A Just Defense of Hearing the Sermons, Chapter 5 · Section 1
Sect. 1. All owning of Orders different from, or contrary to Christs, proves not a denial of his Offices.
THus he proceeds:
That the Ministers of England deny the Kingly and Prophetical Offices of Christ, and therefore are not to be beard, but separated from, hath been asserted, and by one argument, proved in the foregoing Chapter: To the further evidence whereof, a few things more are to be offered in this.
Argum 2. Those who own, submit and subscribe to Orders and Ordinances, which not only are not of Christs revealing, but contrary thereunto, do really deny, and oppose the Prophetical and Kingly Office of Christ: But the present Ministers of England do own, submit, and subscribe to Orders and Ordinances, that are not only not of Christs revealing, but contrary thereunto: Therefore. The major (or first Proposition) is beyond exception. If an owning, submitting, and subscribing to Orders and Ordinances, that are not only, not of Christs revealing, but contrary thereunto, be not a denial of his Kingly and Prophetical Office, I must profess, I know not what is. Suppose the chief Magistrate or Magistrates of a Nation should give forth a Declaration of their Will, touching this or that concern, were not persons Non-conformity thereunto (supposing it to be what lies within the verge of their Authority, and power to command, and may righteously be exacted of them, whose Conformity is thereunto required) a silent opposition of their Authority; but should any presume to give forth Laws of their own, without the least stamp of Authority upon them, yea, contrary unto the Statute and Declarations of their Governours; would not all conclude that these persons and their Abettors were guilty of Rebellion against their Rules, and did really deny the lawfulness of their Authority? This is the present case, if men shall be found traversing paths, in the possession and practice of Orders and Constitutions that are foreign to the edicts of Christ, yea, contrary thereunto; shall we not as rationally conclude that these persons are really opposers of his soveraign Authority and Government? doubtless so.
Answ. To the major proposition of the fourth Argument [Those that oppugn or deny any of the Offices of Jesus Christ, are not to be heard, but separated from] Answer is made before. The major of this argument here needs elucidation and limitation. Orders and Ordinances which not only are not of Christs revealing, but contrary thereunto, are not all of one sort. Some are in points of Faith, some of practice, some in things not fundamental, some in fundamental. Owning, submitting, and subscribing to them, is either out of ignorance, inadvertency, infirmity through fear or some other motive, or voluntary, more or less, which may be aggravated by many circumstances and effects. Likewise the denying really, and opposing of the Offices of Christ, may be virtual or formal, directly or by consequence, by a factious setting up an open Antichrist, or by neglecting the proper Authority of Christ. It is true, every sin and every errour doth in some sort and degree oppugn the Offices of Jesus Christ: Every disobedience to a lawful Magistrate, every subjection to an Usurper hath in it somewhat of denying or oppugning his Authority. Yet he that should deny, that for every such sin or errour a person can be a good Christian, or for every such disobedience or subjection a person can be a true subject, should too Stoically make a parity in sins, and neither hold good Divinity, nor teach good Policy. It is true, he that shall openly and factiously set up another universal Monarch of the Church, make other Mediatours to God besides Christ, teach any other way of justification than by faith in Christ, that shall expresly forbid the observation of what Christ hath commanded; as for instance, the Lords Supper, or any other plain Command of Christ; such do deny really, and oppose openly the Offices of Christ. But there may be some errours in Faith, and teaching of some use in positive Rites, as may be a real denying or opposing interpretatively Christs Offices, as in teaching Circumcision as necessary at that time, Acts 15.5. in owning, submitting, and subscribing to some use as may be not only not revealed by Christ, but also is by nearer or remote consequence a denial of Christs Offices; and yet the persons observing it, as v. g. the reservation of the Bread, in the Eucharist, sending it to the sick absent, as many did in former times, either out of ignorance, fear, or such like motives, and yet these neither to be reckoned for such, as either in heart, or profession, or practice, deny the Offices of Christ, as enemies to him, nor to be shunned as such; but may be his true subjects though weak ones. Peters denial of Christ, his dissimulation, Gal. 2. shewed not enmity, but infirmity and instability. And many sincere Christians may out of errour or weakness teach, and practise many things not only a while, but also all their dayes, and that with much contention and zeal, which may inferr a denial of Christs Offices, or his Nature; as for instance, Lutheran Consubstantion, and yet are not to be judged opposers of the Kingly and Prophetical Offices of Christ, so as to be disclaimed, separated from, and rejected as no true Christian Brethren, or Teachers. And therefore the major proposition here, may be variously conceived; and without some limitations and explications is not to be received. But he tells us: