A Just Defense of Hearing the Sermons, Chapter 5 · Section 10 – Section 12
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 undeniable evidence with them, that the present Ministers of England do own, submit, and subscribe to Orders and Ordinances, that are contrary 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 commanding to abstain from flesh at certain times upon politick considerations, 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 character 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 present 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 Proposition) 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 Statute-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 contempt and denial of his Authority? If there be any such Headship of the Institution of Christ, let us know when and where it was instituted; 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 Institution 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 mention 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 either 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 dominion 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 impious 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 submit to it. Headship is a Metaphor, and sometime notes Origination, vital influence, direction or guidance, superiority, power, authority, or government, which may be in many things. No Minister 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 Soveraignty 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 conformity 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 Worship, 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 Convocation, 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 amounts 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 major, That those who acknowledge another Head over the Church beside Christ, by acknowledging the King as Supream Governour in Causes 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 Canons 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 thereby, which is proper to Christ; to wit, to be the universal Monarch 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 acknowledged 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 Pastors; of deciding Causes brought him by Appeals from all the coasts of the Earth; of reconciling any that are excommunicate; of excommunicating, 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, releasing of lawful Oaths, granting Indulgences, releasing out of Purgatory, Canonizing of Saints, Consecrating of things for the expulsion of Devils, with many more; and i… it be true which is related 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 blasphemous; 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 Spiritual 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 civil 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 Authority 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 Hierarchy 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 Influence, 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 Ecclesiastical 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 Majesties government, as to the sacred Ordinance of God, the Supreme Power he hath set over all causes and persons, whether Ecclesiastical 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 Supremacy, those that dissent about Ceremonies and Church Government 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 consideration 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 conditions 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 calumny of making thereby another head besides Christ equivalent 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 dominion 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 undetermined by God, and according to such Rules, as the Scripture 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 submit 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 onelyonly 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 admit 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 criminous, 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 chargeth 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.