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.

CHAP. 5. (Book 5)

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 Prophe∣tical and Kingly Office of Christ: But the present Ministers of England do own, submit, and subscribe to Orders and Ordinan∣ces, that are not only not of Christs revealing, but contrary thereunto: Therefore. The major (or first Proposition) is be∣yond exception. If an owning, submitting, and subscribing to Orders and Ordinances, that are not only, not of Christs re∣vealing, but contrary thereunto, be not a denial of his Kingly and Prophetical Office, I must profess, I know not what is. Sup∣pose the chief Magistrate or Magistrates of a Nation should give forth a Declaration of their Will, touching this or that con∣cern, 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 de∣ny 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 ra∣tionally 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

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 funda∣mental. 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 Of∣fices 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 eve∣ry such sin or errour a person can be a good Christian, or for eve∣ry 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 in∣stance, 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 interpretative∣ly 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 for∣mer times, either out of ignorance, fear, or such like motives, and yet these neither to be reckoned for such, as either in heart, or pro∣fession, 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 pra∣ctise

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 Con∣substantion, and yet are not to be judged opposers of the Kingly and Prophetical Offices of Christ, so as to be disclaimed, separa∣ted from, and rejected as no true Christian Brethren, or Tea∣chers. 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 Eng∣land (the very best of them) do own, submit, and subscribe to Orders and Ordinances that are not only not of Christs revea∣ling, but contrary thereunto: in which two things are incum∣bent 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 Offi∣ces 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 Or∣ders, Rites▪ and Ceremonies prescribed in the said Book of Com∣mon 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•• sub∣mit

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 Prea∣chers (Can. 49, 57.)

7. That these unpreaching Ministers (Can. 57.) may law∣fully 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 admini∣ster the Communion in private houses, except in times of ne∣cessity, (Can. 71.)

13. That no Minister may lawfully appoint or keep any so∣lemn 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 Vest∣ments 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 ap∣pointment of Christ? When or where were they instituted by by him? That these are Posts set by the Lords Posts, and Thre∣sholds by his Thresholds (of which the Lord complains, Ezek. 43.8.) who sees not? That the present Ministers of England do conform and subscribe hereunto, cannot be denied;

and thence an owning, subscribing, and submitting to Orders and Constitutions that are not of Christs appointment, is evident∣ly 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 su∣perficially 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 apper∣taining unto this Hierarchy, are Orders needful and necessary in the Church of Christ; nor is it required therein, that the Ministers pro∣mise subjection and obedience unto them. But it is censured as a wicked errour to affirm, that the Government of the Church of Eng∣land under his Majesty by Arch-bishops, Bishops, Deans, Arch••dea∣cons, and the rest that bear Office in the same is Antichristian or re∣pugnant 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 sub∣mit 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 Excommunica∣tion they repent, and publickly revoke it.

3. In the third particular are sundry things liable to Ex∣ception.

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

2. It is not well, that when this Author does not, yet he tells us some would say, that kneeling at the Lords Supper smells very

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

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

4. It is said Canon. 32. The Office of a Deacon, is a step or degree to the Ministry, according to the judgment of the ancient Fathers, and the practice of the Primitive Church, and the subscription is re∣quired 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 exami∣ned 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 suffi∣cient.

And the 8. particular is in Canon 57.

9. Can. 60. It is not said, That Confirmation by Diocesan Bishops, is an Ordinance of God, but that it hath been a solemn ancient and lau∣dable custom in the Church of God, continued from the Apostles times, that all Bishops should lay their hands upon children baptized, and in∣structed 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 refu∣sing to bury; but the lawfulness of it is not there asserted, though presupposed.

12, 13. Ministers preaching, administring the Communion in pri∣vate 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 un∣lawfulness; Inexpediency, or inconvenience may occasion a pro∣hibition of that which is not unlawful.

14. It is not asserted Can. 74. that Ministers ought to be distin∣guished 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 Constitu∣tions of the appointment of Christ? when or where were they institu∣ted 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 ac∣count of the manner of their Conversion, making Election by the common Suffrage of the Members essential to a Minister, imposi∣tion 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 Congregatio∣nal Churches, Ordinances, and Constitutions of the appointment of Christ? when and where were they instituted by him? It is not I presume altogether forgotten, that such questions have been propounded to them by Mr. Ball, Apollonius, and many others, and their answers judged insufficient. And if they cannot shew Christs appointment for their Orders, which they require, why do

they charge so deeply the Ministers of England as denying and opposing the Prophetical and Kingly Office of Christ, for submit∣ting to Orders, which as well may be said to be of Christs ap∣pointment 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 Con∣stitutions 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 Po∣licy 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 per∣form 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 In∣terpreters 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 Or∣dinances, yet this cannot be understood but of such as are made Gods Worship, or wherein that which God hath appointed is altered or corrupted. And therefore I conclude, that it is no small abuse of this Text, which occurrs in sundry printed Sermons and other Books to make every Order of men about Gods Worship, or the Governing of the Church to be thus branded, and out of all infer, that what he saith he hath evidently evinced, is but a vain brag of this Author. Let's proceed in viewing what follows.

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

Object. If it be said, That though these Canons, and Constitutions owned by the Ministers of England, be not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be found in the Scripture of the Institution of Christ in so many words, yet by conse∣quence 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 Ec∣clesiastical 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 Ecclesiasti∣cal 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 com∣manded 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 Obe∣dience, Heb. 13.17. and in Order to the ends of their rule with∣out 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 con∣tinued 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 pro∣cess of time found it necessary to have Synods to this end.

3. From the course God hath taken with the Christian Chur∣ches, to whom he hath delivered the Doctrine of Faith, and ne∣cessaries of Worship in the Scriptures, but hath left many acci∣dentals

about Worship and Church Government undetermined, & therefore left them partly to each ones own light in things con∣cerning 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 him∣self, 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 an∣swered hereto. He saith:

Sect. 4. It's no derogation from Scripture, or Christ, that such Ca∣nons 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 or∣der, 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 be∣fore 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 se∣veral directions thereabout given, he condemns their disorderly pra∣ctice, 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

this affair in a way of decency, order, and edification; wherein se∣veral 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 al∣so 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 or∣der; 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 Confessi∣on 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 inde∣terminate by Christ or his Apostles in the Scripture, and yet are to be determined according to the Rule of Decency and Order, ei∣ther 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 impro∣babilities and absurdities, that God should charge parents to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, Eph. 6.4.

that we should first of all make supplications, prayers, intercessions, giving of thanks for all men, for Kings, and for all that are in autho∣rity; 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 Bi∣shop 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 acknow∣ledged, there is no lessening of its use, though it be said, that not∣withstanding 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 ob∣serves, 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 obser∣ved (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 undeter∣mined 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,

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 alled∣ged to establish, which is but a meer Dictate of his, for which he brings no proof: For neither is his account of the Apostles disser∣tation 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 ar∣rogantly, as if it were their liberty, inferring from v. 3. that be∣cause 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 pro∣phesie▪ 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 di∣rection, v. 26. that being another direction, and a general one af∣ter 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 particu∣lar 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 en∣deavoured 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ac∣cording 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 Di∣vine 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 Prophe∣sie: nor do I conceive any of them whom he opposeth would un∣advisedly

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 de∣cently 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 ge∣neral 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 com∣manded 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 De∣cency 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

of Decency and Order not determined in Scripture may by Ca∣nons 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 a∣voided, 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 de∣termined by Scripture, are to be received: and yet it follows not that whatever Ceremonies Rulers introduce not directly contra∣ry 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 med∣dle 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 introdu∣cing Ceremonies to be invested in the Church, thence a power for the institution of new Orders and Ordinances, the introducing of Hea∣thenish, 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 Cere∣monies, 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 Con∣stitutions of a truly constituted Church of Christ, (a strong supposition hereof is the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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

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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 Oe∣conomie of the Gospel? How prove they that the Church of England is so? Nevertheless, I may say I know not any that hold concer∣ning the Church of England that its 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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. ap∣pend. de Adi. p. 861. Things indifferent, he tells you, ought not to be introduced into the Church, but by the common consent thereof, ac∣cording 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 Na∣tion 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 a∣gainst 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 Disci∣pline,

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 Do∣ctrine, 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 per∣sons 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 Con∣stitutions 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 assem∣bled in its several Officers, or such as shall be chosen by their Offi∣cers, whose laws every member is bound to be obedient to. We an∣swer, 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 produ∣ced; 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 Con∣stitutions contrary to the revelation of Christ.

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 con∣cluded. 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 Con∣stitutions.

2. That these Laws, Constitutions, and Ordinances, are con∣trary 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 Pro∣phetical 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.

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 revela∣tion 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the only Dynasta, or Potentate; and yet without contrariety, or contradiction the Eunuch, Acts 8.27. is termed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 usu∣ally 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 Suf∣fragan Bishops, who are not Lords; and for the Churches Re∣formed, of Foreigners dwelling in England Ministers made by Presbyters only. But this is not a Law, Constitution, or Ordi∣nance 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 im∣pertinently 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 Congregati∣onal 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.

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 Pre∣face, 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 per∣fect 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 invi∣cem 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 va∣rious; 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 consequent∣ly 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

by the Bishop thereunto; contrary to Act. 6.2. Ephes. 4.11.

Answ. That at first the institution of Deacons was to serve ta∣bles, 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 whe∣ther it be fit to be done, is left to the Minister. That it is diame∣trically 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 Com∣munion 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 in∣ferred. 1 Cor. 11.33. Acts 20.7. do prove it should be ad∣ministred, when all Communicants come together; but whe∣ther it want the nature of the Sacrament, if but two be together, specially in a case extraordinary, may be questioned. As Acts 2.42. it is said, They continued in breaking of bread; so ver. 46. it is said, they did it from house to house; therefore not the whole Church in Jerusalem brake Bread in one house, but by companies in several houses, and so as they could commodiously, which is an argument, that the smalness of the number takes not away the nature of the Sacrament, if the thing appointed by Christ be done.

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

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

Answ. That which the present Ministers own and subscribe to, as containing in it nothing contrary to the word of God, and that it may lawfully be used, with promise to use it, is the Book of Com∣mon-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 Rea∣ders 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 Ca∣thedrals and Collegiate Churches and Chappels, there is no con∣stitution 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 ge∣stures, 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 wor∣ship is not fitly termed Worship; the third methinks should be

allowed, as commanded Ephes. 5.19. Col. 3.16. external words and gestures if agreeable to the examples of holy men should not be excepted against, nor are they contrary to John 4.23. which excludes only the legal shawdowy worship of the Law, and that which is only external, and so hypocritical; otherwise external Wor∣ship is required, 1 Cor. 6.20. But I suppose the chief exception is, that the Ministers own and use a prescript Form of words de∣vised by man; which he conceives contrary to the other texts al∣ledged 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 con∣trary 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 unutte∣rable; and therefore this text is so far from proving, that it is un∣lawful 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 se∣cret 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 un∣derstanding prayed not: the Spirit, that is, the understanding con∣ceived

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 oppo∣sed the Spirit to the Understanding; because the Spirit in that place signifies the Understanding so affected, as that it cannot distinctly ex∣plain what it hath conceived. Therefore in the same Chapter above he exhorts, that he who speaketh with tongues (that is with the Spi∣rit) pray that he may interpret; that is, not only speak with the Spi∣rit 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. Fourth∣ly, 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 mo∣tion of the free Spirit, such as lumen propheticum, prophetical illu∣mination 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 rea∣sons it is apparent, that these Texts are much perverted against the use of a prescript Form of words in Prayer devised by man, because of the Spirits help, Rom. 8.26. praying in the Spirit, 1 Cor. 14 15. sith they cannot be meant of ordinary publike prayers, and of praying in words unpremeditated, as immediately suggested by the Spirit of God.

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

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

Answ. This Author shews not where the Law is, nor when or how the Ministers subscribes to a Constitution of this instance,

not know I where to find either. It is said, Psal. 110.3. Thy peo∣ple shall be willing in the day of thy power. But it doth not there∣fore follow, that men may not be compelled by pecuniary mulcts, or other penalties, to come to Common Prayer or the Commu∣nion. For however the question be resolved about liberty of Con∣science, 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 penal∣ties 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 law∣ful 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 Pa∣rents 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 sepa∣ration, 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 be∣lieved not, but spake evil of the way of Christ before the multitude, and so endeavour to disturb them in the practice of Christian Re∣ligion. The words 2 Cor. 6.14. whether we read it, be not unequal∣ly yoked, or unevenly ballanced to the other side with Infidels; and whether we expound it of marriage, or familiar converse, or (as the words v. 16. What agreement hath the Temple of God with Idols, do plainly evince it to be meant) do not joyn with the Idolaters in their Idol Temples to eat there things offered to Idols, which

he had forbidden, 1 Cor. 8.7, 10. to partake of the table of Devils, 1 Cor. 10.21. it is manifest from, v. 15. to be meant of professed Infidels opposite to him that believeth, and therefore cannot be understood of not joyning in prayer and the Lords Supper with a professed Believer, though of vitious life. Nor can the separation from among men, v. 17. be understood of any other than professed In∣fidels; nor the the touching the unclean thing be any other then joyning in service of Idols mentioned, v. 16. and therefore is ma∣nifestly 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, con∣trary 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 Luthe∣ran 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 not∣withstanding Women are excluded from any Ordinary Ministe∣ry of the Word or Sacraments in the Church by the Texts alled∣ged, 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.

10. That the Lords Supper is to be received kneeling, which is directly opposite to the practice of Christ, in the first Institution there∣of, 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 pra∣ctice 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 pre∣sent 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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which we translate [as they sate] yet it is de∣nied▪ 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 ter∣med by the Apostle the Lords Supper, 1 Cor. 11.20. therefore with 〈◊〉〈◊〉 reason the gesture should be urged by them as obligatory.

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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 be∣ing 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 ge∣stures; 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 ma∣ny other occasions in Sermons, Writings, and Conferences, to de∣terr persons, especially of scrupulous Consciences and weak Un∣derstandings, from any thing to which persons and practices are disaffected; and therefore for the setling of such persons judg∣ment, as are not averse to the unlearning their mistakes, as I did many years since in my Book of Scandalizing, cap. 4. sect. 23. some∣what 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 ra∣ther, 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 2. Concern∣ing 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, answer∣ing to genus and species, as Cicero renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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

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 ap∣pearance to the understanding, but either for the shape or repre∣sentation 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 two sorts of men, ch. 25.2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 three sorts of men, and in the LXX Version Jer. 15 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is rendred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 four kinds; which acception is enforced by this reason, which out of St. Basil Dr. Ham∣mond thus expresseth the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 fugi∣te 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 appea∣rance, and not sort or kind, yet it may be doubted whether, as the Vulgar and Tigurin, it be not rather to be read ab om∣ni specie mala, from every shew or appearance which is evil, ra∣ther 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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

in practice. Chrysostome and the Greek Scholiast, and others apply it only to false doctrines, or lies of false Prophets; as if the Apo∣stle 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 ap∣pearance 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 Interpre∣tation, 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 Apo∣stle. 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.

2. The absurdities which follow on this▪ that I must abstain from all that appears evil to another, seem great and unavoid∣able.

1. Because it would require an impossible task: For it is im∣possible for me to know what appears to another evil, sith I can∣not 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 im∣possible, 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 sub∣sistence, 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 ap∣pearance of evil into real and imaginary. For (besides that I con∣ceive 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 distin∣ction 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

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 ne∣cessary 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 Ma∣sters 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 Di∣vines. If we must abstain from every appearance of evil to others we must abstain from these duties; Gods Laws will cross one ano∣ther, and we must infringe or suspend one, or otherwise be necessi∣tated 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 forbea∣rance 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, under∣stands 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 ap∣ply it to such causes or signs of manifest evil, as are means of draw∣ing 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

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 ano∣ther, without any further restraint, is very absurd and so unreaso∣nable, as that it will bring a yoke upon mens consciences impossi∣ble 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 Sup∣per 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 acti∣ons, as for other reasons very clear and convincing, so from the words of the Rubrick at the end of the Communion, which I here sub∣joyn. Whereas it is ordained in this Office for the administration of the Lords Supper, that the Communicants should receive the same kneel∣ing, (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 in∣firmity, 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 re∣ceived, 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

be abhorred of all faithful Christians.) And the natural body and blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven, and not here; it being a∣gainst the truth of Christs natural body, to be at one time in more pla∣ces 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 be∣ing 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, con∣cerning 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 them∣selves. (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 pra∣ctice of the Churches of Christ, for several hundred years after Christ, to the time of the invention and introduction of the Popish

Breaden-god; it is denyed by the same Dr. Burges in that and other following Chapters, by the Bishop of Rochester, Paybody, and others, about which, and the judgment and practice of most of the reformed Churches at this day, it is not necessary that I should make inquiry; sith if it were so, yet it proves nor, that the present Ministers of England, do oppose the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ, by their submitting to kneeling at the Lords Supper.

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

It is added, What should I mention the Constitutions and Canons before pointed to, wherein 't is forbidden to any to Preach, not licensed by the Bishops thereunto, to marry or eat flesh at certain times, with many more of the like nature; all directly contrary to the soveraign edicts of Christ, and some of them evident characters of the last dayes Apostates, 1 Tim. 4.3. from whom Saints are warned by the Lord to turn aside, ver. 5. These we have produced, carry an unde∣niable evidence with them, that the present Ministers of England do own, submit, and subscribe to Orders and Ordinances, that are con∣trary 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 command∣ing to abstain from flesh at certain times upon politick considera∣tions, 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 cha∣racter of Apostates, 1 Tim. 4.3. which is more justly charged on the Monks and Popish Votaries, who account it sinful to marry; as if it were unchastness, and more lawful to use Concubines than Wives for Priests; as if they joyned with Pope Siricius, terming such, persons in the flesh, and such as could not please God, and place more holiness in eating Fish than Flesh; which sort of people are very accurately proved to be there characterized by Mr. Joseph

Mede in his Book of the Doctrine of Daemons; intituled, The Apostasie of the later times. That the present Ministers of England are such, or that precept which is (not 1 Tim. 4.5.) 2 Tim. 3.5. From such turn aside, belongs to them, is not proved by this Author, nor that they do own, submit, and subscribe to Orders and Ordinances that are contrary to the revelation of Christ, or deny his Prophetical and Kingly Office. French Protestants in the Synod of Charenton 1644. chap. 13. art. 24. The Church shall not solemnise marriage in the dayes on the which the Lords Supper is administred, nor on the dayes of a publick Fast. See this crimination retorted on the Separatists by Paget in his Arrow, ch. 6. sect. 3. p. 155. n. 5. Yet he hath not done with this Argument.

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

To all that hitherto hath been offered in this matter, we shall yet add, as a further demonstration of the truth we are in the disquisition of. Arg. 3. Those that acknowledge another Head over the Church beside Christ, deny his Prophetical and Kingly Office: but the pre∣sent 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 Proposi∣tion) 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 Sta∣tute-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 con∣tempt and denial of his Authority? If there be any such Headship of the Institution of Christ, let us know when and where it was institu∣ted; 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 Institu∣tion of such an Headship, with the conditions annexed thereunto, and we shall be so far from denying of it, that we shall cheerfully pay,

whatever respect, homage, or duty, by the Laws of God or Man, may righteously be expected from us. But this will not, we humbly conceive, in hast be performed; and that because 1. The Scripture makes men∣tion 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 ei∣ther 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 do∣minion 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 im∣pious 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 sub∣mit to it. Headship is a Metaphor, and sometime notes Originati∣on, vital influence, direction or guidance, superiority, power, au∣thority, or government, which may be in many things. No Mini∣ster I think gives such a Headship to any of the sons of men, as to Christ over his whole Body, either so as to derive their being members, having their faith, or eternal life, or dominion over their Consciences, or Sovereign power, authority to rule or dispose

of soul or body, as Christ hath: And that which the Bishop of Rome claims over the Universal Church, is utterly disclaimed by the present Ministers. The Headship which is made a denial of Christs Headship, ascribed by the present Ministers to some person on Earth, is expressed in various phrases; A Headship in, and over his Church, to act in the Holy things of God, a Dominion and Sove∣raignty 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 con∣formity 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 Wor∣ship, 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 Convo∣cation, 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 a∣mounts 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 ma∣jor, That those who acknowledge another Head over the Church be∣side Christ, by acknowledging the King as Supream Governour in Cau∣ses 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 Ca∣nons about the Worship of God with the Counsel of a Synod, or

Convocation, or Parliament, is making another King besides Christ over his Church. For there is no such thing acknowledged there∣by, which is proper to Christ; to wit, to be the universal Mo∣narch 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 ac∣knowledged 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 Pa∣stors; of deciding Causes brought him by Appeals from all the coasts of the Earth; of reconciling any that are excommunicate; of excommu∣nicating, 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, relea∣sing of lawful Oaths, granting Indulgences, releasing out of Pur∣gatory, Canonizing of Saints, Consecrating of things for the ex∣pulsion of Devils, with many more; and i•• it be true which is re∣lated 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 blasphe∣mous; 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 Spiri∣tual or Ecclesiastical things or Causes as temporal, is thus explained: Artic. 37. We give not to our Princes the Ministring either of Gods Word, or of the Sacraments; the which thing the Injunctions also

lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen do most plainly testifie: but that only Prerogative, which we see to have been given alwayes to all godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himself, that is that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and restrain with the ci∣vil 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 Authori∣ty 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 Hie∣rarchy 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 In∣fluence, 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 Eccle∣siastical 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

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 Ma∣jesties government, as to the sacred Ordinance of God, the Supreme Power he hath set over all causes and persons, whether Ecclesi∣astical 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 Supre∣macy, those that dissent about Ceremonies and Church Govern∣ment 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 considera∣tion 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 condi∣tions 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 ca∣lumny of making thereby another head besides Christ equi∣valent 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 domini∣on 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

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 unde∣termined by God, and according to such Rules, as the Scri∣pture 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.

That (saith he) the present Ministers of England do own and sub∣mit 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 ad∣mit 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 crimi∣nous, 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 char∣geth them with, as denying Christs Kingly Office, and setting up another King besides Christ, as his Peer; sith it is clear, that such Conformity and Subscription may be out of weakness or errour, not out of Faction or Rebellion; nor doth he who conforms or subscribes to the Laws or Edicts of an Usurper own his power, when he yields subjection to his commands. Those who obeyed the Laws of Richard the 3. of England, did not thereby acknowledge him to be the King of right: nor do all that submit to the decrees of the Trent Council, or the Popes Edicts, either own the one or the other as being just, or the power as rightly claimed: but for peace sake submit to what they cannot remedy.

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

It is added: This is that some say, Obj. 1. That they acknow∣ledge 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 sub∣ordination 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 Bo∣dy 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 agree∣able 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 ac∣knowledged 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 ex∣ercise 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•• usur∣ped 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,

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 con∣founding 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 Marria∣ges, none of which is claimed by those whom the Ministers ac∣knowledge 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 on∣ly 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and when they would needs chuse a King, God said, they rejected him to whom even as to their po∣litical 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 rela∣ting to Worship, will never be proved.

Answ. 1. That there is any such disproportion between the Oe∣conomy of the Law and Gospel, as makes the same power, which the Kings of Israel exercised lawfully, to be now unlawful to the

Kings of England, is falsely and vainly asserted; sith there is no∣thing 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 sum∣marum potestatum circa sacra, and others. 2. It is true, that Da∣vid 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 Pow∣ers, and our Lord Christ himself, and his Apostles yielded subjecti∣on to them. 3. That the Church of Israel was different from the Kingdom or people of Israel, is one of the Placita or proper o∣pinions of those who would establish from that example an Eccle∣siastical 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 per∣sons, 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 Sto∣ry 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 Le∣vi, 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 Le∣gislative to assign what Faith, Worship, Judicatories, and what other things were necessary for that Congregation, originally and

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, be∣cause of his sons iniquity, and out of fear of Nahash King of the Ammonites, desired a King as other Nations) because Moses, Jo∣shuah, 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 extraor∣dinary immediate motions and revelations from God; in which re∣spects the Government of the Israelites before Sauls reign, was not unfitly termed by Josephus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 poli∣tical 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 peo∣ple; 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 Prin∣ces decree justice, &c. and they are his Deputies and Lieutenants, by whom he ruleth. In which regard the people might have lawfully de∣sired 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 bles∣sing saith, That the Scepter should not depart from Judah, nor a Law∣giver

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 there∣fore 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 plea∣sed 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 impertinen∣cy of the allegation of this Text either against Kingly Govern∣ment, 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 Do∣ctors say, and a perpetual Ordinance according to what Mr. Ains∣worth 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 men∣tioned 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 prae∣lections on that Text, with whom Diodate, Hugo Grotius, Dr. Ham∣mond concurr; and before them Hilarius cited by Maldonat, who thinks it was paid to the Romans, and cites Hierome, Bede, and of

this mind are many others, as Beza, Piscator, Pareus. But if Came∣rons 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 Poli∣tical 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, intro∣duce 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 exa∣mine that which follows.