Animadversion to Cliftons Advertisement, Part 3 · Point 4
The 4. point of difference: in the Letter.
4. WE had learned that none may execute a ministery but such as are rightly caled by the Church wherof they stand Ministers,Cōfes. art. 21. unto such offices and in such manner as God hath prescribed in his word. But now these wil execute a ministerie, which have not rightly been caled by the Church wherof they stand ministers, according to their own account and doctrine: which hold (as before) that a people without officers have no warrant from God, to make or depose Ministers.
With this they joyn, out of the printed copy.
3. The 29. article (of our Confession, as also our Apologie pag. 51.52.) professeth that the hierarchie of Archbishops, Lord bishops, Preists &c. are a strange and Antichristian Ministerie and officers, not instituted in Christs Testament, nor placed in or over his church. These have placed over them, one that was made Preist by a Lord bishops ordination, so as because of it, they did not ordeyn or impose hands on him, when at the same time they ordeyned and imposed hands on others, whom togither with him they set over the Church.
5. The 32. article (wherto our Apologie agreeth pag. 52.53.54.) testifieth that al such as have received any of those false offices (of Lord bishops Preists &c.) are to give over and leave them: and so hath it been practised here before by al such Preists as came to our faith and Church. Now one is Minister over thē, ordeyned Preist by the Prelates, as is before sayd.
The Confirmation of these points in our Apologie (besides the scriptures quoted in our Confession,) is of the one by 8. of the other by 12. reasons deduced from many scriptures.
Hereunto they make these answers. First, that this point is of like nature with the 2. & 3. here before, where therfore see the answers. And there also let the reader see our replies. But they would blind their reader with shew of answer, where none is. For the first point was of every Churches power to cast out obstinate synners: the secōd of their power to elect and ordeyn officers. Now what are these to justify any unlawful ministerie, eyther set up by a people without the power of Christ, or received by the tradition of Antichrist? It had been their part, seing they deny their former grounds, to have shewed us some better by the scripture: which how they have doon eyther there or here, let their writings being viewed manifest.
Secondly, they say if wee would here imply a particular matter concerning one of their Ministers, about imposition of hands, that is a point also left to further consideration, &c. I answer, no, we mean others of them that were Ministers before, and such as have had (some of them,) imposition of hands twise: and this they could not but see plainly to be our intent in that 4. article: though they wink and wil not see it, and are mute, and will not defend it, but wind away to other things not there intended. Let them therfore in their next, bring a playn defence of their Ministerie, which by their new doctrine is overthrowen: and use no more such tergiversation.
VntoUnto the other thing objected in the 3. & 5. articles by Lawn printed: First they signify that their testimonie against the antichristian hierarchie treated of in the Confession, is not by them reversed or weakned any way &c. I answer, these are but words: in deed and truth, the contrary wil appear. For as heretofore they aApol. p. 108.109.110.111.112.proved Antichrists baptisme to be not a true but a false sacrament; but now they plead for it bAdvertis. p. 54.55.to be the one true baptisme of Christ: so having heretofore witnessed against the whole Antichristian cConfess. art. 29.30. & in many treatises.hierarchie of prelates Preists &c. their offices, entrance and administration: they now compare the popish ordination with the baptisme. Also they bring to warrant this, the Preists and Levites which were caled of God; as after is to be seen: and yet they would be thought, not to reverse their testimonie. Secondly they tel us how they were combred with the Anabaptists, and occasioned to think of their ministerie; as 1▪ That imposition of hands is of God, and not an invention of Antichrists &c. I answer, thus also they shalbe occasioned to think of the Popes excommunication, for that is Gods ordinance as wel as their sacramēt of orders: and of the Romish Mass or supper, for that is Gods ordinance also; though by them abused to idolatrie. Yea thus the Iewes that d1. Macc. 1.12.16.f…l to paganisme, mought take occasion to think of the hethēs sacrifices, for they also were Gods ordinances in their first institutiō, as wel as Antichrists sacraments. But as for the Anabaptists, thē selves long since so refuted them, without this their new plea: that ther needed no fear of their strength at al. Finally, the impositiō of hands by an Antichristian prelate, upon that ministerie which is not of Christ but of Antichrists apostasie, I deny that such imposition of hands is of God: and that such the whole ministerie of Rome is, is proved at large by many scriptures, in M. Iohnsons Reasons and Arguments against spiritual cōmunion with the M…nist pag. 17.18. &c,
…. Their second observation is, that baptism and imposition of hands, are joyned togither among the principles, Heb. 6, 2. I answer, so are baptism & the Lords supper (now of Antichristians caled the Mass) joyned in 1. Cor. 10.2.3. & 12.13. that if this reason be good, their next thoughts must be, about the lawfulnes of the Mass.
3. Thirdly they allege that imposition of hands is in Rome stil given to the office of ministerie, and in the name of the Lord. I answer, so also the Popes bulls of excōmunication goe forth from the office of Ministery, and in the name of the Lord: but so all mischeif began, and gave occasion to the proverb, in nomine Domini incipit omne malum. But let us take a view, how imposition of hands is used now in Rome, as they say in the name of the Lord. Ordination of ministers there *Bellarm. l. de sacr. ordinis. c. 2.is a sacrament, the outward signe or rite wherof, is imposition of hands: the thing signifyed, is the promise of grace. They have seven †Ibid. c. 5.orders, Preists, (or Sacrificers,) Deacons, Subdeacons, A…oluthes, Exorcists, Readers and Ostiaries (or keepers of the dore.) They are made Preists, when by the Bishop, (who aIbid. c. 11 & 9.onelyonly can give this order) it is sayd, bBellarm. ibid. Pontisical. lib. de ordinat. presbyt.Receiv power to offer sacrifice vntounto God, and to celebrate Masses, both for the living and for the dead, in the name of the Lord. The Bishop sayth with al, Receiv the holy Ghost: the Preists are also shaved on their crownes, and anoynted with oyl on their hands; that by that unction, and the Bishops bles†sing those hands may be consecrated and sanctified of God. A stole of innocencie is put upon the Preist, and he promiseth to the Bishop and his successors, reverence, and obedience; and the Bishop gives him again the blessing of God the Fa†ther, & the †Son and the holy†Ghost that he may be blessed in his preistly order, and may offer placable hosts (or sacrifices) to God for the synns of the people. This ordination hath a cBellarm. ibid. c. 10.double effect, 1. a perpetual spiritual power; in sign wherof a character (or mark indeleble) is imprinted on them; and 2. grace making them acceptable, wherby they are inabled to execute their office. So this Bishoply ordination dIbid. c. 5.conferreth grace; and if any shal say, that the holy Ghost is not given hereby, let him (sayth the Council of Trent eSess. 23. can. 4.) be accursed. This is that holy ordination (or rather, that abominable Idol, and fRev. 13, 16mark of the beast,) so commended unto us by these men, as doon in the name of the Lord. And as for the Office of ministerie, to which they say now it is given. M. Iohnson himself ha…h gTreat. of the Minist. p. 98.—105.set down heretofore 33. reasons and differences proving by many scriptures, that the popish preists office, is not the Christian Pastors office. Yea he affirmed the hAnswer to M. Iakob in pref. sec. 6.hierarchie of Antichrist, to be the most detestable anarchie of Satan that ever was: and what now wil imposition of sacrilegious hands in the name of the Lord, doo good unto such a detestable ministery?
4. Fourthly they say, they find not precept, example or ground in scripture, binding them to the repetition of [that ordination.] I answer, it is very true; no scripture bindeth men to repete or doo agayn such abominations. And we pray them shew us where is there precept, example or ground to keep the preisthood and indeleble character of Antichrist? But be it as they say; what then wil become of their own Ministery, for some of them have both received, & given vntounto others, reordination: are they not in as evil case (by their own grounds) as the Anabaptists with their rebaptisation? They unjustly insinuate Anabaptistrie against us very often: but themselves are in like actual transgression with the Anabaptists (if their doctrine be true), and yet manifest not their repentance, nor tel us by vertue of which ordination, they doo now administer.
5. Fiftly they say, the Preists and Levites in Jsrael, being clensed of their vncleannes, reteyned stil their places, and their children after them, did minister without a new anoynting or new imposition of hands &c. I answer, then belike the Romish preists must keep their Antichristian preisthood still; for so the Preists in Israel did theirs. Otherweise if they must have a new office; how can they doo it by their old ordination? Even in Rome it self, when a Preist is promoted to a Bishops office, he is new aPontific. de cōscer. elect. in episc.anoynted, both hands & head; the holy Ghost agayn given him, the pastoral staff, the ring, the Gospel is also given him, to goe preach to the people committed to him &c. and he hath a new imposition of hands besides that he had before.
2. If the Preists children bHeb. 5, 4.caled of God, did in Israel minister without imposition of hands upon them at al, as they suppose: yet this wil make nothing for Antichrists hierarchie, caled of the cRev. 16.13, 14.Divil, with greasing, shaving, & imposing of hands, to sacrifice blasphemously for the quick and dead; that they should now minister by vertue of this office and calling in the Church of Christ. Neyther might Baals Preists or d2. King. …3.5. Zeph. 1, 4.Chemarims, administer in Gods temple. Their reason therfore from the Lords own Ministerie, is altogither unfit; the hethenish Flamins or Druides, are fitter matches for Belials clergie. And this M. Iohnson himself acknowledged, when he wrote against M. Hilderdersh. thus, gTreat. of the Minist. p. 89.Jf Jupiters Preist, Act. 14.13. or if Mahumets Preists now in Turkye, should by the lawes of their nations be injoyned, and therupon should execute the Ministerie of Gods word, sacraments and censures: would it follow therfore that such Preists had the substance of the Pastors office? And why then should this Preisthood of Antichrist have more privilege then those, seing the word of God hath layd this duty no more vponupon it then upon the other, but hath left them al, with their followers and adherents under the curse. Psal. 119, 21, 128. Rev. 9, 3. & 14.9, 10, 11. Thus he then wrote, but now we find an other maner of plea.
6. Sixtly they say, That they find in scripture some officers admitted with it, some without it. This I find not. They allege Act. 13.1.2.3. where Paul and Barnabas had it. It is true: yea Paul had imposition of hands twise, Act. 9.17. & 13.3. but where is the scripture that sayth some had it not? They say, we read not that the other Apostles had. what then? dooth this proov they had it not? So we may also conclude the other Apostles were never baptised, for we read not that they were. We read not (say the Anabaptists) that children were baptised in the Apostles dayes: wil these men now conclude, therfore they were not baptised. But doo not they know, that arguments thus drawn negatively from scripture, are generally blamed for insufficient?
7. Seventhly they say, that some churches hold it not of necessity to be had &c. I answer: that is nothing to such as hold it, and have Elders to doo it. But they diminish the state of the question; for when the Apostle speaketh of Jmposition of hands Heb. 6.2. dooth he mean the outward ceremonie onelyonly, or the doctrine of the ministerie, caling, & ordination signified by the sign? I hope the reformed churches deny no principle of religion, such as that is. So in this case spoken of, were it onelyonly the outward signe, I would not contend. But they compare the baptism of Rome and the Ministerie of Rome togither: no new baptising into the church, therfore no new ordeyning unto the ministerie: but as al come out of the Apostasie baptised Christians, so some doo come ordeyned ministers. Wherfore if these be alike, they bring with them in their account, the substance of a true *1. Cor. 1… 5.28.office and of a true †Heb. 5, ….caling. Otherweise if a new office and caling be given them, I assure my self they that say Receiv the Teachers office &c. may impose hands: even as they that say: J baptise thee into the name of the Father &c, may put on water. Now these mens testimonie heretofore hath been strong aApol. p. 46, 47—54. Reasons & arg. against spiritual cō munion with the Minist. of England, the whole book.against the Office or ministerie it self, with the caling, administration &c. And now let them shew by the word, that a new caling into a new office which men had not before, may be by the ordination or imposition of hands given by Antichrist unto a false office with a false calling.
8. Thus (say they) we shew our keeping of cōmunion with all other churches &c. I answer, this reason is good, if communion be kept in the b1. Ioh. 1.6.7.light not in darknes: let Gods word therfore try the case. Yet let these men say, whither they know not, that the ministers made in these reformed churches, are not admitted in Engl. without a new ordination by the Prelates. And that al Scholars admitted into Geneva, must expressly cEx Calvini opusc. Form. cōf. cui se adstring. &c.detest the Popish hierarchie so caled, as a Divilish confusion: which hierarchie consisteth of Bishops, Preists and Ministers, and they that say it is not by divine ordination are by the Council of dSess. 23. can. 6.Trent, accursed. Is not here good communion? Yea let me further tel them, how the learned and better sort in England, have disclaymed cōmunion with that Romish clergie. D. Fulk, in the Answ. of a true Christian to a counterfeyt catholik, sayth, eAnswer to art. 13.Although al godly men wish more severitie of discipline to be used, in receiving them that come out of heresies to serv in the Church, then is commonly practised in England: yet you are highly deceived if you think we esteem your offices of Bishops, Preists, Deacons, any better then the state of lay men, but farr worse: for we judge them to be nothing ells but Antichristianitie, heresie and blasphemie. And therfore we receiv none of them to minister in our church, except they forswear your religion: and so their admission is not an allowing of your ordering, but a new caling unto the Ministerie. Thus wrote M. Fulk: but now these our opposites, to shew how they would keep cōmunion with Rome, allow of their ordering, as of their baptising, which they plead to be true baptisme, as after shall appear. Yet let them shew us whither al the hierarchie of Antichrist, as Popes, Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops, Friers, Monks, Iesuits, Seminaries, Preists, Parsons, Vicars, with the rest of that crew, be all of them to be admitted true Ministers into a Christian church, by vertue of the Imposition of hands, had in that kingdom of the Beast: and if not al, which of them must be reordeyned, and vvhichwhich not. Themselves have acknowledged fAnsw. to M. Iakob. p. 122.that the Ministers of Antichrist, are the spirits of Divils, Rev. 16, 13.14. let them now if they can, manifest them to be the Ministers of Christ.
9. We thought best (say they) to stay and consider further &c. if we find it ought to be doon, we can doe it at any time, &c. Then (say I) they should have stayed the practise of admitting such a teacher to administer, til they had been resolved whither his office and ordination had been of God or no. But first they let him administer, then they inquire of the lawfulnes: the Godly heretofore did not so in a case of doubt, but stayed the administration of some preists, til they had assurance from God. Ezr. 2.62.63.
10. The church (say they) did chuse him into office, and we by prayer commended him to God for his grace and assistance in the ministration therof. Which we did without imposition of hands at that time; as both our selves had before doon, at our first growing into order: and as the French and Dutch churches also did &c. I answer, things are darkly set down: by saying first the church did, then, and we; they occasion us to ask what church they mean, their own particular, or some other. If their own, whether they chose him to an office that had none before: or chose him from a false office to a true: or chose him being already a true officer, to be theirs, as they admitt the members of an other Church to be a member of theirs by prayer. If the last were not, how stands their comparison between baptism & ordination? If they did so: then they abuse the reader with the example of their own ordination before. For they had renounced their former Ministerie as false; and received a new, by the election and ordination of the people (though at the first without that sign spokē of,) who gave them a ministerie which they never had. The outward sign at that time was not used, onelyonly because ther were not Elders before: now ther were Elders which imposed hands at the same time on others. It is a known fallacie, to pretend that for a cause wch is not the cause. Moreover let them say whither thei… Teachers former election were not as holy as his ordination: and why then they rep…te one and not an other?
11. Observ (say they) how these and their partakers can hold that the people having no office may excōmunicate, and some of them that they may also minister the sacraments: and yet can except against such as are in office, if they doo but make question of a ceremonie &c. I answer; the first wee hold but as themselves heretofore did: & upon what ground they have left it, is before discussed. The second as touching us, (so farr as I know) is a slander, a mere untruth. I know not one among us, that holdeth men without office, may minister the sacraments. The third, if it be as they say a question but of a ceremonie, and not of the very substance of the ministerie, to be reteyned as their baptisme, I wil profess to cease striving thereabout, (though I think they err in it,) yea and repent that I have striven so farr. But if it be in deed more then a ceremonie, as I suppose the things forespoken wil manifest; let these men take heed how they so dissemble, for *Isa. 29.1…Woe vntounto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the Lord. Of the Anabaptists objections we have spoken before. And now let him that readeth, consider, what weight ther is in their later thoughts, compared with their former judgments confirmed by so many reasons, as the publik writings shew. Let him also note, how for this later point which they count but a ceremonie, they say many things as we have heard: but for the former, their own ministerie, which is a matter of substance and most neerly concerns them, they say nothing, but turn aside as if they saw it not. And for this also, let the reader observ Mr Iohnsons own words, in answer to Mr Hildershā, †Treat. of the Minist. p. 122.who can bring a *Iob. 14.4.clean thing out of filthynes? Is it possible that a lawful ordination, should be had from the ministers & Apostasie of Antichrist? Mat. 7.16. 2. Cor. 6, 14, 15, 16. with 2. Thes. 2.3. And if he be loth to stand to his former assertions: let him yet shew what comfort or assurāce any can have of the ordination in the Papacie, that it is frō “Ioh. 3.27.heavē; considering the Preists have their authoritie from the Bishops, the Bishops from the Pope: the Popes (as their own writers & Chroniclers doo record,) have been divided by schismes, 2, or 3, aBell. de Rom. pont. l. 4. c. 14.Popes at once, one cursing and condemning another, and among the successors, one repealing bPlatina in Steph. 2. Rom. & Th…od. 2.the acts of an other. And among the rest, one shee cPlatinain Ioh. 8.Pope Ioan an harlot. And among many schismes one (which was the 22.) dured dIoh. Ma…ij de schism. & Concil. c. 13.fourtie yeres, wherin the Antipopes so rent their Babel-church into factions, that the cheifest and learnedest of the clergie, could not discern which of them was the true successor of Peter, (as they use to speak) but some clave to one Pope, some to another. Had these no… power from Christ to make ministers in his church? or are not they strangely caried, that had rather derive their Ministerie by uncertayn succession frō such beasts▪ then from the Lords true Church and people? And may we think that when God bring the Iewes agayn to the fayth (as he hath eRom, 11.promised,) that they wil goe to Antichrists throne for to erect a ministerie for them? These and the like things considered, may shew what soundnes is in their doctrine and practise, that fetch their ordination from Rome, as they doo their baptisme.
Finally let me admonish the reader, that The man of syn, who boasteth himself to be fSext. decr l. 5. tit. 9. c. 5 in glossa.the Bishop of the whole world, as also to have the gIbid. l. 3. tit. 16. c. unico, in gl.Princedom (or soveraygntie) of al the world; and may not onelyonly order and degrade preists, but set up and depose Princes, so exalting himself above h2. Thes. 2.4.al that is caled God; is for thus doing, to be accounted a traytor against Christ and al Princes of the world. And as the dayes have been when he chalenged both church and crown of England (as in iMatth. Parisiens. in vita Iohan▪ regis.King Iohns time,) to have the Prince his vassal, as wel as the Preists his subjects: so is his wil to doo alwayes and in al places. But this being tyrannie and usurpation in him both over church and common wealth, he hath alwayes had as good authority to make a Lord Maior in London, as to make a Bishop there, and to create a Prince as wel as a Preist or prelate: the one is injurious to the State, the other to the Church. And for men to hold or derive the preisthood or ministerie from that Vsurper, hath no more warrant that I know of, then if one would hold or derive a magistracie from him; for as God hath given every cō mon wealth power next under himself, to cal & set up Magistrates, according to the lawes of Realmes; so Christ hath given every church power next under himself, to call and constitute ministers according to his word: and not to derive their spiritual functions from his professed Adversarie, whom he hath promised to *2. Thes. 2.8.consume with the spirit of his mouth, & to abolish with the brightnes of his cōming.