understanding to have been from Eli he ran unto him and said Here am I vers 5. To whom the Priest replying I called thee not ly down again Samuel had no sooner returned to his rest and shut his eyes but God gives him a second call And Samuel arose again and went to Eli and said Here am I for thou didst call me And he answered I called not my Son ly down again vers 6. The third time he went to his rest and it is observed in the 7. verse that Samuel did not know the Lord neither was the word of the Lord yet revealed unto him But in the 8. verse The Lord called Samuel again the third time and he arose and went to Eli and said Here am I for thou didst call me And Eli perceived that the Lord had called the Childe And then Eli instructed him what he should do saying Go ly down and it shall be if he call thee that thou shalt say speak Lord for thy servant heareth vers 9. And so he did the fourth time that the Lord called him then he knew his call to be from Heaven and answered unto the Lord as the Priest had instructed him Now what from hence I observe is that God might the first time have spoken and revealed unto Samuel what he did after without three several returnings to the Priest telling him at the first It is not Eli that calleth thee but I but he would not as ancient Writers observe because God would have Samuel go the right way to work being young and not yet acquainted with lights and Revelations he would have him go to the Priest that he might instruct him what to do and that the Priest might judge of his light and calling A good example in Scripture for men in these times to know that if any must try and judge their lights their Revelations their calls and gifts they must not be the people but the Ministers And therefore Mr. Nichols surely is much deceived in giving to the people and slighting in the Ministers that which God would have Samuel acknowledge fitter for Eli to try and judge his call from Heaven than for the people But least it should be answered that this was the old Policy but the New Testament allows no such Doctrine nor respect or duty to Ministers more than to the Community of the faithfull I shall with the new Policy under the Gospel prove the like In the 8. of Acts Luke tells us what happened to the Eunuch who riding in his Chariot read that part of the Prophesie of Isaiah He was led as a sheep to the slaughter and as a Lamb dumb before the shearers so opened he not his mouth In the mean while The Angel of the Lord spake unto Philip saying Arise and go towards the South unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza vers 26. When Philip was come to the place Then the Spirit said unto him Go near and joyn thy self to this Chariot and Philip came thither to him and heard him read the Prophet Isaias and said understandest tâ—ou what thou readest And he said How can I except some mâ—n should guide me And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him vers 29 30 31. Philip answered his desire and went up to the Chariot and taking occasion of the Prophecy he was reading instructed him so far iâ— the Mysteries belonging unto Iesus Christ that he truely believed and was baptized I observe also from hence what hidden Mystery may be here that the Angel who instructed Philip what he should do and observe is not allowed by Gods permissiâ—n to instruct the Eunuch in the points of faith but Philip a Church Officer must do it And the very same may be observed in the History which Luke also relates Act. 10. of Cornelius the Centurion a Religious man given to prayer and Alms-deeds yet wanting more instruction in the Mysteries of the Faith of Iesus Christ to whom God sends an Angel vers 5 6. who said unto him Send men to Joppa and call for one Simon a Tanner he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do Why might not this Angel also who spake to Cornelius or some of the Community of the faithfull thereabouts if they had the power of the Keyes instruct Corneâ—ius while he stayes sor the coming of the Apostle but Peter an Officer of the Church must do it he must instruct guide and convert him Austin his answer is that God would teach us herein that he hath not appointed us Angels for our Instructers Masters and Leaders nor any other to tell us of lights Revâ—lations gifts and callings but hath left us Officers of his Church to do this work and farâ—her that so far we are to believe Angels if they should speak unto us as here to Cornelius and such lights as they should reveal unto us as they may be examined tried judged whither they be true â—ights or strong delusions from Sathan who often times transfigures himself into an Angel of light by such as Philip was as Peter was by Officers of the Church and true Ministers of the Gospel to whom and to no other Christ hath committed the power of the Keyes Yet further Aâ—stin observes from Act. 9. what Christ himself answered Saul vers 6. when he said Lord â—hat wilt thou have me to do And the Lord said unto him Arise and go into the Citie and it shall be told thee what thou must do Who must tell Saul what he must do who must try examine and judge of his calling who must instruct him who can instruct him better than Christ himself who is talking with him Yet Ananias a Church-Officer in the judgement of many very grave Divines must do it To him he is sent but not to the whole Community of the faithfull to judge of the light which compassed him about in the way to Damascus to examine the Revelation he had there Nay Christ would remit him to his Officer in his Church to shew that this is the ordinary way of Government by himself left to his Church that not the people but his Ministers by virtue of the power of the Keyes shall try and examine gifts and callings and such as they finde true by the Touch stone of the word to allow and admit such into the Church and to 〈◊〉 belonging to Church Government And without this trial by Church Officers and Ministers I cannot safely judge Mr. Nichols a true Pastour of a Church while preferring the people before the Ministers and taking orders from them he slights the ordinary way of Christ for Church Government and those Officers whom God hath shewed us to be respected And thus beloved I have shewed unto you the first errour and untruth meerly Antichristian practised in Mr. Nichols his Church which he calls Gods house which cannot be Gods house being the Pillar and Ground of the Truth and yet there the Truth of Ordination according to the Scripture is
you my Arguments as upon the day of Dispute they were Objected against him with his answers to them and then I shall further inlarge my discourse to prove his Congregation to be no true Church nor house of God but to practise things Babylonish Antichristian and against the word of God You may beloved call to minde that after his first Proposition had been awhile canvassed and as I complained which to many seemed Passion in me little satisfaction given by his answers why he should term our Parochial Churches Babylonish I told him it was time to come to his house he having been so long in ours and I desired him to hear me an Argument or two against his pretended Church which at first he was unwilling to grant unless he might first argue against this Parish of Deal in particular which neither my Moderatour nor my self would yield unto First because it was not a Proposition stated nor agreed upon to be disputed Secondly to avoid tumults and quarrels that might have been caused in case before your faces and upon your own ground his Arguments should tend to the affronting of any of you in particular particularizing any particular misdemeanour miscarriage or sin of any or making use of Nick-name or aspersion unjustly laid upon you as he seemed to intimate he would do saying he would speak of you but as you were characterized abroad But being stopt from casting any affront in particular upon you with much unwillingness he yielded at last tâ—at I should Object somewhat against his second Proposition And having against his first Assertion begun my Argument from the description or definition of a Babylonish Romish Parochial Church I thought it would prove my best way of objecting against his second Proposition also to begin with a true definition or description of the true house of God which I performed thus 1. Argument The house of God is the Church of the living God the pillar and ground of the truth 1 Tim. 3. vers 15. But your Congregation is not the Church of the living God nor the pillar and ground of the truâ—h Ergo your Congregation is not the house of God The Major being granted and the Minor denied I proved it thus Where many things are practized against the truth there is not the Church of the living God nor the pillar and ground of the truth But in your Congregation many things are practized against the truth Ergo your Congregation is not the Church of the living God nor the pillar and ground of the truth The Major was granted and the Minor denied which I proved thus The truth of the Word ordereth to a true Church a true Pastour But in your Church and Congregation there is no true Pastour Ergo In your Congregation things are practized against the truth The Minor or second Proposition being denied I proceeded thus In your Church and Congregation there is no known Pastour but your self But you are no true Pastour Ergo In your Church and Congregation there is no true Pastour The Minor still I proved A true Pastour comes in â—o his flock by the true door of Christ and his word But you came not in to your flock by the true door of Christ and his word Eâ—go you are no true Pastour The Minor I cleared thus The true door of Christ and his word for a Pastour to come in to his flock is by true Ordination But you came not in to your flock by true Ordination Ergo you came nâ—t in to your flock by the true door of Christ and his word The Minor appeared thus True Ordination according to Christs word is by imposition of hands by the Presbytery But your Ordination is not by imposition of hands by the Presbytery Ergo you came not in to your flock by true Ordination Here Mr. Nichols denying the Major that true Ordination according to Christs word is by Imposition of hands by the Presbytery said that he came in to his flock by the Election of the people which he said was true Ordination according to Christs word Against which answer I framed thus my second Argument 2. Argument That which is most warrantable for Ordination from tâ—e word of God is truest Ordination But Ordination by Imposition of hands by the Presbytery is more warrantable for true Ordination than the Election of the people Ergo Imposition of hands by the Presbytery is truer Ordination than the Election of the people The Major he could not deny but the Minor he denied which I thus proved Ordination by Imposition of hands by the Presbytery is clear and warrantable from the word of God in these eight places of Scripture at the least Act. 6. vers 6. Act. 13. vers 3. Hebr. 6. vers 2. 1 â—im 4. vers 14. 1 Tim. 5. vers 22. Titus 1. vers 5. Rom. 10. vers 15. Hebr. 5. vers 4. compared with verse 1 But you can shew me no such places of Scripture nor so many to warrant Ordination by Election of the people Ergo Ordination by Imposition of hands by the Presbytery is more warrantable for true Ordination from the word of God than the Election of the people Here the light of Scripture dazled Mr. Nichols his eyes the Authority of so many places wrapped up in one Proposition startled him so that fain he would have ridded himself of so much Scripture against him And he began to cavil and to question me how I knew that he was not ordained by Imposition of hands by the Presbytery having through some trouble of minde forgot that he had granted it before unto me and confessed his Ordination by the Election of the people as I told him I knew his Ordination by his own confession Then fain would he ouâ— of order form and Syllogisme know how and where I was ordained A thing beloved not very pertinent to the force of my Argument against him neither needed I to have given him in publick such an account of my self till some Argument from him against me had questioned my Ordination as mine did his yet to ease his minde I told him by whom I had been lawfully Ordained and forcing him on again to my Argument he began â—o say somewhat First that indeed he acknowledged that Imposition of hands by the Presbytery was used in the Apostles time as a Ceremony which now might be left off and so was now by many Godly men omitted To which slight answer I replied thus 3. Argument That which is a Principle of the Doctrine of Iesus Christ ought never by any Churches to the end of the World be omitted or laid aside But Imposition of hands by the Presbytery is a Principle of the Doctrine of Iesus Christ. Ergo Imposition of hands by the Presbytery in Ordination ought never by any Churches to the end of the World be omitted or laid aside Here Mr. Nichols shewed himself yet more troubled and quite to have forgotten the Scriptures or else he would not have granted my Major
as to the Major he answered that for his part he could not certainly tell whether the particulars in it were true or no. To which I replied that he could not safely call us Babylonish if he knew not what was practised in Babylon And further that if as a Pastoâ—â— and Teacher he had taken upon him the charge of Souls he was bound to know so much of the Romish errours as to preserve his flock from such infections and particularly I demanded of him whether he knew not that all the Popish party did live under obedience to the Pope and that their Churches were dedicated to Saints What else mean those Titles from old to our meeting places at Câ—â—terburie London and elsewhere as S. Georges Church S Clements Church S. Brides Church S. Andrews Church St. Dunstans Church and the like And thirdly I told him he could not be so ignorant as not to know that the people there were congregated under Mass-mongers and Popish Priests and that by them Mass was said before the people and that they did hear the peoples Confessions of their sins and did absolve them And lastly that it was by all known and therefore could not be unknown to him that Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Bloud of Christ was one of the gross errours of Rome And thus helping Mr. Nichols his memory with a rehearsal of the particulars in my Argument I brought him with much ado to grant my Major or first Proposition defining a Parochial Romish Church But when I drove on to the second Proposition the Minor his Conscience began to be troubled for calling us Babylonish and finding those parts describing a Romish Babylonish Church not to agree truely with our Parochial Churches without any formal granting denying or distinguishing he confessed he did not intend to call us Babylonish in such a sense as my Major Proposition did describe At this his Confession squeezed from him by the rack of my Syllogisme you may remember beloved my expression to you for indeed I desire in truth to lay before you the substance of our dispute till I come to add a further Comentary unto it I turning my face body to you and to the rest of the people wished you not to be dejected in spirit for now by M. Nichols his Confession it appears we are not so Babylonish as we though he judged us to be and bending my speech to him again I told him it appeared then that he did falsly term and denominate us Babylonish which I proved thus 2. Argument Whatsoever is compleatly denominated such is denominated from the essential differential constitutive part and form of such But our Parochial Churches are not denominated from the essential differential Constitutive part form of a Babylonish Romish Parochial Church Ergo. Our Parochial Churches are not by you compleatly denominated termed and called Babylonish The Major being clear from the example of every man who is compleatly man from that form of Râ—siâ—iliâ—ie and Rationalitie whereby he differs from other living Creatures The Minor again troubled him so that neither here could I get a Schollars answer but an abrupt speech out of form that in some things we were Babylonish though not Babylonians to which difference of terms by him â—hus to evade my Argument being invented but not explained I replied thirdly 3. Argument A Lion cannot compleatly be called a man although he agree with man in some Generical part of Animality because he agreeth not with man in his essential differential Constâ—â—utive part of Riâ—ibilitâ— and Rationality But our Parochial Chuâ—ches if they do agree with Parochial Babylonish Romish Churches in some General or Generical parts agree not with them in their essential differential Constitutive part and form Ergo. Our Parochial Churches are no more compleatly to be called Babylonish than a Lâ—on compleatly to be named a man This Lion if you well remember beloved pulled Mr. Nichols upon his back and so tore and tormented him that he knew not well how to be rid of him in so much that I perceiving he intended again to make long Orations his refuge wherewith indeed he much takes the people and Triumphs before them cried out for a formal answer and to disprove if he could my first or second Proposition that so the stream of my Syllogismes as had been agreed on before our dispute might run forward But when I saw no answer would be given in form I wished you and the rest of the people to take notice that no satisfaction was given to the strong Lions Argument For indeed hitherto Mr. Nichols never discovered himself for what reason or upon what ground he so publickly had asserted our Parochial Churches to be Babyâ—onish And thus finding that by Syllogisme I had convinced him that we were not Babylonish through or by any essential part or form constituting a Parochial Babylonish Romish Church and desirous to know wherein we were Babylonish I asked him if he held us Babylonish qua Parishes as divided into Parishes To which he replied affirmatively that as Parishes we were Babylonish Against which reply of his I formed this following Syllogism 4. Argument If qua Parishes we are Babylonish then the Constitution of Parishes must needs be Babylonâ—sh But the Constitution of Parishes is not Babylonish Ergo. Qua Parishes we are not Babylonish Here like a Schollar without Orations he answered me in form granting my Major Proposition and denied my Minor which I immediately proved thus 5. Argument That which was not first constituted by Antichrist is not to be called Babylonish But Parishes qua Parishes were not first constituted by Antichrist Ergo. The Constitution of Parishes qua Parishes is not Babylonish The Major being granted and the Minor denied I replied thus 6. Argument Whatsoever was constituted before Antichrist came to his Sâ—aâ— could not be truely constituted by Antichrist But Parishes qua Parishes were constituted before Antichrist came to his Sâ—at Ergo. Parishes qua Parishes were not first constituted by Antichrist The Minor Proposition being to be proved I produced here a Book which indeed I had brought with me to the same purpose named Summa Conâ—itiâ—â—um and out of it I proved my Minor shewing the Antiquity of Parishes from the second Roman Councel held the nineteenth year of the Reign of Constantine the Great the first Christian Emperour immediately after his conversion to Christianity in the year of our Lord three hundred twenty four as appeareth in the Sixth Canon of that councel where the Christians in Rome were divided into seven Parishes seven Pastours allowed unto them which constitution was one thousand three hundred twenty nine years ago before ever Antichrist was in his seat whereby it appears that Parishes qua Parishes were not first constituted by Antichrist Nay beloved I might have shewed unto Mr. Nichols a further fetcht Antiquity of Parishes had not this been sufficient even from the year of our Lod one hundred and twenty
Chap. 5. vers 7. The state of the Church was very bad and evil Chap. 1. vers 21.22 The teachers were corrupt Chap. 3. vers 12. The women were exceeding vain proud haughty and corrupt Chap. 3. vers 16. compared with the 18. and 23. vers Rich men and chief men they also were very corrupt as you may see in Chap. 5. vers 8. and in Chap. 10. vers 1.2 compared with Chap. 36. vers 3. And all the people in general are complained of Chap. 24. vers 5. and Chap. 48.4 and 8. verses and in the 1 Chap. 2. and 6. verses Yea they were sunk deep in rebellion Chap. 31. vers 6. Yet they were called Gods Church and people But leaving the old Policy as noâ— suting with Mr. Nichols policy in undermining our Churches because he saith God having but that one people he was loath to cast them off I come to the new policy and new Testament to try whether God did then cast off his people and unchurch them for the corruptions of the wicked among them and first I make my instance in the Church of the Corinthians thus If the Church of Corinth when Paul calleth them a Church and Saints 1 Cor. 1. vers 2. and 2 Cor. 1. vers 1. were as bad and in some things worse than our Paâ—ishes then ours are true Churches or theirs were none and so Paul should â—ely them Verum prius The first part of this Proposition is true that they were a Church and Saints for so he stiles them And secondly that they were as bad and in some things worse than our Parishes I prove thus from many evil things reported of them by Paul's Epistles to them Fiâ—st They had persons as ignorant eâ—se why saith he to them Awake to righteousness and sin not for some have not the knowledge of God I speak this to your shame 1 Cor. 15. vers 34. Secondly They had persons as contious and so he tells them It haâ—h been declared to me of you my brethren by them which are of the house of Cloë that thâ—re are conâ—entions among you 1 Cor. 1. vers 11. Thirdly They were as carnal and such he calls them saying Ye are yet carnal for wherâ—as there is among you envying and striâ—e and division are ye not carnal and walk as men 1 Cor. 3. vers 3. Fourthly They were more scandalous than we dare be yea in such a sin as was not so much as named among the Gentiles witness these his words unto them It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles that one should have his Fathers wife 1 Cor. 5. vers 1. Fifthly They were more erroneous than we denying the Resurrection as Paul reproves them thus If christ be preached that he rose from the deâ—d how say some among you that there is no Resurrection of the dead 1 Cor. 15. vers 12. and making Preaching and Faith vain as Paul complains of them saying If Christ be not risen then iâ— our preaching vain and your Faith is also vain 1 Cor. 15. vers 14. Sixthly They were so corrupt sinfull that they becâ—me even obstinate in sin and delighted to continue in uncleanness fornication and lasciviousness as Paul tells them when he giveth them warning of his coming unto them I fear least when I come I shall not finde you such as I would and that I shall be found unto you such as ye would not least there be debates envyings wâ—ath strifes back-slidings whisperings swellings tumults And least when I come again my God will humble me among you and that I shall bewail many that have sinned already and have not repented of the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness which they have committed 2 Cor. 12. vers 20.21 From all these places you may evidently perceive the truth of the first part of my proposition that the Corinthians were as bad and in some things worse than our Parishes Ergo verum est posterius what follows is true also that if they for all these corruptions among them were a Church and called Saints we aâ—so notwithstanding corruptions and corrupt ones in our Parishes are a Church and to be called Saints But what do I instance in Corinth onely to prove a truth so clear In all the Churches through Pauls Epistles I may easily instance the like A Learned and Godly Divine handling this very point in a discourse brings in an unsetled Roman and carries him quite through Pauls Epistles He first brings him to the Romans What say they will you continue in our Church No saith he ye are a mixt multitude you have amongst you many that cause division and offences and such as serve their own bellies Rom. 16. vers 17.18 Well say the Corinthians will you joyn with us No saith he ye have contentious persons 1 Cor. 1. vers 11. Incestuous 1 Cor. 5. vers 1. denying the Resurrection 1 Cor. 15. vers 12. The Galatians come in will you be of our Church No ye are gone to another Gospel Galat. 1. vers 6. ye are bewitched and obey not the truth Gal. 3. vers 1. The Ephesians say will you come to us No ye have liars stealers robbers amongst you Ephes. 4. vers 25.28 29. and Chap. 5. vers 3 4 6. ye have that teach other Doctrine and give heed to Fables 1 Tim. 1. vers 3.4 some that sin openly 1 Tim. 5. vers 20. The Philippians come next will you be of our number No ye have some preach Christ out of contention to add affliction to Pauls haâ—ds Phil. 1. vers 16. you have many that are enemies to the Crosâ— of Christ and whose God is thâ—ir belly Phil. 3. vers 18.19 What say you to us Colossians No ye are subject to Ordinances Touch not Taste not handle not Colos. 2. vers 20.21 Why will you not joyn with us Thessalonians Ye have some brethren that walk disorderly 2 Thes. 3. vers 6. Will you come to Câ—eet then No The Cretians are alwayes liars evil beasts slow bellies and to be rebiâ—ed sharply Titus 1. vers 12 13. Yet we hope we Hâ—brews may please you No ye are an ignorant people and had need to be taught the first pâ—inciples of religion Hebr. 5. vers 12. The poor man at a stand and weary of his journey asketh a friend what he should do You had best saith he go back again and joyn with the Romans as before So may Mr. Nichols and his separate Congregation when they have gone through many Churches to finde out one without corruptions and corrupt persons return to our Godly Ministers and Parishes again I confess I know not what disparity may be given nor what can truely be answered to this Argument to make it of no force unless Mr. Nichols will invent somewhat of his own phantasie and say again that God was unwilling and loath to cast off the Corinthians and all those Churches to whom Paul wrote but
slighted It is not my custom in this place to particularize any mans defects and errours neither would I have done it now had not my Text called upon me to surround the bounds of Zion and Babylon and to shew you what is the truth taught and professed in Zion and what is Babylonish and Antichristian and to answer those Propositions of Mr. Nichols affirming our Parochial Churches Babylonish and his own to be Zion and the house of God And as he hath gone about to brand us with an infamous Babylonish title thereby thinking to draw yet more of you to his separation I cannot in conscience discharge my duty to God and your Souls unless I vindicate our Churches and shew yet more Babylonish and Antichristâ—â—n practises and untruths in his Congregation whereby it may be Charactâ—rized unto you not to be the house of God nor the Pillar and Ground of Truth 2. Errour A second errour and untruth practized in Mr. Nichols his Congregation is in the administring the Sacrament of the Lords Supper at which Mr. Nichols allows a Lay-man or gifted brother to make a prayer at the setting apart those empty Elements for a Sacramental use to the Soul Which how contrary it is to the truth of the word and the example of Iesus Christ when first he instituted that Sacrament under the Elements of Bread and Wine I shall leave you to judge from what St. Luke relates of the last Supper in these words saying He took bread and gave thanks and brake it and gave unto them Luke 22. vers 19. and from St. Paul saying when he had given thanks he brake it 1 Cor. 11. vers 24. from which places I gather that though Christ had present about him his Apostles Brethren though then weak more able and gifted than are any of Mr. Nichols his Congregation yet Christ suffered none of them at that time to pray or give thanks but himself did it Secondly that prayer and thanksgiving at that time belongs to him and ought to be performed by him who breaks the bread and by no other that hath the power of the Keyes by lawfull Ordination which Mr. Nichols his Farmeâ—s and Millers have not And thirdly that without Mr. Nichols can clear his Ordination better than he hath done fâ—om the peoples Election of him the Administration of that Sacrament belongs to him but his abuse rather of so sacred a Mystery will one day lie with the heavy weight of Sacriledge upon his Soul 3. Errour A third errour and untruth practized by him is in the manner of his gatherinâ— his Church and building it up upon other mens foundations quite contrary to the practise and example of St. Paul who saith of himself So have I strived to preach the Gospel not where Câ—â—ist was namâ—d least I should build upon another mans foundation Rom. 15. vers 20. from whence I observe that St Paul strived not as Mr. Nichols strives Paul judged charitably of other mens preaching Mr. Nichols judgeth uncharitably of ours Paul judged others able to build up a Spiritual house to Christ Mr. Nichols judgeth us unable Pâ—ul judged that Christ was named and called upon in other Churches as well as in his own Mr. Nichols judgeth our Churches Babylonish and our people congregâ—ted not to name nor call upon Christ as if we called upon Angels Saints or some Heathenish Gods Paul though there were divisions among the Corinthians and some were for him some for Apollo and some for Ceâ—has widens not the wound of their division nor goes about to draw any from Apollo or any from Cephas Mr. Nichols makes our divisions his advantage to draw whom he can from our Churches Paul would not build upon another mans foundation Mr. Nichols builds upon ours and admits to his Congregation such as have acknowledged comfort to their Souls from the work of the publick Ministery as by experience I can speak of some who before Mr. Nichols resorted to or intruded himself into Deal acknowledged my Doctrine true sound wholesom and comfortable who since are become stones in Mr. Nichols his new building And thus it appears that his practise is not agreable to the true and peaceable practise of the Apostles especially of Paul 4. Errour A fourth errour practized by him is the unsetled place of his Church contrary to the Constitution of the first Primitive Churches which were known and named by the places as the Church at Ierusalem the Church at Antioch the Church at Ephesus the Church at Corinth and the like to which Paul directed his Epistles by the names of the place but were he to write to Mr. Nichols his Church he could not call it by any one place as the Church at Adisham where Mr. Nichols lives there being more of his Church many miles off in other places flying about on the Sabbath dayes or Trouping about on Hors-back on those dayes to hear him than there are present with him at Adisham But the Letters must be directed to Mr. Nichols his scattered Church at Adisham or elsewhere or to the flying and wandring or Trouping Church from one place to another which is most proper to it or to the church in Kent sometimes here and sometimes there all which is against the Constitution of the Primitive Churches setled in and named by some one certain and determinate place This practise is taken from the Church of Rome and therefore is Babylonish where in my time beyond the Seas I observed people for their pretended devotions much flying and wandring about either to places of Pilgrimage or upon the Sabbath dayes travelling five or six miles from their Parishes to such or such a Chappel to such or such a Cloister of Friars or Colledge of Jesuites under a pretence of gaining Indulgences by hearing Mass or Sermon in such a place and of such a Father And this hath been the Common practise of the Jesuites to draw the people there from the Parish Priests to perswade them that their Doctrine is soundest their lives purest whereas the Friars and the Parish Priests say they are of lewd and wicked Conversations and their Doctrine unprofitable and to this purpose they press to the people many Indulgences which they have obtained from the Pope for all such as shall hear their Doctrine and shall resort to their Churches and Chappels which now is more particularly practized by the Jesuites at Paris By whsch policy the Parish Churches there are very much deserted few people resort unto them and the Parish Priests are left to preach to the bare Walls and to some few old silly Women This policy if not under a pretence of Mass and Indulgences at least under a pretence of more pure Doctrine I have found to be much in Mr. Nichols whose people it seems have learned to run after him many miles upon the Sabbath dayes forsaking their Parish meetings as unprofitable to them and judging the day ill spent their Souls unedified except they hear him and no
the Ordination of that Ministery which he had in England because Imposition of hands was in the Church of Rome from the times of â—he Apostles is there continued to this day although much mixed with many pollutions of their own Obj. But if those that separate from us will throw away all that comes through Rome what course will they take when they have denied all the Ordinances that have been administred for these ninety years in England for if no Ministery then certainly no Authoritative Preaching no Sacraments and thus they have renounced their baptisme which they had by these Ministers What Method then will they take in their Reformation Ans. How will they come to be rebaptized They will tell us peradventure that they will Covenant together and then Elect and ordain a Minister and he shall baptize 1. Reply Will they Covenant together supposing themselves to be Saints first say they so Are they Saints by a calling How came they to be so What did God call them immediately No They must say many if not all of them who have any truth of grace by the preaching of the word they were called What from those Ministers from whom they separate as no Ministers because of their Ordination Hath the Lord so far owned his despised Members as to make them the instruments to bring these to be visible Saints fit to imbody or Covenant And are these now no Ministers Are these the effect of their Ministerial labours and they no Ministers 1. Ans. But they say They will Elect and Ordain one Minister and then he shall rebaptize 2. Reply But since he did renounce his own baptisme also who shall baptize him first There must be a Minister to do that to be sure he cannot do it himself nor none of them for they are private persons To administer the Lords Supper before they be baptized is contrary to the Scripture-rules as Iustinus Martyr defends But how can they Ordain this Minister not being themselves baptized Where doth it appear in Scripture that an unbaptized people did ever Elect or Ordain a Minister These absurdities would necessarily follow such a reformation of this whole Land by denying thâ— Ministers to be true Ministers and by annulling their Ordination because it came through the Church of Rome 2. Ans. But secondly I answer to the main Objection of our Ordination passing through Rome to us That the Churches of England had not their first beginning from Rome as some fondly and ignorantly conceive but rather from Ierusalem Yea Baronius a great stickler for Romes priviledges yet acknowledgeth the Antiquity of the Church of England before Rome it self observing the conversion of England to Christianity to have been the five and thirtieth year after the Ascension of Christ and the Conversion of Rome to have been ten years after in the year 45. So that the Churches of England were at first rightly gathered and constituted the instruments of gathering being from Ierusalem Apostles or Apostolical men as is evident from Mr. Fox Neither is it to be doubted but that they did Ordain Officers in the Churches for we read of Ministers and Bishops The Land falling to the possession of the Saxons about the year 568. the History saith p. 147. that by them all the Clergy and the Christian Ministers of the Britains were then utterly driven out in so much that the Archbishops of London York went into Wales Thus long then it seems that the Ministers of England had no Ordination from Româ— This appears also by Austin the Monk who came inâ—o England in the year 598 it is observed by Mr. Fox p. 153. that about the year 600. Aâ—stâ—n assembled the Bishops and Doctors of Britain so that still here were Ministers and charged them for to preach the Gospel to the English men and also that they should among themselves reform certain Rites in their Church especially for Easter-tide and for baptizing after the manner of Rome to which the Scots and Briâ—tains would not agree which shews that they did not neither would they depend upon Rome Since then there were so many Ministers and Bishops in England who had their Ordination by Succession from those Apostolical men and not from Rome and opposed Austin the Monk indeavouring to settle Rites Ceremonies and Superstitions according to the practise of Rome why may not we suppose that these again might preach the Gospel to the English maintaining Baptisme and Ordination in that purity wherewith they were Instituted by IesusChrist Moreover It is very observable from Mr. Selden and Mr. Speeds Historie of great Britain that in the Church of England the corruptions which the Church of Rome would have introduced about Ordination of Ministers and other Ecclesiastical affairs were withstood and opposed by the Kings of England Nor do we read of any Ministers in England that were ordained by any Agents sent from Rome but onely of some idle Ceremonies of Confirmation of them that were ordained by the Pall and the Ring brought thence into England So that if the whole be well considered it will puzzle those of the Separation to prove that the Church of England was beholding to the Church of Rome for either the first plantation after Reformation or continuation of the Gospel Church and Ministery therein from the first beginning even to this very day 3. Ans. But thirdly I answer that in case it be granted that our Ordination have passed through Rome so that it have been formerly corrupted with some Romish Rites Ceremonies as Baptisme also was and that stubble have been built upon Gold and upon the true Institution of Christ for the ordaining rightly the Gospel-Ministers Yet neither this scruple nor the Objection of Bishops ordaining formerly is sufficient to null our Ordination and make void the true Ministery of England nor any warrantable Plea to separate from us and from our Congregations A stream of water that springs from a clear Fountain may in the first Reach run like the Fountain clear in the second Reach by reason of a muddy and soul bottom it may run also muddy and in the third Reach it may come out again clear and run as at the first And yet none will deny it in the third Reach to have streamed from a clear Fountain neither any loath to drink of it because immediatly before it ran through a muddy Reach Even so our ordination hath sprung from a clear Fountain from Christ our Head and in the first Reach of the Primitive times ran very clear without corruptions or innovations of sinfull men and Prelates In the second Reach of corrupt and Popish times it ran more muddy by reason of pollutions and filthy inventions and Ceremonies Superstitiously added to it by the Popes But now in the third Reach of Reformation from Popery it runs again clear as at the first And therefore who with conscience can deny it to come from a clear Fountain and ought to loath it because more immediatly it
would not be said to be void and forfeited because in part he renounceth that which hath troubled his Conscience in the performing of it Even so the first Reforming Presbyters Priests or Bishops who had received power by the Commission of their Ordination to Preach and to Pray and to administer the Sacraments and also to say Mass and in the Mass to offer up a Sacrifice when the true light of the Gospel and Reformation began to shine upon their Consciences were by the Spirit moved to renounce some part of their power as not belonging to them to wit the Mass and Sacrifiâ—e and to continue and keep the other part of their power and Commission to wit Preaching Praying and Administring the Sacraments as belonging to them by their Commission from Christ when by Ordination the power of the Keyes was committed unto them And who will say that because they renounced unlawfull power therefore their lawfull power was forfeited and made void and null either in themselves to practise it or towards others to communicate it to others by right true and lawfull imposition of hands as Christ ordained Object But this Objection against our Ministery and our lawfull succession is much like to that of Rome against us saying that the Ministers of the Reformed Churches had no Commission or lawfull calling being under the Pope and Popish Prelates to reform the Church and so think and judge our Separatists that our Commission being void and all power to ordain and to Reform the Church is fallen to the people Ans. To whom I answer with Morneus his answer to the Papists Objection against our Reformers at the first beginning of Reformation That the calling of our first Ministers which reformed the Church in these last times was the same vocation and succession wâ—ereof they themselves do brag but the same vocation which they abused have our men indeavoured to use well and to that vain succession wherewith they decked themselves they have added the succession of true Doctrine which they had corrupted without which all succession is nothing else but a continuing of abuse and errour Wickliff Ion Hus Luther Zwinglius Oecolampadius Bucer and others of that School from whence the Ministers which have gathered Churches from under Antichrist are descended were Priests as they call them and Doctors in Divinity As Priests and Pastours they had charge to preach the truth unto the people and to Administer the Sacraments unto them according to the Institution of our Lord. As Doctors they were called to expound Divinity in their readings and in their books and they were bound by the ordinary Oath of all Universities to declare the truth unto the Church to confute all Doctrines repugnant against the word of God and with all their might to expell it Now in their time they sound that the word of God was hid unto the people that the honour which was due to God alone was turned to men and to images that the bloud of Christ was trodden under foot that the Sacrament of the Supper was partly turned into Idolatry and partly denied unto the poor people To be short that all the holy Scripture was prophaned and poysoned with the Popes gloss and Popish interpretations And when they shewed these things to the Bishops and Metropolitans according to the order of their Church they made no reckoning of them they were the first that persecuted them because they themselves were the infected part of the Church I ask therefore if their vocation commanded them not to go farther to wit to preach the truth unto the people and purely to administer the Sacraments And if they had done otherwise whither they had not been forsakers of their calling contemners of their Oath made unto God and abusers of the people Both two therefore our Popish Adversaries and our first Ministers had one and the same ordinary and outward calling But herein is the difference that that which ours have followed the others have forsaken that which ours have done of duty by reason of their charge the other have concealed Ours have led their sheep upon the Mountains of Israel into good pastures Ezek. 34. the others have devoured them or else left them for a prey to the beasts of the field or else driven them to the Fens Marishes where they have starved A Magistrate shall be called to the Government of a Common-wealth where he shall finde the good Laws corrupted by the negligence or malice of those that went before his Courts full of injustice the Officers subject to factions briberies and corruptions and he would reform all this and bring it to the censure of the Laws He that will further now ask him by what right he doth this should he not make himself a laughing-stock because he follows step by step his calling He hath not sworn to maintain abuses but rather to maintain the Laws and to provide every way that he can for the good and preservation of the Common-wealth But what an absurdity would it be to say that this Magistrate hath forfeited his Commission and power because he thus reforms the Courts and the Common-wealth to wâ—ich he is sworn and to judge his power now lapsed into the peoples hands because he reforms abuses Even so likewise have our fiâ—st Ministers done first requiring reformation and afterwards putting too their hands according to their duty And if we could ask the Apostles who are their true succâ—ssours They would not tell us such as have a Triple Crown or such a Cope or such a Miter but those that preach the word of God after our example At the preaching of these first men the Pastour of the Churches were awakened in England in Bohemia in Germany in Scotland in Denmark in Swedenland and afterwards many in France and these were sent to bethink them of their duty Consequently some whole Realms were reformed the very Bishops themselves that there had preached lies preached the truth in the self-same Church and Pulpit and they with their reformed Presbyters ordained others to preach and pray to Administer the Sacraments according to Christ his word truely revealed to these Pastours and fiâ—st Reformers And now for their good and Godly indeavours shall our Separatists like Papists question their calling Judge their power and Commission void null our succession from them and preach our Ordination down as lost and ruined either in time of Popery or by these our first Reformers It is an opinion or errour with laughing to be exploded But to draw to an end I shall briefly answer to that part of our Adversaries Argument and Objection against our Ministers They were Ordained by Bishops say they Ergo They are Babylonish First by way of answer I desire to know what these men think of Mr. Bradford and the rest of those holy Ministers and Martyrs ordained by Bishops in those dayes Were they Antichristian and Babylonish Ministers But secondly The Bishops which ordained our Ministers since the Reformation were not