A Just Defense of Hearing the Sermons, Chapter 10 · Section 3
Sect. 3. The Pharisees were not Church-officers of Gods appointment.
But let this be granted. Suppose 2. The Scribes and Pharisees to be the preachers and expounders of the Law in that day, the seat mentioned to be a Ministerial seat: Yet this will not at all help them in the matter in controversie, except it be granted to them, that the Scribes and Pharisees were not a lawful, but a false Ministry that had surreptitiously climbed up into this Ministerial seat (for who sees not the invalidity and nothingness of this argument, 'Twas lawful to hear the Scribes and Pharisees which were the lawful Church-officers of that day, of the appointment of the Lord, acting by vertue of an authority derived from him; therefore 'tis lawful to hear persons that have not any such authority from Christ, but are meer intuders, and Ministers of Antichrist (as the present Ministers of England have been proved to be) now this upon that supposition, that they were Ministers, we cannot yield, to these reasons. 1. The Pharisees are expresly said to be Priests and Levites, John 1.19. (and this is the record of John, when the Jews sent Priests and Levites from Jerusalem, to ask him, Who art thou? v. 24. And they that were sent were of the Pharisees) which were the ordinary lawful Ministers of that day. 2. These of all others were most apt to question the authority of such as taught the people: So when John appears preaching and baptizing, and professes to them, that he was not the Christ, nor Elias, nor Prophet (who was expected by the people of the Jews) they immediately question his authority, John 1.25. Why baptizest thou then? which they could not be supposed to have the face to do, if they themselves of all others had been the greatest intruders. Nay 3. When they question Christ himself about his authority, he asks not them from whence they had theirs (which doubtless upon that occasion, he would have done, had they not been lawfully seated in the seat they did possess) but from whence John had his, who was esteemed as a prophet. 4. We have the Lord Jesus many times crying out above all others against the Pharisees, condemning them of pride, hypocrisie, avarice, &c. but not the least tittle of the usurpation of Moses seat is by him charged upon them, or in the least intimated, which doubtless would have been, had they been guilty thereof.
I reply, that this grant, that the Scribes and Pharisees were preachers and expounders of the Law in that day, will help the objectours in the matter in controversie, though it be not granted to them, that the Scribes and Pharisees were not a lawfull, but a false Ministry, that had surrepticiously climbed up into this ministerial seat. For they are assured, that this Author hath not proved, nor can prove the present Ministers of England to be meer intruders and Ministers of Antichrist, and therefore need not this supposition concerning the Scribes and Pharisees, to prove Christs allowing the hearing of the present Ministers. Only this is urged, that there is as much exception and more against the Pharisees teaching, than against the present Ministers, and yet they might be heard, therefore with better reason may the present Ministers be heard. Nevertheless I deny, that the Scribes and Pharisees, which they were to hear, were the lawfull Church Officers of that day, of the appointment of the Lord, acting by vertue of an authority derived from him, it being certain that, as he saith, they were a particular Sect among the Jews, no where appointed by God to this office of Priesthood or teaching, but taken up by men, as orders of Friers among the Papists, though some of them were Priests, and some of them Rabbins, or teachers of the law, and educated thereunto, as teachers of Divinity are in the Schools among us at this day; which, if the Ministers of England had no further ordination, being the condition of most, or very many of the present Ministers in England might justifie the hearing of them as well as the hearing the Pharisees, who had no better calling to that function. As for the reasons of this Author, the first is not valid. For it proves only that some of the Priests and Levites were Pharisees, not all, St. Paul certainly was not, though a Pharisee; nor that those that sate in Moses chair were Priests, for all were not there being many thousands of Pharisees, who were not Rabbins. St. Paul was a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee, when he sate at Gamaliels feet, Acts 22.3. yet not a Doctor of the Law sitting in Moses his chair. Nor, if they were Priests, doth it prove they were the lawfull Ministers of that day. For, to say nothing of Christs Apostles, who were at that day the lawfull Ministers with and under Christ himself, it is certain the Priests of those times got their places, as for instance the High Priest by undue and unlawfull wayes, by bribing the Roman Deputy, as Josephus reports, and therefore if it were proved, they were Priests, yet they are not proved to be lawful Ministers. Yea that which is said of their Ordination, and Education by the most favourable Writers of the Jewes, proves they had some kind of entrance into their profession according to the customs of those times, which were of human invention, but nothing of Gods institution, that they should sit in the chair of Moses. As for the Second reason, there is no marvel they had the impudence to question Iohns authority, though themselves intruders, when they were puft up with conceits of their authority, though they had none, when they were so proud and impudent as to conceive themselves righteous and despise others, Luke 18.9. and to allege it in prayer to God, though their Consciences might tell them they were covetous and unrighteous, yea to deride Christ, when he told them they could not serve God and Mammon, Luke 16.14. Nor is the Third reason of force, For Christ might question their authority though he did not when they questioned Johns, and he seems after John to have done it in calling them a generation of vipers, blind guides, with sundry other expressions disparaging of them and their traditions; And his charging them with affectation and ambitious seeking of the chief Seats, and to be called Rabbi, Rabbi, what is it but an evidence, that they did unlawfully climb into Moses his seat, which they did so ambitiously gape after? As for the not in express words charging them with usurpation, it is no marvail it is not related, sith their instigation of Herod to take away John Baptists life related by Iosephus is not related, as imputed to them, by Christ in any of the Evangelists; Besides how irrational this argument is, we read not, that Christ charged them with usurpation of Moses seat, therefore he did it not, every puny in Schools knows, who hath learned that rule in Logick, argumentum non valet ab authoritate negativè, an argument from testimony negatively is not of force, especially in matters of fact, it is not related, therefore it was not done; and most of all concerning Christs acts, of which it is noted, that many things are not written, John 21.25.