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
by men of opposite parties against dissenters especially by those of the separation against not only the Prelates and Prelatical Preachers but also the Presbyterian that they have served for no other purpose but to inflame the minds of one against the other The first and second Beast Rev. 19. are differently conceived Dr. Hamond conceives the first Beast to be the Heathen Roman Emperors upholding the Idol worship the second Beast the Augurs Priests and Magicians such as Apollonius Tyranaeus was so conceives the accomplishment already past The Author of an Essay on that part of the Revelation which begins at chapter the 13. conceives it meant of one to come Molinaeus in his Vates l 5. c. 17. with Mede and others understand it of the Pope and Roman Clergy There is no probability that this second Beast should be meant of the Hierarchy and Ministry of England or that they should be the false Prophet mentioned Rev. 19.20 which is said to work miracles before the Beast and with the Beast was cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone which to say of men of whom some he acknowledgeth to be good men is so horrid an imagination as had not this Author been transported with extreme passion me thinks he should have trembled to have let it enter into his thoughts much less to have written and printed it Nor can the conceits be free from these and such horrid consequences that then the first Beast must be Civil Powers and they to be cast into the lake burning with fire that the Hierarchy and Ministry of England cause the Earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first Beast whether the Roman Emperors or Pope or Civil Powers or Idols that al that be subject to the Image of the Beast which is made the Ecclesiastical Government shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his Indignation and shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy Angels and in the presence of the Lamb and the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever with more of the like which are so monstrously uncharitable to be conceived of such men and so utterly destitute of all colour of proof that I can scarse censure it so mildly as to term it dotage but rather take it to be the speech of a furious Bedlam His applications also are so frivolous and wild as that they should be abhorred rather than answered How doth it appear that to come out of the Earth is to be raised by men of earthly spirits and principles How doth it appear that men raising them whether Princes or Patrons are men of such spirits and principles When were they raised by such To exercise the power of the Beast is not to make use of the Civil Power for its support which were indeed no evil but may be good and the wisdom of men but to act with the same power the first Beast used in making war with the Saints If the Ecclesiastical State as it resembles the Civil be the Image of the Beast and to erect it be the character of the false Prophet and this be so evil then it is much more evil to erect the Civil State which is the Prototype which me thinks he should fear to say How doth it appear that the proportionableness to resemblance of the Ecclesiastical state of Government to the Civil is not therefore the better and more desirable When did the Ministers compel all under the penalty of death or outlawry to acknowledg subjection to the Hierarchy Are there not many persons and places of peculiar and exempt Jurisdiction many persons that either by indulgence or connivence though not acknowledging such subjection live as free as those that do Do all great as well as small rich and poor free and bond receive such a mark I am weary with refuting such palpable gross untruths and do wonder with what face without the least proof a man that would be accounted a Saint should attempt to obtrude them upon the world much more that he should do it to the Church of God and upon such absurd premisses conclude thus It remaineth then that the present Ministers of England have the characters and properties of the false Prophets and Priests upon them and therefore are not to be heard but separated from CHAP. 7. ARG. 6. Sect. 1. All Idolatry is by exhibiting Divine Worship to a Creature THose that are guilty of Idolatry Saints may not have communion with much less own them as their Teachers but ought to separate from them But the present Ministers of England are Idolaters Therefore The major or first Proposition will not be deined because bottom'd upon express commands from Christ 1 Cor. 5.11 and 10.14 2 Cor. 6.14.18 Before we descend to the confirmation of the minor or second Proposition we shall crave leave to premise That Idolatry may be considered under a threefold notion 1st Most gross and absurd Idolatry when the creature is worshipped terminatively this few are guilty of the Israelites of old worshipped not the Calf terminatively but God in it therefore they are said to proclaim a feast to Jehovah Exod. 32.5 Rab. M. Maimonides de Idolat 8.2 3 c. observes That never any Idolater was so silly as to think that an Idol of wood stone or mettal was a God that made the Heaven and Earth but through them all Idolaters intend to worship God 2ly Somewhat more refined Idolatry viz. in respect of what we but now instanc'd in when we offer up any worship or homage proper and due to God only before any creature as the medium or representative of God Such was the Idolatry of Israel in the Golden Calf Brazen Serpent c. Of this are the Synagogue of Rome amongst all the combinations of men in the world most eminently guilty To this Head may be added 1. The ascription of Godhead to any creature as to Herod Acts 12.22 2. The ascription of the properties of the Godhead to any creature 3. The worshipping of God in any other way than what he hath prescribed which all that write upon the second Commandment say is the Idolatry therein forbidden 4. The oblation of worship or service to God that hath been offered up to Idols for which there is no prescription in the Scripture 3ly Most refined Idolatry when the heart goes forth in desires after any thing beyond what is limited by the Lord or trusts and relyes on any creature on this side God In the first sense there are as was said few or no Idolaters in the world The Papists come as near thereunto as any praying to the Cross the Virgin Mary Saints Angels c. expresly affirming that the Virgin Mary may be worshipped with that worshâ—p which they call Cultus Latriae which yet they say is due only to God In the last sense there are none but at one time or
immediate or next terminus or object is the creature though it be intended further to or for God as the last or utmost term bound or object to which it is exhibited But unless it be exhibited to the creature it is not Idolatry though it be done before the creature as before notes only the presence of it with the worshipper whether seen or unseen minded or not minded and not any respect to it in the act of worshipping Worshipping at the Temple before the Ark or Altar was no Idolatry it was a duty required Psal 99.5 Worship at his footstool meaning the Sanctuary and Ark there saith Mr. Ainsworth in his Annot. Not as the Vulgar reads it and the Papists would have it Worship his footstool no nor if the Lord be worshipped before a creature as the Objectum à quo as the matter or thing which is the occasion motive or reason of worshipping the Lord at that time is it therefore Idolatry though the worship be not instituted in respect of the time We read 2 Chron. 7.3 And when all the children of Israel saw how the fire came down and the glory of the Lord upon the House the Temple they bowed themselves with their faces to the ground upon the pavement and worshipped and praised the Lord yet was no Idolatry therein nor in that which Manoah and his Wife did Judg. 12.20 or the people 1 Kings 18.39 2 Chron. 20.18 Exod. 4.31 and 12.27 Whence I inferr that though there be divers sorts of Idolatry yet in every of them there is Divine Worship and that as Tertullian in his Book of Idolatry c. 15. speaks of the three Children refusing to worship the golden Image of Nebuchadnezzar Probantes Idololatriam esse quicquid ultra humani honoris modum ad instar Divinae sublimitatis extâ—llitur then it is Idolatry when any thing that is not God is extolled beyond the measure of humane honour to the likeness of Divine sublimity whether it be terminatively or as a representative Concerning which I acknowledge that the Papists are deeply guilty in praying to the Cross the Virgin Mary Saints Angels c. in which they give them and their Breaden-God Images and Reliques that which the Scripture counts Latriam or the Service which is to be given to God only as to the Image of Christ Aqu. sum parte 3. qu. 25 art 3. â—aith is to be adored with the adoration of Latria yea Bellarmine l. 2. de Imagin Sanctorum c. 21. holds that the Images of Christ and the Saints are to have veneration not only by accident or improperly but also by themselves and properly so as that themselves terminate the veneration and not only as they supply the place of the Samplar And this veneration is expressed in the Trent Council Sess. 25. to be the kissing of them uncovering the head and falling down before them which are the same which were done to the Image of Baal 1 Kings 19.18 and counted Idolatrous being given to an Image And so are the services done to the Virgin Mary though I think the Papists do not affirm expresly as this Author saith of them That the Virgin Mary may be worshipped with that worship which they call Cultus Latriae which yet they say is due only to God for they in words deny they give her Latriam and call her Worship Hyperduliam Nor do I conceive the worshipping of God in any other way than what he hath prescribed is the Idolatry forbidden in the second Commandment or that all who write upon the second Commandment say so or that the oblation of worship or service to God that hath been offered up to Idols for which there is no prescription in the Scripture is Idolatry though perhaps it may be superstitious and will-Will-worship Between which if a distinction be not made the Pharisees that worshipped God by washing their hands after the tradition of the Elders will be sound Idolaters of which Christ doth not accuse them Matth. 15.9 And therefore if in respect of this it is that the Ministers be asserted Idolaters his proof will come short but let us view it Thus he writes Sect. 2. All Will-worship of God is not Idolatry Arg. 1. Thâ—se that worship the true God in any other way than he hath said he will be worshipped in and is prescribed by him are Idolaters But the present Ministers of England worshâ—p the true God in another way than he hath said he will be worshipped it and is prescribed by him Therefore The maâ—or or first Proposition is evident from this single Consideration To woâ—ship the true God through false mediums is Idolatry such as so woâ—ship him are Idolaters This must be so or else there is little or no Idolatry in the world nor ever was The Athenians and other Gentiles worshipped the true God for they worshâ—pped him whom Paul declared to them even that God that made the world Acts 17.23 24. Yet none doubts but they were Idolaters which they cannot be charged with upon any other account than their worshipping the true God through false mediums But to worship God in any other way than what is of his own prescription is to worship him through a false medium Therefore so to worship him is Idolatry and they that so worship him are Idolaters Answ. If by any other way be meant of any creature as the medium or representative of God as the golden calf or brazen serpent I yield the major to be true and deny the minor But if he meant by any other way any sort of worship such as was the worship of God by washing of hands according to the tradition of the Elders Mark 7.3 4. I deny both major and minor And to his proof of the major I answer Though the worshipping of the true God through such traditions of men which he seems to call false mediums be not Idolatry there is and hath been too much Idolatry in the world Paganish and Jewish and Popish and is yet at this day and in the Athenian worshipping of the true God Acts 17.23 24. there was Idolatry in that they worshipped this unknown God by an Image worshipping the Image as the representative of God which may be gathered from v. 16. where the City of Athens is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is wholly given to Idolatry as we translate it but more rightly full of idols which is thus expressed by Dr. Owen in his third Book of his Theologumena c. 13. The streets of the City were called Pagi because to every of their Deities some Stone that is a Pillar consecrated to this or that Idol was erected Thence to signifie sâ—me part of the City the use of the word was first drawn The same was done at Athens as was done at Jerusalem Jerem. 2.13 For according in the number of thy Cities so are thy Gods O Judah and according to the number of the streets of Jerusalem ye have made Altars to that shame Altars to burn
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
acquits it from idolatry which at another time he imputes to it To which might be added That whereas in the beginning of this very chapter he â—eckons up as many sorts of Idolatry as either he could or thought fit at least for his design of making the present Ministers of England Idolaters and indeed more than he should yet this sort of Idolatry of worshipping and adoring God in by or before a creature respectivè or wiâ—â— relation to the creature as the objectum significativè à qua or the motive of the adoration or worship of God is noâ— mentioned there by him nor is this Kneeling any of them For neither is the kneeling at the Sacrament the worshâ—p â—f the creature terminatively Nor before it as the medium or representative of God Nor the ascription of the Godhead or 〈◊〉 properties to any creature Nor the worshipping of God in any other way than what he hath prescribed For it is kneeling in prayer or thanksgiving to God which he hath appointed Nor is it the oblation of worship or service to God that hath ben offered up to Idols for which there is no prescription in the Scripture For if it be such it is that which was done to the breaden-God But that he will not say it is for ch 5. p. 40. He would not say it smells very strong of the Popish leaven and is but one pegg beneath the adoration of their breaden God therefore he makes it more than one pegg beneath it and so beneath that oblation or service that hath been offered up to Idols Besides as I have before said the Papists themselves are not enjoyned to adore the bread at the putting into their mouths but at the elevation of the host iâ— not consisting with their principles to worship that which is not above them Nor is it the most refined Idolatry as he speaks when the heart goes forth in desires after any thing beyond what is limited by the Lord or trusts and relyes on any creature besides God For this Kneeling if it be Idolatry is outward not inward of the members not of the 〈◊〉 and therefore it may be more truly charged on 〈◊〉 Author that he knew not what he said when he accused Ministers and people of Idolatry for receiving the bread and wine at the Lords Supper kneeling though he had said enough before to acquit them from it And may he not be said not to know what he said who writes so ambiguously indistinctly and confusedly as that his Reader cannot well discern his meaning For whereas worshipping God in by or before a creature respectivè or with relation to the creature may be understood before it respectivè or with relation to it as the terminus or object to which iâ— is directed as worshipping before Luke 4.7 is woâ—shipping of Satan Matth. 4.9 and the relation to the creature may be as conceiving God included in it as in the consecrated host or represented by it as by the golden calâ— or a crucifix or as pertaining to God being consecrated to him as Gâ—deons Ephod or Popish reliques of Saints or hallowed grains or the like without Gods institution in these and such like relations the adoration being directed to the creatures whether as the only object to which or the intermediate object whether properly or improperly of it self or by accident if this Author had distinctly set down that he meant his major in one or more of these respects his Readers would have known what he had said and would have granted his mâ—jor and denied his minor But he thought it best to hide his major in ambiguous speech and to express himself more intelligibly in his instance in the minor That Kneeling is adoration oâ— worshipping of God before the creaâ—ure respectivè or with relation to the creature as the objectum significativè à quo or the motive of the kneeling But in this sense I deny his major and that he may not think me bereft of my wits but that I know what I say I give him this reason of my denial I find the Holy Ghost inviting the Jews to worship at Gods footstool his holy hill Psal 99.5.9 which were creatures and there they were to bow down to God in by or before these creatures respectivè or with relation to them as the objectum significativè à quo that is that thing which was an object signifying Gods presence there and the motive of their bowing down to God which if they had not been there that is the Ark Temple Altar they would not have done and there was no Idolatry therein And to stop the evasion that it was so when God appointed it though this would not avoid the instance the bread and wine being of Gods appointment and the use of them in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper as well as the Altar Ark Temple were they were instituted to be memorative signs of Christs body and blood communicated to the receivers by faith yet I find that adoration or worshipping of God before the creature respectivè or with relation to it as the objectum significativè à quo and the motive of the adoration hath been performed occasionally without institution and yet no Idolatry committed When the Isâ—aelites at mount Carmel 1 Kings 18.38 saw the fire of the Lord fall and consume the burnt offering and the wood and the stones and the dust and lick up the water that was in the trench they fell on their faces and they said The Lord he is God the Lord he is the God Here was adoration of God before the creature respectivè or with relation to it as the objectum significativè à quo signifying the Lord to be God and as the motive of that adoration which if it had not been there they would not have done it and yet no Idolatry committed Another instance is 2 Chron. 7.3 When all the children of Israel saw how the fire came down and the glory of the Lord upon the house they bowed themselves with their faces to the ground upon the pavement and worshipped and praised the Lord saying For he is good for his mercy endureth for ever Here was adoration and worshipping God in by or before a creature not having special institution abiding in their sight as the objectum significativè à quo or the motive of their adoration and worship of the Lord and yet no Idolatry I confess that when the worship is before it so as it is directed to it as upon the sight of the bread or a crucifix the host or a crucifix is worshipped whether terminatively or as the representative of another it is Idolatry As If Job when he had seen the Sun when it shined or the Moon walking in brightness his heart had been secretly enticed and his mouth had kissed his hand as it is Job 31.26 27. it had been Idolatry For then the Sun had been not only objâ—ctum à quo the motive or occasion but also objectum ad
altera est subtilior cum verus Deus coli fingitur sed erratur in genere culius hoc est cum vero Deo culius fingitur praestari aliquo opere quod ipse non praecepit haec species Idololatriae hoc praecepto propriè damnatur nominatur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sive superstitio And pag 529. Qui peccant contra secundum praeceptum peccant contra primum quia qui Deum aliter colunt atque vult coli illi fingunt Deum aliter affectum atque est hoc est alium Deum Ita non Deum sed cerebri sui commentum quod sic affectum esse sibi persuadent colunt Fingere alium Dei culâ—um est aliam Dei voluntatem proinde alium Deum fingere c. But 3ly What would these Objectors have said to Tertullian that renowned servant and witness of the Lord Jâ—sus in his day who is by farr more nice in this print of Idolatâ—y than we have declared our selves to be He in his Boâ—k de Idololatria chargeth such as make Statues or Images build or adorn Temples though it were their Trade Astrologers Schoolmasters that name the names â—f Idols making honourable mention of them in their orations such as keep holydayes dâ—dicated to Idolatrous service as their Satuâ—nalia in the stead of which is the time with us called Christmass c. such as adorned their gates posts houses after the Pagan manner at Festivals with Lawrel Ivy c. as symbolizing with Idolaters yet sure we are he could not justly be charged with an unchristian or censorious spirit Answ. The charge is rightly laid and your plea insufficient to take it off Christs sayings were unjustly counted hard because they were true yours justly because not so his sayings tolerable yea precious because they tended to direct them in the way to life eternal yours judged to be from an unchristian and censorious spirit because uncharitable and tending to division That which by the Protestant Writers is said is not all true I think all Will-worship is not â—dolatry Our Lord who accused the Pharisees of Will-worship did not accuse them of Idolatry How farr from Demonstrations your Arguments are may appear by this Answer Were it fit to recriminate I could prove you guilty of as great Idolatry as you impute to the Conformists Your zeal for truth and love to your Brethrens souls were good if it were in a good thing if without knowledge and it tend to errour and schism it may be pernicious in its consequents As for Tertullian omitting what may be excepted against him and the spirit by which he was acted in the close of his life which shewed him to be as Dr. Casaubon observes in his Treatise of Enthusiasm ch 3. a man though otherwise learned that ascribed too much to private Revelations out of an excess of zeal which he shewed in all his works in which I wish it were true that this Author who here so extolls him were not too like him I conceive Tertullian might have such reasons for his niceness in the point of Idolatry in his time when the Christians lived among Pagan Idolaters who bore sway in the Empire of Rome which only maintained such Idolatry as the publick received Worship and persecuted Christians for not conforming to their Idol-service as this Author hath not for his accusing Ministers of Idolatry for using a Service-book in the main right in respect of the Worship and a gesture avowed to be only to the true God in a Church holding in the main the â—ight Faith under a Prince that professes the same Faith and Worship and to be a Defender of it As for such reliques of Pagan customes or Popish as yet remain though it were to be wished they were quite left 〈◊〉 sith they are not used in any honour to the Pagan Idols but the original and reason of them at first being almost if not quite forgotten by those that use them and are become but as civil customes that have no state in religious worship experience shews that they are more easily reformed by neglect than by earnest declamations against them Nor do I think the course this Author takes of seeking Reformation by Invectives and Separations likely â—o promote it but to exasperate Rulers and make opposites more violent in their way It is added Sect. 17. The Martyrs are unjustly made Idolaters by this Author Obj. 2. But what shall we judge of Latimer Ridley Hooper and many other famous witnesses and martyrs of Christ who worshipped God after the same way of worship that these do now Were they also Idolaters How could they be saved then when â—he Scripture sayes that no Idolater shall inherit the Kingdom of God and we do not find that they repented hereof To this we answer 1. That the persons instanc'd in were eminent witnesses of Jesus Christ in their day whose very names are in our nostrils as sweet perfume we readily grant and would be loth to speak one word to abate of that just esteem is due to their names and testimony for Christ. 2ly That they are now with Christ and shall come with him aâ—d sit upon Thrones to judge their unjust Judges in the day appâ—inâ—ed thereunto we have not the least scruple But 3ly They were but men encompassed about with many infirmities That they were guilty of the sin of Idolatry cannot from what hath been said herein its evident be denied Yâ—t 1. They were in that day but just peeping out of the gates of Babylon beginning to arise and shake themselves out of the dust of the abominations of the great Whore and t is no wonder if some of the filth of her fornications did cleave to them 2. They worshipped God in sincerity according to the light he was plâ—â—sed in that day to communicate and God accepted of them in Christ granting to them a general repentance for those iniquities they saw not to be so or knew not themselves to be guilty of which is all we shall at present say hereunto The intelligent Reader knows that these things are not of any moment for the invalidating of what hath been offered upon this subject Thus farr of this Argument The present Ministers of England are guilty of Idolatry therefore t is the duty of Saints not to hear but separate from them Answ. Though this Objection be not a direct Answer to your Argument yet it is a very great prejudice against it that by striking at the present Ministers you wound the holy Martyrs you make them Idolaters for that very thing for which they dyed that they might not be Idolaters judging them as committing Idolatry in kneeling with such respect to the bread as they did utterly detest abhorred to the death and for witnessing against it laid down their lives in the flames and making all the godly at that time who did as they did and held communion with them guilty of their sin for hearing them and not separating from them
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
Dr. John Burges in his Rejoinder said p. 629. is to be considered As under the name of Christ and pretence of advancing his honour Antichrist was set up so it is possible that under the name of Antichrist and under the opinion of only opposing him even the Kingdom of Christ may be pulled down and in part already is so and men scarcely feel or fear it Sect. 4. The motive and end of this Writing Whereunto I have been further incited by the relations I have met with of the practices and success of Separatists of elder and later times which have for the most part ended in some prodigious errours or endless brawls and other effects as have caused great hinderance to the progress of the Gospel and the disturbance both of the Ecclesiastical and Civil Peace in those places where they have had any considerable duration Nor do our own times want such experiments of the discords which have fallen out by such separation the factions that have been in the Congregations of men of that perswasion the many not only vain fansies but also opinions destructive of true Religion and Christian Faith as have been vented through a promiscuous liberty of so called Prophecying and adhered to by many of the weaker sâ—rt of those of that way as have caused many both learned godly and considerate Divines even of those who were Non-Conformists to account the way of Separation as a very pernicious evil and accordingly have by Preaching Writing and Conferences opposed it to the uttermost of their power The sense of which moved me to look upon the Book here examined together with the other forenamed of the same kind and some such as have been divulged to the same purpose as blazing Stars portending some such danger as we all may have cause to rue tending to keep open yea and widen our breaches which the Romanists foment and hope thereby in time to make advantage of for their own designs Hoc Ithacus velit magno mercentur Atridae For preventing of such malignant influence as that Treatise may have on many souls who are well affected but not so cautelous as were requisite chiefly those to whom heretofore I have been a Teacher I have composed this Writing which I advise and request the Reader to peruse without any such prejudice or preingaged partiality as the Epistle of this Author tends to beget in the Readers of his Work seriously considering that the right regulating of his own judgment and practice and the promoting of the publick peace are of more value than either his own credit or the contenting of those that are otherwise minded and that in all enquiries for the satisfaction of our conscience and doing our duty truth only is to be sought after which hath been and still is the aim of Your Brother and Servant in Christ Jesus Iohn Tombes The Contents In the Epistle to the Readers Sect. 1. Prefaces needful by reason of Readers prejudice Sect. 2. Prejudice against the Author as favouring Separation causless Sect. 3. The evils consequent on the tenet of Separation urge to an examination of it Sect. 4. The motive and end of this writing In the Answer to the Preface Sect. 1. Of the Worship of God and how hearing is worship of him Sect. 2. Of hearing how instituted worship and to be devolved on the Scriptures of the New Testament Sect. 3. Hearing not a meer positive or ceremonial worship Sect. 4. The judgment of the Ancients not useless in this controversie Sect. 5. No approved practice of the Saints afore the Law countenanceth Separation from the present Preachers in England Sect. 6. Jewish Laws admitted some dispensation and addition Sect. 7. The Election or Ordination of Levites is no rule for election or Ordination of Ministers now Sect. 8. The texts injoyning the things appointed prove not that some things undetermined might not in Gods Worship be ordered by men Sect. 9. The defection of the Jews to Idolatrous inventions of men is of a more hainous degree than the use of humane Ceremonies with us Sect. 10. Such testimony as the Prophets gave against the Jewish defection is not now to be given against the Conformists Sect. 11. The Conformists not chargeable as the false Prophets of the Jews Sect. 12. Invectives against Teachers and Worship now may be from another spirit than that of the Prophets Sect. 13. The forsaking of false Prophets and worship among the Jews is no justification of Separation from the present Teachers and Worship Sect. 14. The arguing by analogy in positive rites not rational Sect. 15. The first Querie about a National Church instituted answered Sect. 16. National Ministers may be Ministers of Christ and National Churches true Churches Sect. 17. Mr. Parkers arguments that the form of Churches is of Divine Institution are answered Sect. 18. The Ministry of the Gospel is a true Ministry of Christ. Sect. 19. A true Gospel Ministry may be in a false Church so deemed Sect. 20. Gods love to us is not less in not determining the whole of his Worship to us as he did to the Jews Sect. 21. Christ designed 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 Sect. 22. The solemn deputation of Ministers is not the peculiar priviledge of Saints Sect. 23. Corruptions in Non-fundamentals unchurch not Sect. 24. Every errour makes not a false Prophet Sect 25. Separation by reason of some corruptions unwarrantable Sect. 26. It is prudence to joyn in worship and hearing where some errours and corruptions remain Chap. 1. Arg. 1. Sect. 1. Some scruples of Conscience are of ill consequence Sect. 2. There is warrant in Scripture to hear the present Ministers of England Sect. 3. Accidentals of Instituted Worship warranted without command in Scripture Sect. 4. Prejudice is no argument nor personal motives good proof Chap. 2. Arg. 2. Sect. 1. Preachers may be heard as teaching truth Sect. 2. They may be heard as Ministers of the Gospel who are not rightly called Sect. 3. Preachers may be Ministers of the Gospel who are not chosen by a particular instituted Church Sect. 4. The present Ministers may be heard as Gifted Brethren Sect. 5. Tender Consciences may call the Bishops Rev. Fathers Sect. 6. It is not proved that the best of the present Ministers are to be separated from as walking disorderly Chap. 3. Arg. 3. Sect. 1. That which is by some termed Antichristian is not always unlawful Sect. 2. The names given to the Ministers of England prove not their Office not to be from Christ. Sect 3. The term Priest proves not symbolizing with the Popish Order of Priests Sect. 4. The parallel particulars prove not the English Ministers symbolizing in Office with Popish Priests Sect. 5. The Office of Bishops is not proved to be Antichristian but may be found in Scripture Sect. 6. The Office of Lord Bishops is not contrary to express precepts of
godly Non-Conformists is some inducement to hear the present Ministers Sect. 12. The Magistrates command to hear the present Ministers is to be obeyed Sect. 13. Conformists Ministry instrumental to convert souls Sect. 14. To the observation of the Lords Day hearing the present Ministers as the case now is may be requisite Sect. 15. An appendix containing forty additional reasons against denying the lawfulness of hearing the present Ministers Sect. 16. Some passages in the writings of Mr. John Goodwin opposite to the Book entituled Prelatical Preachers none of Christs teachers THEODVLIA OR A JUST DEFENCE Of HEARING the SERMONS And other Teaching of the present Ministers of England In Answer to the Book entituled A Christian and sober Testimony against sinful Complyance An Answer to the Preface to the ensuing Discourse of that Book HAving premised so much as I suppose may be of use to the Reader concerning the Title and Epistle to the Reader of the Book which I intend to examine I proceed to a discussion of the Book it self which is more Scholastical than the other Treatise Entituled Prelatical Preachers none of Christs Teachers or any other that I have met with of late Composure and therefore more fit to be sifted for the bolting out of the Truth by Argument It is distributed into a Preface and ten Chapters I shall follow him in his method as being suitable enough and comprehensive of that which may be said in this matter Sâ—ct 1. Of the worship of God and how hearing is worship of him First he conceives it a reasonable Postulatum in the present enquiry concerning our part of the instituted worship of Christ under the Gospel with respect unto the duty incumbent upon the Saints in order thereunto that the whole thereof be divolved upon the Scriptures of the new Testament and those Royal Lawes that Christ the alone King and Law giver of his church hath given for Saints under the New Testament dispensation to walk by untill they arrive unto a perfect man unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ. Eph. 4.13 Answ. The term worship of Christ or worship of God used Chap. 1. c. imports such an action as whereby God is observed served or honoured as God and Christ as Christ. All actions therefore whereby God and Christ are acknowledged and glorified under the proper consideration of God or Christ as God or the Messiah are meant by worship of God and Christ Either of which may be real or putative and imaginary They that worshipped the golden Calf did proclaim a feast to Jehovah and said these are thy Gods O Israel that brought thee out of the Land of Egypt Exod. 32.5 8. which shews they intended to worship Jehovah as God by that feast and the sacrificing to that Idol but this was not real worship of God but only imaginary and false worship Real and true worship is either mediate or immediate Mediate is when any action of holiness or righteousness is done in obedience to God as the motive or impulsive cause to glorifie God as God Christ as Christ as the end or final cause yet not without respect to some other So by works of righteousness peace and joy in the Holy Ghost Christ is served acceptably to God Rom. 14.18 Servants that obey their Masters fearing God do it to the Lord and not to men and thereby serve the Lord Christ Col. 3.22 23 24. Where the Action of it self is not a worship of God or Christ but in respect of the motive and end though the doing of the thing be not per se of it self a worship of God yet it being done by vertue of Gods Command and in reference to him as God it is in that respect a worship of God and a Service of Christ. Immediate worship is that which is directed to God as the sole object of it without the intervention of any other as for whose sake end or use it is done or upon whom it is terminated for his honour though it may be that some other may be used as the means by which the action is done As for instance offering Sacrifice to God was immediate worship to God though it were done by the Priest because though the Priest were used by reason of his office and dignity yet it is not directed to or terminated on him for his honour nor out of any such respect of acknowledging superiority or excellency in him as in a servants obedience to his Master nor to benefit him or gratify him as in acts of righteousness to men out of obedience to God but the action is done entirely and immediately to and for God his honour and glory by testifying thereby his excellency worthiness soveraignty goodness or other excellency which I conceive agreeable to the notion of worship which seems to be a contract of worthyship and notes singular respect esteem or regard by reason of some worth in the thing worshipped conceived in the heart and expressed by some signe the former being inward worship the other outward this gather from the use of the term Worshipfull your worship given to superiours by reason of their dignity and the use of the words in the solemnity of marriage with my body I thee worship that is honour thee in the sence in which St. Peter 1 Epist. 3.7 requires the husband 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to distribute render impart or give honour esteem price or valuation to the wife as his own for his use as a helper or to gratifie her as in the old ritual alledged by Mr. Selden in his Uxor Ehraica l. 2. c. 27. was in Latin corpore meo te dignor I bestow on thee to gratifie thee out of singular regard to thee my Body Both which notions seem to be implied in that old version of the words 1 Sam. 2.30 mentioned in the Conference at Hampton Court them that honour me I will honour in the old them that worship me I will worship in the one our worshipping of God importing our glorifying him as God as the expression is Rom. 1.21 in the other Gods worshipping of us his gratifying us as a benefactour out of that love favour and esteem he hath of us Now hearing is worship of God or Christ in the former notion it being for enquiry of God or Christ what is their minde or will towards us out of apprehension of our dependence on them or respect to them as a Servant on his Master a Scholler on his Teacher And then we worship God in hearing when we hear as it is said of the Thessalonians 1 Thessal 2.13 that when they received the word of God which they heard of St. Paul and other Teachers they received it not as the word of men but as it is in truth the word of God which effectually worketh also in them that believe Hearing then as it is a worship of God is a seeking from God such revelation as may be for our benefit arising from the
they that persecuted them for so doing may expect the like judgments of God to fall on them as fell on the Jewes But if it be otherwise and the things inveighed against be not such as they make them and their bearing testimony be such as tends to infringe the publique peace but not to rectify any thing they are guilty of calumny and their practice not to be judged to proceed from holy zeale but evil passion Sect. 11. The conformist not chargeable as the false Prophets of the Jewes Sixthly saith he that they had all along their corruption in worship and degeneracy from the worship of God false Prophets who ran before they were sent prophesying smooth things to them in the name of the Lord seeing Lying vanities for them according to the desires of the hearts of them and their Rulers who were therefore in great esteem amongst them Isa. 9.15 and 28.7 Jer. 6.13 and 23.11 28. and 28.10 Hos. 9 8 Jer. 2.8 26. and 5.31 and 14.14 and 23.13 21. Ezek. 13.2 and 22.25 28. Mic. 3.5 6 7. Zeph. 3.4 2 Pet. 2.1 Answer All this is granted and if any of the Preachers in England prophesie lies in Gods name or bring in damnable heresies denying the Lord that bought them or are such as those whom the Texts alledged describe let them be branded as false Prophets But if they teach the fundamentals of Christian Religion truly and in respect of the substance of worship use no other than God hath appointed though they may in some points remote from the foundation erre and use some things in and about the worship of God which should not be yet do not overthrow the worship of God in substantials then are they false accusers who accuse them as if they were such as those Texts of Scripture alledged do describe Sâ—ct 12. Invectives against teachers and worship now may be from another spirit than that of the Prophets Seventhly saith he that in the height of their Apostacy God left not himself without a witness having one or other extraordinarily raised up and spirited by him to testify for his name and glory against all their abominations and self-invented worship reserving also a remnant unto himself that were not carried away with the Spirit of whoredoms and delusions 1 Kings 19.14 18. 2 Kings 17.13 Romans 11.3 4. Jer. 18.11 and 25.5 and 35.15 Answer That self invented worship was bowing the Knee to Baal 1 Kings 19.18 Rom. 11.3 4. serving Idols 2 Kings 17.12 burning Incense to vanity Jer. 18.15 going after other Gods to serve them and worship them Jer. 25.6 and 35.15 If there be found any such self-invented worship in the Church of England it will do well to testifie against it But if there be not such abominations and self-invented worship these texts will not justify Persons who have no other than ordinary calling to testify against them much less to censure them as whoredoms and delusions and they that practice them as carried away with the spirit of whoredoms and delusions And though persons may imagine they imitate Elijah are extraordinarily raised up and spirited by God and that they testify for Gods name and Glory when they call the Common-prayer Book an Idol the Ministers that conform Baals Priests the Communion the Mass with such like Billingsgate Rhetorick yet it is not unlikely but that it may be truly verified of such which our Lord Christ said to James and John when they would have fire commanded to come down from Heaven and consume the Samaritans even as Elias did ye know not what manner of Spirit ye are of and that it may be bitter and not holy zeal which moves them and their language judged by God not just reproof but unjust reviling Sect. 13. The forsaking of false Prophets and worship among the Jewes is no justification of separation from the present teachers and worship Eighthly saith he that it was the sin of that People to hearken unto the teachings of such as were not sent by the Lord though they pretended never so much to be sent by him and the unquestionable duty of the Lords preserving Remnant to separate from them as also from all the false devised worship of that day though commended by their Kings and Rulers 2 Kings 17.21 22. Hos. 5.11 The former is evident such Prophets were to be cut off from the middest of them Deut. 18.20 and they are expressely forbidden to hear them Deut. 13.3 Jer. 27.6 16. so is the latter their devised worship being a breach upon the soveraign Authority of God must needs be a grievous sin as the names of Adultery Whoredom Idolatry Fornication by which the Spirit of the Lord doth frequently set it forth abundantly demonstrates Psal. 73.27 Isai. 57.3.8 Jer. 9.2 EZek. 23.45 Hos. 3.7 and 7.3 Lev. 20.5 Jer. 13.27 Ezek. 16 17.20.30 Hos. 1.2 Rev. 14.8 and 18.9.19 20. which without controversie the people of God were to separate from and have no communion with any in upon what pretence soever which is solemnly charged upon them as their duty in the Scripture Hos. 4.15 Amos 5.5 Prov. 4.14 and 5.8 Cant. 4.8 Answer None are said in those Texts or any other I meet with not to be sent by the Lord who delivered the truth of God but they only in those places are denied to be sent by God who delivered falsehoods and such falsehoods as were inciting to Idolatry or contradictions to the messages of the true Prophets and such were not to be heard though they should be commâ—nded by Kings and Rulers who ought to cut them off when they spake in Gods name a word which he had not commanded them to speak or did speak in the name of other Gods Deut. 18.20 And if they sought to turn them from the Lord to serve other Gods they were not only not to hearken to them but also if they were never so near to them they should not spare them but kill them Deut. 13.9 which I presume he will not say of the present ministers of England and therefore me thinks he should have left out these allegations if he had well bethought himself how unfit they were to his present designe That devised worship which is termed Adultery Whoredom Idolatry Fornication is Levit. 20.5 Committing whoredom with Molech Psal. 73.27 being farre from God going a whoring from him Isaia 57.5 inflaming themselves with Idols under every green Tree slaying the Children in the Valleys under the Clefts of the Rocks Jerem. 9.2 treachery Jer. 13.27 abominations on the hill in the fields Ezek. 16.17 making to her self images of men to commit Whoredom with them v. 20. Sacrificing their Sons and Daughters to them to be devoured Ezek. 23.37 Committing Adultery with Idols Hos. 1.2 departing from the Lord Revel 14.8 and 18.9 such fornication as Babylon made all Nations even Kings of the earth to commit and from such it is without controversie the people of God were to separate and have no communion with any in upon any
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
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
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
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
expression there and Jer. 7 31. of Gods not commanding must be expounded by a figure of Speech frequent in Scripture wherein Words or Phrases often signifie more than is expressed which must be understood of that place Jer. 7.31 where the thing God is said not to have commanded is that which he had most strictly forbidden and severely punished to wit the building the high places of Tophet which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire and therefore is rightly paraphrased by Mr. Gataker in the large English Annot. on Jer. 7.31 Which I commanded them not or which I never commanded but exprâ—sly forbad and professed to abhor Levit. 18.21 and 20.3 Deut. 12.31 and 18.10 And therefore these Texts are ill alledged to prove the Lords condemning of that which is done onely beside the warrant and direction of the Word and that it is not lawful for the Saints to practise that which being but an accidental part adjunct or circumstance of instituted Worship hath not warrant by command in the Scripture He adds 8. of the same mind with us in this matter are the renowned Witnesses of Christ in all ages generally all that write upon the second Commandment speak fully hereunto Answ. This assertion cannot be proved nor is it likely to be true such those few testimonies alledged of Cyprian Beza Luther and Whitaker are impertinent That of Cyprian Epist. 63. to Caecilius is manifestly meant of that which is prescribed by Christ and not of adjuncts undetermined the whole Epistle being against the Aquarii who would have water only in the Lords Supper whom Cyprian refutes asserting that Christ used and commanded Wine mingled with Water erring therein Bezas words in his Annot. on Philip. 1.1 that it is unsafe to decline from the Word of God though but an hairs breadth are to be understood of things determined therein Luthers words on 1 Pet. 4.11 as they are cited which I have not the Book to examine are meant of Doctrines or Decrees which he would not have subscribed to or taught unless in the Word of God The place where Dr. Whitakers words are is not quoted they seem to be against the Popish use of Oyl in their Sacraments which they conceive to confer grace and add it to Baptism in which Christ hath appointed no other Element but Water and therefore I conceive them not to assert that which is the Major to be proved that the practice of adjuncts of instituted Worship undetermined is unlawful without a Command in Scripture That many others may be added to these I doubt not but that they speak home to his Proposition I believe not Voet. Polit. Eccles. part 1. l. 2. h. 1. c. 7. sect 2. Ecclesiae in genere potestatem ceremonias adiaphoras assumendi in cultu divino adhibendi nemo hactenus negarit qui ei tribuit potestatem clavium cum ea potestatem regiminis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Declaration of the Congregational Elders Ch. 1. saith there are some circumstances concerning the Worship of God and Government of the Church common to humane actions and societies which are to be ordered by the light of Nature and Christian Prudence according to the general rules of the Word Sect. 4. Prejudice is no argument nor personal motives good proof He adds The Minor or second Proposition consists of two parts 1 That Hearing is part of instituted Worship one would wonder should it be denied however 't is evident it is so from the light of this single demonstration That in which we wait upon God in the way of an Ordinance for the Communication of good beyond the vertue of any creature to conveigh to us is part of the instituted Worship of God for what I wait for not being in the thing it self in which I am waiting no ground can be assigned for my expecting good through it but Divine Institution but in the Hearing of the Word we wait upon God in the way of an Ordinance for the Communication of good beyond the vertue of any creature to conveigh to us Therefore Answ. I do grant Hearing the Word of God to be one part or sort of Gods instituted Worship in the sense delivered by me in the Answer to the Preface in the three first Sections because it is required by God and tends to shew our subjection to him as our Soveraign Lord and our acknowledgment of his transcendent Wisdom and Infallibility and is for these ends an address immediately to God on whom only we wait to know his Will though brought us by his created Messenger whose Doctrine we receive not as his Word but as the Word of the living God nor believe or obey it any farther than it appears to be his But I do not take the argument here produced to be demonstrative sith there be many things as Marriage Eating Drinking Ploughing Sowing c. in which we wait upon God in the way of an Ordinance for the Communication of good beyond the vertue of any creature to conveigh to us and yet are not parts of the Instituted Worship of God 2. Saith he That hearing the present Ministers of England is not warranted in the Scripture This will be manifested when we come to the ventilating and scanning of those places which are usually produced for the abetting of the practice of some in this matter in the mean while we crave liberty to profess that it is not opinionativeness singularity vain-glory uncharitableness or any thing of that nature as some are apt uncharitably enough to censure but the dread and awe of God who is a jealous God and especially in point of worship and an holy fear of offending him that hinders us from complying in these matters could but one word tittle or iota be produced from the Scriptures of God for the warranting the hearing the present Ministers of England we should quickly lay our mouths in the dust confess and bewail our folly in refusing to conform thereunto but this we are fully assured those that dissent from us are not able to do what they say therein shall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be sifted to the uttermost Answ. The hearing the present Ministers of England while they teach the Doctrine of Gods Word is warranted in Scripture which forbids only the hearing of False Prophets Mat. 7.15 Antichrists that seduce that bring not the doctrine of the Apostles 1 Joh 2.18 26. and 4.1 5 6. 2 Joh. 7.10 which if he prove the Ministers of England to be his Minor is proved but not either by personal exceptions against their entry on their Ministry or their sinful practices nor by ventilating or scanning of those places which are usually produced for the abetting of the practice of some in this matter For though Ministers be as bad as Judas yet they may be heard preach the Gospel as he was and though the places alledged should prove
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
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
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.
18.4 to go out of Babylon But that their going out is by separation from the Service of God not Idolatrous or from a Church not Heretical by reason of some supposed or real corruption or disorder or defect in Government Service Members or Ministry is so far from the meaning of the Text that it needs no other refutation but the looking into the Text and comparing it with the foregoing Chapter Of withdrawing from such as walk disorderly 2 Thess. 3.6 enough hath been said before ch 2. sect 6. Nor is it made any where the Ministers Office to make such separation as the Separatists require 1 Cor. 5.12 is not spoken of Ministers as belonging to their Office to judge them that are within or if it be yet the putting away v. 13. is not made his act and how it is to be done is best discerned by v. 2. Christians are to walk together in Societies or Churches for their mutual edification and comfort in the Lord and this they are no doubt bound to do as occasion is towards all Christians And so much Phil. 1.5 Acts 2.41 and 17.4 may prove but that they are to conjoyn in separated Churches by the so termed Church Covenant as if they were not Members of other Churches nor to joyn in Prayer Praise of God hearing breaking Bread but with either that one Church or Company to which they have associated themselves or those that are of the same way of Church-order is neither proved from those Texts or 2 Cor. 8.5 which mentions no such Church-Covenant as it is alledged for nor any other And therefore the imputations here used to the Ministers and Churches without distinction are so unsavoury and from such an intemperate Spirit that I had rather cover them than rake in such a dunghil And I think respect to the fraternity this Author seems to be of should have made him wary in charging the Ministers with these things lest some of his adversaries should throw as much dirt on the face of the separated Churches out of Bayly's Disswasive Edwards Gangraena Welds History of Antimonianism yea the Preface to their Declaration Octob. 12. 1658. Besides what particular persons know by experience and the relations of the miscarriages of the ancient Separatists would furnish them withal Sect. 5. Election and Excommunication by the Church is not Christs Institution Yet this Author cannot hold but on he goes 3. Saith he That he hath entrusted them so called and united together with Power and given them Rules for the due and right exerting thereof for the carrying on the Worship of his house to chuse Officers over them to act in the holy things of God for and to them of which more shall be spoken in its proper place to admit Members to excommunicate Offenders c. all which we find shining forth in brightness in the ensuing Scriptures Act. 1.23 and 6.3 5. and 14.23 2 Cor. 8.19 Mat. 18.17 1 Cor. 5.4 Do the present Ministers of England conform unto this Institution of Christ nothing less is there any thing like this in the whole Oeconomie invented and practised by them Do they not to the utmost of their power labour to break this Bond of Christ asunder cast away this Cord from them by stirring up the Magistrate to persecute by Fines Imprisonments Banishment c. the precious people of the Lord that desire to be found in the practice of this Law of Christ branding them with the odious names of Phanaticks Sectaries Schismaticks c. Answ. The Election Acts 1.23 was of an Apostle and that by Lot and contains no Law or Institution of Christ which we are tied to follow Of the impertinent allegation of Acts 6.3 5. and 14.23 enough hath been said before ch 2. sect 3. The Election 2 Cor. 8 19. was of a person not to be a Pastor to themselves but to travel with St. Paul about the Contribution for the poor Saints and though it be a good precedent for the like occasion yet was but a Fact not a Precept Law or Institution of Christ necessary to be observed at all times much less binding as a perpetual rule in Election of Pastors or Teachers No other Excommunication is expressed Mat. 18.17 but what is permitted to the injured person of which more may be seen in the answer to this Authors Preface Sect. 15. The delivery to Satan 1 Cor. 5.5 is argued by Peter Moulin in his Vates lib. 2. c. 11. to have been more then our ordinary Excommunication to wit the permitting Satan to cruciate the body of the person that sinned which no Church now hath power to do nor indeed was the Church then to do it but the Apostle by his power Apostolical as having power over unclean spirits though absent yet with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ in their presence when gathered together which being in the Greek in the Genitive Case absolutely put notes not their acting but presence the Apostles determined to do it and therefore contains no Institution of Christ which Ministers are to practice What else is charged upon the Ministers it concerns them who are guilty to answer I know he cannot justly charge all with it It follows Sect. 6. No contempt of the authority of Christ is in the Church of England by setting up Officers and Offices 4. That the Officers of his appointment are onely such as these Pastors Teachers Elders Deacons Widows or Helpers who as they are in one particular Congregation so they have not any Lordship or Lordly Authority over each other being all Brethren Ephes. 4.11 Rom. 12.7 and 16.1 1 Cor. 12.28 Phil. 1.1 1 Pet. 5.1 2 3. Act. 6.5 and 15.2 and 20.17 and 28.21 28. 1 Tim. 3. chap. and 5.9 10 17. This Law of Christ so clearly revealed in the Scripture they are so far from subjecting to that they have neither the name nor thing required by him therein See up other Officers and Offices as if in open contempt and defiance of his Authority of which it may righteously be said He did at no time command them neither did it ever enter into his heart so to do Answ. It is true that those whom he calls Officers are mentioned in some or other of those Texts he cites and are some of them termed gifts given by God or Christ in or to or for his Church or Body But there are also other as Apostles and Prophets mentioned in some of the Texts as given also by God and therefore those whom he reckons are not the only Officers of his appointment nor all of them to be in one Congregation Apostles were certainly to go up and down and though they had not Lordship or Lordly Authority over others yet had they authority preeminence and some kind of superiority over others and if not in the same measure yet some superiority is still allotted to Pastors over Deacons which are acknowledged to be Officers to be still continued in the Church nor is it unlikely that those
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
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
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
Canon of his standing for fear of shedding ought But I deny that kneeling in the very time of receiving was ever in the Church of Rome any Rite of or for adoration of the Sacrament it self or any creature and therefore not Idolatrous I deny not the errour of their minds concerning that they received into their mouths But I deny that they ever intended adoration of the species at that moment of time when they took it in their mouths But then turned themselves to God rather to give him thanks which was not uncomely Of which he gives three reasons 1. Because it was never yet enjoyned by any Pope that they should then kneel 2. In the Mass there is no direction for adoration of the Sacrament when it is received 3. For that it is an incongruous thing in their superstition to adore a thing which is not higher than their polls when they adore it because they cannot be said to humble themselves to that which is lower than they can cast themselves To this last reason nothing is returned by Dr. Ames in his Triplic ch 4. p. 429. and Dallaeus adv lat cult l. 9. c. 13. Id quod adoratur eo à quo adoratur celsius ac sublimius aliquid esse debere insito à natura ipsa sensu omnes mortales confitentur atque consentiunt To which is to be added that kneeling is used according to the Common Prayer Book with Prayer to God and at the receiving of the Wine as well as at the Bread which are not so with the Papists and therefore kneeling is not to be taken as adoration of the Bread as the Papists do And for that which is said that the Lords Supper is to be received kneeling is directly opposite to the practice of the Churches of Christ for several hundred years after Christ to the time of the invention and introduction of the Popish Breaden-god it is denyed by the same Dr. Burges in that and other following Chapters by the Bishop of Rochester Paybody and others about which and the judgment and practice of most of the reformed Churches at this day it is not necessary that I should make inquiry sith if it were so yet it proves nor that the present Ministers of England do oppose the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ by their submitting to kneeling at the Lords Supper Sect. 10. Forbidding to marry or eat flesh at certain times are not characters of Apostates as 1 Tim. 4.3 is meant It is added What should I mention the Constitutions and Canons before pointed to wherein 't is forbidden to any to Preach not licensed by the Bishops thereunto to marry or eat flesh at certain times with many more of the like nature all directly contrary to the soveraign edicts of Christ and some of them evident characters of the last dayes Apostates 1 Tim. 4.3 from whom Saints are warned by the Lord to turn aside ver 5. These we have produced carry an undeniable evidence with them that the present Ministers of England do own submit and subscribe to Orders and Ordinances that are contrary to the revelation of Christ and therefore deny his Prophetical and Kingly Office Answ. To that of forbidding to Preach answer is made in the examining this Chapter Sect. 2. Forbidding to marry and commanding to abstain from flesh at certain times upon politick considerations or for the better observing a religious Fast are not characters of the Apostates 1 Tim. 4.3 But may be justified by such passages of Scripture as Jonah 3.7 Joel 2.16 1 Cor. 7.5 Dan. 10.3 Nor do I think the most zealous Separatists but would restrain from Marriage and Flesh the members of their Churches in the times of solemn Fasts or would count it evil that the Magistrate forbids for civil ends abstinence from some kind of food which being the case of the prohibitions of the Civil Laws of England rather than the Canons of the Church which make it not a sin against God to marry or eat flesh then is unjustly made the character of Apostates 1 Tim. 4.3 which is more justly charged on the Monks and Popish Votaries who account it sinful to marry as if it were unchastness and more lawful to use Concubines than Wives for Priests as if they joyned with Pope Siricius terming such persons in the flesh and such as could not please God and place more holiness in eating Fish than Flesh which sort of people are very accurately proved to be there characterized by Mr. Joseph Mede in his Book of the Doctrine of Daemons intituled The Apostasie of the later times That the present Ministers of England are such or that precept which is not 1 Tim. 4.5 2 Tim. 3.5 From such turn aside belongs to them is not proved by this Author nor that they do own submit and subscribe to Orders and Ordinances that are contrary to the revelation of Christ or deny his Prophetical and Kingly Office French Protestants in the Synod of Charenton 1644. chap. 13. art 24. The Church shall not solemnise marriage in the dayes on the which the Lords Supper is administred nor on the dayes of a publick Fast. See this crimination retorted on the Separatists by Paget in his Arrow ch 6. sect 3. p. 155. n. 5. Yet he hath not done with this Argument Sect. 11. No such Headship is owned by the present Ministers as is a denial of Christs Offices To all that hitherto hath been offered in this matter we shall yet add as a further demonstration of the truth we are in the disquisition of Arg. 3. Those that acknowledge another Head over the Church beside Christ deny his Prophetical and Kingly Office but the present Ministers of England do own and acknowledge another Head over the Church beside Christ Therefore If the assertion of another King in England that as the Head thereof hath power of making and giving forth Laws to the free-born Subjects therein be a denial of his Kingly Authority as no doubt it is the major or first Proposition cannot be denied If Christ be the alone King of his Church as such he is its alone Head and Lawgiver If he hath not by any Statute-Law established any other Headship in and over his Church to act in the Holy things of God from and under him besides himself who sees not the assertion of such an Headship carries with it a contempt and denial of his Authority If there be any such Headship of the Institution of Christ let us know when and where it was instituted whether such a Dominion and Soveraignty over the Subjects of his Kingdom with respect to Worship be granted by them to any of the sons of men absolutely or conditionally if the first then must the Church it seems be governed by persons casting off the yoke of Christ trampling upon his royal Commands and Edicts for so it 's possible it may fall out those that aâ—tain this Headship may do as it 's evident many Popes of Rome the great
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
transgressing the precept Matth. 7.15 Beware of false Prophets What he said before against the Ministers mission chap. 3. is answered before What is pleaded about a succession from the Church of Rome is represented by many that understand not the occasion and plea as odious and a proof of the Antichristianism of their calling But they who peruse what Mr. Francis Mason against Champney and others who have answered the Papists question Whence had the Protestant Ministers their calling have written will be otherwise minded It follows Sect. 3. The Ministers not proved to commit Adultery and walk in lyes as Jer. 23.14 is meant 2. That they commit Adultery and walk in lyes Jer. 23.14 which none as I ever yet met with interpret literally of corporal whoredome and adultery but mystically of spiritual adultery a departure from the wayes and institutions of the Lord in worship to the devices and inventions of men in the Margin In an old Translation of the New Testament dedicated to Edward the Sixth the Author thereof in his Notes on Matth. 21. sayes They which in their Ministry and preaching do otherwise then God had commanded them are no true Disciples of Christ a sin usually in the Scripture expressed for the nature and greatness of it under that notion Jer. 3.8 Ezek. 23.37 Rev. 2.22 which is also in Scripture called a lye Isa. 28 15. Amos 2.4 John 8.44 the whole worship of Antichrist being patched up with such dirty inventions is so called 2 Thess. 2.11 That this character also doth rightly appertain unto the present Ministers of England the best of whom do in the sence of the spirit in the forecited Scripture commit adultery and walk in lyes hath already been proved and more hereunto shall afterwards be spoken 't were well if upon some of them it had not a literal accomplishment which of the Institutions of Christ have they not mixed with their inventions from how many have they gone a whoring is not a great part of their worship drops of the Whores Cup of Fornication and shreds of the great lye of Antichrist who that hath soberly and unbiassedly considered of these things but must acknowledge it Answ. To acquaint this Author with somewhat obvious enough yet it seems this Author met not with it I will set down the Annotation of Mr. Gataker on Jer. 23.14 inferiour to none of the Annotators of the Bible They commit Adultery Do as Eli 's sons did 1 Sam. 2.17 22. whence Adultery became so rise in the land ver 10. And walk in lyes or walk up and down with lyes Hebr. with falshood or a lye as Isa. 28.15 they utter their lyes not in Baals name but in mine and so father their lyes upon me chap. 14.14 see ver 26. Hebr. committing Adultery and walking with a lye that is at full committing they commit Adultery and walking they walk about with lyes they make a common trade and practice of either a form though defective yet very significant see on Isa. 59 11.13 See these two vile practices joyned together in the false Prophets again chap. 29.23 For those that here restrain the term of Adultery to Idolatry spiritual Adultery seem therein to wrong the Text. Now if this be the meaning of the committing Adultery it may be a signal character of a wicked man but not of a false Prophet as such But if it be understood of spiritual Adultery every departure from the wayes and institutions of the Lord in worship to be devices and inventions of men is not in this Prophet nor in any other termed committing Adultery but when that Divine Worship which is appropriated to God is given to that which is not God as may be shewed out of the 2. and 3. Chapters of Jeremiah where ch 3. 8 9. it is said they committed adultery with stocks and stones Ezek. 23.37 with Idols Now if he can prove that the present Ministers do thus commit Adultery are Idolaters in their Worship I will yield they and their Worship are to be separated from and if they teach it not to be heard What he saith he hath proved before is answered before what he saith in the next Chapter will be then discussed The words in the Margin may be right yet impertinent As for walking in lyes I grant it to be a signal character of a false Prophet understanding it of lyes in doctrine opposite to the principles of Theology and if he can prove the present Ministers do walk in such lyes I shall yield them to be false Prophets and not to be heard But yet he hath not done that nor goes about it That which he produceth out of Isa. 28.15 Amos 2.4 John 8.44 2 Thess. 2.11 proves not every device and invention of men in worship to be meant by lyes Jer. 23.14 Isa. 28.15 By lyes some understand their Idols some their treachery in dissembling and compliance with the adverse party some their crafty shifts and wily devices Mr Gataker conceives most likely their strength raised and wealth gotten by fraudulent and deceitful courses Amos 2.4 Diodati Annot. Their lyes namely their Idols false worships and superstitions John 8.44 is meant of any lyes but chiefly that which is opposed to the truth of Gods word in the Gospel not meant as this Authour applies it 2 Thess. 2.11 is manifestly understood of a lye opposite to the truth by which they might be saved that is the Gospel v. 10.12 and so notes anti-evangelical doctrine though I deny not the whole worship of Antichrist being patch'd up with such dirty inventions may be so called But to his Queries I answer To the first which of the Institutions of Christ have not the present Ministers mixed with their inventions 1. It concerns him that accuseth to shew which they have so mixed 2. That I think the Institution of preaching the Gospel which is that about which is the present question they have not so mixed Sure if they preach such doctrine of Faith as they subscribe to they do not mix their doctrine with their own inventions yet if any do while he holds the foundation though he build some hay and stubble he is not to be charged to walk in lyes I conceive the Preachers of the Congregational Churches have been as guilty of Antinomian Arminian and other errors as the Prelatical To the 2. From how many have they gone a whoring 1. It concerns him that accuseth to shew 2. They have not gone a whoring from the Lords Supper to the Mass by Transubstantiation and the unbloody propitiatory Sacrifice for Quick and Dead and adoration of the breaden-god To the third Is not a great part of their Worship drops of the Whores Cup of Fornication and shreds of the great lye of Antichrist The whores Cup of Fornication and great lye of Antichrist are according to Brightman Mede and others their idolatries in Invocation of Saints Worshipping Images Reliques the Crucifix the Host in their Herisies about Justification Merit the Popes Supremacy and
may Not forbidding to pray for other things or in other words than are there set down And blessed be the Almighty that yet Ministers have liberty at all times to express themselves in prayer and preaching as fully as there is need that the Kings Majesty invites to fasting and prayer That notwithstanding it is to be bewailed that the Worship of God is no better performed than it is and that the intemperate abuses of some have caused more severe restraint on others than were to be wished Yet there is so much purity of Worship and Doctrine as that Separation is unnecessary And this Author as if he imitated the Gloss in the Canon Law Non satis discretus esset c. writes causelesly if not blasphemously that Folly may righteously be imputed to Christ if the Common-Prayer Book worship be a Worship of his appointment He goes on thus Sect. 6. Common-Prayer Book Worship is not of pure humane invention But 3ly The Common-Prayer Book woâ—ship is a Worship of which we find no footsteps in the Scripture nor in some centuries of years after Christ as hath already been demonstrated Whence it follows That 't is a Worship of pure humane invention which is not only not of Christs appointment but contrary to the very nature of instituted Woâ—ship as is proved in our first Argument and to very many precepts of the Lord in thâ— Scripture Exod. 20.4 5 Deut. 4 2. and 12.32 Prov. 30 16. Jer. 7 31. Matth. 15.9 13. Mark 7.7 8. Rev. 22.18 The mind of God in which Scriptures we have exemplified Lev. 10.1 2 3 4. Josh. 22.10 c. Judg. 8 2. 2 Kings 16 11. 1 Chron 15.13 Answ This Author runs on in his gross mistakes as if the form of words in the Common-Prayer Book were the Worship that it were a several sort of Worship from the prayers made by a Preacher of his own conception and that such prayers were worship of Christs institution and not the other Which mistakes are shewed before And what he saith here is answered either in this chapter sect 4. or chapt 1. sect 3. The Common-Prayer Book worship is no more a pure humane invention than Preachers conceived-prayers Nor is it any Idol forbidden Exod. 20.4 5. Nor any Prophecy added to the Book of the Revelation forbidden Revel 22.18 Nor such an Ephod as Gideon made Judg. 8.24 Nor such a not seeking God after the due order as was the carrying of the Ark in a cart and Uzzah 's putting his hand to it 1 Chron. 15.13 Nor such an invention forbidden as was the Altar of Damascus imitated by Uriah 2 Kings 16 11. And therefore it is sufficient to deny what is here said without forming of an Argument As for Josh 22 10. c. it makes for the Common-Prayer-Book not against it sith that Altar was allowed of though it were for religious signification and yet not by Divine institution and therefore proves that all inventions of men whereby our Worship of God is signified are not unlawful if they be not made necessary nor the Worship of God placed in the things so invented or their use It follows Sect. 7. Common-Prayer Book worship is the same with the Worship of the Reformed Churches 4. That Worship which is not necessary for the edification comfort or preservation of the Saints in the Faith and Vnity of the Gospel is not of the institution of Christ But such is the worship of the Common-Prayer Book Therefore The major or first Proposition will not be denied The Lord Jesus having freeed his Disciples from all obligations to the ceremonies of the Law institutes nothing de novo but what he knâ—w to be necessary at least would be so by vertuâ— of his institution for the ends assigned which was the great Aim in all Gospel administrations Ephes 4.7 to 15. Col. 2.19 Acts 9.31 Rom. 14.14 15. 1 Cor. 10.23 and 14.3 4 5 12 26. 2 Cor 12 10. 1 Tim 1.4 That the Common-Prayer Book wâ—â—shâ—p is nâ—t necessary for the edification comfort or preservation of the Saints in the Faith and Vnity of the Gâ—spel what ever is pretended by its admirers might many wayes be demonstrated Take one pâ—â—grant instance instead of all that will make it exceeding manâ—fest The Churches of Christ for the first four centuries of years and more after his Ascension knew not any thing of such a Worshâ—p as hath been already demonstrated not to mention the reformed Churches at this day to whom it is as a polluted accuâ—sed abominable thing yet than those first and purer Churches for light consolation truth of Doctrine and Gospel-Vnion hitherto there hath not been any extant in the world more famous or excellent no nor by many degrees comparable to them But we shall not further prosecute this Argument enough hath been said to demonstrate That the Common Prayer Book worshâ—p is not of the appointment of the Lord Therefore such as worship him in the way thereof worship him in a way that is not of his prescription If the former notwithstanding all that hath been said be scrupled by any we referr him to Tracts written by Smectymnuus V. Powel to a Treatise entituled A Discourse concerning the Interest of Words in Prayer by H. D. M. A. The Common-Prayer Book Unmask'd as also to a Treatise lately published by a learned but nameless Author entituled A Discourse concerning Liturgies and their Imposition In which that matter is industriously and laâ—gely debatâ—d Aâ—sw This Author still continues his confounding of the Worship of the Common-Prayer Book with the form of it that is the method and phraâ—e and manner of it which no man that speaks distinctly calls the Common-Prayer Book Worship The Common-Prayer Book Worship is no other than the prayers praises lessons ministration of the Sacraments And these are of Christs institution and are necessary for the edification comfort or preservation of the Saints in the Faith and Unity of the Gospel and accordingly the miâ—or Proposition is false which denies it But sith this Author by Worship understands the forms and modes of it though they be not prescribed or determined in Scripture or the kind of Woâ—ship in respect of those forms meaning that the Worship for example pâ—ayer praiâ—e and the like which are expressed or performed by forms or modes not prescribed by Christ though the kind or soâ—t of Worship be of Christs institution yet because it is performed in such forms or modes as are not necessary for the ediâ—ication comfort or pâ—eservation of the Saints in the Faith and Unity of the Gospel it is so adulteraeâ—d thereby that it is not of the institution of Christ. In which sense the majâ—â— Proposition is to be denied and the Argument may be 〈◊〉 thus That Worship which in respect of the mode or form of performing is not necessary for the edifâ—cation comfort or pâ—eservation of the Saints in the Faith and Unity of the Gospel is not of the institution of Christ But such is the
extemporary conceived Prayer of Preachers and others such is the praising of God in the English metre the reading of the Scriptures according to ordinary division of chapters and verses with the contents of the chapters Therefore The major is his own the minor stands good till it be shewed where Christ hath appointed such extemporary praying or such praising such reading the Scripture so divided To which I might add in hearing taking notes of Sermons Preachers using notes in the Pulpit with sundry more but I forbear As for the Texts alledged Ephes. 4.7 c. it speaks not of Worship and its institution by Christ nor what is the necessary requisite to such Worship as is instituted by Christ but only of Gifts that is preaching Officers and the end and use of those gifts Col. 2.19 speaks not of Worship or what is requisite that it be of Christs institution but tells us that Seducers which taught worshipping of Angels held not the Head that is Christ And that from him all the Body that is the Church by joynts and bands having nourishment ministred and knit together increaseth with the increase of God Acts 9.31 speaks not at all of Worship or its institution by Christ or Christs aim in Gospel-administrations or what is requisite that Worship be of his institution Rom. 14.14 15. much less it speaks of the cleanness of things of themselves the uncleanness to him that thinks them so and our duty not to grieve our Brother with our meats 1 Cor. 10.23 tells us of the inexpediency of some things lawful in that they edifie not nothing of Christs aim in his institutions or what is requisite to his instituted Worship 1 Cor. 14.3 4 5 12 26. tells us of the benefit of prophecying the end and use of spiritual gifts nothing of Christs aim in his institution of Worship or the requisite to such institution 2 Cor. 12.10 doth not mention any thing but Pauls affection and estate 1 Tim. 1.4 nothing but the incommodity of fables and genealogies Which should be observed by the Reader that he may be wary how he trusts to this Author's and other Separatists multiplying Texts impertinently that they be not ensnared by them and that such persons may see what cause they have to repent of such abusive wresting of Scripture As for that which he saith of the Common-Prayer Book worship if he mean thereby the prayers or praises in the forms therein I will not say They are necessary for the edification comfort or preservation of the Saints in the Faith and Vnity of the Gospel I yield that they are not necessary those ends may be obtained by other forms of Prayer or rather by preaching confessions of Faith and reading of the Holy Scriptures unto which the Lessons and portions of Scripture confessions of Faith in the Common-Prayer Book are as conducible as other Whether the Churches of Christ in the four first centuries were so excellent as he saith And whether they knew not any thing of such a Worship as the Common Prayer Book worship is a disputable point Et adhuc sub judice lis est What is said That to the Reformed Churches at this day the Common-Prayer Book worship is as a polluted accursed abominable thing I find no cause to believe except he mean by them the Churches of the Separatists I find Calvin in his 200 th Epistle saying indeed In Anglicana Liturgia qualem describitis multas video fuisse tolerabiles ineptias Yet in his 87 th Epistle he saith Quod ad formulam precum rituum Ecclesiasticorum valde probo ut certa illa extet c. And I find Maresius of Groning in his Academical Decision of some Questions qu. 11. alledging those words of Calvin and disputing against Francis Johnson his Latine Answer to Carpenter against Liturgies and asserting Liturgical Forms to be admitted by all the Reformed Churches Nor do I find any thing to the contrary in Voetius his Ecclesiastical Policy or any other that have lately written who have gainsaid these speeches and therefore I conceive that this Author in this speech hath too great a smack of that which is in one of Tullies Epistles said of such men Qui semel vereâ—undiae fines transilierit eum gnaviter impudentem esse oportet Neither Smectymnuus nor the Assembly nor Mr. Baxter in his Disputation of a Form of Liturgy nor any other of the Presbyterians that I know have written such things of the Common-Prayer Book as this Author vents If they are to be read he that would find truth should also read the Answers to Smectymnuus Ball 's Tryal of Separation Paget 's Arrow against the Separatists with others As for â— Powel his Tract I find in it such a sardle of false Principles misallegations of Texts non-syllogizing confused Dictates with vain Giâ—des that me-thinks no sober or judicious person should be moved by it The Common-Prayer Vnmasked I have not seen The Discourse of the Interest of Words in Prayer doth not advantage this Author to prove separation from Ministers or their Ministry by reason of the Common-Prayer The Discourse of Liturgies I have read and find in it little Logick a great many words which if they were reduced to syllogistical form would appear to be a bulk without sinews Not to mention the many absurd Dictates among which I have observed this that p. 16. The Lâ—rds Prayer is made to belong to the Oeconomy of the Old Testament and to argue thence to the New is to deny Christ to be ascended on high But I must attend the Author here who adds Sect. 8. No Particularity instituted is a meer Circumstance yet Particularities undetermined are Object If to what hath hitherto been proposed it be said That the Liturgy or Common-Prayer Book is no essential part of Worship but meerly circumstantial Praying t is true is part of Worship but praying in this or that Form is not so but meerly a circumstance thereof And therefore though it be true that the present Ministers of England worship God after the way of the Common-Prayer Book yet it follows not that they worship him after a way that is not of his appointment To this we answer 1. That many things are strenuously supposed as the Basis upon which the weight of this Objection is laid which the Framers thereof knowing to be no easie task to demonstrate do earnestly beg us to grant unto them which being matter of greater moment than many are aware of we shall not part with on such easie terms T is supposed First That there are some things in the instituted Worship of Christ that are meerly circumstances thereof as such Secondly That it is lawful for Saints to pray in a Form Thirdly That Forms of Prayer imposed are but meer circumstances of Worship and no essential parts thereof Fourthly That circumstances of Worshâ—p as such are not determined by the Lord in the Scripture but left to the wills of men to determine therein as they shall
up to him a worship meerly of humane composition once abused to Idolatry with the rites and modes of Idolaters are deeply guilty of the sin of Idolatry Answ. That the Common-prayer Book worship is a worship meerly of humane composition however the Form of words be is denied and not proved by this Author whose mistakes in confounding them are before shewed Nor is the worship of the Common-prayer Book proved to have been abusâ—d to Idolatry because the Foâ—ms of words were taken out of the Popish Service Books any more than that the Scriptures or Creed found in them were abused to Idolatry because thence taken The worship being agreeable to Gods Word cannot be abused to Idolatry Nor doth the Form of words used in the Mass-book or Bâ—eviary which is otherwise holy and â—ight if it had never been in those books cease to be holy and right when the Idolatrous Forms are left out any more than Gold found in a Dunghill remains Dung and ceaseth to be Gold when the filth is washed away from it To that of the Common-prayer Book being taken out of the Popes Portuis and King Edwards words answer is made in the Answer to the 3d. chapter sect 4. The offer of the Pope and the report of his Intelligencers pâ—oves that the Pope had nothing to except against the Common-Prayer Book or the Service of the Church of England but not that they are every way the same with that which is used in the Church of Rome Concerning its being taken out of the Popes Portuis at least for the greatest piece Arch-bishop Whitgift in his Aâ—swer to the first Admonition p. 82. said long agoe It maketh no matter of whom it was invented in what book it is contained so that it be good and profitable and consâ—nant to Gods Word Well saith Ambrose Omne verum à quocunque dicitur à Spiritu Sancto All truth of whomsoever it is spoken is of the Holy Ghost As for the Book of Ordination he anâ—wers the words of the second Admonition p. 201. thus It is most false and untrue that the Book of ordering Ministers and Dâ—acons c. now used is word for word drawn out of the Popes Pontifical being almost in no point correspondent to the same as yâ—u might have seen if you had compared them tâ—gether But ignorance and rashness drives you into many errours As for the rites and modes and ceremonies objected those which are in the Church of Rome Idolatrous are not observed or used by the Ministers who minister according to the Common-Prayer Book to whom conformity with the Popish Priests therein is injuriously imputed and they are so farr from being found deeply guilty of the sin of Idolatry that the very aâ—guings of this Author rather acquit them than convince them As for the words of Maccovâ—us they are not right we may retain the goods used to Idolâ—try and apply them to holy uses though they have been abused by Idolaters yea and abused to Idolatry as the Temples Bells Tables which have been abused to the Idolatry of the Mass as is largely proved by Mr. Pageâ— in his Arrow against the separation of the Brownâ—sts in answer to Mr Ainsworth ch 7. Nor is it pâ—oved by Maccovius out of the Texts alleged here That the sacred rites of Idolaters though they be things in themselves indifferent are not to be retained but that all conformity with Idolaters is to be avoided For none of the Texts speak of things in themselves indifferent Turning unto Idols and making to themselves molten Gods forbidden Levit. 19.4 being gross Idolatry the rounding the corners of their heads marring the corners of their beards v. 27. making baldness upon their head shaving off the corner of their beard cutting their flesh Levit. 21.5 making baldness bettween their eyes for the dead being heathenish customes which were Idolatrous as Ainsworth Annot. on Levit. 21.5 Such as those 1 Kings 18.28 Or as Salmasius in his Book of long hair the rounding of the corners of their hâ—ads to have been in honour of the Moon Or shewing heathenish sorrow for the dead all sinful in themselves and therefore not indifferent But there is yet one more Charge behind Sect. 15. Kneeling in receiving the Sacramental elements is not Idolatry Argument 3. Adoration in by or before a creature respectiâ—è or with relation to the creature is Idolatry such as so adore or wâ—â—ship Gâ—d are Idolaters But the present Ministers of England do adore or worship God in by or before a creature respective or with relation to the creature Therefore The major or first Proposition being generally owned by Protestants it being the very same Maxim they make use of and stop the mouth of the Papists with in the point of adoring God mediately by the creature we shall not stand upon the proof of it none that know what they say will deny it The minor Proposition viz. That the present Ministers of England do adore or worship God in by or before the creature respectivè or with relation to the creature will receive a quick dispatch Not to mention their bowing and cringing at the Altar That they kneel at receiving of the Sacrament is known That they with their Communicants should do so is enjoyned by their Church That their so dâ—ing is an adoration or worshipping of God before the creature respectivè or with relation to the creature is too manifest to admit of a denial Nothing being more certain than that the Elements are the objectum à quo or the motive of their kneeling which if they were not there they would not do And in the margin Didoclavius p. 755. saith Genusâ—ectere non modò excludit ritus institutionis sed etiam praeceptum secundum de Vitanda Idololatria multis modis violat VVhich Maccovius assents to loc com p. 861. Answ. Whether this Authors Antagonists know what they say this Author seems not a fit Judge unless either he knew better what himself saith or could better clear his meaning than he doth that his Readers might know what he saith In this Argument he doth accuse the present Mnisters of England and their Communicants of Idolatry in kneeling at the receiving of the bread and wine in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper and yet ch 5. p. 40. he had said Kneeling at the Lords Supper though we do not some would say smells very strong of the Popish leaven and is but one pegg bâ—neath the adoration of their breaden-God Here he expâ—esly makes that Idolatry undeniable as being adoration or wâ—â—ship of God in by or before the creature to wit the elementâ— respectivè or with relation to the creature as objectum significativè a quo or the motive of their kneeling which if it were not they would not do So that one while he will not say it smâ—lls strongly of the Popish leaven nor that it is but one pegg beneath the adoration of their breaden-God and if so did he know what he saith he
Saints to do But the hearing of the present Ministers of England is that the doing whereof doth cast contempt upon the wayes and institutions some one or more of them of our Lord Jesus and hardens persons in a false way of worship and rebellion against him Therefore The major is laid down in such full clear and evident expressions bottom'd upon Scripture and right reason as carry a brightness with them that none but such as are desperately and judiciously blinded will or can gainsay The minor or second Proposition viz That the hearing of the present Ministers of England is the doing of that which doth cast contempt upon the wayes and institutions of our Lord Jesus and hardens persons in a false way of worship and rebellion against him is by our dissenting Brethren gainsaid Answ. If the major be understood of real and not only imaginary and in the opinion of men of it self per se and not by accident through the prejudice or ill disposition of some persons casting contempt and hardning the major is granted and the minor denied otherwise it is not granted But let us attend the proof of the minor Three things saith he are therein asserted 1. That our hearing these persons is that which casts contempt upon the wayes and institutions of Christ. 2ly That it hardens persons in a false way of worship 3ly That it hardens and encourages souls in their rebellion against the Lord. As for the first A brief observation of some of the institutions of Christ clearly bottom'd upon the Scripture will abundantly evince its original to be from God First then That Separation from the world and men of the world from all wayes of false worship and the inventions of men thereabout untill the Saints of the most High be apparently a people dwelling alone and not reckoned among the Nations however it be decryed and found harsh in the ears of carnal men is one grand institution a man may run and read in the following Scriptures Numb 23.9 Joh. 15.9 2 Cor. 6.14 15 17 19. Ephes. 5.8 11. 2 Tim 3.5 Hos. 4 15. Revel 18.4 Prov. 4.7 Nor is it denied by some of our conforming Brethren Answ. By the world and men of the world in opposition to the Saints of the most High are understood such professed Christians as are not visible Saints able to give such an account of their conversion and proof of their integrity as the Elders and members of a gathered Church in the Congregational way are satisfied with to be sufficient for their admission into their Church Or that enter not into Church covenant explicite or implicite And dwelling alone is meant either of joyning alone with such a Church in hearing praying and Sacraments or of dwelling alone in their habitations Not being reckoned among the Nations may be understood either of not being members of a national or parochial Chureh or not under a national Government whether Ecclesiastical or Civil or not taking upon them anâ— Offices or employments in either such Church or Common-wealth In none of these senses is the Proposition proved by any of the Texts alleged concerning the first part of the separation from the world or men of the world but the Proposition is both false and dangerous The first Text Numb 23 9. is only a prophesie of Balaam concerning the people of Israel after the flesh that they should dwell alone and not be reckoned among the Nations to inferr thence any of his sorts of separation to be the institutions of Christ concerning the Christian Churches is without any shew of reason it might yield better proof for a national Church Christian against this Author if any institution of Christ concerning the Châ—istian Church visible could be thence deduced John 15.19 Christ saith to his Disciples If ye were of the world the world would love his own but because ye are not of the world but I have chosen you out of the world therefore the world hateth you And it is true that the Saints of the most High are not of the world that is that party that are opposite to Christ that hate him and the profession of his name and accordingly hate them that are for Christ as v. 18. shews but that by the world is meant a national or parochial church or national State Common wealth Kingdom City or House as such because of the mixture of good and bad is most false It is true that Christ chose the Apostles and other Christians out of the world by his calling by the Gospel and the work of his Spirit that they might not be united to the world in their enmity against him or his word but be a peculiar people to himself zealous of good works Not by any institution to separate themselves from other Christians by profession into a Congregational Church contra-distinct from national or parochial in the Episcopal or Presbyterian way of Discipline by an explicite or implicite Church covenant or into a plantation or body Politick or Oeconomick independent on any civil Government or Governours of the Nations 2 Cor. 6.14 15 17 19. or rather 18. for 18. is the last v. of that chapter hath been and so have Ephes. 5.8 11. Rev. 18.4 in the last Section of the Answer to the 8th chapter shewed to be impertinently alleged for proof of such a Separation as is here meant Nor is it proved 2 Tim. 3.5 but it is a precept for Timothy to turn away either in respect of arbitrary society or in respect of associating with such as are there described in the work of the ministry or other employment as wherein they would be either treacherous to him or a hinderance or a blot to him Hos 4.15 is only a precept unto Judah of not being Idolatrous as Israel Prov. 14.7 is a precept advising men in prudence That they go from the presence of a foolish man when they perceive not in him the lips of knowledge To allege Texts so farr from the proving of what they are brought for shews rather a mind willing to cheat honest and weak people than any regard to truth or honesty And as I said the position is false For it supposeth Christ to have instituted such a Separation as he hath told us in sundry parables shall not be till the end of the world Matth. 13.30 40 49. such as neither Christ in the seven Epistles to the seven churches of Asia nor St. Paul in that to the Corinthians or any other ever urged such as never was attempted but it was judged schismatical and proved unhappy in the conclusion And it is dangerous sith it puts persons upon withdrawing their subjection not only from Ecclesiastical rulers but also from civil and houshold Rulers that are counted the world or men of the world that they may be a people dwelling alone and not reckoned among the Nations which would overthrow also all States bodies politick and houshold government and is contrary to Rom. 13.1 1 Cor. 7.20 24. It is added
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
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
not against any Ordinance of Jesus Christ yet we are afraid that those poor Souls that know not how to spend the Lords day without hearing do too much Idolize that Ordinance of God and never knew what it was to spend that day with him 2. You need not sit at home if you are enquiring after God and communion with his people you may soon hear of some one or other of the Assemblies of the Saints whither you may repair to wait upon the Lord with them 3. But thirdly were it or should it be otherwise yet better be idle than do worse better do nothing than sin against God encourage others in their evil deeds pollute and wound thy own Soul grieve the Saints stumble and harden the wicked and cause them to blaspheme his Name Sanctuary and such as dwell therein But 4. There is no necessity of being idle if thou knowest not where to hear on that day hast thou no work to do save that 1. Art sure that God and Christ and Eternal Glory are thy portion and inheritance Thou walkest in the light of assurance or thou dost not If thou dost is one day in seven too much to spend in the solemn admiration of grace that ever so vile a creature as thou should be accounted worthy of such unexpressible kindness and glory What O what will Eternity be then If thou dost not are not these worthy of thy utmost diligence to get assurance of What stand idle and an interest in God Christ and Eternal Glory to make sure of 2. Art thou sufficiently acquainted with thine own heart Dost know so much of thy self as thou needest to know Or judgest thou this to be a work that requires not thy utmost diligence and attendance 3. Hast thou no sin to be mortified no want to be supplyed no grace to be quickned and strengthned in thee 4 Hast thou as much communion with God as thou desirest Hast heard as often from him by the teaâ—hings of the Spirit the incomparably and infinitely best teacher as thou dost wish Or dost think that God will not manifest himself to and teach in a corner a poor Soul that 's there waiting for him alone because there be no Assemblies of Saints he knows of to whom he might joyn himself and he dares not have Communion with Adulterers If thou have not fellowship with God thou desirest and teachings from him as who hath stir up thy self to lay hold on God groan and cry after him till he hath brought thee into his chambers and afforded thee richer displayes of his glory 5. Art thou altogether ready trimmed without more ado for the coming and Kingdom of Christ Jesus what should I mention those important duties of reading the Scriptures meditation on them c. hast thou all this to do and much more that might be added and yet nothing to do on the Lords day set about these things in good earnest and when thou livest in the light of assurance without the least doubt or clouding when thou art sufficiently acquainted with thine own heart the will and Scriptures of the Lord when thou hast as much communion with God in retirement as thou desirest and teachings from his Spirit when thou hast no sin to be mortified nor grace to be quickened and strengthened when thou art quite ready for the day of Christ and needest no further fittings we shall consider what may be further said to this Objection but till then it cannot be pleaded when souls have all this work to do that they must sit at home idle if they go not to hear the Preachers of this day But thus far of the Objections that are by some made against the assertion of the unlawfulness of attending upon the present Ministers of England which are all of any moment we have yet met with what of weight is in them must be left to the judgement of the Christian Reader to determine We shall add no more but this that we have spoken our judgement and conscience herein as in sincerity in the sight of God with what meekness Christian tenderness and fear of giving any just offence to the truly conscientious he knows The sole of our aim in the whole is That Christ may be glorified in the recovery of any poor lamb that is turned aside to the flocks of the companions in this cloudy and dark day that others that have hitherto kept themselves from Idols might be further established in the will of God and strengthened to follow Christ in his temptations that they may inherit that kingdom and glory prepared for them before the foundation of the world May we but in the least contribute by Divine blessing hereunto whatever becomes of these papers or however they be by others accounted of we have our end and shall rest satisfied I reply this objection I find made not onely by some of the common sort of professors but also particulaly by Mr. Crofton and made by him as an argument wherefore he did and ought to joyn in hearing and praying in publick on the Lords day notwithstanding the defects in the ministerial mode and method of the publick Ministers the worship of God substantially existing in matter and essential form in their Ministration and the Lords day being to be observed in publick as well as private where and when the Ordinances cannot be enjoyed in a purer manner His second in the book intituled Jerubbaal justified doth reduce his plea to this Syllogism Communion with the Church visible in Gods solemn publick worship is an essential part of the sanctification of the Sabbath and indispensable duty But communion with the English Church in the worship by her celebrated is communion with the Church visible in Gods solemn worship Ergo Communion with the English Church having no opportunity with any other in the worship of her celebrated is to me an essential part of the sanctification of the Sabbath and indispensable duty This Syllogism is defended in that Book to which I refer the Reader and consider the objection as here it is urged and answered The objection proceeds upon suppositions of the Separatists or Independents in the number of whom he is to be accounted as appears by his wordes in this Chapter in answer to the 7th objection where he saith Learned Ainsworth Cotton c. have been and are of the same apprehension with us in this matter Now in Mr. Cottons way of the Churches of Christ in New England it is put into the definition of a visible Church that they are a number that may meet every Lords day for all Ordinances and in the Declaration of the Elders and Messengers of the Congregational Churches at the Savoy Oct. 12. 1658. ch 22. art 8. The Sabbath is then kept holy to the Lord when men are taken up the whole time in the publick and private exercises of his worship and in the duties of necessity and mercy Among these art 5. The reading of the Scriptures preaching and