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
Sect. 2. Meeting of separated Christians as a distinct body is not Christs institution Secondly That Saints separate from the world should frequently meet togâ—ther as a distinct body therefrom for the edification and building up of each other in the way and will of God according to the gifts bestowed upon them is so evidently asserted as the institution of our alone King and Law-giver in the Scripture that it cannot be gainsaid Mal 3.16 1 Thes 5.11 Heb. 3.12 Jude 20. Heb. 10.24 25. 1 Cor. 12.9 Acts 12.12 18.23 Ephes 5.19 James 5.16 1 Thes. 5.14 Answ. It is granted That Saints separated from the world that is professed unbelievers should frequently meet for the edâ—fication and building up of each other in the way and will of God But it is neither agreeable to Scripture nor allowable that one party of Christians should call another part of Christians the world and the men of the world who own the true Faith of God and worship him because they are not of the same way of Church-government and worship Nor is it either in the Scriptures alleged or any other that such should meet as a distinct body from other Christians holding the true Faith and worshipping the true God in Christ as if they were a severed body from other Christians The Separatists I think do not rebaptize but hold Baptism in the Church of England as being into the universal Church right so in the Brownists Apology p. 91. Robinsons Justification against Bernard p. 349. and else-where which if this Author hold he must hold that the Saints of the gathered Churches are one body with other Christians according to that of St. Paul Ephes. 4.4 5. There is one body and one spirit even as ye are called in one hope of your calling one Lord one Faith one Baptism one God and Father of all who is abâ—ve all and through all and in you all 1 Cor· 12 12 13. For as the body is one and hath many members and all the members of that one body being many are one body so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body whether we be Jews or Gentiles whether we be bond or free And therefore it is against the institution of Christ that Christians of one profession in point of Discipline and Worship should meet as a distinct body separate from other Christians of different perswasions unless there were another Faith Lord Baptism God whom they worship Nor do the Texts justifie such separate meetings Not Mal. 3.16 in which is mention of speaking one to another but not as a distinct body from other believers The same may be said of 1 Thes. 5.11 Heb. 3.12 13. Jude 20. The Assemblies Heb. 10.24 25. were not meetings of a distinct body from other believers but from Hebrew Infidels 1. Cor. 12.9 or rather it speaks of gifts given to profit withall but not of meeting much less as a distinct body from other believers Acts 12 12. mentions a meeting for prayer but not as a distinct body from other believers Acts 18.23 Ephes. 5.19 James 5.16 1 Thes. 5.14 mentions employing of Gifts for our own and others good not a Church meeting as a distinct body from other Christians It follows Sect. 3. Separated Congregational Churches in opposition to National are not of Christs institution Thirdly That particular Congregations or Assemblies of Believers gathered into one body for the celebration of the worship of God in opposition to any National Church or Churches whatsoever is of the appointment of Christ is alike evident as the former Act. 1.1 3. 12.1 13.14 15.22 18.22 20.14 28. 1 Cor. 1.2 6.4 Act. 9.1 1 Cor. 16.19 Rom. 16.4 2 Cor. 8.1 Gal. 1.2 Acts 16.4 5. 14.23 1 Cor. 11.12 14.4 5.12 19 2 Cor. 1.1 Rev. 1.2 3 11. Answ. In these Texts there is mention made of Churches where the Christians in different cities or in a Province are mentioned and of the Church where Christians of one city are mentioned though it be made a question whether the Church Acts 15.22 18.17 be not a Provincial Church But that this proves an appointment of Christ That the Assemblies of Believers gathered into one body for the celebration of the worship of God by their voluntary agreement under Pastours of their own choice in opposition to any national Church or Churches whatsoever should be accounted the only lawful and regular Churches of Christ appears not For there is no mention in any of the Texts of any institution of Christ or his Apostles but only thence may be gathered that it was then the manner of speech to call the Christians that dwelt together in one Town the Church of such a place though it is probable they were not gathered into one body or congregation for the celebration of the worship of God under select Officers but that they were called the Church of such a city as that of Jerusalem from their habitation where they had many meetings from house to house for celebration of the worship of God as from Acts 2.46 47. and other places was gathered by the Presbyterians in their Answer to the dissenting Brethren Nor was then any such distinction of congregations of Christians as that in one city as the Independents in London and elsewhere did distinguish them such a number should belong to such a Pastour and be termed his Church and another number be another Church in the same city but the Elders of the Christians in Jerusalem are termed the Elders of the Church there Acts 15.4 23. 21.18 Not one an Elder of one part another of another part Sometimes there is mention made of the Church in the house of such persons 1 Cor. 16.19 Rom. 16.5 Philem. 2. And yet this proves not that particular congregations or assemblies of believers gathered into one body in a house for the celebration of the worship in opposition to any city church or churches whatsoever is of the appointment of Christ and therefore no such appointment of Christ as here is asserted can be gathered from the phrase of calling the christians in one city the church there the christians in a Province or Nation the churches A national or universal church may be as well collected from 1 Cor. 12.28 where it is said God hath set some in the church first Apostles secondarily Prophets thirdly Teachers sith the Apostles were for the universal church But for my part I conceive the distinction of churches only prudential not by any constitution of Christ or his Apostles And that however Mr. Robâ—râ—sâ—n in his Catechism Mr. Cotton in his Way of the Churches of New-England have put it into their definitions of the visible Church that it consists of so many as may meet every Lords-day for all Ordinances And Mr Norton in his Answer to Apollonius ch 3. makes such a church the only lawful political church And this hath been continually inculcated that it is necessary
wits nor have they any dependance upon the will or Authority of the Sons of men one or other of them either in respect of the matter or manner of their worship the whole whereof was purely of Divine institution and Divine appointment Exod. 25.9 40. Numb 8.5 Heb. 8.5 1 Chron. 28 11. Exod. 8.27 Levit. 10.1 Exod. 39.1 5 7 21 26 31 43 and 40.23 25 27 29. Levit. 8.9 13 17 21 29. Numb 8.3 Exod. 35.10 29. and 36.1 5. Isaiah 29.13 Answer The Levites were not invested into the office of the Priesthood by solemn ordination imposition of hands of the children of Israel but Aaron and his Sons and therefore as it was an usurpation in Uzziah to burn incense to the Lord sith it appertained to the Priests the sons of Aaron that were consecrated to burn incense 2 Chron. 26.18 So it was the sin of Korah that not content with that service he was to do he would usurp the office of the Priests to come nigh the Altar and to burn incense or as it is Numb 16.10 to seek the Priesthood which was in degree above the Levites who were to minister unto the Priests but not to come nigh the Altar as Ainsworth proves in his Annot. on Numb 16.10 out of Numb 18.2 3. 1 Chron. 6.48 49. 1 Chron. 23.13 It is granted that neither the Levites nor the Priests in their office or service were left to their own wills nor had they any dependance upon the will or authority of the sons of men one or other of them either in respect of the matter or manner of their worship which was of Divine institution and Divine appointment Every circumstance of time place order habit and what ever else was particularly determined was to be strictly observed under pain of death if presumptuously done otherwise as in the case of Nadab and Abihu Hophai and Phinehas or culpable negligence as in the case of Uzzah and if it were by ignorance yet an offering was to be made for an atonement and thus much it is granted the Texts alledged do prove But neither these texts nor any other do prove that no circumstances about place time order undetermined by God were left to the liberty of the people or Prince or Sanhedrin or Priests in and about the worship of God among the Jewes who yet had their service more fully particularized in all things pertaining to it than we have The Priests were invested into the office of Priesthood by Moses according to the rites distinctly set down Exod. 40.12 13 14 15 16. Levit. 8. throughout The text Isai. 29.13 alledged in the first chapter out of Mark 7.7 will there fitly be considered that we may discusse whether the whole of their worship was purely of Divine institution and appointment in respect of the matter and manner of it Sect. 9. The defection of the Jews to Idolatrous inventions of men is of a more hainous degree than use of humane ceremonies with us Fourthly saith he that this Church gathered by the Lord and wonderfully separated from the rest of the world though they had him nearer to them than any people had his Law made known amongst them did notwithstanding quickly depart from his pure institutions mingling therewith the inventions of men and customes of the Nations after which they went a whoring is frequently remarked in the Scripture of this the Lord sorely complains Deut. 32.18 Jer. 2.32 and 13.25 and 23.27 Hos. 4.6 and 8.14 and 13.6 2 Chron. 13.16 Isa. 1.4 Jer 1.16 and 2.17 19. and 9.13 and 15.6 Deut. 29.5 1 Kings 11.33 and 18.18 and 19.10 2 Kings 22.17 Ezra 9.10 for this he severely threatens and punisheth them Deut. 29.25 Judg. 10.10 1 Sam. 12.10 2 Chron. 12.5 and 24.20 and 34.25 Jer. 16.11 and 19.4 the very truth is the contests of God with that people from first to last are to be bottom'd upon this foot of account Answer It is true that Church of Israel was gathered by the Lord and wonderfully separated from the rest of the world by great signs miracles providences and judgments which he shewed against their enemies and towards them especially by the hand of Moses and that he did not till Christ came so gather and wonderfully separate any Church from the rest of the World as he did them But after the ascension of Christ by the Preaching of the Gospel and other wayes he hath gathered out of all Nations his Church and wonderfully separated it from the rest of the world It is true also that the Israelites quickly departed from Gods pure institutions mingling therewith the inventions of men and customs of the Nations But those inventions of men and customs of the Nations which the Texts alledged mention were such as were expressely forbidden drew them to serve other other Gods and to forsake the Lord not such as are usually by seperatives called inventions of men to wit humane ceremonies confessed out of the case of worship in themselves to be things indifferent such as out of pretended prudence at least or publique authority are imposed for discipline order or decency without giving any Divine worship to a Creature Let all the Texts alledged be viewed and there is none of them that mentions the mingling such inventions of men no not those which our Saviour reprehends in the Pharisees Mark 7.3 4 8. which are farr worse as the departing from Gods pure institutions nor doth God contest with the people of the Jewes in those places alledged for other inventions of men and customes of the Nations than such as were Idolatrous and therefore the threatnings and punishments in those places are grossely abused when they are applied to the imposing or use of such ceremonies or discipline as are whether rightly or wrongly retained in the Church of England Sect. 10. Such testimony as the Prophets gave against the Jewish defection is not now to be given against the Conformists Fifthly saith he that notwithstanding their dreadful Apostacy from God they were usually confident that they were the only People had not forsaken the Lord nor done any evil and could not bear the Prophecies and rebukes of the Prophets and Servants of the Lord against their abominations whom they persecuted and put to death as at last they did the Prince of Life and Glory for no other cause but for telling them the truth and bearing testimony against their Innovations and Apostacy from God the usual practice of persons degenerated from the way and Spirit of the Lord Mal. 1.6 Jer. 7.4 Luke 3.8 John 8.39 Mat. 5.12 Act. 7.52 Answer All this is granted and if this Author can prove any such innovations and Apostacy from God as the Prophets Christ and his Apostles and other Servants of God rebuked in the Jewes in the People or Teachers who adhere to the doctrin worship or discipline of the Church of England this Author with others of his minde do well to bear their testimony against them as the Prophets did and
men or rudiments of the world by which the Jewish Rites to be meant is apparent from Col. 2.16 17 20. Gal 4 3 9. 6. Saith he It carries with it a sad reflection upon the authority of the Scripture as not thorowly furnished to make the man of God perfect Answ. The authority and use of the holy Scripture is delivered by St. Paul 2 Tim. 3.15 16 17. that they were able to make Timothy wise unto salvation through faith in Christ Jesus that they were profitable for doctrine for reproof for correction for instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect throughly furnished unto all good works Whence is rightly deduced against the Romanists the perfection and sufficiency of the Scripture without unwritten Traditions for all Doctrinals of Faith and Manners and Worship in respect of Essentials But it is no ill reflection upon its authority to say that some accidentals of instituted Worship undetermined in Scripture ordered by men according to general Rules in Scripture are warranted by permission without command of those particularities in holy Scripture 7. The Lord condemns not onely that which is done against the warrant and direction of the Word but also that which is done beside it Deut. 4.2 and 12.32 Mat. 15.9 Lev. 10.1 their sin lay not in this that they offered strange fire which was forbidden but which God commanded them not Prov. 30.6 Jer. 7.31 Answ. I suppose that this Author when he saith the Lord condemns not only that which is done against the warrant and direction of the Word but also that which is done besides it means it of warrant and direction by command and in instituted Worship otherwise he should hold that nothing is indifferent which is too absurd and therefore I shall not charge him with it till he do expresly assert it But if his meaning be as I conceive that God condemns all that which is done besides the Warrant and Direction of the Word by a command in the New Testament even in accidentals of instituted Worship which must be his proposition if he argue to the purpose his assertion is false and not proved by any of the Texts alledged Not Deut. 4 2. which is to be understood of Doctrines Commands or Institutions as from God Thus Ainsworth in his Annot. on Deut. 4.2 not add Hereby all Doctrines of men are condemned Mat. 15.9 and the all-sufficiency and authority of Gods Word stablished for ever Gal. 3.15 2 Tim. 3.16 17. Add thou not unto his words lest he reprove thee and thou be sound a Liar Prov. 30 6. Which place is to be understood not of particularities of Instituted Worship undetermined for then the reason should have been thus Lest he reprove thee and thou be found superstitious but of Gods Commands Promises or Predictions of which he had said v. 5. Every Word of God is pure he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him and is opposed to the practice of false Prophets who pretended revelations as from God which they had not from him and therefore were reproved by him and found Liars Which is also confirmed by that parallel place Rev. 22.18 19. Mat. 15.9 is the same with Mark 7.7 before alledged and is taken from Isa. 29.13 and both by the Prophet against the Seers of his time the Rulers and Prophets to whom the vision of God was as a sealed Book and they understood not or taught not according to his Law but made shew of drawing nigh to God whilest their fear towards him that is their Worship of him or obedience to him was taught by the precepts of men and by our Lord Christ urged against the Pharisees who were guilty of the same hypocrisie and indeed proves that all Doctrines are condemned wherein that is taught or commanded or urged as Gods Worship which is onely by the Command of men but condemns not every particularity of accidentals in instituted Worship undetermined by God because from men who reach it not nor observe it as Gods Worship by his Command Which Exposition is agreeable with that which this Author puts after in the Margin In a Translation of the New Testament in Edward the sixths time the Author of the Notes on Mat. 15. saith God will not be woâ—shipped after the Doctrine and Precepts of men but as he himself hath prescribed and taught us in his Word The same is to be said of Deut. 12.32 where God having warned the Israelites that they should not do so unto the Lord their God as the Nations destroyed by them served their Gods adds whatsoever thing I command you observe to do it thou shalt not add thereto nor diminish from it Which hath the same sense as the Words Deut. 4.2 well expounded in the English large Annotations Deut. 4.2 shall not add not as a Comment or Exposition to a Text but man must not add any thing to Gods Word either for words or meaning contrary to it nor as Gods Word with an intent to make that of Divine Authority which is but humane as the Papists do by Apocryphal Writings and unwritten Traditions See Chap. 12.32 and 18.20 Diminish by denying any part of it to be of Divine Authority or concealing any part of it either for words or meaning or by partial Belief of it or obedience to it God is not to be believed obeyed or served in part and by halfs but as he is to be loved wholly Chap. 6.5 Which Precept is not to be restrained to immediate Worship but to be extended to all other duties enjoyned not only to the Priests by whom the solemn Worship of God was to be administred but also the King who was to have a Copy of the Law and not to turn aside from the Commandment to the right hand or to the left Deut. 17.20 and yet might make Orders about Civil Government not expressed in the Law Yea were the prohibition Deut. 4.2 and 12.32 restrained as it is not to worship it cannot be taken for a prohibition of all Orders made by men concerning Gods Worship as might be proved from Josh. 22.34 2 Chron. 20.3 and 30.23 Esther 9.27 31. and other places if there were need but such as were different from Gods commands in things determined by him or in things indeterminate when urged as Gods command and made his Worship wherein it is to be considered that God was more strict to the Israelites being more full in Ordinances concerning Ceremonies Typical and peculiar to them than he is to Christians whom he hath released of their burden of rites Lev. 10 1. The sin lay in this that they offered strange fire which was forbidden as even Mr. Ainsworth acknowledgeth Annot. on Lev. 10.1 Strange fire that is other fire than God had sanctified on his Altar As strange incense was expresly forbidden Exod. 30.9 So strange fire was not commanded but implicitely forbidden by Lev. 1.7 6.12 as afterward God plainly sheweth in Levit. 16.12 So that both the
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
received from a Bishop Suffragan who is not a Lord and therefore the adding of the title Lord to Bishop being only a civil title they being made Barons of the Land by the King and nothing pertaining to their Ordination but only giving them power to vote in Parliament or Convocation with other dignities is only brought in here ad faciendum populum to create envy or hatred against them in the Common people or others who are prepossessed with prejudice against them What their Office is as Bishops may be best discerned by the Book of Consecration which I gather from their promises and the prayers then used to be the instruction of the people committed to their charge out of the Holy Scripture and to teach or maintain nothing as required of necessity to eternal salvation but that which they shall be perswaded may be concluded and proved by the same faithfully to exercise themselves in the same Holy Scriptures and call upon God by prayer for the true understanding of the same so as they may be able by them to teach and exhort with wholesome Doctrine and to withstand and convince the Gainsayers to be ready with all faithful diligence to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange Doctrine contrary to Gods Word and both privately and openly to call upon and encourage others to the same to maintain and set forward as much as shall lie in them quietness love and peace among men and such as be unquiet disobedient and criminous within their Diocess correct and punish according to such authority as they have by Gods Word and as to them shall be committed by the Ordinance of the Realm to be faithful in Ordaining Sending or Laying hands upon others to shew themselves gentle and merciful for Christs sake to poor and needy People and to all Strangers destitute of help These are their Offices which they are required to perform at their Consecration whatever their practise be it pertains not to the present point this is the Office they undertake and it is as much wonder to me that any sober man should assert this to be Antichristian as it is to him that some should deny it I deny not but there are many that have termed Bishops Antichristian nor have there been wanting who have said as much of persons of Presbyterian and Congregational principles but such use of this term I have alwayes condemned even when Bishops were lowest as tending to nothing but to inflame the minds of Dissenters in opinion with hatred one against another but I have not met with any sober Writer or considerate man who in conference hath judged their Office as it is undertaken by them to be Antichristian I deny not that many learned men at home and abroad have disputed whether Bishops are by Divine Right an Order above Presbyters nor have there been wanting even of the Bishops themselves who have denied it Somewhat I have read on both sides but shall leave that controversie now and only examine what this Author saith to prove the Office of Lord Bishops to be Antichristian We shall saith he propose briefly a word or two in this matter 1. That Office that is not to be found in the Scriptures of the institution of Christ but is contrary to express precepts and commands of his is Antichristian But the Office of Lord-Bishops is not to be found in the Scriptures is contrary to express precepts Therefore Answ. I think the Major is not true if universal The Office of some Religious Votaries is not to be found in the Scriptures of the institution of Christ but is contrary to express Precepts and Commands of his and yet may not be Antichristian in that special sense in which the Scripture useth the word Antichrist nor as I suppose this Author useth it unless he make every sin to be Antichristian But because the Minor is that which he insists on I pass to his proof of it The minor Proposition consists of two parts 1. That the Office of Lord-Bishops is not to be found in Scripture of the institution of Christ He gave indeed Apostles Prophets Pastors and Teachers Ephes. 4.11 of Pastors and Teachers we read Rom. 12.7 8. Ephes. 4.8 Bishops also and Deacons without the interposition of any other Order we find 1 Tim. 3.12 Deacons we have appointed Acts 7. Elders Acts 14.23 those who are Bishops we find called Presbyters Tit. 1.5 7. and those who are Presbyters we find termed Bishops Acts 20.28 Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishops but where the Office of Lord-Bishops was instituted by Christ we are yet to seek indeed some appearances of a spirit striving to ascend into this chair of wickedness was seen in Diotrephes and others in the Apostles time but these were the Antichrists that were then gone abroad into the world The Scripture before mentioned Ephes. 4.11 speaks as fully to the Officers and Offices instituted by Christ as any we meet with Fail they in their deduction of their Office from hence and they will undoubtedly prove successless in their attempts Let us then fix here a little mention we find here of Apostles Prophets Pastors and Teachers none at all either here or elsewhere of Lord-Bishops But perhaps their Office though they are called by another name is comprehended in some one or other of these let that then be considered Are they Prophets that in the sense of the Spirit in this place they will not pretend to Are they Pastors or Teachers This is too great a debasement of their Lordships their Parochial Priests over whom they preside are supposed to be Offiâ—ers in that degree What then are they Apostles Their successors they do indeed boast themselves to be and are so accounted by their abettors and so doth the Pope himself but how prove they their Succession from them if they derive it through the Papacy who sees not the invalidity thereof How lubricous and uncertain is that their Succession How do they therein proclaim their shame and yield the matter in Controversie What clearer argument that they are Antichristian if the Pope be the Antichristian Head over many Countries as is by the generality of Protestants believed and will not by themselves be gainsayed But in what sense do they pretend to be the Apostles Successors Do they succeed them as Christians that is not the thing in question they stand or fall in respect thereof to their own Master herein we have no controversie with them as not willing to judge any thing before the time Do they succeed them in respect to their Offâ—ice let them prove that and take the cause The Apostles were first immediately sent by Christ secondly extraordinary Officers Commissionated to the Preaching of the Gospel throughout the Nations of the World Are their Lordships such what can be imagined more frivolous or false Where find we any Apostles after the departure of those that were immediately by Christ called to that Office Did the Apostles ordain any as their
of the Offices of Christ when contradicted by practice is nothing to the salvation of the person so professing in the sense in which St. Paul saith 1 Cor. 13 2. Though I have the gift of Prophecie and understand all mysteries and all knowledge and though I have all faith so that I could remove mountains and have no charity I am nothing that is as v. 3. it profiteth me nothing and no further are to be drawn the words of the Apostle Tit. 1.16 than that which is expressed in the Text that to such persons nothing is pure but their minds and consciences are defiled and so to the Interrogation I answer such a ones plea shall not be admitted before God or in an Ecclesiastical censure or a private judgment so as that he shall have the approbation or benefit of a real subject to Christ yet all this doth not prove that his doctrine impugnes the Offices of Christ or that his doctrine may not be heard to the profit of the Hearers J. Owen of the duty of Pastors p. 24. God oftentimes out of his care for his flock bestows gifts on some for the benefit of others on whom he will bestow no graces for the benefit of their own souls P. 43. People must beware of false Prophets How shall they do this but by trying their doctrine by the rule Nor is it true that Christ hath decided the question as he would have it as if Christ had said that false Prophets are to be descried by their virtous life not by their doctrine He saith indeed they are known by their fruits but that these fruits are only their evil life he saith not No where is any one said to be a false Prophet that doth not take upon him to prophesie he may be a bad man that teacheth no false Doctrine but not a false Prophet Judas was a wicked man a Devil but no where termed a false Prophet yea he was one of those that Christ sent to preach and one of those of whom he saith Mat. 10.40 He that receiveth you receiveth me and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me In the Old Testament Jer. 5.3 23.16 17 25 26. Micah 3.5 false Prophets are said to be such as prophesied Lyes in Gods name and he sent them not that they taught lying divinations the Visions of their own heart they cried peace when there was no peace they attempted to draw them after other gods Deut. 13.2 In the New Testament 2 Pet. 2.1 There were false Prophets among the people even as there shall be false Teachers among you who privily shall bring in damnable heresies denying the Lord that bought them 1 Joh. 4.1 Many false Prophets are gone out into the World and they are said to be such as confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh that they speak of the World v. 3 5. That is true which Mr. John Ball in his Trial of the grounds of Separation ch 13. pag. 312. hath If we look into the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament we shall never find the Prophets called true or false in respect of their outward calling I add or only their vitious lives but in respect of their doctrine Yea though a man should by his doctrine deny the Offices of Christ only by remote consequence as by teaching something as appointed by Christ which was not or denying something to be instituted by Christ which was so appointed yet should he not be accounted a false Prophet but an erring man who while he layes the foundation rightly yet through ignorance or inadverrencie builds Hay and Stubble thereon as the Apostle speaks 1 Cor. 3.12 And therefore that which this Author doth so confidently pronounce as if it were as clear as the Sun and denied by none but those whose eyes the God of this World hath blinded That those that do really that is in their practice though not in their preaching oppose any of the Offices of Christ are not to be heard no not when they preach saving Truths of the Gospel but separated from not only in respect of private or Church Communion in the Lords Supper or Prayers but in attending on the Ministry of the Word delivered by them which is his major proposition is so far from being light that it seems rather to me some of that smoak of the bottomless pit whâ—ch the God of this World raiseth to hinder many poor souls from hearing that Word wherein the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ the image of God doth shine unto men Nor were not professing enlightned people as he calls them held by prejudice or guided by affection more than by judgment could they grant this proposition For if according to this Authors dictates he that really that is in heart or practice opposeth any of the Offices of Christ is to be separated from then every one who disobeys his Commands believes not his Words that is an hypocrite yea that sins or errs in any thing Christ hath revealed or commanded is to be separated from and not to be heard and so all must turn Seekers or Quakers if they do not meet with a Teacher who is perfect without sin or errour As for what this Author saith for demonstration of it that such are Antichrists 1 Joh. 2.22 and 4.2 3. 2 Joh. 7. and that Beza is of the same mind and that they that hear them strengthen their opposition unto the Offices of Christ and partake with them in their sin is false For neither doth St. John nor Beza in his Annotations count any for Antichrists there meant but such as by their doctrine oppugne Christs Nature or Office which he terms the false Doctrine of the Antichrists nor is he at all guilty of the sins of the Minister who is evil in his life by hearing him preach truth yea though he preach some errours and it be probable that when he hears him he shall hear some errour preached by him unless some other way he abet his sin or errour or omit his duty in seeking to amend him But let us attend the proof of his minor Sect 2. Every not hearkning to Christs Order is not a denial of his Office 'T is the second thing may sound harsh in the ears of some as did some sayings of Christ but if truth where God shall give the seeing eye and hearing ear 't will be received viz. 2. That the present Ministers of England do oppose and deny some of the Offices of Christ viz. His Kingly and Prophetical Office which we come to the proof of Arg. 1. Those that hearken not to the Revelation Christ hath made and as supreme Lord and Law-giver hath enjoyned to be observed touching the Orders and Ordinances of his house deny the Prophetical and Kingly Office of Christ Deut. 18.18 Acts 3.22 Isa. 9.6 But the present Ministers of England hearken and conform not to the Revelation Christ hath made touching the Orders and Ordinances of his house Therefore
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.
that are excommunicate of excommunicating suspending or inflicting other censures and penalties on any that offend yea on Princes and Nations Finally of all things of the like sort for governing of the Church even whatsoever toucheth either Preaching of Doctrine or practising of Discipline in the Church of Christ. Which his practice sheweth to be such as to dispense with the Laws of God as by legitimating incestuous Marriages releasing of lawful Oaths granting Indulgences releasing out of Purgatory Canonizing of Saints Consecrating of things for the expulsion of Devils with many more and iâ— it be true which is related in a Book lately printed to have been asserted by the party of Jesuites in the Colledge of Clermont in France that the Pope is not only infallible in matters of Faith but also in matters of Fact he is elevated to that height as to accomplish the prophesie which is 2 Thess. 2.4 But the present Ministers of England do abhorr the giving such power to the King Bishops or Convocation yea it is disclaimed by the King Bishops and Convocation as blasphemous and that power they ascribe to the Church is set down in the 34. Article of Religion Every particular or National Church hath authority to Ordain Change and abolish Ceremonies or Rites of the Church Ordained only by mans authority so that all things be done to edifying And that which they acknowledge belonging to the King as the only Supreme Governour of the Realm of England and of all other his Highness Dominions and Countries as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or Causes as temporal is thus explained Artic. 37. We give not to our Princes the Ministring either of Gods Word or of the Sacraments the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen do most plainly testifie but that only Prerogative which we see to have been given alwayes to all godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himself that is that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal and restrain with the civil Sword the stubborn and evil Doers Which is so far from being no other than the Headship pleaded for by the Church of Rome as this Author saith p. 47. that to shew the calumny of it I need use no other words than those of Dr. John Owen in his answer to a Popish Book entituled Fiat Lux ch 13. p. 271. The Declaration made in the dayes of King Henry the 8. that he was Head of the Church of England intended no more but that there was no other person in the World from whom any Jurisdiction to be exercised in this Church over his Subjects might be derived the Supream Authority for all exteriour Government being vested in him alone that this should be so the Word of God the Nature of the Kingly Office and the ancient Laws of this Realm do require And I challenge our Author to produce any one testimony of Scripture or any one word out of any general Council or any one Catholick Father or Writer to give the least Countenance to his assertion of two Heads of the Church in his sense an Head of Influence which is Jesus himself and an Head of Government which is the Pope in whom all the sacred Hierarchy ends This taking of one half of Christs Rule and Headship out of his hand and giving it to the Pope will not be salved by that expression thrust in by the way under him For the Headship of Influence is distinctly ascribed unto Christ and that of Government to the Pope which evidently asserts that he is not in the same manner Head unto his Church in both senses but he in the one and the Pope in the other I add that Mr. Philip Nye in his Book of the lawfulness of the Oath of Supremacy and power of the Civil Magistrate in Ecclesiastical affairs and subordination of Churches thereunto Printed 1662. though not published hath these words p. 46. For Persons and Causes Spiritual or Ecclesiastical that are properly and indeed such as first Table-duties which contain matters of Faith and Holiness and what conduceth to the eternal welfare of mens souls an interest and duty there is in the Civil Magistrate more suâ— to give Commands and exercise Lawful Jurisdiction about things of that nature And for Persons there is no man for his graces so spiritual or in respect of his gâ—fts and Office so eminent but he is under the Government of the Civil Powers in the place where he lives as much in all respects as any other subject Yea in the Apology of the Brownists Printed 1604. these words are alledged for their common defence out of the Letter of Henry Barrow to a Lady 1593. p. 92. I have every where in my writings acknowledged all duty and obedience to her Majesties government as to the sacred Ordinance of God the Supreme Power he hath set over all causes and persons whether Ecclesiastical or Civil within her Dominions Out of these things I infer that asserting the Kings Supremacy or the power of making Laws owned by the Ministers of England is not making another King besides Christ over his Church nor ascribing such a Headship to the King or Governours of the Church as is pleaded for by the Church of Rome and that for the Kings Supremacy those that dissent about Ceremonies and Church Government do acknowledge it as it is meant in the Oath taken by the Ministers Concerning which Supremacy if what I have written in the little Treatise Printed 1660. intituled A serious consideration of the Oath of the Kings Supremncy in the proof of the fourth and fifth Propositions be not sufficient to produce from the Scripture the institution of such an Headship with the conditions annexed thereunto methinks Dr. Rainold his argument which convinced Hart in the conference with him ch 10. div 1. and such other writings as have been written by Bilson Mason Bramhall and many more should have prevented this calumny of making thereby another head besides Christ equivalent to a denial of his Kingly Office And to his Objections I answer 1. to the first That we use not the title of Head but Supreme Governour yet when it was used it meaning the same it might be used as it was given to Saul 1 Sam. 15.17 though not as it it is given to Christ Ephes. 1.22 and 5.23 29 2 Cor. 11.2 Nor is the title of Head so appropriate to Christ but that it is given to the Man over the Woman 1 Cor. 11.3 to the Husband over the Wife Ephes. 5.23 and may in a qualified sense in respect of Government be given to the King over the Church in his Dominions as to Saul 1 Sam. 15.17 to the chief of Families as Parents or others of greatest authority or esteem as the heads of houses Exod. 6.14 in which sense Parliament men Judges Ecclesiastical Governours may be termed Heads of the Church or State they represent
a way of prayer and thanksgiving according to their abilities Indeed Claudius de Sainctes and Pamelius two Popish Divines tell us of Liturgies compâ—sed by the Apostles James Peter and Mark Of Peter 's and Mark 's Cardinal Bellarmine himself not only takes no particular notice but upon the matter condemns them as supposititious and spurious which that they are is abundantly demonstrated by learned Moâ—ney and no more need be added thereunto There are some also fathered upon Basil Chrysostome and Ambrose but as these lâ—ved about the years 372 381 382. in which time many corruptions had crept into the Churches of Christ so the spuriousness thereof as being falsly fathered upon the persons whâ—se names they bear may easily be demonstrated T is already done to our hands by learned Morney in his Book De Missa l. 1. chap. 6. Durantus himself the great Liturgy-monger acknowledgeth That neither Christ nor his Apostles used any prescribed forms but the Lords Prayer and the Creed that they used these he sayes but proves not nor will it ever be proved to the worlds end That about the year 380. Theodosius the Church being rent by Heresies intreated Pope Damasus at whose election though the contest was betwixt him and Ursinus a Deacon of the Church there were not fewer than one hundred thirty seven persons slain that some Ecclesiastical Office might be made which was accordingly done by Hierome and approved by Pope Damasus and madâ— a Rule The unlikâ—lyhood of this later part of the story is manifest Theodosius was too well acquainted with the spirit of Prayer than to goe about any such thing had he judged it necessary having assembled the great Council of Constantinople wherein were not less than an hundred and fifty persons convened is it probable this good man Theodosius would in so momentous a Concern rather consult with one single person than such an Assembly as were by his Authority met together And yet should this be granted it would not from hence appear that at this time there was any devised and imposed all that is pretended to be done by Hierome was the appointiing an order for the reading of the Scriptures which is another thing to the imposition of Forms of Prayer in worship There is one passage in Socrates his Ecclesiastical History l. 5. c. 21. who lived about the year 430. that carrying an undeniable evidence with it that at that time there were no Liturgies we cannot pass over in silence t is this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherein he tells us That among all the Christians in that age scarce two were to be found that used the same words in Prayer Not to tire the Reader in this disquisition Though one part of the Liturgy was not long after introduced by one Pope and another part by another yet till Gregories time who to the honour of Liturgies be it spoken was the very worst of all the Bishops of Rome that preceded him viz. about the year 600. was there any considerable use or any imposing of them yea till the time of Pâ—pe Hadrian which was about the year 800. was it not as I find by publick Authority imposed Then indeed the Emperour Charles the Great being moved thereunto by the foresaid Hadrian by his Civil Authority commands the use of a Liturgy viz. Gregories Liturgy as it is thought to which he compels his Ministers by threats and punishments the usual attendencies and support of Liturgies ever since their production in the world The summ is That in as much as first it cannot be proved the contrary being most manifest in the Scripture that any Liturgy was enjoyned by Christ or his Apostles or in use in the first Churches planted by them 2ly It is evident that for the first four hundred years and more after Christ there was no Liturgy framed nor any by solemn Authority imposed to the year eight hundred it follows undeniably from hence That to worship God in the way of a Liturgy or stinted forms of Prayer is to worship him in a way that is not of his appointment Answ. 1. It is to be remembred that as I said before were his Conclusion granted yet Ministers would not be proved to be Idolaters all worshipping of God in a way that is not of his appointment being not Idolatry except therein Divine or Religious Worship be exhibited to a Creature 2. That his own Argument whose way of Worship is not prescribed without a stinted Form of Prayer would as well prove himself an Idolater as the Ministers of England 3. That he still acknowledgeth that the worship according to the Common-Prayer-Book is the worship of the true God nor doth he shew that according to it any other is worshipped 4. That he doth not except against the matter of the Prayers in the Common-Prayer-Book no nor the particular forms of expression as if they were not agreeable to the Scriptures or indecent or inept But 1. That all Liturgies or stinted forms of Prayer and consequently this are not of Gods appointment but of humane invention 2. That they are unduly imposed on Ministers 3. That Ministers do sinfully yea Idolatrously use them because it is a way of Worship not appointed by God The two former of these reach not the Ministers of England but the Composers and Imposers it is the third thing which is pertinent to the present Crimination which may occasion to enquire 1. Whether stinted Forms of Prayer and service of God which are not otherwise faulty than in that they are stinted may not be lawfully used by a Minister of the Gospel in his publick ministration 2. Whether such Prayers and service may not be a Worship of God in a way that is of his appointment I affirm both and to what is said against either I answer 1. That Christ did in appointing the Lords Prayer to be used by his Apostles Matth. 6 9. Luke 11.2 the Salutation to be used by the seventy Disciples Luke 10.5 appoint such a stinted form of service 2. That we have footsteps of such a way of Worship in the New Testament in his justifying and countenancing the crying of Hosanna that is Save us now taken from Psal. 118.25 26. as Mr. Ainsworth in his Annotation observes by the multitude And the Children Matth. 21.9.15 Mark 11.9 With the Disciples Luke 19 38 40. John 12.13 In Christs using the Forms which David used before in the Psalms Matth. 27.46 He prayes in the Form used Psal. 22.1 Luke 24.46 In the Form used Psal. 31.5 In the Apostles use of a Form of Prayer in his Epistles Rom. 1.7 Rom. 16.24 1 Cor. 1.3 1 Cor. 16.23 2 Cor. 1.2 Gal 1.3 Ephes. 1.2 Phil. 1.2 Phil. 4.23 Col. 1.2 1 Thes. 1.2 1 Thes. 5.28 1 Thes. 1.2 2 Thes. 3.16 17 18. 1 Tim. 1.2 2 Tim. 1.2 Tit. 1.4 Philem. 3. Heb. 13.25 1 Pet. 1.2 2 Pet. 1.2 2 John 3. Jude 2. Revel 1.4 In the Old Testament Numb 6.23 24 25 26. 1 Chron. 16.7.35 2 Chron. 20.21
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
as a wine-bibber and gluttonous person in his miracles as one that wrought them by the Devil who are therefore condemned by Christ as guilty of the very sin of blasphemy against the holy Ghost Matth. 12.31 is known as being what is frequently remarked in the Scripture 4. We no where find the disciples attending upon the Ministry of the Scribes and Pharisees notwithstanding this supposed command or permission of Christ. Nay 5 We cannot but think the supposition hereof not onely inconsistent with and opposite to that expression concerning Christ Mar. 6.34 And Jesus when he saw much people was moved with compassion towards them because they were as sheep not having a shepherd what without a shepherd and yet the Scribes and Pharisees whose feeding they might lawfully attend upon doth Christ pity them in this desperate state and not give them one word of direction to wait upon these profound and worthy Doctors but also contrary to that solemn command given forth from the Lord Acts 2.40 Save your selves from this untoward generation and the practice of the disciples who continued in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship and breaking of bread and prayer Acts 2.42 6. Were that the intendment of Christ as is suggested and the argument of our brethren valid a lawfulness to hear the veriest blasphemer in the world that denies that Christ is the Messiah affirms that he was a deluder of the people a gluttonous person a winebibber one that did miracles by Belzebub the prince of Devils that persecutes even to death Christ in his people might by a like parity of reason be deduced Christ commanded or at least permitted his disciples to hear the Pharisees who were such as hath been proved therefore 't is lawful to hear persons with the same characters upon them But God forbid any such injurious dealing should be offered to Christ or that any who pretend to fear God and I hope do so in reality should stand by a cause which hath no better arguments to defend it than what may be as righteously every way made use of for the attending upon the Ministry of the greatest blasphemer or opposer of Christ in the world Evident then it is notwithstanding the great flourish that many make with this Scripture for the abetting their attendance upon the present Ministers of England that it refuses to admit the least sanctuary thereunto The Scribes and Pharisees mentioned Matth. 23.1 2. may for ought we know be Magistrates not Ministers if Ministers they were as hath been proved lawfully so Christ says concerning them Whatever they bid you observe and do that observe and do Therefore 't is lawful to attend upon the Ministers of England whose lawful calling to their office cannot be proved yea though there is not the least intimation of a command from Christ or so much as a permission to his disciples to hear the Scribes aad Pharisees Nugae tricae siculae If this be to dispute a man need not fear but to be able to multiply arguments at an easie rate for whatever he hath a mind to undertake the defence of Yet this is supposed by many to be of greatest moment in this controversie I reply If by attendance on the Ministry of the Scribes and Pharisees be meant a constant and ordinary hearing of them as their ordinary shepherds as this Authous words seem to import doubtless neither Christ did command nor permit his disciples such an attendance both for the reasons given by this Authour and specially because he asserts himself as their onely Master or Doctour Matth 23.8.10 yet the mention of their sitting in Moses his chair or seat notes more then their discourse upon particular occasional meeting to wit their ordinary expounding the Law of Moses in their Schools where our Lord Christ permitted his disciples and the multitude to hear them with this limitation and proviso in and as they taught the Law which hearing he did not forbid them but allow them with such caveats as are there given in that Chapter And against such hearing none of the reasons of this Authour are of force Not the first for though such personal evils were sufficient motives to keep back people either from following their example or private counsels yet not to keep them back from hearing Gods Law expounded by them The same answer is for the second reason The permission of Christ is not to hear the Pharisees teach all the Doctrines of their Sect he had before warned them of receiving their traditions Matth. 15.14 the leaven of their doctrine Matth. 16.12 In which no doubt they understood the doctrine about justification by the works of the Law to be comprehended But the permission of hearing them is onely as they sate in Moses his seat that is as they taught them the duties of Moses his Law which he said Matt. 5.17 He came not to destroy but to fulfil which is manifest from the illative particle therefore v. 2. because they sit in Moses seat and bid you observe what Moses did you are to observe what they bid you observe and consequently may hear them so teaching The third reason hath the same answer with this overplus That to prevent any conceit of allowing the hearing of them in their blaphemy he avoucheth himself to be their Master and Teacher v. 8.10 To the fourth it is but from a testimony negatively and so of no force We read not that they used the Lords Prayer yet none will say they did not less that they might not we read not of their alms or fasting yet they might do both To the fifth it was but a limited permission of hearing them as they taught Moses Law not as allowing constant attendance on them as their shepherds Christ did conceive the people to be without a shepherd notwithstanding the Pharisees teaching the duties of the Law because though that doctrine were right and to be observed yet it was not sufficient to feed them to eternal life Acts 2.40 St. Peter did well to exhort his auditors to save themselves from that untoward generation of opposers of Christ as his Master before would have him and all his disciples do not doing after their works nor following their perverse doctrine and the Church did rightly practice in continuing in the Apostles Doctrine and fellowship and breaking of bread and prayer yet he neither did nor was to disswade them from hearing or practising the Pharisees doctrine of the observing the duties of Moses his Law which they were obliged to observe To the sixht I grant it lawful to hear any man teach truth which is Gods and may be heard from the mouth of any man with whom God allows us converse and communion as they are men though we are to hold no communion with them in wickedness nor willingly hear their blasphemies That the Pharisees as such were not Magistrates nor lawful Ministers nor considered as such is shewed before Neither do we say that Christ permitted attendance on the Ministry