CHAP. I.

OF all Errors, none so pernicious, as those, which corrupt the first and foundation-principles of our Discourse; for these communicate a leaven of Falshood unto all the consequences from thence inferr'd; and such is that, which may be obser­ved to run through the Catechism now exami­ned, [Page 2] a principle which comprizeth the whole my­stery of Non-conformity and Separation in it's bowels; viz.

‘That nothing must be done, o [...] admitted of by us, in or about Religion, God's worship and service, which himself hath not commanded in the Holy Scriptures. That whatsoever is not found instituted and comm [...]nded in the [...]ord of God, cannot be of Faith, and therefore the practise or allowance of it is upon that account sinful. That the VVord of God condem [...]eth not only what is done against the warrant thereof, but that also which is done besides, or without it.’

Now, to give this matter it's full considera­tion, I determine, by God's h [...]lp, to speak di­stinctly unto these five particulars.

First, The common belief of Protestant Di­vines in this argument.

Secondly, The corruption and abuse of the Protestant Belief, by the Doctrine of the Non-conforming Brethren.

Thirdly, The words, wherein our Catechist hath declared his opinion.

Fourthly, The manifest falshood of the Asser­tion. And,

Lastly, The genuine explication of those texts of Scripture, which are pretended to counte­nance it.

As to the first of these; That which is own­ed among Protestants in common, is This;

That the Holy Scriptures are the onely, and sufficient guide and rule, in all matters of necessa­ry belief and observance in order unto salvation; [Page 3] able to make us wise unto salvation; and therefore, Whosoever doth either derogate from this their perfection, or add any thing unto them, as ne­cessary to be believed or done in order unto Sal­vation, are certainly guilty of most presumptu­ous, and unaccountable profaneness: and, This we justly tax the Church of Rome withall, for enjoyning of unwritten traditions, and Papal de­terminations, to be received with an equal re­verence unto the Holy Scriptures. But then it is not their meaning, by virtue of this Decla­ration, to condemn all opinions, as false, and actions, as unlawful, which the Holy Scripture prescribeth not; or to extend the perfection of Holy Scripture so far as the punctual determi­nation of the circumstantials of Divine worship. The perfection of God's Word is judged by them with relation unto that special end where­to it is designed; viz. the instruction of men in all things necessary unto salvation; the know­ledge whereof they could not otherwise attain unto, than by Divine revelation; for it was not aimed to destroy, or extinguish the light of na­ture, but to help, advance, and perfect it. It is not therefore any of God's purpose, in the Ho­ly Scriptures, to comprize all things which men may know, believe, or practise, as if natural rea­son and discretion were no longer to continue it's guidance; or to determine all rituals and circumstances appertaining to the external or­dering of Divine worship, so as to have nothing for Ecclesiastical laws to be employed about. That, which they teach of the Scriptures suffi­ciency, is ever restrained to matters of necessary [Page 4] belief and duties of necessary observance in or­der unto salvation; and never enlarged to all things that may be believed or done by us in the general, or to particular circumstances, which have respect unto the good order, decency, and external regulation of Divine worship.

CHAP. II.

NOw let us see how this Protestant Do­ctrine hath been disguised, mis-shaped, and perverted by the separating Brethren.

At first, they mis-represented it in these ge­neral terms;

See Hooker Eccles. Pol. Book 2. & 3. ‘That the Scripture is in such sort the rule of humane actions, that simply, Whatever we do and are not by it directed thereunto, the same is sin.’ To which purpose they construed that of St. Paul, Rom. 14.23. VVhatsoever is "not of faith, is sin. And indeed, if that place be to the purpose, it speaks universally, and relates to humane and civil, as well as religious [Page 5] actions. But of this Saying, † afterwards.See Chap. 7.

The Scriptures, as these men taught at first, must direct ‘in all things, even so far as the ta­king up of a rush or straw.’ But the opinion, in this extent of it, hath but few defenders.— The Scripture plainly referreth, in certain cases, to a guide within man, the law of nature, writ­ten even in the Gentiles hearts, Rom. 2. And ap­peals more than once to our reasonable facul­ties: Yea, and why, even of your salves, Luk. 12.57. judge ye not what is right? It leaves many things unde­termined and indifferent, neither commanded nor forbidden, for mens choice and prudence to take place; in reference unto which, St. Paul saith, All things are lawful forme, 1 Cor. 10.23. but all things are not expedient, &c. The Scripture makes use of many arguments from natural reason, which it urgeth as motives unto duty, besides the divine authority and revelation, which yet were only to be pressed, if that alone did legi­timate our actions. And this fancy once enter­tained, would prove the torture of conscience, and disturbance of the world. The wrack of conscience it must needs be; when for every particular of diet and cloathing, and the great variety of occurrences in life, it is obliged to seek out a Scripture-warrant. And the disturber of the world, it would as certainly be: for, ad­mit this strange position, and it shall not be with Parents, Masters, and Governours, as with the Centurion in the Gospel, who said to those under him, Go, and they went; Do this, and they did it; but their Children, Servants, and Subjects, will stand still, till their errand [Page 6] be warranted unto them by the Scriptures; nay, we must have no Art or Trade professed, which, with the rules of them, are not deduci­ble from the Text of Scripture.

This device therefore failing, the propositi­on hath been since new-molded, and limited to this effect;

‘That nothing may be done and allowed in or about religion, the worship and service of God, which is not warranted by some precept or example of Holy Writ. "That the Scripture alone is to be our rule, not only in all the necessaries and essentials of Faith and Worship, (as is granted by all Protestants) but in the very circumstantials and rituals there­unto belonging; so that whatsoever is not there prescribed, is upon that account sinful and unlawful.’ ‘Hence their usual speech is, Where is this, and the other rite, gesture, garb, &c. commanded in Scripture? If no where commanded, 'tis not to be embraced; it is an unwarrantable addition to God's word, a piece of superstition, will-worship, &c. Nothing is to be allowed of in God's Wor­ship, but what is by himself prescribed and commanded; at the least,’

‘It must be either, First, Commanded in the general; or, Secondly, There must be some example for it in the Word of God.’ For these two explications, some of the wiser heads have made, if possible to salve all difficulties, to stop all holes, and render the thing tolerably defensible.

But those their Explications are more mis­chievous [Page 7] to their cause, than they may be a­ware of. For,

First, as to their general rules and commands; such as, ‘doing all to God's Glory, all to Edi­dification, doing to others as we would be done by, &c.’ These are not commands of any determinate particular, but proh [...]bitions of every thing contrary to those laws and rules, and approbations only of particulars that are not contrary, but agreeable unto them. As when it was said to the daughters of Zelophe­had from God,Numb. 36.6. Let them marry to whom they think meet, only to the family of the tribe of their fathers shall they marry. They were not here absolutely commanded to marry, much less to marry any particular man; only thus far limi­ted; If they did marry, he must be one of the tribe of their fathers, and in this tribe they might please themselves. So when the Apostle saith, Let all things be done decently, and in order, 1 Cor. 14.40. he enjoyneth nothing in particular, but forbids, in the general, whatsoever particulars are not according unto this qualification, leaving a liberty for any of those specials, that may equally plead thereto. The like I might say of others. And indeed these general rules they talk of, are not any commands for religious worship only, but refer to our whole life, and are nothing else but maxims of natural pru­dence and religious equity, Canons of the law written in all mens hearts, which the reason of man approves of, but occasionally and inciden­tally mention'd in Scripture, of force for the ordering mens actions, before those Scriptures [Page 8] were in beeing; and such as would have so re­mained, had they not been written. Such is St. Paul's heap of Ʋniversals; Philip. 4.8. Finally, Bre­thren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, (grave or venerable) what­soever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report, if there be any vertue, if there be any praise, think of these things. The Word of God (as hath been already intima­ted) presupposeth, alloweth of, and establisheth the light of natural reason, and all sound col­lections and inferences made by Reason from its self. Thus therefore it may pass for a great truth, That we may not do any thing, which the Word of God doth not either command, or, in the general, allow of; but this Grant will be neither to their gain, nor to our loss.

But then, secondly, As for that other addi­tion of Examples in Scripture, unto Com­mands; [...]p. Sanderson Praf. to Serm. I find it well argued against them.

‘The adding of Examples unto Commands, in such manner, as in their assertion is done, either signifieth nothing, or overthroweth all the rest; for that example which is by them supposed sufficient for our warrantie, was it self either warranted by some command, or former example, or it was not; If it were, then the adding of it clearly signifieth no­thing, inasmuch as that warrant we have by it proceedeth not from it, but from that precedent command or example which war­ranted it; but if it were not, then was it [Page 9] done meerly upon the dictates of prudence & rea­son; & then, if vve be sufficiently warranted by that example (as is by them supposed) to act after it, we are also sufficiently warranted to act upon the meer dictates of prudence and reason, without the necessity of any other, either command or for­mer example for so doing.’ -But then, besides this, Examples are of a very different and tickle nature; sometimes they are barely related in Scripture, and neither commended nor dispraised; sometimes they are praised, & yet so occasional, or extraordinary, that we may not presume to imitate them; and if we would imitate them, the suiting of all circum­stances of our case to theirs (without which they are not our examples) is full of difficulty; & when all is done, Examples are no farther a Law to us, than they are conformed to some law or rule of God's, themselves. In short, Examples are either of moral & necessary actions, & then they call for our imita­tion, by vertue of that law, w^ch they required be­fore of others; or of circumstantial & mutable acti­ons, which others might have done, or left undon, & then that cannot be necessary unto us in its self, which was not necessary unto them in the same case.

But, after all, would the brethren of the separati­on stand to these their own explications of Scrip­ture-prescriptions by general rules, or examples, & rest in what is so warranted & grounded; we might quickly hope for an end of controversy with them, as having both these on our side against them. But these are peculiar priviledges & reservs for themselves to fly unto upon occasion, and not to be granted unto us; for when we offer to ju­stifie our Church-rites and observances by gene­ral precepts, rules, and permissions of Holy [Page 10] Scripture, and many special examples there upon record, this will not serve our turn, but they call for express texts from us for the en­joyning of them.

They conclude themselves from examples,— So and so it must necessarily be; but we may not conclude from them,— So and so it may be law­fully. Thus far in the general.

CHAP. III.

LEt the Catechist novv speak his own opini­on in his own words.

Pag. 8. ‘[The wayes and means of the vvorship of God are made knovvn unto us in and by the written Word only, vvhich con­tains a full and perfect revelation of the will of God, as to his whole worship, and all the concernments of it.]’

‘Pag. 9. 10. [to the end that vve might expect instruction from the written Word alone, in his Worship, and act therein ac­cordingly, he sends us, and directs us there­to, expresly for that purpose, and not once intimates in the least any other way or means of instruction to the end. He frequently af­firms, [Page 11] that it is sufficient, able, and perfect to guide us therein. He hath commanded us not to make any addition thereunto, and peculiarly interdicted us the use of any such things as are of the institution or appointment of men.]’

[Pag. 22. ‘The Lord Christ is the absolute Lord over his own house, and He hath given out the Laws whereby he will have it guided and ruled, whilst it is in this world.]’

[Pag. 26. ‘If we observe any thing in God's worship, but what he hath appointed, we cannot submit our souls and consciences to his authority therein.]’

[Pag, 27. ‘This is the first thing that Faith regards in Divine Worship; it resteth not in any thing, closeth not with any thing but what it discerns that God hath commanded, and therein it eyes his authority as He hath re­quired it.]’

[Pag. 28. ‘Christ is to be consider'd in all our obedience, as the great, and only Law­giver of his Church.]’

[Pag. 34. ‘The outward manner of ob­servance is to be kept entire, according to the primitive institution of Christ, not ad­mitting of any corruptions in it to avoid the greatest trouble.]’

[Pag. 35. 36. ‘He is the Head and King of the Church, the next immediate and spe­cial Law-giver of it, appointing unto it all his ordinances, and its whole worship, as it becomes him who is Lord of the house.]’

[Pag. 42.43. ‘The thing principally to be attended to in the manner of the celebration of the Worship of God, and observation of the institutions and ordinances of the Go­spel, is, That we observe, and do all what­soever the Lord Christ hath commanded us to observe in the way that he hath prescribed, and that we add nothing unto, or in the ob­servation of them, that is of mans invention or appointment.]’

[Pag. 46. 47, 48. ‘Whatsoever belongs un­to to the Worship of God, in the way or man­ner, whereby any of the Ordinances of Christ is to be performed, comes also under the command of Christ, which is duly to be at­tended to, and observed.’ ‘Indeed, whatever is of this nature appointed by Christ, it doth therefore belong to the worship of God, and what is not so appointed, neither doth, nor can be any part thereof. Of this nature are the celebration of all other Ordinances, with Prayer; for every thing is sanctified by the word of God, and Prayer, 1 Tim. 4.5. Of some of them indispensably in the Assemblies of the Church, 1 cor. 10.16, 17. —11.20, 24, 25, 33. with care in the observation of the general rules of Love, Modesty, Condescen­tion, and Prudence, doing all things decently and in order, 1 Cor. 11.33.—14.40. Gestures in some sacred actions, Matt. 26.20, 26. John 13.23. all which the Church is diligently to enquire into, as things that belong to the Pattern of the House of God, the goings out thereof, and the comings in thereof, the forms [Page 13] thereof, and the ordinances thereof, promi­sed to be shewed unto it, Ezek. 43.11. To attend carefully to their observation, is its duty, being left at liberty to all other circum­stances, which no authority of man can give any real relation to the Worship of God unto.]’

[Pag. 48. ‘The perswasion of some, that the Lord hath not prescribed all things wherein his worship is concern'd, seems to proceed from a negligence in enquiring after what he hath so prescribed.]’

[Pag. 49. ‘A principal part of the duty of the Church in this matter, is, to take care that nothing be admitted or practised in the worship of God, or as belonging thereunto, which is not instituted and appointed by the Lord Christ.]’

‘[In its care, faithfulness, and watchfulness herein, consists the principal part of its Loy­alty unto the Lord Jesus, as the Head, King, and Law-giver of his Church, and, which to stir us up unto, He hath left so many severe interdictions, and prohibitions in his Word, against all additions to his commands, upon any pretence whatever.]’

[Pag. 54. 55. ‘All such inventions (he speaks expresly of Religious Rites, appointed by the Church to farther Devotion, Decency, and Order) are in themselves needless, and, because forbidden, unlawful to be obser­ved.]’

[Pag. 62. ‘Although they are not in par­ticular, and expresly in the Scripture forbid­den, [Page 14] for it wasA simple expression, as to omnisci­ent omnipo­tency. Mo­rally impos­sible might have passed. simply impossible, that all in­stances wherein the wit of man might exer­cise its invention in such things, should be reckoned up, and condemned, yet they fall directly under those severe prohibitions, which God hath recorded to secure his wor­ship from all such additions unto it, of what sort soever.]’

[Pag. 62. 63. ‘Yea, the main design of the second Precept, is, to forbid all making un­to our selves any such things in the wor­ship of God, to add unto what he hath ap­pointed; whereof an instance is given, in that of making, and worshipping of Images, the most common way that the sons of men were then prone to transgress by, against the institutions of God.]’

Pag. 64. ‘And there is yet further evidence contributed unto this intention of the Com­mand, from those places where such evils and corruptions as were particularly forbid­den in the worship of God, are condemned; not on the special account of their being so forbidden, but on that more general, of be­ing introduced without any warrant from Gods Institutions and Commands, Jer. 7.31. 19, 5.]’

Pag. 64. 65. ‘The Papists say indeed, that all additions corrupting the Worship of God, are forbidden: but such as further, adorn, and preserve it, are not so; which im­plies a contradiction: for, whereas every ad­dition is principally a corruption, because it is an addition, under which notion it is forbid­den, [Page 15] (and that in the worship of God, which is forbidden, is a corruption of it) there can be no such preserving, and adorning addition, unless we will allow a preser­ving, and adorning corruption.’ Neither is it of more force which is pleaded by them, ‘That the additions which they make, belong not unto the substance of the Worship of God, but unto the circumstan­ces of it; for every circumstance observed religiously, or to be observed in the worship of God, is the substance of it; as were all those ceremonious observances of the Law, which had the same respect in the prohibi­tions of adding, with the most weighty things whatsoever.]’

[Pag 78. ‘God is jealous of our discharge of our Duty in this matter, accounting our neglect of his worship, or profanation of it, by inventions and additions of our own, to be spiritual disloyalty, whoredom, and a­dultery, which his Soul abhorreth, for which he will cast off any Church or people, and that for ever.]’

[Ibid. ‘which repudiated condition is the state of many Churches in the World; how­ever they please, and boast themselves in their meretricious ornaments and practi­ses.]’

Pag. 79. 80. ‘God hath given many signal Instances of his severity against persons, who, by ignorance, neglect, or regardlesness, have miscarried, in not observing exactly his Will and Appointment, ìn, and about his [Page 16] Worship; Nadab and Abihu; Korah, Da­than, &c.]’

[Pag. 82. ‘That by Fornication and Whoredom in the Church, the adultera­ting of the Worship of God, and the ad­mission of false, self-invented worship, in the room thereof, whereof God is jealous, is intended, the Scripture every where de­clares.]’

[Pag. 87. ‘Our Lord Jesus Christ being King and Head of his Church, the Lord over the house of God; nothing is to be done therein but with respect to his authority.]’

[Pag. 88. 89. ‘In all things that are done, or to be done, vvith respect to the worship of God in the Church, the authority of Christ is alwaies principally to be considered; and every thing to be observed as command­ed by him, without which consideration, it hath no place in the worship of God.]’

[Pag. 88. ‘The suitableness of any thing to right reason, or the light of nature, is no ground for a Church-observation of it, unless it be also appointed and commanded in spe­cial by Jesus Christ.]’

[Pag. 54. ‘To a real Evangelical institution of Worship, 'tis required, that it be a com­mand of Christ, manifested by his Word on Example, proposed to our imitation.]’

[Pag. 135. To a question concerning law­fulness, he answers, ‘Neither of these hath either Warrant, or President in Scripture.]’ And again,

[Pag. 139. ‘It hath no Warrant in the Scri­pture, [Page 17] no Law nor Institution of Christ, or his Apostles, no Example to give it coun­tenance.]’

All which put together, amounts to thus much;

‘That all the concernments of God's Wor­ship are prescribed in Scripture; from whence alone we are to receive instruction about them, being thereby interdicted the use of any thing appointed by man; That no­thing must be there admitted, but vvhat Faith sees God to have commanded, or Christ to have instituted; no, not in the outward manner of observance; That Christ hath given out his Laws for the ordering of all things in the Church, and nothing is to be added unto, or in, or about his Institutions. That if any affirm, Christ hath not prescribed all things, wherein his Worship is concerned (viz. his outward worship, and the manner of it) he proclaims his own negligence in enquiring thereinto. That all Rites appointed by the Church, to further Devotion, Decency, and Order, are not only needless, but unlawful to be used, because forbidden; though not par­ticularly and expresly, yet falling under those severe prohibitions, vvhich God hath re­corded to secure His Worship from all such additions to it, of what sort soever. Yea, the second Command is mainly designed and intended against them. That all additi­ons are therefore corruptions, because addi­tions; and no circumstance so inconsiderable in this case, as not to become of the substance [Page 18] of God's Worship, when appointed to be observed in it. That the admission of these inventions of men, in God's service, is Spiri­tual disloyalty, adultery, and whoredom, which God is most jealous of, and his Soul ab­horreth, and for which, He will cast off any Church or People for ever; and, This repu­diated, divorced condition, many Churches are at present in, however they please them­selves in their Whorish ornaments and pra­ctices. That if they do, either by Ignorance, neglect, or Carelesness miscarry in this their Duty, of not practising any thing, in, or about Gods Worship, which Christ hath not appointed; they are to expect those signal instances of severity, to be made good upon themselves, which God de­clared against Nadab and Abihu, Corah, Da­than, &c. and the Whore of Babylon in the Revelations. Nor have they any way left to excuse themselves; for it is not any such low Principle, as Right Reason, or the Light of Nature, which will serve the turn for a Church-observance; no, not in circumstan­tials, for the outward manner of perform­ing Worship unto God; but there must be a command, and appointment in special from Christ, manifested by his Word or Example, a Scripture-warrant or President.’— And now, I think, he hath plainly enough delivered his mind.

CHAP. IV.

I Am, in the next place, to demonstrate the falseness of this general Principle, so much relyed upon, ‘That nothing may be admitted, or done, in, or about, the Wor­ship of God, for the external regulation of it, as to Solemnity, Devotion, Order, and Decency, which is not commanded and in­stituted in the Word of God.’ Now,

This I shall sufficiently perform, by evi­dencing in particulars, That God never had, nor hath such a Church in the World, as hath kept close to this observance; but the contra­ry hath been practised in the Churches both of the Old and New Testament, without any blame: and therefore, as it is, so it of right may be practised in the Churches of Christ, to the end of the world. It being a point of most insolent madness (as St. Austin sometime said) not to think that rightly done, Insolentissi­mae insoniae est, existima­re non rectè fieri quod ab universâ Ecclesia fit. August. Ep. 118. which is the pra­ctise of the universal Church; how much more then, to leave all the Churches of Christ for this, in a repudiated condition? Now there­fore to the Instances themselves. And,

First, For the Jewish Church, we have these severals, offering themselves to our considera­tion.

1. The rite of putting the hand under the thigh in swearing, Gen. 24.2.3.47.29.31. first imposed by Abraham on his servant; and afterwards prescribed by [Page 21] Iacob unto Ioseph, either in token of Subjecti­on, or some mystical signification, relating un­to the promised Seed expected from Abraham's loyns; or else, the other more common Rite of lifting up the hand to Heaven, Gen. 14.22. when they did swear, (in allusion whereto the Oaths of God himself, and the Angels,Deut. 32 40. Dan. 12.7. Rev. 10.5. are so in like manner described) a natural sign (without any Insti­tution) of appeal unto that God, who dwel­leth in Heaven.

2. Iacob's voluntary erecting of a Stone, Gen. 28.18.19.20, 22. where­on he slept, and had the Vision, for a pillar; and consecrating thereof, by the pouring oyl thereon, for an house of God, calling the place by the name of Bethel. i. e. the House of God, and dedi­cating it to God by a Vow with the tenth of all that God should give him. An act for which he had no Command, and yet so acceptable unto God, that he afterwards gives a Testimony of his liking it.Gen. 31.13. I am the God of Bethel (saith he) where thou anointedst the Pillar, and where thou vow­edst a vow unto me. Add hereunto,

3. The Gileadites building an Altar on the other side Iordan, to testifie their joint faith, Joshua 22.10.27, 34. and profession with their Brethren; calling of it ED, i. e. A witness that the Lord is God.

Whereto may be annexed,Gen. 31.45.46, 47, 48, &c. the heap and pillar reared between Jacob and Laban at their cove­nant, called by the one Iegar-Sahaduthe in Syriac; by the other in Hebrew, Galeed; both importing an heap of witness,Josh. 24.26, 27. And Ioshua's taking a great stone, and setting it up in Sechem, to be a witness unto the people, lest they denyed their God, after their covenant with him there.

[Page 22] 1 Kings. 8.644. Solomons appointing of a new Altar, where­as God commanded but one; upon the equitable reason only, that the Brazen Altar sufficed not for the burnt-offerings. Whereto may be added, the Stone of Bethshemesh,1 Sam. 6.14. whereon they sacrifi­ced; 1 Sam. 7.17. and the Altar which Samuel built at his own house at Ramah; neither of them by Di­vine Command or Institution.

1 Chron. 27.7, 8.2 [...].2, 3.29, 3.5. David's pious resolution, and preparation, for building an House and Temple unto God, upon the motives of his private zeal only, and with­out any precept from God; for God did, upon some peculiar reasons, prohibit him the exe­cution; and yet, notwithstanding this pious re­solution of his was commended, and allowed of, not only by Nathan the Prophet,2 Sam. 7.2, 3, 4. upon the apparant evidence of the goodness of it, before the Word of God came unto him about it; but also by God himself, saying unto David, whereas it was in thine heart to build an house un­to my name, 1 Kings 8.18, 19. thou didst well, that it was in thine heart; nevertheless thou shalt not build the house, &c. Yea, and it is after this pleaded be­fore God, in prayer, as a signal pledge of Da­vid's affection and piety towards God, Psalm 132.1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

6. The Customary observance of certain de­terminate hours of Prayer, thrice a day. Thus David. Psal. 55.17. Evening and morning, and at noon, will I pray, and cry aloud, and he shall hear my voice. Dan. 6.10. Thus Daniel. He went into his house, and, his windows being open, in his chamber towards Ierusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his [Page 23] God, as he did afore time. Thus the third, the sixth, and the ninth hour,Acts 2.15.10, 9.3, 1. were the times of prayer, at our B. Saviour's coming, and obser­ved also by his Apostles.

7. The setting up of Synagogues and Oratories for the more convenient service and worship of God, in their respective cities; which are also called, the houses of God in their land, Psal. 74.8.83.12. though we read not of their Divine Institution; and the Iewes wrote over the doors of entrance, This is the Gate of the Lord; taken from Psalm 118.20. Such an Oratory, or place of prayer,Act. 16.13, 16. [...]. ubi ex rece­pto more e­rat aut sole­bat esse. Proseucha. Heinsius. St. Luke 7.4; 5. whereto the devout Iewes assembled daily, we read of, by a river's side, where God opened Ly­dia's heart, at St. Paul's preaching. And for the Building of a Synagogue, the Centurion is recommended to our B. Saviour, as a person singularly well deserving of the Jewish Na­tion.

Now it is farther observable of their Syna­gogues; That they were built in High places of their Cities, and higher than their own houses.

That out of reverence to them, none were suffered to make them Thorow-fares, or to use them for common matters.

That in every Synagogue was an ark or chest, wherein they laid the book, in resemblance of the Ark of the Covenant.

That, when they prayed, they turned their faces towards that Ark, as a monitory sign of the Ark of God, and his dwelling between the Cherubims.

That they had appointed Officers, Chief Rulers, Scribes, and Ministers, answering to [Page 24] the High-Priest, Priests, and Porters in the Temple.

That men and women were distinguished in their ranks and seats in the Temple. And,

That the Scriptures were read there, by cer­tain Sections,Act. 15.21. every Sabbath day.

These are points commonly acknowledged by the Jewish Antiquaries; and yet is not the building of Synagogues, or the ordering of God's service in them, at any time blamed by our Saviour,S. Luk 4.16, 20. or his Apostles; nay, we find them frequenting of them, and conforming to them. It was our B. Saviour's custom to go into the Synagogue every Sabbath day; and there he stood up for to read, and there was deliver'd to him the Book, which he afterwards closed, and gave it again to the Minister, as, they say, it was the manner of the Scribes, when they had read the Text. Totum regi­men Ecclesi­arum Christi conformatū fuit and Syna­gogarum ex­emplar. Grot. In Act. 11, 30.13, 1. Nay, It is the judgment of the Learned, that our B. Saviour and his Apostles, in the Government of the Church, had a special eye to the pattern of the Jewish Synagogues.

8. The observation of certain Festivals, for which they had no special precept, or institution from God.

Such were the dayes of Purim, observed by some for three dayes, and appointed to be observed two dayes yearly: in the 14. and 15. dayes of the Month Adar. The Iewes ordain­ed, Hester 9.27.28, 29. saith the Text, and took upon them, and their seed, and upon all such as joyned them­selves unto them, that it should not fail, that they would keep those dayes, according to the [Page 25] writing, and according to the appointed time every year, and that those dayes be remembred and kept throughout every generation, every fa­mily, every province, and every city, &c. In which dayes they read the History of Esther in their Synagogues.

Such were the seven dayes, 2 Chron. 7.9. wherein Solo­mon, and all Israel with him, kept the dedicati­on of the Altar.

Such the seven dayes also added by Hezeki­ah and the Princes,2 Chron. 30.23, 27. when they kept the passe­over fourteen dayes together, celebrated by the people with gladness, and not without a token of Divine acceptance.

Such also the Feast of the Dedication, in the Book of Maccabees, after the purging of the Temple (prophaned by Antiochus) and the re-building of an Altar in the room of that which he had violated.1 Mac. 4.56, 59. They kept the Dedi­cation of the Altar eight dayes, and offered burnt-offerings with gladness, and sacrificed the sacri­fice of deliverance, and of praise. Moreover, Judas and his brethren, with the whole congrega­tion of Israel, ordained, that the dayes of the de­dication of the Altar should be kept in their sea­son, from year to year, by the space, of eight dayes, &c. Yea,2 Ma [...]c. [...].1 [...]. and they wrote to the Jews at Egypt, that they also should keep it at the same time, &c. This Feast the Jews call [...] and [...], i. e. The Feast of Light, and burn­ing of Candles, (not unlike the name Candle­mas) an account whereof is given by some, from the strange kindling of fire to consume their sacrifices; by others,See 2 Mac. 10.3. from the lighting [Page 26] up of many Candles at this Festival. Of this Feast of Dedication in Winter, we read in the Go­spel of St. John, S. John 10.22, 23. and how that our B. Saviour graced, and approved it, by his presence in the Temple; as Divines are wont to argue his approbation of the marriage-feast, S. John 2. by his presence at it.

9. Certain dayes and times of fasting volun­tarily enjoyned, or kept by them. Of this sort were those mentioned by the Prophet Zecha­rie, Zech. 7. instituted by the Jews in the time of their exile, for a remembrance of sad Providences that had befallen them, the Fast of the fourth, fifth, seventh, and tenth month, and continued by them after their return; as appears by their Kalendar, and the consentient testimonies of men well acquainted with their practise. The Fast of the fourth month, in remembrance of the breaking down of their Walls. Jer. 52.6. The Fast of the fifth month, in remembrance of the burning of their Temple. v. 12. The Fast of their seventh month, in remembrance of the mur­ther of Gedaliah, whom the King of Babylon had deputed their Governour.Jer. 41.2. And, the Fast of the tenth month, in remembrance of the siege, 2 Kings 25.1. and taking of their City. And ‘I should wonder (saith Grotius upon the Prophet Ze­charie) it should ever come to be disputed,Quod an po­pulo liceat, disputati hoc saeculo mirarer, nisi contradi­cendi libido omnia de certis incer­ta faceret. Grot. in Zech. 3.3.’ (whether or no such like Fasts might be appointed, and observed by a people, with­out Divine command) ‘but that the spirit and lust of contradiction, can make of certain things uncertain.’

Nor had they only these anniversarie Fasts, returning upon certain months among them, but also weekly Fasts, in reference unto which it is said, ‘the Disciples of the Pharisees,S Mat. 9.14. [...]. St. Luk 5.33. [...]. S. Mark 2.18. St. Luke 18.12. and of John, did fast much and often; used to fast.’ As to the Pharisees, that strictest Sect of the Iews, they, we read, fasted twice a week, on the Munday and Thursday of every week. And when it was demanded of our Saviour, ‘Why his Disciples also did not fast, as the Disciples of Iohn and the Pharisees, were wont to do;’ he only excuseth them for their Present state, but affirms of them, that, ‘after the departure of him the Bridegroom, They should fast in those dayes, even so fast. S. Mark 2.25’ And it is these setled fasts, voluntarily undertaken, that He speaks unto, in his Sermon upon the Mount; St. Matt. 6.16, 1 [...]. and it is ‘nothing but the Pharisaism and hypocrisie of this kind of Fast, that He at any time decryes.’ When ye fast, saith he, be not as the hypocrites; but he supposeth them nevertheless to fast; nay, he adds a reward to such Fasts for substance, as the hypocrites observed, when sincerely performed. Thy Father which seeth thee to fast in secret, shall reward thee openly. Yea, these ordinarie fasts are reckoned by St. Luke part of the Divine Worship, which he commends Anna for; of whom he saith, That she departed not from the Temple, S. Luk. 2.37. [...] serving (or worshipping) God in pra­yers and fastings night and day. His meaning is not, that she dwelt, or continued always in the Temple; for in the next Verse mention is made of her coming thither; but that she for­sook [Page 28] it not at the set times; that she constant­ly frequented the Temple at the hours of prayer; and used in like manner a constant observation of fasting, and thereby worshipped God; As it is said of the Apostles, after Christ's ascention, that,8. Luke 24.53. they were continually in the temple, praising, and blessing God. i. e. the Temple at Ierusalem, was the place, not of their continual abode, but of their constant, dailie performance of their Devotions.

This then is Anna's commendation, ‘That she constantly frequented the Temple, and performed those acts of piety, prayer, and fasting, constantly at the prescribed, and ac­customed seasons of those duties; viz. fasting twice a week, and observing the daily hours of Prayer.’ And if in this she is said to serve and worship God, we need not fear dishonou­ring, or displeasing of Him by the like obser­vance. And now I may add farther, that it was usual with the Religious Iews, to fast eve­ry day till the third hour; i. e. nine of the clock in the morning, the hour of Prayer, and upon Sabbaths and Festivals unto the sixth hour; i. e. twelve of the clock. As to the first of these, St. Peter's apologie at Pentecost, when they were charged with drunkenness, seems ground­ed upon it;Act. 2.15. Grot. in loc. These are not drunken, as ye sup­pose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day, that is, the time of Matins, whereto, men indifferently pious, resorted fasting. And as to the later, it is not improbable but the Heathens did therefore so often upbraid the Iews with fasting on their Sabbaths; Hooker Eccl. [...]ol. l. 5. and to this [Page 29] also some refer the Iews finding fault with our Lord's Disciples,St. Matt. 12. Hebraeorum illa fuit à majoribus tradita, & usu recepta ac tanquam lege probata consuetudo, ut non lice­ret diebus fostis culquam ante sextam horam providere. Baron. tom. 1. Ann. 35. Num. 243. for rubbing a few cars of corn to eat, as they walked on the Sabbath day, which may seem rather a breach of their customarie fast till noon, than of the rest from work and labour then required. But enough of this Head.

10. I should be tedious, if I enlarged this Catalogue, as I might, by adding the Iewish rites at the Passeover and other Festivals, at Circumcision, Marriage, and Burials. I will therefore but touch upon them.

At the Passeover they varied the first cere­monie of Standing, Exod. 12.11. S. Matt. 26.19, 20. S. John 13.5. into the fashion of lying on beds; and then put off their shoos before lying down, whereas at first it was required to eat it with their shoos on. They added a thick sawce in memory of the clay and mortar in Egypt; and used red wine, for a remembrance that Pharaoh shed the bloud of their children. They had special forms of blessing the bread and the cup, both here, and at other Festivals: and they sung an Hymn, beginning at the 113. and reaching to the end of the 118. Psalm. They had frequent washings, St. Mat. 15. (as Calvin well ob­serves) Christ did not simply reprove their washings, (for then would he not have suf­fer'd, without reproof, the six water pots, S. Ioh. 2.) but their intention, and opinion of necessitie and holiness about them.

At Circumcision, They left a void chair for Elias; The Witness held the Child in his arms, &c.

As to their Marriages; the manner of their betrothing, by a piece of Monie, Wri­ting, &c.

The Marriage it self in an Assembly of ten men, with blessings and praises to God; the Marriage-feast seven dayes, &c.

And as to their Burials; washing the body of the deceased, embalming of it, the form of their sepulchres, their inscriptions upon them, &c. These are matters easily to be supplied by an overly Inspection into the Iew­ish Antiquities. Now,

When we can see a Command and Instituti­on from God, produced for these severals, and not till then, we may conclude, That the Church of the Iews were governed by this principle we have under our examination,

CHAP. V.

ANd so, I pass on, secondly, to the Church of the New Testament; and that,

First, in the time of Christ and the Apostles; wherein we may observe these instances;

[Page 32]1. Our B. Saviour himself did approve of, and conform unto those rites and practises a­mong the Iews, which were not founded upon any Divine Precept.

A special evidence of this we have, in his apologizing for, and commending of the affecti­onate deportment of two good women, towards himself, with their cruses of oyl, and sweet ointment, (such entertainment being usual with the Iews, at their feasts, and related to by Da­vid's expressions, Psal. 23.5.)— The first story we have in the Pharisee's house, by a wo­man that had been a sinner; St. Luke 7.37, 38. &c. ‘she brought a cruse of Ointment, and stood at his feet be­hind him, weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and wiped them with the hair of her head, and kiss'd his feet, and anointed them with ointment.’ This was her ceremonious observance, The Pharisee (whose name probably was Simon) takes ex­ceptions at Christ's enduring her approaches to him, being a sinner; but Christ answers him first with a Parable, and then so applies it, as to make a comment upon the several acts of the womans love, whom upon that account he as­sures of the pardon of her sins.Ver. 44.45, &c. ‘He turned to the woman, and said unto Simon, Seest thou this woman? I enter'd into thine house, thou gavest me no water for my feet, (a festival expression of the most ordinary sort a­mong them;) "but she hath washed my feet with tears, and wiped them vvith the hair of her head. Thou gavest me no kiss; (the familiar and customary way of salutation at [Page 33] first entrance;) but this woman, since the time I came in, hath not ceased to kiss my feet. My head vvith oil thou didst not anoint (an usual ceremony at the Iewish feasts, as was be­fore intimated;) "but this woman hath anoint­ed my feet vvith ointment. Wherefore I say unto thee, her sins, vvhich are many, are for­given, for she loved much, &c.’

The other story is of Mary the sister of Lazarus, St. Matt. 26.6, 7, &c. in the house of Simon the Leper at Bethanie. S. Mark 14.3. S. John 12.3. She brings a cruse of very preci­ous ointment to Christ, a little before his death, and poured it on his head, as he sate, or lay, at meat. St. Iohn adds, that ‘she anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair, and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.’ Whereupon the indigna­tion of some of the Disciples, the covetous traitor Iudas by name, was moved, and vent­ed its self by this check and reproof. ‘To what purpose is this waste? for this oint­ment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor.’ But Christ immediate­ly chides this impertinency, and declares a better resentment of Marie's kindness. ‘Why trou­ble ye the vvoman? for she hath wrought a good vvork upon me; for ye have the poor alvvayes vvith you, but me ye have not al­wayes; for in that she hath poured this oint­ment on my body, she did it for my burial, (not that she designed that, but Christ con­verts her kindness into that significancie, from the present time of it, and the aptness of the thing it self) "Verily I say unto you, where­soever [Page 34] this Gospel shall be preached in the vvhole vvorld, there shall also this that this vvoman hath done, be told for a memorial of her.’— Mary certainly had no warrant for this out of the written word, and yet our Saviour owns it for a Good Work, and such a goodwork, as should be preached all the world over for a memorial of her.— Novv unto these, for the honour of the Sex, I might add those other devout women, 3 Mark 16.1, 2. (vvhose praise is also in the Gospel) that ‘having bought svveet spices, came early to our Saviour's Se­pulcher, to anoint him:’— and, to bear them them company, that honourable Counsellor Io­seph of Arimathea, Ch. 15.43.45. who ‘having craved the body of Jesus, brought fine linnen, and took him dovvn, and vvrapped him in the linnen, and laid him in a sepulcher, vvhich vvas hevv­en out of a rock, &c.’

I have before suggested our Saviour's allow­ance of the Feast of Dedication, by his pre­sence in the Temple; and it were easie to de­clare, how, upon occasion, he complyed with the customary usages of the Jews, that had any usefulness in them, though no where com­manded, Hovv he frequented the Synagogues, and demeaned himself in them, I touched oc­casionally upon the mention of them. I will only novv point to his carriage at the Pass-over, and the institution of his own Supper there­upon. The form of the Jews in their more solemn feasts, is thus described to us by the Learned;P. Fagius in Deut. 8.10. First of all, the Master of the Fa­mily sitting dovvn vvith his guests, takes a cup [Page 35] of wine in his right hand, and then beginneth thus to pray, Blessed be Thou, O Lord our God, King of the world, who createst the fruit of the Vine! Which said, he suppeth of the wine him­self, and then giveth it to be tasted of by all at the Table. This prayer the Hebrews call Kid­dusch; i. e. Sanctification: and with this, Christ is thought to have begun his Supper, as St. Luke describes it to us;S. Luke 22.17, 18. ‘Having ta­ken the cup, he gave thanks, and said, Take it, and divide it among your selves, for I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the Vine, until the Kingdom of God shall come.’ Then after the blessing of the cup, he takes a loaf of bread, and holding it in both hands, consecrates it with these words; Blessed be thou, O Lord our God, who bringest bread out of the earth! Which said, he eats a morsel him­self, and distributes to all in like manner at the table. This finished, they fall to their other cheer, and when they have done, the Master of the Family, or chief person present, giveth thanks after this manner; Holding a cup of wine in both hands, he thus begins; Let us bless, or, give thanks to him who hath fed us of his own, and by whose goodness we live. Which said, the Guests make answer, Blessed be He whose bread we eat, and by whose goodness we live. This Grace the Hebrews call Bircath hamason, i. e. blessing of the meat; and ‘This now is the cup wherewith Christ, after Sup­per, did commend the mystery of his blood to his Disciples.’ After this, He that began, proceeds in a long Prayer; which ended, he [Page 36] saith, with a loud voice, holding the cup in his hand, as at first, ‘Blessed be Thou, O Lord our God, King of the world, who cre­atest the fruit of the Vine; and so drinking of the wine, he distributes it about unto the rest, and thus their feast both begins and ends with the blessing of the cup.’ Which rite, our B. Saviour in like manner observed in his Ho­ly Supper, as St. Luke relates it. ‘Likewise also the cup after Supper, saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for you.’— I might pursue this mat­ter, as to other circumstances also, but I for­bear.

2. Come we next to the Apostles of Christ, and the Church founded by them.

That which offers it self first to my thoughts here, is, ‘The observance of Jewish customes and ordinances, for a long time, even among those of them that were con­verted to Christianity, when the real obligati­on of Moses Law could not be pleaded.’ Inso­much, that when St. Paul, after much successful labour among the Gentiles in his minstry, came to Ierusalem, Iames the Bishop of the place (as is most probable) with the Elders there present, thus bespeaks him. ‘Thou seest, Brother,Act. 21.20. to 27. how many thousands of the Iews there are which believe, and they are all zea­lous of the Law; and they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Iews that are among the Gentiles, to forsake Moses, saying, that they ought not to circumcise their chil­dren, neither to walk after the customes. [Page 37] What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together, for they will hear that thou art come. Do therefore this that we say to thee. We have four men which have a Vow on them; Them take, and purifie thy self with them, and be at char­ges with them, that they may shave their heads, (in token, 'tis like, of the vow expired) and all may know, that those things whereof they were informed concerning thee, are no­thing, but that thou thy self also walkest order­ly, and keepest the Law. As touching the Gen­tiles which believe, we have vvritten, and concluded, that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to Idols, and from bloud, and from strangled, and from fornication. Then Paul took the men, and the next day, purify­ing himself with them, enter'd into the Tem­ple, &c.’— The Christian Iews were per­mitted a while to retain the Mosaical obser­vances, though not really obligatory in the force of a Law and Command, after the death of Messiah. And S. Paul himself, upon cer­tain motives, doth at this time conform, for their satisfaction;Act. 16.3. as he before ‘cir­cumcised Timothy, because of the Jews which were in those quarters.’ And though this was not urged on the Gentiles practise upon the score of their Christianity, who were ne­ver under the obligation of the Mosaical Law; yet we find also ‘certain things enjoyned them too, by way of complyance with the Jews, among whom they lived, and to [Page 38] avoid offence, which otherwise were not imposed by a Divine Command, As touch­ing the Gentiles which believe, we have written, and concluded, &c.’ The speech referrs to that Solemn Decree before passed, in that first Chri­stian Council we read of, Acts 15.Act. 15. where these matters are called necessary things, ‘though not under any Divine Command or Institution as to the Gentiles, v. 29. abstaining from meats of­fered to Idols, and from blood, and from strangled; from vvhich, if you keep your selves, ye shall do well.’ Necessary, viz. for the satis;faction of the Jews, and necessary too to be observed,Act. 16.4. ‘because then appointed and ordained so to be in that Council there assembled: viz. so long as the ground and occasion should continue; for we find S. Paul aftervvards granting liberty in certain ca­ses,1 Cor. 10.25, 27. to partake, without scruple, of things offered unto Idols.’

Evident it is (to name one particular more) that the first Christians (as that custom con­tinued long in the East) did use to assemble on the Sabbath day, as well as the first day of the week; and therefore neither did they fast on the Sabbath (our Saturdy) for the festivity of the day, [...]. Ignat. ad Phil. Sabbatum nunquam nisi in Fascha jejunandum. Ter­tull. de jejun. except that only before Easter, as Ignatius and Tertullian tell us. Not that they kept their Sabbath with a Jewish rigour, as to the Rest of it, but yet, as a day separate for their Christian conventions. And there are of the Learned, who refer that of S. James spoken in [Page 39] the Council [...] at Jerusalem to the Christian Assemblies,Act. 15.21. where Moses is said to be read in their Synagogues every Sabbath day. But I will not enlarge this matter farther.

A second instance may be, that holy kiss, or kiss of peace, observed in the Christian Assem­blies, and so frequently recommended to pra­ctise in the Apostolical Epistles; Rom. 16.16. 1 Cor. 16.20. 2 Cor. 13.12. 1 Thes. 5.26. 1 S. Pet. 1.14. ‘Salute one another with an holy kiss. Greet all the brethren with an holy kiss. Greet ye one another with a kiss of Charity.’ It being the manner then to part with benedictions, and mutual wishes of Charity, they expressed as much by this significant Ceremony of salutation.Quae oratio cum divor­tio sancti osculi inte­gra? Osculum pa­cis, quod est signaculum orationis. Tertul. de orat. [...]. Just. Mart. Apol. 2. Facilè crediderim jam ab aetate Apostolorum coenae administrationi conjunctum osculum fuisse. Calv. in 1 Cor. 16.20. Osculum frequens ac pervulgatum benevolentiae symbolum fuisse apud Judaes passim ex Scripturis liquet, apud Romanos minùs fortè usitatum, ne­que tamen insolens erat—in motem transiit apud veteres ut Christiani ance coenae communicationem se mutuò oscularentur ad testandam eo signo amicitiam, deinde eleemosynas conferrent, ut id quod repraesentaverant osculo re quoqua & effectu comprobatent.—Id. in Rom. 16.16. prout ci­tatur in expos. Ecclesiast. Tertullian therefore calls it, the S [...]al of Prayer; and Justin Martyr describing their Church-meetings, saith, when we have made an end of Prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. And Calvin himself thinks, it was used, at, or be­fore, the celebration of the Supper, from the age of the Apostles. Now this was certainly a common token of Love and Benevolence, fa­miliarly in use, adopted into the service of Re­ligion, and that without any special command from God.

A Third instance may be given, in those Love-feasts, or feasts of Charity, which were wont to accompany the holy Communion; in which Feasts, at the cost and charge of the rich, there was entertainment for the poor also; and the whole design was to signifie and preserve Christian love. St. Jude St. Jude v. 12. mentions these by their name;2 Pet. 2.11. [...]. and St. Peter in like manner, points to the same, however mistaken, and mis-translated in several Versions; both taxing the corrupt Gnostiques, as ‘spots and blemishes in their Feasts of Charity, when they feasted with them, feeding without fear’ i. e. luxuriously. And the phrase of breaking bread in the New Testament, is thought, by some learned men, to referr to this whole Feast, and not only the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper: and the Lord's Supper mentioned by S. Paul, 2 Cor. 11.20. is to be under­stood also for the whole feast, including both the Agape and the Eucharist, being immedi­ately joyned together. And the whole design of the Apostle there is to reprove the abuses crept into this Observance, so contrary to the nature, and end of it. For whereas these Love-feasts were a degree of imitation of that more fervent, and abundant charity in the first Christians, whereby they had all things in common, Act. 2. (for which yet they received no Di­vine Command) and the poor were no less welcom to, and regarded at them, than the rich; among the Corinthians, they began to degenerate quite into another thing, from the parties and factions made among them. St. Paul therefore endeavours to rectifie these a­buses; [Page 41] which afterwards grew to such an height, as occasioned the total abrogation of these Feasts themselves in the Church; the of­ferings then usually brought, being more advan­tageously disposed into a common bank for the poor and distressed.—? But that these Feasts were allowed of, as well as practised, in the Apostles times, cannot reasonably be disputed. And, it seems part of the Office whereto the seven Deacons were first appointed, to make this provision, as well as to relieve the poor othervvise, out of the stock of the Church, from the offerings that vvere brought; nothing being more aptly understood by their serving tables, Act. 6.2. than providing for the poor this Table at the Feasts of Charity.

‘A Fourth instance may be given, from St. Paul's injunctions, in order to the Decency of Divine Worship, for the man's being uncovered, and the woman covered, in pray­er and prophesying; and This too as a my­stical sign of moral duty, the man's superi­ority, and the woman's subjection.’ The place deserves to be perused at large;1 Cor. 11.3 to 16. in the eleventh Chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, from the third Verse to the six­teenth Verse; but that would engage me into too long a discourse. I will content my self therefore with the mention of the conclusion only of that matter, which indeed alone may well supersede all other instances.

The Apostle having argued several wayes the decency of those particular rites, that which he gives in the last place, to silence all [Page 42] controversie about them, is the custom of the Churches. V. 16. But if any man seem to be contenti­ous, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. He cuts off all farther disputation with these two axes (as a learned man notes) Apostolick institution, Duabus se­curibus dis­putationes amputat, In­stituto Apo­stolico & consuetudi­ne ecclesia­rum. Quod per omnes Ecclesias receptum est, disputando vel in controversi­am vocare est [...]. Grot. in loc. and the custom of the Churches; and intimates withall, that they de­serve the brand of contentious persons, who pre­sume so far as to make a controversie or dis­pute, of what is received by all the Churches.

If any will contend in matters circumstantial, and appertaining to the outward order of Gods worship, (such as the Apostle was speaking of) here is their right and proper answer laid down, wherein, if they rest not satisfied, they are to be looked upon as contentious persons. And I may well add the words of a most reverend person farther upon this very text,See Bishop Andrews ex­cellent Ser­mon on this Text. 'Tis Serm. 13. of the Resurrec­tion.— ‘It was but early day then; yet had they their cu­stoms even then. At the writing of this Epi­stle, it was not (at the most) thirty years from Christ's ascension; If that were time enough to make a custom now, after these twenty times thirty years, and hundreds to spare, shall it not be a custom now by much better right? A custom is susceptible of more and less: the farther it goeth, the longer it runneth, the more strength it gathereth, the more gray hairs it getteth, the more a vene­rable it is; for indeed, the more a custom it is.’

This was the Golden Rule, Ad quam forte Eccle­siam veneris ejus morem serva, si cui­quam non vis esse scan­dalo nec quenquam tibi. Ego vero de hac sen­tentia etiam atque etiam cogitans ita semper habui tanquam coelesti oraculo suscepe­tim. St. Aug. Ep. 118. ad Januar. which St. Am­brose gave to St. Austin, ‘To keep the cu­stom of every Church he came to (in such matters, for he instances in his own fasting on Saturday at Rome, but not at Millain;) and St. Austin tells us, that as often as he thought of this Rule, which he did often, he welcom­ed it no otherwise than as an heavenly oracle.’

Now certainly, that can be no Divine Prin­ciple, which quite overthrows this Apostolick way of deciding all controversies about the points of ceremony, and outward order in the Church, as that manifestly doth, which is un­der present consideration. But I am not yet at an end of my particular induction.

CHAP. VI.

I Will instance, Thirdly, in the times follow­ing the Apostles; the practise of all Reform­ed Churches; yea, the Independent Congregati­ons not excepted, and this Catechist's declaration in especial.

1. For the Primitive Church following the Apostles, I will only mention these Following;

The observation of the Great Festivals in re­membrance of the Birth, Resurrection, and Ascension of our B. Saviour, and the descent of the Holy Ghost.

The custom of ‘Standing in Prayer, on all Lords dayes, and every day between Easter and Whitsunday, in memory of Christ's re­surrection.’

Fasting upon Wednesday and Friday, (the dayes of our B. Saviour's Apprehension and Crucifixion) and constantly before Easter, the Lent-fast.

The frequent, and honourable use of the ce­remony, or sign of the Cross. And,

The Reverend receiving of the Sacred Eucha­rist, fasting. These are instances which can­not escape the notice of the Learned; and par­ticular testimonies and proofs from Antient VVriters, are too many to be here produced. Let the English Reader guess at the rest, from what he may find demonstrated at large, of the ‘Custom of observing Easter in the Church, by that admirable Prelate Bishop Andrews, Serm. 13. of the Resurrection, before recom­mended: and for Christmas, by Dr. Ham­mond. Practical Catechism, p. 203. &c.’

2. Next then for the practise of all Refor­med Churches (for to mention the Church of Rome, would, it is like, be thought a prejudice unto the cause) there need be produced no­thing more than this general Tenent owned by them all;

‘That every National Christian Church hath power to make laws for her self, in all such outward things as are not expresly either com­manded, or forbidden by the Word of God.’

Which will be a matter of undoubted evi­dence to any that shall vouchsafe to examin their respective Confessions.— But if any desire particular instances, he may find them collect­ed to his hand, in that useful Treatise publish­ed some few years since, by Mr. Durel, Mini­ster [Page 46] of the French Church in the Savoy, enti­tuled, A view of the Government and publick worship of God, in the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas. I pass on,

Thirdly, To the Independent congregations, and our Catechist's concessions by name. For the Independent practice, I observe,

‘Their singing of the Psalms of David, translated by humane invention, into Rythm and Meter; and,’

That too bare-headed, whereas they hear the Sermon with the hat on.

‘Sprinkling of Infants at Baptism, and re­ceiving the H. CommunionSee Part. 2. chap. 15. sitting.’ And,

‘Their particular forms of Church-Cove­nant.’

It would be somewhat for the vindication of their Grand Principle, and the satisfaction of the World, if they would declare plainly, where these things are commanded, and insti­tuted by Christ. And now for our Catechist himself, I instance in,

1. ‘His prudentials allowed of in Divine Worship.’ And,

2. ‘His way of evading some things grant­ed, by himself, to have been warranted by Christ.’

Take we his own words;

Catech. p. 45. ‘[It is true, in the observati­on of positive institutions, we may have regard unto Rules and Prescriptions of prudence, as to times, places, and seasons, that by no inad­vertency or miscarriage of ours, or advan­tage taken by the adversaries of truth, the [Page 47] edification of the Church be hindred. So the disciples met with the doors shut for fear of the Jews, John 20.19. and Paul met with the Disciples in the night, in an upper cham­ber, for the celebration of all the ordinances of the Church, Act. 20.7, 8.]’ Again,

[p. 61.62. ‘Whatever is of circumstance in the manner of it's performance, (viz. of Religious Worship) not capable of especial determination, as emerging, or arising only occasionally upon the doing of that which is appointed, at this or that time, in this or that place, and the like, is left unto the rule of moral prudence,— but the super-addition of ceremonies, necessarily belonging neither to the institutions of worship, nor unto those circumstances, whose disposal falls under the rule of moral prudence, neither doth nor can add any thing to the due order of Gospel Worship.]’

Now the allowance of any thing (be it on­ly time and place, and the like) is the destru­ction and death of this general principle, ‘That every thing relating to Divine Worship, must have a command or institution in the Scripture, and that nothing may be done in, or about Gods service, which is not so war­ranted.’ But the truth is, Moral prudence, is a word of vast extent, and opens a door wide enough for any thing pleaded for by the Church of England, to crowd in at. For it were worth the knowing, ‘Why prescribed Forms of Liturgy, and Habits, and Gestures, no-where determined in Scripture, fall not [Page 48] under the reach of Moral prudence's Autho­rity, as well as the circumstances of time and place; or why publick prudence may not be allowed to interpose in those things which a private prudence may determine.’

Now for his vvay of evading the obligation of some things granted to be of Divine Insti­tution;

[Catech. p. 50, 51, 52. ‘Mention is made in the Scriptures of sundry things practised by the Lord Christ and his Apostles, which, being then in common use amongst men, were occasionally made by them Symbolical instructions in moral duties. Such were, washing of feet by one another, the holy kiss, and the like; But there being no more in them, but a sanctified use directed unto the present civil customs and usages, the commands gi­ven concerning them, respect not the out­ward actions, nor appointed any continuance of them, being particularly suited unto the state of things, and persons in those Coun­tries;’ as John 13.12, 13, 14, 15. ‘After he had washed their feet, and had taken his gar­ments, and was set down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you? ye call me Master, and Lord, and ye say well, for so I am; If I then your Lord and Master have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one anothers feet, for I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you. 'Tis evident, that it is the moral duty of brotherly love, in condescension, and mu­tual helpfulness, to be expressed in all necessa­ry [Page 49] offices, as occasion doth require, that is the thing which Jesus Christ enjoyneth here his Disciples, and leads them to in his own example, in an office of love then in use in those parts. The same is to be said of the holy Kiss, Rom. 16.16. which was a temporary occasional token of entire love, which may in answer thereunto be expressed by any sober usage of salutation amongst men to the same purpose. But the things themselves were not instituted for any continuance, nor do repre­sent any special grace of the new covenant, which is inseparable from every institution of Gospel VVorship. Common usages or practi­ses therefore directed, to be used in a due manner, and unto a proper end, where they are used, make them not institutions of Wor­ship.]’

Well, we have here an acknovvledgment, not only of occasional rites, which he before called, the circumstances of moral prudence; but of symbolical tokens of moral duties, taken out of the civil customs, and usages of men, without a Divine command, and these mentioned in Scripture, as practised by christ and his Apo­stles; and therefore certainly our imitation here is warrantable; nay, one would judge (according to the principle we are upon) ne­cessary; for if a necessity be at other times argued, even for a gesture at the Sacrament, because Christ is presumed by them to have used it, who may dare to vary in any thing, where the example is more certainly determi­ned, and the imitation possible and easie; There [Page 50] especially, where he tells us, ‘I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you?’— This way of evading the obliga­tion of these symbolical rites in religion, by saying they were occasioned from the present civil customs and usages, vvill not serve the turn, however, in the later instance of the holy kiss, because that very vvay of salutation is as much a civil custom & usage now among us, as then; nor indeed is it fitting they should alledge an occa­sional institution for the exemption of their obe­dience here, vvho vvill not allovv the same plea to others, in other matters; yea, vvho impose those things upon others, as precepts, binding the conscience unto perpetuity, vvhich vvere at first but occasional, and so temporary institu­tions; I name particularly, 1. The office of the seven Deacons to serve tables, See part 2. chap. 12. vvhereto only they would novv have all Deacons confined, and the Catechist tells us,Cat. p. 16 [...]. ‘If it be not so; we reject an office of Christs appointment, and grovv weary of the observation of the institutions of the Gospel.’ And 2. The Sunday collection, See part 2. chap. 12. occasioned by the urgent ne­cessities of the Christians in Judea, and ap­pointed by St. Paul upon that day weekly, to save the labour of gatherings, when he came; converted by the catechist into a standing law, ‘[It is ordained,p. 165. that every first day, the mem­bers of the Church do contribute according as God enables them, of their substance, for the supply of the poor, 1 Cor. 16.2.]’ And, unto these instances may be superadded whatsoever else was practised in the primitive [Page 51] Church, under the state of persecution, and be­fore Religion was countenanced by Kings and Laws; wherein yet our exact conformity is as zealously pressed, as if we continued still in the very same circumstances. Lastly, Whereas it is affirmed to be inseparable ‘from every in­stitution of Gospel-worship, to represent some grace of the New-covenant, which these symbolical instructions do not;’ I would gladly be resolved, ‘Whether brother­ly love and charity, be not some grace of the New-covenant? or, What special grace of the New-covenant is represented, by singing one of the Gospel-institutions, hereafter enume­rated?’

To draw now towards a conclusion of this argument, I have so long insisted on: Let it be consider'd of, how, mischievous a consequence the entertainment of this general principle must needs be, ‘That nothing may be used, or al­lowed of, in, or about Gospel-worship, vvhich is not commanded, and instituted in the Word of God.’

‘There can be no observance of those ge­neral rules, That all things be done in or­der and decency, and unto edification; if there be no such power lodged in the Church, as to determine those outward cere­monies and circumstantials, which are no where specified by God himself; for either none at all will be determined, and so we shall be in danger of Atheism and profane­ness; or every one must determine and chuse for himself, and so (there being as many [Page 52] minds almost as men) we shall unavoidably run into endless Schisms and confusions.’ In truth, the main question here is only this; ‘Since God is to have an orderly and decent service kept up in the world, whether pri­vate discretion and conscience, or publick authority, is fittest to be trusted with the management of it? and then, In case that that the Governours of the Church, backed with the laws of Christian Princes, shall in­terpose in these matters left by God undeter­mined; whether, it be not a sin of unac­countable frowardness, and disobedience, to refuse the doing that, when vve are com­manded by authority, which we might every one chuse to do our selves, though we vvere not so commanded?’— We are not in this Kingdom to learn, what mischiefs and disor­ders may be reasonably expected from a prin­ciple we have already seen, and experimented so dismal and destructive consequences of. A short remembrance may here suffice from a judicious observer; Bp Sanderson Praef. to his Sermons. —‘When this gap was once open­ed, [VVhat command have you in Scripture, or what example for this or that?] Ʋnà Eurus­que Notusque ruunt—It vvas like the open­ing of Pandora's box, or the Trojan horse, as if all had been let loose; Swarms of Sectaries of all sorts, broke in, and as the Frogs and Locusts in Egypt overspread the face of the land; nor so only, but (as it often happen­eth) these young striplings soon out-stript their leaders, and that upon their own ground; for as these said to others, [What command, [Page 53] or example have you for kneeling at the Com­munion, for wearing a Surplice, for Lord Bishops, for a penn'd Liturgie, for keeping holy dayes, &c.] and there stop'd; so these to them, [Where are your Lay-Presbyters, your Classes, &c. to be found in Scripture? Where your Steeple-houses, your National Churches, your Tythes and mortuaries, your Infant-sprinklings, nay, your Meter-Psalms, your two Sacraments, your observing a week­ly Sabbath? for so far I find they are gone, and how much farther I know not, already; and how much farther they will hereafter, God alone knoweth; for, erranti nullus ter­minus, being thus far out of their way, they may vvander everlastingly.’—It may be then a kindness, vvhatever they think of it, to stop, if possible, to turn them, and let them see where they first mistook.

It is therefore the last office propounded in this general part of my discourse, to take a vievv of those several places of Scripture used, shall I say, or abused, by the Catechist to counte­nance this Leading-error, vvhich I have decla­red the falseness of. Unto that therefore I proceed.

CHAP. VII.

AS there is nothing more usual, so nothing more detestable in the Writers of this way, than horribly to wrest, and dally with God's holy oracles, and quote the Scriptures lamely and perversly, M. Per [...]ns saith well upon the oc­casion of the Devils tem­ptations un­to Christ, and alledg­ing Scripture in them.— ‘Gods Ministers must hereby be admonished, to be careful in alledging any text of Scripture, that the same be fit and pertinent; for to wrest the same from the proper meaning of the H. Ghost, to serve their ovvn conceit, is the practise of Satan. — Which also may serve for a good ad­vertisement to those that use to heap up manifold allegations of Scri­ptures—In this affected multiplicity, the abuse of Scripture can hardly be escaped.’ Park. Combat betvveen Christ and the Devil. Vol. 3. p. 393. as the Devil did; and commit the vice, which they so often falsly challenge others with, and for; namely, the [Page 55] adding unto, or detracting from, the Word of God, saying, the Lord hath spoken what he hath not, or the Lord hath not spoken what he hath. The plainest Scriptures are least of all minded, and obscurer places gloss'd upon, to patronize their private doctrines, fancies, and imagina­tions; yea, any faint allusion, or emblance, will serve for an express warrant. The Gar­ment spotted with the flesh hath been quoted a­gainst the Surplice. Bowing the knee to Baal, a­gainst kneeling at the Sacrament. The mark of the beast, against the Cross, &c. The margins of their books are commonly faced with a multitude of Scripture-quotations little or no­thing really to the purpose, but to make a fair shew, and deceive the credulous and simple. And so it is with our Catechist, who, to ren­der the number of his quotations more for­midable to the eye, repeats the same often­times over again. Some difficulty there will be in marshalling them into order, but I will take what care I can to leave none out, that cast but the least look or glance this way. I shall therefore examin them under the follow­ing Heads;

1. Those Scriptures which referr us to the VVord of God, as our rule, and commend unto us the perfection of it.

John 5.39. ‘Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they are they which testifie of me.’

Isa. 8.20. ‘To the Law, and to the Testi­mony; if they speak not according to this word it is because there is no light in them.’

Luke 16.19. (it should be I suppose vers. 29.31.) ‘They have Moses and the Prophets, let them hear them. If they hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be per­swaded though one arose from the dead.’

2 Tim. 3.15, 16, 17. —‘That from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise [...]to salvation, through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is 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.’

1 Pet. 1.19. (it should be 2 Ep.)—‘We have also a more sure word of prophesie, whereto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place.’

Psalm. 19.7, 8.9. ‘The Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.—making wise the simple.’—

‘Isa. 59.21. — "My spirit which is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seeds seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth, and for ever.’—

This last is Gods covenant, to continue his Spirit in conjunction with his words, through­out all ages, in his Church; And not to be­stow a particular reflection upon the rest, the genuine result of these Texts, is no more than what all Protestants agree in, ‘That we are obliged to attend vvith reverence unto the [Page 57] H. Scripture, in whatsoever it speaks; That we are diligently to read and peruse it to that purpose; and, That it is our onely, and per­fect rule, in all the matters of faith and good life, necessary to our salvation; which is the great end for which the Scripture was given unto us: That nothing is to be received as an Article of Divine Faith, or Law, in it self, binding the conscience, which is not accor­ding to the written Word, and from thence to be derived.— But then it cannot from hence be groundedly inferr'd, "That we must have express warrant out of the Scri­pture for every thing which we either be­lieve or do, or in those circumstantials, which are not any where thereby determined, farther than the prescribing of some general rules of piety and prudence, whereby our Go­vernours ought to determine them, and en­joyning obedience to all that are placed un­der them to their good orders agreeable there­unto.’

2. Those Scriptures which use the negative argument, of God's not commanding a thing, as a reproof, and condemnation of it.

‘Jerem. 7.27. (it should be v. 21 22, and 23.) Thus saith the Lord, Put your burnt-offer­ings unto your sacrifices, and eat flesh;’ (i. e. Eat of those offerings which were to be wholly consumed, no less than of other sacrifices. Le­vit. 1.) "for I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices, but [Page 58] this commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice

H. Grot. in loc. & An­not. in L. 4. & Rel. Christ.If that be true, which some ground upon this place, viz. That God issued forth no com­mand of sacrifices, till after their worshipping the Golden Calf; they were warranted only by custom, arising from a voluntary devotion: then we have gained so many fresh instances, to be added unto those before alledged against this general principle now examined; but I will not lean any thing to that supposition. It seems rather, that Sacrifices were before that requi­red. ‘The Israelites begg'd liberty to go out to sacrifice, by Divine directions, and Phara­oh gave it them; and God commanded the Sa­crifice of the Paschal Lamb, Exod. 3.18. and 8.8. and 12, 13.’ The meaning then of God, by the Prophet here, may be only this, That God preferr'd obedience before sacrifice, (as is else­where declared, 1 Sam. 15.22.) and manifested as much,See Deut. 4.22, 23, 14. when he gave the Law at Mount Si­nai, requiring moral observances audibly from them, without the mention of burnt-sacrifices, the prescriptions whereof Moses afterwards himself received; and so the negative hath on­ly a comparatiue force in it; I spake not, nor commanded concerning Burnt-offerings; i. e. not so much, not in comparison with, Obey my voice; as it is both said, and explained, in the Prophet Hosea, Hosea 6.6. ‘I desired mercy, and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt-offerings.’ Thus, there are the more weighty, St. Matt. 23, 23. and considerable things of God's Law, and those of a lesser size; the one such [Page 59] as ought chiefly, and especially to be done, and yet the other too not to be left undone.

—Others gloss on the words, that God did not command sacrifice from them in such a manner, and with such evil dispositions, as they brought it. And this is certainly the meaning of that expostulation in the first of Isaiah, Isa. 1.12. Who hath required these things at your hands? from whence too some of our Catechist's way have taught, ‘That nothing is to be done, but what God requireth.’ Whereas it is evident­ly the design of that place, Not to disclaim the Act spoken of, but the Actors, in their man­ner of performance; and the emphasis lies not upon these things, which were plainly matters of Divine appointment, but upon, your hands. Who hath required these things at your hands? even your hands that are full of bloud, verse 15. The scope of the place is not to disown the things themselves, the Worship given, but the corruption of the worshippers, as it is else­where said, ‘The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord, Prov. 15.8.’

Let us then see if the other places that be­long to this head, have more in them for our conviction.

Jer. 7.31. ‘They have built the high pla­ces of Tophet, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart. And again.’

Jer. 19.5. ‘They have built the high pla­ces of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt-offerings unto Baal, which I com­manded [Page 60] not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind.’

The meaning of these phrases here used, is questionless this [which I forbad them]: for the matter spoken of, is an abomination ex­presly forbidden by God, Levit. 18.21. And the same answer belongs to two other Texts.

Deut. 17.3. Where the Idolater is thus de­scribed;—‘Who hath gone and served other Gods, and worshipped them, either the Sun, or Moon, or any of the host of Heaven, which I have not commanded.’ i. e. manifest­ly which I have forbidden, Exod. 20.4. So,

Levit. 10.1. 'Tis the accusation of Nadab and Abihu, that ‘They offered strange fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not.’ i. e. which he had forbidden them; ha­ving commanded them to use the fire upon the Altar, which, to that very purpose was to be kept burning, and not to be put out, Levit. 1.7, 8. — 6.12, 13. — 16.12. God therefore ha­ving appointed his own fire, the using of any other in the room of it, could be no other than a violation of his appointment. —In all these places then, there is a figure of speech, which the Rhetoricians call [...] a diminution, whereby the greater is express'd by the less, and more is to be understood than is spoken. But what do all these signifie to the condem­ning of those ceremonies and circumstances which God hath neither forbidden, nor com­manded, but left free to his Church, for to enjoyn particular persons to make use of?

[Page 61]3. Those Scriptures which forbid the ad­ding unto, or taking from, the Word of God.

Deut. 4.2. ‘Ye shall not add to the word which I command you, neither shall you di­minish ought from it; that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God, which I command you.’

Deut. 12.32. ‘What thing soever I com­mand you, observe to do it, thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.’

Josh. 1.7. ‘Be strong, and very couragi­ous, that thou mayest observe to do accor­ding to all the law which Moses my ser­vant commanded thee; turn not from it, to the right hand, or to the left, that thou may'st prosper, whithersoever thou goest.’ And to the same effect, Josh. 23.6, 8.

Prov. 30.6. ‘Add thou not to his word, lest he reproove thee, and thou be found a lyar.’

Revel. 22.18, 19. ‘I testifie unto every man that heareth the words of the Prophe­sie of this book; if any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book; and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophesie, God shall take away his part out of the book of life.’

The Reader needs only to be call'd upon, to observe well, What it is to add unto, or di­minish from, God's Word. It is no other than This; to say, the Lord hath spoken what he hath not spoken, or, the Lord hath not spoken what he hath spoken. It is to give God the [Page 62] Lye, as Solomon intimates.—Add thou not to his Word, lest thou be found a lyar.— To take from Gods Word, is like clipping of the King's coyne. To add to it, is like setting the King's stamp on base metal; both crimes of an heinous nature. Thus the false Prophets are taxed, for prophecying lyes in God's name, and prefacing, Thus saith the Lord, to their own dreams; and the deceit of their own hearts, Jer. 23.

Now, Lay the saddle on the right horse, Wherein do we add any thing to Gods word, or take any thing from it? Wherein do we deny any thing which it affirms, or affirm any thing, of it,True it is, concerning the word of God, whe­ther it be by misconstru­ction of the sense, or by falsification of the words, wittingly to endeavour that any thing may seem Divine which is not, or any thing not seem, which is, were plainly to abuse, and even to fal­sifie Divine Evidence, which injury offer'd but unto men, is most worthily counted heinous. Which point I vvish they did vvell observe, vvith vvhom nothing is more familiar, than to plead, in these causes, the Lavv of God, the Word of the Lord, vvho, notvvithstanding, vvhen they come to alledge vvhat Word and Lavv they mean, quote continually Bye-speeches, in some historical narration or other, and urge them, as if vvritten in most exact form of Lavv.— Hooker l. 3. Eccles Pol. which it denyes? Let all of the Catechist's perswasion enter seriously into themselves, and examine impartially, Whether they are not more truly guilty of this crying sin, when they boldly add, and hold forth their own sense, and explica­tion of Scripture, as the pure word of God; when they impose burthens on the consciences of men, which God hath not imposed; by ma­king that unlawful to practise for conscience-sake towards God, which God hath no where forbidden; or that necessary, for conscience sake, to be performed, which God hath not requi­red. It is hard to find more notorious imposers in this kind, than they are. Witness those no­vel traditions of theirs added unto the Word of God.

Kneel not, when commanded by authority, but stand or sit; wear no linnen garment, cap, or tippet; no cassock and girdle, but a cloke, or coat, or jerkin, like to other Trades-men.

Use not the sign of the Cross, though it re­ally import no more than the word cross spo­ken doth, that only affecting the eye, as the other doth the ear, yet use it not, for God will be offended with you, if you so do.

Teach not your children forms of Pray­er, &c.

Let it be considered, if this be not adding abominably to the word of God, to condemn any Church, much more, many Churches, as ‘repudiated, or divorced from God,Cat. p. 87. for en­joyning the practise of certain circumstan­ces relating to the outward worship of God, without any opinion of the necessity or Di­vine authority of the things themselves en­joyned; such circumstances, as if they were not enjoyned, every private Christian might, for himself, determine.’ To make this the mark of the Beast, the character of the Whore, &c. Yea, Is it not adding to the word of God, to re­ferr all those Texts to the worship of God, which speak of his word?

But now to evince, that these Texts, do not forbid all kinds of additions to the word of God, otherwise, then as hath been explained; and that therefore the distinction of corrupt­ing, and preserving additions, is not so Popish, but that every good Protestant may safely admit it, and that it is utterly false, which the Cate­chist asserts, That every addition, of what sort [Page 64] soever, is a corruption, because an addition. I will mention briefly some lawful additions that are not here forbidden, See Dr. Bur­ges's answer to the reply made to Bp. Morton's ge­neral de­fence. p. 136, &c. lawful additions, I mean still, not as parts of the word of God, but as preservatives of the text, or meaning, or observation of it. Such then are additions,

1. Which preserve the text, as divers read­ings, marginal notes, the Jewish Massoreth.

2. Which preserve the sense, as interlineary glosses, marginal references, commentaries. And,

3dly. Which preserve the observation of the Scripture, as the building, and ordering Syna­gogues for the reading of it, the dividing it in­to certain sections for every Sabbath, the ordi­nation of holy Feasts and Fasts upon occa­sion, &c.

These are additions, for the better keeping of God's word onely, and so not forbidden by these texts of Sacred Writ; which call us unto the custody and observance of it, as it is delivered to us.

4. Those Scriptures which prohibit the worshipping of God by the commands of men, and Will-worship.

Isa. 29.13. ‘Their fear towards me, is taught by the precepts of men.’ Which is a­gain referr'd to by Christ.

Matt. 15.19. — ‘In vain do they wor­ship me, teaching for Doctrines the com­mandments of men.’

The thing charged in these words, is, ‘The esteeming of those things which men only have deliver'd, to be a real worshipping of God, i. e. the equalling of mere humane [Page 65] ordinances with Divine commandments; yea, "the preferring of the commands of men to those of God's.’ For, our B. Saviour had before accused them, for ‘transgressing the command of God by their tradition, and making "the command of God of none ef­fect, by their tradition, ver. 3. and ver. 6.’— The Prophet Isaiah speaks of Ordinances ex­presly contrary to God's commands, stagger­ing drunkenness, ver. 9. that is, probably, Ido­latry; and it may be, there was consequent to that, ‘the making of certain humane inventi­ons, in themselves a necessary, and accepta­ble worship of God, and putting them in the room of that worship that God had commanded.’— And our Saviour applyes it to the Jews, who placed the worship of God in their own traditions, that is, they reputed the inventions of men such things, as of, and for themselves, were pleasing to God, and obli­ging to their conscience, and such as if left undone, brought them no less under the guilt of sin, than the transgressing of Gods com­mand. They placed, I say, a worship of God, in their traditions, and made God's commands void, and of none effect, by them, & give way unto them. They thought that the very crea­tures of God would defile them, if eaten with unwashen hands; yea, say some of their Rab­bins, as much as lying with an harlot.— That this was our Saviour's purpose, is plainly set down in the Gospel of St. Mark, chap. 7.6, 7, 8, 9.St. Mark 7.6, 7, 8, 9.— ‘Well hath Isaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people [Page 66] honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; howbeit, in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the tra­ditions, (or injunctions) of men; for, lay­ing aside the commandement of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups, and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them; Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.’— As if he had said, ‘Is not this fair worship and serving of God, to reject his prime com­mands, of inward purity, and moral righte­ousness, the most considerable parts of reli­gion; and act directly contrary to them, and satisfie, and content your selves with some external performances, not at all command­ed by God, but by your selves, or your Rabbins.’

Dr. Ham. pract. Cat. p. 203. ‘Teaching for Doctrines the injunctions, or traditions of men, is, The affirming, that such and such things are the pleasure, command, or will of God, which, to affirm, is the same crime, as for any subject to put the King's Broad Seal to his own Deed.’— In a word, ‘to pretend a tradition of the Jews, to be a law of God's enacting, or to set it up against, or in lieu of any known Law of God's, is the crime noted by that phrase, and nothing else, but what bears some analogie with that.’

But then, How can we be challenged as wor­shipping God in v [...]in, in those usages, where­by, of themselves, we pretend not at all to wor­ship [Page 67] him? or to teach for doctrines the in­junctions of men, who affirm them not to be of Divine authority; nor yet use them to the supplanting any thing of God's appointment, but only in subordination to, and for the decent, and orderly observance of his institutions? By this therefore it appears also, how vainly we are challenged with Will-worship. But let us see the place.

Coloss. 2.20, 21, 22, 23. ‘Wherefore, if ye be dead with Christ, from the rudiments of the world; why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances? (Touch not, taste not, handle not, which are to pe­rish with the using) after the commandments and doctrines of men: Which things indeed have a shew of wisdom in will-worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body, not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.’

It cannot scape our notice here, that the A­postle placeth the shew of wisdom in will-wor­ship, as in humility and austerity, and therefore designed to reflect no more disgrace upon that word, than upon the other. And indeed, the case is clear, that there were free-will-offerings among the Jews, which were not the less, but the more acceptable, for being voluntary. And it hath before been proved, by an induction of many particulars, that there were sundry usages appertaining to Religion, among them, which yet were not upon that account, reje­cted by, or displeasing unto God.— The genu­ine account of these words of St. Paul, with some emendation of the translation, is well [Page 68] comprized by the Reverend, and Learned Dr. Hammond, in this ensuing Paraphrase.

Dr. Ham. Pa­raphr. ‘[If therefore ye have received the Chri­stian Faith, and, as ye ought to do, made that use of the death of Christ, as to for­sake all other doctrines and practises, to re­ceive his, and so to look upon the rites of the Jews, and the Philosophy of the Gentiles as abolished, and out-dated, by reason of the doctrine of Christianity; why do you (ser­vilely) subject your selves to such abstinen­cies, as either out of the Heathen, or Jewish practises, are brought in among you (such are those of abstaining from marriages, [...]. and some sorts of meat, as utterly unlawful; which, though they might be lawfully enough abstained from, as indifferent things, yet when they are taught, and believed to be detestable things, and utterly unlawful, by that abuse, tend to the bringing of all unnatural, [...]. and horrible villanies among you) why, I say, do you subject your selves to such abstinencies, as precepts, and doctrines of men, contrary to that liberty which Christ hath purchased for us, and those doctrines of inward purity which he hath taught us: which observances are indeed set off with some specious fair shews, as that they are voluntary services or free-will-offerings to God, that there is great humility in them, (as in that of worshipping angels, ver. 18.); "That they are a great au­sterity to, and punishing of the body; that they are quite contrary to the placing any honour in the satisfying of the flesh, though [Page 69] it be by conjugal enjoyments, but all these are but specious, not real services, have nothing of true worship in them.]’

Now, if the Reader desire a fuller satisfacti­on about this Paraphrase, he may consult the excellent notes of that judicious author on that Chapter, too long to be here in­serted.

In short, Take we the word Will-worship, as it is commonly used to express superstition by; he that will, to any purpose, fasten the charge upon us, must declare and evidence, ‘that we father some humane traditions and ordinances upon God, or make them neces­sary to be observed as Divine, and in order unto Salvation, which will be task enough.’

5. Those Scriptures which require faith of us, in order to the pleasing of God, and impute the guilt of sin to whatsoever is not of faith.

Hebr. 11.6. ‘Without faith it is impossible to please God.’

Rom. 14.23.— ‘For whatsoever is not of faith, is sin.’

Now, how palpably these texts are mis-ap­plyed, to evince the necessity of such a faith, as hath for every action, and circumstance, some written word of God to rest and rely upon, will abundantly appear by a transient view of them. For,

First, the faith required by the Author to the Hebrews, without which it is impossible to please God, is described by him in the very same verse, —‘For he that cometh unto God, must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder [Page 70] of them that diligently seek him.’ Two points undeniably of natural, and rational belief, had, there been no Scripture vvritten. And,

Secondly, It is evident by the context, that the Apostle to the Romans speaks not of a faith related only to the word of God, but he means by faith any good perswasion of the lawfulness of the act, whether by reason or Scripture-per­swasion, opposed to doubting. We need look no farther than the same Chapter, for a confir­mation of this.Rom. 14.2. At the 2. verse, ‘One belie­veth that he may eat all things,’ that is, he is verily perswaded in his conscience, that he may as lawfully eat flesh as herbs, any one kind of meat, as any other; he maketh no doubt of it. Again, verse 14.ver. 14. ‘I know, and am perswaded, that there is nothing unclean of it self;’ that is, I stedfastly believe, it is a most certain, and undoubted truth. Again, vers. 22.ver. 22. ‘Hast thou faith? have it to thy self before God;’ that is, Art thou in thy conscience perswaded, that thou mayest lawfully partake any of the good creatures of God, let that perswasion suffice thee, for the approving of thine own heart in the sight of God, but trouble not the Church, nor offend thy weaker brother, by a needless, and unseasonable ostentation of that thy know­ledge. And then lastly, in this 23. verse,ver. 23. ‘He that doubteth, is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith, that is, he that is not fully perswaded in his own mind, that it is lawful for him to eat some kinds of meats, (as namely, swines-flesh, and bloodings);’ and yet is drawn, against his own judgment, to eat thereof, (be­cause [Page 71] he seeth others so to do, or because he would be loath to undergo the taunts and jeers of scorners, or out of any other poor respect) such a man is cast and condemned by the judg­ment of his own heart, as a transgressour, be­cause he adventureth to do that, which he doth not believe to be lawful. And then the Apostle (proceeding ab hypothesi ad thesin) immediately reduceth that particular case into a general rule, in these words; ‘For whatso­ever is not of Faith, is Sin;’ Quod dubi­tas, ne fece­ris. Cicero. by the process of which his discourse, it appears, that by Faith, no other thing is here meant, than such a perswasion of the mind and conscience, as we have now declared, and that the true pur­port and intent of these words, is but thus much in effect;

Whosoever shall enterprize the doing of any thing,See Bp. San­derson's ex­cellent Ser­mon on this Text. pag. 82. 83. See also D [...] Iackson, l. 2. ch. 7. which he verily believeth to be unlawful, or, at least wise, is not reasonably well perswaded of the lawfulness of it, (let the thing be otherwise, and in it self what it can be, lawful, or unlawful, indifferent, or necessary, convenient, or inconvenient, it mattereth not) to him it is a sin howsoever.

And yet farther, were it granted, that the faith required to legitimate our actions, must necessarily have some place of Scripture to build it self upon; it ought to be remembred, That this faith may derive its assurance from general rules there laid down, as well as any particular commands; and there is hardly a case in reference unto practise, which that of St. Paul to the Philippians extends not unto, Phil. 4.8. [Page 72] Where yet he leaves the particulars as mat­ters to be approved and judged of by them­selves, according to that capacity and under­standing, which, as men, God had endowed them with, and all that exhortation of his, is plainly a reference to the chief rules of right reason, to guide their choice and actions by.

CHAP. VIII.

6. THose Scriptures which describe Christ's faithfulness, compared with Moses, and point unto him, as the one Law-giver, and Lord of his house.

Hebr. 3.5, 6. —‘Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken. But Christ, as a son, over his own house, whose house are we, if we hold fast the confi­dence, &c.’

The usual inference made from hence, is, that, as Moses did appoint the very rituals ap­pertaining unto Uod's worship among the Jews; so did Christ, in like manner, prescribe unto his Church; otherwise, he is not faithful as Moses.

But here it is not considered, that there were several circumstances, not determined by the law of Moses, and many particulars under that [Page 74] law, of Divine acceptance, though of humane institution, as hath been declared.

And then, secondly, the Apostle's compare between Christ and Moses, is wofully mis-sha­pen. See Ho [...]ker Eccles. Pol. [...]. 3. S. 11. He that will see how faithful the one, or the other was, must compare the things which they both did, unto the charge which God gave each of them; for fidelity is the righteous execution of a charge received; — faithful to him that appointed him, ver. 2. The Apostle, in making comparison between our Saviour and Moses, attributeth faithfulness unto both, and maketh this difference between them, Mo­ses in, but Christ over the house of God: Mo­ses in that house, which was his, by charge and commission; though to govern it, yet to go­vern it as a servant; but Christ, over his house, as being his own entire possession. Our Lord and Saviour doth make protestation, ‘I have given unto them the words which thou ga­vest me.8. John 17.’ Faithful then he was, and conceal­ed not any part of his Father's will. But what this revealed will of the Father is, we must not take from our own conjectures, but by inspection into it, nor may we add thereunto, lest we be found lyars.

John 13.13. ‘Ye call me Master, and Lord; and ye say well, for so I am.’

Malach. 1.6. ‘If I be a Master, where is my fear?’

James 4.12. ‘There is one Law-giver, who is able to save and destroy; Who art thou that judgest another?’

These are matters universally acknowledged [Page 75] that Christ, being the Lord, Master, and Law-giver of his Church, ought to be feared, and reverenced, as such, and to have all his laws and commands observed. There is no doubt moved of this. But we are not satisfied, that all those are Christ's laws, which some men would impose upon us under that title. Nor doth the acknowledgment that Christ is the one, and only supreme Law-giver of the Church, the giver of laws which bind the conscience in them­selves, by which laws he will also judge them to their eternal state; the only Law-giver, able to save and to destroy, as St. James describes him; this acknowledgment, I say,Vide Gr [...]t. de imper. Sum. potest. cap. 4. S. 5. pulchrè distinguen­tem de acti­onibus Chri­sti, Termina­libus & me­diis. doth not hin­der, but that there may be certain Law-givers under Christ, and commissioned by him, for the outward ordering of his worship, whose laws do bind the conscience too, but not immediately; i. e. in, and of themselves, but by vertue of Christ's law, that requireth obedience for con­science-sake, to the authority ordained by him.

7. Those Scriptures, which command us to hear, and obey Christ, under the greatest penalty.

Matt. 17.5. ‘This is my beloved Son, hear ye him.’

Act. 3.23. —‘Every soul which will not hear that Prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.’

Hebr. 12.25. ‘See ye refuse not him that speaketh; for if they escaped not, who re­fused him that spake on earth, much more [Page 76] shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven.’

Now, there is no question moved, Whether Christ be not to be heard and obeyed in what he speaks, but only, Whether he hath, in this, or the other matter of circumstance and order, particularly spoken any thing by way of de­termination; for the resolution of which, re­course must be had to the records of vvhat he hath spoken, and by them we must be judg­ed. Under this head therefore, may be also ranked,

Those Texts of Scripture, wherein Christ enjoynes his Disciples, to teach all his com­mands, and wherein others are commanded, and exhorted to obey them, or commended, as exam­ples of a diligent observance of them.

Matt. 28.20. —‘Teaching them to ob­serve all things, whatsoever I have com­manded you.’ This is often urged by the Ca­techist. But the point of doubt is nor, Whe­ther the Apostles were bound to teach, and so did teach the observance of all things by Christ commanded; but this only, Whether Christ did particularly command all that his Church was to observe, in the very circumstantials of his outward worship. The Scriptures then that call for obedience unto God's commands, or commend that obedience, referr nothing to this matter, till it be manifest, that we have such and such commands, whereto our obedience is required. It will therefore suffice, barely to re­cite them. The Scripture-commands for obe­dience.

Deut. 13.4. ‘Ye shall walk after the Lord your God, and fear him, and keep his com­mandments, and obey his voice, and cleave unto him.’

Deut. 30.2.8.20. ‘Thou shalt obey his voice, according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy children, with all thy heart, and with all thy soul.’

1 Chron. 16.13. (it should be, I suppose, 15. verse,) ‘Be ye alwayes mindful of his co­venant, the vvord vvhich he commanded to a thousand generations.’

John 14, 15, 21, 23. ‘If ye love me, keep my commandments. He that hath my command­ments, and keepeth them, he it is that lo­veth me.—If any man love me, he will keep words.’—

Chap. 15.14. ‘Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.’

Chap. 8.31. —‘If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed.’

1 Ep. John, 2.3, 4. ‘Hereby we know that we know him, if we keep his command­ments.’—

Luke 9.26. —‘Whosoever shall be asha­med of me, and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed.’—

Exod. 24.3. ‘Moses came and told the peo­ple all the words, of the Lord, and all the judgments; and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the Lord hath said, will we do.’

Deut. 26.17. ‘Thou hast avouched the [Page 78] Lord this day to be thy God, and to walk in his wayes, and to keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his judgments, and to hearken unto his voice.’

Gen. 18.19. ‘I know him (Abraham) that that he will command his children, and his houshold after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judg­ment.’— No question too but Abraham's children and servants were more obedient to his commands, in the matters of God's worship and service, than those of the separation are gene­rally observed to be, who withdraw from Family-devotion, &c.—

1 Cor. 11.23. ‘I received of the Lord, that which also I deliver'd unto you.’— It was part of the Apostle's faithfulness to deliver that ordinance to the church, vvhich he had recei­ved as such, from the Lord; and whatsoever is deliver'd to the Church,So again, in the Articles of Christian Faith,—‘I deliver'd that which I also re­ceived,’ 1 Cor. 15.3, 4. under that notion, as a Divine ordinance and institution, ought first to be so received from the Lord. This Apo­stle's practise then, deserves imitation; and in this especially, that he very carefully distin­guisheth his own counsels and advice, from the Divine commands.— ‘I speak this by permis­sion, and not of commandment. — Unto the married, I command, yet not I, but the Lord.— But to the rest speak I, not the Lord.-Concerning virgins, I have no command­ment of the Lord, yet I give my judgment, as one that have obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful. I suppose therefore, that this is good for the present distress.— She is hap­pier, [Page 79] if she so abide, after my judgment.’— And this Apostolical practise, is a sufficient evi­dence, that some things may be advised and pra­ctised in the Church, without the authority of any special command from God.

8. Those Scripturcs, which relate to the pattern given in the Mount to Moses, and the other to EZekiel.

Exod. 25.40.— ‘Look that thou make them after the Pattern, which was shewed thee in the Mount.’

EZek. 43.10, 11. ‘Thou son of man, shew the House to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities, and let them measure the pattern, and if they be a­shamed of all that they have done, shew them the form of the House, and the fashion thereof, and the goings out thereof, and the comings in thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the lavvs thereof, and write it in their sight, that they may keep the whole form thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and do them.’

One vvould guess, by these allegations, the Catechist and his Brethren vvere far from be­ing avovved enemies to setledforms of worship.— But that these are allusions only, vvhich they are accustomed to cant vvith.—

The former Text relates to the Tabernacle, which God appointed Moses to make, vvith the appurtenances thereof, Act. 7.44. The later is not so easily resolved upon amongst Interpre­ters, what Temple it was to be referr'd unto.

Grot. in EZek. cap. 40.2.It seems most probable, that the Prophet EZekiel received the pattern of the Temple, in a Vision, as it was when Nebuchodonosor destroy­ed it, and that to this purpose, that the Jews might understand hovv great a glory of their Nation they had forfeited by their sins; and that vvhen God should restore them from their captivity, they might have before them a Sampler to imitate, as far as they were able. And if any object, that the description here made of it, doth not exactly square and agree with that of Solomon's; 'tis answered, That those many Kings who came after Solomon, did, out of the great tributes and gifts brought into the Temple, add much unto it, by the orna­ments of it; yea, and changed the use of some things about it. But I need not lay any stress upon conjectures. When we have the privi­ledge to be taken into the Mount with Mo­ses, and behold God's pattern, or receive a Vi­sion of it with Ezekiel, we shall be certainly obliged to conform unto it; but in the interim, that vvhich is obtruded upon us by some for it, vve can entertain for no other than a dream of men of strong imaginations.

9. Those Scriptures which point unto the spiritual worship required by God under the Gospel.

See the ex­plication of this text farther, in this book hereafter. John 4.21, 23, 24. ‘Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, vvor­ship the Father; but the hour cometh; and now is, vvhen the true vvorshippers shall vvorship the Father in spirit and truth; for [Page 81] the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and truth.’

Heb. 10.19, 20, 21, 22. ‘Having therefore boldness to enter into the holiest, by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the vail, that is to say, his flesh, and having an high priest over the house of God; Let us draw near, with a true heart, in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.’

1 Cor. 14.20. ‘Brethren, be not children in understanding.’

2 Cor. 3.7, 8, 9, 10, 11. (where the Apostle compares the ministration of the Spirit with the Law, and preferrs it as more glorious.) ‘If the ministration of death, written, and ingraven instones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses, for the glory of his countenance, which glory was to be done away; how shall not the ministration of the Spirit be ra­ther glorious? For, if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory: for even that which was made glori­ous, had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth; for if that which was done away, was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.’ The whole design of which place is to prefer the glory of the everlasting Gospel, above that [Page 82] of the Legal dispensation, which was to give way to it.

Catech p. 56.17, 58 59, 60.Now these places are alledged by the Cate­chist, to prove, That the decency and comliness of Gospel-worship, doth not in the least depend upon the observation of any external rites or ceremonies.

But the mistake lies, in making that the only excellency, and requisite of Gospel-worship, which is indeed it's principal and chiefest qua­lification.

The case, one would think were very plain. We are not our selves naked bodies, nor yet ghosts or spirits; but spirit and body united together. The soul, and spirit, is the most considerable and ruling part in us; and yet the body is a part also, though subordinate. Our duty then, is readily chalked out by the Apostle;1 Cor. 6 10— Glorifie God in your body and spirit, which are Gods; in body and spirit together. Chiefly indeed, in, and with, our souls and spirits, which are chief within us; but not with our souls only. 'Tis part of our reasonable service, Rom. 12.1. to present our bo­dies also a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God. Yea, whilst we live in Society, 'tis our greatest concernment, in reference unto others, by our visible, and bodily, and external devoti­ons, to declare a reverent sense of God, and affection to his honour. We cannot glorifie God among men, but by the sensible expressi­ons of our religion; and therefore God, in the second Commandment, mentions these; and the ordering of these, is the proper matter of hu­mane cognizance and government, to busie it [Page 83] self about. In the first place, we must have Grace in our hearts, that we may serve God acceptably; but then it is but fitting that we discover that inward grace, by the external acts of a becoming reverence also. Let us have grace, Hebr. 12.28, 29. that we may serve God acceptably, with reverence and godly fear; for our God is a consuming fire. St. Paul thought it fit, not only to provide, that the Church at Corinth might serve God understandingly, and with the spirit, but after this decent manner also, the man uncovered, 1 Cor. 11. and the woman covered. Nor is it fitting, that the honour of God's publick worship, should, in this particular, be left to the un­certainties of every clownish and fantastick humour.

10. It is said, to be the main design of the second commandment, Catech. p. 62, 63. to forbid the making un­to our selves any thing in the worship of God, to add unto his appointments; whereof an in­stance is given, in that of making, and worship­ing Images. To this purpose, we are frequently referr'd unto,

Exodus 20.4, 5. ‘Thou shalt not make unto thy self any graven image, or any like­ness of any thing that is in Heaven above, or that is in the Earth beneath, or that is in the Water under the earth; Thou shalt not bow down thy self to them, nor serve them, for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, &c.’

It may seem neer akin to adding unto the Word of God, for any to presume to turn the body of a precept into an instance only. The [Page 84] main design of the commandment is plainly a­gainst Idolatry. God's jealousie therefore, is, in this case, said to be moved, when we do as the wife that admits of another to her husband's bed; when we forsake God, for the cleaving to any other thing, or person, in his room; when we deny God the worship he requires, or give his worship to another.—Deut. 4.23, 24.—Make not any graven image, nor the likeness of any thing that I have forbidden thee; for the Lord thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God.

For a close of this, I will desire the Cate­chist's friends, to peruse impartially, an admi­rable Discourse of Bishop Andrews upon the occasion of this Commandment,Bp Andr. Sermon on Act. 2.42. against the Worshipping of imaginations.

11. Those Scriptures which are said to speak of the Apostacy of the Church prophetically,Cat. p 81.82. (set out under the name of fornication and whoredome,) and the innocency of those that kept themselves undefiled therewith.

Revel. 14.4, 5. ‘These are they which are not defiled with women, for they are vir­gins: these are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth; these were re­deemed from among men, being the first-fruits unto God, and unto the Lamb, and in their mouth was found no guile; for they are without fault before the Throne of God.’

Revel. 17.1, 2, 3, 4, 5. ‘And there came one of the seven Angels, which had the seven Vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, [Page 85] Come hither, I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great Whore, that sitteth upon many waters, with whom the Kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabiters of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornicati­on, So he carried me away in the spirit, in­to the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet-coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads, and ten horns And the woman was arrayed in pur­ple, and scarlet colour, and deck'd with gold, and precious stone, and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand, full of abominations, and fil­thiness of her fornication; and upon her fore­head was a name written, Mystery, Babylon the great, the Mother of Harlots, and abo­minations of the earth; and I saw the woman drunken with the bloud of the Saints, and with the bloud of the Martyrs of Jesus.’—

Rev. 18.4. ‘And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.’

That nothing so properly answers to forni­cation and whoredome, in the sense of Scri­pture, as Idolatry doth, I have intimated under the last head, and might here produce many Texts of sacred Writ, to that purpose. Levit. 17.7. ‘They shall no more offer their sacri­fices unto Devils, after whom they have gone a whoring. Psalm 106.35, 36, 37, 38, 39. They were mingled among the heathen, and learned their works, and served their Idols. [Page 86] Thus went they a whoring with their own inventions. Jer. 2.20, 27. "Upon every high hill, and under every green tree, thou wan­drest, playing the harlot,—saying to a Stock, thou art my father, and to a Stone, thou hast brought me forth, &c.’— to omit other places, the case is so familiar. Answerably now to this notion, there is nothing bids so fair to the title of the Great Whore, in the Re­velations, as Rome-heathen, and nothing so like her fornication, as her Idolatries. I will not now enlarge upon the special inducements unto this belief. It shall suffice here, to transcribe a clear paraphrase upon the quo­tations mentioned,See Dr. Ham. Notes on the places. according to this sup­posal.

Revel. 14. ch: 4, 5,Revel. 14.4, 5. ver. are a description of the primitive Christians purity, from the un­cleanness of the Gnosticks; ‘[These are, as virgins, not defiled with women, they that have kept pure, from all the heretical Gno­stick corruptions of uncleanness, &c. and that hold out constant, against all the terrors of per­secution, and so were rescued from the sins of that wicked age, the pure primitive Christians, those first-fruits to God, and the Lamb, that never fell off to any false, Ido­latrous, or heretical practise, but served God blameless.]’

Rev. 17.1, 2, 1, 4, 5. Revel. 17.1. to 5. ver. contains the Vision of Rome-heathen ‘[Another vision I saw to the same purpose; one of those executioners of God's wrath, came unto me, saying, I will shew thee vengeance, that is ready to befall [Page 87] the Imperial dignity of Rome, fitly entitled the Great whore (Great in it self; and who for their impieties against God, their worship­ing of many heathen gods, directly own that title; as an harlot is she, that takes in many others, instead of the one husband) sitting, i. e. ruling, over many waters; i. e. much people; having many nations under her Do­minion; from the power and authority whereof, many other Kingdoms have been con­firmed, and fortified in their Idolatrous cour­ses, and had their false worship propagated to them, the whole Roman Empire running mad after her vile heathen practises. And in this vision, me-thoughts I was in a desart, (fit to represent the desolation to be ex­press'd in the Vision) and there I saw what he had promised me, verse 1. a woman; i. e. that great whore there mentioned, the Impe­rial power of Rome-heathen, seated on an Empire in a scarlet robe, a great blasphemer against the true God, and a forwarder of I­dolatry; and he had seven heads; the City of Rome built on seven hills; and ten horns, i. e. so many other Kings, that ruled over di­vers countries, and were confederate with the Roman Emperour. And this Roman power was in prosperity, much sumptuousness was be­stowed on their Idol-worship, and all manner of abominable filthiness was committed there­in; which being so srequent, and ackow­ledged in their secreter devotions, are best described by the word Mystery, (a word the Greeks used for their uncleanest meetings) [Page 88] and by Babylon, which of old was famous for these, and so destroyed; and from hence came all the Idolatry of the other cities, even from this Mother of Harlots, a great perse­cutor of the Christians, &c.]’

Rev. 18.40. ver. is a warning unto Chri­stians, upon the destruction coming on this great heathen City, to depart. ‘[Another voice,Rev. 18.40. me-thought, I heard, warning all Chri­stians to come out of her; that is, first, to abstain strictly from all communication with her sins, contrary to what the looser sort of Christians then did: and secondly, to depart out of the city; (as the Emperour Hono­rius, and Bishop Innocentius did, to Raven­na, at the time of Alaricus's siege:) And thirdly, to flee to the Basilica, or Christian Church, at the time of the plundering or de­stroying Rome, (as the Christians did) as the only way of rescuing them from that de­struction.]’

Catech. p. 79. 80.Lastly, Scripture instances of severity, al­ledged against persons, who, by ignorance, neg­lect, or regardlesness, have miscarried, in not observing exactly God's will and appointment, in, and about his Worship.

This was the case, saith the Catechist,

1. "Of Nadab and Abih [...] Levit. 10.1, 2.

Their fault vvas, ‘Offering strange fire, which the Lord commanded not; i. e. as we before, upon examination, found it, a breach of God's positive command, vvho had limited them to the fire on the Altar, and the keep­ing of it there for holy uses.’—Some of the [Page 89] Hebrews charge them farther,Munster. in loc. with gross mis­demeanour, in giving themselves to drink; &c. Upon which occasion, they judge that Precept to have followed, ver. 8.9. ‘The Lord spake unto Aaron, saying, Do not drink wine, nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the Tabernacle of the con­gregation, lest ye die.’—

Secondly, Of Corah, Dathan, and Abiram, Numb. 16.3, 8, 9, 32, 35.

Their sin was this: Having seditiously enga­ged a considerable party of the Princes of the Assembly, famous in the congregation, Num. 16.2, 3. men of renown, (the chief Senators of note),Deut. 33. 4, 5. Moses King in Jesurun. They gather'd themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, (suppose their King and High-priest) and said unto them, ‘Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congre­gation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them: Wherefore then lift you up your selves above the congregati­on of the Lord?’ i. e. Why do you usurp and tyrannize over God's people? their just rights, liberty, and priviledges, who are as good and ho­ly as your selves, and as gifted for publick mini­stry, as your selves? Hear we now Moses his reply, and that will give us farther to under­stand their miscarriage. vers. 8, 9, 10, 11. ‘And Moses said unto Korah, Hear, I pray you, ye sons of Le­vi, Seemeth it but a small thing unto you, that the God of Israel hath separated you from the Congregation of Israel, to bring you near unto himself, to do the service of the Tabernacle of the Lord, and to stand be­fore [Page 90] the Congregation, to minister unto them? And he hath brought thee near to him, and all thy brethren, the sons of Levi, with thee; and seek ye the Priesthood also? for which cause, both thou, and all thy com­pany are gather'd together against the Lord: and what is Aaron that ye murmur against him? that is, I have setled this order among you, by God's authority, and he hath called Aaron to the Priesthood, which you Levites, instead of being thankful for, and contented with your lot of Ministry, affect; and there­fore this insurrection of yours to that end, is, by way of evident interpretation, against the Lord.’ This especially for Korah: Dathan and Abiram, besides their share in this guilt, are found moreover, positive Contemners of Moses his command, and Revilers of his con­duct and government, occasioning all their suf­ferings; as if he had aimed at nothing but the establishment of an absolute dominion to him­self,ver. 12, 13, 14, in their slavery. ‘And Moses sent to call Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, which said, We will not come up. Is it a small thing, that thou hast brought us up out of a Land that floweth with milk and hony, to kill us in the Wilderness, except thou make thy self altogether a Prince over us? Moreover, thou hast not brought us in­to a Land that floweth with milk and hony, or given us inheritance of fields and Vine­yards; Wilt thou put out the eyes of these men?’ We will not come up. This is the true description of the sin of these men.

And we learn, by the way, That the sacred Ministry then, even in the lowest order of it, was a state separated from the people, were their holiness or gifts, otherwise never so con­siderable; and, That there were different de­grees of Ministry then appointed by God, whose will it was, that every one among them should keep his place, and not the Levite to invade the Priesthood, also; yea, and none of them, nor the whole Congregation of people with them, upon any pretence to make a mu­tiny and insurrection against Moses and Aaron, the chief Governours, Civil, and Ecclesiastical, by God, and under God, set over them.

This murmuring, usurpation, and rebellion, was the sin of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. Their punishment now follows.Ver. 31, 32, 33. —‘The ground clave asunder, that was under them, and the earth opened her mouth, and swal­lowed them up, and their houses, and all the men that appertained unto Korah, and all their goods. They, and all that appertained to them, went down alive into the pit, and the earth closed upon them, and they pe­rished from among the Congregation.— And there came out a fire from the Lord,Vet. 35. Ver. 41. and consumed the 250 men that offered in­cense; viz. those presumptuous invaders of the Priesthood.’ And yet, notwithstanding these miraculous judgments from heaven, upon these factious, and seditious rebels, the people were so leavened with their infecting principles, that the very next day, they generally murmur a­gainst Moses and Aaron, saying,Ver. 41. ‘Ye have [Page 92] kill'd the people of the Lord.’— namely, these good men, Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, and the renowned Senators that stood up with them for our priviledges. And upon this, came the Plague, V. 49. whereof dyed fourteen thousand, and seven hundred more of them. And now, let the Brethren make their best advantage of this sto­ry; only, it may not be amiss to immind them farther,St Jude, ver. 11. that there is such a thing also men­tioned in the New Testament, as Perishing in the gain-saying of Kore.

Thirdly, Of the sons of Ely; "A sin not to be expiated vvith sacrifices and burnt-offer­ings for ever. 1 Sam. 2.28, 29. —‘Wherefore kick ye at my sacrifice, and at mine offering, which I have commanded in my habitation, and honourest thy sons above me, to make your selves fat with the chiefest of all the offerings of Israel my people?—’

But if we look a little backward, we shall be farther satisfied, what was the monstrous provo­cation of these sons of Eli. Ver. 22, 24. ‘They lay with the vvomen that assembled at the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation — and made the Lord's people to transgress.’—

Now, who, of any modesty, would presume to compare and equallize the admission of cer­tain humane praescriptions, for the ordering of God's external worship, with such a villany as this?

Fourthly of Ʋzza, ‘in putting the Ark into a Cart, when he should have born it up­on his Shoulders, 1 Chron. 16.13.’

He means, I suppose, chap. 13.7, 9, 10. where [Page 93] we have the account of Ʋzza's miscarriage and judgment, There vve read indeed of the Ark of God carried in a new cart, out of the house of Aminadab, and Ʋzza and Ahio dri­ving the cart. But that vvhich the Catechist fixeth on, was none of Ʋzza's condemnation. The vvords of the Text are express against him. 1 Chron. 13.9, 10. ‘And vvhen they came to the threshing-floor of Chidon, Ʋzza put forth his hand, to hold the Ark, for the oxen stumbled. And the anger of the Lord vvas kindled against Ʋzza, and he smote him, because he put his hand to the Ark, and there he dyed before God.’

Here vve have a taste of that reverence vvhich persons of this way do bear to the Holy Scripture, in their ex-tempore discourses of it. Is not this plainly to alter, and add to the Holy word of God?— The Catechist saith, ‘[Ʋzza dyed for putting the Ark into a Cart, when he should have born it upon his shoulders.]’ The Text saith, [Ʋzza vvas smitten with "death, because he put his hand to the Ark;] namely, to support, and hold it, vvhen the oxen stumbled. And the Margin referrs to Numb. 4.15.Numb. 4.15. ‘The sons of Kohath shall come to bear it (the Sanctuary), but they shall not touch any holy thing, lest they die.’ Upon vvhich place, Mr. Ainsworth noteth,Mr. Ains­worth on that place. ‘This judgment here threatned, was executed upon Ʋzza, a Levite, who, putting his hand to the Ark of God, vvas therefore smitten of God, 1 Chron. 13.10. Let them take more heed for the future, of quoting [Page 94] Scripture thus without book, without first ex­amining of it.’ It is highly incongruous for them, who pretend so much to honour, and cleave in all things exactly to the written word, thus to mis-represent, and abuse, as well as mis­apply it.Cat. p. 57. So the Catechist else-where also doth, when he invidiously compares the ‘affections excited by the decent rites, and usages of the Churches appointment, to [inflaming them­selves with Idols, Isa. 57.5.]’ In which place the Prophet speaks, either of those lusts which their Idolatries led them to; or those venereous fires, which represented their going a who­ring after Idols, slaying the children in the val­leys, and offering them unto them. But I proceed.

5. ‘Of Ʋzziah the King, in offering incense contrary to God's institution, that duty be­ing appropriated unto the Priests of the po­sterity of Aaron, 2 Chron. 26.16.19.’

A note here is needless, it being said, that he acted contrary to God's institution. I will therefore onely specifie the words of the text, wherein yet, there is some farther emphasis. ‘—But when he was strong,4 Chron. 26.16, 17, 18, 19. his heart was lifted up to his destruction; for he transgres­sed against the Lord his God, and went into the Temple of the Lord, to burn incense upon the Altar of incense. And Azariah the priest went in after him, and with him fourscore priests of the Lord, that were valiant men, and they withstood Uzziah the King, and said unto him, It pertaineth not unto thee, Uzziah, to burn incense unto the Lord, but to the Priests, [Page 95] the sons of Aaron, that are consecrated to burn incense. Go out of the Sanctuary, for thou hast trespassed, neither shall it be for thine honour from the Lord God. Then Uz­ziah was wroth, and had a censer in his hand to burn incense; and while he was wroth with the Priests, the Leprosie even rose up in his forehead before the Priests, in the house of the Lord, from beside the incense Altar.’—

Fair warning to all that usurp the Priests of­fice, and take that honour unto themselves, not being first called, and consecrated thereunto.

6. As a token in the New Testament, of God's displeasure, in temporal visitations, on such miscarriages in his Church, 1 Cor. 11.30. For this cause, saith the Apostle, many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.—That cause, if look'd into, will appear no other than a per­verting of the whole design of the sacred Eucha­rist, with the feast of charity thereto adjoyned; the turning of it into a common meal, Not dis­cerning the Lord's body; with many factions, and uncharitable abuses.

7. The Catechist closeth these instances, with an intimation of a more severe punish­ment now substituted against such transgressions, in the room of that which God so visibly in­flicted under the Old Testament, Hebr. 10.25, 26, 27, 28, 29.

The words are these. —‘Not forsaking the Assembling of our selves, as the manner of some is, but exhorting one another, and so much the more, as ye see the day approach­ing. For if we sin wilfully, after that we have [Page 96] received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment, and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses law, dyed without mercy, under two or three wit­nesses. Of how much sorer punishment, sup­pose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodd [...]n under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he vvas sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?’

In this place, the Apostle speaks apparently of that heinous sin of wilful Apostacy from Chri­stianity, and the despiteful rejection of it, and therefore it is certainly mis-applyed to any mis­carriages of an inferiour aggravation.

Thus now, I have, by God's help, reflected upon those Scripture-quotations, vvhich the Ca­techist hath here and there dispersed, to invite, or frighten his Reader, to an entertainment of his admired Principle, That nothing may be used, or allowed of, in or about the worship of God, which is not commanded or instituted in the writ­ten Word. And this concludes the first and ge­neral part of my Discourse.

CHAP. I.

I Pass forward now, to the examination of some particulars; and He, certainly, who so confidently asserts, That Christ hath published all the Laws of his own Disci­pline; and, That the perswasion of any, that he hath not prescribed all things wherein his wor­ship is concerned, proceeds from their negligence in enquiring, may well be expected to give the world a good, punctual, and clear account of these matters. Only in the entrance into this task, it may not be amiss to observe, how [Page 98] boldly the men of this way are accustomed to reflect upon our B. Saviour, on the supposition, that he hath not ordered and appointed all par­ticulars, as they imagine. Thus formerly, in the book of Ecclesiastical Discipline, it vvas a­verr'd,Nisi Reip. suae statum omnem con­stituerit▪ ma­gistratus or­dinarit, sin­gulorum munera potestatemque descripserit. quae judicio­rum, forique ratio habenda, quomodo elvium finienda lites; non solum minus Ecclesiae Christianae providit quàm Moses olim Iudaica, sed quam à Lycurgo, Solonae, Numa civitatibus suis prospectum sit. Lib. de Eccles. Discipl. That, unless Christ would shevv him­self less faithful than Moses, and less wise than Lycurgus, Solon, Numa, those Heathen Legisla­tors, he must needs have set down in holy Scri­pture, a certain compleat, and unchangeable form of Church-politie.

Well, But which are the principal instituti­ons of the Gospel to be observed in the worship of God?

Cat. p. 23. 14.To this, the Catechist Answers:

(1) The calling, gathering, and setling of Churches, vvith their officers, as the seat and subject of all other solemn instituted worship. (2) Prayer, vvith Thanksgiving. (3) Singing of Psalms. (4) Preaching the word. (5) Ad­ministration of the Sacraments of Baptism and the Supper of the Lord. (6) Discipline and rule of the Church collected and settled; most of vvhich have also sundry particular duties re­lating to them, and subservient unto their due observation. [(1) Matth. 28.19, 20. Act. 2.41, 42. 1 Cor. 12, 28. Eph. 4.11, 12. Matt. 18, 17, 18, 19. 1 Cor. 4.17.—7.17. Act. 14.23. Titus 1.5. 1 Timoth. 3.15. (2) 1 Timoth. 2.1. [Page 99] Acts 6.4. Acts 13.2, 3. (3) Ephes. 5.19. Co­loss. 3.16. (4) 2 Tim. 4.2. Act. 2.42. 1 Cor. 14.3. Act. 6.2. Heb. 13.7. (5) Matt. 28.19. Matt. 26.26, 27. 1 Cor. 11.23. (6) Matt. 18.17, 18, 19. Rom. 12.6, 7, 8. Rev. 2.3.]

I will not dispute the number of these Go­spel-institutions, here enumerated, but take them in order, as they are reckon'd up, apply­ing. as I pass, the General Rule, That nothing must be done in, or about, any of these institu­tions of Gospel-worship, but what Christ hath commanded; that others may see how well the Catechist keeps to his rule. And then, adding, where the matter shall require it, some truer accounts of the points discoursed on.

[First then, of the calling, gathering, and setling of Churches, with their officers, as the seat and subject of all other solemn instituted wor­ship.]

It may be, to ordinary heads, some difficulty to understand, How setled Churches, with their officers, are the subject, and seat, of all other in­stituted worship, since preaching of the Word, reckon'd up by him, as the fourth Gospel-insti­tution, must be premised in order to the calling, gathering, and setling of all Churches. But I will not insist upon this scruple.

We will consider what is offered us,

• 1. Of Churches.
• 2. Of Church-officers. And,
  • 1. Of Churches.

CHAP. II.

Cat. p. 89.[Q. "WHat is an instituted Church of the Gospel?

Answ. ‘A society of persons called out of the world, or their natural worldly state, by the administration of the word and spirit, unto the obedience of the faith, or the knowledge and worship of God in Christ; joyned toge­ther in an holy band, or by special agreement, for the exercise of the Communion of Saints, for the due observation of all the ordinances of the Gospel.]’

p. 108.[Q. ‘By what means do persons, so called, become a Church of Christ?’

Answ. ‘They are constituted a Church, and interested in the rights, power, and pri­viledges of a Gospel-Church, by the will, promise, authority, and law, of Jesus Christ, upon their own voluntary consent and engage­ment, to walk together in the due subjection of their souls and consciences unto his au­thority, as their King, Priest, and Prophet, and in an holy observation of all his com­mands, ordinances, and appointments.]’

Now in the explication of these Answers, the Catechist declares,

First, What Church he treats of;p. 90. viz. ‘Not the Catholick Church of Elect Believers, nor the universality of Professors of the Go­spel; but particular Churches, and these particular Churches,p. 91. as opposed unto a Na­tional Church.]’

Those proofs then, which relate to the Ca­tholick Church, which is the body of Christ, are not to be reduced unto this matter. Such as Ephes. 2.19, 20, 21, 22. Ephes. 4.16. insisted on by him, p. 115. and elsewhere.p. 115.

Those proofs also, which are fetched from analogy, as resemblance with the National church of the Jews, are to this matter imper­tinent. Such as Exod. 24.3. Deut. 5.25. referr'd to p. 92. And again, with Josh. 24.18, 21, 22. p. 112.p. 92. 112.

Secondly, His next work is, to prove, and demonstrate, ‘That such particular Churches are themselves an ordinance of the New Testa­ment, instituted, and appointed by Christ.’ And his proofs are these;

p. 94.First, They are appointed, and approved by Christ, Matt, 18.15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20. ‘If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault, between thee and him a­lone, &c.— Then tell it the Church; but if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee, as an heathen man, and a publican. Verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, &c. Again, I say unto you, that if two of you shall agree on earth, as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them, of my Father which is in Heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.’

‘That this could not be the Church of the Jews, p. 95. he takes pains to prove, p. 95.’ A conceit, I should think, not very likely to come into any one's head about it. And then concludes, ‘That no Society, p. 97. but that of a particular Church of the Gospel, could be here in­tended.’

None, I presume, will deny, but that parti­cular societies of Christians, were intended, and are approved by Christ: the only question is, of such particular, gathered, and covenanting-Churches, as the Catechist treats of; and the onely thing I here examine, is, the pertinencie of his proofs for such. And the truth is, par­ticular Churches are indeed here supposed by Christ, but not in this place instituted and ap­pointed. Approved and allowed here they are, but not here appointed; but then, this cannot be here inferr'd convincingly, neither from the [Page 103] word Church, which doth most probably here denote, the Governours of the Church only, the Church-representative, as we are wont to speak; the same with those You that follow, those that have the power from God of binding and loosing, v. 18. The Apostles and their Suc­cessors, the rules of the Christian Assemblies; to whom alone this power is given by Christ, S. John 20.21, 22, 23, verses. And for the last clause,—Where two or three are gather'd to­gether in my name,— it may not be improper to add the words of St. Cyprian upon it, a­gainst the Novatian Schismaticks, who had it frequently in their mouths. —‘Let them not,Nec se qui­dam vanà interpretati­one decipi­ant, quod dixetit Do­minus, Ubi­cunque fuerint duo aut tres—Corruptores Evangelii atque interpretes fal­si extrema ponunt, & superiora praetereunt patris (partis, nisi velit patris diaboli) memores, & partem subdolè comprimentes. Ut ipsi ab Ecclesia scissi sunt, ita capituli unius sententiam seindunt. Dominus enim, cum discipulis suis unitatem suaderet & pacem, Dico, inquit, vobis quoniam si duobus ex vobis convenerit in terrà.— Ostendens non multitudini sed u­nanimitati deprecantium plurimum tribui. Si duobus, inquit, ex vobis— unitatem prius posuit, concordiam pacis ante praemisit. ut conveniat no­bis fideliter & firmiter docuit. Quomodo autem potest ei cum aliquo con­venire cui cum corpore ipsius Ecclesiae & universà fraternitate non conve­nit? Quomodo possunt duo aut tres in nomine Christi colligi, quos con­stat à Christo, & abejus evangelio separari? Non enim nos ab illis, sed il­li à nobis recesserunt. Et cum haereses & schismata postmodum nata sint dum conventicula sibi diversa constituunt veritatis caput atque originem reliquerunt. Dominus autem de Ecclesia sua loquitur, & ad hos qui sunt in Ecclesia loquitur; ut, si ipsi concordes fuerint, si secundum quod mandavit & monuit, duo aut tres licet, collecti unanimiter oraverint, duo aut tres li­cet sint, impetrare possint, de Dei Majestate quod postulant ubicunque fu­rint Duo aut tres,—cum simplicibus scilicet, atque pacatis cum Deum ti­mentibus & Dei praecepta servantibus, cum his duobus vel tribus licet esse se dixit; quomodo & cum tribus pueris in camino ignis fuit.— Quando ergo dicit, Ubi fuerint duo aut tres;—non homines ab Ecclesia dividit, qui instituit & fecit Ecclesiam, sed exprobrans discordiam pe [...]fidis & fide­libus pacem su [...] voce commendans, ostendit magis esse se cum duobus aut tribus unanimiter orantib [...]s quam cum dissidentibus plurimis, plusque impetrari posse paucorum concordi prece, quam discordios [...] oratione multorum.— An secum esse Christum cum collecti fuerint opinantur, qui extra Christi Ecclesiam colliguntur? Cyprian. de Unit. Ecclesiae. S. 10.11. saith he, deceive themselves, with a vain in­terpretation, because the Lord hath said, Wheresoever two or three are gathered together [Page 104] in my name, I am with them. These cor­rupters, and false interpreters of the Gospel, take the later words, and pass over the former, being mindful of a part, and subtilely con­cealing of a part. As they themselves are cut from the Church, so do they cut the sen­tence of one Chapter; for our Lord, when he perswaded unity and peace to his Disci­ples, I say unto you, saith he, that if two of you shall agree on earth, as touching any thing that ye shall ask, it shall be done for you, of my Fa­ther which is in heaven; for where two or three are gathered together in my name, I am with them; shewing, That very much is given, not to the multitude, but to the unanimity of those that pray. If two of you, saith he, shall agree on earth; he first placed unity; he be­fore premised the agreement of peace; he faith­fully and firmly taught, that we should agree together. But how can he agree with any one, who doth not agree with the body of the Church it self, and with the whole Bro­hood? How can two or three of those be gather'd together in the name of Christ, who are manifestly separated from Christ and his Gospel? for we have not departed from them, but they from us. And whereas heresies and schisms are since risen, whilst they make to themselves diverse conventicles, they have left the head and original of truth. But our [Page 105] Lord speaks of his Church, and speaks to those who are in that Church; that if they shall agree together: if, according to what he hath commanded and admonished, although they be but two or three, they shall unani­mously pray; although they be but two or three, they shall obtain from God's Majesty, what they ask. Wheresoever two or three are gather'd together in my name, I (saith he) am with them; viz, with such as are inno­cent and peaceable; with such as fear God, and keep his Commandments; with these, be they but two or three, he hath promised his presence; as he was also with the three chil­dren in the fiery furnace.— When therefore he saith, Wheresoever two or three are ga­ther'd together in my name, I am with them; he divideth not men from the Church, who did instruct and make the Church, but, up­braiding the perfidious with their discord, and by his voice, commending peace unto the faithful; he shews, that he is more with two or three, praying unanimously, than with ne­ver so many, that are in dissention; and that more may be obtained by the agreeing pray­er of a few, than by the disagreeing prayer of many. And he concludes, — Do they think that Christ is with them, when they are ga­thered together, who are gather'd together out of the Church of Christ? Thus St. Cy­prian, to the Separatists of his time.’

Secondly, His next proof is thus expressed.Cat. p. [...]7. ‘[These Churches, he (i. e. Christ) calls his Candlesticks, Rev. 1.20. in allusion unto the [Page 106] Candlesticks of the Temple, which, being an institution of the Old Testament, doth direct­ly declare these Churches to be so under the New. And this he speaks in reference unto those seven principal Churches of Asia, eve­ry one of which was a Candlestick, or an insti­tution of his own.’

This certainly, is a very lame proof of Christ's institution of particular Churches, in the Go­spel. Wherein,

First, It is but presumed, that Christ names these seven Churches Candlesticks, in allusion to those of the Temple, for he hath no Scri­pture for that; and, it is not improbable, but they may be so called, upon a more general ac­count, as containing in them those eminent burn­ing and shining lights, here call'd Angels, and Starrs; or, as holding forth the light of the Go­spel eminently to the world. And,

2. It is weakly inferr'd, That, because those Candlesticks of the Temple were God's institu­tions, therefore these Churches, upon the ac­count of their resemblance to them, must needs be so also; for Similitudes run not upon all four; hold not in all particulars. And,

3. These very Churches hold a nearer re­semblance unto national, or at least, provincial Churches, than to those gather'd congregati­ons the Catechist speaks of; for certain it is, that each of these had certain particular con­gregations under them.

[...]at. p. 97. 98. ‘Thirdly, (he adds) in pursuit of this ap­pointment of Christ, and by his authority, the Apostles, so soon as any were converted un­to [Page 107] the faith at Jerusalem, although the old National Church-state of the Jews was yet continued, gather'd them into a Church or Society, for celebration of the Ordinances of the Gospel, Act. 2.41, 42. The Lord adding unto this church daily such as should be sa­ved, ver. 47. And this company is expres­ly called the Church at Jerusalem, Act. 8.1. This Church thus called, and collected out of the Church of the Jews, was the rule and pattern of disposing of all the Disciples of Christ, into Church-societies, in obedience to his command throughout the world.’ Act. 11.26, — 14.23, 27.

What proof he hath given of the appoint­ment of Christ, for conscience to rely upon, we have seen; yet we are satisfied (though by other guess-evidence than he brings) that the Apostles did, by Christ's authority, unite the converted Jews into a Church, or Christian society, and that distinct too, from the Natio­nal Church of the Jews, the Church of the Jews being a society of believers in Christ, as to come; and therefore He being come, their Church-state, as such, must needs give way to the Christian; that is, to the society of belie­vers in Christ already come; and therefore it is not so well said by him, that ‘the old Na­tional Church-state of the Jews yet conti­nued;’ nor can I throughly reconcile it to what he had more advisedly delivered some pages before;p. 91. ‘[The National Church of the Jews, with all the ordinances of it, being re­moved, and taken away, the Lord Christ [Page 108] hath appointed particular Churches, or uni­ted assemblies of believers.]’ — This Church, Planted by the Apostles at Jerusalem, was the first beginnings of the universal Christian Church, as I shall afterwards declare; and therefore others are said to be added unto this Church. Many particulars were certainly added unto this Church, before the time re­referr'd to; Act. 8 1. and so many, that we may well conclude, ‘That Church of Jerusalem contained several particular congregations un­der it; yea, all the Churches afterward men­tion'd by the Catechist, from the Apostolick writings, were but as united parts, and mem­bers of this Church;’ added to this Church And therefore still this prime instance is not to the Catechist's purpose; but it will be found the destruction of his way to entertain it as the rule and pattern of disposing all Christs disciples into Church-societies; of which hereafter.

Cat. p. 98.99, 100, &c.The proof of his particular Churches that follows, being derived from the Apostles, after ordering of certain Churches, giving certain rules and directions unto them, directing their principal writings to them, &c. needs not any special reflection to be made upon it in this place.

CHAP. III.

IN the next place therefore, we are to attend unto the explication given us, of the nature of a particular Church or Churches: and that according to his own division.

p. 104. ‘First, as to the subject matter of them, or the persons whereof such a Church doth, or ought to consist.’

‘Secondly, The means whereby they are brought into a condition capable of such an estate, or qualified for it.’ And,

‘Thirdly, The especial means whereby they are constituted a Church.’ For, of his other Particular, the general ends of their calling, I shall move no dispute.

First then, we are to consider the description given us of Church-members, or the persons whereof particular Churches consist.

p. 89.Such in the Answer are [Persons call'd out of their natural worldly estate] and in the explicati­on, p. 90. thus; ‘[It is required of them, of whom a particular Church is constituted, that they be true believers, seeing that, unless a man be born again, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God, and so upon that account, they must be members of the Church catholick. (i. e. of elect believers, as said before) as also, that they make visible profession of faith and obe­dience unto Jesus Christ.’ p. 104 105.] And again, [All men are by nature the children of wrath, and do belong to the world, which is the Kingdom of Satan, and are under the power of darkness, as the Scripture every where declares; in this state, men are not subjects of the Kingdom of Christ, nor meet to be­come members of his Church. Out of this condition, they cannot deliver themselves, but they are called out of it; This calling is that which effectually delivers them from the [Page 111] Kingdom of Satan, and translates them into the Kingdom of Christ. And this work, or effect, the Scripture, on several accounts, va­riously expresseth. Sometimes by regenera­tion, or a new birth; sometimes by conversion, or turning to God; sometimes by vivificati­on, or quickning from the dead; sometimes by illumination, or opening the eyes of the blind; all which are carried on by sanctifica­on in holiness, and attended with justification and adoption:— and all these concurr to com­pleat that effectual vocation, or calling that is required to constitute persons members of the church. p. 106, 107.—This is signified by the typical holiness of the Church of old, into the room whereof real holiness was to succeed under the New Testament.— Our Lord Jesus Christ hath laid it down, as an everlasting rule, That, unless a man be born again, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God, John 3.3. re­quiring regeneration, as an indispensible con­dition in a member of his Church, a subject of his Kingdom. For his Temple is now to be built of living stones, 1 Pet. 2.5. Men spi­ritually, and savingly quickened from their death in sin, and, by the Holy Ghost, whereof they are partakers, made a meet habitation for God, which receiving vital supplies from Christ, it's head, increaseth in faith and holi­ness, edifying it self in love, Eph. 4.15, 16. And, as the Apostles in their writings do ascribe unto all the Churches, and the mem­bers of them, a participation in this effectual vocation, affirming, that they are Saints, cal­led, [Page 112] sanctified, justified, and accepted with God in Christ, Rom. 1.5, 6. 1 Cor. 1.2. 1 Cor. 4.5. Heb. 3.1. Jam. 1.18. 1 Pet. 2.5. 2 Cor. 6.17, 18. 1 Cor. 6.11. ‘So, many of the duties that are required of them in that relation and con­dition, are such, as none can perform unto the glory of God, their own benefit, and the edification of others, (the ends of all obedience) unless they are partakers of this effectual calling, Cat. p. 107. 1 Cor. 10.16, 17. 1 cor. 12.12. Eph. 4.16. Add hereunto, that these Church­es, and the members of them, are not only commanded to separate themselves, as to their worship of God, from the world, that is, men in their worldly state and condition, but are also required, when any among them transgress against the rules and laws of this holy calling above described,See more Cat. p. 210. in the Answ. to Q. 47. to cast them out of their society and communion. 1 Cor. 5.13.]’

By all which, it plainly appears to be the Catechist's doctrine, That none may be ad­mitted as members of particular Churches, but true believers, real Saints, effectually called. i. e. as he explains it, regenerated, converted, vivi­fied, illuminated, justified, and adopted ones; persons, savingly quickned from the death in sin, and vitally united to Christ the Head; and That these Churches are to be separate in their communions from all men in their worldly state and condition.

A dangerous encouragement to all that are ad­mitted into their Societies, to presume them­selves of God's elected ones; but a sure proof, if granted, That true believers may fall aw [...]y [Page 113] from grace, and so perish; it being certain, that some of the members of particular Churches have so done.

But, if this be so, I fear, we must be forced to un-church all the Churches of Christ on earth, and go out of this world, that we may have no fellowship with masked hypocrites.

I design not here a laborious confutation, intending a positive confirmation of the truth to follow in the close; it shall suffice there­fore, to note, That the Catechist hath forgot­ten his own distinction, between the Catholick Church of God's elect, and particular Churches or societies of Christians, when he thus makes the qualification of the former (whereof yet he warned us to take notice, that he did not treat) as necessary unto the later; and I will only set him against himself, it being the pro­perty of falshood usually to confute it self. His words are these;

‘[The members of the Catholick Church are not known to one another merely (he should say,Cat. p. 90.91. not at all) on the account of that faith and union with Christ, which makes them so, whence the whole Society of them is, as such, invisible to the world and them­selves, visible only on the account of their profession.]’ Whence I thus argue. None are admitted members of particular Churches, but as they are known; now they are not known on the account of that faith and union with Christ, the head, which bespeaks them true and sincere Christians, and of the number of God's elect: Therefore they are not admitted [Page 114] members of particular Churches, on that ac­count. Again, None are admitted Church-members, so far as they are invisible; but as to this qualification required, of true grace and conversion, so they are. Again, Church-mem­bers are admitted only so farr as they are visi­ble; but they are visible only on the account of their profession: That only therefore is re­quired to their admission. Hear we him speak once more, where he treats of that covenant which formally constitutes a particu­lar Church.

Cat. p. 111. ‘[In this obedience, saith he, they do these two things, which alone, he (i. e. Christ) requires in any persons, for the obtaining of an interest in these (Church-) priviledges. First, they confess Him, his person, his au­thority, his law, his grace. Secondly, they take upon themselves the observance of all his commands.]’

Now, from hence, I thus argue; If these two things, which alone are required by Christ, to invest a person with an interest in Church-priviledges, may be done without real grace, and true conversion; then real grace and true conversion, are not a qualification indispensibly necessary to Church-membership: But these two particulars (of confessing Christ, and promising obe­dience) which (saith the Catechist) alone Christ requires, &c. may certainly be done without real grace and true conversion: Ergo.— And now I leave him to answer these his own argu­ments; his own arguments, I justly call them, being so evidently deduced from his own words. [Page 115] This therefore for the first particular, the sub­ject matter of churches.

Nor will it be necessary, to insist much up­on the second, which depends wholly upon this first, as it's foundation. viz. ‘The means whereby these persons are brought into a condition capable of their Church-state, or qualified for it.’

These, both in the answer and explication,Cat. p. 19.107. are said to be, The administration of the word and spirit of Christ.

The Word, 'tis true, is the ordinary means whereby it pleaseth God to convert, and call home sinners to himself, but yet not the only means. It is not fit that we limit the opera­tions of the Holy Spirit, unto the word only; sometimes a cross and affliction, may reduce the prodigal unto himself, and so to his Father's house. Sometimes a parent's good example, and prudent education, works indiscernably. And oftentimes, the special and particular account is not to be given. i. S. John 3. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth. So is every one that is born of the Spirit.

But I proceed rather, to the third, and last point to be observed; namely, ‘the especial means whereby these persons, so fitly qualified for Church-fellowship, are made a Church;’ and that we have also set down, both in the Answers and in the Explication. In the An­swers ‘[joyned together in an holy band, Cat. p. 89. or by special agreement] [upon their own vo­luntary [Page 116] consent, p. 108. and engagement to walk toge­ther—] In the Explication, thus; [being made willing and ready in the day of his power,p. 111. Psalm 110.3. they consent, choose, and agree to walk together, in the observation of all his commands, and hereby do they become "a Church.]’ And, that we may know what this voluntary consent is opposed unto, ‘[how shall these living stones become an house, p 114.115. a temple? Can it be by occasional occurrences, civil cohabitation in political precincts, usage, or custom of assembling for some parts of worship in any place? These things will ne­ver frame them into an house or temple. This can be no otherwise done, than by their own voluntary consent and disposi­tion.]’ So afterwards, to this Question. ‘[Wherein doth the especial form of a parti­cular Church consist?p 220.]’ The Answer is, ‘[In the special consent and agreement of all the members of it to walk together in the observation of the same ordinances numeri­cally.]’ A text of Scripture, by the way, would do well for that word numerically. And in the Explication,p. 221. ‘[This cannot con­sist in any thing that is accidental, occasional, or extrinsecal unto it, such as is cohabitation, (which yet the Church may have respect un­to for conveniency, and farthering of it's edi­fication) (Let us mark that) nor in any ci­vil, p. 222. or political disposal of its members in­to civil societies, for civil ends, which is extrinsecal to all its concernments, as a Church.]’

The plain English is, These particular Churches are not Parish-Churches, or societies of Christians of the same Neighbourhood, but cull'd out here and there, and embodyed toge­ther, by an holy league or covenant, to walk to­gether in the same ordinances.

Well now, It is but fitting that we have the proof of this from Christ's institution. For we cannot easily forget what he hath lesson'd us.

‘[Some men are apt to look on this autho­rity of Christ, Cat. p. 86 87. as that which hath the least in­fluence into what they do. If in any of his Institutions, they find any thing that is suit­ed or agreeable unto the light of Nature, as Ecclesiastical societies, government of the Church, and the like, they say, are; they sup­pose, and contend, that that is the ground on which they are to be attended to, and so regulated accordingly.] And again,p. 88. [the suitableness of any thing to right reason, or the light of nature, is no ground for a church-observation of it, unless it be also appointed and commanded in especial by Jesus Christ.]’ And ‘[If we perform any thing in the wor­ship of God, on any other account,p. 85. it is no part of our obedience unto him, and so we can neither expect his grace to assist us, nor his promise to accept us therein, for that he hath annexed unto our doing and observing whatever he hath commanded, and that be­cause he hath commanded us.]’ Nothing therefore will satisfie our conscience here, but Christ's authority, Christ's command of this mu­tual Church-league and covenant, this holy [Page 118] band and agreement. What now doth the Ca­techist offer us as to this? He tells us, in the general;p. 117. ‘[Without this consent no society of any kind can exist: This is the form of mens coalescencies into societies.]’

Carnal man! Is this a motive for Church-observance? Shall the light of nature and rea­son take up the room of Christ's authority and command? ‘How strongly inclined is man's nature, to bring in humane devices into the government of the Church, and the worship of God?’ — But the truth is, this light of nature is very dimm, and this reason none of that we can call right reason. All Societies depend not upon mutual consent, at least, this voluntary, and free consent. There is a natural society in Families. And be the ground and foundation of that civil society we live in, what it will, in its first beginnings; our children are born under government, and the laws of that society, without personal consent. Let him therefore mend his politicks, that they tend not to the infecting of religion. For, this Rea­soning seems to lead directly to Anabaptism, a step of perfection whereto, it seems, his principlet have not yet advanced him. But, 'tis possible, at long run, he may also end there. However,Cat. p. 117. at present, he allows infants ‘to be a proper subject of Baptism.’ Well then, by Baptism they are admitted into the Church, and being so admitted, must needs be looked upon as Church-members, and yet, confessedly made so, enter'd into that society, without their voluntary consent. — We are therefore [Page 119] to seek for farther satisfaction about this Church-covenant, this ‘joynt,p. 115. voluntrry con­sent, and form of coalescencie into Church-society.’ And I am perswaded, our Cate­chist hath done his best, for our information. Let us then hear him farther.

‘[Thus did God take the children of Is­rael into a Church-state of old.Cat. p. 112: He pro­posed unto them the Church-obedience that he required of them, and they voluntarily, and freely took upon themselves the per­formance of it, Exod. 24.3. "And Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord, and all the judgments, and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the Lord hath said, will we do. So Deut. 5.7. And hereby they had their solemn admission into their Church-state and relation unto God. And the like course they took, whenever there was need of re­newing their engagements. Josh. 24.18, 21, 22. And the people said, We will serve the Lord, for he is our God. And Joshua said unto the people, Ye are witnesses against your selves, that ye have chosen the Lord, to serve him, and they said, We are witnesses. This was the cove­nant that was between God, and that people, which was solemnly renewed so often as the Church was eminently reformed. Now,Cat. p. 113. al­though the outward solemnity and ceremo­nies of this covenant were peculiar unto that people, yet as to the substance and nature of it, in a sacred consent, for the performance of all those duties towards God, and one ano­ther, [Page 120] which the nature and edification of a Church do require, it belongs to every Church, as such, even under the Gospel.]’ But here crowd in abundance of Exceptions.

In the general, That the practise of a thing in the worship of God, under the Old Testa­ment, is not any better evidence for Christ's institution, than the light of nature; and that we have only his bare word for it, that the out­ward ceremonies and solemnities of this cove­nant, were peculiar to that people, and the substance of it common also unto us.

And then particularly,

1. The words, Church-state, and Church-obedience, are somewhat mysterious, as applyed to the Old Testament.

2. The children of Israel, however, were a national Church, and so no pattern for parti­cular Churches.

3. This was not the first time of their Church-state, or Church-obedience, and com­munion, when this covenant was made, Exod. 24. The Pass-over service, Exod. 12. may look very like a Church-act. And was not circum­cision long before, a seal of a Church-state, into which they were admitted?

4. This covenant specified, was between God and the people, and not any voluntary agreement of the people one with another. Nor is it true,

Lastly, That this covenant was solemnly renewed by the people's voluntary consent, so often as the Church was eminently reformed. The chiefest reformations on record in the Jew­ish [Page 121] Church, have been by their supreme rulers, sometimes without the people's consent, and sometimes commanding and compelling them to consent. 2 Chron. 15.8, 9, 10, 12, 13. Thus ‘Asa put away the abomina­ble Idols out of all the cities of Judah and Benjamin, &c. And he gather'd all Judah and Benjamin, and the strangers with them, &c.— And they entred into a Cove­nant,— That, whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel, should be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman.—’ Thus in Hezekiah's reformation;2 Chron. 29.3, 4.5, 10. ‘He sum­mons the Levites and Priests before him, and sets them about their proper office, and tells them, it was in his heart to make a Cove­nant with the Lord God of Israel, that his fierce wrath may turn away.— And thus Josiah made a Covenant before the Lord,2 Chron. 14.31, 32. to walk after the Lord, &c.— And he caused all that were present in Jerusalem and Benja­min to stand to it.—’ And still, according to the goodness, or badness of the Prince, Refor­mation advanced or went backward among them.

Unless therefore, the Catcechist's New Te­stament proof be more pertinent and express than the Old, his Church-league and covenant; this mutual agreement and consent, must no longer be ranked among the institutions of Christ, but at the best, a Prudential only of man's devising. However, the cause shall not want for confidence.

‘[This is the way whereby believers,Cat. p. 113, 114. or the Disciples of Christ, do enter into this [Page 122] state, the formal constituting cause of any Church.’ This account doth the Apostle give of the Churches of the Macedoni­ans, 2 Cor. 8.5. And this they did, not as we hoped, but first gave their own selves to the Lord, and unto us, by the will of God.— ‘This description doth the Apo­stle give of the way whereby the Believers of Macedonia were brought into Churches. It was by their own obedience to the will of God, consenting, agreeing, and taking on themselves, the observation of all the com­mands and institutions of Christ, according to the direction and guidance of the Apo­stles. So did the Believers at Jerusalem, be­ing converted by the Word, and making profession of that conversion in their Bap­tism, they gave up themselves to a stedfast continuance in the observation of all other ordinances of the Gospel. Act. 2.41, 42.]’

As to the first of these instances; It is mani­f [...]stly abused, to another purpose than St. Paul meant it; for, he doth not give there a descri­ption of the way whereby the Believers of Ma­cedonia were brought into Churches, but an high commendation of the charity of those Churches. Not a description, I say, of any Co­venant or agreement, which did formally con­stitute them a Church; that is obvious from the tenour of his discourse, which was, to give the Corinthians notice of that excellent grace of Charity God had bestowed on the Churches of Macedonia, 2 Cor. 8. vers. 1, And from that whi [...]h follows, verse 6. his desire to per­fect [Page 123] among them at Corinth, the same grace (of Liberality) also; for he was not now seeking to bring them into a Church-state, they were already the Church of God at Co­rinth, ch. 1. ver. 1. but to awaken their bow­els of compassion to a free contribution unto the distressed Saints at Jerusalem and in Judea. And this the more powerfully to effect, he tells them of the great forwardness of the Church­es of Macedonia, who, saith he, notwith­standing their great afflictions and sufferings, and their poverty thereby, (See Act. 16.17. 1 Thes. 2.14.) ‘were yet so rich in liberality, as, of themselves, to prevent the Apostle's importunity (to whom this work and care of looking after the supply of the poor Saints, was committed by the rest at Jerusalem, Gal. 2.10.) Yea, to become earnest suiters to the Apostle, to receive their benevolence, and trouble himself with the distribution of it; yea, and (as it is thought by Learned Inter­preters) to offer some of their own number to go to Corinth; and that as a motive to St. Paul to send Titus thither speedily, (as it follows, verse 6.) "to promote the same good work among the Christians there.’ The sense then of these words here relyed up­on, ‘[And this they did not as we hoped, but first gave their own selves to the Lord, and unto us, by the will of God] is to am­plifie their signal charity, reflecting upon what had been said before.’ As if the Apostle had said, ‘They did not onely equal, but exceed our expectations; What they gave us, was [Page 124] more than we could look for from their po­verty, and the chearful, and ready manner of their giving, was beyond our thoughts or hopes; they consecrated not only their goods, but themselves also, to this service, God so moving their hearts, &c.’

This, I conceive, is most evidently the true sense and scope of that place, which hath not the least glance towards their way of ad­mission to a Church-state, as is by the Catechist pretended.

And then, for the believers at Jerusalem, Act. 2.41, 42. all we find, is this; That, ‘being upon their profession of Christianity baptized, they were, by that means, added unto the Church, and being added, con­tinued stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine and Fellowship, and in Breaking of Bread, and in Prayers.’

Not the least syllable of any other Covenant than that of their Christianity, enter'd into at their Baptism, and a tacit promise included in their very admission into the Church, to sub­mit themselves to all the orders and observan­ces thereof.

Now, if thus much would serve the turn, the Baptismal covenant included in the very profession of Christianity, we require it so­lemnly at the entrance of every member into the Church; the solemn uttering of it, with his own mouth, as the Oath of Fidelity and Allegiance unto Christ, if he be of years of discretion; or, however, the express owning of what was answer'd in his name, when bapti­zed [Page 125] an infant, at his Confirmation, when he comes to age and knowledge. Thus much we require for his actual qualification for the pri­uiledges of adult believers.

But this is not the sacred bond of special agreement pleaded for; this is not the Cate­chist's joynt voluntary consent, to the same Or­dinances numerically; if it be, let him aban­don his canting words, and speak understandably, and we are agreed. But there is reason enough to think somewhat else is aimed at.

The Independent Churc [...]es are made up of certain persons, ‘cull'd here and there out of the number of professed Christians, and com­bined into a select, and separate communion from other Professors, by some more speci­al league and covenant;’ for which we may expect Scripture evidences, as soon as for their gather'd Churches themselves.

Yet one proof farther, the Catechist offers us; and we had not need over-look any, since the rest are found so nothing to his purpose.

‘[Besides the Church, is an House, Cat. p. 114. 115. a Tem­ple, the House of God. 1 Tim. 3.15. The House of Christ, Heb. 3.6. The Temple of God, Eph. 2.21, 22. Believers singly consider'd, are stones, living stones, 1 Pet. 2.5. Now, how shall these living stones become to be an house, a tem­ple? Can it be by occasional occurrences, ci­vil cohabitation in political precincts, usage, or custom of assembling for some parts of worship in any place? These things will ne­ver frame them into an House or Temple. This can be no otherwise done, than by their [Page 126] own voluntary consent and disposition, Eph. 2.19, 20, 21, 22. Ye are fellow-citizens with the Saints, and of the houshold of God, &c. chap. 4.6. From whom the whole body fitly joyned to­gether, &c. From these, and sundry other places, it is manifest, That the way and means of Believers coalition into a Church-state, is their own obedience of Faith, acting it self in a joynt voluntary consent, to walk together in an holy observation of the commands of Christ, whence the being and union of a particular Church is given unto any conve­nient number of them by his law and con­stitution.]’

Now we have all; and his sundry other places, we may guess at, by those alledged. In these, it is familiar with him to apply what is spoken of the Catholick Church, which is the Houshold of God, and Body of Christ, to his particular Churches.— But I must confess my own ignorance, that I understand not the co­gency of this argument from these similitudes. ‘The Church is an House, a Temple, &c. Belie­vers living stones, Therefore these must needs come together into this beautiful form, by a mutual consent, &c. Or, Therefore Church-communions may not be prudentially ap­pointed, by determining certain numbers of Christians, that dwell together in certain precincts, into orderly societies, for the worship and service of God, and the due practise of other offices of their Christianity.’ The Catechist should do well to remember, that he hath told us elsewhere,Ca [...]. p. 221, 222. ‘That the [Page 127] Church may have respect unto civil cohabi­tation for conveniency and edification;’ and to consider withal, that he hath told us,p. 117. ‘This consent is the form of mens coalescencie in­to all societies;’ and then it may prove dan­gerous to civil cohabitations, and political pre­cincts themselves too, upon the force of his way of arguing.— But I will not examine this matter farther, I shall rather endeavour to give some light to those that are willing to be informed of that account which the Scripture gives us of the Christian church, or Churches.

CHAP. IV.

THe word Church, in the New Testament, imports chiefly, the Society of Christians; i. e. Believers in Christ already come.See Dr. Pearson on the Creed. Artic. 9. And it is (in St. Paul's language, Eph. 2.19, 20.) ‘The houshold of God, built upon the foun­dations of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone.’ Our B. Saviour speaks of the Church, in this sense to his Apostle Peter, as a thing which was to be; a thing to be after builded, Ʋpon this Rock will I build my Church. St. Matt. 16. 18. Upon the Rock, confessed by him, Jesus the Christ, the Son of the Living God, principally; and yet in­strumentally too, upon this Rock, St. Peter one of the twelve foundations of the Church, (Re­vel. 21.14.) and, as we shall observe, in the process of Scripture-story, the first builder of it.

The peculiar power of raising this Church, was given to the Apostles, after our Saviour's Resurrection, when he issued forth his Com­mission to them,St. Matt. 28. 19, 20. ‘To go out in his name, and preach the Gospel among all Nations, and so make Disciples, baptizing them in the name, (and into the acknowledgment) of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, teach­ing them (so admitted) to observe all things whatsoever he commanded.’ In our Creed therefore, the mention of the Church follows the profession of Faith made in God the Father, [Page 129] the Son, and the Holy Ghost. All the members of this Church, are supposed to be baptized in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and this Church is the universal Society of them who believe in, and worship the Tri-une God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

Well, The Commission for planting this Church in the world, issued forth from our Saviour after his Resurrection, when he ap­pointed them ‘to preach repentance,St. Luke 24. and re­mission of sins, in his name, among all Na­tions, beginning at Jerusalem, to witness and testifie the Articles of Christian faith, and to incorporate, and embody, all that should believe, into one society, by Baptism; But he commands them expresly to tarry in the city of Jerusalem, vers. 47, 48, 49. till they were endued with power from on high, till they received the promised gift of the Holy Ghost, to qua­lifie them with extraordinary abilities for this work committed to them, that the Spirit might accompany them in the world as Christ's advocate.’

Now all the remarkable Actions we read among the Apostles, after Christ's ascension, till the pouring forth of the Spirit, was, only the choice of a substitute among themselves, in the room of Judas, Act. 1.28. that fell by his transgressi­on, to compleat their number; and accor­dingly, we read, ‘Matthias was chosen by lot, to take part of the Ministry and Apostle­ship with them, and he was numbred with the eleven Apostles.ver. 15. And the number of the [Page 130] names together there assembled, Apostles and Disciples, left by Christ, were about anNot that these were all that were then belie­vers, (for we read of above 500 brethren at once, 1 Cor. 15.6. to whom Christ appeared after his Resurrection) but all at that time assembled. hundred and twenty.’

This then was the beginning of the Christi­an Church, left by Christ; now the first re­markable building, and encrease of this Church, we have an account of, Acts 2.

After that the Holy Ghost descended on them at Jerusalem, on the day of Pentecost, accor­ding to Christ's promise, (whence the mention of the Church, planted by the Apostles, fitly comes in our Creed, immediately after the Ar­ticle of the Holy G [...]ost); St. Peter, fill'd with the Spirit, stands up, and preacheth to the multi­tude, and is the means of converting 3000 souls, according to the promise,—Ʋpon this Rock will I build my Church.

Now, This three thousand, added to the remnant left by Christ, upon St. Peter's Ser­mon, are the first society that we read expresly call'd a Church in the New Testament. So they are call'd, Act. 2.47. and we read not of any so call'd before them.

Here then is the ‘beginning of the Aposto­lick Church, the society of those that believe in Jesus Christ, conceived by the H. Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, &c.’ which was the prime doctrine of the Apostles, the Society of these baptized believers. Nor can a truer account be given of the Christian Church, than [Page 131] by perusing diligently this story, where we have a clear description of,

The entrance of these three thousand into the Church. And,

Their practice after that entrance.

The sum is this:

St. Peter first preaches, and the substance of his Sermon is, the Doctrine concerning Christ, and the point of Repentance, Faith and Repen­tance; advising all that believed, embraced, and would profess this Doctrine, to be bapti­zed. And this was the door of their entrance into the Church, ver. 41. ‘Then they that gladly received his word, were baptized, and the same day there were added unto them, (that is, to the 120) about 3000 souls.’ Baptism upon a profession of faith and repen­tance, was their entrance into the Church.

Now then, their demeanour, being so enter'd and admitted, follows, ver. 42.44. ‘They continued stedfastly, and that together, in the Apostles Doctrine, and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.’ They persevered in hearing the Apostles teach, in observing the orders of their society, and all mutual offices of charity, in eating the Lord's Supper, and praying together.

So that here we are sufficiently resolved about the Christian Church, namely, ‘That it is a visible company of persons thus ad­mitted, and thus continuing, being once ad­mitted.’ And this is the Church which was daily encreased afterwards, and is to be preser­ved, and encreased to the end of the world, by [Page 132] the continued addition and accessions of other persons received into it, upon the same terms, by the same door of entrance, and demeaning themselves, being entred, after the same man­ner. Of these 3000, it is said, they were ad­ded to the Apostles and Disciples, left by Christ, ver. 41. And, ‘To this Church the Lord ad­ded daily such as should be saved, verse 47.’ And this is the Church, which our B. Saviour promised to set up, and uphold for ever in the world, ‘and that the gates of Hell should not prevail against it. St. Matth. 16.18. viz.’

‘The Society of professing penitents and believers, baptized into the name of the Fa­ther, Son, and Holy Ghost, and communi­cating together in the Apostolical Doctrine, Discipline, Sacraments, and Devotions.’

Now this Society afterwards increasing, by the great multitude of believers, was, of necessi­ty, to be sub-divided into certain particulars, for the performing of joynt-service to God, in an orderly communion; as accordingly it was by the Apostles authority and direction. And that is the ground, why we sometimes read of Church, in the singular number, as of one; and sometimes again of Churches, as of many. I will declare this matter somewhat more di­stinctly.

Sometimes we read of Churches, as many. ‘They went through the Cities,Act. 16.4, 5. and deliver'd the decrees of the Apostles to be kept, and so were the Churches established in the faith, and increased in number daily.—Rom. 16 14. All the Churches of the Gentiles.—1 Cor. 14 33. All the Church­es [Page 133] of the Saints.— The brother,2 Cor. 8.18, 19. whose praise is in the Gospel, through all the Churches.—’ And, ‘Chosen of the Churches, to travel with us.— I robbed other Churches,ch. 11.8, 28. to do you service. —On me, daily,Act. 9.31. the care of all the Churches.—’ Gal. 1.21, 22. The Churches throughout Ju­dea, Galilee, and Samaria, &c.

These Countries, through the successful preaching of the Gospel, had many particular Churches, or congregations of the faithful, united under some Minister or Bishop; the lesser congregations under some inferiour mini­ster. And thus we read of a few believers con­vened together in the house of one single per­son, as a Church. Rom. 16.5. ‘Greet Priscilla and Aqui­la, likewise greet the Church in their house. The Churches of Asia salute you,1 Cor. 16.19. Aquila and Priscilla salute you, with the Church that is in their house. Salute Nymphas, Col. 4.15. and the Church in his house. To Philemon, Philem. 1. ver. 2. our dearly beloved, and fellow-labourer, and to the Church in thy house.’ This Church in their house, was ‘the baptized believers of the family, with such other neighbour Chri­stians, as were admitted and received to joyn in Gods worship and service with them there.—’ Now many of these lesser congrega­tions were united under a superiour Minister, or Bishop. For, in and about, great and popu­lous cities, there were many such little, and particular Churches, and yet we may observe, that the Scripture speaks of such particulars, as united together in one Church. A pertinent instance we have in the Epistle to the Corin­thians, [Page 134] ‘Let your women keep silence in the Churches,2 Cor. 14.34. saith St. Paul, that is, all the par­ticular congregations belonging unto Co­rinth;’ and yet the same Apostle dedicates this Epistle, not to the Churches at Corinth, in the plural, 1 Cor. 1.1. but in the singular number, ‘To the Church of God which is at Corinth.’ And thus, in like manner, we read of other great Cities, though there were many particular, and lesser Churches, in them, and the adjacent parts belonging to them, yet are they mention'd still but as one Church. So the Church of Jerusalem, of Antioch, of Caesarea, of Ephesus, of Laodicea; of Smyrna, &c. The reason this, already intimated: All the particular Church­es belonging to those great Cities, were united under the care and circumspection of one su­periour Minister, or Bishop, and were there­fore accounted as one Church. There were many particular, or Parish-churches, as we speak, and yet all but one Diocess, united un­der one Bishop, The case is plain, if we look but to the seven Churches of Asia, in the Re­velations. They are numbred, all of them, ac­cording to their single Governours and Over­seers, according to their seven Angels, though each of them was certainly subdivided into many particular Churches or Congregations. Every congregation of the Saints, with a Mini­ster among them,Cat. p. 117. (without which, ‘it is not organically compleat;’ that I may borrow the Catechist's phrase; nor, as he well calls it, ‘a Spiritual corporation, attended with rule and government,) was a little Church;’ and [Page 135] many of these, doubtless, there were belong­ing severally to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamus, Revel. chap. 2.3. Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea; and yet are all these reckon'd but as seven Churches of Asia, because of those seven An­gels, or Bishops, presiding over them.

A collection then, of several congregations, every one of which may be called a Church, is yet, in the Scripture-propriety, one Church, by vertue of their subordination in government under one chief guide and ruler. There are many lesser Churches, which are but members of one greater Church. And so, in like man­ner, many of those greater Churches, united under single Bishops, may be no more than members of one Provincial, or National Church, united under some common superi­our, for order sake, whom we call Arch-Bishop, and Metropolitan. And there may be many Provincial, and National churches, which are yet but members of the universal church of Christ, derived from the Apostles, which, however consisting of so many homo­geneous parts and members, call'd churches, is yet but one Church, because under one su­preme governour and ruler, namely, Christ him­self, the Great Shepheard and Bishop of our Souls; That whole body whereof he only is the Head.

Now the necessary badge of every member of Christ's visible Church, or any particular Churches thereto appertaining, is the profession of faith and obedience, with Baptism, in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, whe­ther [Page 136] that profession be true and in reality, or no; God alone judgeth. For the visible Church of Christ is a communion of professors, wherein good and bad, sincere and hypocrites; are mingled together. There was a Judas, a Traitor, and false Apostle, among the twelve; and there will be false disciples mixed with the true, whilst this world stands. Earth is no place for unmixed communions. We are here in a middle-state and region (as it were) be­tween the perfection of good and evil. In Hell there are soli mali, evil ones only, and none good to partake with them. In Heaven, there are soli boni, the good only, and none that are impure or evil to communicate with them; but on Earth there continue, & boni & mali, both good and bad together, and so are like to continue, till their parting, at their remove hence to one of these other places, the one on the right hand, the other on the left; and then the good shall be advanced to a blessed society of just men made perfect; and the bad cast down to the wicked combination of the damned. St. Matt. 13. 24. 30. ‘The Kingdom of heaven is there­fore likened to a field, wherein the wheat and tares grow together, until the harvest;— to a net cast into the Sea, 47 gathering of every kind,chap. 3.12. good and bad fish; — to a floor, on which there is chaff as well as corn. 'Tis a great House,2 Tim. 2.20. in which, there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood, and of earth, some to honour, and some to dishonour.St. Matth. 25.32. 'Tis a large sheep-fold, where­in there are together sheep and goats, to be [Page 137] separated at the last day.’ Fortissimò tene, & nui­latenùs du­bites A ream Dei esse Ec­clesiam Ca­tholicam, & intra eam, usque in fi­nem saeculi frumento mixtas pale­as contineris hoc est, bonis malos sacra­mentorum communi­one misceri. Fulgentius ad Petr. Dia­con. 'Tis our B. Savi­our's own maxim, Many are called, and few chosen. A call therefore, to Church-member­ship, doth not necessarily include, or suppose the truth of grace. The Church of Christ, indeed, is an holy Church; holy, by vertue of the baptismal dedication, and separation of all its members unto God; holy, by vertue of their external calling and profession; holy, by vertue of their great obligation unto, and provi­sions for, real holiness; and, lastly, holy, by ver­tue of the sincere holiness of the sincere mem­bers of it; but it no wayes follows from hence, that none may be looked upon as visible mem­bers of this Church, but such as are truly, and inherently holy.

The Church then, being, as hath been said, a mixed communion, there may be sometimes in it, unworthy ministers, and false and corrupt members, Vide Chem. ult. de Ec­clesia, cap. 5. and yet is not the efficacy of God's ordinances null'd by the one, nor the communi­on it self polluted, barely by the presence of the other.

The efficacy of Church-ordinances depends not on the Minister's worthiness, but the Di­vine institution; and therefore cannot be null'd by the Minister's unworthiness, be that what it will. Suppose the man to have some private errours, or to be noted for this or that vicious practise: These, indeed, are things which ought not to be, especially in a man of his place and function; but, though they should be (as sometimes 'tis like they may); yet, if he be a commissioned, and ordained Minister, and do [Page 138] keep to the rightful forms of administration, the efficacy of God's holy ordinances, he shall not be prejudiced to the well-disposed, through his errour, or impiety. The reason is, the Or­dinances are God's; man's is the ministration of them only; who, if he be good, is a co-worker with God, and, though he be evil, may yet be an instrument whereby God worketh, and conveys his grace to others▪ Water, we know, may be brought into a Garden, to cause it to fructifie, and bring forth plentifully, as well by a pipe of wood or lead, or some baser matter, as by a pipe of silver or gold; and the Prophet Elias his food was not the worse, because a black Raven served it up. Our B. Saviour warns his Disciples, to beware of the leaven of the Pha­risees; but yet he enjoyned the hearkening to their sound doctrine, and learning instruction from them.St. Matt. 23. 2, 3. ‘The Scribes and Pharisees, saith he, sit in Moses seat, and therefore whatso­ever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works, for they say, and do not.’ He may set others in the right way, heaven-ward, who, himself, it may be, (the more the shame and pity) either stands still, or posts on a contrary way unto de­struction. He may preach to others successful­ly, who; yet, for want of self-government, proves a cast-away himself. So much may seem inti­mated by the Apostle, 1 Cor. 9.27.— The per­sonal vices of Ministers, cannot disable the effi­cacie of Divine ordinances. True, indeed, they do often prejudice people, against the wayes of God, and (as Eli's sons profaneness did) make [Page 139] them to abhorr the sacred offerings; and there­fore all severity is to be used in the Church, for the restraining of such provocations. But still there is a vice, and fault too, in the people, that they do, for the sake of evil men, abhorr that, which is of it self good and holy. Where the people are themselves rightly disposed, the good Word and [...]acraments of God, shall not, for the Ministers Errours or Vices, lose their effect.

Neither shall the presence of evil-members in church-communion, be the hurt of such, who consent not to their sins and impieties; for,Quisquis in Ecclesia be­nè vixerit, nihil ei prae­judicant pec­cata aliena; quia, ut A­postolus di­cit, Quisque proprium peccatum portabit. Gal. 6. Com­munio igi­tur malorum non macu­lat aliquem participa­tione Sa­cramento­rum, sed consensi­one facto­rum. Aug. Ep. 152. Quibus mali placent in unione, ipsi communi­cant eum malis. Quiub [...] verò mali displicent, & eos emendare non possunt, non factis eorum, sed Altare Christi communicant. Ep. 162. Etiam cog­niti mali, non obsunt in Ecclesia, si eos à communione prohibendi aut potestas desit, aut aliqua ratio conservanda pacis impediat. Ep. 164. every one shall bear his own burthen. The Society of evil men, (as St. Austin saith well) doth not corrupt us, in partaking with them of the same Sacraments, but in consenting to their wickedness. And again, They communicate with evil men, who are delighted in their society, as such; but, as for those, who are displeased with them, and yet are not able to reform them, they communicate not with their deeds, but Christ's Altar. And again, Evil men, though known in the Church, do not hurt the good, if there be either power wanting of prohibiting their communion, or some weighty reason of keeping the peace, hinder the putting of that power in execution. These are the golden rules of that Learned Father, who took so much labour and pains in his writings against the Donatists, and fit they are to be remembred by us.

And it is very good advice which he quotes from St. Cyprian,; Cyprianus ad Presbyte­rum Maxi­mum scrip­sit, Non ideò quoniam zizania in Ecclesia esse cernimus, ipsi de Eccle­sia receda­mus. Nobis tantummodo laborandum est, ut Frumentum esse possimus; ut cum coeperit frumentum Dominicis horrcis condi fructum pro opere nostro & labore capiamus. Contr. Crescen. Grammat. l. 1. c. 14. ‘That we are not there­fore to depart from the Church our selves, because we see tares to be in the Church, but only to labour, that we our selves may be pure grain, that when that corn shall be lodg­ed in God's granaries, we may receive the fruit of our work and labour.’

2 Cor. 2.15, 16. ‘Tis no prejudice unto those, to whom the Word of God is the savour of life, unto eter­nal life, that the same Word, by reason of other mens infidelity, becomes unto them, the savour of death, unto eternal death.’

1 Cor. 11. ‘Tis no prejudice to the worthy receiver of the Holy Communion, who feeds upon Christ's body and blood, by faith and love, and Divine meditation, that the unworthy communicant, at the same time eats and drinks damnation to himself.’

The very same meat, we know, is nourishment to a well-disposed stomach, which to an ill, and depraved one, is the matter of crudities and dis­eases; nor is it any whit the less a nourishment unto the healthful, because, it may be, at the same time, it contributes accidentally to the encrease of the sick man's distemper.

Thus, now, have I declared, with all plain­ness, as much as seems necessary to be spoken here, about the nature of Christian Churches, and the qualification indispensably required in all the members of them.

CHAP. V.

YEt before I leave this Argument quite, I will take notice briefly of another accepta­tion, familiarly used of the word Church. 'Tis confess'd, indeed that the word ( [...] Ec­clesia) [Page 142] which we translate church, doth pri­marily referr to the persons assembled; but this is no hindrance, but that the same word may at other times signifie the place of their assem­bling, in like manner, as is usual with many other words; for instance sake, Colledge, [...]ynagogue, Senate, Synod, &c. Somewhat therefore, of the place, which we are wont, (and that up­on ground enough) to call the [...]hurch; and this, the rather, because of what the Catechist hath told the world.

Catec. p. 29. ‘[Under the New Testament all difference of, and respect unto place, is taken away. John 4.21. The hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusa­salem, worship the Father; but the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worship­pers shall worship the Father in Spirit and in truth; for the Father seeketh such to wor­ship him. And we are commanded in all places equally, to make our prayers and sup­plications.—]’

Here then, it may not be amiss to consider, first, the true scope and importance of the place of Scripture here quoted, and then such other particulars, as shall appear pertinent for our right information about this subject.

As to the Text of St. John. Our B. Saviour was novv conversing with a Samaritan wo­man, who stood up for the worship of her Country, in Mount Gerizim, against the Jews, who confined God's solemn appointed wor­ship,St. John 4. 20. to the Temple at Jerusalem. These are the words of the 20th. verse; ‘[Our Fathers [Page 143] worshipped in this mountain, and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.]’. Hereupon therefore,21. 22. &c. Christ saith unto her, ‘[Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father;]’ That is, The worship of God shall be so far from being limited to this place, to this mountain, that it shall not be restrained to Jerusalem it self; nay, a desolation shall short­ly over whelm both. ‘[Ye worship ye know not what: We know what vve worship.]’ that is, Ye Samaritans worship the God of the Land, (as it is declared, 2 Kings 17.26.) without knowledg vvho that is, and your own Gods with him; but vve Jews vvorship the eternal God of Heaven, who hath revealed himself to us [for salvation is of the Jews.] The special revelations of God, beyond vvhat other nations enjoy, be­long to the Jews, and so all manner of advan­tages tovvard our eternal good. To them God sent his Prophets, and of them cometh the Messiah, the Saviour of the world. The Jews then have the priviledge above the Samaritans, or any other people.— Yet is not this an argu­ment of the perpetual duration of their way of worshipping God, by their Sacrifices yearly, and other ceremonial observances, at Jerusalem. ‘[But the hour cometh, and novv is, that the true worshippers shall vvorship the Father in spi­rit and in truth; for the Father seeketh such vvorshippers of him;]’ that is, Now the time of reformation approacheth, wherein God vvill be vvorshipped and obeyed no long­er [Page 144] by the Judaical rites, (which are often call'd carnal, consisting most-what in external per­formances, and were to continue only till the time of Reformation, Messiah's coming) much less, according to the Samaritan false worship, who worshipped their own Idols to­gether with God, 2 Kings 17. but, comparatively with these, in a pure, spiritual manner; and such as was typified by those shadows. And the Son of man is now come to draw all men to this way of worship. i. e. from the Judaical, and Samaritan way, to the Christian. ‘[God is a Spirit, and they that worship him, must worship him in Spirit and truth.]’ It is this Christian worship, which he is especially de­lighted with, as most suitable to himself; nor indeed, was he ever pleased with any meer bo­dily worship, principally, or in, or for it self. He will have our souls joyned to our external performances, and be worshipped after that way of truth, which answers to the fore-going types and shadows. i. e. after the Christian man­ner, by Christ revealed.

But now, how weakly is it from hence in­ferr'd, that, because these two places, whereto the Jews and Samaritans confin'd their wor­ship, are taken away, and ruined; or, because there is no special place now under Divine com­mand, as there was to the Jews; therefore all difference and respect unto places, is totally removed; neither is there any place to be ap­pointed among Christians, as peculiar, and se­parate to God's service. This fallacy lies in drawing an universal conclusion from particular [Page 145] premises, which will not bear it. And it is not much unlike to this. Because we are not obliged, as the Jews were, to come three times a year before God; therefore, under the New Testament, all difference of, and respect unto time, is also taken away; so that no certain dayes may be appointed to God's worship, or have a special stamp of holiness upon them, on the account of their separation thereunto.

St. Paul indeed wills,1 Tim. 2.8. ‘that men pray eve­ry where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting;’ Every where therefore we may, upon occasion, pray lawfully, and pray acceptably; but it follows not thereupon, that vve are commanded to pray in all places equally, and that there are to be no select oratories, and houses of prayer; It follows not, I say, any more than that,1 Thes. 5. because the same Apostle bids us to pray without ceasing; i. e. continually; there­fore there are no special hours of Prayer, or dayes to be more peculiarly set apart for that service. Thus much upon the occasion of the Text of Scripture, by the Catechist referr'd unto.

Now it may deserve farther to be consi­dered;

First, That the Temple it self, at Jerusalem, though it were, upon some accounts, typical, yet had a moral end too in it; as set apart for the lauding and magnifying of the most high God, after the solemnest manner, appointed chiefly for prayer, and not for sacrifice; 1 Kings 8.28, 29, 30. from whence also it had it's name, the House of Prayer; So the Prophet speaks of it, with relation to the Gentiles, as well as Jews. Isa. 56.7. My house shall be [Page 146] call'd an house of Prayer, for all people, And under this moral notion, our B. Saviour look'd upon it, when his holy zeal drave out the Merchants and Money-changers thence;St. Matt. 21. St. Mark 12. St. John 2. not without evident marks of his displeasure at their impiety, who made his Father's house, (devoted as an house of Prayer to God) a com­mon mart. An instance, so much the more re­markable, because this Temple Herod had, in a great measure, re-edified, without any spe­cial command from God.

Secondly, When David entertained his re­solutions of building the Temple, he seems moved thereto, by a piety leaning upon common rea­son and equity; 2 Sam. 7. [...].3. "See now, saith he, to Na­than the Prophet, ‘I dwell in an house of Cedar, but the Ark of God dwelleth in Cur­tains;’ and Nathan, upon the same principles, (without special command received from God) commends, and encourageth his intentions; yea, and God himself, (though, for certain reasons, he prohibited David the building of his Temple, according to his pious resolutions,) yet alloweth, and justifieth those resolutions themselves, Ch. 4. p. 24, 25. 1 Kings 2.1 [...]. as hath been intimated already, in the first part of this book. Whereas it was in thy heart to build an house to my name, thou didst well, that it was in thine heart.

Reason taught both David, and Solomon his son, that the House to be appropriated to God's honour and worship, ought to be such in its beauty and majesty, as might be expressive of their raised thoughts of God's Greatness, and devout affections towards him. This there­fore, [Page 147] was the motive to David's great Libera­lity. ‘The work, saith he, is Great,1 Chron. 29.1, 2. for the palace is not for men, but for the Lord. Now I have prepared, with all my might, for the house of my God.— Moreover, because I have set my affection to the house of my God, I have, of my own proper goods, &c.—’ The motives are, God's Great Majesty, and David's great affection. And Solomon his son, after him, writing to Huram King of Tyre, urgeth this weighty motive.—2 Chron. 2.6. ‘The house which I build is great, for Great is our God, above all gods.’ They have not, it is to be feared, such great and honourable thoughts of God, or affection towards him, who seek to demolish the magnificent structures dedicated to his service, and think any mean, and common place as fit for it.

Thirdly, The Scripture-precepts of reve­rence to God's house and Sanctuary, have no sign at all in them, of being ceremonial onely;Levit. 19.30.26.2. Eccles. 5.12 for they are ever urged with that moral reason of their relation unto God. The Catechist, I remember, saith.

‘[Whilst the meer institutions of the Old Testament continued,Cat. p. 14. God enforced them vvith moral reasons, as his ovvn holiness and authority; but those reasons prove not any of those institutions to be moral, unless they ensue upon those reasons alone, and are no vvhere else commanded; for, being once instituted and commanded, they are to be en­forced with moral considerations, taken from [Page 148] the nature of God, and our duty in reference to his authority.]’

Now this being granted, I see not, why [Ye shall reverence my Sanctuary] be not con­cluded a moral institution; much rather than [Ye shall keep my Sabbaths] linked in the same verse vvith it, vvhereof, I suppose, the Cate­chist and his party make no doubt; inasmuch as ‘the keeping God's Sabbaths is elsevvhere commanded,Exod 11.23, 24. upon positive, and particular grounds, and the Sabbath dayes are expresly reckon'd by the Apostle, as a shadovv of things to come, not obliging unto Christi­ans, Col. 2.17. But the reverencing of Gods house, or sanctuary, is no vvhere command­ed, vvithout an intimation of this moral rea­son of its relation unto God, nor doth the Apostle account the Temple among those ceremonies which he there enumerates.’ The Jews, certainly, as they did, upon principles of equity, build their Synagogues for the con­venience of serving God in their particular Cities, so did they in like manner, call them, houses of God, and ‘rationally argue, from the precepts of reverence due to God's Sanctu­ary, a proportionable reverence due to these, vvriting over the doors, Haec est porta Domi­ni, This is the gate of the Lord;’ and for­bidding all rudenesses, and profanations of them, as hath been before declared,Ch. 4. p. 26. in the first part of this discourse.St. Luke 7. The Centurion, we knovv, is commended in the Gospel, unto Christ, for having given an excellent demonstration of love to the Jewish Nation by building of a [Page 149] Synagogue. What then are they, but haters of their country, who, instead of building, seek to demolish the Houses of God in the land, or make no difference between them and common structures.

Fourthly, It may deservedly weigh some­what with Christians, to behold our B. Savi­our and his Apostles, so constantly frequent­ing the Temple and Synagogues, those places appropriate unto Divine worship; as we read in the Holy Gospels, and Acts of the Apo­stles.

Lastly, Probable it is, that, even in the times of the first Christians, (in that their persecuted estate, and wilderness-condition) they yet did, as they were able, set apart certain places, as peculiar for their common meeting together, to serve God in. Intimations we find of this, in Sacred Scripture, as well as Ecclesiastical wri­tings, Acts 11.26.Acts 11.26. ‘For an vvhole year they assembled themselves with the Church, (the Margin hath it more rightly, in the Church) and taught much people, and the Disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.’ They assembled together constantly, [...], in Ecclesiâ, as both the Vulgar-Latin and Beza render it; i. e. in the Church, the place ap­pointed for religious meetings and assemblies. Here then we have a Local Church, as early as the very name of Christians.

Again, 1 Cor. 11.18.1 Cor. 11.18, 20. ‘When ye come to­gether in the Church, [...], in the place of Religious Assemblies;’ for so he af­terwards adds, When ye come together into [Page 150] one place, and opposeth it unto their own hou­ses, verse 4. ‘What, have ye not houses to eat and drink in, or despise ye the Church of God?’ i. e. the house of God. St. Austin is express for this sense. Ecclesia di­citur Locus, quo Ecclesia congregatur. Hanc vocari etiam ipsam domum ora­tionum idem Apostolus testis est, ubi ait. Nunquid domos non habetis ad manducandum & bibendum? Ecclesiam Dei contemnitis? Quast. super Levit. l. 3. c. 57.— Hoc quotidianus loquendi usus obtinuit, ut ad Eccle­siam prodire, aut ad Ecclesiam confugere non dicatur, nisi quod ad lo­cum ipsum parietesque prodierit vel confugerit, quibus Ecclesiae congrega­tio continetur. id. ibid. The place, saith he, wherein the Church is gathered together, (the Meeting-place, in the Brethren's Dialect) is call'd the Church, even the house of prayers.

The Apostle counts their own houses, the proper place for ordinary and common repasts, and not the Church, or house of God. So therefore, he speaks afterward, ‘If any man hunger, let him eat at home.’ And thus al­so Theophylact interprets the vvord Church in this place of the Apostle.Nunquid domos.— videlicet, Si aliis cibum communi­care renui­tis, eur non domi vesci­mini? Aut Ecclesiam Dei contemnitis? Cum enim Dominicam coenam in privatam conver titis, in Ecclesia scorsum edentes Loco ipsi inscrtis injuriam. Theophylact in 1 Cor. 11.22. ‘If, saith he, you you refuse to communicate meat unto others, why eat you not at home?’ for vvhen you convert the Lords Supper into a private meal, eating apart in the Church, you do injurie to the very place.

See Mr. Mede of Churches.Now, this Church of God, (as a Learned man conjectures) was, 'tis likely, ‘Some ca­pable, and convenient room, within the walls and dvvellings of some pious disciple, dedi­cated [Page 151] by the religious bounty of the owner, to the use of the Church;’ and that usually, [...], an upper Room; such as the Latins call coenaculum, being, according to their manner of building, as the most large and capacious of any other, so likewise the most retired, freest from disturbance, and next to Heaven, as having no room above it. Such places, we read more than once, they made choice of.Acts 10.9. ‘St. Peter went up to the house-top to pray.’ Such is thought to be the room, wherein the Apostles and Disciples, after our B. Saviour's Ascension, assembled together dai­ly, for Prayer and Supplication, and where, be­ing thus assembled, the Holy Ghost came down upon them, in cloven tongues of fire, on the day of Pentecost; and there goes a tradition in the Church, that this was the room, wherein our B. Saviour, before his passion, celebrated the Passover, and instituted his Mystical Sup­per; and the same place, where, on the day of his Resurrection, he came, and stood among his Disciples, and appeared again unto them the Sunday after; and the place where James, the Brother of our Lord, was created by the Apo­stles, Bishop of Jerusalem; where the seven Deacons were elected and ordained; vvhere the Apostles and Elders of the Church had their first Council, for deciding the question about the believing Gentiles circumcision; and, ‘for certain (as Learned Mr. Mede proceeds) the place of this coenaculum was afterward enclosed with a goodly Church, known by the name of the Church of Sion, and 'tis [Page 152] call'd by St. Cyril, who was Bishop of the place, [...], The upper Church of the Apostles;’ and, if this (saith he) were so, why may I not think that this coe­naculum Sion, was that [...], that house, whereof we read concerning the first Christian Society at Jerusalem, Act. 2.46. ‘That they continued daily in the Temple, and break­ing bread, [...], in the house, (not, as we read it, ‘house by house’) and eat their meat vvith gladness, and singleness of heart?’ The meaning being, ‘That when they had per­formed their devotions daily in the Temple, at the accustomed times of prayer there, they used to resort immediately to this Coena­culum, and there having celebrated the my­stical banquet of the H. Eucharist, took their ordinary, and necessary repast, with gladness, and singleness of heart.—’ Such a place, an upper room, 'tis evident, it was, where ‘the Disciples at Troas came together,Act. 20.7. on the first day of the week, to break bread, where St. Paul preached unto them, and whence, Eutychius, being overcome with sleep, sitting in the window, fell down, [...], from the third story.Acts 28.22.—’ And such a place seems that of the Churches assembly at Caesarea, to which St. Paul vvent up,—& descen­dit Casarcam, & ascendit in domum Christiano­rum, (i. e. Ec­clesiam. & salutavit eos, & abit An­tiochiam. Lud. de Dien. [...], and saluted the Church. The Et [...]iopic Translator so under­stood it, as Lüd. de Dieu observes, thus ren­dring the words; ‘He vvent dovvn to Caesa­rea, and vvent up into the house of the Chri­stians, (i. e. the Church) and saluted them, and went to Antioch.’

And to this same purpose, of places appro­priate to the first Christian's-Assemblies, may be interpreted those peculiar characters given by the Apostle, to some in his Salutations. ‘Sa­lute Nymphas, and the Church, [...],Col 4.15. at his house. So, —To Philemon Philem. 1.2. our dearly beloved— [...], And to the Church in thy house. So,Rom. 16.3, 5.— Greet Pris­scilla and Aquila,— likevvise the Church that is in their house.’ And, sending salutati­tions from them to Corinth; 1 Cor. 16.29. ‘Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the Church that is in their house.’ Where, the Church, at, or in, such and such a one's house, may be rather understood of ‘the con­gregation of Christians vvont to assemble there, than of their ovvn particular families;’ for, othervvise, vvhy should this be singularly mention'd in the Salutations of some, and not of others, who are recorded to have Christian families, as well as they?Rom. 16.10, 11, 14, 15. for so we find Ari­stobulus, and Narcissus, with their houshold, saluted; ‘Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermas, Pa­trobas, and the brethren which are with them. Phïlologus and Julia, Nereus and his Sister, and Olympas, and all the Saints which are with them. And in another Epistle, —the houshold of Onesiphorus. 2 Tim. 4.19.’ There seems there­fore, to be some singular thing, in this singu­lar appendix peculiarized to them before-men­tioned, and this, probably, to be it; ‘That in their houses, they allotted, and set apart, a peculiar place for the Church to assemble in, not altogether unlike some private Chap­pels [Page 154] which are yet in certain great men's Houses.’ But I referr the Reader, who de­sires farther satisfaction, to our Learned Mede, who hath collected undoubted testimonies of this same truth, throughout the three first Cen­turies and so long before the time of Constantine the Great, wherein Christianity began to flou­rish, and to be adorned with more beautiful fabricks. I will only intimate his general reason, upon which the appropriation of cer­tain places to God's publick worship and service leans, and it is briefly this, easily deducible from the Analogy of the Old Testament; ‘That, as the Majesty of God is most sacred and incommunicable, and his worship and service, not be given unto any other; so it is likewise a part of the honour vve owe to his sacred, singular, and incommunicable Emi­nency, that the things wherewith he is ser­ved, should not be promiscuous and com­mon, but appropriate and set apart to that very purpose.’ But hitherto of Churches, both persons and places so call'd. The Cate­chist's method leads us next to consider, Of Church-officers or Governours.

CHAP. VI.

‘Q. SEing the Church is a Society,Cat. p. 116. or spi­ritual Incorporation of persons, un­der rule, government, or discipline; declare [Page 156] who, or what, are the Rulers, Governours, or Officers therein, under Jesus Christ?’

Answ. ‘They have been of two sorts. 1. Extraordinary, appointed for a season on­ly: And, 2. Ordinary, to continue unto the end of the world.’

Q. ‘Who are the extraordinary Officers, or Rulers, or Ministers of the Church, ap­pointed to serve the Lord Jesus Christ there­in, for a season only?’

Answ. ‘(1.) The Apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, with (2.) the Evangelists and Prophets, endowed with extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost, associated with them, and employed by them, in their work of Mini­stry. (1) Mat. 10, 23. Act. 1.26. 1 Cor. 1.28. Eph. 4.11. (2) Luke 10.1. 2 Tim. 4.5. Tit. 1.5. Act. 11.27, 28.—21.9, 10, 11. 2 Cor. 1.1.’

The necessity of government it self in the Church, is here well supposed, in that the Church is call'd ‘[a Spiritual Incorporation of persons, under Rule, Government, or Discipline.]’ This therefore, in the expli­tion, is rightly said to be evident from the nature of the thing it self, p. 117. as vvell as the testi­monies of Scripture; but then, I skill not well to reconcile this, with that vvhich follovvs; That yet a Church may be formally constitu­ted, without rule and government. His words are these?

p. 117. ‘[Neither doth this rule at all belong un­to it, meerly as materially considered in men yielding obedience unto the Call; which is the foundation of the Church, not [Page 157] absolutely as it is formally constituted a Church, by the consent and agreement de­scribed; but moreover, it is required, that it be organically compleat, with Officers, or Rulers.]’

'Tis the Catechist's unhappiness here, to be over-Metaphysical., If the Church, formally considered, be such a spiritual Incorporation, as he defines it, certainly Rule Government and Discipline belongs unto it, as such; and the want of such principal organs, or members, as Rulers are, must needs spoil its formality, no less than the vvant of an head, that of the humane body.

As to the distinction of Church-officers in­to extraordinary and ordinary, it ought to have been manifested out of the Holy Scriptures; vvherein, 'tis most certain, that vve read of Apostles, and Evangelists, and Prophets, distinctly, and by name; but not a vvord, that the chief and substantial part of their office and power vvas extraordinary, and for a season only. That there vvere some extraordinaries appertaining to them, is not question'd; but that evinceth not, the office of Apostles and Evangelists to be such. The Catechist himself tells us,

‘[These persons vvere in an extraordinary manner endued vvith all that povver,p. 119. vvhich aftervvards vvas to reside in the Churches themselves; and moreover, with that which was peculiarly needful unto the discharge and performance of that special duty and work that they vvere appointed unto.]’ At least then, as to that power which was to reside in [Page 158] the Church for ever, they vvere not extraor­dinary. For, that they vvere the first, and so immediately sent by Christ, seems a matter of order only, that doth not bespeak them of another kind from those that followed and succeeded them. I vvill here annex the words of Arch-Bishop Whitgift, long since, in his Defence against T. C. upon occasion of the like distinction with this of the Catechist's.

Arch Bishop Whitgift's de­fence of the Answ. to the Admoniti­on. Tract. 4. p. 217. ‘Although, saith he, you cannot vvarrant by the Scriptures this distinction, of ordi­nary and extraordinary ecclesiastical functi­ons: yet, I think, the Apostolical function was extraordinary, in respect that it had for the time, certain especial properties; as to bear witness of the Resurrection of Christ, and of his Ascension, which they did see vvith their eyes; also to plant, and found Churches; likewise to go through the whole world; these, I say, were temporal and extraordina­ry, and so was the Apostleship in this re­spect; but yet ordinary, in respect of their chief function, which was to preach the Gospel, and to govern the Churches which they had planted. Likewise Evan­gelists have an ordinary function, neither is there any cause why it should be call'd a temporal office, but only in respect of writing the Gospel; for there is none that thinketh the office of preaching to be either extraor­dinary or temporal. p. 118.— As for Prophets, if you mean in respect of the gift of telling things to come, such as Agabus was, then be they tem­poral; but if you mean Prophets in respect of [Page 159] their dexterity, and readiness of expounding Scriptures, such as Simeon, Lucius, Ma­naen, and Saul; Act. 13.15. 1 Cor. 14. likewise such as Judas and Silas, and such as the Apostle St. Paul speak­eth of, 1 Cor. 14. I see no cause why the Cal­ling should be extraordinary, or the office and gift, temporal; except you have a liberty to make temporal and perpetual, ordinary and extraordinary, what you please. But, seeing you would have all things proved by Scripture, I pray you prove this that you have said, either of the Apostles, Evangelists, or Prophets, by the Scripture; seeing you teach that of them, which seemeth to be contrary unto Scripture.—’ And, when T. C. replyes;

‘This passeth all the Divinity that ever I read, that there are now Apostles, T. C. p. 41. Sect. 1. Evange­list, and Prophets. You shall assuredly do marvels, if you prove that, as you say you will if any deny it.’ I deny it, prove you it. The Arch-Bishop answers thus:

‘Then have you not read much Divinity; p. 229.230. for, if it be true, that the Apostle St. Paul, in the fourth Chapter to the Ephesians, doth make a perfect platform of a Church, and a full rehearsal of the offices therein contained, (as you say, he doth); then can I not un­derstand, how you can make those offices rather temporal, than the office of the Pastors and Doctors. And forasmuch as you great­ly contemn Authority, and would have all things proved by Scripture; let me hear one word of the same, that doth but insinuate [Page 160] these offices to be temporal. The place it self seemeth to import a continuance of these functions, unto the coming of Christ; for he saith,Ephes. 4. He therefore gave some to be Apo­stles, and some Prophets, and some Evangelists, and some Pastors and Teachers, for the gather­ing together of the Saints, for the work of the ministry, &c. until we all meet together, in the unity of faith, and knowledge of the Son of God, unto à perfect man, and unto the mea­sure of the age and fulness of Christ.— I am perswaded, that you cannot shew any like place, which doth so plainly import the abrogating of them, as this doth make for their continuance. I have, beside that place to the Ephesians, the twelfth of the first to the Corinthians, and the fourteenth, where he speaketh of Prophets, as of perpetual mini­sters in Christ's Church.’

‘I know, (saith he) that there were certain things in the Apostles, which were proper unto themselves, as their calling, which was immediately from God,p. 231. (although Mat­thias was not immediately called by God, as it appeareth, Act. 1. neither can you prove by Scripture, that Barnabas was so call'd; but the contrary rather doth appear, Acts 11. and yet he was an Apostle) their commissi­on to go into the whole world, &c. but to preach the Word of God, in places where need requireth, or to govern Churches already planted, I see no cause why it should not be perpetual.— Likewise, the office of E­vangelist, if it be taken for writing of the Go­spel, [Page 161] then it is ceased, (being fully perfected and accomplished; but if it be taken for preaching the Gospel, plainly and simply, as Bullinger thinketh, or generally,Bull. in. 4. ad Ephes. Musc. Tit. de Verb. minist. in Loc. com. for preach­ing the Gospel, as Musculus supposeth; in which sense also, Paul said to Timothy, 2. Tim. 4. Do the work of an Evangelist; or for preaching more fervently or zealously than other, as Bucer saith;Bucer. in 4. ad Ephes. then I see no cause at all why it may not still remain in the Church.— Moreover, Prophets, if they be taken for such as have the gift of fore­shewing things to come, then be they not in all times of the Church; but if they be such as St. Paul speaketh of, 1 Cor. 14; such, I say, as have an especial gift in interpreting the Scriptures, whether it be in expounding the mysteries thereof to be learned, or in declaring the true sense thereof to the peo­ple; I understand not, why it is not as perpe­tual as the Pastor or Doctor.— Thus you see, that I have both Scripture and Reason on my side; and, to the end that you perceive that I am not destitute of the consent also of Learned men in this matter, I will set down the opinions of one or two.’

‘Ambrose upon these words, ad Eph. 4.Ambrose. Et ipse dedit quosdam quidem Apostolos, &c. saith thus; The Apostles are Bishops; Prophets be interpreters of the Scriptures. Although in the beginning, there were Prophets, as Agabus, and the four Virgins Prophetesses, as it is in the Acts of the Apostles,— yet now Interpreters be called Prophets. Evangelists [Page 162] be Deacons, as Philip; for, although they be no Priests, yet may they preach the Gospel without a chair, as both Stephen, and Philip before-named.— Bucer, Bucer. upon the same same place, saith, that there be Evangelists now;T. C. and you your self, fol. 42. confess, that Hus, Jerome of Prague, Luther, Zuinglius, &c. were Evangelists. Peter Martyr, Peter Martyr. in his Com­mentaries upon 12. to the Romans, saith, that the Apostle there describeth those fun­ctions and gifts which are at all times necessa­ry for the Church, and in that place the Apo­stle mentioneth prophesying. Mr. Calvin, Calvin. in his Institut. cap. 8. doth confess, that God hath stirred up Apostles and Evangelists, since that time of the Primitive Church, and that he hath done so likewise, even now, in this time. Mr. Bullinger, Bullinger. upon 4. Ephes. saith, that the words be confounded, and that an Apo­stle is also call'd a Prophet; a Doctor an Evan­gelist; a Minister a Bishop; and a Bishop an Evangelist and Prophet, &c.— To be short, It is thus written in the Confession of the Churches in Helvetia. Confess. Hel­vet. The Ministers of the New Testament be call'd by sundry names; for they are called Apostles, Prophets, Evange­lists, Bishops, &c. And speaking of Prophets, it saith, The Prophets in time past, foreseeing things to come, were call'd Seers, who are expounders of the Scriptures also; as some be even now a dayes. Evangelists were writers of the History of the Gospel, and preachers also of the glad tidings of Christ his Gospel; as Paul bid Timothy, do the work of an Evan­gelist, [Page 163] &c.— So that to say, there are in the Church, Apostles, Prophets, and Evangelists, in such sense as I have deelared, is no strange Divinity to such as be Divines in­deed.—’

But enough of this distinction, 'till we again meet with it; Let us hear the Catechist, of Ordinary Officers.

Q. 23. ‘Who are the ordinary Officers or Ministers of Christ, in the Church,Catec. p. 12 [...]. to be al­wayes continued therein?’

Answ. ‘Those whom the Scripture calls Pastors and Teachers, Bishops, Elders, and Guides. Acts. 14.23. —20.17, 18. 1 Cor. 12.28. Eph. 4.11. Phil. 1.1. 1 Tim. 3.1, 2. —5.17. Tit. 1.5, 7. Heb. 13.7, 17. 1 Pet. 5.1.’

It had been certainly pertinent, to have ad­ded to this head of enumeration, Deacons also; of whom, afterwards, he is not un­mindful.

Q. 32.Cat. p. 161. ‘Is there no other ordinary office in the Church, but only that of Elders?’

Answ. Yes, of Deacons also.

But, 'tis possible, there might be some po­licy in here concealing of them, lest they should too palpably have confronted his beloved parity of Gospel-Ministers. For thus he proceeds in the Explication.

‘[Sometimes they are called Pastors and Teachers, Ephes. 4.11. 1 Cor. 12.28.pag. 120. 121. Some­times Bishops, or Overseers, Phil. 1.1. Act. 20.28. Tit. 1.5. Sometimes Elders. 1 Pet. 5.1. 1 Tim. 5.17. Act. 14.23. Act. 20.17. Some­times Guides, Heb, 13.7, 17. By all which [Page 164] names, and sundry others, whereby they are express'd, the same sort, order, and degree of persons, is intended; nor is there any one of those names applyed, or accommoda­ted unto any, but all the rest in like manner; so that he who is a Pastor or Teacher, is also a Bishop or Overseer, a Presbyter or Elder, a Guide or Ruler, a Minister, a servant of the Church, for the Lord's sake.]’

Now had Deacons here been named, they would not so plausibly have been referr'd to the same sort, order, and degree of persons; it being a general belief, that Deacons were cer­tainly inferiour unto their Bishops, Phil. 1.1. and such as St. Paul may seem evidently to place in a lower rank, making them capable of rising to an higher degree, by the good admini­stration of their office. 1 Tim. 3.13.

And yet, nevertheless, if this argument, from a community of names,, avail any thing, these Deacons also may be advanced by it; not only to an equality with their Bishops, but with the Evangelists and Apostles themselves; be­cause that they are sometimes called by that name, Acts 21.8. Philip the Evangelist was one of the seven Deacons, and Timothy, who is commanded to do the work of an Evangelist; from whence, 'tis eagerly contended, that he was an Evangelist; is also bid by St. Paul, to fulfil his Deaconship, [...], 2 Tim. 4.5. Yea, he is call'd by St. Paul, [...], God's Deacon. 1 Thes. 3.2. Yea, the Apostle St. Paul too, as vvell as Apollos, goes by that name [...], a Deacon, which we English, [Page 165] Minister, 1 Cor. 3.5.— By this argument, in like manner, he may confound his distinction of extraordinary, and ordinary officers, and equal­lize the later with the former; because the Apo­stles are also call'd Elders. 1 Pet. 5.1. 2. Ep. of St. John, v. 1. Yea, and he might equal them all to Christ himself, upon the same account; because He, in like manner, is call'd an Apo­stle, Heb. 3.1. and a Deacon, or Minister, Rom 15.8.— So goodly, and convincing an argument is this, drawn from a community of names and Titles.

It were therefore more material, and to the purpose, to enquire, if there be not such a thing plainly described in the New Testament, as Prelacy in church-Government, or some sin­gle persons in the Church, set over other Mi­nisters, as to the exercise of certain powers, both of Ordination and Jurisdiction. But of this afterwards, the Catechist being as likely to deny the thing, as the name. He proceeds:

‘[Of all other names assigned to the Mi­nisters of the Church,Cat. p. 121. that of Bishop can least of all be thought to have designed any special order, or degree of preheminence amongst them.— And again,p. 121. — No name could be fixed on, with less probability, to assert from it a special supream order, or degree of men, in the Ministry, than this of Bishops.]’

How strangely hath the Christian world been mistaken, for above these 1600 years, to abuse the name Bishop, as the title of Su­periority in the Ministry, if this man's obser­vation be true? But let us examin a little, be­fore [Page 166] we swallow. If the name Bishop be so absurdly chosen, to denote a degree of prehe­minence among Ministers, it must be either upon the account of the notation of the name it self, or the constant use and application of it in Holy Scripture. As to the former, the Catechist offers nothing; and certain it is, that [...], a Bishop or Overseer, carrieth some­what of Superiority along with it, signifying one that is [...], over others. Take it in the Cate­chist's sense, an Overseer or Bishop of the Flock; then he hath certainly a preheminence. Take it in the Churches sense, for an overseer of parti­cular overseers, and we cannot deny the same. This latter may be illustrated by an inspection into Darius his policy, for the ruling of his Realm.Dan. 6.1, 2. It pleased Darius to set over the King­dome an 120 Princes, which should be over the whole Kingdom; and, over those, three Presidents, (of whom Daniel was first) that the Princes might give account to them.— The 120 Prin­ces had a preheminence over their respective charges, and the three Presidents, set to over­see them, no less a preheminence above those Princes.— Well, but it may be the constant use of the name Bishop, in the H. Scripture, will justifie the Catechist in his confidence. Some such thing indeed he seems to build on, as his reason.

Cat. p. 121. 12 [...]. ‘[For, whereas it is but four times, or in four places, used in the New Testament, as denoting any officers in the Church, in each of them it is manifest, that those expressed by the other names of Elders and Ministers, [Page 167] are intended. So, Acts 20.28. the Bishops are the Elders of the particular Church of Ephesus, ver. 17. Phil. 1.1. There were many Bishops in that one Church, who had onely Deacons joyned with them, that is, they were the Elders of it, Tit. 1.8. The Bishops were the Elders to be ordained, verse 5. which persons are also directly intended, 1 Tim. 3.2. as is evident from the co-incidence of the directions given by the Apostle about them, and the immediate adjoyning of Dea­cons unto them, verse 8.]’

He that would rightly understand the Ori­ginal of the New Testament, must also have an eye to the Greek translation of the Old, whom the writers of the new do most frequently imi­tate. Now, in the Old Testament, See Dr. Ham. Annot. 1. on Act. 1.20. the Hebrew word, commonly rendred by [...], is, [...] and other derivatives of [...] visitavit, [...]; all which note a Prefect, or Gover­nour, or any empowered, by Commission to ex­ercise any authority intrusted to him; and as it is ordinarily rendred by [...], so else­where also, [...]; all words of government, or prefe­cture. And 'tis farther observable, that where it is rendred [...], it is taken in five senses. 1. In an Army, [...], the Officer, or Captain of the host. Numb. 31.14. Judg. 9. 28. 2 Kings 11.15. 2dly. Among workmen; the principal that were set over all others, in the building of the Temple, 2 Chron. 34.12, 17. 3dly, In the City; the Ruler or Prince, and especially of the Priests and Levites, Nehem. 11. [Page 168] 9, 10, 14.22. 4thly, In the Ministry of the Temple; Numb. 3.32. Eleazar the son of Aaron (who is call'd [...], the Ruler of the Rulers of the Levites) is stiled, Numb. 4.16. [...] Bishop Eleazar, or Overseer. 5thly, In the house of the Lord, over which, he that was set, is, [...], 2 Kings 11.18. the Bishop over the house of the Lord. By all which it appears, that agree­able to the notion of the word in the Old Testa­ment, it will also in the New denote prefecture, or ruling power in the Church.

Come we then, with the Catechist, to the New Testament. And first, It is much that it should scape his notice, that the office of the Apostles themselves, the Apostolate, which must needs be granted to include preheminence, is call'd, from this very word, [...], Acts 1.20. a Bishoprick. — His Bishoprick let another take.

But, secondly, There needs no other con­viction, than what his own Instances will af­ford us; where,

First, He acknowledgeth, that Bishops are the same, that are elsewhere called Elders, and makes that the ground of his argument, which I shall now urge against him. The name Bishop then, apparently is not less fit to denote a pre­heminence, than that of Elder; because he owns them equally characteristical of the same persons. Let us therefore consider some­what more distinctly, the account of that name, and who are the persons pointed at by it in the New Testament.

The word [...], among the Greeks, See Dr. H. on Act. 12.30. and Phil. 1.1. is used both for Rulers and Old men, and accor­dingly it is now in use among all nations, Itali­ans, French Spaniards, English, to call their Rulers, Seniors, Mayors, Aldermen, &c. which are literally the rendring of [...]. Among the Hebrews, the same is acknowledged, that [...] old men, (which, with them that want degrees of comparison, is all one with Elders, and generally rendred [...]) denoteth dignity and prefecture in the Old Testament. So Eliezer the Steward of Abraham's house, (Gen. 15.2.) who was placed over all his ser­vants and goods, is called, Gen. 24.2. [...], the Elder of his house, and Ruler of all that he had. So the Elders of Phara­oh's house, and of all Egypt, Gen. 50.7. are the Prefects and Administrators of the King's house, and of all Egypt. So the Elders of the Mo­abites, are the Princes of Moab, Numb. 22.7, 8. So, when all dominion was founded in the pri­viledges that belonged to the first-born, the Princes of the Families or Kindreds, are call'd indifferently [...] & [...], Patri­archs, and Elders. Such were the Elders of Is­rael, Exod. 3.16, 18. and 4.29. the heads or ru­lers of the families or kindreds, ch. 6.14. rulers of the congregation, ch. 16.22. who are again call'd the Elders of Israel, ch. 17.5, 6. and 18.12. and Elders of the Tribes, Deut. 31.28. — And when Moses appointed Judges for lighter cau­ses, Exod. 18.22. who should have power over thousands, and hundreds, and fifties, and tens; i. e. first, over so many families; after, over [Page 170] greater or lesser cities, these were by them call'd [...] Elders, and [...] Rulers and Judges; and [...], and [...], Rulers of the Synagogues, and the like. And so, when the 70 Elders were ta­ken in to assist Moses, Numb. 11.16. (to whom the great Sanhedrim at Jerusalem succeeded) it is evident, that these were so call'd, because they were Princes, or Prefects, or Rulers of the people, before they were thus chosen by Mo­ses. And so the word Elder was not a deno­tation of one of the Sanhedrim any otherwise, than as some of those that were in the Sanhe­drim had formerly been Elders, or Rulers of the people. And accordingly, of three sorts of men, of which the Sanhedrim consisted, but one is call'd Elders, the other Scribes, and Chief Priests. By all which it appears, how fitly this word [...], Elders, being made use of by the Apostles, and Writers of the New Testament, is affixed to the Governours of the Christian church, the several Bishops of se­veral Cities, answerable to the [...]. Rulers of thousands, or Patriarchs; which, being first used among the Jews, are, in the christian church, the ordinary title of Bishops. And, although this title of [...], Elders, hath been also extended to a second order in the Church; yet, in the Scripture-times, it belong­ed principally (if not alone) to Bishops; there being little, or no evidence, that any of that second order were then instituted; though soon after, before the writing of Ignatius Epi­stles, there were such instituted in all Churches. [Page 171] When the Gospel was first preached by the Apostles, and but few converted, they or­dained in every City and Region, no more but a Bishop, and one, or more Deacons to attend him. And accordingly, when St. Paul gives directions to Timothy, for the ordaining of Church-officers, he names Bishops and Deacons, but no second order between them. 1 Tim. 3. and so to Titus.— And thus the [...], or Eldership, that laid hands on Timothy, and made him Bishop, may well be resolved to be the Bishops, or Apostolical men, who, with St. Paul, consecrated him, 1 Tim. 4.14. 2 Tim. 1.6. Thus St. Peter calls himself, Peter the Elder, 1 Pet. 5.1. and St. John, the Elder John, 2 Joh. 1. 3 Joh. 1. and Ignatius ep. ad Philad. calls the Apo­stles, [...], the Presbyterie, or Eldership of the Church. Thus then, though it be generally resolved, that the word Bishop and Elder are equivalent in the Scripture, yet is not this to be understood so, that either, and both of them, signifies indifferently those whom we now call Presbyters, but that they both signifie Bishops, one setled in each Church by the Apostles.

So Act. 20. The Bishops there, are not, as the Catechist saith, the Elders of the particular Church of Ephesus, nor is there any such thing said of them, verse, 17. whereto he referrs us, but rather of all Asia, at least, those that be­longed to Ephesus, as their Metropolis; and therefore St. Paul tells them, they had known, ‘how he had been with them, all the time, from the first day that he came into Asia, [Page 172] verse 18. and St. Irenaeus saith, l. 3. c. 14. In Mi­leto convocatis Episcopis & Presbyteris ab Ephe­so & proximis civitatibus.’ The Bishops and Elders being assembled at Miletus, from Ephe­sus, and the next Cities.— And so, in like man­ner, those, whom he calls the ‘many Bishops in one particular Church, Philip. 1.1. are, most probably, the [...]ishops of the Churches that be­longed to Philippi, the Metropolis;’ for, that Phi­lippi was such, is affirmed by S. Luke, Act. 16.12.— And so, in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, quoted by the Catechist, it is agreeable to the affirmations of the Antients, as that there should be constituted [...]ishops and Deacons in the several Churches (as was before intima­ted); so that the word [...] distinctly notes those Bishops, and not those whom we now call Presbyters. So that in all these places the word is fairly appliable to the single Prefects, and Governours of the Churches, whom we now call Bishops.

And then, in the last place, as a farther con­viction, that there is a preheminence included in this name of Bishop, we may take notice, that in three of those Scriptures Bishops are joyned with Deacons, as the Catechist also notes; and most undoubtedly these their Deacons were not of equal degree with them. Deacons, in the Christian Church, are known to have been ‘such as attended, and waited on the Bishop, and did what he appointed them.’ But of these, we are to discourse more afterwards. Enough hath been said to shame the confidence of our Catechist. We will leave names, and [Page 173] consider of the thing it self, and in that too, he is no less peremptory.

‘[Neither is there any mention,Cat. p 122. in any place of Scripture, of any such preheminence of one sort of these Church-officers, or Mini­sters, over another; not in particular, where the Officers of the Church are in an especial manner enumerated; as, 1 Cor. 12.28. Eph. 4.11. Rom. 12.5, 6, 7, 8. Nor is there any mention of any special office that should be peculiar unto such Officers.]’

The distinct mention of Bishops, and Deacons under them, is a sufficient confutation unto this. Add hereunto, what is evident of Ti­mothy and Titus. What saith the Catechist unto them?

‘[As for what is pleaded by some,Cat. p. 123. from the example of Timothy and Titus, it is said, That when any persons can prove themselves to be Evangelists, 1 Tim. 4.5. to be called un­to their office by antecedent prophecie, 1 Tim. 1.18. and to be sent by the Apostles, and in an especial manner to be directed by them, in some employment, for a season, which they are not ordinarily to attend unto, Tit. 1.5. and 3.12. It will be granted, that they have another duty and office committed unto them, than those who are only Bishops or Elders in the Scripture.]’

Here, the cause, if we mark it well, is fair­ly yielded. Timothy and Titus are acknow­ledged to have had a preheminence of authority over other Ministers, and that by the Apostles appointment. Such authority then, is not in it [Page 174] self Antichristian, and no where mentioned, or allowed of in Scripture. As for the Sal­vo's here annexed, they are familiarly enough pretended, but very weakly, if we look into them.

That Timothy was an Evangelist, properly so called, is not demonstrable from 1 Tim. 4.5. (it should be 2 Tim.) where St. Paul wills him only to do the work of an Evangelist; and he might be with more evidence concluded, a Deacon, because in the same verse, it is said, [...] fulfil thy Deaconship. However, supposing this allegation, as the Ca­techist understands it; 'tis no where said in H. Scripture, that the power of ordaining Bishops and Deacons, and jurisdiction over El­ders ordained, (which is ascribed unto Timo­thy) did appertain to him under this qualifi­cation; and, quà Evangelist, 'tis certain it did not belong to him at all; the office of an Evangelist, as such, being only to assist the Apo­stles in preaching the Gospel, where it was not received. Timothy's being granted then, to have been an Evangelist, See Dr Ham. Vindic. of his Dissertat. p. 55. no ways prejudgeth his being also a Bishop, in the sense as we urge it; for, What is an Evangelist, but one com­mission'd by any of the Apostles, to preach the Gospel to any City or People? And what a Bishop, but one commission'd by the like Apostle, to pre­side in, and govern, by way of preheminence, a Church already planted? What hinders therefore, but that he that hath been employ­ed in the former capacity, to plant, may, else­where, or in the same place, be appointed to [Page 175] govern, and so the Evangelist be also a Bishop? As St. Mark the Evangelist is recorded to have been after Bishop of Alexandria, and St. Luke the Evangelist, Bishop of Thebais in Egypt. Again, as to Timothy's being commanded to do the work of an Evangelist, 'tis answer'd,Dr. Ham. dissert. 3. cap 6 p. 16 [...]. that he, being by St. Paul, made Bishop of Ephesus, had all Asia commended to his care; and so was the Bishop, not only of those that did be­lieve, but that should believe; and therefore had this charge incumbent on him, not only to Govern the Churches of the faithful, but to preach the Gospel also unto those that did not yet believe; and that is most properly [...], 2 Tim. 4.2. and that is [...], which is joyned with [...], verse 5. This therefore is no argument against his Episcopal authority, but rather, that the of­fice of an Evangelist, as well as Deacon, was comprehended under it — However, had the preheminence contended for, belonged to Ti­mothy, as an Evangelist; yet, What was that to Titus, who is no where insinuated to be such?— That Timothy was called to his office by an­tecedent prophesie, 1 Tim. 1.18. bespeaks no real difference in the office it self, between him and other Bishops, relating only to his way of ad­mission into that office.— And lastly, ‘[That Titus was sent by the Apostles, and in an especial manner directed by them, in some em­ployment, for a season, which he was not ordinarily to attend unto,’ Titus 1.5. and 3.12. is, in part, without any reason, supposed; and, as to the whole, nothing to the purpose. [Page 176] Without reason is it here presumed, that Ti­tus was employed for a season only, in his Episcopacy, and not ordinarily to attend to it. The words of the Text speak no such thing, but rather the contrary, Tit. 1.5. ‘For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou should'st set in order the things that are wanting (or left undone, as the margin hath it) and ordain Elders in every City, as I appointed thee.’ And, that he is wished to come to St. Paul at Nicopolis, when he sent to him, chap. 3.12. is not the least prejudice to his making his usual residence in Crete (as much, as the moveable state of the Church, then in­creasing amidst persecutions, would suffer). But, be it as the Catechist will, that Titus his employment was, for a time and season onely; yet, certainly, for that time and season, he was an instance of Episcopal preheminence; and a longer, and shorter continuance, alter not the nature of the thing. That he was sent, and di­rected by the Apostles, to this employment, or state of preheminencie, is also a concession, so farr from endammaging our cause, that it fur­nisheth us with a plea of Apostolical warrant and authority, for Prelatical Episcopacy. But,

I will conclude this Chapter with a note from our observing-Whitgift, of these zealous contenders for equality in the Ministry.

Arch Bishop Whitgift. de­fence of Answ. to the Adm. Tra [...]t. 8. p. 299.Though they pretend (saith he) equality in words, yet they mean it in others, not in them­selves; for they would have him to be the best rewarded, and most reverenced, that hath the most, and best gifts, which every one of their [Page 177] chief Captains perswades himself to have. So that, in the end, there would be as great a doe (after their manner) Which of them should be chief, as ever there was betwixt the Bishop of Rome, and other Bishops, or betwixt Canter­bury and York in times past. In the mean time, you may easily understand, if you please, that notwithstanding they themselves would be ex­empted from the jurisdiction of Arch-Bishop, Lord Bishop, &c. yet do they challenge to themselves as great jurisdiction over their Pa­rishes, (or congregrtions) and as lofty do­minion over Princes, Nobles, and all, as ever the Pope did over the whole Church.

CHAP. VII.

NOw, for the Reader's satisfaction, in this matter of the Government of the Church, I will subjoyn a clear relation, extracted from the elaborate writings of our Learned,See Dr. Hammond Letter of Resol. uae­re 5. Disser­tat. & alibi. and Ju­dicious Hammond.

It cannot be denyed, that Christ Jesus was sent down in our humane flesh, to exercise in his own person (and so to found) an office of Government on Earth; as it was prophe­sied of him, Isa. 9.6.Isa. 9.6. and 61.1.61.1. ‘That the Government should be upon his shoulder; and that the Lord had anointed (which the Chaldee Paraphrase generally renders by ex­alting) him;’ and, (as a preparative to that) ‘that the Spirit of the Lord was upon him, to preach the Gospel, &c.’ Which Prophesie is acknowledged to be fulfilled in Christ;St. Luke 4. 18. 21. St. Matt. 3. 16. That Spirit of God, upon his being baptized by John, immediately descending upon him.

Now what this office was, is by Christ him­self set down, first, negatively, then affirma­tively.

St. Luke 12. 14. St. John 18. 16. Negatively, ‘That he was not constituted a Judge of civil interests; and that it was not a Kingdom of this world which he pretended [Page 179] to.’ And so all pretension of right from him to interpose in, or disturb civil governments or judicatures, or to make any change in the Principalities of the world, is utterly disclaim­ed in the foundation.

Affirmatively, First, in the general, that he came to call sinners to repentance, to save that which was lost, to bring the spirits and souls of men into a regular compliance with the Laws of God, to rule & reign in mens hearts by faith. And then in particular. First, To preach and reveal the Will of God. Secondly, To gather proselytes, and admit them by Baptism, into his Church, the Society of those who profess the Faith of Christ. Thirdly, To confirm, and far­ther build up, and instruct those that are thus admitted. 4. To remove those from the pri­viledges of that Society who walk unworthy of them, by that means, most probably to [...]educe them. Fifthly, To receive these upon testifica­tion of their repentance, into the embraces of his arms, the communion of the Church again. And lastly, to communicate this power to others, in what measure he thought expedient.

In all respects he is said to be sent into the world; St. John 17.18, 19, 20, 21 sent by his Father (as Governours are said to be sent by the Supreme Ruler,1 St. Pet. 2. 14. St. Matt. 9. 6. 28, 18. with Commission to that purpose) ‘to have power on earth to forgive sins, to have all povver deliver'd unto him in Heaven and Earth;’ and particularly,St. John 13. 33. Heb. 3. 1. 13. 20. 1 St. Pet. 2. 25. to be the Teacher and Lord of his Church, or Disciples; our High-priest and Apostle, the great shepheard of the sheep, and so the only Pastor, and Bishop of our souls.

What Christ had thus received from his Father by his Mission or Commission, he exer­cised in his own person, as long as he remained on the Earth; preached the Gospel, instituted Rites, called and entertained Disciples, by them received and baptized Proselytes or Be­lievers, commanded them, and used their mi­nistry, their voluntary, not constrained obedi­ence; designed some to certain offices, and only for a time, (the Seventy, as Harbingers in one journey of his) to assist or be useful to him; others he invested with a weightier, and more lasting authority; left them his successors on earth, sent them as he was sent by his Father, gave them the same Commission which he had received, to be executed in the same manner by them, and each of them, after his departure, as Joshua succeeded Moses, in his Office, and Power, All which is, in every branch of it, clear from the express words of Scripture.

They that had this Commission from Him, were, in his life-time called Apostles, that title denoting Proxies or Procurators; which act in the name and stead of him whose Proxies they are, according to the known rule of the Jews. Apostolus cujusque est, ut quisque. Every ones Apostle is as himself; to which our Saviour seems to referr, St. Matt. 10.40. making him­self his Father's Apostle, or Proxie, and the Twelve, St John 17. 18, 20, 21. his. But at his departing from the world, then he solemnly instated his power on them, and sealed their Commission to them, as it had been sealed to him by his Fa­ther.

This also is very distinctly and particularly set down in H. Writ, through the several branches of this power. St John 5. 23. St. Matt. 19. 28. St. Luke 22. 30. 1 Cor. 6. 3. 2 Cor. 10. 6. St. Mat. 10. 6. St. John 20. 23. Isa. 22. 22. Rev. 3. 7. St. Mat. 16. 19 St. Mat. 19 28. St. Luke 22. 30. St. Mat. 21. 42. Ephes. 2. 20. St. John 5. 24. 17, 18. 20, 21. ‘As the Father gave judgment to the Son, so the Son gave judg­ment to the Apostles. As the Father gave the Son power on earth to remit sins; so the Son gave the Apostles power to remit sins on earth also. As the Father gave the Son the Keys of the house of David, so the Son gave the Keys to the Apostles. As the Father gave the Son to sit on his Throne, so the Son gave the Apostles also to sit on twelve Thrones, &c. As the Father gave the Son to be the Foundation, or corner-stone of his Church, so the Son gave the Apostles to be the Foundations upon the Foundation.’ And, lastly, ‘As the Father sent the Son, so the Son also sent the Apostles.’ And hence it is, that the Angel sent from Heaven to St. John, who was one of this number, calls himself the Fellow-servant of Him,Rev. 19 20. and of those that have the testimony of Jesus, i. e. of the Apostles; ad­ding this reason of it, because [...], the testification of the Resurrection of Christ, (and the Christian Faith) the Apostolical Office, Acts 1.22. was the spirit of prophesie, i. e. a succeeding of Christ in his great Pro­phetick office.

This power wherein the Apostles succeeded Christ, being thus entirely conferr'd on each of them (a several Throne for every one) and being of so visible use, not only for the first planting, but propagating and conservation of the Church; it cannot be imagined, that it [Page 182] should be temporary, and determine in the persons of those Twelve. The necessity of or­der and rules both for the supply of those things which should be found wanting for the well-being and preservation of each Church, Tit. 1.5. and also for the securing of the flock from the wolves, Act. 20.29. (the hereticks) which, it was fore-seen, would so early infest them, and the plantation, and propagation of the Christian faith; with­out any assistance of the Rulers among the Jews, and the Emperours and Princes among other parts of the Heathen world; nay, when it was so opposed and persecuted by them; is a com­petent collection of reasons to assure us, That the power which Christ gave the Apostles, (who were but short-lived, and should many of them be put to death by those persecu­tors) was designed to endure longer than their time.

But Reason is not a commodious medium, to inferr, or conclude a matter of fact; and there­fore that must of necessity be done, either, 1. By affirmations, and promises of Christ, touch­ing this matter; or if those be not so clear, as to convince the gain-sayers, then, 2. By supplying that want of light from the Histories and relations of those times, by which it will as clearly appear, as any thing in story can, that the office of power in the Church, bestowed by Christ on the Apostles, was not to determine in their persons, but to continue in their succes­sors to future ages.

For the former of these, we may discern somewhat perhaps from the passage in Christ's [Page 183] prayer to his Father, where,St. John 17. 18, 20. having spoken of his Apostles, whom he had sent as his Father sent him into the world, verse 18. i. e. given them (in designation) Commissions for the Go­vernment of his Church; and then to his pray­er for them, verse 17. (that God would sancti­fie them. [...], in, or for his truth; i. e. con­secrate them for the preaching of the Gospel, (as St. Chrysostome expounds it). Adding far­ther, verse 19. That for their sakes he sanctifies himself; i. e. offers up himself a sacrifice for the consecrating of them, that they also may be sanctified for the truth; i. e. consecrated, and set apart for this function, and, after his ex­ample, venture their lives, in their preaching God's Will, as he hath done; at length he con­cludes, verse 20. but I pray not for these alone. Which, being, in all reason, to be interpreted of the same matter, concerning which he had prayed for the Apostles before, it follows, that this Prayer of his, for the consecrating of Officers in his Church, is not confined to his Apostles alone, which then attended him; but the same prayer he offers up for those also that shall believe through their word; i. e. for others, that by these Apostles preaching, should be brought to the Faith, and (as the event de­monstrates) ordained by them to be Bishops and Deacons in several Churches.— But then; consider farther, Christ's promise to his Apo­stles, at his parting from them; ‘Behold,St. Matt. 28.20. I am with you all the dayes, untill the end of the world.’ 'Tis certain, that this presence of Christ with them, referrs to his Authority de­rived, [Page 184] and assistance made over to them, in or­der to the discharge of their office, of gathering disciples, baptizing, and teaching, verse 19. and as certain, that the Apostles should not per­sonally live to execute that office, till the period there named, the end of the world; and then it is not imaginable how Christ's presence should be continued with them till the end of the world; unless they be considered in complexo, in conjunction with their posterity or succes­sors in that office, (as the promises made to Abraham, are performed to his posterity, though not to his person) to whom therefore this promised assistance belongs all the dayes; i. e. for the whole term of this new age. And this is the more demonstrative, because this was said by Christ after his Resurrection, im­mediately before his Ascending to Heaven; which, being the beginning of the last age of the world, the Kingdom of Christ, when all power was given unto him, verse 18; It necessa­rily follows, that what was to be continued till the consummation or conclusion of that age, should last till the end of the world, in the largest sense that those words can signifie.

And this may be supposed also to be meant by the promise of Christ,Rev 1.26, 27. Rev. 2. to those of the Church of Thyatira, which should over­come and keep, i. e. adhere constantly to the Faith, in spight of all temptations, verse 26. That he will give them power over the Nati­ons, as he received of his Father, verse 27. Where, in the very same manner, that S. John, 20. 21. Power is instated on the Apostles; [Page 185] [As my Father sendeth me, so send I you] (sending, and giving power, being sent, and re­ceiving power, being phrases of the same im­portance). The like power is by Christ pro­mised to be instated on these faithful Confessors afterward, and that belonging to the planting and propagating of the Faith among the Gen­tiles, bringing them in to repentance, (which is the breaking them to shivers there) and ru­ling them with a rod of iron, i. e. the Scepter of Christ's spiritual Kingdom, his Gospel, and Power, and Pastoral authority committed to them.

But, if this (being by the prophetick stile wherein it is veiled, somewhat obscure) bring not that evidence with it which is expected, let it pass for a conjecture, which pretends only to be considerable by the accordance and consent it hath with other greater Evidences now to follow.

To proceed then to the Histories of those times, which are most competent to clear the matter of fact.

A first evidence of this sort, is, the Assum­ption of Matthias into the place of Judas the traditor and desertor, Act. 1,Act. 1.20, 22, 25. who lost his of­fice, and, soon after, his life. Wherein we see St. Peter, upon the prophetical prediction of Ju­das's fate, and the last branch of that [his Bi­shoprick let another take] concludes with a [ [...]] a necessity that one of those that had continued with them from the beginning, (and so was qualified for it) should become with them a witness of the Resurrection; and by the [Page 186] form of their Prayer for God's direction, and revelation of his will, which he had pitch'd on; it is evident, that, taking his Bishoprick, verse 20. is all one with taking the lot or portion of that Ministry and Apostleship, verse 25.

Soon after this, it is apparent, Act. 6. that the Apostles,Act. 6. to make their burden more sup­portable, did, by imposition of hands, create seven Deacons in Jerusalem, which, although it be not an example of their constituting suc­cessors to their whole Office; yet, is an evidence that they vvere able to communicate to others, any part of that povver committed to them by Christ. And then, Why they might not in whole, as well as in part, communicate it unto others, vvho might succeed to it (after their departure from any place, or finally out of the world) as vvell as assist them, being present, by undergoing, in their stead, some part of it, there is no imaginable reason to be rendred; but, on the contrary, the example of Moses, vvho first assumed the seventy to assist him, (and at that time God gave them of his Spirit, and so part of his Power) and after constituted Joshua to succeed him, will be directly applica­ble to this matter.

Thirdly, After, and beside, the instituting of this office, on the Twelve; it was the Will, and Appointment of God,Act. 13.2. that Saul and Bar­nabas should be assumed to it, and that im­mediately after James the Apostle's death;ch. 12.2. in the same manner as Ephraim and Ma­nasses supplied the place of Joseph when he dyed.

Fourthly, By comparing some passages of Scripture with the plain assertions of antient Writers, and Fathers of the Church, it may be concluded, that James the just, that had the ti­tle of Brother of the Lord, was constituted Bishop of Jerusalem, (being none of those twelve Apostles) by Christ himself, say some,Theophyl. in 1 Cor. 15.7. at his appearing to him after the Resurrection, but (as it is more generally resolved on) by the Apostles, which received their power from Christ; and that in the 19th year of Ti­berius, i. e. the next year after the death of Christ, saith Eusebius in his Chronicle. Hence it is, that this James, though none of the twelve, is called an Apostle, Gal. 1.19. and perhaps, Act. 15.6. and 22. and, in the inscription of his Epistle, he is entitled the Apostle James; and accordingly,Com. in Isai.— St. Hierom calls him the thir­teenth Apostle; which farther yields him a pri­ority before Paul and Barnabas (as being after him admitted to that dignity) to whom he gives the right hand of fellowship, Gal. 2.9. And, being at Jerusalem, his Episcopal See, See Dr. H. Dissert. 4. cap. 3. is there named before Peter and John, two principal Apostles.

Fifthly, Of St. Paul, it is not only said by himself expresly, that he had laid hands on Ti­mothy, and that thereby the gift of God,2 Tim. 1 6. 2 Tim. 4 1 [...]. fit­ting him for the Episcopal function, was given him; but farther, that he was by him left at Ephesus, to exercise this Authority, to com­mand some (which includes power) to teach no other doctrine, i. e. to suppress hereticks.2 Tim. 1. [...] And the same is as clear of Titus, who is by [Page 188] him left in Crete,Tit. 1.5. with power of regulating things not yet ordered in that Island, and to or­dain Elders in every Church; which being two branches of Episcopal power, it is by the An­tients generally affirmed, that he was institu­ted the Metropolitan, or chief Bishop of that Island, as Timothy at Ephesus, the Metropolis of Asia; and accordingly, these two are stiled Apostles also, (as receiving the same power or Commission that Christ had given to the twelve, Dissert. 4. and to St. Paul) which is observable likewise of divers others. And accordingly, 'tis the general affirmation of Theodoret, ‘that those who now are called Bishops, were called A­postles; but, in process of time, they left the name of Apostles to those that were truly so, sent immediately by Christ;’ and imposed the name of Bishops on those others, that had been antiently call'd Apostles.

Sixthly, It farther appears, that as Timothy and Titus were thus ordained by St. Paul, so they had thereby also power to ordain others, through all Churches in those Regions where they were placed, and accordingly did actually ordain them. And so the power given the Apo­stles, was sure no temporary power; but, as from them derived to others, so from those others farther communicated: and all this by express testimonies of Scripture. For, that St. Paul should leave Titus in Crete, on purpose to ordain Elders there, and prescribe Timothy as well as him, What sort of men, and how qua­lified, should be constituted Bishops (and Dea­cons) in the Churches, and they should make [Page 189] no use of that power, is not imaginable, nor could be controverted, though there were no other book in the world, but the New Testa­ment; whereas the testimony of the following Church-writers, is clear, that in (rete the one, and in Asia the other, had the ordaining first, and then the judging of many Bishops; and that as there, so every where else, the Bishops, in their several Churches, were the successors of the Apostles, and therefore many of them call'd Apostles also, as hath been already intimated. St. Hierom St Hieron. in Ps. 45. is positive. Pro patribus Apostolis filii Episcopi. For the Fathers the Apostles, are the Bishops their Sons. And again,Ep. ad Mar­cel. Apudnos Apo­stolorum locum Episcopi tenent. Bishops with us, do hold the place of the Apostles; and to the same effect, sundry others, which I list not here to recite.

Seventhly, It is manifest, by the Epistle of Christ to the seven Churches of the Proconsu­lar Asia, deliver'd by vision to St. John, that there were, at the date of that Epistle, Rulers, or Governours of each of those Churches, to whom, under the title of Angels, the care of those Churches was committed. That these were any of the twelve Apostles, or others, con­stituted from Heaven immediately, neither is, nor can be pretended by any. It remains therefore, that it must be a derived, communi­cated power, whether mediately or immediately from one or more of the Apostles, that first preached the Gospel there, which was thus vested in those Angels; in respect of which, not only that honourable title of Angels is be­stowed [Page 190] upon each of them by Christ himself, (the same that on the High-priest among the Jews, Malach. 2.7.) but they are also resem­bled to so many starrs held by Christ in his right hand, Rev. 1.16. and 2.1. which is an in­fallible evidence, that this dignity and power of theirs, was approved and confirmed by Christ. And to so clear a testimony of Scripture, we may farther add the words of the Council of Chalcedon, Concil Cal­ced. Act. 2. concerning the Church of Ephesus, (one of those seven) that from Timothy to that time there had been 27 Bishops there; to which it is consequent, that either Timothy, or some follower of his, was this very Angel that Christ wrote to.Ep. ad Victor. apud Euseb. Hist. Eccles. l. 5. c. 11. St. Iren. l 3. c. 3. And so Polycrates, that was not long after St. John's time, affirmeth himself to be the eighth Bishop of that City. And so, when Irenaeus affirms of Smyrna, (another of those seven Churches) that Polycarp, a Disci­ple of the Apostles, was by them constituted Bishop of that City;Tertull. de praeser. c. 32. and when Tertullian saith of him, that he was so constituted by St. John, as Clemens was at Rome ordained by St. Peter, 'tis clear, that the Apostles power was not de­termined in themselves;Ibid. and of this, Tertullians testimony, is most distinct and universal, that, as in Smyrna and Rome, perinde utique & caetera Ecclesiae exhibent quos ab Apostolis in Episcopa­tum constitutos Apostolici seminis traduces habent. ‘The rest of the Churches in like manner, ex­hibit those, who, being constituted Bishops by the Apostles, were their successors, spiri­tually begotten by them.’ Adv. Mar­cion. l. 4. c. 5. And again, speak­ing of these Churches of Asia, which were, Jo­hannis [Page 191] alumnae, taken care of, and fed by St. John, he saith, Ordo Episcoporum ad originem recensus in Johannem stabit authorem; ‘The order of Bishops being recounted to the be­ginning, devolves to St. John the Apostle, the first Author of it.—’ I forbear to add more, lest what I designed for a short discourse only, swell into a Volume.

Thus hath this controversie been sufficient­ly cleared, by some remains in the Scriptures, whereto the concordant testimonie of all an­tiquity most readily affords a suffrage. And then, as to the setling the Monarchy of the Jews, the way set down in Scripture is this, That God, by a Prophet sent immediately from him, designed first the person of Saul, and after of David; and after the succession, or line of Dauid, (by Solomon and Rehoboam) came down from Father to Son, through all the Kings of Judah, without any new revela­tion or mission of Prophets to anoint and consti­tute a new King, when the former was decea­sed: or (rather) as when God had first called Moses, and by miracles sealed him a Commis­sion from Heaven, to be Ruler over the Jews, and after taken of the Spirit that was upon him, and put it upon the Elders to be his assi­stants; for the succession to of either those offices, there was no more used, or thought needful, but that Moses should lay his hands on Jo­shua, and give him a charge, Numb. 27.19, 20, 21. and put some of his honour upon him.— and that the seventy thus created to their office, should, by imposi­tion of hands, admit others to the same digni­ty; [Page 192] so, for the setling Governours in the Church, God first sent down his Son Jesus Christ, to be personally the founder and head of it; sent down his Spirit to demonstrate, and constitute him so; and, after his departure, this power being before his death instated on the Apostles, the H. Ghost again descended on those Apostles; and some the like prodigies from Hea­ven, were used towards others, for the setling them in their dignities. But when that was done, the w [...]ole business of a succession was pro­vided for by a more easie and familiar course, that those that were thus sent by the Apostles, through imposition of their hands (as they had been by Christ, through the descent of his Spi­rit, hovering over, and resting on them, and as Christ by his Father, with the like solemnity) should, after the same manner, communicate it to others, fitly qualified for it. Which, that it was actually done in the several Churches, as it cannot be expected to be recorded in the New Testament, which can speak no farther than to those times of which it writes; so, to some mentions of it, which are found there, infinite suffrages are added from the following writers, by whom it far more evidently appears, that this power of the Church did not end in the Apostles persons, but continued to their succes­sors, the Bishops in the several branches than by the Old Testament, and other Jewish wri­tings, now extant, it appears, either that it was God's will, that the Son should succeed the Father in the Kingdom, (of which yet there is no doubt, when it was not countermanded by [Page 193] a Prophet sent from God) or that in the San­hedrim new men were received into the places of the deceased; of which also, there is yet no doubt made by any.

Having cleared the whole matter thus far, there will be now no need to declare what pow­ers they are, which are thus conveyed to the Bi­shops, or officers in the Church; it being alrea­dy manifest, that the power of planting, go­verning, and continuing of the churches, being first vested in Christ, was, from him derived to the Apostles, and from the Apostles to the Bi­shops, and so that the power of preaching, bap­tizing, teaching, confirming, consecrating the Sacrament of the Eucharist, binding and loosing, blessing in marriage, visiting, and praying over the sick, and at last constituting others like them­selves, either in whole, by communicating en­tirely their whole power to them, or in part, by giving them some limited powers, for some cer­tain offices, were thus communicated. Of which, all that will be necessary to be added, is only this, which natural reason dictates to every one; That no man ought to assume to himself any Office in any Society, but he that is designed to it, by him that hath the supreme power in it; nor consequently, in the church, but he that is called, as was Aaron; i. e. hath received mission, or commission from God; which, being not now pretended by any, to be received immediately from Heaven, there is but one way imaginable for any man to claim it; viz. By receiving it from them, who immediately have received it from Heaven. [Page 194] And then the whole matter is devolved to a short issue; That every one that thus runs, is obliged to shew his commission, by which he may appear to be sent; and that being once produced, to whatsoever acts that extends, to those he will be allowed to be sufficiently au­thorized, but to nothing else. And vvhosoe­ver will not stand to this award, must not on­ly cast off the Church of Christ from being his Mother, and confess Christ so far from being a favourer, that he is a professed enemy to his pretences; but withall must acknowledge himself to have given a precedent for all the unreasonable claims, and violences, and oppres­sions in the world, which must all commence regular and just, when it shall once be allow­ed, that any power belongs to any, which can­not justifie (and doth not so much as plead) the derivation from above. A consideration very fit for our times, and those especially who presume upon their own conceited gifts, and qualifications, without legitimate ordina­tion, to venture on the weightiest part of the Ministerial function.

CHAP. VIII.

THe fore-going Discourse, makes it need­less to bestow any farther reflections up­on very much of what the Catechist next of­fers, concerning the differences between those whom he calls extraordinary, and ordinary Officers, or Rulers in the Church, Cat. p. 124, 125. And, as to the rest, we shall have occasi­on to discover the falseness of his affirmations, in that which follows.

That then which I fix upon, is, the fourth thing required by him, to the due constitution of an ordinary Officer of the Church, an Elder, Pastor, or Teacher.

Cat. p. 125. ‘[That he be called, and chosen by the suffrage and consent of the Church.]’ And this he before assigned as the most characteri­stical difference of the ordinary Ruler from the extraordinary. p. 124. That ‘[he is called by the suffrage, choice, and appointment of the Church it self.’ And again, he goes over it, as a main foundation to be relyed upon,ibid. ‘[That his authority is derived from Christ, by the election, and designation of the Church; and therefore confined in the exercise to that Church, wherein, and whereby, it is so de­rived.] And this, among others, is said to be [indispensably necessary unto him that would be accounted to have taken that office upon him, according to the mind of Christ, p. 126. and plainly expressed in the Scripture.]’ Where­to [Page 197] I will annex all that he hath spoken in the explication of this particular.

‘[Fourthly,Cat. p. 131. 132, 133. 134, 135. Election by the suffrage and consent of the Church, is required unto the calling of a Pastor, or teacher, so that with­out it, formally, or virtually given or obtain­ed, the call, however otherwise carried on, or solemnized, is irregular, and defective. There are but two places in the New Te­stament, where there is mention of the man­ner whereby any are called in an ordinary way, unto any Ministry in the Church, and in both of them, there is mention of their election by the community of the Church; and in both of them the Apostles themselves pre­sided, with a fulness of Church-power, and yet would not deprive the Churches of that which was their liberty and priviledge. The first of these is, Act. 6. where all the Apostles together, to give a rule unto the future pro­ceeding of all Churches, in the constitution of Officers amongst them; do appoint the multitude of the Disciples, or community of the Church, to look out, from among them­selves, or, to choose the persons that were to be set apart thereon, unto their office, which they did accordingly, verses 2, 3, 5. This was done, when only Deacons were to be ordained, in whom the interest and con­cernment of the Church, is not to be com­pared with that which it hath in it's Pastors, Teachers, and Elders. The same is mention­ed again, Act. 14.23. where Paul and Barna­bas are said to ordain Elders in the Churches, [Page 198] by their election and suffrage. For the word there used, will admit of no other sense, how­ever it be ambiguously express'd in our trans­lation. Neither can any instance be given of the use of that word, applied unto the com­munication of any office or power, to any person or persons in an assembly wherein it denoteth any other action, but the suffrage of the multitude, and this it doth constantly, in all Writers of the Greek Tongue.’

‘And hence it was, that this right and pri­viledge of the Church in chusing of those who are to be set over them, in the vvork of the Lord, was a long time preserved inviolate in the primitive Churches, as the Antients do abundantly testifie. Yea, the shew and ap­pearance of it, could never be utterly thrust out of the world, but is still retained in those Churches, which yet reject the thing it self. And this institution of our Lord Jesus Christ, by his Apostles, is suited to the na­ture of the Church, and of the authority that he hath appointed to abide therein: for, as we have shewed before, persons become a Church by their own voluntary consent. Christ makes his subjects willing, not slaves. His rule over them, is, by his Grace in their own wills, and he will have them every way free in their obedience. A Church-state is an estate of absolute liberty under Christ, not for men to do what they will, but for men to do their duty freely without com­pulsion. Now, nothing is more contrary to this liberty, than to have their Guides, Rulers, [Page 199] and Overseers, imposed on them without their consent. Besides, the body of the Church is obliged to discharge its duty to­wards Christ, in every institution of his, which herein they cannot, if they have not their free consent in the choice of their Pastors, or Elders, but are considered as mute per­sons, or brute creatures, Neither is there any other ordinary way of communicating au­thority unto any in the Church, but by the voluntary submission and subjection of the Church it self unto them. For, as all other imaginable ways may fail, and have done so, where they have been trusted unto; so they are irrational, and unscriptural, as to their being a means of the delegation of any pow­er whatever.]’

Here then we have the peoples election of their Ministers, pleaded for, as an institution of the Lord Jesus Christ, by his Apostles, plainly expressed in the Scripture, indispensably neces­sary to constitute a Gospel-Ministry, observed inviolate in the primitive Church; and all other wayes condemned, as irrational, and un-scri­ptural. Let us therefore, in the first place, view the plain, and express Scriptures, that demonstrate this unto us, which, if they fail the Catechist, all his other pretended argu­ments from Authority or Reason, will not serve the turn. The Scriptures are two, Act. 6. and Act. 14. ["And in both of them,Cat. p. 132. he tells us, ‘there is mention of their election by the community of the Church, and in both of them, the Apostles themselves presided with [Page 200] a fulness of Church-power, and yet would not deprive the Churches of that which was their liberty and priviledge.’

As to this election by the community of the Church, said to be mention'd in both these places, we shall see how far it extends upon examination. But if the Apostles presided at the same time, with a fulness of Church-pow­er, as is here asserted; they might certainly have ordered the matter otherwise, ‘no Church-power being wanting, where the fulness of it is supposed.’— Now to the in­stances themselves.

‘[The first of these, is Acts 6. where all the Apostles together, to give a rule unto the fu­ture proceeding of all churches in the consti­tution of Officers among them, do appoint the multitude of the Disciples, or community of the Church, to look out, from among themselves, or to chuse the persons, that were to be set apart thereto, unto their Office, which they did accordingly, &c.]’

If we look impartially into this story of the choice of Deacons, here mentioned, we shall find no power at all of Election in the multi­tude of Disciples, but what the Apostles con­descended to allow them, upon this occasion; they therefore do here appoint them to chuse to look out men among themselves, and they to determine certain bounds of their choice, and election. 1. To take seven, neither more, nor fewer. 2. Those seven men generally known and reputed of. 3. In such estimation for fulness of the Spirit, of Faith, of Wisdom [Page 201] and Discretion, for the managery of the affairs to be committed to them. According to which permission of the Apostles, and rules prescribed by them, they proceeded, verse 5, and chose Stephen, &c. whom they set before the Apostles, and when they had prayed, they (the Apostles) laid their hands on them. The right of Election here, evidently lay in the A­postles themselves; nor did the community of Disciples act any thing otherwise, than by power delegated from the Apostles, and accor­ding to their prescriptions; and this power de­legated, was no more than a bare nomination, or testimonial approbation, of seven such per­sons to be ordained Deacons for the present service, by the Apostles.

But, let the story be supposed never so full to the Catechist's purpose, ‘[That the Apo­stles did this to give a rule to the future pro­ceeding of all Churches, in the constitution of Officers among them,]’ is, I am sure, beside the text, and not only destitute of, but contrary to, other Scripture-warrant; it be­ing impossible, amongst the Ordinations of Church-officers, recorded in Scripture, to find such another pattern. And if this be the rule of all future proceedings, there must be alwayes seven chosen, and no officers in any Church, but vvhat are taken from among themselves, as these here vvere, and chosen by the Laity only.

Now, for the remark made in the close of this story, ‘[This was done, when only Dea­cons were to be ordained, in whom the in­terest [Page 202] and concernment of the Church, is not to be compared with that which it hath in it's Pastors, Teachers, and Elders.]’ It may easily be retorted, That it no wayes follows, Because the Apostles indulged a limited, and bounded choice of these inferiour officers, they therefore designed to warrant a perpetual pow­er of election in the people, as to officers of a much higher order, and in whom the interest and concernment of the Church is much great­er. Add hereunto, that there was some special reason to move the Apostles to this indulgence unto the people at this time. This is intima­ted by St. Chrysostome. S. Chrys. hom. [...] in Act. cit. à Rev. Whitgift. Tract. 3. p. 155. ‘The Apostles (saith he) did not commit the Election of Deacons to lot, nor did they themselves choose them, whenas, being moved by the Spirit, they might so have done; but rather establish what is approved by the testimonies of many. For, to appoint the number, and ordain them, and that to such an use, this they challenge to themselves; but to chuse the men, they permit unto them (the people) that they themselves might not seem to do any thing partially, and for favour.’ There is the rea­son insinuated, a reason proper to the occa­sion. Because these Deacons were to be em­ployed about money-matters, in the collecting, and distributing of Alms; the Apostles thought good to chuse them by a common consent, the rather to avoid the grudging of the people, and the suspition which any might harbour of themselves. And some such thing seems de­clared in that, which is said to have put the [Page 203] Apostles upon this whole business, Acts 6.1. ‘There arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their Widows were neglected in the daily ministration.—’

And, upon this very score it is, that St. Paul mentions the ‘Brother,2 Cor. 8.19, 20, 21. whose praise is in the Gospel, chosen (or ordained) of the Churches, to travel with him in the distribution of the collections of the charity of Christians.’ Avoid­ing this, saith he, ‘that no man should blame us in this abundance which is administred by us▪ providing for honest things, not only in the sight of the Lord, but in the sight of men.’ To which purpose also, of ‘declining the cen­sure of mis-employing any part of the pub­lick charity, he thus writes to the Corin­thians,’ 1 Cor. 16.3.—‘Whomsoever you shall approve by your Letters, them will I send to bring your liberality to Jerusalem.’ The aim of St. Paul's referring these messengers to the Church­es choice and approbation, was manifestly this, That his upright dealing in the distribution of their Alms, might never be brought into the least suspicion. And the same motive had the Apostles for their referring the choice of the seven Deacons, unto the multitude of the Dis­ciples. So that we may not of this occasional permission, frame an universal, and perpetual law, or rule for all Church-officers. This first, therefore had need to be backed and secured with a second text of Scripture.

‘[The same is mentioned again, Act. 14.23. where Paul and Barnabas are said to or­dain Elders in the Churches, by their election [Page 206] [...] [Page 207] [...] [Page 204] and suffrage, for the word there used, will admit of no other sense, &c.]’

I wish the Catechist learning and ingenuity proportionable to the confidence wherewith he manageth this instance. We read, Act. 14 ‘[When they had ordained them Elders in every Church] this he, to serve his purpose,’ changeth into ‘[ordained them Elders in eve­ry Church, by the election and suffrage of the community]’; and, to set off this transla­tion, tells us farther, that ‘[the word there used, will admit of no other sense; and thus it constantly signifies in all the Writers of the Greek Tongue.’

Now then, to the Tryal. The word used, is [...], and a compound of the very same, is made use of, Act. 10.41. to express God's praeordination of the Apostles, [...]. We English it, ‘[Witnesses chosen before of God];’ and certainly, there was not any thing of the peoples suffrage here in­cluded. Beza therefore, who, in the 14. chap. of the Acts, verse 23. reads, [per suffragia cre­âssent,] with the Catechist, instead of the vulgar [constituissent]; yet, in his marginal note to this other place, opposeth the ordina­tion of God; express'd by the same word, to al humane suffrage.Beza in Act. 10.41. [Hoc loco tacita antithesis in­ter Dei Cheirotoniam, & hominum suffragia siquidem à Deo immediatè designantur Apo­stoli.] Nor is there any truth in that affirma­tion, that ‘[All writers of the Greek Tongue do constantly use the word [...], to de­note the suffrage of the multitude]’ Philo [Page 205] Judaeus saith of Joseph, See Dr. Ham. Letter of Res. Quaere 5. p . 3 [...]4. &c. & Annot. in Act 14.23. [...], He was ordained Governour of all Egypt, under the King: where it is clear, that with­out any other suffrages, he was by Pharaoh so constituted, Gen. 41.40. Psalm 105.21. Acts 7.10. So again, of Moses, [...]. He was constituted their Ruler, not by any choice of theirs, but only by God's appointment. So of Aaron's sons [...], God consti­tuted them Priests. So in Josephus, Alexander son of Antiochus Epiphanes, writes to Jona­than, [...]. We, (i. e. I, in the Regal stile) consti­tute thee chief Priest of the Jews, and to be cal­led my Friend. So Lucian, of Alexander's kindness to Hephaestion, [...], that he made him a God when he was dead; which sure, being a single act of Alex­ander's, was not done by voices or suffrages. So Maximus Tyrius, of Darius's horse, which by neighing made his Master King of the Per­sians, saith, [...], The Persians did not adore, or salute Darius, till his wanton horse had created him King. In all these places, the word signifies constituting, or ordaining, without any intimation of suffra­ges of a community. And, for Ecclesiastical Writers, the case is plain, that they use it fa­miliarly for ordaining, and especially for impo­sition of hands. Accordingly Theophylact, on 2 Tim. 1.6. instead of St. Paul's [...]. by imposition of my hands; hath, [...], when I ordained thee Bi­shop. [Page 206] And so St. Chrysostom on those words, Act. 6.6. having prayed, they laid hands on them, saith, [...], they were ordained by Prayer, for this is ordination; making [...] and [...] all one. Socrates speaking of Constantine, in the twentieth year of his Reign, [...], but on the thirtieth, [...]; where it is all one with [...], both noting the constituting, or creating of Caesar, a work of the Emperour only. So Theodoret, in the person of Joseph, [...], my Master hath constituted me over all his house. Whereto might be added many others.