A Just Defense of Hearing the Sermons, Chapter 5 · Section 6
Sect. 6. It's not proved, that the Ministers of England, own Constitutions contrary to the revelation of Christ.
He goes on thus:
But this is not all. 2ly. The present Ministers of England do own, submit, and subscribe to Laws, Constitutions, and Ordinances, that are contrary to the revelation of Christ, whence an opposition to the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ, may rationally be concluded. This also by the induction of a few particular instances, will be evinced beyond exception.
Answ. Four things are here undertaken:
1. That the particular instances, stand by Laws and Constitutions.
2. That these Laws, Constitutions, and Ordinances, are contrary to the revelation of Christ.
3. That the present Ministers of England, do own, submit and subscribe to them.
4. That from thence an opposition to the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ, may rationally be concluded. In which, how he hath failed, will be apparent by the view of what he alledgeth.
They own, saith he, and acknowledge,
1. That there may be other Arch-Bishops, and Lord-Bishops in the Church of Christ, besides himself: which is contrary to 1 Pet. 5.3. 1 Cor. 12.5. Ephes. 4.5. Heb. 3.1. Luke 22.25, 26.
Answ. That there may be other Arch-Bishops and Lord-Bishops in the Church of Christ besides himself, is acknowledged by the present Ministers of England, but not in the sense in which Christ is called the chief Shepherd, 1 Pet. 5.4. or the same Lord, 1 Cor. 12.5. or one Lord, Ephes. 4.5. or the Apostle and High Priest of our prosession, Heb. 3.1. or Lordship is forbidden, 1 Pet. 5.3. Luke 22.25, 26. they are not acknowledged Arch-Bishops over the whole Church, as the Pope; but in their own Province: nor are they termed Arch-Bishops, as if other Bishops had their authority from them, as the Pope claims; but they only have a Primacy or Precedency, with some other Prerogatives, by that title. Nor are they, or other Bishops, made Lords, as Christ, over the whole Church, or have such dominion ascribed to them over the Church they oversee, as is forbidden, 1 Pet. 5.3. Luke 22.25, 26. and is usurped by Popish Bishops; but are Lords only by the Kings Grant, as is said before in Answer to Chap. 3. Sect. 5, 6. not in the Church of Christ, but in the Kingdom and Parliament; and therefore this acknowledgement is not contrary to the revelation of Christ; there being no contrariety, or contradiction, unless there were an opposition in the same respect, as Logicians determine Christ is said, 1 Tim. 6.15. to be foreign, the only Dynasta, or Potentate; and yet without contrariety, or contradiction the Eunuch, Acts 8.27. is termed foreign Dynasta or Potentate, as in the reading in the margin of our translation. But were there contrariety, yet it is not shewed, that what is acknowledged is a Law, Constitution, or Ordinance (which do usually determine not what may be, but what shall and must be) nor that Ministers own it by subscription.
2. That men may and ought to be made Ministers, only by these Lord-Bishops: which is contrary to Heb. 5.4. John 10.1, 7. and 13.20. and 14.6. Act. 14.23. with 6.3, 5.
Answ. It is true, it is acknowledged by the present Ministers of England, that men may be made Ministers by these Lord-Bishops; but not that they may and ought to be made Ministers only by these Lord-Bishops; sith Ministers are allowed, who are made by Suffragan Bishops, who are not Lords; and for the Churches Reformed, of Foreigners dwelling in England Ministers made by Presbyters only. But this is not a Law, Constitution, or Ordinance to which Ministers subscribe; nor if they did, is there any contrariety therein to the revelation of Christ. Heb. 5.4. it is said, And no man taketh this honour, that is, of being High-Priest, unto himself, but he that is called of God as Aaron. But this is impertinently alledged, being not spoken of the Gospel Ministery; but of the Priesthood of the Law, and the High-Priest, and of his Calling by God immediately; and therefore, if that which the Ministers acknowledge be proved contrary to the revelation of Christ by this text, the making of M…nisters in Congregational Churches by their Eldership is alike contrary, sith they are not called of God as Aaron. Of the impertinency of John 10.1, 7. enough is said before in the Answer to Chap. 2. Sect. 3. Joh. 13.20. He that receiveth whomsoever I send, receiveth me. is no more contrary to Bishops Ordination, than to Presbyters, John 14.6. speaks not at all of making Ministers, but of the way whereby Christians have access to God Of Acts 14.23. and 6.3, 5. enough hath been said in Answer to Chap. 2. Sect. 3.
3. That Prelates, their Chancellors, and Officers, have power from Christ to cast out of the Church of God, contrary to Mat. 18.16, 17. 1 Cor. 5.4.
Answ. That there is a Law, Ordinance, or Constitution of this, to which Ministers subscribe, I finde no…. Of the texts Mat. 18.16, 17. 1 Cor. 5.4. enough hath been said in Answer to the Preface, Sect. 15. to Chap. 4. Sect. 5. whence the impertinency of the alledging these texts may appear.
4. That the Office of Suffragans, Deans, Canons, Petty-Canons, Prebendaries, Coiristers, Organists, Archdeacons, Commissaries, Officials, Parsons, Vicars, and Curates are lawful and necessary to be had in the Church, evidently contrary to 1 Cor. 12, 18 28. Rom. 12.7. Ephes. 4.11. The Officers instituted by Christ are sufficient for the edification and perfecting of the Saints, till they all come unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ, ver. 12, 13. in what sense the forementioned, being not one of them of the institution of Christ, may be owned as lawful or necessary, without an high contempt of the Wisdom and Soveraignty of Christ, cannot by such dull persons as my self he conjectured That any others see them any way useful to the Church of Christ, may be imputed to such a sharp-sightedness as was that of Caius Caligula, to whom, when he enquired of Vitellius, whether he saw him not imbracing the Moon? 'twas answered Solis (Domine) vobis-diis licet se invicem videre.
Answ. Where this imagined Law, Ordinance, or Constitution is, or when and how the present Ministers do own, acknowledge, submit, and subscribe to it (as this Author suggests) is not here shewed by him, nor do I know where to finde it. O… the Office of so many of these, as are ordained Presbyters, or Priests (as the term is in the English Liturgy) enough hath been said in answering the 3 Chapter, Sect. 3, 5. &c. that though their names are various; yet their Office is the same with some of those who are of Christ, 1 Cor. 12.28. Rom. 12.7 Ephes. 4.11. and consequently lawful and necessary; the rest are not reckoned among the Orders of Ministry in the Church, but counted Services, which are acknowledged not necessary; and whether they be useful or not, it matters not in respect of the present enquiry, if there be no Law, Constitution, or Ordinance to make them lawful and necessary to be had in the Church, which the Ministers subscribe to, as I think there is not.
5. That the Office …f Deacons in the Church, is to be imployed in publick praying, administration of Baptism, and preaching, if licensed by the Bishop thereunto; contrary to Act. 6.2. Ephes. 4.11.
Answ. That at first the institution of Deacons was to serve tables, Acts 6.2. not to preach the word of God; yet Steven and Philip being imployed in Preaching, and Philip in Baptizing, it is not contrary to Christs revelation in those texts or any other, that they should be imployed in those works.
6. That the Ordinance of breaking Bread, or the Sacrament of the Lords Supper may be administred to one alone; as to a sick man ready to die: which is diametrically opposite to the nature and institution of that Ordinance, 1 Cor. 10.16. and 11.33. Mat. 26.26. Act. 2.42. and 20.7.
Answ. The Communion is in time of infectious diseases allowed to be administred to one only besides the Minister, which whether it be fit to be done, is left to the Minister. That it is diametrically opposite to the nature and institution of that Ordinance, is not easily proved. 1 Cor. 10.16. A Communion is proved in that Sacrament, but ver. 17. and 1 Cor. 12.13. rather proves the Communion to be therein with all believers throughout the world though absent, than only with the present partakers; and if so, though but two joyn, the Minister and the sick man, the Communion there meant is held with all Christians, the meaning and intent of the Apostle being to shew that by partaking thereof, they shew themselves of one body or community with all Christians, and so may not partake of the table of Devils, ver. 21. Christ did institute the Lords Supper to his Disciples; but that so many or a number above two are necessary, so as that otherwise it should not have the nature of that Sacrament, cannot be thence inferred. 1 Cor. 11.33. Acts 20.7. do prove it should be administred, when all Communicants come together; but whether it want the nature of the Sacrament, if but two be together, specially in a case extraordinary, may be questioned. As Acts 2.42. it is said, They continued in breaking of bread; so ver. 46. it is said, they did it from house to house; therefore not the whole Church in Jerusalem brake Bread in one house, but by companies in several houses, and so as they could commodiously, which is an argument, that the smalness of the number takes not away the nature of the Sacrament, if the thing appointed by Christ be done.