Christs Institutions Sect. 6. Hearing the present Ministers hardens none in sin Sect. 7. Gods people are not called out of the Temples in England as places of false Worship Sect. 8. There is ground to expect a blessing in hearing the present Ministers Sect. 9. Hearing the present Ministers is no step to Apostasie Sect. 10. Pollution in one part makes not the whole worship polluted Chap. 10. Fifty Arguments for hearing the present Ministers Sect. 1. Christs direction Matth. 23.2 3. warrants hearing the present Ministers Sect. 2. The Scribes and Pharisees sate in Moses his Chair as Teachers not as Magistrates Sect. 3. The Pharisees were not Church Officers of Gods appointment Sect. 4. Christ allows hearing the Pharisees while they taught the Law of Moses Sect. 5. Hearing Pharisees teaching Moses Law not attendance on their Ministry as Pastors is allowed by Christ. Sect. 6. Christ and his Apostles going to the Jewish Meetings is opposite to the Separatists opinion and practise Sect. 7. Pauls rejoycing at the preaching Christ of contention warrants hearing the present Ministers Sect. 8. The truth Ministers teach warrants the hearing of them Sect. 9. Evil persons may be heard as true Ministers Sect. 10. It is a sin not to encourage good men in their Ministry Sect. 11. The example of the learned
apprehension we have of his omnisciency goodness wisdome and truth who neither can be deceived nor deceive that he only knoweth all things that we are to call no man our Father upon the Earth for one is our Father which is in Heaven Mat. 23.9 As on the contrary when Ahazias 2 Kings 1. sent to Baalzebub the God of Ekron to enquire of that Idol he worshipped Baalzebub and when Saul enquired of one that had a familiar Spirit and not of the Lord 1 Chron. 10.13 14. He worshiped that familiar Spirit Our Lord Christ is that Prophet whom God requires us to hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto us Acts 3.22 God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the Fathers by the Prophets hath in these last dayes spoken to us by his Son Heb. 1.1 2. And they that hear his word as the person to whom all things are delivered by the Father Mat. 11.27 as he in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdome and knowledge Col. 2.3 as that great Prophet who was to come into the World Luke 7.16 do worship Christ in hearing As on the other side he that heareth any other as Rabbi or master in that sense in which Christ asserts himself to be the only Master Mat. 23.8 10. as the Papists do who enquire of the Pope as infallible when he speaks or determins from his Chair doth worship him as his great Prophet Rabbi or Master which Christ forbids as an usurpation of his prerogative This worship of Christ is immediate even when we enquire of his minde by hearing other teachers who bring his word to us though not called as the Apostles and some others in the first planting of the Christian Churches as he that attends to a Kings Proclamation read or brought by never so inconsiderable a person declares by his Loyal hearing of it his honouring of his Prince not of the reader Câ—ier or messenger Yea God is worshipped and Christ honoured by hearing the Gospel read as the word of God as immediately and truly though not so solemnly by a boy at home as by a Pastor of a Church Sect. 2. Of hearing how instituted worship and to be devolved on the Scriptures of the New Testament Instituted worship of Christ is such as is by Christs institution Now institutions saith a civil Lawyer are praeceptions by which men are instructed and taught as the books of Ouintilian inscribed Institutions of Orators of Lactantius Divine Institutions of Erasmus the Institution of a Christian Prince of Aldus Institutions of Grammer of Calvin Institutions of religion Instituted woâ—ship of Christ under the Gospel is that which is by Christs praeceptions taught directed or appointed in the times of the Gospel since Christs coming in the Flesh. Which may be meant of that natural or moral worship which belongs to God or Christ such as are prayers to God giving thanks to him such like Of this it is true in respect of the explicite way of prayer or thanksgiving in the name of Jesus Christ or such peculiar manner as belongs to the New Testament the whole thereof is to be divolved upon the Scriptures of the New Testament that is as I interpret his words the direction or precept concerning it is to be taken from the Scriptures of the New Testament yet not excluding the directions and precepts of the Scriptures of the Old Testament nor the light of nature so far as that worship is perpetual and general to all people and times as being either natural or moral Of which sort I take hearing the word of God to be though some peculiarities there are which the Almighty hath tied us to in the New Testament in hearing as Mat. 17 5. This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased hear ye him Luke 10.16 He that heareth you heareth me and he that despiseth you despiseth me and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me Yet these passages do not exclude the precepts or directions of the Old Testament but presuppose them to be heard and learned in respect of the matter therein contained and the persons that reveal it so our Lord Christ Luke 16.29 They have Moses and the Prophets let them hear them 2 Peter 1.19 we have also a more sure word of prophecy whereunto you do well that ye take heed as unto a light that shineth in a dark place Nor do I meet with any prohibitions of hearing any but False-Prophets Mat. 7.15 deceivers Titus 1.10 that teach other doctrin 1 Tim 1.3 2 John 10 another Gospel Gal. 1.8 9. Our Lord Christ Caveat is Mark 4.24 Take heed what ye hear not warning them to avoid any that preacheth the same truth that he delivers though he more especially tyed his Disciples to hear his Apostles and such other as were sent by them to him yet when all the Church at Jerusalem except the Apostles which consisted of many thousands were scattered abroad by persecution and went every where preaching the word Acts 8.1 4. It was no sin to hear them they were not the strangers meant John 10.5 whom his Sheep were to flee from but rather they were bound to hear them in preaching his Gospel though not by any peculiar calling designed for that work as their function it being Christs declaration that his Sheep hear his voice John 10.27 Nor are the many precepts or directions in the Old Testament about hearing or reading Isai. 8.20 in the books of the Psalmes and Proverbs and other parts of Holy Scriptures vacated but that they remain still rules to us about hearing in the New Testament times and therefore it seems not to me to be a reasonable postulatum or demand that in the present enquiry of the Lawfulness of hearing the present Ministers of England the whole thereof be devolved upon the Scriptures of the New Testament Sect. 3. Hearing not a meer positive or ceremonial worship But perhaps the Author means by instituted worship of Christ such as is meerly positive or as we use to speak ceremonial such as are Baptism and the Lords Supper which are only worship of God by institution in the New Testament which is probable to be his meaning by what he adds not perplexing our selves nor the Consciences of any with what was or may be supposed to be permitted unto the Saints before the time of reformation whilst the worldly Sanctuary was yet standing the carnal ordinances pertaining thereunto in being at least by the providence of God not sully dissolved as afterward both it and they were being buried in the ashes and ruines of that Temple to which they were inseparably annext But if he make hearing of the present Ministers such an instituted worship of God or Christ he seems to me very inconsiderate hearing of preachers being a moral and perpetual worship common to all times and persons not a meer positive or ceremonial as being baptized or receiving the Lords supper are and therefore by reason
pretence whatsoever nor in any other sin by joyning in the practice and if the present worship of the Ministers of England be any such fornication or the hearing or joyning with them must be a partaking with them in any sin so farre at least they are to be separated from But neither the Texts alledged nor any other do require separation from the worship of God or the Ministers that are in some things corrupt even in their ministration when Hophai and Phinehas did corrupt the worship of God yet Samuel did lawfully minister before the Lord and Hannah did well in presenting him thereto and her self at the solemn Feasts and even-while there was burning incense and sacrificing in the High places those of Judah were not to separate from the service at Jerusalem which was to God and though the High Priests were unduly set up and sundry corruptions and superstitions in the Pharisees and the services of the Jews in our Lord Christs time on Earth yet did our Lord Christ joyn in the publick service of the Temple and perswaded the cleansed Leper to offer to them the gift that Moses commanded Wherefore I inferr that though there should be some degree of Corruption in Worship and that this should be a breach upon the soveraign Authority of God as every sin is and a grievous sin it is yet this might not be a sufficient cause of separation from the Worship Church or Ministers of it and that the allegation of the Texts produced will not be sufficient for the design of this Author in urging separation from the Ministers and Church of England But let us further attend his motions He adds Sect. 14. The arguing by analogy in positive rites not rational What may rationally be inferred from these positions so evidently comprized in the Scripture and by way of Analogy at least may be argued from them is evident to any ordinary understanding for our parts being resolved as was said to trie out the matter in controversie from such rules and soveraign Institutions as our dear Lord hath left his New Testament Churches to walk by we shall not stand to make that improvement of them as otherwise we might A few Queries upon the whole that hath been offered shall put a close to this Preface Answ. Whether the positions before set down be evidently comprised in the Scripture may be perceived by the examination of them what may be rationally inferred from them for his purpose of condemning the hearing the present Ministers of England is not evident to my understanding which I do not conceive to be any other than ordinary As for arguing by way of Analogy from the institutions of the Old Testament to those of the New Testament from supposed parity of reason how little rationality or force there is therein I presume he may perceive if he read the second part of the Review of my Dispute about Paedobaptism Sect. 2.3 wherein how infirm the way of arguing from such Analogy is is so far evinced that I judge that if the improvement he thinks he might make of his positions for his purpose be by that way of proof it will be found insufficient by an ordinary understanding whether he hath kept to his resolution of tiying the matter in controversie by the rules and institutions of the New Testament will appear by the examining of the ensuing Discourse I judge that to be the way whereby to settle mens Consciences about mere positive Duties or Sins under the Gospel and therefore am resolved to pursue his dispute pede pes yet clearing the way by considering his Queries in a velitary Skirmish before I set upon his Triarii or main Battle Sect. 15. The first Querie about a National Instituted Church answered His first Querie is Whether since the Apotomy or Unchurching the Nation of the Jews the Lord hath ever since so espoused a Nation or People to himself as that upon the account thereof the whole Body of that People or Nation may be accounted his Church Whether there be any National Church under the Oeconomie of the Gospel If so Let it be shewed when and where it was instituted by the Lord What is produced by some to this purpose is but upon a slight view thereof of no moment it is Isa. 49.21 Kings shall be your Nursing Fathers c. which Prophesie waits the time of its accomplishment hitherto both before and since the rise of Antichrist being made drunk by the Whores intoxicating Cup they have been for the most part cruel Butchers of the Saints and were we under its accomplishment a National Church would be far enough from being its result Of a Nations being born at once we shall not sure hear pleaded in this matter it being a Prophesie expresly relating to the Jews and their miraculous conversion if there be no such thing as a National Church of the Institution of Christ as most certain it is there is not the assertion whereof is wholly destructive of Gospel Administrations then Answ. As King James in his Remonstrance against Cardinal Perons Oration saith that the appellation and name of the Church serveth in this corrupt Age as a Cloak to cover a thousand new inventions meaning this of the Popish party so may we say also of others that by reason of the ambiguous use of the appellation and name of the Church and the dictates of men about it the minds of many are perplexed and perverted Wherefore in answering this first Querie which the Separatists do so much harp upon it is necessary that there be a distinct understanding of the notion of the Church and its Institution The Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which by use is now almost appropriated to the Christian Church hath been variously used both in the Greek Versions of the Old Testament in the Apocryphal Writings and in the New Testament It seems to me of little concernment in the present question to collect them all the Queries to be answered beâ—ng of the New Testament use Now in the New Testament excepting what I find Act. 19.32 39 40. where it is applied to Assemblies of Unbelievers whether tumultuary or orderly and Act. 7.38 where it is applied to the Congregation of Israel in the Wilderness in all places in the Acts of the Apostles the Epistles of the Apostles and Revelation of St. John it is meant so far as I discern of the Christians or People of God or their Meeting or Assembly As it notes the Christian Believers or People of God so it is taken sometimes for the Universal Church whether invisible or visible as 1 Cor. 12.28 Heb. 12.23 Ephes. 1.22 sometimes for the visible Church indefinitely but not universally as 1 Cor. 15.9 sometimes for the Church Topical and then it is taken for the Church of a City or Town or House and so we read of the Church at Jerusalem Act 8.1 of Corinth Ephesus c. in Philemons house Philem. 2. or of a Country or Nation and then
on If there be no such thing as a National Church of the institution of Christ as most certain it is there is not then 2. Whether National Ministers are the Ministers of Christ or whether there can be a true Ministry in a false Church as a National Church must be if not of Divine Institution upon what pretence soever it be so denominated Sect. 16. National Ministers may be Ministers of Christ and National Churches true Churches To this Querie I answer 1 That if by National Ministers be meant Ministers for the Nation or such as have inspection over the Nation whether for the maintenance or propagating of true Doctrine or Worship or holiness of life they may be Ministers of Christ though no such thing as a National Church were of the institution of Christ. As for instance I conceive Dr. James Usher when he was alive was a Minister of Christ when he was Primate of Ireland The assertion I prove thus If the Apostles were Ministers of Christ and National Ministers though a National Church were not instituted of Christ than National Ministers may be Ministers of Christ though a National Church be not instituted of Christ But the Apostles were such as for instance Peter had the Apostleship of the Circumcision Paul of the Gentiles Gal. 2.7 8. Rom. 11.13 1 Tim. 2.7 Therefore National Ministers may be Ministers of Christ. 2. Titus was a National Minister of the Cretians For this cause saith St. Paul Tit. 1.5 left I thee in Crete that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting and ordain Elders in every City as I had appointed thee and yet a Minister of Christ St. Pauls partner and fellow-helper concerning the Corinthians 2 Cor. 8.23 Ergo 3. They that may be Ministers of Christ though they be Ministers for the Body of Christ and all the Members thereof may be Ministers of Christ though National because the denial of a National Ministry is upon this supposition that a Minister of Christ is only for one particular Congregation but the Pastors and Teachers as well as Apostles Evangelists Prophets are given for the edifying of the Body of Christ till we all come in the unity of the faith unto a perfect man Eph. 4.11 12 13. Therefore for all or any and consequently for a Nation and not only for a particular Congregation 4. If any of the Saints as well as one particular Congregation have an interest in all the Ministers of Christ so as that they are truly theirs then Ministers of Christ may be National yea ought to be yea and Oecumenical if they could be serviceable to them in the things of Christ. But 1 Cor. 3.22 23. Paul and Cephas and Apollos were all the Corinthians and all others who were Christs therefore the same may be Ministers of Christ and National Ministers I know not whether this might be an argument ad hominem but this I take to be justifiable that a man may be a Commissioner for approbation of publick Preachers throughout a Nation and so a National Minister or an Itinerant Preacher to the Nation and yet be a Minister of Christ. 2. A National Church denominated so either from the agreement of all the Believers in that Nation in the same profession or from their subjection to some Common Rulers Ecclesiastical or Civil or Convening by Deputies in some National Synod though not of Divine Institution may be a true and not a false Church which I prove thus They may be a true Church who have all things essential to a Church and nothing destructive of its being such But Believers of a Nation or a National Church so denominated any of those wayes may have all things essential to a Church and nothing destructive of its being such Ergo. The Major is taken from the proper notion of the term True Church or its definition For the definition of a Church of Christ or a true Church is and can be no other than a Company or Number of persons believing in Christ or professing the Faith of the Gospel and obedience to God by Christ according unto it not destroying their own profession by any errours concerning the foundation or unholiness of conversation even according to the expression of the Congregational men in their Declaration Octob. 12.1658 ch 26. The Minor is also manifest by Reason and Experience A National Church so denominated may have the Truth of Doctrine of Faith the Truth of Worship the Truth of Holy conversation besides which there is nothing essential to a true Church For the defect of outward order were the order pretended indeed of Christs Institution yet could not nullifie the Church or destroy the Truth of it but only the regularity The Corinthians were a true Church 1 Cor. 1.2 even then when there were disorders in their Meeting 1 Cor. 14.26 in their Discipline 1 Cor. 5.1 2. in their Communion 1 Cor. 11.21 in their Faith 1 Cor. 15.12 in their Conversation 2 Cor. 1.1 and 12 2â— As for the outward form of their Combination by a Church Covenant or their number or their habitation or their descent these and such like things though for convenience they be requisite yet not essential to the Church or its Truth Yea the having of Baptism Organizing by Officers though more necessary and of Divine Institution yet are not essential to a Church or its Truth but that the Church without them may be a true Church though not so regular and well ordered as it should be Nor doth the having of National Rulers Ecclesiastical either single persons or in a Synod or Convocation make a false Church Those of the Congregational way have had Synods and submitted to Courts even in Ecclesiastical things of larger extent than a Congregation of one Town and Churches of a greater number and at greater distance of habitation than could meet in one place every Lords Day for all Ordinances and deny not a Catholick visible Church and therefore should not by reason of the number distance want of Officers of Divine Institution or because modelled by humane prudence call a National Church a false Church The proofs used by those that held that many particular Congregations may be under one Presbyterial Government Printed in the Year 1645. from the number of the Church at Jerusalem yet one Church Acts 8.1 under one Government besides what is found in the Scripture about the Churches of Corinth Ephesus are sufficient to evince that many Congregations may be one Church and that the unity and truth of Churches is to be taken from agreement and verity of Faith and that a National Church so denominated in respect of the agreement in profession or subjection to Government or convention by Deputies or Messengers in one Synod may be one National Church and a true Church of Christ. But it is objected That the first Church is of Christs Institution and that was of so many as might meet in one Congregation even the Church at Jerusalem that
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
I have commanded you and lo I am with you alway even unto the end of the world Amen In which instruction of the Apostles is founded the function of the Evangelical Ministry as Pareus speaks in his Commentary consisting in Preaching the Gospel and Baptizing and teaching the obserservation of Christs commands which Offices the promise to be with them all dayes to the end of the World shewes to be perpetual till Christs second coming Who the Officers are of Christs designing may be best gathered from Ephes. 4.11 Some of which are undoubtedly to continue And that there should be a succession by ordination of some for the Churches is apparent from 2 Tim. 2. 2. Tit. 1.5 and that they should be ordained may be gathered from Acts 13.2.3 and 14.23 1 Tim. 4.14 and 5.22 that there should be some who should have inspection over others that they do not sow errours or otherwise corrupt the Churches may be granted from 1 Tim. 1.3 4. Tit. 3.10.11 and by the things charged on the seven Angels of the seven Churches Rev. 2.2 6 14 15 16 20. Rev. 3.2 3 15 16 19. To set down the History of Officers and Offices in after-ages to determin the disputes about their several degrees or orders is full of difficulty and to our present business unnecessary This only is sufficient for present to say in answer to the question now under hand That such as do these works which Christ or his Apostles have appointed to be performed for his Church are Officers designed by Christ and their ordination thereto agreeable to his design nor are those Officers or Offices an invention of new ones by the sons of men not only needless but a daring advance against the Soveraignty care and wisdom of God over his Churches though they have other names and titles and maintenance and immunities and dignities and additaments than the Scripture mentions They that are called Archbishops Bishops Deans Canons Prebendaries Parsons Vicars Curates Chaplains Masters of Colledges Hospitals Wardens Fellows Clerks Priests enjoy emoluments by Tithes or other revenues may be truly Officers of Christ if they be ordained to and do the works or Offices appointed by Christ and the Apostles to the Ministers of the Church of Christ as well as they who are termed Presbyters Presbyteries Teachers Pastors Lecturers Itinerant Preachers gifted Brethren whether they be chosen by a particular Congregation and ordained by an Eldership and receive maintenance by Collection augmentation stipend or other waies Sect. 22. The solemn deputation of Ministers is not the peculiar priviledge of Saints 6. Saith our Author whether the priviledges of Saints be not every way as great and extensive under the Gospel as those under the Law If so then whether the solemn deputation of men signally pointed out by the Lord for the administration of Holy things in his house by the body of his Church be not now as then their peculiar priviledge Answer The people of Israel were a holy people to God and conceived to be meant by the Saints of the most High Dan. 7.27 But that the solemn deputation of men signally pointed out by the Lord for the administration of Holy things in his house by the body of that Church was their peculiar priviledge is not proved but the contrary is manifest that the Priests and Levites were by Gods own choice set a-part as is before said Sect. 7. Saints now are either real or in appearance only The former as such are invisible and it is granted that they have priviledges in spiritual blessings in Heavenly things in Christ every way as great and extensive under the Gospel as those under the Law yea in some degree greater to wit in the clearer revelation of the mystery of Gods counsel and accomplishment of Gods promises by the Prophets and gift of his Spirit Saints in appearance only or the visible Church of the Jews had in some things greater priviledges such as those mentioned Rom. 9.4 5. Rom. 3.1 2. Gods revealing his minde by Urim and Thummim extraordinary Prophets and many more than Christians now and therefore no good inference can be made from the priviledge of the Saints then in the solemn deputation of Ministers of holy things if it had been such as this Author supposeth unto the same priviledg to the Saints now The solemn deputation of Apostles and other Ministers of the Gospel we finde not to have been the peculiar priviledg of the body of the Church in any part of the New Testament Their ordination is no where mentioned as done by the Saints or brethren which were not Officers nor is there any plain proof of their election by all or the major part of the members of each Church in the Scripture And though therâ— be in antiquity in the first ages relations of their election yet withall such stories of the tumults frayes and other disorders as necessitated an a teration of that course are related Considering how unquiet in judicious deceitful factious divided those are that usurp the name of Saints and perhaps are I see not how safe it were to commit the solemn deputation of Ministers to them without much regulation of them and ability of discerning of Spirits which is not a gift continued to the Churches who oft are as easily deceived by hypocrites and seducers as others and if it were the peculiar priviledg of Saints it were not to be denied to women contrary to the Apostles rule 1 Cor. 14.33 34. 1 Tim. 2.11 12. If it were such a peculiar priviledg to Saints to ordain or choose their Ministers so as they were not to own any but whom they choose then the lesser part of a Congregation were not bound to take him for their Minister who is not chosâ—n by themselves though chosen by the most each person might choose his Minister and withdraw for his Ministry at pleasure if not chosen by him and refuse to contribute to his maintenance which wâ—th many inconveniences too often exemplified in Churches gathered in the Congregational way cause such Churches to be often dissolved or to be multiplied into so many parties as make them unfit for any good order or use Sect. 23. Corruptions in non-fundamentals un-church not The Quaerist adds 7. Whether any Church in the world we speak of a visible instituted Church hath greater security against Apostacy from God and that sore judgment of having its Candlestick removed and being unchurched than that people of the Jews had if not then whether supposing a national Church to be of the institution of Christ it may not so come to pass that it may be so overspread with corruptions that it may lose the essence of a Church and justly be disrobed of that appellation Answer I grant that no particular Church visible whether National Provincial Classical Parochial or Congregational hath greater security of Apostacy from God than the Jewish and that any such Church may be so overspread with corruptions that it may lose the essence
the often severely punishes he children of men for now in order hereunto it 's necessary that in all our approaches to God we see to the institution of the Lord both in respect of the matter and manner of worship that it be according to Divine prescript else we cannot sanctâ—fy the name of God therein nor glorify him before the people Answer This is yielded that wherein God hath prescribed it is necessary we see to the institution of the Lord both in respect of the matter and manner of worship even to determined particularities but in those things which are not determined by God yet it is requisite they should be some way determined by our selves or others we and they are not so limited but that keeping to general rules there may be liberty of variation and there may be too anxious care tending to beget unnecessary scruples perplexities divisions and censurings even in and of Saints which experience hath too much proved to cause fluctuations in mens minds and inconstancy in their practice and to produce a brood of Seekers Quakers Ranters and prophane Atheists For which reason it is very advisable that persons of good meaning but weak judgments did less busie themselves in questioning such undetermined particularities in Gods worship and were received but not to doubtfull disputations Rom 14.1 and did satisfy themselves in such things by preferring the judgment of their faithful learned wise and holy Teachers and Rulers before their own when their own capacity is insufficient to settle their Consciences He proceeds thus Hearing as was said and shall beyond contradictions in its proper place be evinced is part of instituted worship it therefore more nearly concerns Saints than many are aware of to have their consciences resolved from the Scriptures of God in the matter under enquiry whether it be lawful for the Saints to hear the present Ministers of England 'T is the negative which we have received under our maintenance because we are satisfied Christ hath so to the proof whereof we now address our selves Answer Of hearing how it is a part of instituted worship somewhat hath been said in the answer to the preface Sect. 1.2.3 what more is to be added will come in it 's proper place I grant that it concerns Saints to have their consciences resolved from the Scriptures of God in the matter under enquiry and do therefore joyn issue with this Author and whereas he denies it lawfull for the Saints to hear the present Ministers of England meaning in their teaching of the Doctrins of faith and holiness according to that which is authorized in the Church of England I affirm it and address my self to the examination of this Authors arguments Sect. 2. There is warrant in Scripture to hear the present Ministers of England Argument 1. Is thus That which there is no warrant for in the Scripture being part of instituted worship is not lawful for the Saints to practise but there is no warrant in the Scripture for hearing the present Ministers of England and hearing is part of instituted worship Therefore Answer The term warrant being a Law term notes not only an injunction requiring that a thing be done but also an allowance or permission of a thing to be done with impunity or without blame and either way the thing warranted is lawfull Instituted worship as is before shewed is either moral or meerly positive and ceremonial Parts of instituted worship may be either subjective if instituted worship be conceived as totum universale an universal whole and so hearing of the present Ministers of England may be conceived either as one sort of instituted worship or one individual of that sort or parts of instituted worship may be integrant if instituted worship be conceived as an integral whole I do not deprehend hearing of the present Ministers of England is to be conceived as an integral part of instituted worship sith it is one act which without any other act is worship or parts of instituted worship may be essential or accidental instituted worship being conceived as an essential or accidental whole Those are parts essential of instituted worship without which it is not or is not rightly called instituted worship those are accidental parts which may be present or absent and yet the Worship be or rightly be so called These things being premised for answer to this Argument I lay down these Propositions 1. Every sort or kind of Instituted Worship of God hath warrant in the Scripture by precept of command if it be lawful 2. Those things which are determined by God â—n any part or sort of Instituted Worship of God are to be counted Essential parts so as that the omission or alteration of them or any of them makes the Worship not to be or to be rightly so called Worship of God 3. Those things which are in this sense Essential parts must have warrant in Scripture by precept express or by just consequence 4. Accidental parts or adjuncts of Instituted Worship undetermined are lawful if they have warrant in Scripture by permission so as that they are not contrary to any precept or rule in Scripture about such Worship 5. Hearing of the Word of God is a sort or part of Gods Instituted Worship 6. It is essential to it that we hear it as Gods Word with honest and good hearts with attention and reverence as being determined by Gods command 7. It is but accidental as being undetermined by God that we hear it from this or that person and therefore needs not warrant in Scripture by command to make it lawful 8. The hearing of the present Ministers of England Preaching the Word of God hath warrant in Scripture by permission as being not contrary to any precept or rule in Scripture about such Worship Searching and reading the Scriptures as the Word of God is a part or sort of Instituted Worship and accordingly hearing it read When God commanded the Levites to read the Law and all Israel to hear it at the end of every seven years in the solemnity of the year of release in the Feast of Tabernacles Deut. 31.9 10 11 12 13. The reading by such persons and hearing at that time was an essential part of Worship but Shaphans reading before Josiah 2 Chron. 34.18 and his hearing of it then was a part of Instituted Worship accidental because not determined by Command but ordered by Providence and yet warrantable by Permission Gods command being not exclusive so as to forbid any other but Levites to read it or the Israelites to hear it read by others at other times there being general Precepts requiring all to hear the Word of God at all times Deut. 5.1 and even the light of Nature dictating this That a message from God is to be heard whoever brings it of which the King of Moab was sensible Judg. 3.20 and the King of Niniveh Jonah 3 6. In like manner when Christ tells the seventy Disciples Luke 10.16 He that heareth
insufficient for what they are produced yet is not the Minor proved till the sin be shewed which is committed by hearing the present Ministers for where there is no Law forbidding there is no transgression Rom. 4.15 and not People affrighted by filling them with unnecessary scruples nor divided one from another upon such suggestions as this Writing yields nor drawn to separations and oppositions which tend to the undoing of men in their Estates hinder the publick Peace and the furtherance of the Gospel To prevent which it little avails that this Author acquaints us with his motive in his writing this piece For though all he sayes of himself were true as Charity binds me to believe it to be yet it serves only to create prejudice in the minds of well-meaning People who are led more by the opinion they have of the Writer than by the strength of his Arguments and for the most part hinders the impartial search for truth and makes men adhere faster to a party We know the opinion that was had of the holiness of the Pharisees was the greatest stumbling-block to the Jews against Christs Doctrine and the opinion of the holiness of Monks was the great furtherance of Popish Superstition and Idolatry and the opinion of many Teachers hath bred many Errours of which I gave warning many years since in a little Treatise Entituled Anthropolatria on 1 Cor 3.21 foreseeing as it hath come to pass that glorying in Teachers would be the mischief of the Churches from which it is time to take off People and to make them more diligent and serious in examining what is said on both sides as the Apostle admonisheth us 1 Thess. 5 21. Nevertheless I doubt not but in the progress of this dispute I shall shew Scripture warrant for hearing the Ministers of England that preach the Gospel notwithstanding the objections against them and accordingly proceed in answering this Writing that I may promote Truth and Peace which is my aim however I be censured hoping that in time God will direct honest-hearted persons to unlearn that mischievous course of esteeming res ex personis things by persons and give over that evil custom of too many who speak for or against opinions or practices according to the affection they bear to men and have no other argument why they refuse a thing but this that good people as they judge them are against it nor why they adhere to it but because they are for it Which is in effect to make them their Masters contrary to Christs Prerogative Mat. 23.10 and in some sort idolizing of them Nor do I think it unfit to mind this Author that it were adviseable that he did better examine his Tenet and Arguments sith as Gisbertus Voetius Professour of Utrecht saith Polit. Eccl. part 1 lib. 2. Tract 1. c. 7. Sect. 3. that it is the common opinion of all the Reformed Divines who notwithstanding the defect of Reformation of Rites and Government in the Church of England under Edward Elizabeth James have held fraternity with it constantly that consent in Ceremonies or the manner or form of Government is not necessarily required to retain or restore fraternity between Churches of the greatest greater or lesser diverse union and correspondence CHAP. 2. ARG. 2. Sect. 1. Preachers may be heard as teaching Truth IF it be lawful to hear the present Ministers of England it is lawful to hear them either as Ministers of the Gospel or Gifted Brethren But it is not lawful to hear them either as Ministers of the Gospel or as Gifted Brethren Therefore The major or first Proposition will not be denied That Christ hath appointed some as Ministers by vertue of an Office-power to dispense the Ordinances of the Gospel until his second coming is granted by all that it is permitted to others as their liberty enjoyned them as their duty having Gifts and Enablements from the Lord thereunto to improve those Gifts in Preaching Praying c. for the edification of the body of Christ though not solemnly invested into Office is assented unto at least by some of those with whom we have to do whence a lawfulness to hear them as Ministers or as Gifted Brethren doth necessarily arise Answ. I deny the Major or the consequence of the first proposition 1. Because the disjunction is of terms not opposite but coincident the same persons may be and are both Ministers of the Gospel and Gifted Brethren and may be heard under both considerations 2. The disjunction is not full sith a third member may be assigned that they may be heard as preaching or declaring the Word of God or speaking the truth of the Gospel which is the only consideration requisite to the Hearer to be respected in Hearing 1. Because God hath forbidden hearing of none but such as teach falshoods and therefore Hearers are not bound to decline Hearing any but such as they have reason to conceive teach contrary to Gods Word 2. Because Hearers are not all of them at any time nor any of them at all times enabled or fit to examine the Office Power or Gifts or Brotherhood of those they may hear 3. It is lawful to hear such as are neither in Office Power nor Gifted Brethren as it was lawful for Apollos to hear Priscilla Acts 18.26 Timothy to hear Lois his Grandmother and Eunice his Mother 1 Tim. 1.5 2 Tim. 3.15 the Iberian Prince the Captive Maid the Indians Frumentius 4. The Beraeans are commended for their examining St. Pauls Doctrine without examining his Office Power or his Gifts or Brotherhood Acts 17.11 5. If the Scriptures be the rule of the Doctrine we are to hear then are we bound to look to no more for the lawfulness of our hearing than the congruity or agreement of what we hear with it yea we sin if we do not hear it whoever he be that brings it as on the other side if any bring it not though he be a Minister in Office Power or a Gifted Brother yea or an Apostle or an Angel from Heaven he is not to be heard Gal. 1.8 9. 6. To forbid a man to hear him that preacheth or declares the Truth of God because he knows him not to be or conceives him not to be a Minister in Office Power or a Gifted Brother perhaps out of partial prejudice against him or upon false reports and surmises or because he is not of his Party may be a means to hinder a mans edification and salvation and to harden him to his perdition Which is not unusual but too too often many declining to hear them that preach sound Doctrine because they say they rail when they reprove their errours or vices and choosing to hear those that are of their way and preach according to that which they like or else turn Seekers denying any to be Ministers but such as speak by immediate and unerring motion of the Spirit or hearing none at all because of dissenting judgment from themselves Wherefore though
I grant that Christ hath appointed Ministers as is said and that it is wisdom to choose and hearken to such and most of all to the best and the most able and though the reading of Mr. Matthew Pool's Quo Warranto might deterr many who take upon them to preach constantly and publickly in solemn Assemblies as Gifted Brethren from their practice which they use Nor do I deny there may be liberty yea and duty occasionally especially when there is want of Ministers in Office to preach yet I deny that a lawfulness to hear them as Ministers or as Gifted Brethren doth necessarily thence arise For suppose a Minister or Gifted Brother should be Heretical yet he is not to be heard but shunned Tit. 3.10 Here by the way I take notice that if it be lawful to others then Ministers to preach as their liberty permitted to them Some practice that is a part of Instituted Worship is warranted in Scripture as the persons liberty by permission without command and therefore hearing of the present Ministers may be lawful and warranted in Scripture as mens liberty by permission without command which was my answer to this Authors first Argument against hearing them and is now confirmed by his Concession concerning the preaching of Gifted-Brethren Sect. 2. They may be heard as Ministers of the Gospel who are not rightly called It is added 'T is the minor or second Proposition that is capable in the thoughts of some of a denial which we prove per partes thus 1. 'T is not lawful to hear them as Ministers of the Gospel they are not such therefore may not be heard as such Ans. I deny this consequence if a man either ignorantly or fraudulently get into the place of a Minister of the Gospel or be unduly chosen or ordained yet if he have the place of the Minister of the Gospel and preach it truly he may be heard as a Minister of the Gospel though he be not such that is rightly called and stated in that Function The reasons whereof are 1. Because every Hearer is not bound to examine the entrance of the Teacher into his Function therefore it is enough to hear him as such that there is nothing appears to the contrary 2. Because it is above the ability of Hearers to judge of the Ministers Call in many Cases the resolution thereof depending upon sundry Controversies about the power of Election and Ordination which they are not able to discuss and there are many proceedings in getting Testimonials using means for obtaining Ordination Institution besides what concerns their Baptism which either they cannot or their time and estate will not permit them to enquire into and sure Christ hath not bound men to impossibilities 3. In all Governments and Societies the peaceable Possessour is presumed to have right till the contrary be evinced otherwise there would be perpetual unquietness and so Societies be dissolved Nor do I think even in the most Reformed no not in the Congregational Churches it would be permitted to a Member of the Society to decline the hearing of him who is taken for their Minister by the most though he conceive or know him to be unduely admitted into the Office Sure I am St. Paul did apply the Precept Exod. 22.28 to Ananias as High Priest Acts 23.5 though it was manifest that he was not such by any legitimate succession but by unrighteous practices and favour of the Roman Governour in Judaea Yea the Scripture makes Caiaphas to prophesie as High Priest though contrary to the Law not High Priest for life but that year Joh. 11.51 and if relations of the Histories of those Times be right no legitimate Successour in that Office but an Usurper and yet our Lord Christ did not except against him when he was convented before him as convented coram non judice or any other way excepted against his Office And therefore I judge that Christs example and St. Pauls are sufficient Warrant to us to submit to and hear them that are not right Officers when they peaceably possess the place and consequently it is lawful to hear them as Ministers of the Gospel who are not such rightly called But let us consider this Authors Plea against the present Ministers of England Sect. 3. Preachers may be Ministers of the Gospel who are not chosen by a particular Instituted Church That they are not Ministers of the Gospel but Thieves and Robbers is manifest such as come not in by the Door which is Christ Joh. 10.9 viz. by vertue of any Authority derived to them from him are not Ministers of the Gospel but Thieves and Robbers Joh. 10.1 from whom 't is the property of the Sheep to flee ver 4 But the present Ministers of England come not in by the Door Therefore That they come not in by the Door viz. by vertue of any authority derived to them from Christ is evident If they have received any such authority or Commission from him they have received it either mediately or immediately the latter will not be asserted nor without the working of miracles should it so be would it to the Worlds end be made good 'T is the former must be fixed upon viz. That they have received their Authority or Commission mediately from Christ but to as little purpose for those that receive authority to preach the Gospel mediately from Christ have it from some particular Instituted Church of Christ to whom power is solely delegated for the Electing of their own Officers according to the tenor of the ensuing Scriptures Acts 6.5 14.23 Answ. If this could be proved there need no more to prove That the present Ministers of England are not to be heard for if they be Thieves and Robbers the sheep will flee from them and ought to do so Joh. 10.5 But it is an ill sign of an inconsiderate and audacious spirit for so high a charge which he that fears God I think should tremble to bring against so many Preachers of a Reformed Church to bring so low a proof which if it be well considered may be not only urged against Presbyterian Preachers if he mean by particular instituted Church as his meaning appears to be by his Preface a Church gathered in the Congregational way by Church Covenant as they speak but also against his gifted Brethren who have not authority to Preach mediately by election of a particular Church but onely from their gifts And if it be said They are chosen by the Church yet this will not authorize them unless the Church have power to choose any besides their own Officers which this Author doth not pretend Now let it be considered what a heavy burden is put on the consciences of hearers They must hear no Thieves and Robbers no nor any Stangers if this Author argue rightly from this Text and all are Thieves and Robbers and Strangers who are not chosen by a particular instituted Church who have power onely to choose their own Officers therefore they
must hear no meer gifted Brethren no Itenerant Preachers though approved by Tryers none but their own Officers and those rightly chosen and consequently they must before they hear them know their Election to be right and the particular Church electing them to be rightly instituted which tends to such dictraction of peoples minds and alienation of them from hearing as can end in nothing but meer Irreligion and make men Seekers or Quakers the mischiefs of which are too too conspicuous But I shall more directly answer this Argument and that so much the rather because the Text John 10. is abused by Papists to prove that they are not right Shepherds who have not authority from the Pope whom they make the One Shepherd v. 16. as Hart in his Conference with Dr. Rainold Chap. 6 from whom all Bishopâ— derive their power and all the Sheep are to hear and by Quakers and others to prove that they are not true Shepherds nor to be heard who receive any maintenance by Tithes or other stipend because they that do so are by them judged Hirelings and not Shepherds v. 12. It is granted that Christ is the door Joh. 10.9 but it may be doubted whether Christ be meant by the door Joh. 10.1 the reason of which is because then Christ should be said to enter by himself and the door to enter by the door To avoid which Maldonate in his Commentary conceives the door v. 1. not to be the same with the door v 9. but the door v. 1. to be the Scriptures of the Prophets whâ—â— foretold of the good Shepherd Ezek. 37.24 34.23 Jerem. 23.5 30.9 Isa. 40.11 by vertue of which Prediction he entred And indeed the whole purport of the Parable doth tend to this that he onely was the good Shepherd that is the Messiah foretold by the Prophets and that all other that pretended to be the Messiah or good Shepherd such as Theudas and Judas of Galilee mentioned Act. 5.36 37. and if there were any other like them were but Thieves and Robbers Strangers Hirelings though they took on them to be Shepherds they were but false Christs such as Christ foretels should arise Mat. 24.24 But let it be granted that the door is the same Joh. 10.1 and 9. the entering in v. 9. cannot be meant of entring into the Ministery lawful election of a particular Instituted Church For then it would follow that every one that enters into the Ministry by by election of a particular Instituted Church shall be saved and go in and out and finde pasture which is manifestly false Therefore entring is meant of every True believer and is by faith in Christ who is the right door by whom that is by his Doctrin men come to be his Sheep and he is their Shepherd But be it that the entring be into the Ministery and that entring be by vertue of Authority derived to them from him how is it proved they are not authorized by Christ immediately who work not Miracles Have not many especially in cases of necessity been Ministers of Christ by immediate inward call who have not wrought Miracles It were hard to conclude of Petrus Waldo and many other Reformers that had no power of working Miracles that they were not Ministers of Christ that I say nothing of gifted Brethren that they were Thieves and Robbers because they had no immediate calling by a particular Instituted Church Sure this would be to offend against the generation of Gods children who in the darkest times of Papal Tyranny took upon them to Preach the Gospel without a praevious election of a particular Instituted Church But how doth he prove that those that receive authority to Preach the Gospel mediately from Christ have it from some particular Instituted Church of Christ He alledgeth no other but this that to a particular instituted Church of Christ power is solely delegated for the electing of their own Officers But what then may not for all this power be given to some others to choose send and ordain Preachers for the unconverted who yet may be Ministers of the Gospel and may be heard as such Yea may not some others ordain Elders for particulâ—â— Instituted Churches Sure when St. Paul left Titus in Crete that he might set in order things that were wanting and ordain Elders in every City as he had appointed him Tit. 1.5 giving him direction whom to ordain he left it to him to choose Preachers for Instituted Churches who were to be heard and this by power delegated by Christ to him and therefore power is not solely delegated to a particular Instituted Church of Christ for the electing of their own Officers but that they may be chosen and ordained by some other for them by vertue of an authority derived tâ— them from Christ. But how proves he the power for electing their own Officers delegated solely to a particular Instituted Church of Christ He saith it is according to the tenour of the ensuing Scriptures whereof one is Acts 6.5 and that relates onely one act of choosing the seven Deacons by the whole multitude of the Disciples at Hierusalem who cannot be well counted such a particular Instituted Church as made up one Congregation to meet every Lords day for all Ordinances they were too numerous to be such nor were they organized under fixed Officers with such constitution as is now made necessary to a particular Instituted Church Nor did they choose the Deacons upon any conceived power delegated from Christ by vertue of any rule established by Christ or his Apostles which should be perpetual in all ages to all Churches but upon advice of the Apostles for their more liberty to attend on other work of more importance and their own liking nor if it were to be a perpetual rule for all Churches in all ages can it be any rule for choosing other Officers besides Deacons there being a peculiar reason why they should choose Deacons whose honesty prudence and mercifulness was to be discerned and not other Officers whose sufficiency to Teach and Orthodoxie were to be considered of which the whole multitude of Disciples then and the major part of a particular Instituted Church are rarely now competent Judges The other text Act 14.23 hath no colour to prove such a delegated power but from one word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which our Translation renders when they had ordained Beza after others Per suffragia creâssent Had created by suffrages and because the word arose from a custom among the Greeks of choosing their Officers by Suffrages or Votes signified by the stretching out of the hand conceives that Paul and Barnabas did not create the Elders in the Churches without the Churches election signified by stretching out of their hands to shew their consent to the elected and thence is inferred that so it should be now But this is but one example though it is not to be denied that in after ages which were times of Persecution the Elders were
chosen by the Church and therefore seems not sufficient to inferr a necessary perpetual rule of such election especially other passages shewing the Constituting or Ordaining of Elders without mentioning of any such election as Tit. 1.5 1 Tim. 5.22 And though the original and use of the word were from the custom mentioned and did in popular Elections signifie Election by suffrages yet as in other words so in this use hath enlarged its sense apples it to other creating than by such suffrage as is manifest by the use of it even in the same book Acts· 10.41 where the Apostle are termed Witnesses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chosen before of God who did not choose by suffrages of others and by Dr. Hammond in his Annot. on Act. 14.23 is shewed to be used in like manner in Philo Judaeus and other Authors besides Christians as the same with Electing Ordaining or Constituting without Suffrages of others and must be so understood in this very place because none are said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to stretch out their hand but Paul and Barnabas and it is said they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which cannot be well translated any other than Ordaining by laying on their hands on the Elders not by bare stretching out or lifting up their hands as was wont to be in Suffrages and it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to or for them manifestly distinguishing the Disciples from the Electors or Ordainers by stretching out or laying on of hands So that this place doth not prove Power solely delegated to a particular Church instituted for the electing of their own Officers and therefore if all were true which is added by this Author These men as it s known have no such authority pretend not to it have it in derision come barely with a presentation from a Patron and Ordination Institution and Induction from a Lord-Bishop things forraign to the Scripture and impose themselves upon the people whether they will or no. Yet they may be Ministers of the Gospel and heard as such notwithstanding this Argument Yet I add that it will be hard for this Author to prove that the Parish Churches in England are not particular Instituted Churches of Christ or that the Ministers are imposed on the People whether they will or no the contrary is true of many places especially in London concerning the Incumbents and Lecturers Nor is the Ordination of a Lord-Bishop such a forraign thing to the Scripture as this Author would insinuate the Bishop not Ordaining without other Elders joyning with him and giving him no other authority than to Preach the word of God and to Minister the holy Sacraments in the Congregation where he shall be lawfully appointed thereunto To shut up the Answer to this Argument As the Text Joh. 10.16 is abused by Hart to prove the Bishop of Rome to be the Supreme Pastor of the Church of Christ as Dr. Rainold sheweth in his Conference Ch. 6 divis 1. it being meant only of the Lord Christ and the Quakers abuse Joh. 10.12 to cry down Preachers as Hirelings because they receive Wages though it be according to Christs own determination Luke 10.7 the Lords Ordinance I Cor. 9.14 St. Pauls practice sometime 2 Cor. 11.8 and his Precept Gal. 6.6 and his Approbation 1 Tim. 5.17 18. The word Hireling Joh. 10.12 being not used as making it a sin for a Minister to receive hire but to distinguish Christ from other Shepherds who was not as Hirelings whose Sheep are not their own but was a singular Pastor owner of the Sheep of whom he was Pastor and those abuse Joh. 10.5 who urge it against the hearing of any Preachers but those of their own Church or way calling them Strangers whereas the strangers there are such as were Usurpers of Christs Office and were enemies to the Sheep not feeding them but perverting them So this Author abuseâ—â— John 10.1 9. by saying the present Ministers of England are Thieves and Robbers because they come not into their Ministry by the door that is by any authority to them from Christ that is not by election of a particular Instituted Church when this is but from an expression in a parable in which is not the scope or Doctrin intended by it and therefore not argumentative and neither is it certain that the door v. 1. is the same with the door v. 9. nor if it were is the door that whereby there is entrance into the Ministery but the Church nor the entrance by right election of others but by the persons true faith nor is the not entring in by the door brought as the reason or form denominating them Thieves and Robbers but only as some description of them from a concomitant nor are any meant there to be Thieves and Robbers who do direct to Christ or receive him for defect of regular calling but such only as obtruded themselves as the Messiah on the people with intent to make a prey of them Sect. 4. The present Ministers may be heard as Gifted Brethren There is yet more of the like stuff 2. Saith he 'T is not lawful to hear them as Gifted Brethren 1. The most of them are not Gifted Brethren Nor 2. Brethren being Canonical Drunkards Swearers Gamesters c. Answ. That any of them are such it is to be bewailed and in a Christian way the persons that are guilty are to be rebuked Levit. 19.17 not to be thus charged in Print in a Book vented in the dark tending not to amend them but to make them odious even with them that are too much inclined to censuring and reviling of those that dissent from them or are of an opposite party But how it appears that the most of the present Ministers of England are such as he stigmatizeth them I know not and I hope it is not true However if it were so it proves not that others better qualified might not be heard nor that these men may not bethren yea if he follow St. Pauls rule 2 Thess. 3.15 alledged a little after he is not to account them as enemies but to admonish them as Brethren and were all this and more true yet they might be heard preach the Gospel as Brethren Gifted as Judas was to be heard though declared by Christ to be a Devil Joh. 6.70 But what saith he of the rest 3. The best of them cannot by Saints in respect of Gospel Communion be so accounted For 1. There was never any giving up of our selves each to other according to the Will of God and Primitive example whence such a Brotherhood doth result Answ. By Saints I doubt not he means such as are members of a particular Instituted Church Congregational distinct from Parish Churches either under Episcopal or Presbyterial Government For such only are accounted Saints by him as give up themselves each to other according to the Will of God and Primitive example and by Gospel Communion no doubt he means hearing of them preach praying with
them receiving the Sacraments from them or breaking Bread in the Lords Supper with them or submitting to them or joyning in Ecclesiastical Discipline with them which is in effect to make an utter separation from them as no members of a Christian Church Now this assertion shews not a dram of Christian Love but very much antipathy in him who denies not p. 93. but that there are some amongst the present Preachers of this day that are good men and methinks he should tremble to exclude such from Gospel Communion here from whose Company he would be loath to be excluded hereafter But he doth not insanire sine ratione He implies in his first reason that giving up of our selves each to other he means by Church-covenant in the Congregational way is according to the Will of God and Primitive example which is either explicitely or implicitely to engage themselves one to another to walk together and to hold Communion in all Gospel Ordinances I will not say this is unlawful nor at no time necessary but that it is according to Gods Will by way of Institution for Church Communion or according to any Primitive example I do not yet find Gods Command for such a Church Covenant I remember not to have found alledged nor Primitive example besides 2 Cor. 8.5 which is far from the purpose the Macedonians giving their own selves to the Lord and then to Paul and Timothy by the Will of God being no Covenant between themselves to walk together in Christian Communion but a free addicting themselves to the Ministry to the poor Saints elsewhere in Judaea by making a Collection very liberally for them and urging St. Paul and Timothy to prosecute the Collection at Corinth with offer of assistance of some of their own to that end And the assertion whence such a Brother-hood doth result is groundless For though some have made the Church Covenant the Form of a particular Instituted Church as Mr. Norton in his Answer to Apollonius Ch. 2 c. and thence deduced the right to Communion and the relation of Brother-hood yet the Scripture makes all who hold the same Faith and are Baptized into Christ to be Brethren and Members of all the Churches of the World Gal. 3.26 27 28 29. 1 Cor. 12.12 13. and 10.16 17. Ephes. 4.4 5 6. whence it follows that the assertion of the resultance of Brother-hood in respect of Gospel Communion from such giving up of themselves each to other is opposite to the unity of Christians and doth rather tend to make particular Churches particular Parties than to advance the Communion of Saints in the Catholick Church Dr. Ames is more charitable Trip. p. 523. I doubt not to say according to my conscience that among those which live under the tyranny of the Pope and do not utterly separate from him through ignorance there be many Christians sincere according to their knowledge belonging to the true Catholick Church and so to be accounted our godly Brethren 2. Saith he We cannot as things stand perform the duties of Brethren to them according to Mat. 18. nor will they or can they in the state in which they stand to us Answ. This Reason depends upon many uncertainties if no Errours of which I have said somewhat before in Answer to the Preface Sect. 15. in the Addition to my Apologie Sect. 17. and much more is in Grot. Annot. in Mat. 18.15 16 17. Selden de Syned Ebrae lib. 1 c. 9. where it is argued that Mat. 18.17 cannot be understood of such Ecclesiastical censure as is now in use Certainly without all shew of reason the term Church Mat. 18.17 is restrained to a particular Instituted Church in the Congregational way as the Phrase is and the term Brother to one that is a member of such a Church and to say that men of the Principles with this Author concerning the Independent Discipline cannot as things stand perform the duties of Brethren to the best of the present Ministers of England whereof some are by him confessed to be good men according to Mat. 18. nor will they or can they in the state in which they stand to them is in effect to profess the same hatred or distance as the Scripture notes to have been between the Jews and Samaritans Joh. 4.9 contrary to Christs Doctrine in the Parable of the wounded man Luke 10.37 in that thereby is denied to one another the greatest work of Mercy commanded Levit. 19.17 Thou shalt not hate thy Brother in thy heart thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour and not suffer sin upon him But he goes on 3. If we acknowledge the best of them for such we must also acknowledge the worst of them For 1. They are all members of the same Church 2. Profess themselves to be one Brother-hood so saith their Rime upon the Lords Prayer Our Father which in Heaven art And makest us all one Brother-hood c. Answ. Gospel Communion is either private or publick There is private Gospel Communion in private reproof and I think as bad as the worst of the present Ministers of England be they are to be accounted by real though perhaps they be not by Pharisaically minded reputed Saints as Brethren in respect of Gospel Communion Even towards them is to be that exhortation Gal. 6.1 Brethren if a man be overtaken in a fault ye which are spiritual restore such an one in the spirit of meekness considering thy self lest thou also be tempted which sure humble Saints do There is private Gospel Communion in opening their minds one to another as it is said Mal. 3.16 Then they that feared the Lord spake often one to another and this St. James requires James 5.16 Confess your faults one to another and pray one for another that ye may be healed Now concerning this it follows not if we acknowledge the best of the present Ministers of England as Brethren in respect of Gospel Communion we must also acknowledge the worst of them Publick Gospel Communion may be in hearing them praying with him praising God receiving the Lords Supper exercising with them or submitting to them in respect of Church Discipline In some of these at least I know no sufficient reason why the Saints may not account the worst of the present Ministers of England as Brethren in respect of Gospel Communion Judas might be heard as an Apostle and if he were a Communicant at the Lords Supper as Mr. Seldens discourse in his first Book Chap. 9. de Syned Ebraeorum seems to me to evince there is warrant to receive the Lords Supper with the worst of them We find that those that made acclamation to Christ when he rode into Jerusalem were a mixt multitude of Disciples Children and such as came to the Feast though it is likely they were not Disciples viz. those Greeks that desired to see Jesus as may be gathered by comparing Mat. 21.9 15. Luke 19.37 Joh. 1.12 20 21. Yet our Lord Christ himself justified their
joyning together in their praying and praising God Mat. 21.16 Luke 19.39 40. Sure it can be no sin in any person to joyn in the true worship and service of God with any if he have no command to withdraw himself from that service because of their presence nor power to exclude them and yet is bound to the duties then performed Believers might prophesie and hear it though Unbelievers came in 1 Cor. 14.24 25. Christians are commanded to separate and not touch the unclean thing 2 Cor. 6.17 But those they are to separate from are no other than Unbelievers and the unclean thing is the Idol v. 15 16. not the true service of God because of the presence of some scandalous Brother The people of God are to come out of Babylon Rev. 18 4. but that is no other than Rome and that because of its Idolatry v. 2 3. Rev. 17.2 3 4 5 6 18. We are not to keep company with a man called a Brother if he be a Fornicator or Covetous or an Idolater or a Railer or a Drunkard or an Extortioner with such an one no not to eat 1 Cor. 5.11 But this prohibited keeping Company and eating can be meant of no other than arbitrary unnecessary society in civil things and eating common Bread because v. 10. that keeping Company which is forbidden to such Brethren is allowed in v. 9 10. to the Fornicators of this world which cannot be Gospel Communion keeping company in eating the Lords Supper but civil eating The Doctrine of defiling our selves by the presence of wickâ—d men at the Lords Supper hath begotten so much superstition in the minds of many well-affected people that they can scarce ever break Bread with comfort no not in the best Instituted Churches there being seldom such an unspotted Congregation but that some or other is known or reported or suspected to be guilty of some sin or errour which is made sufficient to exclude themselves from the Communion so that as they use to speak they are not free to break Bread and that before the fault be examined or the person judged upon trial to be guilty and impenitent which makes those very Churches which by themselves are counted purest and best Disciplined to be full of Brawls and rash censures and separations and without any regular Discipline of any long continuance These things being considered I answer that I know no evil in it to account the worst of the Ministers of England Brethren in respect of Gospel Communion if not under regular censure in Hearing Prayer Praising of God eating the Lords Supper nor evil to account them members of the same Church and of one Brotherhood according to the Rime which should not be derided by any holy sober Christians being only the Lords Prayer in Metre It follows Sect. 5. Tender Consciences may call the Bishops Reverend Fathers Nay 3. We cannot so acknowledge them but we must also acknowledge the Bishops for our Reverend Fathers for theirs they are which how abhorring it is to any tender enlightned soul may easily be conjectured Answ. The Bishops are acknowledged by the present Ministers of the Church of England as their Reverend Fathers in respect of their Ordination but as Brethren only in respect of Gospel Communion Nor do I think the Bishops affect the title of Reverend Fathers as if they were superiours over the Ministers or People in respect of the common Faith had dominion over their Faith or were Lords over Gods heritage or would be called Masters or Fathers in that sense in which our Lord Christ appropriates these Titles to himself and his Father Mat. 23.8 9 10. in which sense I acknowledge any tender enlightned soul should abhor to give it to them I conceive they are far from usurping that Title as the Bishop of Rome doth who now hath ingrossed the Title of Pope that is Father heretofore given to other Ministers even to Deacons and doth claim the Prerogative to be the Oecumenical Bishop and Universal Monarch as Christs Vicar over the whole Church as having power to make Laws binding the Conscience out of the Case of Scandal and Contempt to determine infallibly in point of Faith with much more wherein he sitteth in the Temple of God showing himself that he is God 2 Thess. 2.4 But I conceive the Title of Reverend Fathers is given to them and taken by them in no such sense but that they account not only the Ministers but also the meanest Christian their Brethren in Christ. Yet may they be called Reverend Fathers not only in regard of their Age and their success in begetting others through the Gospel in Christ Jesus as the Apostle of himself 1 Cor. 4.15 in which respect there have been and I presume some of them are rightly termed Fathers in Christ but also in respect of their Office and Dignity according to that of the Apostle 1 Tim. 5.1 Rebuke not an Elder but intreat him as a Father In which respects usual Titles may be given even to the unworthy as St. Paul did Acts 22.1 and 26.25 and such compellations and salutations have been used by holy persons Gen. 42.10 Dan. 6.21 as warrantable which Quakers and tender Consciences not enlightned but darkned by prejudice and undue suggestions abhor as giving flattering Titles to men disclaimed by Elihu Job 32.22 whose example and opinions are not imitable nor doth this Author any good Office to any in such affrightments whereby our Breach is widened and our Wound uncurable Sect 6. It is not proved that the best of the present Ministers are to be separated from as walking disorderly This Author goes on thus But to hear this Plea speak its uttermost let it be granted they are Brethren and may be so esteemed They are Brethren that walk disorderly or they do not That they walk disorderly cannot be denied by such as pretend to Reformation if submiâ—ting to Ordination or Reordination by a Lord Bishop covenanting and protesting with detestation against a Reformation according to the Scripture and the best Reformed Churches to own as consonant to Scripture a Lyturgie or stinted Forms of Prayer in the Church and read them to wear the Surplice c. be disorderly walking they are the very best of them beyond contradiction to be reputed in the number of disorderly Walkers And so after due admonition according to the Scripture and a perseverance in their sin to be separated from by vertue of positive and express precepts of Christ Mat. 18. 2 Thess. 3.6 Now we command you Brethren in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ that you withdraw your selves from every Brother that walketh disorderly and not after the tradition he received of us with what vehemency authority and holy earnestness doth the Apostle press separation from Brethren that walk disorderly We command you and we command you in the Name of the Lord Jesus and we command you Brethren by vertue of our relation to each other and that love and endearment that is betwixt
us as Brethren that you withdraw your selves c. I scarce know any one thing pressed by the Apostle with greater vehemency than what is here instanced in wherein we have also an undeniable convincing Argument that the persons of whom we are treating walk disorderly Those that walk not after the tradition received from the Apostles we may add and from the Primitive Church for above three hundred years after Christ but according to the traditions of the old Bawd and Strumpet of Rome are such as walk disorderly But the present Ministers of England walk not after the tradition received from the Apostles but after the traditions of the Whorish Church of Rome therefore they are such as walk disorderly What Apostolical tradition have we for stinted Forms of Prayer or Liturgies in the Church did they frame any those that are ascribed to some of them are all spurious as hath been over and over proved For Surplice Crossing in Baptism and many other Gewgaws used by them If they have any Apostolical written Tradition for these things let them produce it and we shall lay our mouths in the dust and for ever be silent as to a charge of this nature If they have not as there is nothing more certain they are disorderly walkers if the Apostles Argument be valid We command you to withdraw from such as walk disorderly But who I pray are these disorderly walkers how shall we know them they are sayes the Apostle such as walk not after the tradition received from us Answ. Though it belongs to the persons charged here to speak for themselves and not to me who am not chargeable with the accusation as here it stands yet conceiving they would say the same in effect which I shall say now I do that the invalidity of this Authors arguing may appear say thus much for them but chiefly for the truths sake I conceive they will deny that they covenant and protest with detestation against a Reformation according to the Scripture and the best reformed Churches and would challenge this Author to prove it that he may not be found a Calumniator that they would take on them the justifying of their submitting to Ordination or Re-ordination by a Lord Bishop their owning as consonant to Scripture a Liturgie or stinted Forms of Prayer in the Church their reading them their wearing the Surplice the Crossing in Baptism they would say after Baptism and deny these things to be disorderly walking according to the traditions of the old Bawd and Strumpeâ— of Rome and I doubt not but that they would maintain it that beyond contradiction they are not to be reputed in the number of disorderly walkers but that this Author is an egregious false accuser However whether they be faulty or not this I think I may safely avouch that these practices except the first which I assure my self they will deny whether justifiable or sinful are not of so great a degree of pravity as that barely for them they should be reputed in the number of disorderly walkers and so after due admonition according to the Scripture and a perseverance in their practice to be separated from by vertue of positive and express precepts of Christ Mat. 18. 2 Thess 3.6 either by a separation of Saints from them in Gospel Communion or private familiar society For the former precept Mat. 18.15 16 17. is only concerning such a sin whereby a person sins against his Brother that is doth him some personal injury Which appears both by the constant use of the phrase of sinning against another in the New and Old Testament as Acts 25.8 1 Cor. 8.12 Gen. 20.9 and 42.22 and 43.9 and 44. 1 Sam. 2.25 and 19.4 5. and 24.11 and particularly in the same Chapter v. 21. Luke 17.3 4. which were occasioned from Christs words Mat. 18.15 where Christ commandeth Peter and the rest of his Disciples to forgive their brother that sinneth against them seven times a day yea seventy times seven times Which can be understood of no other sins than personal injuries for these alone they were to forgive as trespasses against them as the Parable Mat. 18. shews v. 32.35 Mat. 6.12 14 15. of which sort those practices imputed to the best of the present Ministers are not Yet if they were the separation is not to be made without an admonition and gradual process which I think this Author hath not used towards them as I conceive his own words evince a little before we cannot as things stand perform the duties of Brethren to them according to Mat. 18. If the sins were such as Christ means Mat. 18.15 and their proceeding according to the direction there yet the separation whether enjoyned or permitted rather is no other than such as was by the Jews from Heathens and Publicans which was not from Communion in Holy things for the Publicans were allowed to go to the Temple to pray even with the Pharisees Luke 18.10 11. though they would not receive them and eat with them Luke 15.2 Acts 11.3 Which shews that the being to him that is injured as a Heathen and Publican Mat. 18.17 is no other than separation from eating and familiar reception not from Gospel Communion as this Author would have it and therefore the Text Mat. 18.15 16 17. is impertinently alledged to prove his separation from the present Ministers of England in respect of Gospel Communion Nor is 2 Thess. 3.6 alledged more to the purpose For 1. the disorderly walking there must be understood of sins of greater pravity than the rest besides the first which they will deny charged on them if they be proved sins as the vehemency authority and holy earnestness the Apostle doth press his command with doth evince For this vehemency is not an undeniable convincing argument that the persons of whom this Author is treating walk disorderly as he fansies but that they that walk so disorderly as the Apostle here means are so corrupt and their walking so evil that their converse with them in a familiar society as with others would not be for their safety or credit or the repute of Christianity Which will the more appear by the instance that is given v. 11. where he saith For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly working not at all but are busie-bodies which shews that the walking disorderly is not being in some disorder about Church Government and outward Rites proper to Ministers which are the instances of disorderly walking here brought by this Author but gross sins of any Brother not a Minister who was bound to work or else was not to eat v. 10. which Ministers were not bound to do as v. 9. 1 Thess. 2.6 1 Tim 5.17 18. 1 Cor. 9.6 7 11 12 13 14. shews nor were they for this not working so as not to earn their own Bread to be noted or signified and declined that they might be ashamed as is required v. 12.14 Gross sins then common to every Brother such
the Holy things of God by vertue of an Antichristian Power Office or Calling are not to be heard but to be separated from but the present Ministers of England act in the Holy things of God by vertue of an Antichristian Power Office or Calling Therefore The major is evident For 1. The Power Office and Calling of Antichrist is opposite and contrary unto the Power Office and Calling of Christ not to separate from such as act by vertue of such an Office-power is to stand by and plead for Antichrist against Christ. Answ. The ambiguity that is in the termes of this argument is that which makes this Argument seem to many well-meaning people to be of some force which will appear to be a meer fallacie when the terms are clearly opened Concerning which that which is chiefly to be explained is who is the Antichrist here meant and what is meant by Antichristian which hath been so strangely abused especially of late years that every thing that hath been mâ—sliked by an opposite party is branded with the name of Antichrist and mark of the Beast and made a sufficient cause of utter separation from such as own any thing so called and of almost Vatinian hatred The word Antichrist I find not in any place in the Bible but in the Epistles of St. John 1 Joh. 2.18 As ye have heard that Antichrist should come even now are there many Antichrists whereby we know that it is the last time v. 22. He is Antichrist that denieth the Father and the Son ch 4.3 And every Spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God and this is that Spirit of Antichrist whereof ye have heard that it should come and even now already is it in the World 2 John 7. For many deceivers are entered into the World who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh This is a deceiver and an Antichrist or the Deceiver and the Antichrist In which passages I observe 1. That Antichrist is described as a Deceiver as one that opposeth the grand truth of the Gospel and therefore the word in the Scripture use is not applied to persecuting Princes and Emperours as the great Turk but to false Teachers 2. That the opposition is by denying not by making himself Christ but by denying Jesus to be the Christ and therefore the term Antichrist is not one that sets up himself as if he were Christ they are expressed by another word Pseudo-Christs Mat. 24.24 but one that is against Christ by teaching contrary to him 3. That the term Antichrist is applied to many false Teachers who were in St. Johns time 4. That yet there was one Antichrist more notable than the rest to come into the World About whom hath been variety of opinions of old and of late much controversie whether he should be a single person or a state or rank of persons succeeding one after another whether the Antichrist be already come or is yet to come whether the Popes of Rome for some generations have been the Antichrist or they and some other The opinions of the Fathers were various as conceiving of Antichrist by conjectures after the Popes of Rome began to be so haughty as to usurp dominion over Emperours and Kings and to be tyrannous in cruel persecutions of them that opposed the Papal corruptions many pious and learned men stuck not to stigmatize the Popes of Rome as Antichrists and since the Reformation begun by Luther it hath been the common tenent of Protestants that the later Popes of Rome have been the man of sin foretold 2 Thess. 2.3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10. the City of Rome the Whore of Babylon and the Papacy or Popes the Beast described Rev. 17. which is taken for a Prophesie of Antichrist And though some have endeavoured to apply these Prophesies to Caligula Simon Magus Domitian Mahomet the Turkish Sultans yet generally not only the French and German Protestants but also the English the most esteemed for learning even of the Order of Prelates such as Downham Robert Abbot Usher Bedel Prideaux together with King James and his Defendant Andrews and many more have applied the Prophesies in the Revelation and 2 Thess. 2. to the Roman Popes as the Antichrist that was to come Whence every thing that is retained in the Protestant Churches not taught or exemplified in the Scriptures according to the use of the Church of Rome is usually termed Antichristian as coming from Rome and the mark and image of the Beast in which sense I conceive this Author useth the term Antichristian as being against Christ and by power Antichristian he means Authority and Rule Prelatical by Office-Antichristian the Office of Preaching reading the Common-Prayer Administration of Sacraments and Discipline according to the Church of England by Calling Antichristian he means Ordination by a Bishop Now out of this may be gathered an answer to the Argument If by Antichristian Power Office and Calling be meant the Papal Power Office and Calling and the acting in Holy things be by preaching the Doctrine of the Trent Council in the points determined therein against Protestants by administring Sacraments according to the Roman Missal and Discipline according to the Canon Law of the Popes in which Papal power is established the major is granted and the minor denied For though I deny not that a person Ordained by a Popish Bishop if he forsake Popish Doctrine and preach the Truth taught by Protestants may be heard preach the Gospel though he do not renounce his Ordination yet while he holds that Doctrine he is not to be heard as being an Antichristian Deceiver But if by an Antichristian Power Office or Calling be meant by vertue of Ministry according to the Liturgie Articles of Religion and Homilies of the Church of England from the Ordination and License of the Bishops which this Author terms Antichristian the major is denied and to the Arguments to prove it I answer that that which he calls Antichristian is not truly such but only miscalled such by him and therefore till he proves that Power-Office and Calling which he calls such and means in his major proposition is such his major is denied and it is denied that what he calls Antichristian is opposite and contrary to the Power Office and Calling of Christ or not to separate from such as act by vertue of such an Office power is to stand by and plead for Antichrist against Christ until he proves such acting to be really so And this answer might suffice to invalidate all the other Arguments he brings for his major they all moving upon this unproved Supposition That what he calls Antichristian and standing by and pleading for Antichrist is in truth such But because there are some things to be examined in the other Arguments also I shall survey them also 2. Saith he It 's unlawful to attend upon the teachings of Antichrist therefore upon the teachings of such as act by
proposition stands as cannot be easily shaken or removed Answ. Though there be no one promise of a blessing in the whole Scripture upon persons attending on such a Ministry as theirs is that act in the holy things of God by virtue of an Antichristian Power Office or Calling whether real or supposed as such yet if any that so acts as suppose a Dominican Fryer or Jesuite in the Indies do Preach the Gospel truly there is a blessing promised in Scripture upon persons attending on such a Ministry Christ having said Luke 11.28 Blessed are they that hear the Word of God and keep it yet were there no promise of blessing the major is not proved unless this were true they are not to be heard but to be separated from to whose Ministry as such a blessing is not promised which makes unlawful the hearing of gifted Brethren unless they can produce such a promise yea every action indifferent should be unlawful unless it have a blessing promised to it What more he can say for his major yet rests in his breast and so needs no answer till it be produced I hasten to the proof of his minor Sect. 2. The names given to the Ministers of England prove not their Office not to be from Christ. The minor saith he wants not sufficient demonstration First the present Ministers of England are either from Christ or from Antichrist There is no medium a Linsey-woolsey-Ministry that is partly of Christ partly of Antichrist as 't is not to be proved by Scripture so will it not be abetted That they are not from Christ hath in part been proved already and may further be evinced 1. Their names are forraign to the Scripture where read we of Deacons in their sense Priests as distinguished from Christians in the New Testament Deans Cannons Petty-Cannons Prebendaries Arch-Deacons Lord Bishops Parsons Vicars c. these are only found in the Popes Pontifical whence they are derived Answ. It hath been abetted by Mr Bradshaw in his Answer to Francis Johnson his second reason against hearing the Ministers of the Church-Assemblies of England whose Arguments this Author hath revived though answered long since by Mr. William Bradshaw and the answers vindicated by Mr. Thomas Gataker from Mr. Cans reply that there is a medium and that a Ministry may be from Christ in respect of the thing Ministred though from Antichrist in respect of the way of entry into it yea he saith It is not necessary that the Ministry of Priests and Deacons though ordained by Antichrist himself should be the Ministry of his Apostasie but notwithstanding his Ordination their Ministry may be the Ministry of Jesus Christ as was the Ministry of Luther Huss Wickliffe and others I add that if by being from Christ or Antichrist be understood of outward calling as this Author seems to mean Ministers mâ—y be neither from Christ nor Antichrist and yet true Ministers as those that Preached Christ even of envy and strife yet St. Paul saith Philip. 1.15 18. Notwithstanding every way whether in pretence or truth Christ is Preached and I therein do rejoyce yea and will rejoyce But let us consider his proofs that the present Ministers of England are not from Christ. To the first I answer that the term Priests as distinguished from all Christians in the sense used by the Convocation of the Church of England is the same with Presbyters as appears by the Latin translation of the 39 Articles of the Church of England Art 32.36 extant by it self and in the Corpus Syntagma confessionum of the Protestant Churches and the Letters of Orders under the seals of Bishops in Latin and this is sure found in Scripture Act. 11.30 c. The other names note not any Ministry different from the Ministry of Christ but are used to signifie some difference in their maintenance or places which may be annexed to them and yet their Ministry from Christ. If this Authors reason were good the names are forraign to the Scripture therefore the things it would follow that Congregational Churches are forraign to Scripture Lecturers Sacraments Ruling Elders Itinerant Preachers c. because their names are not there But this Author adds So are 2. Their Officers Deacons attending tables we read of but Deacons Praying Preaching Administring Sacraments so called by virtue of an Office-power an order of the first step to the Priesthood we find not Priests in the Old Testament both true and false we read of In the New Saints are so called 1. In respect of Analogie to the ritual Priest of old whose prerogative it was to come near to God Deut. 21.5 to whom through Christ Saints have access with boldness Ephes. 2.18 3.19 James 4.8 2. In respect of their union and engrafture into Christ the great High-Priest over the house of God 3. In respect of that analogie there is betwixt what Christ hath done for them as Priest and by his Spirit worketh in them He offered up Sacrifice so do they Psal. 116.17 141.2 Rom. 12.1 Heb. 13.14 He was crucified died so are they Rom. 6.6 7 8 c. Gal. 2.20 4. As Priests they are anointed to the participation of do thereby attain to a kind of holy and intimate communion with Christ in all his glorious Offices Rev. 5.10 But an office of Priesthood in men for the Ministery of the Gospel that are to be branded by men in that their Office must Preach what they would have them and cease when they would have them as is the case of the present Ministry of England the Scripture is a stranger to Answ. Though the present Ministers of England men are to hear be more than Deacons yet this may be said that if it be supposed that the Office of a Deacon be not now to attend Tables as the first seven Deacons were Act. 6.2 yet according to the book of Ordination it is his Office where provision is so made to search for the sick poor and impotent people of the Parish to intimate their Estates Names and places where they dwell unto the Curate that by his Exhortation they may be relieved with the almes of the Parishioners or others If they be appointment to Pray Preach and Administer the Sacraments they have this to plead that Philip the Deacon did both Preach and Baptize Act. 8.5 12 38. that St. Paul requires of the Deacons 1 Tim. 3.9 That they hold the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience and v. 13. They that have used the Office of a Deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus and therefore may the Deacons Office be well conceived the first step to the Priesthood that is the Office of a Presbyter As for the word Priest as it answers to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the New Testament if the Saints as Saints may be termed Priests then may the Elders or the best of them surely be called Priests yea and that in
583. yields that our English word Priest and the Dutch Priester and the French Prebstre and Prestre and the Italian Prete to be formed from Presbyter Selden de Syn Ebrae l. 1. c. 14 p. 586 Certà in Ritualibus Anglicanis nostris Priests Ministers pro Presbyteris clim semper usurpata And besides what I said before out of the English 39 Articles and letters of Orders it doth appear from the very words of the Master of the Sentences Peter Lombard cited by this Author in this Chapter pag. 26. out of the Fourth Book of the Sentences distinct 24. divis 9. that the same whom the Papists call Priests they call Presbyters and say that they have the precept of the Apostle for them and that the Order of Priesthood or Presbytery the primitive Church had and therefore in this the Papists themselves use the word Priest in English but as the same with Presbyter or Elder from the Scripture or primitive Church not from either Jews or Heathens and therefore symbolizing in this name with the Papists if men had not mistaken it and clamourously and ignorantly inveighed against it had given no cause of suspition of compliance or willingness to return to the Idolatry of the Mass as it is used in the Church of England who have declared against Transubstantiation and the Sacrifice of the Mass in the Articles 28.31 in the Liturgy as it hath been lately revised and to which assent is required by all Ministers besides other wayes as amply as any other Protestant Church and therefore it is very evil that this Author doth insinuate into the minds of men such a suspicion of the willingness of the present Ministers to return to Popery because of retaining the name Priest which neither came from the Antichristian Church so called of Rome nor is an Idolatrous Superstitious name commanded by the Lord to be abolished Hos. 2.15 Zech. 13.2 This of Zech. 13.2 is not a command but a promise that God would cut of the names of the Idols out of the Land and that they shall be no more remembred which if it imply a command yet it is but of the abolition of the names of Idols not of the name of Priests whom I never found to be reckoned amongst Idols or that the name Priest is the name of an Idol The other text Hos. 2.16 17. is thus And it shall be at that day saith the Lord that thou shalt call me Ashi and shall call me no more Baali For I will take away the names of Baalim out of her mouth and they shall be no more remembred by their name which is a Prediction of what should be rather than a Prohibition and the reason of that Prediction seems to be this God would not be called Baali that is my Lord because that word noted a Husband as commanding or dealing hardly or rigorously with his Wife but Ishi according to the first notation of Ishah Gen. 2.23 one from whom the Wife comes as bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh and therefore is bespoken as a kind and gentle Husband which the words v. 14 19 20. lead to But if the reason of the not calling God Baali be as Grotius in his Annot Although Baal in common use signifie an Husband she shall not dare to use that name out of horrour of that name which hath been imposed on an Idol it may seem that the reason of not using should be not the unlawfulfulness of bespeaking God by that name according to the proper and original meaning but lest either she should in thought remember the Idol or be thought by others to continue that Idolatrous name For the words are not thou shalt not use the words at all thy Husband among men but thou shalt not call me Baali that is in thy Prayers and Confessions of me as thy God But if it be understood as a Prohibition according to the Law Exod 23.13 which I will not deny the 17. v. For I will take away the names of Baalim out of her mouth and they shall be no more remembred by their name to import it cannot be conceived that it forbids any more than the use of those names with honour or so as to trust in them as their worshipers did when they applyed them to their Idols as Psal. 16.4 is meant when the Psalmist saith He would not take up the names of their gods within his lips that is as Hos. 14.3 Neither will we say any more to the work of our hands ye are our gods Which sense the words before lead to that they should not any more prepare their silver or gold for Baal as v. 8. and as in the dayes of Baalim wherein she burnt Incense to them and she decked her self with her ear-rings and her jewels and she went after her lovers and forgot me saith the Lord v. 13. By which name of Baalim was meant the Sun and other Planets as may be proved out of holy Scripture and is shewed by Mr. Selden in his Syntagma de Diis Syris So that the forbidding the name of Baal or Baalim doth not appear to be any more than the using of these names as applyed to Idols with approbation of the Idolatrous Worship done to them or giving occasion in applying the name to God to conceive as if he were like the Idols or allowed their Worship even as the Apostle Eph. 5.3 forbids any naming of fornication uncleanness or covetousness with any shew of liking For that the Prophet meant not to prohibit the name of Baal to be given at all to God much less by a Woman to her Husband or Lord as the word did originally signifie may be gathered from that Isa. 54.5 who prophesied about the same time with Hosea where what we render thy Maker is thy Husband the Lord of Hosts is his name is in the Hebrew thy Baal or Baalim in the plural number and Nahum after him Nahum 1.2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Baal of wrath that is who is a Lord of wrath by our Translatours rendred furious and by God himself after him as we now read Jer. 31.32 I was a Husband unto them is in Hebrew I was a Baal to them saith the Lord. Yea were the prohibition such as that we might not give the names given to Idols to God we might not give God the title of Melec or King because the Idol of the Ammonites was called Molech Milchom or Malcham that is their King Zeph. 1.5 nor call God Jehovah because the Gentiles termed their God Jove or Jah because they termed their God Jacchus or Helion the High one because they termed the Sun Helios or Adonai because of Adonis all which to have been used in imitation of and derivation from these names of God is shewed in that imperfect relique of Mr. Hugh Stanford in the first Book of Mr. Parker De descensu ad inferos in Fullers Miscel. l. 2. c. 6. Dr. Hammond Annot. on Psal. 68.4 in
bounded with such terms as make it not intolerable sure it is nothing like that which is required of Papists according to the Bull of Pope Pius the fourth supra forma juramenti professionis fidei To the twelfth The practice of leaving Benefices is not strange to any Churches even from New England some have come into Old England leaving their places there nor are there wanting like instances of Congregational men at home perhaps for greater benefit without consent of the people The practices are not on any side justifiable in all yet we read in Scripture of removals of Ministers from one place to another upon urgent occasions To the thirteenth The person Ordained hath authority committed to him by the Bishop to preach the Word of God in the Congregation where he should be lawfully appointed that is by License which is thought needful to be added besides Ordination because all persons are not alike fitted for all Congregations the Voice and other abilities not serving for one Congregation which will for another To the fourteenth Silencing Suspending and Degrading may be necessary in some cases Tit. 1.11 and 3.10 if the Laws intrust the Prelates with it so it hath been in other Churches besides the Popish The abuse of it is justifiable in none To the fifteenth Inequality is judged to have been in the Elders of the Primitive Churches by the inscription of the seven Epistles of Christ to the seven Angels of the seven Churches of Asia and hath been in some sort in all Churches which have been well ordered and too much experience shews that by reason of the inequality of parts and minds it is necessary to settled order What is undue in the Popish or Protestant Churches should be charged on the Authors not on the Ministry it self To the sixteenth The Vestments of English Priests are not all the same with Popish those that are it 's denied to have the same use and therefore not to be charged with the same superstition To the seventeenth Even the late Assembly of Westminster prescribed a Directory for Worship and Ministration The Common-prayer Book that now is urged should not be judged the worse in those prayers or portions of Scripture which are holy and good because they were in the Popes Porluis no more than the acknowledgment of Jesus to be the Son of the most High God is the worse because the Devil used it Mark 5.7 And therefore King Edward the 6. his plea for it was good and the thing not to be misliked because used in the Roman Church who though they have many great corruptions in their Doctrine and Worship yet have they retained the Bible Apostles Creed many prayers from ancient Fathers and some Popes who were holy men and Martyrs in the first Ages which are not to be rejected because continued by later vicious and Antichristian Popes That which is insinuated as if the Common-prayer Book now in use were little different from the Popes Portuis or Missal is very untruly and unjustly suggested He that shall impartially and without prejudice compare the one with the other shall find a vast difference in the things liable to exception I have made some view of the Roman Missal of Pius the 5. and Clement the 8. and Breviary of Pius the 5. and Urban the 8. and though I deny not sundry Collects Prayers Hymns Lessons Psalms Epistles and Gospels are the same in the Common-prayer Book in English with those in Latine as being either parts of Holy Scripture or agreeable to it yet there are so many differences in fundamentals of Doctrine substantials of Worship and in Rituals as the invocation of Saints and the opinions of Merit sacrifice for Quick and Dead adoration of the Host vertue of the Cross half Communion and many more things material that I cannot but judge that either much ignorance or much malice it is that makes any traduce the English Common-Prayer Book as if it were the Popish Mass Book or as bad as it and to deterr men from joyning with those Prayers and Services therein which are good as if it were joyning with Antichrist the Pope or receiving the mark of the Beast when they can hardly be ignorant that the Martyrs in Queen Maries dayes were burnt for it is impudent falshood By the parallel particulars and such other as might be alledged cannot be inferred an exact symmetrie betwixt the Popish Priests and the present Ministers of England In many particulars might there be shewn a parallelism between Ministers of the Congregational Churches and Presbyterial and the Popish yet an exact symmetrie would not thence be demonstrated Few of these particulars alledged are unjustifiable those that are if not excusable yet are far from that which is the main thing charged on the Papists and disputed against learnedly by Mr. Francis Mason against Champney that they Ordain Priests to offer the unbloody sacrifice of the Mass for Quick and Dead which is abhorred by the English Prelates and Ministers and they are not to be charged to symbolize in Office with the Popish Order of Priests for which this Author hath produced nothing though it were the chief thing to be proved and therefore the minor of his Syllogism is denied and it is manifestly false which he saith he hath abundantly demonstrated it he having said nothing to prove it in the main Sect. 5. The Office of Bishops is not proved to be Antichristian but may be found in Scripture It follows Secondly Those that receive their Power Office and Calling from a Lord Bishop and act in the Holy things of God by virtue of that Power Office or Calling act in the Holy things of God by virtue of an Anâ—ichristian Power Office and Calling But the present Ministers of England receive their Power Office and Calling from a Lord Bishop and act in the Holy things of God by virtue of that Power Office and Calling Therefore The consequence of the major or first proposition is manifest the Office of a Lord Bishop is Antichristian therefore those that act by virtue of a Power Office or Calling received from them act by virtue of an Antichristian Power Office or Calling That the Office of Lord Bishops is Antichristian one would wonder should be denied in such a day as this after so full a demonstration thereof by many witnesses of Christ who have wrote so clearly in this matter as if they carried the Sun-beams in their right hand especially that it should be denied by persons of Presbyterian and Congregational principles if indeed any of them do deny it To prosecute this matter to the uttermost is not our present intendment the intelligent Reader knows where to find it done already to our hand and if after all that hath been said any through self love or fear of persecution will herein be ignorant we might say Let them be ignorant Answ. The Office Power and Calling received from a Lord Bishop is all one with the Office Power and Calling
Successors therein in any of the Churches of Christ Where read we of their so doing yea are any qualified with Gifts as they for the discharge of such an Office or doth Christ indeed send forth servants in any imployment and not furnish them with Gifts sutable thereunto Credat Apelles Apella would have been printed What more dishonorable to the Lord Jesus can be asserted It remains then that they being neither Prophets nor Apostles nor Pastors nor Teachers that they are not to be found in the Scripture of the institution of Christ. Nor are they dreamed of in the world of several hundreds of years after Christ. Clemens in his Epistle to the Church of Corinth takes notice of no other besides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishops and Deacons which Bishops he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Presbyters or Elders yea Lombard himself confesses Hos solium Ministrorum duos ordines Ecclesiam primitivam habuisse de his solis praeceptum Apostoli nos habere Lomb. l. 4. Sen. D. 24. h. 3. Ext. The primitive Church he tells you had no other Order of Ministers than Bishops or Presbyters and Deacons Nor did the Apostles give commandment concerning any other That their rise and occasion was from the aims and designs of men to accommodate Ecclesiastical or Church affairs to the state and condition of the Civil Government is ingenuously confest by one that was looked upon to be as great an admirer of and as able a Champion for Diocesan and Metropolitical Prelates as any one of late dayes t is Dr. Hammond we mind who in his Dissertations about Episcopacy Sect. 3. hath these words His sic positis illud statim sequitur ut in Imperii cognitione in provinciâ qualibet cum plures urbes sint una tamen primaria principalis censenda erat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ideo dicta cui itidem inferiores reliquae civitates subjiciebantur ut civitatibus Regiones sic inter Ecclesias Cathedras Episcopales unam semper primariam Metropoliticam fuisse So far is the Office of Lord-Bishops from being of the institution of Christ that their Primacy and Supremacy was the result of the designs and contrivements of men to accommodate the state and frame of the Church to the state and condition of the Government of the Nations Answ. The thing to be proved was that the Office of Lord-Bishops is not to be found in the Scriptures but the whole Discourse is about another thing not the Office but superiority of Order above Presbyters Primacy or Supremacy of degrees among Bishops the dignity of their Sees or Episcopal Chairs which is quite another thing than what he undertook to prove so that we may hereto apply the Poets words Amphora coepit Institui currente rotâ cur urceus exit Which were enough to answer this whole passage yet there are some things to be animadverted therein 1. It is true we read of Diotrephes 3 Joh. 9 10. and of no other in Scripture that he lâ—ved the preeminence either over or among the Church or the brethren and strangers who were to be received that they might be fellow-helpers to the truth v. 5 8. and that St. John if he came would remember his deeds prating against them with malicious words and not content therewâ—th neither doth he himself receive the brethren and forbiddeth them that would and casteth them out of the Church But this was not the usurping the Superiority of Order of a Bishop above a Presbyter but a proud pragmatique arrogant practice over the Church Brethren Strangers even St. John himself together with very injurious violent proceedings in words and deeds which are nothing to the bare challenge by dispute or assuming by collation either of the Civil or Ecclesiastical Power a Superiority of Order above Presbyters nor is Diotrephes mentioned as one of those Antichrists that were then gone abroad into the world or any mention of Antichrist in that Epistle 2. I know not the reason but I take notice that in this passage reciting Ephes. 4.11 twice he leaves out Evangelists and concludes thus It remains then that the Bishops being neither Prophets nor Apostles nor Pastors nor Teachers that they are not to be found in the Scripture of the Institution of Christ. Which conclusion might be overthrown if it were pleaded that they were Evangelists and so successors to Timothy termed an Evangelist 2 Tim. 4.5 and to Titus whose work is alledged for a pattern of Bishops 1 Tim. 1.3 5.19 22. Titus 1.5 But sith that title is declined by pleaders for Episcopal Superiority I let it pass 3. But the term of Pastors and Teachers is challenged by Bishops and what saith he against it This is too great a debasement of their Lordships which is a Satyrical Sarcasm no proof Did any of them say so or count it to be so If any did so he shewed himself unworthy of the name yea forgetful both of what he promised and prayed for alluding to this very Text as his Consecration and which was expresly charged on him by the Arch-Bishop when he delivered him the Bible Nor doth it any whit derogate from the congruity of the titles of Pastors and Teachers as it is given to Bishops that their Parochial Priests over whom they reside are supposed to be Officers in that degree than it doth from the giving of the Title of Teacher to a Presbyter because Assistents or Coadjutors are given them in case age or infirmity hinder them from the frequent doing of that office I omit mention of the living to avoid imputation of flattery but I suppose the Author of this Writing is not ignorant that Jewel Usher and many more have when they were Bishops been truly termed Pastors and Teachers and hope well of others 4. But under the term of Apostles they may not be reckoned True they had extraordinary Commission and Power yet they may be Successors to them Dr. Owen of Schism c. 6. sect 55. Professedly disclaims all thoughts of rejecting those Ministers as Papal and Antichristian who yet adhere to this Ordination in a succession from Popish Bishops being many of them eminently gifted of God to dispense the Word and submitted unto by his people in the administration of the Ordinances and are right worthy Ministers of the Gospel This Author denies not they succeed to them as Christians If so they may be heard as Gifted Brethren which was denied by him to the Ministers chap. 2. But why not in Office was the Apostles Office any other than what Christ injoyned them Mat. 28.19 20. Mark 16.15 and therein they must have Successors though not in the extent of their Commission and in their Power else how should Christ be with them all dayes unto the end of the World But they cannot derive their Succession but through the Papacy and then they are Antichristian I answer They may derive their Succession by proving their consonancy with them in doing the same work after them
1.24 and the Popes usurp whose decrees in points of Faith and determinations of doubts of Conscience and impositions of Laws binding the conscience are made unerring such Rule over Princes in secular Affairs with pomp outward grandure like Gentile Princes as the same Popes usurp rule for themselves not for Christ rule by force not by authority of Gods Word If any Lord-Bishop affect seek take upon him or exercise such Lordship or Dominion it may be censured for Antichristian yet not his Office but his practice is to be thus censured and this not to be imputed to his Order but his Person But to judge so of a person barely because of the Title of Lord which was given by Sarah to her Husband and propounded as meet 1 Pet. 3.6 or to deny any liberty to manage any civil business to an Ecclesiastical person because of those words of Christ is more than I conceive they have sufficient ground to do Sure such Congregational men as have been Heads of Colledges in the Universities or Vicechancellors or Leaders of Forces have given occasion to be termed Antichristian as well as Lord-Bishops if Lordly Dignity and Secular Rule merit that appellation As for 1 Pet. 5.3 the Annotation in the Book of the Annotations in English termed the Assemblies is thus Lords that is not imperiously commanding your own inventions instead of the Doctrine of the Gospel nor carrying themselves insolently and magisterially towards Gods people 3 John ver 9. which imports not an Office forbidden but the evil practice of them whose Office is allowed For this very Exhortation is given to those who were Elders among the Christians even St. Peter who entitles himself a fellow Elder to them and therefore contains not a Precept forbidding the Office of a Lord Bishop any more than of an Elder such as St. Peter was but the abuse of the Office nor doth it forbid Lordly Dignity but Lordly Rule whereas Bishops Rule should be Pedo non Sceptro not as Princes but as Shepherds If any Prelate use such Rule it is not his Office but his Practice which is to be termed Antichristian Sect. 7. The Office of Lord-Bishops not from the Papacy But this Author proceeds Not to multiply Arguments in a matter that others have so largely debated 2. That Office that is derived from and is only to be found in the Papacy is surely Antichristian if the Pope be the head of Antichrist this must not be denied But the Office of Lord-Bishops is derived from is only to be found in the Papacy Which of the Reformed Churches that have separated from the Papacy have retained it Did the woman in her flight into the Wilderness carry it along with her What more absurd then to run to the persecuting Whore and Beast for an Office of Ministry and what more evident demonstration of its being an Antichristian Office than its entertainment only by that false Antichristian Church and its utter rejection and detestation by the true Spouse and witnesses of Christ in all ages What is delivered over to us in this matter by some of them we shall briefly affix hereunto Hierome in his Epistle to Evagrius and in his Commentary on the Epistle of Titus professes That it is more by custom than by any institution of the Lord that Bishops are become greater than the Elders or Ministers Harm of Conf. Sect. 2. Tit. 11. So from him do the Churches of Helvetia proclaim whence they infer and that truly according to Act. 4.9 That no man by any right can forbid but that we should return to the old appointment of God and rather receive that than the custom devised by men Wickliff in his Answer to King Richard the Second citing Mat. 20.25 1 Pet. 5.3 sayes Lordship and Dominion is plainly forbidden to the Apostles and darest thou then usurp the same If thou wilt be a Lord thou shalt lose thy Apostleship c. The University of Geneva say Theses Genev. 71. These functions following we hold to be altogether false and destitute of all true foundation viz. the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome over all Churches the Cardinalship Patriarchship Archiepiscopalship and briefly the whole degree of Lord Bishops over their fellow Elders Marlorat in his Exposition on the Revel chap. 17.3 sayes That Archbishops Deans c. are in Office under Antichrist yea upon Chap. 9. that they are the tails of Antichrist Beza saith They could not be brought into the Church until they had driven him out who is the only Master Christ and there is neither holy Scripture nor Council nor antient Doctors which ever did know such Monsters Beza's Confess Art 7.14 The noble antient Oldcastle Lord Cobham saith That the whole Episcopal degree of Lord Bishops over their fellow Elders is altogether false and destitute of all true foundation yea that all other Functions and Offices besides Priests and Deacons are unlawful as being Sects devised by men destitute of all true foundation To these we might add honest Bale upon the Revelation viz. chap. 17. where he saith Canterbury and York are the Beastly Antichrist's Metropolitans and Primates and upon Chap. 13. that Archbishop Diocesan Archdeacon Dean Prebend Doctors Parson Vicar c. are very names of blasphemy For Offices they are not appointed by the holy Ghost nor yet mentioned in the Scripture Cartwright sayes of them that their Functions are not in the Word of God but of the Earth new devised Ministries and such as can do no good that their Office is the neck of the Popish Hierarchy come out of the bottomless pit of Hell Fenner proclaims them to be no natural members of the body of Christs Church as being of humane addition not born with her nor grown up with her from the Cradle The French and Belgick Confession sayes That they pass not a rush for them The Church of Geneva That the Hierarchie is Devilish confusion stablished as it were in despight of God and to the mocking and reproach of all Christian Religion The Seekers of Reformation in Q. Elizabeths time spake fully hereunto 2 Adm. to Parl. we have an Antichristian and Popish ordering of Priests strange from Gods Word never heard of in the Primitive Church taken out of the Popes Shop to the destruction of Gods Kingdom The Names and Offices of Archbishops Archdeacons Lord Bishops c. are together with their Government drawn out of the Popes Shop Antichristian Devilish and contrary to the Scriptures Parsons Vicars Parish-Priests are birds of the same feather to whom might be added many others Answ. 1. Though the Pope in these later ages especially since Boniface the third obtained of Phocas the Emperor more than 600 years after Christ that Rome the seat of blessed Peter the Apostle which is the head of all Churches should be both so called and accounted of all as Platina speaks and as Onuphrius addes Had the title of Universal Bishop conferred on him and it was added that the name of Pope which was
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.
Elders who were worthy of double honour 1 Tim. 5.17 had some preeminence above the rest nor doth the relation of Brotherhood hinder but that though in respect of the common Faith all of them are equal yet some may have some Power or Office committed to them which others have not and so may have authority over them That some Offices or Services may be added to those mentioned may be gathered from 2 Cor. 8.19 whether all the Officers or Offices be rightly ordered in the Church of England is not our present enquiry Much hath been said before in answer to the second and third Chapters of this writing which need not be here repeated That the present Ministers of England have neither name nor thing required by Christ in this law is notoriously false the names of Pastors Teachers or Doctors Deacons or Ministers and the Office of Preaching the Gospel continues therein both in the name and thing That they have set up other Officers and Offices as if in open contempt and defiance of Christs authority cannot be said but very unrighteously nor do the alterations or additions any more prove it then the setting up Catechists or Expositors or Lecturers in the primitive or later times proves open defiance and contempt of Christs authority He goes on in the same vein of crimination thus Sect. 7. Election of Ministers by the Common Suffrage of the Church is not proved to be Christs appointment 5. That these Officers be chosen by the common Suffrage of the Church of Christ and solemnly set apart by Fasting and Prayer this is evidently comprised in the ensuing Scriptures Act. 1.15 and 6 1 2 3 5. and 14.23 and 1.23 26. and 9.26 27. In conformity whereunto we find the Saints for many centuries of years after Christ in the peaceable possession of this their priviledge and right Clemens in his Epistle to the Church of Corinth p 57. saith Our Apostles also knew by our Lord Jesus Christ that Contention will be about the name of Episcopal charge Therefore for this reason having received a full predetermination they constituted such as were forenominated and in their instructive distribution delivered that if they were negligent other approved men should receive their Ministration being ordained by them or in the mean time by other choice men all the Church consenting thereunto Yea afterwards let some one among you Ingenious Merciful filled with Love speak if through me Faction and Contention Schisms I will depart Of which if you are willing I return and will do the things appointed by the multitude Wherein he fully asserts the priviledge of the Church or People of Christ we are pleading for And afterwards during the raign of Antichrist Christ hath not left himself without a witness nor his people without Champions to plead their right in this matter To instance but in a few That lively witness of Christ Martin Luther loudly proclaims That the voice of the People ought not to be severed from the chusing of Ecclesiastical persons And long before him Cyprian who lived about 260 years after Christ sayes Plebs obsequens c. The people that obey the commands of God and fear him ought to separate themselves from a wicked Pastor seeing the people themselves chiefly have either power to chuse Pastors that are worthy or to refuse those that be unworthy Cypr. Epist. 68. and tells us plainly That this is bottomed upon the authority of God That that is a just and lawful Ordination which is tryed by the judgment and voice of all viz. that fear and obey God Of the same mind long after was Francis Lambard the Companion of Luther in Germany in the Preface of his Book intituled The sum of Christianity who sayes Verily every Parish ought to have his proper Bishop the which should be chosen by the People and confirmed by the Commonalty of every Parish who if they swerve one jot or tittle from the Doctrine of the Gospel of the Kingdom ought to be deposed by the people and others more fit to be elected by them And in Chap. 5. of the said Book he professes That 't is the most gievous crime and by no means to be suffered that many children of Perdition do deprive the people of God of their just right and title viz. to chuse them a Pastor Peter Martyr in his common places refers the chusing and election of Ministers to the People as their undoubted right To whom we may joyn Mr. Bullinger who sayes That the Apostles exercised not tyranny in the Church in Ordaining Ministers without the consent of the People Bullin Decad. 5. Serm. 4. Tit. 1. 1 Tim. 5. Gualter also upon Act. 1.25 saith That those that profess the Gospel handle the matter as evil as the Monks and Popish Bishops in that they restore not again to the Church the liberty of chusing Ministers which by tyranny they took from them Of the same mind is Zanchie Calvin Beza Danaeus Tilenus Tyndal the Martyr with many others as Mr. Fox Cartwright Mr. Jacob c. We cannot omit the famous case of the united Brethren of Bohemia who concluding the whole Papacy to be purely Antichristian could not allow of the Ordination of their Ministers by any in communion with it and yet being perswaded of a necessity of continuing that Ordinance in a way of succession send some of the Greek and Armenian Churches who returning with dissatisfaction they thereupon commit themselves and their cause to God and chuse Elders from among themselves and by Fasting and Prayer solemnly set them apart to the work of the Preaching of the Gospel To these many more might be added The practice pleaded for as is evident is as antient as the dayes of the Apostles and the first election of ordinary New-Testament Officers continued in the Church till after the dayes of Constantine when Pride and Tyranny soon brought all things into horrible Confusion upon the pretext of Decency and Order yet in the worst of times have the witnesses of Christ born their testimony hereunto What say our Reverend Fathers and Ministers of the Church of England to these things Have they not an equal respect to this appointment of Christ as to those before instanced in Is there any thing like it almost practised by them in this great concern of separating persons for the Preaching of the Gospel of Christ Is not the liberty of the Brethren and Churches of Christ as much as lies in them wholly disanulled and broken by them Have they any such Call to the Ministry Do they at all value or esteem of it Are they in the practice of the Primitive Church or of the Reformed Churches of this day in this matter Is not the print of the feet of the old Strumpet of Rome the bloody persecutor of the Saints the cunning Deviser of a new self-invented and whorish Worship to be solely found in the paths they are in this matter traversing and can such be accounted as the subjects of the
with many more that might be added to which the Ministers of England are to subscribe and own as agreeable to the Word of God before their admission into the Ministry according to the 38. Canon Ecclesiastical Are any of these Ordinances and Constitutions of the appointment of Christ When or where were they instituted by by him That these are Posts set by the Lords Posts and Thresholds by his Thresholds of which the Lord complains Ezek. 43.8 who sees not That the present Ministers of England do conform and subscribe hereunto cannot be denied and thence an owning subscribing and submitting to Orders and Constitutions that are not of Christs appointment is evidently evinced Answ. Though I undertake not to justifie all that is in the Ecclesiastical Canons of the Synod at London Anno 1603. nor need the present Ministers nor perhaps will they or the Bishops themselves take it upon them yet that it may appear how falsly and injuriously this Authour hath dealt with them and how superficially he hath handled this Argument I say I. That he hath misrecited the Canons in all or most of the 14 particulars alledged 1. In the 7. Canon it is not said That the Orders and Offices of Arch bishops Bishops Deans Arch-deacons with many others appertaining unto this Hierarchy are Orders needful and necessary in the Church of Christ nor is it required therein that the Ministers promise subjection and obedience unto them But it is censured as a wicked errour to affirm that the Government of the Church of England under his Majesty by Arch-bishops Bishops Deans Archâ—deacons and the rest that bear Office in the same is Antichristian or repugnant to the Word of God and it is required of such as have thus affirmed that before their absolution from Excommunication they repent and publikely revoke it 2. In the 4. Canon Ministers are not required to own and submit to a Liturgy or prescript Form of Worship devised by men and imposed solely by their authority nor to tie themselves to it neither diminishing nor adding in the matter or Form thereof But it is judged a wicked errour to affirm that the Form of Gods Worship in the Church of England established by the Law and contained in the Book of Common Prayer and Administration of Sacraments is a corrupt superstitious or unlawful Worship of God or containeth any thing in it that is repugnant to the Scriptures and it is required of such as have thus affirmed that before their absolution from Excommunication they repent and publickly revoke it 3. In the third particular are sundry things liable to Exception 1. It is said that in the Book of Common Prayer Bowing at the Name of Jesus is prescribed which I find not there but in the 18 Canon 2. It is not well that when this Author does not yet he tells us some would say that kneeling at the Lords Supper smells very strong of the Popish Leven and is but one peg beneath the adoration of their Breaden God when he might know that not only the 28. Article of the Church of England and the Homily of the Peril of Idolatry and the Apology of the Church of England are fully against it but also the Compilers of the Common Prayer Book suffered Martyrdom for their refusal and abhorrency of such adoration and in the Rubrick of the Common Prayer Book as it is now established after the Communion there is a clear and sufficient Declaration against it which should if this Author had dealt candidly have been told ignorant people who are drawn into a separation upon this suggestion 3. It is true that in the 36 Canon subscription is required to this Article That the Book of Common Prayer and of Ordering of Bishops Priests and Deacons containeth in it nothing contrary to the Word of God and that it may be lawfully used and that he himself will use the form in the said Book prescribed in publike Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments and none other which I take not to be the same with owning submitting and engaging to conform to all the Orders Rites and Ceremonies prescribed therein 4. It is said Canon 32. The Office of a Deacon is a step or degree to the Ministry according to the judgment of the ancient Fathers and the practice of the Primitive Church and the subscription is required in the 36. Canon to the Book of Ordination as I have set it down here but they are not required by that subscription to own this assertion That the Office of a Deacon is the first step or degree to the Ministry 5. In the 49. Canon it is said No person whatsoever not examined and approved by the Bishop of the Diocess or not licensed for a sufficient or convenient Preacher shall take upon him to expound in his own Cure or elsewhere any Scripture or matter or doctrine But they do not speak though judged worthy of the Cure of Souls they may have a Cure of Souls by indirect means or by reason of the imperfection of the Law to debarr them or by reason of the want of sufficient Preachers as was in the beginning of the Reformation or for want of maintenance for able Preachers to undertake it who are not judged worthy of the Cure of Souls 6 and 7. Neither of the Positions are Canons 49 57. though their Ministration of Baptism and the Lords Supper is made sufficient And the 8. particular is in Canon 57. 9. Can. 60. It is not said That Confirmation by Diocesan Bishops is an Ordinance of God but that it hath been a solemn ancient and laudable custom in the Church of God continued from the Apostles times that all Bishops should lay their hands upon children baptized and instructed in the Catechism of Christian Religion praying over them and blessing them which we commonly call Confirmation and that this holy action hath been accustomed in the Church in former ages 10. It is not said Canon 62. that it appertains to the Office of Ministers to marry but they are only regulated therein 11. The Bishop is to suspend according to Can. 68. Ministers refusing to bury but the lawfulness of it is not there asserted though presupposed 12 13. Ministers preaching administring the Communion in private houses except in times of necessity some appointing of Fasts holding Meetings for Sermons are forbidden Can. 71 72. but it is not there determined that they are forbidden because of the unlawfulness Inexpediency or inconvenience may occasion a prohibition of that which is not unlawful 14. It is not asserted Can. 74. that Ministers ought to be distinguished by the habit there prescribed but that ancient Churches thought it fit II. Were all true which this Author hath alledged in these 14 particulars yet it is not true which he saith that either in the 36 or 38. Canon Ecclesiastical Ministers are to subscribe to and own all these Orders and Ordinances as agreeable to the Word of God III. To the Questions Are any of these
was the peculiar gift of Prophets v. 31 32. which now the Saints have not noâ— can now claim as many do arrogantly as if it were their liberty inferring from v. 3. that because it is said he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification and exhortation and comfort therefore every one that speaketh unto men to edification and exhortation and comfort did prophesie which is like as if because it is said 1 Cor. 8.1 charity edifieth therefore it should be inferred that whatever edifieth is charity nor is it right that the Apostle v. 40. represseth his direction v. 26. that being another direction and a general one after and besides the particulars v. 27 28 29 30 34 35. Nor if it were as he saith is there any thing to prove that all the particular wayes of Decency Order and Edification are there set down or that none are permitted to the care of After-Rulers Nor is the Argument as I have framed it evacuated who have not endeavoured to prove thence a power invested in the Church for the binding of the Consciences of men touching Ceremonies in Worship but do wave the controversies about the Ceremonies of the Cross Surplice and Kneeling about which the Writings of Bishop Morton Burges Ames and others are extant nor do I alledge the words as Doctor Hammond expounds them rendring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to appointment in which he is opposed by Mr. Jeans but only thus argue There 's a general rule after divers particulars instanced in left by the Apostle in the close of his dissertation which were of no use if he had set down all wayes of Decency and Order and left none to be determined by others therefore yet there remain particularities of Decency and Order about Divine Worship and Church-Rule to be determined by men which that it belongs to Rulers I gathered from other places As for the Arguments as he frames them I know none that avows them neither do I think any doth express himself thus Paul speaking by an infallible spirit of Prophesie adviseth the Church of Corinth for though I doubt not but Paul spake by an infallible Spirit in that advise yet that is fitter to be termed Apostolick than of Prophesie nor do I conceive any of them whom he opposeth would unadvisedly thus conclude 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 nor do I think any would say 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 For they conceive this false except about the point of Prophesying in that place and that the Apostle gives only a general rule and leaves the particularities of Decency and Order to be determined by others chiefly Rulers nor would they thence inferr therefore the Church hath power in this matter but rather thus plead That which belonging to Decency and Order is commanded in general but not in the particularities determined is in respect of Communities left to be determined by their Rules but so is the Apostles command 1 Cor. 14.40 Therefore c. The major rests on this That what is to be determined in or for a Community is supposed to belong to their Rulers This Author goes on thus Sect. 5 All particularities of Decency and Order in things sacred are not determined in Scripture But let this be granted suppose that 't is the priviledge and duty of the Church to make Laws and Constitutions for the binding of the consciences of men in matters of Decency and Orders this Church herein is bounded by the Scripture or it is not If it be for which he cites in the Margin these words of Macovius in loc com cap. 83. p. 851. The Laws by which the Governours of the Church are to judge are such as are prescribed in the Word of God bounded by the Scripture then when it hath no prescription therein for its commands it s not to be obeyed and so we are where we were before that Decency and Order is to be determined by the Scripture If it be not bounded thereby then whatever ceremonies it introduceth not directly contrary thereunto they must be subjected to which how fair an inlet it is to the whole farrago of Popish inventions who sees not Answ. I say not 'T is the priviledge and duty of the Church to make Laws and Constitutions for the binding of the Consciences of mâ—n in the matters of Decency and Order but that the particularities of Decency and Order not determined in Scripture may by Canons to that end be prescribed the general rules in Scripture the Laws of Nature Right Reason other laudable Customs and just Laws being duely observed and that persons are to obey them not as bound in conscience directly and by the things themselves but indirectly and by accident because appointed by Rulers to whom God requires obedience in those things which being rightly understood both horns of the dilemma are avoided they being bounded in the Scripture in the general are to be obeyed as other humane Laws and the particularities not being there determined the wayes of Decency and Order not determined by Scripture are to be received and yet it follows not that whatever Ceremonies Rulers introduce not directly contrary to Scripture must be subjected to much less a fair inlet made to the whole farrago of Popish inventions For if indirectly they be contrary to Scripture or otherwise hurtful or not subservient to the ends of such Laws or become by reason of their number or imposition such a yoke as Christ hath freed us from there may be a relaxation from them more than from other humane Civil Laws and for all or some of these reasons the whole farrago of Popish inventions is to be excluded though other Ecclesiastical Laws of the Church of England be subjected to Wherein I meddle not with the Question about the Ceremonies controverted and therefore may let pass that which this Author adds yet were this also yielded them they were never a jot nearer the mark aimed at except it can be proved that supposing a power of introducing Ceremonies to be invested in the Church thence a power for the institution of new Orders and Ordinances the introducing of Heathenish Jewish and Superstitious practices in the Worship of God may be evinced there being no necessity that in answering his Argument I should avouch the imposition or use of those Ceremonies which the Non-conformists argue against Nor need I reply to what he adds And yet should all this be yielded them none of which will they be able to prove to the Worlds end how will they manifest those Lordly Commands and Constitutions are the Constitutions of a truly constituted Church of Christ a strong supposition hereof is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the present Objection and yet sail they in the
making good their ground herein who sees not that their Plea hitherto impleaded sinks of it self Sith I neither plead for the Constitutions of the Church of England in particular nor is it my supposition that only the Constitutions of a constituted Church of Christ bind in things of Divine Worship and Church Rule and therefore my Answer and position need not sink for want of making good this plea. And accordingly might put him off to others to answer his impertinent questions What is it then they mean by the Church whose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we are without disputing to subject to is it the National Church of England But where find they any National Church of the Institution of Christ in the Oeconomie of the Gospel How prove they that the Church of England is so Nevertheless I may say I know not any that hold concerning the Church of England that its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proper opinions are to be subjected to without dispute though the Romanists hold it of the Church of Râ—me and for a National Church I refer him to what is before in answer to his Preface sect 15. But there are more questions behind Yet should this also be granted where are the Constitutions and Laws of this Church that we may pay the homage to them as is meet Which Question he might answer himself who in this Chapter cites so many of the Canons of the Church of England But he yet enquires When was it assembled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same place together in its several members freely to debate 1 Cor. 11.20 and 14 23. and in the Margin Maccovius in loc com append de Adi p. 861. Things indifferent he tells you ought not to be introduced into the Church but by the common consent thereof according to Acts 15. determine what Laws and Constitutions were fit to be observed by them To which I answer The Church of England was assembled at London Anno 1603. in its several members by deputation freely to debate things as was the usage in the Synods of ancient and later times and even in New England at Cambridge there about the Antinomian opinions in Mr. Welds History in England in the Assembly at Westminster of the Congregational Churches by their Elders and Messengers in their Meeting at the Savoy Octob. 12. 1658. which kind of Meeting must be allowed as the Meeting of the whole Church which they represent there being no other way in which orderly many particular Churches throughout a Nation can convene and debate freely either points of Doctrine or Discipline than by such Deputies and therefore as the whole Kingdom is said to meet in the Parliament so the whole Church may be said to meet in their Synod Nor is there any thing against this in 1 Cor. 11.20 or 1 Cor. 14.23 unless it be supposed that all those must meet to debate matters of Doctrine and Discipline who did then meet for worship which is not to be said For then in such things women also must have a voice contrary to the Apostles resolution 1 Cor. 14.34 and the practice of all the Churches As for Act. 15. the Synod was about a point of Doctrine and though it be said ver 22. that it pleased the Apostles and Elders with the whole Church to send some to Antioch yet the whole Church is not likely to be meant of every particular member but as Acts 6.2 5. Acts 21.20 22. and elsewhere by the multitude or whole Church is meant a great part or indefinite number However those from Antioch mentioned Acts 15.2 were not many and therefore if that Synod be a pattern for after times yet it cannot be a rule in respect of the number of persons convening when Churches are so increased or so far distant one from another as that they cannot commodiously meet in their multitudes or debate orderly but must of necessity act by Deputies and their Constitutions are to be taken as the Constitutions of the whole Church for whom they appear But this Author excepts If it be said that this is not requisite it is enough that it be assembled in its several Officers or such as shall be chosen by their Officers whose laws every member is bound to be obedient to We answer But these Officers are the Church or they are not if they are not as there is nothing more sure I owe no subjection to their Laws or Constitutions it being pleaded that 't is the Church that hath only power in this matter if they are the Church let them by one Scripture prove they are so or where the true Officers of a true Church are so called and as Nonius saith out of Nâ—vius to them Dum vivebo fidelis ero Yet except this also be yielded them there is nothing of moment in the Objection produced Answ. The Objection as it is by me made is not the Plea as here is supposed The power in this matter is by me ascribed to Rulers and Texts requiring obedience to them have been produced and notwithstanding this Authors exceptions there is something of moment in the Objection and the speech is not made good That the present Ministers of England submit own and subscribe to Laws and Constitutions that are not in any sense of Christ revealing nor if it were doth it follow Therefore they oppose the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ. Sect. 6. It 's not proved that the Ministers of England own Constitutions contrary to the revelation of Christ. He goes on thus But this is not all 2ly The present Ministers of England do own submit and subscribe to Laws Constitutions and Ordinances that are contrary to the revelation of Christ whence an opposition to the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ may rationally be concluded This also by the induction of a few particular instances will be evinced beyond exception Answ. Four things are here undertaken 1. That the particular instances stand by Laws and Constitutions 2. That these Laws Constitutions and Ordinances are contrary to the revelation of Christ. 3. That the present Ministers of England do own submit and subscribe to them 4. That from thence an opposition to the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ may rationally be concluded In which how he hath failed will be apparent by the view of what he alledgeth They own saith he and acknowledge 1. That there may be other Arch-Bishops and Lord-Bishops in the Church of Christ besides himself which is contrary to 1 Pet. 5.3 1 Cor. 12.5 Ephes. 4.5 Heb. 3.1 Luke 22.25 26. Answ. That there may be other Arch-Bishops and Lord-Bishops in the Church of Christ besides himself is acknowledged by the present Ministers of England but not in the sense in which Christ is called the chief Shepherd 1 Pet. 5.4 or the same Lord 1 Cor. 12.5 or one Lord Ephes. 4.5 or the Apostle and High Priest of our prosession Heb. 3.1 or Lordship is forbidden 1 Pet. 5.3 Luke 22.25 26. they are
intent of the Apostle being to shew that by partaking thereof they shew themselves of one body or community with all Christians and so may not partake of the table of Devils ver 21. Christ did institute the Lords Supper to his Disciples but that so many or a number above two are necessary so as that otherwise it should not have the nature of that Sacrament cannot be thence inferred 1 Cor. 11.33 Acts 20.7 do prove it should be administred when all Communicants come together but whether it want the nature of the Sacrament if but two be together specially in a case extraordinary may be questioned As Acts 2.42 it is said They continued in breaking of bread so ver 46. it is said they did it from house to house therefore not the whole Church in Jerusalem brake Bread in one house but by companies in several houses and so as they could commodiously which is an argument that the smalness of the number takes not away the nature of the Sacrament if the thing appointed by Christ be done Sect. 7. A prescript Form of words in Prayer devised by man is not contrary to Rom. 8.26 1 Cor. 14.15 1. That a prescript Form of words in Prayer a ceremonius pompous Worship devised by man and abused to Idolatry is according to the will of God and may lawfully be used under the New-Testament dispensation contrary to Mat. 15.9 and 28.20 John 4.23 Deut. 12.32 Jer. 51.26 Rom. 8.26 1 Cor. 14.15 Answ. That which the present Ministers own and subscribe to as containing in it nothing contrary to the word of God and that it may lawfully be used with promise to use it is the Book of Common-prayer This Author impeacheth it as contrary to the will of God and not to be lawfully used under the New-Testament dispensation 1. Because there is a prescript From of words in prayer 2. The worship is Ceremonious 3. That it is Pompous 4. Devised by man 5. Abused to Idolatry What part of it is or was abused to Idolatry should have been expressed If he mean kneeling at the Lords Supper that is his tenth instance to be considered again if that which is said already in answer to this Chapter Sect. 3. be not sufficient if he mean the whole Book because out of the Popes Portuis that is answered before in answer to Chap. 3. Sect. 4. His allegation of Jer. 51.26 seems to be brought to prove it unlawful to use any thing in the worship of God abused to Idolatry But it is so impertinent that were any conscience made how Scripture is applyed or shame to abuse Readers with texts impertinent it had been omitted it being only a prediction of the ruine of the City of Babylon not of the Temple of the Idol that it should not be built again by reason of the Opression and Idolatry of the Inhabitants not a prohibition to the Jews that they should not use the stones of Babylon to build a Temple to God at Jerusalem because abused to Idolatry Why the worship of the Common Prayer is termed Ceremonious or Pompous is left to be ghessed If he mean it as it is used in Cathedrals and Collegiate Churches and Chappels there is no constitution for it as such to which Ministers are required to subscribe if because of the ceremony of the Surplice and Cross and the Singing of Psalms or because it is with external words and gestures the first of these being an adjunct only to the Minister doth not make the Worship it self Ceremonius or Pompous and the second being only a monitory sign annexed to a rite of worship is not fitly termed Worship the third methinks should be allowed as commanded Ephes. 5.19 Col. 3.16 external words and gestures if agreeable to the examples of holy men should not be excepted against nor are they contrary to John 4.23 which excludes only the legal shawdowy worship of the Law and that which is only external and so hypocritical otherwise external Worship is required 1 Cor. 6.20 But I suppose the chief exception is that the Ministers own and use a prescript Form of words devised by man which he conceives contrary to the other texts alledged by him how pertinently is to be considered To Mat. 15 9. and Deut. 12.32 answer is made Chap. 1. Sect. 3. Mat. 28.20 requires Teachers to teach Disciples of Christ to observe all that he hath commanded But proves not that no prescript Form of Prayer devised by man may be lawfully used For then it would follow that conceived Forms of Prayer may not be used for they are devised by men they are not immediately from Gods Spirit as is apparent by the phrases and matter oft times used nor are they commanded by Christ but rather a set Form is commanded to wit the Lords Prayer Luke 11.2 and therefore the use of a prescript Form of words in Prayer devised by man is not contrary to Christs revelation Mat. 28.20 For all that Christ hath commanded may be observed by those who use it and it is more agreeable to Christs command to use one prescript Form of words of Prayer which he hath directed Mat. 6.7 8 9. Rom. 8.26 is more impertinently alledged For it is not said The Spirit helps our infirmities by suggesting to us the Form of words we shall use but by making known what things we shall ask in his secret impulse on our spirits not in ordinary motions of our tongues and by exciting in us grones and sighes that are unutterable and therefore this text is so far from proving that it is unlawful to use a prescript Form of words in Publick Prayer because of this promise of the Spirit to suggest without meditation such words as shall be spoken that it is quite another thing which is here meant First it is not meant of publick Prayers but of secret private Prayers Secondly it is not meant of private ordinary Prayers but as Cameron in his Treatise of the nature and condition of the Church observes The Apostle distinguisheth some and those singular Prayers of Believers from the rest to wit when the minde constituted in anguish and the same erected by trust in God prayes as wrapt beyond it self such as were Moses his Prayers who when he is not said to have prayed in Scripture yet God so be speaks him as if he had cryed to wit the Spirit did pray in Moses the understanding prayed not the Spirit that is the understanding conceived not distinctly the prayers And 1 Cor. 14.15 which is the other place cited by this Author I will sing with the spirit I will sing also with the mind To wit I believe none sings with the will for to sing is a work of the understanding but the Apostle hath opposed the Spirit to the Understanding because the Spirit in that place signifies the Understanding so affected as that it cannot distinctly explain what it hath conceived Therefore in the same Chapter above he exhorts that he who speaketh with tongues that
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
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
the characters of false Prophets and Priests upon them Therefore The major or first Proposition stands upon too firm a basis to be quickly removed nor will any attempt so to do Christ having charged his to beware of such Mat. 7.15 to take heed that none deceive them Mat. 24 4 5 23 24 25. not to believe every spirit but to try the spirits because many false Prophets are gone out in the world 1 Joh. 4.1 not to receive such into their houses 2 Joh. 10.11 to watch against them Acts 20.29 30 31. with much more that might be said if needful for its confirmation is a sufficient evidence of the truth thereof But herein the parties litigant are at a perfect agreement Answ. It is true the major is yielded if the hearing be meant of hearing them of choice or with reception and separation from them in respect of that wherein they are false Prophets and Priests But if it should fall out that one that should as Balaam at one time prophesie as he did Numb 23. and 24. at another time through his counsel cause the committing of a trespass against the Lord as in the matter of Peor Numb 31.16 hold the doctrine of Balaam who taught Balack to cast a stumbling block before the children of Israel to eat things sacrificed unto Idols and to commit fornication Rev. 2.14 or as Caiaphas being high Priest that year at one time prophesie that Jesus should die for that Nation and not for that Nation only but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad Joh. 11.51 52. At another time say that Christ had spoken blasphemy Mat. 26 65. Such a one may be heard joyned with in the former though not in the latter Whence it follows that it is not the Character or property of the man who is a false Prophet or a false Priest that is the reason why he is not to be heard or is to be separated from but his false doctrine and his evil counsel whereby he seeks to thrust us away from the Lord our God Deut. 13.2 6 10. or the damnable heresies denying the Lord that bought them as it is 2 Pet. 2.1 turning the grace of God into lasciviousness and denying the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ Jude 4. that do denominate them false Prophets or false Priests and bind us to a refusal of hearing them or joyning with them in that Communion in which we cannot partake without fellowship in their errour false Worship or other sin And this is it which is to be collected from the Texts alledged not that we are to refuse to hear persons or separate from them because of their personal vices or irregular obtruding themselves into their places but in respect of their pernicious Doctrine and impious Worship by which we are in danger to be ensnared and defiled We are bidden Beware of false Prophets Mat. 7.15 but no where is any called a false Prophet but from his false Doctrine And therefore though his counterfeit shews of Piety be mentioned as the bait to catch men yet the false doctrine is the hook they are to beware of as in like manner St. Paul warns Rom. 16.17 18. and St. Peter 2 Pet. 2.1 2 3. And thus in the places cited where Christ bids take heed that no man deceive them he alledgeth the reason For many shall come in my name saying I am Christ and shall deceive many Mat. 24.4 5. and v. 23. If any man shall say unto you Lo here is Christ or there believe it not for there shall arise false Christs and false Prophets and shall shew great signs and wonders insomuch that if it were possible they shall deceive the very Elect v. 24. the false Prophets that were gone out into the world 1 Joh. 4.1 were they that confessed not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh v. 3. the person not to be received into house 2 Joh. 10.11 is he that brought not the doctrine of Christ v. 9. that confessed not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh who is the Deceiver and Antichrist v. 7. those that the Ephesian Elders were to watch against Acts 20 31. were grievous wolves that should enter in among them not sparing the flock and men arising of their own selves speaking perverse things to draw away Disciples after them v. 29 30. And thus farr I agree to the major let us see how he proves the Ministers to be such Sect. 2. The Ministers not false Prophets because not sent as Jer. 23.21 Rom. 10.15 is meant 'T is the minor Proposition saith he that is judged by some to come short of a sufficient substraction viz. That the present Ministers of England have the properties and characters of false Prophets and Priests upon them This we doubt not by a serious observation of the characters are given of such in the Scriptures by the Holy Ghost will to any ordinary understanding be made exceeding perspicuous and evident The signal characters of whom are 1. That they run before they are sent Jer. 23.21 That a mission from the Lord is of the essence of a lawful Ministry that whoever wants such a mission is no officer of Christ but a false Prophet and Minister of Antichrist may hence rationally at least by way of Analogy be deduced is evident which also exactly accords with what is asserted by the Apostle Rom. 10.15 That the present Ministers of England want such a mission hath already been demonstrated and we shall not actum agere In a word when it shall be proved that they have received their authority from Christ either immediately or mediately from any rightly constituted Church of Christ or by succession from the Church in the Wilderness we shall acknowledge them to be Ministers of Christ and look upon our selves as obliged to pay them all honour and duty that as such we are charged in Scripture to do But if they have nothing else to plead for themselves but what is usually instanced in by them a succession from the Church of Rome That Apostate Church having lost her Churchship and therewith all lawful power for the sending forth Officers into the Churches of Christ we shall not fear to say That they are such as are characterized here by the Prophet persons that run before they are sent Answ. A man that meant honestly and had any spark of charity justice or ingenuity would not charge so deeply the whole order of men throughout a Nation containing many thousands of men of years breeding parts and by reason of their Calling to be reverenced and some of them by his own Confession good men as being false Prophets who by the Law of Moses Deut. 13.5 were to die and as false Priests without some irrefragable proof unless he had learned that accursed art of him in Terence Calumniare audacter aliquid haerebit or having once past the bounds of modesty were resolved to be gnaviter impudens But
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
Antichristianism declining to Popery or of Separation for that reason the Presbyâ—erian Churches making the like plea for themselves That the first Reformers had ordinary calling even according to the Papists own Canons and the Episcopal Divines pleading only the same thing more fully Yet it is not true which this Author saith That either the one or other make the succession from Popish Bishâ—ps one of the best pleas they have for the justâ—fication of their ministâ—y For though they plead this succession against the clamorous and violent actings of the Popish party which Petrus Molinaeus in his 3 d. Epistle to Bishop Andrews mentions to have been in France by Arnola the Jesuite and the writings of Champney Wadsworth and others shew to have been in England yet they have justified their ministry without it as may be seen in Amos Alsâ—ed Bâ—del and others And for the present Ministers of England I conceive they will deny that they act by vertue of an Office-power from the Combination and Assembly of Idolaters in the Church of Rome their Office-power being not such as Priests are ordained to in the Church of Rome to offer Sacrifice propitiatory for quick and dead but to preach the Gospel administer Sacraments and Discipline according to Christs institution And in the solemnity of their Ordination the Româ—sts rites being relinquished by the Ordainers who are not a Combination or Assembly of Idolaters but professors of the true Faith and haters of popish Idolatry though some succession of their Predecessors from Idolaters be alleged to stop the mouths of Papists who pervert their proselytes by impuâ—ation of novelty to the reformed Churches and their Ministers rather than by proving their Doctrine out of Scripture As for that which is obâ—ected That Christ would never entrust such to send forth Officers to act in the holy things of God for his Church it is without reason objected sith many of them might be and in charity we are to conceive were the servants of God who abode in the communion of the Roman Church Dr. Ames himself in his Animadversions on the Remonstrants Scripta Synodalia Artic. 5. c. 7. saith We believe there were and yet are many who have not so farr separated themselves from the Papists but that they are polluted with their manifold Idolatry who yet have their part in the Kingdom of God Even in the dayes of King Henry the 8 th and Q Mary all the Bishops were not like Gardiner Bonner and such as were inhumane persecutors Why Christ should not entrust Cranmer Tonstall and such like to send forth Officers to act in the holy things of God as well as Judas to be an Apostle I find not cause The baptism received in the Church of Rome the Brownists in their Apology p. 112. acknowledge to be so farr valid as not to need rebaptization and why not then the Ordination by their Bishops Bishops and Ministers though they be evil men and unduly get into power yet as it is with other Officers their actings are valid as Caiaphas Ananias and such like persons who by bribes unjustly and irregularly usurped the High-Priests Office yet their sentence and ministration were not therefore disannulled He who said We received the Bible from the Church of Rome it is not likely meant it to have been received by vertue of their authority but their ministry Preachers having been sent by the Pope to instruct the Saxons in the Faith But whatever was meant by that speech this we may safely say That if the Office-power of the present Ministers had been as it is not received by succession from the Church of Rome and so from Idolaters yet being no other Office-power than what hath been instituted by Christ it no more proves the present Ministers Idolaters than the receiving of baptism or the Scriptures by the ministry of men in that Church It is further added Sect. 14. The Common-Prayer Book worship was not abused to Idolatry 3. Nor can it be denied but they offer up to God a VVorship meerly of humane composition as the Common-Prayer Book worship hath been proved to be once abused to Idolatry with the mâ—â—es â—nd rites of Idolaters That the Commonâ—Prayer Book worship is a worship that was once abused to Idolatry being the worship of that Church whose worship at least in the complex thereof is so cannot with the least pretence of reason be denied That the whole of it is derived from and taken out of the Popes Portuis as are the Common-prayers out of the Breviary The administration of the Sacraments Burial Matrimony Visitation of the Sick out of the Ritual or Book of Rites The Consecration of the Lords Supper Collects Epistles Gospels out of the Mass Book The Ordination of Arch-bishops Bishops and Priests out of the Roman Pontifical hath been aâ—â—erted and proved by many VVhich might be evidenced if needful beyond exception not only by comparing the one with the other but also from the offer was made by Pope Pius the 4th and Gregory the 13th to Q. Elizabeth to confirm the English Liturgy which did it not symbolize with the service of the Church of Rome they would not have done Yea when the said Queen was interdicted by the Popes Bull Secretary Walsingham procures two Intelligencers from the Pope who seeing the service of London and Canterbury in the pomp thereof wonder that their Lord the Pope should be so unadvised as to interdict a Prince whose service and ceremonies did so symbolize with his own VVhen they come to Rome they satisfie the Pope That they saw no service ceremonies or orders in England but might very well serve in Rome upon which the Bull was recalled Not to mention what we have already minded viz. the testimomy of King Edward the 6th and his Council witnessing the English service to be the same and no other but the old the self-same words in English that were in Latine which was the worship of England and Rome in Queen Maries dayes it is evident That the present Minsters of England offer up a worship to God once abused to Idolatry That they do this with the rites ceremonies and modes of Idolaters viz. such as are in use in that Idolatrous Church of Rome needs not many words to demonstrate What else is the Priests change of voice posture and place of worship enjoyned them Not to mention their holy Vestments Bowings Cringings Candles Altars c. all which as it s known owe their original unto the appointments thereof In the margin Maccovius loc com append de adiaph p. 860. saith Non licet mutuari aut retinere res aus ritus sacros Idololatrarum sive Ethnicorum sife Pontificiorum c. etsi in se res fuerint adiaphorae quia vitandam esse omnem consormitatem cum Idololatris docemur Lev. 19.4.27 and 21.5 Deut. 14 1 It remaineth That the present Mâ—nisters of England acting in the holy things of God by vertue of an Office-power received from Idolaters and offering
Ministers of England may be justly charged That they worship God after the way of the Common Prayer Book with modes and rites used in the Papacy cannot be denied Nor can their undue administration of that great ordinance of our Lord Jesus of bâ—eaking bread to all according to thâ— form therein prescribed That they are Ordained and some of them re-ordained by the Episcopacy is also known I ask are these things the sin and evil of thâ—se men or are they not If they are not Why did not our preaching Brethren receive the Ordination from the Bishâ—ps these received Yea why do not our half-conforming Brethren attend upon the reading of the Service used joyn with them in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper as administred by them Doth not their absenting themselves herefrom abundantly demonstrate that they in their consciences are perswaded that t is the sin and evil of the preseâ—t Priests of England thus to act and from such a mission in the worship of the Lord Answ. The major Proposition is granted To what he saith he hath already proved answer is made before That the present Ministers are justly charged by him or that they worship God with modes and rites Popish that their bâ—eaking bread to all according to the form prescribed is undue or their Ordination requires proof The not receiving Ordination may be from another cause than perswasion in conscience that t is the sin and evil of the Ministers that they act by such a mission perhaps they cannot subscribe to what is required They may forbear the Communion not because Ministers sin in not keeping back some but because they scruple the gesture prescribed Here then is no proof of their sin let 's see how if it were granted that they did sin participation in their guilt is proved As for the Second saith he That the hearing the present Ministers of England is that which renders a man guilty of being partaker with them in their sin the consideration of the several wayes persons may be justly charged with being guilty of partaking with â—thers in their sin will abundantly demonstrate the truth thereof To instance in a few particulars Then may persons be justly chaâ—ged as guilty hereof 1. When they are found any way consenting with thâ—m in their sin Ps. 50.18 When thou sawest a thief then thou consentedst with him and hast been partaker with the adulterers T is not the doing of the act that was done by these wicked persons that is here called partaking with them but a secret consenting with them therein 2. When they do that which hath a real tendency to encourage persons in their sin 2 John 11. Receive them not into your houses bid them not God speed for he that biddeth them God speed is partaker of their evil deeds 3. When they neglect the doing of those duties which the Lord requires at their hands for the reclaiming of them from their sin such are watching over rebuking admonishing first privately then by two and in case of obstinacy and perseverance therein telling it to the Church which are duties eminently câ—mprised in the ensuing Scriptures 1 Thes. 5 14. Heb. 3.12 13. and 10.24 25. Levit. 19.17 Mat. 18 15 16 17. 4. When they notwithstanding all that they have done or can do being under an utter incapacity of proceeding further therein perceive them to persevere in their sin shall still continue to hold communion with them and not separate from them Rev. 18.4 Come out of her my people left being partakers of her sins ye receive of her plagues The abiding with obstinate persevering Offenders as it is against positive injunctions of the most High Rom. 16.17 2 Cor. 6.14 15 16 17. 1 Tim. 6.5 Ephes. 5.8 11. Rev. 18.4 So is it in the last place instanc'd in assigned by the Spirit to be one way of partaking with others in their sins Not to multiply more particulars let us in a few words make application of these remarkes to the business in hand Is there any thing in the world that carries a greater brightness and evidence with it than this That the hearing the present Ministers of England is to be partakers with them in their sin Is not our so doing a secret consenting with them and encouraging of them in their evil deeds Is this to discharge those duties incumbent upon us if we indeed look upon them as Brethren for their reclaiming Yea is this to come out of and separate from them What less So then except it can be proved that the particulars instanc'd in are not some of those wayes whereby persons do become guilty of partaking with other mens sins Or that to attend upon the present Ministers of England is not what doth symbolize with some one more or all of them which can never be done it evidently follows That t is not lawful for Saints to hear the present Ministers of England the doing whereof is apparently a partaking with them in their evil deeds Answ. I grant consent in sin doing that which hath a real tendency to encourage persons in their sin neglect of rebuking admonishing when they are our duty makes us guilty of others sins Nor do I except against the Texts brought to prove these except that Mat. 18.15 16 17. which I have said before in my Answer to the Preface of this Book sect 15. is a rule not of reproving all sorts of sins but only of particular injuries and that telling the Church is not telling a particular separate Congregation in the Independent way but such a number of Brethren as may be fit to compose the difference above two or three and that not of necessity so as if the Complainant did not do it should be his sin but as of indulgence and conveniency as being the way fittest to rectifie the Offendor The last way of partaking with other mens sins is not true to wit that if after admonition and obstinacy of the Offendor we joyn in hearing the Word of God praying with him receiving the Lords Supper we are partakers with the Minister that preacheth prayeth or administers the Lords Supper in his personal sins such as are acting by an unlawful mission or other using a sinful irregular way in his calling Nor do the Texts alleged prove it The first Rom. 16.17 is an admonition to them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine they had learnâ—d which is nothing to the avoiding of him that teacheth the same Doctrine that the Apostles taught because of his personal sins It may more fitly be applyed against such as this Author who causeth divisions and offences by his doctrine of Separation from them that hold and teach the true Faith which is contrary to the Doctrine of St. Paâ—l Râ—m 15.5 6. The coming out from among Infidels being 〈…〉 not touching the unclean thing that is the Idol or unâ—ighteousness 2 Cor. 6.14 15 16 17. is nothing to prove a separation from hearing or joyning in prayer or the
that every person be in such a particular instituted church and that is the fiâ—st seat of Ecclesiastical power alleging Matth. 16.18 18.17 to that purpose and build thereupon their Separation Yet I never judged either the allegation of those Texts to be pertinent to that they produce them for or that such conclusions as they gather from them about the constitution and power of a congregational church or the necessity of being a member in such a church so formed are rightly deduced But of this I need say no more than what is said in Answer to the Preface of this Book sect 15. and else-where Sect. 4. To attend only on the ministry of Ministers of Congregational Churches is not of Christs appointment Fâ—uâ—thly Saith this Author That Christ hath appointed Officers of his own to act in the holy things of God in and over thâ—se Assemblies whom he furnisheth with gifts every way suiting their employment to whom without turning aside to the voice of strangers or attending upon the ministry of such as are not of his appointment it s the duty of Saints to hearken is very conspiâ—uous in the ensuing Scriptures Ephes. 4.11 Heb. 13.7 13 Mat. 24.4 5.23.24 1 Joh. 2.18 4.1 2 Joh 10 Acts 20.29 30 31. Revel 2.14 15 16. Which exactly agrees with what was practised by primitive believers who it seems received none without the testimony of some Brethren of known integrity in the Churches 1 Cor. 16.3 Acts 9.26 Answ. It is true That Christ hath appointed officers of his own to act in the holy things of God in and over the Churches and that he furnished them with gifts every way suiting their imployment when he ascended up on high and this may be proved from Ephes. 4.11 and that such officers as may gather and perfect his Churches are of his appointment and that we are to follow and obey them Heb. 13.7.17 and that we are not to hear or attend upon the Ministry of such strangers as are deceivers false teachers Antichrists that bring not the same doctrine with the Apostles that are false prophets speak perverse things Nicolaitans that teach the doctrine of Balaam as the Texts alleadged do import and that S. Paul sent alms to Jerusalem by such messengers as the Corinthians approved that S. Paul was not at first admitted into society with the disciples till Barnabas brought him to the Apostles and informed them of his conversion But that Christ hath appointed Officers onely in and over particular Congregational Churches or that they onely who are chosen by such a Church are his Officers or that they are furnished by Christ with gifts every way suiting their imployment as when he ascended up on high or that all other Ministers or Preachers are strangers not of Christs appointment or that the Saints are not to attend on their Ministry or that hearing them is turning aside to the voice of strangers or that none is to be admitted to Preach or to Communion in a Congregational Church or to be heard Preach but such as have had testimony of some brethren of known integrity in the gathered Churches are not in the Texts alleadged nor in any other part of the holy Seripture But these Tenents and Rules of the Congregational Churches although the things may be observed in many cases as agreeing with the state of Churches at some times and in prudence may be commended yet to make them Institutions of Christ necessary to be observed at all times and no other Orders different from these lawful but rather Antichristian is an humane invention and no better then superstition which this Authour and other Separatists do so much inveigh against And indeed to injoyn Christians Members of a Congregational Church or other Christians to hear onely such Officers is both against the doctrine and practise approved in the Scripture against the practise of the Congregational Churches themselves and if it be urged rigidly according to this principle of this Authour puts such a yoke of bondage on the consciences of Christians as is intolerable and pernicious For 1. The Ministers of the Gospel are according to Christs design for the benefit of all Christians not appropriate to this or that particular number of men so as not to act as Ministers of his appointment but in particular gathered Churches It may be requisite perhaps for good order and government to assign particular places to them and this is of Divine and Apostolical institution that in particular Churches there should be Pastors and Elders and that they should be bound to be resident with them and to feed them But that no other then such should be Officers of Christ is not proved If there be not Apostles Prophets or Evangelists now as were in the Primitive times yet I presume none will deny that men may be Officers of Christ that are assigned to no particular Charge as Lecturers Catechists Readers in the Universities Members of Synods Commissioners for setling Churches in Discipline for Approbation of Preachers and the like and they being for the benefit of the Church of God either in common or more specially for some place may be heard or else the end of Christ in giving them should be frustrate This I gather partly from the expressions 1 Cor. 12.28 That not onely Apostles and Prophets but also Teachers are set by God in the Church indefinitely not in this or that definite Church and Pastors and Teachers as well as Apostles Prophets and Evangelists are given by Christ Ephes. 4.12 for the perfecting of the Saints for the work of the Ministry for the edifying of the body of Christ without the determinate assignation of some Saints or some part of the body but making them his gift to any Saints or any part of the body which his providence shall order partly and chiefly in that S. Paul counts it sinful glorying in men to appropriate this or that Teacher as peculiar to some and that because Paul and Apollos and Cephas and by the same reason every Minister was every Christians in that every Christian was Christs and he Gods 1 Cor. 3.22 So that however every of them cannot be every Christians in use so as that he should have jus in re yet every Christian hath a title to every Minister or jus ad rem and therefore to say none are Christs Officers but such as are in the Coâ—gâ—egational Churches and over them and to attend on the Ministry of others is to turn aside to the voice of strangers is to deprive Christians of the right God gives them to all the Ministers and tends to that gloâ—ying in men whch the Apostle condemns 2. We find that Apollos said to be a Minister by whom the Corinthians believed whom Paul planted and Apollos watered 1 Cor. 3.5 6. was a diligent Teacher of the things of the Lord at Ephesus and he disdained not to be instructed in the way of the Lord more perfectly by Aquila and Priscilla Acts 18.25 26. who are
also termed St. Pauls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fellow-labourers in the Lord Rom. 16.3 which proves that Christians did and might hear others besides Officers of particular instituted Churches yea that they might and did make use of the gifts of any though a woman that could expound to them the way of the Lord. 3. That this is against the practise of the Congregational Churches who do allow the hearing of gifted brethren that are not Officers who send Preachers to convert the natives such as Mr. Eliat Mr. Mayhew who yet are no Officers to them who hear the Pastors of other Congregations than those of which they are members which is not agreeable to this Authours principle That other than their own Officers are strangers to them and if it be as some have delivered That the Ministry is limited to that Church to which he is Pastor he cannot Preach as a Minister when they hear him nor they hear him under that consideration and if a Minister be an Officer onely to the people who chose him and they are bound to attend on his Ministery who chose him and not others then a Minister ceaseth to be a Minister when his Electors are dead or removed they that choose him not though he be elected by the major part are not to take him for their Minister nor may hear him sith his voice is the voice of a stranger 4. To be tied to attend on such mens Ministery and not to have liberty to hear others puts an yoke of bondage intolerable and pernicious on mens consciences 1. In that in case the Minister become empty or erroneous yet being his Minister and the major part adhere to him he must also attend on his Ministery who is weary of it and may not use the benefit of anothers Ministry more sound and profitable no not though it be of great consequence for the finding out the truth in that he doubts which is an art like to the practise of the Papists who will allow none of their Church to hear Protestant Preachers or confer with them or read their Books lest their errours should be detected Thus it might come to pass that if Mr. Ainsworth deliver errour his people might not go to hear Mr. Paget in the same Town who might discover his errour and there is the same reason concerning any in England as in London a Minister to an Independent Church must be heard though a man of mean abilities and perhaps an Antinomian and none other though a neighbour Godly Learned Conformist Preach truth profitably near to him 2. In case a member of a separated Church as a woman removed with her husband from London into the Countrey far from her Pastour have a Godly learned able Teacher who is a Conformist near her and no other she must not hear him because a stranger none of Christs Officers but must rather live without the benefit of the publique Ordinance though it be to the great decay of that spiritual life heat and vigour in godliness which she once had These and more evil consequences attend the Position of this Authour That those onely who are Christs Officers in his sense are to be heard Yet he goes on thus Sect. 5. Hearing the present Ministers casts no contempt on Christs Institutions Not to mention more let it be weighed whether the hearing of the present Ministers of England doth not cast contempt upon these Institutions of Christ. What is more evidently Preached by such a practise than 1. That separation from the Assemblies of England ' though in their Constitution carnal and worldly and the worship thereof although false and meerly of humane invention was and is our sin and evil 2dly That it 's not by vertue of any Soveraign institution of Christ the duty of Saints to meet together as a body distinct without going out to other Assemblies to worship with them for their mutual edification in the Lord. 3dly That particular Assemblies are not solely of the institution of the Lord Jesus but that National are also to be accounted as the true Churches of Christ though they have no footing in the Scripture of the New Testament from whence the pattern of Gospel-Churches is solely to be deduced Yea 4thly That the Officers of Christs appointment are not sufficient for the Saints but together with them the help of false and Idol-shepherds is to be sought after than which what greater contempt can be poured upon the forementioned Institutions of our dear Lord Yet who sees not all this to be the language which is heard and goes forth into the nations from the practise of our brethren in the matter we are debating If they look upon separation in the sense before minded to be of the institution of Christ can thâ—y offer a greater affront thereunto than to run into the Assemblies of the nation If they judge it their duty to meet together distinct from the world and it's worshippers why run they thereunto If they apprehend National Churches to be the result of humane prudence without bottom in the Scripture and the Ministers of Christ to be onely in contradistinction to the Ministers that are not of his appointment attended unto why give they the right hand of fellowship unto such Assemblies as profess themselves to be parts of such a National Church and hear Ministers that have relation thereunto who have received as hath been proved no mission from Christ to their Ministry If this be not evidently to pour contempt upon the Institutions of Christ and confessedly so we shall for ever despair of success in the most facile and righteous undertaking Answ. I acknowledge that he who granteth your Premisses cannot deny your Conclusion But none but dissemblers will attend on the Ministry of the present Ministers and hold the Assemblies of England in their constitution carnal and worldly and the worship thereof false and meerly of humane invention That the members of the Assemblies of the English Church are the world in contradistinction to the Saints That they are the worshippers of the world not of the true Churches of Christ That the Ministers are false and Idol-shepherds who have received no mission from Christ to their Ministry By this Answer this Authour may perceive that these charges are judged false criminations not at all proved by him nor are those things granted to be Institutions of Christ which he makes such And therefore if the practise of going to the Parish-Assemblies be a casting contempt on his way it is not on Christs Institutions but his unjustifiable separation And yet the truth is our hearing the present Ministers is for the performance of our own duty that we may hear the word of God and worship God truly and our doing this we account not any approbation of any thing evil in the Ministers or giving the right hand of fellowship to the Assemblies in any thing that is disorderly Nor do we condemn any thing but their sin in the separated meetings whose
separation we declare against although we should not think it evil to hear their Ministers Preach the word of God or to worship God with them We are of opinion that it is a gross errour which is often in the mouths of Separatists That they may not hear with the world nor pray with the world whence it hath come to pass that some have left off praying in their Families Catechizing their children instructing their servants unless members of their Churches which tends to bring in irreligion and profaneness and is contrary to the precepts of Scripture Ephes. 6.4 Deut. 6.7 c. contrary to the practise of Christ and his disciples who heard Christ Preach with the scribes and Pharisees praised God with the multitude even the children Christ approving it Luk. 19.37 40. Matth. 21.9.15 16. And however we approve not any evil in the Ministers or their Ministration nor do assent to any unfitting thing therein yet we rejoyce that Gods word is taught and his Name invocated in any company by any persons and think we have the Apostles example to warrant us Philip. 1.18 and do wish that God would not lay to the Separatists charge besides other sins which we think are nor a few in these withdrawings from Communion and invectives their ingratitude for that benefit others have and they might have from that Ministry they so much oppose If this Authour or those of his way suffer contempt reproach and hard usage though we wish it may not be yet it may be told them That not Christs Institutions are contemned but their own intemperate carriage is rebuked which is not likely ever to succeed well but to be a hindrance to the work of Christ and the peace of his Church Yet this Authour proceeds Sect. 6. Hearing the present Ministers hardens none in sin As for the second particular That hereby poor souls are hardned in a false way of worship what can be thought less supposing the worship in the Parish-Assemblies of England to be so as hath been proved when they shall see professors that were wont to pray and preach together to profess and protest against Common-prayer-book Priests and worship to cry up or at least approve of Laws made for their Ejection if guilty of no other crime than Conformity to the Worship they now conform to and practise now stock unto their Assemblies and bear their Priests What can they imagine less than that these persons thus acting in a direct contrariety to their former judgement and practice do now see they were mistaken and are beginning at least to return unto those paths from whence they departed and that these ways in which they and their forefathers have walked are the good old way in which rest is to be found Wo unto the world because of offences wo also unto them by whom they come Answ. The hearing the present Ministers to be no false way of worship is that which is now asserted the contrary is not yet proved by this Authour They who are chargeable with former miscarriages are to answer for themselves The hearing the present Ministers which is defended as lawful is not justly offensive nor for it onely do men fear the doom of Scandalizers It is added Nor is the 3d particular viz. That hereby poor souls are hardened in their rebellion and blasphemy against God the Spirit his Tabernacle and them that dwell therein to be in the least questioned we every day hear to the breaking of our hearts stout words spoken against the Lord because of the practise of some in this thing What say the wicked of the world less than that Religion which many pretend to is but a fancy that the professors thereof are but a generation of hypocrites that will turn to any thing to save themselves that the spirit by which they are acted is but a spirit of Phanaticism and delusion Yea how do they bless themselves that they are not nor ever were and resolve so much more they will never be of the number of such professors Ask them a reason of all this and they wonder you should ask them and speedily reply to you Do you not see how many of you for fear of persecution have deserted your former principles and are returned to our Assemblies and the Ministry thereof and that any of you stand out 't is from hence evident that it is from a spirit of pride and obstinacy and not as you pretend from divine tenderness and the leadings of the Spirit of the Lord And what can we say to all these things Must we not with grief and sorrow confess That there is indeed too great an occasion administred to them for their thus speaking though this will be no plea for them in the day of Christ. Blessed are they that are not offended in him It remaineth then that inasmuch as the hearing the present Ministers of England pours out contempt upon the ways and Institutions of Christ hardens persons in a false wâ—y of worship rebellion and blasphemy against the Lord it 's utterly unlawful for saints to be found in the practice thereof Answ. Such kind of consequences as these are incident to persons of any party who have been earnest for that whch after they have relinquished So have Papists insulted over Protestants upon the returning of any seeming zealous Protestant into the Roman Church If my memory fail me not the Authour of Fiat Lux imputes the like things to Protestants upon the coming over of some to their party Yet the Answerer and others know how in that and the like cases to reply to such that mens instability shews their own weakness not the thing in which they have been zealous to have been either good or bad that any take advantage from their fact to harden themselves it is by accident not from the nature of their action if it were good and lawful otherwise that in such cases men are not to condemn or commend the thing which is done because of the actions of the person but to examine things by the rule which is the onely remedy against such events It is true that it is just cause of mourning and dejection when such things happen But not to measure truth or falshood by such motives and considerations nor conclude a thing to be evil because of such accidents To which I add That this Authour doth not well to call the obloquies against his party speaking against Religion blaspheming God the Spirit tabernacle and them that dwell therein whose ways may be reproached by reason of their zeal for their way and yet no reproach to God his Spirit Religion Tabernacle and the indwellers It would be more for their benefit if he and others of his mind and others who have occasioned such blasphemies against Religion did excuâ—â—re semetipsos search themselves whether their own present violence of spirit unpeaceableness out of pretended zeal for God or their and others now conforming intemperate heat have not opened the
nothing that might deter tender and considerately enquiring Christians from hearing the present Ministers It remains that I make good the catasceuastick part of this dispute by confirming the Arguments brought for hearing them which I shall apply my self to after the answering of the questions which here follow Sect. 10. A pollution in one part makes not the whole worship polluted We shall saith he onely in the close offer a few Queries to be in the fear of the holy one considered by the intelligent Reader Quer. 1. Whether the Lord Jesus be not the alone Head King and Law-giver to his Church Answ. Yes meaning it of the supream absolute independent Head King Law-giver to his Church as such 2. Whether the Laws Statutes Orders and Ordinances of Christ be not faithfully to be kept though all the Princes in the world should interdict and forbid it Answ. They are 3. Whether to introduce other Laws for the government of the Church of Christ and the worship of his house be not an high advance against and intrusion into his Kingship and Headship Answ. Not if they be no other then such as are shewed to be warranted in this answer to the Preface Sect. 8.20 to Ch. 1. Sect. 3. to Ch. 5. Sect. 11 12 13 14 3 4 5. 4. Whether the Lord Jesus as King and Head over his Church hath not instituted sufficient officers and offices for the administration of holy things in his house to whom no more can be added without a desperate undervaluation and contempt of his wisdom headship and soveraignty over it Answ. Some servants and services may be appointed by rulers without such an undervaluation or contempt 5. Whether the officers instituted by Christ are not onely Pastors Teachers Deacons and helpers Answ. In this Catalogue I find not helpers officers instituted by Christ by some others not here mentioned I find of Christs institutions 1 Cor. 12.28 Ephes. 4.11 6. Whether the offices of Archbishops Lord Bishops Deacons sub-Deans Prebendaries Chancellors Priest Deacons as an order of the first step to a Priesthood Arch-Deacons sub-Deacons Commissaries Officials Proctors Registers Apparitors Parsons Vicars Curates Canons Petty-Canons Gospellers Epistollers Chaunters Virgers Organ-players Queristers be officers any where instituted by the Lord Jesus in the Scripture Answ. Some are some are not See the answer to ch 3. 7. Whether the calling and admission into these last mentioned offices their administration and maintenance now had and received in England be according to the word of God Answ. So much as is necessary to the resolving of this Question in order to the present controversie is answered before in sundry places which the Reader is to observe to satisfie himself 8. Whether every true visible particular Church of Christ be not a select company of people called and separated from the world and false worship thereof by the spirit and word of God and joyned together in the fellowship of the Gospel by their own free and voluntary consent giving up themselves to Christ and one another according to the will of God Answ. Some of these terms are so ambiguously used as is shewed before that in some sense it may be answered affirmatively in some negatively 9. Whether a company of people living in a parish though the most of them be visible Drunkards Swearers c. or at least strangers to the work of regeneration upon their souls coming by compulsion or otherwise to the hearing of publick prayers or preaching are in the Scripture account Saints and a Church of Christ according to the pattern given forth for him or rather be not to be esteemed daughters of the old Whore and Babel spoken of in the Scripture Answ. If their faith be right the first part is answered affirmatively the last negatively 10. Whether in such a Church there â—s or can rationally be supposed to be a true Ministry of the Institution of Christ Answ. It may 11. Whether the Book of Common-Prayer or stinted Liturgies be of the Prescription of Christ and not of mans devising and invention Answ. The worship or matter for the greatest part of the Common-Prayer-book is of Christ though the method and form of words be of men 12. Whether if one part of a worship used by a people be polluted the whole of their worship be not to be looked upon in a Scripture account as polluted and abominable according to 1 Kings 18.21 2 Kings 17.33 Isa. 66.3 Hos. 4.15 Ezek. 43.8 Zâ—ph 1.5 So that â—f their prayers be naught and polluted their Preaching be not so too Answ. No nor is any such thing said in any of these Texts not 1 Kiâ—gs 8 21. is câ—ndemned their following after Baal and not clâ—avâ—ng to God no intimation that if they cleaved to God it would be polluted by reason of the following of Baal but shewing they could not cleave to God if they did follow Baal No pollution is ascribed to the fear of the Lord 2 Kings 17.33 because of the service of the gods of the nations but the service of the gods of the nations is counted pollution notwithstanding such fear of God as they had Isa. 66.3 The killing of an ox was not a pollution because of other pollution of worship but because of the evil of the person it was polluted to him not in it self Hos. 4.15 Swearing the Lord liveth was evil because they pretended they did swear by the true God when they swore by these calves Amos 8.14 Diodati Annot. in locum Ezek. 43.8 notes not one part of lawful worship polluted by another unlawful but mentions onely an Idolatrous service near to Gods Temple of which I have spoken before in answer to Chap. 5. Sect. 2. Swearing by the Lord was not polluted because they sware by Malcham but the hypocrisie of the persons is noted who made shew of swearing by the Lord when they sware also by Malcham whereas he that serves God acceptably must cleave to him onely as God If as this Authours Quaerie intimateth a Ministers Prayers be naught and polluted his Preaching must be so too then all Preaching is naught in him that by imperfection or passion vents that in prayer which is not right which I am sure hath been in the Ministers of Congregational principles and none then should be heard Preach whose Prayers have any errour or imperfection in them which is a very gross absurdity and such as would make all mens Preaching unlawful and bring in the opinion of the Seekers who would have none accounted Ministers of God but such as speak by immediate inspiration 13. Whether a Ministry set up in direct opposition unto a Ministry of Christ which riseth upon it's fall and falls by it's rise can by such as so account of it be lawfully joyned unto Answ. No But they are bound to leave this account if it be erroneous 14. Whether such as have forsworn a Covenant-reformation according to the word of God and swear to a worship that is meerly of humane devising that
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