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. 2. ARG. 2. (Book 2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. To forbid a man to hear him that preacheth, or declares the Truth of God, because he knows him not to be, or conceives him not to be a Minister in Office, Power, or a Gifted Brother, perhaps out of partial prejudice against him, or upon false reports and surmises, or because he is not of his Party, may be a means to hin∣der a mans edification, and salvation, and to harden him to his perdition. Which is not unusual, but too too often; many de∣clining to hear them that preach sound Doctrine, because they say they rail, when they reprove their errours, or vices; and choosing to hear those that are of their way, and preach according to that which they like, or else turn Seekers, denying any to be Ministers, but such as speak by immediate and unerring motion of the Spirit; or hearing none at all, because of dissenting judgment from them∣selves. Wherefore, though I grant that Christ hath appointed Ministers, as is said, and that it is wisdom to choose and hearken to such, and most of all to the best, and the most able: and though the reading of Mr. Matthew Pool's Quo Warranto? might deterr many, who take upon them to preach constantly and publickly in solemn Assemblies, as Gifted Brethren, from their practice which they use. Nor do I deny there may be liberty, yea, and

duty occasionally, especially when there is want of Ministers in Office to preach; yet I deny, that a lawfulness to hear them as Mi∣nisters, or as Gifted Brethren, doth necessarily thence arise. For suppose a Minister, or Gifted Brother, should be Heretical, yet he is not to be heard, but shunned, Tit. 3.10. Here by the way I take notice, that if it be lawful to others, then Ministers to preach as their liberty permitted to them. Some practice that is a part of Instituted Worship, is warranted in Scripture, as the persons liberty by permission without command; and therefore hearing of the pre∣sent Ministers may be lawful and warranted in Scripture as mens liberty by permission without command, which was my answer to this Authors first Argument against hearing them, and is now con∣firmed by his Concession concerning the preaching of Gifted-Brethren.

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

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

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

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

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

3. In all Governments and Societies, the peaceable Possessour is presumed to have right till the contrary be evinced, otherwise

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

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

That they are not Ministers of the Gospel (but Thieves and Robbers) is manifest: such as come not in by the Door, which is Christ, Joh. 10.9. (viz. by vertue of any Authority derived to them from him) are not Ministers of the Gospel, but Thieves and Robbers, Joh. 10.1. (from whom 'tis the property of the Sheep to flee, ver. 4) But the present Ministers of England come not in by the Door: There∣fore. That they come not in by the Door, (viz. by vertue of any au∣thority derived to them from Christ) is evident: If they have re∣ceived any such authority or Commission from him, they have received it, either mediately, or immediately: the latter will not be asserted, nor without the working of miracles, should it so be, would it to the Worlds end be made good: 'Tis the former must be fixed upon, viz. That they have received their Authority or Commission mediately from Christ, but to as little purpose; for those that receive authority to preach the Gospel mediately from Christ, have it from some parti∣cular Instituted Church of Christ, to whom power is solely delegated

for the Electing of their own Officers, according to the tenor of the ensuing Scriptures, Acts 6.5. & 14.23.

Answ. If this could be proved, there need no more to prove, That the present Ministers of England, are not to be heard, for if they be Thieves and Robbers, the sheep will flee from them, and ought to do so, Joh. 10.5. But it is an ill sign of an inconside∣rate and audacious spirit, for so high a charge (which he that fears God, I think, should tremble to bring against so many Preachers of a Reformed Church) to bring so low a proof; which, if it be well considered, may be not only urged against Presbyte∣rian Preachers, if he mean by particular instituted Church (as his meaning appears to be by his Preface) a Church gathered in the Congregational way by Church Covenant, as they speak, but also against his gifted Brethren, who have not authority to Preach mediately by election of a particular Church, but onely from their gifts. And if it be said, They are chosen by the Church; yet this will not authorize them, unless the Church have power to choose any besides their own Officers, which this Author doth not pre∣tend. Now let it be considered, what a heavy burden is put on the consciences of hearers. They must hear no Thieves and Robbers, no nor any Stangers: if this Author argue rightly from this Text, and all are Thieves, and Robbers, and Strangers, who are not chosen by a particular instituted Church, who have power onely to choose their own Officers, therefore they must hear no meer gifted Brethren, no Itenerant Preachers, though approved by Tryers, none but their own Officers, and those right∣ly chosen; and consequently they must, before they hear them, know their Election to be right, and the particular Church ele∣cting them to be rightly instituted, which tends to such dictra∣ction of peoples minds, and alienation of them from hearing, as can end in nothing but meer Irreligion, and make men Seekers or Quakers, the mischiefs of which are too too conspicuous. But I shall more directly answer this Argument, and that so much the rather, because the Text John 10. is abused by Papists, to prove, that they are not right Shepherds, who have not authority from the Pope, whom they make the One Shepherd, v. 16. (as Hart in his Conference with Dr. Rainold, Chap. 6) from whom all Bishop•• derive their power, and all the Sheep are to hear; and by Quakers and others to prove, that they are not true Shepherds, nor to be heard, who receive any maintenance by Tithes or other stipend; because they that do so, are by them judged Hirelings, and not Shepherds, v. 12. It is granted, that Christ is the door,

Joh. 10.9. but it may be doubted, whether Christ be meant by the door, Joh. 10.1. the reason of which is, because then Christ should be said to enter by himself, and the door to enter by the door. To avoid which, Maldonate in his Commentary, conceives the door, v. 1. not to be the same with the door, v▪ 9. but the door, v. 1. to be the Scriptures of the Prophets, wh•••• foretold of the good Shepherd, Ezek. 37.24▪ & 34.23. Jerem. 23.5. & 30.9. Isa. 40.11. by vertue of which Prediction he entred. And indeed the whole purport of the Parable doth tend to this, that he onely was the good Shepherd; that is, the Messiah fore∣told by the Prophets; and that all other that pretended to be the Messiah, or good Shepherd, such as Theudas, and Judas of Galilee, mentioned Act. 5.36, 37. and if there were any other like them, were but Thieves, and Robbers, Strangers, Hirelings, though they took on them to be Shepherds; they were but false Christs, such as Christ foretels should arise, Mat. 24.24. But let it be granted, that the door is the same Joh. 10.1. and 9. the entering in, v. 9. cannot be meant of entring into the Ministery lawful election of a particular Instituted Church. For then it would follow, that every one that enters into the Ministry by by election of a particular Instituted Church shall be saved, and go in and out and finde pasture, which is manifestly false. There∣fore entring, is meant of every True believer, and is by faith in Christ, who is the right door, by whom, that is, by his Doctrin, men come to be his Sheep, and he is their Shepherd. But be it, that the entring be into the Ministery, and that entring be by vertue of Authority derived to them from him, how is it proved they are not authorized by Christ immediately who work not Miracles? Have not many, especially in cases of necessity, been Ministers of Christ by immediate inward call, who have not wrought Miracles? It were hard to conclude of Petrus Waldo, and many other Reformers, that had no power of working Mi∣racles, that they were not Ministers of Christ (that I say no∣thing of gifted Brethren) that they were Thieves and Robbers, because they had no immediate calling by a particular Instituted Church. Sure this would be to offend against the generation of Gods children, who in the darkest times of Papal Tyranny, took upon them to Preach the Gospel, without a praevious election of a particular Instituted Church. But how doth he prove, that those that receive authority to Preach the Gospel mediately from Christ, have it from some particular Instituted Church of Christ? He alledgeth no other but this, that to a particular instituted

Church of Christ, power is solely delegated for the electing of their own Officers. But what then? may not, for all this, power be given to some others to choose, send and ordain Preachers for the unconverted, who yet may be Ministers of the Gospel, and may be heard as such? Yea, may not some others ordain Elders for particul•••• Instituted Churches? Sure when St. Paul left Titus in Crete, that he might set in order things that were wanting, and ordain Elders in every City, as he had appointed him, Tit. 1.5. gi∣ving him direction whom to ordain, he left it to him to choose Preachers for Instituted Churches, who were to be heard, and this by power delegated by Christ to him, and therefore power is not solely delegated to a particular Instituted Church of Christ, for the electing of their own Officers, but that they may be chosen and ordained by some other for them, by vertue of an authority deri∣ved t•• them from Christ. But how proves he the power for electing their own Officers delegated solely to a particular Instituted Church of Christ? He saith, it is according to the tenour of the ensuing Scri∣ptures, whereof one is Acts 6.5. and that relates onely one act, of choosing the seven Deacons by the whole multitude of the Dis∣ciples at Hierusalem, who cannot be well counted such a particular Instituted Church, as made up one Congregation to meet every Lords day for all Ordinances: they were too numerous to be such, nor were they organized under fixed Officers with such constitu∣tion, as is now made necessary to a particular Instituted Church: Nor did they choose the Deacons upon any conceived power de∣legated from Christ, by vertue of any rule established by Christ or his Apostles, which should be perpetual in all ages to all Churches; but upon advice of the Apostles for their more liber∣ty to attend on other work of more importance, and their own liking: nor, if it were to be a perpetual rule for all Churches in all ages, can it be any rule for choosing other Officers besides Deacons, there being a peculiar reason, why they should choose Deacons, whose honesty, prudence, and mercifulness was to be discerned, and not other Officers, whose sufficiency to Teach, and Orthodoxie were to be considered; of which the whole multitude of Disciples then, and the major part of a particular Instituted Church are rarely now competent Judges. The other text Act 14.23. hath no colour to prove such a delegated power, but from one word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which our Translation renders [when they had ordained.] Beza, after others, [Per suffragia creâssent, Had created by suffrages;] and because the word arose from a custom among the Greeks of choosing their Officers by Suffrages or Votes, signified

by the stretching out of the hand, conceives, that Paul and Bar∣nabas, did not create the Elders in the Churches, without the Churches election, signified by stretching out of their hands, to shew their consent to the elected; and thence is inferred, that so it should be now. But this is but one example, (though it is not to be denied, that in after ages, which were times of Persecution, the El∣ders were chosen by the Church) and therefore seems not sufficient to inferr a necessary perpetual rule of such election; especially o∣ther passages shewing the Constituting or Ordaining of Elders without mentioning of any such election, as Tit. 1.5. 1 Tim. 5.22. And though the original and use of the word, were from the custom mentioned, and did in popular Elections signifie Election by suffrages; yet, as in other words, so in this, use hath enlarged its sense, & apples it to other creating, than by such suffrage, as is ma∣nifest by the use of it, even in the same book, Acts· 10.41. where the Apostle are term∣ed Witnesses,* 1.1 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, chosen before of God; who did not choose by suffrages of others; and by Dr. Hammond, in his Annot. on Act. 14.23. is shewed to be used in like manner in Philo Judaeus, and other Authors, besides Christians; as the same with Electing, Ordaining, or Constituting without Suffra∣ges of others, and must be so understood in this very place; be∣cause none are said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to stretch out their hand, but Paul and Barnabas; and it is said, they did 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which cannot be well translated any other than Ordaining by lay∣ing on their hands on the Elders; not by bare stretching out, or lifting up their hands, as was wont to be in Suffrages; and it is said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to or for them, manifestly distin∣guishing the Disciples from the Electors, or Ordainers, by stretch∣ing out or laying on of hands. So that this place doth not prove Power solely delegated to a particular Church instituted for the electing of their own Officers; and therefore if all were true, which is added by this Author, [These men (as its known) have no such authority, pretend not to it, have it in derision, come barely with a presentation from a Patron, and Ordination, Institution, and Induction from a Lord-Bishop (things forraign to the Scripture) and impose themselves upon the people whether they will or no.] Yet they may be Ministers of the Gospel, and heard as such, notwith∣standing this Argument. Yet I add, that it will be hard for this Author to prove, that the Parish Churches in England, are not particular Instituted Churches of Christ; or, that the Ministers

are imposed on the People whether they will or no: the contrary is true of many places, especially in London, concerning the Incumbents and Lecturers: Nor is the Ordination of a Lord-Bishop such a forraign thing to the Scripture, as this Author would insinuate, the Bishop not Ordaining without other Elders joyning with him, and giving him no other authority, than to Preach the word of God, and to Minister the holy Sacraments in the Congrega∣tion, where he shall be lawfully appointed thereunto. To shut up the Answer to this Argument: As the Text Joh. 10.16. is abu∣sed by Hart, to prove the Bishop of Rome to be the Supreme Pastor of the Church of Christ, as Dr. Rainold sheweth in his Conference, Ch. 6 divis. 1. it being meant only of the Lord Christ: and the Quakers abuse Joh. 10.12. to cry down Preachers as Hirelings, because they receive Wages, though it be according to Christs own determination, Luke 10.7. the Lords Ordinance, I Cor. 9.14. St. Pauls practice sometime, 2 Cor. 11.8. and his Precept, Gal. 6.6. and his Approbation, 1 Tim. 5.17, 18. The word [Hireling] Joh. 10.12. being not used as making it a sin for a Minister to receive hire; but to distinguish Christ from other Shepherds, who was not as Hirelings, whose Sheep are not their own, but was a singular Pastor, owner of the Sheep of whom he was Pastor: and those abuse Joh. 10.5. who urge it against the hearing of any Preachers, but those of their own Church or way, calling them Strangers; whereas the strangers there, are such as were Usurpers of Christs Office, and were enemies to the Sheep, not feeding them, but perverting them: So this Author abuse•••• John 10.1, 9. by saying, the present Ministers of England, are Thieves and Robbers, because they come not into their Ministry by the door; that is, by any authority to them from Christ; that is, not by election of a particular Instituted Church; when this is but from an expression in a parable, in which is not the scope or Doctrin in∣tended by it, and therefore not argumentative; and neither is it certain, that the door, v. 1. is the same with the door, v. 9. nor if it were, is the door that whereby there is entrance into the Mi∣nistery, but the Church, nor the entrance by right election of others, but by the persons true faith, nor is the not entring in by the door, brought as the reason or form denominating them Thieves and Robbers, but only as some description of them from a con∣comitant, nor are any meant there to be Thieves and Robbers, who do direct to Christ, or receive him, for defect of regular calling, but such only as obtruded themselves as the Messiah on the people, with intent to make a prey of them.

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

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

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

2. Brethren, being Canonical Drunkards, Swearers, Game∣sters &c.

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

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

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

Answ. By [Saints] I doubt not he means such as are members of a particular Instituted Church Congregational, distinct from Parish Churches, either under Episcopal or Presbyterial Govern∣ment. For such only are accounted Saints by him, as give up themselves each to other, according to the Will of God, and Primitive example: and by [Gospel Communion] no doubt he means hearing of them preach, praying with them, receiving the Sacraments from them, or breaking Bread in the Lords Supper with them, or submitting to them, or joyning in Ecclesiastical Discipline with them; which is in effect to make an utter separation from them, as no members of a Christian Church. Now this assertion shews not a dram of Christian Love, but very much antipathy in him, who denies not p. 93. but that there are some amongst the present

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

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

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

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

1. They are all members of the same Church.

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

Answ. Gospel Communion is either private or publick: There is private Gospel Communion in private reproof, and I think (as bad as the worst of the present Ministers of England be) they are to be accounted by real (though perhaps they be not by Pharisaically minded reputed) Saints as Brethren in respect of Go∣spel Communion. Even towards them is to be that exhortation, Gal. 6.1. Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thy self, lest thou also be tempted, which sure humble Saints do. There is private Gospel Communion in opening their minds one to another, as it is said, Mal. 3.16. Then they that feared the Lord, spake often one to another: and this St. James requires, James 5.16. Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another that ye may be healed. Now concerning this, it follows not, if we ac∣knowledge

the best of the present Ministers of England as Bre∣thren, in respect of Gospel Communion, we must also acknow∣ledge the worst of them. Publick Gospel Communion may be in hearing them, praying with him, praising God, receiving the Lords Supper, exercising with them, or submitting to them in re∣spect of Church Discipline. In some of these at least, I know no sufficient reason, why the Saints may not account the worst of the present Ministers of England as Brethren, in respect of Gospel Communion. Judas might be heard as an Apostle, and if he were a Communicant at the Lords Supper (as Mr. Seldens dis∣course in his first Book Chap. 9. de Syned. Ebraeorum, seems to me to evince) there is warrant to receive the Lords Supper with the worst of them. We find that those that made acclamation to Christ when he rode into Jerusalem, were a mixt multitude of Disciples, Children, and such as came to the Feast; though it is likely they were not Disciples, viz. those Greeks that desired to see Jesus, as may be gathered by comparing Mat. 21.9, 15. Luke 19.37. Joh. 1.12, 20, 21. Yet our Lord Christ himself justi∣fied their joyning together in their praying and praising God, Mat. 21.16. Luke 19.39, 40. Sure it can be no sin in any person to joyn in the true worship and service of God with any, if he have no command to withdraw himself from that service be∣cause of their presence, nor power to exclude them, and yet is bound to the duties then performed. Believers might prophesie and hear it, though Unbelievers came in, 1 Cor. 14.24, 25. Chri∣stians are commanded to separate, and not touch the unclean thing, 2 Cor. 6.17. But those they are to separate from, are no other than Unbelievers, and the unclean thing is the Idol, v. 15, 16. not the true service of God, because of the presence of some scan∣dalous Brother. The people of God are to come out of Babylon, Rev. 18 4. but that is no other than Rome, and that because of its Ido∣latry, v. 2, 3. Rev. 17.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 18. We are not to keep company with a man called a Brother, if he be a Fornicator, or Covetous, or an Ido∣later, or a Railer, or a Drunkard, or an Extortioner, with such an one, no not to eat, 1 Cor. 5.11. But this prohibited keeping Compa∣ny, and eating can be meant of no other than arbitrary, unne∣cessary society in civil things, and eating common Bread, be∣cause v. 10. that keeping Company which is forbidden to such Brethren, is allowed in v. 9, 10. to the Fornicators of this world; which cannot be Gospel Communion, keeping company in eating the Lords Supper, but civil eating. The Doctrine of defiling our selves by the presence of wick••d men at the Lords Supper,

hath begotten so much superstition in the minds of many well-affe∣cted people, that they can scarce ever break Bread with comfort, no not in the best Instituted Churches; there being seldom such an unspotted Congregation but that some or other is known, or reported, or suspected to be guilty of some sin, or errour, which is made sufficient to exclude themselves from the Communion; so that as they use to speak, they are not free to break Bread, and that before the fault be examined, or the person judged upon trial to be guilty and impenitent; which makes those very Churches, which by themselves are counted purest and best Disciplined, to be full of Brawls, and rash censures and separations, and without any regular Discipline of any long continuance. These things being considered, I answer, that I know no evil in it, to account the worst of the Ministers of England Brethren, in respect of Go∣spel Communion, (if not under regular censure) in Hearing, Prayer, Praising of God, eating the Lords Supper, nor evil to ac∣count them members of the same Church, and of one Brother∣hood, according to the Rime, which should not be derided by any holy, sober Christians, being only the Lords Prayer in Metre. It follows.

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

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

Answ. The Bishops are acknowledged by the present Ministers of the Church of England, as their Reverend Fathers, in respect of their Ordination, but as Brethren only in respect of Gospel Communion. Nor do I think the Bishops affect the title of Re∣verend Fathers, as if they were superiours over the Ministers or People, in respect of the common Faith, had dominion over their Faith, or were Lords over Gods heritage, or would be called Ma∣sters or Fathers in that sense, in which our Lord Christ appropri∣ates these Titles to himself and his Father, Mat. 23.8, 9, 10. in which sense I acknowledge any tender enlightned soul should ab∣hor to give it to them. I conceive they are far from usurping that Title, as the Bishop of Rome doth, who now hath ingrossed the Title of Pope, that is Father heretofore given to other Ministers, even to Deacons; and doth claim the Prerogative to be the Oecu∣menical Bishop, and Universal Monarch, as Christs Vicar over the

whole Church; as having power to make Laws binding the Con∣science out of the Case of Scandal and Contempt, to determine infallibly in point of Faith; with much more, wherein he sitteth in the Temple of God, showing himself that he is God, 2 Thess. 2.4. But I conceive the Title of Reverend Fathers is given to them, and taken by them in no such sense; but that they account not only the Ministers, but also the meanest Christian, their Brethren in Christ. Yet may they be called Reverend Fathers, not only in regard of their Age, and their success in begetting others through the Gospel in Christ Jesus, as the Apostle of himself, 1 Cor. 4.15. in which respect there have been, and I presume some of them are rightly termed Fathers in Christ; but also in respect of their Of∣fice and Dignity, according to that of the Apostle, 1 Tim. 5.1. Re∣buke not an Elder, but intreat him as a Father. In which respects usual Titles may be given, even to the unworthy, as St. Paul did, Acts 22.1. and 26.25. and such compellations and salutations have been used by holy persons, Gen. 42.10. Dan. 6.21. as warrantable; which Quakers, and tender Consciences not enlightned, but dark∣ned by prejudice and undue suggestions abhor, as giving flattering Titles to men, disclaimed by Elihu, Job 32.22. whose example and opinions are not imitable: nor doth this Author any good Office to any in such affrightments, whereby our Breach is widened, and our Wound uncurable.

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

This Author goes on thus: But to hear this Plea speak its ut∣termost, let it be granted they are Brethren, and may be so esteemed: They are Brethren that walk disorderly, or they do not: That they walk disorderly cannot be denied by such as pretend to Reformation, if submi••ting to Ordination, or Reordination by a Lord Bishop, cove∣nanting and protesting with detestation against a Reformation accord∣ing to the Scripture, and the best Reformed Churches, to own (as con∣sonant to Scripture) a Lyturgie or stinted Forms of Prayer in the Church, and read them, to wear the Surplice, &c. be disorderly walking; they are (the very best of them) beyond contradiction, to be reputed in the number of disorderly Walkers. And so after due admonition (according to the Scripture) and a perseverance in their sin, to be separated from, by vertue of positive and express precepts of Christ, Mat. 18. 2 Thess. 3.6. Now we command you, Brethren, in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw your selves

from every Brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradi∣tion he received of us: with what vehemency, authority, and holy earnestness doth the Apostle press separation from Brethren that walk disorderly? We command you, and we command you in the Name of the Lord Jesus; and we command you Brethren, by vertue of our relation to each other, and that love and endearment that is betwixt us as Brethren, that you withdraw your selves, &c. I scarce know any one thing pressed by the Apostle with greater vehemency, than what is here instanced in: wherein we have also an undeniable con∣vincing Argument, that the persons of whom we are treating, walk disorderly: Those that walk not after the tradition received from the Apostles, (we may add, and from the Primitive Church for above three hundred years after Christ, but according to the traditions of the old Bawd and Strumpet of Rome) are such as walk disorderly: But the present Ministers of England walk not after the tradition received from the Apostles, but after the traditions of the Whorish Church of Rome: therefore they are such as walk disorderly. What Apostolical tradition have we for stinted Forms of Prayer, or Litur∣gies in the Church? did they frame any? (those that are ascribed to some of them, are all spurious, as hath been over and over proved.) For Surplice, Crossing in Baptism, and many other Gewgaws used by them? If they have any Apostolical written Tradition for these things, let them produce it, and we shall lay our mouths in the dust, and for ever be silent, as to a charge of this nature. If they have not (as there, is nothing more certain) they are disorderly walkers, if the Apostles Argument be valid, We command you to withdraw from such as walk disorderly. But who, I pray, are these disorderly walkers? how shall we know them? they are (sayes the Apostle) such as walk not after the tradition received from us.

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

I conceive they will deny, that they covenant and protest with detestation against a Reformation according to the Scripture, and the best reformed Churches, and would challenge this Author to prove it, that he may not be found a Calumniator; that they would take on them the justifying of their submitting to Ordination, or Re-ordi∣nation by a Lord Bishop, their owning (as consonant to Scripture) a Liturgie or stinted Forms of Prayer in the Church, their reading

them, their wearing the Surplice, the Crossing in Baptism (they would say, after Baptism) and deny these things to be disorderly walking, according to the traditions of the old Bawd and Strumpe•• of Rome; and I doubt not but that they would maintain it, that beyond con∣tradiction they are not to be reputed in the number of disorderly walkers, but that this Author is an egregious false accuser. How∣ever, whether they be faulty or not, this I think I may safely a∣vouch, that these practices (except the first, which I assure my self they will deny) whether justifiable, or sinful, are not of so great a degree of pravity, as that barely for them they should be reputed in the number of disorderly walkers, and so after due admo∣nition (according to the Scripture) and a perseverance in their pra∣ctice, to be separated from, by vertue of positive and express pre∣cepts of Christ, Mat. 18. 2 Thess 3.6. either by a separation of Saints from them in Gospel Communion, or private familiar so∣ciety. For the former precept Mat. 18.15, 16, 17. is only concern∣ing such a sin, whereby a person sins against his Brother; that is, doth him some personal injury. Which appears both by the con∣stant use of the phrase of sinning against another, in the New and Old Testament, as Acts 25.8. 1 Cor. 8.12. Gen. 20.9. and 42.22. and 43.9. and 44. 1 Sam. 2.25. and 19.4, 5. and 24.11. and particularly in the same Chapter, v. 21. Luke 17.3, 4. which were occasioned from Christs words, Mat. 18.15. where Christ commandeth Peter, and the rest of his Disciples, to forgive their brother that sinneth against them seven times a day, yea, se∣venty times seven times. Which can be understood of no other sins than personal injuries; for these alone they were to forgive, as trespasses against them, as the Parable, Mat. 18. shews v. 32.35. Mat. 6.12, 14, 15. of which sort those practices imputed to the best of the present Ministers are not. Yet, if they were, the separation is not to be made without an admonition, and gradual process, which I think this Author hath not used towards them, as I con∣ceive his own words evince a little before: we cannot (as things stand) perform the duties of Brethren to them according to Mat. 18. If the sins were such as Christ means, Mat. 18.15. and their pro∣ceeding according to the direction there; yet the separation, whe∣ther enjoyned, or permitted rather, is no other than such as was by the Jews from Heathens and Publicans, which was not from Communion in Holy things; for the Publicans were allowed to go to the Temple to pray, even with the Pharisees, Luke 18.10, 11. though they would not receive them, and eat with them, Luke 15.2. Acts 11.3. Which shews, that the being to him that is injured as a

Heathen and Publican, Mat. 18.17. is no other than separation from eating and familiar reception; not from Gospel Commu∣nion, as this Author would have it; and therefore the Text Mat. 18.15, 16, 17. is impertinently alledged to prove his separation from the present Ministers of England in respect of Gospel Com∣munion.

Nor is 2 Thess. 3.6. alledged more to the purpose. For 1. the disorderly walking there must be understood of sins of greater pra∣vity than the rest, besides the first (which they will deny) char∣ged on them (if they be proved sins) as the vehemency, authority, and holy earnestness the Apostle doth press his command with, doth evince. For this vehemency is not an undeniable convincing argument, that the persons, of whom this Author is treating, walk disorderly, as he fansies; but that they, that walk so disorderly, as the Apostle here means, are so corrupt, and their walking so evil, that their converse with them in a familiar society, as with others, would not be for their safety, or credit, or the repute of Christianity. Which will the more appear by the instance that is given, v. 11. where he saith, For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busie-bodies: which shews, that the walking disorderly, is not being in some disorder about Church Government, and outward Rites, proper to Ministers (which are the instances of disorderly walk∣ing here brought by this Author) but gross sins of any Brother (not a Minister) who was bound to work, or else was not to eat, v. 10. which Ministers were not bound to do, as v. 9. 1 Thess. 2.6. 1 Tim 5.17, 18. 1 Cor. 9.6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14. shews; nor were they for this not working so as not to earn their own Bread, to be noted or signified, and declined, that they might be ashamed, as is required, v. 12.14. Gross sins then common to every Brother, such as those 1 Cor. 5.11. 2 Cor. 12.20, 21. not those practices charged on the pre∣sent Ministers here by this Author, are meant by disorderly walk∣ing, 2 Thess. 3.6. which is also confirmed by 1 Thess. 5.14. where after the Apostle had beseeched them, v. 12, 13. to know them which laboured among them, and were over them in the Lord, and admonish∣ed them, and to esteem them very highly for their works sake, (which shews he expected not of them other works for the earning of their Bread, than their labour in the Word and Doctrine) he adds, now we exhort you, Brethren, warn them that are unruly; the same word which is, 2 Thess. 3 6. translated disorderly, whom he distin∣guisheth from th•• feeble minded, and weak; and therefore is meant of Brethren, who sinned openly and wilfully; and not of

Ministers, who do yield to that which is controverted even by lear∣ned and godly men, whether it be evil at all; and if it be evil, its not of such a kind as the Apostle any where censures, so as he doth this disorderly walking; and its most likely is practised out of ignorance, errour, fear, or other motive, which may befall an ho∣ly, and upright man. Nor is there any force in this Authors rea∣soning, that the practice of the Ministers must be disorderly walk∣ing, unless they can shew an Apostolical written Tradition for those things they practise.

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

2. If the Tradition be further extended to those mentioned 2 Thess. 2.15. It will not be necessary that they may be acquitted from disorderly walking, that they produce for themselves an Apostolical written Tradition for a Liturgie, Surplice, or Crossing, they think it concerns him that accuseth them as walking disor∣derly in doing them, that he produce an Apostolical Tradition against the use of them. For being (as they conceive) in them∣selves things indifferent, they think it enough that there is no Apo∣stolical precept forbidding them, and then they have this Aposto∣lical Tradition for them, Rom. 4.15. where no Law is, there is no Transgression. If it be replied in things that pertain to Gods Worship, there must be an express Institution, or else the practice of it is walking disorderly; besides what is said before in answer to the first Chapter, Sect. 3. it may be retorted, where is your Apo∣stolical written Tradition by Institution for your Church Covenant, Infant Baptism, Election of Ministers by most voices, excommu∣nication of members in a Congregational Church by the major part, with many more? To use your own words, if you have not (as there is nothing more certain) you are disorderly Walkers, and to be separated from as well as the present Ministers, if the Apostles argu∣ment be valid, We command you to withdraw from such as walk disord••rly. But who, I pray, are these disorderly Walkers? how shall

we know them? they are (sayes the Apostle) such as walk not after the tradition received from us. Eadem in te cudatur saba. As much may be said of the Separatists, if by Apostolical Tradition be meant an Institution for every thing used in Worship and Church Go∣vernment.

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

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

To conclude this matter, Were it granted that the present Mi∣nisters of England were disorderly walkers, and that they were to be withdrawn from, yet this doth not prove that they might not be heard as gifted Brethren, or that the best of them cannot by Saints be accounted as Brethren in respect of Gospel Communion: Partly, be∣cause the withdrawing themselves from every Brother that walks disorderly, cannot be meant of exclusion of himself from hearing, praying, or receiving the Lords Supper, if such a one be present; unless it be determined, that every one must not only examine him∣self before he comes to the Lords Supper, which the Apostle requires 1 Cor. 11.28. but also every Brother, even his Minister with whom he is to joyn in Gospel Communion; yea, and hath power to excommunicate his Brother, or liberty, notwithstanding the Institution of Christ, to exclude himself, which sure is no Aposto∣lical Tradition, but a far more disorderly walking, than most of those things, the practice whereof is made by this Author the Mi∣nisters disorderly walking. Besides the injunction to every Chri∣stian to withdraw himself, not to keep Company, 2 Thess. 3.6, 14. be∣ing

expressions which note not acts imposed by Church Gover∣nours, but such as they ought of their own accord to practice, are to be understood of such familiar, private, arbitrary Communion in entertainments, and other societies, as they are at liberty to do or not to do, or might do, were it not for this consideration, not such Communion, as if they omit, they omit the Worship of God, which he hath appointed, and so break his Commandment. Part∣ly also, because if the withdrawing were upon publick censure of the Community, yet it must not be (according to their own rule) without a gradual proceeding of endeavouring conviction, and precedent admonition, which being not done to the present Mini∣sters of England, to separate from them, even the best in hearing, and other Gospel Communion is irregular, and unjustifiable. I go on to examine what follows.

Notes

• * 1.1

  See Selden de Syned▪ Ebre. l. 1. c. 14.