Theodulia, or, A just defence of hearing the sermons and other teaching of the present ministers of England against a book unjustly entituled (in Greek) A Christian testimony against them that serve the image of the beast, (in English) A Christian and sober testimony against sinful complyance, wherein the unlawfulness of hearing the present ministers of England is pretended to be clearly demonstrated by an author termed by himself Christophilus Antichristomachus / by John Tombes.

Theodulia, or, A just defence of hearing the sermons and other teaching of the present ministers of England against a book unjustly entituled (in Greek) A Christian testimony against them that serve the image of the beast, (in English) A Christian and sober testimony against sinful complyance, wherein the unlawfulness of hearing the present ministers of England is pretended to be clearly demonstrated by an author termed by himself Christophilus Antichristomachus / by John Tombes.

Table of contents

Title page

§

To the Right Honourable EDWARD EARL of CLARENDON Lord Chancellour of ENGLAND.

TO THE CHRISTIAN READERS. Especially those to whom at any time I have Preached the Word of God.

Sect. 1. Prefaces needful by reason of Readers prejudice.

Sect. 2. Prejudice against the Author, as favouring Separation, causless.

Sect. 3. The evils consequent on the tenet of Separation, urge to an examination of it.

Sect. 4. The motive and end of this Writing.

The Contents.

THEODVLIA: OR, A JUST DEFENCE Of HEARING the SERMONS And other Teaching of the present Ministers of England. In Answer to the Book, entituled, A Christian and sober Testimony against sinful Complyance. An Answer to the Preface to the ensuing Discourse of that Book.

S•ct. 1. Of the worship of God, and how hearing is worship of him.

Sect. 2. Of hearing, how instituted worship, and to be devolved on the Scriptures of the New Testament.

Sect. 3. Hearing not a meer positive or ceremonial worship.

Sect. 4. The judgment of the Antients, not useless in this controversie.

Sect. 5. No approved practice of the Saints, afore the Law, Countenanceth separation from the present preachers in England.

Sect. 6. Jewish Laws admitted some dispensation and addition.

Sect. 7. The election or ordination of Levites, is no rule for election or ordination of Ministers now.

Sect. 8. The Texts enjoyning the observation of things appointed, prove not that some things undetermined might not in Gods worship be ordered by men.

Sect. 9. The defection of the Jews to Idolatrous inventions of men, is of a more hainous degree than use of humane ceremonies with us.

Sect. 10. Such testimony as the Prophets gave against the Jewish defection, is not now to be given against the Conformists.

Sect. 11. The conformist not chargeable, as the false Prophets of the Jewes.

S•ct. 12. Invectives against teachers and worship now, may be from another spirit than that of the Prophets.

Sect. 13. The forsaking of false Prophets and worship among the Jewes, is no justification of separation, from the present teachers and worship.

Sect. 14. The arguing by analogy in positive rites not rational.

Sect. 15. The first Querie about a National Instituted Church answered.

Sect. 16. National Ministers may be Ministers of Christ, and National Churches true Churches.

Sect. 17. Mr. Parker's arguments, that the form of Churches is of Divine Institution, are answered.

Sect. 18. The Ministry of the Gospel is a true Ministry of Christ.

Sect. 19. A true Gospel Ministry may be in a false Church so deemed.

Sect. 20. Gods love to us is not less, in not determining the whole of his Worship to us, as to the Jews.

Sect 21. Christ designs Officers and Offices for his Church (not as were in the Jewish) which are the same, while their work is the same, though some Titles be new.

Sect. 22. The solemn deputation of Ministers, is not the peculiar priviledge of Saints.

Sect. 23. Corruptions in non-fundamentals un-church not.

Sect. 24. Every error makes not a false Prophet.

Sect. 25. Separation by reason of some corruptions unwarrantable.

Sect. 26. It is prudence to joyn in worship, and hearing where some errours and corruptions remain.

CHAP. 1. ARG. I.

Sect. 1. Some scruples of conscience are of ill consequence.

Sect. 2. There is warrant in Scripture to hear the present Ministers of England.

Sect. 3. Accidentals of Instituted Worship warranted without command in Scripture.

Sect. 4. Prejudice is no argument, nor personal motives good proof.

CHAP. 2. ARG. 2.

Sect. 1. Preachers may be heard, as teaching Truth.

Sect. 2. They may be heard as Ministers of the Gospel, who are not rightly called.

Sect. 3. Preachers may be Ministers of the Gospel, who are not chosen by a particular Instituted Church.

Sect. 4. The present Ministers may be heard as Gifted Brethren.

Sect. 5. Tender Consciences may call the Bishops Reverend Fathers.

Sect 6. It is not proved that the best of the present Ministers are to be separated from, as walking disorderly.

CHAP. 3. ARG. 3.

Sect. 1. That which is by some termed Antichristian, is not alwayes unlawful.

Sect. 2. The names given to the Ministers of England, prove not their Office not to be from Christ.

Sect. 3. The term Priest proves not symbolizing with the Popish Order of Priests.

Sect. 4. The parallel particulars prove not the English Ministers symbolizing in office with Popish Priests.

Sect. 5. The Office of Bishops is not proved to be Antichristian, but may be found in Scripture.

Sect. 6. The office of Lord Bishops is not contrary to express precepts of Christ in the Scripture.

Sect. 7. The Office of Lord-Bishops not from the Papacy.

Sect. 8. The Ordination of Bishops, is also of Presbyters.

CHAP. 4. ARG. 4.

Sect. 1. They that deny not Christs Offices Doctrinally, may be heard

Sect 2. Every not hearkning to Christs Order, is not a denial of his Office.

Sect. 3. It is not proved, that Christs Soveraign Authority is rejected by the present Ministers.

Sect. 4. Ministers oppose not the Will of Christ by not joyning in the Separation pleaded for.

Sect. 5. Election and Excommunication by the Church is not Christs Institution.

Sect. 6. No contempt of the authority of Christ is in the Church of England by setting up Officers and Offices.

Sect. 7. Election of Ministers by the Common Suffrage of the Church is not proved to be Christs appointment.

Sect. 8. Prophesying is not opposed by the Ministers.

Sect 9. Ministers service may be Divine and Spiritual, in the use of the Liturgy.

Sect. 10. Things objected against the Ministers, are not such as justifie Separation.

CHAP. 5.

Sect. 1. All owning of Orders different from, or contrary to Christs, proves not a denial of his Offices.

Sect. 2. Ministers submitting to Canons is unjustly censured.

Sect. 3. Making Canons in things undetermined, and subjection to them, agrees with Scripture.

Sect. 4. It's no derogation from Scripture, or Christ, that such Canons are made and obeyed.

Sect. 5 All particularities of Decency and Order in things sacred, are not determined in Scripture.

Sect. 6. It's not proved, that the Ministers of England, own Constitutions contrary to the revelation of Christ.

Sect. 7. A prescript Form of words in Prayer devised by man, is not contrary to Rom. 8.26. 1 Cor. 14.15.

Sect 8. The admission of vitious persons to Communion, justifies not separation.

Sect. 9. Receiving the Lords Supper kneeling, is not directly opposite to Christs practice or precept, of the abstaining from appearance of evil, 1 Thess. 5.22.

Sect. 10. Forbidding to marry or eat flesh at certain times, are not characters of Apostates, as 1 Tim. 4.3. is meant.

Sect. 11. No such Headship is owned by the present Ministers, as is a denial of Christs Offices.

Sect. 12. Conformity to Laws opposite to Christ's, proves not owning another King coordinate to him.

Sect. 13. Headship of the Church under Christ, is not monstrous.

Sect. 14. The Kings Supremacy is such as was allowed the Kings of Israel.

CHAP. 6. ARG. 5.

Sect. 1. False doctrine only makes a false Prophet not to be heard.

Sect. 2. The Ministers not false Prophets, because not sent, as Jer. 23.21. Rom. 10.15. is meant.

Sect. 3. The Ministers not proved to commit Adultery, and walk in lyes, as Jer. 23.14. is meant.

Sect. 4. The Ministers are not proved to strengthen the hands of evil doers, as Jer. 23.14. is meant.

Sect. 5. The Ministers are not proved such daubers as those, Ezek. 22.28.

Sect. 6. Ministers changing of places, sadning some mens hearts, not characters of a false Prophet.

Sect. 7. Pressing rigid Conformity no proof of the Ministers being false Prophets.

Sect. 8 The charge Ezek. 22.26. reacheth not the Ministers of England.

Sect. 9. The Ministers are not the false Shepherds meant, Ezek. 34.4.

Sect. 10. The Ministers of England are not the second Beast foretold. Revel. 13.11.

CHAP. 7. ARG. 6.

Sect. 1. All Idolatry is, by exhibiting Divine Worship to a Creature.

Sect. 2. All Will-worship of God is not Idolatry.

Sect. 3. This Authors Argument as well proves himself an Idolater as the Conformist.

Sect. 4. Prayer in a stinted form may be worship of God of his appointment.

Sect. 5. Common-Prayer-Book worship shuts not out of doors the exercise of the gift of Prayer.

Sect. 6. Common-Prayer Book Worship is not of pure humane invention.

Sect. 7. Common-Prayer Book worship is the same with the Worship of the Reformed Churches.

Sect. 8. No Particularity instituted is a meer Circumstance, yet Particularities undetermined are.

Sect. 9. Praying in a Form, may be praying in the Spirit.

Sect 10. The Forms of Prayer imposed, are not made necessary essential parts of Wo•ship.

Sect. 11. Acting in the holy things of God, by an Office-power and modes of Idolaters, may be without Idolatry.

Sect. 12. The English Ministers opp•s• P•pish Idolatry, as other Protestants.

Sect. 13. The Ministers of England act not by vertue of an Office-power from Idolaters.

Sect. 14. The Common-Prayer Book worship was not abused to Idolatry.

Sect. 15. Kneeling in receiving the Sacramental elements, is not Idolatry.

Sect. 16. The Crimination of the Ministers, as Idolaters, is not excusable.

Sect. 17. The Martyrs are unjustly made Idolaters by this Author.

CHAP. 8. ARG. 7th. and 8th.

Sect. 1. Every Offence of others, makes not sinful, that which otherwise is lawful.

Sect. 2. Hearing the present Ministers may be the Saints duty▪

Sect. 8. Sinful scandalizing is not by hearing the present Ministers.

Sect. 4. It is not Scandal given but when the offensive action is done blameably.

Sect. 5. Offending some sincere Christians, by hearing the present Ministers, is not the scandalizing threatned Matth. 18.6.

Sect. 6. The Separatists give more just cause of Offence to godly sober Christians, than the Conformists do to them.

Sect. 7. Hearing the present Ministers, may be without participation with them in sin.

CHAP. 9. ARG. 9.

Sect. 1. Separation of some, from other Christians, is no institution of Christ.

Sect. 2. Meeting of separated Christians, as a distinct body, is not Christs institution.

Sect. 3. Separated Congregational Churches, in opposition to National, are not of Christs institution.

Sect. 4. To attend only on the ministry of Ministers of Congregational Churches, is not of Christs appointment.

Sect. 5. Hearing the present Ministers casts no contempt on Christs Institutions.

Sect. 6. Hearing the present Ministers, hardens none in sin.

Sect. 7. Gods people are not called out of the temples in England, as places of false worship.

Sect. 8. There is ground to expect a blessing in hearing the present Ministers.

Sect. 9. Hearing the present Ministers, is no step to Apostacy.

Sect. 10. A pollution in one part, makes not the whole worship polluted.

CHAP. 10. Fifty Arguments for hearing the present Ministers.

Sect. 1. Christs direction Matth. 23.2, 3. warrants hearing the present Ministers.

Sect. 2. The Scribes and Pharisees sate in Moses his chair as Teachers, not as Magistrates.

Sect. 3. The Pharisees were not Church-officers of Gods appointment.

Sect. 4. Christ allows hearing the Pharisees while they taught the Law of Moses.

Sect. 5. Hearing Pharisees teaching Moses law, not attendance on their Ministry, as Pastors is allowed by Christ.

Sect. 6. Christs and his Apostles going to the Jewish meetings, is opposite to the Separatists opinion and practice.

Sect. 7. Pauls rejoycing at the preaching Christ, of contention, warrants hearing the present Ministers.

Sect. 8. The truth Ministers teach, warrants the hearing of them.

Sect. 9. Evil persons may be heard as true Ministers.

Sect. 10. It is a sin not to encourage good men in their Ministry.

Sect. 11. The example of the learned godly Nonconformists is some inducement to hear the present Ministers.

Sect. 12. The Magistrates command to hear, the present Mininisters is to be obeyed.

Sect. 13. Conformists Ministry hath been instrumental to Convert Souls.

Sect. 14. To the observation of the Lords day, hearing the present Ministers as the case now is, may be requisite.

Sect. 15. An Appendix, containing fourty additional Reasons against denying the lawfulness of hearing the present Ministers.

Sect. 16. Some passages in the writings of Mr. John Goodwin opposite to th• Book Intituled, Prelatical Preachers none of Christs Teachers.

ERRATA.

Books Printed for Henry Eversden, and are to be sold at his shop under the Crown-Tavern in West-Smithfield.

FINIS.

§

[Page]

THEODVLIA: OR, A JUST DEFENCE Of HEARING the SERMONS And other Teaching of the present Ministers of England. Against a Book unjustly entituled, (in Greek) A Christian testimony against them that serve the Image of the Beast. (In English) A Christian and sober Testimony against sinful Complyance. Wherein the unlawfulness of Hearing the present Ministers of England is pretended to be clearly demonstrated by an Author termed by himself Christophilus Antichristomachus.

By JOHN TOMBES, B.D.

Luke 9.49, 50.

And John answered and said, Master, We saw one casting out Devils in thy name, and we forbade him, because he followeth not with us.

And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not, for he that is not against us is for us.

LONDON, Printed by E. Cotes for Henry Eversden under the Crown Tavern in West-Smithfield. 1667.

§

[Page]

PErlegi hunc librum, cui titulus Theodulia, in quo nihil reperio doctrinae, disciplinaeve Ecclesiae Anglicanae, aut bonis morihus contrarium.

Joh. Hall S. T. B. Rev. in Christo Patri Humfredo D. Episc. Lond. à sac. dom. Ex aedibus Fulhamiens. Calend. Maii, 1667.

To the Right Honourable EDWARD EARL of CLARENDON Lord Chancellour of ENGLAND.

[Page]

THE great favour your Honour hath vouchsafed me, and the great Candour your ingenuity hath shewed in accepting some former Writings, have imboldned me to present this also to your hands, not only that it might be some part of a plea for my self as not averse from Union and Peace, but also that it may somewhat conduce to a closing of that miserable breach, which that [...], as St. Basil termed it, the unmeasurable drawing things in contrary ways hath made among us, as hoping [Page] that though difference of Opinions should be incurable, yet the discords of Protestants of the same Faith are not incurable. To the remedy of which no person, after his Majesty, by reason of your eminent authority and prudence, is likely to contribute more than your self. Whereto if the Lord make your Lordship instrumental, it may be so blessed a work, as may tend much to your Honour, and comfort in the day of the resignation of your spirit into the hand of him that gave it. The sad face of things in Europe, chiefly by reason of differences about Religion, makes it seem a deplorable thing, and should move every right-hearted Christian to endeavour the composing of Differences (salva veritate) that a deluge of Popery or Mahometanism may not overwhelm us. As for my self I expect no other event than obloquy from persons of this Authors mind, and such like; it being [Page] the usual lot of men that seek to part a fray to displease both parties, though I am not conscious to my self, that I have herein written or done any thing which might be a just grievance to any, my study being neither to uphold a rising party, nor to depress the dejected, but to promote Truth and the publick Peace, to which I have addicted my self, and in order thereto, subscribe my self,

Your Honours devoted and deeply obliged Servant in our Lord John Tombes.

TO THE CHRISTIAN READERS. Especially those to whom at any time I have Preached the Word of God.

[Page]

[Page]

Sect. 1. Prefaces needful by reason of Readers prejudice.

IT was the Order of the Court of Areopagites at Athens, that Pleas before them should be without Proems, lest their passions being stirred by Oratory, their judgment should be perverted; and favourable inclination to a person, should cause a sentence to be passed by them, not congruous to the merit of the cause. And it were well, if in all Controversies about matters of Religion, there were so strict a Law observed; that in all disputes, whether by Writing or Conference, all such Prefaces or Expressions be severely prohibited and restrained, as tend to create prejudice and partial propension to one part more than to another. But experience too much informing us, that even in Morals and matters of Religion, though the consequent be their Peace, or undoing, the guiding aright, or misleading their Consciences; yea, the salvation, or perdition of their souls; Treatises have their fate pro captu Lectoris, as the Readers or Hearers are affected, each thing is received secundum modum receptivitatis recipientis, as the quality and mind of the Receivers disposeth them; insomuch that any corrupting errour from some whom they affect, is received [Page] by many, and the clearest truths are rejected by persons preoccupated with prejudice either against the thing, or person that doth deliver them. Which makes it very necessary to blow away such du [...] out of the ballance of mens minds, as might mak [...] the Scales of their Understanding unequal, what they are to weigh what is presented to it. I list not to give instances by mentioning such experiments as either former, or this present Age have yielded, of the ill effects that debates have had through prejudices on both sides, against persons and things, caused by such preconceits as either education, relations, advantages, or engagements forestall men with; being unwilling to rake out of the Grave again such Occurrences of this kind, as I hope are buried, and wish they may not be revived. Nevertheless, (sith I have too much intelligence, that personal exceptions have caused such misprisions, as are likely to hinder the equal judging of the present controversie, whereby as the Writer is wronged, so the Reader is much more wronged by himself, when he refuseth to examine the matter, though of much concernment to him, because he is by fame or other motive dis [...]ff [...]cted to the Author) I am induced to speak something of my self, and the occasion of this Writing, and the History of this Controversie, being necessitated thereto by the strange Title, and Preface of the Book, I am now to examine.

Sect. 2. Prejudice against the Author, as favouring Separation, causless.

I find by very many evidences, that my Writings about a point, which few can concoct, have caused such an aversness in the spirits of a great number, even of those that seem to be inquisitive into truth, that my later Writings, even those which have been recommended to the World by the [Page] chief of my Antagonists, though not much contradicted, yet have not found such receptions, as such arguments were deemed to require. Which had discouraged me from this kind of imployment, did not the expectation of my giving account about the improvement of the talent committed to me by my Lord and Master, make me judge, that being restrained from publick Preaching, I ought to use it in this way, out of hopes of serving my generatian therein. Being busied in some other Arguments, I met with the Book which I here examine, and not long after with another, having this Title [Prelatical Preachers, none of Christs Teachers] whereby I perceived, that the seeds of most rigid separation were sown, and did spread themselves much among many, whose good I conceived my self bound to endeavour; and not only for their sakes, but also for the publick Peace, (as much as in me lies) to pluck up such roots of bitterness; Which I rather thought did appertain to me to do, because I found that many that had heard of my judgment in another point, did imagine, that I must needs be also a Separatist from the Church and Ministers as now they are; and where my practice is known to the contrary, I have been censured as acting against my own tenet, yea, and my own light, and taken to be, and shunned as a deserter of that Cause for which I have appeared: notwithstanding in many places of my Writings I have disclaimed Separation, for that, wherein I was dissenter from others, alwayes foreseeing, that a groundless Separation would be endless, and therefore have still professed my desire of such a Reformation as might be without Separation from Brethren, who are not heretical in the doctrine of Christian Faith, nor Idolatrous in their Worship; nor impose that on me for communion with them, which I cannot yield to without sin against God, and accordingly did in express words in the Addition to my Apology, Sect. 4. declare my willingness to joyn [Page]with any Churches of Christ, and unwillingness to be a Separating Member in any Church, being willing to be a conjoyned Member with all the Churches of Christ in general and each in particular. Apol. p. 5. I abhor Separation from my Brethren in this regard: p. 10. I durst not gather a separated Church, as not knowing how to justifie such a practice. In refutatione positionis Dr. Henrici Savage, Sect. 15. Sanctissimè in conspectu Domini corda scrutantis possum profiteri me in animo semper habuisse, ut si fieri posset, èsset reformatio absque separatione & animorum exacerbatione. Praecursor. Sect. 15. I am conscious to my self of using what means I could for Reformation without Schism if possible. Yea, when some of those who agreed with me in that tenet, which my Writings held forth differently from others, were moved to admit me to their Communion, and they excepted against it, because I did not disclaim the Church of England, nor renounce Ordination by a Bishop, nor desert my standing as a Parish Minister, nor my maintenance by Tith or Augmentation, nor my hearing with the World, as they used to speak, nor some such like practices as were inconsistent with the principles of the Separatists: I refused many years ago to joyn with them that would not otherwise admit me than upon such terms; but did answer their exceptions against me, and persisted in my refusal unto this day. And how averse my spirit and wayes have been from division, that Antagonist of mine whose former Writings had given occasion to men to conceive of me as a Sect-master; yet hath in his two Epistles Printed before my two Books, one against the Quakers about the insufficiency of each mans Light within him for his guidance to God▪ being Nine Sermons on Joh. 1.9. and the other, entituled, Romanism Discussed, against the Papists assertions about their Church and Pope, declared his opinion of my [Page] inclinableneness to brotherly Communion and agreement, notwithstanding our dissent. They to whom I was a Teacher, even in the times of our greatest Liberty, can bear me Witness, that I alwayes withstood by Writing and Conference such insinuations as tended to alienate their minds from Dissenters, and alwayes advised conjunction in Church Communion, and hearing such as taught the truth of the Gospel in respect of the foundation, though in their Worship and Preaching, some Hay and Stubble were superadded: And therefore to shew my constancy in the same opinion and practice, I have conceived my self obliged to appear in this matter at this time.

Sect. 3. The evils consequent on the tenet of Separation, urge to an examination of it.

Which I conceived my self the more urgently provoked to, by the direful imputation of serving the Image of the Beast, which the Title of the Book chargeth on the Hearers of the present Ministers; and the terrible predictions which in the Epistle to the Reader seem to be levelled against compliance in hearing the present Ministers; as if it were likely to meet with the same judgment in the day of Gods wrath with the Antichristian Beast; and seeming commiserations of such as did joyn in Communion with the publike Church Assemblies, in praying and preaching, as worshiping with the Nations, waiting at the Posts of an Antichristian Ministry, and through the power of temptation turned aside by the flocks of the Companions; and expostulating with such as forsaking the fountain of living Waters, for broken Cisterns that will hold no Water; changing their glory for that which will not profit, leaving the bread in their Fathers house, and going a begging to the doors of[Page]Strangers; casting contempt upon the pure Institutions of Christ, and thereby provoking the Lord to send leanness into their soul, giving occasion of grief and stumbling unto their Brethren, pouring contempt upon the Offices, Wisdom, and Faithfulness of Christ, hardning persons in a false way of worshiping of God to their eternal ruine, disobeying the heavenly voice calling aloud to them to come from the Lions dens, and Mountains of the Leopards, to come out of Babylon; admonishing them to arise, depart hence, this being not their rest, but polluted, to hasten their escape, and be like the He-goat before the Flocks in their retreat from the Tents of these false Worshippers, lest being partakers of their sin, they receive of their plagues that are even ready to be poured forth. Which is further pressed by intimating as if this may be the last warning such may have from God. Which passages if I should my self read without commotion of mind, as if they were brutum fulmen, a great Thunderclap without any Thunderbolt; yet I doubted whether they might not have such operation on many well-meaning persons, as to affright them from any hearing or Communion with the present Church or Teachers, as judging such compliance a damnable sin, such as the Scripture makes drinking of the cup of Fornication of the Whore of Babylon, receiving the mark of the Beast in their forehead, and in their hand and in some an irremissible sin; like that of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost; which must needs produce these woful effects, an irreconcilable enmity between the Separatists and such as hold Communion with the present Churches and their Pastors; and if the Law should not be mitigated, the utter ruine of many thousands, in respect of their Liberties, Estates, and perhaps Lives; or else the violation of their Consciences, if being possessed with these [Page] notions out of fear, or secular hope they yield to things of so direful an aspect; which things have appeared to me of so great importance, that I conceived both prudence and charity bound me to examine these pretences, and to inform my self and others of what I found conducible to the preventing of those sad consequences which attend the compliance, if it it be such as it is pretended to be; and the unyieldingness to what Laws injoyn, if it be not such an evil as it is accused to be. That which Dr. John Burges in his Rejoinder, said p. 629. is to be considered. As under the name of Christ and pretence of advancing his honour, Antichrist was set up; so it is possible that under the name of Antichrist, and under the opinion of only opposing him, even the Kingdom of Christ may be pulled down: and in part already is so, and men scarcely feel or fear it.

Sect. 4. The motive and end of this Writing.

Whereunto I have been further incited by the relations I have met with; of the practices and success of Separatists of elder and later times: which have for the most part ended in some prodigious errours, or endless brawls, and other effects as have caused great hinderance to the progress of the Gospel, and the disturbance both of the Ecclesiastical and Civil Peace in those places where they have had any considerable duration. Nor do our own times want such experiments of the discords which have fallen out by such separation; the factions that have been in the Congregations of men of that perswasion, the many, not only vain fansies, but also opinions destructive of true Religion and Christian Faith, as have been vented through a promiscuous liberty of so called Prophecying, and adhered to by many of the weaker s [...]rt of those of that way, as have caused many both learned, godly, and considerate Divines, even of those who were Non-Conformists, [Page] to account the way of Separation as a very pernicious evil; and accordingly have by Preaching, Writing, and Conferences, opposed it to the uttermost of their power. The sense of which moved me to look upon the Book here examined, together with the other forenamed, of the same kind, and some such as have been divulged to the same purpose, as blazing Stars portending some such danger, as we all may have cause to rue; tending to keep open, yea, and widen our breaches, which the Romanists foment, and hope thereby in time to make advantage of for their own designs. Hoc Ithacus velit, & magno mercentur Atridae. For preventing of such malignant influence as that Treatise may have on many souls who are well affected, but not so cautelous as were requisite, chiefly those to whom heretofore I have been a Teacher, I have composed this Writing, which I advise and request the Reader to peruse without any such prejudice, or preingaged partiality, as the Epistle of this Author tends to beget in the Readers of his Work, seriously considering that the right regulating of his own judgment and practice, and the promoting of the publick peace, are of more value than either his own credit, or the contenting of those that are otherwise minded; and that in all enquiries for the satisfaction of our conscience, and doing our duty truth only is to be sought after, which hath been, and still is the aim of,

Your Brother and Servant in Christ Jesus Iohn Tombes.

The Contents.

[Page]

In the Epistle to the Readers

Sect. 1. Prefaces needful by reason of Readers prejudice.

Sect. 2. Prejudice against the Author, as favouring Separation causless.

Sect. 3. The evils consequent on the tenet of Separation urge to an examination of it.

Sect. 4. The motive and end of this writing.

In the Answer to the Preface.

Sect. 1. Of the Worship of God, and how hearing is worship of him.

Sect. 2. Of hearing how instituted worship, and to be devolved on the Scriptures of the New Testament.

Sect. 3. Hearing not a meer positive or ceremonial worship.

Sect. 4. The judgment of the Ancients not useless in this controversie

Sect. 5. No approved practice of the Saints afore the Law countenanceth Separation from the present Preachers in England.

Sect. 6. Jewish Laws admitted some dispensation and addition.

Sect. 7. The Election or Ordination of Levites is no rule for election or Ordination of Ministers now.

Sect. 8. The texts injoyning the things appointed, prove not that some things undetermined might not in Gods Worship be ordered by men.

Sect. 9. The defection of the Jews to Idolatrous inventions of men, is of a more hainous degree, than the use of humane Ceremonies with us.

Sect. 10. Such testimony as the Prophets gave against the Jewish defection, is not now to be given against the Conformists.

Sect. 11. The Conformists not chargeable as the false Prophets of the Jews.

Sect. 12. Invectives against Teachers and Worship now, may be from another spirit, than that of the Prophets.

Sect. 13. The forsaking of false Prophets and worship among the Jews, is no justification of Separation from the present Teachers and Worship.

Sect. 14. The arguing by analogy in positive rites, not rational.

Sect. 15. The first Querie about a National Church instituted, answered.

[Page] Sect. 16. National Ministers may be Ministers of Christ, and National Churches true Churches.

Sect. 17. Mr. Parkers arguments that the form of Churches is of Divine Institution, are answered.

Sect. 18. The Ministry of the Gospel is a true Ministry of Christ.

Sect. 19. A true Gospel Ministry may be in a false Church so deemed

Sect. 20. Gods love to us is not less in not determining the whole of his Worship to us, as he did to the Jews.

Sect. 21. Christ designed Officers and Offices for his Church (not as were in the Jewish) which are the same while their work is the same, though some titles be new.

Sect. 22. The solemn deputation of Ministers, is not the peculiar priviledge of Saints.

Sect. 23. Corruptions in Non-fundamentals unchurch not.

Sect. 24. Every errour makes not a false Prophet.

Sect, 25. Separation by reason of some corruptions unwarrantable.

Sect. 26. It is prudence to joyn in worship and hearing, where some errours and corruptions remain.

Chap. 1. Arg. 1.

Sect. 1. Some scruples of Conscience are of ill consequence.

Sect. 2. There is warrant in Scripture to hear the present Ministers of England.

Sect. 3. Accidentals of Instituted Worship warranted without command in Scripture.

Sect. 4. Prejudice is no argument, nor personal motives good proof.

Chap. 2. Arg. 2.

Sect. 1. Preachers may be heard as teaching truth.

Sect. 2. They may be heard as Ministers of the Gospel, who are not rightly called.

Sect. 3. Preachers may be Ministers of the Gospel, who are not chosen by a particular instituted Church.

Sect. 4. The present Ministers may be heard as Gifted Brethren.

Sect. 5. Tender Consciences may call the Bishops Rev. Fathers.

Sect. 6. It is not proved that the best of the present Ministers are to be separated from as walking disorderly.

Chap. 3. Arg. 3.

Sect. 1. That which is by some termed Antichristian, is not always unlawful.

Sect. 2. The names given to the Ministers of England prove not their Office not to be from Christ.

Sect 3. The term Priest proves not symbolizing with the Popish Order of Priests,

[Page] Sect. 4. The parallel particulars prove not the English Ministers symbolizing in Office with Popish Priests.

Sect. 5. The Office of Bishops is not proved to be Antichristian, but may be found in Scripture.

Sect. 6. The Office of Lord Bishops is not contrary to express precepts of Christ in the Scripture.

Sect. 7. The Office of Lord Bishops not from the Papacy.

Sect. 8. The Ordination of Bishops is also of Presbyters.

Chap. 4. Arg. 4.

Sect. 1. They that deny not Christs Offices doctrinally may be heard.

Sect. 2. Every not hearkening to Christs Order is not a denial of his Office.

Sect. 3. It is not proved that Christs Sovereign Authority is rejected by the present Ministers.

Sect. 4. Ministers oppose not the will of Christ, by not joyning in the separation pleaded for.

Sect. 5. Election and Excommunication by the Church are not Christs Institution.

Sect. 6. No contempt of the Authority of Christ is in the Church of England by setting up Officers and Offices.

Sect. 7. Election of Ministers by the common Suffrage of the Church is not proved to be Christs appointment.

Sects 8. Prophecying is not opposed by the Ministers.

Sect. 9. Ministers service may be Divine and Spiritual in the use of the Liturgy.

Sect. 10. Things objected against the Ministers are not such as justifie separation.

Chap. 5.

Sect. 1. All owning of orders different from, or contrary to Christs, proves not a denial of his Offices.

Sect. 2. Ministers submitting to Canons is unjustly censured.

Sect. 3. Making Canons in things undetermined, and subjection to them, agrees with Scripture.

Sect. 4. Its no derogation from Scripture, or Christ, that such Canons are made and obeyed.

Sect. 5. All particularities of Decency and Order in things sacred, are not determined in Scripture.

Sect. 6. Its not proved that the Ministers of England own constitutions contrary to the Revelation of Christ.

Sect. 7. A prescript Form of words in Prayer devised by man is not contrary to Rom. 8.26. 1 Cor. 14.15.

[Page] Sect. 8. The admission of vitious persons to Communion, justifies not separation.

Sect. 9. Receiving of the Lords Supper kneeling, is not directly opposite to Christs practice or precept of abstaining from appearance of evil, 1 Thess. 5.22.

Sect. 10. Forbidding to Marry or eat Flesh at certain times are not Characters of Apostates, as 1 Tim. 4.3. is meant.

Sect. 11. No such headship is owned by the present Ministers as is a denial of Christs Offices.

Sect. 12. Conformity to Laws opposite to Christs, proves not owning another King co-ordinate to him.

Sect. 13. Headship of the Church under Christ not monstrous.

Sect. 14. The Kings Supremacy is such as was allowed the Kings of Israel.

Chap. 6. Arg. 5.

Sect 1. False Doctrine only makes a false Prophet not to be heard.

Sect. 2. The Ministers not false Prophets, because not sent, as Jer. 23.21. Rom. 10.15. is meant.

Sect. 3. The Ministers not proved to commit Adultery and walk in lyes as Jer. 23.14. is meant.

Sect. 4. The Ministers are not proved to strengthen the hands of evil doers, as Jer. 23.14. is meant.

Sect. 5. The Ministers are not proved such daubers as those, Ezek. 22.28.

Sect. 6. Ministers changing of places, sadning some mens hearts, not characters of a false Prophet.

Sect. 7. Pressing rigid Conformity no proof of the Ministers being false Prophets.

Sect. 8. The charge, Ezek. 22.26. reacheth not the Ministers of England.

Sect. 9. The Ministers are not the false Shepheards, meant Ezek. 34.4.

Sect. 10. The Ministers of England are not the second Beast, foretold, Rev. 13.11.

Chap. 7. Arg 6.

Sect, 1. All Idolatry is exhibiting Divine Worship to a creature.

Sect. 2. All will-worship of God is not Idolatry.

Sect. 3. This Authors Argument as well proves himself an Idolater as the Conformist.

Sect. 4. Prayer in a stinted form may be worship of God of his appointment.

[Page] Sect. 5. Common-Prayer Book worship shuts not out of doors the exercise of the gift of Prayer.

Sect. 6. Common-Prayer Book worship is not of pure humane invention.

Sect. 7. Common-Prayer Book worship is the same with the worship of the Reformed Churches.

Sect. 8. No particularity instituted is a meer circumstance; yet particularities undetermined are.

Sect. 9. Praying in a form may be praying in the Spirit.

Sect. 10. The Forms of Prayer imposed are not made necessary essential parts of Worship.

Sect. 11. Acting in the holy things of God by the Office, Power, and Modes of Idolaters may be without Idolatry.

Sect. 12. The English Ministers oppose Popish Idolatry as other Protestants.

Sect. 13. The Ministers of England act not by vertue of an Office Power from Idolaters.

Sect. 14. The Common-Prayer Book worship was not abused to Idolatry.

Sect. 15. Kneeling in the receiving the Sacramental Elements is not Idolatry.

Sect. 16. The crimination of the Ministers as Idolaters is not excusable.

Sect. 17. The Martyrs are unjustly made Idolaters by this Author.

Chap. 8. Arg. 7. and 8,

Sect. 1. Every offence of others makes not sinful that which is otherwise lawful.

Sect. 2. Hearing the present Ministers may be the Saints duty.

Sect. 3. Sinful scandalizing is not by hearing the present Ministers.

Sect. 4. It is not scandal given but when the offensive action is done blameably.

Sect. 5. Offending some sincere Christians by hearing the present Ministers, is not the scandalizing threatned, Matth. 18.16.

Sect. 6. The Separatists give more just cause of offence to godly sober Christians, than the Conformists do to them.

Sect. 7. Hearing the present Ministers may be without participation with them in sin.

Chap. 9. Arg, 9, 10, 11, 12.

Sect. 1. Separation of some from other Christians is no institution of Christ.

Sect. 2. Meeting of Christians as a distinct body is not Christs Institution.

[Page] Sect. 3. Separated Congregational Churches in opposition to National, are not of Christs Institution.

Sect. 4. To attend only on the Ministry of Ministers of Congregational Churches is not Christs appointment.

Sect. 5. Hearing the present Ministers casts no contempt on Christs Institutions.

Sect. 6. Hearing the present Ministers hardens none in sin.

Sect. 7. Gods people are not called out of the Temples in England as places of false Worship.

Sect. 8. There is ground to expect a blessing in hearing the present Ministers.

Sect. 9. Hearing the present Ministers is no step to Apostasie.

Sect. 10. Pollution in one part makes not the whole worship polluted Chap. 10. Fifty Arguments for hearing the present Ministers.

Sect. 1. Christs direction, Matth. 23.2, 3. warrants hearing the present Ministers.

Sect. 2. The Scribes and Pharisees sate in Moses his Chair as Teachers, not as Magistrates.

Sect. 3. The Pharisees were not Church Officers of Gods appointment.

Sect. 4. Christ allows hearing the Pharisees while they taught the Law of Moses.

Sect. 5. Hearing Pharisees teaching Moses Law, not attendance on their Ministry as Pastors is allowed by Christ.

Sect. 6. Christ and his Apostles going to the Jewish Meetings is opposite to the Separatists opinion and practise.

Sect. 7. Pauls rejoycing at the preaching Christ of contention, warrants hearing the present Ministers.

Sect. 8. The truth Ministers teach, warrants the hearing of them.

Sect. 9. Evil persons may be heard as true Ministers.

Sect. 10. It is a sin not to encourage good men in their Ministry.

Sect. 11. The example of the learned godly Non-Conformists is some inducement to hear the present Ministers.

Sect. 12. The Magistrates command to hear the present Ministers is to be obeyed.

Sect. 13. Conformists Ministry instrumental to convert souls.

Sect. 14. To the observation of the Lords Day hearing the present Ministers, as the case now is, may be requisite.

Sect. 15. An appendix containing forty additional reasons against denying the lawfulness of hearing the present Ministers.

Sect. 16. Some passages in the writings of Mr. John Goodwin opposite to the Book, entituled, Prelatical Preachers none of Christs teachers.

THEODVLIA: OR, A JUST DEFENCE Of HEARING the SERMONS And other Teaching of the present Ministers of England. In Answer to the Book, entituled, A Christian and sober Testimony against sinful Complyance.
An Answer to the Preface to the ensuing Discourse of that Book.

[Page]

HAving premised so much as I suppose may be of use to the Reader, concerning the Title and Epistle to the Reader of the Book which I intend to examine, I proceed to a discussion of the Book it self: which is more Scholastical than the other Treatise. Entituled [Prelatical Preachers none of Christs Teachers] or any other that I have met with of late Composure, and therefore more fit to be sifted for the bolting out of the Truth by Argument. It is distributed into a Preface and ten [Page] Chapters. I shall follow him in his method as being suitable enough, and comprehensive of that which may be said in this matter.

S [...]ct. 1. Of the worship of God, and how hearing is worship of him.

First he conceives it a reasonable Postulatum in the present enquiry concerning our part of the instituted worship of Christ under the Gospel, with respect unto the duty incumbent upon the Saints; in order thereunto, that the whole thereof be divolved upon the Scriptures of the new Testament; and those Royal Lawes, that Christ (the alone King and Law giver of his church) hath given for Saints under the New Testament dispensation to walk by, untill they arrive unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ. Eph. 4.13.

Answ. The term [worship of Christ or worship of God used Chap. 1. &c.] imports such an action as whereby God is observed, served, or honoured as God, and Christ as Christ. All actions therefore, whereby God and Christ are acknowledged and glorified under the proper consideration of God or Christ as God or the Messiah, are meant by worship of God and Christ: Either of which may be real, or putative and imaginary. They that worshipped the golden Calf did proclaim a feast to Jehovah, and said, these are thy Gods O Israel that brought thee out of the Land of Egypt. Exod. 32.5, 8. which shews they intended to worship Jehovah as God by that feast, and the sacrificing to that Idol, but this was not real worship of God, but only imaginary and false worship. Real and true worship is either mediate or immediate. Mediate is when any action of holiness or righteousness, is done in obedience to God as the motive or impulsive cause, to glorifie God as God, Christ as Christ, as the end or final cause; yet not without respect to some other. So by works of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, Christ is served acceptably to God, Rom. 14.18. Servants that obey their Masters fearing God do it to the Lord and not to men, and thereby serve the Lord Christ, Col. 3.22, 23, 24. Where the Action of it self is not a worship of God or Christ, but in respect of the motive and end, though the doing of the thing be not per se of it self a worship of God, yet it being done by vertue of Gods Command and in reference to him as God, it is in that respect a worship of God and a Service of Christ. Immediate worship is that which is directed to God as the sole object of it without the intervention [Page] of any other, as for whose sake, end or use it is done, or upon whom it is terminated for his honour, though it may be that some other may be used as the means, by which the action is done. As for instance, offering Sacrifice to God was immediate worship to God, though it were done by the Priest: because, though the Priest were used by reason of his office and dignity, yet it is not directed to, or terminated on him for his honour, nor out of any such respect of acknowledging superiority or excellency in him, as in a servants obedience to his Master, nor to benefit him, or gratify him as in acts of righteousness to men out of obedience to God, but the action is done entirely, and immediately to and for God his honour, and glory, by testifying thereby his excellency, worthiness, soveraignty, goodness, or other excellency, which I conceive agreeable to the notion of worship, which seems to be a contract of [worthyship] and notes singular respect, esteem, or regard, by reason of some worth in the thing worshipped conceived in the heart, and expressed by some signe, the former being inward worship, the other outward, this] gather from the use of the term Worshipfull; your worship given to superiours by reason of their dignity, and the use of the words in the solemnity of marriage, [with my body I thee worship] that is, honour thee in the sence in which St. Peter 1 Epist. 3.7. requires the husband [...] to distribute, render, impart or give honour, esteem, price or valuation to the wife as his own for his use as a helper, or to gratifie her as in the old ritual alledged by Mr. Selden in his Uxor Ehraica, l. 2. c. 27. was in Latin [corpore meo te dignor] I bestow on thee, to gratifie thee out of singular regard to thee, my Body. Both which notions seem to be implied in that old version of the words, 1 Sam. 2.30. mentioned in the Conference at Hampton Court [them that honour me I will honour] in the old [them that worship me I will worship] in the one our worshipping of God importing our glorifying him as God, as the expression is, Rom. 1.21. in the other Gods worshipping of us his gratifying us as a benefactour, out of that love, favour and esteem he hath of us. Now hearing is worship of God or Christ in the former notion, it being for enquiry of God or Christ, what is their minde or will towards us, out of apprehension of our dependence on them or respect to them, as a Servant on his Master, a Scholler on his Teacher. And then we worship God in hearing when we hear, as it is said of the Thessalonians, 1 Thessal. 2.13. that when they received the word of God, which they heard of St. Paul and other Teachers, [Page]they received it not as the word of men, but (as it is in truth) the word of God, which effectually worketh also in them that believe. Hearing then, as it is a worship of God, is a seeking from God such revelation as may be for our benefit, arising from the apprehension we have of his omnisciency, goodness, wisdome, and truth, who neither can be deceived nor deceive, that he only knoweth all things, that we are to call no man our Father upon the Earth: for one is our Father which is in Heaven, Mat. 23.9. As on the contrary when Ahazias 2 Kings 1. sent to Baalzebub the God of Ekron to enquire of that Idol, he worshipped Baalzebub, and when Saul enquired of one that had a familiar Spirit and not of the Lord, 1 Chron. 10.13, 14. He worshiped that familiar Spirit. Our Lord Christ is that Prophet whom God requires us to hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto us, Acts 3.22. God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the Fathers by the Prophets, hath in these last dayes spoken to us by his Son Heb. 1.1, 2. And they that hear his word as the person to whom all things are delivered by the Father, Mat. 11.27. as he in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdome, and knowledge, Col. 2.3. as that great Prophet who was to come into the World, Luke 7.16. do worship Christ in hearing. As on the other side he that heareth any other as Rabbi or master, in that sense in which Christ asserts himself to be the only Master, Mat. 23.8, 10. (as the Papists do, who enquire of the Pope as infallible, when he speaks or determins from his Chair) doth worship him as his great Prophet, Rabbi, or Master, which Christ forbids as an usurpation of his prerogative. This worship of Christ is immediate even when we enquire of his minde by hearing other teachers who bring his word to us, though not called as the Apostles, and some others in the first planting of the Christian Churches, as he that attends to a Kings Proclamation read or brought by never so inconsiderable a person, declares by his Loyal hearing of it his honouring of his Prince, not of the reader, C [...]ier, or messenger. Yea God is worshipped and Christ honoured by hearing the Gospel read as the word of God, as immediately and truly, though not so solemnly, by a boy at home, as by a Pastor of a Church.

Sect. 2. Of hearing, how instituted worship, and to be devolved on the Scriptures of the New Testament.

Instituted worship of Christ is such, as is by Christs institution. [Page] Now institutions, saith a civil Lawyer, are praeceptions by which men are instructed and taught, as the books of Ouintilian inscribed, Institutions of Orators, of Lactantius Divine Institutions, of Erasmus▪ the Institution of a Christian Prince, of Aldus Institutions of Grammer, of Calvin Institutions of religion. Instituted wo [...]ship of Christ under the Gospel is that which is by Christs praeceptions taught, directed, or appointed in the times of the Gospel since Christs coming in the Flesh. Which may be meant of that natural or moral worship, which belongs to God or Christ, such as are prayers to God, giving thanks to him, & such like. Of this it is true in respect of the explicite way of prayer or thanksgiving in the name of Jesus Christ or such peculiar manner as belongs to the New Testament, the whole thereof is to be divolved upon the Scriptures of the New Testament, that is, as I interpret his words, the direction or precept concerning it, is to be taken from the Scriptures of the New Testament, yet not excluding the directions and precepts of the Scriptures of the Old Testament, nor the light of nature so far as that worship is perpetual and general to all people, and times, as being either natural or moral. Of which sort I take hearing the word of God to be, though some peculiarities there are which the Almighty hath tied us to in the New Testament in hearing: as Mat. 17▪ 5. This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased: hear ye him. Luke 10.16. He that heareth you heareth me, and he that despiseth you despiseth me, and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me. Yet these passages do not exclude the precepts or directions of the Old Testament, but presuppose them to be heard and learned in respect of the matter therein contained, and the persons that reveal it, so our Lord Christ, Luke 16.29. They have Moses and the Prophets let them hear them. 2 Peter 1.19. we have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto you do well that ye take heed as unto a light that shineth in a dark place. Nor do I meet with any prohibitions of hearing any but False-Prophets, Mat. 7.15. deceivers, Titus 1.10. that teach other doctrin, 1 Tim 1.3. 2 John 10 another Gospel, Gal. 1.8, 9. Our Lord Christ Caveat is Mark. 4.24. Take heed what ye hear, not warning them to avoid any that preacheth the same truth that he delivers; though he more especially tyed his Disciples to hear his Apostles, and such other as were sent by them to him; yet when all the Church at Jerusalem except the Apostles (which consisted of many thousands) were scattered abroad by persecution, and went every where preaching the word, Acts 8.1, 4. It was no sin to hear them, they were not [Page] the strangers meant, John 10.5. whom his Sheep were to flee from, but rather they were bound to hear them in preaching his Gospel, though not by any peculiar calling, designed for that work as their function, it being Christs declaration, that his Sheep hear his voice, John 10.27. Nor are the many precepts or directions in the Old Testament about hearing or reading, Isai. 8.20. in the books of the Psalmes and Proverbs, and other parts of Holy Scriptures vacated, but that they remain still rules to us about hearing in the New Testament times, and therefore it seems not to me to be a reasonable postulatum or demand, that in the present enquiry of the Lawfulness of hearing the present Ministers of England, the whole thereof be devolved upon the Scriptures of the New Testament.

Sect. 3. Hearing not a meer positive or ceremonial worship.

But perhaps the Author means by [instituted worship of Christ] such as is meerly positive, or as we use to speak, ceremonial; such as are Baptism and the Lords Supper, which are only worship of God, by institution in the New Testament, which is probable to be his meaning by what he adds [not perplexing our selves, nor the Consciences of any, with what was (or may be supposed to be) permitted unto the Saints before the time of reformation, whilst the worldly Sanctuary was yet standing, the carnal ordinances pertaining thereunto, in being at least by the providence of God not sully dissolved as afterward, both it and they were, being buried in the ashes and ruines of that Temple, to which they were inseparably annext.] But if he make hearing of the present Ministers, such an instituted worship of God or Christ he seems to me very inconsiderate, hearing of preachers being a moral and perpetual worship common to all times and persons, not a meer positive or ceremonial, as being baptized or receiving the Lords supper are, and therefore by reason thereof it is not a reasonable postulatum, which he demands to be granted him, that in the present enquiry the whole thereof be divolved upon the Scriptures of the New Testament. Yea were it granted him, yet it would disadvantage those separatists, with whom he concurs in Judgment about Nonconformity and separation from the Church of England and the Ministers thereof, who use many places of the Old Testament, not only about the Sabbath and it's observation, but also about Baptism and the Lords Supper. Churches, ministry, and ceremonies in their enquiries, and himself also in the present enquiry, who useth [Page] about election of Ministers by the people and other things in this dispute out of the Old Testament, and even the Levitical ordinances sundry places, and therefore I conceive not any reasonableness in his postulatum of divolving the whole upon the Scriptures of the New Testament.

Sect. 4. The judgment of the Antients, not useless in this controversie.

That which he also speaks [not perplexing our selves, nor the consciences of any with the judgments of men in Generations past; (wherein they cannot acquiesce) though to take of the prejudices of some against truth, upon the account of its seeming Novelty, we may here and there manifest their harmony with us, in the main principles of the ensuing structures] may seem to be a reasonable postulatum, or demand in respect of those who are not able to examine what is said by Fathers, Councils, Schoolmen, Protestant and Popish writers, forraign and domestick, and I should have liked it well if he had wholly omitted any such citations in this book, which hath been dispersed so farr as I can learn, chiefly, if not only among such. Nevertheless if we would intimate as if in this and other controversies of the separatists and others, there were not use of studying and alledging those writers, I think his postulatum or demand unreasonable. For as Dallaeus in his Learned Book against Popish worship hath done much service to the truth, in shewing out of the Fathers, that the Popish worship of Saints, Angels, the Host or bread in the Eucharist Crosses, Images and Reliques, according to the tradition of the Latins, was unknown to the Christians of the three first centuries: so it may be of good use to satisfie mens consciences, that no such separation as now is from the present Ministers of England was allowed of by the first Fathers and Writers, or any approved Council, it being a thing of much moment in the arguments about the Lords Day; and other Festivals, the Sacraments, Church and Ministry; to understand what was the judgment and practice of the primitive Christians: with whom Religion was more pure than in after times, though corruptions too soon crept in among them.

Sect. 5. No approved practice of the Saints, afore the Law, Countenanceth separation from the present preachers in England.

Yet, saith this Author, inasmuch as some Beams of Light may be [Page]communicated unto the present Enquiry, by a retrospection into the state of things in the time of the Old Law, it shall not be grievous to us (nor will it be altogether unprofitable to the Reader) briefly to remark, so far as may concern the matter in hand, the state and management of affairs under that Oeconomy and Dispensation: Not to mention the Administration of Holy things in the time of the Antediluvian Fathers; nor the General Apostacy from the pure wayes of God, in the dayes of Seth; (when according to their duty, the faithful remnant (the sons of God) separated from the Wicked (or the daughters of men) and solemnly joyned themselves together to worship God according to his holy appointments, Gen. 4.26.) Let us take a brief view of things, with relation unto the People of God, after the giving of Moses Law, when a Standard was set up for them to repair unto, and they became (being gathered into one) as a City on an Hall, conspicuous unto all.

Answ. How some beams of light may be communicated unto the present enquiry, by a retrospection into the state of things in the time of the Old Law, will not be easie to discern, if the whole thereof be divolved on the Scriptures of the New Testament. Yet it will not be grievous to me to examine what I find produced for his purpose. I grant that Dr. Owen hath in his Book in Latine, of the nature, rise, progress, and study of true Theologie, shewed divers Corruptions in the Ages before and after the Flood of Noah in Theologie; and the pure Worship of God, unto Moses his time; and that the restitution of true Theologie was sometimes by a separation from the Wicked, when there was a general Apostacy from the true wayes of God, unto a prophaning of the Name of God, (as some conceive Gen. 4.26. is meant) either by blaspheming, or by setting up of Idol-worship; as it was before Abrahams separation, Josh. 24.15. But neither by him, nor I think, by any other is it shewed, that a separation was approved from Preachers, that teach no worse Doctrine than is held forth by the Articles, Homilies, and other avowed Books of the Church of England; or from a Society or Church that was no more polluted by Idolatry or other Corruptions in Worship, than are chargeable on the publick enjoyned Worship of the Church of England. If Gen. 4.26. be meant of a Reformation, by setting up separate Congregations (as Dr Owen conceives in that Book, l 2. c. 3.) it was, that therein they might call on the Name of the Lord; which shews it was from them that did not call upon the Name of the Lord, not from them that did as in the Worship of the Church of England is done. And if Noah did reform by separation, it was from Wicked men, who had filled [Page]the earth with violence, Gen. 6.13. which doth indeed make a necessary separation, (though it appear not but that Noah continued to preach to them, and live among them, 1 Pet. 3.20. 2 Pet. 2.5.) But is not the cause of the separation avowed by this Author from the Ministers and Church of England. And though it be true, that by the Law at Mount Sinai, and other acts of Gods providence, Israel became (being gathered into one) as a City on a Hill, conspicuous unto all, yet how then a Standard was set up for the people to repair unto, needs some explication, sith such as Job, and such like holy persons (if he or any other lived at that time) seem not to have repaired to them, nor were bound to repair to them, unless they would be made Proselytes, which the avoiding Idolatry, of the Gentiles might require of them; not such Corruptions onely as are in the Church of England. But let us see what beams of light may be communicated unto the present enquiry, by retrospection into the state of things in the time of the Old Law.

Sect. 6. Jewish Laws admitted some dispensation and addition.

First then, saith he, that the Lord gave unto the people of the Jews (whom he had chosen out of all the Nations of the World, to be a People near to him, his peculiar Treasure above them all) Statutes and Ordinances to walk by, both with relation to Civils and Ecclesiasticks, which they were indispensably bound to conform to, without adding to, or detracting therefrom: That the management of all their affairs was singly to be bottomed upon, and conform to these Statutes and Judgments is very frequently asserted in Scripture, Exod. 21.1. Lev. 18.4. & 19.37. & 20.22. & 25.18. & 26.15▪ 43. Deut. 4.1, 5, 8. & 5.1. & 7.11. & 11.1, 32. & 12.1. & 26.16. & 30.16. 1 Chron. 16.12. & 28.7. Psal. 89.30. Ezek. 5.6. & 36.27. Dan ▪ 9.5.

Answ. It is granted that the Lord gave unto the people of the Jews Statutes and Ordinances to walk by, both with relation to Civils and Ecclesiasticks, or (as usually they speak) Ceremonials; and that they were bound to conform to them, and so much the Texts alledged do prove. But that they were bound indispensably to conform to these Statutes, without adding to, or detracting therefrom; and that the management of all their affairs was singly to be bottomed upon, and conform to these Statutes and Judgments, is not asserted in those Scriptures, there being not one of them, that saith that they were bound indispensably to conform to them. Our Lord hath determined to the contrary in justifying [Page] his Disciples plucking the ears of Corn on the Sabbath; Davids eating the shew bread and entring into the house of God, and confirming his determination by the words of the Prophet Hosea, 6.6. in his dissertation against the Pharisees, Mat. 12.3, 7. in which there was a dispensation with, and detraction from the Laws of the Sabbath, and the Shew-bread about Ecclesiasticks, for a time in some Case. And for addition to Laws Ecclesiastical the assemblies keeping other seven dayes besides those prescribed in the Law of the Passover, 2 Chro. 30.23. and to civils that ordinance of David, 1 Sam. 30.25. Shew, that in both some additions might be by the Prince, Captain or private persons to both sorts of Lawes with Divine approbation. And that the management of all the affairs of the people of Israel, both civil and ecclesiastical, was not singly to be bottom'd upon and conform to those statutes and judgments, but that in both sorts of affairs humane prudence, and the Rulers Authority might order many things, may be cleared from sundry instances of David, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, and others; which there will be occasion more fully to discusse in examining the allegations brought by this Author to prove the major of his first argument Ch. 1. of this treatise.

Sect. 7. The election or ordination of Levites, is no rule for election or ordination of Ministers now.

Secondly, saith he, that persons were appointed by the Lord to be chosen by the Congregation for the publick administration of ordinances and worship, cannot be denied: Thus were the Levites, Exod. 13.2, 12, 13. and 22.29. Numb. 3.12. called therefore the Wave-offering of the Children of Israel, Numb. 8.9, 10, 11. because given up by them to the Lord as their offering, by solemn ordination, and imposition of hands.

Answer, it is true, that the Levites were wholly given unto God from among the Children of Israel, to do the service of the Congregation; but it is not true, that they were appointed by the Lord to be chosen by the Congregation. God saith, Numb. 8.16. in stead of the first-born of all the Children of Israel have I taken them to mee. And upon what occasion God took the Levites in stead of the first born, is to be seen in Exod. 32.26, 29. Deut. 33.9. Saith Ainsworth annot. on Numb. 3.12. So that here appears no choice of the Congregation, so as that it was left to them to take or to leave those. It is true also, that Numb. 8.9. it is said, that Moses shall bring the Levites before the Tabernacle of the Congregation, [Page] it was therefore his business to present them, and that he should gather the whole assembly of the Children of Israel together, and that he should bring the Levites before the Lord, and the Children of Israel, that is, some of the chief of them, (as the first born) in the name of the rest shall lay or impose hands on the Levites, saith Ainsworth annot. on Numb. 8.10. And then it follows, v. 11. Aaron shall offer or wave the Levites before the Lord, for an offering or wave-offering of the Children of Israel, that they may execute the service of the Lord. And then Aaron was to make an atonement for the Levites, and Moses should set the Levites before Aaron and before his Sons, and offer them for an offering unto the Lord, and that he should separate the Levites from among the Children of Israel: and the Levites should then be Gods. v. 13, 14. The reason of the laying on of the hands of the Children of Israel upon the Levites, was to signifie their obedient yielding them to God in their stead, to do the service of the Children of Israel, in the Tabernacle of the Congregation, and to make an atonement for the Children of Israel: that there might be no plague among the Children of Israel, when the Children of Israel came nigh unto the Sanctuary, v. 19. But these were not the Priests, they were distinct from the Levites, to wit Aaron and his Sons, who were called of God, Heb. 5.4. without the Prophets laying on of hands. Now it was the Priests office to do that work, in which was the worship of God to wit the offering Sacrifice, sprinkling the blood, and such other duties, the Levites were imployed to do other services, as the bearing of the utesils and such like, in respect of which they were to attend on the Priests, Deut. 10.8. & therefore it is said by God, v. 19. I have given the Levites as a gift to Aaron and his Sons. So that the choice was Gods, the presenting Moses his act, the yielding them by imposition of hands signifying their offering them to God, in stead of themselves, was the act of the first-born, the wave offering, and cleansing them, Aarons act, which may more truly be called their solemn ordination than the imposition of hands by the first-born. But were it true, that in this act of imposing their hands there was election and ordination, this wa [...] not a successive election or ordination, as is when one dies and another is chosen and ordained in his room, as oft as there is such vacancy, when one Minister dies and another comes in his stead. For this election or ordination (if it may be so called) was but once, and of the whole company together, and so is no pattern for election or ordination of Elders successively by a particular Congregation, or the major part of them.

Sect. 8. The Texts enjoyning the observation of things appointed, prove not that some things undetermined might not in Gods worship be ordered by men.

[Page]

Thirdly, saith he, that persons thus invested into the office of Priesthood were not left to the liberty of their own wits, nor have they any dependance upon the will or Authority of the Sons of men, (one or other of them) either in respect of the matter or manner of their worship, the whole whereof was purely of Divine institution and Divine appointment, Exod. 25.9, 40. Numb. 8.5. Heb. 8.5. 1 Chron. 28, 11. Exod. 8.27. Levit. 10.1. Exod. 39.1, 5, 7, 21, 26, 31, 43, and 40.23, 25, 27, 29. Levit. 8.9, 13, 17, 21, 29. Numb. 8.3. Exod. 35.10, 29. and 36.1, 5. Isaiah 29.13.

Answer, The Levites were not invested into the office of the Priesthood by solemn ordination & imposition of hands of the children of Israel, but Aaron and his Sons, and therefore as it was an usurpation in Uzziah to burn incense to the Lord, sith it appertained to the Priests, the sons of Aaron that were consecrated to burn incense, 2 Chron. 26.18. So it was the sin of Korah that, not content with that service he was to do, he would usurp the office of the Priests, to come nigh the Altar and to burn incense, or as it is Numb. 16.10. to seek the Priesthood, which was in degree above the Levites, who were to minister unto the Priests, but not to come nigh the Altar, as Ainsworth proves in his Annot. on Numb. 16.10. out of Numb. 18.2, 3. 1 Chron. 6.48, 49. 1 Chron. 23.13. It is granted that neither the Levites nor the Priests in their office or service were left to their own wills, nor had they any dependance upon the will or authority of the sons of men (one or other of them) either in respect of the matter or manner of their worship, which was of Divine institution, and Divine appointment. Every circumstance of time, place, order, habit, and what ever else was particularly determined, was to be strictly observed under pain of death, if presumptuously done otherwise; as in the case of Nadab and Abihu, Hophai and Phinehas, or culpable negligence as in the case of Uzzah, and if it were by ignorance, yet an offering was to be made for an atonement, and thus much it is granted the Texts alledged do prove. But neither these texts nor any other do prove that no circumstances about place, time, order undetermined by God were left to the liberty of the people, or Prince, or Sanhedrin, or Priests in and about the [Page] worship of God among the Jewes, who yet had their service more fully particularized in all things pertaining to it than we have. The Priests were invested into the office of Priesthood by Moses, according to the rites distinctly set down, Exod. 40.12, 13, 14, 15, 16. Levit. 8. throughout. The text, Isai. 29.13. alledged in the first chapter out of Mark 7.7. will there fitly be considered, that we may discusse, whether the whole of their worship was purely of Divine institution and appointment in respect of the matter, and manner of it.

Sect. 9. The defection of the Jews to Idolatrous inventions of men, is of a more hainous degree than use of humane ceremonies with us.

Fourthly, saith he, that this Church gathered by the Lord, and wonderfully separated from the rest of the world (though they had him nearer to them than any people had his Law made known amongst them) did notwithstanding quickly depart from his pure institutions, mingling therewith the inventions of men, and customes of the Nations (after which they went a whoring) is frequently remarked in the Scripture: of this the Lord sorely complains, Deut. 32.18. Jer. 2.32. and 13.25. and 23.27. Hos. 4.6. and 8.14. and 13.6. 2 Chron. 13.16. Isa. 1.4. Jer 1.16. and 2.17, 19. and 9.13. and 15.6. Deut. 29.5. 1 Kings 11.33. and 18.18. and 19.10. 2 Kings 22.17. Ezra 9.10. for this he severely threatens and punisheth them, Deut. 29.25. Judg. 10.10. 1 Sam. 12.10. 2 Chron. 12.5. and 24.20. and 34.25. Jer. 16.11. and 19.4. the very truth is, the contests of God with that people from first to last, are to be bottom'd upon this foot of account.

Answer, It is true, that Church of Israel was gathered by the Lord, and wonderfully separated from the rest of the world by great signs, miracles, providences, and judgments; which he shewed against their enemies and towards them, especially by the hand of Moses, and that he did not, till Christ came, so gather, and wonderfully separate any Church from the rest of the World, as he did them. But after the ascension of Christ by the Preaching of the Gospel, and other wayes he hath gathered out of all Nations his Church, and wonderfully separated it from the rest of the world. It is true also, that the Israelites quickly departed from Gods pure institutions mingling therewith the inventions of men, and customs of the Nations. But those inventions of men and customs of the Nations, which the Texts alledged mention, were such as were expressely forbidden, drew them to serve other [Page] other Gods and to forsake the Lord, not such as are usually by seperatives called inventions of men, to wit humane ceremonies, confessed out of the case of worship in themselves to be things indifferent, such as out of pretended prudence at least, or publique authority are imposed for discipline, order, or decency without giving any Divine worship to a Creature. Let all the Texts alledged be viewed, and there is none of them, that mentions the mingling such inventions of men, no not those, which our Saviour reprehends in the Pharisees, Mark 7.3, 4, 8. (which are farr worse) as the departing from Gods pure institutions, nor doth God contest with the people of the Jewes, in those places alledged for other inventions of men and customes of the Nations, than such as were Idolatrous, and therefore the threatnings and punishments in those places are grossely abused, when they are applied to the imposing or use of such ceremonies or discipline as are (whether rightly or wrongly) retained in the Church of England.

Sect. 10. Such testimony as the Prophets gave against the Jewish defection, is not now to be given against the Conformists.

Fifthly, saith he, that notwithstanding their dreadful Apostacy from God, they were usually confident, that they were the only People, had not forsaken the Lord, nor done any evil, and could not bear the Prophecies, and rebukes of the Prophets and Servants of the Lord, against their abominations: whom they persecuted and put to death (as at last they did the Prince of Life and Glory) for no other cause but for telling them the truth, and bearing testimony against their Innovations, and Apostacy from God (the usual practice of persons degenerated from the way and Spirit of the Lord) Mal. 1.6. Jer. 7.4. Luke 3.8. John 8.39. Mat. 5.12. Act. 7.52.

Answer, All this is granted, and if this Author can prove any such innovations and Apostacy from God (as the Prophets, Christ and his Apostles, and other Servants of God, rebuked in the Jewes) in the People or Teachers, who adhere to the doctrin, worship, or discipline of the Church of England, this Author with others of his minde, do well to bear their testimony against them as the Prophets did, and they that persecuted them for so doing, may expect the like judgments of God to fall on them, as fell on the Jewes. But if it be otherwise, and the things inveighed against, be not such as they make them, and their bearing testimony [Page] be such as tends to infringe the publique peace, but not to rectify any thing, they are guilty of calumny, and their practice not to be judged to proceed from holy zeale, but evil passion.

Sect. 11. The conformist not chargeable, as the false Prophets of the Jewes.

Sixthly, saith he, that they had all along their corruption in worship, and degeneracy from the worship of God, false Prophets (who ran before they were sent, prophesying smooth things to them in the name of the Lord, seeing Lying vanities for them, according to the desires of the hearts of them, and their Rulers, who were therefore in great esteem amongst them. Isa. 9.15. and 28.7. Jer. 6.13. and 23.11, 28. and 28.10. Hos. 9 8, Jer. 2.8, 26. and 5.31. and 14.14. and 23.13, 21. Ezek. 13.2. and 22.25, 28. Mic. 3.5, 6, 7. Zeph. 3.4. 2 Pet. 2.1.

Answer, All this is granted, and if any of the Preachers in England prophesie lies in Gods name, or bring in damnable heresies, denying the Lord that bought them, or are such as those, whom the Texts alledged describe, let them be branded as false Prophets. But if they teach the fundamentals of Christian Religion truly, and in respect of the substance of worship, use no other than God hath appointed, though they may in some points remote from the foundation erre, and use some things in and about the worship of God, which should not be, yet do not overthrow the worship of God in substantials, then are they false accusers, who accuse them as if they were such, as those Texts of Scripture alledged do describe.

S [...]ct. 12. Invectives against teachers and worship now, may be from another spirit than that of the Prophets.

Seventhly, saith he, that in the height of their Apostacy, God left not himself without a witness, having one or other, extraordinarily raised up and spirited by him, to testify for his name and glory, against all their abominations, and self-invented worship, reserving also a remnant unto himself, that were not carried away with the Spirit of whoredoms and delusions, 1 Kings 19.14, 18. 2 Kings 17.13. Romans 11.3, 4. Jer. 18.11. and 25.5. and 35.15.

Answer, That self invented worship was bowing the Knee to [Page] Baal, 1 Kings 19.18. Rom. 11.3, 4. serving Idols, 2 Kings 17.12. burning Incense to vanity, Jer. 18.15. going after other Gods to serve them and worship them, Jer. 25.6. and 35.15. If there be found any such self-invented worship in the Church of England, it will do well to testifie against it. But if there be not such abominations and self-invented worship, these texts will not justify Persons, who have no other than ordinary calling, to testify against them, much less to censure them as whoredoms and delusions, and they that practice them as carried away with the spirit of whoredoms and delusions. And though persons may imagine they imitate Elijah, are extraordinarily raised up, and spirited by God, and that they testify for Gods name and Glory, when they call the Common-prayer Book an Idol, the Ministers that conform Baals Priests, the Communion the Mass, with such like Billingsgate Rhetorick, yet it is not unlikely, but that it may be truly verified of such, which our Lord Christ said to James and John, when they would have fire commanded to come down from Heaven and consume the Samaritans, even as Elias did, ye know not what manner of Spirit ye are of: and that it may be bitter and not holy zeal which moves them, and their language judged by God not just reproof, but unjust reviling.

Sect. 13. The forsaking of false Prophets and worship among the Jewes, is no justification of separation, from the present teachers and worship.

Eighthly, saith he, that it was the sin of that People to hearken unto the teachings of such as were not sent by the Lord (though they pretended never so much to be sent by him) and the unquestionable duty of the Lords preserving Remnant, to separate from them, as also from all the false devised worship of that day, though commended by their Kings and Rulers, 2 Kings 17.21, 22. Hos. 5.11. The former is evident, such Prophets were to be cut off from the middest of them, Deut. 18.20. and they are expressely forbidden to hear them, Deut. 13.3. Jer. 27.6, 16. so is the latter, their devised worship being a breach upon the soveraign Authority of God, must needs be a grievous sin, as the names of Adultery, Whoredom, Idolatry, Fornication, by which the Spirit of the Lord doth frequently set it forth, abundantly demonstrates; Psal. 73.27. Isai. 57.3.8. Jer. 9.2. EZek. 23.45. Hos. 3.7. and 7.3. Lev. 20.5. Jer. 13.27. Ezek. 16, 17.20.30. Hos. 1.2. Rev. 14.8. and 18.9.19, 20. which without controversie, the people of God were [Page]to separate from, and have no communion with any in, upon what pretence soever: which is solemnly charged upon them as their duty in the Scripture, Hos. 4.15. Amos 5.5. Prov. 4.14. and 5.8. Cant. 4.8.

Answer. None are said in those Texts or any other I meet with, not to be sent by the Lord, who delivered the truth of God, but they only in those places are denied to be sent by God, who delivered falsehoods, and such falsehoods as were inciting to Idolatry, or contradictions to the messages of the true Prophets, and such were not to be heard, though they should be comm [...]nded by Kings and Rulers, who ought to cut them off, when they spake in Gods name a word, which he had not commanded them to speak, or did speak in the name of other Gods, Deut. 18.20. And if they sought to turn them from the Lord to serve other Gods, they were not only not to hearken to them, but also, if they were never so near to them, they should not spare them, but kill them, Deut. 13.9. which I presume he will not say of the present ministers of England, and therefore me thinks he should have left out these allegations, if he had well bethought himself how unfit they were to his present designe. That devised worship, which is termed Adultery, Whoredom, Idolatry, Fornication, is Levit. 20.5. Committing whoredom with Molech, Psal. 73.27. being farre from God, going a whoring from him, Isaia 57.5. inflaming themselves with Idols under every green Tree, slaying the Children in the Valleys under the Clefts of the Rocks, Jerem. 9.2. treachery, Jer. 13.27. abominations on the hill in the fields, Ezek. 16.17. making to her self images of men to commit Whoredom with them, v. 20. Sacrificing their Sons and Daughters to them to be devoured, Ezek. 23.37. Committing Adultery with Idols, Hos. 1.2. departing from the Lord, Revel. 14.8. and 18.9. such fornication as Babylon made all Nations, even Kings of the earth to commit, and from such it is without controversie the people of God were to separate, and have no communion with any in, upon any pretence whatsoever, nor in any other sin by joyning in the practice, and if the present worship of the Ministers of England, be any such fornication, or the hearing or joyning with them, must be a partaking with them in any sin, so farre at least, they are to be separated from. But neither the Texts alledged, nor any other do require separation from the worship of God, or the Ministers that are in some things corrupt, even in their ministration; when Hophai and Phinehas, did corrupt the worship of God, yet Samuel did lawfully minister before the Lord, and Hannah did well in presenting [Page] him thereto, and her self at the solemn Feasts, and even-while there was burning incense, and sacrificing in the High places, those of Judah were not to separate from the service at Jerusalem, which was to God, and though the High Priests were unduly set up, and sundry corruptions, and superstitions in the Pharisees, and the services of the Jews in our Lord Christs time on Earth; yet did our Lord Christ joyn in the publick service of the Temple, and perswaded the cleansed Leper to offer to them the gift that Moses commanded. Wherefore I inferr, that though there should be some degree of Corruption in Worship, and that this should be a breach upon the soveraign Authority of God, as every sin is, and a grievous sin it is; yet this might not be a sufficient cause of separation from the Worship, Church, or Ministers, of it, and that the allegation of the Texts produced, will not be sufficient for the design of this Author, in urging separation from the Ministers and Church of England. But let us further attend his motions. He adds:

Sect. 14. The arguing by analogy in positive rites not rational.

What may rationally be inferred from these positions, so evidently comprized in the Scripture, and by way of Analogy at least may be argued from them, is evident to any ordinary understanding; for our parts being resolved (as was said) to trie out the matter in controversie, from such rules and soveraign Institutions, as our dear Lord hath left his New Testament Churches to walk by, we shall not stand to make that improvement of them as otherwise we might: A few Queries upon the whole that hath been offered, shall put a close to this Preface.

Answ. Whether the positions before set down, be evidently comprised in the Scripture, may be perceived by the examination of them; what may be rationally inferred from them for his purpose of condemning the hearing the present Ministers of England, is not evident to my understanding, which I do not conceive to be any other than ordinary. As for arguing by way of Analogy from the institutions of the Old Testament to those of the New Testament from supposed parity of reason, how little rationality, or force there is therein, I presume he may perceive, if he read the second part of the Review of my Dispute about Paedobaptism, Sect. 2.3. wherein how infirm the way of arguing from such Analogy is, is so far evinced, that I judge, that if the improvement he thinks he might make of his positions for his purpose, be by that [Page] way of proof, it will be found insufficient by an ordinary understanding, whether he hath kept to his resolution of tiying the matter in controversie, by the rules and institutions of the New Testament, will appear by the examining of the ensuing Discourse. I judge that to be the way whereby to settle mens Consciences about mere positive Duties, or Sins under the Gospel, and therefore am resolved to pursue his dispute pede pes, yet clearing the way by considering his Queries in a velitary Skirmish before I set upon his Triarii or main Battle.

Sect. 15. The first Querie about a National Instituted Church answered.

His first Querie is, Whether since the Apotomy or Unchurching the Nation of the Jews, the Lord hath ever since so espoused a Nation or People to himself, as that upon the account thereof, the whole Body of that People or Nation may be accounted his Church? Whether there be any National Church under the Oeconomie of the Gospel? If so, Let it be shewed when, and where it was instituted by the Lord: What is produced by some to this purpose, is (but upon a slight view thereof) of no moment, it is Isa. 49.21. Kings shall be your Nursing Fathers, &c. which Prophesie waits the time of its accomplishment: hitherto, both before and since the rise of Antichrist (being made drunk by the Whores intoxicating Cup) they have been, for the most part, cruel Butchers of the Saints: and were we under its accomplishment, a National Church would be far enough from being its result. Of a Nations being born at once, we shall not sure hear pleaded in this matter, it being a Prophesie expresly relating to the Jews, and their miraculous conversion: if there be no such thing as a National Church of the Institution of Christ, as most certain it is there is not (the assertion whereof is wholly destructive of Gospel Administrations) then,

Answ. As King James in his Remonstrance against Cardinal Perons Oration, saith, that the appellation and name of the Church serveth in this corrupt Age, as a Cloak to cover a thousand new inventions; meaning this of the Popish party: so may we say also of others, that by reason of the ambiguous use of the appellation and name of the Church, and the dictates of men about it, the minds of many are perplexed and perverted. Wherefore in answering this first Querie (which the Separatists do so much harp upon) it is necessary that there be a distinct understanding of the notion of the Church, and its Institution. The Greek word [...], which by use is now almost appropriated to the Christian Church, [Page] hath been variously used, both in the Greek Versions of the Old Testament, in the Apocryphal Writings, and in the New Testament. It seems to me of little concernment in the present question to collect them all, the Queries to be answered be [...]ng of the New Testament use. Now in the New Testament, excepting what I find Act. 19.32, 39, 40. where it is applied to Assemblies of Unbelievers, whether tumultuary or orderly, and Act. 7.38. where it is applied to the Congregation of Israel in the Wilderness, in all places in the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles of the Apostles, and Revelation of St. John, it is meant (so far as I discern) of the Christians, or People of God, or their Meeting or Assembly▪ As it notes the Christian Believers, or People of God, so it is taken sometimes for the Universal Church, whether invisible or visible, as 1 Cor. 12.28. Heb. 12.23. Ephes. 1.22. sometimes for the visible Church indefinitely, but not universally, as 1 Cor. 15.9. sometimes for the Church Topical, and then it is taken for the Church of a City, or Town, or House; and so we read of the Church at Jerusalem, Act 8.1. of Corinth, Ephesus, &c. in Philemons house, Philem. 2. or of a Country or Nation, and then it is put in the Plural number, as the Churches of Asia, Galatia, Judaea. In the Evangelists History of the doings, sufferings, and sayings of our Lord Christ, I find the Word [Church] used but in two places, Mat. 16.18. and 18.17. Of the extent and meaning of both which Texts there is so much controversie, not only between the Protestants and Papists, but also among the Protestants themselves of different persuasions about Church Government, that it would require a Treatise by it self to make a thorough discussion of those two Texts in order to the clearing of the Controversies that are started about them. That Mat. 16.18. is undoubtedly meant of the Christian Church, but whether Oecumenical, visible or invisible, or indefinite, or topical, is doubted. It is without any proof appropriated to the Church of Rome, or any particular Church as ordered under this or that peculiar form of Government; but is to be taken for the number of Believers in Christ, whether of Jews or Gentiles, more or fewer, abstractively from any political considerations, and such external adjuncts and denominations, as whereby usually Churches are in common speeches diversified. In the other place, Mat. 18.17. in as much as it is not said [tell my Church] but [tell the Church] and the term [thy brother] may as well be meant of a Brother, as by birth, or proselytism adjoyned to the Jews, as St. Paul calls the Jews by birth his brethren, kinsmen according to the flesh, Rom. 9.3. (in which sense it may seem [Page] to be taken in that place, Mat. 5.23, 24. which is a precept like to this, for the reconciling of particular differences, and righting of wrongs, and the expression [let him be to thee as a Heathen] seems to intimate) as of a Brother in Christian profession; it may not without reason be doubted whether by [the Church] there, be meant the Christian Church, or an Assembly of the Jews in their Synedrium, whether greater or lesser, and if it be extended as a direction to Christian Brethren; whether it be meant of their Assembly under an Ecclesiastical Consideration or Political, that is the Christian Magistrate. Institution of a Church by Preception or Command I find not: neither Christ nor his Apostles (that I know) have given us any rule or law of bounding, modelling, or numbring Churches. There is a precept Heb. 10.25. that Christians should not forsake the assembling of themselves together, as the manner of some was. But none about the defining how many should go to a Church, or be accounted to belong to one Church; no determination by any precept concerning Members belonging to a Church, whether they should be fixed to one Meeting, or ambulatory, and moveable; sometimes belonging to one Assembly, sometimes to another of the same profession. Nor do we find any Institution of Churches, whether they ought to be Domestick, Congregational, Parochial, Classi [...]al, Diocesan, Provincial, Patriarchical, or Oecumenical. The ordering of such distinctions Christ and his Apostles (so far as I deprehend) have left to Divine Providence, and Humane Prudence, allowing more or fewer to a Church, as the imes will permit, the increase or diminution of Believers should be, as Pastors may be had, and their Partitions and Meetings be convenient for their edification and government. It is true, the Romanists would infer from Christs promise to Peter, Mat. 16.18. Upon this Rock will I build my Church, that St. Peter, and after h [...]m the Bishop of Rome was made universal Bishop. But that by [Christs Church] is meant the universal Church, and by [Christs building] it is meant constituting an universal Bishop, is an assertion without proof. In some of the Ancients the Bishops of Rome have been stiled Oecumenical; but so also have other Patriarchs. We believe one Catholick and Apostolick Church; but so denominated from their common confession or the same Faith; not from union to, and subjection under one visible Church head. Mr. Paul Bayne (as I remember) long since disputed against Diocesan Churches for Parochial: and in the Assembly at Westminster the dissenters against this proposition, that many particular Congregations may be under one Presbyterial government, [Page] from such distinction of Churches as the New Testament yields. But the Arguments seem not to me to be cogent, they declaring only what was done de facto, not what was necessary to be done de jure. That Text Mat. 18.17. is much urged by sundry sorts of Pleaders, for their several wayes of Church-government. But it is uncertain whether by [Brother] and [Church] be meant Christian Believers, and the Christian Church; and if Christian Believers and Church be meant, whether the Church be meant of the Christian Civil Judicatory, or Ecclesiastical Consistory, or Congregational Assembly of Believers of all ranks: or some select Arbitrators, that of which the Church is to have cognizance, being there no other than the sin of one Brother against another, which v. 21, 22. Luk. 17▪ 3, 4. shew to be meant only of private trespasses or injuries done by one to another, who might remit or forgive them; nor is any other act ascribed to the Church, than an admonition to the injurious Brother, to do right to him whom he hath wronged; whereupon it is then allowed, or appointed upon non-satisfaction to him, or disobedience to the Church, without any other juridical sentence mentioned, that he that is thus disobedient should be to him that complained, as a Heathen or Publican, with whom the Jews would not have familiarity. Nothing is said of being such to the Church, or by vertue of its sentence juridical, or being excluded à sacris, which we are sure the Publicans were not, Luk. 18.10. These things seem to me to evince, that neither is here that instituted Church, which the Assertors of Congregational Churches and Church-government urge, as the only Churches and Church-government of the New Testament, and inculcate as the pattern in the Mount, and any other way to be as the setting of mans posts by Gods posts, and separate from a National Church as a humane Invention. Nor is here that Church-government instituted (which they make the only Government appointed by Christ) that the Congregation, or the major part are to cast out, exclude from Communion in Holy things in every Church, though but of seven or eight, every member that sins and will not obey the monition of the rest of the Congregation. These things being premised, I answer to the Questions in the first Querie fore-mentioned.

1. That it is granted, That since the Unchurching of the Nation of the Jews, the Lord hath not yet (that we know of) so espoused a Nation, or People to himself, as that upon the account thereof, the whole Body of that People or Nation may be accounted his. We say that Christ hath redeemed us to God by his bloud, out of every Kindred,[Page]and Tongue, and People, and Nation, and hath made us unto our God, Kings, and Priests, Revel. 5.9, 10. We own no Church visible now, but of Believers, by their own personal profession. We approve the 19. Article of the Church of England, that the visible Church of Christ, is a Congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly administred according to Christs Ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. The addition in the Confession of Faith of the Assembly, Ch. 25. Art. 2. that the visible Church universal under the Gospel, consists of all those throughout the World that profess the true Religion, and of their Children, is not found in the Writings of the New Testament, and those Texts that are alledged for it, Ezek. 16.20, 21. Rom. 11.16. Gen. 3.15. Gen. 17.7. if they were pertinent, would as well prove a whole Nation to be Gods visible Church, yea, all mankind descended from Eve, as the visible Church to consist of the children of them that profess the true Religion. And the same may be said of them that assert an Ordinance of Infants visible Church-membership unrepealed, that alledge Mat. 28.19. as proving Christs appointing Nations as such to be baptized, that alledge the Jewish Proselytism as a pattern to us. How far this Quaerist agrees with these, may be discerned by other passages. If he concur with those of the Congregational way about Church-members, and their proof from the Covenant to Abraham, Gen. 17.7. as made to his natural seed, and so to all Believers natural seed, I see not how he can avoid the asserting of a National Church like the Jewish; which I grant is not agreeable to the Gospel, according to which, the visible Church of Christ is a Congregation of faithful men, as the definition of the Church of England, Art. 19. expresseth it, and hath been fully proved by me in the third part of my Review, Sect. 52. &c.

2. In answer to the Question, Whether there be any National Church under the Oeconomy of the Gospel? I say, that though there be no National Church, so as that the whole Nation, and every member of the Nation be to be accounted of the visible Church of Christ, by vertue of their Generation, or Proselytism, and such Covenant as was made to Abraham concerning his natural seed, or to Israel at Mount Sinai, or elsewhere; yet the whole number of Believers of a Nation, may by reason of their common profession, be called a National Church, as well as the whole Body of men throughout the World, professing the faith of the Gospel, and obedience to God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errours everting the foundation, or unholiness of Conversation,[Page]are and may be called the visible Catholick Church of Christ, as the Congregational men speak in their Declarat. ch. 20. Wherefore it is no more against the Gospel to term the Believers of England or Scotland, the Church of England or Scotland, than it is to term the Believers throughout the World, the Catholick Church; nor is it more unfit for us to term our selves Members of the Church of England in this respect, than to term our selves Members of the Catholick Church; nor is there need to shew any institution of the Lord more for the one than for the other. Nor is there need to alledge Isa. 49.20. or Isa. 66.8. for such an Institution. Nevertheless, that the Prophesie, Isa 49.23. Kings shall be your Nu [...]sing Fathers, &c. waits the time of its accomplishment, is said with more Confidence than Evidence. Many learned Interpreters think otherwise, among whom Mr. Gataker (in my judgment inferiour to none in his Exposition of Holy Scripture) hath these words Annot. on Isa. 49.23. And Kings shall be thy Nursing Fathers, and Queens thy Nursing Mothers] fulfilled in those Persian Potentates, Cyrus, Artaxerxes, Darius, Aha [...]uerus,; with the Queens also of some of them, that patronised and protected Gods people, and promoted Gods work with them, Ezra 1.1, 4. and 63.12. and 7.12, 26. Neh. 2.6, 8. Esth. 8.3, 8. and much more in other Emperours and Kings, together with their Queens; as Constantine, Theodosius, and the like, who both embraced the Christian faith themselves, and maintained the profession of it. Of some whereof, see Rev. 17.12, 16, 17. And Mr. Mede on Rev. 16.17. hath these words; For truly out of the same ten horns, or Kings, they shall be, who at length shall hate the Whore whom they have so long born, (which partly we perceive to be fulfilled) shall make her desolate, and naked, shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire. Nor is it to be denied without ingratitude to God and Men, that Kings and Queens since the rise of Antichrist (though many of them made drunk by the Whores intoxicating cup, have been cruel Butcherers of the Saints) both before the Reformation, and since, even in our dayes have been nursing Fathers, and nursing Mothers to the Church of Christ, and that a National Church, in the sense fore-mentioned, hath been the result of its accomplishment; and we hope in more ample manner, will be the result of its fuller accomplishment. As for the Text, Isa. 66.8. that it is a prophesie expresly relating to the Jews, and their miraculous conversion, is not certain. Mr. Gataker in his Annot. on Isa. 66.8. hath these words, The most Interpreters, both Jew and Christian, understand these words, of the strange, sudden, and unexpected delivery of the remainders of Gods people out of the Babylonian bondage[Page]by Cyrus. Howbeit, divers Interpreters understand them of the restitution and restauration of the Church under the Ministry of the Gospel, when so many thousands were so soon, and so suddenly converted, without any great labour, or pains-taking about them, of those by whom they were converted, Act. 2.41. & 4.4. and both these Expositions conceived, as subordinate the one to the other, may very well be admitted. And therefore if the Author hear it not pleaded in this matter, yet he may find another Exposition than that which he imagines, that it expresly relates to a future miraculous Conversion of the Jews. However if it did, sith it is said Rom. 11.25, 26. When the fullness of the Gentiles is come in, all Israel shall be saved; he might find something for a National Church in that Prophesie, Isa. 66.8. As for those words in his Parenthesis, [that the assertion of a National Church of the institution of Christ, is wholly destructive of Gospel administrations,] they are said with no more truth than proof, though we should say, a National Church, in respect of its Government, or Officers, is of the Institution of Christ. For suppose it were asserted, that Christ had instituted Patriarchs or Arch-bishops, and Bishops, and the Government of the Church of England or Scotland under them, yet this might be without total destruction of Gospel Administrations. The preaching of the Gospel, administration of Baptism and the Lords Supper with other administrations of Christian Worship and Discipline, have been, and may be continued even where Archbishops and Bishops have been over a National Church as instituted by Christ. But let us attend his motions: thus he goes on. If there be no such thing as a National Church of the institution of Christ, as most certain it is there is not; then 2. Whether National Ministers are the Ministers of Christ, or whether there can be a true Ministry in a false Church, as a National Church must be, if not of Divine Institution, upon what pretence soever it be so denominated?

Sect. 16. National Ministers may be Ministers of Christ, and National Churches true Churches.

To this Querie I answer, 1 That if by [National Ministers] be meant Ministers for the Nation, or such as have inspection over the Nation, whether for the maintenance or propagating of true Doctrine, or Worship, or holiness of life, they may be Ministers of Christ, though no such thing as a National Church were of the institution of Christ. As for instance, I conceive Dr. James Usher (when he was alive) was a Minister of Christ, when he was [Page] Primate of Ireland. The assertion I prove thus, If the Apostles were Ministers of Christ, and National Ministers, though a National Church were not instituted of Christ, than National Ministers may be Ministers of Christ, though a National Church be not instituted of Christ: But the Apostles were such, as for instance, Peter had the Apostleship of the Circumcision, Paul of the Gentiles, Gal. 2.7, 8. Rom. 11.13. 1 Tim. 2.7. Therefore National Ministers may be Ministers of Christ. 2. Titus was a National Minister of the Cretians, For this cause, saith St. Paul, Tit. 1.5. left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain Elders in every City, as I had appointed thee, and yet a Minister of Christ, St. Pauls partner and fellow-helper concerning the Corinthians, 2 Cor. 8.23. Ergo: 3. They that may be Ministers of Christ, though they be Ministers for the Body of Christ, and all the Members thereof, may be Ministers of Christ, though National; because the denial of a National Ministry is upon this supposition; that a Minister of Christ is only for one particular Congregation, but the Pastors and Teachers, as well as Apostles, Evangelists, Prophets, are given for the edifying of the Body of Christ, till we all come in the unity of the faith, unto a perfect man, Eph. 4.11, 12, 13. Therefore, for all, or any; and consequently, for a Nation, and not only for a particular Congregation. 4. If any of the Saints, as well as one particular Congregation, have an interest in all the Ministers of Christ, so as that they are truly theirs, then Ministers of Christ may be National; yea, ought to be; yea, and Oecumenical, if they could be serviceable to them in the things of Christ. But 1 Cor. 3.22, 23. Paul and Cephas, and Apollos, were all the Corinthians, and all others who were Christs; therefore the same may be Ministers of Christ, and National Ministers. I know not whether this might be an argument ad hominem, but this I take to be justifiable, that a man may be a Commissioner for approbation of publick Preachers throughout a Nation, and so a National Minister, or an Itinerant Preacher to the Nation, and yet be a Minister of Christ.

2. A National Church, denominated so, either from the agreement of all the Believers in that Nation, in the same profession, or from their subjection to some Common Rulers Ecclesiastical or Civil, or Convening by Deputies in some National Synod, though not of Divine Institution, may be a true, and not a false Church: which I prove thus. They may be a true Church, who have all things essential to a Church, and nothing destructive of its being [Page] such. But Believers of a Nation, or a National Church, so denominated any of those wayes, may have all things essential to a Church, and nothing destructive of its being such; Ergo. The Major is taken from the proper notion of the term [True Church] or its definition. For the definition of a Church of Christ, or a true Church, is and can be no other than a Company or Number of persons believing in Christ, or professing the Faith of the Gospel, and obedience to God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errours concerning the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, even according to the expression of the Congregational men in their Declaration, Octob. 12.1658. ch. 26. The Minor is also manifest by Reason and Experience. A National Church, so denominated, may have the Truth of Doctrine of Faith, the Truth of Worship, the Truth of Holy conversation; besides which, there is nothing essential to a true Church. For the defect of outward order, were the order pretended indeed of Christs Institution, yet could not nullifie the Church, or destroy the Truth of it, but only the regularity. The Corinthians were a true Church 1 Cor. 1.2. even then when there were disorders in their Meeting, 1 Cor. 14.26. in their Discipline, 1 Cor. 5.1, 2. in their Communion, 1 Cor. 11.21. in their Faith, 1 Cor. 15.12. in their Conversation, 2 Cor. 1.1. and 12.2 [...]. As for the outward form of their Combination by a Church Covenant, or their number, or their habitation, or their descent; these and such like things, though for convenience they be requisite, yet not essential to the Church or its Truth. Yea, the having of Baptism, Organizing by Officers, though more necessary and of Divine Institution, yet are not essential to a Church or its Truth; but that the Church without them, may be a true Church, though not so regular and well ordered as it should be. Nor doth the having of National Rulers Ecclesiastical, either single persons, or in a Synod or Convocation, make a false Church. Those of the Congregational way have had Synods, and submitted to Courts even in Ecclesiastical things of larger extent than a Congregation of one Town, and Churches of a greater number, and at greater distance of habitation than could meet in one place every Lords Day for all Ordinances, and deny not a Catholick visible Church, and therefore should not by reason of the number, distance, want of Officers of Divine Institution, or because modelled by humane prudence, call a National Church, a false Church. The proofs used by those that held, that many particular Congregations may be under one Presbyterial Government, Printed in the Year 1645. from the [Page] number of the Church at Jerusalem; yet one Church, Acts 8.1. under one Government, besides what is found in the Scripture about the Churches of Corinth, Ephesus, are sufficient to evince, that many Congregations may be one Church; and that the unity and truth of Churches, is to be taken from agreement and verity of Faith: and that a National Church, so denominated, in respect of the agreement in profession, or subjection to Government, or convention by Deputies or Messengers in one Synod, may be one National Church, and a true Church of Christ.

But it is objected, That the first Church is of Christs Institution; and that was of so many as might meet in one Congregation, even the Church at Jerusalem, that was numerous before the dispersion, yet might meet together in one Assembly; as appears, Acts 6.2. When the twelve called the multitude of the Disciples unto them about the election of Deacons.

To this it is answered, 1. That in St. Luke there are many places where the multitude with an universal sign] is not to be taken for every one, not one exempted, as Luke 8.37. Acts 25.24. when it is said that all the multitude of the Disciples began to rejoyce, Luke 19.37. it is to be limited to those that were present. And so in this place, and Act. 16.12, 30. and 21.22. As in many the like expressions, all sorts of Authors are to be interpreted, to understand by the multitude, and all, or the whole multitude, City, Company, of such a number as might be reputed as the whole. Now it is not likely that there was one place fit for that business, which could receive the whole number of the Disciples then at Jerusalem, so as to place them orderly for the hearing and debate of that business, for which they met, and, the multitudes being of Women as well as Men, Act. 5.14. it is not likely every Woman was called to that Meeting.

2. But were it granted that they then met for that business, yet there is no likelyhood they met for all Ordinances. For though it be said, Act. 5.12. that they were all with one accord in Solomons porch, and they continued daily with one accord in the Temple; yet they did break bread from house to house, Acts 2.46.

3. This Church of Jerusalem, though the first Church, cannot be said to be the pattern of all Churches, sith it was not with any distribution of Believers under particular Pastors, nor at that time had any fixed Officers, but was to be surcularis Ecclesia, that Church from whence were to be taken such as might plant other Churches, for which end they were after dispersed, Acts 8.1.4.

[Page]4. This disposition of that Church, we find not to have been by any institution of precept, which should make a certain rule to us about the fashioning and setling of Churches: But these things came to pass according to Divine Promises and Providence, which being so various, as that no certain rule can be accommodated to all times, places, and estates of the Church of God, we may judge, that Christ hath left the shaping of Churches much to Humane Prudence, the ends of Christian Assemblies and Societies being observed.

Sect. 17. Mr. Parker's arguments, that the form of Churches is of Divine Institution, are answered.

But this seems to some to be absurd, and thus I find it argued by Mr. Robert Parker, De Polit. Eccl. l. 3. c. 17. Is not the first Church the Body of Christ, 1 Cor. 12.27. And he that shewed himself an accurate worker in the determining the dimension and measure of mans body, Gen. 2. so as that nothing might be added or taken from it by any: may it be thought that he hath not shewed himself also an accurate worker in circumscribing the dimension of his own Body?

Answ. It is true: The Church of Christ, is the Body of Christ. But this is rather true of the Universal Church, and mystical Body of Christ, as may be gathered from 1. Cor. 12.12, 13. in that by one spirit Christians are all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, Bond or Free; and from Ephes. 1.22, 23. where the Church, which is the Body of Christ the Head, is the fulness of Him that filleth all in all; Eph. 4.4. there is one Body, and one Spirit; then of the first Church, that is the first visible Church, which he makes a particular Congregation, such as that at Jerusalem was. And it is true of this Church, he is so accurate a Former, as that he fashions the Dimensions of it. He is the Head, from whom the whole Body, fitly joyned together, and compacted by every joynt of supply, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the Body unto the edifying of it self in love, Eph. 4.15. Yet this is not without the use of men, for the perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the Ministry, for the edifying of the Body of Christ; till we all come in the unity of Faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ, v. 12.13. So that it cannot be said, that no more is left to man about circumscribing the Dimensions of this Body; much less, that nothing more is left to Humane [Page] prudence about circumscribing the dimensions of the visible Church, universal, national, or parochial, than was to the making of mans body in the first creation, Gen. 2. This therefore is but a Rhetorical flourish from a similitude, in which though there be an agreement thus farr, that Christ is the alone framer of his Church, in respect of its inward form by the operation of his spirit; yet it is not so in respect of the outward forme, but that much of it is left to the ordering of men, as Divine providence shall guide them, and circumstances require.

The rest of his arguing is of like sort. Again, Each first Church of God is the house and building of God, 1 Cor. 3.9. Heb. 3.3.4. 1 Tim. 3.15. And what prudent housholder will permit the figure or quantity of his house, to the arbitrement, and will of others?

Answer, It is true, the Church of God, not only the universal, or particular Church, but also each believer is the house of God, not a material, but, as St. Peter speaks, 1 Pet. 2.5. a spiritual house, and it is true, that it is God that builds this house, and that Christ is the only foundation, and yet others are subordinate builders and foundations, whereof some are Master builders, and wiser than other after workmen, 1 Cor. 3.10. and foundations too in respect of their doctrine, Ephes. 2.20. And to these builders or foundations, though the faith and doctrine, upon, and by which they are to be built, is not left to mens will and choice, yet many things pertaining to the outward figure and quantity, that is the distributing of Churches into Oecumenical, National, Classical, Parochial; and the ordering of meetings for their edifications with many things pertaining to good order and decent behaviour, are left under general rules to be observed, to the prudence of governours of Gods house.

But we have more of the like stuffe. What? The corporal temple had its dreadth, and its measure described most accurately by God, shall not the spiritual have its? Wherefore then was that reed given to John? Wherefore a command to measure the Temple Rev. 11.1:

Answer, Each believer is the Temple of God, 2 Cor. 6.16. 1 Cor. 3.16. and 6.19. and this is as true of each Houshold Church, as of each Congregational Church, and it is true, that God hath by his providence described the Spiritual Temple as well as the Corporal, but he hath not given to us any such description of the [Page] outward fashion, and order the breadth and measure, that is the number, situation, disposition of the parts of the Spiritual Temple, as he did to Moses, David, Soloman, Ezra, or others of the Material Temple. A reed was indeed given to John, and a command to measure the Temple of God, Revel. 11.1. but not that John should set down the figure or quantity of each particular visible Church, or the number of persons, that are to belong to one visible Church, their nearness or remoteness of their dwelling one to another, the choice of meeting places, and of Ministers to them fixed or unfixed: these and such like things were never done by St. John, nor do Mr. Brightmans words cited by Mr. Parker import he did, but St. Johns measuring of the Temple was his understanding the extent of it, that is, how large or how narrow the Church should be in after times, in what estate of peace or persecution, what accidents should happen to it, as Mr. Mede, Mr. Brightman and others do conceive, in order to the fulfilling of that Prophesying, which by eating the little Book, Rev. 10.10, 11, he was assigned to. As for Mr. Brightmans words, (though they be not an oracle yet) they may be granted without any detriment to the thing I assert. For though it be true, as he saith, that the true Christian Church is shadowed by the type of the Old Temple, of which the several parts were of old most accurately described and measured by the command of God: to wit that men might know that this house was made by God, that it is not of humane structure: and therefore that men should not take upon themselves any whit to change things at their pleasure, as if the Heavenly wisdome had not sufficiently provided concerning the most commodious manner of each thing; yet it might be true, which I assert, that God hath not determined the distribution and order of particular Churches so, but that he hath left many things therein to humane prudence. But Mr. Parker addes some thing more. What was the visible Church of the Jewes, when that Nation was called to the faith? Rev. 21.15. moreover he who spake with me, saith John, had a golden Reed, that he might measure the City and the Gates of it, and the Wall of it, &c. He that will neglect no part of the Jewish Church, but designe most diligently the quantity, longitude, latitude, hatr he cast off all care of our Church, so as that he hath negligently left it's dimension to humane pleasure? Further, let it be marked in this last example of Divine care and wisdome, that the Church is compared to a City: And is any City so negligently administred by men, that no regard is had of limits and bounds?

[Page]Answer, That the holy City, the New Jerusalem, descending from God out of Heaven, as a Bride prepared and adorned for her Husband, is the visible Church of the Jewes, when that Nation was, or shall be called to the Faith, or that the measuring the City and the Gates of it, and the wall of it was to design the quantity of particular Churches, or the frame and order of a particular Congregation as the first visible Church, is scarce probable. To me such kinde of arguments as are framed from Jewish Church State, from their rites, and ceremonial worship to inferre duties, priviledges, and orders about the Christian visible Church-state, government and rites are of no force, as savouring more of fancy than of judgment, if Christ or his Apostles have not made those arguments before us. Yet, if any such argument were of weight, sith the Apostle, Rom. 11.25, 26. would not have us ignorant of this mistery, that blindness in part is hapned to Israel, untill the fulness of the Gentiles be come in, and so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, there shall come out of Sion the deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob, I might better argue for a national Church of Gods institution from the visible Church-state of the Jewes at their future calling, than for a Congregational Church. But I count neither firme, nevertheless, if God do design more diligently the quantity longitude, and latitude of the Jewish Church at their calling hereafter, and leave the dimension of our Church to humane choice, this may be done out of more special Love to them, who are in a peculiar manner beloved by reason of the Fathers, Rom. 11.28. and not out of negligence, nor so as to have cast off all care of our Church. And though the Church be compared to a City, the Heavenly Jerusalem, Heb. 12.22. yet it may agree well with Gods wisdome, and care to leave many things to the prudence of the present governours, concerning the distincton of Churches, and order of meetings; as it may suite well with the wisdome and care of a good Prince, who in his charter of incorporating a City, sets down what Officers they shall have, and what jurisdiction they shall exercise, yet leaves it to the choice of some one or more to order their Companies, meetings, and many particularities of their government as shall be found most Convenient for them. From this disgression in answer to Mr. Parker, I return to our Author.

Sect. 18. The Ministry of the Gospel is a true Ministry of Christ.

[Page]

Thirdly, He enquires whether there can be a true Ministry in a false Church, which he supposeth a national Church to be as not of Divine institution, and consequently the Ministry of the Church of England, in that it is the Ministry of a national Church, cannot be a true Ministry. Before the query be resolved it is necessary, that it be considered what is the Ministry of which it is enquired, whether it be true or false; what is the Ministry in a Church, and the falsehood of the Church, which may be a cause of the falsehood of the Ministry. For explication whereof we are to observe. 1 That the Ministry is all one with the imployment of a Minister, and a [Minister] is a Latin word answering to [...], from whence comes the English word [Deacon] and notes the office of one, reaching to another that which he wants, or doth any other act whereby he gratifies or helps another, and it is for the most part the work of a servant, and implies inferiority, whence those speeches of our Saviour, Luke 22.26. he that is chief as he that serveth, Mat 23.11. he that is the greatest of you shall be your Servant or Minister, Mat. 20.29. the Son of Man came not to be ministred to, but to Minister, sometimes to acts which imply no inferiority of condition, but freeness or readiness, as it is said, that when some women ministred to Christ of their substance, Luke 8.3. There is another word, which is used for the most part of them, that do publick offices, [...] and [...], and so it is said, Phil. 2.25. the minister of my need or, he that Ministred to my wants, sometimes both are joyned, 2 Cor. 9.25. the administration of this service, or the ministration of this Ministry, and the higher powers are termed, Rom. 13.4. [...] and [...] v. 6. that is, the Minister or Officer of God. In ecclesiastical matters both words are used, and are applied to Christ, who is termed the Minister of the Circumcision, Rom. 15.8. a Minister of the Sanctuary, Heb, 8.2. and to Ministers of Christ, Acts. 13.2. 2 Cor. 11.23. the word [...] is oft restrained to the office of a Deacon, Phil. 1.1. 1 Tim. 3.8. But the Ministry we are enquiring of, is neither that of a Servant, that waits on his Master, nor of a contributor that supplieth anothers wants of outward necessaries, nor the performing of the function of a Magistrate, by doing acts of publique justice, nor the ministry of Christ, which was, and is peculiar to him, nor the Ministry of Angels, who are also termed Gods [Page]Ministers and Ministring Spirits, Heb. 1.7, 14. Nor the office of Deacons as their office is termed serving tables distinct from the Ministry of the word, Acts. 6.1, 2, 4. But that Ministry to which Matthias was elected, Acts 1.25. and of which it is said, 1 Cor. 3.5. who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but Ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every one, and is meant, Ephes. 4.11, 12. where it is said, that Christ gave some Apostles, and some Prophets, and some Evangelists, and some Pastors and Teachers for the work of the Ministry. This Ministry was performed by the Apostles, Prophets and Evangelists somewhat extraordinarily either in respect of their gifts or their commission, which are now ceased. That Ministry, we now enquire of, is that of ordinary Pastors and Teachers as now sent. To these sundry Ministries are usually assigned, to [...] Ministry of the word, of Baptism, of the Lords supper, of confirmation, ordination, government by admonitions, censures, and if there be any other work allotted to those whom the Scripture terms Bishops or Elders. But our quaerist in this his writing, medling only with that part of Ministry in this main question disputed by him, which is by Preaching I understand his quaerie to be meant of that part of the Ministry. Now this Ministry is usually expressed by the Ministry of the word, Acts 6.4. the Ministry of the Gospel of God, Rom. 15.16. the Ministry of the New Testament, not of the letter but of the Spirit, 2 Cor. 3.6, 8. of righteousness, v. 9. the Ministry of reconciliation, 2 Cor. 5.18. Stewards of the Misteris of God, 1 Cor. 4.1. and sometimes our Ministery without any other adjunct, 2 Cor. 6.3. and an Oeconomy, or dispensation, 1 Cor. 9.17. more fully, Acts 20.24. the Ministery, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the Gospel of the grace of God. Which shewes the Author of this Ministry, whereupon he requires, 1 Cor. 4.1. Let a man so account of us as of the Mynisters ( [...] translated Minister, Acts 13.5.) of Christ, and Stewards of the mysteries of God. The finis cui, or those, for whom this Ministry is appointed, are the Saints, and therefore it is said to be for the perfecting of the Saints, or joynting together of them, and the edifying of the body of Christ, Ephes. 4 12. wherefore St. Paul saith of himself, that he was made a Minister of the Church according to the dispensation of God, which is given to mee, for you to fulfill the word of God, Col. 1.24, 25. which shewes, that he was not a Minister for one particular Church, but for any part of it where his lot was to Preach, and that he was not Minister of the Church by their election or mission, or direction (for these [Page] were of God, and Christ Jesus) but for the Church, or Saints, as the subjects to and for whom he was appointed to fulfill the word of God, even the mystery which had been hid from ages and from generations, but then was made manifest to his Saints, to whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you the hope of glory, v. 26, 27. to which purpose he speaks also of himself, Ephes. 3.6, 7, 8, 9. which yet is not to be restrained so to the Saints, but that the Ministry of the Gospel was to be to them that were not Saints, I am a debtor, saith he, Rom. 1.14. both to the Greeks and to the Barbarians, both to the wise and to the unwise, and 1 Cor. 1.23. We preach Christ unto the Jewes a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness, and 2 Cor. 2.14, 15. Thanks be to God which alwayes causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place. For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ in them that are saved and in them that perish. So that the Ministry of the word though it be primarily for the Church and the Saints, yet is the preaching of the Gospel the Ministry of Christ, even to unbelievers, as Ezekiel was a Prophet to the rebellious Nation of Israel, when he spake Gods word, whether they did hear or forbear, Ezek. 2.5. And hence I inferre that there may be a true Ministry not only in, but also out of a Church of believers.

Sect. 19. A true Gospel Ministry may be in a false Church so deemed.

Secondly, A Church may be said to be false many wayes.

1. Because it was irregularly constituted, that is not gathered by consent, or Church-covenant, or baptism, but by humane Laws, in forcing men to meet together in one Congregation, or more; because dwellers in such a Precinct, or born or living in such a Countrey. In this respect I conceive the Quaerist makes a national Church a false Church.

2. Because it is an hypocritical company, which doth indeed make them a false Church before God, yet quoad nos they are a true visible Church, if there be no falsehood in that which is descernible by men.

3. Because it is Schismatical, so as to break off from other parts of the Catholique Church, without a justifiable cause, whether out of ambition, passion, misapprehension or any other such like undue motive.

4. Because it is heretical, or Heresy is broached and upheld by a party in it. Now I confess, that it can hardly be, that [Page] there should be a true Ministry in a Church tainted with Heresy. Yet sith our Lord Christ, writes to the Church of Pergamos, as one of his seven Golden Candlesticks, though there were that held the Doctrin of Balaam and of the Nicolaitans, Revel. 2.14, 15. and in like manner the Church of Thyatira, or the Angel of it suffered the Woman which called her self a Prophetess, to teach and seduce his Servants to commit Fornication, and to eat things Sacrificed to Idols. I inferre those Angels were true Ministers, though in a Church in some sort false, that is, tainted with heretical or false doctrin. And sith the Church of Corinth was manifestly Schismatical, 1 Cor. 1.11, 12. Yet Apollos a true Minister to them, or who else were their Pastors. And sith the Church of Sardis is charged, as having a name that it lived but was dead, yet the Angel of it, one of the seven Stars in Christs right hand, then may there be a true Ministry in such false Churches, Revel. 3.1. that is schismatical, or hypocritical not consisting of real Saints. And if it be, that what is charged on Laodicea, Rev. 3.15, 16, 17. were by reason of defect in Church constitution and disciplin (as Mr. Brightman conceived) then also a false Church, in respect of such irregularity may have a true Ministry. But because this is only an argument ad homines, to such as concurre with Mr. Brightman in his conceit; I will prove, that in a National Church, or a Church irregular in its constitution or discipline, miscalled false, may be a true Ministry of Christ.

1. If the truth of the Ministry depend upon the truth of the Church or it's regularity, then where is no true regular Church, there is no true Ministry. But that is false, sith there may be a true Ministry, where there is no Church at all, and therefore no true Church. Ergo, the truth of the Ministry depends not on the truth of the Church: but a true Ministry may be in a false Church.

2. If there be a true Ministry, though to or in a National visible Church or Catholique, then that extent, which is conceived to be inconsistent with a true Gospel Church, makes not the Ministry false, but Peters and Pauls Ministry to the Jews or Gentiles Churches, were true Ministries, though the Churches were National or Catholique, even set by God in the Church, 1 Cor. 12.18. Ergo.

3. If Ministry to Churches Hypocritical, Schismatical, and in some sort Heretical may be true Ministry, much more to a Church National, irregular in constitution and discipline, [Page] those being greater degrees of falsehood than this. But the antecedent is before proved from the Epistles to the Corinthians, to the Churches of Pergamos, Thyatira, and Sardis; Ergo the consequent is true.

4. If the regular constitution, disciplin of the Church, the election of the Church or their sending be extrinsecal or accidental, not necessary, or essential to the truth of the Ministry, then may there be a true Ministry in such a Church as this Author calls false. But the antecedent is true, sith the Apostles were true Ministers, afore the regular constitution and discipline of Churches, without their Election or mission, therefore the consequent is also true.

5. If the denomination of true Ministers be from the truth of their Doctrin, and no other form denominating them, and there may be a Ministration of true Doctrin in such a supposed false Church, then there may be a true Ministry in such a false Church, for where the form denominating is, there the Subject is rightly denominated from it. But the antecedent is true, both from all the Texts before alledged, which place the truth of Ministry in the Doctrin taught, and no other thing, and in that the Colossians learned the grace of God in truth, from Epaphras he is termed St. Pauls Fellow-Servant, and for them a faithfull Minister of Christ, Col. 1.6, 7. and reason and experience confirms the possibility of preaching true Doctrin in a National mis-called false Church, therefore the consequent is also true.

6. If false Prophets, false Apostles, false Brethren be only denominated from their false Doctrin, then they are not false Ministers but true, who teach the truth of the Gospel, notwithstanding their defects, or the Churches in which they are. But the antecedent is true, as may be evinced from, 2 Pet. 2.1. 2 Cor. 11.13. Gal. 2.4, 5. 1 John 2.1 [...], 21, 22, 26. 2. John. 7. and many more places which denominate them false Prophets, false Teachers, false Apostles, false Brethren, Antichrists, not Ministers of Christ, from their erroneous Doctrin, therefore from it, and not from defects of Churches, or other things are they false Ministers, and if they preach true Doctrin, true Ministers though in an irregular Church. There being nothing offered against this to be answered, I pass on to this Authors next Quaerie.

Sect. 20. Gods love to us is not less, in not determining the whole of his Worship to us, as to the Jews.

[Page]

3. Saith he, Whether God doth not bear as much love to, and exercise as much faithfulness over his New Testament Churches, as over the National Church of the Jews?

Answ. No doubt of it: yet doth not God shew his love, nor exercise his faithfulness over his New Testament Churches in the same way or course of Providence as he did, and perhaps, will do over the National Church of the Jews. He doth not gather the New Testament Churches by a mighty hand, and a stretched-out arm; as he did, when he brought Israel out of Egypt by the hand of Moses; but by the calling of his Word, and operation of his Spirit. Nor doth he make them Conquerours by Arms; but they overcome the old Serpent by the blood of the Lamb, and by the Word of their Testimony, and they love not their lives unto the death, Rev. 12.11. Nor doth God now settle his Church in one fruitful Land, under one earthly King, as he did the Jews under David, and Solomon; but in all Countries, where they are called; protects, and feeds them by the Great Shepherd of the Sheep, the Lord Jesus Christ, and his Spirit, in that estate and station, wherein they are called. Nor is it improbable, that in the future calling of the Jews, God will shew more remarkable Providences, for their re-ingraffing into their own Olive, than ever he hath yet shewed towards the Churches of the Gentiles,

It is added. If so, then 4. Whether he hath not (as of old he did, with reference unto the then Church) determined the whole of the Worship, appertaining unto them, to whose Institutions, without any Humane additions, it is the duty of souls solely to conform?

Answ. The whole of the Worship appertaining to the New Testament Churches, is either inward or outward. To the New Testament Churches, God hath determined the whole of his inward Worship, as of old he did, with reference unto the then Chu [...]ch; or rather, he hath more fully determined the Worship of himself, by exercise of Faith, and hope in Prayer and Thanksgiving, having now more [...] opened the mystery of his Will, in the way of access to him, and accepting of our service; than he did to the Jews before Christs coming. But for the outward Worship, though he have set down sufficiently what we are to place his Worship in, and wherein he hath determined by Precept or Example; that hath the force of a Precept, what is to be done [Page] by us; that alone we are to account his Worship, and to conform solely to it as his Institution, without any Humane Additions or Alterations; yet in respect of Circumstantials, such as are, Time, Place, Meetings, Order in Doing, and the like, God hath not determined the whole of the outward Worship appertaining to the New Testament Churches, as of old he did with reference to the then Church; but hath left such things (though needful to the well performing of the Worship he hath determined) under general rules prescribed in holy Scripture, to be set down by men, who are Governours; to whom obedience is due in order to the end of their directions, though not with equal tie of Conscience, as to Divine Institutions. Nor doth God hereby bear less love, or exercise less faithfulness over his New Testament Churches, than he did over the National Church of the Jews; but rather more:

1. Because the determination of the whole of the Worship of God to the National Church of the Jews, was the imposing of a yoke on them, which neither the elder nor later Jews were able to bear, Acts 15.10. and therefore God shewed more love, and exercised more faithfulness over his New Testament Churches, in not determining the whole of his Worship in Circumstantials, as he did to the Jews.

2. The determination of the whole of Gods Worship to the Jews, in Circumstantials of outward Worship, did bring in many things which were unprofitable, and weak, and made nothing perfect, Heb. 7.18, 19. And if God had so determined to us, he had commanded things unprofitable, weak, which made nothing perfect; therefore he shewed more love and faithfulness to us, in not so determining.

3. The things God had determined to the Jews about the Circumstantials and Rituals of his Worship, were but shadows of good things to come, which were not fit to be continued, or to be supplied with any other, Christ being come, who was the Body, or Substance, Col. 2.16, 17. Heb. 10.1. Therefore God in not determining such things to us, hath shewed more love and faithfulness.

4 Such Ordinances were carnal, to endure only until the time of Reformation; therefore it is a part of Gods love and faithfulness, that neither the same in particular, nor other, are precisely determined to us by God, this time of the Gospel, being the time of Reformation, Heb 9.9, 10.

5. God so determined the whole of his Worship to the Jews, because they were in their Minority, and therefore were to be [Page] kept under those weak and beggerly Elements of the World, as under Tutors, and Governours, until the time appointed of the Father, Gal. 4 1, 2, 3, 9. But the Christian Believers are as sons come to age, and therefore fit to be released of them, and such like; and to be at more liberty in these things, than they were before, v. 7.

6. The time before Christs coming, was an estate under Moses a Servant; but now the estate of Christians is under Christ the Son, Gal. 4.4, 5, 6, 7 Heb 3.5, 6. Therefore our freedom from such determinations as were upon the Jews, is more congruous, than to have them imposed on us; and consequently, a sign of more love in God.

7. If such determinations of the whole of Gods Worship had been to us, as were to the Jews, we had not reaped the fruit of Christs death, by which he did abolish them, Eph. 2.14, 15. Col. 2.14. and consequ [...]ntly, had tasted less of the love of God than we have; if the same, or such precise determinations of the whole of Gods Worship, had been continued to us.

8. The Apostles judged it a great benefit to the Christian Churches, that they were exempt from them; and it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to them, to lay upon the Churches no greater burden, than those necessary things, mentioned Acts 15.28, 29. therefore they counted it an effect of Gods love, that he had not determined the whole of his Worship to us, as he did to the Jews.

9. This yields us also another reason why it is an effect of Gods greater love to the Gentile Churches, that he hath not determined to them the whole of his Worship, as he did to the Jews; because those Gentile Christians being of divers Nations and Languages under divers Governments, used to divers Customs, could not conveniently, if at all, practice such an uniformity of Circumstances, as they must have done if God had determined the whole of his Worship, as he did to the Jews.

10 To averr that God hath determined the whole of his outward Worship in Circumstantials, as he did to the Jews, is to infringe our Christian liberty, and to bring us into such bondage as they were in, who were under the Law; which is not agreeable to that love which God hath born to the New Testament Churches, and the New Covenant, which he hath made under the Gospel, Gal. 4.20, 21, 24. This Author adds:

Sect 21. Christ designs Officers and Offices for his Church (not as were in the Jewish) which are the same, while their work is the same, though some Titles be new.

[Page]

Yea, 5. Whether he hath not now (as then) designed the several Officers and Offices, his wisdom thought sufficient for the management of the affairs of his house; so that the invention of new ones by the sons of men, is not only needless, but a daring advance against the Soveraignty, care, and wisdom of God over his Churches?

Answ. 1. God did, besides Moses and the seventy Elders, Joshuah and the Judges, David and other Kings, for the Government of the People of Israel, and Prophets raised up, as he thought good, for special purposes; design Aaron and his sons, and the Levites for the Services of the Tabernacle, and Temple. But he hath not designed such Officers or Offices, as either Moses and the Jewish Sanhedrin, David or the Judges; or as the Priests and Levites, and their Services, were for the management of the affairs of his House; that is, the Christian Church; it being Gods design not to gather this Church, or to form it in that way and Government, as he did the Jewish. Christ did not gather his Church, as the Jews were by Moses brought out of Egypt; nor were erected into the form of a Political Body, but of a School; without either infringing the power of the Caesars, and their Officers; or withdrawing the People from the Officers belonging to the Temple, though corrupt. If any advance themselves, or others into Offices, from the Pattern of the Aaronical Priesthood or Services; as the Papists, who will have their Pope to be Universal Supreme Bishop, in correspondence to the High Priest of the Jews; to be absolutely obeyed, as he was in the Synedrium; to be infallible in his determinations, to have power of adjudging to death for Heresie; to make sacrificing Priests for Quick and Dead, in imitation of the Levitical Priests. I conceive that the invention of such new ones by Papists, or any other of the sons of men; is not only needless, but a daring advance against the Soveraignty, Care, and Wisdom of God over his Churches; the Temple, and the Priesthood thereof, being now by God taken away.

2. God hath designed by his Son and his Apostles, the several Officers and Offices his Wisdom thought sufficient for the management of the affairs of his House, that is, his Church, as they are such. First, Christ Jesus called his twelve Disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all Devils, and to cure Diseases; and he sent them to preach the Kingdom of God, and to [Page]heal the sick, Luke 9.1, 2. After he appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face, into every City and place, whither he himself would come; and these were confined to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, Mat. 10.6. To whom (he saith) only he was sent, Mat. 15.24. St. Peter having confessed him, Christ tells him, Mat. 16.18. Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; which by reason of the repeating of his Name, and alluding to it, and thereby minding him of it, is justly to be thought to imply a promise of a special use of him, in the building of his Church; not barely as that particular man, but as a foundation of it by his Preaching; as other Apostles are called Foundations, Eph. 2.20. in respect of their Doctrine, wherein St. Peter had some work before the other in his Preaching, Acts 2. and 3. and 10. And therefore Christ promiseth to give him the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, Mat. 16.19. So as by his preaching to open the Kingdom of Heaven, first to the Jews, and then to the Gentiles, when Cornelius was admitted into the Kingdom of Heaven; and therefore Act. 15.7. he speaks of it as his preheminence, that God made choice among the Disciples, that the Gentiles by his mouth should hear the Word of the Gospel, and believe; he imploying that key of knowledge, which the Lawyers had taken away; who entered not themselves into the Kingdom of God, and them that were entering in, they hindered, Luke 11.52. To him our Lord Christ assures, Mat. 16.19. Whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth, shall be bound in Heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on Earth, shall be loosed in Heaven. Which Phrase seems by the expressions, Mat. 23.4. Rev 2.24. to import, that what he should command to be done, should be in Heaven ratified, as commanded by God; as it was Acts 2.38. Acts 3.19, 20. Acts 10.48. and what he should untie, that is, free men from the obligation of, that should be untied in Heaven; that is, God would not require the observation of it: which was performed Acts 11.3, 14, 17, 18. Acts 15.10. Which promises, though personal to St. Peter; and in respect of the first work, peculiar to him; neither imparted to any other Apostle, nor derived from him to any successour: yet this last promise was after made to the rest of the Apostles, Mat. 18.18. and performed when St. Peter, with them, decreed about Circumcision, Acts 15.24. and the Holy Ghost established it, v. 28. Afterwards our Lord Christ being risen from the dead, finds his Disciples assembled for fear of the Jews, Thomas being absent, and saith, Peace be unto you; as the Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and [Page]saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, and whosesoever sins ye retain they are retained, John 20.19, 21, 22, 23. The words of salutation, of mission, the breathing on them, and imparting the Holy Ghost to them do import, that the remission and retaining of sins there promised, was a peculiar power given to them on whom he thus breathed, though also communicated after to other Apostles, who were in like manner sent, and received the Holy Ghost as they did. Which remission of sins was accomplished, when by their preaching, persons repented, and were Baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, for remission of sins, Acts 2.39, 41. When Aeneas was cured by St Peter, Acts, 9.33. For healing is by remission of sins, Mat. 9.6. James 5.15. John 5.14. Or by taking off the sentence of delivering to Satan, by which the Apostles had power to retain sins, as appears by that speech of St. Paul, 1 Tim. 1.20. That he had delivered Hymenaeus and Alexander unto Satan, that they might be instructed, or corrected, [...], so as either to be afraid or disabled from blaspheming any more as they had done, when Satan should chastise them with bodily punishment, St. Paul also had determined by his Spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. When the Christians were gathered together, that they might be witnesses, to deliver him that had his Fathers Wife unto Satan, for the destruction of the Flesh, that is the wasting of his body, that the Spirit or Soul being sensible of his sin and humbled for it, might be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus, 1 Cor. 5.3, 4, 5. Which had been his comming to them with a Rod, 1 Cor. 4.21. and the retaining his sin, had not his after-sorrow caused S. Paul to forgive him in the person of Christ, 2 Cor. 2.10. which was the remitting of sin, confirmed in Heaven. Other instances there are of the retaining of sins by Apostolical power, when St. Paul smote Elymas the sorcerer with blindness, Acts 13.11. and St. Peter inflicted death upon Ananias and his wife Sapphira, for lying to the Holy Ghost, and keeping back part of the price of the Land which they had sold, Acts 5.3, 5, 10. After this mission, commission, and breathing of Christ on the disciples, to reestablish St. Peter after his fall, Christ injoynes him to feed his Lambs and his Sheep, thrice charging him, that he might shew his love to him, whom he had thrice denied; whereby he doth not make him universal Bishop, or Monarch of the whole visible Church (as Romanists impiously pervert the Text) but requires of him diligence in testimony of [Page] his love to him, by doing that work which is expressed in words, which signifie teaching (one of them [...] signifies not ruling) and that Ministry which is common to other Bishops, Acts 20.28. and Elders, among whom St. Peter termes himself a fellow Elder, and Christ the chief Shepherd, 1 Peter 5.1, 2, 4. But then Christ did most design the Officers and Offices, he thought requisite for the management of the affairs of his house, when being to ascend into Heaven, not long after, in a mountain of Galilee Jesus spake to them, saying, all power is given unto me in Heaven and in Earth, go ye therefore, and teach all Nations, or rather Disciple or make Disciples all Nations, or, of, or, in all Nations, not the Jewes, only, as formerly, (Mark 16.15. Go ye into all the World, and preach the Gospel, to every creature, or, to all the creation) Baptizing them, thus discipled, (Mark 16.16. He that believeth and is Baptized shall be saved) into the name of the the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world, Amen. In which instruction of the Apostles, is founded the function of the Evangelical Ministry, as Pareus speaks in his Commentary, consisting in Preaching the Gospel and Baptizing and teaching the obserservation of Christs commands; which Offices, the promise to be with them all dayes to the end of the World, shewes to be perpetual till Christs second coming. Who the Officers are of Christs designing may be best gathered from, Ephes. 4.11. Some of which are undoubtedly to continue. And that there should be a succession by ordination of some for the Churches is apparent from, 2 Tim. 2. 2. Tit. 1.5. and that they should be ordained, may be gathered from, Acts 13.2.3. and 14.23. 1 Tim. 4.14. and 5.22. that there should be some, who should have inspection over others, that they do not sow errours, or otherwise corrupt the Churches, may be granted from, 1 Tim. 1.3, 4. Tit. 3.10.11. and by the things charged on the seven Angels of the seven Churches, Rev. 2.2, 6, 14, 15, 16, 20. Rev. 3.2, 3, 15, 16, 19. To set down the History of Officers and Offices in after-ages, to determin the disputes, about their several degrees or orders is full of difficulty, and to our present business unnecessary. This only is sufficient for present, to say in answer to the question now under hand, That such as do these works which Christ or his Apostles have appointed to be performed for his Church are Officers designed by Christ, and their ordination thereto agreeable to his design, nor are those Officers or Offices an invention [Page]of new ones by the sons of men, not only needless, but a daring advance against the Soveraignty, care and wisdom of God over his Churches, though they have other names, and titles, and maintenance, and immunities, and dignities, and additaments than the Scripture mentions. They that are called Archbishops, Bishops, Deans, Canons, Prebendaries, Parsons, Vicars, Curates, Chaplains, Masters of Colledges, Hospitals, Wardens, Fellows, Clerks, Priests enjoy emoluments by Tithes or other revenues, may be truly Officers of Christ; if they be ordained to, and do the works or Offices appointed, by Christ and the Apostles, to the Ministers of the Church of Christ, as well as they who are termed Presbyters, Presbyteries, Teachers, Pastors, Lecturers, Itinerant Preachers, gifted Brethren, whether they be chosen by a particular Congregation, and ordained by an Eldership, and receive maintenance by Collection, augmentation, stipend or other waies.

Sect. 22. The solemn deputation of Ministers, is not the peculiar priviledge of Saints.

6. Saith our Author, whether the priviledges of Saints, be not every way as great and extensive under the Gospel, as those under the Law? If so, then whether the solemn deputation of men, signally pointed out by the Lord, for the administration of Holy things in his house, by the body of his Church, be not now (as then) their peculiar priviledge?

Answer, The people of Israel were a holy people to God, and conceived to be meant by the Saints of the most High, Dan. 7.27. But, that the solemn deputation of men, signally pointed out by the Lord, for the administration of Holy things in his house by the body of that Church was their peculiar priviledge, is not proved, but the contrary is manifest, that the Priests and Levites were by Gods own choice set a-part as is before said Sect. 7. Saints now are either real, or in appearance only. The former as such are invisible, and it is granted, that they have priviledges in spiritual blessings in Heavenly things in Christ, every way as great and extensive under the Gospel, as those under the Law; yea in some degree greater, to wit in the clearer revelation of the mystery of Gods counsel, and accomplishment of Gods promises by the Prophets, and gift of his Spirit. Saints in appearance only or the visible Church of the Jews had in some things greater priviledges, such as those mentioned, Rom. 9.4, 5. Rom. 3.1, 2. Gods revealing [Page] his minde by Urim and Thummim, extraordinary Prophets and many more, than Christians now, and therefore no good inference can be made from the priviledge of the Saints then in the solemn deputation of Ministers of holy things (if it had been such as this Author supposeth) unto the same priviledg to the Saints now. The solemn deputation of Apostles and other Ministers of the Gospel, we finde not to have been the peculiar priviledg of the body of the Church in any part of the New Testament. Their ordination is no where mentioned as done by the Saints or brethren, which were not Officers, nor is there any plain proof of their election by all or the major part of the members of each Church in the Scripture, And though ther [...] be in antiquity in the first ages relations of their election, yet withall such stories of the tumults, frayes and other disorders, as necessitated an a teration of that course, are related. Considering how unquiet, in judicious, deceitful, factious, divided those are that usurp the name of Saints, and perhaps are, I see not how safe it were to commit the solemn deputation of Ministers to them without much regulation of them, and ability of discerning of Spirits, which is not a gift continued to the Churches, who oft are as easily deceived by hypocrites and seducers, as others, and if it were the peculiar priviledg of Saints, it were not to be denied to women, contrary to the Apostles rule, 1 Cor. 14.33, 34. 1 Tim. 2.11, 12. If it were such a peculiar priviledg to Saints, to ordain or choose their Ministers, so as they were not to own any, but whom they choose, then the lesser part of a Congregation were not bound to take him for their Minister, who is not chos [...]n by themselves, though chosen by the most, each person might choose his Minister, and withdraw for his Ministry at pleasure, if not chosen by him, and refuse to contribute to his maintenance, which, w [...]th many inconveniences, too often exemplified in Churches gathered in the Congregational way, cause such Churches to be often dissolved, or to be multiplied into so many parties as make them unfit for any good order or use.

Sect. 23. Corruptions in non-fundamentals un-church not.

The Quaerist adds 7. Whether any Church in the world (we speak of a visible instituted Church) hath greater security against Apostacy from God, and that sore judgment of having its Candlestick removed (and being unchurched) than that people of the[Page]Jews had? if not, then whether, supposing a national Church to be of the institution of Christ, it may not so come to pass that it may be so overspread with corruptions, that it may lose the essence of a Church, and justly be disrobed of that appellation.

Answer, I grant that no particular Church visible, whether National, Provincial, Classical, Parochial, or Congregational hath greater security of Apostacy from God than the Jewish, and that any such Church may be so overspread with corruptions, that it may lose the essence of a Church, and justly be disrobed of that appellation, we justly plead against the Church of Rome, pleading [that they are the Church built on Peter, against which the Gates of Hell shall not prevail Mat. 16.18.] that the promise is not to that or any other particular visible Church, but to the invisible Church of Gods elect, and we alledg that St. Paul writing to the Church at Rome, tells them, Rom. 11.20, 21. well, because of unbelief they were broken off and thou standest by faith: be not high minded, but fear. For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. But we add, that not every, nor many corruptions of some kinde do unchurch, there being many in faith, worship, and conversation in the Churches of Corinth, and some of the seven Churches of Asia, who yet were Golden Candlesticks, amidst whom Christ did walk. But such general, avowed, unrepented of errors in faith, as overthrow the foundation of Christian faith, to wit, Christ the only mediator between God and man, and salvation by him, corruptions of worship by Idolatry, in life by evil manners, as are utterly inconsistent with Christianity, till which in whole or in part they are not unchurched.

Sect. 24. Every error makes not a false Prophet.

Our quaerist proceeds, Eighthly, whether the Ecclesiastick and spiritual rulers, Governours and Officers of such a collapsed Church, may not righteously, as of old, be accounted and esteemed as false Prophets, that go about to cause the people to forget the name of the Lord (or his pure worship) by their Lies (or unscriptural traditions, innovations, and ceremonious Pageantries.)

Answer, St. Peter foretold, 2 Pet. 2.1. There were false Prophets among the people, even as there shall be false Teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, Jude 4. ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into Lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God [Page]and our Lord Jesus Christ, 1 John 4.1. Many false Prophets are gone out into the World, 2 John 7. Many deceivers are entred into the World, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an Antichrist, 1 John 2.22. who is a lier but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is Antichrist that denieth the Father and the Son. If any Ecclesiastick and spiritual rulers, Governours and Officers of a collapsed Church do in this manner, go about to cause the people to forget the name of the Lord (or his pure worship) they are righteously, as of old, to be accounted and esteemed as false Prophets. But if they hold the foundation, that is Jesus Christ, and teach the worship of God in the name of Christ, without Idolat [...]y in their worship, or heresie in their Doctrine, though they build upon the foundation layd by the Apostle hay, and stubble, 1 Cor. 3.12. that is some errours of their own, and some additions to the worship of God from unwritten traditions, or other supposed power about ceremonies, they are not righteously, as of old the Prophets of Baal and Balaam, and other seducers, to be accounted and esteemed as false Prophets, that go about to cause the people to forget the name of the Lord (or his pure worship.) I add that if the addition of some humane ceremonies to the pure instituted worship of God, and some errours to the sound Doctrin of faith, do make the Teachers or Rulers of a Church false Prophets, in te ipsum haec cudetur faba, neither this Author, nor any of the Pastors or Teachers of the Congregational Churches, but may be judged false Prophets.

Sect. 25. Separation by reason of some corruptions unwarrantable.

It is added, 9. Whether separation from such a Collapsed Church in respect of its worship, Ministers and Ministry, be not only justifiable, but, as of old, the duty of the Lords faithfull Remnant, that desire to worship him according to his appointments?

Answer, Separation from a Church somewhat erroneous or corrupt in worship or conversation, yet neither Idolatrous in worship nor Heretical in Doctrin, nor requiring that to their communion which would be sinful, especially if it be total from all parts of worship, all attending on Ministers and Ministry at all times is unjustifiable, utterly dissonant from any of the rules or examples which either of old the Prophets, or holy men, or Christ [Page] and his Apostles have prescribed, is for the most part the fruit of pride, or bitter zeal, and tends to strife, and confusion and every evil work, James, 3.16.

Sect. 26. It is prudence to joyn in worship, and hearing where some errours and corruptions remain.

Yet once more saith the Quaerist, Yea 10. whether, supposing a Church (so called) thus dreadfully as aforesaid, departed from the pure institutions of Christ, never to be according to truth, a visible instituted Church of Christ, and the Lords poor people living in the Nation, never by their free consent members thereof, as it is on the pretended Churches part, most unheard-of-cruelty to compel them, so it be not on the part of the free born Children of God, most stupendious folly and disvaluation of the institutions of Christ, and ingratitude to God, for the light and liberty from the yokes of men, received, imaginable, to joyn affinity with it in worship, or attend upon the self invented Ministry that appertains thereunto? Many more questions of the like nature and importance might be added.

Answer, Compulsion of men may be cruelty. But it is neither pendious folly, nor disvaluation of the institutions of Christ, nor ingratitude to God, but true Christian prudence warranted by the Counsel of St. James and the Elders at Jerusalem, by the yielding and practice of St. Paul, Acts 21.18, &c. Acts 16.3. 1 Cor. 9.19, 20, 21. by Christs example, Mat. 17.27. for persons living in a Nation for their peace to joyn in affinity with such a Church, which hath some humane inventions in worship, and to attend upon that Ministry, which appertains to it, when they preach the Gospel for the main, though not without some mixture of errours, and neither require them to practice that which is in it self evil, nor binde them to assent unto that which is erroneous. What more Questions of the like nature and importance, this Quaerist might add I know not: I thought it necessary to answer these as being praelusory to the main Question, and tending to forestall the reader with unmeer prejudice. Having removed these stumbling blocks out of the way, I proceed to examine the rest of the writing.

CHAP. 1. ARG. I.

[Page]

Sect. 1. Some scruples of conscience are of ill consequence.

AS a preamble to his dispute, the Author writes thus. This is that which the Lord hath said, I will be sanctified in all that draw nigh me, and before all the people will I be glorified. The great care of Saints in matter of worship, is to sanctifie the name of the Lord therein: This is the great thing that God looks at, the omission whereof the often severely punishes, he children of men for: now in order hereunto, it's necessary that in all our approaches to God we see to the institution of the Lord, both in respect of the matter, and manner of worship, that it be according to Divine prescript, else we cannot sanct [...]fy the name of God therein, nor glorify him before the people.

Answer, This is yielded, that wherein God hath prescribed it is necessary we see to the institution of the Lord both in respect of the matter and manner of worship, even to determined particularities: but in those things which are not determined by God, yet it is requisite they should be some way determined by our selves or others, we and they are not so limited, but that keeping to general rules there may be liberty of variation, and there may be too anxious care, tending to beget unnecessary scruples, perplexities, divisions and censurings, even in and of Saints, which experience hath too much proved to cause fluctuations in mens minds, and inconstancy in their practice; and to produce a brood of Seekers, Quakers, Ranters, and prophane Atheists. For which reason it is very advisable, that persons of good meaning, but weak judgments did less busie themselves in questioning such undetermined particularities in Gods worship, and were received, but not to doubtfull disputations, Rom 14.1. and did satisfy themselves in such things by preferring the judgment of their faithful, learned, wise and holy Teachers and Rulers before their own, when their own capacity is insufficient to settle their Consciences. He proceeds thus, Hearing (as was said, and shall beyond contradictions in its proper place be evinced) is part of instituted worship, it therefore more nearly concerns Saints than many are aware of, to have their consciences resolved from the Scriptures of God, in the matter under enquiry, whether it be lawful for the Saints to hear the present Ministers of England? [Page] 'Tis the negative, which we have received under our maintenance, because we are satisfied Christ hath so; to the proof whereof we now address our selves.

Answer, Of hearing, how it is a part of instituted worship, somewhat hath been said in the answer to the preface, Sect. 1.2.3. what more is to be added, will come in it's proper place. I grant, that it concerns Saints to have their consciences resolved from the Scriptures of God in the matter under enquiry, and do therefore joyn issue with this Author, and whereas he denies it lawfull for the Saints to hear the present Ministers of England, meaning in their teaching of the Doctrins of faith and holiness according to that which is authorized in the Church of England, I affirm it, and address my self to the examination of this Authors arguments.

Sect. 2. There is warrant in Scripture to hear the present Ministers of England.

Argument 1. Is thus, That which there is no warrant for in the Scripture, being part of instituted worship, is not lawful for the Saints to practise: but there is no warrant in the Scripture for hearing the present Ministers of England, and hearing is part of instituted worship. Therefore.

Answer, The term [warrant] being a Law term, notes not only an injunction requiring that a thing be done, but also an allowance or permission of a thing to be done with impunity or without blame, and either way the thing warranted is lawfull. Instituted worship (as is before shewed) is either moral or meerly positive and ceremonial. Parts of instituted worship may be either subjective, if instituted worship be conceived as totum universale, an universal whole, and so hearing of the present Ministers of England may be conceived either as one sort of instituted worship, or one individual of that sort, or parts of instituted worship may be integrant, if instituted worship be conceived as an integral whole. I do not deprehend hearing of the present Ministers of England, is to be conceived as an integral part of instituted worship, sith it is one act, which without any other act is worship: or parts of instituted worship may be essential or accidental, instituted worship being conceived as an essential or accidental whole. Those are parts essential of instituted worship, without which it is not or is not rightly called instituted worship, those are accidental parts [Page] which may be present or absent, and yet the Worship be, or rightly be, so called. These things being premised, for answer to this Argument, I lay down these Propositions.

1. Every sort or kind of Instituted Worship of God, hath warrant in the Scripture by precept of command if it be lawful.

2. Those things which are determined by God, [...]n any part or sort of Instituted Worship of God, are to be counted Essential parts, so as that the omission or alteration of them, or any of them, makes the Worship not to be, or to be rightly so called, Worship of God.

3. Those things which are in this sense Essential parts, must have warrant in Scripture by precept express, or by just consequence.

4. Accidental parts, or adjuncts of Instituted Worship undetermined are lawful, if they have warrant in Scripture by permission, so as that they are not contrary to any precept or rule in Scripture about such Worship.

5. Hearing of the Word of God, is a sort or part of Gods Instituted Worship.

6. It is essential to it, that we hear it as Gods Word, with honest and good hearts, with attention and reverence, as being determined by Gods command.

7. It is but accidental, as being undetermined by God, that we hear it from this or that person, and therefore needs not warrant in Scripture by command to make it lawful.

8. The hearing of the present Ministers of England, Preaching the Word of God, hath warrant in Scripture by permission, as being not contrary to any precept or rule in Scripture about such Worship. Searching, and reading the Scriptures as the Word of God, is a part or sort of Instituted Worship, and accordingly hearing it read. When God commanded the Levites to read the Law, and all Israel to hear it at the end of every seven years, in the solemnity of the year of release in the Feast of Tabernacles, Deut. 31.9, 10, 11, 12, 13. The reading by such persons, and hearing at that time, was an essential part of Worship; but Shaphans reading before Josiah, (2 Chron. 34.18.) and his hearing of it then, was a part of Instituted Worship accidental, because not determined by Command, but ordered by Providence, and yet warrantable by Permission: Gods command being not exclusive, so as to forbid any other but Levites to read it, or the Israelites to hear it read by others at other times, there being general Precepts requiring all to hear the Word of God at all times, Deut. 5.1. [Page] and even the light of Nature dictating this, That a message from God is to be heard whoever brings it, of which the King of Moab was sensible, Judg. 3.20. and the King of Niniveh, Jonah 3 6. In like manner, when Christ tells the seventy Disciples, Luke 10.16. He that heareth you, heareth me; he doth not restrain hearers from hearing others who delivered the same truth: but the general speech, Joh. 8.47. He that is of God, heareth Gods words, warrants the hearing of Gods word. To the Argument I answer, That if the major be meant of warrant by command, and part accidental of Instituted Worship, it is denied, and the minor is denied in that branch, That there is no warrant in the Scripture for hearing the present Ministers of England. But let us view his proofs.

Sect. 3. Accidentals of Instituted Worship warranted without command in Scripture.

The major (or first) Proposition (saith he) is evident, 1. From the nature of Instituted Worship, which consists in this, that it be of Divine Revelation; else whatsoever it is, it is not Instituted Worship.

Answ. This is true concerning the kind or sort of Instituted Worship, and concerning the essential parts, those things, I mean, which are determined and necessary; but not true of accidentals, parts, or adjuncts of Worship undetermined; these may be from Men, and yet the worship be of God. If Jehoiakim had heard and believed the Roll which was dictated by Jeremiah, he had worshiped God, though Jehudi's reading were by his appointment, Jer. 36.21.

2▪ From the verdict of Christ, who pronounceth all the Worship of Man to be vain and fruitless, and so unlawful, that is bottom'd on any thing but Divine Revelation, Mark 7.7.

Answ. This is true, that all those actions, in which is placed the Worship of God, having no appointment from God, but onely from men, are vain and fruitless, and so unlawful, and so much the Text alledged proveth: But this proveth not, that the Worship of God appointed by him is vain, fruitless, and unlawful, because of some adjuncts, or circumstances appointed by men, which God hath left undetermined. So though the receiving to hold Traditions of the Elders, and Dictates of Pharisees, as if they were of God, and God were worshiped by them, was vain, fruitless and so unlawful; yet the hearing of the Law of God [Page] read in the Synagogues, which we find not to have been appointed by God, but by the prudence and authority of Rulers, was lawful and approved, Luk. 4.16, 17. Act. 13.15, 27. Act. 15.21.

3. If it be lawful to Conform to any one part of Instituted Worship, without warrant from Scripture, 'tis also lawful to Conform to another, a third, the whole, which would banish Instituted Worship out of the world.

Answ. The first consequence is granted, yet the later is not necessary; for though it be true, If it be lawful to Conform to any one part of Instituted Worship without warrant from Scripture, 'tis also lawful to Conform to another, a third, the whole; yet this would not banish Instituted Worship out of the world. For when the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they washed their hands oft, eat not, holding the Tradition of the Elders, and when they came from the market, except they washed, they eat not. And many things there were, which they had received to hold, as the washing of cups and puts, brazen vessels and of tables, Mark 7.3, 4. Yet this did not banish the Instituted Worship of the Passeover, and other worship appointed by God to the Jews out of the world.

4. To assert, that it is lawful to conform to any part of Instituted Worship without warrant from Scripture, reflects sadly upon the wisdom and faithfulness of Christ: for either he was not wise enough to foresee, that such a part of worship was, or would be requisite, or had not faithfulness enough to reveal it, though the Scripture compares him to Moses for faithfulness, who revealed the whole will of God to the making of a pin in the Tabernacle.

Answ. It no way reflects, with any disparagement, upon the wisdom and faithfulness of Christ, to assert, that it is lawful to Conform to accidental parts, or rather adjuncts, or circumstances of Instituted Worship, without warrant from Scripture by express command; for though Christ was wise enough to foresee what parts of Worship were or should be requisite, and had faithfulness enough to reveal what God did require, and did make known by himself, or his Apostles, what kind of Worship should be observed by Christians, and what parts were essential or necessary to be observed, were determined in Scripture: yet many accidental things, adjuncts, or circumstances of that Instituted Worship, were left to the prudence, and authority of men, chiefly of Rulers, which the Lord foreseeing, that his Churches would be gathered out of many Nations of various Customs, Dispositions, Governments, [Page] thought fit to be permitted to them, though he did restrain the Jews more strictly by Moses, which was their burthen, and it is our ease, that we have more liberty than they had: Christ was faithful as Moses, in that he revealed to us what was his Fathers will in spirituals, more clearly than Moses; but for externals, appointed but few things, and those easie; in what else was to be added, he left it to be ordered under general rules, as it should be found convenient in after times. And to argue in this manner, if Christ did not appoint every accidental part of Instituted Worship, he had failed in wisdom or faithfulness, and had come short of Moses, seems to me to be like their arguing, who in the Canon Law say, If Christ had not appointed an Universal Bishop to end Controversies, as there was an High-Priest among the Jews, Non satis discretus esset, He had not been discret enough, very presumptuously, if not blasphemously, shaping Christs wisdom after the model of our understanding; and injuriously to us, in bringing again Christian believers under that yoke of bondage, from which Christ hath freed them.

5. It pours out contempt upon the care of God over the New-Testament Churches (as if it were less to these, than to those under the Law) and the Oeconomy of the Gospel, as not so compleat as that of old, the whole of whose Worship, Orders and Ordinances (as was said) was bottom'd upon pure Revelation.

Answ. It is before proved, in the Answer to the Preface, Sect. 20. that it pours no contempt upon the care of God over the New-Testament Churches, that the whole of Gods Worship, Orders, and Ordinances in circumstantials or accidentals, which are liable to much variation in Churches of different Nations, are not bottom'd upon pure Revelation Divine, but in many things left to humane prudence: yea it is an effect of Gods love and care over the New-Testament Churches, that he hath not tied them in so many things to external rites and particularities of Instituted Worship, as he did the Jews: Nor is the Oeconomy of the Gospel less compleat, than that of old for this cause; but if I understand the Apostle, Col. 2.8, 9, 10. this reasoning is either the same, or every like that of the Philosophical, or Judaizing Teachers, to which the Apostles caution is opposed, telling them, that all fulness was in Christ, they were compleat in him without the tradition of men, or rudiments of the world; by which the Jewish Rites to be meant, is apparent from Col. 2.16, 17, 20. Gal 4 3, 9.

[Page]6. Saith he, It carries with it a sad reflection upon the authority of the Scripture, as not thorowly furnished to make the man of God perfect.

Answ. The authority and use of the holy Scripture is delivered by St. Paul, 2 Tim. 3.15, 16, 17. that they were able to make Timothy wise unto salvation through faith in Christ Jesus, that they were profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. Whence is rightly deduced against the Romanists, the perfection and sufficiency of the Scripture without unwritten Traditions for all Doctrinals of Faith and Manners, and Worship, in respect of Essentials. But it is no ill reflection upon its authority, to say that some accidentals of instituted Worship undetermined in Scripture, ordered by men according to general Rules in Scripture, are warranted by permission, without command of those particularities in holy Scripture.

7. The Lord condemns not onely that which is done against the warrant and direction of the Word, but also that which is done beside it, Deut. 4.2. and 12.32. Mat. 15.9. Lev. 10.1. (their sin lay not in this, that they offered strange fire, which was forbidden, but which God commanded them not) Prov. 30.6. Jer.7.31.

Answ. I suppose that this Author when he saith, the Lord condemns not only that which is done against the warrant and direction of the Word, but also that which is done besides it, means it of warrant and direction by command, and in instituted Worship; otherwise he should hold that nothing is indifferent, which is too absurd; and therefore I shall not charge him with it, till he do expresly assert it. But if his meaning be, as I conceive, that God condemns all that which is done besides the Warrant and Direction of the Word, by a command in the New Testament, even in accidentals of instituted Worship (which must be his proposition, if he argue to the purpose) his assertion is false, and not proved by any of the Texts alledged. Not Deut. 4 2. which is to be understood of Doctrines, Commands, or Institutions, as from God. Thus Ainsworth in his Annot. on Deut. 4.2. not add] Hereby all Doctrines of men are condemned, Mat. 15.9. and the all-sufficiency and authority of Gods Word stablished for ever, Gal. 3.15. 2 Tim. 3.16, 17. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be sound a Liar, Prov. 30 6. Which place is to be understood not of particularities of Instituted Worship undetermined; for then the reason should have been thus, Lest he reprove thee, and thou be found superstitious: but of Gods Commands, Promises, or Predictions, [Page] of which he had said, v. 5. Every Word of God is pure, he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him; and is opposed to the practice of false Prophets; who pretended revelations as from God, which they had not from him; and therefore were reproved by him, and found Liars. Which is also confirmed by that parallel place, Rev. 22.18, 19. Mat. 15.9. is the same with Mark 7.7. before alledged, and is taken from Isa. 29.13. and both by the Prophet against the Seers of his time, the Rulers and Prophets to whom the vision of God was as a sealed Book, and they understood not, or taught not according to his Law, but made shew of drawing nigh to God, whilest their fear towards him, that is, their Worship of him, or obedience to him, was taught by the precepts of men, and by our Lord Christ urged against the Pharisees, who were guilty of the same hypocrisie; and indeed proves, that all Doctrines are condemned wherein that is taught, or commanded, or urged as Gods Worship, which is onely by the Command of men; but condemns not every particularity of accidentals in instituted Worship undetermined by God, because from men, who reach it not, nor observe it as Gods Worship by his Command. Which Exposition is agreeable with that which this Author puts after in the Margin, In a Translation of the New Testament in Edward the sixths time, the Author of the Notes on Mat. 15. saith, God will not be wo [...]shipped after the Doctrine and Precepts of men, but as he himself hath prescribed and taught us in his Word. The same is to be said of Deut. 12.32. where God, having warned the Israelites, that they should not do so unto the Lord their God, as the Nations destroyed by them served their Gods, adds whatsoever thing I command you, observe to do it; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. Which hath the same sense as the Words, Deut. 4.2. well expounded in the English large Annotations, Deut. 4.2. shall not add] not as a Comment, or Exposition to a Text, but man must not add any thing to Gods Word, either for words or meaning contrary to it; nor as Gods Word, with an intent to make that of Divine Authority, which is but humane, as the Papists do by Apocryphal Writings, and unwritten Traditions: See Chap. 12.32. and 18.20. Diminish] by denying any part of it to be of Divine Authority; or concealing any part of it, either for words or meaning, or by partial Belief of it, or obedience to it. God is not to be believed, obeyed, or served in part, and by halfs; but as he is to be loved, wholly; Chap. 6.5. Which Precept is not to be restrained to immediate Worship, but to be extended to all other duties enjoyned, not only to the Priests, by whom the solemn Worship of God was to be administred; [Page] but also the King, who was to have a Copy of the Law, and not to turn aside from the Commandment, to the right hand or to the left, Deut. 17.20 and yet might make Orders about Civil Government not expressed in the Law. Yea, were the prohibition Deut. 4.2. and 12.32. restrained (as it is not) to worship, it cannot be taken for a prohibition of all Orders made by men concerning Gods Worship, as might be proved from Josh. 22.34. 2 Chron. 20.3. and 30.23. Esther 9.27, 31. and other places, if there were need, but such as were different from Gods commands in things determined by him, or in things indeterminate, when urged as Gods command, and made his Worship; wherein it is to be considered, that God was more strict to the Israelites, being more full in Ordinances concerning Ceremonies Typical, and peculiar to them, than he is to Christians, whom he hath released of their burden of rites. Lev. 10 1. The sin lay in this, that they offered strange fire, which was forbidden; as even Mr. Ainsworth acknowledgeth, Annot. on Lev. 10.1. Strange fire] that is other fire than God had sanctified on his Altar. As strange incense was expresly forbidden, Exod. 30.9. So strange fire was not commanded, but implicitely forbidden, by Lev. 1.7. & 6.12. as afterward God plainly sheweth in Levit. 16.12. So that both the expression there, and Jer. 7 31. of Gods not commanding, must be expounded by a figure of Speech frequent in Scripture, wherein Words or Phrases often signifie more than is expressed, which must be understood of that place, Jer. 7.31. where the thing God is said not to have commanded, is that which he had most strictly forbidden, and severely punished; to wit, the building the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; and therefore is rightly paraphrased by Mr. Gataker, in the large English Annot. on Jer. 7.31. Which I commanded them not] or, which I never commanded: but expr [...]sly forbad, and professed to abhor, Levit. 18.21. and 20.3. Deut. 12.31. and 18.10. And therefore these Texts are ill alledged to prove the Lords condemning of that which is done onely beside the warrant and direction of the Word, and that it is not lawful for the Saints to practise that which being but an accidental part, adjunct, or circumstance of instituted Worship hath not warrant by command in the Scripture. He adds 8. of the same mind with us in this matter, are the renowned Witnesses of Christ in all ages; generally all that write upon the second Commandment, speak fully hereunto.

Answ. This assertion cannot be proved, nor is it likely to be true, such those few testimonies alledged of Cyprian, Beza, Luther, [Page] and Whitaker, are impertinent. That of Cyprian, Epist. 63. to Caecilius, is manifestly meant of that which is prescribed by Christ, and not of adjuncts undetermined; the whole Epistle being against the Aquarii, who would have water only in the Lords Supper; whom Cyprian refutes, asserting that Christ used and commanded Wine mingled with Water, erring therein. Bezas words in his Annot. on Philip. 1.1. that it is unsafe to decline from the Word of God, though but an hairs breadth, are to be understood of things determined therein. Luthers words on 1 Pet. 4.11. as they are cited (which I have not the Book to examine) are meant of Doctrines or Decrees, which he would not have subscribed to, or taught, unless in the Word of God. The place where Dr. Whitakers words are, is not quoted: they seem to be against the Popish use of Oyl in their Sacraments, which they conceive to confer grace, and add it to Baptism, in which Christ hath appointed no other Element but Water, and therefore I conceive them not to assert that which is the Major to be proved, that the practice of adjuncts of instituted Worship undetermined, is unlawful without a Command in Scripture. That many others may be added to these, I doubt not; but that they speak home to his Proposition, I believe not. Voet. Polit. Eccles. part. 1. l. 2. h. 1. c. 7. sect. 2. Ecclesiae in genere potestatem ceremonias adiaphoras assumendi, & in cultu divino adhibendi nemo hactenus negarit qui ei tribuit potestatem clavium & cum ea potestatem regiminis [...] sive [...], &c. The Declaration of the Congregational Elders, Ch. 1. saith, there are some circumstances concerning the Worship of God, and Government of the Church, common to humane actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of Nature and Christian Prudence according to the general rules of the Word.

Sect. 4. Prejudice is no argument, nor personal motives good proof.

He adds: The Minor, (or second Proposition) consists of two parts: 1 That Hearing is part of instituted Worship, one would wonder should it be denied; however 'tis evident it is so, from the light of this single demonstration: That in which we wait upon God in the way of an Ordinance for the Communication of good, beyond the vertue of any creature to conveigh to us, is part of the instituted Worship of God (for what I wait for, not being in the thing it self, in which I am waiting, no ground can be assigned for my expecting good through it, but Divine Institution) but in the Hearing of the Word, we wait upon God in the[Page]way of an Ordinance, for the Communication of good, beyond the vertue of any creature to conveigh to us: Therefore.

Answ. I do grant Hearing the Word of God to be one part, or sort of Gods instituted Worship in the sense delivered by me in the Answer to the Preface, in the three first Sections; because it is required by God, and tends to shew our subjection to him as our Soveraign Lord, and our acknowledgment of his transcendent Wisdom and Infallibility; and is for these ends an address immediately to God, on whom only we wait to know his Will, though brought us by his created Messenger, whose Doctrine we receive not as his Word, but as the Word of the living God; nor believe or obey it any farther than it appears to be his. But I do not take the argument here produced, to be demonstrative, sith there be many things, as Marriage, Eating, Drinking, Ploughing, Sowing, &c. in which we wait upon God in the way of an Ordinance for the Communication of good beyond the vertue of any creature to conveigh to us, and yet are not parts of the Instituted Worship of God.

2. Saith he, That hearing the present Ministers of England is not warranted in the Scripture: This will be manifested when we come to the ventilating and scanning of those places which are usually produced for the abetting of the practice of some in this matter: in the mean while, we crave liberty to profess, that it is not opinionativeness, singularity, vain-glory, uncharitableness, or any thing of that nature (as some are apt uncharitably enough to censure) but the dread and awe of God (who is a jealous God, and especially in point of worship) and an holy fear of offending him, that hinders us from complying in these matters: could but one word, tittle, or iota be produced from the Scriptures of God, for the warranting the hearing the present Ministers of England, we should quickly lay our mouths in the dust, confess and bewail our folly in refusing to conform thereunto: but this we are fully assured, those that dissent from us are not able to do: what they say therein, shall [...], be sifted to the uttermost.

Answ. The hearing the present Ministers of England, while they teach the Doctrine of Gods Word, is warranted in Scripture, which forbids only the hearing of False Prophets, Mat. 7.15. Antichrists, that seduce, that bring not the doctrine of the Apostles, 1 Joh 2.18, 26. and 4.1, 5, 6. 2 Joh. 7.10 which if he prove the Ministers of England to be, his Minor is proved; but not either by personal exceptions against their entry on their Ministry, or their sinful practices; nor by ventilating or scanning of those places [Page] which are usually produced for the abetting of the practice of some in this matter. For though Ministers be as bad as Judas, yet they may be heard preach the Gospel, as he was; and though the places alledged should prove insufficient for what they are produced, yet is not the Minor proved, till the sin be shewed, which is committed by hearing the present Ministers, (for where there is no Law forbidding, there is no transgression, Rom. 4.15.) and not People affrighted, by filling them with unnecessary scruples; nor divided one from another upon such suggestions, as this Writing yields; nor drawn to separations and oppositions, which tend to the undoing of men in their Estates, hinder the publick Peace, and the furtherance of the Gospel. To prevent which it little avails, that this Author acquaints us with his motive in his writing this piece. For though all he sayes of himself were true (as Charity binds me to believe it to be) yet it serves only to create prejudice in the minds of well-meaning People, who are led more by the opinion they have of the Writer, than by the strength of his Arguments; and for the most part hinders the impartial search for truth, and makes men adhere faster to a party. We know the opinion that was had of the holiness of the Pharisees, was the greatest stumbling-block to the Jews against Christs Doctrine; and the opinion of the holiness of Monks, was the great furtherance of Popish Superstition and Idolatry; and the opinion of many Teachers, hath bred many Errours; of which I gave warning many years since, in a little Treatise, Entituled, Anthropolatria on 1 Cor 3.21. foreseeing (as it hath come to pass) that glorying in Teachers would be the mischief of the Churches; from which it is time to take off People, and to make them more diligent and serious in examining what is said on both sides; as the Apostle admonisheth us, 1 Thess. 5 21. Nevertheless I doubt not but in the progress of this dispute, I shall shew Scripture warrant for hearing the Ministers of England that preach the Gospel, notwithstanding the objections against them; and accordingly proceed in answering this Writing, that I may promote Truth and Peace, which is my aim, however I be censured; hoping that in time God will direct honest-hearted persons to unlearn that mischievous course of esteeming res ex personis, things by persons, and give over that evil custom of too many, who speak for, or against opinions, or practices, according to the affection they bear to men; and have no other argument why they refuse a thing, but this; that good people, as they judge them, are against it; nor why they adhere to it, but because they are for it. Which is in effect to [Page] make them their Masters, contrary to Christs Prerogative, Mat. 23.10. and in some sort idolizing of them. Nor do I think it unfit to mind this Author, that it were adviseable, that he did better examine his Tenet and Arguments, sith as, Gisbertus Voetius Professour of Utrecht saith, Polit. Eccl. part 1 lib. 2. Tract. 1. c. 7. Sect. 3. that it is the common opinion of all the Reformed Divines, who notwithstanding the defect of Reformation of Rites and Government in the Church of England, under Edward, Elizabeth, James have held fraternity with it constantly, that consent in Ceremonies, or the manner or form of Government, is not necessarily required to retain, or restore fraternity between Churches of the greatest, greater or lesser, diverse union and correspondence.

CHAP. 2. ARG. 2.

Sect. 1. Preachers may be heard, as teaching Truth.

IF it be lawful to hear the present Ministers of England, it is lawful to hear them, either as Ministers of the Gospel, or Gifted Brethren: But it is not lawful to hear them, either as Ministers of the Gospel, or as Gifted Brethren: Therefore. The major (or first Proposition) will not be denied; That Christ hath appointed some as Ministers, by vertue of an Office-power, to dispense the Ordinances of the Gospel, until his second coming; is granted by all, that it is permitted to others, as their liberty; enjoyned them as their duty (having Gifts and Enablements from the Lord thereunto) to improve those Gifts, in Preaching, Praying, &c. for the edification of the body of Christ, (though not solemnly invested into Office) is assented unto, at least, by some of those with whom we have to do; whence a lawfulness to hear them as Ministers, or as Gifted Brethren, doth necessarily arise.

Answ. I deny the Major, or the consequence of the first proposition. 1. Because the disjunction is of terms not opposite, but coincident; the same persons may be and are both Ministers of the Gospel, and Gifted Brethren, and may be heard under both considerations.

2. The disjunction is not full, sith a third member may be assigned, that they may be heard, as preaching, or declaring the Word of God, or speaking the truth of the Gospel: which is the only consideration requisite to the Hearer to be respected in Hearing.

[Page]1. Because God hath forbidden hearing of none, but such as teach falshoods; and therefore Hearers are not bound to decline Hearing any, but such as they have reason to conceive teach contrary to Gods Word.

2. Because Hearers are not all of them at any time, nor any of them at all times enabled or fit to examine the Office, Power, or Gifts, or Brotherhood of those they may hear.

3. It is lawful to hear such as are neither in Office, Power, nor Gifted Brethren; as it was lawful for Apollos to hear Priscilla, Acts 18.26. Timothy to hear Lois his Grandmother, and Eunice his Mother, 1 Tim. 1.5. 2 Tim. 3.15. the Iberian Prince, the Captive Maid; the Indians, Frumentius.

4. The Beraeans are commended for their examining St. Pauls Doctrine, without examining his Office, Power, or his Gifts, or Brotherhood, Acts 17.11.

5. If the Scriptures be the rule of the Doctrine we are to hear, then are we bound to look to no more for the lawfulness of our hearing, than the congruity or agreement of what we hear with it; yea, we sin if we do not hear it, whoever he be that brings it; as on the other side, if any bring it not, though he be a Minister in Office, Power, or a Gifted Brother; yea, or an Apostle, or an Angel from Heaven, he is not to be heard, Gal. 1.8, 9.

6. To forbid a man to hear him that preacheth, or declares the Truth of God, because he knows him not to be, or conceives him not to be a Minister in Office, Power, or a Gifted Brother, perhaps out of partial prejudice against him, or upon false reports and surmises, or because he is not of his Party, may be a means to hinder a mans edification, and salvation, and to harden him to his perdition. Which is not unusual, but too too often; many declining to hear them that preach sound Doctrine, because they say they rail, when they reprove their errours, or vices; and choosing to hear those that are of their way, and preach according to that which they like, or else turn Seekers, denying any to be Ministers, but such as speak by immediate and unerring motion of the Spirit; or hearing none at all, because of dissenting judgment from themselves. Wherefore, though I grant that Christ hath appointed Ministers, as is said, and that it is wisdom to choose and hearken to such, and most of all to the best, and the most able: and though the reading of Mr. Matthew Pool's Quo Warranto? might deterr many, who take upon them to preach constantly and publickly in solemn Assemblies, as Gifted Brethren, from their practice which they use. Nor do I deny there may be liberty, yea, and [Page] duty occasionally, especially when there is want of Ministers in Office to preach; yet I deny, that a lawfulness to hear them as Ministers, or as Gifted Brethren, doth necessarily thence arise. For suppose a Minister, or Gifted Brother, should be Heretical, yet he is not to be heard, but shunned, Tit. 3.10. Here by the way I take notice, that if it be lawful to others, then Ministers to preach as their liberty permitted to them. Some practice that is a part of Instituted Worship, is warranted in Scripture, as the persons liberty by permission without command; and therefore hearing of the present Ministers may be lawful and warranted in Scripture as mens liberty by permission without command, which was my answer to this Authors first Argument against hearing them, and is now confirmed by his Concession concerning the preaching of Gifted-Brethren.

Sect. 2. They may be heard as Ministers of the Gospel, who are not rightly called.

It is added: 'Tis the minor (or second Proposition) that is capable, in the thoughts of some, of a denial: which we prove per partes, thus. 1. 'Tis not lawful to hear them as Ministers of the Gospel: they are not such, therefore may not be heard as such.

Ans. I deny this consequence, if a man either ignorantly or fraudulently get into the place of a Minister of the Gospel, or be unduly chosen or ordained; yet if he have the place of the Minister of the Gospel, and preach it truly he may be heard as a Minister of the Gospel, though he be not such; that is, rightly called and stated in that Function.

The reasons whereof are, 1. Because every Hearer is not bound to examine the entrance of the Teacher into his Function; therefore it is enough to hear him as such, that there is nothing appears to the contrary.

2. Because it is above the ability of Hearers to judge of the Ministers Call in many Cases, the resolution thereof depending upon sundry Controversies about the power of Election and Ordination, which they are not able to discuss; and there are many proceedings in getting Testimonials, using means for obtaining Ordination, Institution, (besides what concerns their Baptism) which either they cannot, or their time and estate will not permit them to enquire into, and sure Christ hath not bound men to impossibilities.

3. In all Governments and Societies, the peaceable Possessour is presumed to have right till the contrary be evinced, otherwise [Page] there would be perpetual unquietness, and so Societies be dissolved. Nor do I think even in the most Reformed, no not in the Congregational Churches, it would be permitted to a Member of the Society to decline the hearing of him, who is taken for their Minister by the most, though he conceive or know him to be unduely admitted into the Office. Sure I am St. Paul did apply the Precept Exod. 22.28. to Ananias as High Priest, Acts 23.5. though it was manifest that he was not such, by any legitimate succession, but by unrighteous practices, and favour of the Roman Governour in Judaea. Yea, the Scripture makes Caiaphas to prophesie as High Priest, though (contrary to the Law) not High Priest for life, but that year, Joh. 11.51. and if relations of the Histories of those Times be right, no legitimate Successour in that Office, but an Usurper, and yet our Lord Christ did not except against him, when he was convented before him, as convented coram non judice, or any other way excepted against his Office. And therefore I judge that Christs example and St. Pauls are sufficient Warrant to us to submit to, and hear them that are not right Officers, when they peaceably possess the place; and consequently it is lawful to hear them as Ministers of the Gospel, who are not such rightly called. But let us consider this Authors Plea against the present Ministers of England.

Sect. 3. Preachers may be Ministers of the Gospel, who are not chosen by a particular Instituted Church.

That they are not Ministers of the Gospel (but Thieves and Robbers) is manifest: such as come not in by the Door, which is Christ, Joh. 10.9. (viz. by vertue of any Authority derived to them from him) are not Ministers of the Gospel, but Thieves and Robbers, Joh. 10.1. (from whom 'tis the property of the Sheep to flee, ver. 4) But the present Ministers of England come not in by the Door: Therefore. That they come not in by the Door, (viz. by vertue of any authority derived to them from Christ) is evident: If they have received any such authority or Commission from him, they have received it, either mediately, or immediately: the latter will not be asserted, nor without the working of miracles, should it so be, would it to the Worlds end be made good: 'Tis the former must be fixed upon, viz. That they have received their Authority or Commission mediately from Christ, but to as little purpose; for those that receive authority to preach the Gospel mediately from Christ, have it from some particular Instituted Church of Christ, to whom power is solely delegated[Page]for the Electing of their own Officers, according to the tenor of the ensuing Scriptures, Acts 6.5. & 14.23.

Answ. If this could be proved, there need no more to prove, That the present Ministers of England, are not to be heard, for if they be Thieves and Robbers, the sheep will flee from them, and ought to do so, Joh. 10.5. But it is an ill sign of an inconsiderate and audacious spirit, for so high a charge (which he that fears God, I think, should tremble to bring against so many Preachers of a Reformed Church) to bring so low a proof; which, if it be well considered, may be not only urged against Presbyterian Preachers, if he mean by particular instituted Church (as his meaning appears to be by his Preface) a Church gathered in the Congregational way by Church Covenant, as they speak, but also against his gifted Brethren, who have not authority to Preach mediately by election of a particular Church, but onely from their gifts. And if it be said, They are chosen by the Church; yet this will not authorize them, unless the Church have power to choose any besides their own Officers, which this Author doth not pretend. Now let it be considered, what a heavy burden is put on the consciences of hearers. They must hear no Thieves and Robbers, no nor any Stangers: if this Author argue rightly from this Text, and all are Thieves, and Robbers, and Strangers, who are not chosen by a particular instituted Church, who have power onely to choose their own Officers, therefore they must hear no meer gifted Brethren, no Itenerant Preachers, though approved by Tryers, none but their own Officers, and those rightly chosen; and consequently they must, before they hear them, know their Election to be right, and the particular Church electing them to be rightly instituted, which tends to such dictraction of peoples minds, and alienation of them from hearing, as can end in nothing but meer Irreligion, and make men Seekers or Quakers, the mischiefs of which are too too conspicuous. But I shall more directly answer this Argument, and that so much the rather, because the Text John 10. is abused by Papists, to prove, that they are not right Shepherds, who have not authority from the Pope, whom they make the One Shepherd, v. 16. (as Hart in his Conference with Dr. Rainold, Chap. 6) from whom all Bishop [...] derive their power, and all the Sheep are to hear; and by Quakers and others to prove, that they are not true Shepherds, nor to be heard, who receive any maintenance by Tithes or other stipend; because they that do so, are by them judged Hirelings, and not Shepherds, v. 12. It is granted, that Christ is the door, [Page] Joh. 10.9. but it may be doubted, whether Christ be meant by the door, Joh. 10.1. the reason of which is, because then Christ should be said to enter by himself, and the door to enter by the door. To avoid which, Maldonate in his Commentary, conceives the door, v. 1. not to be the same with the door, v▪ 9. but the door, v. 1. to be the Scriptures of the Prophets, wh [...] foretold of the good Shepherd, Ezek. 37.24▪ & 34.23. Jerem. 23.5. & 30.9. Isa. 40.11. by vertue of which Prediction he entred. And indeed the whole purport of the Parable doth tend to this, that he onely was the good Shepherd; that is, the Messiah foretold by the Prophets; and that all other that pretended to be the Messiah, or good Shepherd, such as Theudas, and Judas of Galilee, mentioned Act. 5.36, 37. and if there were any other like them, were but Thieves, and Robbers, Strangers, Hirelings, though they took on them to be Shepherds; they were but false Christs, such as Christ foretels should arise, Mat. 24.24. But let it be granted, that the door is the same Joh. 10.1. and 9. the entering in, v. 9. cannot be meant of entring into the Ministery lawful election of a particular Instituted Church. For then it would follow, that every one that enters into the Ministry by by election of a particular Instituted Church shall be saved, and go in and out and finde pasture, which is manifestly false. Therefore entring, is meant of every True believer, and is by faith in Christ, who is the right door, by whom, that is, by his Doctrin, men come to be his Sheep, and he is their Shepherd. But be it, that the entring be into the Ministery, and that entring be by vertue of Authority derived to them from him, how is it proved they are not authorized by Christ immediately who work not Miracles? Have not many, especially in cases of necessity, been Ministers of Christ by immediate inward call, who have not wrought Miracles? It were hard to conclude of Petrus Waldo, and many other Reformers, that had no power of working Miracles, that they were not Ministers of Christ (that I say nothing of gifted Brethren) that they were Thieves and Robbers, because they had no immediate calling by a particular Instituted Church. Sure this would be to offend against the generation of Gods children, who in the darkest times of Papal Tyranny, took upon them to Preach the Gospel, without a praevious election of a particular Instituted Church. But how doth he prove, that those that receive authority to Preach the Gospel mediately from Christ, have it from some particular Instituted Church of Christ? He alledgeth no other but this, that to a particular instituted [Page]Church of Christ, power is solely delegated for the electing of their own Officers. But what then? may not, for all this, power be given to some others to choose, send and ordain Preachers for the unconverted, who yet may be Ministers of the Gospel, and may be heard as such? Yea, may not some others ordain Elders for particul [...] Instituted Churches? Sure when St. Paul left Titus in Crete, that he might set in order things that were wanting, and ordain Elders in every City, as he had appointed him, Tit. 1.5. giving him direction whom to ordain, he left it to him to choose Preachers for Instituted Churches, who were to be heard, and this by power delegated by Christ to him, and therefore power is not solely delegated to a particular Instituted Church of Christ, for the electing of their own Officers, but that they may be chosen and ordained by some other for them, by vertue of an authority derived t [...] them from Christ. But how proves he the power for electing their own Officers delegated solely to a particular Instituted Church of Christ? He saith, it is according to the tenour of the ensuing Scriptures, whereof one is Acts 6.5. and that relates onely one act, of choosing the seven Deacons by the whole multitude of the Disciples at Hierusalem, who cannot be well counted such a particular Instituted Church, as made up one Congregation to meet every Lords day for all Ordinances: they were too numerous to be such, nor were they organized under fixed Officers with such constitution, as is now made necessary to a particular Instituted Church: Nor did they choose the Deacons upon any conceived power delegated from Christ, by vertue of any rule established by Christ or his Apostles, which should be perpetual in all ages to all Churches; but upon advice of the Apostles for their more liberty to attend on other work of more importance, and their own liking: nor, if it were to be a perpetual rule for all Churches in all ages, can it be any rule for choosing other Officers besides Deacons, there being a peculiar reason, why they should choose Deacons, whose honesty, prudence, and mercifulness was to be discerned, and not other Officers, whose sufficiency to Teach, and Orthodoxie were to be considered; of which the whole multitude of Disciples then, and the major part of a particular Instituted Church are rarely now competent Judges. The other text Act 14.23. hath no colour to prove such a delegated power, but from one word [...], which our Translation renders [when they had ordained.] Beza, after others, [Per suffragia creâssent, Had created by suffrages;] and because the word arose from a custom among the Greeks of choosing their Officers by Suffrages or Votes, signified [Page] by the stretching out of the hand, conceives, that Paul and Barnabas, did not create the Elders in the Churches, without the Churches election, signified by stretching out of their hands, to shew their consent to the elected; and thence is inferred, that so it should be now. But this is but one example, (though it is not to be denied, that in after ages, which were times of Persecution, the Elders were chosen by the Church) and therefore seems not sufficient to inferr a necessary perpetual rule of such election; especially other passages shewing the Constituting or Ordaining of Elders without mentioning of any such election, as Tit. 1.5. 1 Tim. 5.22. And though the original and use of the word, were from the custom mentioned, and did in popular Elections signifie Election by suffrages; yet, as in other words, so in this, use hath enlarged its sense, & apples it to other creating, than by such suffrage, as is manifest by the use of it, even in the same book, Acts· 10.41. where the Apostle are termed Witnesses, Note: See Selden de Syned▪ Ebre. l. 1. c. 14. [...], chosen before of God; who did not choose by suffrages of others; and by Dr. Hammond, in his Annot. on Act. 14.23. is shewed to be used in like manner in Philo Judaeus, and other Authors, besides Christians; as the same with Electing, Ordaining, or Constituting without Suffrages of others, and must be so understood in this very place; because none are said [...], to stretch out their hand, but Paul and Barnabas; and it is said, they did [...], which cannot be well translated any other than Ordaining by laying on their hands on the Elders; not by bare stretching out, or lifting up their hands, as was wont to be in Suffrages; and it is said, [...], to or for them, manifestly distinguishing the Disciples from the Electors, or Ordainers, by stretching out or laying on of hands. So that this place doth not prove Power solely delegated to a particular Church instituted for the electing of their own Officers; and therefore if all were true, which is added by this Author, [These men (as its known) have no such authority, pretend not to it, have it in derision, come barely with a presentation from a Patron, and Ordination, Institution, and Induction from a Lord-Bishop (things forraign to the Scripture) and impose themselves upon the people whether they will or no.] Yet they may be Ministers of the Gospel, and heard as such, notwithstanding this Argument. Yet I add, that it will be hard for this Author to prove, that the Parish Churches in England, are not particular Instituted Churches of Christ; or, that the Ministers [Page] are imposed on the People whether they will or no: the contrary is true of many places, especially in London, concerning the Incumbents and Lecturers: Nor is the Ordination of a Lord-Bishop such a forraign thing to the Scripture, as this Author would insinuate, the Bishop not Ordaining without other Elders joyning with him, and giving him no other authority, than to Preach the word of God, and to Minister the holy Sacraments in the Congregation, where he shall be lawfully appointed thereunto. To shut up the Answer to this Argument: As the Text Joh. 10.16. is abused by Hart, to prove the Bishop of Rome to be the Supreme Pastor of the Church of Christ, as Dr. Rainold sheweth in his Conference, Ch. 6 divis. 1. it being meant only of the Lord Christ: and the Quakers abuse Joh. 10.12. to cry down Preachers as Hirelings, because they receive Wages, though it be according to Christs own determination, Luke 10.7. the Lords Ordinance, I Cor. 9.14. St. Pauls practice sometime, 2 Cor. 11.8. and his Precept, Gal. 6.6. and his Approbation, 1 Tim. 5.17, 18. The word [Hireling] Joh. 10.12. being not used as making it a sin for a Minister to receive hire; but to distinguish Christ from other Shepherds, who was not as Hirelings, whose Sheep are not their own, but was a singular Pastor, owner of the Sheep of whom he was Pastor: and those abuse Joh. 10.5. who urge it against the hearing of any Preachers, but those of their own Church or way, calling them Strangers; whereas the strangers there, are such as were Usurpers of Christs Office, and were enemies to the Sheep, not feeding them, but perverting them: So this Author abuse [...] John 10.1, 9. by saying, the present Ministers of England, are Thieves and Robbers, because they come not into their Ministry by the door; that is, by any authority to them from Christ; that is, not by election of a particular Instituted Church; when this is but from an expression in a parable, in which is not the scope or Doctrin intended by it, and therefore not argumentative; and neither is it certain, that the door, v. 1. is the same with the door, v. 9. nor if it were, is the door that whereby there is entrance into the Ministery, but the Church, nor the entrance by right election of others, but by the persons true faith, nor is the not entring in by the door, brought as the reason or form denominating them Thieves and Robbers, but only as some description of them from a concomitant, nor are any meant there to be Thieves and Robbers, who do direct to Christ, or receive him, for defect of regular calling, but such only as obtruded themselves as the Messiah on the people, with intent to make a prey of them.

Sect. 4. The present Ministers may be heard as Gifted Brethren.

[Page]

There is yet more of the like stuff; 2. Saith he, 'Tis not lawful to hear them as Gifted Brethren.

1. The most of them are not Gifted Brethren; Nor,

2. Brethren, being Canonical Drunkards, Swearers, Gamesters &c.

Answ. That any of them are such, it is to be bewailed, and in a Christian way the persons that are guilty, are to be rebuked, Levit. 19.17. not to be thus charged in Print, in a Book vented in the dark, tending not to amend them, but to make them odious; even with them that are too much inclined to censuring and reviling of those that dissent from them, or are of an opposite party. But how it appears that the most of the present Ministers of England are such as he stigmatizeth them, I know not; and I hope it is not true. However, if it were so, it proves not that others better qualified might not be heard; nor that these men may not bethren; yea, if he follow St. Pauls rule, 2 Thess. 3.15. alledged a little after, he is not to account them as enemies, but to admonish them as Brethren: and were all this, and more true, yet they might be heard preach the Gospel as Brethren Gifted, as Judas was to be heard, though declared by Christ to be a Devil, Joh. 6.70. But what saith he of the rest?

3. The best of them cannot by Saints, in respect of Gospel Communion, be so accounted: For,

1. There was never any giving up of our selves each to other, according to the Will of God and Primitive example, whence such a Brotherhood doth result.

Answ. By [Saints] I doubt not he means such as are members of a particular Instituted Church Congregational, distinct from Parish Churches, either under Episcopal or Presbyterial Government. For such only are accounted Saints by him, as give up themselves each to other, according to the Will of God, and Primitive example: and by [Gospel Communion] no doubt he means hearing of them preach, praying with them, receiving the Sacraments from them, or breaking Bread in the Lords Supper with them, or submitting to them, or joyning in Ecclesiastical Discipline with them; which is in effect to make an utter separation from them, as no members of a Christian Church. Now this assertion shews not a dram of Christian Love, but very much antipathy in him, who denies not p. 93. but that there are some amongst the present [Page]Preachers of this day, that are good men: and methinks he should tremble to exclude such from Gospel Communion here, from whose Company he would be loath to be excluded hereafter. But he doth not insanire sine ratione. He implies in his first reason, that giving up of our selves each to other, (he means by Church-covenant in the Congregational way) is according to the Will of God and Primitive example; which is either explicitely or implicitely to engage themselves one to another, to walk together, and to hold Communion in all Gospel Ordinances. I will not say this is unlawful, nor at no time necessary; but that it is according to Gods Will, by way of Institution for Church Communion, or according to any Primitive example, I do not yet find. Gods Command for such a Church Covenant, I remember not to have found alledged, nor Primitive example: besides, 2 Cor. 8.5. which is far from the purpose, the Macedonians giving their own selves to the Lord, and then to Paul and Timothy by the Will of God; being no Covenant between themselves to walk together in Christian Communion, but a free addicting themselves to the Ministry to the poor Saints elsewhere in Judaea, by making a Collection very liberally for them, and urging St. Paul and Timothy to prosecute the Collection at Corinth, with offer of assistance of some of their own to that end. And the assertion [whence such a Brother-hood doth result] is groundless. For though some have made the Church Covenant the Form of a particular Instituted Church, as Mr. Norton in his Answer to Apollonius, Ch. 2, &c. and thence deduced the right to Communion, and the relation of Brother-hood; yet the Scripture makes all who hold the same Faith and are Baptized into Christ, to be Brethren and Members of all the Churches of the World, Gal. 3.26, 27, 28, 29. 1 Cor. 12.12, 13. and 10.16, 17. Ephes. 4.4, 5, 6. whence it follows, that the assertion of the resultance of Brother-hood in respect of Gospel Communion from such giving up of themselves each to other, is opposite to the unity of Christians; and doth rather tend to make particular Churches, particular Parties, than to advance the Communion of Saints in the Catholick Church. Dr. Ames is more charitable, Trip. p. 523. I doubt not to say (according to my conscience) that among those which live under the tyranny of the Pope, and do not utterly separate from him through ignorance, there be many Christians sincere, according to their knowledge, belonging to the true Catholick Church, and so to be accounted our godly Brethren.

2. Saith he, We cannot (as things stand) perform the duties of Brethren to them, according to Mat. 18. nor will they, or can they in the state in which they stand, to us.

[Page] Answ. This Reason depends upon many uncertainties, if no Errours; of which I have said somewhat before, in Answer to the Preface, Sect. 15. in the Addition to my Apologie, Sect. 17. and much more is in Grot. Annot. in Mat. 18.15, 16, 17. Selden de Syned. Ebrae. lib. 1 c. 9. where it is argued, that Mat. 18.17. cannot be understood of such Ecclesiastical censure, as is now in use. Certainly without all shew of reason, the term [Church] Mat. 18.17. is restrained to a particular Instituted Church in the Congregational way, as the Phrase is, and the term [Brother] to one, that is a member of such a Church, and to say, that men of the Principles with this Author concerning the Independent Discipline, cannot (as things stand) perform the duties of Brethren to the best of the present Ministers of England; whereof some are by him confessed to be good men: according to Mat. 18. nor will they, or can they, in the state in which they stand to them, is in effect to profess the same hatred, or distance, as the Scripture notes to have been between the Jews and Samaritans, Joh. 4.9. contrary to Christs Doctrine in the Parable of the wounded man, Luke 10.37. in that thereby is denied to one another the greatest work of Mercy commanded, Levit. 19.17. Thou shalt not hate thy Brother in thy heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him▪ But he goes on.

3. If we acknowledge the best of them for such, we must also acknowledge the worst of them: For,

1. They are all members of the same Church.

2. Profess themselves to be one Brother-hood; so saith their Rime upon the Lords Prayer, Our Father which in Heaven art, And makest us all one Brother-hood, &c.

Answ. Gospel Communion is either private or publick: There is private Gospel Communion in private reproof, and I think (as bad as the worst of the present Ministers of England be) they are to be accounted by real (though perhaps they be not by Pharisaically minded reputed) Saints as Brethren in respect of Gospel Communion. Even towards them is to be that exhortation, Gal. 6.1. Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thy self, lest thou also be tempted, which sure humble Saints do. There is private Gospel Communion in opening their minds one to another, as it is said, Mal. 3.16. Then they that feared the Lord, spake often one to another: and this St. James requires, James 5.16. Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another that ye may be healed. Now concerning this, it follows not, if we acknowledge [Page] the best of the present Ministers of England as Brethren, in respect of Gospel Communion, we must also acknowledge the worst of them. Publick Gospel Communion may be in hearing them, praying with him, praising God, receiving the Lords Supper, exercising with them, or submitting to them in respect of Church Discipline. In some of these at least, I know no sufficient reason, why the Saints may not account the worst of the present Ministers of England as Brethren, in respect of Gospel Communion. Judas might be heard as an Apostle, and if he were a Communicant at the Lords Supper (as Mr. Seldens discourse in his first Book Chap. 9. de Syned. Ebraeorum, seems to me to evince) there is warrant to receive the Lords Supper with the worst of them. We find that those that made acclamation to Christ when he rode into Jerusalem, were a mixt multitude of Disciples, Children, and such as came to the Feast; though it is likely they were not Disciples, viz. those Greeks that desired to see Jesus, as may be gathered by comparing Mat. 21.9, 15. Luke 19.37. Joh. 1.12, 20, 21. Yet our Lord Christ himself justified their joyning together in their praying and praising God, Mat. 21.16. Luke 19.39, 40. Sure it can be no sin in any person to joyn in the true worship and service of God with any, if he have no command to withdraw himself from that service because of their presence, nor power to exclude them, and yet is bound to the duties then performed. Believers might prophesie and hear it, though Unbelievers came in, 1 Cor. 14.24, 25. Christians are commanded to separate, and not touch the unclean thing, 2 Cor. 6.17. But those they are to separate from, are no other than Unbelievers, and the unclean thing is the Idol, v. 15, 16. not the true service of God, because of the presence of some scandalous Brother. The people of God are to come out of Babylon, Rev. 18 4. but that is no other than Rome, and that because of its Idolatry, v. 2, 3. Rev. 17.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 18. We are not to keep company with a man called a Brother, if he be a Fornicator, or Covetous, or an Idolater, or a Railer, or a Drunkard, or an Extortioner, with such an one, no not to eat, 1 Cor. 5.11. But this prohibited keeping Company, and eating can be meant of no other than arbitrary, unnecessary society in civil things, and eating common Bread, because v. 10. that keeping Company which is forbidden to such Brethren, is allowed in v. 9, 10. to the Fornicators of this world; which cannot be Gospel Communion, keeping company in eating the Lords Supper, but civil eating. The Doctrine of defiling our selves by the presence of wick [...]d men at the Lords Supper, [Page] hath begotten so much superstition in the minds of many well-affected people, that they can scarce ever break Bread with comfort, no not in the best Instituted Churches; there being seldom such an unspotted Congregation but that some or other is known, or reported, or suspected to be guilty of some sin, or errour, which is made sufficient to exclude themselves from the Communion; so that as they use to speak, they are not free to break Bread, and that before the fault be examined, or the person judged upon trial to be guilty and impenitent; which makes those very Churches, which by themselves are counted purest and best Disciplined, to be full of Brawls, and rash censures and separations, and without any regular Discipline of any long continuance. These things being considered, I answer, that I know no evil in it, to account the worst of the Ministers of England Brethren, in respect of Gospel Communion, (if not under regular censure) in Hearing, Prayer, Praising of God, eating the Lords Supper, nor evil to account them members of the same Church, and of one Brotherhood, according to the Rime, which should not be derided by any holy, sober Christians, being only the Lords Prayer in Metre. It follows.

Sect. 5. Tender Consciences may call the Bishops Reverend Fathers.

Nay, 3. We cannot so acknowledge them, but we must also acknowledge the Bishops for our Reverend Fathers (for theirs they are) which how abhorring it is to any tender enlightned soul, may easily be conjectured.

Answ. The Bishops are acknowledged by the present Ministers of the Church of England, as their Reverend Fathers, in respect of their Ordination, but as Brethren only in respect of Gospel Communion. Nor do I think the Bishops affect the title of Reverend Fathers, as if they were superiours over the Ministers or People, in respect of the common Faith, had dominion over their Faith, or were Lords over Gods heritage, or would be called Masters or Fathers in that sense, in which our Lord Christ appropriates these Titles to himself and his Father, Mat. 23.8, 9, 10. in which sense I acknowledge any tender enlightned soul should abhor to give it to them. I conceive they are far from usurping that Title, as the Bishop of Rome doth, who now hath ingrossed the Title of Pope, that is Father heretofore given to other Ministers, even to Deacons; and doth claim the Prerogative to be the Oecumenical Bishop, and Universal Monarch, as Christs Vicar over the [Page] whole Church; as having power to make Laws binding the Conscience out of the Case of Scandal and Contempt, to determine infallibly in point of Faith; with much more, wherein he sitteth in the Temple of God, showing himself that he is God, 2 Thess. 2.4. But I conceive the Title of Reverend Fathers is given to them, and taken by them in no such sense; but that they account not only the Ministers, but also the meanest Christian, their Brethren in Christ. Yet may they be called Reverend Fathers, not only in regard of their Age, and their success in begetting others through the Gospel in Christ Jesus, as the Apostle of himself, 1 Cor. 4.15. in which respect there have been, and I presume some of them are rightly termed Fathers in Christ; but also in respect of their Office and Dignity, according to that of the Apostle, 1 Tim. 5.1. Rebuke not an Elder, but intreat him as a Father. In which respects usual Titles may be given, even to the unworthy, as St. Paul did, Acts 22.1. and 26.25. and such compellations and salutations have been used by holy persons, Gen. 42.10. Dan. 6.21. as warrantable; which Quakers, and tender Consciences not enlightned, but darkned by prejudice and undue suggestions abhor, as giving flattering Titles to men, disclaimed by Elihu, Job 32.22. whose example and opinions are not imitable: nor doth this Author any good Office to any in such affrightments, whereby our Breach is widened, and our Wound uncurable.

Sect 6. It is not proved that the best of the present Ministers are to be separated from, as walking disorderly.

This Author goes on thus: But to hear this Plea speak its uttermost, let it be granted they are Brethren, and may be so esteemed: They are Brethren that walk disorderly, or they do not: That they walk disorderly cannot be denied by such as pretend to Reformation, if submi [...]ting to Ordination, or Reordination by a Lord Bishop, covenanting and protesting with detestation against a Reformation according to the Scripture, and the best Reformed Churches, to own (as consonant to Scripture) a Lyturgie or stinted Forms of Prayer in the Church, and read them, to wear the Surplice, &c. be disorderly walking; they are (the very best of them) beyond contradiction, to be reputed in the number of disorderly Walkers. And so after due admonition (according to the Scripture) and a perseverance in their sin, to be separated from, by vertue of positive and express precepts of Christ, Mat. 18. 2 Thess. 3.6. Now we command you, Brethren, in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw your selves [Page]from every Brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition he received of us: with what vehemency, authority, and holy earnestness doth the Apostle press separation from Brethren that walk disorderly? We command you, and we command you in the Name of the Lord Jesus; and we command you Brethren, by vertue of our relation to each other, and that love and endearment that is betwixt us as Brethren, that you withdraw your selves, &c. I scarce know any one thing pressed by the Apostle with greater vehemency, than what is here instanced in: wherein we have also an undeniable convincing Argument, that the persons of whom we are treating, walk disorderly: Those that walk not after the tradition received from the Apostles, (we may add, and from the Primitive Church for above three hundred years after Christ, but according to the traditions of the old Bawd and Strumpet of Rome) are such as walk disorderly: But the present Ministers of England walk not after the tradition received from the Apostles, but after the traditions of the Whorish Church of Rome: therefore they are such as walk disorderly. What Apostolical tradition have we for stinted Forms of Prayer, or Liturgies in the Church? did they frame any? (those that are ascribed to some of them, are all spurious, as hath been over and over proved.) For Surplice, Crossing in Baptism, and many other Gewgaws used by them? If they have any Apostolical written Tradition for these things, let them produce it, and we shall lay our mouths in the dust, and for ever be silent, as to a charge of this nature. If they have not (as there, is nothing more certain) they are disorderly walkers, if the Apostles Argument be valid, We command you to withdraw from such as walk disorderly. But who, I pray, are these disorderly walkers? how shall we know them? they are (sayes the Apostle) such as walk not after the tradition received from us.

Answ. Though it belongs to the persons charged here to speak for themselves, and not to me, who am not chargeable with the accusation, as here it stands, yet conceiving they would say the same in effect, which I shall say now, I do, that the invalidity of this Authors arguing may appear, say thus much for them; but chiefly for the truths sake.

I conceive they will deny, that they covenant and protest with detestation against a Reformation according to the Scripture, and the best reformed Churches, and would challenge this Author to prove it, that he may not be found a Calumniator; that they would take on them the justifying of their submitting to Ordination, or Re-ordination by a Lord Bishop, their owning (as consonant to Scripture) a Liturgie or stinted Forms of Prayer in the Church, their reading[Page]them, their wearing the Surplice, the Crossing in Baptism (they would say, after Baptism) and deny these things to be disorderly walking, according to the traditions of the old Bawd and Strumpe [...] of Rome; and I doubt not but that they would maintain it, that beyond contradiction they are not to be reputed in the number of disorderly walkers, but that this Author is an egregious false accuser. However, whether they be faulty or not, this I think I may safely avouch, that these practices (except the first, which I assure my self they will deny) whether justifiable, or sinful, are not of so great a degree of pravity, as that barely for them they should be reputed in the number of disorderly walkers, and so after due admonition (according to the Scripture) and a perseverance in their practice, to be separated from, by vertue of positive and express precepts of Christ, Mat. 18. 2 Thess 3.6. either by a separation of Saints from them in Gospel Communion, or private familiar society. For the former precept Mat. 18.15, 16, 17. is only concerning such a sin, whereby a person sins against his Brother; that is, doth him some personal injury. Which appears both by the constant use of the phrase of sinning against another, in the New and Old Testament, as Acts 25.8. 1 Cor. 8.12. Gen. 20.9. and 42.22. and 43.9. and 44. 1 Sam. 2.25. and 19.4, 5. and 24.11. and particularly in the same Chapter, v. 21. Luke 17.3, 4. which were occasioned from Christs words, Mat. 18.15. where Christ commandeth Peter, and the rest of his Disciples, to forgive their brother that sinneth against them seven times a day, yea, seventy times seven times. Which can be understood of no other sins than personal injuries; for these alone they were to forgive, as trespasses against them, as the Parable, Mat. 18. shews v. 32.35. Mat. 6.12, 14, 15. of which sort those practices imputed to the best of the present Ministers are not. Yet, if they were, the separation is not to be made without an admonition, and gradual process, which I think this Author hath not used towards them, as I conceive his own words evince a little before: we cannot (as things stand) perform the duties of Brethren to them according to Mat. 18. If the sins were such as Christ means, Mat. 18.15. and their proceeding according to the direction there; yet the separation, whether enjoyned, or permitted rather, is no other than such as was by the Jews from Heathens and Publicans, which was not from Communion in Holy things; for the Publicans were allowed to go to the Temple to pray, even with the Pharisees, Luke 18.10, 11. though they would not receive them, and eat with them, Luke 15.2. Acts 11.3. Which shews, that the being to him that is injured as a [Page]Heathen and Publican, Mat. 18.17. is no other than separation from eating and familiar reception; not from Gospel Communion, as this Author would have it; and therefore the Text Mat. 18.15, 16, 17. is impertinently alledged to prove his separation from the present Ministers of England in respect of Gospel Communion.

Nor is 2 Thess. 3.6. alledged more to the purpose. For 1. the disorderly walking there must be understood of sins of greater pravity than the rest, besides the first (which they will deny) charged on them (if they be proved sins) as the vehemency, authority, and holy earnestness the Apostle doth press his command with, doth evince. For this vehemency is not an undeniable convincing argument, that the persons, of whom this Author is treating, walk disorderly, as he fansies; but that they, that walk so disorderly, as the Apostle here means, are so corrupt, and their walking so evil, that their converse with them in a familiar society, as with others, would not be for their safety, or credit, or the repute of Christianity. Which will the more appear by the instance that is given, v. 11. where he saith, For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busie-bodies: which shews, that the walking disorderly, is not being in some disorder about Church Government, and outward Rites, proper to Ministers (which are the instances of disorderly walking here brought by this Author) but gross sins of any Brother (not a Minister) who was bound to work, or else was not to eat, v. 10. which Ministers were not bound to do, as v. 9. 1 Thess. 2.6. 1 Tim 5.17, 18. 1 Cor. 9.6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14. shews; nor were they for this not working so as not to earn their own Bread, to be noted or signified, and declined, that they might be ashamed, as is required, v. 12.14. Gross sins then common to every Brother, such as those 1 Cor. 5.11. 2 Cor. 12.20, 21. not those practices charged on the present Ministers here by this Author, are meant by disorderly walking, 2 Thess. 3.6. which is also confirmed by 1 Thess. 5.14. where after the Apostle had beseeched them, v. 12, 13. to know them which laboured among them, and were over them in the Lord, and admonished them, and to esteem them very highly for their works sake, (which shews he expected not of them other works for the earning of their Bread, than their labour in the Word and Doctrine) he adds, now we exhort you, Brethren, warn them that are unruly; the same word which is, 2 Thess. 3 6. translated disorderly, whom he distinguisheth from th [...] feeble minded, and weak; and therefore is meant of Brethren, who sinned openly and wilfully; and not of [Page] Ministers, who do yield to that which is controverted even by learned and godly men, whether it be evil at all; and if it be evil, its not of such a kind as the Apostle any where censures, so as he doth this disorderly walking; and its most likely is practised out of ignorance, errour, fear, or other motive, which may befall an holy, and upright man. Nor is there any force in this Authors reasoning, that the practice of the Ministers must be disorderly walking, unless they can shew an Apostolical written Tradition for those things they practise.

For 1. it doth not appear, that the Tradition 2 Thess. 3 6. of the Apostle, is any other than the command, v. 10. that if any would not work, he should not eat, which is not improbable from the connexion of the following verses with this, which also makes it probable, that the disorderly walking, v. 6. is no other than being idle, and busie-bodies; the Apostle acquitting himself from behaving himself disorderly, v. 7. in that he wrought with his hands that he might not be chargeable to any of them, v. 8. and then they need to bring no other tradition to acquit themselves from disorderly walking, than their labouring in the Word and Doctrine according to 1 Tim. 5.17, 18.

2. If the Tradition be further extended to those mentioned 2 Thess. 2.15. It will not be necessary that they may be acquitted from disorderly walking, that they produce for themselves an Apostolical written Tradition for a Liturgie, Surplice, or Crossing, they think it concerns him that accuseth them as walking disorderly in doing them, that he produce an Apostolical Tradition against the use of them. For being (as they conceive) in themselves things indifferent, they think it enough that there is no Apostolical precept forbidding them, and then they have this Apostolical Tradition for them, Rom. 4.15. where no Law is, there is no Transgression. If it be replied in things that pertain to Gods Worship, there must be an express Institution, or else the practice of it is walking disorderly; besides what is said before in answer to the first Chapter, Sect. 3. it may be retorted, where is your Apostolical written Tradition by Institution for your Church Covenant, Infant Baptism, Election of Ministers by most voices, excommunication of members in a Congregational Church by the major part, with many more? To use your own words, if you have not (as there is nothing more certain) you are disorderly Walkers, and to be separated from as well as the present Ministers, if the Apostles argument be valid, We command you to withdraw from such as walk disord [...]rly. But who, I pray, are these disorderly Walkers? how shall[Page]we know them? they are (sayes the Apostle) such as walk not after the tradition received from us. Eadem in te cudatur saba. As much may be said of the Separatists, if by Apostolical Tradition be meant an Institution for every thing used in Worship and Church Government.

3. This Authors Argument, if it proceed thus, Every one that hath not a written Apostolical Tradition for what he doth, or that doth otherwise than the Apostles Tradition requires, walks disorderly, which is the force of his reasoning, then every one that sins in any kind is a disorderly walker, for sure he hath no Apostolical Tradition for any sin; and then this Author, if he be not a Perfectist, nor thinks himself excluded from the number of those of whom it is said, James 3.2. In many things we offend all; and 1 Joh. 1.8. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive our selves, must acknowledge himself a disorderly walker, and to be separated from.

4. The present Ministers, I imagine, will be apt to alledge for themselves, that they have Apostolical written Tradition, even for those practices for which they are accused as disorderly walkers, to wit, Rom. 13.1. Heb. 13.17. and be ready to recriminate this Author, and those of his mind, as disorderly walkers, in separating from their Brethren, disobeying their Ministers, and Governours, commanding things lawful, and to be separated from as practising of division.

To conclude this matter, Were it granted that the present Ministers of England were disorderly walkers, and that they were to be withdrawn from, yet this doth not prove that they might not be heard as gifted Brethren, or that the best of them cannot by Saints be accounted as Brethren in respect of Gospel Communion: Partly, because the withdrawing themselves from every Brother that walks disorderly, cannot be meant of exclusion of himself from hearing, praying, or receiving the Lords Supper, if such a one be present; unless it be determined, that every one must not only examine himself before he comes to the Lords Supper, which the Apostle requires 1 Cor. 11.28. but also every Brother, even his Minister with whom he is to joyn in Gospel Communion; yea, and hath power to excommunicate his Brother, or liberty, notwithstanding the Institution of Christ, to exclude himself, which sure is no Apostolical Tradition, but a far more disorderly walking, than most of those things, the practice whereof is made by this Author the Ministers disorderly walking. Besides the injunction to every Christian to withdraw himself, not to keep Company, 2 Thess. 3.6, 14. being [Page] expressions which note not acts imposed by Church Governours, but such as they ought of their own accord to practice, are to be understood of such familiar, private, arbitrary Communion in entertainments, and other societies, as they are at liberty to do or not to do, or might do, were it not for this consideration, not such Communion, as if they omit, they omit the Worship of God, which he hath appointed, and so break his Commandment. Partly also, because if the withdrawing were upon publick censure of the Community, yet it must not be (according to their own rule) without a gradual proceeding of endeavouring conviction, and precedent admonition, which being not done to the present Ministers of England, to separate from them, even the best in hearing, and other Gospel Communion is irregular, and unjustifiable. I go on to examine what follows.

CHAP. 3. ARG. 3.

Sect. 1. That which is by some termed Antichristian, is not alwayes unlawful.

THose that act in the Holy things of God by vertue of an Antichristian Power, Office, or Calling, are not to be heard, but to be separated from: but the present Ministers of England act in the Holy things of God, by vertue of an Antichristian Power, Office, or Calling: Therefore. The major is evident. For,

1. The Power, Office, and Calling of Antichrist is opposite and contrary unto the Power, Office, and Calling of Christ: not to separate from such as act by vertue of such an Office-power, is to stand by, and plead for Antichrist against Christ.

Answ. The ambiguity that is in the termes of this argument is that, which makes this Argument seem to many well-meaning people to be of some force, which will appear to be a meer fallacie, when the terms are clearly opened. Concerning which, that which is chiefly to be explained is, who is the Antichrist here meant, and what is meant by Antichristian, which hath been so: strangely abused, especially of late years, that every thing that hath been m [...]sliked by an opposite party, is branded with the name of Antichrist, and mark of the Beast, and made a sufficient cause of utter separation from such as own any thing so called and of almost Vatinian hatred. The word [Antichrist] I find not in any place in the Bible, but in the Epistles of St. John, 1 Joh. 2.18. [Page] As ye have heard that Antichrist should come, even now are there many Antichrists, whereby we know that it is the last time, v. 22. He is Antichrist that denieth the Father and the Son, ch. 4.3. And every Spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God: and this is that Spirit of Antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come, and even now already is it in the World, 2 John. 7. For many deceivers are entered into the World, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an Antichrist, or the Deceiver and the Antichrist. In which passages I observe:

1. That Antichrist is described as a Deceiver, as one that opposeth the grand truth of the Gospel, and therefore the word in the Scripture use is not applied to persecuting Princes and Emperours, as the great Turk, but to false Teachers.

2. That the opposition is by denying, not by making himself Christ, but by denying Jesus to be the Christ; and therefore the term Antichrist is not one that sets up himself as if he were Christ, they are expressed by another word [Pseudo-Christs] Mat. 24.24. but one that is against Christ by teaching contrary to him.

3. That the term Antichrist is applied to many false Teachers who were in St. Johns time.

4. That yet there was one Antichrist more notable than the rest to come into the World. About whom hath been variety of opinions of old, and of late much controversie, whether he should be a single person, or a state or rank of persons succeeding one after another: whether the Antichrist be already come, or is yet to come: whether the Popes of Rome for some generations, have been the Antichrist, or they and some other. The opinions of the Fathers were various as conceiving of Antichrist by conjectures, after the Popes of Rome began to be so haughty, as to usurp dominion over Emperours and Kings, and to be tyrannous in cruel persecutions of them that opposed the Papal corruptions, many pious and learned men stuck not to stigmatize the Popes of Rome as Antichrists: and since the Reformation begun by Luther, it hath been the common tenent of Protestants, that the later Popes of Rome have been the man of sin foretold 2 Thess. 2.3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. the City of Rome, the Whore of Babylon; and the Papacy, or Popes, the Beast, described Rev. 17. which is taken for a Prophesie of Antichrist. And though some have endeavoured to apply these Prophesies to Caligula, Simon Magus, Domitian, Mahomet, the Turkish Sultans; yet generally not only the French and German [Page] Protestants, but also the English, the most esteemed for learning even of the Order of Prelates, such as Downham, Robert Abbot, Usher, Bedel, Prideaux, together with King James, and his Defendant Andrews, and many more have applied the Prophesies in the Revelation, and 2 Thess. 2. to the Roman Popes, as the Antichrist that was to come. Whence every thing that is retained in the Protestant Churches, not taught or exemplified in the Scriptures, according to the use of the Church of Rome, is usually termed Antichristian, as coming from Rome, and the mark and image of the Beast, in which sense I conceive this Author useth the term Antichristian, as being against Christ, and by power Antichristian, he means Authority, and Rule Prelatical; by Office-Antichristian, the Office of Preaching, reading the Common-Prayer, Administration of Sacraments, and Discipline according to the Church of England; by Calling Antichristian, he means Ordination by a Bishop. Now out of this may be gathered an answer to the Argument. If by Antichristian Power, Office, and Calling, be meant the Papal Power, Office, and Calling, and the acting in Holy things be by preaching the Doctrine of the Trent Council, in the points determined therein against Protestants, by administring Sacraments according to the Roman Missal; and Discipline according to the Canon Law of the Popes, in which Papal power is established, the major is granted and the minor denied. For though I deny not that a person Ordained by a Popish Bishop, if he forsake Popish Doctrine, and preach the Truth taught by Protestants, may be heard preach the Gospel, though he do not renounce his Ordination, yet while he holds that Doctrine, he is not to be heard as being an Antichristian Deceiver. But if by an Antichristian Power, Office, or Calling, be meant by vertue of Ministry, according to the Liturgie, Articles of Religion and Homilies of the Church of England, from the Ordination and License of the Bishops, (which this Author terms Antichristian) the major is denied; and to the Arguments to prove it, I answer, that that which he calls Antichristian, is not truly such, but only miscalled such by him; and therefore till he proves that Power-Office and Calling which he calls such, and means in his major proposition is such: his major is denied, and it is denied, that what he calls Antichristian, is opposite and contrary to the Power, Office, and Calling of Christ; or not to separate from such as act by vertue of such an Office power, is to stand by, and plead for Antichrist against Christ, until he proves such acting to be really so. And this answer might suffice to invalidate all the other Arguments he brings [Page] for his major, they all moving upon this unproved Supposition, That what he calls Antichristian, and standing by and pleading for Antichrist, is in truth such. But because there are some things to be examined in the other Arguments also, I shall survey them also.

2. Saith he, It's unlawful to attend upon the teachings of Antichrist, therefore upon the teachings of such as act by virtue of a power derived from him.

Answ. If by teachings of Antichrist, be meant, the teachings of the present Doctrin of the Church of Rome, according to the Trent Council, wherein they dissent from Protestants; and the power derived from him, be meant, of the Engl [...]sh Bishops Ordination; it is denied, that the Preachers of England derive their power from Antichrist, Pope or Church of Rome, and I say, that it is meer impudency to say they do, who renounce the Popes authority by solemn Oath, and separate from the Church of Rome, and are persecuted, condemned, and put to death, where the Pope hath power, even because they disclaim the Pope and his Doctrin. Yet if any should act, by virtue of Ordination from the Pope (as doubtless many did before the Reformation, such as Wickliffe, and many others) and yet not teach his Doctrin, he might be heard teaching the Gospel, and in such a case the consequence were not valid; and therefore in this sense it may be denied, that because it is unlawful to attend upon the teachings of Antichrist, therefore upon the teachings of such as act by virtue of a power derived from him.

3. Saith he, Christ calls and solemnly charges his, upon the penalty of most dreadful Judgments, to separate from every thing of Antichrist, Rev. 18.4. & 14.9, 10, 11.

Answ. It is true, Rev. 18.4. we read thus, 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. Which may be understood of a local departure f [...]om Babylon, or Rome, when her judgment of Destruction from the Kings of the earth draws nigh: but if it be extended further, to a departure by forsaking communion with her in Worship, and leaving the subjection which was yielded to her in her Government; yet is it not understood of every Doctrin the Pope teacheth; not of the Bible or Apostles Creed, or any Doctrin or Service agreeable to these; nor of relinquishing every Rite and Usage, though undue and illegitimate, which is observed by them; but the Fornication, that is, Idolatry, Heresie and other wickedness mentioned, [Page] v. 3. Chap. 17.2. Revel. 14.9, 10. it is said, If any man worship the Beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God. By the Beast and his image are meant, some Empire or State which promotes Idolatry: Some conceive it meant of the Pagan Emperors: Others, and those both more and more accurate Commentators among the Protestants, understand by them, the Roman Papacy, and Latin Empire; the worshiping of which is undoubtedly the acknowledging of its power, and subjection to their Idolatrous Decrees and Edicts. The receiving his mark in the forehead or the hand, is, allusively to the use of marking Slaves in the forehead, and Souldiers in the hand, to profess themselves servants to the Popes, and ready to fight for them; which Mr. Brightman makes to be in the Roman Clergy their indelible character in Ordination; in the Emperors their Oath of Protection of the Popes; in the Common people their assuming the names of Papists and Roman Catholiques. Mr. Mede more exactly in his Comment on Rev. 13.18. thus, To receive the mark of the name of the Beast, is to subject himself to his authority, and to acknowledge him to be his Lord; but to receive the number, is to imbrace his impiety, derived unto him from the Dragon, to wit, the Idolatry of the Latins: whence that happily will not be unworthy consideration; although no man can receive the mark of the name of the Beast, or be subject to his authority, but together also he must receive his number, that is, be must needs be Partaker of his impiety: yet it may be, that one may admit the number or impiety of the Beast, but yet refuse the mark or name. That which now long since is true of the Greeks, which doth evince, that the worship of the Beast and his Image, and receiving his mark in his forehead or in his hand, is not retaining of every usage of the Papists, no not though it be Corrupt and Superstitious, as many zealous persons against Popery, but superficially viewing the text conceive, much less such customs as are not superstitious in their use; but acknowledging the universal Monarchy of the Popes, and adoring Images, the Host, Reliques, Crosses, invocations of Saints, and such like impieties, which the present Ministers of England do profess to abhorr; and therefore it is without cause, that they are charged with receiving the ma [...]k of the Beast; and people are affrighted with the penalty of the dreadful Judgments, Rev. 14.10. unless they separate from them and their Ministry as a thing of Antichrist.

4. Saith he, There is not a command in the Scripture enioyning Saints to take heed of being deceived, to try the Spirits, because many [Page]Antichrists are gone abroad into the World: but is an abundant demonstration of the truth of this Assertion.

Answ. I grant it, if the Assertion were, they that act in the holy things, as acknowledging the Power, teaching the Doctrin, owning the Calling of him that is truly Antichrist, are not to be heard, but to be separated from: But being understood of other things, which the Separatists call Antichristian, it is not true, nor proved by the commands in Scripture, which forbid only to reject Antichristian Doctrin and Worship, not every thing said by any without proof to be a thing of Antichrist. The Baptism given in Popery, is not by all Separatists rejected as Antichristian; there is less reason to call the Ministry of England a thing of Antichrist.

5. Saith he, The institution of Officers of his own, by Christ, to be continued in the way appointed by him to the end of the World, Ephes. 4.11.

Answ. It is true, that Christ when he went up into heaven gave gifts to men; some Apostles, and some Prophets, and some Evangelists, and some Pastors, and Teachers, and that some of these are to be continued to the end of the World, and in that way he hath appointed: But that there is any particular way of Election, Ordination and Mission of ordinary Pastors and Teachers in those words appears not; nor how the major is proved, those that act in the holy things of God by vertue of an Antichristian (so called, not proved) Power, Office, or Calling, are not to be heard, but separated from, I discern not, unless this be the Argument, Christ hath appointed these, therefore no other are to be heard, but to be seperated from, which overthrows the hearing of, and communion with gifted Brethren (whom he would have heard) for they are no Officers of Christs institution.

6. Saith he, That there is not one promise of a blessing in the whole Scripture, upon persons attending on such a Ministry, with innumerable things of the like tendency and import, that might be produced if needful, are such a basis upon which the truth of the major proposition stands, as cannot be easily shaken or removed.

Answ. Though there be no one promise of a blessing in the whole Scripture, upon persons attending on such a Ministry, as theirs is that act in the holy things of God, by virtue of an Antichristian Power, Office, or Calling, whether real or supposed as such; yet if any, that so acts, as suppose a Dominican Fryer, or Jesuite in the Indies do Preach the Gospel truly, there is a blessing promised [Page] in Scripture, upon persons attending on such a Ministry, Christ having said, Luke 11.28. Blessed are they that hear the Word of God, and keep it; yet were there no promise of blessing, the major is not proved, unless this were true, they are not to be heard, but to be separated from, to whose Ministry, as such a blessing is not promised; which makes unlawful the hearing of gifted Brethren, unless they can produce such a promise; yea, every action indifferent should be unlawful, unless it have a blessing promised to it. What more he can say for his major, yet rests in his breast, and so needs no answer till it be produced. I hasten to the proof of his minor.

Sect. 2. The names given to the Ministers of England, prove not their Office not to be from Christ.

The minor (saith he) wants not sufficient demonstration. First, the present Ministers of England, are either from Christ, or from Antichrist. There is no medium (a Linsey-woolsey-Ministry, that is partly of Christ, partly of Antichrist, as 'tis not to be proved by Scripture, so will it not be abetted) That they are not from Christ, hath in part been proved already, and may further be evinced.

1. Their names are forraign to the Scripture: where read we of Deacons in their sense, Priests as distinguished from Christians, in the New Testament, Deans, Cannons, Petty-Cannons, Prebendaries, Arch-Deacons, Lord Bishops, Parsons, Vicars? &c. these are only found in the Popes Pontifical, whence they are derived.

Answ. It hath been abetted by Mr Bradshaw in his Answer to Francis Johnson his second reason against hearing the Ministers of the Church-Assemblies of England (whose Arguments this Author hath revived, though answered long since by Mr. William Bradshaw, and the answers vindicated by Mr. Thomas Gataker, from Mr. Cans reply) that there is a medium, and that a Ministry may be from Christ in respect of the thing Ministred, though from Antichrist in respect of the way of entry into it; yea, he saith, It is not necessary, that the Ministry of Priests and Deacons, though ordained by Antichrist himself, should be the Ministry of his Apostasie: but notwithstanding his Ordination, their Ministry may be the Ministry of Jesus Christ as was the Ministry of Luther, Huss, Wickliffe, and others. I add, that if by being from Christ or Antichrist, be understood of outward calling (as this Author seems to mean) Ministers m [...]y be neither from Christ nor Antichrist, and yet true Ministers, as those that Preached Christ even of envy and strife; yet [Page] St. Paul saith, Philip. 1.15, 18. Notwithstanding every way, whether in pretence, or truth, Christ is Preached, and I therein do rejoyce, yea and will rejoyce.

But let us consider his proofs, that the present Ministers of England are not from Christ.

To the first I answer, that the term Priests as distinguished from all Christians in the sense used by the Convocation of the Church of England, is the same with Presbyters, as appears by the Latin translation of the 39 Articles of the Church of England, Art. 32.36. extant by it self, and in the Corpus & Syntagma confessionum of the Protestant Churches, and the Letters of Orders under the seals of Bishops in Latin, and this is sure found in Scripture, Act. 11.30, &c. The other names note not any Ministry different from the Ministry of Christ, but are used to signifie some difference in their maintenance, or places, which may be annexed to them, and yet their Ministry from Christ. If this Authors reason were good, the names are forraign to the Scripture, therefore the things; it would follow, that Congregational Churches are forraign to Scripture, Lecturers, Sacraments, Ruling Elders, Itinerant Preachers, &c. because their names are not there. But this Author adds,

So are 2. Their Officers: Deacons attending tables we read of, but Deacons Praying, Preaching, Administring Sacraments (so called) by virtue of an Office-power, an order of the first step to the Priesthood, we find not. Priests in the Old Testament (both true and false) we read of: In the New, Saints are so called,

1. In respect of Analogie to the ritual Priest of old, whose prerogative it was to come near to God, Deut. 21.5▪ to whom through Christ, Saints have access with boldness, Ephes. 2.18. & 3.19. James 4.8.

2. In respect of their union and engrafture into Christ, the great High-Priest over the house of God.

3. In respect of that analogie there is betwixt what Christ hath done for them as Priest, and by his Spirit worketh in them: He offered up Sacrifice; so do they, Psal. 116.17. & 141.2. Rom. 12.1. Heb. 13.14. He was crucified, died; so are they, Rom. 6.6, 7, 8, &c. Gal. 2.20.

4. As Priests, they are anointed to the participation of, do thereby attain to, a kind of holy and intimate communion with Christ in all his glorious Offices, Rev. 5.10. But an office of Priesthood in men for the Ministery of the Gospel, that are to be branded by men in that their Office, must Preach what they would have them, and cease [Page]when they would have them (as is the case of the present Ministry of England) the Scripture is a stranger to.

Answ. Though the present Ministers of England, men are to hear, be more than Deacons; yet this may be said, that if it be supposed, that the Office of a Deacon be not now to attend Tables, as the first seven Deacons were, Act. 6.2. yet according to the book of Ordination, it is his Office, where provision is so made, to search for the sick, poor and impotent people of the Parish, to intimate their Estates, Names, and places where they dwell, unto the Curate, that by his Exhortation, they may be relieved with the almes of the Parishioners or others. If they be appointment to Pray, Preach, and Administer the Sacraments, they have this to plead, that Philip the Deacon did both Preach and Baptize, Act. 8.5, 12, 38. that St. Paul requires of the Deacons, 1 Tim. 3.9. That they hold the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience, and v. 13. They that have used the Office of a Deacon well, purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus, and therefore may the Deacons Office be well conceived the first step to the Priesthood, that is, the Office of a Presbyter. As for the word Priest, as it answers to [...] in the New Testament; if the Saints, as Saints, may be termed Priests, then may the Elders, or the best of them surely be called Priests; yea, and that in a special manner, as in respect of their Office drawing near to God, engaged to offer spiritual sacrifices of Prayer and Praise, which the Apostles conceived to belong to them in special manner, together with the Ministry of the Word, Acts 6.4. and 13.21. yea the Apostle Paul Rom. 15.16. useth this expression, that this grace was given to him of God, that he should be [...] (the word applyed to Christ as a Priest, Heb. 8.2. and joyned with Sacrifice, Phil. 2.17.) the Minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, [...] ministring as a Priest the Gospel of God, that the offering, or sacrificing of the Gentiles might be acceptable; and therefore in respect of his Office, he might have been called [...], a Priest, though not properly, yet allusively; and so may Ministers now, as the Christian Church is called the Temple of God, the Israel of God, the heavenly Jerusalem, &c. And if, as some conceive, the word Priest be derived from the Greek [...], or [...], it may be judged the fitter word than Minister, which is more apposite to signifie a Deacon, than an Elder. Selden de Syned, vet. [...]braeo. l. 1. c. 14. p. 583. Vocem nostram Priest, & Teutonum Belgarum (que) Priester, uti & Gallorum Prebstre & Prestre, & Italorum Prets a Presbytero deformatam[Page]nemo puto non concedit. p. 585. Nec pueruli nesciunt voces istas, Seniorem, Priest, Presbyterum, Elder, ex sui tam naturâ Usu (que) primario & significatione apertissimâ non magis differre, quàm [...] & consulem, [...] & principem, [...] & Regem, aut quae alia sic invicem omnino eadem sunt.

As for that which is added, that the present Ministry of England, is bounded by men in their Office, so as that they must Preach what they would have them, and cease when they would have them: I think it is not without example in the best ordered Churches. I do conceive that in the Churches of the Separatists, they would tie their Ministers to Preach according to their Confession, and that if any taught otherwise than according to the declaration of the Faith, and Order of the Congregational Churches, in their meeting at the Savoy, Octob. 12. 1658. they would restrain him, or withdraw from him. Sure the Apostle would have Timothy to abide at Ephesus, that he might charge some that they teach no other Doctrin, 1 Tim. 1.3. and Titus to reject an Heretick, Tit. 3.10. and 1 Cor. 14.30. If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace, v. 28. If there be no Interpreter, let him keep silence in the Church. Which is sufficient proof, that even those that are Gifted extraordinarily, may be bounded by Order; and they that teach otherwise than they should, may be silenced. Which if the Prelates, or others do, when they should not, they are accountable to Christ, who will judge them for it: But it is no proof, that their Ministry is not from Christ, who submit to the commands of men, that have power over them, forbidding them to teach some truths, and forbearing to teach, when it cannot be with safety and fruit to the Church of God, themselves, and them which are without. It is added:

So is it 3. to their admission into this their office, viz. by a Lord-Bishop without the consent of the Congregation, in which they are as Officers.

Answ. In the Answer to the second Chapter of this writing, Sest. 3. hath been shewed, that the praeelection or consent of the Congregation in which a Minister is to act as an Officer, is not so necessary to his Office, or to the communion with him in it, but that he may be owned, and act lawfully as their Minister in some cases without it. The admission of the present Ministers of England hath not alwayes been by Lord Bishops; some have been made by Suffragan Bishops, not Lords, and instituted, I think, by Dean and Chapter, and if ordained or instituted by a Lord Bishop, yet not as Lord, but as Bishop, which is not alwayes without the [Page] election of the Congregation, who are in some Parishes Patrons; and in others there is supposed in Law, an implicit consent in their Ancestors, yielding that power to the Patron to present, and an after consent by receiving him that is instituted as their Minister. In some Peculiars and Donatives, there's no institution from a Lord Bishop required, nor alwayes any other than a Licence to preach from the Bishop. But whether these usages be right or wrong, notwithstanding them, yet may the Offices of the present Ministers of England be from Christ, though this Author further argue to the contrary, thus.

Sect. 3. The term Priest proves not symbolizing with the Popish Order of Priests.

The very truth is, both in their Names, Office, and Admission thereunto, the present Ministers of England symbolize not with the Ministers of Christ, but the Popish Order of Priests: (so that if these do Act by vertue of an Antichristian Office-power, then do they) as he that runs may read in the ensuing paralled particulars.

1. They are both called, and own themselves Priests; which though some may make light of light of, yet considering that it is a term borrowed, either from the Priests of the Law, the assertion of such a Priesthood, being a denial of Christ come in the flesh: or from the Priests of the Heathen (in conformity to whom, as the Druides of old, our Priests wear their white Garment or Surplice) or from the Antichristian Church (so called) of Rome: such Idolatrous Superstitious names, being commanded by the Lord to be abolished, Hos. 2.15. Z [...]ch. 13.2. wants not it's sufficient weight; the retention whereof, being also a sore suspicion of too great a compliance with, if not a willingness to return to that from whence they are derived. Of the same mind with us herein is Hierom upon the 2. of Hosea, the Hebrew Doctors, Kimchi and Aben-Ezra, the Chaldee Paraphrast, Ribera (though a Jesuite) Zanchi, Danaeus, Sanchius, Polanus, River, and almost all that write upon the said Scripture. The last mentioned, viz. Learned Rivet, hath these words in his Corollaries from Hos. 2.15, 16. There are many names which in themselves are good enough, and might be used, but God abhorreth the use of them, because they have been abused to Idolatry; he instanceth indeed in the word M [...]ss: but Priest or Altar being of the same a [...]ay, upon the same foot of account, is to be rejected. The reformed Churches in Helvetia, in their Harmony of Confessions, are of the same mind, [Page]The Ministry (say they) and the Priesthood are things far different the one from the other — he himself (viz. Christ) remaineth only Priest for ever; and we do not communicate the name Priest to any Minister, least we should detract something from Christ.

Answ. Every one, saith Mr. Selden de Syn. Ebrae. l. 1. c. 14. p. 583. yields, that our English word Priest, and the Dutch Priester, and the French Prebstre, and Prestre, and the Italian Prete, to be formed from Presbyter. Selden de Syn Ebrae. l. 1. c. 14 p. 586▪ Certà in Ritualibus Anglicanis nostris Priests & Ministers pro Presbyteris clim semper usurpata. And, besides what I said before out of the English 39 Articles, and letters of Orders, it doth appear from the very words of the Master of the Sentences, Peter Lombard; cited by this Author in this Chapter, pag. 26. out of the Fourth Book of the Sentences, distinct. 24. divis. 9. that the same whom the Papists call Priests, they call Presbyters; and say, that they have the precept of the Apostle for them, and that the Order of Priesthood, or Presbytery, the primitive Church had; and therefore in this the Papists themselves use the word Priest in English, but as the same with Presbyter or Elder, from the Scripture or primitive Church; not from either Jews or Heathens, and therefore symbolizing in this name with the Papists, if men had not mistaken it, and clamourously and ignorantly inveighed against it; had given no cause of suspition of compliance, or willingness to return to the Idolatry of the Mass, as it is used in the Church of England, who have declared against Transubstantiation, and the Sacrifice of the Mass, in the Articles 28.31. in the Liturgy, as it hath been lately revised, and to which assent is required by all Ministers; besides other wayes, as amply as any other Protestant Church, and therefore it is very evil, that this Author doth insinuate into the minds of men such a suspicion of the willingness of the present Ministers to return to Popery, because of retaining the name Priest, which neither came from the Antichristian Church (so called) of Rome, nor is an Idolatrous Superstitious name commanded by the Lord to be abolished, Hos. 2.15. Zech. 13.2. This of Zech. 13.2. is not a command, but a promise, that God would cut of the names of the Idols out of the Land, and that they shall be no more remembred, which if it imply a command; yet it is but of the abolition of the names of Idols, not of the name of Priests, whom I never found to be reckoned amongst Idols; or that the name Priest is the name of an Idol. The other text, Hos. 2.16, 17. is thus▪ And it shall be at that day, saith the Lord, that thou shalt call me Ashi, and shall call me no more Baali. For I will [Page]take away the names of Baalim out of her mouth, and they shall be no more remembred by their name; which is a Prediction of what should be, rather than a Prohibition; and the reason of that Prediction seems to be this, God would not be called Baali, that is, my Lord, because that word noted a Husband as commanding, or dealing hardly or rigorously with his Wife; but Ishi, according to the first notation of Ishah, Gen. 2.23. one from whom the Wife comes as bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh; and therefore is bespoken as a kind and gentle Husband, which the words, v. 14, 19, 20. lead to. But if the reason of the not calling God Baali, be as Grotius in his Annot: Although Baal in common use signifie an Husband, she shall not dare to use that name, out of horrour of that name, which hath been imposed on an Idol: it may seem, that the reason of not using, should be not the unlawfulfulness of bespeaking God by that name, according to the proper and original meaning; but lest either she should in thought remember the Idol, or be thought by others to continue that Idolatrous name: For the words are not, thou shalt not use the words at all thy Husband among men; but, thou shalt not call me Baali, that is, in thy Prayers and Confessions of me as thy God. But if it be understood as a Prohibition, according to the Law Exod 23.13. which I will not deny the 17. v. [For I will take away the names of Baalim out of her mouth, and they shall be no more remembred by their name.] to import, it cannot be conceived, that it forbids any more than the use of those names with honour, or so as to trust in them, as their worshipers did, when they applyed them to their Idols, as Psal. 16.4. is meant, when the Psalmist saith, He would not take up the names of their gods within his lips; that is, as Hos. 14.3. Neither will we say any more to the work of our hands, ye are our gods. Which sense the words before lead to, that they should not any more prepare their silver or gold for Baal, as v. 8. and, as in the dayes of Baalim, wherein she burnt Incense to them, and she decked her self with her ear-rings, and her jewels, and she went after her lovers, and forgot me saith the Lord, v. 13. By which name of Baalim, was meant the Sun and other Planets, as may be proved out of holy Scripture, and is shewed by Mr. Selden in his Syntagma de Diis Syris. So that the forbidding the name of Baal, or Baalim, doth not appear to be any more than the using of these names, as applyed to Idols, with approbation of the Idolatrous Worship done to them, or giving occasion in applying the name to God, to conceive, as if he were like the Idols, or allowed their [Page] Worship, even as the Apostle, Eph. 5.3. forbids any naming of fornication, uncleanness, or covetousness, with any shew of liking. For that the Prophet meant not to prohibit the name of Baal to be given at all to God, much less by a Woman to her Husband, or Lord, as the word did originally signifie, may be gathered from that, Isa. 54.5. (who prophesied about the same time with Hosea) where what we render [thy Maker is thy Husband, the Lord of Hosts is his name] is in the Hebrew, thy Baal, or Baalim in the plural number: and Nahum after him, Nahum 1.2. [...] the Baal of wrath, that is, who is a Lord of wrath; by our Translatours rendred furious, and by God himself after him, as we now read, Jer. 31.32. I was a Husband unto them, is in Hebrew, I was a Baal to them, saith the Lord. Yea▪ were the prohibition such, as that we might not give the names given to Idols to God, we might not give God the title of Melec or King, because the Idol of the Ammonites was called Molech, Milchom, or Malcham, that is their King, Zeph. 1.5. nor call God Jehovah, because the Gentiles termed their God Jove, or Jah, because they termed their God Jacchus, or Helion the High one, because they termed the Sun Helios, or Adonai, because of Adonis, all which to have been used in imitation of, and derivation from these names of God is shewed in that imperfect relique of Mr. Hugh Stanford in the first Book of Mr. Parker, De descensu ad inferos, in Fullers Miscel. l. 2. c. 6. Dr. Hammond Annot. on Psal. 68.4. in Mr. Selden De Diis Syris syntag 2. c. 1. in Heinsius his Aristarchus sacer on Nonnus, c. 1. If Names abused to Idolatry or Superstition, might not be used without such abuse, the godly might not say, as Isa. 63.16. Doubtless thou art our Father, or we cry Abba Father, or Our Father, or Christ Father; because Idolaters said to a stock, thou art my Father, Jer. 2.27. or say to the Lord, thou art our God, because Idolaters said, our Gods, Hos. 14.3. nor Christ be termed a Priest, Lord, Master, because of the abuse of them to Saints deceased, Popes, Rabbins, or others. Surely the name Priest being the name of no Idol, it cannot be proved from Zech. 13.2. Hos. 2.16, 17. that it is commanded by the Lord to be abolished. Nor do I think any of his Authors say it. Hieroms words are; Though it might well be spoken in respect of the signification of the word, which signifies in common application, an Husband as well as Ish; yet I so hate the name of Idols, that I will not have it said Baali, but Ishi; in [...]espect of the ambiguity and likeness of speech, lest while a man speaks one thing he mind another, and mentioning an Husband he mean an Idol. What the Hebrew Doctors, and others named by [Page] this Author, say upon this place of Hosea, I cannot examine for want of the Books. That which he produceth out of Rivet, I assent to. That which this Author saith, that Priest or Altar are of the same allay with the word Mass, and is upon the same foot of account to be rejected, is not true; sith Mass doth usually signifie not only the Service, but also the consecrated Host, as the chief thing in it, which is an Idol, and so is not the name Priest. In the Helvetian larger Confession, ch. 18. 'tis true they make a difference between the Ministry now, and the Priesthood in the Old Testament; and it is true, that they assert Christs Priesthood as for ever and incommunicable; and therefore give not the name of Sacerdos, usually translated Priest, to their Ministers; not because they take the word Priest, as it answers to Presbyter to be evil, in the sense used in the Church of England, as a Degree or Order above Deacons; but as it is used in the Church of Rome, as their words shew, which are these. For our Lord himself ordained not any Priests in the Church of the New Testament, which having received a power from a Suffragan, might offer daily the Host, I say the very flesh and very blood of the Lord for the quick and dead, but such as should teach and administer Sacraments. This Author proceeds in his paralellism thus:

Sect. 4. The parallel particulars prove not the English Ministers symbolizing in office with Popish Priests.

2. The Priests of Rome must be first Deacons ere they are Priests; so must the present Ministers of England.

3. The Priests of Rome must be Ordained to their Office by a Lord Bishop or his Suffragan: so must the Ministers of England.

4. The Priests of Rome must at their Ordination, be presented by an Archdeacon, or his Deputy, with these Words, Reverend Father, &c. Reverend Father, I present these men unto thee, to be admitted unto the Order of Priesthood: so are the present Ministers of England.

5. The Priests of Rome must be Ordained to their Office according to their Pontifical, devised by themselves: the Priests of England, according to their Book of Ordering Priests and Deacons (which is taken out of the Popes Pontifical) as is evident to any that shall compare the one with the other, and as hath been long since confessed by themselves in an Admonition to the Parliament in Q Elizabeths dayes, in their second Treatise.

[Page]6. The Popish Priests must kneel down upon their knees at the feet of the Lord Bishop that Ordains them, and he must say to them, blasphemously enough, Receive ye the Holy Ghost; whose sins ye remit or forgive, they are remitted; whose sins ye retain, they are retained: which exactly accords with the fashion of Ordaining the Priests of England.

7. The Popish Priests are not Ordained in and before the Congregation to whom they are to be Priests, but in some Metropolitan, Cathedral City, several miles from the place: so are the Priests of England.

8. The Popish Priests take the care of souls, though not elected by them, from the presentation of a Patron, by the Institution and Induction of a Lord Bishop: and do not the present Ministers of England the same?

9. The Popish Priests wait not the Churches Call to the Ministry, but make suit to some Prelate to be Ordained Priests, giving money for their Letters of Ordination: so do the present Ministers of England.

10. The Popish Priests are Ordained to their Office, though they have no flock to attend upon: so are the Priests of England.

11. The Popish Priests must swear Canonical Obedience to their Ordinary: so do the present Ministers of England.

12. The Popish Priests may at their pleasure, without the consent of the People, resign and give over their Benefices, and betake themselves to some other of greater value: A symmetrie with them herein is visible by the frequent practice of the Ministers of England.

13. The Popish Priests, though Ordained to preach, must have special license from the Prelates so [...]o do: so must the Priests of England.

14. The Popish Priests are subject to be silenced, suspended, deprived, and degraded by the Prelates: as are the present Ministers of England.

15. The Popish Priests are not of like and equal power, degree and Authority amongst themselves, but are some of them inferiour to others herein; as Parsons to Arch-deacons, Arch-deacons to Lord Bishops, Lord Bishops to Arch-bishops: so the Priests of England.

16. The Popish Priests must be distinguished from other people by their Vestments, as Surplice, Tippet, &c. so must the Priests of England.

[Page]17. The Popish Priests are tied to a Book of stinted Prayers, and a prescript Order devised by man, for their Worship and Administration: so are the Ministers of England, and that to such an one as is taken out of the Popes Portuis, as hath been proved by divers. That the Common-prayer Book in Edward the sixth his time was so, you have his, with his Councils Testimony for it: thus they write, As for the Service in the English Tongue, it hath manifest Reasons for it; and yet perchance it seemeth to you a New Service; and indeed is no other but the Old, the same words in English which were in Latine. If the Service of the Church were good in Latine, it is good in English. How little different the Common-prayer Book now in use, is thereunto they that will take pains to compare the one with the other, may be satisfied. To these parallel particulars might be added sundry more, wherein there is an exact symmetrie betwixt the Popish Priests and the present Ministers of England, but ex ungue Leonem. The sum of what we have been offering in this matter, is this. First those Ministers that in their Names, Offices, Admission into their Offices, are not to be found in the Scripture, are not Ministers of Christ, act not by vertue of an Authority, Office, Power, Calling, received from him. Secondly, Those Ministers that in their Names, Office, Admission into their Office, are at a perfect agreement with the Ministers of Antichrist (such are the Popish Priests acknowledged to be by those with whom we have to do) are not the Ministers of Christ, have not received any Power, Office, or Calling, from him to act in the holy things of God: But such (as hath been abundantly demonstrated) are the present Ministers of England: therefore these have received no Power, Office, or Calling from Christ, and so are Antichristian. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Answ. Of these particulars the three first are granted, and avouched as not Popish, but justifiable and agreeable to Orthodox antiquity.

To the fifth, I return the same answer that Arch-Bishop Whitgift gave. Surely if those things which were good in the Popes Pontifical, and either contained in the Scripture, or well used before in the ancient Church, or well prescribed by General Councils, be also in our Pontifical, our Pontifical is never the worse for having of them: for if the thing it self be good and profitable, it forceth not from whom it was taken, or of whom it was used, so that now it be rightly used. But it is most false and untrue, that the Book of Ordering Ministers and Deacons, &c now used, is word for word drawn out of the Popes Pontifical,[Page]being almost in no point correspondent to the same, as you might have seen, if you had compared them together. But ignorance and rashness drives you into many errours.

To the sixth, though the English Prelates avouch not the Opinions of the Popish Writers, of giving grace, ex opere operato, by the Sacrament of Orders, as they call it, of the indelible character imprinted by the laying on of hands of the Prelates, with such other of their errours, as wherein they over-magnifie the power they have in their imposition of hands, yet they plead that they do use the words Joh. 20.22, 23. in the Ordination of Priests, without blasphemy or absurdity. Archbishop Whitgift in his Answer to the Admonition, p. 49. of the Edition 1572. in 40. ‘To use these words (Receive the Holy Ghost) in Ordering of Ministers, which Christ himself used in appointing his Apostles, is no more ridiculous and blasphemous, than it is to use the words that he used in the Supper: But it is blasphemy thus outragiously to speak of the words of Christ. The Bishop by speaking these words, doth not take upon him to give the Holy Ghost, no more than he doth to remit sins, when he pronounceth the remission of sins: but by speaking these words of Christ, Receive the Holy Ghost, Whose sins soever ye remit, they are remitted, &c. he doth shew the principal duty of a Minister, and assureth him of the assistance of Gods Holy Spirit, if he labour in the same accordingly. Mr. Richard Hooker Eccl. Polit. l. 5. sect. 77. The Holy Ghost may be used, to signifie not the person alone, but the gifts of the Holy Ghost, and the very power and authority which is given men in the Church, to be Ministers of Holy things, is contained within the number of those gifts whereof the Holy Ghost is Author, and therefore he which giveth this power, may say without absurdity, or folly, Receive the Holy Ghost, such power as the Spirit of Christ hath endued his Church withal.’ See Edward Stilling fleets Irenicum, part. 2. c. 6. p. 231. Bradshaw against Fr. Johnson, p. 65. of Gatakers Rejoynder to Can. Though in their Ordination of Ministers the Bishops use, as a Ceremonial speech, to say, Receive the Holy Ghost; and therein peradventure offer some force to the Scripture, unto which they allude; yet they disclaim all actual power and authority of giving the person or gifts of the Holy Ghost unto men.

Besides, I add, sith the laying on of hands is together with the designation of the person, a sign of prayer, as Mat. 19.13. Mark 10.16. and in Confirmation, and the Apostles use Acts 8.15. and [Page] in Ordination, Acts 13.3. those words may be used prayer-wise, and freed from exception. Whereto perhaps that makes, which Dr. Field l. 5. of the Church, ch. 56, hath; The Council of Carthage 4. Canon. 3. provideth, that in the Ordination of a Presbyter, the Bishop holding his hand on his head, and blessing him, all the Presbyters that are present, shall hold their hands by the hand of the Bishop, and the person Ordained kneeling, joyns in prayer for the Blessing. So Dr. Sparks conceived it might be understood, ch. 15. of Unity and Uniformity. Ecclesiast. disc. of the French Reformed Churches, art. 8. ch. 1. The Ordained shall kneel when they impose their hands on him.

To the seventh, Ordination is not alwayes at a Cathedral, and may be before the Congregation to whom the person is to be Priest.

To the eighth, That it is not alwayes so; nor when so, Popish. See before in Answer to the Preface, sect. 22. and to chap. 2. sect 3.

To the nineth, To offer a persons self for Ordination, may be no evil, but in some cases a duty, 1 Tim. 3.1. Isa. 6.8. Giving money for Letters of Ordination is no simony, but only wages to the Register for his writing; as when the Register was paid for writing and sealing the Instrument signifying the person to be an approved Preacher. Against any Bishops taking money for Ordition, and the Registers exacting overmuch, provision is made Canon 135▪ Eccl, 1. Jac. and even in the Council of Trent, Sess. 21. Decr. de reformatione c. 1.

To the tenth, The Priests of England are not to be Ordained without some title, according to Cannon 33. even the Trent Council, ubi supra c. 2. hath made some provision about it. It is necessary that some b [...] Ordained, though they have not a fixed flock to attend upon Ministers are necessary for Armies, Navies, and sundry occasions, which continue but for a while. Even the Synod of Dort made some Orders about such; and the New-England Elders that imploy Ministers to teach the Native salvage people, do justifie the Ordaining to Office without a flock to attend upon, unless they would have them imployed without Ordination, which were incongruous to the Holy Ghosts direction, Act 13.2. If Itinerant Preachers should have Approbation, they should have Ordination.

To the eleventh subscription is required by the 36. Canon. to three Articles about the Kings Supremacy, the Books of Common-prayer, [Page] and Ordination, and the 39. Articles of Religion; at Ordination the Priest promiseth obedience to his Ordinary, to follow with a glad mind and will, his godly admonitions, and submit himself to his godly judgment, by the late Act unfained Assent and Consent is further required, but none of these by Oath; the Oath of Canonical Obedience is only required at Institutions into Benefices, and is bounded with such terms as make it not intolerable; sure it is nothing like that which is required of Papists, according to the Bull of Pope Pius the fourth, supra forma juramenti professionis fidei.

To the twelfth, The practice of leaving Benefices, is not strange to any Churches: even from New England some have come into Old England, leaving their places there; nor are there wanting like instances of Congregational men at home, perhaps for greater benefit, without consent of the people. The practices are not on any side justifiable in all: yet we read in Scripture of removals of Ministers from one place to another upon urgent occasions.

To the thirteenth, The person Ordained hath authority committed to him by the Bishop to preach the Word of God in the Congregation where he should be lawfully appointed; that is, by License, which is thought needful to be added besides Ordination, because all persons are not alike fitted for all Congregations; the Voice, and other abilities not serving for one Congregation, which will for another.

To the fourteenth, Silencing, Suspending, and Degrading, may be necessary in some cases, Tit. 1.11. and 3.10. if the Laws intrust the Prelates with it: so it hath been in other Churches besides the Popish. The abuse of it is justifiable in none.

To the fifteenth, Inequality is judged to have been in the Elders of the Primitive Churches, by the inscription of the seven Epistles of Christ to the seven Angels of the seven Churches of Asia; and hath been in some sort in all Churches, which have been well ordered; and too much experience shews, that by reason of the inequality of parts and minds, it is necessary to settled order. What is undue in the Popish or Protestant Churches, should be charged on the Authors, not on the Ministry it self.

To the sixteenth, The Vestments of English Priests are not all the same with Popish; those that are, it's denied to have the same use, and therefore not to be charged with the same superstition.

[Page]To the seventeenth, Even the late Assembly of Westminster prescribed a Directory for Worship and Ministration. The Common-prayer Book, that now is urged, should not be judged the worse in those prayers or portions of Scripture, which are holy and good, because they were in the Popes Porluis; no more than the acknowledgment of Jesus to be the Son of the most High God, is the worse because the Devil used it, Mark 5.7. And therefore King Edward the 6. his plea for it was good; and the thing not to be misliked, because used in the Roman Church; who though they have many great corruptions in their Doctrine and Worship, yet have they retained the Bible, Apostles Creed, many prayers from ancient Fathers, and some Popes who were holy men and Martyrs in the first Ages, which are not to be rejected, because continued by later vicious and Antichristian Popes. That which is insinuated, as if the Common-prayer Book now in use, were little different from the Popes Portuis or Missal, is very untruly and unjustly suggested. He that shall impartially, and without prejudice compare the one with the other, shall find a vast difference in the things liable to exception. I have made some view of the Roman Missal of Pius the 5. and Clement the 8. and Breviary of Pius the 5. and Urban the 8. and though I deny not sundry Collects Prayers, Hymns, Lessons, Psalms, Epistles and Gospels are the same in the Common-prayer Book in English, with those in Latine, as being either parts of Holy Scripture, or agreeable to it; yet there are so many differences in fundamentals of Doctrine, substantials of Worship; and in Rituals, as the invocation of Saints, and the opinions of Merit, sacrifice for Quick and Dead, adoration of the Host, vertue of the Cross, half Communion, and many more things material, that I cannot but judge that either much ignorance, or much malice it is that makes any traduce the English Common-Prayer Book, as if it were the Popish Mass Book, or as bad as it; and to deterr men from joyning with those Prayers and Services therein, which are good; as if it were joyning with Antichrist the Pope, or receiving the mark of the Beast, when they can hardly be ignorant that the Martyrs in Queen Maries dayes were burnt for it, is impudent falshood. By the parallel particulars, and such other as might be alledged, cannot be inferred an exact symmetrie betwixt the Popish Priests and the present Ministers of England. In many particulars might there be shewn a parallelism between Ministers of the Congregational Churches, and Presbyterial, and the Popish; yet an exact symmetrie would not thence be demonstrated. Few of these particulars alledged, are [Page] unjustifiable, those that are, if not excusable, yet are far from that which is the main thing charged on the Papists, and disputed against learnedly, by Mr. Francis Mason against Champney, that they Ordain Priests to offer the unbloody sacrifice of the Mass for Quick and Dead; which is abhorred by the English Prelates and Ministers, and they are not to be charged to symbolize in Office with the Popish Order of Priests, for which this Author hath produced nothing, though it were the chief thing to be proved: and therefore the minor of his Syllogism is denied, and it is manifestly false which he saith, he hath abundantly demonstrated it, he having said nothing to prove it in the main.

Sect. 5. The Office of Bishops is not proved to be Antichristian, but may be found in Scripture.

It follows, Secondly, Those that receive their Power, Office, and Calling from a Lord Bishop, and act in the Holy things of God, by virtue of that Power, Office, or Calling, act in the Holy things of God by virtue of an An [...]ichristian Power, Office, and Calling: But the present Ministers of England receive their Power, Office, and Calling from a Lord Bishop, and act in the Holy things of God by virtue of that Power, Office, and Calling: Therefore. The consequence of the major (or first proposition) is manifest, the Office of a Lord Bishop is Antichristian, therefore those that act by virtue of a Power, Office, or Calling received from them, act by virtue of an Antichristian Power, Office, or Calling. That the Office of Lord Bishops is Antichristian, one would wonder should be denied in such a day as this, after so full a demonstration thereof by many witnesses of Christ, who have wrote so clearly in this matter, as if they carried the Sun-beams in their right hand, especially that it should be denied by persons of Presbyterian and Congregational principles (if indeed any of them do deny it.) To prosecute this matter to the uttermost, is not our present intendment, the intelligent Reader knows where to find it done already to our hand: and if after all that hath been said, any through self love, or fear of persecution, will herein be ignorant, we might say, Let them be ignorant.

Answ. The Office, Power, and Calling received from a Lord Bishop, is all one with the Office, Power, and Calling received from a Bishop Suffragan, who is not a Lord; and therefore the adding of the title Lord to Bishop, being only a civil title, they being made Barons of the Land by the King, and nothing pertaining to their Ordination, but only giving them power to vote [Page] in Parliament or Convocation with other dignities, is only brought in here ad faciendum populum, to create envy or hatred against them in the Common people or others, who are prepossessed with prejudice against them. What their Office is, as Bishops, may be best discerned by the Book of Consecration, which I gather from their promises and the prayers then used, to be the instruction of the people committed to their charge out of the Holy Scripture, and to teach or maintain nothing as required of necessity to eternal salvation, but that which they shall be perswaded may be concluded and proved by the same faithfully to exercise themselves in the same Holy Scriptures, and call upon God by prayer, for the true understanding of the same; so as they may be able by them to teach and exhort with wholesome Doctrine, and to withstand and convince the Gainsayers, to be ready with all faithful diligence to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange Doctrine, contrary to Gods Word, and both privately and openly to call upon, and encourage others to the same, to maintain and set forward as much as shall lie in them, quietness, love, and peace among men; and such as be unquiet, disobedient, and criminous within their Diocess, correct and punish according to such authority as they have by Gods Word, and as to them shall be committed by the Ordinance of the Realm, to be faithful in Ordaining, Sending, or Laying hands upon others, to shew themselves gentle and merciful for Christs sake to poor and needy People, and to all Strangers destitute of help. These are their Offices which they are required to perform at their Consecration, whatever their practise be, it pertains not to the present point; this is the Office they undertake, and it is as much wonder to me that any sober man should assert this to be Antichristian, as it is to him that some should deny it. I deny not but there are many that have termed Bishops Antichristian, nor have there been wanting who have said as much of persons of Presbyterian and Congregational principles, but such use of this term I have alwayes condemned, even when Bishops were lowest, as tending to nothing but to inflame the minds of Dissenters in opinion with hatred one against another: but I have not met with any sober Writer, or considerate man, who in conference hath judged their Office as it is undertaken by them to be Antichristian. I deny not that many learned men at home and abroad have disputed, whether Bishops are by Divine Right an Order above Presbyters, nor have there been wanting even of the Bishops themselves who have denied it: Somewhat I have read on both sides, but shall leave that controversie now, and only examine what this Author saith to prove, the Office of Lord Bishops to be Antichristian.

[Page] We shall, saith he, propose briefly a word or two in this matter.

1. That Office that is not to be found in the Scriptures of the institution of Christ, but is contrary to express precepts and commands of his, is Antichristian: But the Office of Lord-Bishops is not to be found in the Scriptures, is contrary to express precepts. Therefore.

Answ. I think the Major is not true, if universal. The Office of some Religious Votaries is not to be found in the Scriptures of the institution of Christ, but is contrary to express Precepts and Commands of his, and yet may not be Antichristian, in that special sense in which the Scripture useth the word Antichrist, nor as I suppose this Author useth it, unless he make every sin to be Antichristian. But because the Minor is that which he insists on, I pass to his proof of it.

The minor Proposition consists of two parts.

1. That the Office of Lord-Bishops is not to be found in Scripture of the institution of Christ: He gave indeed Apostles, Prophets, Pastors, and Teachers, Ephes. 4.11. of Pastors and Teachers we read Rom. 12.7, 8. Ephes. 4.8. Bishops also, and Deacons without the interposition of any other Order, we find 1 Tim. 3.12. Deacons we have appointed, Acts 7. Elders, Acts 14.23. those who are Bishops we find called Presbyters, Tit. 1.5, 7. and those who are Presbyters, we find termed Bishops, Acts 20.28. (Gr. [...], Bishops,) but where the Office of Lord-Bishops was instituted by Christ, we are yet to seek: indeed some appearances of a spirit striving to ascend into this chair of wickedness, was seen in Diotrephes, and others, in the Apostles time, but these were the Antichrists that were then gone abroad into the world. The Scripture before mentioned, Ephes. 4.11. speaks as fully to the Officers and Offices instituted by Christ, as any we meet with: Fail they in their deduction of their Office from hence, and they will undoubtedly prove successless in their attempts. Let us then fix here a little; mention we find here of Apostles, Prophets, Pastors and Teachers, none at all either here, or elsewhere of Lord-Bishops. But perhaps their Office, though they are called by another name, is comprehended in some one or other of these, let that then be considered. Are they Prophets? that (in the sense of the Spirit in this place) they will not pretend to. Are they Pastors or Teachers? This is too great a debasement of their Lordships, their Parochial Priests over whom they preside, are supposed to be Offi [...]ers in that degree. What then are they? Apostles! Their successors, they do indeed boast themselves to be, [Page] and are so accounted by their abettors (and so doth the Pope himself) but how prove they their Succession from them? if they derive it through the Papacy, who sees not the invalidity thereof? How lubricous and uncertain is that their Succession? How do they therein proclaim their shame, and yield the matter in Controversie? What clearer argument that they are Antichristian, if the Pope be the Antichristian Head over many Countries, as is by the generality of Protestants believed, and will not by themselves be gainsayed? But in what sense do they pretend to be the Apostles Successors? Do they succeed them as Christians? that is not the thing in question, they stand or fall, in respect thereof to their own Master; herein we have no controversie with them, as not willing to judge any thing before the time. Do they succeed them in respect to their Off [...]ice? let them prove that, and take the cause. The Apostles were first immediately sent by Christ; secondly, extraordinary Officers, Commissionated to the Preaching of the Gospel throughout the Nations of the World: Are their Lordships such? what can be imagined more frivolous or false? Where find we any Apostles after the departure of those that were immediately by Christ called to that Office? Did the Apostles ordain any as their Successors therein in any of the Churches of Christ? Where read we of their so doing? yea, are any qualified with Gifts as they, for the discharge of such an Office? or doth Christ indeed send forth servants in any imployment, and not furnish them with Gifts sutable thereunto? Credat Apelles? Apella would have been printed. What more dishonorable to the Lord Jesus can be asserted? It remains then, that they being neither Prophets, nor Apostles, nor Pastors, nor Teachers, that they are not to be found in the Scripture of the institution of Christ. Nor are they dreamed of in the world of several hundreds of years after Christ. Clemens in his Epistle to the Church of Corinth, takes notice of no other besides [...], Bishops and Deacons; which Bishops he calls [...], Presbyters or Elders; yea, Lombard himself confesses, Hos solium Ministrorum duos ordines, Ecclesiam primitivam habuisse, & de his solis, praeceptum Apostoli nos habere, Lomb. l. 4. Sen. D. 24. h. 3. Ext. The primitive Church, he tells you, had no other Order of Ministers, than Bishops (or Presbyters) and Deacons: Nor did the Apostles give commandment concerning any other. That their rise and occasion was from the aims and designs of men, to accommodate Ecclesiastical or [Page] Church affairs to the state and condition of the Civil Government, is ingenuously confest by one that was looked upon to be as great an admirer of, and as able a Champion for Diocesan, and Metropolitical Prelates, as any one of late dayes; tis Dr. Hammond we mind, who in his Dissertations about Episcopacy, Sect. 3. hath these words, His sic positis, illud statim sequitur ut (in Imperii cognitione) in provinciâ qualibet, cum plures urbes sint, una tamen primaria, & principalis censenda erat, [...] ideo dicta cui itidem inferiores reliquae civitates subjiciebantur, ut civitatibus Regiones, sic & inter Ecclesias, & Cathedras Episcopales, unam semper primariam & Metropoliticam fuisse: So far is the Office of Lord-Bishops from being of the institution of Christ, that their Primacy and Supremacy was the result of the designs and contrivements of men to accommodate the state and frame of the Church, to the state and condition of the Government of the Nations.

Answ. The thing to be proved was, that the Office of Lord-Bishops is not to be found in the Scriptures; but the whole Discourse is about another thing, not the Office, but superiority of Order above Presbyters, Primacy, or Supremacy of degrees among Bishops, the dignity of their Sees, or Episcopal Chairs, which is quite another thing than what he undertook to prove; so that we may hereto apply the Poets words;

— Amphora coepit

Institui currente rotâ cur urceus exit?

Which were enough to answer this whole passage; yet there are some things to be animadverted therein:

1. It is true we read of Diotrephes, 3 Joh. 9, 10. and of no other in Scripture, that he l [...]ved the preeminence either over or among the Church, or the brethren and strangers who were to be received, that they might be fellow-helpers to the truth, v. 5, 8. and that St. John if he came, would remember his deeds, prating against them with malicious words: and not content therew [...]th, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the Church. But this was not the usurping the Superiority of Order of a Bishop above a Presbyter, but a proud pragmatique, arrogant practice over the Church, Brethren, Strangers, even St. John himself, together with very injurious violent proceedings in words and deeds, which are nothing to the bare challenge by dispute, or assuming by collation either of the [Page] Civil or Ecclesiastical Power, a Superiority of Order above Presbyters; nor is Diotrephes mentioned as one of those Antichrists that were then gone abroad into the world, or any mention of Antichrist in that Epistle.

2. I know not the reason, but I take notice that in this passage reciting Ephes. 4.11. twice, he leaves out Evangelists, and concludes thus, It remains then, that the Bishops being neither Prophets, nor Apostles, nor Pastors, nor Teachers, that they are not to be found in the Scripture of the Institution of Christ. Which conclusion might be overthrown, if it were pleaded, that they were Evangelists, and so successors to Timothy, termed an Evangelist, 2 Tim. 4.5. and to Titus, whose work is alledged for a pattern of Bishops, 1 Tim. 1.3. & 5.19, 22. Titus 1.5. But sith that title is declined by pleaders for Episcopal Superiority, I let it pass.

3. But the term of Pastors and Teachers, is challenged by Bishops: and what saith he against it? This is too great a debasement of their Lordships: which is a Satyrical Sarcasm, no proof. Did any of them say so, or count it to be so? If any did so, he shewed himself unworthy of the name, yea forgetful both of what he promised and prayed for, alluding to this very Text, as his Consecration, and which was expresly charged on him by the Arch-Bishop when he delivered him the Bible. Nor doth it any whit derogate from the congruity of the titles of Pastors and Teachers as it is given to Bishops, that their Parochial Priests over whom they reside, are supposed to be Officers in that degree, than it doth from the giving of the Title of Teacher to a Presbyter, because Assistents or Coadjutors are given them in case age or infirmity hinder them from the frequent doing of that office. I omit mention of the living, to avoid imputation of flattery, but I suppose the Author of this Writing is not ignorant, that Jewel, Usher, and many more, have, when they were Bishops, been truly termed Pastors and Teachers, and hope well of others.

4. But under the term of Apostles they may not be reckoned. True; they had extraordinary Commission and Power, yet they may be Successors to them. (Dr. Owen of Schism, c. 6. sect. 55. Professedly disclaims all thoughts of rejecting those Ministers as Papal and Antichristian, who yet adhere to this Ordination in a succession from Popish Bishops, being many of them eminently gifted of God, to dispense the Word, and submitted unto by his people, in the administration of the Ordinances, and are right[Page]worthy Ministers of the Gospel.) This Author denies not they succeed to them as Christians. If so, they may be heard as Gifted Brethren, which was denied by him to the Ministers chap. 2. But why not in Office? was the Apostles Office any other than what Christ injoyned them Mat. 28.19, 20. Mark 16.15? and therein they must have Successors, though not in the extent of their Commission, and in their Power; else, how should Christ be with them all dayes unto the end of the World? But, they cannot derive their Succession, but through the Papacy, and then they are Antichristian. I answer, They may derive their Succession by proving their consonancy with them in doing the same work after them, and Preaching the same Gospel. If any, to stop the mouths of the clamourous Papists, have derived their Succession from the Bishops under the Papacy, by proving (as Mr. Francis Mason did) the Consecration of the Bishops after the Reformation by three Bishops allowed by the Romanists themselves after the ancient Canon, though perhaps more than needs; yea, though they were Consecrated and Ordained by the Pope himself and some Cardinal Bishops; yet, if they were Consecrated, or Ordained to no other work, nor in any other manner than Priests and Biships are Ordained and Consecrated, according to the order of the Church of England, they would not be Antichristian. For though it be not gainsayed, but that the Pope is the Antichristian head over many Countries; yet it is gainsayed, that all that is derived from him, or done by him, is Antichristian. I do not think it is Antichristian to confess the Apostles Creed, though a person say he believes it, because it is received from the Pope and Trent Council.

5▪ That Bishops as a Superiour Order or Degree above Presbyters were not dream'd of in the World, for several hundreds of years after Christ; I think can hardly be made good: though I will not meddle with that point, which hath been debated so much by men of greatest and most exact skill in Antiquity, with whom I conceive my self no way fit to be compared: yet this I say, that the not taking notice of Bishops distinct from Presbyters by Clement in his Epistle to the Corinthians, published not long since by Patrick Yong, is ballanced by the passages in Ignatius his Epistles, if they be genuine, concerning which, the Reader may judge by what Arch-bishop Usher hath written in his Edition of those Epistles of Ignatius. As for Lombard ▪ if the Primitive Church, according to him, extend not beyond the dayes of the Apostles, as his words import, they prove not, that the [Page]Order of Bishops above Presbyters was not dreamt of several hundreds of years after Christ. But of this I will not contend, it's enough for my purpose, if the Office be found in Scripture, though not their Superiority.

6. As for the words of Dr. Hammond, I find them Dissert. 4. de Episcopatu c▪ 5. sect. 4. though not fully cited by this Author, and I acknowledge, that he makes the state and frame of the Churches to have been accommodated to the state and condition of the Government of the Nations in the Empire; yet withall, he conceives, that the reason of directing seven Epistles to the seven Angels of the seven Churches was, because they were Metropolitan or Mother-Churches; and conceives this division into Provinces, Dioceses, and depending Churches, to have been transcribed from the samplar of the Jews by Moses Law, Deut. 16.18. and 17.9. And therefore his words are not to be drawn to an acknowledgement of Lord-Bishops Primacy and Supremacy to have been the result of the design and contrivements of men; much less, that the Superiority of Bishops above Presbyters, had its rise and occasion from the aims and designs of men, to accommodate Ecclesiastical Affairs to the state and condition of Civil Government. It is added.

Sect. 6. The office of Lord Bishops is not contrary to express precepts of Christ in the Scripture.

2. That the office of Lord Bishops is contrary to express Precepts of Christ in the Scripture; the truth of which, he that runs may read in the ensuing Scriptures, Mat. 20.25. Mark 10.42. Luke 22.25. 1 Pet. 5.3. the English of, vos autem non sic, but ye shall not do so; neque ut dominantes Cleris, not lording it over God's Clergy or Heritage; an ordinary Reader may easily conclude to be inconsistent with their Lordly Dignities.

Answ. This Author still shoots wide from the mark: He undertook to prove, that the Office of Lord-Bishops is contrary to express Precepts of Christ in the Scripture; but he concludes against their Lordly dignity; which is no more their Office, than the honour ascribed to a Preacher, or Reader in the University by giving them the titles of Master, or Doctour in Divinity, is their Office. The term Bishops indeed implies their Office appointed by Christ, to have inspection over the flock; but the term Lord is only a t [...]tle given them by the King, when he makes them Barons of the Realm, which may be severed from the Office of Bishops, as it hath been [Page] since the Reformation in England, when Suffragan Bishops have been made without the addition of Lordship. But however this Author conceives the having such titles as Lords to be contrary to the express precepts, Mat. 20.25. Mark 10.42. Luke 22.25. 1 Pet. 5.3. and he translates Vos autem non sic, But ye shall not do so. But this is more than either the words or translations do permit. It is in Mat. 20.26. Mark 10.43. [...], It shall not be so among you, or to you; which explains best Luke 22.26. [...], But ye not so; that is, as our translation renders it, But ye shall not be so; and so notes not a Precept, but a Prediction, and shews Event, not Duty, which Mr. Gataker thinks in his Cinnus l. 1. c. 3. p. 36. after a discussion of several Interpretations, to be the genuine meaning of Christ. But granting it to be a Precept, is it a Precept to the Apostles only, or to others? The former hath countenance from the Text:

1. From the occasion, the request of the Mother of Zebedees children.

2. The indignation of the Ten, by reason of it.

3. Christs calling of them to him, and no other, in Matthew and Mark.

4. Their contention of St. Luke.

5. Christ's speaking to them who had been with him in his temptations.

6. His allotting to them a Kingdom, and to sit on twelve thrones.

But if it be to others, it is doubtful, whether to all Christians, or only to Ministers of the Gospel; and, whether it forbid simply Dominion at all, or such Dominion as the Rulers of the Gentiles exercised; to wit, Tyrannical; or the affectation and inordinate seeking of it, not the having or the exercise of Dominion. In my Romanism discussed, Article 7. sect. 8. p. 172, 173. I have set down ten Reasons to prove, that the Rule meant in those Texts, is not only Tyrannical Dominion, but also the Dominion of one Apostle over another, and the affectation and inordinate seeking of that rule, which a person may have, and lawfully exercise; and this is forbidden not only to Ministers, but also to all Christians: but not a Christians having or exercising the Office of a King or Civil Magistrate; nor the Apostles Rule over the Church of God, or Ministers of a lower Order: For then Christians should be forbidden to exercise that Office which is Gods Ordinance; and the Apostles did ill in practising and appointing [Page] Rule over Christians, yea of some Ministers over others in some cases. But the Rule which is forbidden, is, Rule over the Faith of the Saints, which St. Paul disclaims 2 Cor. 1.24. and the Popes usurp (whose decrees in points of Faith, and determinations of doubts of Conscience, and impositions of Laws binding the conscience are made unerring) such Rule over Princes in secular Affairs with pomp & outward grandure, like Gentile Princes, as the same Popes usurp, rule for themselves, not for Christ, rule by force, not by authority of Gods Word. If any Lord-Bishop affect, seek, take upon him, or exercise such Lordship or Dominion, it may be censured for Antichristian, yet not his Office, but his practice is to be thus censured; and this not to be imputed to his Order, but his Person. But to judge so of a person barely, because of the Title of Lord, which was given by Sarah to her Husband, and propounded as meet, 1 Pet. 3.6. or to deny any liberty to manage any civil business to an Ecclesiastical person, because of those words of Christ is more than I conceive they have sufficient ground to do. Sure such Congregational men as have been Heads of Colledges in the Universities, or Vicechancellors, or Leaders of Forces, have given occasion to be termed Antichristian, as well as Lord-Bishops, if Lordly Dignity, and Secular Rule merit that appellation.

As for 1 Pet. 5.3. the Annotation in the Book of the Annotations in English, termed the Assemblies, is thus, Lords] that is, not imperiously commanding your own inventions, instead of the Doctrine of the Gospel; nor carrying themselves insolently and magisterially towards Gods people, 3 John ver. 9. which imports not an Office forbidden, but the evil practice of them whose Office is allowed; For this very Exhortation is given to those who were Elders among the Christians, even St. Peter, who entitles himself a fellow Elder to them, and therefore contains not a Precept forbidding the Office of a Lord Bishop, any more than of an Elder, such as St. Peter was, but the abuse of the Office; nor doth it forbid Lordly Dignity, but Lordly Rule; whereas Bishops Rule should be Pedo non Sceptro, not as Princes, but as Shepherds. If any Prelate use such Rule, it is not his Office, but his Practice, which is to be termed Antichristian.

Sect. 7. The Office of Lord-Bishops not from the Papacy.

[Page]

But this Author proceeds, Not to multiply Arguments in a matter that others have so largely debated.

2. That Office that is derived from, and is only to be found in the Papacy, is surely Antichristian (if the Pope be the head of Antichrist, this must not be denied.) But the Office of Lord-Bishops is derived from, is only to be found in the Papacy. Which of the Reformed Churches that have separated from the Papacy have retained it? Did the woman in her flight into the Wilderness carry it along with her? What more absurd, then to run to the persecuting Whore and Beast for an Office of Ministry? and what more evident demonstration of its being an Antichristian Office, than its entertainment only by that false Antichristian Church, and its utter rejection and detestation by the true Spouse and witnesses of Christ in all ages? What is delivered over to us in this matter by some of them; we shall briefly affix hereunto. Hierome in his Epistle to Evagrius, and in his Commentary on the Epistle of Titus, professes, That it is more by custom than by any institution of the Lord, that Bishops are become greater than the Elders or Ministers. Harm. of Conf. Sect. 2. Tit. 11. So from him do the Churches of Helvetia proclaim; whence they infer (and that truly according to Act. 4.9.) That no man by any right can forbid, but that we should return to the old appointment of God, and rather receive that, than the custom devised by men. Wickliff in his Answer to King Richard the Second, citing Mat. 20.25. 1 Pet. 5.3. sayes, Lordship and Dominion is plainly forbidden to the Apostles, and darest thou then usurp the same? If thou wilt be a Lord, thou shalt lose thy Apostleship, &c. The University of Geneva say, (Theses Genev. 71.) These functions following, we hold to be altogether false, and destitute of all true foundation, viz. the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome over all Churches; the Cardinalship, Patriarchship, Archiepiscopalship, and briefly the whole degree of Lord Bishops over their fellow Elders. Marlorat in his Exposition on the Revel. chap. 17.3. sayes, That Archbishops, Deans, &c. are in Office under Antichrist; yea upon Chap. 9. that they are the tails of Antichrist. Beza saith, They could not be brought into the Church, until they had driven him out, who is the only Master, Christ: and, there is neither holy Scripture, nor Council, nor antient Doctors, which ever did know such Monsters, Beza's Confess. Art. 7.14. The noble antient Oldcastle, Lord Cobham saith, That the whole Episcopal degree of Lord Bishops over their [Page] fellow Elders is altogether false and destitute of all true foundation— yea, that all other Functions and Offices besides Priests and Deacons are unlawful, as being Sects devised by men destitute of all true foundation. To these we might add honest Bale upon the Revelation, viz. chap. 17. where he saith, Canterbury and York are the Beastly Antichrist's Metropolitans, and Primates; and upon Chap. 13. that Archbishop, Diocesan, Archdeacon, Dean, Prebend, Doctors, Parson, Vicar, &c. are very names of blasphemy: For Offices they are not appointed by the holy Ghost, nor yet mentioned in the Scripture. Cartwright sayes of them, that their Functions are not in the Word of God, but of the Earth, new devised Ministries, and such as can do no good: that their Office is the neck of the Popish Hierarchy, come out of the bottomless pit of Hell. Fenner proclaims them to be no natural members of the body of Christs Church, as being of humane addition, not born with her, nor grown up with her from the Cradle. The French and Belgick Confession sayes, That they pass not a rush for them. The Church of Geneva, That the Hierarchie is Devilish confusion, stablished (as it were) in despight of God, and to the mocking and reproach of all Christian Religion. The Seekers of Reformation in Q. Elizabeths time spake fully hereunto, [2 Adm. to Parl.] we have an Antichristian▪ and Popish ordering of Priests, strange from Gods Word, never heard of in the Primitive Church, taken out of the Popes Shop, to the destruction of Gods Kingdom — The Names and Offices of Archbishops, Archdeacons, Lord Bishops, &c. are, together with their Government, drawn out of the Popes Shop, Antichristian, Devilish, and contrary to the Scriptures: Parsons, Vicars, Parish-Priests, are birds of the same feather: to whom might be added many others.

Answ. 1. Though the Pope in these later ages, especially since Boniface the third, obtained of Phocas the Emperor, more than 600 years after Christ, that Rome, the seat of blessed Peter the Apostle, which is the head of all Churches, should be both so called and accounted of all, as Platina speaks, and as Onuphrius addes, Had the title of Universal Bishop conferred on him; and it was added, that the name of Pope, which was determined to be the more excellent of all Episcopal terms, the Roman Bishops should alone retain it, whereas before it was common to all Bishops, hath been judged deservedly the head of Antichrist, which Gregory the Great Bishop of Rome, had not long before, lib. 7. indict. 2. Epist. 96. made Antichristian, and the Usurper a forerunner of Antichrist: yet the Bishops of Rome, in the first ages, were not so accounted, [Page]and therefore, it follows not, though the later Popes be the head of Antichrist, that the Office that is derived from, and is only to be found in the Papacy, is surely Antichristian; there having been Offices perhaps derived from good Popes, and continued only in the Church of Rome, which deserve not that censure, but approbation rather. Nor is it necessary that every thing derived from Popes, since they have been the head of Antichrist, and continued only in the Papacy, should be Antichristian: the head of Antichrist may institute something that is not Antichristian.

2. It is not true, that the Office of Lord Bishops is derived from, and is only to be found in the Papacy. It is manifest in the first Nicene Council, Canon 6. that then and before were Patriarchs, Metropolitan Bishops, and Lord Bishops with their Office; and that Council was in the fourth Century, about the year 326. And that in the Greek, Eastern, Russian Churches, the same Office is continued. And therefore though no other of the Reformed Churches had retained that Office, besides the English, yet there would be no need for the Bishops of England to run to the persecuting Whore and Beast, for an Office of Ministery. But it is also pleaded, that the Lutheran Churches reformed, that have separated from the Papacie in Germany, Denmark, Swethland, have retained the same Office under the name of Superintendents, which is the same in Latine, with Bishops in Greek; and that it is false, that the true Spouse and witnesses of Christ have in all ages utterly rejected the Office of Lord Bishops, and that it hath its entertainment only by that false Antichristian Church. Yea, it is manifest by the many Epistles written to the English Prelates, by the reception at the Synod of Dort, and innumerable other wayes, that there hath been no such rejection or detestation either by any Church reformed, or Eminent Writers of them, except those of the Separation, who have been also averse from the Discipline of the Protestant Reformed Churches beyond Sea, and have given opprobrious Language to, and of them, as well as the English. As for the testimonies here cited, some of them, as the Speeches of Hierome, the Helvetian Confession of the Lord Cobham, are only about the superiority of Bishops above Presbyters, not of their Office; most of them, as that of Wickliffe used before by Bernard in his Tract to Pope Eugenius, those of the University and Church of Geneva; Beza's, the Belgick, French Confessions, Marlorat, Bale, are against the Popish Hierarchy; those of Cartwright, Fenner, and Authors of the Admonition, were Speeches of Adversaries, which in no Court pass for testimonies; to which Arch-Bishop Whitgift and others have given answers long since. It is added:

Sect. 8. The Ordination of Bishops, is also of Presbyters.

[Page]

Object. One stone of Offence must be removed out of our way ere we pass on further; it is this: Though Lord Bishops are Antichristian, yet it doth not follow, that the Office and Ministry derived from them is so: For they are also Presbyters, and Ordain as Presbyters.

Answ. Give me leave to say, that were not men resolved to say any thing, that they might be thought to have somewhat to say, we had not heard of this Objection. For,

1. That they act in the capacity of Presbyters in the matter of Ordination, is false.

(1.) Contrary to their own avowed Principles; their Lordships think it too great a debasement, to be degraded from their Lordly dignity to so mean an Office.

(2.) Contrary to the known Law of the Land, by which they receive power to act therein; in which they are known, and owned only in the capacity of Lord Bishops.

(3.) Contrary to their late practice, whereby they have sufficiently declared the nullity of a Ministerial Office, received from the hands of a Presbytery, in thrusting out of doors several hundreds of Ministers so Ordained. Strange! That it should be pleaded they act as Presbyters in the matter of Ordination, and yet they themselves judge a Presbyterian Ordination invalid. But,

2. What if this should be granted? it would avail nothing, except it can be proved, that they are, and act as Presbyters of the Institution of Christ, which (these being only in a particular instituted Church of Christ) will never be to the worlds end. Thus far of the third argument.

Answ. 'Tis true, to some that have either renounced Episcopal Ordination as Antichristian, or refused to hear Ministers Ordained by Bishops, as acting by virtue of Antichristian Calling, it hath been told, that the Bishops were first Presbyters, and Ordained Presbyters together with Presbyters; and some of them that held that a Bishop and a Presbyter were not superiour in Order, but in Degree, did Ordain as Presbyters; and that therefore, if the Ordination of Presbyters be not Antichristian, the Ministers should retain their Ordination by Bishops, and the people hear them, though that were yielded, that Lord Bishops Office were Antichristian. Now nothing is here replied to the allegation, that Bishops Ordain with Presbyters; the Bishop with the Priests present[Page]are to lay their hands on the Ordained, according to the Book of Ordination: Nor to this, that some of the Bishops have acknowledged Episcopacy not to be an Order above Presbytery; Nor to this, that though the Bishop imposing hands, do act as of superiour Order, yet being a Presbyter, his act is valid, as he that conveighs a thing as conceiving himself as Heir, and Executor, if he be not Heir; yet if he be only Executor, and by that hath power to conveigh it, the grant is good. But he sayes,

1. It is false they Ordain as Presbyters: it is contrary to their principles. Answ. Whether it be so in all is uncertain, nor do I know how this Author can prove it, unless they did declare it, which is more than I have learned. 2. It is contrary to the known Law of the Land. Answ. 1. It is not true, that the Bishops do receive power by the Law to act in Ordination, in it are known, and owned only in the capacity of Lord Bishops: for the Ordination of Suffragan Bishops, who are not Lords, is valid by Law. 2. The Law which gives power to act, ties not Bishops to think themselves of a Superiour Order to Presbyters, nor to act with such an intention, or under such a notion. 3. They have nullified Presbyterian Ordination, and required Re-ordination by a Bishop. Answ. They do not nullifie Ordination by a Presbyterie in foreign Churches; but in England perhaps, because the Laws require Episcopal Ordination; and it is conceived necessary to avoid Schism, or some confusion. 2. However those Presbyters are not of the institution of Christ, these being only in a particular instituted Church of Christ. Answ. If this be held, no Presbyters in any Church, but Congregational, are of Christs Institution; and then all the Presbyters of the French, Dutch, and other Churches under Presbyterial Government, are excluded from being of Christs Institution, as well as these Ordained by Bishops of the Church of England; and then they by his Argument are no more to be heard than these▪ and so Separation avowed from all Churches, even Protestant, besides those of their own way, which is the pernicious errour to which this arguing tends. But till it be proved I count his dictates fit to be rejected, and proceed to the next Chapter.

CHAP. 4. ARG. 4.

[Page]

Sect. 1. They that deny not Christs Offices Doctrinally, may be heard

THus it is argued:

Those that oppugn or deny any of the Offices of Jesus Christ, are not to be heard, but separated from: But the present Ministers of England oppugn and deny some of the Offices of Jesus Christ: Therefore. Before we come to clear the several parts of this Argument, we shall crave liberty briefly to premise. 1. That there is a two-fold denying or oppugning of the Offices of Christ, Verbal and Professional. Such was and is that of the Jews, the Papists are not guilty hereof; in words they own, preach up, plead for all the Offices of Christ as much as any: so do all the present Ministers of England: This is not then the denial of the Offices of Christ we implead them as guilty of.

2. Real and actual, when persons do that which enwraps in the Bowels of it, an impugning and denial of the Offices of Christ. This the Romish Synagogue are eminently guilty of: so are the present Ministers of England, as shall (we doubt not) be clearly demonstrated in its proper place.

Secondly, That a verbal professional acknowledgment of the Offices of Christ is nothing, when contradicted in practice: This the Apostle avowedly asserts, in respect of the knowledge of God, Tit. 1.16. They profess they know God, but in works they deny him; and may congruously enough be applyed to the matter in hand. This, as applied to the Combination and Synagogue of Rome, some of themselves have long since ackowledged, whilest they profess Christ to be King, and submit not to the Laws he hath prescribed in his Word, they make him an Idol and put a Scepter of Reed in his hand: so some of their own. But I interrogate, What if a man should with the greatest earnestness profess, and in the height of a confident spirit averr, that he were born again of God, washed, sanctified in the blood of Christ, and by the spirit of the Lord, that he did receive and own Christ as his King and Law-giver, when I see this man at the same time walking in a way of Rebellion against Christ, in open contempt and defiance of his Laws and Government [Page] subjecting to the yoak of other Lords and Law-givers; shall hi [...] Plea be admitted? Surely no, Quid verba audiam, cum facta videam. 'Tis long since decided by Christ, that false Prophets are to be descried, not by their words (they may speak like, Angels; cry, Hail Master, kiss him, yet be false Prophets, yea, Judasses to him) but by their fruits: Let them profess a thousand times over, that they own all the Offices of Christ, if they are the mean while found in the practice of those things that are inconsistent with the truth of such a profession, they are really deniers and opposers of the Offices of Christ. This is that then we affirm in this matter.

1. That those that do really oppose any of the Offices of Christ, are not to be heard, but separated from: This carrying a brightness along with it, that is sufficient to convince all, except such, whose eyes the God of this World hath blinded: that its original is from God, we shall take for granted will not be denied by a professing enlightned people, though otherwise it were easie to multiply arguments for its demonstration.

1. To oppose Christ in any of his Offices, bespeaks such as are guilty thereof to be Antichrists, 1. Joh. 2.22. and 4.2, 3. 2 Joh. 7. (of the same mind with us herein, is learned Beza upon the forecited Scriptures) and none will surely be so inconsiderate (not to say worse) as to assert, It is lawful to attend upon the Ministry of Antichrist.

2. To hear such, is to strengthen and encourage them in that their denial of, and opposition unto the Offices of Christ; and thereby become partakers with them in their sin:

The thought of which, cannot but be grievous to the poor Lambs of Christ. But this will not be denied.

Answ. 1 I allow the distinction of verbal and real oppugning the Offices of Christ: But it is false, that the Papists are not guilty of a verbal denying of the Offices of Christ, and that in words they own, preach up, and plead for all the Offices of Christ as much as any. For though they do acknowledge Christ to be King, Priest, and Prophet, yet their Doctrine, and not their practice only, doth overthrow all the Offices of Christ. As he that ascribes Kingly power to a subject, doth make another King than the right King, and so doth u [...]king him; and as he that ascribes to a Creature that which is proper to God, doth set up another God, and so ungod the true God, who can no more be multiplied than the Heavens can bear two Suns; even so it is with the Papists, while they assert, that traditions unwritten are to be received with alike affection [Page]of piety and reverence as the written Gospel, when the Pope ascertains them that he is infallible, that he is judge of Controversies, can determine what is to be held as an Article of Faith unerringly, can make Laws to bind the Conscience by vertue of his Authority, without the case of Scandal and Contempt; can dispense with Gods Laws, lawful oaths, incestuous marriages prohibited by God; by his indulgences can forgive sins authoritatively and absolutely, that ascribe to every Priest a power to offer in the Mass a propitiatory unbloody sacrifice for the quick and dead, to forgive sins in the Sacrament of Penance, to enjoyn laborious works of penance, which shall be satisfactious to God for sins, while they make Saints deceased, and Angels Mediatours between God and Man by their merits and agency with God for us; they ascribe to Creatures the power proper to Christs Offices, and so do make other Prophets and Priests to officiate as Christ; they do verbally deny the Offices of Christ, and not in words own, preach up, and plead for all the Offices of Christ as much as any, as this Author most untruly suggests; but do doctrinally evacuate them all, of which no such thing can be charged on the present Ministers of England, nor is at all demonstrated by this Author.

2. I grant, that a verbal professional acknowledgment of the Offices of Christ, when contradicted by practice is nothing to the salvation of the person so professing, in the sense in which St. Paul saith 1 Cor. 13 2. Though I have the gift of Prophecie, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have no charity, I am nothing, that is, as v. 3. it profiteth me nothing; and no further are to be drawn the words of the Apostle, Tit. 1.16. than that which is expressed in the Text, that to such persons nothing is pure but their minds and consciences are defiled; and so to the Interrogation I answer, such a ones plea shall not be admitted before God, or in an Ecclesiastical censure, or a private judgment, so as that he shall have the approbation or benefit of a real subject to Christ; yet all this doth not prove that his doctrine impugnes the Offices of Christ, or that his doctrine may not be heard to the profit of the Hearers. J. Owen of the duty of Pastors, p. 24. God oftentimes out of his care for his flock, bestows gifts on some, for the benefit of others, on whom he will bestow no graces for the benefit of their own souls. P. 43. People must beware of false Prophets. How shall they do this, but by trying their doctrine by the rule. Nor is it true that Christ hath decided the question as he would have it; as if Christ had said that false Prophets are to be descried by their virtous [Page]life, not by their doctrine: He saith indeed, they are known by their fruits, but that these fruits are only their evil life, he saith not. No where is any one said to be a false Prophet, that doth not take upon him to prophesie; he may be a bad man, that teacheth no false Doctrine, but not a false Prophet. Judas was a wicked man, a Devil, but no where termed a false Prophet; yea he was one of those that Christ sent to preach, and one of those of whom he saith, Mat. 10.40. He that receiveth you, receiveth me; and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me. In the Old Testament, Jer. 5.3. & 23.16, 17, 25, 26. Micah 3.5. false Prophets are said to be such as prophesied Lyes in Gods name and he sent them not; that they taught lying divinations, the Visions of their own heart, they cried peace when there was no peace, they attempted to draw them after other gods, Deut. 13.2. In the New Testament, 2 Pet. 2.1 There were false Prophets among the people, even as there shall be false Teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies denying the Lord that bought them, 1 Joh. 4.1. Many false Prophets are gone out into the World, and they are said to be such as confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, that they speak of the World, v. 3, 5. That is true which Mr. John Ball in his Trial of the grounds of Separation, ch. 13. pag. 312. hath, If we look into the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, we shall never find the Prophets called true or false in respect of their outward calling, (I add, or only their vitious lives) but in respect of their doctrine. Yea, though a man should by his doctrine deny the Offices of Christ only by remote consequence; as, by teaching something as appointed by Christ, which was not; or denying something to be instituted by Christ, which was so appointed; yet should he not be accounted a false Prophet, but an erring man, who while he layes the foundation rightly, yet through ignorance, or inadverrencie builds Hay and Stubble thereon, as the Apostle speaks, 1 Cor. 3.12. And therefore that which this Author doth so confidently pronounce, as if it were as clear as the Sun, and denied by none, but those whose eyes the God of this World hath blinded, [That those that do really (that is in their practice, though not in their preaching) oppose any of the Offices of Christ, are not to be heard (no not when they preach saving Truths of the Gospel) but separated from, (not only in respect of private or Church Communion in the Lords Supper or Prayers, but in attending on the Ministry of the Word delivered by them) which is his major proposition] is so far from being light, that it seems rather to me, some of that smoak of the bottomless pit, wh [...]ch the God of this World raiseth, to hinder [Page] many poor souls from hearing that Word, wherein the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ the image of God doth shine unto men. Nor were not professing enlightned people, as he calls them, held by prejudice, or guided by affection more than by judgment, could they grant this proposition. For if according to this Authors dictates, he that really, that is, in heart or practice opposeth any of the Offices of Christ, is to be separated from: then every one who disobeys his Commands, believes not his Words, that is an hypocrite; yea, that sins or errs in any thing Christ hath revealed or commanded, is to be separated from, and not to be heard; and so all must turn Seekers or Quakers, if they do not meet with a Teacher who is perfect without sin or errour. As for what this Author saith for demonstration of it, that such are Antichrists, 1 Joh. 2.22. and 4.2, 3. 2 Joh. 7. and that Beza is of the same mind, and that they that hear them strengthen their opposition unto the Offices of Christ, and partake with them in their sin, is false. For neither doth St. John, nor Beza in his Annotations count any for Antichrists there meant, but such as by their doctrine oppugne Christs Nature or Office, which he terms the false Doctrine of the Antichrists; nor is he at all guilty of the sins of the Minister who is evil in his life, by hearing him preach truth; yea, though he preach some errours, and it be probable, that when he hears him, he shall hear some errour preached by him, unless some other way he abet his sin or errour, or omit his duty in seeking to amend him. But let us attend the proof of his minor.

Sect 2. Every not hearkning to Christs Order, is not a denial of his Office.

'Tis the second thing may sound harsh in the ears of some (as did some sayings of Christ, but if truth, where God shall give the seeing eye, and hearing ear, 'twill be received,) viz.

2. That the present Ministers of England do oppose and deny some of the Offices of Christ, viz. His Kingly and Prophetical Office, which we come to the proof of.

Arg. 1. Those that hearken not to the Revelation Christ hath made, and as supreme Lord and Law-giver, hath enjoyned to be observed touching the Orders and Ordinances of his house, deny the Prophetical and Kingly Office of Christ, Deut. 18.18. Acts 3.22. Isa. 9.6. But the present Ministers of England hearken and conform not to the Revelation Christ hath made touching the Orders and Ordinances of his house: Therefore.

[Page] Answ. Though I doubt not but I could retort this Argument upon this Authour, whom by sundry passages in this Book I judge to be one that hearkens not to the Revelation Christ hath made, and as supreme Lord and Law-giver hath enjoyned to be observed touching the Order and Ordinance of his house, even that most express, Mat. 28.19. Mark 16.15, 16. one of the principles of the Doctrine of Christ, and part of the foundation, Heb. 6.1, 2. Yet I shall wave that, and answer directly by denying the major; of which I give these reasons.

1. Because denial, is more than not hearkning to; the one is by positive contradiction, the other may be only by Omission.

2. The not hearkning may be out of ignorance, incapacity to understand, dulness, slothfulness, fearfulness, mistakes, prevalency of temptation without any enmity of heart, habitual stubbornness, or willful gainsaying, which are requisite to a plain denial of the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ.

3. There may be sundry Orders of his House revealed by Christ, which are controverted, whether they be such or no; there may be some acknowledged to be Orders of his House, yet thought not of such moment as that the peace of the Church should be broken by contending for them; or judged not perpetual, but temporary; or not binding the Ministers to observe, till the Magistrate reform; as in the case of putting down Images, or conceiving in cases of necessity, or for avoiding of Scandal, they may not hearken to them; as in Davids eating the Shew-bread, the Apostle Pauls not hearkning to the Order of discontinuing Circumcision, and a Jewish Vow and Offering; in these, and perhaps more cases a person may not hearken to the Revelation Christ hath made, and as supreme Lord and Law-giver hath enjoyned to be observed touching the Orders and Ordinances of his House, and yet be so far from denying the Prophetical and Kingly Office of Christ, that he may be sound in the Faith, and a zealous and faithful maintainer of them, by holding forth the truth of the Gospel unto the death. And therefore I take the major proposition of this Argument to be manifestly false, which he seems by not proving to take for manifest truth.

Sect. 3. It is not proved, that Christs Soveraign Authority is rejected by the present Ministers.

But he goes on thus: 'Tis the minor (or second Proposition) that [Page]in the thoughts of some is capable of a denial, but the verity thereof shines forth as the Sun in its brightness, in the review of the Orders and Ordinances of the House of Christ appointed by himself; and the present frame and deportment of the present Ministers of England with respect thereunto: which of them have they not made void by their Traditions? This is that which Christ hath said, 1. That all power for the Calling, Institution, Order, and Government of his Church, is invested solely in him, as the alone Lord, Soveraign Ruler, and Head thereof, Mat. 28.19. 1 Tim. 6.14, 15. Joh. 3.35. Acts 3.22. and 5.31. 'Tis upon this foot of account that Christ chargeth his Disciples not to be called of men Rabbi, nor to call any Father, (viz. not to impose their authority upon any, or suffer themselves to be imposed upon by any in the matters of their God) Mat. 23.8, 9, 10. because one is their Master and Lord (viz. Christ.) Hence also the Apostles lay the weight of their exhortations upon the Commandment of Christ, 1 Cor. 11.23. and 14.37. Proclaim all to be accursed that preach any other Gospel, Gal. 1.8. (yea though Angels from Heaven, should they live and speak as such) charge those to whom they write not to receive any into their houses that bring any other doctrine, (much more not to receive them as their Teachers) 2 Joh. 10. Yea, the Spirit of the Lord in the close of the last Revelation of his Will, it pleased this great King and Law-giver in such a way to give forth, testifies that if any man shall add unto these things, the Lord shall add unto him the Plagues that are written in his Book, Rev. 22.18. Do the present Ministers of England conform unto this great Institution? in words indeed they do so. But what meaneth the bleating of the Sheep, and lowing of the Oxen in our ears? Do they not own other Lords, Heads, and Governours, that have a Law-making power, and would enforce the Consciences of the free-born Subjects of Christ over his Churches besides him? what doth this less than evidently proclaim their disobedience and rebellion (which is as the sin of Witchcraft) against the King of Kings, and the rejection of his Scepter and Soveraign Authority over them! But of this more hereafter.

Answ. It is no strange thing to find in this Author high Charges backed only with confident assertions, and no proofs; so that men, comparing the one with the other, may think he wrote his Dreams, rather than Meditations. For what are we to think otherwise when we read such passages as these: the verity of his minor proposition shines forth as the Sun in his brightness? Which is no more than is to be said of the first universal indubitable principles of the light of Nature or Reason, which are indisputable; [Page] and yet he saith, in the thoughts of some it is capable of a denial: and when he should prove it so clear, in stead of an Argument, proves all with Interrogations, which if the Reader deny, he is put to a stand. But to shew the vanity of his arguings to his Question, which of the Orders and Ordinances of the house of Christ appointed by himself, have not the present Ministers of England (he means all, even the best of them, as his words, ch▪ 2. and arguings against them indiscriminatim do evince,) have they not made void by their Traditions? I answer by another Question, Which of them have they so made void? Sure the Ordinances of searching the Scriptures, hearing the Word, praying to the Father in the name of Christ, believing on the Son, with many more (which are the chief Orders and Ordinances of the house of Christ, appointed by himself) have not been made void by the Traditions of the Ministers of England that now are, at least not by all or the best of them, that I know or hear of. But he imagines he can prove it by an induction of particulars, of which he names only seven; though to make his induction full (without which it is no good Argument) he should have reckoned seven times seven. But perhaps he thinks if he can make good the charge in these seven, it will be without question his charge is true of the rest. Let us then view each of these in order, and see how well he hath acquitted himself therein.

The first of these Orders or Ordinances of Christ is, that all power for the Calling, Institution, Order and Government of his Church, is invested solely in him as the alone Lord, Soveraign Ruler, and Head thereof. Which I grant as a truth, though I assent not to his Paraphrase on Mat. 23.8, 9, 10. as if Christ did forbid the Apostles to impose their Authority upon any in the matters of their God; which they did, Act 15.25, 28. But how comes this to be an Order, Ordinance, Institution of the house of Christ appointed by himself? Such Orders I took to be Precepts of Christ to us, but this seems to be Gods gift to him, Mat. 28.18. Joh. 3.35. and 5.22, 26, 27. and 17.2. Acts 3.22. and 5.31. Ephes. 1.22. &c. no Precept to us. But let it imply a Precept to us; Do not the present Ministers of England conform to it? He grants, they do so in words, but not in deeds. Why so? They own other Lords that have a Law [...]making power, and would enforce the Consciences of the Free-born Subjects of Christ over his Churches, besides him; and thereby proclaim their disobedience and rebellion (which is as the sin of Witchcraft) against the King of Kings, and their rejection of his Scepter and Soveraign Authority over them. This is a high charge, [Page] and if true would unchristen them, but I see no proof of it, so that I take this to be only a piece of Oratory, such as Tertullus used against St. Paul, Acts 24. which is so much the more venomous in that it is in generalibus without instancing in particulars, which is the sign of a Diabolical Calumniatour. Yet I shall not let it pass. The Lords he means are either the King or the Bishops. The King is owned by the Ministers in the Oath of Supremacie, the Bishops in the promise at their Ordination, wherein they promise the Lord being their helper, to obey reverently their Ordinary, and other Ministers, unto whom is committed the charge and government over them; following with a glad mind and will their godly admonitions, and submitting themselves to their godly judgements. The Law-making power of the King is with the Parliament, of the Bishops in the Convocation, the enforcing of the Conscience (though it be an uncouth phrase▪ as supposing the Conscience can be enforced by man, which is impossible) is meant of Causative Compulsion, by enjoyning men to act or speak according to such Statutes or Canons as are imposed on them under certain penalties. How many, and which of these Acts or Speeches are rebellion and rejection of Christs Authority, is to be demonstrated; and not persons of place and Authority to be thus criminated after the manner of Railers and Scolds. And sure it is not easie to prove, that though such Acts and Speeches were imagined to be such Rebellion; yet that they are so in them, unless it could be proved they did them presumptuously [...] with a proud heart and an high hand, which, if this Author hath not learned the Maxime Calumniare audacter, aliquid haerebit, methinks he should tremble to attempt. But sith he tells us of this more hereafter, I intend to observe his motion. He goes on.

Sect. 4. Ministers oppose not the Will of Christ by not joyning in the Separation pleaded for.

2. Saith he, This great Prophet and King hath also revealed, and proclaimed, That 'tis his Will, that those whom he hath called by his Word, should separate from the World, walk together in particular Societies and Churches, having given up themselves to the Lord, and one another, according to the Will of God, for their mutual edification and comfort in the Lord. The truth of this soveraign Institution of Christ, he that runs may read in the Scriptures hereunto annexed, 1 Cor. 1.2. and 5.12. 2 Cor. 6.17. Rev. 18.4. Joh. 15.19. and 17.6. Acts 2.40. and 19.9. Phil. 1.5. [Page] Acts 2.41. and 17.4. 2 Cor. 8.5. with many more. In the proof of this we might be copious, but that we study brevity: The diligent Reader knows where to find this Theam at large, treated of by learned Ainsworth, Bartlet, Cotton, Rogers, &c. How do the Ministers of England acquit themselves, in respect of this solemn appointment of the Lord? alass! who sees not that they are, in their practice, at open defiance herewith, have it in derision and contempt, making no difference betwixt the Holy, and Prophane; admitting persons led captive by the Devil at his will, that openly blaspheme the spirit of the Lord, and deride its effectual operation in the Consciences of men into their society? Are any too vile (except such as truly fear God▪ and desire to press after holiness) to be admitted by them into their Communion? Is not their Church-state (so unlike is it to the Institution of Christ) a very Babel, a Den of Dragons, and Hold of unclean Beasts?

Answ. This Crimination proceeds on these suppositions.

1. That Christians should separate from the Parish Assemblies, and joyn together in the Congregational way by Church-Covenant, which they call separating from the World.

2. That Ministers are bound to reject, and not to admit to the Communion those that are profane, and to admit only real Saints in the judgment of Charity, and that by opposing the way of separation, and promiscuous admission to the Communion, they infringe the solemn appointment of the Lord. For my part having read somewhat in Mr. Ainsworths and Mr. Cottons Writings, both concerning the way of the Separatists in the Low-Countries, and the Independents in New-England, I do not either in the Scriptures here alledged find such a solemn appointment of Christ, either that private persons, or Ministers are to make such a Separation, as these Authors do press upon the Consciences of others: nor hath experience either in the Low-Countries, or Old or New-England given such encouragement to sober minded Christians, as to engage them in that way, but rather many divisions, declinings into errour, and other evils, have given too much cause for men to doubt, whether it were ever a Plant of Gods planting. It is granted that it is the will of Christ, that those whom he hath called by his Word should separate from the World; And this they are to do in respect of their Worship, so as not to have Communion with them therein: and this I doubt not may be proved from 2 Cor. 6.17. and some other of the Texts alledged. But then by the World, are meant professed Infidels, such as denied the Lord Jesus and worshipped Idols; or at least such as were professed Unbelievers, as John 15.19. and 17.6. Acts 2.40. and [Page] 19.9. the Jews were, and yet the Apostles did not refuse to go to the Temple to pray, nor to go into their Synagogues, or to take a Vow and purifie themselves at the Temple, notwithstanding the corruptions of their Priests, Service, and People, and their open opposition to the Christian Faith. But that ever it was the Will of Christ that Christians should separate from the true Worship of God, and the Professors of true Faith in Christ, because of either known evil in the Coversation of those present, or only suspected, or reported, is without all colour of Precept or Example in the Holy Scripture. It is true, the people of God are invited, Rev. 18.4. to go out of Babylon: But that their going out is by separation from the Service of God not Idolatrous, or from a Church not Heretical, by reason of some supposed or real corruption, or disorder, or defect in Government, Service, Members, or Ministry, is so far from the meaning of the Text, that it needs no other refutation, but the looking into the Text and comparing it with the foregoing Chapter. Of withdrawing from such as walk disorderly, 2 Thess. 3.6. enough hath been said before, ch. 2. sect▪ 6. Nor is it made any where the Ministers Office to make such separation as the Separatists require. 1 Cor. 5.12. is not spoken of Ministers as belonging to their Office to judge them that are within; or if it be, yet the putting away, v. 13. is not made his act; and how it is to be done, is best discerned by v. 2. Christians are to walk together in Societies or Churches, for their mutual edification and comfort in the Lord: and this they are no doubt bound to do, as occasion is, towards all Christians. And so much Phil. 1.5. Acts 2.41. and 17.4. may prove: but that they are to conjoyn in separated Churches by the so termed Church Covenant, as if they were not Members of other Churches, nor to joyn in Prayer, Praise of God, hearing, breaking Bread, but with either that one Church or Company, to which they have associated themselves, or those that are of the same way of Church-order, is neither proved from those Texts, or 2 Cor. 8.5. (which mentions no such Church-Covenant, as it is alledged for) nor any other. And therefore the imputations here used to the Ministers and Churches without distinction, are so unsavoury, and from such an intemperate Spirit, that I had rather cover them, than rake in such a dunghil. And I think respect to the fraternity this Author seems to be of, should have made him wary in charging the Ministers with these things, lest some of his adversaries should throw as much dirt on the face of the separated Churches out of Bayly's Disswasive, Edwards Gangraena, Welds History of Antimonianism, yea, the Preface to their [Page]Declaration, Octob. 12. 1658. Besides what particular persons know by experience, and the relations of the miscarriages of the ancient Separatists would furnish them withal;

Sect. 5. Election and Excommunication by the Church is not Christs Institution.

Yet this Author cannot hold, but on he goes.

3. Saith he, That he hath entrusted them, so called and united together, with Power, and given them Rules for the due and right exerting thereof, for the carrying on the Worship of his house, to chuse Officers over them to act in the holy things of God, for and to them (of which more shall be spoken in its proper place) to admit Members, to excommunicate Offenders, &c. all which we find shining forth in brightness in the ensuing Scriptures, Act. 1.23. and 6.3, 5. and 14.23. 2 Cor. 8.19. Mat. 18.17. 1 Cor. 5.4. Do the present Ministers of England conform unto this Institution of Christ? nothing less: is there any thing like this in the whole Oeconomie invented and practised by them? Do they not to the utmost of their power, labour to break this Bond of Christ asunder, cast away this Cord from them by stirring up the Magistrate to persecute by Fines, Imprisonments, Banishment, &c. the precious people of the Lord, that desire to be found in the practice of this Law of Christ, branding them with the odious names of Phanaticks, Sectaries, Schismaticks, &c.

Answ. The Election, Acts 1.23. was of an Apostle, and that by Lot and contains no Law or Institution of Christ, which we are tied to follow. Of the impertinent allegation of Acts 6.3, 5. and 14.23. enough hath been said before, ch. 2. sect. 3. The Election 2 Cor. 8, 19. was of a person not to be a Pastor to themselves, but to travel with St. Paul about the Contribution for the poor Saints; and though it be a good precedent for the like occasion, yet was but a Fact, not a Precept, Law, or Institution of Christ, necessary to be observed at all times, much less binding as a perpetual rule in Election of Pastors or Teachers. No other Excommunication is expressed, Mat. 18.17. but what is permitted to the injured person, of which more may be seen in the answer to this Authors Preface, Sect. 15. The delivery to Satan 1 Cor. 5.5. is argued by Peter Moulin in his Vates, lib. 2. c. 11. to have been more then our ordinary Excommunication, to wit, the permitting Satan to cruciate the body of the person that sinned; which no Church now hath power to do, nor indeed was the Church then to do it, but the Apostle by his power Apostolical as having power over unclean [Page] spirits, though absent, yet with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ in their presence when gathered together (which being in the Greek in the Genitive Case absolutely put, notes not their acting but presence) the Apostles determined to do it; and therefore contains no Institution of Christ, which Ministers are to practice. What else is charged upon the Ministers, it concerns them who are guilty to answer; I know he cannot justly charge all with it. It follows.

Sect. 6. No contempt of the authority of Christ is in the Church of England by setting up Officers and Offices.

4. That the Officers of his appointment are onely such as these; Pastors, Teachers, Elders, Deacons, Widows, or Helpers: who as they are in one particular Congregation, so they have not any Lordship, or Lordly Authority over each other, being all Brethren, Ephes. 4.11. Rom. 12.7. and 16.1. 1 Cor. 12.28. Phil. 1.1. 1 Pet. 5.1, 2, 3. Act. 6.5. and 15.2. and 20.17. and 28.21, 28. 1 Tim. 3. chap. and 5.9, 10, 17. This Law of Christ so clearly revealed in the Scripture, they are so far from subjecting to, that they have neither the name nor thing required by him therein. See up other Officers and Offices, as if in open contempt and defiance of his Authority; of which it may righteously be said, He did at no time command them, neither did it ever enter into his heart so to do.

Answ. It is true, that those whom he calls Officers, are mentioned in some or other of those Texts he cites, and are some of them termed gifts given by God or Christ, in, or to, or for his Church or Body: But there are also other, as Apostles and Prophets, mentioned in some of the Texts as given also by God; and therefore those whom he reckons are not the only Officers of his appointment, nor all of them to be in one Congregation. Apostles were certainly to go up and down, and though they had not Lordship or Lordly Authority over others, yet had they authority, preeminence, and some kind of superiority over others, and if not in the same measure, yet some superiority is still allotted to Pastors over Deacons, which are acknowledged to be Officers to be still continued in the Church: nor is it unlikely, that those Elders who were worthy of double honour, 1 Tim. 5.17. had some preeminence above the rest; nor doth the relation of Brotherhood hinder, but that though in respect of the common Faith all of them are equal, yet some may have some Power or Office committed to them, which others have not, and so may have authority over them. That some [Page] Offices or Services may be added to those mentioned, may be gathered from 2 Cor. 8.19. whether all the Officers or Offices be rightly ordered in the Church of England, is not our present enquiry. Much hath been said before in answer to the second and third Chapters of this writing, which need not be here repeated. That the present Ministers of England, have neither name nor thing required by Christ in this law, is notoriously false; the names of Pastors, Teachers, or Doctors, Deacons, or Ministers, and the Office of Preaching the Gospel, continues therein, both in the name and thing. That they have set up other Officers and Offices, as if in open contempt and defiance of Christs authority, cannot be said but very unrighteously; nor do the alterations or additions, any more prove it, then the setting up Catechists, or Expositors, or Lecturers in the primitive or later times, proves open defiance and contempt of Christs authority. He goes on in the same vein of crimination thus:

Sect. 7. Election of Ministers by the Common Suffrage of the Church is not proved to be Christs appointment.

5. ‘That these Officers be chosen by the common Suffrage of the Church of Christ, and solemnly set apart by Fasting and Prayer, this is evidently comprised in the ensuing Scriptures▪ Act. 1.15. and 6, 1, 2, 3, 5. and 14.23. and 1.23, 26. and 9.26, 27. In conformity whereunto, we find the Saints for many centuries of years after Christ, in the peaceable possession of this their priviledge and right. Clemens in his Epistle to the Church of Corinth, p, 57. saith, Our Apostles also knew by our Lord Jesus Christ, that Contention will be about the name of Episcopal charge: Therefore for this reason, having received a full predetermination, they constituted such as were forenominated; and in their instructive distribution delivered, that if they were negligent, other approved men should receive their Ministration, being ordained by them, or in the mean time by other choice men, all the Church consenting thereunto. Yea afterwards, let some one among you, Ingenious, Merciful, filled with Love speak; if through me Faction, and Contention, Schisms, I will depart: Of which if you are willing, I return, and will do the things appointed by the multitude. Wherein he fully asserts the priviledge of the Church or People of Christ, we are pleading for: And afterwards during the raign of Antichrist, Christ hath not left himself without [Page] a witness, nor his people without Champions to plead their right in this matter. To instance but in a few: That lively witness of Christ Martin Luther loudly proclaims, That the voice of the People ought not to be severed from the chusing of Ecclesiastical persons. And long before him, Cyprian (who lived about 260 years after Christ) sayes, Plebs obsequens, &c. The people that obey the commands of God, and fear him, ought to separate themselves from a wicked Pastor, seeing the people themselves chiefly, have either power to chuse Pastors that are worthy, or to refuse those that be unworthy, Cypr. Epist. 68. and tells us plainly, That this is bottomed upon the authority of God: That that is a just and lawful Ordination which is tryed by the judgment and voice of all, viz. that fear and obey God. Of the same mind, long after, was Francis Lambard, the Companion of Luther in Germany, in the Preface of his Book, intituled, The sum of Christianity; who sayes, Verily every Parish ought to have his proper Bishop, the which should be chosen by the People, and confirmed by the Commonalty of every Parish, who if they swerve one jot or tittle from the Doctrine of the Gospel of the Kingdom, ought to be deposed by the people, and others more fit, to be elected by them. And in Chap. 5. of the said Book, he professes, That 'tis the most gievous crime, and by no means to be suffered, that many children of Perdition do deprive the people of God of their just right and title, viz. to chuse them a Pastor. Peter Martyr in his common places, refers the chusing and election of Ministers to the People as their undoubted right: To whom we may joyn Mr. Bullinger, who sayes, That the Apostles exercised not tyranny in the Church, in Ordaining Ministers without the consent of the People; Bullin. Decad. 5. Serm. 4. Tit. 1. 1 Tim. 5. Gualter also upon Act. 1.25. saith, That those that profess the Gospel, handle the matter as evil as the Monks and Popish Bishops, in that they restore not again to the Church, the liberty of chusing Ministers, which by tyranny they took from them. Of the same mind is Zanchie, Calvin, Beza, Danaeus, Tilenus. Tyndal (the Martyr) with many others, as Mr. Fox, Cartwright, Mr. Jacob, &c. We cannot omit the famous case of the united Brethren of Bohemia, who concluding the whole Papacy to be purely Antichristian, could not allow of the Ordination of their Ministers by any in communion with it; and yet being perswaded of a necessity of continuing that Ordinance in a way of succession, send some of the Greek and Armenian [Page] Churches, who returning with dissatisfaction, they thereupon commit themselves and their cause to God, and chuse Elders from among themselves, and by Fasting and Prayer, solemnly set them apart to the work of the Preaching of the Gospel. To these many more might be added. The practice pleaded for (as is evident) is as antient as the dayes of the Apostles, and the first election of ordinary New-Testament Officers, continued in the Church till after the dayes of Constantine, when Pride and Tyranny soon brought all things into horrible Confusion, upon the pretext of Decency and Order; yet in the worst of times have the witnesses of Christ born their testimony hereunto. What say our Reverend Fathers and Ministers of the Church of England to these things? Have they not an equal respect to this appointment of Christ, as to those before instanced in? Is there any thing like it almost practised by them, in this great concern of separating persons for the Preaching of the Gospel of Christ? Is not the liberty of the Brethren and Churches of Christ, as much as lies in them, wholly disanulled and broken by them? Have they any such Call to the Ministry? Do they at all value or esteem of it? Are they in the practice of the Primitive Church, or of the Reformed Churches of this day in this matter? Is not the print of the feet of the old Strumpet of Rome, the bloody persecutor of the Saints, the cunning Deviser of a new self-invented and whorish Worship, to be solely found in the paths, they are in this matter traversing? and can such be accounted as the subjects of the Kingdom of Christ, and the real owners of his Authority and Power?’

Answ. That Bishops or Presbyters should be chosen by the common Suffrage of the Church of Christ in each City or Parish, or select Congregation, I find not to be the appointment of Christ in the Scriptures alledged, or any other; the impertinency of the Allegations to this purpose is shewed before, Chap. 2. Sect. 3. In this Chap. Sect. 6. besides what is said in answer to the Preface, Sect. 7.22. the only text not before considered, Acts 9.26, 27. and 16.17. (if it were alledged) were altogether impertinent; there being no election of St. Paul but to be an Apostle; and that by Christ, not the Church, on whom Ananias laid hands at the appointment of Christ only, That he might receive his sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost; and to remove the fear of him, and non credence, of his being a Disciple, Barnabas (and no other we read of) took him, and brought him to the Apostles declaring how [Page]Christ had converted him. Which are altogether impertinent to prove election of Ministers by the common Suffrage of the Church, and Ordination thereupon to be the appointment of Christ. It is granted before in the answer to the Preface, Sect. 22. that there are relations in antiquity of the election of Bishops by the people, which could be no other way then in times of Persecution, when the Emperors were Infidels; yet withal, that even then things grew into such heats, that sometimes the Emperor was fain to interpose for quietness; and after, when Wealth and Power by favour of Christian Emperours were added to Bishops, sometimes bloody frayes, and other evils made that Election so turbulent, that it was found necessary to put it into the hands of fewer, until the investiture of Bishops being wrested from the Emperours, the Popes seized on it, leaving the election of the inferior Clergy unto the Bishops or Patrons, that had endowed the Ministers with Estates, except in cases reserved to his Romans. But, where the Reformation is with the consent of Princes, much of the power usurped by Popes is recovered by them, in other places the people either chuse or consent to the election; which being made the whole essence of the Ministerial Call by Congregational men, and by Divine Right, their opinion is opposed by the London Ministers in their Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangelici, Printed 1654. Chap. 8, 9. Nevertheless, the Testimonies produced by this Author, are not fully to his purpose; those out of Clements his Epistle are not home; the former speaks of constituting and appointing Ministers after the Apostles by other famous and discreet men (as it is in Burtons English translation of that Epistle) with the good liking and consent of all the Church, which is less then Election constituting their Call. The other contains only a voluntary offer to prevent breaches, which is nothing to the asserting of a power in them rightly seated; if it were such, it would be more then this Author, I think, would yield, that upon the command of the multitude, a Minister is to relinquish his place. The words of Luther, Bullinger, and perhaps the rest of the Protestants (whose words are not set down) meant no more than the not obtruding Ministers on the Churches of Christ, as the Monks and Popish Bishops did, who put on the People Priests unable to Preach the Gospel, such as fed themselves and not the flock, without choice or consent of the people. Which, if it be any where practised, is unjustifiable; as on the other side, where people are corrupted with Error, or Factiousness, or Carnal Relations, and S [...]lf aims, or are unskilful to judge of the disposition and abilities [Page] of a Minister, it is unsafe, or rather more dangerous to intrust the Church of Christ, though a gathered Congregation, with the election of their Minister by Common Suffrage without intervention of some discreet and able Ministers to ratifie or disanul it. What Cyprian saith, upon the occasion of the lapse of Basilides and Martialis Bishops in Spain, of their rejection and the election of Sabinus, and Felix, was agreeable to the Canons then in use, and to the state of those times: what he saith of Divine Authority, is not rightly proved. The Scriptures of the New Testament and Old, prove no Divine Institution of a certain way of electing or rejecting Ministers, so as that there may not be variation from what he saith was in his time: yet it is meet, that according to the sayings of Cyprian, Lambard, Gualter, or others, respect be had to people, that they be heard what they can say for, or against their Minister; and that he, who is criminous or insufficient, be not imposed on them to their souls hurt. What our Reverend Fathers and Ministers of the Church of England say to these things, may be seen in Whitgift's Answer to the first Admonition and Defence of the Answer, Tr. 3. p. 170. Bilson of the perpetual Government of Christs Church, Chap. 15. Andrews respons. ad Bellarm. Apolog. Chap. 13. p. 313. after, King James his Premonition: Hooker Eccles. Pol. l. 5. sect. 80. Field of the Church, l. 5. c. 54. If the Prelates do any thing unjustly therein, they must give an account to God; the Ministers, who consent not thereto, are not chargeable; both may be accounted as Subjects of the Kingdom of Christ, and the real owners of his Authority and Power, notwithstanding what is objected against them; especially if the evil be either from the defect or iniquity of Laws, Canons, and Customs, whereby that redress of Grievances in this kind, which even the Prelates have complained of, is stopped. I confess, that the continuance in force of so much of the Popes Canon Law, or our Common Law, as hinders a godly and able Ministry in every Parish, hath been deplored, and much endeavour hath been to amend things: But the experience that hath been of the difficulty therein, even when Congregational men have been most industrious to rectifie things, should methinks abate the censures of this Author, and rather cause men quietly to wait for a remedy, using the benefit of the Ministry we have, than by separation, and popular election in gathered Congregations make things worse than they are.

Sect. 8. Prophesying is not opposed by the Ministers.

[Page]

But this Author hath not yet done, but tells us, To these, many other institutions of Christ may be added, which they subject not to. What should I mention,

6. That Royal Command of our Soveraign King and Lawgiver (which the profound, self-philosophically wise, but indeed foolish and unlearned Doctors of this day, wrest, to the countenancing of the disorders and confusion of Antichrist (darkness so gross that it may be felt) that all things be done decently and in Order, 1 Cor. 14.40. viz. that the Saints may Prophesie one by one, and ought to admonish, exhort, and build up one another in their most holy faith, Rom. 8.26. and 12.6. 1 Cor. 4.17. and 5.4. and 11.23. Ephes. 4.7, 11, 12. 1 Tim. 2.1. and 3.15. Jude 20. 1 Cor. 12.7, 11. Mat. 25.24. 1 Pet. 4.10, 11. 1 Cor. 12.15. and 14.12, 24. Ephes. 4.3, 7, 15, 16. Acts 2.42. Rom. 15.14. Ephes. 5.19. Col. 3.16. 1 Thess. 5.14. 2 Thess. 3.15. Heb. 3.13. to which might be added the frequent examples of the Saints in the Old and New Testament, 2 Chron. 17.7, 8, 9. Job 2.11. Mal. 3.16. Luke 4.16. Acts 13.15. 1 Cor. 14.24. to 34. and the practice of the Primitive Church, as witness Origen (in his Epistle to Celsum) Terrullian (in his Apologie) Justin Martyr (in his Apologie) and many others.

Answ. The censures of the Doctors of this day, and their wresting 1 Cor. 14.40. are too general, and not to be answered, save to tell the Author, that it is good for a man not to be wise in his own conceit, nor to be too free in censuring others, lest he fall into Diogenes his evil, when he trampled on Plato's pride with greater pride. But to the rest of the charge I say, That I know none of the Ministers of England, that forbid the Saints to Prophesie one by one: nor do I know of any at this day, that have the gift of Prophesie, which I gather from 1 Cor. 12.28, 29. and 13.2, 8, 9, 10. and other places to have been an extraordinary gift, by immediate revelation of the Spirit, whereby some hidden thing is discovered. (See Lysord's Apologie for the Ministery, pag. 27, 28.) If there were any that could Prophesie indeed, neither Prelates, nor others, may or can hinder them. But when persons mistakingly call all speaking to men to Edification, Exhortation and Comfort, from 1 Cor. 14.3. Prophesying (as if these terms were reciprocal) and under pres [...]n [...]e thereof, vent many [Page] mistakes and fancies, the restraint or regulating of such exercise [...] may be no transgression of Christs command. And, though the performing of the duties in the Texts alledged, ought to be cherished and furthered; and such Meetings, as do really tend thereto, should be countenanced: sith there may be abuses, which are to be prevented by Governours, though sometimes there be injustice, and liberty too much restrained, and complaints made to God in secret; yet should not invectives be used to alienate the minds of people from their Teachers or Rulers, nor any unlawful practice used tending to Sedition, or disturbance; but by patience and quietness we should possess our souls, expecting help from God in due time, as did the Primitive Christians with happy success. Yet once more, saith this Author:

Sect 9. Ministers service may be Divine and Spiritual, in the use of the Liturgy.

Yea, 7. What should I mention that grand Institution of this Soveraign Lord and Lawgiver, that nothing be offered up to the Father, but what is of his own prescription (Divine and Spiritual, without affectation of Legal shadows (John 4.24.) of worldly pomp or carnal excellency, 2 Cor. 1.12. and 2.17. 1 Cor. 2.12. and 6.13.) 1 Cor. 12.28. Isa. 33.22. Jam. 4.12. Matth. 15.6, 9. Heb. 8.5. 1 King. 13.33. & 12, 13. Jer. 7.31. Numb. 15.39. Deut. 12.1, 4, 31. It's evident, the present Ministers of England conform not to the Orders and Ordinances, Christ as the great Prophet and Lawgiver to his people, hath appointed them to walk by; and therefore really disown the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ.

Answ. It is true, no Prayers, or Praises, or other Religious exercises should be offered to the Father; but, what is of his own prescription in respect of the service it self, matter, or manner, which he hath prescribed: But when he hath left it free to use a prescript Form of words, or to pray without such a stinted Form, where he forbids not the use of Musick in praysing of God, and no Idolatry or Superstition is used or furthered by Ordinances and Utensils for the celebration of Gods Ordinances; notwithstanding these, the service of God may be Divine and Spiritual without affectation of Legal shadows of worldly pomp, or carnal excellency, contrary to the texts [Page]alledged. If any be faulty in that way, it is to be imputed to the persons, not either to others not guilty, nor to the Liturgy prescribed; much less such Ministers as offer up Prayers and Prayses to the Father in the name of Christ for things agreeable to the Will of God, and use the Lords Supper without Idolatry, are to be charged to disown really the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ.

Sect. 10. Things objected against the Ministers, are not such as justifie Separation.

This Author addes. ‘But perhaps to these things, some may say, These are but small matters, good men differ among themselves herein.’

To which we answer,

1. That they are part of the Instituted Worship of God; the Orders he hath left his children to conform to, hath already been proved: to say, That any part of the Instituted Worship of Christ, is a small matter; is no small derogation to the wisdom of the Lawgiver, that gave it forth.

2. What if it should appear, that as small as these things seem to be, they are the grounds of the late Controversies of God, pleaded with fire and sword in most of the Europaean Kingdoms? This may perhaps a little stay sober persons from so rash a conclusion, that these are small matters: A serious review of the late Contests of God in the Nations, with the consideration of the grounds and rise of them; will, to persons of sobriety, sufficiently evince the truth of the suggestion.

3. As small matters as these, have been severely punished by the Lord: He is a jealous God, and stands upon punctilio's (if I may so call them) in his Worship: hence is that expression, Ye cannot serve the Lord, for he is a jealous God, Josh. 24.19. What should I mention the case of Uzziah, 2 Chron 26.16. of Corah, Dathan and Abiram, Numb. 16. of Uzzah, whose sin lay meerly in, whose judgment was singly upon this foot of account; his not seeking the Lord after the due order, 1 Chron. 15.13. God commands that when the Ark was removed, it should be covered by the Priests, that no hand touch it, that it be carryed on [Page] mens shoulders, Numb. 4.11, 15. which Order was violated, when they brought it from the house of Abinadab, 'twas uncovered, and upon a Cart, after the manner of the Egyptians, 1 Sam. 8.7. for which breach of Order Uzzah is struck dead.

4. As small matters as these, when once commanded by the Lord, are of that force, as not only to deface the well-being, but to overturn the true being of the Worship of God. Take one pregnant instance herein. The Lord commanded the Israelites by Moses, to bring their Sacrifices to the place that he should chuse, and offer them there; which in it self was but a circumstance of place; yet all the Sacrifices offered elsewhere, were a stink in the nostrills of God, and not accounted by him as any Worship performed unto him.

5. But the Objection is altogether impertinent: we are not debating the greatness of the sin, but the truth of what is charged upon the present Ministers of England: what we have mentioned, are either the appointments of Christ, or they are not; if they are (as hath been proved) the present Ministers conform to them, or they do not; if they do not (as nothing more sure) they conform not to the Orders and Ordinances Christ hath left his people to walk by (which is the thing in debate) and therefore really deny his Kingly and Prophetical Office.

Answ. By whom this Objection is made I know not, I think it of use to abate the rigour of the separation, and the sharpness of the Censure that this Author passeth on the present Ministers of England. For sure if these matters excepted against, be small matters, and good men differ therein, they are not fundamentals of Faith or Practice; but that notwithstanding defects, errours, or differences about them, Churches, their Members, and Ministers, may be true Churches, Christians, and Ministers; nor should there be separation for these things, but mutual toleration of one another, according to the doctrine of St. Paul, Rom. 14.1, 3, 10. and 15.1, 2. Philip. 3.15, 16. nor Ministers disclaimed, while they hold the foundation, much less so heavily judged, as this Author doth, contrary to St. Pauls Doctrine, 1 Cor. 3.15. nor should there be such rents and breaches in the Church of God for them as there are. Though nothing commanded by God is small, yet some are comparatively small, Mat. 23.23. that they are part of Gods Instituted Worship, appointments of Christ, which he chargeth the Ministers of England to oppose, needs better proof than is yet made; that they overturn the true worship of God, is not demonstrated; nor that they are the grounds of the late controversies of God, or [Page] that therein the Ministers sin, as Uzziah, Corah, Dathan, Abiram, Uzzah; and therefore the judgments of God which fell on them, may be rashly threatened to the Ministers, especially considering that many of them if they sin, may be charitably deemed to sin out of ignorance, not affected, or such weakness as is incident to one truly godly; which how far he grants, may be perceived by that which follows.

As for what is added, that good men differ among themselves in this matter, it's of no more weight than what went before.

For, 1. 'Tis not at all to the business in hand.

2. 'Tis possible good men may for a while, do that which really enwraps in the bowels of it a denial of the Offices of Christ. We shall not deny but some of the Ministers of England may be so in the account of God.

3. That good men differ, is an argument of their ignorance and darkness, which though in some cases it excuses à tanto, yet not à toto; it may alter the degree, never the nature of the sin.

4. 'Tis false, that good men, pressing after reformation, and the rest [...]tution of the Worship of God according to the Primitive pattern, do differ touching the substance of the things instanced in: were but the pride and passion of mens spirits a little more allaid, and they disentangled more from their selfish interests, a greater harmony would appear amongst them in these matters. But,

5. As was said, The particulars instanced in, are commanded by Christ, or they are not; if they are (as hath been proved) doth it in the least discharge persons that conform not to them, from the charge they are impleaded as guilty, viz Non-conformity to the Laws of Christ; that good men differ in these matters (i. e. some good men transgress the Laws of Christ, which is sure no part of their goodness, nor any warrant to justifie me in the doing of what may strengthen their hands in such a Non-conformity.)

Answ. 1. How far this branch of the Objection is to the business in hand, is before shewed.

2. That good men may do that which may be by consequence a denial of Christs Office, is granted, it being no more than that they may err and sin. That he grants some of the Ministers of England may be good men in the account of God, should have made him afraid to censure them so deeply as he doth, and to disswade men from hearing them, or joyning with them in Gods Worship, as being such as walk disorderly, even the best of them, as symbolizing with Antichrist, really denying Christs Kingly and Prophetical Office,

[Page]3. If there be darkness in others that dissent from this Author, so there may be in this Author; and considering the many learned Non-conformists, who have opposed the separation, such as Bradshaw, Hildersham, Ames, Paget, Ball, and others; there is as much reason that this Author should ascribe darkness to himself as to them.

4. If the difference among the good men pressing after Reformation, be not in the substance of the things instanced in, but in circumstances; the more to blame is this Author for widening the Breach, and urging separation by reason of them. Pride, passion, self-interests we may more safely charge our selves with, than others; especially such as it cannot be denied, but that they may be in Gods account good men.

5. 'Tis true, the main matter to be discussed, is the thing it self, whether it be sin or no: which I have therefore endeavoured to examine impartially, and do conclude, that in this Chapter it is not proved unlawful to hear the present Ministers of England. Let us consider the rest of his Arguments.

CHAP. 5.

[Page]

Sect. 1. All owning of Orders different from, or contrary to Christs, proves not a denial of his Offices.

THus he proceeds:

That the Ministers of England deny the Kingly and Prophetical Offices of Christ, and therefore are not to be beard, but separated from, hath been asserted, and by one argument, proved in the foregoing Chapter: To the further evidence whereof, a few things more are to be offered in this.

Argum 2. Those who own, submit and subscribe to Orders and Ordinances, which not only are not of Christs revealing, but contrary thereunto, do really deny, and oppose the Prophetical and Kingly Office of Christ: But the present Ministers of England do own, submit, and subscribe to Orders and Ordinances, that are not only not of Christs revealing, but contrary thereunto: Therefore. The major (or first Proposition) is beyond exception. If an owning, submitting, and subscribing to Orders and Ordinances, that are not only, not of Christs revealing, but contrary thereunto, be not a denial of his Kingly and Prophetical Office, I must profess, I know not what is. Suppose the chief Magistrate or Magistrates of a Nation should give forth a Declaration of their Will, touching this or that concern, were not persons Non-conformity thereunto (supposing it to be what lies within the verge of their Authority, and power to command, and may righteously be exacted of them, whose Conformity is thereunto required) a silent opposition of their Authority; but should any presume to give forth Laws of their own, without the least stamp of Authority upon them, yea, contrary unto the Statute and Declarations of their Governours; would not all conclude that these persons and their Abettors were guilty of Rebellion against their Rules, and did really deny the lawfulness of their Authority? This is the present case, if men shall be found traversing paths, in the possession and practice of Orders and Constitutions that are foreign to the edicts of Christ, yea, contrary thereunto; shall we not as rationally conclude that these persons are really opposers of his soveraign Authority and Government? doubtless so.

Answ. To the major proposition of the fourth Argument [Those [Page]that oppugn or deny any of the Offices of Jesus Christ, are not to be heard, but separated from] Answer is made before. The major of this argument here needs elucidation and limitation. Orders and Ordinances which not only are not of Christs revealing, but contrary thereunto, are not all of one sort. Some are in points of Faith, some of practice, some in things not fundamental, some in fundamental. Owning, submitting, and subscribing to them, is either out of ignorance, inadvertency, infirmity through fear or some other motive, or voluntary, more or less, which may be aggravated by many circumstances and effects. Likewise the denying really, and opposing of the Offices of Christ, may be virtual or formal, directly or by consequence, by a factious setting up an open Antichrist, or by neglecting the proper Authority of Christ. It is true, every sin and every errour doth in some sort and degree oppugn the Offices of Jesus Christ: Every disobedience to a lawful Magistrate, every subjection to an Usurper hath in it somewhat of denying or oppugning his Authority. Yet he that should deny, that for every such sin or errour a person can be a good Christian, or for every such disobedience or subjection a person can be a true subject, should too Stoically make a parity in sins, and neither hold good Divinity, nor teach good Policy. It is true, he that shall openly and factiously set up another universal Monarch of the Church, make other Mediatours to God besides Christ, teach any other way of justification than by faith in Christ, that shall expresly forbid the observation of what Christ hath commanded; as for instance, the Lords Supper, or any other plain Command of Christ; such do deny really, and oppose openly the Offices of Christ. But there may be some errours in Faith, and teaching of some use in positive Rites, as may be a real denying or opposing interpretatively Christs Offices, as in teaching Circumcision as necessary at that time, Acts 15.5. in owning, submitting, and subscribing to some use as may be not only not revealed by Christ, but also is by nearer or remote consequence a denial of Christs Offices; and yet the persons observing it, as v. g. the reservation of the Bread, in the Eucharist, sending it to the sick absent, as many did in former times, either out of ignorance, fear, or such like motives, and yet these neither to be reckoned for such, as either in heart, or profession, or practice, deny the Offices of Christ, as enemies to him, nor to be shunned as such; but may be his true subjects though weak ones. Peters denial of Christ, his dissimulation, Gal. 2. shewed not enmity, but infirmity and instability. And many sincere Christians may out of errour or weakness teach, and practise [Page] many things not only a while, but also all their dayes, and that with much contention and zeal, which may inferr a denial of Christs Offices, or his Nature; as for instance, Lutheran Consubstantion, and yet are not to be judged opposers of the Kingly and Prophetical Offices of Christ, so as to be disclaimed, separated from, and rejected as no true Christian Brethren, or Teachers. And therefore the major proposition here, may be variously conceived; and without some limitations and explications is not to be received. But he tells us:

Sect. 2. Ministers submitting to Canons is unjustly censured.

'Tis the minor (or second Proposition) that may be under suspition among some, viz. That the present Ministers of England (the very best of them) do own, submit, and subscribe to Orders and Ordinances that are not only not of Christs revealing, but contrary thereunto: in which two things are incumbent on us to prove.

1. That the present Ministers of England do own, submit, and subscribe to Orders and Ordinances that are not of Christs revealing.

This being a charge, as to matter of fact, the production of a few particulars, that lie near at hand, for its confirmation, will give it a speedy dispatch.

1. They own, submit, and subscribe to the Orders and Offices of Arch-bishops, Bishops, Deans, Arch-deacons, with many others appertaining unto this Hierarchie, as Orders needful and necessary in the Church of Christ, and promise subjection and obedience unto them, Eccles. Canons, Can. 7.

2. They own, and submit (Can. 4.) to a Liturgy or prescript Form of Worship devised by men, and imposed solely by their authority, to which they tie themselves, neither diminishing nor adding any thing in the matter or form thereof.

3. They own, subscribe, and engage to conform to all the Orders, Rites▪ and Ceremonies prescribed in the said Book of Common Prayer (Can. 36.) such as bowing at the Name of Jesus, using the Cross in Baptism, kneeling at the Lords Supper, (which though we do not, some would say, smells very strong of the Popish Leven, and is but one Peg beneath the adoration of their Breaden god) wearing the Surplice, &c

4. They own, that the Office of a Deacon is the first step or degree to the Ministry (Can. 32, 36) to which they are t [...] submit [Page] and subscribe, before they are made Priests.

5. That no person be admitted to expound the Scriptures, though indeed worthy of the Cure of Souls (as they speak Can. 49.) without license from the Bishop thereunto.

6. That there be some lawful Ministers which are no Preachers (Can. 49, 57.)

7. That these unpreaching Ministers (Can. 57.) may lawfully administer the Ordinances of Baptism and the Lords Supper.

8. That persons refusing to have their children baptized by such dumb Ministers, or receive the Communion from them, worthily deserve Excommunication if they shall persist herein, (Can. 57.)

9. That Confirmation by Diocesan Bishops is an Ordinance of God, (Can. 60.)

10. That it appertains to the Office of Ministers to marry, (Can. 62.)

11. That the Bishop of the Diocess may lawfully, for a while, suspend a Minister from his Ministry, for refusing to bury the Dead, (Can. 68.)

12. That 'tis not lawful for Ministers to preach or administer the Communion in private houses, except in times of necessity, (Can. 71.)

13. That no Minister may lawfully appoint or keep any solemn private Fasts, or be wittingly present at any of them; nor hold any Meetings for Sermons in Market-Towns, or other places; which if he do, and persevere therein, he may lawfully be deposed from his Ministry, (Can. 72.)

14. That Ministers ought to be distinguished by their Vestments and Apparel, as Gowns, Hoods, Tippers, Square Caps; and in their journeys Cloaks with sleeves, (called Priests Cloaks, Can 74.) with many more that might be added, to which the Ministers of England are to subscribe and own, as agreeable to the Word of God, before their admission into the Ministry, according to the 38. Canon Ecclesiastical ▪

Are any of these Ordinances and Constitutions of the appointment of Christ? When or where were they instituted by by him? That these are Posts set by the Lords Posts, and Thresholds by his Thresholds (of which the Lord complains, Ezek. 43.8.) who sees not? That the present Ministers of England do conform and subscribe hereunto, cannot be denied; [Page] and thence an owning, subscribing, and submitting to Orders and Constitutions that are not of Christs appointment, is evidently evinced.

Answ. Though I undertake not to justifie all that is in the Ecclesiastical Canons of the Synod at London, Anno 1603. nor need the present Ministers, nor perhaps will they or the Bishops themselves take it upon them; yet that it may appear how falsly and injuriously this Authour hath dealt with them, and how superficially he hath handled this Argument; I say,

I. That he hath misrecited the Canons in all or most of the 14 particulars alledged.

1. In the 7. Canon it is not said, That the Orders and Offices of Arch bishops, Bishops, Deans, Arch-deacons, with many others appertaining unto this Hierarchy, are Orders needful and necessary in the Church of Christ; nor is it required therein, that the Ministers promise subjection and obedience unto them. But it is censured as a wicked errour to affirm, that the Government of the Church of England under his Majesty by Arch-bishops, Bishops, Deans, Arch [...]deacons, and the rest that bear Office in the same is Antichristian or repugnant to the Word of God; and it is required of such as have thus affirmed that before their absolution from Excommunication they repent, and publikely revoke it.

2. In the 4. Canon, Ministers are not required to own and submit to a Liturgy, or prescript Form of Worship devised by men, and imposed solely by their authority, nor to tie themselves to it, neither diminishing nor adding in the matter or Form thereof: But it is judged a wicked errour to affirm, that the Form of Gods Worship in the Church of England, established by the Law, and contained in the Book of Common Prayer and Administration of Sacraments, is a corrupt, superstitious or unlawful Worship of God, or containeth any thing in it that is repugnant to the Scriptures; and it is required of such as have thus affirmed, that before their absolution from Excommunication they repent, and publickly revoke it.

3. In the third particular are sundry things liable to Exception.

1. It is said that in the Book of Common Prayer, Bowing at the Name of Jesus is prescribed; which I find not there, but in the 18 Canon ▪

2. It is not well, that when this Author does not, yet he tells us some would say, that kneeling at the Lords Supper smells very [Page]strong of the Popish Leven, and is but one peg beneath the adoration of their Breaden God; when he might know, that not only the 28. Article of the Church of England, and the Homily of the Peril of Idolatry, and the Apology of the Church of England, are fully against it, but also the Compilers of the Common Prayer Book, suffered Martyrdom for their refusal and abhorrency of such adoration; and in the Rubrick of the Common Prayer Book, as it is now established, after the Communion there is a clear and sufficient Declaration against it; which should, if this Author had dealt candidly, have been told ignorant people, who are drawn into a separation upon this suggestion.

3. It is true, that in the 36 Canon subscription is required to this Article, That the Book of Common Prayer, and of Ordering of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, containeth in it nothing contrary to the Word of God, and that it may be lawfully used, and that he himself will use the form in the said Book prescribed in publike Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments, and none other; which I take not to be the same with owning, submitting, and engaging to conform to all the Orders, Rites, and Ceremonies prescribed therein.

4. It is said Canon. 32. The Office of a Deacon, is a step or degree to the Ministry, according to the judgment of the ancient Fathers, and the practice of the Primitive Church, and the subscription is required in the 36. Canon to the Book of Ordination, as I have set it down here; but they are not required by that subscription to own this assertion, That the Office of a Deacon is the first step or degree to the Ministry.

5. In the 49. Canon it is said, No person whatsoever, not examined and approved by the Bishop of the Diocess, or not licensed for a sufficient or convenient Preacher, shall take upon him to expound in his own Cure, or elsewhere, any Scripture, or matter, or doctrine: But they do not speak [though judged worthy of the Cure of Souls] they may have a Cure of Souls by indirect means, or by reason of the imperfection of the Law to debarr them, or by reason of the want of sufficient Preachers, as was in the beginning of the Reformation, or for want of maintenance for able Preachers to undertake it, who are not judged worthy of the Cure of Souls.

6, and 7. Neither of the Positions are Canons 49, 57. though their Ministration of Baptism and the Lords Supper is made sufficient.

And the 8. particular is in Canon 57.

[Page]9. Can. 60. It is not said, That Confirmation by Diocesan Bishops, is an Ordinance of God, but that it hath been a solemn ancient and laudable custom in the Church of God, continued from the Apostles times, that all Bishops should lay their hands upon children baptized, and instructed in the Catechism of Christian Religion, praying over them, and blessing them; which we commonly call Confirmation; and that this holy action hath been accustomed in the Church in former ages.

10. It is not said Canon 62. that it appertains to the Office of Ministers to marry; but they are only regulated therein.

11. The Bishop is to suspend according to Can. 68. Ministers refusing to bury; but the lawfulness of it is not there asserted, though presupposed.

12, 13. Ministers preaching, administring the Communion in private houses, except in times of necessity; some appointing of Fasts, holding Meetings for Sermons, are forbidden, Can. 71, 72. but it is not there determined that they are forbidden, because of the unlawfulness; Inexpediency, or inconvenience may occasion a prohibition of that which is not unlawful.

14. It is not asserted Can. 74. that Ministers ought to be distinguished by the habit there prescribed, but that ancient Churches thought it fit.

II. Were all true which this Author hath alledged in these 14 particulars, yet it is not true which he saith, that either in the 36, or 38. Canon Ecclesiastical Ministers are to subscribe to, and own all these Orders and Ordinances, as agreeable to the Word of God.

III. To the Questions, Are any of these Ordinances and Constitutions of the appointment of Christ? when or where were they instituted by him? I might answer by cross Interrogations, Are the Church-Covenant, gathering of Churches in the Congregational way, by severing choice Members from the rest, requiring an account of the manner of their Conversion, making Election by the common Suffrage of the Members essential to a Minister, imposition of hands, tied to the Eldership of that Church; maintenance by Collection every Lords day, Excommunication by the major part of the Members, with many more of the Orders of Congregational Churches, Ordinances, and Constitutions of the appointment of Christ? when and where were they instituted by him? It is not I presume altogether forgotten, that such questions have been propounded to them by Mr. Ball, Apollonius, and many others, and their answers judged insufficient. And if they cannot shew Christs appointment for their Orders, which they require, why do [Page] they charge so deeply the Ministers of England as denying and opposing the Prophetical and Kingly Office of Christ, for submitting to Orders, which as well may be said to be of Christs appointment as their own; or at least when they themselves may by the same reason be concluded to deny or oppose the same Offices? But for a direct answer, I grant they are not Ordinances and Constitutions of the appointment of Christ, and yet judge they may be submitted and conformed to, and required of Governours, while they are regulated by Laws of Ecclesiastical Policy, and do think that Mr. Hooker in his three first Books of Ecclesiastical Policy hath evinced thus much.

IV. To what is said, that these are Posts set by the Lords Posts, and thresholds by his thresholds (of which the Lord complains, Ezek. 43.8.) who sees not? I answer, Diodate his Annot. on Ezek. 43.8. is this, Their threshold] that is to say, they set their Idols, and perform their service in my Temple, in places and Chappels near to the places which are consecrated to my service. See 2 King. 16, 14. and 21.7. Jer. 11.15. Ezek. 8.3. and 23.39. and 44.7. All the Interpreters I meet with, and the words themselves shew, that the thing complained of, was another thing than making Orders and Constitutions without revelation and appointment of Christ for Ecclesiastical Rule (such as those Constitutions in the Canons of the Church of England, are, which in Christian Churches have in like sort been made in the best times; yea, and some in the Jewish Church without reproof;) to wit, Idolatrous practices by their Kings (such as Ahaz and Manasseh were) called Whoredoms, v. 7, 9. and abominations which they committed and defiled Gods holy Name; and for which be consumed them in his anger; and therefore tell this Author, that I see not those Ordinances he mentions to be Posts set by the Lords Posts, and Thresholds by his Thresholds, complained of Ezek 43.8. but rather think him in a dream or phrensie that saith he sees it. Yea further, if it were granted that the complaint were against their Act, as adding inventions of men to Gods Ordinances, yet this cannot be understood but of such as are made Gods Worship, or wherein that which God hath appointed is altered or corrupted. And therefore I conclude, that it is no small abuse of this Text, which occurrs in sundry printed Sermons and other Books to make every Order of men about Gods Worship, or the Governing of the Church to be thus branded, and out of all infer, that what he saith he hath evidently evinced, is but a vain brag of this Author. Let's proceed in viewing what follows.

Sect. 3. Making Canons in things undetermined, and subjection to them, agrees with Scripture.

[Page]

Object. If it be said, That though these Canons, and Constitutions owned by the Ministers of England, be not [...] to be found in the Scripture of the Institution of Christ in so many words, yet by consequence they may rationally be deduced from thence: As where it is commanded, That all things be done decently and in order, 1 Cor. 14.40. which 'tis the duty of the Church to make Rules and Constitutions about, which when it hath done, it is the duty of every son thereof, to own, or subject to, without questioning its authority.

Answ. Though I assert not that the Canons and Constitutions Ecclesiastical of the Church of England, may be rationally deduced from Scripture; and therefore make not the Objection as here it is framed, yet I assert that Canons, and Constitutions Ecclesiastical concerning Divine Worship, and Church Covernment may be made by Governours, if they be not opposite to such Rules as are in Scripture about Gods Worship, and the rule of his Church; and be indeed subservient and Conducible to the well-ordering of such Worship and Rule: and that the Members of the Churches under their Governours should submit to, and yield obedience to them, as to other humane Laws, not conceiving the things commanded obligatory of their Consciences, as things appointed by Divine Authority, so as that it should be sin to disobey or omit them in any case: But by virtue of the general Precept of Obedience, Heb. 13.17. and in Order to the ends of their rule without any Contempt of their Authority, or refractariness they should be either actively or passively obeyed, though the things themselves be only indifferent, and not of themselves, or directly binding the Conscience.

And this I conceive to be proved, 1. From Reason, because without such regulations, Church Societies can no more be continued by reason of the difference of minds and capacities than other Societies, which is proved true by experience.

2. From the practise of all sorts of Churches, who have in process of time found it necessary to have Synods to this end.

3. From the course God hath taken with the Christian Churches, to whom he hath delivered the Doctrine of Faith, and necessaries of Worship in the Scriptures, but hath left many accidentals [Page] about Worship and Church Government undetermined, & therefore left them partly to each ones own light in things concerning himself only, partly to the Rulers Domestical, National, Civil, Ecclesiastical in things that concern the several Communities.

4. From the Texts 1 Cor. 14.40. Heb. 13.17. and other places. For in that after all his discourse about ordering the use of their gifts, he ends with this general rule; he thereby shews, that more things were to be ordered by that rule, either by each one himself, or by their Governours, as he himself did resolve, 1 Cor. 11.34. and appointed Titus and Timothy in the Epistles to them, and enjoyned obedience, Heb. 13.17. Now let us consider what is answered hereto. He saith:

Sect. 4. It's no derogation from Scripture, or Christ, that such Canons are made and obeyed.

Answ. That there is any thing of moment in this Objection, though their Achilles in this matter, and that which they are upon every turn producing, is easily demonstrated. The whole of it being built upon as uncertain principles, yea, upon as notoriously false suppositions, as ever objection in so weighty a case was built upon.

1. 'Tis supposed that Christ hath not determined in the Scripture, how the affairs of his house should be managed with decency and order, as well as commanded that they be so; which is:

1. No small derogation to the perfection of the Scriptures.

2. To the wisdom and faithfulness of Christ, debasing him herein below Moses; though the Scripture in this respect prefers him before him.

3. Diametrically opposite to the Scripture instanced in, which stands as a two edged Sword to cut the throat of their cause, in its approaches thereto for shelter: of which take this brief account; The Apostle having in the beginning of the Chapter prest the Church of Corinth, to follow after spiritual gifts, but especially that they might prophesie; the liberty of the Saints therein being fully asserted, and several directions thereabout given, he condemns their disorderly practice, in respect of this important duty and priviledge, ver. 26. and gives direction touching its regular performance; and this he doth,

First, Generally, ver. 26. Let all things be done to edifying, which with a little alteration he represses, ver. 40. Let all things be done decently and in order.

Secondly, Particularly, by telling them how they ought to manage [Page]this affair in a way of decency, order, and edification; wherein several rules are comprised, too long to be here insisted on, as in cases of speaking in an unknown tongue, ver. 27, 28. of prophesying by two or three, ver▪ 29, 30. of the duties of women, with respect thereunto, ver. 34, 35. that from hence a power invested in the Church for the binding of the consciences of men, touching ceremonies in Worship, should be regularly deduced, is the first born of improbabilities and absurdities.

1. Paul speaking by an infallible spirit of Prophecie, advises the Church of Corinth, that all things be done decently and in order; therefore persons that have not, pretend not to such a spirit, may of their own heads bind our Consciences by Laws and Rules of their own in the service of God.

2. Paul doth not only tell them, that all things ought to be done decently and in order; but discovers to them, wherein that decency and order lies; therefore the Church hath power to determine in this matter, are such Non-sequiturs as will not in haste be made good.

I reply, as the Argument is framed by me, there is moment in the objection, which is not built upon the principle he expresseth, but this; that however Christ hath not only commanded, but also determined in generals in the Scripture, how the affairs of his House should be managed with decencie and order; yet in many particularities he hath not determined how the Worship of God and Rule of his Church should be managed with decencie and order; as whether at the Communion there should be a Table spread with a linnen cloth, the Service begin with a recital of the Institution, or Prayer; Publike Prayer begin with Confession of Sin, or Thanksgiving, or profession of our faith; seating of persons in the meeting be with respect to their civil degrees, or sexe, or promiscuously; Sermon begin at the reading of the Text, and Prayer be after or before; these with many more are indeterminate by Christ or his Apostles in the Scripture, and yet are to be determined according to the Rule of Decency and Order, either by each person himself in that which is private, or by Rulers in that, which belongs to the Community; and Obedience is due to the determinations of Rulers in these things. And it seems to me (to use this Authors own phrase) the first-born of improbabilities and absurdities, that God should charge parents to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, Eph. 6.4. [Page] that we should first of all make supplications, prayers, intercessions, giving of thanks for all men, for Kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty, 1 Tim. 2.1, 2. that the Bishop should be one that takes care of the Church of God, 1 Tim. 3.5. If these have no power in the Worship of God, and rule of the Church to make Constitutions about things undetermined, or that they may without any sin be disobeyed. For as for the exception, as if such power reaches only to things Civil not Ecclesiastical, the contrary is proved by Bishop Sanderson in his sixth Lecture about the obligation of Conscience. Nor is there any derogation to the perfection of Scripture, or the faithfulness of Christ by such a grant. For the sufficiency of the Scripture being in affording Doctrines of Faith and Rules of Life, if as able to make a man wise unto salvation through faith in Christ Jesus, as the Apostle speaks, 2 Tim. 3.15. its perfection is acknowledged, there is no lessening of its use, though it be said, that notwithstanding its sufficiency to its end; yet Laws Domestical, Civil, National, Ecclesiastical, are necessary to be added for good order and Government. And the faithfulness of Christ, Heb. 3.2. is not placed in determining every particularity in Worship, (yea, he was faithful in that he did not) for then he should have put upon us such a yoke, as Moses bid, contrary to his Office, Joh. 1.17. but in that he discharged the work his Father had appointed him as our High Priest, in suffering and interceding for us; and as the Apostle of our Profession, in teachinng us the counsel of God fully in the Doctrine of the Gospel, and that above Moses, as being not as a servant in Gods house only as Moses, but as a Son over his own house. And it is to be considered what Bishop Sanderson observes, that if Christs faithfulness must have been extended to the determination of all particularities equally to Moses, he must have set down all particularities of Civil Government, as Moses did in the judicial Laws of the Jews, and so those Laws must be observed (as some have attempted) and the Common Law of England must be evacuated; and a yoke put upon our necks, from which Christ hath freed us. And therefore a good Argument is hence deducible, that God would have the ordering of things undetermined left to Governours, because otherwise Christ should not have been faithful as Moses, sith he hath not determined them; yea should have been unfaithful if he had, sith it was the Will of God that Christians should not have such a yoke of Rites put upon them, as Moses did put upon the Jews, Acts 15.9, 10▪ Gal. 5.1, [Page] 2, 3, 4. But the Text 1 Cor. 14.40. requires more consideration, sith he saith it is diametrically opposite to that principle it is alledged to establish, which is but a meer Dictate of his, for which he brings no proof: For neither is his account of the Apostles dissertation right, it being not true, that he asserts the liberty of the Saints in prophesying; as if prophesying were the liberty of the Saints as such, which was the peculiar gift of Prophets, v. 31, 32. which now the Saints have not, no [...] can now claim, as many do arrogantly, as if it were their liberty, inferring from v. 3. that because it is said, he that prophesieth, speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort; therefore every one that speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort, did prophesie▪ which is like as if, because it is said, 1 Cor. 8.1. charity edifieth; therefore it should be inferred, that whatever edifieth is charity; nor is it right, that the Apostle, v. 40. represseth his direction, v. 26. that being another direction, and a general one after and besides the particulars, v. 27, 28, 29, 30, 34, 35. Nor if it were as he saith, is there any thing to prove, that all the particular wayes of Decency, Order, and Edification, are there set down; or that none are permitted to the care of After-Rulers. Nor is the Argument, as I have framed it, evacuated; who have not endeavoured to prove thence a power invested in the Church for the binding of the Consciences of men, touching Ceremonies in Worship, but do wave the controversies about the Ceremonies of the Cross, Surplice and Kneeling; about which the Writings of Bishop Morton, Burges, Ames, and others are extant; nor do I alledge the words as Doctor Hammond expounds them, rendring [...], according to appointment; in which he is opposed by Mr. Jeans: but only thus argue, There's a general rule after divers particulars instanced in, left by the Apostle in the close of his dissertation, which were of no use, if he had set down all wayes of Decency and Order, and left none to be determined by others; therefore yet there remain particularities of Decency and Order about Divine Worship and Church-Rule to be determined by men: which that it belongs to Rulers, I gathered from other places. As for the Arguments as he frames them, I know none that avows them, neither do I think any doth express himself thus, Paul speaking by an infallible spirit of Prophesie adviseth the Church of Corinth; for though I doubt not but Paul spake by an infallible Spirit in that advise, yet that is fitter to be termed Apostolick than of Prophesie: nor do I conceive any of them whom he opposeth would unadvisedly [Page] thus conclude, Persons that have not, pretend not to such a spirit, may of their own heads bind our Consciences by Laws and Rules of their own in the service of God: nor do I think any would say, Paul doth not only tell them, that all things ought to be done decently and in order; but discovers to them, wherein that decency and order lies. For they conceive this false, except about the point of Prophesying in that place, and that the Apostle gives only a general rule, and leaves the particularities of Decency and Order to be determined by others, chiefly Rulers: nor would they thence inferr, therefore the Church hath power in this matter; but rather thus plead, That which belonging to Decency and Order is commanded in general, but not in the particularities determined, is in respect of Communities left to be determined by their Rules: but so is the Apostles command, 1 Cor. 14.40. Therefore, &c. The major rests on this, That what is to be determined in or for a Community, is supposed to belong to their Rulers. This Author goes on thus:

Sect. 5 All particularities of Decency and Order in things sacred, are not determined in Scripture.

But let this be granted, suppose that 'tis the priviledge and duty of the Church to make Laws and Constitutions, for the binding of the consciences of men in matters of Decency and Orders; this Church herein is bounded by the Scripture, or it is not: If it be (for which he cites in the Margin these words of, Macovius in loc. com. cap. 83. p. 851. The Laws by which the Governours of the Church are to judge, are such as are prescribed in the Word of God) bounded by the Scripture, then when it hath no prescription therein for its commands, its not to be obeyed, and so we are where we were before, that Decency and Order is to be determined by the Scripture: If it be not bounded thereby, then whatever ceremonies it introduceth not directly contrary thereunto, they must be subjected to; which how fair an inlet it is to the whole farrago of Popish inventions, who sees not?

Answ. I say not, 'Tis the priviledge and duty of the Church to make Laws and Constitutions for the binding of the Consciences of m [...]n in the matters of Decency and Order; but that the particularities [Page] of Decency and Order not determined in Scripture may by Canons to that end, be prescribed; the general rules in Scripture, the Laws of Nature, Right Reason, other laudable Customs and just Laws being duely observed; and that persons are to obey them, not as bound in conscience directly, and by the things themselves, but indirectly and by accident,; because appointed by Rulers, to whom God requires obedience in those things: which being rightly understood, both horns of the dilemma are avoided, they being bounded in the Scripture, in the general are to be obeyed as other humane Laws; and the particularities not being there determined, the wayes of Decency and Order not determined by Scripture, are to be received: and yet it follows not that whatever Ceremonies Rulers introduce not directly contrary to Scripture, must be subjected to; much less a fair inlet made to the whole farrago of Popish inventions. For if indirectly they be contrary to Scripture, or otherwise hurtful, or not subservient to the ends of such Laws, or become by reason of their number or imposition, such a yoke as Christ hath freed us from, there may be a relaxation from them, more than from other humane Civil Laws; and for all, or some of these reasons, the whole farrago of Popish inventions is to be excluded, though other Ecclesiastical Laws of the Church of England be subjected to. Wherein I meddle not with the Question about the Ceremonies controverted, and therefore may let pass that which this Author adds; yet were this also yielded them, they were never a jot nearer the mark aimed at, except it can be proved, that supposing a power of introducing Ceremonies to be invested in the Church, thence a power for the institution of new Orders and Ordinances, the introducing of Heathenish, Jewish, and Superstitious practices in the Worship of God, may be evinced; there being no necessity that in answering his Argument I should avouch the imposition or use of those Ceremonies, which the Non-conformists argue against. Nor need I reply to what he adds: And yet should all this be yielded them, none of which will they be able to prove to the Worlds end; how will they manifest those Lordly Commands and Constitutions are the Constitutions of a truly constituted Church of Christ, (a strong supposition hereof is the [...] of the present Objection:) and yet sail they in the making good their ground herein: who sees not that their Plea hitherto impleaded sinks of it self? Sith I neither plead for the Constitutions of the Church of England in particular; nor is it my supposition, that only the Constitutions of a constituted [Page] Church of Christ bind in things of Divine Worship and Church Rule, and therefore my Answer and position need not sink for want of making good this plea. And accordingly might put him off to others to answer his impertinent questions, What is it then they mean by the Church, whose [...] we are without disputing to subject to? is it the National Church of England? But where find they any National Church of the Institution of Christ, in the Oeconomie of the Gospel? How prove they that the Church of England is so? Nevertheless, I may say I know not any that hold concerning the Church of England that its [...] proper opinions are to be subjected to, without dispute; though the Romanists hold it of the Church of R [...]me: and for a National Church I refer him to what is before in answer to his Preface, sect. 15. But there are more questions behind. Yet should this also be granted, where are the Constitutions and Laws of this Church, that we may pay the homage to them as is meet? Which Question he might answer himself, who in this Chapter cites so many of the Canons of the Church of England.

But he yet enquires, When was it assembled [...] in the same place together, in its several members freely to debate, (1 Cor. 11.20. and 14 23.) and in the Margin, Maccovius in loc. com. append. de Adi. p. 861. Things indifferent, he tells you, ought not to be introduced into the Church, but by the common consent thereof, according to Acts 15.) determine what Laws and Constitutions were fit to be observed by them?

To which I answer, The Church of England was assembled at London, Anno 1603. in its several members by deputation freely to debate things, as was the usage in the Synods of ancient and later times, and even in New England at Cambridge, there about the Antinomian opinions in Mr. Welds History; in England in the Assembly at Westminster, of the Congregational Churches by their Elders and Messengers in their Meeting at the Savoy, Octob. 12. 1658. which kind of Meeting must be allowed as the Meeting of the whole Church, which they represent, there being no other way, in which orderly many particular Churches throughout a Nation can convene and debate freely, either points of Doctrine or Discipline, than by such Deputies; and therefore as the whole Kingdom is said to meet in the Parliament, so the whole Church may be said to meet in their Synod. Nor is there any thing against this, in 1 Cor. 11.20 or 1 Cor. 14.23. unless it be supposed, that all those must meet to debate matters of Doctrine and Discipline, [Page] who did then meet for worship, which is not to be said: For then in such things women also must have a voice contrary to the Apostles resolution, 1 Cor. 14.34. and the practice of all the Churches. As for Act. 15. the Synod was about a point of Doctrine, and though it be said, ver. 22. that it pleased the Apostles and Elders, with the whole Church, to send some to Antioch; yet the whole Church is not likely to be meant of every particular member, but as Acts 6.2, 5. Acts 21.20, 22. and elsewhere, by the multitude, or whole Church, is meant a great part or indefinite number. However those from Antioch, mentioned Acts 15.2. were not many, and therefore if that Synod be a pattern for after times; yet it cannot be a rule in respect of the number of persons convening, when Churches are so increased, or so far distant one from another, as that they cannot commodiously meet in their multitudes or debate orderly, but must of necessity act by Deputies, and their Constitutions are to be taken as the Constitutions of the whole Church, for whom they appear. But this Author excepts:

If it be said, that this is not requisite, it is enough that it be assembled in its several Officers, or such as shall be chosen by their Officers, whose laws every member is bound to be obedient to. We answer, But these Officers are the Church, or they are not; if they are not (as there is nothing more sure) I owe no subjection to their Laws or Constitutions, it being pleaded, that 'tis the Church that hath only power in this matter: if they are the Church, let them by one Scripture prove they are so: or where the true Officers of a true Church are so called, and as Nonius saith out of N [...]vius to them, Dum vivebo fidelis ero. Yet except this also be yielded them, there is nothing of moment in the Objection produced.

Answ. The Objection, as it is by me made, is not the Plea as here is supposed. The power in this matter, is by me ascribed to Rulers, and Texts requiring obedience to them have been produced; and notwithstanding this Authors exceptions, there is something of moment in the Objection; and the speech is not made good, That the present Ministers of England, submit, own, and subscribe to Laws and Constitutions that are not in any sense of Christ revealing; nor if it were, doth it follow, Therefore they oppose the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ.

Sect. 6. It's not proved, that the Ministers of England, own Constitutions contrary to the revelation of Christ.

[Page]

He goes on thus:

But this is not all. 2ly. The present Ministers of England do own, submit, and subscribe to Laws, Constitutions, and Ordinances, that are contrary to the revelation of Christ, whence an opposition to the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ, may rationally be concluded. This also by the induction of a few particular instances, will be evinced beyond exception.

Answ. Four things are here undertaken:

1. That the particular instances, stand by Laws and Constitutions.

2. That these Laws, Constitutions, and Ordinances, are contrary to the revelation of Christ.

3. That the present Ministers of England, do own, submit and subscribe to them.

4. That from thence an opposition to the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ, may rationally be concluded. In which, how he hath failed, will be apparent by the view of what he alledgeth.

They own, saith he, and acknowledge,

1. That there may be other Arch-Bishops, and Lord-Bishops in the Church of Christ, besides himself: which is contrary to 1 Pet. 5.3. 1 Cor. 12.5. Ephes. 4.5. Heb. 3.1. Luke 22.25, 26.

Answ. That there may be other Arch-Bishops and Lord-Bishops in the Church of Christ besides himself, is acknowledged by the present Ministers of England, but not in the sense in which Christ is called the chief Shepherd, 1 Pet. 5.4. or the same Lord, 1 Cor. 12.5. or one Lord, Ephes. 4.5. or the Apostle and High Priest of our prosession, Heb. 3.1. or Lordship is forbidden, 1 Pet. 5.3. Luke 22.25, 26. they are not acknowledged Arch-Bishops over the whole Church, as the Pope; but in their own Province: nor are they termed Arch-Bishops, as if other Bishops had their authority from them, as the Pope claims; but they only have a Primacy or Precedency, with some other Prerogatives, by that title. Nor are they, or other Bishops, made Lords, as Christ, over the whole Church, or have such dominion ascribed to them over the Church they oversee, as is forbidden, 1 Pet. 5.3. Luke 22.25, 26. [Page] and is usurped by Popish Bishops; but are Lords only by the Kings Grant, as is said before in Answer to Chap. 3. Sect. 5, 6. not in the Church of Christ, but in the Kingdom and Parliament; and therefore this acknowledgement is not contrary to the revelation of Christ; there being no contrariety, or contradiction, unless there were an opposition in the same respect, as Logicians determine Christ is said, 1 Tim. 6.15. to be [...], the only Dynasta, or Potentate; and yet without contrariety, or contradiction the Eunuch, Acts 8.27. is termed [...] Dynasta or Potentate, as in the reading in the margin of our translation. But were there contrariety, yet it is not shewed, that what is acknowledged is a Law, Constitution, or Ordinance (which do usually determine not what may be, but what shall and must be) nor that Ministers own it by subscription.

2. That men may and ought to be made Ministers, only by these Lord-Bishops: which is contrary to Heb. 5.4. John 10.1, 7. and 13.20. and 14.6. Act. 14.23. with 6.3, 5.

Answ. It is true, it is acknowledged by the present Ministers of England, that men may be made Ministers by these Lord-Bishops; but not that they may and ought to be made Ministers only by these Lord-Bishops; sith Ministers are allowed, who are made by Suffragan Bishops, who are not Lords; and for the Churches Reformed, of Foreigners dwelling in England Ministers made by Presbyters only. But this is not a Law, Constitution, or Ordinance to which Ministers subscribe; nor if they did, is there any contrariety therein to the revelation of Christ. Heb. 5.4. it is said, And no man taketh this honour, that is, of being High-Priest, unto himself, but he that is called of God as Aaron. But this is impertinently alledged, being not spoken of the Gospel Ministery; but of the Priesthood of the Law, and the High-Priest, and of his Calling by God immediately; and therefore, if that which the Ministers acknowledge be proved contrary to the revelation of Christ by this text, the making of M [...]nisters in Congregational Churches by their Eldership is alike contrary, sith they are not called of God as Aaron. Of the impertinency of John 10.1, 7. enough is said before in the Answer to Chap. 2. Sect. 3. Joh. 13.20. He that receiveth whomsoever I send, receiveth me. is no more contrary to Bishops Ordination, than to Presbyters, John 14.6. speaks not at all of making Ministers, but of the way whereby Christians have access to God Of Acts 14.23. and 6.3, 5. enough hath been said in Answer to Chap. 2. Sect. 3.

[Page]3. That Prelates, their Chancellors, and Officers, have power from Christ to cast out of the Church of God, contrary to Mat. 18.16, 17. 1 Cor. 5.4.

Answ. That there is a Law, Ordinance, or Constitution of this, to which Ministers subscribe, I finde no [...]. Of the texts Mat. 18.16, 17. 1 Cor. 5.4. enough hath been said in Answer to the Preface, Sect. 15. to Chap. 4. Sect. 5. whence the impertinency of the alledging these texts may appear.

4. That the Office of Suffragans, Deans, Canons, Petty-Canons, Prebendaries, Coiristers, Organists, Archdeacons, Commissaries, Officials, Parsons, Vicars, and Curates are lawful and necessary to be had in the Church, evidently contrary to 1 Cor. 12, 18 28. Rom. 12.7. Ephes. 4.11. The Officers instituted by Christ are sufficient for the edification and perfecting of the Saints, till they all come unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ, ver. 12, 13. in what sense the forementioned, being not one of them of the institution of Christ, may be owned as lawful or necessary, without an high contempt of the Wisdom and Soveraignty of Christ, cannot by such dull persons as my self he conjectured That any others see them any way useful to the Church of Christ, may be imputed to such a sharp-sightedness as was that of Caius Caligula, to whom, when he enquired of Vitellius, whether he saw him not imbracing the Moon? 'twas answered Solis (Domine) vobis-diis licet se invicem videre.

Answ. Where this imagined Law, Ordinance, or Constitution is, or when and how the present Ministers do own, acknowledge, submit, and subscribe to it (as this Author suggests) is not here shewed by him, nor do I know where to finde it. O [...] the Office of so many of these, as are ordained Presbyters, or Priests (as the term is in the English Liturgy) enough hath been said in answering the 3 Chapter, Sect. 3, 5. &c. that though their names are various; yet their Office is the same with some of those who are of Christ, 1 Cor. 12.28. Rom. 12.7 Ephes. 4.11. and consequently lawful and necessary; the rest are not reckoned among the Orders of Ministry in the Church, but counted Services, which are acknowledged not necessary; and whether they be useful or not, it matters not in respect of the present enquiry, if there be no Law, Constitution, or Ordinance to make them lawful and necessary to be had in the Church, which the Ministers subscribe to, as I think there is not.

5. That the Office [...]f Deacons in the Church, is to be imployed in publick praying, administration of Baptism, and preaching, if licensed[Page]by the Bishop thereunto; contrary to Act. 6.2. Ephes. 4.11.

Answ. That at first the institution of Deacons was to serve tables, Acts 6.2. not to preach the word of God; yet Steven and Philip being imployed in Preaching, and Philip in Baptizing, it is not contrary to Christs revelation in those texts or any other, that they should be imployed in those works.

6. That the Ordinance of breaking Bread, or the Sacrament of the Lords Supper may be administred to one alone; as to a sick man ready to die: which is diametrically opposite to the nature and institution of that Ordinance, 1 Cor. 10.16. and 11.33. Mat. 26.26. Act. 2.42. and 20.7.

Answ. The Communion is in time of infectious diseases allowed to be administred to one only besides the Minister, which whether it be fit to be done, is left to the Minister. That it is diametrically opposite to the nature and institution of that Ordinance, is not easily proved. 1 Cor. 10.16. A Communion is proved in that Sacrament, but ver. 17. and 1 Cor. 12.13. rather proves the Communion to be therein with all believers throughout the world though absent, than only with the present partakers; and if so, though but two joyn, the Minister and the sick man, the Communion there meant is held with all Christians, the meaning and intent of the Apostle being to shew that by partaking thereof, they shew themselves of one body or community with all Christians, and so may not partake of the table of Devils, ver. 21. Christ did institute the Lords Supper to his Disciples; but that so many or a number above two are necessary, so as that otherwise it should not have the nature of that Sacrament, cannot be thence inferred. 1 Cor. 11.33. Acts 20.7. do prove it should be administred, when all Communicants come together; but whether it want the nature of the Sacrament, if but two be together, specially in a case extraordinary, may be questioned. As Acts 2.42. it is said, They continued in breaking of bread; so ver. 46. it is said, they did it from house to house; therefore not the whole Church in Jerusalem brake Bread in one house, but by companies in several houses, and so as they could commodiously, which is an argument, that the smalness of the number takes not away the nature of the Sacrament, if the thing appointed by Christ be done.

Sect. 7. A prescript Form of words in Prayer devised by man, is not contrary to Rom. 8.26. 1 Cor. 14.15.

[Page]

1. That a prescript Form of words in Prayer, a ceremonius pompous Worship, devised by man, and abused to Idolatry, is according to the will of God, and may lawfully be used under the New-Testament dispensation; contrary to Mat. 15.9. and 28.20. John 4.23. Deut. 12.32. Jer. 51.26. Rom. 8.26. 1 Cor. 14.15.

Answ. That which the present Ministers own and subscribe to, as containing in it nothing contrary to the word of God, and that it may lawfully be used, with promise to use it, is the Book of Common-prayer. This Author impeacheth it as contrary to the will of God, and not to be lawfully used under the New-Testament dispensation. 1. Because there is a prescript From of words in prayer. 2. The worship is Ceremonious. 3. That it is Pompous. 4. Devised by man. 5. Abused to Idolatry. What part of it is, or was abused to Idolatry should have been expressed. If he mean kneeling at the Lords Supper, that is his tenth instance to be considered again, if that which is said already in answer to this Chapter Sect. 3. be not sufficient; if he mean the whole Book, because out of the Popes Portuis, that is answered before, in answer to Chap. 3. Sect. 4. His allegation of Jer. 51.26. seems to be brought to prove it unlawful to use any thing in the worship of God abused to Idolatry. But it is so impertinent, that were any conscience made how Scripture is applyed, or shame to abuse Readers with texts impertinent, it had been omitted; it being only a prediction of the ruine of the City of Babylon, not of the Temple of the Idol, that it should not be built again, by reason of the Opression and Idolatry of the Inhabitants, not a prohibition to the Jews, that they should not use the stones of Babylon, to build a Temple to God at Jerusalem, because abused to Idolatry. Why the worship of the Common Prayer is termed Ceremonious, or Pompous, is left to be ghessed. If he mean it, as it is used in Cathedrals and Collegiate Churches and Chappels, there is no constitution for it as such, to which Ministers are required to subscribe; if because of the ceremony of the Surplice and Cross, and the Singing of Psalms; or because it is with external words and gestures, the first of these being an adjunct only to the Minister, doth not make the Worship it self Ceremonius or Pompous; and the second being only a monitory sign annexed to a rite of worship is not fitly termed Worship; the third methinks should be [Page] allowed, as commanded Ephes. 5.19. Col. 3.16. external words and gestures if agreeable to the examples of holy men should not be excepted against, nor are they contrary to John 4.23. which excludes only the legal shawdowy worship of the Law, and that which is only external, and so hypocritical; otherwise external Worship is required, 1 Cor. 6.20. But I suppose the chief exception is, that the Ministers own and use a prescript Form of words devised by man; which he conceives contrary to the other texts alledged by him, how pertinently, is to be considered. To Mat. 15 9. and Deut. 12.32. answer is made Chap. 1. Sect. 3. Mat. 28.20. requires Teachers to teach Disciples of Christ to observe all that he hath commanded; But proves not, that no prescript Form of Prayer devised by man, may be lawfully used. For then it would follow, that conceived Forms of Prayer may not be used, for they are devised by men, they are not immediately from Gods Spirit, as is apparent by the phrases, and matter oft times used; nor are they commanded by Christ, but rather a set Form is commanded, to wit, the Lords Prayer, Luke 11.2. and therefore the use of a prescript Form of words in Prayer devised by man, is not contrary to Christs revelation, Mat. 28.20. For all that Christ hath commanded, may be observed by those who use it; and it is more agreeable to Christs command, to use one prescript Form of words of Prayer, which he hath directed Mat. 6.7, 8, 9. Rom. 8.26. is more impertinently alledged: For it is not said, The Spirit helps our infirmities, by suggesting to us the Form of words we shall use: but by making known what things we shall ask in his secret impulse on our spirits, not in ordinary motions of our tongues, and by exciting in us grones and sighes that are unutterable; and therefore this text is so far from proving, that it is unlawful to use a prescript Form of words in Publick Prayer, because of this promise of the Spirit to suggest without meditation, such words as shall be spoken, that it is quite another thing which is here meant. First it is not meant of publick Prayers, but of secret private Prayers: Secondly, it is not meant of private ordinary Prayers; but as Cameron in his Treatise of the nature and condition of the Church, observes, The Apostle distinguisheth some, and those singular Prayers of Believers from the rest▪ to wit, when the minde constituted in anguish, and the same erected by trust in God, prayes, as wrapt beyond it self; such as were Moses his Prayers, who when he is not said to have prayed in Scripture, yet God so be speaks him, as if he had cryed; to wit, the Spirit did pray in Moses, the understanding prayed not: the Spirit, that is, the understanding conceived[Page]not distinctly the prayers. And 1 Cor. 14.15. (which is the other place cited by this Author) I will sing with the spirit, I will sing also with the mind. To wit, I believe none sings with the will; for to sing is a work of the understanding; but the Apostle hath opposed the Spirit to the Understanding; because the Spirit in that place signifies the Understanding so affected, as that it cannot distinctly explain what it hath conceived. Therefore in the same Chapter above he exhorts, that he who speaketh with tongues (that is with the Spirit) pray that he may interpret; that is, not only speak with the Spirit but also with the Mind. Therefore it is manifest that the prayers Rom 8.26. 1 Cor. 14.15. are meant of such as are in extraordinary raptures and ecstacies, such as the Prophets sometimes had; and St. Paul speaks of 2 Cor. 12.1, 2, 3, 4. and cannot be applied to the ordinary publike prayers of the whole Congregation. Thirdly, the help of the Spirit cannot be meant of suggesting a Form of words, because it is said, the spirit it self maketh intercession for us with groans unutterable; and 1 Cor. 14.15. is such praying in the spirit as may be without the understanding of him that prays or others, even such as he that occupieth the room of the unlearned cannot say Amen to, seeing he understandeth not what the Speaker saith. Fourthly, The praying with the Spirit is such as is unfruitful of it self, v. 14. and not to be affected of it self, nor can be a matter of duty, sith it is motus liberi spiritus, as the School-men speak rightly, a motion of the free Spirit, such as lumen propheticum, prophetical illumination is, which is such a gift as that it may be our duty to use it when we have it, not our duty to acquire it. Upon all which reasons it is apparent, that these Texts are much perverted against the use of a prescript Form of words in Prayer devised by man, because of the Spirits help, Rom. 8.26. praying in the Spirit, 1 Cor. 14 15. sith they cannot be meant of ordinary publike prayers, and of praying in words unpremeditated, as immediately suggested by the Spirit of God.

Sect 8. The admission of vitious persons to Communion, justifies not separation.

8. That wicked and ungodly persons, and their seed, are lawful members of the Church, and if they consent not willingly to be so, they may be compelled thereunto: contrary to Psal. 110.3. Acts 2.40, 41, 47. and 19 9. 2 Cor. 6.14, 17. and 9.13.

Answ. This Author shews not where the Law is, nor when or how the Ministers subscribes to a Constitution of this instance, [Page] not know I where to find either. It is said, Psal. 110.3. Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power. But it doth not therefore follow, that men may not be compelled by pecuniary mulcts, or other penalties, to come to Common Prayer or the Communion. For however the question be resolved about liberty of Conscience, and toleration in the New Testament, yet David meant not that there must none be then compelled; if so, neither Asa nor Josiah did well in urging the people to swear to cleave to God, and to stand to it, 2 Chron. 34.32. If understood of the times of the New Testament it proves that members of the Church should be a willing people, but not that no other may be lawful members, or admitted or caused by commands of Rulers, or penalties to joyn with the Church in Gods Worship. For then it must be the duty of them that admit members into the Church to know that they whom they admit are a willing people, which I think none now can do. It is true Acts 2.40. Peter exhorted the Jews to save themselves from that perverse generation of them that opposed Christ, and v. 41. Then they that gladly received his Word were baptized; and v. 47. The Lord added to the Church such as should be saved; but how this proves that wicked and ungodly persons may not be admitted as lawful members of the visible Church Christian, nor compelled thereunto, I discern not. Sure Judas was admitted to the Apostleship, and to the Passover, if not to the Lords Supper; Ananias and Saphira were taken as lawful members, Simon Magus baptized, we find none blamed for admission to the Lords Supper, of disorderly Corinthians. And for compulsion from Idolatrous Worship, and other evils, if Parents may correct these in their children, Princes may do it in their Subjects; and if Parents may by penalties compel their children to conform to true Religion, so may Princes. The separation, Acts 19 9. is nothing to countenance the separation from the Service and assemblies of the Church of England: for that separation was not because of the presence of professed Christians of vitious life; but because of divers who were hardned and believed not, but spake evil of the way of Christ before the multitude, and so endeavour to disturb them in the practice of Christian Religion. The words 2 Cor. 6.14. whether we read it, be not unequally yoked, or unevenly ballanced to the other side with Infidels; and whether we expound it of marriage, or familiar converse, or (as the words v. 16. What agreement hath the Temple of God with Idols, do plainly evince it to be meant) do not joyn with the Idolaters in their Idol Temples to eat there things offered to Idols, which [Page] he had forbidden, 1 Cor. 8.7, 10. to partake of the table of Devils, 1 Cor. 10.21. it is manifest from, v. 15. to be meant of professed Infidels opposite to him that believeth, and therefore cannot be understood of not joyning in prayer and the Lords Supper with a professed Believer, though of vitious life. Nor can the separation from among men, v. 17. be understood of any other than professed Infidels; nor the the touching the unclean thing be any other then joyning in service of Idols mentioned, v. 16. and therefore is manifestly impertinent to the separation from Believers by profession in the service of God by reason of their personal wickedness. The last Text 2 Cor. 9.13. is less to the purpose: For what shew of consequence is there in this? Christians glorifie God for others professed subjection, or the subjection of their Confession, or consent to the Gospel of Christ; therefore wicked persons, and such as consent not willingly, are not to be taken for lawful members of the Church, nor may be compelled thereto. It is added:

9. That women may administer the Sacrament of Baptism, contrary to 1 Cor. 14.34. 1 Tim. 2.12. Matth. 28.18, 19, 20. Ephes. 4.11.

Answ. That it is true that in Q. Elizabeths time Baptism by Women in supposed case of necessity, was in the English Churches either tolerated or allowed; and the like hath been in the Lutheran Churches, and Mr. Hooker in his fifth Book of Ecclesiastical Policy, sect 62. saith somewhat for it; yet since the Conference at Hampton Court in the beginning of King James his reign to the Rubrick of private Baptism in the Common Prayer Book, the words [lawful Minister] were added, which still continue; the Baptism of Women is not allowed by any constitution, nor owned by the present Ministers that I know, and therefore this instance is unjustly here recited. Yet thus much may be said, that notwithstanding Women are excluded from any Ordinary Ministery of the Word or Sacraments in the Church by the Texts alledged, 1 Cor. 14.34. 1 Tim. 2.12. and from baptizing, Mat. 28.18, 19, 20. Ephes. 4.11. Sith we find that Philip the Evangelist had four daughters that did prophesie, Acts 29.1. mention is made of the woman praying or prophesying, 1 Cor. 11.5. we cannot exclude them from extraordinary Ministry, when God gives such a gift; nor, sith Priscilla instructed Apollos, Acts 18.26. can we exclude them from private teaching of the most able, if they be fitted thereto.

Sect. 9. Receiving the Lords Supper kneeling, is not directly opposite to Christs practice or precept, of the abstaining from appearance of evil, 1 Thess. 5.22.

[Page]

10. That the Lords Supper is to be received kneeling, which is directly opposite to the practice of Christ, in the first Institution thereof, Mark 14.18, 22, 23. and positive precept, as being what hath an appearance of evil in it (being a gesture used by the Papists in the adoration of their Bread [...]n god) 1 Thess. 5.22. as also to the practice of the Churches of Christ for several hundred years after, to the time of the invention and the introduction of the Popish Breaden god; not to mention its contrariety to the judgment and practice of most of the reformed Churches (if not all) at this day.

Answ. This Constitution and the subscription to it by the present Ministers of England, cannot be denied; nor that it hath been a great stumbling block to many persons, and as great a cause of separation from the Communion, as it is ministred in the Church of England, as any other thing. But that it is directly opposite to the practice of Christ in the first Institution of the Lords Supper, is denied by them. For though it is said, Mark 14.18. [...], which we translate [as they sate] yet it is denied▪ that this gesture is mentioned as binding Christians to the the same gesture in the use of the Lords Supper in subsequent times.

1. Because this gesture seems not to have been of choice used by Chris [...], that thence he might prescribe the same gesture he used in the Institution, making his example in this as a constant rule: but it seems rather to have been used occasionally, because it was instituted after the Paschal Supper, at which they used that gesture, as they did eat, Mat. 26.26. Mark 14.22.

2. Because St. Paul ▪ 1 Cor. 11.23. where he saith, he delivered to them what he received of the Lord, he omits the mention of Christs gesture which he would not have done, if he had judged it binding and necessary to Christians.

3. He mentions the night in which Christ was betrayed, v. 23. that he took the cup after he had supped, v. 25. Luke 22. [...]0. and it it is not judged necessary, that the Lords Supper should be either annually on the night in which he was betrayed, or weekly or monethly in the night, or after supper, no not though it be termed by the Apostle the Lords Supper, 1 Cor. 11.20. therefore with [...] reason the gesture should be urged by them as obligatory.

[Page]4. If the gesture Christ used be obligatory to Christians, then they must use the self same gesture he used, but that was neither sitting nor standing, which are used by the opposers of Kneeling; but lying along on beds, as the word [...] used Mark 14.18. intimates, and is gathered from Joh. 13.23. and other relations of the use of those times, which I think will not be denied, it being by the learned generally acknowledged. See Ainsworth on Exod. 12.8. And so kneeling is no more directly opposite to the practice of Christ in the first Institution thereof than other gestures; nor however it be different from his practice then, can it be truly said to be directly opposite to his practice, unless he had commanded the gesture he then used to be observed, or forbidden by his practice at that time, kneeling. The positive precept 1 Thess. 5.22. is urged very importunely, not only in this point of kn [...]eling at the Lords Supper, but also very frequently on many other occasions in Sermons, Writings, and Conferences, to deterr persons, especially of scrupulous Consciences and weak Understandings, from any thing to which persons and practices are disaffected; and therefore for the setling of such persons judgment, as are not averse to the unlearning their mistakes, as I did many years since in my Book of Scandalizing, cap. 4. sect. 23. somewhat fully open the meaning of that Text, so I shall again with some enlargement in this place, it being no grievance to me to write the same things again, but necessary; and so much the rather, because Mr. Henry Jeans in his second Edition of his Tract upon this Subject, gives me occasion to examine more exactly the meaning of this Precept. The chief difficulty is concerning, 1. The Translation of [...]. 2. Concerning the appearance of evil which we are to abstain from, and how far we are by that precept bound to abstain from it.

1. Concerning the Translation, it is doubted whether it should not be rather read, abstain from every kind or sort of evil, answering to genus and species, as Cicero renders [...], and as Porphyry in his Isagoge, Aristotle, Plato, and other Logicians use it. That it may be so, saith Mr. Jeans, Mat. Flac. Illyricus and Beza determine; that it is so, the Syriack Interpreter, and after him Faber, and after them our own great and learned Doctour Hammond resolve. But I would fain know upon what ground they are thus singular against the current both of an Ancient and Modern Expositors. Wherein he might have been satisfied from Dr. Hammonds own words in his Annot. on the place, where having said, the meaning will be from all sort, or the whole kind of evil, from all that is truly so, be it never [Page]so small, according to that in Pirke avoth, be as careful in the keeping a light, as a heavy Commandement: to this sense he cites St. Basil on the beginning of the Proverbs▪ Theophylact and Leon [...]ius. But saith Mr. Jeans, It is used but four times in the New Testament besides this place, and in none of them in a Logical notion. It is true, and it is true also that in none of them it is taken in his sense for an appearance to the understanding, but either for the shape or representation to the sight, or the sight it self, as it is rendred, 2 Cor. [...] 7. However it is sufficient for the justifying of the Translation, that it is used in that notion not only in other Greek Authors, but also in Ecclesiasticus ch. 23.16 [...] two sorts of men, ch. 25.2. [...] three sorts of men, and in the LXX Version Jer. 15 3. [...] is rendred [...] four kinds; which acception is enforced by this reason, which out of St. Basil Dr. Hammond thus expresseth the word [...], v. 21. try all things, being taken from Merchants, that which is evil, v. 22. is opposed to that which will upon trial bear the touch, A good Merchant will keep that which is good unadulterate metal, but will abstain from all kind of evil, or adulterate; not from that which appears ill, if it be not; for to what purpose then is his skill or touchstone? but from that which is ill, what ever it appear. From all which a reason may be gathered for Dr. Hammonds Exposition, and Tremellius his Interpretation out of the Syriack, ab omni voluntate malâ fugite fly from every evil will; or as in his Marginal note, negotio malo, sive re malâ, evil business or evil thing; and then kneeling at the Lords Supper will not be proved contrary to this Precept, till it be proved to be of it self an evil thing, and not only what hath an appearance of evil in it.

2. But if it be yielded that it is to be rendred shew, or appearance, and not sort or kind, yet it may be doubted whether, as the Vulgar and Tigurin, it be not rather to be read ab omni specie mala, from every shew or appearance which is evil, rather than ab omni specie [...]mali, from every shew, or appearance of evil, though it be not evil. Beza in his Annotation on the place saith, We may also interpret it, ab omni specie malâ, from every evil shew or appearance, and that more usual. For otherwise it seems it had been to be written, [...], the article being adjoyned; and the precept is then to abstain from that which is an appearance it self evil, not from an appearance not evil, but indifferent, and so not from kneeling at the Communion.

3. For the appearance of evil that we are to abstain from, it may be doubted whether it be meant of an appearance in doctrine or [Page] in practice. Chrysostome and the Greek Scholiast, and others apply it only to false doctrines, or lies of false Prophets; as if the Apostle had said, though you are not to quench the spirit, v. 19. nor to despise prophesyings, v. 20. yet you are to trie all doctrines, and to hold that which is good, v. 21. and to abstain from that doctrine which appears evil. Against this Mr. Jeans only objects, that an accurate and exact coherence is not necessary in those short precepts: and to understand the words of appearance in practice also suits well with the coherence. Which I will not gain-say: but only say if this be granted, yet if the Interpretation of abstaining from all appearance of evil in practice, be not necessary, but that it may be limited to doctrine, the allegation of it to prove that kneeling at the Lords Supper is an appearance of evil, from which we are to abstain, is not cogent, sith it is not in a point of doctrine to which this text may be limited, but in practice; of which it is uncertain whether this Text be meant, and therefore is not directly opposite to it, as is here asserted.

4. Were it granted that this Text is meant of the appearance of evil in practice, to which it is not denied Interpreters of all sorts do apply it, yet it may be doubted whether the Apostle means it of that which appears evil to another, or to a mans self. Surely the words and series of the Text do best suit with this Interpretation, Abstain from that which appears to your selves to be evil. For having said, try all things, whether doctrines you hear taught, or practices to which you are moved by your own thoughts or others examples or perswasions, to direct them what to do; he adds, hold that which is good, that is, what you find upon trial to be good, and abstain from all evil appearance, or appearance of evil, which so appears to you upon your trial. Which sense, as it hath the concurrence of good Authors, so doth it seem to me to be the genuine meaning of the Text.

1. Because it best suits with the coherence and scope of the Apostle. For it is plain that the Apostle makes these two precepts of holding that which is good, and abstaining from every appearance of evil, the consequents of trying all things, to which it tends: For to what end should men try all things whether doctrines or practices, but that they may hold the one, and abstain from the other? now as it is undoubted, that they are to hold fast that which upon trial appears to themselves to be good, not what appears to another: for to what purpose should they themselves trye, if they must hold what others think good, and not themselves? So for evil, they should abstain from what appears evil to themselves who try, not what so appears to others.

[Page]2. The absurdities which follow on this▪ that I must abstain from all that appears evil to another, seem great and unavoidable.

1. Because it would require an impossible task: For it is impossible for me to know what appears to another evil, sith I cannot know his thoughts, and therefore cannot discern what appears to him good o [...] evil: nor, if I could know somewhat that appears evil to another, is it possible for me to know all that so appears? and yet the Apostle requires me to abstain from all appearance of evil, and that without exception of any man. Which is made impossible, if understood of appearance to others in respect of the thing; abstaining from all that appears evil to another being impossible, without destroying our being, the eating of our meat, clothing of our bodies, and doing other necessaries for our subsistence, appearing evil to some or other, either out of ignorance, hatred, prejudice, superstition, envy, or some other malignant quality, though the thing we do were never so right.

2. That which Dr. Hammond in his Treatise of Scandal, p. 9, 10. observes, that appearance of evil is so uncertain and unconstant a thing, that to abstain from it universim, cannot be the matter of any possible command, and that which is of ill report with one, or of evil appearance to one, may be of good report, and appearance of good to a thousand others, is considerable. For then a person must either do nothing, or act that which is appearance of evil to some, when it appears good to others and to himself, which must of necessity create innumerable perplexities, or rather impossibilities, if the Apostles precept be so understood. Nor am I satisfied with what Mr. Jeans saith, This fear will quickly vanish and be discovered to be idle and vain, when anon we shall explain that distinction of appearance of evil into real and imaginary. For (besides that I conceive that no appearance of evil to another, can be said to be real, per se ex natura operis, from the nature and condition of the fact it self: when that of it self, and in its own nature, is a very probable sign of evil, as he explains it, p. 82. but that which is from actions of themselves sinful, and then we are not to abstain from them as appearances of evil, but as evil: all other appearances that are from actions lawful or indifferent, are but imaginary; that is, from others misconceits and censures thereupon, and so his distinction as to this thing, is rather to be accounted vain and idle, than the fear he mentions) were the distinction good, yet the fear will not quickly vanish nor be discovered to be idle and vain, sith if we must abstain from all appearance to others of our evil, we must [Page] abstain from all appearance of evil, whether it be real from the condition of our work of it self, or imaginary by accident through others interpretation, which must cause perplexities unavoidable without number.

Yea, 3. That may appear to be evil to others which is our necessary duty, as Christs doctrine and actions did to the Pharisees, the Apostles preaching to the Jews; yea, to good men, as Peters going in to Cornelius, Acts 11.1, 2. the Magistrates punishing some vices according to his duty, may seem evil to good Subjects, the obeying Laws of Governours, Commands of Parents and Masters do often seem evil to some that are sincere-hearted, but weak in judgment; yea, the necessary defence of truth may be opposed and appear as evil to godly, learned, and otherwise judicious Divines. If we must abstain from every appearance of evil to others we must abstain from these duties; Gods Laws will cross one another, and we must infringe or suspend one, or otherwise be necessitated to sin: Governours must revoke their Laws, and Subjects cease to obey Gods Laws; and so all confusion and Anarchy must follow.

Lastly, Were the precept so meant, that we must abstain from every thing of ours, which is an appearance of evil to another, our Christian liberty were evacuated; there being nothing we do which will not appear evil to some or other, and many things lawful and indifferent, will appear evil, even to the best. Its true there are many cases in which we are to forbear our liberty; of which, before Mr. Jeans his first Edition of his Treatise, I wrote in the fourth Chapter of my Book of Scandalizing, but the forbearance of our liberty I did not ascribe barely to the appearance of evil to others, but to the scandal; that is, ruine or harm to another consequent thereon. And to prevent the frequent abuse of the Text, 1 Thess. 5.22. I wrote thus, p 284. Lastly if it were granted that the Apostle for bids us to abstain from all that which appears to be evil to another, yet no Interpreter that I meet with, understands it of such appearance of evil, as is conceited to be such upon some erroneous principles in him that conceives it to be such: Or by reason of the meer phansie, or rigid austerity, or evil will, or such like cause of him that thinks it evil: but they usually apply it to such causes or signs of manifest evil, as are means of drawing to some notorious sin; as going to hear a Mass, which is a cause and sign of Idolatry; or wanton dalliance, which is a cause or sign of whoredom. And they apply hereto that saying of Julius [Page]Caesar, that Caesars wife should be free not only from evil, but also from the suspition of it. So that even in their intent this Scripture is not appliable to this purpose; as if the Apostle did prohibit a Christian to use any thing that another thought evil, whether he thought so upon probable reason or no reason, upon some ground or none. And to speak truth, the application of this Text in that manner, as it is by some, as if the Apostle did forbid us the use of any thing though in different in it self, when it appears as evil to another, without any further restraint, is very absurd and so unreasonable, as that it will bring a yoke upon mens consciences impossible to be born, sith there is scarce any thing a man can do, but some or other Infidel or Christian, weak or strong in the faith; Orthodox or Superstitious, will think it to be evil; that saying by experience being found true, quot homines tot sententiae, so many men, so many minds: nor shall a mans own Conscience only make a thing evil to him but the conscience of any other man in the World. Out of all which I gather, that the Ministers tenent or practice in receiving the Lords Supper kneeling, is not directly opposite to this positive precept, as being what hath an appearance of evil in it, unless it be in it self evil, or evil in their own opinion, or else a probable sign and cause of their adoration of the Papists Breaden god. Whereas this Author himself in this Chapter, p. 40. does not say, though some would say, that kneeling at the Lords Supper smells very strong of the Popish leven, and is but one peg beneath the adoration of their Breaden god. In answering which passage, sect. 2. of this Chapter, I shewed, that it could not be taken for such by any that will candidly and charitably interpret their actions, as for other reasons very clear and convincing, so from the words of the Rubrick at the end of the Communion, which I here subjoyn. Whereas it is ordained in this Office for the administration of the Lords Supper, that the Communicants should receive the same kneeling, (which Order is well meant, for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgement of the benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy r [...]ceivers, and for the avoiding such prophanation and disorder in the holy Communion as might otherwise ensue) yet, lest the same kneeling should by any persons, either out of ignorance and infirmity, or out of malice and obstinacy, be misconstrued and depraved; it is here declared, that thereby no adoration is intended or ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental Bread and Wine, there bodily received, or unto any corporal presence of Christs natural flesh and blood. For the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored (for that were Idolatry to[Page]be abhorred of all faithful Christians.) And the natural body and blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven, and not here; it being against the truth of Christs natural body, to be at one time in more places then one. Thus the Common Prayer Book. That which is said, that the receiving of the Lords Supper kneeling, is a gesture used by the Papists in the adoration of their Breaden god, is denied by Dr. John Burges in his Treatise of the lawfulness of kneeling in the act of receiving the Lords Supper, cap. 21. p. 67. & p. 479. of the Rejoynder, where he thus saith: With us the Bishops or Ministers communicate kneeling as well as the people: But with the Papists, the Pope, when himself performeth the office, receiveth sitting, as being a type of Christ, the Mass Priests receive standing reverently, by the Canon of the Mass: and for this he cites in the Margin, Ord. Rom. apud B [...]bl. Pat. Col. [...]om. 8. p. 390. Colum. 1. liter. [...]. edit. Colon. 1618. The People indeed receive it kneeling as we do, as did also the Priest, till such time as the Doctrine of Transubstantiation b [...]got the Canon of his standing, for fear of shedding ought. But I deny that kneeling in the very time of receiving, was ever in the Church of Rome any Rite of, or for adoration of the Sacrament it self, or any creature, and therefore not Idolatrous. I deny not the errour of their minds, concerning that they received into their mouths. But I deny, that they ever intended adoration of the species at that moment of time when they took it in their mouths: But then turned themselves to God rather, to give him thanks, which was not uncomely. Of which he gives three reasons. 1. Because it was never yet enjoyned by any Pope that they should then kneel. 2. In the Mass there is no direction for adoration of the Sacrament when it is received. 3. For that it is an incongruous thing in their superstition, to adore a thing which is not higher than their polls when they adore it, because they cannot be said to humble themselves to that which is lower than they can cast themselves. (To this last reason nothing is returned by Dr. Ames in his Triplic. ch. 4. p. 429. and Dallaeus adv. lat. cult. l. 9. c. 13. Id quod adoratur eo, à quo adoratur celsius ac sublimius aliquid esse debere insito à natura ipsa sensu omnes mortales confitentur, at (que) consentiunt.) To which is to be added, that kneeling is used according to the Common Prayer Book with Prayer to God, and at the receiving of the Wine as well as at the Bread, which are not so with the Papists, and therefore kneeling is not to be taken as adoration of the Bread, as the Papists do. And for that which is said, that the Lords Supper is to be received kneeling, is directly opposite to the practice of the Churches of Christ, for several hundred years after Christ, to the time of the invention and introduction of the Popish[Page]Breaden-god; it is denyed by the same Dr. Burges in that and other following Chapters, by the Bishop of Rochester, Paybody, and others, about which, and the judgment and practice of most of the reformed Churches at this day, it is not necessary that I should make inquiry; sith if it were so, yet it proves nor, that the present Ministers of England, do oppose the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ, by their submitting to kneeling at the Lords Supper.

Sect. 10. Forbidding to marry or eat flesh at certain times, are not characters of Apostates, as 1 Tim. 4.3. is meant.

It is added, What should I mention the Constitutions and Canons before pointed to, wherein 't is forbidden to any to Preach, not licensed by the Bishops thereunto, to marry or eat flesh at certain times, with many more of the like nature; all directly contrary to the soveraign edicts of Christ, and some of them evident characters of the last dayes Apostates, 1 Tim. 4.3. from whom Saints are warned by the Lord to turn aside, ver. 5. These we have produced, carry an undeniable evidence with them, that the present Ministers of England do own, submit, and subscribe to Orders and Ordinances, that are contrary to the revelation of Christ, and therefore deny his Prophetical and Kingly Office.

Answ. To that of forbidding to Preach, answer is made in the examining this Chapter Sect. 2. Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from flesh at certain times upon politick considerations, or for the better observing a religious Fast, are not characters of the Apostates, 1 Tim. 4.3. But may be justified by such passages of Scripture, as Jonah 3.7. Joel 2.16. 1 Cor. 7.5. Dan. 10.3. Nor do I think the most zealous Separatists, but would restrain from Marriage and Flesh, the members of their Churches, in the times of solemn Fasts, or would count it evil, that the Magistrate forbids for civil ends, abstinence from some kind of food; which being the case of the prohibitions of the Civil Laws of England, rather than the Canons of the Church, which make it not a sin against God to marry or eat flesh then, is unjustly made the character of Apostates, 1 Tim. 4.3. which is more justly charged on the Monks and Popish Votaries, who account it sinful to marry; as if it were unchastness, and more lawful to use Concubines than Wives for Priests; as if they joyned with Pope Siricius, terming such, persons in the flesh, and such as could not please God, and place more holiness in eating Fish than Flesh; which sort of people are very accurately proved to be there characterized by Mr. Joseph [Page]Mede in his Book of the Doctrine of Daemons; intituled, The Apostasie of the later times. That the present Ministers of England are such, or that precept which is (not 1 Tim. 4.5.) 2 Tim. 3.5. From such turn aside, belongs to them, is not proved by this Author, nor that they do own, submit, and subscribe to Orders and Ordinances that are contrary to the revelation of Christ, or deny his Prophetical and Kingly Office. French Protestants in the Synod of Charenton 1644. chap. 13. art. 24. The Church shall not solemnise marriage in the dayes on the which the Lords Supper is administred, nor on the dayes of a publick Fast. See this crimination retorted on the Separatists by Paget in his Arrow, ch. 6. sect. 3. p. 155. n. 5. Yet he hath not done with this Argument.

Sect. 11. No such Headship is owned by the present Ministers, as is a denial of Christs Offices.

To all that hitherto hath been offered in this matter, we shall yet add, as a further demonstration of the truth we are in the disquisition of. Arg. 3. Those that acknowledge another Head over the Church beside Christ, deny his Prophetical and Kingly Office: but the present Ministers of England do own and acknowledge another Head over the Church beside Christ: Therefore. If the assertion of another King in England, that as the Head thereof hath power of making, and giving forth Laws to the free-born Subjects therein, be a denial of his Kingly Authority (as no doubt it is) the major (or first Proposition) cannot be denied. If Christ be the alone King of his Church (as such) he is its alone Head and Lawgiver. If he hath not by any Statute-Law established any other Headship in, and over his Church, to act in the Holy things of God, from and under him, besides himself; who sees not the assertion of such an Headship, carries with it a contempt and denial of his Authority? If there be any such Headship of the Institution of Christ, let us know when and where it was instituted; whether such a Dominion and Soveraignty over the Subjects of his Kingdom, with respect to Worship, be granted by them to any of the sons of men, absolutely or conditionally: if the first, then must the Church (it seems) be governed by persons casting off the yoke of Christ, trampling upon his royal Commands and Edicts: for so it's possible it may fall out those that a [...]tain this Headship may do; as it's evident many Popes of Rome (the great pretenders hereunto) have done. If the second let one iota be produced from the Scripture, of the Institution of such an Headship, with the conditions annexed thereunto, and we shall be so far from denying of it, that we shall cheerfully pay,[Page]whatever respect, homage, or duty, by the Laws of God or Man, may righteously be expected from us. But this will not, we humbly conceive, in hast be performed; and that because 1. The Scripture makes mention of no other Head, in and over the Church, but Christ, Ephes. 1.22. & 5.23, 29 2 Cor. 11.2. 2. If there be any other Head, he must either be within or without the Church: The latter will not be affirmed; Christ had not sure so little respect unto his flock, as to appoint Wolves and Lions to be their Governours and Guides in matters Ecclesiastical, nor can the former; for all in the Church, are Brethren, have no dominion over each others Faith or Conscience, Luke 22.25. 3. If any other be Head of the Church but Christ, then is the Church the Body of some others besides Christ: but this is absurd and false, not to say impious and blasphemous. 4. There was no Head of the Church in the Apostles dayes, but Christ. 5. If any be Head of the Church beside Christ, they either have their Headship from an Original Right seated in themselves; or by donation from Christ. To assert the first, were no less then blasphemy; if the second, let them shew when, and where, and how they came to be invested in such a right, and this Controversie will be at an end. 6. He that is asserted in Scripture to be the Head of the Church, is said to govern, feed, and nourish it to eternall life, is her Spouse and Husband, 2 Cor. 11.2. In which sense, none of the Sons of men, one or other, can be the Head thereof; and yet of any other Head, the Scripture is wholly silent. But of this matter thus far. It cannot by any sober person be denied, but an owning of a visible Head over the Church, having power of making and giving forth Laws with respect to Worship (such an Headship not being of the institution of Christ) must needs be a denial of his Soveraign Authority and Power.

Answ. This Author in this Argument, seems to me, to hide his meaning, as they say the Fish Saepia doth, by casting out some black colour, whereby the water is infected, and she not discerned. A Headship over the Church besides Christ's, he makes the present Ministers to acknowledge in some of the sons of men, but who they are he means, what the Headship is, and how it is opposite to Christs Kingly and Prophetical Office, is not plainly expressed; nor in what Subscription, Oath, or Conformity they own, and submit to it. Headship is a Metaphor, and sometime notes Origination, vital influence, direction or guidance, superiority, power, authority, or government, which may be in many things. No Minister I think gives such a Headship to any of the sons of men, as to Christ over his whole Body, either so as to derive their being members, having their faith, or eternal life, or dominion over their Consciences, or Sovereign power, authority to rule or dispose [Page] of soul or body, as Christ hath: And that which the Bishop of Rome claims over the Universal Church, is utterly disclaimed by the present Ministers. The Headship which is made a denial of Christs Headship, ascribed by the present Ministers to some person on Earth, is expressed in various phrases; A Headship in, and over his Church, to act in the Holy things of God, a Dominion and Soveraignty over the Subjects of Christs Kingdom, with respect to Worship, a visible head over the Church having power of making and giving forth Laws with respect to Worship; which it's said they own by conformity in Worship to Laws and Edicts, made and given forth by the sons of men, as Heads and Governours of the Church, th [...]y own an Headship; that is, not in all things subordinate to Christ, having a a Law making and Law-giving power touching Institutions of Worship, that never came into his heart, Headship over the Church to make Laws, introduce Constitutions of their own framing in matters relating to Worship. This can be conceived to be ascribed by the present Ministers to no other than the Bishops, or Convocation, or the King, whose Supremacy in Causes Spiritual or Ecclesiastical, seems to be that Headship here meant by the answer to the second Objection. What Headship is ascribed to the Bishops, or Convocation, in making Laws or Constitutions about Worship, to wit, the accidentals thereof undetermined, in order to the orderly decent performance of it to edification by the present Ministers, hath been examined all along in the answer to this Book, specially to the 4. and 5. Chapters, Sect. 3. and as yet no such Headship is proved by this Author to be ascribed by the present Ministers, as amounts to a denial of the Prophetical and Kingly Offices of Christ: that the taking of the Oath of the Kings Supremacie, or submission to his Edicts about matters of Worship, is not owning such a Headship, is further to be cleared. And first I deny his major, That those who acknowledge another Head over the Church beside Christ, by acknowledging the King as Supream Governour in Causes Ecclesiastical or Spiritual (as the Oath of Supremacy is proved by me in my Book of the Serious Consideration of the Oath of the Kings Supremacy, ought to be understood) particularly that he, or with him the Bishops or Convocation, may make Laws or Constitutions in the accidentals of Worship undetermined in Scripture, observing the rules of Order, Decency, Edification, deny Christs Prophetical and Kingly Office: and to the proofs of it, I answer: This Author doth most injuriously suppose the power and authority asserted to the King of England in the Oath of Supremacie, to make Laws or Canons about the Worship of God with the Counsel of a Synod, or [Page] Convocation, or Parliament, is making another King besides Christ over his Church. For there is no such thing acknowledged thereby, which is proper to Christ; to wit, to be the universal Monarch of the whole Church, to prescribe what Faith or Worship shall be given to God, to be Infallible Interpreter of Gods Will, and the Supreme Judge and Lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy; or which is arrogated by the Popes of Rome, and thus acknowledged by Hart the Jesuite, in his Conference with Dr. John Rainold in the Tower of London, ch. 1. div. 2. in these words. The power which we mean to the Pope by this title of the Supream Head is, that the Government of the whole Church of Christ throughout the World doth depend of him: in him doth lye the power of judging and determining all causes of Faith; of ruling Councils, as President, and ratifying their Decrees; of Ordering and Confirming Bishops and Pastors; of deciding Causes brought him by Appeals from all the coasts of the Earth; of reconciling any that are excommunicate; of excommunicating, suspending, or inflicting other censures and penalties on any that offend, yea, on Princes and Nations; Finally of all things of the like sort for governing of the Church, even whatsoever toucheth either Preaching of Doctrine, or practising of Discipline in the Church of Christ. Which his practice sheweth to be such as to dispense with the Laws of God, as by legitimating incestuous Marriages, releasing of lawful Oaths, granting Indulgences, releasing out of Purgatory, Canonizing of Saints, Consecrating of things for the expulsion of Devils, with many more; and i [...] it be true which is related in a Book lately printed, to have been asserted by the party of Jesuites in the Colledge of Clermont in France, that the Pope is not only infallible in matters of Faith, but also in matters of Fact, he is elevated to that height as to accomplish the prophesie which is, 2 Thess. 2.4. But the present Ministers of England do abhorr the giving such power to the King, Bishops, or Convocation; yea, it is disclaimed by the King, Bishops, and Convocation, as blasphemous; and that power they ascribe to the Church, is set down in the 34. Article of Religion, Every particular or National Church hath authority to Ordain, Change, and abolish Ceremonies, or Rites of the Church, Ordained only by mans authority, so that all things be done to edifying. And that which they acknowledge belonging to the King as the only Supreme Governour of the Realm of England, and of all other his Highness Dominions and Countries, as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or Causes as temporal, is thus explained: Artic. 37. We give not to our Princes the Ministring either of Gods Word, or of the Sacraments; the which thing the Injunctions also [Page]lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen do most plainly testifie: but that only Prerogative, which we see to have been given alwayes to all godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himself, that is that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and restrain with the civil Sword the stubborn and evil Doers. Which is so far from being no other than the Headship pleaded for by the Church of Rome, (as this Author saith, p. 47.) that to shew the calumny of it, I need use no other words than those of Dr. John Owen in his answer to a Popish Book, entituled, Fiat Lux, ch. 13. p. 271. The Declaration made in the dayes of King Henry the 8. that he was Head of the Church of England, intended no more, but that there was no other person in the World from whom any Jurisdiction to be exercised in this Church over his Subjects might be derived, the Supream Authority for all exteriour Government being vested in him alone; that this should be so, the Word of God, the Nature of the Kingly Office, and the ancient Laws of this Realm, do require. And I challenge our Author to produce any one testimony of Scripture, or any one word out of any general Council, or any one Catholick Father or Writer to give the least Countenance to his assertion of two Heads of the Church in his sense; an Head of Influence, which is Jesus himself; and an Head of Government, which is the Pope, in whom all the sacred Hierarchy ends: This taking of one half of Christs Rule and Headship out of his hand, and giving it to the Pope, will not be salved by that expression thrust in by the way under him; For the Headship of Influence, is distinctly ascribed unto Christ; and that of Government, to the Pope; which evidently asserts, that he is not in the same manner Head unto his Church in both senses, but he in the one, and the Pope in the other. I add that Mr. Philip Nye in his Book of the lawfulness of the Oath of Supremacy, and power of the Civil Magistrate in Ecclesiastical affairs and subordination of Churches thereunto, Printed 1662. though not published, hath these words, p. 46. For Persons and Causes Spiritual or Ecclesiastical, that are properly and indeed such; as first Table-duties, which contain matters of Faith and Holiness, and what conduceth to the eternal welfare of mens souls: an interest and duty there is in the Civil Magistrate more su [...], to give Commands, and exercise Lawful Jurisdiction about things of that nature. And for Persons, there is no man for his graces so spiritual, or in respect of his g [...]fts and Office, so eminent, but he is under the Government of the Civil Powers in the place where he lives, as much in all respects as any other subject. Yea, in the Apology of the Brownists, Printed 1604. these words are alledged for their common defence out of [Page] the Letter of Henry Barrow to a Lady; 1593. p. 92. I have every where in my writings acknowledged, all duty and obedience to her Majesties government, as to the sacred Ordinance of God, the Supreme Power he hath set over all causes and persons, whether Ecclesiastical or Civil, within her Dominions. Out of these things I infer, that asserting the Kings Supremacy, or the power of making Laws owned by the Ministers of England, is not making another King besides Christ over his Church, nor ascribing such a Headship to the King, or Governours of the Church, as is pleaded for by the Church of Rome; and that for the Kings Supremacy, those that dissent about Ceremonies and Church Government do acknowledge it as it is meant in the Oath taken by the Ministers. Concerning which Supremacy, if what I have written in the little Treatise Printed 1660. intituled, A serious consideration of the Oath of the Kings Supremncy, in the proof of the fourth and fifth Propositions, be not sufficient to produce from the Scripture, the institution of such an Headship with the conditions annexed thereunto; methinks Dr. Rainold his argument, which convinced Hart in the conference with him, ch. 10. div. 1. and such other writings as have been written by Bilson, Mason, Bramhall, and many more, should have prevented this calumny of making thereby another head besides Christ equivalent to a denial of his Kingly Office. And to his Objections, I answer, 1. to the first, That we use not the title of Head, but Supreme Governour; yet when it was used, it meaning the same, it might be used as it was given to Saul, 1 Sam. 15.17. though not as it it is given to Christ, Ephes. 1.22. and 5.23, 29 2 Cor. 11.2. Nor is the title of Head so appropriate to Christ, but that it is given to the Man over the Woman, 1 Cor. 11.3. to the Husband over the Wife, Ephes. 5.23. and may, in a qualified sense in respect of Government, be given to the King over the Church in his Dominions, as to Saul, 1 Sam. 15.17. to the chief of Families, as Parents or others of greatest authority or esteem; as the heads of houses, Exod. 6.14. in which sense Parliament men, Judges, Ecclesiastical Governours, may be termed Heads of the Church or State they represent, or are subject to them. To the second, though all in the Church are Brethren, have no dominion o [...] authority over each others faith or conscience; yet neither are all equal in the Church, nor doth Luke 22.25. prove it. The Apostles sure had power over the members of the Church to command, 1 Cor. 7.10. to give orders, 1 Cor. 16.1. to judge, 1 Cor. 5.3. though no superiority over one another. And though [Page] the King, and Bishops, or Convocation are Brethren; yet are they Superiours, Rulers, Rom. 13.1. Heb. 13.17. and though they have no dominion or authority over each others faith or conscience, so as that their Laws shall bind the conscience immediately, and must be obeyed as precisely and fully, as the Laws of God and Christ; yet their Laws, Edicts, Commands, Canons, or Rules, even in the worship of God, in things undetermined by God, and according to such Rules, as the Scripture directs them to observe, bind in some sort the conscience; as the commands of Parents and Masters by virtue of the authority given them by God, Rom. 13.5. 1 Peter 2.13, 14, 16, 18, 19. though not in respect of the things commanded by them. To the third, the Church is not the body of any other than Christ as joyned to any, or depending on any, or subject to any absolutely as unto Christ; yet may particular Churches in respect of that Ministration and Government which their Governours afford them, be said to be the bodies of their Governors, as a wife is in some r [...]spect the body of her husband, Ephes. 5, 28. nor is there any impiety or blasphemy in so saying: And in this sense the Apostles and Bishops or Elders, were heads of the Church in the Apostles dayes, which answers the fourth. To the fifth, their Headship is by donation from Christ in the places often alledged; and in answer to the sixth, though not as Christ is termed the Husband of Believers, 2 Cor. 11.2. can any be termed Husband, nor to govern, feed and nourish to eternal life, as Christ by influence of his Spirit, or power to give eternal life, 1 Cor. 6 17. John 17.2. nor their Father, as God is said to be Ephes. 4.6. 1 Cor. 8.6. Jam. 1.18. Joh. 1.13. yet the Apostles and all others may be in a qualified sense, who are instruments to convert or build up others by the Word or Discipline, be termed their Fathers in Christ, 1 Cor. 4 15. and to govern, feed, and nourish them to eternal life, as 1 Thess. 2.7, 11. the Apostle saith of himself: Whence I conclude, in answer to his major, that notwithstanding what he hath said, it may by a sober person be denyed, that an owning of a visible head, or heads over the Church, having power of making and giving forth Laws with respect to worship, as the King, Parliament, Bishops, or Convocation do, may be no denial of Christs Soveraign authority and power. Lets view that which remains.

Sect. 12. Conformity to Laws opposite to Christ's, proves not owning another King coordinate to him.

[Page]

That (saith he) the present Ministers of England do own and submit to such an Headship, is undeniable: witness their Subscription, Oath, Conformity in Worship, to Laws and Edicts, made and given forth by the sons of men, as Heads and Governours of the Church; which are not onely foreign to, but (as hath been already demonstrated) lift up themselves in opposition against the royal institutions of Christ. This being matter of fact, the Individuals charged herewith, must either acquit themselves by a denial of what they are impleaded as guilty, or prove what they do is not criminous, but lawful to be done. The former being too notoriously known to admit of a denial, 'tis the latter must be insisted on: what is therein offered, is nextly to be considered.

Answ. Though I cannot justifie all that the present Ministers of England do in their Subscriptions, and Conformity, as if it were no way criminous, but in every thing lawful to be done; nor perhaps will all of them plead so for themselves, as being mindful of the Psalmists words, Psal. 19.12. Who can understand his errours? cleanse thou me from secret faults. Yet for the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance, which are the only Oaths I know they have taken, as I have, so I do still plead, that the taking of them is not criminous, but may be lawfully done. And I further say, that were it yielded that the Laws and Edicts made and given forth by those sons of men, he means, as Heads and Governours of the Church, not only foreign to but (which I utterly deny he hath demonstrated) that they lift up themselves in opposition against the royal Institutions of Christ, yet might the Ministers be free from that which he chargeth them with, as denying Christs Kingly Office, and setting up another King besides Christ, as his Peer; sith it is clear, that such Conformity and Subscription may be out of weakness or errour, not out of Faction or Rebellion; nor doth he who conforms or subscribes to the Laws or Edicts of an Usurper own his power, when he yields subjection to his commands. Those who obeyed the Laws of Richard the 3. of England, did not thereby acknowledge him to be the King of right: nor do all that submit to the decrees of the Trent Council, or the Popes Edicts, either own the one or the other as being just, or the power as rightly claimed: but for peace sake submit to what they cannot remedy.

Sect. 13. Headship of the Church under Christ, is not monstrous.

[Page]

It is added: This is that some say, Obj. 1. That they acknowledge another Head besides Christ, cannot indeed be denied: but the Headship owned and acknowledged by them, is an Headship only under Christ. To which we answer: Answ. 1. But this Headship is either of Christs appointment, or 'tis not: if it be, let it be shewn where it was instituted by him, and (as we said) this controversie is at an end: if it be not, the assertion of such an Headship, even in subordination to Christ over his Churches as such, hinders not; but persons owning, submitting thereunto, are guilty of denying the Kingly Office of Christ. 2. The Headship pleaded for by the Church of Rome, is no other. 3. 'Tis not so, as is pretended, they own an Headship that is not in all things subordinate to Christ, having a Law-making, and Law-giving power touching institutions of Worship, that never came into his heart, are flatly against his appointments, as hath been proved. 4. One Head in subordination to another, doth as really make the Body a Monster, as two Heads conjoined.

Answ. 1. The term [Head of the Church] is not used in the Oath of Supremacy, but Supreme Governour; and this is agreeable to Scripture, Rom. 13.1. 1 Tim. 2.2. 1 Pet. 2.13. and how out of these and other Scriptures, his Government is proved in that sense, in which it is asserted by the Ministers, is shewed by me in my Book of the serious consideration of the Oath of the Kings Supremacy in the proof of the fourth and fifth Propositions; and if the Church as the Church be comprised under every soul, Rom. 13.1. they are Governours of the Church as the Church; that is, as they are a Company of m [...]n that profess Faith in Christ. Not as if we acknowledged that Kings had a lawful power to prescribe another Faith or Worship besides Christs; but as Physitians are said to be subject to the King as Physitians, because he can prescribe rules with penalties in the use of that Art they practise, according to Hippocrates his Aphorisms; so the King is Governour over the Church as such, by prescribing rules about the profession and exercise of that Faith and Worship they learn only from Christ, in things undetermined by him, and serving for the ends which they are to aim at. Nor do I perceive that in so doing any more i [...] usurped by them, than is ascribed by this Author unto the Church, from Mat. 18.17, 18. mistaken by him; and therefore owning such a power under Christ, as given to the Church, is as much a denial of Christs Kingly Office, as when it is given to the King; yea, [Page] it is more absurd to ascribe such a power to the Church over the Church as such, than to ascribe it to the King; it being a confounding of Governours and Governed, Head and Body, which were monstrous. 2. Though I deny not that the Headship pleaded for by the Church of Rome, is pretended to be under Christ, and the Pope terms himself Vicar of Christ; yet it is in the foregoing Section shewed, that they usurp a power not only equal, but in some respects rather superiour to Christs, in their dispensing with the keeping of lawful Oaths, and allowing of incestuous Marriages, none of which is claimed by those whom the Ministers acknowledge as Heads besides Christ; and therefore it is false, that the Headship pleaded for by the Church of Rome, is no other than what the Ministers own. 3. His proofs have been examined before, and shewed defective. 4. The terms Head and Body being used only metaphorically; there's no more monstrosity in making a Head under a Head, than in making a Governour under a Governour, used by St. Peter 1 Epist 2.13, 14. or making more Fathers of the Church one under another.

Sect. 14. The Kings Supremacy is such as was allowed the Kings of Israel.

He ends this Chapter thus. If it be said, Object. 2. That the Kings of Israel were the Heads successively, of the then Church; and therefore a visible Headship over the Churches of Christ in the New Testament is lawful. We answer, 1. That betwixt the Oeconomy of the Law and Gospel, there is a vast disproportion; many things were lawful in that day, which to do, or subject to now, were no less than a denial of Christ come in the flesh. 2. The Kings of Israel were types of Christ. 3. That the Kings of Israel were Heads of the Church, is false. God was its alone Head and King. Hence their Historian saith, their Government was [...], and when they would needs chuse a King, God said, they rejected him to whom even as to their political Head, a Sicle was paid yearly as a Tribute, called, The Sicle of the Sanctuary. True indeed, as they were a political Body, they had visible Political Governours, who when they ceased, their Policy was at an end; but that these had any Headship over them to make any Laws, introduce Constitutions of their own framing in matters relating to Worship, will never be proved.

Answ. 1. That there is any such disproportion between the Oeconomy of the Law and Gospel, as makes the same power, which the Kings of Israel exercised lawfully, to be now unlawful to the [Page] Kings of England, is falsely and vainly asserted; sith there is nothing therein ceremonial and temporary, peculiar to the Jewish Oeconomy, as appears in that all Nations have ascribed to their chief Rulers dominion about things sacred, as is proved by me in the Assertion of the fifth Proposition in my Book of the Serious Consideration of the Oath of the Kings Supremacy, from that which is ascribed to Cyrus, Isa. 44.28. and 45.1. to the King of Niniveh, Jon. 3.7, 8. and others, Ezra 6.7, &c. and 7.13. &c. Dan. 3.29. & 6.26. and that Christianity alters not civil relations or Estates, 1 Cor, 7.24. Parents and Masters have the like power, Ephes. 6.4, 5. Gen. 35.2, 4. which things are more fully vindicated by Mr. Selden in his first Book De Syned. Hugo Grotius in his Book De Imperio summarum potestatum circa sacra, and others. 2. It is true, that David is made a type of Christ, but that all the Kings of Judah, much less, that all the Kings of Israel are made types of Christ; or that Christ alone was to have that power which they used, or that the Kingly Power used by them, ceased upon the coming of Christ in the flesh, are all most palpably false; sith the Scriptures of the New Testament do plentifully assert the Dominion of Civil Powers, and our Lord Christ himself, and his Apostles yielded subjection to them. 3. That the Church of Israel was different from the Kingdom or people of Israel, is one of the Placita or proper opinions of those who would establish from that example an Ecclesiastical Independent Government in the Church distinct from the Civil Government of the State. But neither the arguments of Mr. Gillespy in his Aarons Rod blossoming, Book 1. c. 3. nor any other I have met with, convince me that it was so. Sure both David and Solomon, and other Kings did exercise power over Ecclesiastical persons, as in deposing Abiathar; and in Ecclesiastical things, about keeping the Passover, 2 Chron. 29.30. & 30.2. and many other things, which were approved by God, being related in the holy Story without reproof, as arguments of their integrity. And therefore if the Kings of Israel were, as it is said of Saul, 1 Sam. 15.17. heads of the tribes of Israel, they were also heads of the Church of Israel, being Governours of the same persons, whether of the tribe of Levi, or of other tribes, and about the same things, to wit, those of the Worship of God, though they were not to meddle with the peculiar Ministry of the Priests and Levites. It is true, that God alone was the Head and King of the Church of Israel in some sense. He was their sole, supreme, absolute King, that had power Legislative to assign what Faith, Worship, Judicatories, and what other things were necessary for that Congregation, originally and [Page] of himself de jure communi, of right common to all Nations, as their Creatour; and de jure speciali, out of right peculiar to that people, as being brought forth out of the Land of Egypt, Lev. 25.55. and being joyned in Covenant with him, were not to set up a King over them without his appointment; and de facto, he was actually their sole King (till the people weary of Samuels Government, because of his sons iniquity, and out of fear of Nahash King of the Ammonites, desired a King as other Nations) because Moses, Joshuah, and all the Judges were immediately chosen by God, and raised up extraordinarily for a time to do special services without ordinary succession; and accordingly acted and ruled by extraordinary immediate motions and revelations from God; in which respects the Government of the Israelites before Sauls reign, was not unfitly termed by Josephus [...], Gods rule; and when they would needs chuse a King, or have Samuel to make them a King to judge them like all the Nations, 1 Sam. 8.5, 19, 20. God said they rejected him, that he should not reign over them, v. 17. where the desire of having a King is not simply condemned as unlawful, nor because they desired a K [...]ng over the Church as such; as if they might lawfully enough have desired a King over them as a political Head, but not as Head of the Church as such; for neither is there any intimation of any such limitation of their desire; but on the contrary, they desired that they might also be like all the Nations, and that their King might judge them, and go out before them and fight their Battels, 1 Sam. 18.20. Nor is there the least hint of any reprehension of their desire, that they would have a King over them, as a Church, to appoint them Religion and Worship as other people; neither was it spoken that they rejected God, as though the Lord did not reign where there is set up a Monarchical Government; for it is Gods Ordinance, and Kings have their power and authority from him, according to that, Prov. 8.15, 16. By me Kings reign, and Princes decree justice, &c. and they are his Deputies and Lieutenants, by whom he ruleth. In which regard the people might have lawfully desired a King, if they had done it with upright hearts o [...] lawful grounds to good and warrantable ends, in a right manner, and in due time For the Lord had promised, that when they were settled in the Land of Canaan, he would (when he thought good) set a King over them, out of whose loyns the Messiah should come, and also sheweth how he would have him qualified, and what he required of him, Deut. 17.17, 18. and he had promised unto Abraham, that Kings should come out of him, Gen. 17.6. And Jacob in his prophetical blessing saith, That the Scepter should not depart from Judah, nor a Lawgiver[Page]from between his feet, until Shiloh did come, i. e. the Messias, Gen 49.10. And David speaking of himself as a type of Christ, saith Psal. 2.6. Yet have I set my King upon my holy hill of Zion. And therefore this is not simply condemned as a sin in it self to desire a King; but because they did it with an ill mind, affecting innovation, as being weary of Gods Government which he had established, till himself pleased to change it; and in a pr [...]posterous and tumultuous manner, before he had given any intimation of his pleasure, and to a wrong and evil end, that they might be like to the Heathen Nations; and out of their confidence in a King, as able to protect them; and their diffidence in God, as insufficient to defend them in his own way, unless he would be directed in a course of their prescribing; and finally, because they would not wait upon him for the accomplishment of his word in his own due time, but with all importunity press him to do at their own pleasure. Thus the Assembly Annotations. Whence the impertinency of the allegation of this Text either against Kingly Government, or their Headship over the Church is manifested. No [...] is it more to the purpose which is added, that to God even as to their political Head, a sicle was paid yearly as a tribute, called the sicle of the sanctuary. For 1. If this payment be meant of that which is mentioned, Exod. 30.12, 13, 14, 15, 16. it doth not appear by the Text, that it was a yearly tribute paid to God as their political Head; but a Tax put on them when Moses took the summ of the children of Israel after their number, then they should give every man a ransome for his soul unto the Lord when he numbred them, that there might be no Plague among them; half a shekel after the shekel of the sanctuary, the offering of the Lord to make an attonement for the souls, which he was to appoint for the service of the tabernacle of the Congregation, that it might be a memorial unto the children of Israel. But if it be yielded that it was after made a yearly tribute, as the Jewish Doctors say, and a perpetual Ordinance according to what Mr. Ainsworth on Exod. 30 16. out of Maimony cites, and that it continued so till the destruction of Jerusalem, as Josephus relates in Book 7. ch. 28. of the Jewish War; yet this proves not, that it was paid to God under that notion as to their political Head. It is true, that the tribute or custome called Didrachma, that is, shekels mentioned Mat. 17.24, 25. is conceived by very many learned men to be that which was paid to the Lord for the use of the Temple as a tribute to him; which is largely argued by Cameron in his praelections on that Text, with whom Diodate, Hugo Grotius, Dr. Hammond concurr; and before them Hilarius cited by Maldonat, who thinks it was paid to the Romans, and cites Hierome, Bede, and of [Page] this mind are many others, as Beza, Piscator, Pareus. But if Camerons opinion were certain, yet it may seem rather to be paid to God as Head of the Church, then as a political Head, as this Author speaks; sith it was paid for the service of the Temple. 2. Were that which this Author saith, granted him, it should rather se [...]ve against him than for him. For if it were paid to God as their Political Head, it rather proves God to be the alone political Head, and so against that which he saith, [true indeed, as they were a political Body, they had visible, political Governours, who when they ceased, their policy was at an end] than that God was the Churches alone Head and King, and that it is false that the Kings of Israel were Heads of the Church; and therefore his sayings do interfer: That the Kings of Israel had a Headship over them to make Laws, introduce Constitutions of their own framing in matters relating to Worship, is conceived to be proved from 2 Chron. 20.3, 21. & 29.27. & 30.1, 2, 4, 5, 23. & 31.2, 3. with many more, which I find not yet to be enervated by the Answers I have met with. I proceed to examine that which follows.

CHAP. 6. ARG. 5.

Sect. 1. False doctrine only makes a false Prophet not to be heard.

HE thus writes, Argument 5. Those who have the characters and properties of false Prophets and Priests upon them, are not to be heard but separated from: But the present Ministers of England have the characters of false Prophets and Priests upon them: Therefore. The major (or first Proposition) stands upon too firm a basis to be quickly removed: nor will any attempt so to do, Christ having charged his to beware of such, Mat. 7.15. to take heed that none deceive them, Mat. 24 4, 5, 23, 24, 25. not to believe every spirit, but to try the spirits, because many false Prophets are gone out in the world, 1 Joh. 4.1. not to receive such into their houses, 2 Joh. 10.11 to watch against them, Acts 20.29, 30, 31. with much more that might be said (if needful) for its confirmation, is a sufficient evidence of the truth thereof. But herein the parties litigant are at a perfect agreement.

Answ. It is true the major is yielded, if the hearing be meant of hearing them of choice or▪ with reception, and separation from them in respect of that, wherein they are false Prophets and Priests. But if it should fall out, that one that should as Balaam at one time prophesie as he did, Numb. 23. and 24. at another [Page] time through his counsel cause the committing of a trespass against the Lord, as in the matter of Peor, Numb. 31.16. hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balack to cast a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto Idols, and to commit fornication, Rev. 2.14. or as Caiaphas being high Priest that year, at one time prophesie that Jesus should die for that Nation, and not for that Nation only▪ but that also he should gather together in one the children of God, that were scattered abroad. Joh. 11.51, 52. At another time say, that Christ had spoken blasphemy, Mat. 26 65. Such a one may be heard & joyned with in the former, though not in the latter. Whence it follows, that it is not the Character or property of the man, who is a false Prophet, or a false Priest, that is the reason, why he is not to be heard, or is to be separated from; but his false doctrine, and his evil counsel, whereby he seeks to thrust us away from the Lord our God, Deut. 13.2, 6, 10. or the damnable heresies denying the Lord that bought them, as it is 2 Pet. 2.1. turning the grace of God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ, Jude 4. that do denominate them false Prophets or false Priests, and bind us to a refusal of hearing them, or joyning with them in that Communion, in which we cannot partake without fellowship in their errour, false Worship, or other sin. And this is it, which is to be collected from the Texts alledged; not that we are to refuse to hear persons, or separate from them because of their personal vices, or irregular obtruding themselves into their places; but in respect of their pernicious Doctrine, and impious Worship, by which we are in danger to be ensnared and defiled. We are bidden, Beware of false Prophets, Mat. 7.15. but no where is any called a false Prophet, but from his false Doctrine. And therefore though his counterfeit shews of Piety be mentioned as the bait to catch men, yet the false doctrine is the hook they are to beware of; as in like manner St. Paul warns, Rom. 16.17, 18. and St. Peter, 2 Pet. 2.1, 2, 3. And thus in the places cited, where Christ bids take heed that no man deceive them; he alledgeth the reason: For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ, and shall deceive many, Mat. 24.4, 5. and v. 23. If any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there: believe it not, for there shall arise false Christs, and false Prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch that (if it were possible) they shall deceive the very Elect, v. 24. the false Prophets that were gone out into the world, 1 Joh. 4.1. were they that confessed not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, v. 3. the person not to be received into house, 2 Joh. 10.11. is he that brought not the doctrine of Christ, v. 9. that confessed not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, [Page]who is the Deceiver and Antichrist, v. 7. those that the Ephesian Elders were to watch against, Acts 20 31. were grievous wolves that should enter in among them, not sparing the flock; and men arising of their own selves, speaking perverse things to draw away Disciples after them, v. 29, 30. And thus farr I agree to the major; let us see how he proves the Ministers to be such.

Sect. 2. The Ministers not false Prophets, because not sent, as Jer. 23.21. Rom. 10.15. is meant.

'Tis the minor Proposition, saith he, that is judged by some to come short of a sufficient substraction, viz. That the present Ministers of England have the properties and characters of false Prophets and Priests upon them. This we doubt not, by a serious observation of the characters are given of such in the Scriptures by the Holy Ghost, will to any ordinary understanding be made exceeding perspicuous and evident, The signal characters of whom are, 1. That they run before they are sent, Jer. 23.21. That a mission from the Lord is of the essence of a lawful Ministry; that whoever wants such a mission is no officer of Christ, but a false Prophet, and Minister of Antichrist, may hence rationally, at least by way of Analogy, be deduced, is evident: which also exactly accords with what is asserted by the Apostle, Rom. 10.15. That the present Ministers of England want such a mission, hath already been demonstrated, and we shall not actum agere. In a word, when it shall be proved that they have received their authority from Christ, either immediately or mediately, from any rightly constituted Church of Christ, or by succession from the Church in the Wilderness, we shall acknowledge them to be Ministers of Christ, and look upon our selves as obliged to pay them all honour and duty, that as such, we are charged in Scripture to do: But if they have nothing else to plead for themselves but what is usually instanced in by them, a succession from the Church of Rome: That Apostate Church having lost her Churchship, and therewith all lawful power for the sending forth Officers into the Churches of Christ, we shall not fear to say, That they are such as are characterized here by the Prophet, persons that run before they are sent.

Answ. A man that meant honestly, and had any spark of charity, justice, or ingenuity, would not charge so deeply the whole order of men throughout a Nation containing many thousands of men of years, breeding, parts, and by reason of their Calling to be reverenced; and some of them, by his own Confession, good men; as being false Prophets, who by the Law of Moses, Deut. 13.5. were [Page] to die, and as false Priests without some irrefragable proof, unless he had learned that accursed art of him in Terence, Calumniare audacter, aliquid haerebit; or having once past the bounds of modesty were resolved to be gnaviter impudens. But I must confess, that however he thinks, that by a serious observation of the characters, which are given in the Scriptures by the Holy Ghost, it will be made exceeding perspicuous and evident; yet to my understanding he hath made neither of his charges perspicuous or evident in any degree. For,

1. His charge is against all the present Ministers of England, and therefore his proof should have been of that, which all, even the best of them are guilty of, taken from that which they all unanimously agree in and practice; and not from things which may perhaps be personally objected against some, but not against the whole order.

2. The Characters which he gives should have been such as are convertible, so as that it may be truly said, all that have these Characters are false Prophets and false Priests, and all false Prophets and false Priests have them.

3. He should have told us, whether each of these is convertible, or all of them, if not which they might have and not be false Prophets.

4. His proof being of matter of fact, should have better testimony then his own assertion or interrogations, that may be denied.

5. His Characters are such as perhaps the Ministers may tell him, Physitian heal thy self, Novimus & qui te— We can prove, if not the same, yet as bad Characters or properties of false Prophets, or false Priests in those you allow to be heard even in your Instituted Churches, though we rake not up out of the ashes what was charged on the Brownists of old, or of late by Edwards, Bailey, and others on the Independents.

6. That which is the chief Character of a false Prophet, 2 Pet▪ 2.1. and other passages before recited, the bringing in damnable Heresies, denying the Lord that bought them, is wholly omitted, without which, what else he chargeth them with, will be insufficient to prove them false Prophets, or to warrant the refusal of hearing them: But will occasion the Ministers to charge him with the Schism of Donatists of confining the Church and Ministry to their party, and if these things be done with a factious unquiet spirit (as they take them to be) tending to hinder the good of souls in not embracing their Ministry, and the peace of [Page] both Church and State: with a fury like that of the Circumcellions, or at least an humour of reviling or uncharitable censuring. But whatever were the Authors motives, I shall examine them as they are presented, because this argument (if it were made good) is instar omnium, and the only genuine reason, why the present Ministers should not be heard.

For the first, I grant that Jerem. 23 21. is a signal character of a false Prophet, and that a mission from the Lord is of the essence of a lawful Ministry, that whoever wants such a mission, is no Officer of Christ, but a false Prophet and Minister of Antichrist; and that this exactly accords with what is asserted by the Apostle, Rom. 10.15. But I deny,

1. That by the sending here is meant the mediate regular outward calling.

2. That the regular outward mediate calling is only from a rightly constituted Church of Christ in his sense; that is, after the Congregational way, or by succession from the Church in the wilderness; that is, such as have been separated from the Church of Rome after its Apostasie.

3. That either an immediate, or such a mediate mission, are of the essence of a lawful Minister.

4. That any of these can any way be deduced from Jer. 23.21. or Rom. 10.15.

5. I say, it is contrary to his own grant ch. 2. to make an outward mission of the essence of a lawful Minister, sith he expresly allows gifted Brethren, who have not such mission, to Preach, and to be heard. As for inward immediate calling, he is no judge of it; and it may be as well acknowledged in the Ministers, as in his Gifted Brethren. As for the Texts, it is clear from the text it self, that their running before they were sent, was in that they Preached in Gods name, what he did not command or deliver to them; so that their false Prophecying was not for defect of outward calling, but for their taking upon them to deliver that message as from God, which they received not from him: Which the words plainly shew, Jer. 23.21.22. I have not sent these Prophets, yet they ran; which is explained by the next words, I have not spoken to them, yet they Prophesied; and in the next verse, But if they had stood in my counsel, and had caused my people to hear my words, then they, &c. where their not being sent of God, is expressed by Gods not speaking to them; their not standing in his Counsel; making his people to hear words which were not his; termed after, v. 25. Prophecying lies in his name; v. 26. Prophets of the deceit [Page]of their own heart, ver. 30. stealing his words every one from his neighbour, ver. 32. prophecying false dreams, ver. 36. perverting the words of the living God. All which passages, and the whole Chapter shew, that their running when God sent them not, was not in that they had not an outward calling, but in that they prophesied that, as from God which they had not from him, but was of their own invention, lies, perverting Gods word: and that this is meant by not sending, is manifest in that, ver. 32. these are put as equipollent, I sent them not, nor commanded them, and v. 38. I have sent unto you, saying, ye shall not say the burden of the Lord; where sending is expressed to be saying what they should not speak. Which might be further proved out of Jerem. 14.14. and the plain words, Jerem. 28.9. The Prophet which prophesieth of peace when the word of the Prophet shall come to pass, then shall the Prophet be known, that the Lord hath truly sent him. Whence it is plain, that the mission of God is known by the word delivered: which if it be according to Gods minde, a person cannot be judged a false Prophet, nor without mission from him. Nor can the sending, Rom. 10.15. be otherwise meant. For the words imply, a person cannot preach except he be sent. But this is not true of mediate outward calling, for those that were scattered went every where preaching the word, Acts 8.4. and so do gifted brethren without such a calling. But he is not sent who doth preach another Gospel, and he is sent who doth preach the Gospel, as the words following intimate, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the Gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things? Which I would not have understood, as if an outward regular calling were not necessary for him that takes on him the publick function of preaching, or that every one were to be permitted to do so that did intrude into it: But that the speaking of Gods word whether in private or publick, is with such a mission as acquits him that preacheth it from being a false Prophet, and the hearer from transgressing the precept, Matth. 7.15. Beware of false Prophets. What he said before against the Ministers mission, chap. 3. is answered before. What is pleaded about a succession from the Church of Rome is represented by many that understand not the occasion and plea, as odious, and a proof of the Antichristianism of their calling. But they who peruse what Mr. Francis Mason against Champney and others, who have answered the Papists question, Whence had the Protestant Ministers their calling? have written, will be otherwise minded. It follows.

Sect. 3. The Ministers not proved to commit Adultery, and walk in lyes, as Jer. 23.14. is meant.

[Page]

2. That they commit Adultery, and walk in lyes, Jer. 23.14. which none as I ever yet met with; interpret literally of corporal whoredome and adultery, but mystically of spiritual adultery, a departure from the wayes and institutions of the Lord in worship, to the devices and inventions of men: in the Margin. In an old Translation of the New Testament, dedicated to Edward the Sixth, the Author thereof in his Notes on Matth. 21. sayes, They which in their Ministry and preaching do otherwise then God had commanded them are no true Disciples of Christ (a sin usually in the Scripture expressed, for the nature and greatness of it, under that notion, Jer. 3.8. Ezek. 23.37. Rev. 2.22. which is also in Scripture called a lye, Isa. 28, 15. Amos 2.4. John 8.44. the whole worship of Antichrist being patched up with such dirty inventions, is so called, 2 Thess. 2.11.) That this character also doth rightly appertain unto the present Ministers of England, the best of whom do in the sence of the spirit in the forecited Scripture, commit adultery, and walk in lyes, hath already been proved (and more hereunto shall afterwards be spoken ['twere well if upon some of them it had not a literal accomplishment] which of the Institutions of Christ have they not mixed with their inventions? from how many have they gone a whoring? is not a great part of their worship drops of the Whores Cup of Fornication, and shreds of the great lye of Antichrist? who that hath soberly and unbiassedly considered of these things, but must acknowledge it?

Answ. To acquaint this Author with somewhat obvious enough, yet it seems this Author met not with it, I will set down the Annotation of Mr. Gataker on Jer. 23.14. inferiour to none of the Annotators of the Bible. They commit Adultery] Do as Eli's sons did, 1 Sam. 2.17, 22. whence Adultery became so rise in the land, ver. 10. And walk in lyes] or walk up and down with lyes. Hebr. with falshood, or a lye; as Isa. 28.15. they utter their lyes not in Baals name, but in mine, and so father their lyes upon me, chap. 14.14. see ver, 26. Hebr. committing Adultery, and walking with a lye; that is, at full, committing they commit Adultery; and walking, they walk about with lyes: they make a common trade and practice of either: a form, though defective, yet very significant, see on Isa. 59 11.13. See these two vile practices joyned together in the false Prophets again, chap. 29.23. For those that here [Page]restrain the term of Adultery to Idolatry, spiritual Adultery, seem therein to wrong the Text. Now if this be the meaning of the committing Adultery, it may be a signal character of a wicked man, but not of a false Prophet as such. But if it be understood of spiritual Adultery, every departure from the wayes and institutions of the Lord in worship to be devices and inventions of men, is not in this Prophet, nor in any other, termed committing Adultery; but when that Divine Worship which is appropriated to God is given to that which is not God, as may be shewed out of the 2. and 3. Chapters of Jeremiah, where ch. 3. 8▪ 9. it is said, they committed adultery with stocks and stones, Ezek. 23.37. with Idols. Now if he can prove that the present Ministers do thus commit Adultery, are Idolaters in their Worship, I will yield, they and their Worship are to be separated from; and if they teach it, not to be heard. What he saith he hath proved before, is answered before; what he saith in the next Chapter, will be then discussed. The words in the Margin may be right, yet impertinent. As for walking in lyes; I grant it to be a signal character of a false Prophet, understanding it of lyes in doctrine opposite to the principles of Theology: and if he can prove the present Ministers do walk in such lyes, I shall yield them to be false Prophets, and not to be heard: But yet he hath not done that, nor goes about it. That which he produceth out of Isa. 28.15. Amos 2.4. John 8.44. 2 Thess. 2.11. proves not every device and invention of men in worship to be meant by lyes, Jer. 23.14. Isa. 28.15. By lyes some understand their Idols, some their treachery in dissembling and compliance with the adverse party, some their crafty shifts and wily devices. Mr Gataker conceives, most likely their strength raised, and wealth gotten by fraudulent and deceitful courses, Amos 2.4. Diodati Annot. Their lyes] namely, their Idols, false worships and superstitions, John 8.44. is meant of any lyes, but chiefly that which is opposed to the truth of Gods word in the Gospel, not meant as this Authour applies it. 2 Thess. 2.11. is manifestly understood of a lye opposite to the truth by which they might be saved, that is, the Gospel, v. 10.12. and so notes anti-evangelical doctrine, though I deny not the whole worship of Antichrist being patch'd up with such dirty inventions may be so called. But to his Queries I answer. To the first, which of the Institutions of Christ have not the present Ministers mixed with their inventions? 1. It concerns him that accuseth to shew which they have so mixed. 2. That I think the Institution of preaching the Gospel, which is that about which is the present question, they [Page] have not so mixed. Sure, if they preach such doctrine of Faith as they subscribe to, they do not mix their doctrine with their own inventions; yet, if any do, while he holds the foundation, though he build some hay and stubble he is not to be charged to walk in lyes. I conceive the Preachers of the Congregational Churches have been as guilty of Antinomian, Arminian, and other errors as the Prelatical. To the 2. From how many have they gone a whoring? 1. It concerns him that accuseth to shew. 2. They have not gone a whoring from the Lords Supper to the Mass, by Transubstantiation, and the unbloody propitiatory Sacrifice for Quick and Dead, and adoration of the breaden-god. To the third, Is not a great part of their Worship drops of the Whores Cup of Fornication and shreds of the great lye of Antichrist? The whores Cup of Fornication and great lye of Antichrist, are according to Brightman, Mede, and others their idolatries in Invocation of Saints, Worshipping Images, Reliques, the Crucifix, the Host, in their Herisies about Justification, Merit, the Popes Supremacy, and other points of the Trent Council. A great part of the worship of the Ministers of the Church of England is in their prayers to God, their praises of God in Psalms, and Hymns, in their teaching and instructing of the people. Let this Author shew any part of this worship of the Ministers of England to be a drop of the Whores Cup of Fornication, or a shred of that great lye of Antichrist, even according to the exposition of the Authors named, or any other sober Author; yea, though he be biassed towards the Congregational way, such as Mr. Cotton, Mr. Thomas Parker, or any other of that party, or else let him be branded lege Remnia, as an egregious Calumniator. As for that inserted passage ['twere well if upon some of them it had not a litteral accomplishment] it had been honest dealing, if he knew any, that he had either reproved them or complained to their Superiors, but thus obliquely to insinuate it to the Readers, too apt to entertain any suggestions against the present Ministers, whether true or false, was neither the part of a charitable Christian, nor of a candid Moralist.

Sect. 4. The Ministers are not proved to strengthen the hands of evil doers, as Jer. 23.14. is meant.

3. Saith he, That they strengthen the hands of evil doers, that none doth return from his wickedness, Jer. 23.13. That the present Ministers of England really do so, is capable of an ocular demonstration: perhaps they do in their Sermons reprove sin, thunder out[Page]the Judgments of God against the transgressors of his Law, as much as any; but alas, what is this, to condemn them in the state wherein they stand, without repentance to the pit of Hell, in the Pulpit; and by and by to saint them in the Chancel, and tell them there, without exception, that the Body of Christ was broken for them, his Blood shed for them? O how many millions of souls are and have been thereby hardened to their own undoing, and their hands strengthned in wickedness? What should I mention their admission of the Children of all to Baptism, without exception, their owning them as Church-Members; yea, die they never so wickedly, as Brethren, of whose joyful resurrection they profess they have a sure and certain hope; thereby proclaiming their undoubted perswasion, that they are a people in covenant with God? not to take notice of the terrible reflections, and uncharitable censures are publickly past by them upon men truly fearing God, because they cannot conform to them: How desparately are the hands of the wicked hereby strengthned? so that none indeed doth return from his wickedness: How rare a thing is it to hear of one soul that is brought over to God by all their preaching? so that visibly that judgment of God seems to be upon them, ver. 32. therefore they shall not at all profit this people.

Answ. They confirm them in their wickedness, and so keep them from repentance, by bearing them in hand, that they shall do well enough, whatsoever Gods messengers tell them, that though they do continue in their sins: see Ezek. 13.22. is Mr. Gatakers paraphrase of this passage of the Prophet. And this Author is not ashamed to say, that the present Ministers of England really do so, is capable of an ocular demonstration, when his next words acquit them, Perhaps they do in their Sermons reprove sin, thunder out Gods Judgments against transgressors of his Law as much as any; if so, they do not strengthen the hands of evil doers by bearing them in hand, that they shall do well enough, though they do continue in their sins: And that, which he acknowledgeth they do, is enough to acquit them from that character of the false Prophets here charged upon them, which perhaps might more truly be imputed to those, who have taught Arminian and Antinomian errors, which have been too rife in the Congregational Churches. In the point of Baptism I can acquit the one no more than the other, nor will I justifie the censures of men truly fearing God; I have some grounds to think that it is oft a matter of mourning, not only to the present Ministers, but also to some of the Bishops, and that they wish, that there were a remedy in that, and in the admission of many ignorant and evil doers to the Lords Supper, [Page] and they conceive by the warning before the Communion, the enlargement of power to the Minister in the Liturgy, as now it is, in the joynt confession of Sin, and preaching before the Communion, besides conference, and examination, which may be used to redress it, some provision is made against it, however Laws restrain them from doing more; which being made against Recusant Papists, are thought fit to be continued, though used concerning others who are not such. That expression of the breaking of Christs Body for them, and shedding his Blood is known to be but a charitable speech, upon the supposal of the persons repentance and faith (the truth of which is above the Ministers cognizance) professed by them, they use; and if Judas were at the Lords Supper, it was used by Christ; and being understood as those speeches, 1 Cor. 8.11. Through thy knowledge shall thy weak brother perish, for whom Christ died. Heb. 10.29. Hath counted the Blood of the Covenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing, are not liable ro exception. If any do undoe themselves by mis-understanding it, the same thing happened to Christs hearers, John 6.61▪ 66. and is to be remedied by expounding the meaning, and warning persons, that they do not abuse it to their destruction. That the Ministers own men as brethren, die they never so wickedly, is not true, if by legal censure or judgment they are declared criminal; if not, the Ministers are not allowed to exclude persons from brotherhood upon their own opinion without proof and judicial sentence; if they do call them brethren, so all men are; and those that profess Faith, may be charitably accounted Christian Brethren. In the words used at Burial, the Minister doth not profess, he hath a sure and certain hope of the joyful resurrection of all them that are interred; but the words are, in sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life without application of it to the person then to be interred; and therefore these allegations are too short of proving Ministers strengthening the hands of evil doers as false Prophets. If their success in preaching be not as were to be wished, it is the same that the Prophets complained of, Isa. 49.4. Isa 53.1. and was verified of Christ, John 12.37, 38. And if it fall out, that people are hardened notwithstanding their Ministers do preach, as here its not denied they do, it is from themselves; and I wish their hardening and destruction be not to be charged on this Author, and such others as are of the separation, who, by declaiming against them as Antichristian, alienate the spirits of people from them, so as to refuse to hear the word; which I count a most pernicious wickedness [Page] in whomsoever, though reputed Saints. And though there is too much cause to bewail, that there is so little effect upon the preaching of the present Ministers, yet sure to argue thence that they are not sent of God, but are false Prophets, is altogether inconsequent. Mr. Robinson in his justification of separation, p. 306, 307. speaks better than so, when he saith, It is most evident, that whosoever converteth a man unto God, that person doth in truth and in deed, Minister the word of God, and the spirit by the word, and so may be said to be sent of God. In that general and large sense, wherein Mr. Bernard, p. 313. expounds the word, Sent or Apostle, I do acknowledge many Ministers in England sent of God; that is, that it comes not to pass without the special providence and ordination of God, that such and such men should rise up, and preach such and such truths for the furtherance of the salvation of Gods elect in the places, where they come, But this Accuser adds.

Sect. 5. The Ministers are not proved such daubers as those, Ezek. 22.28.

4. That they prophesie placentia, smooth things, according to the desires, tempers, and lusts of men, to the pleasing of whom they addict themselvs, Jer. 6.14. and 27.9. Ezek. 13.10, 11. and 22 28. What visible lineaments of such a frame of spirit, are drawn upon the faces of that generation of men, concerning whom we are now discoursing? Have they not been of all others (I am now speaking of such as are looked upon by Professors, as men of the greatest parts and holiness) the most ready to strike in with, preach up, and plead for what was suitable unto the spirits of such upon whom they have had a dependance. 'Twere indeed well for them, could they in their present standing and practise acquit themselves from that sore crime of seeking to please men, which if they do, they cannot be the servants of Christ, Gal. 1.10.

Answ. They do by their glossings and flatteries, lull people asleep in security, bearing them in hand, that there is no such dangerous matter towards them, as Gods Prophets tell them; but that all shall be well, whatsoever they say: see the same, chap. 8.11. see also, Lam. 2.14. Ezek. 13.22. is Mr. Gatakers Paraphrase in his Annotations on Jer. 6.14. That which was prophesied, Jer. 27.9. is expressed to be, that they should not serve the King of Babylon. The daubing. Ezek. 13.10, 11. was by seeing vanity, and divining lies, ver. 9. Ezek. 22.28 saying, Thus saith the Lord, when the Lord hath not spoken. If the present Ministers of England do so, [Page] they are to be accounted false Prophets. But do not this Authors own words in the next crimination before, when he saith, [perhaps they do in their Sermons reprove sin, thunder out the Judgments of God against transgressors of his Law as much as any] clear the Ministers, and prove himself guilty of false accusation? what those visible lineaments of such a frame of spirit are, should have been named, if he would have dealt plainly. If men of greatest parts and holiness on one side, have been the most ready to strike in with, preach up, and plead for, what was suitable unto the spirits of such upon whom they have had dependance: may it not be said so of men of the greatest parts and holiness of the Congregational party, that they have been liable to the like? It were well if both parties would search themselves, and not be so forward to accuse each other. As I conceived long ago in my printed Treatise of glorying in men, on 1 Cor. 3.21. so I am still by much experience confirmed, that the so termed Professors of England out of their injudiciousness, and partial affection have done much hurt to themselves and the Church of God, by looking upon, glorying in, adhering to some as of greatest parts and holiness with disparagement of others; whence evil surmizes, censurings, divisions from them that are disaffected, swallowing down without chewing, what those utter whom they follow; which hath been a temptation to Teachers to vent such things as were not right, for the retaining of their followers, and a trap whereby their hearers have been ensnared to their own and others no small disquietness. And I agree with this Author, that it were well indeed with the Ministers, and with their dissenters or opposites, if they could all acquit themselves from this sore crime of seeking to please men, and that we could all [...] seek and speak the truth in love, Ephes. 4.15. Yet further saith he.

Sect. 6. Ministers changing of places, sadning some mens hearts, not characters of a false Prophet.

5. That they are greedy Dogs, that can never have enough, and look every man for his gain from his quarter, Isa. 56.11. seeking and serving themselves in their ministration, Ezek. 13.19, Micah 3. 5.11. in the Margin. In a translation of the New Testament, dedicated to Edward the Sixth, the Author of the Notes on Chap. 10. sayes, We must preach the truth without any respect of reward or gains. They therefore that preach for their bellies sake, or preach after the prescript of man—are not the Disciples of Christ. That herein is [Page]a perfect harmony betwixt these false Prophets and the present Ministers of England cannot be denied; what means else their frequent calls, from places of less, to places of greater value; their gaping and greedy desires after preferment; the vexations they put poor men to, that cannot in conscience put into their mouths preparing War against them.

Answ. Isa. 56.11. may be understood as well of the civil Magistrate as the Minister; and of neither is it a Character of a Minister not to be heard, as being a false Prophet, nor of an usurper or unlawful Magistrate, that is not to be obeyed. Ezek. 13.19. notes a Character of a false Prophet, but the proper character of him as such, is not that he prophecied for handfuls of Barley, or pieces of Bread, but that they polluted God among his people by lying to them. Micah 3.5. is a character of a false Prophet, in that they made Gods people to erre, their preparing war against him that put not into their mouth is a common accident to corrupt men, not a property of a false Prophet; and in like manner the Prophets divining for money, ver. 11. or the Priests teaching for money no more proves a false Prophet or false Priest, then the heads judging for reward proves them false heads: these are their personal vices, which may be in a true Prophet, as in Judas, and in a true Priest, as Hophni, or in a true head, as in Jehoiakim, Jer. 22.17. and so are impertinent to prove a Minister a false Prophet. Nor is it any more to the purpose what is in the Margin, sith he that preacheth truth with respect of reward or gains, may be a true Prophet, though not a good man; and so they that preach for their bellies sake, though if they preach not according to the word of God, but after the prescript of man, for the matter of their doctrine they may be false Prophets: but this is not so much as offered to be proved concerning the present Ministers of England; and therefore it is untruly said, that it cannot be denied that there is a perfect harmony between them, and those false Prophets. As for their removals from places of less to places of greater value, it is a thing which may be objected to Preachers and Pastors of the Congregational Churches, and may be upon just cause, and therefore of it self proves not so much as a covetous minde: whether it be out of gaping and greedy desire after preferments God may be the only judge. If preparing War be meant of suing for their dues by Law, it may be just; nor is a Minister bound to live upon alms, or voluntary contribution; the Elders of the separated Churches have found by experience how great a misery it is for a Student though godly and painful to live of the benevolence [Page] of their Churches; nor is it any sin for a Minister more than for another man to make use of the Magistrate and Law to gain his due, according to the Law of the Land. And however some have instilled into peoples heads the unlawfulness of requiring or paying Tithes, or other dues to the present Ministers, as they did before to Non-Conformists; yet there is no colourable plea for not paying them, it being not unlawful for me to pay what is unjustly demanded, there being therein no doing of wrong, though there should be a suffering of wrong. And therefore it is but vainly pretended, that they cannot in conscience put into Ministers mouths, when there is no appearance of sin in doing it; and if their Consciences be misled by erroneous Casuists, poor men may thank them for their vexations, and beware of hearkening to them, and not clamour against the Ministers as the only cause of their trouble; if out of meer obstinacy they deny to pay, they are to blame themselves. It is added.

6. That they sadden the hearts of the righteous, Ezek. 13.22. what need I turn aside to make application of this to the Prophets of this day? who that is serious, doth not experiment the truth thereof in his own soul? to see the Name and Ordinances of God prophaned, the ceremonies and inventions of man subjected unto, by such as pretend to be Ministers of Christ, would make an heart of stone to bleed; much more those whose hearts are made tender by the Lord. Those of our Brethren that as yet attend upon their Ministry, will tell us, they are troubled at their compliance and conformity—All that look in the least after reformation, say, they could wish it were otherwise; so that this character also is visibly upon them.

Answer. By lyes sadning the hearts of the righteous, as Ezek. 13.22. is granted to be a character of a false Prophet, but this Author omits that, and makes that a character of a false Prophet which is not, and applies that to the Ministers which he goes not about to prove they are guilty of. Perhaps those righteous persons he means are sadned out of mistakes, as conceiving the Name and Ordinances of God prophaned when they are not; as the Israelites were when they mistook the Reubenites fact in building an Altar, Josh. 22.11, 12. Perhaps it may be without their fault, perhaps the Ministers are sadned as well as they, perhaps the sadness is from such erroneous suggestions, as are instilled into the people by such as hold the same principles of separation with this Author; perhaps men as righteous, as they who are sadned, do without any sadness attend upon their Ministry; perhaps they are sadned that they stumble at that they need not; perhaps they [Page] are more sad at such principles of division as pervert them that are counted otherwise righteous than at any thing they perceive practised by the Ministers of England. If sadning the hearts of righteous by the inventions of men be a character of false Prophets, and that for it the Ministers of England are to be judged such, the renting of errors and fancies which have been in the Congregational Churches, and even by their Teachers, the many unnecessary scruples, janglings, oppositions, arrogant, wilful carriages, deceitful and unrighteous dealings in Members, which have sadned the hearts of many sober, and better composed spirits, and made them weary of their societies; the heart bleedings for professors abominations are indeed as signal characters of false Prophets in their Churches, as of the Ministers in the Church of England being such. Though there were an utter oblivion of what of old was done by Separatists in England, the Low Countries, in new England; yet what hath been done in England in our times, and is yet in the memory of many yet alive, should have stopped this Authors mouth, and made him forbear to object that against the Ministers of England, which may perhaps more fully be retorted on those whose Ministry he would have attended on. The Elders and Messengers of the Congregational Churches meeting at the Savoy, Octob. 12. 1658. in the Preface to the decclaration of their Faith and Order do of their own accord say, It is true, that many sad miscarriages, divisions, breaches, fallings off from the holy Ordinances of God, have along in this time of temptation, (especially in the beginning of it) been found in some of our Churches. Yea, such insinuations as this Author urgeth against the Ministers of England, would have proved not only the Ministers of the reformed Churches of late, but even the Angels of the seven Churches of Asia, the teachers of the Churches of Corinth, and other the best Churches in the Primitive times to have been false Prophets. But I forbear.

He addes, 7. That they mix the word of God with their dreams, Jer. 23.25.29. in the Margin. The notes on Matth. 28. in the foresaid Translation are; Here do all Preachers learn what they should teach; nothing else but Gods word; nothing else but that the Lord hath commanded them: not their own dreams and inventions. So do the present Ministers of England, as hath been proved.

Sect. 7. Pressing rigid Conformity no proof of the Ministers being false Prophets.

[Page]

Answ. This needs no further answer than what is before given.

8. Saith he, That they come in Sheeps cloathing, having the horns of a Lamb, but are inwardly ravening Wolves, and speak like Dragons (i. e. pretend to the Holiness and Meekness of Christ and Saints, but are inwardly full of raven and cruelty, yea terrible in their Edicts and Laws, stirring up and making use of the powers of the world, to persecute, kill and destroy the Saints Mat. 7.15. Revel. 13.11. (which second Beast is no other than the false Prophet mentioned, Revel. 19.20. as might easily be demonstrated) As face answers face in a glass, so do the present Ministers of England the false Prophets there spoken of. Are not all the Persecutions, Imprisonments, Slaughters and Butcheries of the Children of God, that the first Beast hath exercised upon the Saints for this 1260. years to be charged upon this Generation of men? yea, who do more eagerly press a rigid Conformity (not only contrary to the Kings Declaration from Breda) and others since published by him, but also (as is thought) to his natural temper, and the inclination and bent of his spirit) though to the infringing of the liberty, the banishment, the taking away the lives of the Saints, who love Truth and Peace, and humbly beg, that they may be suffered for the tribute they pay (as in the Dominion of the Grand Seignior they are) in quietness to serve God according to their perswasins.

Answ. It is true, false Prophets are noted by Christ, Matth. 7.15. to be in outward shew as sheep, meek and holy, inwardly cruel; But this is not the form, denominating them false Prophets; nor a signal character of them, by which they are known, but a reason of the caution, of being deceived by their fair shews. That by which they are false Prophets, and are known to be such is their fruits, v. 16. which though variously expounded by the Ancients, and Maldonat understands it of their works, Grotius of the works of iniquity, yet of the Ancients some understand it of their faith; Protestants, some by fruits understand their false doctrine and evil life, as Beza, their doctrine, manner of teaching, spiritual efficacy in their hearts, their life, customes and intentions, so Diodati Annot. their doctrin, self-seeking and wickedness, so the large Annot. Pareus, The fruit of a false Prophet is his false and damnable doctrine. Dr. Hammond, Ye shall certainly know and discern them, if you take notice of, and weigh the doctrines, which,[Page]when they have gotten some authority with you, they will presently endeavour to infuse into you. Piscator in his Scholies, From the effects of their doctrin: For as for what pertains to life, it may be that he may teach well, who lives ill. Molin. Vates, l. 3. c. 5. The fruits which their doctrine produceth in the minds of Auditors. That the doctrin is meant by the fruits, Matth. 7.16. was long since in my Antidote, Sect. 9. asserted, and in my Praecursor vindicated, Sect. 14. to which I still adhere, and therefore count this, which is here made a signal character of a false Prophet unfit to that end as being congruous to them who are no Prophets in pretence, and to them who may be true Prophets or Teachers. The second Beast, Revel. 13.11. is saith Molin. Vates, l. 5. c. 17. The Roman Clergy with the Pope himself; the Bishop of Rome with his Clergy, saith Mr. Mede, Comment on Revel. 13.11. most of the Protestant Divines make it either the Pope when he usurped the power over the Emperour, or the Pope and his Clergy, who were indeed terrible in their Edicts and Laws, stirring up and making use of the powers of the world, to persecute, kill, and destroy the Saints. But this did not shew them false Prophets, but their false doctrine. But that as face answers face in a glass, so do the present Ministers of England the false Prophets there spoken of, is said with much heat, and without proof. That all the Persecutions, Imprisonments, slaughters and butcheries of the Children of God, that the first Beast, (whether he mean it of the Roman Emperours, or ten Horns, that is, ten Kings into which it was parted, or the Bishop of Rome) hath exercised upon the Saints for this 1260. years, are to be charged upon this generation of men, that is, the present Hierarchy and Ministry of England, (which he means if he speak pertinently) is I confess a very dreadful and heavy sentence, but pronounced à non judice, who I hope will be found a false Prophet, in the event, as it shews him inwardly cruel to them, and by his own rule is a signal character of himself being a false Prophet, I hope, by their appeal to heaven they will get this Indictment quasht. I presume the rigid conformity pressed hath not yet tended to the banishment, the taking away of the lives of the Saints, who love Truth and Peace; and I wish such writings and practices, as this Author, and some others are deemed to use, do not exasperate the King and Parliament to effect it. I assent to what he saith of his Majesty, as having by experience found it true, (which in all humble thankfulness I acknowledge) nor do I doubt but he is, as the Poet describes a good Prince, Est piger ad paenas Princeps ad praemia velox, Quique dolet quoties cogitur esse ferox. Concerning the Declaration from [Page] Breda, and other Declarations since published by his Majesty, how far the pressing of rigid Conformity opposeth, and who are the causes thereof is above our cognizance, who are at so great a distance, That the present Ministers, who are the ordinary Teachers to be heard, are the men that do it hath no likelihood, sith they are the men upon whom the rigid conformity is pressed, and therefore this allegation is very inaptly made a signal character of their being false Prophets.

Sect. 8 The charge Ezek. 22.26. reacheth not the Ministers of England.

It follows 9. That they put no difference betwixt the Holy and Prophane, Ezek. 22.26. Do not even the Ministers of England the same? Are not all their dear Brethren and Sisters, living and dead, though Drunkards, Swearers, Adulterers, and Adulteresses? &c. Are not, as was said, the children of them all admitted to the Font, and they themselves to the Lords Table? Is not the childrens meat frequently given unto Dogs, and the holy Ordinances prostituted to be polluted by the worst of men?

Answ. The charge, Ezek. 22.26. is against the Priests of the Law accusing them of neglecting to discern between clean and unclean Offerings, as Piscator in his Analysis. Grotius, They made not them to understand, to wit, the difference, from that which was common. They are the very words from Lev. 10.10. where they are commanded to do what here they are said to have neglected. That is holy which is dedicated unto God: Profane which is in common use. Polluted which is forbidden to be eaten; clean which it is lawful to eat. Aynsworth on Lev. 10.10. That ye may separate] or, to make difference; and this is meant not only for themselves, but others, as in Ezek. 44.23. They shall teach my people (the difference) between holy and profane, and cause them to discern between unclean and clean. And for not doing this, the Priests are blamed, Ezek. 22.16. see also Lev. 20.25. holy] Heb. holiness: meaning of persons, and things. In Greek, Between the holy ones and the profane: which Texts and others, as Levit. 22.1, 2, 3. shew that this thing was an evil indeed of a Levitical Priest, when either they admitted unclean and profane Offerings of Beasts or Fowls, or legally unclean persons; or taught not the people to put difference between them; yet was no Character distinguishing a false Priest from a true, though it shewed him to be negligent. But is nothing to our Ministers who are not now to count any man [Page]or creature common or unclean, Act. 10.15.28. Whether they have power to keep any professing the Faith from the Lords Supper, it may be doubted. Granting it that they have, yet this Author will not allow it, I presume, to each single Minister, and if not, it is unjust to account them false Preists for not doing it. But of this before in this Chapter, Section. 4.

Sect. 9. The Ministers are not the false Shepherds meant, Ezek. 34.4.

It is added 10. That they exercise not pity to the weak broken scattered Sheep of Christ, nor shew bowels in their recovery, but with force and cruelty rule over them, Ezek. 34.4 One would think, the former part of the Chapter were rather an History of what is practised by the false Shepherds of this day, than otherwise: so perfect an agreement is there betwixt their practice, and this prophecy of the Lord. They tell us 'tis our weakness and distemper that we conform not to their worship; that we are persons gone astray: we profess to them, that we would not give way to spiritual distempers, nor stray one step from the wayes of God might we but know it; we would thank any to convince us of our mistakes, and reduce us to the true sheepfold, if we are gone astray: Do they seek after us, in a spirit of tenderness labour to convince us, and carry us in their bosomes, like tender Shepherds to the true fold? What less? With force and cruelty they rule over us, threaten us with Excommunications, Imprisonments, Banishments, dispoiling us of what God hath graciously given us, yea, condemning us to death: in all which (through the grace of God) we can rejoice, though they thereby abundantly demonstrate, that they are the successors of the false Shepherds here spoken of.

Answ. Though Diodati, the Annotator in the large Annotations, Junius, The Marginal Notes of the Geneva Translation, say, he meaneth by Shepherds, the King, the Magistrates, Priests, and Prophets; yet after Piscator, Grotius, and others, I think this passage is only appliable to the Kings and other Civil Rulers of Israel, the Prophets not ruling over the people with force and cruelty, but beguiling them with lies and deceit. Which with sundry more passages of the Chapter upon my reading of it do convince me, that this Author doth misalleadge it, sith the Ministers of England are not Successors of the Civil Magistrates, nor are the Prince and Governors here termed false Shepherds, but negligent, and unmerciful; which are not the signal Characters of a false Prophet, or false Priest, and therefore this Text is impertinent to prove the Ministers to be such. As for the practice he chargeth the Ministers, [Page] with, sith it is in generals, a distinct answer cannot be made to it, nor can any but the accused well answer it. Possibly that which this Author counts force and cruelty may be necessary, though severe discipline. I do not justifie the neglects or menaces mentioned in any; nor is it unlikely, but that there are men of violent spirits in the Hierarchy and Ministry of England, to whom this evil is imputed: nor do I think this Author can acquit all those that are Elders or other members of the Congregational Churches. Iliacos intrà muros peccatur & extrà. It is to be lamented that such sad things should happen as he recites. For my part I have, even when the Congegational men had most liberty, had conferences with persons, in which I shewed my dissent from them in respect of the Separation with my Reasons, and have often in writing answered their Arguments for it, which I can yet produce, yet found them still inflexible. This writing was begun by me out of compassion of those, to whom I was once a Preacher, whom I found seduced by it, and have endeavoured without any bitterness to convince this Author of his mistakes, yet I doubt whether he will thank me for it. I rather expect to be told for writing this Book, as I was for writing of some other pieces, that I am an Apostate, temporizer, flatterer, adversary to the Saints, and such like imputations. They that know what hath been done in New-England, and old England even at Oxford to Quakers for inveighing against their Teachers and Governors should be somewhat more moderate in censures of the present Ministers and Governors; who when they read this very Chapter will be apt to think, that the soul of the Quakers is by transmigration gotten into this Author. My Prayer to God is, that on all sides there may be such a calm and considerate spirit, that we may forbear one another, and in love endeavour the rectifying of each other, not bite and devour one another, lest we be consumed one of another, and so we be Homo homini lupus, not Shepherds.

Sect. 10. The Ministers of England are not the second Beast foretold. Revel. 13.11.

But there's more behind. What should I mention, saith he, 11. That they come up out of the Earth, Rev. 13.11. are raised up by men of earthly spirits and principles. 12. That they exercise the power of the first Beast, or make use of the civil power for their supportment, ver. 13.13. That they make an Image to the Beast, ver. 14.15. (i. e. Erect an Ecclesiastical state of Government, in a proportio [...]ableness to, and resemblance of the Civil State.) 14. That they compel all under the penalty of death, to worship or bow down to this Image of the [Page]Beast (or Ecclesiastical Government, in its Courts, Canons, Laws, and Ceremonies devised by it) v. 15. 15. That they compel all to receive a mark, either in their right hands or foreheads; secretly or openly, one way or other to acknowledge subjection unto this Beast, without which they may neither buy nor sell, being cut off from the Church, by their Excommunications for their stubborness, v. 16, 17. All which Characters of the second Beast (or false Prophet) he that runs may read upon the present Hierarchy and Ministry of England. It remaineth then that the present Ministers of England have the characters of the false Prophets and Preists upon them, and therefore are not to be heard but to be separated from.

Answ. Though the Book of the Revelation be a holy Divine writing, and hath been of great use to support the spirits of Christians under the great Persecutions, which have befallen them, and is still of very great importance for the animating of believers either to patience in sufferings, or watchfulness in time of temptation; yet such abuse there hath been made of it to uphold many wild conceits, many irregular practises; notwithstanding the confessed obscurity, and the frequent refutation of such conceits, as men have with much confidence delivered, by the manifestation of their vanity in the event; that sober men have wished it were either less read by some, or more, considerately weighed, and more warily applyed. The passages here alledged have been so abused by men of opposite parties against dissenters, especially by those of the separation against not only the Prelates and Prelatical Preachers, but also the Presbyterian, that they have served for no other purpose but to inflame the minds of one against the other. The first and second Beast, Rev. 19. are differently conceived. Dr. Hamond conceives the first Beast to be the Heathen Roman Emperors upholding the Idol worship, the second Beast the Augurs, Priests, and Magicians, such as Apollonius Tyranaeus was, & so conceives the accomplishment already past. The Author of an Essay on that part of the Revelation, which begins at chapter the 13. conceives it meant of one to come. Molinaeus in his Vates, l 5. c. 17. with Mede, and others, understand it of the Pope and Roman Clergy. There is no probability, that this second Beast should be meant of the Hierarchy and Ministry of England, or that they should be the false Prophet mentioned, Rev. 19.20. which is said to work miracles before the Beast, and with the Beast was cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone: which to say of men, of whom some he acknowledgeth to be good men, is so horrid an imagination, as had not this Author been transported with extreme passion, me thinks he should have trembled to have let it enter into his thoughts, much less to have written and printed it. Nor can [Page] the conceits be free from these and such horrid consequences, that then the first Beast must be Civil Powers, and they to be cast into the lake burning with fire; that the Hierarchy and Ministry of England, cause the Earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first Beast, whether the Roman Emperors, or Pope, or Civil Powers, or Idols, that al that be subject to the Image of the Beast ▪ which is made the Ecclesiastical Government, shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his Indignation, and shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy Angels, and in the presence of the Lamb, and the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever, with more of the like; which are so monstrously uncharitable to be conceived of such men, and so utterly destitute of all colour of proof, that I can scarse censure it so mildly as to term it dotage, but rather take it to be the speech of a furious Bedlam. His applications also are so frivolous and wild, as that they should be abhorred rather than answered. How doth it appear that to come out of the Earth is to be raised by men of earthly spirits and principles? How doth it appear that men raising them, whether Princes or Patrons are men of such spirits and principles? When were they raised by such? To exercise the power of the Beast is not to make use of the Civil Power for its support, (which were indeed no evil, but may be good, and the wisdom of men) but to act with the same power the first Beast used in making war with the Saints. If the Ecclesiastical State as it resembles the Civil, be the Image of the Beast, and to erect it, be the character of the false Prophet; and this be so evil, then it is much more evil to erect the Civil State, which is the Prototype, which me thinks he should fear to say. How doth it appear, that the proportionableness to & resemblance of the Ecclesiastical state of Government to the Civil is not therefore the better and more desirable? When did the Ministers compel all under the penalty of death, or outlawry to acknowledg subjection to the Hierarchy? Are there not many persons and places of peculiar and exempt Jurisdiction? many persons that either by indulgence or connivence, though not acknowledging such subjection, live as free as those that do? Do all great as well as small, rich and poor, free and bond receive such a mark? I am weary with refuting such palpable gross untruths, and do wonder with what face without the least proof, a man that would be accounted a Saint should attempt to obtrude them upon the world, much more that he should do it to the Church of God, and upon such absurd premisses conclude thus, It remaineth then that the present Ministers of England have the characters and properties of the false Prophets and Priests upon them, and therefore are not to be heard, but separated from.

CHAP. 7. ARG. 6.

[Page]

Sect. 1. All Idolatry is, by exhibiting Divine Worship to a Creature.

THose that are guilty of Idolatry, Saints may not have communion with (much less own them as their Teachers) but ought to separate from them: But, the present Ministers of England are Idolaters: Therefore. The major (or first Proposition) will not be deined, because bottom'd upon express commands from Christ, 1 Cor. 5.11. and 10.14. 2 Cor. 6.14.18. Before we descend to the confirmation of the minor (or second Proposition) we shall crave leave to premise; That Idolatry may be considered under a threefold notion.

1st. Most gross and absurd Idolatry, when the creature is worshipped terminatively; this few are guilty of: the Israelites of old worshipped not the Calf terminatively, but God in it, therefore they are said to proclaim a feast to Jehovah, Exod. 32.5. Rab. M. Maimonides de Idolat. 8.2, 3, &c. observes, That never any Idolater was so silly, as to think, that an Idol of wood, stone or mettal, was a God that made the Heaven and Earth, but through them all Idolaters intend to worship God.

2ly. Somewhat more refined Idolatry, (viz. in respect of what we but now instanc'd in) when we offer up any worship or homage, proper and due to God only, before any creature, as the medium or representative of God: Such was the Idolatry of Israel in the Golden Calf, Brazen Serpent, &c. Of this are the Synagogue of Rome, amongst all the combinations of men in the world, most eminently guilty. To this Head may be added,

1. The ascription of Godhead to any creature, as to Herod, Acts 12.22.

2. The ascription of the properties of the Godhead to any creature.

3. The worshipping of God in any other way than what he hath prescribed: which all that write upon the second Commandment say, is the Idolatry therein forbidden.

4. The oblation of worship or service to God, that hath been offered up to Idols, for which there is no prescription in the Scripture.

3ly. Most refined Idolatry, when the heart goes forth in desires after any thing beyond what is limited by the Lord, or trusts and relyes on any creature on this side God. In the first sense,[Page]there are (as was said) few or no Idolaters in the world: The Papists come as near thereunto as any, praying to the Cross, the Virgin Mary, Saints, Angels, &c. expresly affirming, that the Virgin Mary may be worshipped with that worsh [...]p, which they call Cultus Latriae, which yet they say is due only to God. In the last sense, there are none, but at one time or other may be said to be Idolaters▪ the hearts of the best men [...] too often going forth too farr in desires after, and secret dependence upon▪ things beneath the Lord: which yet they are watching and warring against, waiting and longing for the day, in which they shall be c [...]mpleatly swallowed up in the will of God. Tis in respect of the s [...]cond particular before instanc'd in, that we assert the present Ministers of England to be Idolaters: To the proof whereof we now add [...]ess ourselves.

Answ. The Conclusion is not the same with that which at first Ch. 1. was undertaken to be defended, That it is not lawful for the Saints to hear the present Ministers of England; nor doth it necessarily follow, that if we may not have communion with persons, nor own them as our teachers, but separate from them, That we may not hear them preach the Gospel. An excommunicate person I am not to have communion with, nor to own the Teachers of forreign Churches as suppose the Lutheran, as my teachers▪ yea I may be bound to separate from such, as suppose a Popish Priest, as Jansenist, preaching the doctrine of original sin, of efficacious grace▪ or the Gospel concerning redemption by the blood of Christ; whom yet I may lawfully hear handling those truths according to the received doctrine of St. Augustin.

Nor is the ma [...]or true, if the Idolatry be in that way which he here calls Idolatry, the worshipping of God in any other way than what he hath prescribed, nor if the Idolatry be secret and not open, nor though it be open, if by infirmity he fall into it and repents; or be not censured as such; or teacheth nor such Idolatry; nor requires any communion with him in his Idolatry. Nor do the Texts prove his ma [...]or: 1 Cor. 5 11. forbids no o [...]her communion than eating, and that eating which might be with Idolaters of this w [...]ld, v. 10 and therefore not eating the Lords Supper: Nor doth it any mo [...]e forbid eating with a B [...]other called an [...], than with a Brother called a fornicatour, or covetous, [...], or an extortioner, and therefore, if [Page] this Text prove a necessity of separation from such in holy exercises as Prayer, or the Lords Supper, it forbids doing these things with a covetous person, or railer; and then a Christian Brother must have cognizance of such sins, and be a Judge of every one he communicates with, which were absurd: and therefore it can be meant of no other than arbitrary familiar converse, as in eating, where I am at liberty to eat, or not to eat; and of private judgement of discretion, which each one is to exercise in the choice of his company: But nothing to the owning of a Teacher, or shunning to hear him. For here the person is considered only as a Brother, not a Teacher in Office. 1 Cor. 10 14. is less to the purpose, for it requires only to flee from Idolatry, not from Teachers that are any way Idolatrous, so as not to hear them. 2 Cor. 6.14, 15, 16, 17, 18. requires, not to be yoaked with Infidels, not to have part with them, not to agree with Idols, to come out from among Infidels, to be separate, not to touch the unclean thing, that is the Idol; which may be done, and yet a person some way guilty of Idolatry may be heard, yea owned as our Teacher, and we may have some communion with him in holy things, as in Prayer, and the Lords Supper, and praising God, which are not Idolatrous.

That which is premised by this Author before his confirmation of the minor, requires some Animadversions upon it. The definition of Idolatry, which hitherto hath been received by all Protestants that I know of, is,Note: Ainsworth of the Church of Rome against Johnson, p▪ 145. Every abuse doth not make a thing an Idol; but, when the honour due to God alone, is given to a creature, then it is made an Idol. that which Dr. John Rainold hath delivered in his 2d. Book de Idololatria Ecclesiae Romanae. c. 1. that it is the exhibiting of Divine Worship to a Creature, and hath proved it from Rom. 1.25. where [...], whether it be read instead of the Creatour, as explained by the Authors of the writing of the Constitutions of Clemens by [...], as it is cited by Grotius in his Annot. or Praeterito Creatore, the Creatour being forsaken or neglected, as Beza after Hilarius, or besides the Creatour, as [...], besides that which is laid, 1 Cor. 3 11. or as the Vulgar, Potius quam Creatori, rather than to the Creatour, or as ours, more than the Creatour, shews, that there is a worship and service [Page] proper to the Creatour, and herein was the Idolatry of the Gentiles, and all other, that they worshipped and served the creature, with that which was due only to the Creatour. And therefore I conceive it, not to be Idolatry, where Divine Worship is not exhibited to a creature, that is, directed to some person or thing, substance or accident, real or imagined, which is not the Creatour of all things▪ It is true, that Heathen-Idolaters did many of them make the Creatour of all, the utmost bound or terminus of their Image-worship, as the Apostle saith, Acts 17.23. that the Athenians did ignorantly worship the unknown God, and yet were Idolaters, because their worship was first of the Image as the next terminus or object to which it was exhibited. And the same is true of the Israelites worshipping of the calf, though they worshipped God in it, Exod. 32.5. because, though they did not worship the Calf terminatively, that is, so as to intend to direct their worship to it as the utmost bound of it, or last, or chief object: yet it was the molten Image which they worshipped, Psal. 106.19. Exod. 32.8. It is indeed most gross and absurd Idolatry, when the creature is worshipped terminatively, and therefore the worship of Baal is accounted worse than the worship of the golden calves at Dan and Bethel, 1 Kings 16.31. because it was terminated lastly to the Sun, or to the Devil, who was worshipped by Molech, to whom they sacrificed their Sons and Daughters, Psal. 106.37, 38. And this Idolatry was the Idolatry of the Canaanites, and a great part of the world, and of the Jewes at last, as St. Stephen chargeth them with, Acts 7.41, 42, 43. Nor do I think it true, which this Author here, and p. 63. saith, that there are few or none that worship the creature Terminative, sith not only of old the host of Heaven was worshipped by most of the Idolaters,Note: Vide Gatak. Annot. in Antonin. l. 12. sect. 28. [...]. as may be gathered out of the Scriptures, and is largely demonstrated by M [...] Selden in his Syntagma de Diis Syris; but also at this day the Devil himself is worshipped in the East- and West-Indies, in some Northern Countries, and Southern, if the relation of Travellers, Historians, and Chorographers be true. It is granted, that it is somewhat more refined Idolatry, when we offer up any worship or homage, proper and due to God only, before any creature, as the medium or representative of God. For then the [Page] worship is directed to it, as Gods Deputy, to receive it for him, and so the immediate or next terminus or object is the creature, though it be intended further to or for God, as the last or utmost term, bound or object, to which it is exhibited. But unless it be exhibited to the creature, it is not Idolatry, though it be done before the creature, as [before] notes only the presence of it with the worshipper, whether seen or unseen, minded or not minded, and not any respect to it in the act of worshipping. Worshipping at the Temple▪ before the Ark or Altar, was no Idolatry, it was a duty required, Psal 99.5. Worship at his footstool, meaning the Sanctuary and Ark there, saith Mr. Ainsworth in his Annot. Not, as the Vulgar reads it, and the Papists would have it, Worship his footstool; no nor if the Lord be worshipped before a creature, as the Objectum à quo, as the matter or thing which is the occasion, motive or reason; of worshipping the Lord at that time, is it therefore Idolatry, though the worship be not instituted in respect of the time. We read, 2 Chron. 7.3 And when all the children of Israel saw how the fire came down, and the glory of the Lord upon the House (the Temple,) they bowed themselves with their faces to the ground upon the pavement, and worshipped and praised the Lord: yet was no Idolatry therein; nor in that which Manoah and his Wife did, Judg. 12.20. or the people, 1 Kings 18.39. 2 Chron. 20.18. Exod. 4.31. and 12.27: Whence I inferr, that, though there be divers sorts of Idolatry, yet in every of them there is Divine Worship; and that, as Tertullian in his Book of Idolatry, c. 15. speaks of the three Children refusing to worship the golden Image of Nebuchadnezzar, Probantes Idololatriam esse quicquid ultra humani honoris modum ad instar Divinae sublimitatis ext [...]llitur, then it is Idolatry, when any thing that is not God, is extolled beyond the measure of humane honour, to the likeness of Divine sublimity, whether it be terminatively, or as a representative. Concerning which I acknowledge, that the Papists are deeply guilty in praying to the Cross, the Virgin Mary ▪ Saints, Angels, &c. in which they give them, and their Breaden-God, Images, and Reliques, that which the Scripture counts Latriam, or the Service which is to be given to God only, as to the Image of Christ, (Aqu. sum. parte 3. qu. 25 art. 3.) [...]aith, is to be adored with the adoration of Latria: yea Bellarmine l. 2. de Imagin. Sanctorum, c. 21. holds, that the Images of Christ, and [Page]the Saints, are to have veneration, not only by accident or improperly, but also by themselves and properly, so as that themselves terminate the veneration, and not only as they supply the place of the Samplar. And this veneration is expressed in the Trent Council, Sess. 25. to be, the kissing of them, uncovering the head, and falling down before them, which are the same which were done to the Image of Baal, 1 Kings 19.18. and counted Idolatrous, being given to an Image. And so are the services done to the Virgin Mary, though I think the Papists do not affirm expresly, as this Author saith of them, That the Virgin Mary may be worshipped with that worship which they call Cultus Latriae, which yet they say is due only to God; for they in words deny they give her Latriam, and call her Worship Hyperduliam. Nor do I conceive the worshipping of God in any other way than what he hath prescribed, is the Idolatry forbidden in the second Commandment; or that all who write upon the second Commandment say so, or that the oblation of worship or service to God, that hath been offered up to Idols, for which there is no prescription in the Scripture, is Idolatry, though perhaps it may be superstitious, and Will-worship; Between which, if a distinction be not made, the Pharisees that worshipped God by washing their hands after the tradition of the Elders, will be sound Idolaters, of which Christ doth not accuse them, Matth. 15.9. And therefore, if in respect of this, it is, that the Ministers be asserted Idolaters, his proof will come short: but let us view it Thus he writes,

Sect. 2. All Will-worship of God is not Idolatry.

Arg. 1. Th [...]se that worship the true God in any other way than he hath said he will be worshipped in, and is prescribed by him, are Idolaters: But the present Ministers of England worsh [...]p the true God in another way than he hath said he will be worshipped it, and is prescribed by him: Therefore▪ The ma [...]or (or first Proposition) is evident from this single Consideration: To wo [...]ship the true God through false mediums is Idolatry; such as so wo [...]ship him are Idolaters; (This must be so, or else there is little or no Idolatry in the world, nor ever was. The Athenians (and other Gentiles) worshipped the true God, for they worsh [...]pped him whom Paul declared to them, even that God, that made the world, Acts 17.23, 24. Yet none doubts but they were Idolaters, which they cannot be charged with upon any other account,[Page]than their worshipping the true God through false mediums:) But to worship God in any other way than what is of his own prescription, is to worship him through a false medium: Therefore so to worship him is Idolatry, and they that so worship him are Idolaters.

Answ. If by [any other way] be meant of any creature, as the medium or representative of God, as the golden calf, or brazen serpent, I yield the major to be true, and deny the minor: But if he meant by [any other way] any sort of worship, such as was the worship of God by washing of hands according to the tradition of the Elders, Mark 7.3, 4. I deny both major and minor. And to his proof of the major I answer:

Though the worshipping of the true God through such traditions of men, which he seems to call false mediums, be not Idolatry; there is and hath been too much Idolatry in the world, Paganish, and Jewish, and Popish, and is yet at this day; and in the Athenian worshipping of the true God, Acts 17.23, 24. there was Idolatry, in that they worshipped this unknown God by an Image, worshipping the Image as the representative of God, which may be gathered from v. 16. where the City of Athens is said to be [...], that is, wholly given to Idolatry, as we translate it, but more rightly, full of idols; which is thus expressed by Dr. Owen in his third Book of his Theologumena, c. 13. The streets of the City were called Pagi, because to every of their Deities some Stone (that is, a Pillar consecrated to this or that Idol) was erected. Thence to signifie s [...]me part of the City the use of the word was first drawn. The same was done at Athens as was done at Jerusalem, Jerem. 2.13. For according in the number of thy Cities, so are thy Gods O Judah, and according to the number of the streets of Jerusalem, ye have made Altars to that shame, Altars to burn incense to Baal. And from the expression of an Altar, v 23. which among the Gentiles had an Image near it, and the word [...], which Dr. Hammond in his Annot. on v. 16. saith, was not their Worsh [...]ps, or their Altars, but their Idols, that is, their Deities themselves, for so the word is used, Wisd. 14.20. And, on 2 Thes. 2 4. alledgeth Theophylact as interpreting [...], Acts 17.23. by their Idols; and from the word [...]. v. 22 applyed to this worship, is collected, that the unknown God was as a Daemor, to whom they erected an Image [Page] or Pillar, which they conceived their Deity present at, which is rendred, a standing Image, in our translation, or an Image of stone, to which they did bow down, forbidden Levit. 26.13. of which Ainsworth in his Annot. there, may be seen. So that upon this account the Athenians may be charged with Idolatry, in that they, in bowing down to, or worshipping the unknown God, did direct it to the Idol or Pillar which did represent him, unto which also an Altar was dedicated. But its added,

Sect. 3. This Authors Argument as well proves himself an Idolater as the Conformist.

The minor (or second Proposition) viz. That the present Ministers of England worship the true God in another way than he hath said he will be worshipped in, and is prescribed by him, is that which is denied by some: but the truth thereof, we doubt not, will to the unprejudiced Reader be beyond exception evident, from the ensuing Demonstration, viz. Those that worship God after the way of the Common-Prayer-Book, worship him in another way than that he hath said he will be worshipped in, and is prescribed by him: But the present Ministers of England worship God after the way of the Common-Prayer-Book: Therefore, &c. The minor (or second Proposition) cannot be denied; their subscription before they are admitted to the Ministry, together with their daily and constant practice, are sufficient evidences thereof.

Answ. That unwary Readers may not be deceived by the ambiguity of the phrase here used, it is to be considered, That the way of Worship not prescribed by God, may be either when the worship is to another thing besides or with God, which alone proves Idolatry, and in which sense the minor was denied, and should have been proved: Or, by another way, is meant another Ceremony or Rite, in which the Worship of God is placed, such as was the Pharisees washing their hands, which may be Will-worship, if to God only, but not Idolatry; and so, if he could prove our Ministers guilty of this, yet should they not be proved Idolaters, any more than the Pharisees were, with which neither Christ nor his Apostles do charge them; But this Author doth no [...] so much as goe about to prove the minor denied in this sense. But in a third sense, to wit, by another way of Worship[Page]than what God hath prescribed, he understands another way of expression of worship, in which the worship is not placed, but is used only as an outward means for conveniency, yet accounted alterable. In which sense the minor is not denied. But the major of his Argument is denied in either of these two later senses of the phrase, and the minor in the two former: in neither of which doth he goe about to prove it. I add,

1. That he doth vainly suppose God hath appointed or prescribed the particularities of the modes or way of his Worship, in every of the sorts or kinds of worship he hath prescribed, as particularly in Prayer, that it must not, in a pre-conceived and stinted form of words, imposed by Rulers, be performed to him; but that it must by the Minister be done in a loose, undetermined, unpremeditate or unprescribed form of words by any man; The which supposition is before shewed to be an errour, in the Answer to the Preface, sect. 20. ch. 1. sect. 3. ch. 4. sect. 9. ch. 5. sect. 3, 4, 5, 7.

2. In this sense in which he useth the phrase, his Argument may be retorted upon himself. Those that worship the true God in any other way, that is, form of expression, than he hath said he will be worshipped in, and is prescribed by him, are Idolaters: But they who pray in a loose, undetermined, unpremeditated or unprescribed form of words by man; worship the true God in another way, that is, form of expression, than he hath said he will be worshipped in, and is prescribed by him: Therefore they (among whom th [...]s Author is one) are Idolaters. The major is his own; the minor by his own grants stands firm, till he can shew where God hath said, He will be worshipped in, and hath prescribed such a loose form of expression in Prayer; which I yet find not. What this Author hath said before, is answered before. Till he brings better proof, though I will not pronounce him an Idolater; yet I shall judge him to be guilty of superstition, in counting that to be sin, which God hath not made such, and of usurpation of Gods Legislative power, in Pharisee-like requiring observance of his own tradition as Gods command; together with evil censoriousness, rash judging, and uncharitable separation. But let us goe on.

Sect. 4. Prayer in a stinted form may be worship of God of his appointment.

[Page]

As for the major Proposition; saith he, That to worship God after the way of the Common-Prayer-Book, is to worship him in a way that is not of his appointment.

1. Let any shew when and where such a stinted form of service was appointed by Christ, and this part of the controversie is at an end: Sure we are, there are not the least footsteps of such a way of worship to be found in the New Testament, no, not in the whole Book of God (whatever is pretended by some touching Liturgies (in the sense we are speaking) amongst the people of the Jews;) No, nor yet was there any such a way of worship thought of, much less imposed, in the first and purer times of the Gospel, for several centuries of years, after the dayes of Christ, and his Apostles. In the Epistles of the Church of Smyrna (about the martyrdome of Polycarpus,) and of the Churches of Vienna and Lyons (concerning their persecution,) in the Epistle of Clemens (or the Church of Rome) to the Church of Corinth, in the writings of Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Clemens, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, and their Contemporaries, there is not only an utter silence of such a thing, but assertions wholly [...], and opposite thereunto. Tertullian sayes expresly, Illuc suspicientes Christiani, manibus expansis, quia innocuius; capite nudo, quia non erubescimus; deni (que) sine monitore, quia de pectore oramus. Apol. cap. 30. The Christians in those days (he tells us) looking towards Heaven, (not on their Common-Prayer-Books) with their hands spread abroad, &c. prayed to God without a monitor, because from their hearts. And in several places he [...]estifies, that they praised God in a way of prayer and thanksgiving according to their abilities. Indeed Claudius de Sainctes, and Pamelius (two Popish Divines) tell us of Liturgies comp [...]sed by the Apostles, James, Peter, and Mark; Of Peter's and Mark's, Cardinal Bellarmine himself not only takes no particular notice, but upon the matter condemns them, as supposititious and spurious: which that they are, is abundantly demonstrated by learned Mo [...]ney, and no more need be added thereunto. There are some also fathered upon Basil, Chrysostome, and Ambrose: but as these l [...]ved about the years 372, 381, 382. in which time many corruptions had crept into the Churches of Christ; so the spuriousness thereof, as being falsly fathered upon the persons wh [...]se[Page]names they bear, may easily be demonstrated: Tis already done to our hands by learned Morney, in his Book De Missa, l. 1. chap. 6. Durantus himself (the great Liturgy-monger) acknowledgeth, That neither Christ, nor his Apostles, used any prescribed forms, but the Lords Prayer, and the Creed, (that they used these, he sayes, but proves not, nor will it ever be proved to the worlds end) That about the year 380. Theodosius (the Church being rent by Heresies) intreated Pope Damasus (at whose election, though the contest was betwixt him and Ursinus, a Deacon of the Church, there were not fewer than one hundred thirty seven persons slain) that some Ecclesiastical Office might be made, which was accordingly done by Hierome, and approved by Pope Damasus, and mad [...] a Rule. The unlik [...]lyhood of this later part of the story is manifest: Theodosius was too well acquainted with the spirit of Prayer, than to goe about any such thing; had he judged it necessary, having assembled the great Council of Constantinople, wherein were not less than an hundred and fifty persons convened; is it probable this good man Theodosius, would in so momentous a Concern, rather consult with one single person, than such an Assembly as were by his Authority met together? And yet, should this be granted, it would not from hence appear, that at this time there was any devised and imposed; all that is pretended to be done by Hierome, was the appointiing an order for the reading of the Scriptures, which is another thing to the imposition of Forms of Prayer in worship. There is one passage in Socrates his Ecclesiastical History, l. 5. c. 21. who lived about the year 430. that carrying an undeniable evidence with it, that at that time there were no Liturgies, we cannot pass over in silence, tis this: [...], wherein he tells us, That among all the Christians in that age, scarce two were to be found that used the same words in Prayer. Not to tire the Reader in this disquisition; Though one part of the Liturgy was not long after introduced by one Pope, and another part by another; yet till Gregories time (who, to the honour of Liturgies be it spoken, was the very worst of all the Bishops of Rome that preceded him) viz. about the year 600. was there any considerable use, or any imposing of them; yea till the time of P [...]pe Hadrian (which was about the year 800. was it not (as I find) by publick Authority imposed: Then indeed the Emperour Charles the Great (being moved thereunto by the foresaid Hadrian) by his Civil Authority commands the use of a Liturgy, [Page] (viz. Gregories Liturgy, as it is thought) to which he compels his Ministers, by threats and punishments, the usual attendencies and support of Liturgies ever since their production in the world. The summ is, That in as much as first it cannot be proved (the contrary being most manifest in the Scripture) that any Liturgy was enjoyned by Christ, or his Apostles, or in use in the first Churches planted by them;

2ly. It is evident, that for the first four hundred years and more after Christ, there was no Liturgy framed, nor any by solemn Authority imposed, to the year eight hundred; it follows undeniably from hence, That to worship God in the way of a Liturgy, or stinted forms of Prayer, is to worship him in a way that is not of his appointment.

Answ. 1. It is to be remembred, that, as I said before, were his Conclusion granted, yet Ministers would not be proved to be Idolaters; all worshipping of God, in a way that is not of his appointment, being not Idolatry, except therein Divine or Religious Worship be exhibited to a Creature.

2. That his own Argument, whose way of Worship is not prescribed without a stinted Form of Prayer, would as well prove himself an Idolater, as the Ministers of England.

3. That he still acknowledgeth, that the worship according to the Common-Prayer-Book, is the worship of the true God, nor doth he shew, that, according to it, any other is worshipped.

4. That he doth not except against the matter of the Prayers in the Common-Prayer-Book, no nor the particular forms of expression, as if they were not agreeable to the Scriptures, or indecent, or inept▪ But,

1. That all Liturgies, or stinted forms of Prayer (and consequently this) are not of Gods appointment, but of humane invention.

2. That they are unduly imposed on Ministers.

3. That Ministers do sinfully, yea Idolatrously use them, because it is a way of Worship not appointed by God.

The two former of these reach not the Ministers of England, but the Composers and Imposers; it is the third thing which is pertinent to the present Crimination, which may occasion to enquire,

1. Whether stinted Forms of Prayer, and service of God, which are not otherwise faulty, than in that they are stinted, [Page] may not be lawfully used by a Minister of the Gospel in his publick ministration?

2. Whether such Prayers and service may not be a Worship of God in a way that is of his appointment?

I affirm both, and to what is said against either, I answer,

1. That Christ did, in appointing the Lords Prayer to be used by his Apostles, Matth. 6 9. Luke 11.2. the Salutation to be used by the seventy Disciples, Luke 10.5. appoint such a stinted form of service.

2. That we have footsteps of such a way of Worship in the New Testament, in his justifying and countenancing the crying of Hosanna, that is, Save us now, taken from Psal. 118.25, 26. (as Mr. Ainsworth in his Annotation observes) by the multitude. And the Children, Matth. 21.9.15. Mark 11.9 With the Disciples, Luke 19 38, 40. John 12.13. In Christs using the Forms which David used before in the Psalms, Matth. 27.46. He prayes in the Form used, Psal. 22.1. Luke 24.46. In the Form used, Psal. 31.5. In the Apostles use of a Form of Prayer in his Epistles, Rom. 1.7. Rom. 16.24. 1 Cor. 1.3. 1 Cor. 16.23. 2 Cor. 1.2. Gal▪ 1.3. Ephes. 1.2. Phil. 1.2. Phil. 4.23. Col. 1.2. 1 Thes. 1.2. 1 Thes. 5.28. 1 Thes. 1.2. 2 Thes. 3.16, 17, 18. 1 Tim. 1.2 2 Tim. 1.2. Tit. 1.4. Philem. 3. Heb. 13.25. 1 Pet. 1.2. 2 Pet. 1.2. 2 John 3. Jude 2. Revel. 1.4. In the Old Testament, Numb. 6.23, 24, 25, 26. 1 Chron. 16.7.35. 2 Chron. 20.21. 2 Chron. 6.41. 2 Chron. 5.13. 2 Chron. 29.30. In the Titles of Psal. 92. and 102. Jerem. 33.11. Ezra 3.11. Zech. 3.2. Jude 9. Revel. 12.3, 4. Revel. 15. 3. Hos. 14.2, 3. Isai. 12.1. Deut. 21.8. and 26.5.10. Isai. 26.1. Mr. Ainsworth himself (than whom none was more opposite to any set Form, as appeared by his avouching in his writing to Mr. Paget, the Reasons in the Separatists Apology, p. 69. against using the words of the Lords-Prayer in prayer, to which Mr. Paget hath answered, in his Arrow against the separation of the Brownists, p. 69. &c.) in his Annot. on Exod. 12.8. reciting the Form of the later Jews at their Passover, saith, Vnto these phrases the New Testament seemeth to have reference, when it speaketh of the cup of blessing ▪ 1 Cor. 10.16. And of singing an Hymn, Mark. 14 26. And after, These Observations of the Jews, while their Commonwealth stood, and to this day, may give light to some particulars in the Passover that Christ kept; as why they lay down, one leaning[Page]on anothers bosome, John 13.23. (a sign of rest and security) and stood not, as at the first Passover, neither sate on high, Note: Vide Bezae Annot. in Matth. 26.20.30. as we use. Why Christ rose from supper, and washed, and sate down again, John 13.4, 5.12. Why he blessed, or gave thanks, for the bread apart, and for the cup (or wine) apart, Mark 14.22, 23. And why it is said, He took the cup after supper, Luke 22.20. Also concerning the Hymn which they sung at the end, Mat. 26.30. And why Paul calleth it, the shewing forth of the Lords death, 1 Cor. 11.26. As the Jews usually called their Passover, Haggadah, that is, Shewing, or Declaration. From which Observations we may gather, that our Lord Christ did use the forms in Blessing (which is a part of Prayer) which the Jews, without particular command of God, had taken up: And that St. Paul alludes to them, expressing the use of Christians, by the phrases of the Jews, which shews the Christians used their forms. Yea, that the Apostles, in many things of their ministry, retained the customes in their Synagogues, in matters of Worship and Ecclesiastical Government, is avouched by Mr. Stillingflete in his Irenicum, part 2d. ch 6. After Mr. Selden, Dr. Lightfoot, Dr: Hammond, Mr. Thorndike, and many others. Which things do abundantly prove, that this Author doth too too inconsiderately write, That there are not the least footsteps of a stinted form of service, in the worship of God, to be found in the New Testament▪ No, not in the whole Book of God, amongst the people of the Jews; No, nor yet was there any such a way of worship thought of, much less imposed, in the first and purer times of the Gospel, for several centuries of years, after the dayes of Christ, and his Apostles. I do not gainsay what this Author writes about the Liturgies fathered on some of the Apostles, and some of the Ancients: Neither will I justifie the use or imposition of them, as they have been in the later ages; only this I say, (which is sufficient for the present purpose)

1. That neither the words of Justin Martyr in his 2d. Apology to Ant [...]ninus, That the President did send forth prayers and thanksgivings, [...], as he had ability, the people testifying their consent, by saying, Amen. Nor the words of Tertullian, alleged by this Author, out of his Apologetique against the Gentiles, c. 30. That the Christians prayed for the Emperour, looking towards Heaven, and without a monitor, because[Page]from the heart, do necessarily exclude stinted forms of Prayer. The words of Justin Martyr may be understood of the intention of the affections, or duration of prayers, which may be in stinted forms; nor is it unlikely, but that thanksgivings were some of them such, as in their Psalms which they sung, which Pliny mentions in his Epistle to Trajan in that age; and those it is likely were stinted forms: And they might pray without a monitor or prompter, which excludes the suggestion of others, and from the heart, includes of their own accord, and yet pray in stinted expressions: Yea, the things mentioned that they prayed for, seem to intimate Set forms, agreeable to the things he mentions as prayed for.

2. However, it is apparent, if not from Tertullians Book of Prayer, yet out of Cyprians Book concerning the Lords Prayer, that Christians did, and conceived they ought, in publique prayer, to use the prescript words of the Lords Prayer, and that they had some other forms then, whieh are still retained, which those words intimate, Therefore also the Priest, a Preface being premised before Prayer, prepares the minds of the Brethren, by saying, Lift up your hearts: that when the people answer, We lift them up to the Lord, they may be minded, that they ought to think on nothing else but the Lord. Which, if it prove not an entire Liturgy to have been then in use, yet a worship of God by a stinted form of Words, was sure thought on in Cyprians time; and that this Author writes too confidently, when he saith, The least footsteps of such a way of worship are not found, nor were thought of in those times. It follows.

Sect. 5. Common-Prayer-Book worship shuts not out of doors the exercise of the gift of Prayer.

To which we add, 2. That Worship which is an obstruction of any positive duty charged by Christ, to be performed by the Saints, is not a worship that is of his appointment. But this is undeniably true of the Common-Prayer Book worship. Therefore, That Christ did upon his Ascension give unto his Church, Officers, as signal characters of his love to, and care of it, will not be denied, Ephes 4.11. is an evidence hereof beyond exception. That to th [...]se Officers he gave gifts and qualifications, every way suiting the empl [...]yment he called them forth unto, cannot without a most[Page]horrid advance against the wisdome, faithfulness, love and care of Christ towards the Beloved of his Soul, be gainsaid. That he not only expects, but solemnly charges upon these Officers, an improvement of the gifts bestowed upon them, for the edification of his Body, is evidently compriz'd, and very frequently remarked in the Scripture, 2 Tim. 1.6. 1 Cor. 12.7. Ephes. 4.11. Prov. 17.16. Luke 19.20. To imagine after all this, that any Worship should be of the institution of Christ, that should shut out of doors, as unnecessary, the exercise of the gifts given by him, to be made use of in the solemn discharge of the worship of his house, is such an imputation of folly to him, as may not be charged upon any person of an ordinary capacity or understanding: Yet this is righteously to be imputed to him (absit blasphemia) if the Common-Prayer-Book worship be a Worship of his appointment: The exercise of the gift of Prayer (to mention no more) being wholly excluded hereby. Nor will it in the least take off the weight of this Argument, to say, That liberty is granted for the exercise of this gift before and after Sermon: For,

1. The whole Worship of God, may, according to these mens principles, be discharged without any Sermon at all; and it is manifest it is frequently so, at one time or other, in most of the Assemblies of England.

2. Those their Prayers are also bounded and limited by the 55th. Canon of the Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical.

3. We had alwayes thought, that Christ having given gifts unto men, did require the use of those gifts at all times, when ever persons were called to the performance of that service for which they were designedly given by him, by vertue of the fore-mentioned precepts. When Christ hath given a gift of Prayer unto his children, and charged them to stirr up the gift given them, and not to napkin their Talent, we had verily thought, that when ever they had been called forth to the performance of that duty, he did really intend and expect, that they should be found in the exercise of the gift given; and see as yet no reason to change our apprehensions in this matter.

Answ. The major Proposition is not in all cases true. The resting on the Sabbath day was a positive duty charged by God, yet the sacrificing, which was an obstruction of that duty, called by our Lord Christ, Prophaning the Sabbath, Matth. 12.5. was Worship of Gods appointment. Following of Christ, and preaching the Gospel, were Worship of Christs appointment, and yet they were obstructions to positive [Page] duties required to be done to Parents, Wives, and Children Therefore it is not true, unless the thing, which is an obstruction, be such of its own nature, of it self, and not by accident, and so necessarily and universally such an obstruction. But not to insist on this, the minor Proposition is many wayes faulty.

1. It is supposed, that the Common-Prayer Book worship is a different sort of Worship▪ from such as is used by those, which exercise the gift of prayer, as he terms it; which is absurd: For then so many several forms of words as are used, should be so many several sorts of Worship; all expressions, that are not immediately inspired, should be Will-worship; and so preachers several methods, and expressions in preaching, should be several sorts of Worship. This is that which I assert, That the same petitions, the same Confessions, and Thanksgivings, for matter, are the same prayer, and Worship, though in various expressions; and that the same prayers, read out of the Common-prayer Book, and the prayers of the preachers, framed by themselves, and uttered, if they ask the same things in other phrases, are the same prayers, and Worship: And they that can joyn with the one, and say Amen to them; may as lawfully, and safely, without sin, joyn with, and say Amen to the other.

2. This Authors phrase doth intimate, that ability to conceive, compose, and utter in variety of expressions, petitions to God, is the gift of prayer; and the exercise of it, is the exercise of that gift; which is false: sith the gift of prayer is by the moving of the affections, directing the mind, exciting faith, as the Text alledged by this Author, Rom. 8.26. proves, the Spirits work being there to acquaint us, what we are to pray for; and to [...], to over-intercede for us, with groans unspoken; or, as it is read, which cannot be uttered: And therefore, no [...] in the inspiration of words, or method, or fitting a person with various, or unpremeditated expressions. Yea, those who express not, who do not compose their petitions in any order or method, as in Ejaculatory prayers, such as Nehemiahs prayer was, Nehem. 2.4. Hannahs, 1 Sam. 1.13. Hezekiahs, Isai. 38.14 Those who premeditate before they pray, as David did, Psal. 19.14. have as truly, and perhaps more rightly, and do exercise the gift of prayer, as [Page] those who in never so extemporary manner, enlarge themselves in various expressions and petitions. It is true, the Author of the Discourse concerning the interest of words in Prayer, ch. 2. tells us, The gift and grace of Prayer are two things: This, he derives from the spirit of adoption; That, he defines to be an ability of mind, to form words expressive of such desires of our hearts, as are according to the will of God, conjoyned with a faculty of memo [...]y, and of expression, and elocution; which, he saith, is partly natural, partly by industry attainable. But the gift of Prayer here, by our Authors words, pag. 62. is the donation of the Spirit; and usually the exercise of it in expressions unpremeditated, or conceived in opposition to praying by a book, or written set forms kept in the memory, is termed praying in the Spirit, and so no natural or acquired ability; which is to be observed, that the ambiguity of expressions may not deceive the unwary Reader. Now if this be observed they that pray in a set form, and those that read the Common-Prayer, may be truly said to pray in the Spirit, if their heart goe with their words; and to exercise the gift of Prayer, if the gift of Prayer be as the Discourse cited doth describe it.

3. The gift of Prayer, by alleging Ephes. 4 11▪ should seem, by this Author, to be accounted a ministerial gift, proper to them; for so were the gifts mentioned Ephes. 4.11. which if so▪ then it is not common to the Saints, nor the exercise of it a positive duty cha [...]ged by Christ to be performed by the Saints, except they be Ministers; and so it is not lawful for them, except they be Ministers, to seek, or to use the gift of Prayer. If they have it, by this Authors arguing, they are to exercise it, as well as Ministers; and it is as unlawful for them to pray by a book, as for the Ministers; they so praying, worship in a way not appointed by God, and are Idolaters, as well as the Ministers; and separation is to be from them▪ as well as from Ministers. Whereas▪ i [...] the gift of Prayer be partly natural, partly acquired, then it is lawful for Ministers, or other Saints, to make use of any lawful means, which may acquire that gift, such are any that may be a Directory to know what they a [...]e to pray for, that may advantage them, for remembring, composure, or elocution, conference, imitation of others, reading, meditation, self-examination; and if the Common-Prayer Book be a help (as some conceive it is) it may be [Page] lawfully used, or any others treatises, or forms of Prayer, for the obtaining of it. And if so, the Common. Prayer Book worship may be, so far from being an obstruction to the positive duty of exercising the gift of Prayer, that it may further it, by acquainting us with many things we should ask for: as the Homilies also may be helps for the knowledge of what Doctrine Preachers are to teach their people. And then this Authors Argument may be thus retorted. That Form may be lawfully used for Worship, which may be a means to further any positive duty, charged by Christ to be performed by the Saints. But such may be the forms of Prayers in the Liturgy of the Church of England. Therefore. The major is grounded on the rule given by Divines about the Decalogue: That which requires a duty, requires the means conducing thereto. The minor is proved, in that the Common-Prayer Book directs what things are to be prayed for, by reason of the brevity of Collects; the Responds, the frequent use, the plain expressions, help the memory and elocution, wherein the acquired gift of Prayer consists; therefore it is not an obstruction, but a help to the gift of Prayer. But this Author, though he may perhaps count this tolerable in others, yet not in Ministers; let's view what he saith of them. He alledgeth Eph. 4.11. and would inferr from thence, That all Ministers have the gift of Prayer, and are to use it; that the Common-Prayer Book worship shuts it out of doors, as unnecessary, and therefore is not of Christs appointment. But,

1. The Text expresseth not the several sorts of Qualifications, but the several sorts of Officers.

2. If it be supposed, that ministerial gifts are also implyed; yet whether extraordinary, or ordinary, may be doubted.

3. If ordinary gifts, there may be a question, Whe [...]her the gift of Prayer, as he means it, were one: that is, Whether Christ hath required▪ that every Minister should be able, on all occasions, to express himself without any stinted form, either conceived by himself, or composed by others, to make known the requests, which it concerns his people, to whom he is Pastour, in the most solemn and publick auditory, to ask of God, in their behalf, in words and elocution fitting the matter and auditory. I doubt not but the Minister should be able to express the requests of [Page] the people, as he should be able to declare the mind of God to the people; yet neither the one▪ nor the other, is of necessity to be done, or the Minister tied to do it every way, but the best way he is able, or at least, that way as is fit for the end of his expressions, to wit, the peoples understanding, not the ostentation of his parts. The Apostles could preach without study, but Timothy was to give attendance to reading, to meditate, to give himself wholly to th [...]se things, whereby his profiting might appear to all, and yet had a gift given by prophecy, 1 Tim. 4.13, 14, 15. Ministers are to preach the Word now, but they are not tyed to preach without notes, without study, without other helps which God affords: Nor are Ministers bound to express themselves alwayes without pre-conceived, or prescribed forms in prayer, and yet they may faithfully discharge their work. Now God doth not give gifts, as he did in the Apostles times; and therefore the same readiness and exuberancy of expressions, or composure of petitions, is not to be expected of Ministers now, as was of them.

4· I add, That though the Apostles said, Acts 6.4. We will give our selves continually to Prayer, and to the ministry of the Word. And St▪ Paul, 1 Tim. 2.1. exhorts, Tha [...] first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for Kings, and all that are in authority: Yet we read not, that this is made the Ministers work, to express the common necessities of the Church, in a publick auditory, or any rules about the form or manner of praying. Nor do we find, that either Christ, or his Apostles, used any forms of prayer, before or after their preaching; and therefore conceive not this to be the proper work of a Minister, or that either way of praying is determined▪ and therefore both may lawfully be used by the Minister, or other Christians. Nor doth the one way of Worship shut out of doors the other; or the Minister, by using the Common-prayer Book, exclude conceived prayer by the speakers. If they were tyed, by the Governours, to use no other than the Common-prayer Book expressions; yet this is not to be imputed, either to the Common-prayer Book, or its way of worship, or to the Ministers, but unto those who do so rigidly impose it. I add further, That were there a prohibition of using any other than the Common-prayer, yet this were not a shutting out of doors Christs institution, unless it [Page] were proved Christs institution, that at all times in Prayer no stinted form should be used. Nor doth it shut out of doors the gift of Prayer, unless it be proved▪ they only have the gift of Prayer, who use their own conceived expressions; which if so, not only those who use the forms of Prayer, though with never so much fervency of spi [...]it, which they read or remember in the Common-Prayer Book, or in the Practice of Piety, or any other such Book of mens composure: but also those, who use the words of the Psalms, or the Lords-Prayer, yea that do say Amen to the words of any Preacher before Sermon, or any that gives thanks afore meals, should shut out of doors the gift of Prayer, or the exercise of it, sith he useth not the gift he hath, to wit, the ability of mind to form words, and to utter them, which is the definition of the gift of Prayer before given. There are many in the Congregation perhaps yea some Women that can form and utter words as fit for Prayer as the Minister; will not this Author have this gift of Prayer shut out of doors, and yet not conclude that a positive duty is obstructed thereby? Besides, there may be a restraint of a duty, as unseasonable, sith affirmative precepts bind not ad semper, to be done at all times, perhaps time will not permit, or weather, or some accidents, or more necessary business; and yet the gift not shut out of doors, as unnecessary, but as only inconvenient at that time. Do not the most able Preachers sometimes omit the exercise of their gifts, and yet count not them shut out of doors, as unnecessary? Yea, doth not the Apostle, 1 Cor. 1 [...]. put some restraints upon Prophecying, to keep order? Did he then shut out of doors, as unnecessary, the gift of Prophecy? I have read, that the Separatists in the Low Countries, have spent so much time on the Lords day in debating causes, and matters of Discipline, that they have omitted exercise of their gifts in some other Ordinances; and yet I presume they have not shut them out of doors, as unnecessary. If at one meeting of Christians, no other thing had been done, but the reading of St. Pauls Epistles, as he appointed, Col. 4.16. yet were not the exercise of A [...]chippus his ministry thereby shut out of doors, as unnecessary, but only suspended for that time. And this would be no Napkining up of his Talent, nor such exclusion of the gift of preaching or prophecying, as, with others, this Author clamou [...]ously inveighs [Page] against The 55th. Canon directs Preachers what they should pray for, doth not limit or bound them in the words or matter: It saith, They shall move the people to joyn with them in prayer, in this form, or to this effect, as briefly as conveniently they may: Not forbidding to pray for other things, or in other words, than are there set down. And blessed be the Almighty, that yet Ministers have liberty at all times to express themselves in prayer and preaching, as fully as there is need; that the Kings Majesty invites to fasting and prayer; That, notwithstanding it is to be bewailed, that the Worship of God is no better performed than it is; and that the intemperate abuses of some, have caused more severe restraint on others, than were to be wished: Yet there is so much purity of Worship and Doctrine▪ as that Separation is unnecessary. And this Author, as if he imitated the Gloss in the Canon Law, Non satis discretus esset, &c. writes causelesly, if not blasphemously, that Folly may righteously be imputed to Christ, if the Common-Prayer Book worship be a Worship of his appointment. He goes on thus.

Sect. 6. Common-Prayer Book Worship is not of pure humane invention.

But 3ly. The Common-Prayer Book wo [...]ship, is a Worship, of which we find no footsteps in the Scripture (nor in some centuries of years after Christ) as hath already been demonstrated: Whence it follows, That 'tis a Worship of pure humane invention, which is not only not of Christs appointment, but contrary to the very nature of instituted Wo [...]ship (as is proved in our first Argument) and to very many precepts of the Lord in th [...] Scripture, Exod. 20.4, 5 Deut. 4 2. and 12.32. Prov. 30 16. Jer. 7 31. Matth. 15.9, 13. Mark 7.7, 8. Rev. 22.18. The mind of God in which Scriptures we have exemplified, Lev. 10.1, 2, 3, 4. Josh. 22.10. &c. Judg. 8 2. 2 Kings 16 11. 1 Chron 15.13.

Answ This Author runs on in his gross mistakes, as if the form of words in the Common-Prayer Book were the Worship, that it were a several sort of Worship from the prayers made by a Preacher of his own conception, and that such prayers were worship of Christs institution, and not the other. Which mistakes are shewed before: And what he saith here, is answered, either in this chapter, sect. 4. or chapt. 1. sect. 3. [Page] The Common-Prayer Book worship is no more a pure humane invention, than Preachers conceived-prayers: Nor is it any Idol, forbidden Exod. 20.4, 5. Nor any Prophecy added to the Book of the Revelation, forbidden Revel. 22.18. Nor such an Ephod as Gideon made, Judg. 8.24. Nor such a not seeking God after the due order, as was the carrying of the Ark in a cart, and Uzzah's putting his hand to it, 1 Chron. 15.13. Nor such an invention forbidden, as was the Altar of Damascus, imitated by Uriah, 2 Kings 16 11. And therefore it is sufficient to deny what is here said, without forming of an Argument. As for Josh 22 10. &c. it makes for the Common-Prayer-Book, not against it: sith that Altar was allowed of, though it were for religious signification, and yet not by Divine institution; and therefore proves, that all inventions of men, whereby our Worship of God is signified, are not unlawful, if they be not made necessary, nor the Worship of God placed in the things so invented, or their use. It follows,

Sect. 7. Common-Prayer Book worship is the same with the Worship of the Reformed Churches.

4. That Worship which is not necessary for the edification, comfort, or preservation of the Saints, in the Faith and Vnity of the Gospel, is not of the institution of Christ: But such is the worship of the Common-Prayer Book: Therefore. The major (or first Proposition) will not be denied. The Lord Jesus having freeed his Disciples from all obligations to the ceremonies of the Law, institutes nothing de novo, but what he kn [...]w to be necessary (at least would be so by vertu [...] of his institution) for the ends assigned: which was the great Aim in all Gospel administrations, Ephes 4.7. to 15. Col. 2.19 Acts 9.31. Rom. 14.14, 15. 1 Cor. 10.23. and 14.3, 4▪ 5, 12, 26. 2 Cor 12 10. 1 Tim 1.4. That the Common-Prayer Book w [...]sh [...]p is n [...]t necessary for the edification, comfort, or preservation of the Saints, in the Faith and Vnity of the G [...]spel (what ever is pretended by its admirers) might many wayes be demonstrated. Take one p [...]grant instance instead of all▪ that will make it exceeding man [...]fest: The Churches of Christ, for the first four centuries of years, and more, after his Ascension, knew not any thing of such a Worsh [...]p (as hath been already demonstrated) not to mention the reformed Churches at this day, to whom it is as a polluted, accu [...]sed, abominable thing) yet, than those first and purer Churches,[Page]for light, consolation, truth of Doctrine, and Gospel-Vnion, hitherto there hath not been any extant in the world, more famous, or excellent; no, nor by many degrees comparable to them. But we shall not further prosecute this Argument, enough hath been said, to demonstrate, That the Common Prayer Book worsh [...]p is not of the appointment of the Lord: Therefore, such as worship him in the way thereof, worship him in a way that is not of his prescription. If the former, notwithstanding all that hath been said, be scrupled by any, we referr him to Tracts written by Smectymnuus, V. Powel; to a Treatise, entituled, A Discourse concerning the Interest of Words in Prayer, by H. D. M. A. The Common-Prayer Book Unmask'd; as also to a Treatise lately published by a learned (but nameless) Author, entituled, A Discourse concerning Liturgies, and their Imposition: In which that matter is industriously and la [...]gely debat [...]d.

A [...]sw This Author still continues his confounding of the Worship of the Common-Prayer Book, with the form of it, that is▪ the method, and phra [...]e, and manner of it, which no man that speaks distinctly▪ calls the Common-Prayer Book Worship. The Common-Prayer Book Worship is no other than the prayers, praises, lessons, ministration of the Sacraments: And these are of Christs institution, and are necessary for the edification, comfort, or preservation of the Saints, in the Faith and Unity of the Gospel; and accordingly the mi [...]or Proposition is false which denies it. But sith this Author, by Worship, understands the forms and modes of it, though they be not prescribed or determined in Scripture; or the kind of Wo [...]ship, in respect of those forms: meaning, that the Worship, for example, p [...]ayer, prai [...]e, and the like, which are expressed or performed by forms or modes not prescribed by Christ, though the kind or so [...]t of Worship be of Christs institution; yet, because it is performed in such forms or modes, as are not necessary for the edi [...]ication, comfort, or p [...]eservation of the Saints, in the Faith and Unity of the Gospel, it is so adulterae [...]d thereby, that it is not of the institution of Christ. In which sense the maj [...] Proposition is to be denied, and the Argument may be [...] thus: That Worship, which in respect of the mode or form of performing, is not necessary for the edif [...]cation, comfort, or p [...]eservation of the Saints, in the Faith and Unity of the Gospel, is not of the institution [Page] of Christ: But such is the extemporary, conceived Prayer of Preachers, and others, such is the praising of God in the English metre; the reading of the Scriptures, according to ordinary division of chapters and verses, with the contents of the chapters: Therefore. The major is his own, the minor stands good, till it be shewed, where Christ hath appointed such extemporary praying, or such praising, such reading the Scripture so divided: To which I might add, in hearing, taking notes of Sermons, Preachers using notes in the Pulpit, with sundry more; but I forbear.

As for the Texts alledged, Ephes. 4.7. &c. it speaks not of Worship, and its institution by Christ; nor what is the necessary requisite to such Worship, as is instituted by Christ: but only of Gifts, that is, preaching Officers, and the end and use of those gifts. Col. 2.19. speaks not of Worship, or what is requisite, that it be of Christs institution: but tells us, that Seducers, which taught worshipping of Angels, held not the Head, that is, Christ: And that from him all the Body (that is, the Church) by joynts and bands, having nourishment ministred, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God. Acts 9.31. speaks not at all of Worship, or its institution by Christ, or Christs aim in Gospel-administrations, or what is requisite that Worship be of his institution: Rom. 14.14, 15. much less; it speaks of the cleanness of things of themselves, the uncleanness to him that thinks them so; and our duty not to grieve our Brother with our meats. 1 Cor. 10.23. tells us, of the inexpediency of some things lawful, in that they edifie not; nothing of Christs aim in his institutions, or what is requisite to his instituted Worship. 1 Cor. 14.3, 4, 5, 12, 26. tells us, of the benefit of prophecying, the end and use of spiritual gifts; nothing of Christs aim in his institution of Worship, or the requisite to such institution. 2 Cor. 12.10. doth not mention any thing▪ but Pauls affection and estate. 1 Tim. 1.4. nothing but the incommodity of fables and genealogies. Which should be observed by the Reader, that he may be wary, how he trusts to this Author's, and other Separatists multiplying Texts impertinently, that they be not ensnared by them; and that such persons may see, what cause they have to repent of such abusive wresting of Scripture.

As for that which he saith of the Common-Prayer Book worship, if he mean thereby the prayers or praises in the forms [Page] therein, I will not say, They are necessary for the edification, comfort, or preservation of the Saints, in the Faith and Vnity of the Gospel: I yield, that they are not necessary; those ends may be obtained by other forms of Prayer, or rather by preaching, confessions of Faith, and reading of the Holy Scriptures; unto which the Lessons and portions of Scripture, confessions of Faith, in the Common-Prayer Book, are as conducible as other. Whether the Churches of Christ, in the four first centuries, were so excellent, as he saith: And whether they knew not any thing of such a Worship as the Common Prayer Book worship, is a disputable point, Et adhuc sub judice lis est. What is said, That to the Reformed Churches, at this day, the Common-Prayer Book worship is as a polluted, accursed, abominable thing, I find no cause to believe, except he mean by them, the Churches of the Separatists. I find Calvin, in his 200th. Epistle, saying indeed, In Anglicana Liturgia, qualem describitis, multas video fuisse tolerabiles ineptias: Yet in his 87th. Epistle, he saith. Quod ad formulam precum & rituum Ecclesiasticorum, valde probo, ut certa illa extet, &c. And I find Maresius of Groning, in his Academical Decision of some Questions, qu. 11. alledging those words of Calvin, and disputing against Francis Johnson his Latine Answer to Carpenter against Liturgies, and asserting Liturgical Forms to be admitted by all the Reformed Churches: Nor do I find any thing to the contrary in Voetius his Ecclesiastical Policy, or any other, that have lately written, who have gainsaid these speeches; and therefore, I conceive, that this Author, in this speech, hath too great a smack of that, which is in one of Tullies Epistles, said of such men: Qui semel vere [...]undiae fines transilierit, eum gnaviter impudentem esse oportet. Neither Smectymnuus, nor the Assembly, nor Mr. Baxter in his Disputation of a Form of Liturgy, nor any other of the Presbyterians, that I know, have written such things of the Common-Prayer Book, as this Author vents. If they are to be read, he that would find truth, should also read the Answers to Smectymnuus, Ball's Tryal of Separation, Paget's Arrow against the Separatists, with others. As for [...]. Powel his Tract, I find in it such a sardle of false Principles, misallegations of Texts, non-syllogizing, confused Dictates, with vain Gi [...]des, that me-thinks no sober or judicious person should be moved by it. The Common-Prayer Vnmasked, I have not seen: The Discourse of the Interest of [Page]Words in Prayer, doth not advantage this Author, to prove separation from Ministers, or their Ministry, by reason of the Common-Prayer. The Discourse of Liturgies I have read, and find in it little Logick, a great many words, which if they were reduced to syllogistical form, would appear to be a bulk without sinews: Not to mention the many absurd Dictates; among which I have observed this, that p. 16. The L [...]rds Prayer is made to belong to the Oeconomy of the Old Testament, and to argue thence to the New, is to deny Christ to be ascended on high. But I must attend the Author here, who adds,

Sect. 8. No Particularity instituted is a meer Circumstance, yet Particularities undetermined are.

Object. If to what hath hitherto been proposed, it be said, That the Liturgy, or Common-Prayer Book, is no essential part of Worship, but meerly circumstantial: Praying, tis true, is part of Worship, but praying in this or that Form is not so, but meerly a circumstance thereof: And therefore, though it be true, that the present Ministers of England worship God after the way of the Common-Prayer Book; yet it follows not, that they worship him after a way that is not of his appointment. To this we answer,

1. That many things are strenuously supposed, as the Basis upon which the weight of this Objection is laid, which the Framers thereof knowing to be no easie task to demonstrate, do earnestly beg us to grant unto them: which being matter of greater moment than many are aware of, we shall not part with, on such easie terms. Tis supposed,

First, That there are some things in the instituted Worship of Christ, that are meerly circumstances thereof, as such.

Secondly, That it is lawful for Saints to pray in a Form.

Thirdly, That Forms of Prayer imposed, are but meer circumstances of Worship, and no essential parts thereof.

Fourthly, That circumstances of Worsh [...]p, as such, are not determined by the Lord in the Scripture, but left to the wills of men, to determine therein as they shall judge meet. All unproved. Of the last of we have already spoken, and shall not here re-assume the debate thereof.

Touching the First, That there are s [...]me things in the instituted Worship of Christ, that are meerly circumstances thereof, as such, [Page] we crave liberty to deny, which, till the proof be attempted, may suffice. Circumstances in the worship of Christ, attending religious actions, as actions, we grant;) but circumstances of Worship, as such, will never be proved:) To inferr, that because time and place, with sundry things of the like nature, are circumstances in Worship, therefore there are circumstances of Worship, as such, is frivol [...]us: Those things being the attendments of religious actions, common to any civil actions of the like nature, to be performed by the Sons of men; No action to be managed by a community, can be orderly performed by them, without such an assignment of time and place: Publick Prayer being so to be managed, as a religious action, hath the circumstances before mentioned attending it; and so it would, were it a meer civil action, to be performed by a community, though it related not at all to the Worship of God.

Answ. It is not true, that the Objection supposeth, That some things in the instituted Worship of Christ, are but meer circumstances thereof, as such: meaning, that any particularity of that action, which Christ hath prescribed for his Worship, being instituted by him, is a meer arbitrary circumstance, and not a necessary part of that Worship. It is held in the Lords Supper, and all institutions of Christ, in which particularities are expressed, there should be strict observation of them, as part of the Worship: But in things not determined, liberty is allowed to vary; and therefore, if Christ have not instituted, that you shall pray without a Book, or set Form, Prayer by it may be lawfully done. The distinction of circumstances in, and of the Worship of Christ; of religi [...]us actions, as actions, or as religi [...]us, a [...]e but unnecessary nice [...]ies, so long as the meaning of the Objection is manifest, That the praying in this, or that Form, is not a part of the Worship; as if without it, the Worship were not, or not according to Christs institution, but an accident of it, which may adesse vel abesse, which is in effect, if [...] understand this Author, the same which he grants, That there are circumstances in the W [...]rship of Christ, attending religi [...]us actions, as actions which are not in their particula [...]ities expresly prescribed by Christ And if we agree in the thing, it is but frivolous to wrangle about words.

Sect. 9. Praying in a Form, may be praying in the Spirit.

[Page]

2. Saith this Author, That tis lawful for Saints to pray in a Form (i. e. to tye themselves to a written stinted form of words in Prayer) is not yet proved, nor like to be; tis too large a field for us to enter into: nor is it needful to do so, till it be proved, That to pray in the form of the Common-Prayer Book, or imposed devised Liturgies, is so: Yet in transitu, we crave leave humbly to offer, That to pray in a Form, as before explained, is altogether unlawful, being,

1. A quenching of the Spirit of Prayer.

2ly. A rendring useless the donation of the Spirit, as a Spirit of Prayer, unto the children of God.

3ly. Directly opposite unto the many positive precepts of Christ, before instanc'd in, of stirring up the Gifts given to us of God, improving the Talents he hath been graciously pleased to intrust us withall.

4ly. If it be lawful for Saints to pray in a Form, tis lawful, either because they have not the Spirit; or that having the Spirit, he is not a sufficient help to them in their approaches to God: If the first, they are not Saints, Rom. 8.9. To assert the second, is little less than blasphemy, besides its direct opposition to Rom. 8.26.

Answ. The position of this Author here, by his words, appears to be, That not only it is altogether unlawful for Ministers, but also for all Saints, all that have the Spirit of God, to pray in a Form: And though he seems to mean by his addition, that he counts it only then unlawful, when they tye themselves, [...] whether by vow, or customary use, or once only, to a stinted form of words in Prayer, without variation, written, not conceived by him that prays, and kept in his memory; Yet his Arguments are against using any set Form, by any Saint, conceived by himself, and kept in memory without writing, though but once used: For then the Spirit of Prayer is quenched, its donation is rendred useless, its against the positive precepts of stirring up our Gift, improving our Talent, disabling the Spirit; which are at no time to be done: And if so, no way of Worship of Christs institution, and therefore Idolatrous, and, by this Authors Doctrine, to be separated from; and therefore this Authors principles▪ carry him, not only to separate from hearing the present [Page] Ministers, but also from every Saint, that not only often, but once useth a set Form, devised by himself, in Family exercises, as before meals, or other times: And, if he be of Mr. Ainsworths mind, in the controversie between him and Mr. R [...]binson of old, he must not only separate from the publique communion of the Church of England, but also from the private religious communion of every one that joyns in common Prayer, or in private stinted forms of Prayer, except they profess their repentance: And if we should prove it lawful to pray in the form of the Common-Prayer Book, or imposed devised Liturgy (which seems no hard thing to do, if we suppose the Ministers, and Common-Prayer Book Worshippers, not to have the Spirit; for then, by his Arguments, they do not quench, make useless, neglect the gift of the Spirit; and therefore are not forbidden a stinted Form, which would overthrow this Argument against the Ministers) yet we must do somewhat more; we must prove it lawful for the Saints, who have the Spirit, to use once a stinted form of words, though it be the Lords Prayer only. Which I think will be done by this Argument: That Prayer may be lawful to Saints, in which neither is any thing done forbidden by God, nor any thing omitted which God requires thereto, but such may be praying in a Form: Therefore. To what this Author humbly offers, I answer,

1. That the things he offers, proceed only upon mistakes: That the praying the Spirit, Ephes. 6.18. Jude 20. in the Holy Ghost, is meant of extemporal, unpremeditated, unprescribed forms of words▪ Whereas, praying in the Spirit, is meant of praying by the operation of the Spirit within, not of Prayer in respect of the form of words wherein it is expressed; which may be gathered concerning the former Text, in that the Prayers there, which are to be in the Spirit, are all, alwayes with all prayer and supplication, watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication: which cannot be well expounded of other Prayers, than such as are solitary, of which many are only ejaculatory, without words: And this is confirmed by the words, Ephes 5 19. where the effect of being filled with the Spirit, is the speaking to themselves in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord in their heart. Besides, as all the directions, Eph [...]s. 6.13, 14, 15, 16, 17. [Page] are precepts of what each Christian should do by and for himself: so is v. 18. and so, if not solely, yet chiefly meant of solitary Prayers, to which words are not necessary; and therefore, praying in the Spirit, is by the operation of the Spirit in the heart, not by the Spirits immediate forming of words in the tongue. And the same is to be said of Jude 20. Of 1 Cor. 14.15. I have spoken before, in answer to ch. 5. sect. 7.

2. The ability to express petitions in words extemporary, unpremeditated, is termed, the Spirit of Prayer, as if it were in every one that hath the sanctifying Spirit of God, and they only; for so the alleging Rom. 8.9.26. for it, in the 4th. Argument, must inferr. But who knows not by experience▪ that many that have not the Spirit of God, have yet this ability to admiration, as is related by Camden, Saravia, the Author of the relation of the conspiracy concerning Hacket, in Q Elizabeths time, and many others: And on the other side, many whose holiness of life shewed they had the Spirit, yet not this ability; and therefore it is ill called, the Spirit of Prayer, whereby many unwary souls are ensnared with the opinion, as if such as can express themselves fluently in words, largely, and with shew of affection, were immediately moved by the Spirit; and they distill thereby into many inconsiderate persons, errours and evil principles: Whereas it is acknowledged to be but an acquired ability, with help of natural endowments, and many times is proved to be but a counterfeit and deceitful practice. Now then, in answer to each of the particulars, I say,

1. That the Spirit is not quenched, as is forbidden, 1 Thes. 5.19. by a set Form of Prayer, used by another, and read out of a Book, any otherwise, than by a pronouncing without a Book, a conceived Form; the ability of another to conceive and utter, for matter and words, is as much limited by the one, as by the other. It is true, when prejudice is against reading, or the Forms read, or the Reader huddles it over, or delivers it coldly, it much abates the affection of the hearer: and so it is in saying over a conceived Prayer, if there be a prejudice against the person, or his delivery be dull and heavy. And it is not to be denied, that lively affectionate expressions, with readiness of speech, and apt emphatical words, have much energy on hearers; [Page] and so sometimes it is, when a written Sermon or Prayer is well and pathetically pronounced: So that the Form doth but lessen the affection by accident, not necessarily, and of it self; and thus either when a stinted Form is pronounced by another, or by the person praying, it may be very incommodious to use it, usually such Forms being read or said without heed or feeling. Yet universally it is not so: Nor is the quenching of the Spirit (meant 1 Thes. 5.19.) meant of the Spirit of Prayer, more than any other exercise of godliness or gifts, whether ordinary or extraordinary: Nor is the quenching the Spirit, the act of another, but of him in whom the Spirit is quenched; who, either by his sinful life, or by cares, and riches, and pleasures of this life, and lusts of other things, ch [...]kes the word of God (which is the sword of the Spirit, Ephes. 6.17.) as our Saviour speaks, Luke 8 14. and they bring no fruit to perfection (unto which sense the following Exhortations, of not despising prophecyings, and proving all things, v. 20, 21. do incline me) and so the sense is, Quench not the operation of the Spirit, by the preaching of the Word, whether by embracing errours, or by evil lusts: Or if, by the Spirit, be meant, the comforts or extraordinary gifts of it: In any of these wayes, the quenching is by the persons own act, in whom the Spirit is quenched: It is neither, by any Interpreter I meet with, or any shew of reason, applyed to the extinguishing or slackning the ability of another, to utter and conceive Prayers, by publique use of a Liturgy, which doth not any otherwise quench that ability, than any other way of expression doth the ability of the hearer, which must be stinted; and so, the Spirit of Prayer, as this Author terms it, be quenched by the speaker in all joynt-prayer, unless it be allowed all to speak together, contrary to 1 Cor. 14.27. Whence I conclude, that this Text is most impertinent: And though it be, that some mens reading, and in like sort, some mens speaking without book, some using of a set Form in publique, and in private, may by accident, through the fault of the speaker, hearer, or user, abate the fervency of spirit in solitary or joynt prayers; yet it is not so necessarily, or of it self, and therefore not unlawful, nor quenching the Spirit of Prayer, nor a rendring useless the donation of the Spirit, as a Spirit of Prayer, unto the children of God, as this Author speaks in his 2d. Offer: But in some cases a stinted Form is [Page] helpful, both to the understanding, memory, affections, utterance in prayer, both publique and private, as many holy Saints have found by experience.

To the 3d. I say, That the precept to Timothy, of stirring up the gift of God, which was in him, by the putting on of Pauls hands, 2 Tim. 1.6. cannot be understood, of the ability to express himself in extemporary prayer; but of his ability to preach the Gospel, as 1 Tim. 4.14. is meant; which he is encouraged to by the next words, v. 7. For, God hath not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, of love, and of a sound mind; or, as some read, of castigation, or reducing others to s [...]briety. However, it is impertinent to the purpose of the Author here, it being not meant of exciting the gift of expression in prayer with others; and yet, if it were, he that reads a Liturgy, may stirr up the gift of expression at another time, if he cannot when he reads. As for the impr [...]ving of the talents, Matth. 25.15.27. Luke 19.13.23. it is the duty of every Christian, and not only of Ministers; and if it be meant, of using abilities in joynt-prayer, every Christian must, as he is able, utter himself in prayer, contrary to 1 Cor. 14.26, 27. I conceive, by comparing Matth. 25.29, 30. with Matth, 13.11, 12. Mark 4.24, 25▪ that the talent which is given to each, is the knowledge, or teaching of the Word of God, or the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven, which each person is to improve, by bringing forth the fruits of it, Matth 21.43. Or if it be meant of the Ministers gift, it is to be understood of his ability to preach the Gospel, and the improving it, by converting others to faith and obedience; not of so mean a thing, as an ability of conceiving and uttering Forms of prayer without book.

As for the 4th. thing offered, The lawfulness of the Saints praying in a Form, is neither because they have not the Spirit; nor, that having the Spirit, he is not a sufficient help to them in their approaches to God: but because in such praying, neither is any thing done forbidden by God, nor any thing omitted thereby, which God requires for the performing the duty of prayer. The Spirit, I grant, is sufficient to help in our approaches to God, and doth help, Rom 8.15.26 But that it is done by enabling, by immediate inspiration, to utter matter of prayer, for the benefit of others, is not meant in those places. And indeed, such a mistake hath filled some with high conceit of themselves, and others with [Page] admiration of such, to their mutual perditions: Whereas this is but a common gift, or rather an acquired ability▪ often used with cunning to deceive others, of which there are many footsteps in the affected expressions, & otherwise, which shew, their p [...]aying is not from the Spirit of God, but their own spirit▪ But of the impertinency of this Text I have spoken before, in answer to ch. 5. sect. 7. It follows,

Sect 10. The Forms of Prayer imposed, are not made necessary essential parts of Wo [...]ship.

[...]

Answ. The [...] P [...]oposition, m [...]ant of making it doctrinally necessa [...]y, by vertue of Gods appointment, so as [Page] that the omission of it at any time, when the worship is performed, should be sin; or using any other Form, should make it not Gods worship, or not acceptable to him; might be granted: But being understood, of making a thing the condition of an action, by vertue of the authority of Governours, so, as that at some time and place, it is not to be done without it, by persons that are their subject [...], under a civil penalty, the major is denied: In which sense, the use of the Liturgy is imposed, which doth not make it any other than a circumstance of Divine worship, not such an adjunct as is a necessary part thereof. This Author granted before here, sect. 8. Circumstances in the worsh [...]p of Christ, atttending religious actions, as actions; without assignment of time and place, no action to be managed by a community, can be orderly performed by them. Therefore, if the Governours assign a time and place, undetermined by God, it is that which they may do lawfully, and not requiring them as necessary by vertue of Gods institution; nor of all but only of their own subjects, they are made but circumstances, not necessary parts of Divine worship. So, if for avoiding of inconvenience, publique praying be forbidden in the night, and in some places; and it be commanded to be done at such hours of the day, in such a place: these hours and place are made no other than circumstances of the religious action, no Religion is placed in them, [...]hey are not made parts of worship, but adjuncts alterable as it may stand with conveniency. There is the same reason of imposing a Liturgy for uniformity, to prevent dissonancy, or some other inconvenience, which may be incident to some persons, as of requiring Prayers without it. If neither be determinatively instituted by Christ, but commanded for conveniency, they both remain circumstances, [...]ot necessary parts of Divine worship, notwithstanding the imposition by Governours. Sacrificing on the Altar, at the Tabernacle and Temple, was a part of the worship, because commanded by God; and so would the Liturgy be, if it were commanded as that was: But that the Liturgy is not so, it appears from the words of the Preface to it The particular forms of Divine worship, and th [...] rites appointed to be vsed therein, being things in their own natu [...]e indifferent and alterable, and so acknowledged; it is but r [...]asonable, that upon weighty and important considerations, according to the [...][Page]exigency of times and occasions, such changes and alterations should be made therein, as to th [...]se that are in place of Authority, should from time to time seem either necessary or expedient. Nor do I think it true, That any considerable Minister of England, would affirm the Common-Prayer Book to be an essential part of worship, or make it such, as this Author imputes to them; nor in use of it, is it alwayes so observed, but that it gives place to preaching, to reading Briefs for collections, and some other occasions; and yet, if they did so strictly observe it, this doth not prove, they esteem it a necessary essential part of worship, by vertue of Gods command: but that they conceive they ought to obey their Governours Laws, not judging others, who use it not. But whatever be the judgement or practice of the present Ministers, yet the words of the Preface (which are more to be regarded, than any particular Ministers opinion, whereof some, its confess'd, have too much magnified it) do shew, that the imposition makes it not such as this Author chargeth on them. And this is enough to acquit the use of it from Idolatry, even in this Authors own sense, sith they do not place the worship of God in the Form, but in the Kind of worship commanded by God; and so the minor of his Argument is denied. For though the Form of the Common-Prayer Book be not prescribed, yet the way of worship therein, that is, Prayer, Praises, the Lords Supper, are worship pre [...]cribed by God. If the Author mean, by way of wor-ship, the forms and modes, the way of worship by Preachers conceived or extemporary prayers▪ this Authors form of preaching, and other worship, is not prescribed by God; and the Separatists are Idolaters, as well as the Ministers of England; and so his Argument is retorted as before▪ He goes on thus,

Sect. 11. Acting in the holy things of God, by an Office-power and modes of Idolaters, may be without Idolatry.

To which we add. Argument 2. Those who act in the holy things of God, by vertue of an Office-power received from Idolaters; and offer up to him a Worship meerly of humane composition, once abused to Idolatry, with the modes and rites of Idolaters, are guilty of the sin of Idolatry: But the present Ministers of England, act in the holy things of God, by vertue of an Office-power [Page]received from Idolaters, and offer up to him a Worship meerly of humane composition, o [...]c [...] abus [...]d to Idolatry, with the modes and rites of Idolaters. Therefore. The major (or first Proposition) carrying a brightness along with it, sufficient to lead any one into the belief of the truth thereof, one would think may be taken for granted. Two things are asserted therein,

1. That such as act in the holy things of God, by vertue of an Office-power received from Idolaters, are themselves such at least in respect of that their Office-power so received by them) That Jeroboams Priests were all of them Idolaters, we suppose will not be denied: Supposing some or more to act in the Worship of God, by vertue of an Office-power received from them, were these to be accounted in that respect Idolaters? It seemeth so: Nor can there be the least pretence of reason to the contrary: Certainly such as act by vertue of authority committed to them, in matters Civil, from Rebels, are equally guilty of Rebellion, as those from whom they derive that their authority. The case is here the same.

2. That such as offer up to God a Worship meerly of humane composition, once abused to Idolatry, with the modes and rites of Idolaters, are Idolaters: If these be not such, I must profess, I know not who are. That there are few, or none, that worship the Creature terminative, will not be denied, the most of Idolaters in the world are such, upon the account of their worshipping the true God through mediums of their own d [...]vising, with rites and modes that never entred into the heart of God to prescribe. To assert, that any should symbolize with Idolaters herein (who are solely upon this foot of account such) and not be guilty of the sin of Idolatry, is absurd and irrational. The major Proposition then (as was said) may be taken for granted.

Answ. Not so, without better proof, and thus understood, That they still abuse it to Idolatry; and, That the modes and rites be of themselves Idolatrous: without these limitations, the major is denied. Those that were ordained Priests by Papists, and used the Common-Prayer Book after, in the dayes of Edward the 6th. were not Idolaters: though this Author will not acquit Latimer, Cranmer, Ridley, Hooper, and others, from Idolatry then, yet I shall boldly do it: And to what this Author saith, I reply, That the Office-power, no, not though it were from Idolaters, for Idolatrous purposes, doth not make persons actually Idolaters, till they do actually exhibit Divine worship to a [Page] creature. Suppose a person be ordained a Priest, to offer Sacrifice propitiatory for the quick and dead in the Mass; yet if he [...]epent thereof, and never do adore the Breaden-God he is not an Idolater: Yea, suppose he act in baptizing, preaching, marrying, burying according to the rituals of the Romanists, by vertue of his Ordination, as a Priest; or, as this Author speaks, his Office-power, without exhibiting any Divine worship to a creature (which in some of these may be) yet is he not thereby an Idolater. The reason whereof is manifest, because he is not an Idolater, to whom the definition of Idolatry ag [...]ees not. And this is the reason why, if Jerob [...]ams [...]riests, though consecrated for the worship of Idols, did not worship them, they were not to be accounted Idolaters: Nor are those that act by vertue of authority committed to them, in matters Civil, from Rebels, equally guilty of rebellion, as th [...]se from whom they derive that their authority, unless they act rebelliously; if they act for the restitution of their P [...]ince, the publique peace, they are accounted good Subjects, and not Rebels, though at first they derived their authority from Rebels. Nor doth the worshipping of God by a Form meerly of humane composition, make Idolaters, though it have been abused to Idolatry, with the rites and m [...]des of Idolaters, unless the [...]e be Idolatry in the Form, and the rites and modes be Idolatrous in their use: because, notwithstanding this, no Divine worship may be given to a creature. So, though the Form of Baptism in the Roman Church▪ were mee [...]ly of humane composition, used with Crossings, Cream, Oyl, Spittle, if these rites were used, though by them abused to Idolatry, not as they do, so as to give Divine worship to a creature, the Users, in this manner, however guilty of Will-worship or Superstition, yet would not be justly chargeable with Idolatry; no, not though they should in [...]ome sort symbol [...]ze with Idolaters, that is, be assimilated to them, or in some sort comply with them. Much less is it true, that they are Idolaters, who use that which is of Di [...]ine appointment, to the right use, because Idolaters a [...]u [...]ed it to Idolatry: He that should use the Lords Prayer, or the Psalms, to worship God with them should not be an Idolater, because Witches have invocated the Devil, by the Lords Prayer, or the Papists the Virgin Ma [...]y, by the words of the P [...]alms in Bonaventures Psalter. That which he saith here, [Page] That few or none worship the creature terminative, he doth revoke the next page save one, finding Bellarmines ass [...]rtion, l. de Imag. c. 21. That the Images thems [...]lves [...]erminate the veneration given them, as they are in themselves considered, and not only as supplying the [...] that which they represent. But had not this passage p [...]oved it, the Idolatry of the Papists, in worshipping the H [...]st, invocating Angels, Saints, the worship of the Devil by Americans, the Sun and Moon of old, would prove, that most of [...]dolaters do worship the creature terminative. From that which is said, I inferr, That his maj [...]r may be denied wi [...]hout [...] or irrationali [...]y. But I pass to his minor, of which he sai [...]h thus,

Sect. 12. The English Ministers opp [...]s [...] P [...]pish Idolatry, as other Protestants.

Whether this be true of the pr [...]s [...]nt Ministers of England, is next to be considered, of which briefly.

1. That the Romish Church (so called) are Idolaters; their Wo [...]ship, in the complex thereof, Id [...]la [...]ry, will not (we suppose) be denied by any that call thems [...]lves P [...]otestants; the most learned of whom have asserted an [...] [...]: And then allegeth th [...] Hymns, O felix pue [...]pera▪ O crux spes unica: Bo [...]a [...]scius the J [...]suite, that is, [...] lib. 3 Amphith. Honor. c. ult. ad Divam Hallensem & [...] J [...]sum, hae [...]eo lac inter medita [...]s, inter (que) cruo [...]em, &c. Aqu. Sum parte 3. q 25. Bell. de Imag. c. 21. F [...]ar [...] seus de mend [...]za in viridatio utrius (que) eruditionis, lib. 2. p [...]o [...]. 2▪ The vsual ascription in Bellarmine, Baronius, Laus Deo Virgini (que) matri Mariae.

Answ. In which I agree with him, That the Papists are guilty of most horrid Idolatry: and, could he shew any such things in the Common-p [...]aye [...] Bo [...]k, or the Service of the Ministers of the Church of England, I should agree to his Separation. But when no such thing is to be found in the Liturgy or Service of the present Ministe [...]s of England: And, when he knows the H [...]mily of the Peril [...]f Idolatry, and the writings of the lea [...]ned Bishops and D [...]v [...]nes of the Church of England, are as much against [...]h [...]ir Idolatry as other Protestants, to insinuate into the peoples minds, as if the present Ministers of England did symbolize with these Idolaters, of whose Idolatry they shew so much detestation, [Page] is a most viperous calumniation, and most unworthy of a Christian. But he goes on thus:

Sect. 13. The Ministers of England act not by vertue of an Office-power from Idolaters.

2. That the present Ministers of England act by vertue of an Office-power from this Combination and Assembly of Idolaters, they themselves will not deny: Succession from hence being one of the best pleas they have for the justification of their ministry: (which when they have proved, that ever the Lord Jesus did intrust an Assembly of the greatest Murderers, Adulterers, and Idolaters in the world, with any power, for the sending forth Officers, to act in the holy things of God, to, and for the Church his Spouse, will be admitted; but that they shall never be able to do) so hugely importunate are some of them herein, that they are not ashamed to ask us, VVhy Ordination may not be received from the Church (so called) of Rome, as well as the Scripture? To which we shall only say, That when it is proved, that we received the Scripture from that Apostate Church, by vertue of any Authority thereof, as such, somewhat of moment may be admitted in that enquiry, but this will never be done. Tis true, the Bible was kept among the people, in those parts, where the Pope prevaileth; yet followeth it not from hence, that we received it from their Authority, as Ordination is received: If we did, why did we not keep it, as delivered from them to us, in the Vulgar Latine? So that of these things there is not the same reason. It will not then be denied, but the present Ministers of England, act in the holy things of God, by vertue of an Office power received by succession from the Church of Rome, and so from Idolaters (that Church being eminently so, as hath been proved.)

Answ. This Objection, though it be but a slight thing, and of no real force, to nullifie or invalidate the Calling of the present Ministers; yet, because the well-affected Protestants are zealous against Popery, as having learned the Pope to be Antichrist, and that terrible threanings are, in the Revelation, against any communion with any thing that is suggested to them by those, to whom they adhere, to come from Rome, or the Pope, as being Antichristian, it is needful, that this thing should be cleared▪ for rectifying the mistakes of people, that their unadvised zeal against some things as Popish, which are not, may not occasion [Page] unnecessary Schism, and such other evils, into which persons, perhaps otherwise of honest hearts, cast themselves to their ruine. It is known to those that study Controversies between Protestants and Papists, that this hath been one grand Objection of the Papists against the Reformed Churches, that their Ministers are not rightly Ordained, and therefore they have no succession; which by Bellarmine, in his Book de Notis Ecclesiae, c. 8. is made a Note of the Church; and therefore they are not a true Church, but schismatical. The Answers given to this Objection, are,

1. For the truth of the Reformed Churches, the succession in them of true Doctrine, is sufficient to demonstrate them true Churches, as I have asserted in my Romanism discussed, against the Manuel of H. T. Art. 2.

2. That Ministers may be sent of God, who teach the Doctrine of God, though they have not Ordination according to Church-Canons▪ as was the case at the first beginning of the Reformation; in which there was something extraordinary, by reason of the long tyranny of Popes, and the great corruptions in the Latine Churches.

3. That their Ministers were at first ordained by the Popish Bishops; and though they did after renounce the offering Sacrifice for quick and dead, yet even by the Papists own Canons, and resolutions of their Casuists, their power to administer the Word and Sacraments, according to the Word of God, continued still.

4. That those who had been thus ordained, had power to ordain others, for which the French, and other Protestants of the Presbyterial Government, allege, That Presbyters may Ordain, even by the confession of the Romanists; and that Bishops, though they be hereticks in their account, yet they lose not the power of Ordaining, no, not when degraded; of which more may be seen in Rivet. sum. Controv. tract. 2. q. 1. Alsted. suppl. ad Chamier. panstrat. de memb. Eccl. milit c. 8. Ames. Bellar. Enerv. tom. 2. l. 3. de clericis, c. 2 sect. 10. and many more, who have still pleaded, That, notwithstanding the impurity of the Church of Rome, yet the Calling, which Luther, Zuinglius, and others had from Popish Bishops, was sufficient, without any other Ordination, for an ordinary calling to the Office of a Minister; and that those, who have succeeded them, have been true Pastours in their Churches. The [Page] English Protestants, who have had Bishops above Presbyters, have advantage above other Protestants, to plead for the regularity of the Ordination of their Ministers, because they have been ordained by Bishops, and those Bishops consecrated by other Bishops, according to the [...]anons of the Ancients, in a succession continued from Bishops acknowledged by the Papists themselves. To evacuate this plea, saith Dr. Prideaux, Orat. 8. de Vocatione Ministrorum: The Papists would fain find a defect in the succession of the English B [...]sh [...]ps from the preceding B [...]shops, and in the solemnity of their consecration: And being beaten off from the denial of Cranmers consecration▪ by the producing of the Popes acknowledging of him Arch-bishop, and the register of his consecration, as also of other Bishops in King Edwards dayes: After, Christophorus à sacr [...]b [...]sco, or Father Halywood of Dublin in Ireland, Anthony Champney, and James Wadsworth say, That Arch bishop Parker, Bishop Jewel, and those others, which were made Bishops in the beginning of Q. Elizabeth, though the [...]e were an attempt of their consecration at a Tavern, at the Nags-head in Cheapside, yet could not they procure an old Catholick Bishop to joyn with them, and therefo [...]e their consecration was disappointed. To shew the falshood of this fable, and to make evident the compleat solemnity of Pa [...]kers, and others consecration; and the truth of the Ordination of the English Ministers,Note: Dr. Rainold in his Letter to Mr. Barker, testifies his sil [...]ncing Hart the Jesuite herewith; which is extant in Mr. [...]yfords Apology, p. 11. even by the Canons of the Papists, Bishop B [...]del in his Answer to Wadsworth, ch. 11. and Mr. Francis Mason in his Vindication of the English Ministry, have fully proved the solemnity of the consecration, out of the A [...]ch-bishops Begister, to have been [...]ight, and the succession to have been legitimate, even according to the Canon Law; and the Ministers Ordination to have been good, though not ordained sacrificing Priests for quick and dead, against the exceptions of Bellarmine, [...], and such other of the Papists' as have denied Protestant Ministers true Pastours, and their Churches true Churches. It is not unlikely, that some of the Prela [...]ical party, have vented in writings and conference, such expressions, as carry a shew of their disclaiming the Churches which have [Page] not Bishops, and extolling the Popish Churches Government, and avouching their Ordination from Rome; which hath caused a great ave [...]seness in many zealous persons from Bishops, and the conforming Ministers; and is taken hold of by this Author, and other promoters of Separation, as an engine sutable to that end. But as those learned men, Bedel, Mason, Prideaux, and others, have pleaded the succession of Bishops from the Popish Bishops, and the Ordination of Ministers by them, there is no cause given of that out-cry, that is made of the Bishops Antichristianism, declining to Popery, or of Separation, for that reason: the Presby [...]erian Churches making the like plea for themselves, That the first Reformers had ordinary calling, even according to the Papists own Canons; and the Episcopal Divines pleading only the same thing more fully. Yet it is not true, which this Author saith, That either the one or other make the succession from Popish Bish [...]ps, one of the best pleas they have for the just [...]fication of their minist [...]y: For, though they plead this succession against the clamorous and violent actings of the Popish party, which Petrus Molinaeus, in his 3d. Epistle to Bishop Andrews, mentions to have been in France, by Arnola the Jesuite; and the writings of Champney, Wadsworth, and others, shew to have been in England: yet they have justified their ministry without it, as may be seen in Amos, Als [...]ed, B [...]del, and others. And for the present Ministers of England, I conceive they will deny, that they act by vertue of an Office-power from the Combination and Assembly of Idolaters in the Church of Rome; their Office-power being not such as Priests are ordained to in the Church of Rome, to offer Sacrifice propitiatory for quick and dead, but to preach the Gospel, administer Sacraments, and Discipline, according to Christs institution: And in the solemnity of their Ordination, the Rom [...]sts rites being relinquished by the Ordainers, who are not a Combination or Assembly of Idolaters, but professors of the true Faith, and haters of popish Idolatry, though some succession of their Predecessors from Idolaters be alleged to stop the mouths of Papists, who pervert their proselytes, by impu [...]ation of novelty to the reformed Churches, and their Ministers, rather than by proving their Doctrine out of Scripture. As for that which is ob [...]ected, That Christ would never entrust such, to send forth Officers, to act in the holy things of God, for his [Page]Church, it is without reason objected, sith many of them might be, and in charity we are to conceive, were the servants of God, who abode in the communion of the Roman Church. Dr. Ames himself, in his Animadversions on the Remonstrants Scripta Synodalia, Artic. 5. c. 7. saith, We believe there were, and yet are many, who have not so farr separated themselves from the Papists, but that they are polluted with their manifold Idolatry, who yet have their part in the Kingdom of God. Even in the dayes of King Henry the 8th. and Q Mary, all the Bishops were not like Gardiner, Bonner, and such as were inhumane persecutors. Why Christ should not entrust Cranmer, Tonstall, and such like, to send forth Officers, to act in the holy things of God, as well as Judas to be an Apostle, I find not cause. The baptism received in the Church of Rome, the Brownists in their Apology, p. 112. acknowledge to be so farr valid, as not to need rebaptization; and why not then the Ordination by their Bishops? Bishops and Ministers, though they be evil men, and unduly get into power; yet, as it is with other Officers, their actings are valid: as Caiaphas, Ananias, and such like persons, who by bribes unjustly and irregularly usurped the High-Priests Office; yet their sentence and ministration were not therefore disannulled. He who said, We received the Bible from the Church of Rome, it is not likely meant it to have been received by vertue of their authority, but their ministry, Preachers having been sent by the Pope, to instruct the Saxons in the Faith: But whatever was meant by that speech, this we may safely say, That if the Office-power of the present Ministers had been (as it is not) received by succession from the Church of Rome, and so from Idolaters; yet being no other Office-power, than what hath been instituted by Christ, it no more proves the present Ministers Idolaters, than the receiving of baptism, or the Scriptures, by the ministry of men in that Church. It is further added,

Sect. 14. The Common-Prayer Book worship was not abused to Idolatry.

3. Nor can it be denied, but they offer up to God, a VVorship meerly of humane composition (as the Common-Prayer Book worship hath been proved to be) once abused to Idolatry, with the m [...]es [...]nd rites of Idolaters. That the Common [...]Prayer Book [Page] worship, is a worship, that was once abused to Idolatry, being the worship of that Church, whose worship (at least in the complex thereof) is so, cannot with the least pretence of reason be denied. That the whole of it, is derived from, and taken out of the Popes Portuis, as are the Common-prayers out of the Breviary: The administration of the Sacraments, Burial, Matrimony, Visitation of the Sick, out of the Ritual, or Book of Rites: The Consecration of the Lords Supper, Collects, Epistles, Gospels, out of the Mass Book: The Ordination of Arch-bishops, Bishops, and Priests, out of the Roman Pontifical, hath been a [...]erted and proved by many. VVhich might be evidenced (if needful) beyond exception; not only by comparing the one with the other, but also from the offer was made by Pope Pius the 4th. and Gregory the 13th. to Q. Elizabeth, to confirm the English Liturgy, which, did it not symbolize with the service of the Church of Rome, they would not have done. Yea, when the said Queen was interdicted by the Popes Bull, Secretary Walsingham procures two Intelligencers from the Pope, who seeing the service of London and Canterbury in the pomp thereof, wonder, that their Lord, the Pope, should be so unadvised, as to interdict a Prince, whose service and ceremonies did so symbolize with his own: VVhen they come to Rome, they satisfie the Pope, That they saw no service, ceremonies, or orders in England, but might very well serve in Rome, upon which the Bull was recalled. Not to mention what we have already minded, viz. the testimomy of King Edward the 6th. and his Council; witnessing the English service to be the same, and no other but the old, the self-same words in English, that were in Latine (which was the worship of England and Rome in Queen Maries dayes) it is evident, That the present Minsters of England, offer up a worship to God, once abused to Idolatry. That they do this, with the rites, ceremonies, and modes of Idolaters, (viz. such as are in use in that Idolatrous Church of Rome) needs not many words to demonstrate: What else is the Priests change of voice, posture and place of worship enjoyned them? Not to mention their holy Vestments, Bowings, Cringings, Candles, Altars, &c. all which, as its known, owe their original unto the appointments thereof. In the margin, Maccovius loc. com. append. de adiaph. p. 860. saith, Non licet mutuari, aut retinere res aus ritus sacros Idololatrarum sive Ethnicorum sife Pontificiorum, &c. etsi in se res fuerint adiaphorae quia vitandam esse omnem consormitatem cum Idololatris docemur. [Page] Lev. 19.4.27. and 21.5. Deut. 14▪ 1▪ It remaineth, That the present M [...]nisters of England, acting in the holy things of God, by vertue of an Office-power received from Idolaters; and offering up to him a worship meerly of humane composition, once abused to Idolatry, with the rites and modes of Idolaters, are deeply guilty of the sin of Idolatry.

Answ. That the Common-prayer Book worship, is a worship meerly of humane composition, however the Form of words be, is denied, and not proved by this Author, whose mistakes in confounding them are before shewed. Nor is the worship of the Common-prayer Book proved to have been abus [...]d to Idolatry, because the Fo [...]ms of words were taken out of the Popish Service Books, any more, than that the Scriptures or Creed, found in them, were abused to Idolatry, because thence taken: The worship being agreeable to Gods Word, cannot be abused to Idolatry. Nor doth the Form of words used in the Mass-book or B [...]eviary, which is otherwise holy and [...]ight, if it had never been in those books, cease to be holy and right, when the Idolatrous Forms are left out, any more, than Gold found in a Dunghill, remains Dung, and ceaseth to be Gold, when the filth is washed away from it. To that of the Common-prayer Book being taken out of the Popes Portuis, and King Edwards words, answer is made in the Answer to the 3d. chapter, sect. 4. The offer of the Pope, and the report of his Intelligencers, p [...]oves, that the Pope had nothing to except against the Common-Prayer Book, or the Service of the Church of England; but not, that they are every way the same with that which is used in the Church of Rome. Concerning its being taken out of the Popes Portuis, at least for the greatest piece, Arch-bishop Whitgift, in his A [...]swer to the first Admonition, p. 82. said long agoe, It maketh no matter of whom it was invented, in what book it is contained, so that it be good and profitable, and cons [...]nant to Gods Word. Well saith Ambrose, Omne verum à quocun (que) dicitur, à Spiritu Sancto, All truth, of whomsoever it is spoken, is of the Holy Ghost. As for the Book of Ordination, he an [...]wers, the words of the second Admonition, p. 201. thus▪ It is most false and untrue, that the Book of ordering Ministers and D [...]acons, &c. now used, is word for word drawn out of the Popes Pontifical, being almost in no point correspondent to the same; as y [...]u might have seen, if you had compared them t [...]gether: But ignorance and rashness[Page]drives you into many errours. As for the rites, and modes, and ceremonies objected, those, which are in the Church of Rome Idolatrous, are not observed, or used by the Ministers, who minister according to the Common-Prayer Book, to whom conformity with the Popish Priests therein is injuriously imputed; and they are so farr from being found deeply guilty of the sin of Idolatry, that the very a [...]guings of this Author rather acquit them, than convince them. As for the words of Maccov [...]us, they are not right; we may retain the goods used to Idol [...]try and apply them to holy uses, though they have been abused by Idolaters, yea, and abused to Idolatry, as the Temples, Bells, Tables, which have been abused to the Idolatry of the Mass, as is largely proved by Mr. Page [...], in his Arrow against the separation of the Brown [...]sts, in answer to Mr▪ Ainsworth, ch. 7. Nor is it p [...]oved by Maccovius▪ out of the Texts alleged here, That the sacred rites of Idolaters, though they be things in themselves indifferent, are not to be retained; but that all conformity with Idolaters is to be avoided. For none of the Texts speak of things in themselves indifferent; Turning unto Idols, and making to themselves molten Gods, forbidden Levit. 19.4. being gross Idolatry: the rounding the corners of their heads, marring the corners of their beards, v. 27. making baldness upon their head, shaving off the corner of their beard, cutting their flesh, Levit. 21.5. making baldness bettween their eyes for the dead, being heathenish customes, which were Idolatrous; as Ainsworth, Annot. on Levit. 21.5. Such as those, 1 Kings 18.28. Or as Salmasius in his Book of long hair; the rounding of the corners of their h [...]ads, to have been in honour of the Moon: Or shewing heathenish sorrow for the dead; all sinful in themselves, and therefore not indifferent. But there is yet one more Charge behind.

Sect. 15. Kneeling in receiving the Sacramental elements, is not Idolatry.

Argument 3. Adoration in, by, or before a creature respecti [...]è, or with relation to the creature, is Idolatry; such as so adore or w [...]ship G [...]d, are Idolaters: But the present Ministers of England, do adore or worship God, in, by, or before a creature respective, or with relation to the creature: Therefore. The major (or first Proposition) being generally owned by Protestants,[Page]it being the very same Maxim they make use of, and stop the mouth of the Papists with, in the point of adoring God mediately by the creature, we shall not stand upon the proof of it: none that know what they say, will deny it. The minor Proposition (viz. That the present Ministers of England do adore or worship God, in, by, or before the creature respectivè, or with relation to the creature) will receive a quick dispatch: Not to mention their bowing and cringing at the Altar: That they kneel at receiving of the Sacrament, is known: That they, with their Communicants, should do so, is enjoyned by their Church: That their so d [...]ing, is an adoration, or worshipping of God before the creature respectivè, or with relation to the creature, is too manifest to admit of a denial: Nothing being more certain, than that the Elements are the objectum à quo, or the motive of their kneeling, which if they were not there, they would not do. And in the margin. Didoclavius p. 755. saith, Genus [...]ectere non modò excludit ritus institutionis, sed etiam praeceptum secundum de Vitanda Idololatria multis modis violat. VVhich Maccovius assents to, loc. com. p. 861.

Answ. Whether this Authors Antagonists know what they say, this Author seems not a fit Judge, unless either he knew better what himself saith, or could better clear his meaning than he doth, that his Readers might know what he saith. In this Argument, he doth accuse the present Mnisters of England, and their Communicants of Idolatry, in kneeling at the receiving of the bread and wine in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper; and yet, ch. 5. p. 40. he had said. Kneeling at the Lords Supper, though we do not, some would say, smells very strong of the Popish leaven, and is but one pegg b [...]neath the adoration of their breaden-God. Here he exp [...]esly makes that Idolatry undeniable, as being adoration or w [...]ship of God in, by, or before the creature, to wit, the element [...] respectivè, or with relation to the creature, as objectum significativè a quo, or the motive of their kneeling; which if it were not, they would not do. So that one while, he will not say, it sm [...]lls strongly of the Popish leaven, nor that it is but one pegg beneath the adoration of their breaden-God; and if so (did he know what he saith) he acquits it from idolatry, which at another time he imputes to it. To which might be added. That, whereas in the beginning of this very chapter, he [...]eckons up as many sorts of Idolatry, as either he could, or thought fit at least for his design, of making the present [Page] Ministers of England Idolaters; and indeed, more than he should: yet this sort of Idolatry, of worshipping and adoring God▪ in, by, or before a creature respectivè, or wi [...] relation to the creature, as the objectum significativè à qua, or the motive of the adoration, or worship of God▪ is no [...] mentioned there by him; nor is this Kneeling any of them. For neither is the kneeling at the Sacrament, the worsh [...]p [...]f the creature terminatively: Nor before it, as the medium or representative of God: Nor the ascription of the Godhead, or [...] properties, to any creature: Nor the worshipping of God in any other way, than what he hath prescribed; For it is kneeling in prayer, or thanksgiving, to God, which he hath appointed: Nor is it the oblation of worship or service to God, that hath ben offered up to Idols, for which there is no prescription in the Scripture. For, if it be such, it is that which was done to the breaden-God: But that he will not say it is; for, ch. 5. p. 40. He would not say, it smells very strong of the Popish leaven, and is but one pegg beneath the adoration of their breaden God; therefore he makes it more than one pegg beneath it▪ and so beneath that oblation or service, that hath been offered up to Idols. Besides, as I have before said, the Papists themselves are not enjoyned to adore the bread, at the putting into their mouths, but at the elevation of the host; i [...] not consisting with their principles, to worship that which is not above them: Nor is it the most refined Idolatry, as he speaks, when the heart goes forth in desires after any thing, beyond what is limited by the Lord; or trusts and relyes on any creature, besides God: For this Kneeling, if it be Idolatry, is outward, not inward; of the members, not of the [...]; and therefore, it may be more truly charged on [...] Author, that he knew not what he said, when he accused Ministers and people of Idolatry, for receiving the bread and wine at the Lords Supper kneeling, though he had said enough before to acquit them from it. And, may he not be said, not to know what he said, who writes so ambiguously, indistinctly, and confusedly, as that his Reader cannot well discern his meaning? For, whereas worshipping God in, by, or before a creature respectivè, or with relation to the creature, may be understood before it respectivè, or with relation to it, as the terminus, or object to which i [...] is directed; as worshipping before, Luke 4.7. is wo [...]shipping of Satan, Matth. 4.9. and the relation to the creature, may [Page] be, as conceiving God included in it, as in the consecrated host; or represented by it, as by the golden cal [...], or a crucifix, or as pertaining to God, being consecrated to him, as G [...]deons Ephod, or Popish reliques of Saints, or hallowed grains; or the like, without Gods institution; in these, and such like relations, the adoration being directed to the creatures, whether as the only object to which, or the intermediate object; whether properly, or improperly; of it self, or by accident; if this Author had distinctly set down, that he meant his major in one or more of these respects, his Readers would have known what he had said, and would have granted his m [...]jor, and denied his minor. But he thought it best to hide his major in ambiguous speech, and to express himself more intelligibly in his instance in the minor, That Kneeling is adoration o [...] worshipping of God before the crea [...]ure respectivè, or with relation to the creature, as the objectum significativè à quo, or the motive of the kneeling. But in this sense I deny his major; and that he may not think me bereft of my wits, but that I know what I say, I give him this reason of my denial, I find the Holy Ghost inviting the Jews to worship at Gods footstool, his holy hill, Psal 99.5.9▪ which were creatures; and there they were to bow down to God, in, by, or before these creatures respectivè, or with relation to them, as the objectum significativè à quo, that is, that thing which was an object signifying Gods presence there, and the motive of their bowing down to God; which, if they had not been there, that is, the Ark▪ Temple, Altar, they would not have done; and there was no Idolatry therein. And to stop the evasion, that it was so, when God appointed it, though this would not avoid the instance, the bread and wine being of Gods appointment, and the use of them in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, as well as the Altar, Ark, Temple, were, they were instituted to be memorative signs of Christs body and blood, communicated to the receivers by faith; yet I find that adoration or worshipping of God before the creature respectivè ▪ or with relation to it, as the objectum significativè à quo, and the motive of the adoration, hath been performed occasionally without institution, and yet no Idolatry committed. When the Is [...]aelites at mount Carmel, 1 Kings 18.38. saw the fire of the Lord fall, and consume the burnt offering, and the wood, and the stones, and the dust, and [Page]lick up the water that was in the trench, they fell on their faces, and they said, The Lord he is God, the Lord he is the God. Here was adoration of God before the creature respectivè, or with relation to it, as the objectum significativè à quo, signifying the Lord to be God; and as the motive of that adoration, which, if it had not been there, they would not have done it; and yet no Idolatry committed. Another instance is 2 Chron. 7.3 When all the children of Israel saw how the fire came down, and the glory of the Lord upon the house, they bowed themselves with their faces to the ground upon the pavement, and worshipped and praised the Lord, saying, For he is good, for his mercy endureth for ever. Here was adoration and worshipping God, in, by, or before a creature, not having special institution, abiding in their sight, as the objectum significativè à quo, or the motive of their adoration, and worship of the Lord, and yet no Idolatry. I confess, that when the worship is before it, so as it is directed to it, as upon the sight of the bread, or a crucifix, the host, or a crucifix is worshipped, whether terminatively, or as the representative of another, it is Idolatry: As If Job, when he had seen the Sun when it shined, or the Moon walking in brightness, his heart had been secretly enticed, and his mouth had kissed his hand, as it is Job 31.26, 27. it had been Idolatry: For then the Sun had been not only obj [...]ctum à quo, the motive or occasion, but also objectum ad quod, or the terminus ad quem, to which it had been directed. But if he had only taken occasion, upon the sight of the Sun, to worship God, as David did, Psal. 8.3. magnifie or worship God the Creator, it had been no Idolatry, though the Moon or Sun were the objectum à quo significativè, or the sight [...] it, the motive to it. Till Divine worship be given to a creature, it is not Idolatry; although in the kind or means of worship, there may be Will-worship; and in the opinion of those, that count their act, or the object to be holy, when it is not, there may be superstition of the mind; and in the use of such things, or forbearing their use, superstition in the members.

That which this Author saith of his major Proposition, as generally owned by Protestants, I do not believe it to be true, understanding it as he doth, of relation only to the creature, as objectum significativè à quo, or the motive of the adoration, and not the object to which it is directed. As for this minor, it [Page] may be denied, even in his own sense; for the adoring of God, though it be at the receiving the elements, yet the elements are not objectum significative à quo, or the motive of their kneeling,

Note:

Ludov. Crocius Antisocinism. contr. disp. 22. qu. 3.

Geniculando coenam sumere nos per se indifferens judicamus. q. 11. Nobis hic ritus est indifferens, allegatq, Lutherum, M [...] lanchthonem, ut idem statuetes, contra Flacium.

according to the Common-Prayer Book, which saith, That the order in the Office, for the administration of the Lords Supper, that the Communicants should receive it kneeling, is well meant, for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgement of the benefits of Christ, therein given to all worthy receivers; and for the avoiding of such profanation and disorder in the holy Communion, as might otherwise ensue: That thereby no adoration is intended, or ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental bread and wine, there bodily received, or unto any corporal presence of Christs natural flesh and blood: Which intimate, that the elements are not the objectum significativè à quo, or the motive of their kneeling; but the benefits of Christ in the Lords Supper, given to all worthy receivers: And that, not the sight of bread or wine, (which is not seen till the cup be in their hand) but the remembrance of Christs death, and the remission of sins by his blood, by saith, are the motive to kneel to God, with prayer and thanksgiving to him, without any honour of the bread and wine, though received, eaten and drunk, to remember Christs death, as the procuring cause of those benefits. As for his Reason, if the elements were not there, they would not kneel; therefore they are the objectum significativè à quo, or the motive of their kneeling; partly the Antecedent is not true, for they kneel before they receive the elements brought to them, and after they have eaten and drunk, while they are in the meditation of Christs death, and the benefits by it, using holy ejaculation in prayer and thanksgiving to God; partly the consequence may be denied: For, though they would not kneel, were not the elements there, yet this is not sufficient to prove their presence the motive of kneeling, any more, than the presence and speech of the M [...]nister, who delivers them with prayer and exhortation, to whom yet this Author makes not the kneeling to have relation. And indeed, it is not the presence of the elements, [Page] when they are received, that is, while they are in the Ministers hand, or their own, or in their mouths, which is the objectum significativè à quo; but the actions with the elements, at the consecration by the Minister, which signifie Christs death: and the use by themselves in eating and drinking, whereby are signified their nourishment by Christ unto life eternal, which are the motive to that gratitude and trust in Christ, which in kneeling they exercise by prayer. As for the words of Didoclavius, with Maccovius his assent, they are the words of an Adversary to the Ministers in this cause, and therefore not fit to be alleged as a proof in this matter: Nor, if they were true, would they prove kneeling to be Idolatry, but to be some way against the second Commandement for avoiding Idolatry. We might more justly, and more to the purpose, allege the words of Dr. Ames, in his Triplication to Dr. Burges his Rejoynder, ch. 4. sect. 4. p. 382. There is no Non-conformist, which refuseth to kneel unto Christ, in the celebration of the Lords Supper: And the Conformists deny, they require kneeling to any other than God, and the Lord Jesus Christ. As for their bowing and cringing at the Altar, it concerns them to speak for themselves, who use it; neither do all the Conformists use it, no not in Cathedrals▪ if my information be right; nor is there any established Law for it; and those that use it, do avouch they do it, not to any other than God, and therefore are not to be charged with Idolatry, whatever other fault they are chargeable with, by reason of it. It follows

Sect. 16. The Crimination of the Ministers, as Idolaters, is not excusable.

Object. To what hath been hitherto offered in this matter, if it be said, That the charging the present Ministers of England with Idolatry, is exceeding harsh, and that which is an argument of a very unchristian and censorious spirit: Though this makes nothing to the enervating of what hath been offered, yet we answer,

1. That many words of Christ himself were accounted hard sayings, and not to be born; and that by such hearers, as were once his admirers, and did with seeming great affection attend upon his ministry. That such poor worms as we should be recharged[Page]herewith, it is no great marvel, it is enough for the Disciple to be as his Master.

2ly. We have in this matter said nothing, but what is in Thesi over and over asserted by most or all Protestant Writers upon the second Commandement: who assert fully, That the worshipping God in a way not prescribed by him, is Idolatry, such as do so, are Idolaters: With our application hereof unto the present Ministers of England, if they are guilty (as that they are, hath been abundantly demonstrated) why should any be offended? To speak truth, when our silence would be prejudicial to the souls of our Brethren, me-thinks should not be accounted unchristian or censorious. In the margin are these words, Calvin, Perkins, Ames, Macc [...]vius, Altingius, Wendeline, Paraeus, Explicat. Cate. p. 3. Q. 96. p. 528. saith, Quid postulat secundum praeceptum? Res. Ne Deum ullâ imagine, aut figurâ exprimamus, neve nullâ ratione eum colamus, quàm qua se in suo verbo coli praecepit, 1 Sam. 15.23. Deut. 12.30 Mat. 15 9. And afterwards he addeth, Huic secundo praecepto contraria sunt ea, quae vero cultui divino adversantur. 1. Idololatria, quae est culius numinis fictitius, aut superstitiosus. Sunt autem Idololatriae du [...] species, praecipuae: una crassior, cum fictitium numen colitur— haec species prohibetur in primo praecepto, & aliquâ ex parte, in tertio: altera est subtilior, cum verus Deus coli fingitur, sed erratur in genere culius, hoc est, cum vero Deo culius fingitur praestari, aliquo opere, quod ipse non praecepit: haec species Idololatriae, hoc praecepto propriè damnatur, & nominatur [...], sive superstitio. And pag 529. Qui peccant contra secundum praeceptum, peccant & contra primum, quia qui Deum aliter colunt, atque vult coli, illi fingunt Deum aliter affectum, atque est, hoc est, alium Deum: Ita non Deum, sed cerebri sui commentum, quod sic affectum esse sibi persuadent, colunt — Fingere alium Dei cul [...]um, est aliam Dei voluntatem, proinde & alium Deum fingere, &c.

But, 3ly. What would these Objectors have said to Tertullian (that renowned servant, and witness of the Lord J [...]sus in his day) who is, by farr, more nice in this print of Idolat [...]y, than we have declared our selves to be: He, in his Bo [...]k de Idololatria, chargeth such as make Statues or Images, build or adorn Temples (though it were their Trade) Astrologers, Schoolmasters, (that name the names [...]f Idols, making honourable mention of them in their orations) such as keep holydayes, d [...]dicated to Idolatrous service, as their Satu [...]nalia (in the stead of which, is the time [Page]with us called Christmass) &c. such as adorned their gates, posts, houses, after the Pagan manner, at Festivals, with Lawrel, Ivy, &c. as symbolizing with Idolaters: yet sure we are, he could not justly be charged with an unchristian or censorious spirit.

Answ. The charge is rightly laid, and your plea insufficient to take it off. Christs sayings were unjustly counted hard, because they were true; yours justly, because not so: his sayings tolerable, yea precious, because they tended to direct them in the way to life eternal; yours, judged to be from an unchristian and censorious spirit, because uncharitable, and tending to division. That, which by the Protestant Writers is said, is not all true: I think all Will-worship is not [...]dolatry: Our Lord, who accused the Pharisees of Will-worship, did not accuse them of Idolatry. How farr from Demonstrations your Arguments are, may appear by this Answer. Were it fit to recriminate, I could prove you guilty of as great Idolatry, as you impute to the Conformists. Your zeal for truth, and love to your Brethrens souls, were good, if it were in a good thing: if without knowledge, and it tend to errour and schism, it may be pernicious in its consequents. As for Tertullian, omitting what may be excepted against him, and the spirit by which he was acted in the close of his life, which shewed him to be (as Dr. Casaubon observes, in his Treatise of Enthusiasm, ch. 3.) a man, though otherwise learned, that ascribed too much to private Revelations, out of an excess of zeal, which he shewed in all his works, (in which, I wish it were true, that this Author, who here so extolls him, were not too like him) I conceive Tertullian might have such reasons for his niceness in the point of Idolatry in his time,Note: See Dr. Hammond of Scandal, § 21. when the Christians lived among Pagan Idolaters, who bore sway in the Empire of Rome, which only maintained such Idolatry as the publick received Worship, and persecuted Christians for not conforming to their Idol-service, as this Author hath not, for his accusing Ministers of Idolatry, for using a Service-book in the main right, in respect of the Worship; and a gesture, avowed to be only to the true God; in a Church, holding in the main, the [...]ight Faith; under a Prince, that professes the same Faith and Worship, and to be a Defender of it. As [Page] for such reliques of Pagan customes, or Popish, as yet remain, though it were to be wished, they were quite left, [...] sith they are not used in any honour to the Pagan Idols, but the original and reason of them at first, being almost, if not quite forgotten by those that use them, and are become but as civil customes, that have no state in religious worship, experience shews, that they are more easily reformed by neglect, than by earnest declamations against them Nor do I think, the course this Author takes, of seeking Reformation by Invectives and Separations, likely [...]o promote it; but to exasperate Rulers, and make opposites more violent in their way. It is added,

Sect. 17. The Martyrs are unjustly made Idolaters by this Author.

Obj. 2. But what shall we judge of Latimer, Ridley, Hooper, and many other famous witnesses and martyrs of Christ, who worshipped God after the same way of worship that these do now? Were they also Idolaters? How could they be saved then, when [...]he Scripture sayes, that no Idolater shall inherit the Kingdom of God, and we do not find that they repented hereof? To this we answer,

1. That the persons instanc'd in, were eminent witnesses of Jesus Christ in their day (whose very names are in our nostrils as sweet perfume) we readily grant, and would be loth to speak one word to abate of that just esteem is due to their names, and testimony for Christ.

2ly. That they are now with Christ, and shall come with him, a [...]d sit upon Thrones to judge their unjust Judges, in the day app [...]in [...]ed thereunto, we have not the least scruple.

But, 3ly. They were but men, encompassed about with many infirmities: That they were guilty of the sin of Idolatry, cannot (from what hath been said herein, its evident) be denied. Y [...]t,

1. They were, in that day, but just peeping out of the gates of Babylon, beginning to arise, and shake themselves out of the dust of the abominations of the great Whore; and, tis no wonder, if some of the filth of her fornications did cleave to them.

2. They worshipped God in sincerity, according to the light he was pl [...]sed in that day to communicate; and God accepted of them in Christ, granting to them a general repentance for those iniquities[Page]they saw not to be so, or knew not themselves to be guilty of: which is all we shall at present say hereunto. The intelligent Reader knows, that these things are not of any moment, for the invalidating of what hath been offered upon this subject. Thus farr of this Argument, The present Ministers of England are guilty of Idolatry; therefore, tis the duty of Saints, not to hear, but separate from them.

Answ. Though this Objection be not a direct Answer to your Argument, yet it is a very great prejudice against it, that by striking at the present Ministers, you wound the holy Martyrs; you make them Idolaters for that very thing for which they dyed, that they might not be Idolaters; judging them, as committing Idolatry, in kneeling with such respect to the bread, as they did utterly detest, abhorred to the death, and for witnessing against it, laid down their lives in the flames; and making all the godly at that time, who did as they did, and held communion with them, guilty of their sin, for hearing them, and not separating from them, and urging that against the present Ministers, which the holy Martyrs rejoyced in, and the Ministers think themselves happy, that they are found like them. Me-thinks when you wrote this chapter, you should have thought of that which is Psal. 73.15. If I say, I will speak thus: behold, I should offend against the generation of thy children: And have taken heed, how you had perswaded to separation for that, which in the Martyrs you make their infirmity, and in charity you might so conceive of the present Ministers: whereof many of them, even of the Bishops, and such as were in exile with the King, and others, at home, and abroad, have shewed their constant adherence to the Doctrine of the Church of England, particularly against the ado [...]ation of the consecrated host, when they were tempted to joyn with the Papists. I wish you did not strengthen the hands of the Papists, by this your pleading, rather than help to reduce them from their great abominations: and that you did not weaken the Protestant party, by hind [...]ing the union that should be among men that agree in the main, though they dissent in some things considerable, in this time, wherein the common Cause is endangered by divisions. If the Martrys were but peeping out of the gates of Babylon, it may seem, they were not, in your opinion, escaped thence, if some of the filth of the great [Page]Whores fornications did cleave to them, how is it, they are now with Christ, where no unclean thing enters? That they should repent of that which they offered to justifie a little afore they dyed, is not likely. It would be more for your comfort, and the Churches peace, if by getting out of Babylon, you did not run to the contrary extreme of Fana [...]icism: and in seeking Reformation, you did no [...] unsettle all; and that you did review this Argument, in which I find strong accusation, and weak proof.

CHAP. 8. ARG. 7th. and 8th.

Sect. 1. Every Offence of others, makes not sinful, that which otherwise is lawful.

Note: Arg. 7. TIs not lawful for Saints to do any thing, for the doing whereof, there is no positive p [...]ecept in the Scripture, that is an offence, grief, scandal, and cause of stumbling to their Brethren: But the hearing the present Ministers of England (as there is no positive precept in the Scripture for it, so it) is an offence, grief, scandal, and cause of stumbling to the Brethren: Therefore. The major (or first Proposition) is bottom'd upon express precepts in the Scripture, Rom. 14.13, 15, 20. 1 Cor. 8.9, 13▪ and 10.24.

Answ. There are varieties of circumstances and cases incident to the point of Scandal▪ which make the action from which it ariseth to be lawful or unlawful: there are several effects of Scandal, and divers degrees considerable: there are several states of persons offending, and offended. All which, and more besides, do require caution in denying or granting the major Proposition: Of these I wrote many years agoe, a Treatise of Scandalizing, sold by Richard R [...]yston at the Sign of the Angel in Ivy-Lane, in London: from whence many limitations may be fetch'd by the intelligent Reader, wherewith to limit the major Proposition, without which it is not to be granted, nor is it to be proved from the Texts alleged. Nevertheless, because if [...] should take them in here, I should enlarge and encumber the present Dispute too much, I think to let the major pass at present, and to wave also the exception which might be taken at the form of the Argument, the conclusion either not being [Page] that which is to be proved but by consequence, or if it be, there be four terms in the Syllogism, and to examin what he saith for his minor.

Sect. 2. Hearing the present Ministers may be the Saints duty▪

The minor (or second proposition), saith he, consists of two parts.

1. That for hearing the present Ministers of England, there is no positive warrant in the Scripture; if there be, let it be produced, and this controversie is at an end: The contrary thereunto hath all along been manifest in this present d [...]scourse. It cannot enter into our hearts, to imagin, that the Lord Jesus having instituted Officers of his own, for the management of affairs in his house, should ordain, that any of his houshold should attend upon the Ministry of such as are not of his institution (as hath been abundantly demonstrated touching the present Ministers of England, that they are not) nor is it by many pleaded as their duty so to do; but onely as their liberty, which they judge they may, or they may not do, without sin.

Answ. What warrant there is to hear the present Ministers of England hath been shewed▪ and that which hath been produced to the contrary examined especially ch. 1. & 2. The institution of Christ concerning Ministers, and what concerns their calling hath been also discussed especially in answer to the preface, and the 2 chapter: in which places is shewed, that warrant by permission is sufficient to justify the hearing of Ministers; that the positive precept for hearing determins not hearing of Ministers as thus called, but as teaching the word of God; that such election and ordination, as this Author requires, are not necessary to make make men instituted officers of Christ, that while the present Ministers preach the word of God the Saints may, and ought to attend on their ministery: and that they are not bound to examine their outward calling, but to leave that to Rulers, and themselves only to examin their doctrine; that they may as lawfully attend on their ministry if edifying them in the faith, as on the ministers of a gathered congregation, that they ought rather in obedience to Rulers, and to avoid Schism▪ and to prevent the intangling of themselves with private and novel opinions which are more easily vented in private meetings then in publique, and more readily entertaine [...] [Page] by private persons (few of whom are learned and judicious) than in more publique and solemn auditories: to hear ministers that preach the truth in publique congregations caeteris paribus, if their abilities, and faithfulness be alike, than to hear ministers in gathered churches privately meeting. And with these explications, I asse [...]t it not onely the Saints liberty, but also their duty to attend upon the ministry of the present Ministers of England. It follows.

Sect. 8. Sinful scandalizing is not by hearing the present Ministers.

2. That for the Saints (such as are visibly so, profess themselves to be such) to hear the present Ministers of England, is an Offence, Grief, Scandal and occasion of stumbling to their Brethren. This is too evident to be denyed, to how many thousands in England, for whom (those that as yet attend upon the present Ministry thereof, dare not but think) Christ dyed, is the practice of some herein, a Grief, Scandal and occasion of stumbling? Their Groanes and Tears alone, and together upon this foot of account, will better demonstrate the truth thereof, than our words can. Yea, how many poor souls have been drawn, by reason of the practice of some leading bretheren in this matter, against the checks of their own consciences to a conformity herein, to their after grief and wounding? Vpon whose doors 'tis to be feared (and we wish they would in the fear of God, lay it to heart) may be written, The bloud of souls.

Answ. The term of visible Saints hath been too much contracted by being almost appropriated to the members of those Churches, which are termed Congregational in contradistinction to Presbyterial, and Prelatical: or if applyed to any of the more zealous of the Presbyterial way of disciplin, yet scarce vouchsafed to any of them, who are for Episcopal government, or conformable to the worship and ministry of the Church of England, who are commonly termed Antichristian, persons without, in Babylon: and for men to profess th [...]mselves visible Saints is in effect all one as to say they are of a gathered Church; all others being counted without. Which abuse of words, as it smels of arrogance, in appropriating to themselves the title, which is common to all true believers, and uncharitableness in conceiving of others as no visible Saints, because they are not entered into [Page] that, which is termed Church covenant; so is it injurious to others, though godly, from whom such are estranged as no visible Saints, but they are censured and declined as persons without, that have nothing in them of God, yea as adversaries to the power of Godliness, meer formalists, if they speak for the common-prayer book, or any thing favourably of any of the Bishops; and this serves for a design of keeping them to themselves without joyning in prayer and hearing in publique, which they call hearing with the world out of the Church. This I conceive to be the reason of this Authors expressions here of the saints visibly so scandalizing their bretheren by their hearing the Ministers that now preach publickly. By which it may be seen, that he regards not much who do hear the present ministers of England, so that they do not; as if it were not necessary to deterre all others from hearing them, if they be false Prophets and Idolaters, as this Author accuseth them, yea and to oppose them even unto the death, if they be such: so that this argument is unnecessary, if the other be good, and rather supposeth all that is formerly disputed to be weak; yet this point of scandal may serve turn to affright them from communion with the publique Ministery and keep them to themselves, though it prove never so injurious to their peace and outward estate, and sinful by reason of the Schism that is continued by it. For this reason I shall examin this Argument also as it is here delivered, and so much the rather because I have found by experience, that when in this and other doubts of conscience I have in conference with honest but scrupulous christians satisfied them concerning the lawfulness of that which they doubted of, yet in this I could hardly quiet their consciences, that they might do without sin what they scrupled to do, because they should offend good people, the scandalizing of whom our Saviour and the Apostle Paul make a hainous sin, and procuring an heavy curse. For which reason I printed the treatise of scandalizing forementioned, more then twenty years ago; in the epistle dedicatory whereof are these words In my small reading and experience I finde few doubts of conscience, concerning mens patent actions, in the resolving of which the difficulty hath not most of all rested on this point of Scandal. At present, I shall not open the word scandal, nor insist on the definition of Scandal, nor the sorts [Page] of scandalizing or causes of it, or the various cases concerning it, leaving the Reader to that Treatise, or to what else hath been since written by D. Henry Hammond of scandal, Ma. Henry Jeanes, of abstinence from appearance of evil, and others for a fuller understanding of this point, but assert that notwithstanding what is here said of the offence of brethren▪ and the sad consequence of blood guiltiness, which this Author would have it conceived the hearing the present Ministers tends to: yet neither the so termed visible Saints, nor any other by hearing the present Ministers, do sin against the precepts of non-scandalizing, given by Christ or his Aposte St. Paul. Matth. 18.6. Luke 17.1. 2 Rom. 14.13.15.20. 1 Cor. 8.8.9.13. and 10 24. Which I prove thus.

1. That is not scandalizing forbidden in these texts which is neither by giving evil example in doing▪ that which is intrinsecally or of it self evil, though none were offended, nor by enticing practices, or persecution impelling to evil; nor by abuse of liberty in things lawful to the harm of another; which are all the wayes I know of scandalizing there forbidden, if there be any other shewed I think however it will not reach to the present case: that which this Author seems to reduce it to is the last, in that he puts in a Parenthesis in the minor these words (there is no positive precept in Scriptures for it.) But it is not to be reduced to that sort of scandalizing, for the hearing of the present Ministers of England cannot be accounted a matter of liberty, or indifferency, but either duty or sin, hearing the word of God being an express precept in the general, and so is obeying them that are Rulers: now the ministers preaeh the word of God, and our Rulers command us to hear them, and this they have power to do, and in this they have power over their subjects as parents have over their children, and masters over their servants, and are to be obeyed in that which is not evil, but good, and therefore the scandalizing is not by abuse of liberty in things indifferent; nor is it scandalizing in doing a thing in it self evil or impelling to it, as hath been shewed in the foregoing chapters of this answer. Therefore the offending Bretheren what ever it be by hearing the present ministers is not the scandalizing forbidden.

[Page]2. That is not Scandalizing forbidden in those Texts, which doth not tend to any of those evils, for preventing of which, those precepts of not scandalizing were given▪ But the hearing of the present Ministers tends not to any of those evils, for preven [...]ing whereof, those precepts of not scandalizing were given. This is proved, because it tends not to any sin, but to the performance of duty in hearing Gods word: nor to any such sorrow or vexation, as the precepts would have prevented; which were such, as made either persons to be discouraged in Christianity, or to walk uncomfortably in the profession of it, as by view of the Texts may appear. But to neither of these effects doth the hearing of the present Minister tend. This Author saith, It makes visible Saints to grieve, as their grones and tears alone and together demonstrate. But, how doth the Hearing the present Ministers tend to it? Sure, neither in the nature of the action, no [...] in the will of him that hears, if the person do hear, as perswaded he may, and ought to do it, is any tendency to such grief: neither is there aptitude to beget it, in what he doth, which harms not the grieved: nor intention to produce it, when he does but what he is to do▪ and neglects not what belongs to him to do, to hinder it. In this case, the persons grieved, if it be, because they are displeased with what is done, out of a contrary judgement, they grieve themselves; if they mourn for it, as the hearers sin, because it is a recession from their party, it is not out of zeal that they groan, but out of frowardness, out of passion, not out of compassion, out of an erroneous principle, to which they adhere, not out of weakness of Faith. This Author saith, Many poor souls have been drawn, by reason of the practice of some leading Brethren in this matter, against the checks of their own conscience, to a conformity herein, to their after grief and wounding, and so those leaders guilty of spilling the blood of Souls. Surely this were a direful Scandalizing, if this conformity were a Return to Babylon, as they would make it: But being no such matter, this is but a scarbug: If there be such checks of conscience, after grief and wounding, it is to be imputed to such as this Author, who represents it to such a poor soul, as a horrid sin; not to him, that by doing what he may and ought, leads others to do the like. But the truth is, those offended Brethren, for the most part, are vexed and enraged, (as their [Page] reviling speeches, and hard censures shew) rather for the crossing them in their way, than affected with godly sorrow for it, as a sin, counting him as an Enemy, scarce ever admonishing as a Brother, contrary to 2 Thes. 3.15. Which is so much the worse in them, in that, by representing the hearing of publick Teachers as dangerous and odious, many fall to the opinions of Quakers, Seekers, and other erroneous opinions and practises, which by hearing the present Ministers, might have been prevented; which whether they groan and weep for, their own consciences can tell them: so farr as I discern, the principles of the Separatists, and their practice, have occasioned them; and for that I think they ought to mourn.

3. That is not Scandalizing forbidden in those Texts, which doth not arise from any defect of charity, or undue behaviour of the person offending; but from the distemper of the person offended. But the offence by the hearers of the present Ministers, doth not arise from any defect of charity, or undue behaviour of the person offending; but from the distemper of the person offended. Therefore it is not the Scandalizing forbidden in those Texts, which do impute the offending to defect of charity, or pride, in contempt, or the like undue behaviour, towards the offended, Rom. 14 10.15. 1 Cor. 8 1.11, 12. But that it is prejudice in the offended, wherewith they are pre-possessed, and such other malignity as comes from thence, will be made manifest in the examination of what is said by this Author, in answer to the Objection of Scandal taken.

4. That is not Scandalizing forbidden in those Texts, which is not offending of persons weak in the faith, and of doubting consciences, yet peaceably minded; but of persons conceiving themselves strong, able to argue against the practice of hearing the present Ministers, that oppose it with violence, will entertain no fair debate with them that dissent, but inveigh against them, with many more evidences of wilfulness in their way. But such is the disposition and carriage of those, that pretend to be offended with the hearing of the present Ministers, as experience doth too frequently evince. Therefore, the offence is not such, as is forbidden in the Texts, which forbid offending the weak, Rom. 14.1. and 15.1. 1 Cor. 8.7, 10.11.

[Page]5. That is not scandalizing forbidden in those texts, which is by using our liberty where we know not any present that will be offended at the use of our liberty, or that signifies his offence at our action, when we do it, in which case the Apostle allows the eating of things offered to Idols 1 Cor. 10.27, 28, 29. and consequently the use of our liberty in other things lawful And if any that are absent are likely to be offended, we have given a just rea [...]on, or are ready to give a just reason of our doing, for this is all, that in this case charity binds us to, to wit, to do what lies in us to rectify them. But so it is in the offence of persons at hea [...]ing the present Ministers: they that are offended are either absent, or signify not their offence, or exception, if present; or if they do before or after shew their dislike, have the reasons given of our practise; or the offending person is ready to do it, as experience shews: therefore the offence taken at their hearing is not scandalizing forbidden.

6. That is not the scandalizing forbidden in those texts, in which, if the offence be regarded, the pe [...]son supposed to offend shall be deprived of his liberty, and the benefit of the use of it, and not for one time only but alwayes, contrary to the Apostles resolution 1 Cor. 10.29▪ 30. And that not in a thing which he ma [...] be well without, such as was flesh offered to an Idol▪ but also that, which is of grea [...]est moment for his souls welfa [...]e, the hearing of the word of God, and thereby his liberty will be lost, and a yoke of bondage received contrary to Gal. 2.5, and 6.1. But so it is in the offence for the hearing the present Ministers, if it were regarded, so as to abstain from hearing to satisfy this Author, and such as are like minded, the persons supposed to offend them must never hear them, nor any of them though preaching never so profitably, and so must not only lose the present benefit, but also be deprived perpetually, and judge that which is their liberty to be unlawful, and [...]o intangle themselves in a yoke of bondage, which it were sinful for them to do, and that without any real benefit to the offended, therefore they cannot be rightly judged to scandalize, as it is forbidden in the texts mentioned who offend others by their hearing of the present Ministers, as they are charged.

7. That is not the scandalizing forbidden in those texts, the avoiding of which drawes after it a greater scandal and [Page] of worse consequence; and that which is not imaginary only, but real Scandal. This I conceive none should deny: For if every Scandal should be avoided, then the chiefest, in which case the lesser, and only imaginary, cannot be said to be forbidden. But in shunning to hear the present Ministers, there is a real, manifold worse Scandal, than is by hearing of them. Which I demonstrate thus,

1. The person that might hear a profitable Preacher, by shunning hearing of him, upon the conceit of unlawfulness to hear him, doth scandalize himself, contrary to Matth 5.29, 30. and 18.8, 9. in that he confirms himself in his superstitious errour, and hinders his spiritual good, and progress in Christianity, and ensnares himself in an unjustifiable separation.

2. He doth also truly scandalize▪ others by his example; confirming those that refuse to hear, in their errour and schism, whom he ought to oppose, as St. Paul did St. Peter, Gal. 2.11. when their shunning to hold communion with some, as unclean, tends to the establishing of an errour and schism, as his did.

3. By this refusing to hear the present Ministers, through such suggestions as this Author instills into the minds of men against them, people are driven from the publique Congregations, and thereby the sheep of Christ are scattered; some betake themselves to the meetings of Quakers, where they are mis-led by the delusions of Satan, under pretence of following the light within them, other joyn with the Fifth monarchy men, who pervert them with peruicious tenents and designes against Magistrates; and in the best of the Separatists, there is so much bitterness and enmity, against dissenters from them, instilled into their minds, as quite breaks the bond of charity, that should unite all Christs Discipl [...]s, which surely is real Scandal.

4. The Refuser to hear the p [...]esent Ministers, doth really scandalize tho [...]e that a [...]e confo [...]mists in hearing, who are therefore unrighteously judged, censured and shunned, as lapsed Brethren, or meer Formalists, and thereby are grieved, and moved to mourn, for this evil spirit, that is between them, and their Brethren. The present Ministers are al [...]o much scandalized for the same cause, and are much hind [...]ed in the performance of their ministry, by reason of the opposition of the Separatists; which experience [Page] hath too much shewed, in former and later times, to have hindred the fruits of many holy Preachers, even Non-conformists labours and to have shortned their dayes; so that upon the doors of the Separatists may be written, with greater reason, than upon the doors of the diligent conforming Preachers of the Gospel, The Blood of Souls Therefore scandalizing by hearing the present Ministers, is not forbidden in the Texts alleged.

8. That Scandalizing is not forbidden in those Texts, by avoiding of which, the Magistrate is scandalized, his government disturbed, his power excited against others, as disobedient to his Laws; and for that reason▪ many persons, with their families, undone in their liberties, and outward estate. For the offence of our Brother is not to be regarded, by observing of that which will include in it disobedience to the command of the Magistrate, which may be lawfully obeyed, whereby his authority is n [...]glected, his government disturbed, division and ruine of families occasioned: But so it is, when the present Ministers are not heard, as the state of things now is Therefore the Scandalizing by hearing the present Ministers, is not forbidden in the Texts, Rom. 14. 1 Cor. 8. and 10. It follows,

Sect. 4. It is not Scandal given but when the offensive action is done blameably.

If it be said, Object. That there is a twofold scandal, 1. Scandalum acceptum, a scandal, or offence taken, 2. Scandatum datum, a scandal or offence given. In respect of the former, possibly many may be offended at their practice in the matter treated of, and so would some or other whatever is done by them: 'Tis impossible but offences should come, that there is any just offence given by them, herein, is denied To this we answer.

Answ. 1. That as we admit of the distinction, so no doubt there is a truth in what is suggested thereupon, that what ever I do, some one or other will be offended at it: there are a generation of men, whom the doing of my duty will offend, and cause to blaspheme; th [...]se are not to be minded, but to be pittied: Christ himself was to some a rock of offence and stone of stumbling.

2. But tis not yet proved (nor like to be) that the Scandal treated of, is a Scandal taken and not given, the very nature of [...]candal given, as is confest by all, and evident beyond exception[Page]from the Apostles discourse, 1 Cor. 8.10. lying in the doing of what is judged, by me, to be my liberty, which other Saints are not fully perswaded of in their own minds to be so, but are ready to conclude it to be my sin, and evil, and from thence have occasion of grief, or stumbling, administred to them. This was the very case of the Church of Corinth (upon the occasion whereof, Paul writes to them, 1 Cor. 8.) some of them judged it their liberty, to sit at meat in the Idols Temple; others, not being fully perswaded hereof, were scandalized many wayes at this their practice, which the Apostle therefore condemns as unlawful.

Answ. 1. That there is any generation of men, whose offence is not to be minded, is not the Doctrine of the Apostle, but contrary to it, 1 Cor. 10.32, 33. Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the Church of God. Even as I please all men, in all things: not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved. Which practice of his he had expressed, 1 Cor. 9.19, 20, 21, 22, 23· For though I be free from all men, yet have I made my self servant unto all, that I might gain the more. And unto the Jews, I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the Law, that I might gain them that are under the Law; to them that are without Law, as without Law, (being not without Law to G [...]d, but under the Law to Christ) that I might gain them that are without Law. To the weak, I became as weak, that I might gain the weak: to all, became I all things, that I might by all means save some. And this I do for the Gospels sake, that I may be a joynt partaker thereof. Where his avoiding of offence, and pleasing all, is not restrained to the Saints, or the Church of God, but is extended even to adversaries, that opposed the Gospel, to whom he would both forbear his liberty, and do that which was otherwise not to be done; as in the case of circumcising Timothy, Acts 16.3. and taking on him a vow, Acts 18.18. and purifying himself with others, Acts 21.26. and 24.17. and other wayes, Acts 26.25, 26, 27. while there was any likelyhood, either of winning them to the liking of the Gospel, or abating their opposition, and procuring his own peace and safety: But when it was dis-advantage to the truth of the Gospel, he would not have Titus to be circumcised, nor any compliance with the Jews in declining eating with the Gentiles, Gal. 2.3, 11, 14 which yields us a rule, whose offence we are to avoid; with whom, and when we are to comply in things [Page] lawful; to wit, with all, either when we may win them to the embracing of the truth, or the abating the opposition of adversaries, or procuring our own peace. Which is a good plea for them, that, by hearing the present Ministers, do accommodate themselves in doing that which is lawful to the command of Rulers for their own peace, though some Brethren be thereby offended.

2. It is not confess'd by all, That the very nature of Scandal given, lyes in the doing of what is judged, by me, to be my liberty which other Saints are not fully perswaded of in their own minds to be so, but are ready to conclude it to be my sin and evil, and from thence have occasion of grief or stumbling administred to them. For,

1. Dr. Hammond in his Treatise of Scandal, after he had accurately considered the use of the word [Scandal] and the sorts of Scandal, §. 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37. he inferrs, That no man is offended or scandalized, but he that falls into some sin: That to be angry, grieved, troubled, at any action of another, is not [to be offended] in the Scripture sense: Nor consequently doth it follow, that I have done amiss, in doing that which another man is angry at, unless my action be in it self evil. For if it be not, then he is angry without cause, and that is his fault, not mine; yea, and he judgeth or censures his Brother, that hath done no hurt, which the weak are forbid to do, Rom. 14.3. And secondly, He is of a [...]l men most unlikely to do that after me, which he is angry at me for doing; and therefore I have least reason to fear, or possibly to foresee, that he will be scandaliz'd in the Scripture phrase: Which fear, or fore-sight, were the only just motive to me, to abstain from any justifiable indifferent action. And as for the word [...], grieved, Rom. 14.15. he gathers it from the occasion of the grief of the grieved persons eating with a doubting conscience, the three words by which it is explained, v 21. Stumbling, being offended, and being weak or sick; that the meaning is [ [...]is grieved] i e. wounded, or falls into sin. Which he endeavours to shew, to be agreeable to Language in other words, and in that word. Whether he be in the right, or not, this seems to me most agreeable to the Text, That [...] grief mentioned Rom. 14.15. (which is the only place where I find grief in the offended, made the effect of offence forbidden) is the grief of the offended, from his own action, in eating with a doubting conscience: not [Page] from the action of him that used his liberty uncharitably. For if the offended had been displeased, angry and grieved, because he did eat, he had not followed his example, but would have shunned his practice, as judging him licentious in so doing. And therefore, it is not right, that this Author and others, object Scandal given by the Conformists, because they do that, for which their Brethren do mourn, as done by them, but do not follow them in, only are displeased, and angry with them for so doing. Mr. Jeanes, in the 2d. Edition of his Treatise of abstinence from appearance of evil, p. 128. The mistake of Scandal, for the angring one, is taken notice of by Calvin also, upon 1 Cor. 8.13. having affirmed, That some corrupted the doctrine of Scandal with foolish glosses, and others with their impious calumnies, he sheweth the original of both their mistakes, touching the meaning of offence in the Apostle Utri (que) errant in verbo Offendendi: Nam offendere accipiunt, pro Incurrere in odium vel offensionem hominum, aut, quod idem ferè est, facere quod ipsis displiceat, vel minus arrideat. Atqui clarissimè patet ex contex [...]u, nihil esse aliud quàm malo exemplo ranquam obice fratiem impedi [...]e à recto cu [...]su, aut illi praebere Causam Lapsus. Non ergo hic disputat Paulus de retinendâ hominum gratiâ▪ sed de sublevandis infirmis, nè concidant; & prudenter regendis ne à rectâ viâ deflectant

2 Were Dr. Hammond, or my self mistaken, yet all that I meet with, do make it necessary to active Scandal, That it be in all such words, or deeds, as culpably occasion the fall of another, whether of themselves, or by accident. And for passive Scandal, if it be culpably both given and taken, then it is Scandalum datum: if it be culpably taken, and not culpably given, then it is Scandalum acceptum, as M. Jeanes speaks, in his later Edition, p. 95. of his Treatise of abstinence from appearance of evil. So that, until there appear something culpable in hearing the present Ministers, they that hear them cannot be justly charged with Scandal given by them to their Brethren And this will not be proved, untill it be shewed, that either by the nature and condition of their hearing, or the intention of the hearers, their Brethren are made to sin against God. For, as it is in the Discourse concerning the Interest of Words in Prayer, by H.D.M A. (commended before by this Author, ch. 7. p. 60.) in the Postscript, p. 103. The true notion of a scandalous action, is, [Page]Any action done by us, not being required by the Divine Law, by which our Brother, whether from the nature and condition of the thing done, or the intention of him that doth it, or both, is made to sin against God And therefore, it is not confess'd by all, that the nature of Scandal given, lyes in the doing of what is judged, by me, to be my liberty, which other Saints are not fully perswaded of in their own minds to be so, but are ready to conclude it to be my sin and evil, and from thence have occasion of grief or stumbling administred to them; unless that Stumbling be by falling into sin, through the culpability of my action, either from the faulty nature of it, or my intention in the doing of it, by my unseasonable doing it, with fore-sight of the effect, which I might have avoided.

Nor is what this Author saith of the nature of Scandal given, evident beyond exception, from the Apostles discourse, 1 Cor. 8.10. For, whereas he supposeth the case of the Church of Corinth, concerning the practice of them that eat Idolothytes, to have been, as he expresseth it, on the one side, the offending persons judging it their liberty to sit at meat in the Idols Temple: and on the other side, others not being fully perswaded hereof, were many wayes scandalized at this their practice, which therefore the Apostle condemns as unlawful: and conceives, the nature of Scandal given, to be in these two things, one judging it his liberty to do it, another judging it evil, and grieving thereat, and that such is the offence of them that hear the present Ministers, he is many wayes mistaken.

1. That the offending person, it is not likely, judged it his liberty to sit at meat in the Idols Temple, he being described as one that had knowledge, opposed to the weak, who with conscience of the Idol, eat it as a thing offered to an Idol, and their conscience being weak, was defiled: Now it is not likely, that the strong, that had knowledge by the Doctrine of Christ, that what entreth into the mouth doth not defile, and therefore the eating of the Idolothyte, though he knew it offered to an Idol, could not defile him, would yet judge it his liberty to sit at meat in the Idols Temple, which was manifestly evil, even partaking of the Table of Devils, 1 Cor. 10.20, 21. Or that it was the weakness of the offended person, that he was not fully perswaded of that liberty, it had been his weakness and sin, if he had judged it his liberty to sit at meat in the Idols Temple. But it was the sin of him that had knowledge, that he sate at meat in the Idols [Page] Temple, though it was his liberty to eat it else-where, knowing it had been offered to Idols: and it was the weakness of the other, that he was not so perswaded, yet was by the others practice emboldned to it, and so was defiled both with the errour and practice of eating against his conscience, with the conscience of the Idol; that is, though he knew it offered to the Idol, and therefore was thereby some acknowledgement of the Idol, as something honourable, or a thing sacred. However, if it were, that the offending person judged it his liberty to sit at m [...]at in the Idols Temple, yet this is ill applyed to the hearers of the present Ministers, as if their hearing were such an action, as was his, that sate at meat in the Idols Temple: for that was having fellowship with Devils, 1 Cor. 10.20 but this is the service of the living God, no Idolothyte, or sitting at meat in the Idols Temple: and, as if being perswaded of the liberty to do the one, were like th [...] perswasion of the liberty to do the other, whereas, the hearers judge it not only their liberty to hear the present Ministers, but also their duty, and so not, as the case stands, a thing indifferent.

2. This Author conceives, that the Corinthians were offended in that they were grieved at the practice of him that judged it his liberty to sit at meat in the Idols Temple, and that giving occasion of such grief, was Scandal given: whereas the scandal given, was not by causing grief for the offenders practice, as evil; but in that the offended being swayed by his practice, did, against his conscience, eat the thing offered to Idols, and perhaps in the Idols Temple, which had been a great sin, such as would wound his conscience, make him weak or sick, and tended to his perdition, it being a degree of back sliding to Idolatry: And therefore, this is ill applyed to the effect of the hearing of the present Ministers, which is not in the offended any such backsliding or sin against their conscience, tending to their perdition, or present wounding of spirit; but mourning for their Brethrens conceited back sliding, which they conceive tends to their salvation, not to their perdition

3. The offence of the Corinthians is set down by this Author, without any intimation, that the Corinthians might have reason to be scandalized, because the eating the Idolothyte was both against the precepts of the Mosaical Law, and the Apostles decree, Acts 15.25. which was of much [Page] moment to make the offence, Scandal given, and not only taken. For if offence be taken, where there is no probable reason, why the scandalized should judge it evil, it is his fault who thus judgeth, not his who acts, that, which he sees no reason why any should conceive any evil in it. The Apostle therefore did not require to forbear the eating of the Idolothyte, but when the weak Brother said This is offered in sacrifice to Idols, 1 Cor 10 28. which shewed the reason, why he should be offended, if he did eat it; and that reason might probably induce him to conceive it unlawful, which thing is a requisite condition to Scandal given, sith, if upon any surmise of a weak Brother, I must forbear my liberty, though there is no shew of reason, or no probability why he should conceive it evil to use it, my liberty would be as no liberty, and a yoak more intolerable than the Law would be on my conscience. Now, that there is no probable reason, why persons should imagine evil in my hearing the present Ministers, notwithstanding what this Author saith, hath been, and shall be further shewed, in answering that which is said by this Author.

4. This Author doth not mention that, which, in the case of the Corinthians, was requisite to Scandal given, to wit, that the Scandal should be fore-seen, as the words 1 Cor. 10.27, 28 intimate; and that not only as possible, but also as future, with some moral certainty, by reason of the presence of persons known to scruple the thing I do, or some one that intimates his dislike of my action. Calvin therefore upon 1 Cor. 8 13. saith, Non jubet nos Apostolus divinare nunquid offendiculo futurum sit quod facimus, nisi cum est praesens periculum. The Apostle doth not bid us divine, whether that we do will offend, but when there is present danger. Now this shews, that the hearing the present Ministers is not Scandal given, where none are present that are offended, nor any give intimation of the futurity of the offence.

5. This Author doth not take notice, that Scandal given by the use of our liberty, is not to be made perpetual, as the Apostles words in the same place shew: For if I must alwayes abstain from that at which another is offended, it will be made sin in it self, and so not Scandal given by the intempestive use of our liberty in a thing indifferent: but that we must not yield to, that we may not lose Truth for [Page] peace sake: But if men must not hear the present Ministers, for the reasons given, they must never do it to avoid offence, which will be perpetual, and so the scandal supposed to be given, not such as that which was in the Corinthians liberty, in eating Idolothytes.

6. It should not have been forgotten, That the case of the offended among the Corinthians, by eating Idolothytes, and the Brethren now in England, for hearing the present Ministers, cannot be parallel'd rightly: because the Corinthians offence was at the time, wherein the Gospel had been but lately preached to them, and the Doctrine of Gospel-liberty not fully cleared, which cannot be said of Christian Professors in England, who have been fully instructed therein; and therefore, in the use of our liberty now, cannot be the like offence given, and not taken only, as was in those dayes among the Corinthians: Yet this Author thus chargeth them with Scandal given.

Sect. 5. Offending some sincere Christians, by hearing the present Ministers, is not the scandalizing threatned Matth. 18.6.

Should it, for Arguments sake, be granted, (though in truth it be not so) That tis the liberty of Saints, to hear the present Ministers; yet many of the sincere Lambs of Christ, being stumbled, grieved and scandalized herea [...], for that very reason ( [...]f no more could be said herein) it becomes our sin, (to be guilty whereof, who can chuse but be filled with trembling, that hath ever with seriousness, read that terrible Commination of Christ, Matt. 18.6. Who so shall offend one of these little ones, that believe in me, it were better for him, that a milstone were hanged about his neck, and he were drowned in the depths of the Sea?) especially, when those that are thus scandalized, are able to demonstrate, that their offence is not any peevish humour, or foolish nicety, but what is too really administred by the actions of their Brethren: When they shall hear Christ commanding them to separate from every thing of Antichrist, Revel. 18.4. and therefore from his ministry; and they are in conscience perswaded, the Ministers of England are such, which they judge, they are able to demonstrate: When they consider, how the Laws of their dear Lord and Law-giver are made void, by the traditions of these [...]e [...]ended Ministers, whose Kingship they see them visibly opposing:[Page]When they find upon them the characters of false Prophets and Apostles; and are able to manifest, that they are deeply guilty of the sin of Idolatry, (from whom they are enjoyned by Christ to turn away:) Yea, when they take a view of the frame of the Spirits of their now Conforming-Brethren in dayes past, and the principles were then owned by them: That they did then (some of them at least) separate from the Assemblies of England, as not true Churches of Christ; and accounted the Common-Prayer Book Priests, persons not meet to preach, unworthy to be attended upon in their so doing: and see them now saying, A confederacy with, and attending upon the ministry of those very persons and things, from whom, not only Christ hath commanded them to separate, but these very Brethren did formerly decry, and, at least seemingly, abominate; they judge, they have just ground of Offence given them: Nor can it be denied, but it is indeed so.

Answ. It were indeed very grievous to a Christian, if it were their sin, and such as brings them under the terrible Commination of Christ, Matth. 18.6. to do, what many of the sincere Lambs of Christ (much more those whom this Author counts such) are stumbled, grieved and scandalized at, for that very reason, if no more could be said therein: It were to make every honest-hearted Christian, though simple, a Law-giver to me, a Pope, a Lord over my conscience, an infallible Judge, so that what he determines, I may not do or omit, because it wil grieve or offend him without any other reason, why I must not do or omit it; This sure would take away Christs King-ship really, and invest every sincere Lamb of Christ with it, which this Author makes so hainous a thing in the present Ministers, as to justifie separation from them; it would be, to ascribe dominion to them over my faith, to spoyl me of my Christian liberty, and to make me in almost every thing I do, uncertain what I may do, lest I grieve some of them, whom I have found to be so scrupulous, and so censorious, as that they are offended, if there be a prejudice against a person, at every thing he doth or saith, if it agree not with their minds. To deliver the consciences of people from such a slavery (worse than the bondage of the Mosaical Law) which this principle brings to, I conceive my self bound to do my best, and to decry it as Antichristian. I think I have read seriously Christs Commination, Matth. 18.6. and I presume my Treatise of Scandalizing shews it to be meant of other Scandalizing than [Page] such as this Author means, to wit, such as is opposite to receiving them, v. 5. and is with despising, and persecution of them, v. 10. causing their perdition, v. 8, 9. I dare not say, that the offence of the sincere Lambs of Christ, is out of a peevish humour, or foolish nicety; I hope it will not be denied, that they are weak, many of them; I am sure, none of them are infallible, or free from undue passions and prejudice: And this is enough to quiet my conscience, in doing what I do, notwithstanding the offence of many honest Christians, yea and holy learned Preachers. I find cause, I confess, to mourn on their behalf, and to pitty them, whom I have heard or seen offended at my actions, which they never examine, nor by conference, or otherwise, enquire into the reasons or equity of them, taking reports upon trust, and judging them evil, without any brotherly affection, or sober consideration. I may truly say, my peace of conscience would be desperate▪ if I must judge of my self, as they judge of me. I will not mention my own experiences, lest I should be thought to particularize; but I find an Author, one Paybody, in a Treatise about Kneeling at the Lords Supper, Printed 16.9. part 3. ch. 5. p. 438. saying, concerning the Professors of his time, opposing Kneeling (and I think opposers of the present Ministers now are too like them) thus,

Let not our Brethren be offended, that I say, Many of their Professors are set on work by humour and prejudice. For,

1. They which profess, in great resolution, without grounds or reasons, that is, which meerly profess, in imitation of certain men of note, or for company of the best sort of Christians, (as they judge opposers to be) or out of ill opinion conceived of conformable persons, or Church government, are led by humour and prejudice.

2. So are they which cannot abide to be instructed or directed by them of contrary judgement; despising the words and writings of such, before th [...]y know them.

3. They, which upon discourse, hearing many things which they cannot satisfie their consciences in, do yet never seek to have their doubts resolved, but rest in one song, say what one can to the contrary.

4. They which dare avow the necessity of confessing against Kneeling▪ upon pain of eternal damnation, charging other men, in the deepest obligation that may be, to stand out; and yet, upon some other mans declaration of the lawful liberty of Kneeling, at[Page]some time, can be content, without gain-saying, to profess, they never studied the point.

5. They which make no conscience of slandering, back-biting, conformity to the world in vaniti [...]s of apparel, pleasure, and scandalous covetousness, unfaithfulness in their callings, unjustice in their dealings, and such like, in opposing Kneeling, are led by humour.

6. They which have confessed themselves to be convinced of the lawfulness, and yet will not, or would, but for their discredit in the world, specially among the persons of that side. But there is nothing more manifest, than, that many of your Professors are thus and thus disposed and carried, which I doubt not, but I can particula [...]ly maintain, so farr, as outward expressions can discover the inward meaning or purpose. Now I know you would not have us bound to abstain from Kneeling (may I not say, Hea [...]ing) for avoiding the scandal of such persons.

But, saith this Author, Their offence is too really administred by the actions of their B [...]ethren. But who do suggest these actions, to be a sufficient reason of separation, but such as this Author (who is indeed, with others like minded, the true Scandalizer, or he by whom the offence cometh) or else it is the offended persons own inference, from the real or imaginary actions of their Brethren, of a necessity of separation, that scandalizeth him. That which this Author brings here, is farr from a Demonstration. We find, Revel. 18.4. that St. John heard a 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. But to [...]erch out of this passage, this Proposition, Christ commands them to separate from every thing of Antichrist; and to inferr this conclusion, and therefore from his ministry, needs a Delian Diver, or cunning Alchymist, or Sophister, that can deduce quidlibet ex quolibet. It is plain, that the Exhortation is, to goe out of Rome, called Babylon, ch. 17, 18. Nor do I gainsay, that it is meant of it, as it is corrupted by the Papacy: Nor do I question, but the Papal monarchy is an Antichristian state; and that, though the plain meaning is no more, but that Gods people (whereof I doubt not, some are, and will be in Rome when it shall be destroyed) should abandon that place afore it be destroyed, to avoid participation of its sins and plagues; yet too, it may be understood of communion with the Papacy in their Idolatry and Heresies. [Page] But it is a wild conceit, to make every thing done or used by Popes, to be a thing of Antichrist; much more is it, to make the ministry of the Ministers of England, the ministry of the Pope, when it is so directly contrary to the Pope, and Popish Doctrine and Worship expresly abjured and abhorred by them. How frivolous his proofs are, of the present Ministers opposing visibly Christs Kingsh [...]p, having the characters of false Prophets, of being guilty of Idolatry, is shewed already. What the frame of the spirits of the present Conformists is, or hath been, God only, who is the searcher of hearts, is fit to judge, what their principles were formerly, and are now, is to be known, either by those that have conversed with them, or heard them preach, or read their writings: sure every sincere Lamb of Christ is neither fit nor able to judge or examine the truth of any number of Conformists spirits or principles; and therefore, if these alterations, which are here mentioned, be the ground of the offence that is taken against them, it cannot be a just ground of their taking offence. If it were, there were just ground of offence given to separate from the Separatists. Not to mention what of old was charged upon the Brownists, whose spirits and principles were such▪ as made many, as holy persons, as England yielded, to dehort the godly from joyning with them in their way of Separation: Nor what either Mr. Edwards, in his Gangraena; or Mr. Baillee, in his Disswasive; or Mr. Weld, in his Story of the Antinomians, have written, of the state of the Congregational Churches, The Elders and Messengers of the Congregational Churches, in the Preface to their D [...]claration of their Faith and Order, in their meeting at the Savoy, Octob 12. 1658. say, It is true, That many sad miscarriages, divisions, breaches, fallings off from holy Ordinances of God, have along this time of tentation, been found in some of our Churches; yet they do not at all stumble us, as to the truth of our way▪ had they been many more: And avow this as their great Principle, That, amongst all Christian States and Churches, there ought to be vouchsafed a forbearance, and mutual indulgence, unto Saints of all perswasions, that keep unto, and hold fast the necessary Foundations of Faith and Holiness, in all other matters extra fundamental, whether of Faith or Order. Mr. Weld. in his Answer to Mr. Rathband, heretofore denied not the Congregations Parochial in England, to be true Churches, though impure: And Mr, Norton, in his Answer [Page] to Appollonius, ch. 16. saith, We reject the Separatists, who distinguish not between the Church, and the Impurities of the Church: Whence the great crime of Schism. Yet this Author, not considering, that the Congregational men disclaim his rigid separation, avows separation as commanded by Christ from the Church of England, as no true Church; and condemns hearing the present Ministers, as the Ministers of Antichrist, though they preach the Gospel of Christ, because of some defects conceived in their calling, and some impurities, real or imaginary, in their worship, as if it were saying A Confederacy, forbidden Isai. 8 12. and a just ground of offence given to the sincere Lambs of Christ, in that they do not separate from the Assemblies of England. But he hath not yet done, but adds,

Sect. 6. The Separatists give more just cause of Offence to godly sober Christians, than the Conformists do to them.

If it be yet further said, Obiect. 2. But if I do not goe to hear the Preachers of this day, many truly godly and sober Christians will be offended at my forbearance; so that whether I hear, or whether I forbear, I shall offend. To this I answer,

1 That, granting the case to be as is suggested, (though perhaps somewhat else, upon a serious and strict search, may be found to lye at the bottom of our Conformity, beyond what is here pleaded: I am very apt to believe, were but a Toleration granted, tis not the fear of offending any, would cause our conforming Brethren to attend upon the ministry of the present Priests of England. Yet supposing it to be as is intimated) we ask

1. Do you look upon your going to hear, as your duty, or meerly as your liberty? If the first, let it be proved from any positive precept of Christ, and we are satisfied: if the second, you are bound by many solemn injunctions (which are at least reduceable to the moral Law) not to use your liberty to scandalize your Brethren.

2. Let both parties be weighed in an upright ballance, such as you judge to be offended with you for not hearing, and such as are offended thereat: I am bold to say, That the last mentioned, for number, holiness, spirituality, and tenderness, do farr surmount the former, who will really be scandalized at your forbearance.

3. Let also the grounds of the offence on both sides be weighed: the one are offended at you, That you build not up in practise, in a [Page]day of trouble; and cause thereby the enemies of the Lord to triumph and blaspheme, what in a day of liberty, you did, in your preaching and practice, pull down and destroy: The other, because of your disobedience to what they are satisfied, and you your selves once were, God is calling you to (viz. to have nothing to do with, separate from this generation of men.) But,

4. That tis your duty (especially if in a Church-relation) to meet together, as a people called and picked by the Lord out of the Nations of the world, cannot be denied: The neglect of which, is charged by the Lord, as the first step to Apostacy, Heb. 10.25. Be you in the practice of this duty, and see what spiritual Saint will be offended at you; if any should, you might have peace therein: you doing your duty, no just cause of Scandal is given. Yet further,

5. Consider on which side the Cross lies, which the flesh, and fleshly interest is most opposite to, whether in going, or forbearing to goe to hear these men: Vsually, that is the way of God, that hath most of the Cross in it, and the flesh is most strugling and contesting against. But thus much of the 7th. Argument.

Answ. If the case be granted as is suggested, the same Argument, which proves it unlawful to hear the present Ministers, proves it unlawful not to hear them, unless omission may not be said to scandalize, which is contrary to Matth. 17.27. No serious and strict search of men, can find what lies at the bottom of mens conformity, till God discover it. It is not fit to insinuate conceits of others, which beget evil surmises in us of them; true charity believeth all things, 1 Cor. 13.7. It is a fruit of malignity, to say, I am very apt to believe, what may beget evil prejudice in me, or another, towards a Brother. But what if there were an embracing a Toleration, if granted? This would only shew, That they did not tye themselves to the present ministry; not that then, or now, they hold it unlawful to hear them; nor that their hearing is only to avoid offence: but for other reasons conjunct with it, which may be lawfully aimed at in the same act. Sure it is not evil in doing that which is lawful to arm at our own peace, and other outward advantage besides the avoiding of offence. If a man were disposed to retaliate, it might perhaps be told this Author, that perhaps somewhat else lay at the bottom, besides his not offending the Lambs of Christ: that he did separate heretofore, it may be credit▪ preferment, power and gain, lay [Page] that way; it may be, adherence to a party, interest in their affections, that, I say no more, retains him still in this way: Yet would he take this ill; and why he should do to other, what he would not they should do to him, I see no cause: Christ taught otherwise, Matth. 7.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 12. But to the question, I answer, It is their duty to hear the present Ministers, while they preach the Gospel, or Word of God: And though, by immediate precept, a man is not bound to hear this or that particular Minister, of this or that way of Church-government or perswasion, but is at liberty to choose, as may be (all things considered) for his conveniency; yet, if other things concurr, he ought to hear such, as the providence of God hath placed over him, or near his habitation, though he be not chosen by himself to be his Pastour, which I think may be proved from 1 Th [...]s 5.12. Heb. 13.17 John 10▪27 Mark 4.23. How we are to avoid Scandalizing our Brethren, is shewed above: But it favours of Schism, to appropriate the term [Brethren] to Christians of our perswasion, or of our society. Who exceed in number, holiness, spirituality and tenderness, is a hard thing to determine. Vivorum difficilis est censura. Who can tell what measure of these qualifications there is in them that are living? Who can point out, who are such, who not? Who can tell, what men may prove, for all their fair shews? How is it possible for this Author, or any other, to number them, compare, weigh them in an upright ballance? May not those be more carnal, yea very hypocrites, which he counts spiritual Saints? Are not he, and all others, specially of his way of separation, most apt to magifie those who jump with him in his way; and to disparage dissenters? Are not the sincere Lambs of Christ oftentimes carried away with false shews, and partial affections, and wrong reports? What a Lesbian leaden rule doth this Author then give, whose offence is to be avoided, rather than anothers? Yea, the rule is against his scope: For if those non-hearers be such holy spiritual persons, as he makes them, there is the less danger of offending them. Yet I dare not grant it they are: The experience the world hath had of the Brethren of the Congregational way, hath yet given us no such assurance of their surpassing holiness, but that they have been, many of them▪ ca [...]nal, and walked as men. Have not they, even some of the prime leaders of them, shewed as much passion, pride. [Page] covetousness, self-seeking, and other sinister affections, as others of different wayes? Sure Hildersham, Ball, Bradshaw, Gataker, and many other, who have opposed the way of Separation of old, and of late have given as much proof of their holiness, spirituality and tenderness as Johnson, Ainsworth, Robinson, and others, in Old or New-England, or Holland have done▪ Nor do I think any of the Congregational way have exceeded, I will not say the martyr'd Bishops in Q. Maries dayes, but even late Bishops, Vsher, Bedel, Potter, and others of the Prelatical Ministers and Churches, in holiness, spirituality and tenderness. Let the Reader pardon my just indignation at this rotten and stinking course of puffing up his own party, and disparaging dissenters, which can never tend to clear truth, and beget righteous judgements in men, but to delude men with specious pretences, and [...]oment divisions. Non est ex personis fides aestimanda, sed ex fide persona, said Tertullian, Truth is not to be measured by the persons, but the persons by truth. If we must know our duty, by this Authors rule, we must leave studying the holy Scripture, and study men. Every weak Christian must take upon him an impossible task, to weigh two parties in an upright ballance, one offended at hearing the present Ministers, and the other for not hearing them, and both being conceived godly and sober Christians, judge which party is most numerous, holy, spiritual, and tender. Nor is the next direction much better. It supposeth, that they who conform, whether Ministers or h [...]arers, blame the Separatists, that they do not build up in practice in a day of trouble, what in a day of liberty they did in their preaching and practice pull down and destroy: and thereby cause the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, and that this is the ground of the offence on the one side: That th [...]y are disobedient to what they are satisfied, and the Conformists Ministers, or hearers of them, or both, once were; that God is calling them to have nothing to do with, to separate from this generation of men, and that this is the ground of the offence on the other side: and that the ground of the offence is more just on the side of these later. These words are aenigmatical, and require an O [...]dipus to unriddle them. However, this I conceive is his meaning. That the godly and sober Christians have no reason to be offended at him, and others of his way, that, what in their preaching and practice, he and they did pull down and destroy, conce [...]ning the P [...]elatical conforming Preachers, their communion, and Church government, [Page] and worship by the Common-Prayer Book; they do not by conformity in hearing and communion build up; because if they should do so, they should cause the opposite party (whom he counts the enemies of the Lord) to triumph, that they have brought them to recantation, and returning to what they had left; and to blaspheme, or speak evil of the holy way of endeavouring Reformation they formerly took in the day of liberty, because they are now fallen into a day of trouble: On the other side, That this Author, and those of his way, being satisfied, that God is calling all godly sober Christians to have nothing to do with, but to separate from this generation of men, that is, Ministers that conform to the Common-Prayer Book, and Episcopal Government; and that these now hearers of them, were once satisfied of the same; that yet they should disobey this calling of God, and hold communion with them, have most just cause of offence for their so doing. But I presume the godly sober Christians in the Objection, were never satisfied with this way of separation, which this Author saith, God calls them to, but though they have been for Reformation, yet not for such violent practises and preaching, as, it may be gathered, this Author hath been for, as to pull up root and branch of the old form of Government, to unsettle all the Ministers, to set up itinerant Preachers▪ any gifted Brethren, though many of them never studied Divinity, but had gotten some ability by hearing Preachers, and other wayes, to speak of practical points, without any ability to convince gainsayers; and that they should take away the frame of parochial Churches, and gather Churches out of Churches, which should, though but a few, be an entire Church within themselves for government, without appeal or subordination to any other Minister or Synod; that they should be tyed to use no Form, no not the Lords Prayer; in effect, that there should be, as some were wont to speak, overturning, overturning, overturning, without setling any thing, making the Pastors eligible by every small company, that should call themselves a Church, who should admit and excommunicate by most voices, censure their Pastor, desert him, allot him maintenance, and deprive him, as they saw cause Sure the godly sober Ch [...]istians, who now are offended at this Authors separation, were then offended, as many of their writings then did shew, and the Apology of the ejected Non-conformists lately hath shewed, p 136. of the [Page] 2d. Edition; and particularly at that eminent Independent, who would not have the Lords Prayer used in the prescript form of words, p. 10. which, and the like courses, they conceive were in the day of liberty evil, and occasions of the day of trouble, and if persisted in, likely to bring more trouble on themselves and others, who neither then, nor now did, o [...] do approve of such rigid separation, or deformation of all, instead of Reformation, conceiving a middle way might agree better with truth and peace▪ They condemn such heavy censures of them that a [...]e of the opposite party, as if they were the enemies of the Lord, a generation of men they were called by God to have nothing to do with, but to separate from them, sith they are Christians of the same Faith, they judge, that this Author, and such as acted, as he seems to have done, should have brought glory to God, and peace to their own consciences, if they had un-said those things, which abusing their liberty, they vented heretofo [...]e▪ and did endeavour to promote union, as they have done division, and this would tend to their honour, as Augustine's Ret [...]acta [...]ions did, and would not cause the enemies of the Lord to triumph and blaspheme, but both them, and all sober godly Christians, to rejoyce, and bless God for their so doing, who are now justly offended at these Separatists pertinacy, and have, by their moderate conformity in hearing Ministers, who preach the Gospel, and joyning in the publique worship of prayer, and the communion, given no just cause of offence to this Author, or any other. Nor do they think i [...] their duty to meet together as a sepa [...]ate Church: Nor do they conceive, that Heb. 10. [...]5 requires such assembling, but that the fo [...]saking th [...] assembling there meant, was the forsaking the assembl [...]ng of Christ [...]ans, and going back from Christianity to Judaism, as the whole series of the Text shews; and that their joyning in the publique assemblies in England ▪ is agreeable to the precept there, and that it [...]ends no [...] to Ap [...]stacy. But the Assemblies, according to the Separatists p [...]inciples, are Schismatical, and that spiritual Saints will be offended at them, at giving just cause of Scandal, nor can they expect peace by so doing: Nor is that which is here, made a rule [ [...] that way, that hath most of the cr [...]ss in it;] right, suffe [...]ings being n [...]t [...]ight, unless the cause be for God Sometimes the [...]onforming [...], sometimes the Popish Pr [...]est [...], have been under sufferings; yet I suppose this Author would not have men go their way; and therefore [Page] his rule is not sale, until the cause for which we are to suffer, be proved to be for God.

Sect. 7. Hearing the present Ministers, may be without participation with them in sin.

Arg. 8. That which Saints cannot do, without being guilty of partaking with others in their sin, is utterly unlawful for them to do: But the Saints cannot attend upon the ministry of England, without being gu [...]lty of partaking with them in their sin: Therefore. The major Proposition is clearly bottom'd upon Scripture, Psal. 50. [...]8. Ephes. 5.7 1▪ Tim. 5.22. 2 John 11. Revel. 18.4. which m [...]ght be abundantly demonstrated, were it needful: Sure that God, who commands me to abstain from all appearance of evil, 1 Thes. 5.22. never enjoyned, expects no [...] that I should be in the practice of what, without sin, cannot be performed by me. The [...] P [...]p [...]sition, That the Saints cannot attend upon the m [...]stry of England, without being partakers with them in thei [...] sin, will admit of a speedy dispu [...]h Two things are briefly to be enquired into. 1. What that, or those sins are, we suppose the Ministers of England to be guilty of? 2. How it will appear, That any person's amending upon their minist [...]y, renders him guilty of partaking with them therein. Of the former we have already trea [...]d, and proved, (beyond what any are able to say to the contrary) That they are guilty of the sins of worshipping God in a way that is not of his appointment; of acting in the holy things of God, by vertue of an Antichristian p [...]wer, office, or calling; of opposing really the Prophetical and Kingly Office of Christ; of using and conforming to modes and rites in worship, not appointed by the Lord, that have been abused to Ido [...]atry, &c. Nor is it denied by our conforming Brethren, but with some of these things, the present Ministers of England may be justly charged: That they worship God after the way of the Common Prayer Book, with modes and rites used in the Papacy, cannot be denied: Nor can their undue administration of that great ordinance of our Lord Jesus, of b [...]eaking bread to all, according to th [...] form therein prescribed▪ That they are Ordained, and some of them re-ordained by the Episcopacy, is also known. I ask, are these things the sin and evil of th [...]se men, or are they not? If they are not, Why did not our preaching Brethren receive the Ordination from the Bish [...]ps these received? Yea, why do not our half-conforming Brethren attend upon the reading of the Service used, joyn with them in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, as administred by them? Doth not their absenting themselves herefrom, abundantly demonstrate, that they[Page]in their consciences are perswaded, that, tis the sin and evil of the prese [...]t Priests of England thus to act, and from such a mission, in the worship of the Lord?

Answ. The major Proposition is granted: To what he saith he hath already proved, answer is made before, That the present Ministers are justly charged by him; or that they worship God with modes and rites Popish; that their b [...]eaking bread to all, according to the form prescribed, is undue; or their Ordination requires proof. The not receiving Ordination, may be from another cause, than perswasion in conscience, that tis the sin and evil of the Ministers, that they act by such a mission, perhaps they cannot subscribe to what is required. They may forbear the Communion, not because Ministers sin in not keeping back some, but because they scruple the gesture prescribed. Here then is no proof of their sin, let's see how, if it were granted, that they did sin, participation in their guilt is proved.

As for the Second, saith he, That the hearing the present Ministers of England, is that which renders a man guilty of being partaker with them in their sin; the consideration of the several wayes persons may be justly charged with being guilty of partaking with [...]thers in their sin, will abundantly demonstrate the▪ truth thereof. To instance in a few particulars: Then may persons be justly cha [...]ged as guilty hereof. 1. When they are found any way consenting with th [...]m in their sin. Ps. 50.18. When thou sawest a thief, then thou consentedst with him: and hast been partaker with the adulterers. Tis not the doing of the act, that was done by these wicked persons, that is here called, partaking with them, but a secret consenting with them therein. 2. When they do that which hath a real tendency to encourage persons in their sin. 2 John 11. Receive them not into your houses, bid them not God speed: for he that biddeth them God speed, is partaker of their evil deeds. 3. When they neglect the doing of those duties, which the Lord requires at their hands, for the reclaiming of them from their sin; such are watching over, rebuking, admonishing, first privately, then by two, and in case of obstinacy and perseverance therein, telling it to the Church: which are duties eminently c [...]mprised in the ensuing Scriptures, 1 Thes. 5 14. Heb. 3.12, 13. and 10.24, 25. Levit. 19.17. Mat. 18 15, 16, 17. 4. When they (notwithstanding all that they have done, or can do, being under an utter incapacity of proceeding further therein) perceive them to persevere in their sin, shall still continue[Page]to hold communion with them, and not separate from them· Rev. 18.4. Come out of her, my people; left being partakers of her sins, ye receive of her plagues. The abiding with obstinate persevering Offenders (as it is against positive injunctions of the most High, Rom. 16.17. 2 Cor. 6.14, 15, 16, 17. 1 Tim. 6.5. Ephes. 5.8, 11. Rev. 18.4. So is it in the last place instanc'd in) assigned by the Spirit to be one way of partaking with others in their sins. Not to multiply more particulars, let us, in a few words, make application of these remarkes to the business in hand. Is there any thing in the world, that carries a greater brightness and evidence with it, than this, That the hearing the present Ministers of England, is to be partakers with them in their sin? Is not our so doing, a secret consenting with them, and encouraging of them in their evil deeds? Is this to discharge those duties incumbent upon us (if we indeed look upon them as Brethren) for their reclaiming? Yea, is this to come out of, and separate from them? What less? So then, except it can be proved, that the particulars instanc'd in, are not some of those wayes, whereby persons do become guilty of partaking with other mens sins: Or, that to attend upon the present Ministers of England, is not what doth symbolize with some one, more, or all of them, (which can never be done) it evidently follows, That tis not lawful for Saints to hear the present Ministers of England, the doing whereof, is apparently a partaking with them in their evil deeds.

Answ. I grant, consent in sin, doing that which hath a real tendency to encourage persons in their sin, neglect of rebuking, admonishing, when they are our duty, makes us guilty of others sins. Nor do I except against the Texts brought to prove these, except that Mat. 18.15, 16, 17. which I have said before, in my Answer to the Preface of this Book, sect. 15. is a rule, not of reproving all sorts of sins, but only of particular injuries; and that telling the Church, is not telling a particular separate Congregation in the Independent way, but such a number of Brethren (as may be fit to compose the difference) above two or three: and that not of necessity, so as if the Complainant did not do, it should be his sin; but as of indulgence and conveniency, as being the way fittest to rectifie the Offendor. The last way of partaking with other mens sins is not true, to wit, that if after admonition, and obstinacy of the Offendor, we joyn in hearing the Word of God, praying with him, receiving the Lords Supper, we are partakers with the Minister that preacheth, [Page] prayeth or administers the Lords Supper, in his personal sins, such as are acting by an unlawful mission, or other, using a sinful irregular way in his calling: Nor do the Texts alleged prove it. The first, Rom. 16.17. is an admonition to them which cause divisions and offences, contrary to the doctrine they had learn [...]d, which is nothing to the avoiding of him, that teacheth the same Doctrine that the Apostles taught, because of his personal sins: It may more fitly be applyed against such as this Author, who causeth divisions and offences by his doctrine of Separation from them that hold and teach the true Faith, which is contrary to the Doctrine of St. Pa [...]l, R [...]m. 15.5, 6. The coming out from among Infidels, being [...] not touching the unclean thing, that is, the Idol, or un [...]ighteousness. 2 Cor. 6.14, 15, 16, 17. is nothing to prove a separation from hearing, or joyning in prayer, or the communion, with a Minister that preacheth the truth, prayes to God, in the name of Christ, for things agreeable to Gods will administers the Lords Supper in remembrance of Christs death, because of his personal sins: Partaking with a Minister in these things, in this case, is not having fellowsh [...]p with the unfruitful works of darkness, or being partakers [...] who [...]mongers, or unclean persons, or covetous, Idolaters, forbidden Eph [...]s. 5 7.17. It is nothing for, but against this Authors pu [...]pose, which the Apostle chargeth Timothy, 1 T [...]m 6.3, 4, 5. That he should withdraw himself, that is, not [...] to himself in the work of the ministry, such as [...] otherwise than St. Paul had instructed Timothy; that consen [...] not to wh [...]lesome words, the words of our Lord Jesus Christ [...] the Doctrine which is according to godliness. As for the last Text though it be still in the mouths of the Separatists, and is ridiculously applyed to every thing, that they call Babylon, as Bishops, Common Prayer, Ministers of any party besides their own, Tythes, at the last by the Quintomonarchians, to all the p [...]esent Rulers, so it is by this Author often u [...]ged, still besides the purpose of the holy Ghost, it being only a warning for the people of God to come out of Rome, whether by local departure from the City, or by leaving the communion of the Papacy in Doctrine and worship, which is nothing to a separation from hearing, or joyning with the Ministers in holy things, because of their personal sins. Nevertheless, this Author cracks of abundant demonstration; and, as if nothing in the world carried a greater brightness and evidence with it, than this, That the hearing the present Ministers of [Page] England, is, to be partakers with them in their sins: just as if one should say, He that heard Judas preach the Gospel, was partaker with him in his theft, which is more like the inference of a man crazed in his intellectuals, than a sober minded man But because some mens confident words prevail with some persons addi [...]ted to them, more than sound reason, let's consider what brightness is in his application▪ Is not our so doing, saith he, a secret consenting with them, and encouraging of them in [...] evil deeds? Marvellous brightness! clear evidence! No wonder he applauds himself like an Archimedes, and cryes [...] ▪ [...], I have found, I have found the Demonstra [...]on; and that his followers add their plaudite thereto [...] we mo [...]s do not see the brightness of this consequence▪ A Christian Professor goes to hear a Minister that preacheth the Word of God truly, therefore he consents to his intrusion into his place; he doth openly hear, therefore he doth secretly consent; he applyes himself to learn the word of God from him, therefore he encourageth him in his evil deeds. It is too favourable a censure, to say, his Argument is a baculo ad angulum as if a man argued, the staff stands in the corner, therefore it will rain to morrow; he seems to me [...] to speak contradictions. He that goes to hear him preach Gods Word, doth consent with him, that teacheth, in doing well, and encourage him to preach the truth; not, as this Author saith, in evil deeds: it may more truly be said, that this Author, and other Separatists, are guilty of sin, in not consenting with the Preacher, but discouraging him in well doing. Did not Ministers heretofore, and perhaps this Author, complain, that their auditories were thin, that good people withdrew from publique exercises to p [...]ivate meetings, that this was a discouragement to them in their work, and is it now to go hear them an encouragement in their evil deeds? Is not this to blow hot and cold with the same breath? We silly Ignaro's think, we ought not to discourage any who preach the truth of the Gospel, be they Episcopal, Presbyterian, Independent, Antipaedobaptist, by our absence, or exceptions against him for his personal failings, but to countenance and encourage him by our presence and otherwise, and think we have the example of St Paul, Philip 1.18. to warrant us therein, and marvel that such should argue thus, who blame them that silence good Preachers▪ for not assenting to the Liturgy, not considering,, that they may thus argue, [Page] If we should permit the Separatists to preach, we should consent secretly with them, and encourage them in their evil deeds, such as they conceive their gathering a separate Congregation, and taking their mission from it, to be. Yet we have more of this doughty Demonstration, in a Socratical way of disputing, by questioning, Is this to discharge those duties incumbent upon us (if we indeed look upon them as Brethren) for their reclaiming? It seems it can hardly go down with this Author, to call them Brethren, their conformity hath unchristened them. But I answer, If it be not the discharging their duty, for the reclaiming them (which as it is stated, would perhaps be rather their sin, than their duty) yet it is to discharge their duty in hearing Gods Word, which is so farr from hindring them in the discharge of any duty incumbent on them, for the reclaiming of Ministers from any sin, they are to reprove in them, that it rather fits them for it. For the hearing them, shews, they do not, as this Author, count them their, or the Lords enemies, which makes a reproof to be better taken, and is agreeable to the Apostles rule, even when we shun the company of any that is unruly, to count him not as an enemy, but to admonish him as a brother, 2 Thes. 3.15. But doth indeed this Author think it the duty of every hearer, to reclaim, or else separate from every Minister, that either enters into his ministry unduly, or doth not discharge his function as he should? Suppose a John de Cluse is unduly made an Elder, or a Johnson excommanicate his Brother and Father rashly, an Ainsworth disagree with Johnson or Robinson, about private communion with the members of the Church of England, a Wheel-wright vent Antinomian errours, must every hearer reclaim them, or separate from them, or be guilty of their sin? They that leave the Church of England, to be in Congregations of such principles, would find it to be matter of repentance: to avoid Episcopal government, to be under popular, would be like Tinkers work, to stop one hole and to make two; under shew of better Discipline, to introduce Anarchy and confusion. But enough of answer to this wild Argument, in which the Author accuseth deeply, but brings no proof, only puts questions for proofs, and would have the Defendant prove himself Not guilty, when it concerned the Accuser to prove his Indictment. I hasten to the remainder.

CHAP. 9. ARG. 9.

[Page]

Sect. 1. Separation of some, from other Christians, is no institution of Christ.

THat the doing whereof doth cast contempt upon the wayes and institutions (some or more of them) of our Lord Jesus, and hardens persons in a false way of worship & rebellion against him, is utterly unlawful for the Saints to do: But the hearing of the present Ministers of England is that, the doing whereof doth cast contempt upon the wayes and institutions (some one or more of them) of our Lord Jesus, and hardens persons in a false way of worship and rebellion against him: Therefore. The major is laid down in such full, clear and evident expressions, bottom'd upon Scripture, and right reason, as carry a brightness with them, that none but such as are desperately and judiciously blinded, will or can gainsay. The minor (or second Proposition) viz That the hearing of the present Ministers of England, is the doing of that which doth cast contempt upon the wayes and institutions of our Lord Jesus, and hardens persons in a false way of worship and rebellion against him, is by our dissenting Brethren gainsaid.

Answ. If the major be understood of real, and not only imaginary, and in the opinion of men; of it self per se, and not by accident, through the prejudice or ill disposition of some persons, casting contempt and hardning; the major is granted, and the minor denied: otherwise it is not granted. But let us attend the proof of the minor.

Three things, saith he, are therein asserted. 1. That our hearing these persons, is that which casts contempt upon the wayes and institutions of Christ. 2ly. That it hardens persons in a false way of worship. 3ly. That it hardens and encourages souls in their rebellion against the Lord. As for the first, A brief observation of some of the institutions of Christ, clearly bottom'd upon the Scripture, will abundantly evince its original to be from God. First then, That Separation from the world, and men of the world; from all wayes of false worship, and the inventions of men thereabout; untill the Saints of the most High be apparently a people dwelling alone, and not reckoned among the Nations, (however it be decryed, and found harsh in the ears of carnal men) is one grand institution, a man may run and read in the following Scriptures, Numb. 23.9. Joh. 15.9. 2 Cor. 6.14, 15, 17, 19. Ephes. 5.8, 11. 2 Tim▪ 3.5. Hos. 4 15. Revel. 18.4. Prov. 4.7. (Nor is it denied by some of our conforming Brethren.)

Answ. By the world, and men of the world, in opposition to the Saints of the most High, are understood, such professed [Page] Christians, as are not visible Saints, able to give such an account of their conversion, and proof of their integrity, as the Elders and members of a gathered Church, in the Congregational way, are satisfied with, to be sufficient for their admission into their Church: Or that enter not into Church▪ covenant, explicite or implicite: And dwelling alone, is meant either of joyning alone with such a Church in hearing, praying, and Sacraments; or of dwelling alone in their habitations. Not being reckoned among the Nations, may be understood, either of not being members of a national or parochial Chureh, or not under a national Government, whether Ecclesiastical or Civil; or not taking upon them an [...] Offices or employments in either such Church or Commonwealth. In none of these senses▪ is the Proposition proved, by any of the Texts alleged concerning the first part of the separation from the world, or men of the world; but the Proposition is both false and dangerous. The first Text, Numb 23 9. is only a prophesie of Balaam, concerning the people of Israel after the flesh, that they should dwell alone, and not be reckoned among the Nations, to inferr thence, any of his sorts of separation, to be the institutions of Christ, concerning the Christian Churches, is without any shew of reason; it might yield better proof, for a national Church Christian, against this Author, if any institution of Christ, concerning the Ch [...]istian Church visible, could be thence deduced. John 15.19. Christ saith to his Disciples, If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. And it is true, that the Saints of the most High are not of the world, that is, that party that are opposite to Christ, that hate him, and the profession of his name, and accordingly hate them that are for Christ, as v. 18. shews; but that, by the world, is meant, a national or parochial church, or national State, Common wealth, Kingdom, City, or House, as such, because of the mixture of good and bad, is most false. It is true, that Christ chose the Apostles, and other Christians, out of the world, by his calling, by the Gospel, and the work of his Spirit, that they might not be united to the world, in their enmity against him, or his word; but be a peculiar people to himself, zealous of good works: Not by any institution to separate themselves from other Christians by profession, into a Congregational Church, contra-distinct from national, or parochial, in the Episcopal, or Presbyterian way of Discipline, by an explicite or implicite Church covenant; or into a plantation [Page] or body Politick or Oeconomick, independent on any civil Government or Governours of the Nations. 2 Cor. 6.14, 15 17, 19. or rather 18. (for 18. is the last v. of that chapter) hath been, and so have Ephes. 5.8, 11. Rev. 18.4. in the last Section of the Answer to the 8th chapter, shewed to be impertinently alleged, for proof of such a Separation as is here meant. Nor is it proved, 2 Tim. 3.5. but it is a precept for Timothy to turn away, either in respect of arbitrary society, or in respect of associating with such, as are there described, in the work of the ministry, or other employment, as, wherein they would be either treacherous to him, or a hinderance, or a blot to him Hos▪ 4.15. is only a precept unto Judah, of not being Idolatrous as Israel. Prov. 14.7. is a precept, advising men in prudence, That they go from the presence of a foolish man, when they perceive not in him the lips of knowledge. To allege Texts, so farr from the proving of what they are brought for, shews rather a mind willing to cheat honest and weak people, than any regard to truth or honesty. And, as I said, the position is false. For it supposeth Christ to have instituted such a Separation, as he hath told us in sundry parables, shall not be till the end of the world, Matth. 13.30, 40, 49. such as neither Christ, in the seven Epistles to the seven churches of Asia, nor St. Paul in that to the Corinthians, or any other, ever urged: such as never was attempted, but it was judged schismatical, and proved unhappy in the conclusion: And it is dangerous, sith it puts persons upon withdrawing their subjection, not only from Ecclesiastical rulers, but also from civil and houshold Rulers, that are counted the world, or men of the world, that they may be a people dwelling alone, and not reckoned among the Nations; which would overthrow also all States, bodies politick, and houshold government, and is contrary to Rom. 13.1. 1 Cor. 7.20, 24. It is added.

Sect. 2. Meeting of separated Christians, as a distinct body, is not Christs institution.

Secondly, That Saints separate from the world, should frequently meet tog [...]ther, as a distinct body therefrom, for the edification and building up of each other in the way and will of God, according to the gifts bestowed upon them, is so evidently asserted, as the institution of our alone King and Law-giver in the Scripture, that it cannot be gainsaid, Mal 3.16. 1 Thes 5.11. Heb. 3.12 Jude 20. Heb. 10.24, 25. 1 Cor. 12.9. Acts 12.12. & 18.23. Ephes 5.19. James 5.16. 1 Thes. 5.14.

[Page] Answ. It is granted, That Saints separated from the world, that is, professed unbelievers, should frequently meet for the ed [...]fication and building up of each other in the way and will of God: But it is neither agreeable to Scripture, nor allowable, that one party of Christians should call another part of Christians, the world, and the men of the world, who own the true Faith of God, and worship him, because they are not of the same way of Church-government and worship: Nor is it either in the Scriptures alleged, or any other, that such should meet as a distinct body from other Christians, holding the true Faith, and worshipping the true God in Christ, as if they were a severed body from other Christians. The Separatists, I think, do not rebaptize, but hold Baptism in the Church of England, as being into the universal Church, right; so in the Brownists Apology, p. 91. Robinsons Justification against Bernard, p. 349. and else-where: which, if this Author hold, he must hold, that the Saints of the gathered Churches are one body with other Christians, according to that of St. Paul, Ephes. 4.4, 5. There is one body, and one spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, who is ab [...]ve all, and through all, and in you all. 1 Cor· 12 12, 13. For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free. And therefore it is against the institution of Christ, that Christians of one profession in point of Discipline and Worship, should meet as a distinct body, separate from other Christians of different perswasions, unless there were another Faith, Lord, Baptism, God, whom they worship. Nor do the Texts justifie such separate meetings: Not Mal. 3.16. in which is mention of speaking one to another, but not as a distinct body from other believers. The same may be said of 1 Thes. 5.11. Heb. 3.12, 13. Jude 20. The Assemblies Heb. 10.24, 25. were not meetings of a distinct body from other believers, but from Hebrew Infidels 1. Cor. 12.9. or rather, it speaks of gifts given to profit withall, but not of meeting, much less as a distinct body from other believers Acts 12▪ 12. mentions a meeting for prayer, but not as a distinct body from other believers. Acts 18.23. Ephes. 5.19. James 5.16. 1 Thes. 5.14. mentions employing of Gifts for our own and others good, not a Church meeting, as a distinct body from other Christians. It follows,

Sect. 3. Separated Congregational Churches, in opposition to National, are not of Christs institution.

[Page]

Thirdly, That particular Congregations or Assemblies of Believers, gathered into one body, for the celebration of the worship of God, (in opposition to any National Church or Churches whatsoever) is of the appointment of Christ, is alike evident as the former, Act. 1.1, 3. & 12.1. & 13.14. & 15.22. & 18.22. & 20.14, 28. 1 Cor. 1.2 & 6.4. Act. 9.1. 1 Cor. 16.19. Rom. 16.4. 2 Cor. 8.1. Gal. 1.2. Acts 16.4, 5. & 14.23. 1 Cor. 11.12▪ & 14.4, 5.12, 19 2 Cor. 1.1. Rev. 1.2, 3, 11.

Answ. In these Texts there is mention made of Churches, where the Christians in different cities, or in a Province are mentioned; and of the Church, where Christians of one city are mentioned; though it be made a question, whether the Church, Acts 15.22 & 18.17. be not a Provincial Church: But that this proves an appointment of Christ, That the Assemblies of Believers, gathered into one body, for the celebration of the worship of God, by their voluntary agreement, under Pastours of their own choice, in opposition to any national Church or Churches whatsoever, should be accounted the only lawful and regular Churches of Christ, appears not▪ For there is no mention, in any of the Texts, of any institution of Christ, or his Apostles: but only thence may be gathered▪ that it was then the manner of speech, to call the Christians that dwelt together in one Town, the Church of such a place; though it is probable they were not gathered into one body or congregation, for the celebration of the worship of God, under select Officers: but that they were called the Church of such a city, as that of Jerusalem, from their habitation, where they had many meetings from house to house, for celebration of the worship of God; as from Acts 2.46, 47. and other places, was gathered by the Presbyterians, in their Answer to the dissenting Brethren. Nor was then any such distinction of congregations of Christians, as that in one city, as the Independents in London, and elsewhere, did distinguish them; such a number should belong to such a Pastour, and be termed his Church; and another number be another Church in the same city; but the Elders of the Christians in Jerusalem, are termed, the Elders of the Church there, Acts 15.4, 23. & 21.18. Not one an Elder of one part, & another of another part. Sometimes there is mention made of the Church in the house of such persons, 1 Cor. 16.19. Rom. 16.5. Philem. 2. And yet this proves not, that particular [Page] congregations or assemblies of believers, gathered into one body in a house, for the celebration of the worship, in opposition to any city, church or churches whatsoever, is of the appointment of Christ; and therefore no such appointment of Christ, as here is asserted, can be gathered from the phrase of calling the christians in one city, the church there; the christians in a Province or Nation, the churches. A national or universal church, may be as well collected from 1 Cor. 12.28 where it is said, God hath set some in the church, first Apostles, secondarily Prophets, thirdly Teachers, sith the Apostles were for the universal church: But for my part, I conceive the distinction of churches only prudential, not by any constitution of Christ, or his Apostles. And that however Mr. Rob [...]r [...]s [...]n in his Catechism, Mr. Cotton in his Way of the Churches of New-England, have put it into their definitions of the visible Church, that it consists of so many, as may meet every Lords-day, for all Ordinances: And Mr, Norton in his Answer to Apollonius, ch. 3. makes such a church, the only lawful political church: And this hath been continually inculcated, that it is necessary, that every person be in such a particular instituted church, and that is the fi [...]st seat of Ecclesiastical power, alleging Matth. 16.18 & 18.17. to that purpose, and build thereupon their Separation. Yet I never judged, either the allegation of those Texts, to be pertinent, to that they produce them for; or that such conclusions as they gather from them, about the constitution and power of a congregational church, or the necessity of being a member in such a church, so formed, are rightly deduced. But of this I need say no more, than what is said in Answer to the Preface of this Book, sect. 15. and else-where.

Sect. 4. To attend only on the ministry of Ministers of Congregational Churches, is not of Christs appointment.

F [...]u [...]thly, Saith this Author, That Christ hath appointed Officers of his own, to act in the holy things of God, in and over th [...]se Assemblies, whom he furnisheth with gifts every way suiting their employment, to whom, without turning aside to the voice of strangers, or attending upon the ministry of such as are not of his appointment, its the duty of Saints to hearken, is very conspi [...]uous in the ensuing Scriptures, Ephes. 4.11. Heb. 13.7, 13 Mat. 24.4, 5.23.24, 1 Joh. 2.18. & 4.1. 2 Joh 10 Acts 20.29, 30, 31. Revel. 2.14, 15, 16. Which exactly agrees with what was practised by primitive believers, who it seems received none, without the testimony of some Brethren of known integrity in the Churches, 1 Cor. 16.3. Acts 9.26.

[Page] Answ. It is true, That Christ hath appointed officers of his own, to act in the holy things of God, in and over the Churches, and that he furnished them with gifts every way suiting their imployment, when he ascended up on high; and this may be proved from Ephes. 4.11. and that such officers, as may gather and perfect his Churches, are of his appointment, and that we are to follow and obey them, Heb. 13.7.17. and that we are not to hear or attend upon the Ministry of such strangers as are deceivers, false teachers, Antichrists, that bring not the same doctrine with the Apostles, that are false prophets, speak perverse things, Nicolaitans, that teach the doctrine of Balaam, as the Texts alleadged do import; and that S. Paul sent alms to Jerusalem by such messengers as the Corinthians approved; that S. Paul was not at first admitted into society with the disciples, till Barnabas brought him to the Apostles, and informed them of his conversion. But that Christ hath appointed Officers onely in and over particular Congregational Churches, or that they onely, who are chosen by such a Church, are his Officers, or that they are furnished by Christ with gifts every way suiting their imployment, as when he ascended up on high; or that all other Ministers or Preachers are strangers, not of Christs appointment, or that the Saints are not to attend on their Ministry, or that hearing them is turning aside to the voice of strangers, or that none is to be admitted to Preach, or to Communion in a Congregational Church, or to be heard Preach, but such as have had testimony of some brethren of known integrity in the gathered Churches, are not in the Texts alleadged, nor in any other part of the holy Seripture: But these Tenents and Rules of the Congregational Churches, although the things may be observed in many cases, as agreeing with the state of Churches at some times, and in prudence may be commended; yet to make them Institutions of Christ necessary to be observed at all times, and no other Orders different from these lawful, but rather Antichristian, is an humane invention, and no better then superstition, which this Authour and other Separatists do so much inveigh against. And indeed to injoyn Christians Members of a Congregational Church, or other Christians to hear onely such Officers, is both against the doctrine and practise approved in the Scripture, against the practise of the Congregational Churches themselves, and if it be urged rigidly according to this principle of this Authour, puts such a yoke of bondage on the consciences of [Page] Christians, as is intolerable and pernicious. For 1. The Ministers of the Gospel are according to Christs design, for the benefit of all Christians, not appropriate to this or that particular number of men, so as not to act as Ministers of his appointment, but in particular gathered Churches. It may be requisite perhaps for good order and government, to assign particular places to them, and this is of Divine and Apostolical institution, that in particular Churches there should be Pastors and Elders, and that they should be bound to be resident with them, and to feed them: But that no other then such should be Officers of Christ, is not proved; If there be not Apostles, Prophets or Evangelists now, as were in the Primitive times, yet I presume none will deny, that men may be Officers of Christ, that are assigned to no particular Charge; as Lecturers, Catechists, Readers in the Universities, Members of Synods, Commissioners for setling Churches in Discipline, for Approbation of Preachers, and the like; and they, being for the benefit of the Church of God, either in common, or more specially for some place, may be heard, or else the end of Christ in giving them should be frustrate. This I gather partly from the expressions 1 Cor. 12.28. That not onely Apostles and Prophets, but also Teachers are set by God in the Church indefinitely, not in this or that definite Church, and Pastors and Teachers as well as Apostles, Prophets and Evangelists, are given by Christ, Ephes. 4.12. for the perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the Ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, without the determinate assignation of some Saints, or some part of the body, but making them his gift to any Saints, or any part of the body which his providence shall order; partly, and chiefly, in that S. Paul counts it sinful glorying in men, to appropriate this or that Teacher as peculiar to some, and that because Paul, and Apollos, and Cephas, and by the same reason every Minister was every Christians, in that every Christian was Christs, and he Gods 1 Cor. 3.22. So that however, every of them cannot be every Christians in use, so as that he should have jus in re, yet every Christian hath a title to every Minister, or jus ad rem, and therefore to say none are Christs Officers, but such as are in the Co [...]g [...]egational Churches, and over them, and to attend on the Ministry of others, is to turn aside to the voice of strangers, is to deprive Christians of the right God gives them to all the Ministers, and tends to that glo [...]ying in men whch the Apostle condemns.

2. We find, that Apollos, said to be a Minister by whom the Corinthians [Page] believed, whom Paul planted, and Apollos watered ▪ 1 Cor. 3.5, 6. was a diligent Teacher of the things of the Lord at Ephesus, and he disdained not to be instructed in the way of the Lord more perfectly by Aquila and Priscilla, Acts 18.25, 26. who are also termed St. Pauls [...], fellow-labourers in the Lord, Rom. 16.3. which proves, that Christians did and might hear others, besides Officers of particular instituted Churches; yea that they might and did make use of the gifts of any, though a woman, that could expound to them the way of the Lord.

3. That this is against the practise of the Congregational Churches, who do allow the hearing of gifted brethren that are not Officers, who send Preachers to convert the natives, such as Mr. Eliat, Mr. Mayhew, who yet are no Officers to them, who hear the Pastors of other Congregations, than those of which they are members; which is not agreeable to this Authours principle▪ That other than their own Officers are strangers to them; and if it be, as some have delivered, That the Ministry is limited to that Church, to which he is Pastor, he cannot Preach as a Minister, when they hear him, nor they hear him under that consideration; and if a Minister be an Officer onely to the people who chose him, and they are bound to attend on his Ministery who chose him, and not others, then a Minister ceaseth to be a Minister when his Electors are dead, or removed; they that choose him not, though he be elected by the major part, are not to take him for their Minister, nor may hear him, sith his voice is the voice of a stranger.

4. To be tied to attend on such mens Ministery, and not to have liberty to hear others, puts an yoke of bondage intolerable and pernicious on mens consciences. 1. In that in case the Minister become empty, or erroneous, yet being his Minister, and the major part adhere to him, he must also attend on his Ministery, who is weary of it, and may not use the benefit of anothers Ministry more sound and profitable, no, not though it be of great consequence for the finding out the truth, in that he doubts; which is an art like to the practise of the Papists, who will allow none of their Church to hear Protestant Preachers, or confer with them, or read their Books, lest their errours should be detected. Thus it might come to pass, that if Mr. Ainsworth deliver errour, his people might not go to hear Mr. Paget in the same Town, who might discover his errour; and there is the same reason concerning any in England, as in London, a Minister to an Independent Church must be heard, though a man of mean abilities, and perhaps an [Page] Antinomian, and none other, though a neighbour, Godly, Learned Conformist Preach truth profitably near to him. 2. In case a member of a separated Church, as a woman removed with her husband from London into the Countrey, far from her Pastour, have a Godly learned able Teacher, who is a Conformist near her, and no other, she must not hear him, because a stranger, none of Christs Officers, but must rather live without the benefit of the publique Ordinance, though it be to the great decay of that spiritual life, heat and vigour in godliness, which she once had. These, and more evil consequences attend the Position of this Authour, That those onely who are Christs Officers in his sense are to be heard. Yet he goes on thus:

Sect. 5. Hearing the present Ministers casts no contempt on Christs Institutions.

Not to mention more, let it be weighed, whether the hearing of the present Ministers of England, doth not cast contempt upon these Institutions of Christ. What is more evidently Preached by such a practise, than 1. That separation from the Assemblies of England ('though in their Constitution carnal and worldly) and the worship thereof (although false, and meerly of humane invention) was, and is our sin and evil. 2dly, That it's not by vertue of any Soveraign institution of Christ, the duty of Saints to meet together as a body distinct (without going out to other Assemblies to worship with them) for their mutual edification in the Lord. 3dly, That particular Assemblies are not solely of the institution of the Lord Jesus, but that National are also to be accounted as the true Churches of Christ (though they have no footing in the Scripture of the New Testament, from whence the pattern of Gospel-Churches is solely to be deduced) Yea 4thly, That the Officers of Christs appointment are not sufficient for the Saints; but together with them, the help of false and Idol-shepherds is to be sought after, than which, what greater contempt can be poured upon the forementioned Institutions of our dear Lord? Yet who sees not all this to be the language which is heard, and goes forth into the nations, from the practise of our brethren in the matter we are debating? If they look upon separation in the sense before minded, to be of the institution of Christ, can th [...]y offer a greater affront thereunto, than to run into the Assemblies of the nation? If they judge it their duty to meet together distinct from the world and it's worshippers, why run they thereunto? If they apprehend National Churches to be the result of[Page]humane prudence, without bottom in the Scripture, and the Ministers of Christ to be onely (in contradistinction to the Ministers that are not of his appointment) attended unto; why give they the right hand of fellowship unto such Assemblies, as profess themselves to be parts of such a National Church, and hear Ministers that have relation thereunto? who have received (as hath been proved) no mission from Christ to their Ministry. If this be not evidently to pour contempt upon the Institutions of Christ, and confessedly so, we shall for ever despair of success in the most facile and righteous undertaking.

Answ. I acknowledge that he who granteth your Premisses, cannot deny your Conclusion: But none, but dissemblers, will attend on the Ministry of the present Ministers, and hold the Assemblies of England in their constitution, carnal and worldly, and the worship thereof false, and meerly of humane invention; That the members of the Assemblies of the English Church, are the world in contradistinction to the Saints; That they are the worshippers of the world, not of the true Churches of Christ; That the Ministers are false and Idol-shepherds, who have received no mission from Christ to their Ministry. By this Answer this Authour may perceive, that these charges are judged false criminations, not at all proved by him; nor are those things granted to be Institutions of Christ, which he makes such: And therefore if the practise of going to the Parish-Assemblies be a casting contempt on his way, it is not on Christs Institutions, but his unjustifiable separation. And yet the truth is, our hearing the present Ministers, is for the performance of our own duty; that we may hear the word of God, and worship God truly; and our doing this we account not any approbation of any thing evil in the Ministers, or giving the right hand of fellowship to the Assemblies in any thing that is disorderly. Nor do we condemn any thing but their sin, in the separated meetings, whose separation we declare against, although we should not think it evil to hear their Ministers Preach the word of God, or to worship God with them. We are of opinion that it is a gross errour, which is often in the mouths of Separatists, That they may not hear with the world, nor pray with the world; whence it hath come to pass, that some have left off praying in their Families, Catechizing their children, instructing their servants, unless members of their Churches; which tends to bring in irreligion and profaneness, and is contrary to the precepts of Scripture, Ephes. 6.4. Deut. 6.7, &c. contrary to the practise of Christ and his disciples, who heard Christ Preach with the scribes and Pharisees, praised God [Page] with the multitude, even the children, Christ approving it, Luk. 19.37, 40. Matth. 21.9.15, 16. And however we approve not any evil in the Ministers, or their Ministration, nor do assent to any unfitting thing therein, yet we rejoyce that Gods word is taught, and his Name invocated in any company by any persons, and think we have the Apostles example to warrant us, Philip. 1.18 and do wish, that God would not lay to the Separatists charge, besides other sins (which we think are nor a few in these withdrawings from Communion, and invectives) their ingratitude for that benefit others have, and they might have, from that Ministry they so much oppose. If this Authour, or those of his way suffer contempt, reproach, and hard usage, though we wish it may not be, yet it may be told them, That not Christs Institutions are contemned, but their own intemperate carriage is rebuked; which is not likely ever to succeed well, but to be a hindrance to the work of Christ, and the peace of his Church. Yet this Authour proceeds.

Sect. 6. Hearing the present Ministers, hardens none in sin.

As for the second particular, That hereby poor souls are hardned in a false way of worship, what can be thought less? (supposing the worship in the Parish-Assemblies of England to be so, as hath been proved) when they shall see professors, that were wont to pray and preach together, to profess and protest against Common-prayer-book Priests, and worship, to cry up, or at least approve of, Laws made for their Ejection, if guilty of no other crime than Conformity to the Worship they now conform to and practise, now stock unto their Assemblies and bear their Priests: What can they imagine less, than that these persons, thus acting in a direct contrariety to their former judgement and practice, do now see they were mistaken? and are beginning at least, to return unto those paths from whence they departed, and that these ways in which they and their forefathers have walked, are the good old way in which rest is to be found? Wo unto the world because of offences, wo also unto them by whom they come.

Answ. The hearing the present Ministers to be no false way of worship, is that which is now asserted, the contrary is not yet proved by this Authour. They who are chargeable with former miscarriages, are to answer for themselves: The hearing the present Ministers, which is defended as lawful, is not justly offensive, nor for it onely do men fear the doom of Scandalizers. It is added.

[Page] Nor is the 3d particular, viz. That hereby poor souls are hardened in their rebellion and blasphemy against God, the Spirit, his Tabernacle, and them that dwell therein, to be in the least questioned: we every day hear to the breaking of our hearts stout words spoken against the Lord, because of the practise of some in this thing. What say the wicked of the world less, than that Religion, which many pretend to, is but a fancy, that the professors thereof are but a generation of hypocrites, that will turn to any thing to save themselves; that the spirit by which they are acted, is but a spirit of Phanaticism and delusion! Yea how do they bless themselves that they are not, nor ever were (and resolve so much more, they will never be) of the number of such professors! Ask them a reason of all this, and they wonder you should ask them, and speedily reply to you, Do you not see how many of you, for fear of persecution, have deserted your former principles, and are returned to our Assemblies, and the Ministry thereof, and that any of you stand out ('tis from hence evident) that it is from a spirit of pride and obstinacy, and not, as you pretend, from divine tenderness, and the leadings of the Spirit of the Lord? And what can we say to all these things? Must we not with grief and sorrow confess, That there is indeed too great an occasion administred to them for their thus speaking, though this will be no plea for them in the day of Christ. Blessed are they that are not offended in him. It remaineth then, that inasmuch as the hearing the present Ministers of England, pours out contempt upon the ways and Institutions of Christ, hardens persons in a false w [...]y of worship, rebellion and blasphemy against the Lord: it's utterly unlawful for saints to be found in the practice thereof.

Answ. Such kind of consequences as these are incident to persons of any party, who have been earnest for that, whch after they have relinquished: So have Papists insulted over Protestants, upon the returning of any seeming zealous Protestant into the Roman Church. If my memory fail me not, the Authour of Fiat Lux imputes the like things to Protestants, upon the coming over of some to their party: Yet the Answerer, and others, know how, in that and the like cases to reply to such, that mens instability shews their own weakness, not the thing in which they have been zealous to have been either good or bad▪ that any take advantage from their fact to harden themselves▪ it is by accident, not from the nature of their action, if it were good and lawful otherwise; that in such cases men are not to condemn or commend the thing which is done, because of the actions of the person, but to examine things [Page] by the rule, which is the onely remedy against such events. It is true, that it is just cause of mourning and dejection, when such things happen: But not to measure truth or falshood by such motives and considerations, nor conclude a thing to be evil, because of such accidents. To which I add, That this Authour doth not well to call the obloquies against his party, speaking against Religion, blaspheming God, the Spirit, tabernacle, and them that dwell therein; whose ways may be reproached by reason of their zeal for their way, and yet no reproach to God, his Spirit, Religion, Tabernacle, and the indwellers. It would be more for their benefit, if he, and others of his mind, and others who have occasioned such blasphemies against Religion did excu [...]re semetipsos search themselves, whether their own present violence of spirit, unpeaceableness out of pretended zeal for God, or their and others now conforming intemperate heat, have not opened the mouths of adversaries, and if they have to be humbled for it, as David was when S [...]imei curst him, and so make advantage of an opposite persons enmity, to amend themselves. And indeed it were very unequal that we should either be afraid to do a thing because of clamours, or continue in that which we cannot justifie, because mens mouths will be opened against us, and perhaps hardened in their own way. Such kind of blasphemies as they are termed, are vented against non-Conformists, Sep [...]ratists, as turbulent persons, and yet this Author would not have it thought that they by their course harden poor so [...]ls in rebellion and blasphemy against God. Why then doth he charge this upon the Conformists as an argument by it self, as if it po [...]red contempt, and hardened others, and not impute the same to his own way? But he tells us,

Sect. 7. Gods people are not called out of the temples in England, as places of false worship.

To all that hitherto hath been said, we shall yet briefly add Argument 10. God calls his people out of, and strictly chargeth them, not to go to the places of false worship: Therefore 'tis unlawful for the Saints to attend upon the present Ministers of England. The antecedent is clearly proved, Hos. 4.15. Amos 4.4. The reason of the consequence is, because we cannot go to hear the present Ministers of England, without we go to their places and Assemblies of false worship (as the Common-prayer-book-worship hath been proved to be.)

Answ. This argument proceeds upon the opinion of the rigid [Page] Separatists termed Brownists, who in their Apology p. 75.76. have this as their Twelfth Position, That all monuments of Idolatry in garments, or any other things, all Temples, Altars, Chappels, and other places dedicated heretofore by the Heathens or Antichristians, to their false worship, ought by lawful authority to be rased and abolished; not suffered to remain for nourishing superstition; much less imployed to the true worship of God. Exod. 20.4, 5, 6. & 23.13. Esa. 30.22. Gen. 35.2, 3, 4. Deut. 12.2, 3, 30, 32. & 17, 18, 19, 20. 2 Kings 10.26, 27, 28. and 18.4, & 23.12, 13, 14, 15. 2 Chron. 17.6. Acts 17.23 & 19.26, 27. Jude v. 23. with Lev. 13.47, 51, 52. Rev. 17.16. & 18▪11, 12, &c. which is asserted by Mr. Ainsworth in his answer to Mr. Bernard about the Twelfth Article, page 128. and in his Letters to Mr. John Paget, and since by Mr. Robinson, in his Justification of the separation from the Church of England, against Mr. Bernard, about the Twelfth and last errour imputed to them, p. 354. p. 356. where he writes thus: I see not, but as the Religion of the Papists, in the opposition it hath to Christianity, is rightly called Antichristianism, so the Religion of the Ten Tribes, in the opposition it had to the Law given by Moses, may fitly be called Antijudaism. And for the Baalims then and there worshipped, they were even as the lesser Gods at this day, which are called Patrons among the Papists. The Devil, to the end he might bring in again the old Idolatry, craftily borrowing the names of the Apostles and Martyrs, by whom it was in former times overthrown and driven away: and by this means it hath put on another person, that it might not be known. Whereupon it followeth by proportion, That as the temples, altars, and high places for those Baalims, and other Idols, were by godly Kings to be raced down and taken away, and no way to be imployed to the true worship of God so are the temples (with their appurtenances) built to the Virgin Mary, Peter, Paul, and the rest, though true Saints, yet the Papists false Gods, and very Baalims, to be demolished and overthrown by the same lawful authority; and in the mean while as execrable things to be avoided by them, which have none authority to deface or demolish them. p. 357. The moral equity of those Commandments in the old Testament, touching the demolition and subversion of idolatrous temples, and other the like superstitious monuments, doth as well bind now as then. Which Commandments are also in effect renewed in the new Testament, where the faithful are charged to touch none unclean thing, 2 Cor. 6.17. to keep themselves from Idols, 1 John 5.21. which they cannot do, except they keep themselves from their appertenances: to hate even the garment[Page]spotted by the flesh, Jude 23. not to receive the least mark of the beast, Revel. 14.9. but to go out of Babylon, Revel. 18.4. which is also called Sodom and Egypt spiritually, as for the other sins reigning in her, so for her idolatry amongst the rest. From whence it is, that many at this day term the Temples the high places, decline them, bury not in Churchyards, with other actions of separation, in speech and gesture opposite to what other Protestants conform to. And, though the chief leaders of the Congrestational Churches not long ago did Preach and hear in the publique Temples in England, yet it seems this Authour now holds it unlawful to attend upon the present Ministers of England, not onely because of their calling and worship, but also because of the places in which it is performed; and therefore seems to revive the controversie about the use of places once polluted by Idolatry. Concerning which I shall not need to answer what either the Brownists in their Apology, or Mr. Robinson hath said about this point, the thing being so fully argued, and the arguments of Mr. Ainsworth and others, answered by Mr. John Paget in his Arrow against the separation of the Brownists, from Chap. 6. to the end of the Book; wherein the supposed moral equity of those Judicial Laws is shewed not to be such, and that it is a great derogation from the benefit of the Gospel purchased by Christ's death, to intangle the consciences of Christians with such Jewish opinions, as if any creature were now polluted by Paganish or Popish Idolatry, as that it might not now be enjoyed by Christians, and imployed for God▪ contrary to what the Apostle determines concerning meat offered to an Idol, 1 Cor. 10.25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30. 1 Tim. 4.4. nor do any of Mr. Robinsons Texts serve for the purpose he brings them: 2 Cor. 6, 17. the unclean thing not to be touched, is not the place where Idols have been worshipped, but the Idol it self, v. 16. which, by going to places heretofore abused to Idolatry, but now the Idol and it's worship is removed, and the living and onely true God onely served, is not touched in the Apostles sense: but then onely, when the Idol is kissed, adored, or otherwise worshipped. They who joyn not in any Idol-service or honour, keep themselves from Idols, as is required, 1 John 5.21. although they go to the places heretofore abused to Idolatry: The garments spotted by the flesh, however it allude to legal pollution, yet it is not meant of material garments, as belonging to an Idol; but by it is meant, any tokens or means of sinful lusts; Revel. 14.9. and 18.4. have been often shewed to be so impertinently alleadged against the actions of Protestants, which are done in opposition to Popery, that it is a wonder, [Page] that men pretending tenderness of conscience, should be so impudent as still to accuse Protestants as receiving the mark of the beast, and staying in Babylon, even for that for which the holy Martyrs died in opposition to Popery. But if it be true which Mr. Paget hath in his Arrow p. 29. Mr. Robinson was not constant to this opinion. As for what this Authour saith, The Common-prayer-book-worship is proved by him to be false worship, it hath been shewed not to be true in the answer to all he saith here. Yet were there some superstition in the worship prescribed in the Common Prayer Book, it is not sufficient to make the places, in which the present Ministers and people meet, places or assemblies of false worship, every corruption in Gods worship not making the place or assembly to be a place or assembly of false worship, as is manifest, both in the case of the sin of Hophni, 1 Sam. 2.17. of the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 11.20, 21, 22. & 14.26. Nor if the places and assemblies were for some corruption, yet were it necessary to go out of them, except they were idolatrous. For so were the going up to Gilgal, Bethaven, or Bethel forbidden, Hos. 4.15. Amos 4.4. to offer sacrifice to the calves set up by Jeroboam; which therefore prove not going to a place of false worship to be forbidden, except it be idolatrous, and to joyn in that worship; and therefore the antecedent of this Authours argument is denied, if it be meant of false worship, that is not idolatrous. Gods people were required to go to the temple at Jerusalem after it had been defiled with Idolatry, and the Idol removed; and even then when corpuptions of buying and selling there, and will-worship was in sundry things continued there, yet our Lord Christ himself went up to the Temple at Jerusalem. The consequence also is denied, it being false, that we cannot go to hear the present Ministers of England, without we go to their places and assemblies of false worship. To which I add, That this is contrary to our Saviours doctrine, John 4.21, 22, 23. to tie men to worship onely in the place and assembly of the separated Churches, and contrary to S. Pauls doctrine, 1 Tim. 2.8. to forbid any to worship God in any place; and therefore herein this Authour, and such separatists as are of his mind, are guilty of Judaizing. But he goeth on thus:

Sect. 8. There is ground to expect a blessing in hearing the present Ministers.

Argument 11. That, upon the doing whereof Saints have no promise of a blessing, nor any ground to expect it, is not lawful for[Page]them to do. But in the hearing of these men, the Saints have no promise of a blessing, nor ground to expect it. Therefore, The major (or first proposition) will not be denied. As for the minor (or second proposition) That the Saints have no promise of a blessing from God, nor ground to expect it, in the hearing of the present Ministers of England, may many ways be demonstrated. If there be any promise of a blessing upon them from God, in their so doing, let it be produced, and we shall willingly confess, there is no weight in this argument: But this we conceive to be no easie task for any to discharge, and that for these reasons: 1. The blessing of the Lord is upon Sion, Psal. 87.2. & 78.68. there he dwells, Psal. 9.11. & 74.2. Jer. 8.19. Isa. 8.18. Joel 3.17.21. The presence of Christ is in the midst of the golden Candlesticks, Rev. 1.12 13. & 2.1▪ 'tis his garden in which he feedeth and dwells, Cant. 6.2. & 8.13. and we are not surer of any thing (nor will it be denied by our conforming brethren) (many of them) tha [...] we are of this, That the assemblies of England, in their present constitution, are so far from being the Sion of God, his candlestick, his garden, that they are a very wilderness, and that Babel out of which the Lord commands his people to hasten their escape, Revel. 18.4. 2. God never promiseth a blessing to a people waiting upon him in that way which is polluted, and not of his appointment, as we have proved the worship of England to be. 3▪ The Lord hath expresly said concerning such as run before they are sent, That they shall not profit the people, Jer. 23.32. 4. The Lord protesteth, that such as refuse to obey his calls, to come out of Babylon, shall partake of her plagues, Revel. 18.4. 5. Where the Lord is not in respect of his special presence and grace, there is no ground to expect any blessing; but God is not so in the midst of the Parochial assemblies of England. Where are the souls that are converted, comforted, strengthened, stablished, that are waiting at the [...] doors of their house? Though many will not see it, yet a [...] sad spirit of withering, and visible decaies is to be found upon many that are waiting upon the teachings of the Ministers of this day: And we hope the Lord will in mercy, cause those that are indeed his, to see it, that they may remember from▪ whence they have fallen, repent, do their first works, and watch to strengthen the things that remain, that are ready to die, for God hath not found their works perfect before him.

Answ. Blessings are of many sorts: Any good in general, yea any immunity or freedom from evil, is a blessing in a large sense; But in a strict sense, that onely is called a blessing, which is the [Page] conferring of some special good, whether temporal or eternal, corporal or, spiritual. In the former sense the major is true. It is not lawful for the Saints to do that which there is no promise of good to them upon doing it, nor ground to expect that the person shall not be punished for it. But if it be meant of good, as of long life to the honouring of parents, eternal life to believing on Christ, there are many things the Saints have no promise of special good to be conferred on them for doing them, nor ground to expect any such blessing, but what is common to all men, and yet the thing is lawful to be done by them, as eating and drinking for their sustenance, buying and selling, planting, building, &c. common to other men with them, and in this strict sense (in which this Authour takes it) the major is not true: Ezekiel Preached lawfully when he was told Israel would not hearken, Ezek. 3.2, 7. and Jonah, when he thought Nineveh would not repent, Jonah 4.2. But to wave this exception, the minor is not true: I assert the Saints have a promise of spiritual blessing by hearing these men, while they Preach the Gospel, as much as any Preachers in the Congregational Churches, Isa. 55.3. Hear and your soul shall live. Luke 11.28. Blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it, are promises made to them that hear the Prelatical Preachers, as well as to those of the separated Churches, while they Preach the same word of God: the promise being not made to the hearing of the men because of their personal qualities, their Church-relation, or any such consideration extrinsecal to the faithful discharge of the work of Preaching, but to the teaching of Gods word: in hearing of which men have been blessed, though the Teachers themselves had no blessing, the hearers have been saved, when the Preachers themselves have been castaways, as S. Paul speaks. And if we look to experience of former times, there is ground now to expect a blessing fro [...] conforming Preachers, as well, or rather more, then from Preachers of the separated Churches. Sure the conversion, consolation, strengthening, establishing of souls in the truth, ha [...]h been more in England from Preachers, who were enemies to separation, whether Non-conformists to Ceremonies, or Conformists Presbyterial or Episcopal, even from Bishops themselves, then from the best of the Separaratists. I think all that are acquainted with the History of things in this last age, will acknowledge that more good hath been to the souls of men by the Preaching of Usher, Potter, Abbot, Jewel, and some other Bishops, by Preston, Sibs, Taylour, Whately, Hildersham, Ball, Perkins, Dod, Stock, and many thousands adversaries to the separated Churches, then ever was done by [Page] Ainsworth, Johnson, Robinson, rigid Separatists, or Cotton, Thomas Hooker and others (though men of precious memory) promoters of the way of the Churches Congregational. And therefore if the Bishops, and conforming Preachers now apply themselves (as we hope when the heat of contention is more allayed, they will) to the profitable way of Preaching against Popery and profaneness, exciting auditors to the life of faith in Christ, duties of holiness towards God not onely in publique, but also in private Families, and righteousness, love, peace towards men, there may be as good ground▪ if not better (considering how much the spirits of Separatists are for their party, and the speaking of the truth in love, edifying in love is necessary to the growth of the body, Ephes. 4.15, 16.) to expect by them a blessing in promoting the power of godliness than from Separatists. And as for this Authours reasons to the contrary, The first of them is from a fond application of what is said of Gods dwelling in Sion (which is meant of the special presence there, in that his Temple and service was upon that hill in the time of the old Testament) to the Congregational Churches, as if Gods blessing were appropriated to them, and excluded from the Assemblies of England, they were not the Sion of God in their present constitution, nor Christs Candlestick, or Garden in which he walks▪ but a wilderness, that Babel, Revel. 18.4. And saith, we are not surer of any thing than we are of this; which if true, it is an article of his Creed▪ of which he is as sure as that Jesus is the Christ. But he gives no proof of it▪ to assure us of it, but that we may take him to be phrenetick, or to be in a dream; and, notwithstanding his confidence, he can make no better proof of this then the Romanists can for the new Article of their Creed, Subesse Romano Pontifici, est de necessitate ad salutem. It is indeed said, Heb. 12.22. That the Hebrew Christians were come to mount Sion, in opposition to mount Sinai, that is to say (say the Annot.) to the Church under the Gospel, as Gal. 4.26. whereof mount Sion was a Type, Psal. 14.7. & 50.20 Esa▪ 2.3. and where the Gospel was first proclaimed without that terrour wherewith the Law was delivered, Esa. 2.3. But why the Assemblies of England should not be the Sion of God as well as the separated Churches▪ no reason is given, but the vain conceit that of late he and others have entertained of appropriating that title to Churches of their way, whose maintenance of Ministers by Collection, they call the provision of Sion, Psal. 132.15. in opposition to maintenance by Tithes, counted Babylonish, with such like language, whereby many well-meaning Christians of weak judgement are misled. [Page] Sure if the Church be called mount Sion from the Preaching of the Gospel, the Assemblies of England may be called Sion, Christs Candlesticks and Garden, as well as any Christians in the world: and if the Constitution of Churches is by faith, their Constitution▪ is as good as the Constitution of the separated Churches. And methinks the separated Churches, which have consisted of persons converted and instructed, and edified in the Assemblies of the Church of England, should have acknowledged that Gods blessing may be in them, their own calling therein proving it, if there were any spark of ingenuity and love of truth in them, and not, as this Authour, express such malignity as to make them a very wilderness, and that Babel out of which the Lord commands his people to hasten their escape, Revel. 18.4. which how grossly it hath been abused by this Authour, sundry times before hath been shewed; for which I now onely say, The Lord rebuke thee. As for the second reason, the worship of England is no more polluted and not of his appointment, then I have shewed to have been in the Jewish, Corinthian, some of the Asian Churches, whom Christ yet walked in the midst of, as his golden Candlesticks, and yet Gods blessing did belong to them. And why should we not expect Gods blessing to be on the Assemblies of England, in which the true faith is preached, and the true worship of God is constituted, notwithstanding errours or pollutions remaining in them? That Jer. 23.32. is wrongfully applied to the present Ministers of England, is shewed before in answer to Ch. 6. Sect. 2. And how shamefully (mirum ni contra conscientiam) Revel. 18.4. is applied to a call of Gods people out of the Church of England, when it is by the holy Ghost interpreted Revel. 17.18. of that great City which then reigned over the Kings of the earth, and acknowledged by Papists, the Jesuites themselves to be Rome, hath been often shewed before. In his last reason, that which he saith, That God is not in respect of his special presence and grace, in the midst of the Parochial Assemblies of England, is a speech of a man of an uncharitable venemous spirit; but we hope such as that which Solomon speaks of, Prov. 26.2. As the bird by wandring, as the swallow by flying, so the curse causeless shall not come. And to his question, Where are the souls that are converted, comforted, strengthened, stablished, that are waiting at the doors of their house? I say, that though there were none such, yet this proves not God not to be present in them; if they complain of the little effect of their Preaching, is it any other then we meet with elsewhere, Isa. 49.4. Isa. 53.1. John 12.38. Rom. 10.16. [Page] Isa. 65.2. Rom. 10.21. Micah 7.1, 2. Luke 7.31, 32, 33, 34. Matth, 23.37? May they not say, That these very men that upbraid them with the paucity of their converts▪ are the cause thereof, by their invectives begetting enmity and prejudice against them in the minds of men? May it not be said to themselves, Where are the souls that are converted, comforted, strengthened, stablished by your Ministry? Were not many, if not most in your Churches wrought upon at first by other Preachers? And if so, may it not be said, Ye your selves are the seal of their Ministry in the Lord? nevertheless, though God onely can tell exactly and fully, what is the fruit of any mens Ministry, yet I hope there are that can testifie their receiving good by the Ministry of some of the present Ministers; and that, however it be, by reason of the many stumbling-blocks cast in the way, God will yet have mercy on the people of England, and give them hearts to receive the truth Preached to them in the love of it. Sure this Authour should rather pray it may be so, and encourage the Ministers to do the work of the Lord more faithfully, and not weaken their hands by drawing their auditors from them. As for that which he saith of the decaies of the auditors of the Ministers, I joyn with him; but add withall, That, so far as mine acquaintance, or intelligence reacheth, there is too great and sensible a decay of the spirit of love, power, and of a sound mind in the Congregational Churches of old and new England, and that a spirit of bitterness, consoriousness, misreporting, mistaking dissenters words and actions, unrghteousness, unpeaceableness is too abundant in them, that I say nothing of their proneness to embrace Antinomianism, Quakerism, and other dangerous errours. Iliacos intra muros peccatur & extra. The Lord pardon our evils, and heal our breaches. Yet there is one more Argument to be answered.

Sect. 9. Hearing the present Ministers, is no step to Apostacy.

Argument 12. That the doing whereof is one step to Apostacy, is not lawful to be done. But the hearing the present Ministers of England, is one step to Apostacy. Therefore, The major Proposition will readily be granted by all: The beginnings of great evils are certainly to be [...]esisted. Apostacy is one of the greatest evils in the world. The minor (or second proposition) Viz. That the hearing of the present Ministers is one step to Apostacy, is evident. 1. It cannot be done (especially by persons of Congregational [Page]principles) without a relinquishment of principles owned by them as received from God: That the Church of England, as National, is a Church of the institution of Christ: That persons not called to the office of the Ministry by the Saints, are rightfull Ministers of Christ, must be owned, and taken for granted, ere the Conscience can acquiesce in the hearing the present Ministers (for we suppose 'twill not be asserted by those with whom we have to do, that there can be a true Ministery in a false Church, or that false Ministers may be heard; and yet the present Ministers are Ministers in and of the national Church of England, and were never solemnly deputed to that office of the suffrage of the Lords people.) 2ly. Nor can it be done without the neglect of that duty, which with others, is eminently of the appointment of the Lord, to secure from Apostacy, instanc'd in by the Author to the Hebrews, Hebr. 10.25. Not forsaking the assembling of your selves together as the manner of some is, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the day approaching; in which the duty of Saints assembling themselves together, as a body distinct from the world, and it's assemblies, [...]s also their frequent, and as often as may be, exhorting one another, as a medium to secure them (by the blessing of the Lord thereupon) from a spirit of degeneracy and Apostacy from God, is clearly asserted: whence it undeniably follows, that the hearing of the present Ministers of England (being inconsistent with the constant and diligent use of the means prescribed for the preservation of the Saints in the way of God: for whilst they are attending upon their teachings, they cannot assemble themselves according to the prescription of God in the forementioned Scripture) is at least one step to the dreadfull sin of Apostacy from God, and therefore it is utterly unlawful for Saints so to do. And thus far of the Twelfth Argument for the proof of the assertion under our maintenance, viz. That 'tis not lawful for Saints to hear the present Ministers of England, to which many others might be added: but we doubt not, to the truly tender and humble enquiring Christian, what hath been offered will be abundantly sufficient to satisfie his Conscience in the present enquiry.

Answ. If by Apostasie be meant Apostatie from the living God and the Christian faith the major is granted, and the minor is denied, nor is there any thing tending to a shew of proof of it produced for it, and if it should be meant of such Apostasie the thing is so notoriously false, the hearers of such Ministers, as [...]e now Ministers in England, having been as constant in the profession and practice of Christianity both against Popery and other ungodliness [Page] in times of persecution by Papists and at other times, as other Christians in other ages, that this Author would be hissed at as one extremely impudent in asserting so palpable an untruth. But I conceive by his proof of the minor he means by Apostasie the relinquishing of the Congregational principles and practise. Concerning which I conceive the major may be denyed, it being not unlawfull, but a necessary duty to depart from some of their principles and practises, I mean such as are for separation in communion from dissenting Christians. Yet I do not think but the Conscience may well acquiesce in the hearing of the present Ministers, as teaching truth without relinquishment of the two principles owned by them as received from God. I think if they will weigh what is here written, they may find, if not the congregational principles, yet separation inferred from them to be an errour, and to beget nothing but Superstition in their minds, and sinfull uncharitable division in their practise. Nor do I think it necessary that they which still adhere to that way of Communion need neglect the duty of meeting and exhorting one another according to Hebr. 10.25. the mistake of which is shewed in the answer to this chapter, Note: Owen of Schisms ch. 3. Sect. 4. upon what account those Heb. 10.25. so seperated themselves is declared v. 26. thereby slipping out their necks from the Y [...]ak of Christ v. 28. and drawing back to perdition v. 29. that is, they departed off to Judaism. Sect. 2. They that hear the present Ministers some hours, may hear other Ministers at other hours, they that at one time hear them, may at another time exhort one another; Heretofore persons of Congregational Principles could hear in Parochial Assemblies Parochial Ministers; why they may not do so still I understand not, were it not that opinions of separation animated them to division and faction, which the Lord amend, and make them diligent to provoke one another to love and to good works. I have now answered the Jury of Twelve Arguments, which I have found brutum fulmen, as the shooting off Ordinances without a bullet, nothing that might deter tender, and considerately enquiring Christians from hearing the present Ministers. It remains, that I make good the catasceuastick part of this dispute by confirming the Arguments brought for hearing them, which I shall apply my self to after the answering of the questions which here follow.

Sect. 10. A pollution in one part, makes not the whole worship polluted.

[Page]

We shall, saith he, onely in the close offer a few Queries to be in the fear of the holy one, considered by the intelligent Reader.

Quer. 1. Whether the Lord Jesus be not the alone Head, King, and Law-giver to his Church?

Answ. Yes, meaning it of the supream, absolute, independent, Head, King, Law-giver to his Church as such.

2. Whether the Laws, Statutes, Orders and Ordinances of Christ be not faithfully to be kept, though all the Princes in the world should interdict and forbid it?

Answ. They are.

3. Whether to introduce other Laws for the government of the Church of Christ, and the worship of his house, be not an high advance against, and intrusion into his Kingship and Headship?

Answ. Not, if they be no other then such as are shewed to be warranted in this answer to the Preface, Sect. 8.20. to Ch. 1. Sect. 3. to Ch. 5. Sect. 11, 12, 13, 14, 3, 4, 5.

4. Whether the Lord Jesus as King and Head over his Church, hath not instituted sufficient officers and offices for the administration of holy things in his house, to whom no more can be added without a desperate undervaluation and contempt of his wisdom, headship and soveraignty over it?

Answ. Some servants and services may be appointed by rulers, without such an undervaluation or contempt.

5. Whether the officers instituted by Christ, are not onely Pastors, Teachers, Deacons and helpers?

Answ. In this Catalogue I find not helpers officers instituted by Christ, by some others not here mentioned, I find of Christs institutions, 1 Cor. 12.28. Ephes. 4.11.

6. Whether the offices of Archbishops, Lord Bishops, Deacons, sub-Deans, Prebendaries, Chancellors, Priest, Deacons (as an order of the first step to a Priesthood) Arch-Deacons, sub-Deacons, Commissaries, Officials, Proctors, Registers, Apparitors, Parsons, Vicars, Curates, Canons, Petty-Canons, Gospellers, Epistollers, Chaunters, Virgers, Organ-players, Queristers, be officers any where instituted by the Lord Jesus in the Scripture?

Answ. Some are, some are not: See the answer to ch. 3.

7. Whether the calling and admission into these last mentioned offices, their administration and maintenance now had and [Page]received in England, be according to the word of God?

Answ. So much as is necessary to the resolving of this Question in order to the present controversie, is answered before in sundry places, which the Reader is to observe to satisfie himself.

8. Whether every true visible particular Church of Christ, be not a select company of people, called and separated from the world, and false worship thereof, by the spirit and word of God, and joyned together in the fellowship of the Gospel, by their own free and voluntary consent, giving up themselves to Christ, and one another according to the will of God?

Answ. Some of these terms are so ambiguously used, as is shewed before, that in some sense it may be answered affirmatively, in some negatively.

9. Whether a company of people living in a parish (though the most of them be visible Drunkards, Swearers, &c. or at least strangers to the work of regeneration upon their souls) coming (by compulsion or otherwise) to the hearing of publick prayers or preaching are in the Scripture account Saints, and a Church of Christ according to the pattern given forth for him: or rather, be not to be esteemed daughters of the old Whore and Babel, spoken of in the Scripture?

Answ. If their faith be right, the first part is answered affirmatively, the last negatively.

10. Whether in such a Church there [...]s, or can rationally be supposed to be, a true Ministry of the Institution of Christ?

Answ. It may.

11. Whether the Book of Common-Prayer, or stinted Liturgies, be of the Prescription of Christ, and not of mans devising and invention?

Answ. The worship or matter (for the greatest part) of the Common-Prayer-book is of Christ, though the method and form of words be of men.

12. Whether if one part of a worship used by a people, be polluted, the whole of their worship be not to be looked upon, in a Scripture account, as polluted and abominable, according to 1 Kings 18.21. 2 Kings 17.33. Isa. 66.3. Hos. 4.15. Ezek. 43.8. Z [...]ph 1.5. So that, [...]f their prayers be naught and polluted, their Preaching be not so too?

Answ. No: nor is any such thing said in any of these Texts: not 1 Ki [...]gs 8▪21. is c [...]ndemned their following after Baal, and not cl [...]av [...]ng to God; no intimation that if they cleaved to God, it would be polluted by reason of the following of Baal; but shewing [Page] they could not cleave to God, if they did follow Baal. No pollution is ascribed to the fear of the Lord, 2 Kings 17.33. because of the service of the gods of the nations; but the service of the gods of the nations is counted pollution, notwithstanding such fear of God as they had. Isa. 66.3. The killing of an ox was not a pollution, because of other pollution of worship, but because of the evil of the person, it was polluted to him, not in it self Hos. 4.15. Swearing the Lord liveth, was evil, because they pretended they did swear by the true God, when they swore by these calves, Amos 8.14. Diodati Annot. in locum. Ezek. 43.8. notes not one part of lawful worship polluted by another unlawful; but mentions onely an Idolatrous service near to Gods Temple, of which I have spoken before in answer to Chap. 5. Sect. 2. Swearing by the Lord was not polluted, because they sware by Malcham; but the hypocrisie of the persons is noted, who made shew of swearing by the Lord, when they sware also by Malcham; whereas he that serves God acceptably, must cleave to him onely as God▪ If, as this Authours Quaerie intimateth, a Ministers Prayers be naught and polluted, his Preaching must be so too, then all Preaching is naught in him, that by imperfection or passion vents that in prayer, which is not right; which I am sure hath been in the Ministers of Congregational principles; and none then should be heard Preach, whose Prayers have any errour, or imperfection in them; which is a very gross absurdity, and such as would make all mens Preaching unlawful, and bring in the opinion of the Seekers, who would have none accounted Ministers of God, but such as speak by immediate inspiration.

13. Whether a Ministry set up in direct opposition unto a Ministry of Christ, which riseth upon it's fall, and falls by it's rise, can by such as so account of it, be lawfully joyned unto?

Answ. No: But they are bound to leave this account, if it be erroneous.

14. Whether such as have forsworn a Covenant-reformation according to the word of God, and swear to a worship that is meerly of humane devising, that have nothing of the essentials of a Minister of Christ to be found upon them, may be accounted of as his Ministers, and be adhered to?

Answer. No.

15. Whether such as shall so do, be not guilty of casting contempt upon the institutions of Christ, and disobedience against his royal edicts, commanding them to seperate from persons of such a Complection. To which many others of the like nature might be added.

[Page] Answ. They would be, if they should do so wittingly and willingly. Enough of questions are propounded already; and this is Answer to the 12. Arguments and 15. Quaeries; [...] now for the other part of the book in the last Chapter, which begins thus.

CHAP. 10. Fifty Arguments for hearing the present Ministers.

Sect. 1. Christs direction Matth. 23.2, 3. warrants hearing the present Ministers.

HAving hitherto been upon the Confirmation of the truth asserted by us, viz. That 'tis not lawfull for Saints to hear the present Ministers of England, we come now to consider, what is in this matter objected by our d [...]ssenting Brethren. This is that they say,

Object. 1. Christ commands (or at least permits) his Disciples to hear the Scribes and Pharisees (who were men as corrupt in their doctrine, as vicious in their lives, as the present Ministers of England can be supposed to be) Matth. 23.1, 2. Therefore it is lawfull to hear these.

Answ. This being the main Objection used by our dissenting Brethren in this day (as it was by others in times past) their very Achilles in this controversie, we shall speak the more largely to it. To which I reply, that this is justly urged to prove it lawfull to hear the present Ministers of England preaching▪ the doctrine of Christ, because Christ allowed his Disciples and the multitudes hearing the Scribes and Pharisees teaching the law of Moses, notwithstanding they were erroneous, vicious, intruders in that business, as much or more than are the present Ministers of England into the office, or work of preaching the Gospel. That the force of this reason may be perceived, it is to be noted, that it was the office of the Priest, who were to be of the Tribe of Levi, to instruct the people in the law of Moses, as we find the Prophet Malachi speaking, Mal. 2.7 The Priests lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth, for he was the Messenger of the Lord of Hosts, yet there they are complained of to have departed out of the way, to have caused many to stumble at the law, to have been partial in the law, v. 18, 9. Which occasioned, especially after the return from the Captivity of Babylon, the rising of [Page] sundry Sects among the Jews, as Sadduces, and Pharisees known by their peculiar tenents and usages, who were not all, nor necessarily of the Tribe of Levi, as it is certain concerning St. Paul, that he was a Pharisee, and the son of a Pharisee Acts 23.6. yet of the Tribe of Benjamin, Philip. 3.5. which therefore had no special function of teaching committed to them by God, having neither extraordinary nor ordinary calling of God, but had betaken themselves to that way, as the orders of Friers among the Papists, by their voluntary choice, yet, as the Friers among the Papists, so the Pharisees among the Jews bare the greatest sway with the common people, as having greatest influence upon their Consciences in matters of Religion, and in process of time greatest power in the government of the State▪ though they were not the ordinary Magistrates. Now to these Pharisees were adjoyned Scribes, who were Writers, Teachers, Expositors, Disputers, Rabbins, Masters, Lawyers, or Doctors of the Law, among whom our Saviour is said to sit at 12 years old in the Temple hearing them, and asking them questions, Luke 2.46. By which it is apparent, that they which were then the Doctors of the law used to sit in the Temple to resolve cases about the law; for which reason they were said to sit in the seat of Moses, Matth. 23.2. Concerning whom, though our Lord Christ had charged them with corrupting the law by their traditions Matth. 15.3. Mark. 7.8 and had warned his Disciples to take heed of the leaven of their Doctrine, Matth. 16.6 11.12. yet Matth. 23.1, 2, 3. he spake to the multittude, and to his Disciples, saying, the Scribes and Pharises sit in Moses seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say and do not. Now our Lord Christs appointing them to observe what they bid, shews he allowed or permitted their hearing them; (for otherwise they could not observe what they bid them) yet not absolutely, for then he should have contradicted himself in warning them against their traditions, and the leaven of their Doctrine, but conditionally or respectively, that is what they bid them do according to the law of Moses, in whose seat they sate, that is took upon them to be expounders of the law of Moses. Whence it is inferred, that while the Ministers of England teach the doctrine of Christ, they may be heard notwithstanding defects in their calling, and their personal evils, as the hearing of the Scribes and Pharisees was allowed by Christ to his Disciples. And the Argument may be formed thus. That hearing of Ministers against which there is no more just exception than was against the hearing of the Scribes and Pharises sitting[Page]in the seat of Moses in Christs time by his Disciples, is lawful for Christian Saints now: But there is no more just exception against hearing the present Ministers of England, than was against hearing of the Scribes and Pharisees sitting in the seat of Moses in Christs time by his Disciples. Therefore the hearing the present Ministers of England is lawfull to Christian Saints now. The major proceeds on this rule, that what in the same case our Lord Christ allowed to his Disciples then, is allowed by him to Christian Saints now, which, if it be not granted, Christs resolutions then are no satisfactions or directions to our Consciences now, which were to make those Scriptures useless, which were blasphemous. The minor is proved by shewing the exceptions against hearing the present Ministers are not greater nor more just then against the Scribes and Pharisees, and the hearing of them, nor the Christian Saints now any more forbidden to hear the present Ministers, than the Disciples of Christ then to hear the Scribes and Pharisees. Again, we may thus argue, That which warranted Christs Disciples hearing the Scribes and Pharisees in his time notwithstanding other defects warrants the Saints hearing of the present Ministers of England; now notwithstanding other defects which is grounded on such rules of Logick as these De paribus idem est judicium, Of things alike we are to have the like judgement Idem quà idem semper facit idem, the same consequent follows on the same reason as it is the same. But the Scribes and Pharisees preaching or declaring the will of God warranted Christs Disciples hearing the Scribes and Pharisees in his time notwithstanding other defects. Therefore the present Ministers preaching or declaring the will of God notwithstanding other defects warrants the Saints hearing now the present Ministers of England. The minor is grounded upon that, which is intimated to be the reason of Christs direction Matth. 23.2, 3. that they sate in Moses his chair, that is taught the observation of Gods Law, and that what they bid them observe according to it they were to hear and do, as on the contrary they were not, when they taught corrupt traditions of men, and other leavened Doctrine. To these things this Author thus answers.

Sect. 2. The Scribes and Pharisees sate in Moses his chair as Teachers, not as Magistrates.

Many things are supposed by the Objecters, and taken for granted (and must be so by all that judge any weight to be in what is from this supposed command of Christ argued (which they will[Page]never be able to prove; and yet they are the very basis upon which the stress of the Objection lies. As 1. 'Tis supposed that the Scribes and Pharisees here spoken of, were in the Ministerial seat, Teachers and Expounders of the Law, which at first view seems to be a difficult task for any to demonstrate, That some of the Scribes and Pharisees (which were particular Sects among the Jews, as is known) were so, cannot be denied; that these here mentioned by our Saviour are such, is not so evident. They are expresly said to sit in Moses seat (not Aarons) who though he were of the Tribe of Levi, yet was not the Ministerial, but Magistratical seat committed to him. To the posterity of Aaron did the office of Priesthood appertain (as is known to all that have but in the least turned aside to consider of this affair) nor is it altogether frivolous, that is by some observed, that these Scribes and Pharisees are especially charged with the omission of judgement and mercy; things most nearly relating unto the Office of Magistracy, to whom it doth especially appertain to look thereunto. Nor will it in the least follow, that supposing Christ enjoyned his disciples to attend upon the Scribes and Phariseees, acting as Magistrates, and conform to what is justly and righteously prescribed by them as such: That therefore it is lawful to attend upon the present Ministers of England.

I reply, That it is indeed supposed, that the Scribes and Pharisees here spoken of, were in the seat of Moses, Teachers and Expounders of the Law: But not that they were Officers about the sacrifices and services belonging to the worship of God at the Templé, as were the Priests and Levites; nor need we so to suppose: It is sufficient for rhe Argument, That they took upon them the expounding of the Law, and to resolve consciences, what they were to do, they did as Casuists or Doctors of Divinity in Schools or Synagogues, or in the Temple: Which is proved from that which is said, That they did bind heavy burdens, and lay them on mens shoulders, v. 4. which was by their precepts, their affecting to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi, Masters, Fathers, [...], Leaders, v. 8, 9, 10. [...], Doctors, or Teachers, translated Master in Israel, John 3. but were [...], Matth. 23.24. blind guides, Matth. 15.14. blind leaders of the blind. And that they were not Priests, appeared by their paying Tythes, Matth. 23 23. Luke 18.12. Nor were they ordinary Magistrates, except such as were in their Synedria; the Romans were then the ordinary Magistrates. Nor could they be said to sit in Moses chair, either as Magistrates having the same power he had, or as Law-givers. [Page] For the power and office of Moses, whether as Magistrate, Judge, or Prophet, was singular. He was a Prophet to whom there arose none like in Israel, Deut. 34.10. and he was a Judge or Prince under God supreme, who had jurisdiction and Empire supreme, in matters sacred and profane, although the function of doing holy rites was committed to Aaron and his sons, and the Levites, as is proved by Selden, l. 2. de Syned. Ebrae. c. 2. from Exod. 4.16. Deut. 33.5. the address to him in difficult causes his sentences, and other things acknowledged by Writers Jewish and Christian. It is not denied, that the Pharisees and Scribes were many of them Rulers of the Jews, as it is said of Nicodemus, John 3.1. and of the Priests and Levites John 1.19.24. But not as Scribes or Pharisees, who were, as such, onely particular Sects among the Jews, as this Authour truly acknowledgeth: nor as sitting in Moses chair, which onely noted their function of teaching and expounding of the Law, being bred up at the feet of Rabbins or Doctors of the Law, as St. Paul at the feet of Gamaliel, and after sitting in the School, or auditory of the Temple or Synagogues, where Moses of old time had in every City them that preached him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath-day, Acts 15.21. wherein the Scribes and Pharisees affected and obtained the chief seats, Matth. 23 6. and had much sway with the people, though they taught not with such authority as Christ did, Matth. 7.26. Mark 1.22. now wherein they taught according to Moses Law, or the truth, as about Elias coming Matth 17.10.11. they were to be heard in other things, as in their own traditions, and the commandments of men their doctrine was to be rejected, Matth. 15.9. It is frivolous which is observed, That because judgement and mercy, the omission of which is charged on the Scribes and Pharisees, Matth. 23.23. and those nearly relate to the office of Magistracy, to whom it doth especially appertain to look thereunto: that therefore the Scribes and Pharisees, v. 2, 3. are considered as Magistrates. For, as is in the Assembly Annotations on the place, the judgement, mercy, and faith, are just dealing with all men, mercy in relieving the poor, and faithfulness in covenants, promises and contracts, judgement being there taken for right ordering the conversation towards God and men, as Matth. 12.18. which is manifest, in that it is joyned with mercy and faith, or as it is Luke 11.4. The love of God opposed to ravening, extortion, intemperance or excess, Matth. 23.25. rapine and wickedness Luke 11.39. such as was when they devoured widows bouses, making long prayers for a pretence, Matth. 23.14. compassing[Page]sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he was made, making him twofold more the child of hell then themselves, v. 15. No such argument therefore is or needs be made, as this Authour frames as made by his opponent, That supposing Christ to injoyn his disciples to attend upon the Scribes and Pharisees acting as Magistrates; therefore it is lawful to attend upon the present Ministers of England: For neither do we say that Christ injoyned attendance on them, nor that they acted as Magistrates; but our supposition is, That they acted as Teachers, and his disciples were permitted to hear them, though liable to greater and more exceptions then the present Ministers. It is added,

Sect. 3. The Pharisees were not Church-officers of Gods appointment.

But let this be granted. Suppose 2. The Scribes and Pharisees to be the preachers and expounders of the Law in that day, the seat mentioned to be a Ministerial seat: Yet this will not at all help them in the matter in controversie, except it be granted to them, that the Scribes and Pharisees were not a lawful, but a false Ministry that had surreptitiously climbed up into this Ministerial seat (for who sees not the invalidity and nothingness of this argument, 'Twas lawful to hear the Scribes and Pharisees which were the lawful Church-officers of that day, of the appointment of the Lord, acting by vertue of an authority derived from him; therefore 'tis lawful to hear persons that have not any such authority from Christ, but are meer intuders, and Ministers of Antichrist (as the present Ministers of England have been proved to be) now this upon that supposition, that they were Ministers, we cannot yield, to these reasons. 1. The Pharisees are expresly said to be Priests and Levites, John 1.19. (and this is the record of John, when the Jews sent Priests and Levites from Jerusalem, to ask him, Who art thou? v. 24. And they that were sent were of the Pharisees) which were the ordinary lawful Ministers of that day. 2. These of all others were most apt to question the authority of such as taught the people: So when John appears preaching and baptizing, and professes to them, that he was not the Christ, nor Elias, nor Prophet (who was expected by the people of the Jews) they immediately question his authority, John 1.25. Why baptizest thou then? which they could not be supposed to have the face to do, if they themselves of all others had been the greatest intruders. Nay 3. When they question Christ [Page]himself about his authority, he asks not them from whence they had theirs (which doubtless upon that occasion, he would have done, had they not been lawfully seated in the seat they did possess) but from whence John had his, who was esteemed as a prophet. 4. We have the Lord Jesus many times crying out above all others against the Pharisees, condemning them of pride, hypocrisie, avarice, &c. but not the least tittle of the usurpation of Moses seat is by him charged upon them, or in the least intimated, which doubtless would have been, had they been guilty thereof.

I reply, that this grant, that the Scribes and Pharisees were preachers and expounders of the Law in that day, will help the objectours in the matter in controversie, though it be not granted to them, that the Scribes and Pharisees were not a lawfull, but a false Ministry, that had surrepticiously climbed up into this ministerial seat. For they are assured, that this Author hath not proved, nor can prove the present Ministers of England to be meer intruders and Ministers of Antichrist, and therefore need not this supposition concerning the Scribes and Pharisees, to prove Christs allowing the hearing of the present Ministers. Only this is urged, that there is as much exception and more against the Pharisees teaching, than against the present Ministers, and yet they might be heard, therefore with better reason may the present Ministers be heard. Nevertheless I deny, that the Scribes and Pharisees, which they were to hear, were the lawfull Church Officers of that day, of the appointment of the Lord, acting by vertue of an authority derived from him, it being certain that, as he saith, they were a particular Sect among the Jews, no where appointed by God to this office of Priesthood or teaching, but taken up by men, as orders of Friers among the Papists, though some of them were Priests, and some of them Rabbins, or teachers of the law, and educated thereunto, as teachers of Divinity are in the Schools among us at this day; which, if the Ministers of England had no further ordination, being the condition of most, or very many of the present Ministers in England might justifie the hearing of them as well as the hearing the Pharisees, who had no better calling to that function. As for the reasons of this Author, the first is not valid. For it proves only that some of the Priests and Levites were Pharisees, not all, St. Paul certainly was not, though a Pharisee; nor that those that sate in Moses chair were Priests, for all were not there being many thousands of Pharisees, who were not Rabbins. St. Paul was a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee, when he sate at Gamaliels feet, Acts 22.3. yet not a Doctor of the Law sitting in Moses his [Page]chair. Nor, if they were Priests, doth it prove they were the lawfull Ministers of that day. For, to say nothing of Christs Apostles, who were at that day the lawfull Ministers with and under Christ himself, it is certain the Priests of those times got their places, as for instance the High Priest by undue and unlawfull wayes, by bribing the Roman Deputy, as Josephus reports, and therefore if it were proved, they were Priests, yet they are not proved to be lawful Ministers. Yea that which is said of their Ordination, and Education by the most favourable Writers of the Jewes, proves they had some kind of entrance into their profession according to the customs of those times, which were of human invention, but nothing of Gods institution, that they should sit in the chair of Moses. As for the Second reason, there is no marvel they had the impudence to question Iohns authority, though themselves intruders, when they were puft up with conceits of their authority, though they had none, when they were so proud and impudent as to conceive themselves righteous and despise others, Luke 18.9. and to allege it in prayer to God, though their Consciences might tell them they were covetous and unrighteous, yea to deride Christ, when he told them they could not serve God and Mammon, Luke 16.14. Nor is the Third reason of force, For Christ might question their authority though he did not when they questioned Johns, and he seems after John to have done it in calling them a generation of vipers, blind guides, with sundry other expressions disparaging of them and their traditions; And his charging them with affectation and ambitious seeking of the chief Seats, and to be called Rabbi, Rabbi, what is it but an evidence, that they did unlawfully climb into Moses his seat, which they did so ambitiously gape after? As for the not in express words charging them with usurpation, it is no marvail it is not related, sith their instigation of Herod to take away John Baptists life related by Iosephus is not related, as imputed to them, by Christ in any of the Evangelists; Besides how irrational this argument is, we read not, that Christ charged them with usurpation of Moses seat, therefore he did it not, every puny in Schools knows, who hath learned that rule in Logick, argumentum non valet ab authoritate negativè, an argument from testimony negatively is not of force, especially in matters of fact, it is not related, therefore it was not done; and most of all concerning Christs acts, of which it is noted, that many things are not written, John 21.25.

Sect. 4. Christ allows hearing the Pharisees while they taught the Law of Moses.

[Page]

Yet again saith this Author, But let this also be granted, that we may hear this Argument, speak its uttermost, The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses seat; this seat is a ministerial seat, and they sit not here by virtue of any lawfull authority, but are meer intruders; what follows from hence? Why this, if it were lawfull to hear the Scribes and Pharisees, persons vicious in their lives, corrupt in their doctrine, having no lawfull call to the place they possessed: then it undeniably follows, that its lawfull to hear the present Ministers of England, though they have no lawfull authority or call to the office they assume. It must it seems, then 3dly, be granted, that when Christ sayes, what they say unto you, do, he is to be interpreted, to command, or at least, to permit an attendance upon their Ministry. But this is that we deny, and dare confidently aver, That it never entred into the heart of Christ to permit, much less to command any to attend upon the Ministry of the Scribes and Pharisees: nor is any such thing in the least intimated in the words under consideration. For first, the words are in the original [...], &c. which may more strictly be rendred, the Scribes and Pharisees have sate in Moses chair, all things therefore whatsoever they have said unto you, &c. (i. e. whatever in times past, you have heard delivered by these men, according to the mind of God, do you not now reject because of that hypocrisie, pride, covetousness, &c. you are made to see is predominant in them.

I reply, the Argument is framed not as here by this Authour, but as I before formed it. The command to do what they bid implies a permission to hear, else how could they do as they bid? Though the words v. 2. may be rendered, have sate in Moses chair, yet the words, v. 3. according to the Greek language, and, I think, according to all interpreters must be rendered, whatsoever they shall say unto you, it being a precept concerning their future actions, and the word render'd [sit] being in the first Aorist is best rendered, as noting an indefinite time, and so is to be conceived as signifying a continued time past and present, they have and still do sit. But were it granted, that the bidding were meant of the time past, the argument were of force, they heard, therefore they may hear, Christ not disapproving their former hearing, but giving a reason, which infers a continued permission to hear them, because [Page]they sate in Moses chair, that is, taught the law of Moses, so that he makes this the entire reason of their observing, and consequently of hearing, in that they bid them observe the law of Moses, which while they did, they were to hear them, and observe them, not when they taught for doctrines the precepts of men: which is indeed the genuine reason of his caveat there and elsewhere, especially in the Sermon on the Mount, Matth. 5. & 6. & 7. in which having said, Matth. 5.17. Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill, he then adds, that one Jot shall not pass from the law till all were fulfilled, that he would not have the least Commandement broken by practise or Doctrine, yet with monition, that their righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, if they would enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, and accordingly clears the law from their false glasses, warns his Disciples of their hypocritical practises, of their corrupt doctrine and traditions, directs persons to observe the rites of the law, while he was on earth, and to acquit himself from being an enemy to the law a little before his death, though he had late experience of their opposition, yet minds his Disciples that they should not neglect their teaching out of the law, though they were not to imitate their practise. Whence may be clearly discerned, that Christ would have them heard teaching out of the law of God, notwithstanding other defects or corruptions, and that the resolution of this case is a plain rule to us, that we may lawfully hear such as teach truth, notwithstanding other defects and corruptions in their lives and Ministry: It is added,

Sect. 5. Hearing Pharisees teaching Moses law, not attendance on their Ministry, as Pastors is allowed by Christ.

Let the words be as they are rendered, whatever they bid you observe and do, that observe and do. Yet 2ly, who that hath but half an eye can chuse but see, that an attendance upon their Ministry is remote enough from being their intendment? We had alwayes thought, that they might have been sufficiently acquainted with, and been in a capacity of hearing and knowing what had been said by these men through their particular occasional meeting and discourse with them, though they had never spent one hour in attending upon their Ministry: which that our Saviour did not enjoyn, no nor so much as permit by that expression, we suppose may be clearly demonstrated from the ensuing considerations.

1. There are not a generation of men of whom the Lord Iesus doth [Page]speak more contemptuously (and charges with greater enormities) than he doth of that generation of Scribes and Pharisees. In this very Chapter he informs us of their hypocrisie, ver. 5.23.25.27, 28, 29. and pride, ver. 6, 7. and tells us plainly, that they shut up the Kingdom of Heaven against men, neither entering in themselves, nor suffering those that are entering, to go in, ver. 13. that they make their Proselytes twofold more the Children of Hell than themselves, ver. 15. that they are blinde guides, ver. 16.19.24.26. perverters of the Scripture, such as make void the Commandements of God by their traditions, ver. 16, 17, 18. that they are serpents, a generation of vipers, that cannot escape the damnation of Hell, ver. 33. yea, such as shall kill, crucifie, scourge, persecute the Messengers of the Lord, ver. 34. And can it be imagined, that Christ should have no more tenderness to poor souls, than to direct them to an attendance upon such persons as these for teaching? —Credat Apelles! (Apella likely) Are these likely motives to perswade or enforce a [...]y thereunto? Yet this is what he immediately subjoyned, having said, whatever they bid you observe, that observe and do.

2. The Doctrines owned by them are known: The tessera of their sect, was, justification by the works of the law, which is diametrically opposite to the work Christ was then upon, and the doctrine Preached by him.

3. That they denied Christ to be the Messiah, blasphemed him in his doctrine (as the deceiver of the people) in his life (as a winebibber and gluttonous person) in his miracles (as one that wrought them by the Devil, who are therefore condemned by Christ, as guilty of the very sin of blasphemy against the holy Ghost, Matth. 12.31.) is known, as being what is frequently remarked in the Scripture.

4. We no where find the disciples attending upon the Ministry of the Scribes and Pharisees, notwithstanding this supposed command or permission of Christ.

Nay, 5 We cannot but think the supposition hereof, not onely inconsistent with, and opposite to that expression concerning Christ, Mar. 6.34. And Jesus when he saw much people, was moved with compassion towards them, because they were as sheep not having a shepherd (what? without a shepherd, and yet the Scribes and Pharisees, whose feeding they might lawfully attend upon; doth Christ pity them in this desperate state, and not give them one word of direction to wait upon these profound and worthy Doctors?) but also contrary to that solemn command given[Page]forth from the Lord, Acts 2.40. Save your selves from this untoward generation; and the practice of the disciples, who continued in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship, and breaking of bread, and prayer, Acts 2.42.

6. Were that the intendment of Christ, as is suggested (and the argument of our brethren valid) a lawfulness to hear the veriest blasphemer in the world that denies that Christ is the Messiah, affirms that he was a deluder of the people, a gluttonous person, a winebibber, one that did miracles by Belzebub the prince of Devils, that persecutes even to death Christ in his people, might by a like parity of reason be deduced. Christ commanded, or at least permitted his disciples to hear the Pharisees who were such (as hath been proved) therefore 'tis lawful to hear persons with the same characters upon them. But God forbid any such injurious dealing should be offered to Christ, or that any who pretend to fear God (and I hope do so in reality) should stand by a cause which hath no better arguments to defend it, than what may be as righteously every way made use of for the attending upon the Ministry of the greatest blasphemer, or opposer of Christ in the world. Evident then it is, notwithstanding the great flourish that many make with this Scripture, for the abetting their attendance upon the present Ministers of England, that it refuses to admit the least sanctuary thereunto. The Scribes and Pharisees mentioned Matth. 23.1, 2. may for ought we know be Magistrates, not Ministers; if Ministers, they were, as hath been proved, lawfully so: Christ says concerning them, Whatever they bid you observe and do, that observe and do. Therefore 'tis lawful to attend upon the Ministers of England, whose lawful calling to their office cannot be proved; yea, though there is not the least intimation of a command from Christ, or so much as a permission to his disciples to hear the Scribes aad Pharisees,—Nugae & tricae siculae! If this be to dispute, a man need not fear but to be able to multiply arguments at an easie rate, for whatever he hath a mind to undertake the defence of: Yet this is supposed by many to be of greatest moment in this controversie.

I reply, If by attendance on the Ministry of the Scribes and Pharisees be meant a constant and ordinary hearing of them as their ordinary shepherds (as this Authous words seem to import) doubtless neither Christ did command, nor permit his disciples such an attendance, both for the reasons given by this Authour, and specially because he asserts himself as their onely Master or Doctour, Matth▪ 23.8.10. yet the mention of their sitting in Moses his chair or seat, notes more then their discourse upon particular occasional[Page]meeting, to wit, their ordinary expounding the Law of Moses in their Schools, where our Lord Christ permitted his disciples and the multitude to hear them with this limitation and proviso, in, and as they taught the Law; which hearing he did not forbid them, but allow them with such caveats as are there given in that Chapter. And against such hearing, none of the reasons of this Authour are of force. Not the first: for though such personal evils were sufficient motives to keep back people, either from following their example or private counsels, yet not to keep them back from hearing Gods Law expounded by them The same answer is for the second reason; The permission of Christ is not to hear the Pharisees teach all the Doctrines of their Sect, he had before warned them of receiving their traditions, Matth. 15.14. the leaven of their doctrine, Matth. 16.12. In which no doubt they understood the doctrine about justification by the works of the Law, to be comprehended: But the permission of hearing them is onely as they sate in Moses his seat; that is, as they taught them the duties of Moses his Law, which he said, Matt. 5.17. He came not to destroy, but to fulfil, which is manifest from the illative particle therefore, v. 2. because they sit in Moses seat, and bid you observe what Moses did, you are to observe what they bid you observe, and consequently may hear them so teaching. The third reason hath the same answer with this overplus, That to prevent any conceit of allowing the hearing of them in their blaphemy, he avoucheth himself to be their Master and Teacher, v. 8.10. To the fourth it is but from a testimony negatively, and so of no force: We read not that they used the Lords Prayer, yet none will say they did not, less that they might not; we read not of their alms, or fasting, yet they might do both. To the fifth, it was but a limited permission of hearing them as they taught Moses Law, not as allowing constant attendance on them as their shepherds. Christ did conceive the people to be without a shepherd, notwithstanding the Pharisees teaching the duties of the Law, because though that doctrine were right, and to be observed, yet it was not sufficient to feed them to eternal life. Acts 2.40. St. Peter did well to exhort his auditors to save themselves from that untoward generation of opposers of Christ, as his Master before would have him and all his disciples do, not doing after their works, nor following their perverse doctrine, and the Church did rightly practice, in continuing in the Apostles Doctrine and fellowship, and breaking of bread, and prayer; yet he neither did, nor was to disswade them from hearing or practising the Pharisees doctrine of the observing the duties of [Page] Moses his Law, which they were obliged to observe. To the sixht, I grant it lawful to hear any man teach truth, which is Gods, and may be heard from the mouth of any man, with whom God allows us converse and communion as they are men; though we are to hold no communion with them in wickedness, nor willingly hear their blasphemies. That the Pharisees as such, were not Magistrates, nor lawful Ministers, nor considered as such, is shewed before. Neither do we say that Christ permitted attendance on the Ministry of the Scribes and Pharisees as their Pastors, nor need we. It is sufficiene for our purpose, that Christ allowed the hearing them teaching Moses Law, and that proves it lawful to hear the present Ministers while, and so far as they teach truth; which hearing, not constant attending on their Ministry, was to be proved lawful, as the question was stated by this Authour, ch. 1. and all along was his conclusion. And that he hath not proved it unlawful, nor evaded the Arguments from Mat. 23.1, 2. Notwithstanding his irrision of this dispute, I am of the mind the solid reader will say. I think it not amiss to add here the words of Mr. John Norton Minister of Ipswich in New England, in his answer to Apollonius of Middleburg in Zealand, c. 16. [...], Scribarum & Pharisaeorum in Mosis Cathedrâ sedentium fuit corruptio al qua in publico D [...]i cultu absque debitâ reformatione tolera [...]a: quia Cathedra Mosis, i e. officium docendi publicè in Ecclesiâ legem Mosis, & libros Prophetarum, Sacerdotibus, & Leviti [...] ex instituto Dei ordinariò propria erat: eos autem audire, non ab eis separare jubet Christus, Matth. 23.1, 2. Of the Scribes and Pharisees sitting in Moses seat, the embassage without commission, was some corruption in the publick worship of God tolerated without due reformation: because the chair of Moses, that is, the office of teac [...]ing publickly in the Churches the Law of Moses, and books of the Prophets, was ordinarily proper to the Priests and Levites, by the appointment of God: yet Christ commands to hear them, not to separate from them, Matth. 23.1, 2. It follows,

Sect. 6. Christs and his Apostles going to the Jewish meetings, is opposite to the Separatists opinion and practice.

Object. 2. If it be said, But we find Christ and his Apostles after him, going frequently into the synagogues, where the Scribes and Pharisees Preached. Ans. We answer first, That all that Christ and the Apostles did, is not lawful for Saints to practice, will not be denied: many instances are near at hand for its confirmation, should[Page]it so be. 2▪ That 'tis one thing to go into the synagogues, and another thing to go thither to attend upon the Ministry of such as taught there: This is the present case, which that Christ or the Apostles ever did, cannot be proved. 3. They went thither to oppose them in, and confute their innovations and traditions in the worship of God, to take an opportunity to teach and instruct the people in his way and will: which when any have a spirit to do, and are satisfied that they are thereunto called by the Lord, in respect of the present Ministers and worship of England, we shall be so far from condemning them therein, that we shall bless God for them. But this is not to the purpose in hand: the attendance of our brethren upon the Ministers of England, is quite another thing, that requires other arguments for its support, than we have hitherto met with. —Parvas habet spes Troia si tales habet.

I reply, It is clear from Luke 2.46. that our Lord went to the Temple at Jerusalem, sate in the midst of the Doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions. Luke 4.16. That he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath-day, and stood up to read, that he cured persons there, Preached in the synagogues, that Peter and John went up together into the Temple at the hour of prayer the ninth, Acts 3.1. That Paul and Barnabas went into the synagogue on the sabbath-day, and sate down, and did not speak to the people till after the reading of the Law and the Prophets, the rulers of the synagogue sent unto them, Acts 13.14, 15. That on the sabbath St. Paul went out of Philippi by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made, and sate down; and that this was his manner, Acts 16, 13. and 17.2. Now neither were these synagogues by any appointment of God that we find, nor their meeting, nor their rulers, nor the order of their reading of the Law and the Prophets, nor their Teachers, nor their worship at the Temple without many corruptions; and yet our Lord and his Apostles were present at them, and joyned with them in hearing them read, and such other services of Religion as were done to God. Which is a good reason, wherefore it should not be counted necessary to separate from the present Assemblies in England, and the publick Ministers, notwithstanding such corruptions in their worship, such defect in their calling, such pullutions in the places of meeting, as are by this Authour and other Separatists urged as a sufficient reason of their separation. The answers hereto are insufficient. For 1. Though all that Christ and his Apostles did either out of peculiar power or Commission, or instinct be not lawfull [Page] for us to do, as to [...]whip buyers and sellers out of the Temple, to sentence persons to death as Peter did Ananias and his wife: yet what they did as men, or part of the Jewish people in the worship and Church of the Jewes, is a warrant to us in the like case to do in the assemblies of the Christians, there being no cogent reason, why we may not in these things do as they did, and if these things may not be used for direction and setling our Consciences▪ they are in vain written by the Spirit. 2. Though Christ and his Apostles did not go into the Synagogues to attend on the Ministry of such as taught there, yet they did there hear the Law and Prophets read, and joyned in prayers, which this Authour will not allow his brethren to do in the Church Assemblies of England. 3. That Christ or his Apostles went into the Synagogues to oppose them in, and confute their innovations, and traditions in the worship of God, is more than I remember to have read: nor do I know that any that have or shall come into the assemblies of the Church of England to such an end, as Quakers and other Separatists heretofore have done, can be judged to do it out of any other spirit than a turbulent and evil spirit, without any true calling by the Lord, which might satisfie their Consciences: And though we should bless God, if liberty were granted more than is, and opportunities taken to teach the people, especially where there is want thereof, in the way and will of God, yet we should not rejoyce that mens particular opinions, or such unnecessary truths, as being unseasonably delivered, would tend to division, and not to edification, should be vented, especially in such auditories, as are in the common sort of those assemblies, and most of all where there are able preachers, who constantly and rightly teach the Doctrine of the Gospel of Christ. It is added,

Sect. 7. Pauls rejoycing at the preaching Christ, of contention, warrants hearing the present Ministers.

Object. 3. Paul rejoyceth at the preaching of the Gospel, though 'twas preached out of envy, Phil. 1.15 16. To which briefly;

1. There may be cause of rejoycing in respect of the issue and event of things, by the wise providence of God, though the means used for their production be evil; and not to be abetted or complyed with: In what have Christians greater cause of rejoycing than in the death of Christ? yet had it been utterly unlawfull to have joyn'd in counsel with, or any wayes abetted or encouraged those wicked persons that Crucified and slew him. Should the Pope send some Jesuits[Page]into any remote parts of Africa to preach the Gospel to the poor Indians there, here were upon some accounts ground of rejoycing yet no ground for Saints to attend upon a Jesuitical Ministry.

But, 2ly, It appears not, that these Paul speaks of, were not true Gospel Ministers, and so it reacheth not the case in hand: This being that, we have proved the Ministers of England guilty of, viz. and acting in the holy things of God without any commission from Christ, which when our dissenting brethren prove they have, we shall easily acknowledge the lawfullness of attending upon their Ministry.

3ly. It follows not in the least, that these the Apostle speaks of, were either not real Saints, or not true Ministers of Christ, because they are said to preach him out of envy; the object whereof was not Christ; (for had they envyed him, they would never have preached him) but Paul, (thinking, sayes he, to add afflictions to my bonds) which is consistent with grace, and a lawfull mission to the preaching of the Gospel.

Yet, 4ly, Here is not in this Scripture the least word requiring Christians to hear them. That because Paul rejoyces at their preaching, therefore 'tis the duty of Saints to attend upon their Ministry, is such a non-sequitur as will never be made good.

I reply, nor needs it, the lawfulness to hear the present Ministers of England, not the duty of the Saints to attend upon their Ministers being the thing in question, and therefore it is sufficient for my purpose if I prove hence the lawfulness of hearing them, though I should not prove it the Saints duty to attend on their Ministry. Which I conceive may be done by this argument. They, in whose preaching of Christ we may rejoyce, though they should not preach Christ sincerely, but in pretence out of envy, not good will, out of contention, thinking to add affliction to other Ministers bonds, may be heard by the Saints lawfully: But the Saints may rejoyce in the present Ministers of England their preaching of Christ, though they should not preach Christ sincerely, but in pretence, out of envy, not good will, out of contention, thinking to add affliction to other Ministers bonds. Therefore the Saints may hear the present Ministers of England lawfully. The major is grounded on this, that the thing we may rejoyce in is good, for which we may thank God, and consequently hear: which is agreeable to that of the Prophets, Esai. 52.7. Nahum. 1.15. applyed by the Apostle Rom. 10.15. to the preaching of the Gospel, who, he supposeth, are to be welcomed and heard. The minor is proved from the Apostles example, Phil. 1.15, 16, 17.18. That preaching of Christ that is no other [Page] then St. Paul rejoyced in, and professed he would rejoyce in, the Saints now may rejoyce in, though it be not sincerely, but in pretence, out of envy, not good will, out of contention, to add affliction to other Ministers bonds; But such is the preaching Christ by the present Ministers, ergo, the Saints may rejoyce in it. The major is not to be denyed, unless it be shewed that the Apostle did evil in so rejoycing. The minor is manifest, in that no other exception is taken against their preaching, then such as with as great reason might have nullified the joy of St. Paul in that, which moved him to rejoyce. In a word, though personal defects and miscarriages were in the preaching of Christ, yet the thing it self being good and occasioning the magnifying of Christ, it is, and should be, matter of joy to all that love Christ. To this Argument I find the Author of the Pamphlet intituled prelatical preachers none of Christs teachers, p. 45. answering thus, that preaching of Christ is not to be rejoyced in without limitation, because of these texts, Mark 1.24, 25. Luke 4.34, 35.41. Acts 16.18. Acts 15.1. Gal. 5.2, 4.12. Phil. 3.2, 3. Acts 20.29. Psal. 50.16.18. But he sets not down the limitation he would gather thence; only it may se [...]m by the texts, that we are not to rejoyce in the confession of Christ or his servants by the Devils, when the necessity of circumcision and keeping the law of Moses for justification is taught, when hypocrites take Gods law into their mouths by professing or declaring of it, but hate to be reformed. Which we grant, but say all these texts, and the limitation thence deducible, are impertinent to the present argument, for as much as these do not preach Christ. Nor, saith that Author, in propriety and strictness of speech can Christ be said to be preached by a prelatical Ministry: they justifie them that deny Christ to be the sole law-giver of his Church, and so make him an Idol. Which to be false is shewed in the answer to the 5th. chapter of this treatise. Yet saith that Author, p. 46. In case such a Minister as this that preacheth by the Bishops licence should in his Doctrine or Sermon affirm Jesus Christ to be the sole law-giver unto his Churches, yet in, and by his very act of preaching he should deny it: should the Apostle rejoyce in that preaching of Christ which is a denying him? An horrible speech of monstrous absurdity and impudent malice. I should not say so much of such preaching, though it were by the Popes licence, or the Devils instigation: For though I should not rejoyce in the motive or impulsive cause by which it is done, yet I would not so censure the thing it self as a denying of Christ. But how the receiving of a license from a Protestant Bishop to preach the Gospel within his Diocess, and preaching there by vertue of it [Page] according to the order established by the law of the land should be a denying of Christs legislative power, is to me incomprehensible, and to use that Authors phrasifying, the first born of absurdities. I should rejoyce, and bless God to obtain such power upon justifiable conditions.

But to our Author; His First answer is not to the purpose; For rejoycing in the Ministers preaching of Christ, or those that preached out of envy, is not a rejoycing in the good event by evil means, but in a good event by good means, the preaching Christ is a good thing, in which the Apostle, and we rejoyce, and the effect is good, although the motive and end of the preachers be evil. The putting of Christ to death was in it self evil, and not to be rejoyced in, though the effect of it be good, and to be rejoyced in, no way was the acting of Pilate, or Herod, or the Jewes, to be abetted, but to be abhorred, though the Counsel of God was to be justified and extolled, as was done, Acts 4.24. &c. Should the Pope send Jesuites to preach the Gospel, and they should continue to preach it, and no doctrine antievangelical, I know no reason, why the Saints might not attend on their Ministry.

To the 2d. 3d. and 4th. Answers I reply, That the preaching of Christ in opposition to Paul makes it probable, that they were not real Saints, nor true Ministers in his sence, such motives being contrary to that brotherly love, which is in every real Saint, 1 John 3.14. and that order of the Church by which is a lawfull mission, which me thinks he should not conceive to have been in them that acted in a way of contention against St. Paul the Apostle of the Gentiles. And for the Ministers of England, I like better the words of Mr. Iohn Robinson in his Justification of the Separation, p. 307. then these Authors words: In the general, I confess, there is a proportion, and so in that general and large sence, wherein Mr. Bernard pag. 313. expounds the word sent, or Apostle, I do acknowledge many Ministers in England sent of God: that is, that it comes not to pass without the special providence, and Ordination of God, that such and such men should rise up, and preach such and such truths for the furtherance of the Salvation of Gods elect, in the places where they come. They which preached Christ of envy and strife to add more afflictions to the Apostles bonds, were in this respect sent of God, and therefore it was, that the Apostle joyed at their preaching. How much more they that preach of a sincere mind, though through ignorance, or infirmity, both their place and enterance into it be most unwarrantable? And sure, if they may in this sense be said to be sent of God, it follows Saints may hear them, which was to be proved. It is added,

Sect. 8. The truth Ministers teach, warrants the hearing of them.

[Page]

Object. 4. The Ministers of England preach truth, and is it not lawfull to hear truth preached? We answer, 1. That 'tis lawfull to hear truth preached is readily granted; but this must be done lawfully, and in the way of Christs appointment. 2. All that preach truth are not to be heard, nor will our discenting brethren say they are. For, 1. There was never yet any Heretical preacher in the world, but he preached some truth; is it lawfull to hear such? This will not be said. 2. The Devil himself preached truth, yet Christ forbids him, and commands that he hold his peace. 3. The Popish Priests preach truth, yet who will say 'tis lawfull to attend upon their Ministry? But, 3. As the present Ministers of England preach truth, so, 1. They preach it but by halves, and dare not for fear of the L. Bishops inhibition, preach any doctrine, though never so clearly revealed in the Scriptures, and owned by them as the truth of Christ, he commands them not to meddle with. 2. The main truths they preach (at least many of them) are contradicted in their practice, They'l tell you that the Lord Jesus is the great Prophet, and King of his Church; but how palpably this is contradicted by them in their practice, conforming to institutions and laws that are not of his prescription who sees not? This we have abundantly demonstrated. 3. With the truth they preach, they mingle errours directly contrary to the Scripture, and the revelation of his will therein. Instances of this kind have been already exhibited, to which may be added many more: we shall mention but a few, 1. That the Ministry, Worship, and Government, which Christ hath appointed to his Church, is not to be received or joyned unto, unless the Magistrates (where they are reputed Christian) do allow it. 2. That the Apocryphal books which have in them errors, (2 Mac. 12.44, 45. & 14.41, 42. Eccles. 46.20. Wisd. 19.11.) untruths (2 Esd. 14.21, 22, 23. 2 Mac. 2.4.8. Tob. 5.11, 12, 13. with 12.15. Judith. 8.33. & 10.9. with v. 12. & 11.6.12, 13, 14, 15. 1 Mac. 9.3.18. with 2 Mac. 1.13. to 17. and 9.1.5.7.9.28.29.) blasphemy (Tobit. 12.12.15. with Rom. 8.34. 1 Tim. 2.5. Rev. 8.3.4.) magick (Tob. 6.6, 7, 8. & 9.2.3. with 3.7, 8. & 11.10, 11, 13. with 2.9, 10.) and contradiction to the Canonical Scriptures, (Judith 9.2, 3, 4. compared with Gen. 49.5, 6, 7. Esther in the Apocrypha chap. 12.5. & 15.9, 10. with Ester Canonical, chap. 6.3. & 5.2. Eccles. 46.20. with [Page]Isa. 57. 2. may be used in the publick worship of God. 3. That the most wicked and their seed, may be compelled, and received to be members of the Church. 4. That Marriage may be forbidden at certain seasons, as in Lent, Advent, Rogation-week, &c. 5. That Baptism is to be administred with a cross in the forehead, and that as a symbolical sign. 6. That though the most notorious, obstinate offenders be partakers of the Lords Supper, yet the people that joyn with them, are not defiled thereby. 7. That there may be Holy days appointed to the Virgin Mary, John Baptist, to the Apostles, all Saints and Angels; together also with Fasts on their Eves, on Ember-days, Fridays, Saturdays (so called heathenishly enough) and Lent. 8. That the Cope, Surplice, Tippit, Rocket, &c. are meet and decent ornaments for the worship of God, and Ministry of the Gospel. 6. That the Book of Common-prayer is the true worship of God. 10. That Christ descended into hell (as if Christ descended into the place of the damned) as the Papists hold. 11. That Lord Bishops can give the holy Ghost, and power to forgive and retain sins. 12. That Altars, Candles, Organs, &c. are necessary and useful in the Church of God. 13. That all children when baptized, are regenerate, and received by the Lord for his own children by adoption, Common-prayer-book of publick Baptism. Yea, 14. That children being baptized, have all things necessary for their salvation, and shall undoubtedly be saved. So they profess in the Order of Conformation in the Common-prayer-book; with much more that might be offered in this matter.

I reply, 1. The grant, That it is lawfull to hear truth preached, is sufficient to prove it lawful to hear the present Ministers preach truth (which he denies not they do) unless he could prove it were contrary to the way of Christ's appointment to hear the truth from them. 2. All that preach some truth, are not to be heard; yet all that preach the great truths of the Gospel, notwithstanding some errours non-fundamental may be heard, especially if the errours be seldom or never pressed on the hearers, but left to them to examine, and to be approved or disproved. Heretical Preachers are not to be heard, because they preach not the great truths of the Gospel but errours, which overthrow the foundation, so do the Popish Priests; yet it were no sin to hear either of these speak truth. The Devils we are to have no communion with, God having put an utter enmity between the serpent and the seed of the woman. 3. If the present Ministers of England preach truth but by halves, it is lawful to hear them preach those halfs. The Bishops allow them to preach all truths needful to salvation, all that is contained in the [Page] Creed, Lords Prayer, and Ten Commandments, in the 39 Articles, the two Tomes of Homilies; nor are men inhibited in Schools, or Convocations, or at some times in books published in Latine, to discover any truths of God, so it be done without disturbance, or other evil consequence. That some truths needful to be known, are not permitted to be published to the vulgar auditories, may have the same reason as Christ had for not acquainting his disciples with many things he had to say to them, because they could not then bear them, John 16.12. Some things may seem very clearly revealed in the Scriptures to some, and be owned by them, which are pernicious, as that the Saints have all right to government, that they are to smite the civil powers as part of the fourth Monarchy, that justified persons are not under the command of the moral Law; some disputable, as about the thousand years reign, That God cannot forgive sins without satisfaction to his justice, Church-constitution, Covenant, Government, and many more, which it is agreeable to the Apostles rule, Rom. 14.1. their practice, Acts 15.28. not to vent in all sorts of auditories; and if the Bishops do restrain Preachers, especially those that are young, raw, injudicious, but violent, and apt to cause division, they do, agreeably to the Apostles rule, to the example of all Churches, where Government is not popular (which breeds confusion) yea I think the Separatists have found by experience some restraint necessary, and that the universal liberty of Conscience, or of prophesying, as it is termed, is intolerable; and if Bishops, who are men, and may be more rigid then they should, hold the reins in too hard, yet there is no reason why the people should refuse to hear that truth which is necessary and sufficient to salvation, because they cannot hear every truth, which perhaps out of faction, or a childish inconstancy, or having itching ears, they desire to know.

As for what is said about the Ministers contradicting their preaching by their practice, it is answered before in the Answer to the 5th Chapter. And yet were it granted, their personal evils are not sufficient to make the hearing of the truth unlawful to the hearers. As for the errours they are said to mingle with the truths they teach, they are not such as overthrow the foundation, if they were errours, and taught by them; and therefore this is no sufficient reason why they may not be heard preaching necessary truths. Yet to shew the futility of this allegation, I shall consider each of the supposed errours. The first I doubt not they will deny, and require this Authour to prove it. For the second, it is not, for ought I know, preached by any of the Ministers, That the Apocryphal [Page]books which have in them errours, may be used in the publick worship of God, nor do I think if they should so do, could it well consist with their subscription to the sixth Article of the Confession of the Church of England, which excludes them out of the Canon of holy Scriptures, which contain all things necessary to salvation, and saith, The Church (as Hierome saith) doth read them for example of life, and instructions of manners: but yet doth it not apply them to stablish any doctrine. And what Dr. Rainold, the Bishop of Durham that now is, with many of the English Protestant, and conforming Divines have written about the Apocryphal Books, is sufficient to clear the present Ministers from suspicion of complying with the Papists, who according to the Decree of the Trent Council ses. quarta, put most of them (though they leave out some of them) into the Catalogue of sacred Books, containing that truth and discipline of the Gospel which is saving, and to be preached to every creature, and receive and venerate them with equal affection of piety and reverence, as other books of holy scripture. And although the passages alleaged by this Authour are liable to exception, nor do I think it fit for me to justifie or excuse them; yet this I say, to shew there is not a sufficient reason to withdraw from hearing the present Ministers preaching or praying. 1. Some of the books are not appointed to be read at all. 2. Some of those that are appointed to be read, are capable of an easier censure, and better construction, then is put upon them by this Authour. 3. That those which are not so capable of excuse, yet are appointed to be read on such days, and in such places, as those that alleadge this for a reason of not hearing the present Ministers, need not be present. 4. That it was once resolved as lawful by Dr. George Abbot, after Archbishop of Canterbury, in his answer to Dr. Hill the Papist, p. 317. from the Preface to the second Tome of the Homilies, for the Minister, instead of the Apocryphal books, to read some other part of the Canonical Scripture of the old Testament. Which things being considered, there seems not for this to be a sufficient reason of not hearing the present Ministers, or charging them,Note: Dr. Sparks in his book of Uniformity allowed, and printed by command, 1607. c. 1. In the conference at Hampton Court, His Majesties Order was, That none of the Apocryphal books that had any errour, should be read, &c. as this Authour doth. The third errour I conceive they will deny to be their tenent. But concerning this, and the 4th. 5th. 6 [...] ▪ 8th. 9th. 11th. errours, so much [Page] hath been said before chiefly in the answer to the 5th. 6th. 7th. chapters of this book, that I need not here make a particular answer concerning each of these severally; yet I say,Note: Dr. Barlow by the preface to the second tome of Homilies, declared it might be lawful by our Church, to read other chapters, and alleadgeth Archbishop Abbot c. 10. the things are not matters of the Ministers Doctrine, however they be of their practice, and therefore cannot be a reason of not hearing their Sermons. And they who make this a sufficient reason not to hear, or to pray, or receive the Lords Supper with a person by reason of some errour he holds or teacheth, or some undue practice on Gods worship, or conversation with other men, go against all rules and examples in holy Scripture, and approved Christians; and such a one must suppose Preachers infallible, every Communicant unblameable, or each Christian to have power to excommunicate, if the person faulty be not amended upon his reproof, that he must know what Tenents his Teacher holds, and what is the conversation of each Communicant, ere he can warrantably hear the one, or communicate with the other. Which with sundry other superstitious conceits, or unnecessary scruples, put an intolerable burden upon mens consciences, and will as well prove withdrawing from the Ministers and Churches Congregational necessary, as from the Conformists. As for the 7th. errour, it will be denied by them to be their Tenent, that there may be Holy days appointed to the Virgin Mary, John Baptist, &c. For though they be termed for distinction sake, St. Peters day, &c. yet saith Archbishop Whitgift in his answer to the second Admonition, the 3d. reason, The Papists Saints days were appointed for the honouring and worshipping of the Saints by whose names they were called: ours be ordained for the honouring of God, for publick prayer, and edifying the people by reading the Scriptures and Preaching: neither are they called by the name of any Saint in any other respect, than that the Scriptures which that day are read in the Church, be concerning that Saint, and contain either his calling, preaching, persecution, martyrdom, or such like. The like is alleadged by Rainold, conference with Hart, ch. 8. divis. 2. Hooker Eccles. Policy, l. 5. Sect. 71. yea T. C. the defender of the Admonition confesseth that the Church of England meaneth not that in these holy days the Saints should be honoured, and Rivet on Exod. 20. praecept. quartum, acquits the Church of England from Idolatry, by reason of our form of service, and our doctrine of worshipping God onely. Of which more also may be seen in Zanchius, [Page]tom. 4. in praece. quartum loc. 1. q. 2. &c. As for the 10th. errour, That Christ descended into hell, is in the Creed called the Apostles, and is the 3d. Article of the Confession of the Church of England, and is deduced by Augustin, Epist. ad Evodium 99. from Acts 2.26, 27. and how to understand it of other descent then the place of the damned, Note: Quis ergo nisi infidelis negaverit fuisse apud inferos Christum? or Limbus Patram, which is the Papists tenent, may be seen in Archhishop Vshers answer to the Jesuites challenge, ch. 5. Dr. Pearson his Exposition of the Creed on that Article, and others. The 12th. I think neither the present Ministers, nor any of the Bishops will assert. The two last let them that hold them answer for themselves; I say onely that they are such as hearers are not necessitated to assent to, nor such as can justifie separation. But it follows,

Sect. 9. Evil persons may be heard as true Ministers.

Object. 5. Judas preached, though a wicked man; and no doubt 'twas lawful, yea the duty of Saints to hear him. To this we say, no doubt it was so. But 1. Judas was not a visible wicked man at the time of his preaching, but so close an hypocrite, that he was not known to be so, no not to the disciples: but some of the present Ministers of England are visibly wicked and profane. 2. Judas was chosen, and called by Christ to be an Apostle, commissioned by him to preach: but the present Ministers of England are not so, as hath been proved. So that this is not at all to the business in hand.

I reply, It is confessed that the present Ministers are not chosen and called by Christ to Preach as Iudas was; and it may be also proved concerning the Ministers of the Congregational Churches, whose calling may be questionable as well as theirs, being often by a small company of ignorant persons, many of them women, who challenge power of election without Ordination, or other help, or giving the right hand of fellowship by Elders of other Churches, nor are they all free from visible wickedness and prophaness. And this may be somewhat to the business, by allaying the vehemency of this Authours spirit against others. But the chief use of this objection is to answer one exception of this Authour, ch. 2. That the present Ministers are not to be heard as gifted brethren, because they walk disorderly: For Iudas did walk disorderly, and yet might be heard. 'Tis true, Iudas was not so [Page] apparently a thief as others that are openly vitious; yet Christ knew him to be a thief and a traitour, when he appointed him to preach, and forbade none to hear him preach the Gospel, and therefore allowed hearing of evil men preach truth, which is denyed by the Author of Prelatical preachers none of Christs teachers, p. 43, 44. and is frequently the reason of many peoples not hearing them that preach truth. It is to be added that Christ had given some intimation of Judas his wickedness, John 6.70, 71. He goes on,

Sect. 10. It is a sin not to encourage good men in their Ministry.

Object. 6. But there are some good men amongst them, and such as belong to God, may we not hear good men? To which briefly. Answ. 1. That there are some among the present preachers of this day, that are good men, we shall not stand to deny. Yet, 2. We crave leave to say, That they are all of them such as are sadly polluted and defiled by their complyance, in respect of their standing in the Ministry Antichristian, whose teachings Saints have no warrant to attend upon. 3. The greater hopes we have of their goodness, the more cautelous should we be of encouraging them in a false way; that they by our relinquishment of them, and separating from them (after we have discharged all other duties we are satisfied are incumbent upon us to perform towards them) may come to see their sin, repent, and do their first works, that God and we may again receive them. 4. Yet the goodness of any, as to the main, is no warrant for any to hold communion with them, or attend upon their teach [...]ngs: There are brethren that walk disorderly, whom 'tis the duty of Saints to separate from: that the very best of the Ministers of England do so, will not be denyed. The incestuous person, 1 Cor. 5. was, as to the main, for ought I know, a good man: yet were not the Saints at Corinth to hold communion with him, till upon his repentance he was again received 2 Cor. 2▪ 6. 5. 'Tis utterly unlawfull to communicate with a devised Ministry upon what pretext soever. 6. So is it for any to partake in other mens sins (as hath been proved:) but every usurped Ministry is the sin of him (though never so holy a person) that exerciseth it.

I reply, this objection being an argument ad hominem against this Author, who hath represented all the present Ministers as walking disorderly, deniers of Christs offices, Antichristian, Idolaters, Scandalous, even the best of them: which what face he can say of them, and yet acknowledge them good men is not easily conceivable, [Page] they seem to me inconsistent speeches. That their Ministry is Antichristian, when they minister the word of God is also in my understanding oppositum in apposito a contradiction; That they stand in that Ministry, which they had by Episcopal ordination, is so far from being their defilement, that it seems to me their vertue and wisdome, it being alwayes judged by me a great sin to renounce that ministry, sith it is no other then of the Doctrine and Sacraments, and the Discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded, Note: So are the words in the book of Ordination. and as this Church and Realm hath received the same, according to the Commandements of God; which, for any to disclaim, is to go back from the service of Christ, and if the present Ministers do stand in this Ministry, the Saints are warranted, and engaged to attend upon it. The greater hopes we have of their goodness, the more are all, that love the Lord Jesus, bound to encourage them in this way, as being the the true way of Christ, and to relinquish them, and separate from them, for this cause is very sinfull, sith it is to separate from them for doing their duty: To hold them as excommunicate, to reprove, to urge them to repentance, not to receive them, to conceive of them as brethren walking disorderly, is uncharitableness, and injustice. That the incestuous person was a good man before he repented cannot be well conceived, sith he committed such a sin as was not named among the Gentiles: it was the sin of the Corinthians that they were puffed up and had not rather mourned, that he that had done that deed might be taken away from among them, it is no sin, that the Saints do not mourn, that the present Ministers, who are confessedly good men, may be taken away from among them, it is their great sin, if they do not bless God for them, and pray for their establishment and good success in their Ministry. That the Ministry is devised by any other than God is not shewed: they that talk and write ignorantly, not ever reading the book of Ordination, which shews what their Ministry is, make invectives against them, and wildly wander from them upon false suggestions often to their perdition. That to hear them is not to partake with them in sin, is shewed in answer to this Authors 8th. argument, chap. 8th. That their Ministry is usurped, is not proved; if it were, it might be a true Ministry, which if it be, though it were usurped, it is not the sin, but may be the duty of him that exerciseth it. It follows,

Sect. 11. The example of the learned godly Nonconformists is some inducement to hear the present Ministers.

[Page]

Object. 7. But many learned and good men (and such as in Conscience could not conform to the Ceremonies of the Church of England) have in dayes past (and do now) hear the present Ministers thereof. To which we answer, 1. That the greatest Scholars, and most accomplished for humane wisdom, parts, yea visible holiness, have not been alwayes on the Lords side, following him in paths of his own appointment; but many times have been found the greatest persecutors and opposers of Christ; the most stupendiously ignorant of the will of God, in respect of the truth, and work of their generation, of any persons in the world: witness the Scribes and Pharisees, the learned Rabbies, and profound Doctors of that day, with what virulency did they oppose Christ and the doctrine of the Gospel preached by him? 2. That persons of as great holiness, and renown for learning, and all manner of accomplishments, as learned Ainsworth, Cotton, &c. have been and are of the same apprehension with us in this matter: not to mention the reformed Churches, who generally renounce the Ministry of the Church of England, not admitting any by vertue of it to the charge of Souls (as they speak.) But 3. To the Law and to the Testimony, Isa. 8.20. if they speak not according to this rule, though Angels for knowledge and holiness, they are not to be received or heeded: one word from the Lord is of more weight to hearts made truly tender, than the example of an hundred professors can be: 'tis possible these may err, be yea and nay; but so cannot the truth of God, which is alwayes the same, and will abide so for ever. 4. The Apostle hath long since determined this case, 1 Cor. 11.1. Be ye followers of me, as I am of Christ: so far as Saints follow Christ, I may and ought to follow them, but no further: so that the learning parts or holiness of any that attend upon the present Ministers of England, is no warrant for me so to do; nor will ever be a satisfactory answer to that enquiry, who hath required these things at your hands?

I reply, It is not denied, that the most learned and zealous of the law, such as St. Paul among the Jews, the most excellent Moralists among the Gentiles, have been great enemies to the Gospel afore their calling to the faith of Christ, but the objection is of learned and good men among Christians, who are never found the greatest persecutors and opposers of Christ. Possibly it may fall out, yea [Page] and it hath fallen out, that among Christians the greatest Scholars, and most ac [...]omp [...]shed for humane parts, wisdoms, yea for visible holiness, have not been alwayes on the Lords side, following him in paths of his own appointment, but have been stupendiously ignorant of the will of God in respect of the truth and work of their generation; I think [...]ardinal Caietan was one of the greatest Scholars of his time, yet saw not what Luther saw, about justification by faith, and Luther, though he did much in that point, yet saw not so much as Calvin in the point of the re [...]l presence in the Eucharist; and therefore (like well the 3d. and 4 [...]h. answer here, that we should adhere only to the Law and to the Testimony and be followers of the learned as they are of Christ. Yet I conceive, that it is a wicked course, which is taken by some, so to disparage learning, as if it were of no necessity, Universities, as of no use, but rather Seminaries of ungodliness, to say that men that have humane learning are the unlearned and unstable, which do wrest the Scriptures, 2 Pet. 3.16. as How the Cobler a much followed Preacher a great while ago in London vented in print, that learned Scholars do make the Scriptures as a nose of wax, are but Juglers, and deceivers, which are too too often insinuated into the minds of well meaning, but weak minds, whereby they are more addicted to such as How, Tillinghast, and other popular Orators, and their injudicious discourses, if stuffed with fained words and earnest affections, then to the most solid proofs of the most learned, whose interpretations of Scripture, and handling of Controversies, have cleared the truth, and restored purity of Doctrine to the great benefit of the Church of God, which these people understand not. But it hapneth according to the saying, Scientia n [...]minem hab [...] inimicum nisi ignorantem. And sure though I would have no Christian enslave his judgement to any man, it were that Anthropolatria or sin of glorying in men forbidden, 1 Cor. 3.21. against which I printed a little treatise in the the year 1645▪ foreseeing it would be the means of dividing Christians into parties; nor would I have that which is propounded by men of none or lesser learning rejected, because it is from them, one Paph [...]utius may see that truth, which a whole Council, though such as the first N [...]cene, without him did not discern, it was an evil spirit in Matthaeus Langius, that made him disdain to be taught by Luther, as is related in the History of th [...] Council of [...]rent, God doth out of the mouth of Babes and Sucklings perfect praise, as our Saviour Matth. 21.16. allegeth Psal. 8.2. against the Priests and Scribes indignation at the Childrens saying Hosanna: yet I would have such things examined by the learned, and godly, especially either their own Pastors, [Page] or such as are found or reputed learned and judicious, and that as well what may be said against, as what is said for the thing vented be weighed, lest persons deceive themselves, as too often they do, by their propensity to take all for Oracles, which is said by such as they do affect or magnifie. And surely in doubtful cases, and in points which are above the Sphere of common capacities to determine, I mean such as require more insight in Languages, History, Arts, and other reading, than they can reach to by reason of defect in their natural abilities, educations, time to study, means of attaining the use of books, health or strength, it is a safe way to rest on the received practice and determination of their learned Guides, whom they have reason to judge faithfull and able, and to be satisfied with their resolutions and reasons after a serious and modest arguing of the thing, though every scruple be not removed. As for that which is here said of Ainsworth, Cotton, &c. I think they that knew, and read what Vssher, Ball, Gataker, and such like men were, will not believe it. Mr. Ainsworths differences between him and Johnson, Robinson ▪ and Paget, and their writings, especially of this last, shew him to have been much short of what this Author conceived of him. What Mr. Cotton was I do not rely upon Mr. Baylies Dissuasive, but I think Dr. Twisse his answer to him about reprobation, Mr. Cawdrey about the keyes, that I mention no other, shewed him not such, as whose judgement might be safely rested in. And I scarce think either by the reading of his way of the Churches in new England, or his commendation of Mr. Nortons answer to Apollonius he could be of the same apprehension with this Author in this matter. That the Reformed Churches generally renounce the Ministry of the Church of England, I think is a manifest untruth. The passages at the Synod of Dort, Peter Moulin his Letter to Bishop Andrews, with many more of the like evidences of former and later times assure me this Author is deceived. He adds.

Sect. 12. The Magistrates command to hear, the present Mininisters is to be obeyed.

Object. 8. But the Magistrate commands us, and ought we not to obey Magistrates.

Answ. 1. That Magistrates have no power to command in matters of instituted worship, where Christ is silent, or to govern in his Church is affirmed by many.

2. The commands of Magistrates, when contrary to the will and [Page] way of Christ, are not to be subjected to. This case is long since stated and resolved by the Apostle (Acts 4.19, 20. and 5.29) and Spirit of the Lord, breathing long before in his renouned witnesses, Dan. 3.16, 17. and 6.10. nor is it denyed by any that are sober, and judicious. Whether the hearing of the present Ministers of England be contrary to the word of God, the will and way of Christ, we leave from what hath been offered, to the considerate reader to judge; And shall only add what was long since asserted by Augustin de verb Domini Serm. 6. in this matter, who was herein fully of the same mind with us; Sed timeo inquies ne offendas majorem, time prorsus ne offendas majorem, & non offendes Deum. Quid enim times ne offendas majorem? Vide ne forsan major sit isto qu [...]m times offendere. Majorem certe noli offendere—quis est inquies major eo qui me genuit? an ille qui teipsum creavit? — qui enim resistit potestati, Dei ordinationi resistit: sed quid si illud jubeat quod non debes facere? — timendo potestatem ipsos humanarum rerum gradus advertite: si aliquid jusserit Curator, nonne faciendum est? Tametsi contra Proconsul jubeat, at non utique contemnis potestatem, sed eligis majori servire, nec hinc debet minor irasci, si major praelata est. Rursum si aliquid ipse Proconsul jubeat, & aliud jubeat Imperator, numquid dubitatur in illo contemptu illi esse serviendum? Ergo si aliud Imperator & aliud Deus quid judicatis? Solve tributum, est mihi in obsequio recte▪ Sed non in Idolio, in Idolio prohibet, quis prohibet? major potestas. Da veniam! tu carcerem, ille gehennam minatur. He tells us plainly that such as fear to offend their Superiours, should much more fear to offend God, who is greater than all. The Emperours and Monarchs of the world, threaten us with a Prison if we disobey them; the Lord threatens us with Hell upon our disobedience of him.

I reply, The Brownists in their Confession of faith, art. 39. say, Princes and Magistrates by the Ordinance of God are Supreme Governours under him over all persons, and in all causes within their Realms and Dominions, and that it is their duty to enforce all their Subjects whether Ecclesiastical or Civil to do their duties to God and men, protecting and maintaining the good, punishing and restraining the evil, according as God hath commanded, whose Lieutenants they are here on earth; and to prove this many Texts are cited by them, of which confession Mr. Ainsworth said to be of the fame apprehension with this Author in this matter, was a principal composer. In the Apology of the Non-conformists by Irenaeus E [...]eutherius in the admonition to the Reader, the Kings Supremacy is acknowledged. Which hath been more largely proved before in [Page]this Answer to the 5th. Chapter of this book, Sect. 11, 12, 13, 14. And though it be not yeilded, that Princes should exercise Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, or determine Doctrines of faith, or impose what worship they will on the Subjects, yet it is allowed by all I know except Papists, that when the Magistrate commands men to be present at the true worship of God, and to hear them that preach truth, he doth what he ought, and is to be obeyed therein. This Author where in this Chapter, p. 86. he supposeth Christ enjoyning his Disciples to attend upon the Scribes and Pharisees acting as Magistrates, and conform to what is justly and righteously prescribed them as such, must yield this, that the Saints are to obey the Magistrate in this, unless he can shew, that it is an unlawfull thing to hear the present Ministers, which he pretends he hath done, but how vainly is shewed by this Answer, and so his Answer here to this Objection to be insufficient. And indeed it tends to the gratifying of Popish Recusants▪ who alledge, for their not hearing, the non-conjunction with the Pope and Church of Rome, as this Author, doth the non-election and non-membership of the present Ministers in a Congregational Church, to be in which as the only Instituted Church of Christ, is made necessary, as Papists do to be in Communion with the Church of Rome: And therefore if it be unlawful to hear the present Ministers, the Papists have a just plea for their not coming to Church; which evacuates all the Laws and Government requiring it. It is added,

Sect. 13. Conformists Ministry hath been instrumental to Convert Souls.

Object. 9. But the Ministers of England are true Gospel-Ministers, for they convert Souls; which the Apostle makes the Seal of his Ministry or Apostleship: therefore it is lawful to hear them.

To this we say, 1. That the Ministers of England are true Gospel-Ministers, is absolutely denyed by us; what is offered in this Objection proves nothing.

1. Paul makes not the Conversion of the Church of Corinth, singly, a sufficient demonstration, or convincing argument of his Apostleship; he only useth it, as what was most likely to win, and work upon their affections, who upon other accounts could not but know that he was an Apostle of the Lord Jesus.

2. Conversion of Souls is no argument, either of a lawfull call to an Apostleship, or Ministry of Christ.

For, 1. Many have converted Souls, that were not Apostles, as ordinary Ministers.

[Page]2. The Lord hath used private brethren, women, yea, some remarkable providences, as instruments in his hand for the conversion of many Souls; yet who will say that private brethren, women, or Divine Providences, are Apostles or Ministers of the Lord Jesus.

But 3. Should it be granted, that conversion of Souls is an argument of a lawfull Ministry, where are the Churches, nay where are the particular persons converted by them? We have not heard of any, nor will it be an easie task for the Objectors to produce instances in this matter.

I reply, That the Ministers of England, who preach the Gospel truely, are true Gospel Ministers, may be denied absolutely, but not justly, their preaching the Gospel truely being it, which alone is the form denominating a Minister a true Gospel Minister; though more be required to his regularity. Election by a Congregational Church, Ordination by an Eldership, or Bishop, do not make a true Gospel Minister without it, and it doth it notwithstanding some other defects. But conversion of Souls is no certain sign of a true Gospel Minister, or the defect of it an argument against it: nor do I alledge 1 Cor. 9.1, 2. to prove either. Yet when the Gospel of Christ is truly preached, and so blessed an effect follows on their labours, who do so, it is a good motive to the converted to hear them who have been instruments of their conversion, and is an engagement to them to follow their doctrine and conversation, 1 Cor. 4.15, 16. Heb. 13.7.17. 1 Thes. 5.12, 13. And if this Author, or any other do separate from them, who have been instruments of their conversion, and continue still to preach the Gospel truly, because they abide in their station without renouncing Episcopal Ordination, or accepting of an election by a congregational Church, they do it unwarrantably and injuriously. As for the words of the Apostle 1 Cor. 9.1, 2. the Apostles aime is to shew he was as free, and might use his liberty as much as any other Apostle, being as truly an Apostle as any other, which might, besides other evidences, from the effect of his Apostleship on them appear to them; so that it is an argument of his Apostleship, though not singly, not, as this Author conceives, a motive to win upon their affections; yet I think it an argument from and of some thing proper to the Apostle, and the Corinthians, and therefore would not meerly from conversion of Souls, conclude a true Gospel Ministry in all that have been instruments therein. As for the demand, where are the Churches, where are the particular persons converted by them? It may perhaps be as justly demanded of this Author, where are the Churches or particular persons converted by the Ministers of the [Page] congregational Churches in old or new England, or Holland? Mr. Robert Baylie of Scotland in his Dissuasive from the Errors of the time, Mr. Thomas Edwards in his Gangraena tell stories of the fruit of separation, which I will not avow as true: yet so much of truth may be picked out of them, as may stop the mouths of them, that extoll those Ministers, and decry the best of the Conformists; who yet have been, if not of late, yet heretofore Fathers in Christ to the Members of the Congregational Churches, and to the most eminent in the Churches of old or new England. But this disparagement of some, and extolling of others, is an odious course tending to nothing but promoting of faction, and weakning the hands of them that do the work of Christ, and therefore do pray that this spirit of pride and bitterness may be extinguished, than in love we may serve one another, and that nothing be done out of strife and vain-glory, but that in lowliness of mind each may esteem others better than our selves. And I wish none had vented or read such criminations as those in the book entituled Prelatical preachers none of Christs teachers, in which he breaks out thus, p 61. They that were [...]oundly right down without any abatement or need of explication, Ministers of a Prelatical Ordination, have amongst them in matters of true Religion, sound knowledge and piety towards God reduced the generality of the Nation to a morsel of bread. All those Idolatrous and Superstitious conceits and practises, all the bloody ignorance and prophaeess, all that customary boldness in sinning, that hatred of goodness and good men, which are the nakedness and shame of the land, and render it obnoxious to Divine displeasure, may justly call this generation of men either fathers, or foster fathers, or both, p. 75. he terms their Ministry a Ministry which is no where approved or sanctified by Christ in his word, but obtruded upon Christians with an high hand by those who are confederate both in spirit and in practise with the scarlet coloured beast, and drunken with the blood of the Saints (a description which belyeth not the Prelatical Priesthood and Ministry,) and then applies the description Revel. 13.11. to them, and the warning Revel. 14 9. to those who joyn to them, p 76, 77. he makes the Bishops to comply with Antichrist in claiming and exercising a power of imposing on men what they please in matters of Religion, or faith, and worship, under what penalties they please also, makes those ordained and Ministers under them and by them to receive the mark of the beast, p. 52. though God did before the discovery of the evil of Prelacy benefit Souls by them, yet not after. But enough of this; there remains yet that which follows,

Sect. 14. To the observation of the Lords day, hearing the present Ministers as the case now is, may be requisite.

[Page]

Object. 10. But our Ministers are removed, and we know not where to go to hear; would you have us sit at home idle? We cannot so spend the Lords day.

Answ. To which we would humbly offer a few things.

1. That though we are not against any Ordinance of Jesus Christ, yet we are afraid that those poor Souls, that know not how to spend the Lords day without hearing, do too much Idolize that Ordinance of God, and never knew what it was to spend that day with him.

2. You need not sit at home; if you are enquiring after God, and communion with his people, you may soon hear of some one or other of the Assemblies of the Saints, whither you may repair to wait upon the Lord with them.

3. But thirdly, were it, or should it be otherwise; yet better be idle, than do worse; better do nothing, than sin against God, encourage others in their evil deeds, pollute and wound thy own Soul, grieve the Saints, stumble and harden the wicked, and cause them to blaspheme his Name, Sanctuary, and such as dwell therein.

But, 4. There is no necessity of being idle, if thou knowest not where to hear on that day, hast thou no work to do save that?

1. Art sure that God, and Christ, and Eternal Glory, are thy portion and inheritance? Thou walkest in the light of assurance, or thou dost not? If thou dost, is one day in seven too much to spend in the solemn admiration of grace, that ever so vile a creature as thou, should be accounted worthy of such unexpressible kindness and glory? What, O what will Eternity be then? If thou dost not, are not these worthy of thy utmost diligence to get assurance of? What, stand idle, and an interest in God, Christ, and Eternal Glory to make sure of!

2. Art thou sufficiently acquainted with thine own heart? Dost know so much of thy self as thou needest to know? Or judgest thou this to be a work that requires not thy utmost diligence and attendance?

3. Hast thou no sin to be mortified, no want to be supplyed, no grace to be quickned and strengthned in thee?

4, Hast thou as much communion with God as thou desirest? Hast heard as often from him by the tea [...]hings of the Spirit (the incomparably and infinitely best teacher) as thou dost wish? Or dost think that God will not manifest himself to, and teach in a corner, a[Page]poor Soul that's there waiting for him alone, because there be no Assemblies of Saints he knows of, to whom he might joyn himself, and he dares not have Communion with Adulterers? If thou have not fellowship with God thou desirest, and teachings from him (as who hath) stir up thy self to lay hold on God, groan and cry after him, till he hath brought thee into his chambers, and afforded thee richer displayes of his glory.

5. Art thou altogether ready trimmed (without more ado) for the coming and Kingdom of Christ Jesus? what should I mention those important duties of reading the Scriptures, meditation on them, &c. hast thou all this to do, and much more that might be added, and yet nothing to do on the Lords day? set about these things in good earnest, and when thou livest in the light of assurance, without the least doubt or clouding, when thou art sufficiently acquainted with thine own heart, the will and Scriptures of the Lord; when thou hast as much communion with God in retirement, as thou desirest, and teachings from his Spirit; when thou hast no sin to be mortified, nor grace to be quickened and strengthened; when thou art quite ready for the day of Christ, and needest no further fittings, we shall consider what may be further said to this Objection; but till then, it cannot be pleaded, when souls have all this work to do, that they must sit at home idle, if they go not to hear the Preachers of this day. But thus far of the Objections that are by some made against the assertion of the unlawfulness of attending upon the present Ministers of England; which are all of any moment we have yet met with: what of weight is in them, must be left to the judgement of the Christian Reader to determine. We shall add no more but this, that we have spoken our judgement and conscience herein, as in sincerity, in the sight of God: with what meekness, Christian tenderness, and fear of giving any just offence to the truly conscientious, he knows. The sole of our aim in the whole is, That Christ may be glorified in the recovery of any poor lamb, that is turned aside to the flocks of the companions in this cloudy and dark day; that others that have hitherto kept themselves from Idols, might be further established in the will of God, and strengthened to follow Christ in his temptations, that they may inherit that kingdom and glory, prepared for them before the foundation of the world: May we but in the least contribute, by Divine blessing, hereunto whatever becomes of these papers, or however they be by others accounted of, we have our end, and shall rest satisfied.

I reply, this objection I find made not onely by some of the common [Page] sort of professors, but also particulaly by Mr. Crofton, and made by him as an argument, wherefore he did, and ought to joyn in hearing and praying in publick on the Lords day, notwithstanding the defects in the ministerial mode and method of the publick Ministers, the worship of God substantially existing in matter and essential form in their Ministration, and the Lords day being to be observed in publick as well as private, where, and when the Ordinances cannot be enjoyed in a purer manner. His second in the book intituled, Jerubbaal justified, doth reduce his plea to this Syllogism. Communion with the Church visible in Gods solemn publick worship, is an essential part of the sanctification of the Sabbath, and indispensable duty. But communion with the English Church, in the worship by her celebrated, is communion with the Church visible in Gods solemn worship. Ergo, Communion with the English Church (having no opportunity with any other) in the worship of her celebrated, is to me an essential part of the sanctification of the Sabbath, and indispensable duty. This Syllogism is defended in that Book, to which I refer the Reader, and consider the objection as here it is urged and answered. The objection proceeds upon suppositions of the Separatists, or Independents, in the number of whom he is to be accounted, as appears by his wordes in this Chapter, in answer to the 7th. objection, where he saith, Learned Ainsworth, Cotton, &c. have been and are of the same apprehension with us in this matter. Now in Mr. Cottons way of the Churches of Christ in New England, it is put into the definition of a visible Church, that they are a number that may meet every Lords day for all Ordinances, and in the Declaration of the Elders and Messengers of the Congregational Churches at the Savoy, Oct. 12. 1658. ch. 22. art. 8. The Sabbath is then kept holy to the Lord, when men are taken up the whole time in the publick and private exercises of his worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy. Among these art. 5. The reading of the Scriptures, preaching and hearing of the word of God are reckoned, and art. 6. God is to be worshipped as in private families daily, and in secret each one by himself, so more solemnly in the publick assemblies, which are not carelesly nor wilfully to be neglected or forsaken, when God by his word or providence calleth thereunto. Upon which, and other suppositions, it concerns every tender conscience, which receiveth these principles, to consider how they can acquit themselves from not observing the Lords day in publick assemblies, where God is invocated in the name of Christ, and the word of God truly taught, especially in such places where they may [Page] enjoy these performed by the present Ministers, and are deprived of their former Ministers and communion, and cannot of themselves discharge these duties.

That which this Authour answers, doth not solve the doubt: That such persons conceive they cannot spend the Lords day without hearing, is not out of any Idolizing the Ordinances of God; but from those grounds which are by the declaration afore named, and the generality of zealous Preacher, pressed upon Christians, That it is one duty of sanctifying the Lords day, not onely to abstain from labour, which makes onely Sabbatum asinorum, a Sabbath that beasts have as well as men; nor onely to exercise themselves in reading and prayer at home, for that is every days duty; but also to frequent the publick assemblies where God is worshipped, which this Authour conceives injoyned, Heb. 10.25. and is gathered from Exod. 20.8. Acts 20.7. Revel. 1.10. 1 Cor. 16.1.2. John 20.19.26. That many persons cannot in many places find such assemblies of the Saints, as this Authour means, is a thing out of doubt with me. Were publick hearing a sin, I confess it were better to do nothing than do that: But that is not yet proved, and I think it fit to acquaint the Reader, That Mr. Norton of New England, in that Answer to Apollonius his questions, which is commended by Mr. Cotton, Dr. Thomas Goodwin, Mr. Philip Nye, and Mr. Sidrach Simpson, ch. 13. doth thus determine, Such things being observed as are to be observed, it may be lawful to use forms of prayers, administrations of Sacraments, &c. prescribed in the Church, neither are the Churches which use them guilty of superstition, will-worship, and violating the second Commandment; yea, it is lawful to embrace communion with them, where such forms in the publick worship are in use: neither doth it lie as a duty on a believer, that he separate and disjoyn himself from such a Church, unless he would partake in the superstitious worship of Images. Communion with a Church, quâ utitur, as it useth worship of it self unlawful, is unlawful; communion with a Church quae utitur, which useth it, to wit, in other lawful worship, is lawful; and separation from it, is unlawfull.

And to shew how evil the counsel of this Authour is to men to spend the Lord's day in a corner idle at home, rather then go to hear in publick. I think good to subjoyn some words of Mr John Paget in his Preface to the Christian Reader, before his Book, Intituled, An Arrow against the separation of the Brownists. Of the Brownists there are sundry sorts: some separate from the Church of England for corruptions; and yet confess both it and [Page] Rome and it also to be a true Church, as the followers of Mr. Johnson, Christian Plea, p. 216, 217. Some renounce the Church of England as a false Church, and yet allow private communion with the godly therein, as Mr. Robinson Justifie. p. 339, 340, 247. and his followers Relig. Com. p. 1. &c. Some renounce all religious communion both publique and private with any Member of that Church whosoever, as Mr. Ainsworth Counterpoy. pag. 197. and such as hearken unto him, being deepest and stiffest in their Schism. The evil of this separation is great.

First, The minds of many are troubled and distracted hereby; even of such as do not separate, but have some liking thereof; especially if it be true which Mr. Robinson writes of them, Relig. comm. preface; to wit, That they seeing it not to be for their purposes that the world should so esteem of them▪ do undoubtedly strain and wring the neck of their consciences and courses, to look the contrary way ▪ &c. What can be more miserable then to have the necks of consciences thus broken by the doctrine of separation?

Secondly, for those that separate, but do not yet joyn unto them, or being joyned▪ do withhold from actual communion, living alone, and hearing the word of God in no Church, as some do; How great is their misery also; Mr. Robinson himself, ibid. p. 36.39. shews it at large, no [...]ing them to be Idol-members, such as break the commandment of Christ, loose the fruit of his ascension, and fail their own edification and salvation many ways, &c.

Thirdly▪ for those that being enjoyned to them, do also live with them, seeing they have in effect excommunicate themselves from all other Churches of Christ▪ and consequently from the fellowship of Christ Jesus himself, and from the participation of his grace and glory, so far as he reveals the same by dwelling in those Churches: It is therefore no wonder to hear Mr. Johnson treat on Matt. 18. Preface A. 2. complaining of the evils among them, as emulation, debate, and other sins which daily arise and spread themselves to the great dishonour of God, &c.

As for the directions given by this Authour, how to spend at home the Lords day, some of them are such as weak persons; women and novices cannot make use of it, yea, they would be dangerous to them, occasioning them to fall into errours, Enthusiastick conceits, some of them Antinomians count unnecessary, and those that are good; yet by the deprivation of society, and publick teaching, and heavily performed; and they that take such courses, do either very frequently decay in the exercise of godliness, grow barren and liveless in prayer and holy conferences, or turn Seekers, [Page] Quakers, Ranters, Censurers, Scoffers, Libertines: However, were they all used, yet they solve not the doubt arising from those principles, which require publick hearing for hallowing the Lords day; which is to be observed not onely for the benefit of our own edification, but also for the glory of God, and testification of our profession; which is not done by private exercise of Religion. And although some persons may more benefit themselves in knowledge by reading at home, yet the example hinders others from the use of the publick Ordinances, whereto we should by our practice encourage them. For these, and other reasons often urged by those, who have been for separation, it is not to be expected that such private exercises should be blessed or accepted of God, when the publick are to be performed. Both certainly should be done in their seasons, not one exclude the other.

I have thus answered all I find in this Authour, and do joyn with him in referring the thing to the Reader, who, if he will not cheat his own soul, must judge impartially, and without prejudice, weighing what is said on both sides. As for my aims and spirit in writing this thing, having found so little equity in mens censures of me about former writings, I can the less trust to any sort of mens good or bad of one or other opinion or judgement of me: My care I hope shall be, to approve my self to God, and to sollicite him by prayers for his blessing upon my labours in this thing: To which I shall add as over-measure, these ensuing Arguments for hearing the present Ministers as now the case is.

Sect. 15. An Appendix, containing fourty additional Reasons against denying the lawfulness of hearing the present Ministers.

First I argue for the lawfulness of hearing them Preach the Doctrine of the Gospel, as it is professed in the Church of England, from the definition of sin, which is a transgression of the Law, 1 John 3.4. whence the Apostle, Rom. 4.13. Where no law is, that is, no law prohibiting that which is done, there is no transgression. Whence I argue, That is lawful in which is no sin, in the hearing of the present Ministers Preach the doctrine of the Gospel, as it is professed in the Church of England, is no sin, therefore it is lawful. The major is undoubted, that being unlawful onely in which is sin according to the notion of the terms: The minor is proved; because it is no breach of the Law, there being neither any law of nature, nor any written law of the Old or New Testament, moral or positive, in express terms, or by good consequence [Page] against it. Which is sufficiently proved by the answer to such Arguments as are here brought to prove a prohibition of such hearing, and by requiring those that condemn it as unlawful, to produce the law which forbids it; which yet is not done that we know. If it be said (as it is by many of the people who scruple the doing of many things used in the publick worship as now it is) that in Gods worship it is not enough, that there is no law against what we do, but there must be also a command to do it, else it is will-worship. Besides what I have answered in the examination of the first Chapter of this Treatise I add 1. That the alleadging of a command is not necessary to prove a thing lawful, but to prove it a necessary duty, it is sufficient to prove my present conclusion, That no Law forbidding the hearing the present Ministers can be produced. 2. That as express command may be shewed for hearing the present Ministers, as for hearing the congregational Ministers, at least those of them that are Separatist, against whom there are more just exceptions then against the present Conforming Ministers of England, why they should not be heard: Which leads me to a second Argument for the lawfulness of hearing them; which I thus form.

2. Those Ministers may lawfully be heard, against the hearing of whom by no exceptions, but such as are extrinsecal to the duty of hearing, as it is a part of Gods worship. But so it is concerning the hearing of the present Ministers: Therefore they may be heard. The duty of hearing, as it is a part of Gods worship, consists in this, That we apply our selves to learn the mind of God, by which we come to know and obey him: It is extrinsecal to this, that it be delivered to us by a good or a bad man; a man in Church-covenant or not, our proper Pastour chosen by our selves, or imposed upon us; and therefore such personal exceptions against the deliverer, are extrinsecal to the duty of hearing or non [...]hearing, if he declare Gods mind to us, we may worship God in hearing, though the Preacher sin in his conversation, or entrance on his Ministery, or be otherwise faulty, if he be faithful in delivering the truth of God to us: though other things make one mans teaching more desirable, or more delightful, or useful to us, yet the defect of them makes not our hearing his teaching unlawful, who teacheth the word of God truly, because we may thereby learn Gods mind, in applying our selves whereto is his worship by hearing.

3. This is further proved in that where there are any prohibitions [Page] which restrain us from hearing any Teachers, it is because of their Doctrine: Which is an argument, That in hearing others that teach true Doctrine, or the truth of Gods word, we are at liberty to hear them, and consequently the present Ministers supposed to do so. The antecedent is verified by inspection of these, Deut. 13.3. Matt. 7.15. Mark 4.24. and such other Texts as cautionate men from hearing Teachers. Whence may be inferred: That's not unlawful for us, from which Gods cautions restrain us not; But from hearing the present Ministers supposed to teach the truth of Gods word, Gods cautions restrain us not: therefore it is not unlawful to hear them.

4. It is the character or property of one that is of God, or is a sheep of Christ, to hear Gods word, or Christs voice without limiting it to some persons, John 8.47. He that is of God, heareth Gods word, John 10.27. My sheep hear my voice. Whence I argue, That is not unlawful which may be a duty, and a characteristical property of one that is of God or Christs sheep. But to hear the present Ministers, being supposed to teach the word of God, and the voice of Christ, may be a duty, and a characteristical property of one that is of God, or Christs sheep. Therefore it is not unlawful to hear them, being supposed to teach the word of God, and the voice of Christ.

5. From the same Scriptures it may be argued thus, That may be unlawful which may be a sign of one that is not of God, nor of Christs sheep; but not to hear the present Ministers, when they teach the word of God, and the voice of Christ may be a sign of one that is not of God: for Christ saith, John 8.47. Ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God, nor a sheep of Christ, who saith, John 10.26. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. Therefore it may be unlawful not to hear the present Ministers, and consequently lawfull to hear them.

6. To refuse to hear the word of God, though delivered by the present Ministers, is profaneness, such as is condemned in Esau. Heb. 12.16. For it is the rejecting, or neglecting of a holy thing, as it is termed by our Lord Christ, Matth. 7.6. therefore it may be unlawful to shun hearing them, and consequently lawful to hear them.

[Page]7. The word of God is a pearl of great price, Matt. 7.6. such as a merchant man should sell all he hath to buy, Matth. 13.46. a great treasure, v. 44. therefore to be heard and received by whomsoever held forth, and consequently it is folly and sin to shun hearing it, because of personal exceptions against the bringer, as it would be folly to refuse a treasure found in a dunghill, or a pearl brought by an unworthy person.

8. If the word of God preached by the present Ministers, may be effectual for that good, which is the end wherefore it is preached, then it may be lawfully heard from them, or rather ought to be heard according to that precept, James 1.21. Receive with meekness the ingraffed word, which is able to save your souls, 1 Pet. 2.1, 2. Desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby. But the word of God preached by the present Ministers, may be thus effectual: For the efficacy of it comes not from the personal qualifications of the Preacher, but from the verity of it, it's derivation from God, his promise and blessing; and however Sepatists have declaimed against such Ministers, and suggested to their Partisans, as if no good could be gotten by hearing them; yet experience hath proved the contrary: and therefore they are to be heard. Finis dat mediis ordinem mensuram & amabilitatem. The hearing of them is an ordinary means of hearers edification in the faith and obedience of Christ, and therefore is not unlawful, but to be made use of.

9. That is not unlawfull, the neglect of which may be the occasion and reason of a mans condemnation, it is the condemnation of a person, John 3.20. that he comes not to the light. But the present Ministers holding forth the light, mens not hearing them, is not coming to the light, and so much the more dangerous, if by not hearing them, they are deprived of any other to bring the light to them, as it may, and perhaps doth fall out at some times; and in some places: Therefore the neglect of hearing them may be the occasion and reason of a persons condemnation, and so a damnable sin in them that refuse to hear them, and in those that deter others from hearing them.

10. The words of Peter, John, 6.68. Lord to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life, include in them this proposition, We may go to them, as to Teachers of us, who have the [Page] words of eternal life▪ But the present Ministers who teach the Gospel of Christ, have the words of eternal life: for it contains his words, and is the power of God to salvation, from the matter of it. Rom. 1.16, 17. Mighty through God to bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ, 2 Cor. 10.4, 5. Therefore we may go to the present Ministers, who teach the Gospel of Christ, and hear them as our Teachers.

11. The Apostle Paul, 1 Th [...]s: 2.13. writes thus: For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received [...] not as the words of men, but (as it is in t [...]th) the wo [...]d of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe. Whence I thus argue, If the word of God be to be heard as his word, and not as the word of men, then it is sufficient for right hearing, that we attend to the preaching of it, without consideration of the personal qualifications of the men that deliver it▪ and consequently we need not decline hearing of Preachers that deliver it, though otherwise liable to exceptions; yea, it is our duty to hear any men preach it without questioning any thing, but whether it be the word of God, and it is evil to refuse to hear it, because of our disaffection and prejudice against the Preachers; and accordingly it is enough to justifie the hearing of the present Ministers, that they preach the word of God, and that we hear them as teaching it. For quatenus ipsum inc [...]udes de omni, if we may, yea ought to hear the word of God, as Gods word, we may and ought to hear it at any time, from any person; and if we do not hear it under this consideration, we hear amiss, and worship not God in hearing. But the word of God is to be heard as Gods word, as is evident from St. Pauls thanksgiving that the Thessalonians so heard it, and not as the word of men, though Preached by himself, who ascribes the efficacy of it to this consideration in their hearing. Therefore it is sufficient for right hearing▪ that we attend to the Preaching of Gods word, without consideration of the personal qualifications of them that deliver it; and consequently we may rightly hear the present Ministers Preaching Gods word, though without such personal qualifications as are required of them.

12. The same is further proved by the holy Ghosts approbation of the practice of the Beraeans, neighbours to the Thessalonians, Acts 17.11, 12. These were more noble then those in Thessalonica,[Page]in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so; therefore many of them believed. Whence I argue, They may be right hearers of the present Ministers, who may hear them as the Beraeans did; which proposition is confirmed, in that the holy Ghost gives them the commendation of right hearers, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether the things taught by St. Paul were agreeable thereto, without examining his commission to Preach, or other qualifications of his person; yea, and this is made the reason of their believing: and therefore the word of God is sufficient to beget faith, because of it's agreeableness to the Scripture, and hath most success when hearers hear it with respect to it's congruity to the holy Scripture, and not because delivered by such men as they approve of. But thus may Christians hear the present Ministers of England, and therefore may be right hearers of the present Ministers; and consequently they that do so, do lawfully hear them; and they that hear their Ministers out of other particular respects, and not in this manner, hear not rightly, nor doth their hearing edifie them in the faith of Christ, but tends to inordinate glorying in men, and to division consequent thereon.

13. From our Lord Christs word: Luke 9.49▪ 50. And John answered and said, Master, we saw one ca [...]ting out devils in thy name, and we forbade him, beca [...]se he followe [...]h not with us. And Jesus said into him, Forbid him not; for he that is not against us, is for us. I gather, That Christ would not have him forbidden to Preach, who Preached in his name, though he were not joyned to Christs disciples. For though the acting in Christs name expressed, [...] onely using his name to expell devils, yet by using his name there was some Preaching of Christ, and the words Mark 9.39. For there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me, and the occasion both Mark 9.37. and Luke 9.48▪ immediately foregoing, Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me; and Christs reason, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us, is for us, shew that Christs words are at well meant of preaching in his name, as of casting out devils, at least the reason of them is of like force for the not prohibiting of men to Preach in his name, as to cast out devils: Whence I argue, They may be heard [Page] Preach in Christs name, who are not to be forbidden to Preach in Christs name▪ But the present Ministers of England are not to be forbidden to Preach in Christs name; therefore they may be heard Preach in Christs name. The major is of it self evident, there being no reason to be given why they that are allowed to Preach in Christs name, should not be heard by the same allowance, allowance to Preach being vain and frivolous, without allowance for others to hear. The minor is also proved by parity of reason, for allowing them to preach as well as those who cast out Devils in Christs name, yet joyned not with the Disciples, sith so doing they did not speak evil of Christ, nor were against him, but for him, nor is there so much reason of prohibiting the Ministers to preach in Christs name, because they are not in a separated Church, nor elected by the Members thereof, as there was of prohibiting them that followed not with the Apostles to cast out Devils in Christs name. If Christ would not have these forbidden to do a miracle in his name, neither would he have the other forbidden to preach in his name, which they do in effect, who make it unlawfull to hear them.

14. I shall adjoyn to this, that our Saviour, Matth. 7.22, 23. where he alleageth the plea and expectation of formal hypocrites, he doth not reject them for prophesying in his name, but for their working iniquity, thereby shewing, that he allowed their prophesying in his name as good, though not sufficient without obedience. Whence I argue, if their prophesying in Christs name who were workers of iniquity, then much more their teaching in Christs name, who are only supposed to be defective in outward calling, or faulty in some actions consistent with Christianity, is to be allowed, and if their teaching be allowed, then the hearing of them is by consequence allowed: for these are conjugates.

15. Our Lord Christ saith Luke 10.16. concerning the seventy Disciples, he that heareth you heareth me, and he that despiseth you despiseth me, and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me. The reason hereof is, because they preached the same Doctrine: if if there be an outward mission, and the same Doctrine which Christ taught is not preached, Christ is not heard, but when the same Doctrine is heard which Christ taught, he is heard, and if it be rejected, he is despised. Whence I argue, They may be lawfully heard, by hearing of whom we may hear Christ. But by hearing [Page] of the present Ministers who preach the Doctrine of Christ, we hear Christ, therefore we may hear the present Ministers who preach the D [...]trine of Christ. The reason of the minor is from that speech [...] Christ, John. 7.16. my Doctrine is not mine, but his that sent [...], in the preachers Doctrine which he preacheth after Christ, is not his own, but Christs who sent him, as an Embassadours message is his Kings, not his own, and by hearing him deliver it according to his Commission, his Master is heard.

16. This is further confirmed from Rom. 10.15. And how shall they preach except they be sent? As it is written, How beautifull are the feet of them that preach the Gospel of Peace, and bring glad tydings of good things. The citation of these words to prove, that they cannot preach who are not sent, doth presuppose, 1. That they who preach the Gospel of Peace, that bring the glad tydings of good things, are sent to preach, and that by hearing of it comes faith, and that the word of God is heard, else were the citation impertinent, and the inference v. 17. inconsequent. 2. That their feet are beautifull, and that they are to be heard in this respect. But I subsume the present Ministers, who preach the Doctrine they undertake to teach, preach the Gospel of Peace, and bring the glad tydings of good things, therefore are they sent, their feet are beautifull, and are to be heard.

17. In the parable of the talents, Matth. 25.15. or pounds, Luke 19.13. our Saviour saith the Kingdom of Heaven is as when a noble man goes into a farr Country, gives his Servants his money to trade with, and they are to gain more thereby, 1 Cor. 12.7.8. the gifts of the spirit are given to profit withall, in which are reckoned the word of wisdome, of knowledge, teachers v. 28, 29. Ephes. 4.11. for the ed [...]fying of the body of Christ in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the son of God. Whence it is apparent, 1. That ability to teach the things of Christ, to edifie the body of Christ is a gift of Christ, 2. That they who do use this ability do it unto Christ's advantage according to his design. 3. That not to improve this gift is to disappoint Christ of his end in giving it, 4. For any to hinder this improvement is sinfull. Whence I argue: They that have ability to preach the Gospel have received a Talent from Christ to improve it, their improving is by preaching, this cannot be done unless they be heard, therefore the not hearing them makes voyd the use of that gift. The present Ministers who preach the [Page] Gospel have received this gift, and by preaching do use i [...], therefore they are to be heard, and the not hearing them is to d [...]sable them from improving it, and consequently is a sin against Christs designe.

18 As from the end of Christs gifts, so from the duty of them that have received them we may prove, that the present Ministers are to be heard, 1 Pet. 4 10.11. As every man hath received the gift, even so Minister the same one to another, as good Stewards of the manifold grace of God. If any man speak, let him speak as the Oracles of God. Whence I argue; If the present M [...]nisters have received a gift to speak the Oracles of God, then are they to Minister the same, and consequently to be heard. This is acknowledged by this Author ch. 2. in these words; That Christ hath appointed some, as Ministers, by vertue of an office power, to dispense the Ordinances of the Gospel, untill his Second Coming, is granted by all, that 'tis permitted to others, as their liberty; enjoyned them, as their duty (having received gifts and enablements from the Lord thereunto) to improve those gifts in preaching, praying, &c. for the edification of the body of Christ (though not solemnly invested into office) is assented unto, at least by some of those with whom we have to do; whence a lawfulness to hear them as Ministers▪ or as gifted brethren doth necessarily arise. But the present Ministers have received a gift to speak the Oracles of God, as experience shews, and that equally, if not beyond the teachers of the congregational Churches, and they are to Minister the same, which cannot be done unless they be heard, and therefore are to be heard. When is opposed against this is answered in the examination of the Second Chapter of this book.

19. That the present Ministers may be heard preach the Gospel, is further proved from 1 Cor. 3.22. where it is said to the Corinthians against their addicting themselves to some teachers rather than others, whether Paul or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours. They are said to be theirs, because they had interest in the use of of them, and the use of the teachers was their hearing them, any of them, though not their particular Pastour, and one of them, to wit Apollos his setting a part to that function is not recorded, and however he did teach, and was to be heard Acts 18.24, 25, 26. afore he was ordained to be a preacher, or fully knew the way of [Page] God. Whence I infer, that every Christian hath an interest in every preacher of the Gospel, that no Minister is to be accounted [...] peculiar to any party of Christians so as to be impropriated by them, that the ability of every one may be used by any though not their proper Minister, nor perhaps regularly ordained, and therefore the present Ministers of England may be heard by any Saints, while they teach the Gospel, though such irregularities, as are objected against them, were granted to be in them or their Ministry.

20. From the same Scripture I collect, that the practise of this Author in disclaiming the Ministry of those, who are not either Officers in a gathered Church in the congregational way, or gifted brethren Members in such a Church, though otherwise good men, and able diligent preachers, and adhering only to those of their own Society, is glorying in men forbidden by the Apostle, 1 Cor. 3.21. and contrary to what he saith, 1 Cor. 4.6. And these things brethren, I have in a figure transferred to my self and to Apollos for your sakes, that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. Wherein the Apostle dissuades from such esteem of some Ministers above others, as to overprize some, elevating some, and disparaging others, following some, and flighting others, though teachers of truth. Which sin I deprehended long ago to be in this land, chiefly in the Capital City thereof, and therefore discovered it in a Sermon in one of the most eminent Auditories thereof many years before; and printed it in the year 1645. with this Title, Anthopolatria, or the sin of glorying in men, especially in eminent Ministers of the Gospel, and I wish I had not been too prophetical therein. I do now wish that this Author, and such others as magnifie their own teachers, or tie men to them, and draw them off from hearing other Ministers, because Conformists, though teachers of the Gospel, did by scanning these texts see their errour and evil. It is true Chrysostom and Hierom on 1 Cor. 1.12. and many other interpreters conceive a fiction, as if the Apostle Paul had transferred that to the persons of the Apostles, which did agree to the false Apostles, being moved by the words, 1 Cor. 4.6. which it is likely our translators conceived by their reading, I have in a figure transferred these things to my self. At which Pareus marvai [...] in his Commentarie on 1 Cor. 1.12. And I give reasons against it in my Sermon forenamed Sect. 5. conceiving the word [...] [Page] not to note a Rhetorical figure of speech, but application as the outward habit is to the body, and the things applied are either, as Pareus, what he had said, 1 Cor. 3.7. That he which planteth is nothing, and he which watereth is nothing, or, as I rather conceived then, what is said 1 Cor. 4.1. That they were Ministe [...]s of Christ and Stewards of the mysteries of God, Christian Berman exerci [...]. Theolog. 12. Intelligit metaphoram ministri, Oeconomi, Villici, & Hortu [...]an, he m [...]ans the metaphor of a Minister, Steward, Husbandman, Gardiner: which confirms my argument against the separating principle of those that forbid the hearing of the present Ministers, though Stewards of the mysteries of God, Planters, Waterers, Builders, and tie men to hear those only who are their elected Ministers or gifted brethren, which is glorying in men, and tends to puff up for one against another.

21. The Apostle, 1 Cor. 4.1. saith, Let a man so account of us as of the Ministers of Christ, and Stewards of the mysteries of God. 1 Thess▪ 5.12, [...]3. And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you, and to esteem them very highly in Love for their works sake, and be at peace among your selves. 1 Tim. 5.13. Let the Elde [...]s that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the Word and Doctrine. Heb. 13.7. Remember your Rulers or Guides who have spoken to you the Word of God. Wh [...]ch texts do shew who are to be accounted true Ministers, to wit, such as are Stewards of the mysteries of God, who labour in the Word and Doctrine, who spake unto us the Word of God, what account should be made of them, they are to be esteemed highly, honoured▪ remembred, and for what reason, for their work sake, not for particular respects only, as our election of them, our opinion of their parts, our affection to them as of our party. Now I suppose the present Ministers of England are Stewards of the mysteries of God in dispensing the Gospel truly, that they speak the Word of God to the people, that they labour in the Word and Doctrine, and therefore are to be accounted Ministers▪ and to be esteemed, honoured, remembred for their work sake: and therefore much more are to be heard who are such, for this reason however otherwise defective. The main of this, that they speak the word of God is so manifest that it is not denyed, what is gainsaid is answered before: and therefore: judge the denying the Saints liberty of giving them audience, and most of all the [...] against them are great sins against these Precepts, the [Page] 5th. Commandement and other Precepts, as Acts 23.5. St. Paul conceived.

22. The Precept, 1 Thess. 5.13. and be at peace among your selves, a [...]ded to that of esteeming them in love who admonish them for their wo [...]k sak [...], gives me occasion to annex this further reason, why the present Ministers should be heard: because it tends to peace among Christians, and the not hearing them; especially upon the principles of separation is from disunion, is Schism, or tends to it contrary to that peace, unity, and love which should be among Christians, who have the same God, Lord, Spirit, Faith, Hope, and are, or should be joyned in one body with all Christians, from whom there should be no Schism, 1 Cor. 12 25, 26, 27. The Schism in the Church of Corinth did arise from the affecting of, and addicting themselves to some teachers with relinquishment, if not disclaiming of others, as appears by that which is said 1 Cor. 1.12. Every one of you saith I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ: whereupon there were among them envying and strife, and division, 1 Cor. 3.3. and they sorted themselves into companies severed from others, as may be gathered from 1 Cor. 11.17, 18. and that about the Lords Supper, v. 21.33. Now the not hearing of the present Ministers and the separation from the Churches that hear them, and adhering only to their own teachers and Churches according to the principles of the Separatists is either the same, or very like the Schism, or division among the Corinthians, or tends to it, and hath begotten, and is like to beget the same, if not worse, effects among the Christians in England, as were in the Church of Corinth, and therefore it is to be censured to be alike evil, as the Schism among the Corinthians, and is reckoned Gal. 5.20, 21. among the works of the flesh excluding out of the Kingdom of God. What is alledged by this Authour to justifie such separation is answered before. That which Dr. John Owen hath in his book of Schism, tending to acquit such separation from the crime of Schism, or to difference it from that which was the evil among the Corinthians, hath been examined by Mr. Daniel Cawdrey. That notion which is appropriated to the Corinthian Schism, as if it were onely division in the same particular Church, and not separation from others not joyned in the same particular Congregation, or such congregational Church, is not agreeable with what the Apostle delivers, 1 Cor. 10.17. and 12.12, 13. Rom. 12.4, 5. Ephes. 4.4. Ephes. 5.30, 31, 32. Ephes. 1.23. Col. 3.11.15. whereby every [Page] Christian believer where-ever is counted of the same body, to which they should be joyned in love, peace, mutual affection, and correspondent endeavours for their good, and if the Apostle 1 Cor. 12.25. expresly count it a Schism in the body when any Christian doth neglect another, and not take care of another, much more is it Schism, when Christians separate wi [...]hout necessary cause from communion with others, and more specially, when they disclaim them that are teachers of the Word of God, as if Christ were divided, as St. Paul speaks, 1 Cor. 1.13.23. St. James in his Epistle ch. 2.1. writes thus, My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ the Lord of glory with respect of persons, and he expresseth himself by instance, that they preferred the rich before the poor, in placing them in their Assemblies, and taxeth them therefore as partial in themselves, and judges of evil thoughts. Now to hear one that preacheth the faith of Christ because he is of our particular Society, or by reason of particular interest, or agreement in opinion, or any other then the unity of faith in the Lord Jesus, and to disclaim hearing another, that hath the same faith, preacheth it, and holds communion with them that embrace it, and to separate from such, to despise or oppose such, is to have the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ with respect of persons for other reasons then their faith, and therefore is condemned by St. James as evil.

24. St. Paul Rom. 16, 17. writes thus, Now I beseech you brethren, ma [...]k them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the Doctrine which ye have learned, and avoyd them. But those who teach men not to hear their Ministers, which preach to them the truth of Gods Word, because they are not in a congregational Church, or not elected or ordained according to the rules of such Churches, or because they conform to some things conceived unwarrantable (which are made the reasons of unlawfulness to hear the present Ministers who preach the Gospel) do cause offences and divisions contrary to the Doctrine, Rom. 12.4.5. Rom. 14.1. &c. Rom. 15.1. &c. therefore their Doctrine is to be avoyded.

25. The Apostle 1 Cor. 14.36. speaks thus, What? came the Word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? Which seems to reprehend the conceits whether schismatical or arrogant, as if the Word of God were from them as the onely right teachers, or confined to them as the only persons, to whom it was communicated, [Page] and from whom it might be received, and so condemns such supposed inclosures by any Church or company of teachers. But such conceits and inclosures they have and make▪ who deny the present Ministers are to be heard, conceiving the separated Churches, and Ministers, the only right Churches and Ministers to be heard.

26. The Apostle Philip. 3 15, 16. writes thus, Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any th [...]ng ye be otherwise minded, God sh [...]ll reveal even this unto you, tha [...] is, as many of you as are well instructed in the Christian Doctrine (for so the word is used 1 Cor. 2.6. 1 Co [...]. 14.20. H [...]b. 5 14. being opposed to Children and Babes that is w [...]ak in th [...] faith, Rom. 14.1.) L [...]t them be minded as I am, which he had expressed before in the chapter from v. 4. to v. 15. and if any through weakness [...]n faith be otherwise minded, as those Rom. 14 2.5. that thought Mosaical Laws were yet obligatory, God would in time reveal this to be their liberty, whic [...] I now judge to be mine▪ Nevertheless, saith he, whereto ye have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same things. Which requires Christian communion without separation notwithst [...]nding such difference, and consequently condemns separation from Minister [...] or Christians by reason of diversity of judgement about Church Government and Liturgy, and different practise about Conformity or Non-conformity to them, which are of less moment than those differences about meats and dayes, and therefore notwithstanding them, there should be walking together in preaching, hearing, praying, and other duties of Christian communion.

27. The Holy Ghost hath recorded the Prophesie of [...]alaam, Numb. 24.3, 4. &c. of Caiaphas John 1 [...].51, 52. yea the sayings of Greek Infidel Idolatrous Poets cited by St. Paul, as the words of Aratus Acts 17.28▪ of Menander 1 Cor. 15.33 of Epim [...] nides, Titus 1.12. which shews the lawfulness of reading, hearing, and making use of true sayings of any though neither true Ministers of Christ, nor believers, but Idolaters and wicked enemies to the faith much more may the books be read, and the Sermons heard of such learned men, or preachers, as clear and deliver the word of God notwithstanding dissent, or disconformity to others about Liturgy and Church Discipline.

[Page]28. The Apostle 1 Thess. 5.20, 21. requires Christians not to despise prophesyings, but to prove all things: to hold fast that which is good. St. John 1 Epist. chap. 4. Beloved believe not every Spirit, but try the Spirits whether they are of God; they make it not sin meerly to hear them that are erroneous if they try them, they may hear pretenders prophesying if they prove it, much more those Ministers who preach the truth; it is each Christians duty to try their doctrine, nor their sin to hear their Sermons.

29. This Authour himself, ch. 2. in the words before cited, alowed the hearing of gifted brethren, though not solemnly invested into office; nor do I think he would think it unlawful to hear Parents or Masters Catechize, or Readers in the University, when they read Divinity Lectures, or dispu [...]e in Divinity Schools; and therefore by a like reason must allow the hearing of such Ministers, who Preach the Gospel, and are found in the faith, and are regularly ordained according to the discipline of that Church in which they live, and are taken for true Ministers, by the godly and learned at home, and the most able and pious Pastours and brethren of the Reformed Churches abroad.

30. The reasons of this Authour, and other Separatists, against hearing the present Ministers, may be retorted against themselves. Mr. William Bradshaw having answered Mr. Francis Johnsons Arguments to prove this conclusion [It is not lawful to hear or have any spiritual communion with the present Ministry of the Church-assemblies of England] added Reasons or Arguments tending to prove, That it is a sin to separate from the publick Ministry of the Church-assemblies of England: directly contrary to Mr. Johnsons own Reasons, and usually in that regard, made in the same mood and figure, which are to be seen in the unreasonableness of the separation, p. 126. &c. Printed 1640. in Mr. Gatakers Rejoynder against the Reply of Mr. John Canne. And as for this Authours 12. Arguments, it were no hard matter to prove [That the Ministers of the separated Churches are not to be heard] by some, if not by all the middle terms he hath used to prove [That the present Ministers of the Church of England are not to be heard.] As for instance, That they come not in by the door, but climb another way, by usurping Ministry without any regular Ordination by other Ministers, That they walk disorderly in separating themselves [Page] from true Churches, they have Antichristian names or titles, in being called Masters, That they deny Christs Offices in submitting to, and imposing Orders or Ordinances about worship, not appointed by Christ, as Church-covenant, Paedobaptism, &c. That they are false prophets, that deny them to be true Churches of Christ, who hold the faith of Christ, That some commands of the Ceremonial Law of Moses, are Rules to us Christians, That they are Babylon, and Antichristian in their constitution, and their practice in dividing from other Churches, not submitting to their Teachers, those who have begotten them through the Gospel, without any well setled order among themselves, that they therefore long agree not, but crumble into many small companies, and sometimes take them to be members of their Churches who dwell in remote places; so that their gathered Churches extend as far some times as a Bishops Diocess, that they ascribe the power of the keys to the whole Church, confound Governours and Governed, allow men not set apart to that function, to teach publickly, and that frequently, if not constantly, those to take upon them to prophesie, who are no Prophets, That they scandalize their brethren, their Governours by their invectives, That they partake of the sins of others, in allowing them to usurp that power which Christ hath not committed to them, That they cast contempt upon the ways of Christ, to wit, the Prayers and Preaching of the Ministers of the Church of England; That they go to the places of false worship, as Mr. Iohn Paget in his Arrow against the Separatists proves against Ainsworth, that they cannot expect a blessing from God upon their separation, it having no promise of God, but is against the union that should be among Christians; That it is a step to Apostacy, is a forsaking of the assembly of the Saints; to refuse to hear the present Ministers, and to joyn in Prayers with them, and too much experience hath proved what backsliding, if not to Popery, yet to other errours of Antinomians, Familists, Quakers, Seekers, Ranters, hath been the fruit of Separation. But I forbear recrimination, and touching the sore, which I rather desire may be healed, and that our breaches may be made up, and not widened, to which this Authours reasonings tend.

31. The grounds upon which this Authour and other Separatists deny the lawfulness of hearing the present Ministers, are either false or doubtful; as, That nothing is to be done in the worship [Page] of God, and Church-discipline, without a particular institution; That onely a Congregational Church is of Christs institution; That a true Ministry cannot be in a false Church; That a prescibed form of prayer by men, is unlawful; That we may not use any thing in Gods worship, which hath been composed by Popes, or used in the Church of Rome, with many more; whereof many are shewed in this answer to be false, or uncertain, and insufficient for this Authours separation, and the fallacy of them manifested in so▪ many other Treatises of Conformists and non-conformists extant in Print, that I need not add any more in this place.

32. On the other side the Ministers of the Church of England, have so sufficiently proved the truth of their Ministry against Papists and Separatists, and so firmly by wrirting and otherwise, opposed Popery, even the Prelates, whom the Separatists do so much cry down as Antichristian, Popish, &c. that were not men resolved never to lay down a calumny they have once taken up, they would lay this down, and forbear pressing separation upon such exceptions, and imputations as this Authour hath gathered together in this his dung-cart, to furnish the inconsiderate, though perhaps otherwise well-minded in matters of Religion, to cast into their faces.

33▪ If it be not lawful to hear the present Ministers, because they are not rightly Elected, Ordained, in and by a Congregational Church, according to Christs institution (as this Authour conceives) or because they use the Common-prayer-book, are faulty in their lives, or some evil consequences, as offence of some Saints, contempts of some ways of God, by accident ensue thereupon, then it will follow that every hearer, before he hears a Minister; must 1. be able to judge of the validity of these Reasons, whether they can warrant his not hearing. 2. He must be able to judge every Minister or Preacher he hears, whether he be rightly thus Elected, Ordained, or qualified. 3. He must actually examine him afore he hears him. 4. He must have power either to silence or withdraw from him, if he be not so qualified, and must use that power. But 1. Such ability is not in every hearer, nor indeed is it as the estate of things in this life is, ordinarily possible it should be. 2. Then Ministers Preaching and Ministry should [Page] be at the will of their Auditors. For, if one may forbear hearing, all may upon the same reason, and so the Minister be silenced or deprived for want of hearers. 3. This would put power in hearers over their Ministers, and overthrow all Church-government. 4. It would introduce greater oppression of Ministers, then either Prelats or their Canons bring upon them. 5. Even the Ministers of Congregational Churches would be in danger of being deserted by their members, their maintenance withdrawn, they exposed to penury and other grievances, as well as Conforning Ministers. Nor do I think, but that many even of them have found the bitter fruits of such popular licentiousness out of such principles of separation, as well as others. 6. Nor can there be any setled order of government in Church or civil State, if the stated Ministers or Magistrates according to the present Laws, though perhaps in some things unjust, yet in the main upholding truth of faith and worship, and the publick good, should be deserted or disobeyed▪ because every hearers or subjects conscience or minde is not satisfied.

34 Such a plea as is made by these men, is made by Papists for their Recusancy, that the Ministers of the Church of England are not rightly called, that they are in a Schism, with other the like objections; and then if the Plea of the Separatists be allowed, they have this advantage, That they should not be urged to hear the Ministers, nor have the penalties of Recusancy imposed on them. I say not that this reason would reach to the toleration of their Priests and Mass, but onely if such a Plea should be allowed, why the present Ministers should not be heard, the same, or the like justifies the Papists for not hearing them, and condemns the inflicting penalties for Recusancy, because, if this Authour say true, it is unlawful to hear the present Ministers. The same may be said in behalf of Quakers, Seekers, profane persons, ignorant people, they are not to be required to hear the Ministers, if it be unlawfull; and so the Magistrate should sin if he command them to hear, though Mr. Robinson himself in his Justification of Separation, pag. 242. as Printed in the year 1639. writes thus. That godly Magistrates are by compulsion to repress publick and notable Idolatry, as also to provide that the truth of God in his Ordinance, be taught, and published in their Dominions, I make no doubt: It may be also it is not unlawful for them by some penalty or other, to provoke their subjects universally unto hearing, for their instruction, and conversion;[Page]yea to grant they may inflict the same upon them, if after due teaching they offer not themselves unto the Church.

35. That position which takes away a considerable and important part of Christians liberty, and puts a yoke on their ne [...]ks grievous to be born, is not to be received, it being contrary to that which the Apostle chargeth on Christians, that they should stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and not be again intangled with the yoke of bondage. Gal. 5.1. Ye are bought with a price, become ye not the servants of men, 1 Cor. [...].23. But, if we hold it unlawful to hear the truth of Gods word taught by the present Ministers, we let go our liberty of hearing, which Christ hath not debarred us of, and make our selves servants to some whom alone we might hear, to the insharing of us if they err, so as that we may not hear them who may free us: which is no small bondage to a Christian, and tends to the calling Rabbines or Masters, forbidden Matt. 23.8, 10 and is an artifice by which Papists and others have still held people from discerning their errours, and kept them in dependence on them, and adherence to their party: Therefore it should not be received by us.

36. There is a negative superstition, when men abstain from some things, under a notion of Religion, or worship of God, which are not forbidden by God, but left free and indifferent: either not forbidden, or, if once they were, now antiquated or outdated: And of this so [...] was that Col 2.21. Touch not, taste not, handle not; which was superstitious negative will-worship, as Mr. Cawdrey in his Treatise of Superstition, Sect 5. writes. This the Apostle v. 20. blames as being dogmatized, or yielding to mens ordinances, as living in the world, not dead with Christ from the elements of the world, though it have a shew of wisdom in will-worship, such was that of the Pharisees in not eating till they had washed their hands, observing the tradition of the elders condemned by Christ, Mark 7.7. as teaching doctrines the commandments of men; which he counts worshipping God in vain, and it hath these evil effects, 1. That it occasions the neglect of Gods commands. 2. It bege [...]s unnecessary perplexities in mens spirits. 3. It puffs men up with conceit of more holiness then others. 4. Makes them censorious of those that are not as scrupulous as themselves, as if they were loose and profane. That such is the opinion of the [Page] unlawfulness of hearing the present Ministers, as it is maintained by this Authour, I suppose is manifested by the answer and reasons foregoing; and that it hath the evil effects here named, is too evident, by experience, in the neglect of the publick communion in worship, and other duties of love to them with whom communion in publick worship is not held, in the doubts and opinions of not observing the present Ministers with any respect, nor paying them dues imposed by Law, in conceiving themselves the Saints, others Antichristian, with many bitter taunts, scoffs, reproaches, revilings, tales of and against them, contrary to the fruits of the spirit of God mentioned, Gal. 5.22. Therefore it is not be to received.

37. Hereto is to be added, That upon the same suppositions the opinion of denying the lawfulness of hearing the present Ministers, as it is asserted by this Authour, is an usurpation of Christs regal office, in putting a law on the consciences of men, arrogating that power which is proper to that one Lawgiver who is able to save and destroy, James 4.12. binding heavy burthens and grievous to be born, and laying them on mens shoulders, Matt. 23.4 imitating therein Pharisaical pride, and Papal dominion, and such other practises as they condemn in others. They that condemn those that permit not them to Preach, who will not use Ceremonies, are guilty of the like Imposition, who permit not Christians to hear Preachers of the Gospel, unless they be in a Congregational Church, and be called by them; and while they charge others with adding to the word the inventions of men, are themselves guilty thereof.

38. Nor is it a light matter, but to be well pondered, That by this means the knowledge of the word of God is much hindred, and thereby the furthering of the kingdom of God, the coming of which we are to pray for, is neglected, such as hold the opinion of not hearing the Ministers in publick, thinking it enough if they can teach those of their society; if by conference they instill any truths into others, it is seldom without somewhat that alienates them from others, and engageth them to their own society, with diminution of love to others, if not worse dispositions and practices. Whence many remain in ignorance, profaneness, and errours, being hardned in opposition to the present Ministers; whom I deny not, [Page] may give too much occasion by their loose walking, and negligent Preaching, in which they are not to be excused; yet is not the opinion of not hearing them while they Preach the Gospel thereby justified, but both to be blamed as guilty of hindring the good of mens souls, and Christs kingdom, and so in some sort Antichristian.

39. Nor are the effects of this opinion onely pernicious to them who are without; but evil also to them within, whether Ministers or people. To Ministers, in that by the neglect of hearing them, and such esteem as is due to them for their work sake they are disheartened, and by this wrangling, opposition, disquietness they meet with, disabled in a great measure from doing that good which otherwise might be done. Yea, by this opinion, their Ministery, though they Preach the Gospel, is disanulled, and accounted as accursed. So the people, in that they are divided, become unpeaceable, some for not hearing, being unnecessarily cast on the danger of the Laws, deprived of Estates and Liberty, in many places growing empty of fruitful knowledge, exposed to the attempts of Seducers, who lie in wait to deceive, filled with bitterness of spirit towards others, though profuse towards those that agree with them; and in a word, there is a sad breach between Christians of the same profession of faith, which is most contrary to the union which they should have in Christ by the same spirit; and I wish it were not true that it is fulfilled now, which was foretold 2 Tim. 4.3, 4. That men heap to themselves Teachers after their own lusts.

40. The many absurdities which are consequent on the opinion, should disswade us from entertaining it. For if it be true, That it is unlawful to hear the present Ministers, then it is not lawfull for us to invite them to Preach, or to exhort them to it, or to rejoyce in it, or to pray to God that they may, or to praise God for their Preaching: Then it is better that Quakerism, Ranting, Barbarism, Rudeness should be [Page] spread among the people, then they be urged to hear the publick Preachers; That Magistrates do ill to command people to go to hear them; That they countenance or maintain them, then it is good at Sermon time to stay at home idle, or to lie in an Ale-house, rather then to go to hear them; the non-preaching Readers are as tolerable as Preaching Ministers; their forbearing to Preach, is avoiding of sin; the less they Preach, and the less they are heard Preach, there is the less sin, their silencing is no evil, not they to be blamed for not Preaching; for it can be no evil for them to forbear Preaching, if it be a sin for others to hear them, they ought rather to forbear Preaching, then to draw others to sin. And yet, so wild is this opinion, that many of them that refuse to hear and condemn as this Authour doth, the hearing of them, do yet except against non-preaching Ministers, blame the Ministers for not Preaching more frequently, and those that hinder their Preaching: Whereas, if the hearing them were unlawful, it were good counsel to perswade men not to hear their Sermons, nor to Preach them; which would introduce Irreligion, or some pernicious Errour, as the state of things now stands in this Nation.

Sect. 16. Some passages in the writings of Mr. John Goodwin opposite to th [...] Book Intituled, Prelatical Preachers none of Christs Teachers.

For a conclusion, whereas the Book mentioned in my Epistle to the Reader Intituled [P [...]elatical Preachers none of Christs Teacher] shewed to me as that, which did make men Separatists, and the book was written not in a Logick form, and therefore not answered by me, yet the Authour being supposed the same with him who Printed in the year 1653. two books against some that about baptism left his Communion, I have here added some passages with animadversions,[Page]which shew how his separation in this latter book crosseth his sayings in the former.

In his 40. Quaeries, Qu. 10. I read thus, When men may separate that which is precious from that which is vile, and enjoy it thus separated and apart without suffering any inconvenience by that which is vile, is it a point of wisdome in them to deprive themselves of the enjoyment of what is precious, because there is somewhat, which they suppose to be vile near to it? Why then doth lie dissuade from hearing the present Ministers; who preach precious Doctrine, because of some things conceived vile in them, yet may be separated from that which is precious?

Qu. 14. The experience of many years in the reformed Churches abroad, and of some years amongst our selves at home, hath abundantly taught and informed us, that the said question hath yielded little other fruit unto those that have set their hearts to it, yea and to others also, but Contention, Strife, Emulations, evil Surmizings, Distractions, Confusions, Alienations of mind, and Affections, amongst Christian Brethren, evill Speakings, Vilifyings, Revilings, needless and wastfull Expence of time, loss of many precious opportunities for matters of greatest consequence, unprofitable disturbings and turmoylings of weak Consciences, shatterings, scatterings, rendings, and tearings such of Churches and Christian Societies, who, till this root of bitterness sprang up amongst them, walked in love, and with the light of Gods countenance shining on them, holding the Vnity of the Spirit in the bond of Peace, edifying one another in their most holy faith, &c. These things were not the fruit of that question, but of that separation, which was made by occasion of it, and are as true of the separation this Authour maintained in his later book.

Qu. 23. Whether ought not the law of edification [1 Cor. 14.26.] to over-rule all Laws and Precept concerning Spiritual and Church Administrations, as the law of Salus populi [Page] ought to umpire and over-rule all politique laws and constitutions, in their respective executions? If so, the supposed laws of outward calling of Ministers should not be urged, so as to hinder people from hearing Ministers, because of some defect supposed therein, when they may be heard to edification of the hearers.

In his Water-dipping, Consideration 17. Is it not then presumption in the highest, and an assuming of an Antichristian power, to impose Laws upon Christian societies, which the Lord Christ never imposed; yea, and to cesure and scandalize them with the odious and reproachful terms of Antichristian, and unclean, onely for the transgression of their own Laws? What doth he less, who forbids to hear in his latter Book the present Ministers.

Consideration 22. Whereas Antichrist himself is not more Antichristian, then in claiming and exercising such a dominion over the faiths of his Proselytes and Disciples; by vertue whereof he commandeth them to depend onely upon Ministes and Teachers of his own faith and wicked perswasion in matters of Religion, severely prohibiting unto them the hearing of Protestant Preachers; we understand that the same high imposing spirit domineers more generally in the Churches and Congregations, which solemnly conjure all their Proselytes and Converts not to hear Jesus Christ himself speaking by any other mouth then theirs; thus bearing them in hand, as if a voice from heaven, like unto that which was heard by the people at Christs Baptism, concerning him, had come to them also in reference to themselves and their Teachers, in this or the like tenor of words, We are the onely true Churches and Ministers of Christ: Hear us. Yea, there was of late a very great Schism made in one of these Churches, and the greater part aposynagog [...]ized by the lesser, because of the high misdemeanour of some of the Members, in hearing the words of eternal life from the mouths of such Ministers, who follow not them in their way. Such principles [Page] and practises as these, we judge to be most notoriously and emphatically Antichristian, and such wherein (as was said in a like case) the very horns and hoofs of the beast may be discerned. Yea, we cannot but judge them to be of most pernicious consequence to the precious souls of men, as depriving them of the best means and opportunities which God most graciously affordeth [...] unto them for their recovery out of all such snares, wherein at any time their foot may be taken, Ex ore tuo.— From these words might the Authour of that Book [Prelatical Preachers none of Christs Teachers] have learned not to condemn the hearing of the present Ministers, as if none were to be heard but of his own way.

ERRATA.

[Page]

PAge 2. line 5. read one. p. 5. l. 39. r. by him to them. p. 9. l. 4. r. case. p. 11. l. 26. r. utensils. p. 12. l. 5. r. wills. p. 13. l. 19. add after 25. & 18.15. l. 20. r. 13.10. l. 21. r. 29.25. p. 14. l. 14. r. Separatists. p. 16. l. 28. r. persevering. l. 33. r. 9.16. p. 21. l. 26. r. times. p. 30. l. 34. r. breadth. p. 31. l. 37. r. hath. p. 48. running title, r. makes not. p. 49. l. 20. r. stupendious. p. 50. l. 8. r. he. p. 66. l. 29. r. distra. p. 69. l. 14. r. applies. p. 89. l. 41. r. bounded. p. 92. l. 17. r. parallel. l. 33. r. Sanctius. p. 93. l. ult. r. Ishi. p. 101. l. 9. r. super. p. 106. l. 36. r. solum. p. 108. l. 26. r. preside. p. 118. l. 28. r. acknow. p. 136. l. 39. r. pretence. p. 153. l. 22. r. did. p. 161. l. 10. r. Queristers. p. 197. l. 6. r. the. p. 205. l. 6. r. venting. p. (206.) l. 32. r. Tyanaeus. p. (208.) running title, r. ill applied. p. 223. l. 3. r. intension. p. 370. l. 22. r. ly. p. 318. running title, r. Preacher.

Books Printed for Henry Eversden, and are to be sold at his shop under the Crown-Tavern in West-Smithfield.

[Page]

1. THe Sphere of Gentry, deduced from the Principles of Nature, an Historical and Genealogical work of Arms and Blazon: by Sylvanus Morgan.

2. The History of the late Civil Warrs of England.

3. Riverius his Universal Body of Physick in five Books, &c.

4. The Language of Arms by the Colours and Metals, in quarto, by Silvanus Morgan.

5. Scepsis Scientifica, or Confest Ignorance the way to Science, by Joseph Glanvil, Fellow of the Royal Society.

6. The Gospel Physitian in quarto.

7. The Mistery of Rhetorick unveil'd, Eminently delightful, and profitable for young Schollars, and others of all sorts, enabling them to discern and imita [...]e the Elegancy in any other Author they read, &c. by John Smith Gent.

8. A Crew of kind London Gossips, all met to be merry: to which is added ingenious Poems, or Witt and Drollery, in octavo, at 1 s. bound.

9. The natural Rarities of England, Scotland, and Wales, according as they are to be found in every Shire, very useful for all ingenius men of what profession or quality soever, by J. Childrey, in octavo.

10. Pearls of Eloquence, or the School of Complements, very useful for all young Ladies, Gentlewomen, and Schollars, who are desirous to adorn their speech with gentile ceremonies, complemental, amo [...]ous, and high expressions, of speaking or writing, at 1 s. bound.

11. Hodges directions for true writing, in octavo.

12. Gods Alsufficiency, by Mr. Jeremy, in 120▪

Information about this book

Title statement

Theodulia, or, A just defence of hearing the sermons and other teaching of the present ministers of England against a book unjustly entituled (in Greek) A Christian testimony against them that serve the image of the beast, (in English) A Christian and sober testimony against sinful complyance, wherein the unlawfulness of hearing the present ministers of England is pretended to be clearly demonstrated by an author termed by himself Christophilus Antichristomachus / by John Tombes.

Tombes, John, 1603?-1676.

Edition statement

1667

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :

Date

2005-10 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).

ID [DLPS]

A62876

ID [STC]

Wing T1822

ID [STC]

ESTC R33692

ID [EEBO-CITATION]

13549752

ID [OCLC]

ocm 13549752

ID [VID]

100176

Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Series

Early English books online.

Notes

(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A62876)

Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 100176)

Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 1558:25)

Source

— Theodulia, or, A just defence of hearing the sermons and other teaching of the present ministers of England against a book unjustly entituled (in Greek) A Christian testimony against them that serve the image of the beast, (in English) A Christian and sober testimony against sinful complyance, wherein the unlawfulness of hearing the present ministers of England is pretended to be clearly demonstrated by an author termed by himself Christophilus Antichristomachus / by John Tombes., Tombes, John, 1603?-1676..

Extent

[20], 393 [i.e. 391], [1] p.

Printed by E. Cotes for Henry Eversden ...,. London :: 1667.. (Errata: p. [1] at end.) (Numerous errors in paging.) (Reproduction of original in the Bodleian Library.)

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.