Answ. Though I doubt not but I could retort this Argument upon this Authour whom by sundry passages in this Book I judge to be one that hearkens not to the Revelation Christ hath made and as supreme Lord and Law-giver hath enjoyned to be observed touching the Order and Ordinance of his house even that most express Mat. 28.19 Mark 16.15 16. one of the principles of the Doctrine of Christ and part of the foundation Heb. 6.1 2. Yet I shall wave that and answer directly by denying the major of which I give these reasons 1. Because denial is more than not hearkning to the one is by positive contradiction the other may be only by Omission 2. The not hearkning may be out of ignorance incapacity to understand dulness slothfulness fearfulness mistakes prevalency of temptation without any enmity of heart habitual stubbornness or willful gainsaying which are requisite to a plain denial of the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ. 3. There may be sundry Orders of his House revealed by Christ which are controverted whether they be such or no there may be some acknowledged to be Orders of his House yet thought not of such moment as that the peace of the Church should be broken by contending for them or judged not perpetual but temporary or not binding the Ministers to observe till the Magistrate reform as in the case of putting down Images or conceiving in cases of necessity or for avoiding of Scandal they may not hearken to them as in Davids eating the Shew-bread the Apostle Pauls not hearkning to the Order of discontinuing Circumcision and a Jewish Vow and Offering in these and perhaps more cases a person may not hearken to the Revelation Christ hath made and as supreme Lord and Law-giver hath enjoyned to be observed touching the Orders and Ordinances of his House and yet be so far from denying the Prophetical and Kingly Office of Christ that he may be sound in the Faith and a zealous and faithful maintainer of them by holding forth the truth of the Gospel unto the death And therefore I take the major proposition of this Argument to be manifestly false which he seems by not proving to take for manifest truth Sect. 3. It is not proved that Christs Soveraign Authority is rejected by the present Ministers But he goes on thus 'T is the minor or second Proposition that in the thoughts of some is capable of a denial but the verity thereof shines forth as the Sun in its brightness in the review of the Orders and Ordinances of the House of Christ appointed by himself and the present frame and deportment of the present Ministers of England with respect thereunto which of them have they not made void by their Traditions This is that which Christ hath said 1. That all power for the Calling Institution Order and Government of his Church is invested solely in him as the alone Lord Soveraign Ruler and Head thereof Mat. 28.19 1 Tim. 6.14 15. Joh. 3.35 Acts 3.22 and 5.31 'T is upon this foot of account that Christ chargeth his Disciples not to be called of men Rabbi nor to call any Father viz. not to impose their authority upon any or suffer themselves to be imposed upon by any in the matters of their God Mat. 23.8 9 10. because one is their Master and Lord viz. Christ. Hence also the Apostles lay the weight of their exhortations upon the Commandment of Christ 1 Cor. 11.23 and 14.37 Proclaim all to be accursed that preach any other Gospel Gal. 1.8 yea though Angels from Heaven should they live and speak as such charge those to whom they write not to receive any into their houses that bring any other doctrine much more not to receive them as their Teachers 2 Joh. 10. Yea the Spirit of the Lord in the close of the last Revelation of his Will it pleased this great King and Law-giver in such a way to give forth testifies that if any man shall add unto these things the Lord shall add unto him the Plagues that are written in his Book Rev. 22.18 Do the present Ministers of England conform unto this great Institution in words indeed they do so But what meaneth the bleating of the Sheep and lowing of the Oxen in our ears Do they not own other Lords Heads and Governours that have a Law-making power and would enforce the Consciences of the free-born Subjects of Christ over his Churches besides him what doth this less than evidently proclaim their disobedience and rebellion which is as the sin of Witchcraft against the King of Kings and the rejection of his Scepter and Soveraign Authority over them But of this more hereafter Answ. It is no strange thing to find in this Author high Charges backed only with confident assertions and no proofs so that men comparing the one with the other may think he wrote his Dreams rather than Meditations For what are we to think otherwise when we read such passages as these the verity of his minor proposition shines forth as the Sun in his brightness Which is no more than is to be said of the first universal indubitable principles of the light of Nature or Reason which are indisputable and yet he saith in the thoughts of some it is capable of a denial and when he should prove it so clear in stead of an Argument proves all with Interrogations which if the Reader deny he is put to a stand But to shew the vanity of his arguings to his Question which of the Orders and Ordinances of the house of Christ appointed by himself have not the present Ministers of England he means all even the best of them as his words ch 2. and arguings against them indiscriminatim do evince have they not made void by their Traditions I answer by another Question Which of them have they so made void Sure the Ordinances of searching the Scriptures hearing the Word praying to the Father in the name of Christ believing on the Son with many more which are the chief Orders and Ordinances of the house of Christ appointed by himself have not been made void by the Traditions of the Ministers of England that now are at least not by all or the best of them that I know or hear of But he imagines he can prove it by an induction of particulars of which he names only seven though to make his induction full without which it is no good Argument he should have reckoned seven times seven But perhaps he thinks if he can make good the charge in these seven it will be without question his charge is true of the rest Let us then view each of these in order and see how well he hath acquitted himself therein The first of these Orders or Ordinances of Christ is that all power for the Calling Institution Order and Government of his Church is invested solely in him as the alone Lord Soveraign Ruler and Head thereof Which I grant as a truth though I assent not to
that are excommunicate of excommunicating suspending or inflicting other censures and penalties on any that offend yea on Princes and Nations Finally of all things of the like sort for governing of the Church even whatsoever toucheth either Preaching of Doctrine or practising of Discipline in the Church of Christ. Which his practice sheweth to be such as to dispense with the Laws of God as by legitimating incestuous Marriages releasing of lawful Oaths granting Indulgences releasing out of Purgatory Canonizing of Saints Consecrating of things for the expulsion of Devils with many more and iâ— it be true which is related in a Book lately printed to have been asserted by the party of Jesuites in the Colledge of Clermont in France that the Pope is not only infallible in matters of Faith but also in matters of Fact he is elevated to that height as to accomplish the prophesie which is 2 Thess. 2.4 But the present Ministers of England do abhorr the giving such power to the King Bishops or Convocation yea it is disclaimed by the King Bishops and Convocation as blasphemous and that power they ascribe to the Church is set down in the 34. Article of Religion Every particular or National Church hath authority to Ordain Change and abolish Ceremonies or Rites of the Church Ordained only by mans authority so that all things be done to edifying And that which they acknowledge belonging to the King as the only Supreme Governour of the Realm of England and of all other his Highness Dominions and Countries as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or Causes as temporal is thus explained Artic. 37. We give not to our Princes the Ministring either of Gods Word or of the Sacraments the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen do most plainly testifie but that only Prerogative which we see to have been given alwayes to all godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himself that is that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal and restrain with the civil Sword the stubborn and evil Doers Which is so far from being no other than the Headship pleaded for by the Church of Rome as this Author saith p. 47. that to shew the calumny of it I need use no other words than those of Dr. John Owen in his answer to a Popish Book entituled Fiat Lux ch 13. p. 271. The Declaration made in the dayes of King Henry the 8. that he was Head of the Church of England intended no more but that there was no other person in the World from whom any Jurisdiction to be exercised in this Church over his Subjects might be derived the Supream Authority for all exteriour Government being vested in him alone that this should be so the Word of God the Nature of the Kingly Office and the ancient Laws of this Realm do require And I challenge our Author to produce any one testimony of Scripture or any one word out of any general Council or any one Catholick Father or Writer to give the least Countenance to his assertion of two Heads of the Church in his sense an Head of Influence which is Jesus himself and an Head of Government which is the Pope in whom all the sacred Hierarchy ends This taking of one half of Christs Rule and Headship out of his hand and giving it to the Pope will not be salved by that expression thrust in by the way under him For the Headship of Influence is distinctly ascribed unto Christ and that of Government to the Pope which evidently asserts that he is not in the same manner Head unto his Church in both senses but he in the one and the Pope in the other I add that Mr. Philip Nye in his Book of the lawfulness of the Oath of Supremacy and power of the Civil Magistrate in Ecclesiastical affairs and subordination of Churches thereunto Printed 1662. though not published hath these words p. 46. For Persons and Causes Spiritual or Ecclesiastical that are properly and indeed such as first Table-duties which contain matters of Faith and Holiness and what conduceth to the eternal welfare of mens souls an interest and duty there is in the Civil Magistrate more suâ— to give Commands and exercise Lawful Jurisdiction about things of that nature And for Persons there is no man for his graces so spiritual or in respect of his gâ—fts and Office so eminent but he is under the Government of the Civil Powers in the place where he lives as much in all respects as any other subject Yea in the Apology of the Brownists Printed 1604. these words are alledged for their common defence out of the Letter of Henry Barrow to a Lady 1593. p. 92. I have every where in my writings acknowledged all duty and obedience to her Majesties government as to the sacred Ordinance of God the Supreme Power he hath set over all causes and persons whether Ecclesiastical or Civil within her Dominions Out of these things I infer that asserting the Kings Supremacy or the power of making Laws owned by the Ministers of England is not making another King besides Christ over his Church nor ascribing such a Headship to the King or Governours of the Church as is pleaded for by the Church of Rome and that for the Kings Supremacy those that dissent about Ceremonies and Church Government do acknowledge it as it is meant in the Oath taken by the Ministers Concerning which Supremacy if what I have written in the little Treatise Printed 1660. intituled A serious consideration of the Oath of the Kings Supremncy in the proof of the fourth and fifth Propositions be not sufficient to produce from the Scripture the institution of such an Headship with the conditions annexed thereunto methinks Dr. Rainold his argument which convinced Hart in the conference with him ch 10. div 1. and such other writings as have been written by Bilson Mason Bramhall and many more should have prevented this calumny of making thereby another head besides Christ equivalent to a denial of his Kingly Office And to his Objections I answer 1. to the first That we use not the title of Head but Supreme Governour yet when it was used it meaning the same it might be used as it was given to Saul 1 Sam. 15.17 though not as it it is given to Christ Ephes. 1.22 and 5.23 29 2 Cor. 11.2 Nor is the title of Head so appropriate to Christ but that it is given to the Man over the Woman 1 Cor. 11.3 to the Husband over the Wife Ephes. 5.23 and may in a qualified sense in respect of Government be given to the King over the Church in his Dominions as to Saul 1 Sam. 15.17 to the chief of Families as Parents or others of greatest authority or esteem as the heads of houses Exod. 6.14 in which sense Parliament men Judges Ecclesiastical Governours may be termed Heads of the Church or State they represent
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
as those 1 Cor. 5.11 2 Cor. 12.20 21. not those practices charged on the present Ministers here by this Author are meant by disorderly walking 2 Thess. 3.6 which is also confirmed by 1 Thess. 5.14 where after the Apostle had beseeched them v. 12 13. to know them which laboured among them and were over them in the Lord and admonished them and to esteem them very highly for their works sake which shews he expected not of them other works for the earning of their Bread than their labour in the Word and Doctrine he adds now we exhort you Brethren warn them that are unruly the same word which is 2 Thess. 3 6. translated disorderly whom he distinguisheth from thâ— feeble minded and weak and therefore is meant of Brethren who sinned openly and wilfully and not of Ministers who do yield to that which is controverted even by learned and godly men whether it be evil at all and if it be evil it s not of such a kind as the Apostle any where censures so as he doth this disorderly walking and it s most likely is practised out of ignorance errour fear or other motive which may befall an holy and upright man Nor is there any force in this Authors reasoning that the practice of the Ministers must be disorderly walking unless they can shew an Apostolical written Tradition for those things they practise For 1. it doth not appear that the Tradition 2 Thess. 3 6. of the Apostle is any other than the command v. 10. that if any would not work he should not eat which is not improbable from the connexion of the following verses with this which also makes it probable that the disorderly walking v. 6. is no other than being idle and busie-bodies the Apostle acquitting himself from behaving himself disorderly v. 7. in that he wrought with his hands that he might not be chargeable to any of them v. 8. and then they need to bring no other tradition to acquit themselves from disorderly walking than their labouring in the Word and Doctrine according to 1 Tim. 5.17 18. 2. If the Tradition be further extended to those mentioned 2 Thess. 2.15 It will not be necessary that they may be acquitted from disorderly walking that they produce for themselves an Apostolical written Tradition for a Liturgie Surplice or Crossing they think it concerns him that accuseth them as walking disorderly in doing them that he produce an Apostolical Tradition against the use of them For being as they conceive in themselves things indifferent they think it enough that there is no Apostolical precept forbidding them and then they have this Apostolical Tradition for them Rom. 4.15 where no Law is there is no Transgression If it be replied in things that pertain to Gods Worship there must be an express Institution or else the practice of it is walking disorderly besides what is said before in answer to the first Chapter Sect. 3. it may be retorted where is your Apostolical written Tradition by Institution for your Church Covenant Infant Baptism Election of Ministers by most voices excommunication of members in a Congregational Church by the major part with many more To use your own words if you have not as there is nothing more certain you are disorderly Walkers and to be separated from as well as the present Ministers if the Apostles argument be valid We command you to withdraw from such as walk disordâ—rly But who I pray are these disorderly Walkers how shall we know them they are sayes the Apostle such as walk not after the tradition received from us Eadem in te cudatur saba As much may be said of the Separatists if by Apostolical Tradition be meant an Institution for every thing used in Worship and Church Government 3. This Authors Argument if it proceed thus Every one that hath not a written Apostolical Tradition for what he doth or that doth otherwise than the Apostles Tradition requires walks disorderly which is the force of his reasoning then every one that sins in any kind is a disorderly walker for sure he hath no Apostolical Tradition for any sin and then this Author if he be not a Perfectist nor thinks himself excluded from the number of those of whom it is said James 3.2 In many things we offend all and 1 Joh. 1.8 If we say that we have no sin we deceive our selves must acknowledge himself a disorderly walker and to be separated from 4. The present Ministers I imagine will be apt to alledge for themselves that they have Apostolical written Tradition even for those practices for which they are accused as disorderly walkers to wit Rom. 13.1 Heb. 13.17 and be ready to recriminate this Author and those of his mind as disorderly walkers in separating from their Brethren disobeying their Ministers and Governours commanding things lawful and to be separated from as practising of division To conclude this matter Were it granted that the present Ministers of England were disorderly walkers and that they were to be withdrawn from yet this doth not prove that they might not be heard as gifted Brethren or that the best of them cannot by Saints be accounted as Brethren in respect of Gospel Communion Partly because the withdrawing themselves from every Brother that walks disorderly cannot be meant of exclusion of himself from hearing praying or receiving the Lords Supper if such a one be present unless it be determined that every one must not only examine himself before he comes to the Lords Supper which the Apostle requires 1 Cor. 11.28 but also every Brother even his Minister with whom he is to joyn in Gospel Communion yea and hath power to excommunicate his Brother or liberty notwithstanding the Institution of Christ to exclude himself which sure is no Apostolical Tradition but a far more disorderly walking than most of those things the practice whereof is made by this Author the Ministers disorderly walking Besides the injunction to every Christian to withdraw himself not to keep Company 2 Thess. 3.6 14. being expressions which note not acts imposed by Church Governours but such as they ought of their own accord to practice are to be understood of such familiar private arbitrary Communion in entertainments and other societies as they are at liberty to do or not to do or might do were it not for this consideration not such Communion as if they omit they omit the Worship of God which he hath appointed and so break his Commandment Partly also because if the withdrawing were upon publick censure of the Community yet it must not be according to their own rule without a gradual proceeding of endeavouring conviction and precedent admonition which being not done to the present Ministers of England to separate from them even the best in hearing and other Gospel Communion is irregular and unjustifiable I go on to examine what follows CHAP. 3. ARG. 3. Sect. 1. That which is by some termed Antichristian is not alwayes unlawful THose that act in
is this First those Ministers that in their Names Offices Admission into their Offices are not to be found in the Scripture are not Ministers of Christ act not by vertue of an Authority Office Power Calling received from him Secondly Those Ministers that in their Names Office Admission into their Office are at a perfect agreement with the Ministers of Antichrist such are the Popish Priests acknowledged to be by those with whom we have to do are not the Ministers of Christ have not received any Power Office or Calling from him to act in the holy things of God But such as hath been abundantly demonstrated are the present Ministers of England therefore these have received no Power Office or Calling from Christ and so are Antichristian Quod erat demonstrandum Answ. Of these particulars the three first are granted and avouched as not Popish but justifiable and agreeable to Orthodox antiquity To the fifth I return the same answer that Arch-Bishop Whitgift gave Surely if those things which were good in the Popes Pontifical and either contained in the Scripture or well used before in the ancient Church or well prescribed by General Councils be also in our Pontifical our Pontifical is never the worse for having of them for if the thing it self be good and profitable it forceth not from whom it was taken or of whom it was used so that now it be rightly used But it is most false and untrue that the Book of Ordering Ministers and Deacons c now used is word for word drawn out of the Popes Pontifical being almost in no point correspondent to the same as you might have seen if you had compared them together But ignorance and rashness drives you into many errours To the sixth though the English Prelates avouch not the Opinions of the Popish Writers of giving grace ex opere operato by the Sacrament of Orders as they call it of the indelible character imprinted by the laying on of hands of the Prelates with such other of their errours as wherein they over-magnifie the power they have in their imposition of hands yet they plead that they do use the words Joh. 20.22 23. in the Ordination of Priests without blasphemy or absurdity Archbishop Whitgift in his Answer to the Admonition p. 49. of the Edition 1572. in 40. To use these words Receive the Holy Ghost in Ordering of Ministers which Christ himself used in appointing his Apostles is no more ridiculous and blasphemous than it is to use the words that he used in the Supper But it is blasphemy thus outragiously to speak of the words of Christ. The Bishop by speaking these words doth not take upon him to give the Holy Ghost no more than he doth to remit sins when he pronounceth the remission of sins but by speaking these words of Christ Receive the Holy Ghost Whose sins soever ye remit they are remitted c. he doth shew the principal duty of a Minister and assureth him of the assistance of Gods Holy Spirit if he labour in the same accordingly Mr. Richard Hooker Eccl. Polit. l. 5. sect 77. The Holy Ghost may be used to signifie not the person alone but the gifts of the Holy Ghost and the very power and authority which is given men in the Church to be Ministers of Holy things is contained within the number of those gifts whereof the Holy Ghost is Author and therefore he which giveth this power may say without absurdity or folly Receive the Holy Ghost such power as the Spirit of Christ hath endued his Church withal See Edward Stilling fleets Irenicum part 2. c. 6. p. 231. Bradshaw against Fr. Johnson p. 65. of Gatakers Rejoynder to Can. Though in their Ordination of Ministers the Bishops use as a Ceremonial speech to say Receive the Holy Ghost and therein peradventure offer some force to the Scripture unto which they allude yet they disclaim all actual power and authority of giving the person or gifts of the Holy Ghost unto men Besides I add sith the laying on of hands is together with the designation of the person a sign of prayer as Mat. 19.13 Mark 10.16 and in Confirmation and the Apostles use Acts 8.15 and in Ordination Acts 13.3 those words may be used prayer-wise and freed from exception Whereto perhaps that makes which Dr. Field l. 5. of the Church ch 56 hath The Council of Carthage 4. Canon 3. provideth that in the Ordination of a Presbyter the Bishop holding his hand on his head and blessing him all the Presbyters that are present shall hold their hands by the hand of the Bishop and the person Ordained kneeling joyns in prayer for the Blessing So Dr. Sparks conceived it might be understood ch 15. of Unity and Uniformity Ecclesiast disc of the French Reformed Churches art 8. ch 1. The Ordained shall kneel when they impose their hands on him To the seventh Ordination is not alwayes at a Cathedral and may be before the Congregation to whom the person is to be Priest To the eighth That it is not alwayes so nor when so Popish See before in Answer to the Preface sect 22. and to chap. 2. sect 3. To the nineth To offer a persons self for Ordination may be no evil but in some cases a duty 1 Tim. 3.1 Isa. 6.8 Giving money for Letters of Ordination is no simony but only wages to the Register for his writing as when the Register was paid for writing and sealing the Instrument signifying the person to be an approved Preacher Against any Bishops taking money for Ordition and the Registers exacting overmuch provision is made Canon 135 Eccl 1. Jac. and even in the Council of Trent Sess. 21. Decr. de reformatione c. 1. To the tenth The Priests of England are not to be Ordained without some title according to Cannon 33. even the Trent Council ubi supra c. 2. hath made some provision about it It is necessary that some bâ— Ordained though they have not a fixed flock to attend upon Ministers are necessary for Armies Navies and sundry occasions which continue but for a while Even the Synod of Dort made some Orders about such and the New-England Elders that imploy Ministers to teach the Native salvage people do justifie the Ordaining to Office without a flock to attend upon unless they would have them imployed without Ordination which were incongruous to the Holy Ghosts direction Act 13.2 If Itinerant Preachers should have Approbation they should have Ordination To the eleventh subscription is required by the 36. Canon to three Articles about the Kings Supremacy the Books of Common-prayer and Ordination and the 39. Articles of Religion at Ordination the Priest promiseth obedience to his Ordinary to follow with a glad mind and will his godly admonitions and submit himself to his godly judgment by the late Act unfained Assent and Consent is further required but none of these by Oath the Oath of Canonical Obedience is only required at Institutions into Benefices and is
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
is with the Spirit pray that he may interpret that is not only speak with the Spirit but also with the Mind Therefore it is manifest that the prayers Rom 8.26 1 Cor. 14.15 are meant of such as are in extraordinary raptures and ecstacies such as the Prophets sometimes had and St. Paul speaks of 2 Cor. 12.1 2 3 4. and cannot be applied to the ordinary publike prayers of the whole Congregation Thirdly the help of the Spirit cannot be meant of suggesting a Form of words because it is said the spirit it self maketh intercession for us with groans unutterable and 1 Cor. 14.15 is such praying in the spirit as may be without the understanding of him that prays or others even such as he that occupieth the room of the unlearned cannot say Amen to seeing he understandeth not what the Speaker saith Fourthly The praying with the Spirit is such as is unfruitful of it self v. 14. and not to be affected of it self nor can be a matter of duty sith it is motus liberi spiritus as the School-men speak rightly a motion of the free Spirit such as lumen propheticum prophetical illumination is which is such a gift as that it may be our duty to use it when we have it not our duty to acquire it Upon all which reasons it is apparent that these Texts are much perverted against the use of a prescript Form of words in Prayer devised by man because of the Spirits help Rom. 8.26 praying in the Spirit 1 Cor. 14 15. sith they cannot be meant of ordinary publike prayers and of praying in words unpremeditated as immediately suggested by the Spirit of God Sect 8. The admission of vitious persons to Communion justifies not separation 8. That wicked and ungodly persons and their seed are lawful members of the Church and if they consent not willingly to be so they may be compelled thereunto contrary to Psal. 110.3 Acts 2.40 41 47. and 19 9. 2 Cor. 6.14 17. and 9.13 Answ. This Author shews not where the Law is nor when or how the Ministers subscribes to a Constitution of this instance not know I where to find either It is said Psal. 110.3 Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power But it doth not therefore follow that men may not be compelled by pecuniary mulcts or other penalties to come to Common Prayer or the Communion For however the question be resolved about liberty of Conscience and toleration in the New Testament yet David meant not that there must none be then compelled if so neither Asa nor Josiah did well in urging the people to swear to cleave to God and to stand to it 2 Chron. 34.32 If understood of the times of the New Testament it proves that members of the Church should be a willing people but not that no other may be lawful members or admitted or caused by commands of Rulers or penalties to joyn with the Church in Gods Worship For then it must be the duty of them that admit members into the Church to know that they whom they admit are a willing people which I think none now can do It is true Acts 2.40 Peter exhorted the Jews to save themselves from that perverse generation of them that opposed Christ and v. 41. Then they that gladly received his Word were baptized and v. 47. The Lord added to the Church such as should be saved but how this proves that wicked and ungodly persons may not be admitted as lawful members of the visible Church Christian nor compelled thereunto I discern not Sure Judas was admitted to the Apostleship and to the Passover if not to the Lords Supper Ananias and Saphira were taken as lawful members Simon Magus baptized we find none blamed for admission to the Lords Supper of disorderly Corinthians And for compulsion from Idolatrous Worship and other evils if Parents may correct these in their children Princes may do it in their Subjects and if Parents may by penalties compel their children to conform to true Religion so may Princes The separation Acts 19 9. is nothing to countenance the separation from the Service and assemblies of the Church of England for that separation was not because of the presence of professed Christians of vitious life but because of divers who were hardned and believed not but spake evil of the way of Christ before the multitude and so endeavour to disturb them in the practice of Christian Religion The words 2 Cor. 6.14 whether we read it be not unequally yoked or unevenly ballanced to the other side with Infidels and whether we expound it of marriage or familiar converse or as the words v. 16. What agreement hath the Temple of God with Idols do plainly evince it to be meant do not joyn with the Idolaters in their Idol Temples to eat there things offered to Idols which he had forbidden 1 Cor. 8.7 10. to partake of the table of Devils 1 Cor. 10.21 it is manifest from v. 15. to be meant of professed Infidels opposite to him that believeth and therefore cannot be understood of not joyning in prayer and the Lords Supper with a professed Believer though of vitious life Nor can the separation from among men v. 17. be understood of any other than professed Infidels nor the the touching the unclean thing be any other then joyning in service of Idols mentioned v. 16. and therefore is manifestly impertinent to the separation from Believers by profession in the service of God by reason of their personal wickedness The last Text 2 Cor. 9.13 is less to the purpose For what shew of consequence is there in this Christians glorifie God for others professed subjection or the subjection of their Confession or consent to the Gospel of Christ therefore wicked persons and such as consent not willingly are not to be taken for lawful members of the Church nor may be compelled thereto It is added 9. That women may administer the Sacrament of Baptism contrary to 1 Cor. 14.34 1 Tim. 2.12 Matth. 28.18 19 20. Ephes. 4.11 Answ. That it is true that in Q. Elizabeths time Baptism by Women in supposed case of necessity was in the English Churches either tolerated or allowed and the like hath been in the Lutheran Churches and Mr. Hooker in his fifth Book of Ecclesiastical Policy sect 62. saith somewhat for it yet since the Conference at Hampton Court in the beginning of King James his reign to the Rubrick of private Baptism in the Common Prayer Book the words lawful Minister were added which still continue the Baptism of Women is not allowed by any constitution nor owned by the present Ministers that I know and therefore this instance is unjustly here recited Yet thus much may be said that notwithstanding Women are excluded from any Ordinary Ministery of the Word or Sacraments in the Church by the Texts alledged 1 Cor. 14.34 1 Tim. 2.12 and from baptizing Mat. 28.18 19 20. Ephes. 4.11 Sith we find that Philip the Evangelist had four
according to the word of God but after the prescript of man for the matter of their doctrine they may be false Prophets but this is not so much as offered to be proved concerning the present Ministers of England and therefore it is untruly said that it cannot be denied that there is a perfect harmony between them and those false Prophets As for their removals from places of less to places of greater value it is a thing which may be objected to Preachers and Pastors of the Congregational Churches and may be upon just cause and therefore of it self proves not so much as a covetous minde whether it be out of gaping and greedy desire after preferments God may be the only judge If preparing War be meant of suing for their dues by Law it may be just nor is a Minister bound to live upon alms or voluntary contribution the Elders of the separated Churches have found by experience how great a misery it is for a Student though godly and painful to live of the benevolence of their Churches nor is it any sin for a Minister more than for another man to make use of the Magistrate and Law to gain his due according to the Law of the Land And however some have instilled into peoples heads the unlawfulness of requiring or paying Tithes or other dues to the present Ministers as they did before to Non-Conformists yet there is no colourable plea for not paying them it being not unlawful for me to pay what is unjustly demanded there being therein no doing of wrong though there should be a suffering of wrong And therefore it is but vainly pretended that they cannot in conscience put into Ministers mouths when there is no appearance of sin in doing it and if their Consciences be misled by erroneous Casuists poor men may thank them for their vexations and beware of hearkening to them and not clamour against the Ministers as the only cause of their trouble if out of meer obstinacy they deny to pay they are to blame themselves It is added 6. That they sadden the hearts of the righteous Ezek. 13.22 what need I turn aside to make application of this to the Prophets of this day who that is serious doth not experiment the truth thereof in his own soul to see the Name and Ordinances of God prophaned the ceremonies and inventions of man subjected unto by such as pretend to be Ministers of Christ would make an heart of stone to bleed much more those whose hearts are made tender by the Lord. Those of our Brethren that as yet attend upon their Ministry will tell us they are troubled at their compliance and conformity All that look in the least after reformation say they could wish it were otherwise so that this character also is visibly upon them Answer By lyes sadning the hearts of the righteous as Ezek. 13.22 is granted to be a character of a false Prophet but this Author omits that and makes that a character of a false Prophet which is not and applies that to the Ministers which he goes not about to prove they are guilty of Perhaps those righteous persons he means are sadned out of mistakes as conceiving the Name and Ordinances of God prophaned when they are not as the Israelites were when they mistook the Reubenites fact in building an Altar Josh. 22.11 12. Perhaps it may be without their fault perhaps the Ministers are sadned as well as they perhaps the sadness is from such erroneous suggestions as are instilled into the people by such as hold the same principles of separation with this Author perhaps men as righteous as they who are sadned do without any sadness attend upon their Ministry perhaps they are sadned that they stumble at that they need not perhaps they are more sad at such principles of division as pervert them that are counted otherwise righteous than at any thing they perceive practised by the Ministers of England If sadning the hearts of righteous by the inventions of men be a character of false Prophets and that for it the Ministers of England are to be judged such the renting of errors and fancies which have been in the Congregational Churches and even by their Teachers the many unnecessary scruples janglings oppositions arrogant wilful carriages deceitful and unrighteous dealings in Members which have sadned the hearts of many sober and better composed spirits and made them weary of their societies the heart bleedings for professors abominations are indeed as signal characters of false Prophets in their Churches as of the Ministers in the Church of England being such Though there were an utter oblivion of what of old was done by Separatists in England the Low Countries in new England yet what hath been done in England in our times and is yet in the memory of many yet alive should have stopped this Authors mouth and made him forbear to object that against the Ministers of England which may perhaps more fully be retorted on those whose Ministry he would have attended on The Elders and Messengers of the Congregational Churches meeting at the Savoy Octob. 12. 1658. in the Preface to the decclaration of their Faith and Order do of their own accord say It is true that many sad miscarriages divisions breaches fallings off from the holy Ordinances of God have along in this time of temptation especially in the beginning of it been found in some of our Churches Yea such insinuations as this Author urgeth against the Ministers of England would have proved not only the Ministers of the reformed Churches of late but even the Angels of the seven Churches of Asia the teachers of the Churches of Corinth and other the best Churches in the Primitive times to have been false Prophets But I forbear He addes 7. That they mix the word of God with their dreams Jer. 23.25.29 in the Margin The notes on Matth. 28. in the foresaid Translation are Here do all Preachers learn what they should teach nothing else but Gods word nothing else but that the Lord hath commanded them not their own dreams and inventions So do the present Ministers of England as hath been proved Sect. 7. Pressing rigid Conformity no proof of the Ministers being false Prophets Answ. This needs no further answer than what is before given 8. Saith he That they come in Sheeps cloathing having the horns of a Lamb but are inwardly ravening Wolves and speak like Dragons i. e. pretend to the Holiness and Meekness of Christ and Saints but are inwardly full of raven and cruelty yea terrible in their Edicts and Laws stirring up and making use of the powers of the world to persecute kill and destroy the Saints Mat. 7.15 Revel 13.11 which second Beast is no other than the false Prophet mentioned Revel 19.20 as might easily be demonstrated As face answers face in a glass so do the present Ministers of England the false Prophets there spoken of Are not all the Persecutions Imprisonments Slaughters and Butcheries of
incense to Baal And from the expression of an Altar v 23. which among the Gentiles had an Image near it and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Dr. Hammond in his Annot. on v. 16. saith was not their Worshâ—ps or their Altars but their Idols that is their Deities themselves for so the word is used Wisd. 14.20 And on 2 Thes. 2 4. alledgeth Theophylact as interpreting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 17.23 by their Idols and from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 22 applyed to this worship is collected that the unknown God was as a Daemor to whom they erected an Image or Pillar which they conceived their Deity present at which is rendred a standing Image in our translation or an Image of stone to which they did bow down forbidden Levit. 26.13 of which Ainsworth in his Annot. there may be seen So that upon this account the Athenians may be charged with Idolatry in that they in bowing down to or worshipping the unknown God did direct it to the Idol or Pillar which did represent him unto which also an Altar was dedicated But it s added Sect. 3. This Authors Argument as well proves himself an Idolater as the Conformist The minor or second Proposition viz. That the present Ministers of England worship the true God in another way than he hath said he will be worshipped in and is prescribed by him is that which is denied by some but the truth thereof we doubt not will to the unprejudiced Reader be beyond exception evident from the ensuing Demonstration viz. Those that worship God after the way of the Common-Prayer-Book worship him in another way than that he hath said he will be worshipped in and is prescribed by him But the present Ministers of England worship God after the way of the Common-Prayer-Book Therefore c. The minor or second Proposition cannot be denied their subscription before they are admitted to the Ministry together with their daily and constant practice are sufficient evidences thereof Answ. That unwary Readers may not be deceived by the ambiguity of the phrase here used it is to be considered That the way of Worship not prescribed by God may be either when the worship is to another thing besides or with God which alone proves Idolatry and in which sense the minor was denied and should have been proved Or by another way is meant another Ceremony or Rite in which the Worship of God is placed such as was the Pharisees washing their hands which may be Will-worship if to God only but not Idolatry and so if he could prove our Ministers guilty of this yet should they not be proved Idolaters any more than the Pharisees were with which neither Christ nor his Apostles do charge them But this Author doth noâ— so much as goe about to prove the minor denied in this sense But in a third sense to wit by another way of Worship than what God hath prescribed he understands another way of expression of worship in which the worship is not placed but is used only as an outward means for conveniency yet accounted alterable In which sense the minor is not denied But the major of his Argument is denied in either of these two later senses of the phrase and the minor in the two former in neither of which doth he goe about to prove it I add 1. That he doth vainly suppose God hath appointed or prescribed the particularities of the modes or way of his Worship in every of the sorts or kinds of worship he hath prescribed as particularly in Prayer that it must not in a pre-conceived and stinted form of words imposed by Rulers be performed to him but that it must by the Minister be done in a loose undetermined unpremeditate or unprescribed form of words by any man The which supposition is before shewed to be an errour in the Answer to the Preface sect 20. ch 1. sect 3. ch 4. sect 9. ch 5. sect 3 4 5 7. 2. In this sense in which he useth the phrase his Argument may be retorted upon himself Those that worship the true God in any other way that is form of expression than he hath said he will be worshipped in and is prescribed by him are Idolaters But they who pray in a loose undetermined unpremeditated or unprescribed form of words by man worship the true God in another way that is form of expression than he hath said he will be worshipped in and is prescribed by him Therefore they among whom thâ—s Author is one are Idolaters The major is his own the minor by his own grants stands firm till he can shew where God hath said He will be worshipped in and hath prescribed such a loose form of expression in Prayer which I yet find not What this Author hath said before is answered before Till he brings better proof though I will not pronounce him an Idolater yet I shall judge him to be guilty of superstition in counting that to be sin which God hath not made such and of usurpation of Gods Legislative power in Pharisee-like requiring observance of his own tradition as Gods command together with evil censoriousness rash judging and uncharitable separation But let us goe on Sect. 4. Prayer in a stinted form may be worship of God of his appointment As for the major Proposition saith he That to worship God after the way of the Common-Prayer-Book is to worship him in a way that is not of his appointment 1. Let any shew when and where such a stinted form of service was appointed by Christ and this part of the controversie is at an end Sure we are there are not the least footsteps of such a way of worship to be found in the New Testament no not in the whole Book of God whatever is pretended by some touching Liturgies in the sense we are speaking amongst the people of the Jews No nor yet was there any such a way of worship thought of much less imposed in the first and purer times of the Gospel for several centuries of years after the dayes of Christ and his Apostles In the Epistles of the Church of Smyrna about the martyrdome of Polycarpus and of the Churches of Vienna and Lyons concerning their persecution in the Epistle of Clemens or the Church of Rome to the Church of Corinth in the writings of Ignatius Justin Martyr Clemens Tertullian Origen Cyprian and their Contemporaries there is not only an utter silence of such a thing but assertions wholly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and opposite thereunto Tertullian sayes expresly Illuc suspicientes Christiani manibus expansis quia innocuius capite nudo quia non erubescimus denique sine monitore quia de pectore oramus Apol. cap. 30. The Christians in those days he tells us looking towards Heaven not on their Common-Prayer-Books with their hands spread abroad c. prayed to God without a monitor because from their hearts And in several places he â—estifies that they praised God in
in the Liturgy of the Church of England Therefore The major is grounded on the rule given by Divines about the Decalogue That which requires a duty requires the means conducing thereto The minor is proved in that the Common-Prayer Book directs what things are to be prayed for by reason of the brevity of Collects the Responds the frequent use the plain expressions help the memory and elocution wherein the acquired gift of Prayer consists therefore it is not an obstruction but a help to the gift of Prayer But this Author though he may perhaps count this tolerable in others yet not in Ministers let 's view what he saith of them He alledgeth Eph. 4.11 and would inferr from thence That all Ministers have the gift of Prayer and are to use it that the Common-Prayer Book worship shuts it out of doors as unnecessary and therefore is not of Christs appointment But 1. The Text expresseth not the several sorts of Qualifications but the several sorts of Officers 2. If it be supposed that ministerial gifts are also implyed yet whether extraordinary or ordinary may be doubted 3. If ordinary gifts there may be a question Wheâ—her the gift of Prayer as he means it were one that is Whether Christ hath required that every Minister should be able on all occasions to express himself without any stinted form either conceived by himself or composed by others to make known the requests which it concerns his people to whom he is Pastour in the most solemn and publick auditory to ask of God in their behalf in words and elocution fitting the matter and auditory I doubt not but the Minister should be able to express the requests of the people as he should be able to declare the mind of God to the people yet neither the one nor the other is of necessity to be done or the Minister tied to do it every way but the best way he is able or at least that way as is fit for the end of his expressions to wit the peoples understanding not the ostentation of his parts The Apostles could preach without study but Timothy was to give attendance to reading to meditate to give himself wholly to thâ—se things whereby his profiting might appear to all and yet had a gift given by prophecy 1 Tim. 4.13 14 15. Ministers are to preach the Word now but they are not tyed to preach without notes without study without other helps which God affords Nor are Ministers bound to express themselves alwayes without pre-conceived or prescribed forms in prayer and yet they may faithfully discharge their work Now God doth not give gifts as he did in the Apostles times and therefore the same readiness and exuberancy of expressions or composure of petitions is not to be expected of Ministers now as was of them 4· I add That though the Apostles said Acts 6.4 We will give our selves continually to Prayer and to the ministry of the Word And St Paul 1 Tim. 2.1 exhorts Thaâ— first of all supplications prayers intercessions and giving of thanks be made for all men for Kings and all that are in authority Yet we read not that this is made the Ministers work to express the common necessities of the Church in a publick auditory or any rules about the form or manner of praying Nor do we find that either Christ or his Apostles used any forms of prayer before or after their preaching and therefore conceive not this to be the proper work of a Minister or that either way of praying is determined and therefore both may lawfully be used by the Minister or other Christians Nor doth the one way of Worship shut out of doors the other or the Minister by using the Common-prayer Book exclude conceived prayer by the speakers If they were tyed by the Governours to use no other than the Common-prayer Book expressions yet this is not to be imputed either to the Common-prayer Book or its way of worship or to the Ministers but unto those who do so rigidly impose it I add further That were there a prohibition of using any other than the Common-prayer yet this were not a shutting out of doors Christs institution unless it were proved Christs institution that at all times in Prayer no stinted form should be used Nor doth it shut out of doors the gift of Prayer unless it be proved they only have the gift of Prayer who use their own conceived expressions which if so not only those who use the forms of Prayer though with never so much fervency of spiâ—it which they read or remember in the Common-Prayer Book or in the Practice of Piety or any other such Book of mens composure but also those who use the words of the Psalms or the Lords-Prayer yea that do say Amen to the words of any Preacher before Sermon or any that gives thanks afore meals should shut out of doors the gift of Prayer or the exercise of it sith he useth not the gift he hath to wit the ability of mind to form words and to utter them which is the definition of the gift of Prayer before given There are many in the Congregation perhaps yea some Women that can form and utter words as fit for Prayer as the Minister will not this Author have this gift of Prayer shut out of doors and yet not conclude that a positive duty is obstructed thereby Besides there may be a restraint of a duty as unseasonable sith affirmative precepts bind not ad semper to be done at all times perhaps time will not permit or weather or some accidents or more necessary business and yet the gift not shut out of doors as unnecessary but as only inconvenient at that time Do not the most able Preachers sometimes omit the exercise of their gifts and yet count not them shut out of doors as unnecessary Yea doth not the Apostle 1 Cor. 1â— put some restraints upon Prophecying to keep order Did he then shut out of doors as unnecessary the gift of Prophecy I have read that the Separatists in the Low Countries have spent so much time on the Lords day in debating causes and matters of Discipline that they have omitted exercise of their gifts in some other Ordinances and yet I presume they have not shut them out of doors as unnecessary If at one meeting of Christians no other thing had been done but the reading of St. Pauls Epistles as he appointed Col. 4.16 yet were not the exercise of Aâ—chippus his ministry thereby shut out of doors as unnecessary but only suspended for that time And this would be no Napkining up of his Talent nor such exclusion of the gift of preaching or prophecying as with others this Author clamouâ—ously inveighs against The 55 th Canon directs Preachers what they should pray for doth not limit or bound them in the words or matter It saith They shall move the people to joyn with them in prayer in this form or to this effect as briefly as conveniently they
communion with a Minister that preacheth the truth prayes to God in the name of Christ for things agreeable to Gods will administers the Lords Supper in remembrance of Christs death because of his personal sins Partaking with a Minister in these things in this case is not having fellowshâ—p with the unfruitful works of darkness or being partakers 〈◊〉 whoâ—â—mongers or unclean persons or covetous Idolaters forbidden Ephâ—s 5 7.17 It is nothing for but against this Authors puâ—pose which the Apostle chargeth Timothy 1 Tâ—m 6.3 4 5. That he should withdraw himself that is not 〈…〉 to himself in the work of the ministry such as 〈◊〉 otherwise than St. Paul had instructed Timothy that consenâ— not to whâ—lesome words the words of our Lord Jesus Christ 〈◊〉 the Doctrine which is according to godliness As for the last Text though it be still in the mouths of the Separatists and is ridiculously applyed to every thing that they call Babylon as Bishops Common Prayer Ministers of any party besides their own Tythes at the last by the Quintomonarchians to all the pâ—esent Rulers so it is by this Author often uâ—ged still besides the purpose of the holy Ghost it being only a warning for the people of God to come out of Rome whether by local departure from the City or by leaving the communion of the Papacy in Doctrine and worship which is nothing to a separation from hearing or joyning with the Ministers in holy things because of their personal sins Nevertheless this Author cracks of abundant demonstration and as if nothing in the world carried a greater brightness and evidence with it than this That the hearing the present Ministers of England is to be partakers with them in their sins just as if one should say He that heard Judas preach the Gospel was partaker with him in his theft which is more like the inference of a man crazed in his intellectuals than a sober minded man But because some mens confident words prevail with some persons addiâ—ted to them more than sound reason let 's consider what brightness is in his application Is not our so doing saith he a secret consenting with them and encouraging of them in 〈◊〉 evil deeds Marvellous brightness clear evidence No wonder he applauds himself like an Archimedes and cryes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have found I have found the Demonstraâ—â—on and that his followers add their plaudite thereto 〈◊〉 we moâ—â—s do not see the brightness of this consequence A Christian Professor goes to hear a Minister that preacheth the Word of God truly therefore he consents to his intrusion into his place he doth openly hear therefore he doth secretly consent he applyes himself to learn the word of God from him therefore he encourageth him in his evil deeds It is too favourable a censure to say his Argument is a baculo ad angulum as if a man argued the staff stands in the corner therefore it will rain to morrow he seems to me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to speak contradictions He that goes to hear him preach Gods Word doth consent with him that teacheth in doing well and encourage him to preach the truth not as this Author saith in evil deeds it may more truly be said that this Author and other Separatists are guilty of sin in not consenting with the Preacher but discouraging him in well doing Did not Ministers heretofore and perhaps this Author complain that their auditories were thin that good people withdrew from publique exercises to pâ—ivate meetings that this was a discouragement to them in their work and is it now to go hear them an encouragement in their evil deeds Is not this to blow hot and cold with the same breath We silly Ignaro's think we ought not to discourage any who preach the truth of the Gospel be they Episcopal Presbyterian Independent Antipaedobaptist by our absence or exceptions against him for his personal failings but to countenance and encourage him by our presence and otherwise and think we have the example of St Paul Philip 1.18 to warrant us therein and marvel that such should argue thus who blame them that silence good Preachers for not assenting to the Liturgy not considering that they may thus argue If we should permit the Separatists to preach we should consent secretly with them and encourage them in their evil deeds such as they conceive their gathering a separate Congregation and taking their mission from it to be Yet we have more of this doughty Demonstration in a Socratical way of disputing by questioning Is this to discharge those duties incumbent upon us if we indeed look upon them as Brethren for their reclaiming It seems it can hardly go down with this Author to call them Brethren their conformity hath unchristened them But I answer If it be not the discharging their duty for the reclaiming them which as it is stated would perhaps be rather their sin than their duty yet it is to discharge their duty in hearing Gods Word which is so farr from hindring them in the discharge of any duty incumbent on them for the reclaiming of Ministers from any sin they are to reprove in them that it rather fits them for it For the hearing them shews they do not as this Author count them their or the Lords enemies which makes a reproof to be better taken and is agreeable to the Apostles rule even when we shun the company of any that is unruly to count him not as an enemy but to admonish him as a brother 2 Thes. 3.15 But doth indeed this Author think it the duty of every hearer to reclaim or else separate from every Minister that either enters into his ministry unduly or doth not discharge his function as he should Suppose a John de Cluse is unduly made an Elder or a Johnson excommanicate his Brother and Father rashly an Ainsworth disagree with Johnson or Robinson about private communion with the members of the Church of England a Wheel-wright vent Antinomian errours must every hearer reclaim them or separate from them or be guilty of their sin They that leave the Church of England to be in Congregations of such principles would find it to be matter of repentance to avoid Episcopal government to be under popular would be like Tinkers work to stop one hole and to make two under shew of better Discipline to introduce Anarchy and confusion But enough of answer to this wild Argument in which the Author accuseth deeply but brings no proof only puts questions for proofs and would have the Defendant prove himself Not guilty when it concerned the Accuser to prove his Indictment I hasten to the remainder CHAP. 9. ARG. 9. Sect. 1. Separation of some from other Christians is no institution of Christ. THat the doing whereof doth cast contempt upon the wayes and institutions some or more of them of our Lord Jesus and hardens persons in a false way of worship rebellion against him is utterly unlawful for the
separation we declare against although we should not think it evil to hear their Ministers Preach the word of God or to worship God with them We are of opinion that it is a gross errour which is often in the mouths of Separatists That they may not hear with the world nor pray with the world whence it hath come to pass that some have left off praying in their Families Catechizing their children instructing their servants unless members of their Churches which tends to bring in irreligion and profaneness and is contrary to the precepts of Scripture Ephes. 6.4 Deut. 6.7 c. contrary to the practise of Christ and his disciples who heard Christ Preach with the scribes and Pharisees praised God with the multitude even the children Christ approving it Luk. 19.37 40. Matth. 21.9.15 16. And however we approve not any evil in the Ministers or their Ministration nor do assent to any unfitting thing therein yet we rejoyce that Gods word is taught and his Name invocated in any company by any persons and think we have the Apostles example to warrant us Philip. 1.18 and do wish that God would not lay to the Separatists charge besides other sins which we think are nor a few in these withdrawings from Communion and invectives their ingratitude for that benefit others have and they might have from that Ministry they so much oppose If this Authour or those of his way suffer contempt reproach and hard usage though we wish it may not be yet it may be told them That not Christs Institutions are contemned but their own intemperate carriage is rebuked which is not likely ever to succeed well but to be a hindrance to the work of Christ and the peace of his Church Yet this Authour proceeds Sect. 6. Hearing the present Ministers hardens none in sin As for the second particular That hereby poor souls are hardned in a false way of worship what can be thought less supposing the worship in the Parish-Assemblies of England to be so as hath been proved when they shall see professors that were wont to pray and preach together to profess and protest against Common-prayer-book Priests and worship to cry up or at least approve of Laws made for their Ejection if guilty of no other crime than Conformity to the Worship they now conform to and practise now stock unto their Assemblies and bear their Priests What can they imagine less than that these persons thus acting in a direct contrariety to their former judgement and practice do now see they were mistaken and are beginning at least to return unto those paths from whence they departed and that these ways in which they and their forefathers have walked are the good old way in which rest is to be found Wo unto the world because of offences wo also unto them by whom they come Answ. The hearing the present Ministers to be no false way of worship is that which is now asserted the contrary is not yet proved by this Authour They who are chargeable with former miscarriages are to answer for themselves The hearing the present Ministers which is defended as lawful is not justly offensive nor for it onely do men fear the doom of Scandalizers It is added Nor is the 3d particular viz. That hereby poor souls are hardened in their rebellion and blasphemy against God the Spirit his Tabernacle and them that dwell therein to be in the least questioned we every day hear to the breaking of our hearts stout words spoken against the Lord because of the practise of some in this thing What say the wicked of the world less than that Religion which many pretend to is but a fancy that the professors thereof are but a generation of hypocrites that will turn to any thing to save themselves that the spirit by which they are acted is but a spirit of Phanaticism and delusion Yea how do they bless themselves that they are not nor ever were and resolve so much more they will never be of the number of such professors Ask them a reason of all this and they wonder you should ask them and speedily reply to you Do you not see how many of you for fear of persecution have deserted your former principles and are returned to our Assemblies and the Ministry thereof and that any of you stand out 't is from hence evident that it is from a spirit of pride and obstinacy and not as you pretend from divine tenderness and the leadings of the Spirit of the Lord And what can we say to all these things Must we not with grief and sorrow confess That there is indeed too great an occasion administred to them for their thus speaking though this will be no plea for them in the day of Christ. Blessed are they that are not offended in him It remaineth then that inasmuch as the hearing the present Ministers of England pours out contempt upon the ways and Institutions of Christ hardens persons in a false wâ—y of worship rebellion and blasphemy against the Lord it 's utterly unlawful for saints to be found in the practice thereof Answ. Such kind of consequences as these are incident to persons of any party who have been earnest for that whch after they have relinquished So have Papists insulted over Protestants upon the returning of any seeming zealous Protestant into the Roman Church If my memory fail me not the Authour of Fiat Lux imputes the like things to Protestants upon the coming over of some to their party Yet the Answerer and others know how in that and the like cases to reply to such that mens instability shews their own weakness not the thing in which they have been zealous to have been either good or bad that any take advantage from their fact to harden themselves it is by accident not from the nature of their action if it were good and lawful otherwise that in such cases men are not to condemn or commend the thing which is done because of the actions of the person but to examine things by the rule which is the onely remedy against such events It is true that it is just cause of mourning and dejection when such things happen But not to measure truth or falshood by such motives and considerations nor conclude a thing to be evil because of such accidents To which I add That this Authour doth not well to call the obloquies against his party speaking against Religion blaspheming God the Spirit tabernacle and them that dwell therein whose ways may be reproached by reason of their zeal for their way and yet no reproach to God his Spirit Religion Tabernacle and the indwellers It would be more for their benefit if he and others of his mind and others who have occasioned such blasphemies against Religion did excuâ—â—re semetipsos search themselves whether their own present violence of spirit unpeaceableness out of pretended zeal for God or their and others now conforming intemperate heat have not opened the
of their converts are the cause thereof by their invectives begetting enmity and prejudice against them in the minds of men May it not be said to themselves Where are the souls that are converted comforted strengthened stablished by your Ministry Were not many if not most in your Churches wrought upon at first by other Preachers And if so may it not be said Ye your selves are the seal of their Ministry in the Lord nevertheless though God onely can tell exactly and fully what is the fruit of any mens Ministry yet I hope there are that can testifie their receiving good by the Ministry of some of the present Ministers and that however it be by reason of the many stumbling-blocks cast in the way God will yet have mercy on the people of England and give them hearts to receive the truth Preached to them in the love of it Sure this Authour should rather pray it may be so and encourage the Ministers to do the work of the Lord more faithfully and not weaken their hands by drawing their auditors from them As for that which he saith of the decaies of the auditors of the Ministers I joyn with him but add withall That so far as mine acquaintance or intelligence reacheth there is too great and sensible a decay of the spirit of love power and of a sound mind in the Congregational Churches of old and new England and that a spirit of bitterness consoriousness misreporting mistaking dissenters words and actions unrghteousness unpeaceableness is too abundant in them that I say nothing of their proneness to embrace Antinomianism Quakerism and other dangerous errours Iliacos intra muros peccatur extra The Lord pardon our evils and heal our breaches Yet there is one more Argument to be answered Sect. 9. Hearing the present Ministers is no step to Apostacy Argument 12. That the doing whereof is one step to Apostacy is not lawful to be done But the hearing the present Ministers of England is one step to Apostacy Therefore The major Proposition will readily be granted by all The beginnings of great evils are certainly to be â—esisted Apostacy is one of the greatest evils in the world The minor or second proposition Viz. That the hearing of the present Ministers is one step to Apostacy is evident 1. It cannot be done especially by persons of Congregational principles without a relinquishment of principles owned by them as received from God That the Church of England as National is a Church of the institution of Christ That persons not called to the office of the Ministry by the Saints are rightfull Ministers of Christ must be owned and taken for granted ere the Conscience can acquiesce in the hearing the present Ministers for we suppose 't will not be asserted by those with whom we have to do that there can be a true Ministery in a false Church or that false Ministers may be heard and yet the present Ministers are Ministers in and of the national Church of England and were never solemnly deputed to that office of the suffrage of the Lords people 2ly Nor can it be done without the neglect of that duty which with others is eminently of the appointment of the Lord to secure from Apostacy instanc'd in by the Author to the Hebrews Hebr. 10.25 Not forsaking the assembling of your selves together as the manner of some is but exhorting one another and so much the more as you see the day approaching in which the duty of Saints assembling themselves together as a body distinct from the world and it's assemblies â—s also their frequent and as often as may be exhorting one another as a medium to secure them by the blessing of the Lord thereupon from a spirit of degeneracy and Apostacy from God is clearly asserted whence it undeniably follows that the hearing of the present Ministers of England being inconsistent with the constant and diligent use of the means prescribed for the preservation of the Saints in the way of God for whilst they are attending upon their teachings they cannot assemble themselves according to the prescription of God in the forementioned Scripture is at least one step to the dreadfull sin of Apostacy from God and therefore it is utterly unlawful for Saints so to do And thus far of the Twelfth Argument for the proof of the assertion under our maintenance viz. That 't is not lawful for Saints to hear the present Ministers of England to which many others might be added but we doubt not to the truly tender and humble enquiring Christian what hath been offered will be abundantly sufficient to satisfie his Conscience in the present enquiry Answ. If by Apostasie be meant Apostatie from the living God and the Christian faith the major is granted and the minor is denied nor is there any thing tending to a shew of proof of it produced for it and if it should be meant of such Apostasie the thing is so notoriously false the hearers of such Ministers as â—e now Ministers in England having been as constant in the profession and practice of Christianity both against Popery and other ungodliness in times of persecution by Papists and at other times as other Christians in other ages that this Author would be hissed at as one extremely impudent in asserting so palpable an untruth But I conceive by his proof of the minor he means by Apostasie the relinquishing of the Congregational principles and practise Concerning which I conceive the major may be denyed it being not unlawfull but a necessary duty to depart from some of their principles and practises I mean such as are for separation in communion from dissenting Christians Yet I do not think but the Conscience may well acquiesce in the hearing of the present Ministers as teaching truth without relinquishment of the two principles owned by them as received from God I think if they will weigh what is here written they may find if not the congregational principles yet separation inferred from them to be an errour and to beget nothing but Superstition in their minds and sinfull uncharitable division in their practise Nor do I think it necessary that they which still adhere to that way of Communion need neglect the duty of meeting and exhorting one another according to Hebr. 10.25 the mistake of which is shewed in the answer to this chapter Sect. 2. They that hear the present Ministers some hours may hear other Ministers at other hours they that at one time hear them may at another time exhort one another Heretofore persons of Congregational Principles could hear in Parochial Assemblies Parochial Ministers why they may not do so still I understand not were it not that opinions of separation animated them to division and faction which the Lord amend and make them diligent to provoke one another to love and to good works I have now answered the Jury of Twelve Arguments which I have found brutum fulmen as the shooting off Ordinances without a bullet
argument from testimony negatively is not of force especially in matters of fact it is not related therefore it was not done and most of all concerning Christs acts of which it is noted that many things are not written John 21.25 Sect. 4. Christ allows hearing the Pharisees while they taught the Law of Moses Yet again saith this Author But let this also be granted that we may hear this Argument speak its uttermost The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses seat this seat is a ministerial seat and they sit not here by virtue of any lawfull authority but are meer intruders what follows from hence Why this if it were lawfull to hear the Scribes and Pharisees persons vicious in their lives corrupt in their doctrine having no lawfull call to the place they possessed then it undeniably follows that its lawfull to hear the present Ministers of England though they have no lawfull authority or call to the office they assume It must it seems then 3dly be granted that when Christ sayes what they say unto you do he is to be interpreted to command or at least to permit an attendance upon their Ministry But this is that we deny and dare confidently aver That it never entred into the heart of Christ to permit much less to command any to attend upon the Ministry of the Scribes and Pharisees nor is any such thing in the least intimated in the words under consideration For first the words are in the original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. which may more strictly be rendred the Scribes and Pharisees have sate in Moses chair all things therefore whatsoever they have said unto you c. i. e. whatever in times past you have heard delivered by these men according to the mind of God do you not now reject because of that hypocrisie pride covetousness c. you are made to see is predominant in them I reply the Argument is framed not as here by this Authour but as I before formed it The command to do what they bid implies a permission to hear else how could they do as they bid Though the words v. 2. may be rendered have sate in Moses chair yet the words v. 3. according to the Greek language and I think according to all interpreters must be rendered whatsoever they shall say unto you it being a precept concerning their future actions and the word render'd sit being in the first Aorist is best rendered as noting an indefinite time and so is to be conceived as signifying a continued time past and present they have and still do sit But were it granted that the bidding were meant of the time past the argument were of force they heard therefore they may hear Christ not disapproving their former hearing but giving a reason which infers a continued permission to hear them because they sate in Moses chair that is taught the law of Moses so that he makes this the entire reason of their observing and consequently of hearing in that they bid them observe the law of Moses which while they did they were to hear them and observe them not when they taught for doctrines the precepts of men which is indeed the genuine reason of his caveat there and elsewhere especially in the Sermon on the Mount Matth. 5. 6. 7. in which having said Matth. 5.17 Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets I am not come to destroy but to fulfill he then adds that one Jot shall not pass from the law till all were fulfilled that he would not have the least Commandement broken by practise or Doctrine yet with monition that their righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees if they would enter into the Kingdom of Heaven and accordingly clears the law from their false glasses warns his Disciples of their hypocritical practises of their corrupt doctrine and traditions directs persons to observe the rites of the law while he was on earth and to acquit himself from being an enemy to the law a little before his death though he had late experience of their opposition yet minds his Disciples that they should not neglect their teaching out of the law though they were not to imitate their practise Whence may be clearly discerned that Christ would have them heard teaching out of the law of God notwithstanding other defects or corruptions and that the resolution of this case is a plain rule to us that we may lawfully hear such as teach truth notwithstanding other defects and corruptions in their lives and Ministry It is added Sect. 5. Hearing Pharisees teaching Moses law not attendance on their Ministry as Pastors is allowed by Christ. Let the words be as they are rendered whatever they bid you observe and do that observe and do Yet 2ly who that hath but half an eye can chuse but see that an attendance upon their Ministry is remote enough from being their intendment We had alwayes thought that they might have been sufficiently acquainted with and been in a capacity of hearing and knowing what had been said by these men through their particular occasional meeting and discourse with them though they had never spent one hour in attending upon their Ministry which that our Saviour did not enjoyn no nor so much as permit by that expression we suppose may be clearly demonstrated from the ensuing considerations 1. There are not a generation of men of whom the Lord Iesus doth speak more contemptuously and charges with greater enormities than he doth of that generation of Scribes and Pharisees In this very Chapter he informs us of their hypocrisie ver 5.23.25.27 28 29. and pride ver 6 7. and tells us plainly that they shut up the Kingdom of Heaven against men neither entering in themselves nor suffering those that are entering to go in ver 13. that they make their Proselytes twofold more the Children of Hell than themselves ver 15. that they are blinde guides ver 16.19.24.26 perverters of the Scripture such as make void the Commandements of God by their traditions ver 16 17 18. that they are serpents a generation of vipers that cannot escape the damnation of Hell ver 33. yea such as shall kill crucifie scourge persecute the Messengers of the Lord ver 34. And can it be imagined that Christ should have no more tenderness to poor souls than to direct them to an attendance upon such persons as these for teaching Credat Apelles Apella likely Are these likely motives to perswade or enforce aâ—y thereunto Yet this is what he immediately subjoyned having said whatever they bid you observe that observe and do 2. The Doctrines owned by them are known The tessera of their sect was justification by the works of the law which is diametrically opposite to the work Christ was then upon and the doctrine Preached by him 3. That they denied Christ to be the Messiah blasphemed him in his doctrine as the deceiver of the people in his life
of the Scribes and Pharisees as their Pastors nor need we It is sufficiene for our purpose that Christ allowed the hearing them teaching Moses Law and that proves it lawful to hear the present Ministers while and so far as they teach truth which hearing not constant attending on their Ministry was to be proved lawful as the question was stated by this Authour ch 1. and all along was his conclusion And that he hath not proved it unlawful nor evaded the Arguments from Mat. 23.1 2. Notwithstanding his irrision of this dispute I am of the mind the solid reader will say I think it not amiss to add here the words of Mr. John Norton Minister of Ipswich in New England in his answer to Apollonius of Middleburg in Zealand c. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Scribarum Pharisaeorum in Mosis Cathedrâ sedentium fuit corruptio al qua in publico Dâ—i cultu absque debitâ reformatione toleraâ—a quia Cathedra Mosis i e. officium docendi publicè in Ecclesiâ legem Mosis libros Prophetarum Sacerdotibus Levitiâ— ex instituto Dei ordinariò propria erat eos autem audire non ab eis separare jubet Christus Matth. 23.1 2. Of the Scribes and Pharisees sitting in Moses seat the embassage without commission was some corruption in the publick worship of God tolerated without due reformation because the chair of Moses that is the office of teacâ—ing publickly in the Churches the Law of Moses and books of the Prophets was ordinarily proper to the Priests and Levites by the appointment of God yet Christ commands to hear them not to separate from them Matth. 23.1 2. It follows Sect. 6. Christs and his Apostles going to the Jewish meetings is opposite to the Separatists opinion and practice Object 2. If it be said But we find Christ and his Apostles after him going frequently into the synagogues where the Scribes and Pharisees Preached Ans. We answer first That all that Christ and the Apostles did is not lawful for Saints to practice will not be denied many instances are near at hand for its confirmation should it so be 2 That 't is one thing to go into the synagogues and another thing to go thither to attend upon the Ministry of such as taught there This is the present case which that Christ or the Apostles ever did cannot be proved 3. They went thither to oppose them in and confute their innovations and traditions in the worship of God to take an opportunity to teach and instruct the people in his way and will which when any have a spirit to do and are satisfied that they are thereunto called by the Lord in respect of the present Ministers and worship of England we shall be so far from condemning them therein that we shall bless God for them But this is not to the purpose in hand the attendance of our brethren upon the Ministers of England is quite another thing that requires other arguments for its support than we have hitherto met with Parvas habet spes Troia si tales habet I reply It is clear from Luke 2.46 that our Lord went to the Temple at Jerusalem sate in the midst of the Doctors both hearing them and asking them questions Luke 4.16 That he came to Nazareth where he had been brought up and as his custom was he went into the synagogue on the sabbath-day and stood up to read that he cured persons there Preached in the synagogues that Peter and John went up together into the Temple at the hour of prayer the ninth Acts 3.1 That Paul and Barnabas went into the synagogue on the sabbath-day and sate down and did not speak to the people till after the reading of the Law and the Prophets the rulers of the synagogue sent unto them Acts 13.14 15. That on the sabbath St. Paul went out of Philippi by a river side where prayer was wont to be made and sate down and that this was his manner Acts 16 13. and 17.2 Now neither were these synagogues by any appointment of God that we find nor their meeting nor their rulers nor the order of their reading of the Law and the Prophets nor their Teachers nor their worship at the Temple without many corruptions and yet our Lord and his Apostles were present at them and joyned with them in hearing them read and such other services of Religion as were done to God Which is a good reason wherefore it should not be counted necessary to separate from the present Assemblies in England and the publick Ministers notwithstanding such corruptions in their worship such defect in their calling such pullutions in the places of meeting as are by this Authour and other Separatists urged as a sufficient reason of their separation The answers hereto are insufficient For 1. Though all that Christ and his Apostles did either out of peculiar power or Commission or instinct be not lawfull for us to do as toâ—whip buyers and sellers out of the Temple to sentence persons to death as Peter did Ananias and his wife yet what they did as men or part of the Jewish people in the worship and Church of the Jewes is a warrant to us in the like case to do in the assemblies of the Christians there being no cogent reason why we may not in these things do as they did and if these things may not be used for direction and setling our Consciences they are in vain written by the Spirit 2. Though Christ and his Apostles did not go into the Synagogues to attend on the Ministry of such as taught there yet they did there hear the Law and Prophets read and joyned in prayers which this Authour will not allow his brethren to do in the Church Assemblies of England 3. That Christ or his Apostles went into the Synagogues to oppose them in and confute their innovations and traditions in the worship of God is more than I remember to have read nor do I know that any that have or shall come into the assemblies of the Church of England to such an end as Quakers and other Separatists heretofore have done can be judged to do it out of any other spirit than a turbulent and evil spirit without any true calling by the Lord which might satisfie their Consciences And though we should bless God if liberty were granted more than is and opportunities taken to teach the people especially where there is want thereof in the way and will of God yet we should not rejoyce that mens particular opinions or such unnecessary truths as being unseasonably delivered would tend to division and not to edification should be vented especially in such auditories as are in the common sort of those assemblies and most of all where there are able preachers who constantly and rightly teach the Doctrine of the Gospel of Christ. It is added Sect. 7. Pauls rejoycing at the preaching Christ of contention warrants hearing the present Ministers Object 3. Paul rejoyceth at the
preaching of the Gospel though 't was preached out of envy Phil. 1.15 16. To which briefly 1. There may be cause of rejoycing in respect of the issue and event of things by the wise providence of God though the means used for their production be evil and not to be abetted or complyed with In what have Christians greater cause of rejoycing than in the death of Christ yet had it been utterly unlawfull to have joyn'd in counsel with or any wayes abetted or encouraged those wicked persons that Crucified and slew him Should the Pope send some Jesuits into any remote parts of Africa to preach the Gospel to the poor Indians there here were upon some accounts ground of rejoycing yet no ground for Saints to attend upon a Jesuitical Ministry But 2ly It appears not that these Paul speaks of were not true Gospel Ministers and so it reacheth not the case in hand This being that we have proved the Ministers of England guilty of viz. and acting in the holy things of God without any commission from Christ which when our dissenting brethren prove they have we shall easily acknowledge the lawfullness of attending upon their Ministry 3ly It follows not in the least that these the Apostle speaks of were either not real Saints or not true Ministers of Christ because they are said to preach him out of envy the object whereof was not Christ for had they envyed him they would never have preached him but Paul thinking sayes he to add afflictions to my bonds which is consistent with grace and a lawfull mission to the preaching of the Gospel Yet 4ly Here is not in this Scripture the least word requiring Christians to hear them That because Paul rejoyces at their preaching therefore 't is the duty of Saints to attend upon their Ministry is such a non-sequitur as will never be made good I reply nor needs it the lawfulness to hear the present Ministers of England not the duty of the Saints to attend upon their Ministers being the thing in question and therefore it is sufficient for my purpose if I prove hence the lawfulness of hearing them though I should not prove it the Saints duty to attend on their Ministry Which I conceive may be done by this argument They in whose preaching of Christ we may rejoyce though they should not preach Christ sincerely but in pretence out of envy not good will out of contention thinking to add affliction to other Ministers bonds may be heard by the Saints lawfully But the Saints may rejoyce in the present Ministers of England their preaching of Christ though they should not preach Christ sincerely but in pretence out of envy not good will out of contention thinking to add affliction to other Ministers bonds Therefore the Saints may hear the present Ministers of England lawfully The major is grounded on this that the thing we may rejoyce in is good for which we may thank God and consequently hear which is agreeable to that of the Prophets Esai 52.7 Nahum 1.15 applyed by the Apostle Rom. 10.15 to the preaching of the Gospel who he supposeth are to be welcomed and heard The minor is proved from the Apostles example Phil. 1.15 16 17.18 That preaching of Christ that is no other then St. Paul rejoyced in and professed he would rejoyce in the Saints now may rejoyce in though it be not sincerely but in pretence out of envy not good will out of contention to add affliction to other Ministers bonds But such is the preaching Christ by the present Ministers ergo the Saints may rejoyce in it The major is not to be denyed unless it be shewed that the Apostle did evil in so rejoycing The minor is manifest in that no other exception is taken against their preaching then such as with as great reason might have nullified the joy of St. Paul in that which moved him to rejoyce In a word though personal defects and miscarriages were in the preaching of Christ yet the thing it self being good and occasioning the magnifying of Christ it is and should be matter of joy to all that love Christ. To this Argument I find the Author of the Pamphlet intituled prelatical preachers none of Christs teachers p. 45. answering thus that preaching of Christ is not to be rejoyced in without limitation because of these texts Mark 1.24 25. Luke 4.34 35.41 Acts 16.18 Acts 15.1 Gal. 5.2 4.12 Phil. 3.2 3. Acts 20.29 Psal. 50.16.18 But he sets not down the limitation he would gather thence only it may seâ—m by the texts that we are not to rejoyce in the confession of Christ or his servants by the Devils when the necessity of circumcision and keeping the law of Moses for justification is taught when hypocrites take Gods law into their mouths by professing or declaring of it but hate to be reformed Which we grant but say all these texts and the limitation thence deducible are impertinent to the present argument for as much as these do not preach Christ. Nor saith that Author in propriety and strictness of speech can Christ be said to be preached by a prelatical Ministry they justifie them that deny Christ to be the sole law-giver of his Church and so make him an Idol Which to be false is shewed in the answer to the 5th chapter of this treatise Yet saith that Author p. 46. In case such a Minister as this that preacheth by the Bishops licence should in his Doctrine or Sermon affirm Jesus Christ to be the sole law-giver unto his Churches yet in and by his very act of preaching he should deny it should the Apostle rejoyce in that preaching of Christ which is a denying him An horrible speech of monstrous absurdity and impudent malice I should not say so much of such preaching though it were by the Popes licence or the Devils instigation For though I should not rejoyce in the motive or impulsive cause by which it is done yet I would not so censure the thing it self as a denying of Christ. But how the receiving of a license from a Protestant Bishop to preach the Gospel within his Diocess and preaching there by vertue of it according to the order established by the law of the land should be a denying of Christs legislative power is to me incomprehensible and to use that Authors phrasifying the first born of absurdities I should rejoyce and bless God to obtain such power upon justifiable conditions But to our Author His First answer is not to the purpose For rejoycing in the Ministers preaching of Christ or those that preached out of envy is not a rejoycing in the good event by evil means but in a good event by good means the preaching Christ is a good thing in which the Apostle and we rejoyce and the effect is good although the motive and end of the preachers be evil The putting of Christ to death was in it self evil and not to be rejoyced in though the effect of it be good and to be
the Minister be silenced or deprived for want of hearers 3. This would put power in hearers over their Ministers and overthrow all Church-government 4. It would introduce greater oppression of Ministers then either Prelats or their Canons bring upon them 5. Even the Ministers of Congregational Churches would be in danger of being deserted by their members their maintenance withdrawn they exposed to penury and other grievances as well as Conforning Ministers Nor do I think but that many even of them have found the bitter fruits of such popular licentiousness out of such principles of separation as well as others 6. Nor can there be any setled order of government in Church or civil State if the stated Ministers or Magistrates according to the present Laws though perhaps in some things unjust yet in the main upholding truth of faith and worship and the publick good should be deserted or disobeyed because every hearers or subjects conscience or minde is not satisfied 34 Such a plea as is made by these men is made by Papists for their Recusancy that the Ministers of the Church of England are not rightly called that they are in a Schism with other the like objections and then if the Plea of the Separatists be allowed they have this advantage That they should not be urged to hear the Ministers nor have the penalties of Recusancy imposed on them I say not that this reason would reach to the toleration of their Priests and Mass but onely if such a Plea should be allowed why the present Ministers should not be heard the same or the like justifies the Papists for not hearing them and condemns the inflicting penalties for Recusancy because if this Authour say true it is unlawful to hear the present Ministers The same may be said in behalf of Quakers Seekers profane persons ignorant people they are not to be required to hear the Ministers if it be unlawfull and so the Magistrate should sin if he command them to hear though Mr. Robinson himself in his Justification of Separation pag. 242. as Printed in the year 1639. writes thus That godly Magistrates are by compulsion to repress publick and notable Idolatry as also to provide that the truth of God in his Ordinance be taught and published in their Dominions I make no doubt It may be also it is not unlawful for them by some penalty or other to provoke their subjects universally unto hearing for their instruction and conversion yea to grant they may inflict the same upon them if after due teaching they offer not themselves unto the Church 35. That position which takes away a considerable and important part of Christians liberty and puts a yoke on their neâ—ks grievous to be born is not to be received it being contrary to that which the Apostle chargeth on Christians that they should stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free and not be again intangled with the yoke of bondage Gal. 5.1 Ye are bought with a price become ye not the servants of men 1 Cor. â— 23 But if we hold it unlawful to hear the truth of Gods word taught by the present Ministers we let go our liberty of hearing which Christ hath not debarred us of and make our selves servants to some whom alone we might hear to the insharing of us if they err so as that we may not hear them who may free us which is no small bondage to a Christian and tends to the calling Rabbines or Masters forbidden Matt. 23.8 10 and is an artifice by which Papists and others have still held people from discerning their errours and kept them in dependence on them and adherence to their party Therefore it should not be received by us 36. There is a negative superstition when men abstain from some things under a notion of Religion or worship of God which are not forbidden by God but left free and indifferent either not forbidden or if once they were now antiquated or outdated And of this soâ—â— was that Col 2.21 Touch not taste not handle not which was superstitious negative will-worship as Mr. Cawdrey in his Treatise of Superstition Sect 5. writes This the Apostle v. 20. blames as being dogmatized or yielding to mens ordinances as living in the world not dead with Christ from the elements of the world though it have a shew of wisdom in will-worship such was that of the Pharisees in not eating till they had washed their hands observing the tradition of the elders condemned by Christ Mark 7.7 as teaching doctrines the commandments of men which he counts worshipping God in vain and it hath these evil effects 1. That it occasions the neglect of Gods commands 2. It begeâ—s unnecessary perplexities in mens spirits 3. It puffs men up with conceit of more holiness then others 4. Makes them censorious of those that are not as scrupulous as themselves as if they were loose and profane That such is the opinion of the unlawfulness of hearing the present Ministers as it is maintained by this Authour I suppose is manifested by the answer and reasons foregoing and that it hath the evil effects here named is too evident by experience in the neglect of the publick communion in worship and other duties of love to them with whom communion in publick worship is not held in the doubts and opinions of not observing the present Ministers with any respect nor paying them dues imposed by Law in conceiving themselves the Saints others Antichristian with many bitter taunts scoffs reproaches revilings tales of and against them contrary to the fruits of the spirit of God mentioned Gal. 5.22 Therefore it is not be to received 37. Hereto is to be added That upon the same suppositions the opinion of denying the lawfulness of hearing the present Ministers as it is asserted by this Authour is an usurpation of Christs regal office in putting a law on the consciences of men arrogating that power which is proper to that one Lawgiver who is able to save and destroy James 4.12 binding heavy burthens and grievous to be born and laying them on mens shoulders Matt. 23.4 imitating therein Pharisaical pride and Papal dominion and such other practises as they condemn in others They that condemn those that permit not them to Preach who will not use Ceremonies are guilty of the like Imposition who permit not Christians to hear Preachers of the Gospel unless they be in a Congregational Church and be called by them and while they charge others with adding to the word the inventions of men are themselves guilty thereof 38. Nor is it a light matter but to be well pondered That by this means the knowledge of the word of God is much hindred and thereby the furthering of the kingdom of God the coming of which we are to pray for is neglected such as hold the opinion of not hearing the Ministers in publick thinking it enough if they can teach those of their society if by conference they instill any