Confutation of the Errors of the Brownists, Treatise · Exception 2
Wee have a true Miniſterie IN ENGLAND.
II. EXCEPTION.
THe ſecond general exception is againſt the Miniſtery of our Church, which they affirme to be falſe, and Antichriſtian. Concerning which, they have theſe words, in the page 146. and 147. of their refutation, wee have peruſed all this rable of the miniſterie, of the Church of England, and have not found any one of them right, or almoſt, in any point, according to the right Rules of Chriſts Teſtament, they are all ſtrangers there, they belong us to Christs body. His Church neither are they … is members to the Head. And in the 147. page of the ſame back, they … they ſay, that our Miniſter is ſuch as can have … God, alleadging moreover, that the wayes if the … Church, … are the wayes of death, and have no promiſe of ſalves and in the 147. page, they have theſe words; Out of the ſmoake of the Bottomleſſe pit all their Miniſters come, whe… that fallen ſt…rre, An chriſt ha… the Key thereof given him; to his Kingdome the falſe Church, they have alwayes belonged, alwayes ſerved him in his ſever … ſhapes, they have bin alwayes k…it to him, as members to the head; from him, and not from Chriſt, wee all ſee with our bodily eyes, that the Church of England hath received them. And in the 158. page of the ſame book, they conclude thus. The keeping of theſe offices, cannot now belong unto, or ſerve in Chriſts Kingdom: His Church neither, be knit unto Christ as the Head. But as the Holy Choſt witneſſeth of them, they have a King over them, the Angell of the bottomleſſe pit, whoſe name is in Hebrew, Abaddon; and in Greeke, Appollion as in all languages, and places, they diſcover.
ANSWER.
THat wee have a true Miniſterie in this Land,But it appeareth that our Miniſtery is holy and lawfull, becauſe the true Church hath received and approved our doctrine. Iohn 10.3, 5. Epheſ. 4.11, 12 2 Iohn 4.6. 2. Many have bin effectually called by our Miniſterie. And this reaſon taken from the force of our Miniſtery, and hath force to prove the lawfulneſſe of it. it may evidently appeare by theſe reaſons.
A true Church (ſuch as we have proved ours to be in our anſwer, to their firſt exception) could neither have received our doctrine at the firſt, nor proved it ſo long, nor have beene continued, nouriſhed, and built up by it: had not wee beene the true faithfull Miniſters of Chriſt.
Secondly, It is evident, that many have beene brought (by our Miniſtery) to ſaving knowledge, faith, and reformation of life. For proofe whereof, wee appeale, firſt, to their owne conſciences, out of which wee deſire them to anſwer us, as in the preſence of Almightie God.
Secondly, By the manifeſt differences, that may bee noted betwixt thoſe that have beene taught by a learned Miniſterie, and thoſe that have bad none; who yet ſhould bee in judgement, and affection, as good or better than the other, if the Miniſterie, under which the other lived, were not true and lawfull.
That this reaſon taken from the fruit of our labours, is ſufficient to prove wee are the true Miniſters of God; As appeareth in this.
1. That the Lord in his moſt holy Word, maketh this the moſt proper note of ſuch miniſterie, as is according to his owne heart.cIer. 3.15 & 23, 31. Iohn 10.25.
Secondly, In that the miniſterie is oft juſtified, and proved to be of God, by this reaſon; So that our Saviour Chriſt proveth Himſelfe, to be the true Meſſiah, by doing the workes of the Meſſiah;dEph 4 11, 12 Rom. 10.14, 15. ſo may wee prove our ſelves true Miniſters, by doing the workes of God, His Miniſters.
To that which they object againſt this reaſon,2 Cor. 9.1, 2. Rom. 13.17, 18. 1 Theſ 1.1, 9. Mat. 12.5, 6. Iohn 5.36. Notwithſtanding that it is objected of other meanes. (viz.) that thereby the Popiſh Church and Miniſterie may be juſtified, as well as ours, ſeeing that many have beene converted by private conference, and reading, and by domeſticall preaching, and exhortations, without a publicke Church alling?
We anſwer, that though the Lord hath beene often wont, heretofore, and is able ſtill to convert ſoules by private meanes, and ſuch as are extraordinary. Yet cannot it be proved, that any have beene converted uſually, or that publike Congregations have been gathered, and builded up by any private interpretations, and application of the Scriptures, but by ſuch only as hath been uſe by a lawful miniſterie. And whereas Henry Barrow excepteth further, p. 152. and 153 and of his refutation, that this argueth only true doctrine, and not a true Miniſterie; we anſwer,
Firſt, That thereby he juſtifieth our doctrine, which elſewhere, he generally condemneth.
Secondly, That he affirmeth only, that true doctrine without a true miniſterie, doth ordinarily convert men: but proveth it not, nor indeed was able to prove it: as ſhall hereafter appeare, in the anſwer wee make to the ſecond Article of their conſequence.
But our Miniſters have no promiſe of bleſſing in their teaching (ſay they) and therefore, neither may they lawfully teach, nor the people heare them?
To this we anſwer, Firſt,Ezech. 3.2, 7. That Gods Miniſters have lawfully taught when they have not only wanted the promiſe, that their labour ſhould doe that people good, whom they did teach, but received aſſurance of the contrary.
Secondly, That the people have lawfully heard,Ionah 3.4, …. and hearkened to teachers, that have come unto them, when they (as being utterly ignorant and unaconainted with Gods promiſes) had no aſſurance to their conſciences, that God had promiſed a bleſſing to their hearing;
Objection firſt.
THe firſt thing they object againſt our Miniſters, Their firſt objection againſt our miniſters is, that the office whereunto our Miniſters were called is Antichriſtian, which is falſe & ſlanderous: for the office and duties whereunto we are called, are the very ſame which the word preſcribeth, not thoſe that popiſh Prieſts are called unto.Is, that the Office whereunto our miniſterie is called, is not that which Chriſt hath Ordained, but that which Antichrist calleth his Prieſts unto: Concerning theſe points, theſe are their words, in the 158. page of their refutation: They have ſerved in, and belonged unto Antichriſt, even the Popes Kingd me and Throne, the falſe Church, with all the abominable Jdolatrie therein?
ANSWER. I.
To which their Objection, we give this anſwer.
The preaching of the whole truth of Gods Word, and nothing but it; the adminiſtration of the Sacraments, and of publicke prayer, as they are all the parts of the Miniſters Office preſcribed in the word, ſo are they all appointed to our Miniſters by the Law.
And for ſo much, as there is no Prieſt-hood in the Popiſh Church, that is not ordained to offer that Idolatrous ſacrifice of the Maſſe, or that was ever called unto, and neceſſarily enjoyned thoſe duties of miniſtery that are required of us. Wee ſee not with what truth our brethren can ſay that our Office is the ſame, which Antichriſt calleth his Prieſts unto.
And if our Office bee the ſame which Antichriſt hath ordained, how falleth it out, that the Papiſts give a new ordination, to ſuch as having had that which our Church giveth, doe in Apoſtacie ſhrinke unto them.
And if it be objected, Though ſome popiſh Prieſts are allowed to exerciſe the Miniſterie without any new Ordination.that our Church admitteth ſuch as were ordained by Antichriſt without any new ordination, whereby appeareth, that our office and theirs is all one? we anſwer.
Firſt, That though they have no other ordination, yet in more eſſentiall parts of their outward calling unto the Miniſtery, there are ſo many differences to be obſerved, in the practiſe of our Church, that no indifferent man can thinke, we judge the calling, that any man hath had in popery, to be ſufficient for exerciſe of their Miniſterie in our Church.
Secondly, The receaving of ſome into the Miniſterie, that have bin popiſh Prieſts, without new ordination, as we take it to be a grievous corruption, and ſuch as wee will by no meanes ſeeke to juſtifie, ſo wee thinke it cannot by any ſhew of good reaſon, be alledged to prove that the calling which all our Miniſters have, is the very ſame which the Popiſh Prieſts exerciſe; but onelyonly to ſhew either the outward calling, which ſome of our Miniſters exerciſe is, the very ſame with that of the popiſh Prieſts, or (at the moſt) that ſome chiefe Governours in the Church doe in their judgement, hold that there is no new Ordination,The firſt reaſon againſt our office is, that we all receive one. Antichriſtian Deaconſhip, which hath not force to condemne our office, ſeeing under the n…me of Prieſt and Deacon, many receive at one time, the full power of miniſterie. Philip. 1.1. 1 Tim. 3.8. foreign. Epheſ. 3.7. Col. 1.7, 23. 1 Tim. 4.6. foreign. Acts 1.17, 25, & 6.4. & 12.25. & 20, 24. Rom. 12.13, 1. Cor. 12.5. Thirdly, Although he that is called to be a Deacon be reſtrained from ſome worke that belongs to a Miniſter, yet is he not called to doe ought that is unlawfull. to bee required in ſuch a caſe, both which if wee ſhould grant, yet had they granted nothing at all in the queſtion, that is betwixt us.
The firſt reaſon whereby they would prove that office, whereunto our Miniſters are called, is not that which Chriſt hath ordained, but that whereunto Antichriſt hath called his Prieſts is, That we are called unto ſuch a Deaconſhip as is not according unto Chriſts Teſtament, but Popiſh and Antichriſtian? Whereunto we anſwer.
1. That if the Deaconſhip and Prieſt-hood (as they terme it) bee taken by us both at once, as uſually they are, then we are enabled to doe whatſoever a Miniſter of the Goſpell may doe of himſelfe, without the aſſiſtance of the Elderſhip, and ſo the errour that is committed reſteth in the forme and ceremony only, not in the matter it ſelfe.
Secondly, though it were indeed to be wiſhed, that every office in the Church were called by the proper name which the Scripture giveth it; Yet if the Church give a wrong name to a right and lawfull office, the office is not therefore to bee refuſed, much leſſe, is the power to preach the word, and to adminiſter the one of the Sacraments, therefore to bee refuſed, becauſe it is given by the name of the Deacons Office, conſidering that although in the ſtrict, and moſt proper ſence, the Scripture calleth them Deacons, to whom, the Office of caring for the poore is committed; yet ſometimes alſo all that labour in the word are comprehended under this name, and the miniſtery of the word, is called a Deaconſhip.
Thirdly, If it be objected, that our Deaconſhip, is neither approved nor mentioned in the Scripture, becauſe it reſtraineth us from dealing with the one Sacrament, and ſo ſeparateth thoſe things, which God hath coupled?
Wee anſwer, That this can bee no reaſon againſt our Miniſters, becauſe when they are made Deacons, they are not called to do any thing that is unlawfull, but only cut ſhort for a time and reſtrained from ſome thing, which they may or ought to doe, much leſſe can it bee alleadged againſt all our Miniſters, becauſe many of us (as it is above ſaid) were made both Deacons, and Prieſts, (as they ſpeake fondly) in one day, and ſo tooke the full power and authoritie of miniſtery without any ſuch ſeparation, or many as is here objected.The ſecond reaſon againſt our office (viz) this we be called by ſuch names as are popiſh, is fond & inſufficient. For the name Prieſt though not ſimply unlawfull, yet in our Churches iudged unfit to be given unto the Miniſters of the Goſpell. Biſhop Horne againſt Fe…kman, fol. 95. & fol. 111. Thirdly, If all were called by popiſh names, yet might wee be true Miniſters.
Their ſecond reaſon, againſt our office and function is; That …ee are not knowne by the right names that in the Word an given to the Miniſters of Chriſt, but by ſuch names as have been deviſed …nd given by the Papiſts as Prieſt, Pri-ſon, Vicar and Curate, &c.
To which we anſwer, firſt, Concerning the name Prieſt, although we thinke, that at the firſt, it was well enough applyed to the Preachers of the Word becauſe it was derived from the Greeke Word, foreign, that ſignifies an Elder. Yet becauſe it is uſed now by the prophane, as a terme of ſcorne, and hath a long time, both by Papiſts, and others, been by common cuſtome abuſed, and appropriated to ſuch as do ſacrifice, therfore not only the moſt of our poople refuſe to call us by that name but even ſome, who have been chiefe Governours of our Church, have judged it unfit to be given unto the Miniſters of the Goſpell.
Secondly, It is well knowne, not only that many of our Miniſters are uſually called by ſuch names, as the Scripture giveth but alſo that the Law of the Land (in the book of conlecration) giveth us the name of Paſtors, Teachers and Rectors.
Thirdly, Though the names objected againſt us, have beene uſed by the Papiſts, and therefore are very unfit to bee given to the Miniſters of the Goſpell. Yet ſee we not, that either by their originall, or uſe, they have any ſuch contagion in them, as ſhould poy ſon and infect all the offices, and duties whereunto they are applyed.
Fourthly,Fourthly, Eſpecially ſeeing they are impoſed upon us, & we delight not in them. Gen. 41.45. …or. 1.7, 8. Though there names were of themſelve, of Antichriſtian original and uſe. Yet if they be impoſed upon any ſuch as take no pleaſure in them, we ſee not how they can any wait … pollute them and their offices, then Ioſeph, and Daniel, were polluted by … and Idolatrous names that were given them, or than private Chriſtians, are made the worſe by the odious termes of Preciſians, Purity …, is Martiniſts, or then our brethren themſelves, are by the names of Browniſts, and Barrowiſts; which they ſo uſually are called by, and ſo much diſlike.
Fifthly,Fifthly Our Doctrines may bee good though wee were all called by, and did delight in thoſe names. Matth. 23.2. Their third reaſon that we are called to read ſtinted & impoſed prayers. if neither the Law, nor the people, did give us any other names then ſuch as are popiſh, and we alſo did glory in them our ſelves. Yet makes this nothing to the condemnation of our office, and doctrine, ſeeing, that though the name of Phariſie were not of divine inſtitution, Yet Chriſt Himſelfe giveth approbation, to the office of preaching, which they exerciſed.
Their third reaſon againſt our office and function, is. That we are called to reade ſtinted prayers, that are deviſed, and impoſed by men: Concerning which, they ſay, page 62. of their diſcovery, to the Booke of common prayers, all the Prieſts of the Land are ſwonn to uſe it in manner and forme preſcribed, and in the booke …s in … the whole form and ſubſtance of their miniſtr…e, and in … 3.) … book of common prayer is the very ground worke of their faith … and Miniſterie, and in place … them, of the Word of God. And in the 64 page, the Word of God may not be taught, but when th… booke hath firſt …een…read, and hath had the preheminence.
To all which was give this anſwer;Is alſo inſufficient for a preſcript form of prayer is lawfull. Secondly, even though it be impoſed. Firſt that a ſee and preſcript forme of prayer, may lawfully be uſed, as we have proved already in our anſwer to their ſecond objection againſt out Church.
Secondly, If to have a preſcript forme of prayer is lawfull in it ſelfe, we ſee not how this ſhould make it unlawfull, that it is preſcribed by the Church, authorized by the Chriſtian Magiſtrate, for which we alſo referre our ſelves to that anſwer, wee have already given to then ſecond Objection againſt our Church.
Thirdly, though that by ſtatute, the Miniſters bee commanded to read prayer, Yet doe we denie that is enjoyned, as any e…entiall part of our office, ſeeing that in the f…ie of ordination, appointed by Law, there is no ſuch thing … of us, … are there only charged with the preaching of the Word, prayer, and … of the Sacraments, and diſcipline of Chriſt. And that ſtatute which ratifieth the Communion booke, reſpecteth of the ſubſtance of our Office, but order onelyonly and uniformiti… Neither doth any Law of our Land deny him, to be a true and lawfully Miniſter, which preacheth the word aright though he never reade prayers according to that booke. Whereof the practiſe of our Church is a ſufficient proofe, wherein there are many Miniſters allowed, that never medled with that booke, and many both Schoole-Maſters and others, by the Biſhops are permitted to reade it publikely, though they be not in the account of Miniſters; And which is more, private men may (… Statute) reable it in their private houſes:Their fourth reaſon (viz.) that wee are called to read ungodly prayers is alſo inſufficient, for 1. We have Miniſters that read none of thoſe prayers that for matter or forme can be proved ungodly. All which proveth evidently the reading of the Booke of Common Prayer, is not taken to be of the ſubſtance of our miniſterie, nor abſolutly neceſſary, to the being of a Miniſter in our Church. And therefore we cannot but wonder to read thoſe accuſations (which are ſo notoriouſly known to be falſe and ſlanderons) in their writings who pretend ſuch love to ſinceritie, and are ſo ſharpe cenſurers, even of the ſecret faults of other men.
Their fourth reaſon againſt the office we exerciſe, is, That wee are called to reade ungodly prayers? whereunto we anſwer.
Firſt, It is moſt cleare that many Miniſters in our Church, uſe not to reade any of thoſe prayers, which you account, for the matter ungodly, and that therefore this can bee no good reaſon, againſt all our Miniſters.
Secondly,Secondly, none are in the ordination called and enjoyned to read ſuch. 2 Kings 16.11. If all did uſe to read them; Yet are they not in their Ordination called to reade them (as hath beene above proved) ſo that if they reade them, the fault is in them, and not in the office they exerciſe.
Thirdly, If they were enjoyned to read ungodly prayers, and did accordingly read them, this cannot make their Miniſterie voyd, or Antichriſtian, for then Ʋriah ſhould have beene no Prieſt, for that he made an Alter at Jeruſalem, like that in all points, which was at Damaſcus: whereas it is evident, that he continued the Prieſt of the Lord ſtill: Notwithſtanding that great fault which was beyond all compariſon greater than this, that is in queſtion.
Their fift reaſon againſt our office is, That we are called to read, Homilies, and Injuctions, and whereunto we anſwer.
Firſt, That neither do the moſt of our Miniſters read Homilies; Neither doth any law of the Land require, that Preachers ſhould read them.
Secondly, If Law did enjoyne them to all, and all did read them; yet are they not enjoyned in our ordination, nor accounted by Law as ſubſtantiall parts of our office, neither is their any doubt made in our Land (no not by them that doe preſſe the preciſe obſervation of Law in this point) whether he be a lawfull Miniſter, who doth not read, either Homilies, or Injunctions.
Their ſixth reaſon againſt our office is, That we are called to marry, burie, and Church women. To which alſo we anſwer.
Firſt, That it is no part of our office (whereunto in ordination we are called) to doe theſe things.
Secondly, as the Miniſters uſe to bleſſe the Marriages, that are made in our Land, ſo make we no doubt, but that it is lawfull and fit (as a matter not of ſubſtance, but of good order) that they ſhould not doe it, for as it is neceſſary that this ordinance of God ſhould be ſanctified, by the Word, and prayer, ſo it cannot bee inconvenient, that the Word and prayer, whereby it is ſanctified, ſhould be adminiſtred by him, who in a ſpeciall ſort is appointed of God to be the ſteward, and diſpoſer of all his myſteries, and to whom in his miniſteriall actions, greater promiſes are made than to any other man: though hee doe the very ſame thing. And ſeeing that in theſe dayes it preventeth many dangerous inconveniences, to have marriages bleſt in the publike congregations, who can be thought ſo fit to ſpeake in the congregation, and to bee the month, either of the Lord to the people, or of the people unto God, as is the Miniſter?
That which Henry Barrow objecteth in the 123. page of his diſcovery; That he ever tooke Marriage for an Ordinance, and an action of the ſecond table, and ſeeth not why we may not as well ſet up the tables, of the money changers, or bring in any other civill matters or chaffaire, as this into our Church; is eaſily anſwered; for though marriages be a civill action, yet is not the bleſſing of it, by the word, and prayer civill: And as the Magiſtrates may have a hand in thoſe actions, that are Eccleſiaſticall and belonging to the firſt Table, (even by Henry Barrowes owne confeſſion, in the 85. page of the ſame booke) ſo may the Miniſter have a hand in thoſe actions that are civill, and belonging to the ſecond Table. And though Marriages receive life and being, from the contract that is made by mutuall conſent of parties, and Parents privately (which is the cauſe why we doe thereupon according to the Scriptures, account them man and wife, before they have lyen together) yet doth this adde much to the ſeemlineſſe and beautie of that holy ordinance, when it is thus made knowne, and rightly ratified in the congregation.
Concerning Courching of women, we anſwer: That many of our Miniſters doe upon a juſt diſlike of the forme preſcribed in the booke, and upon feare of nuriſhing the great ſuperſtition (that the people for the moſt part have put in that cuſtome) forbeare to uſe any particular, and perſonall forme of thankeſgiving, at that time and occaſion: And yet wee ſee not how it ſhould ſimply, be unlawfull, (though very unconvenient) to uſe ſome form of thankeſgiving, at that time even with ſpeciall mention of that occaſion, or how our miniſterie ſhould be made void, and Antichriſtian by doing ſo beſides that, the booke it ſelfe tieth no Miniſter to the forme preſeribed, but leaveth it to his diſcretion to uſe it, or any other, as that caſe or occaſion requireth.
Concerning burialls, we anſwer.
Firſt, That many of our Miniſters are knowne to refuſe the forme of buriall preſcribed in the booke.
Secondly, That a Chriſtian Miniſter may (for the honour and ſeemlineſſe of Chriſtian buriall) accompany, as a Chriſtian, with the reſt of the Neighbours, the body of Chriſtians departed unto the grave.
Thirdly, if the miniſter uſe ſome few words of comfort and exhortation at that time; Yea even in that forme, that the booke preſcribeth, though it may prove inconvenient, and offenſive; Yet is there no ſuch impietie in that action, that ſhould make his miniſterie void, or Antichriſtian.
Their ſeventh reaſon againſt our office is, That we are called to uſe Antichristian Geremonies? whereunto we make this anſwer. That the Ceremonies wherein opinion of Holineſſe is, or hath beene put, many of our Miniſters have caſt off, ſo that this reaſon maketh nothing to juſtifie ſeparation from all our Church Aſſemblies.
Secondly, Many that uſe ſundry of theſe Ceremonies doe it, becauſe either they judge them things indifferent and ſuch, as whereunto the Law of Chriſtian charitie,b Rom. 7.15. 2 Chron. 20 33. 1 King. 2.5.3. Though we all uſed the moſt unlawfull Ceremonies that are in our Church; Yet might we bee true Miniſters. Galath. 4 9. 2 Kings 14.4. Fourthly, Speciallie ſeeing we are not bound by office to uſe them. Their ſecond Objection againſt our miniſterie is, that the entrance in to our Office is Antichriſtian; which inſufficient to warrant their ſeparation, for Firſt, the people are not bound to enquire or ſee how their Miniſters entred Secondly, Our entrance may be lawfull though it be not in al points agreeable to the rules of Chriſts Teſtament. …eſu…a. p. 127. and the tender regard to the weakeneſſe of the people doth (as they thinke) binde them, following therein, the direction of the Word, or elſe they tollerate them as burdens, which it lieth not in them to remove, being laid upon them by the determination of the Magiſtrate, and cuſtome of the Church: And ſeeing that they doe in judgement, and affection, unfainedly diſlike that which either through humane infirmitie, or in Chriſtian wiſdome, and to prevent more dangerous inconveniences) they are inforced to beare with Wee ſee not, why they may not bee accounted the true Miniſters of Chriſt, notwithſtanding they uſe theſe inconyenient Ceremonies, as well as Paul might be judged to be a good Chriſtian, though he ſometimes did that evill, which he hated and Iehoſ…phat a good King, though hee indured the high places to continue in Iudah all the time of his government, becauſe hee was not able to aboliſh them. And David though he ſuffered Ioab to live many dayes, after he had committed moſt unnaturall murder becauſe hee was notable without manifeſt danger to his ſtate to cut him off.
Thirdly, the uſe of the moſt unlawfull ceremonies that are amongſt us, is not of force to make our Miniſterie void, and Antichriſtian, or our Church for the Galathians were ſtill a true Church, though they had received even thoſe impotent, and beggerly rudiments, which they had once caſt off, much more wee, which cannot bee ſaid to have reſumed them, as being never yet freed from the bondage of them, ſo was there ſtill a true Church in Iudah when the hill alters, and high places were continued there, which yet was a greater corruption in the worſhip of God, then the ceremonies whereof queſtion is made, can poſſibly be accounted.
Fourthly, It is no part of our office whereunto we are in ordination called, to uſe any ceremonies as hath beene ſhewed before.
The ſecond thing they object againſt our Miniſterie is, That the manner of our entrance into the aforeſaid office and calling is Antichriſtian, and not according to Gods Ordinance?
Whereunto wee anſwer: Firſt, that the people may lawfully accept us to bee true Miniſters, whom the Church ſo eſteemeth, though they cannot ſee how we firſt entred. And that by no commandement or example in the Word, they are bound to enquire there-into. For further proofe whereof, we referre out ſelves unto the anſwer which wee have made to their firſt Objection, againſt the whole body of our Church.
Secondly, Though none of thoſe Rules which Chriſt his Teſtament hath ſet downe for the calling, and ordaining of our Miniſterie, can be wanting without a blemiſh, and maime to the calling: And conſequently they ſhould all of them be carefully ſought for, both by Miniſter and people, yet may ſome of them be wanting, without loſſe of the life, and being of the calling: Neither is that true which they affirme; That whatſoever Miniſter hath not a true, and right calling, in all points, though the office whereunto hee be called, be a true office, is no true Miniſter, but an uſurper, an intruder, a thiefe, and a murtherer. For firſt, whatſoever is of the being, and ſubſtance of the calling to the miniſterie, hath beene common to all true and lawfull Miniſters, that ever were in the Church, as well as the ſubſtance of the Sacraments, and diſcipline, and whole Religion, hath ever beene one, and the ſame, in all places, and at all times; whereas it is cleere, that ſome of the rules preſcribed for the outward calling in the New Teſtament, have not bin alwayes in uſe, and practiſe throughout Gods Church, no not in ſuch miniſtries as the Word hath given teſtimonie to; for proofe whereof may be alleadged the calling, that thoſe Levites, and Preachers exerciſed, whereof there is mention made, 2 Chron. 17.7, 9. For as in diverſe other parts of Gods ſervice, the omitting, and ſwerving from ſundry of Gods holy Ordinances preſcribed in the word, maketh not the action it ſelfe void and unlawfull (as is evident by that one example, 2 Chro. 30.26, 17, 18, 19) ſo the want and ſwerving from ſome rules preſcribed, for the outward calling of the Miniſters, cannot be of force ſufficient to make their calling void, and unlawfull.
Thirdly,Thirdly, Our entrance might be lawfull though in ſome points it were according to ſome Cannons of Antichriſt. Their firſt reaſon whereby th…y condemne our entrance, (viz.) that we were not elect by the people, not approved by the Elderſhip, is of no force. Though our entrance were according to ſome of Antichriſts Canons, yet would not that prove that our miniſterie is Antichriſtian; for further proofe whereof, wee referre our ſelves to that anſwer wee have made to the fourth Objection againſt the whole body of our Church.
Their firſt reaſon againſt our entrance is; That wee are not choſen, by that people, over whom wee are ſet, or approved by an Elderſhip?
Whereunto we give this anſwer. Firſt, that their be ſundry of our Miniſters in our Church, that have beene in times paſt choſen by a faithfull people, and ordained by a true Elderſhip, to the worke of the miniſterie, at Antwerp. Geneva, Midlebarough, Fluſhing; Stoade, Gernſey
Againſt who if this be objected. That they were not thus called, to any of our Pariſh Aſſemblies? Wee deſire to know by what warrant they can …ee accounted to be … Miniſters now, that have given no juſt cauſe of deprivation, ſince the time they were ſo ſufficiently called to the miniſtery.
Secondly, the moſt of ſuch Preachers, as have ſtood for the cauſe of Reformation have the very ſame outward election,Secondly, manie of the ſame election and ordination in ſubſtance which the word requireth and ordination in ſubſtance which the word preſcribeth; for firſt, their are be ore their entrance, ſufficient meanes uſed to know and finde what gifts are in them by diſputations and other exerciſes in divinitie.
Secondly, their gifts are approved by the judgement of ſundry learned men of the Colledges, and places wherein, and whereabout they have beene trained up
Thirdly, the faithfull that are in thoſe Congregations, where they are placed doe either deſire them, or gladly receive them, or at the leaſt by not taking exception to them, do even by their ſilence, conſent to their entrance, or by ſubmitting themſelves willingly to their godly directions in all things, and profitting in knowledge and Reformation of life by their labours, doe manifeſtly approve of them, and ſet a ſeale unto their miniſterie, whereof this may ſerve for an evident proofe, that many Aſſemblies have both made an earneſt fuite for ſundry Miniſters before their firſt comming to them; And when they have beene moleſted afterwards.
And ſeeing the right that Patrons now have, was given them at firſt by the peoples free conſent (though ignorantly, and unlawfully as wee are perſwaded) we ſee not why the choiſe that the Patron maketh, may not be accounted the choice of the people, as well as the acts done by the Knights, and Burgeſſes of the Parliament, are deemed the acts of the whole commons, by whom they were deputed; It is evident that by the Law mentioned, Numb. 30.8. that the ſilence of the husband, or parent that teſtified not his diſlike to the vow which hee underſtood was made by his wife, or child, made the ſaid vow of as much force, as if his conſent had beene requited and given, ſo it is judged in this caſe of the peoples ſilence, in accepting of their Miniſters.
Thirdly, the Law it ſelfe requireth that wee ſhould have the ſame election and ordination in ſubſtance which the Word of God preſcribeth, for by the Law; Firſt, none ſhould be made Miniſter, but at the ſame time alſo be ſhould be appointed to ſome certaine charge.
Secondly, That when any Miniſters are to be made, there ſhould be knowledge given thereof, and that in ſo publike place and manner, that even the people, over whom any Miniſter is to be ſet, may know it, and be admitted, to take any juſt exception, they can either to his doctrine, or life.
Thirdly, There may be ſome entrance into the Miniſterie in ſubſtance ſufficient, where the people at firſt have not made election, nor their conſent been required at all: as in caſe where the people have not knowledge of their right, or having known it have not been ſuffered to uſe it: But yet have afterwards yeelded themſelves ſubject thereunto, as alſo in the caſe aforeſaid, Numbers 30.8, for further proofe whereof, we refer our ſelves to the anſwer we have given, unto that which they object in generall againſt our entrance.
Fourthly, Concerning ordination by Elderſhip, this wee anſwer in particular: Firſt, that unleſſe the elderſhip be held ſo eſſentiall a thing, that there can be no true Church without it (which we are well aſſured of that our brethren themſelves, and all that have any knowledge will denie) ordination by the elderſhip cannot be abſolutely neceſſary, albeit in the ſetled government of a Church, we hold it of the eſſence of the calling of a Miniſter, that we have the ſubſtance of the ordination appointed in the Word.
Fiftly, That as in times paſt; ſo now alſo there may be in ſome places ſuch an eſtate of the Church, as wherein no manner of ordination and inveſting of Miniſters, hath been, or could be uſed in the giving of an entrance into the Miniſterie: And though where it may be conveniently had, we hold it fit that the weakneſſe of the peoples judgement in their choiſe of their Miniſter, ſhould be ſupported by the diſcreet knowledge of the Miniſters and Elders that are about them; Yet where it cannot be conveniently had (as in places where the Goſpel is newly planted, and far removed from other Churches already eſtabliſhed) there that (amongſt other conſiderations) the courſe of the Goſpel ſhould not be ſtayed, till ordination be fetched from farre countreys; the Lord himſelfe oftentimes ſupplieth the places of the Miniſters and Elders, and layeth on his hands: ſuch evidence of gifts and graces proper for the Miniſtry, as not onelyonly the Church doth willingly acknowledge; but the enemies alſo will they nill they, are in their conſciences convinced to be divine and excellent.
And ſeeing it is evident that neither the Prophets under the law, nor many worthy Miniſters that God hath raiſed up ſince the time of the Goſpel, had ever before their entrance into the Miniſtry, their gifts ſolemnly approved or been ordained.
Our Brethren muſt needs grant that this kinde of ordination is not ſimply or abſolutely neceſſary to the being of a Miniſter.
To which alſo this may be added, that our Saviour in giving notice whereby the true Paſtor ſhould be diſcerned from the falſe, nameth only theſe, viz. that he enter himſelfe, and lead the people in and out by that dore.
Secondly, that the people of God agree with him and conſent to his Miniſtrie.
Thirdly, that the Porter (the holy Ghoſt) open the hearts of the hearers to him and his doctrine (a) which 3. notes doubtleſſe our Saviour would not have reſted in, if there could have been no true Miniſter without the ordination which our Brethren ſpeak of, and urge that as a matter of abſolute neceſſitie:Their ſecond reaſon (viz.) that we reccive our Ordinatiō from Antichriſtian Biſhops, ialſo inſufficient for, firſt, Our Biſhops cannot trulie be called Antichriſtian. So that to conclude this point, wee ſay that the ordinary courſe of entring into the Miniſtrie is not kept; but a great imperfection and want is to be acknowledged where this election and ordination is not uſed; Yet is not the want ſuch, as taketh away the very life, and being of a true miniſterie.
Their ſecond reaſon againſt our entrance is; That our ordination is received from Antichriſtian Prelates, and ſuch as being perſecutors of the godly, cannot bee well accounted brethren, or members of the Church, much leſſe can they give a calling to a Minister of the Church? whereunto we anſwer.
Firſt,Secondly, ſeeing our Biſhops are ſuch as can judge of the ſufficiencie of gifts, and are alſo Miniſters It cannot be unlawfull for him that is to bee a Miniſters to receive approbation and authoritie from them. That the Biſhops of England cannot truly be called Antichriſtian Prelates, for proofe whereof, wee referre our ſelves unto that anſwer we have given unto their fourth Objection, againſt the whole bodie of our Church.
Secondly. ſeeing it cannot bee denied, that the Biſhops are able to judge of ſuch gifts as are required for the ſufficiencie of Miniſters; yea that many of them have beene ſuch Miniſters themſelves, as to whoſe labours, the Lord hath ſet to his Seale, and who have alſo ſuffered perſecution for the truth; we are perſwaded, that (though it were not neceſſary, yet) it cannot be unlawful, for him that entreth into the miniſtery to be approved, and authorized even by them.
And if our ordination be in this behalfe faultie, how will out Brethren juſtifie the calling of their own Miniſters,Thirdly, the gifts & power to ordaine which God hath commited to his Church, we may lawfully ſeeke the benefit of it, even at worſe mensch n…s then our Biſhops are if we cannot otherwiſe come by it. that have received ordination ever from the people, who neither by commandement, not example, can be found to have any ſuch authoritie, nor are in any degree to capable of it, as the Biſhops.
Thirdly, the ordination we ſeeke for, from the Biſhops, is not theirs but committed, to the Church by Chriſt Himſelfe: And ſeeing wee have already proved, that there was in England a true Church even then when this authoritie was firſt given by Parliament, to the Biſhops, and that the true Church (which without a miniſterie, cannot poſſibly bee continued) is never without power to ordaine Miniſters: Wee may lawfully reverence, and ſeeke for the benefit of this power, and pri… ledge, which God hath given to his Church, though it were conveied unto us by men, leſſe capable of this authoritie, then our Biſhops are. And he that thinketh Chriſts ordination, the better for the man, that beſtoweth it, iucurreth (as we thinke) the danger of the curſe,Fourthly. We may lawfullie ſeeke the Biſhops approbation, becauſe from his hands only we can receive the civill Magiſtrates allowance to exerciſe our Miniſtrie. denounced againſt him, that putteth his truſt in man, and maketh fleſh his arme, and nith dra…eth his heart from the Lord. Ier. 17.5.
Fifthly, If our Biſhops were not at all capable of this power to give Eccleſiaſticall Ordination, yet ſeeing the Chriſtian Magiſtrates approbation, is not to be refuſed by him that exerciſeth a miniſterie in the Church, and that cannot be had in our Church, but by the hands of the Biſhops we thinke that he who is fitted of God to the miniſterie, and hath alſo teſtimonie of his fitneſſe from ſuch godly learned Brethren as have made tryall of his gifts, and can judge of them, may lawfully accept and ſeeke for this kinde of approbation, if all other conditions bee equall.
Sixthly, Admit the Biſhops from whom we receive our ordination,6. Though the Ordination received from the Biſhops were as corrupt as baptiſmal received from popiſh Prieſts, Yee may he be a lawfull Miniſter that hath no other Ordination then from the Biſhops Their third Objection agaiuſt our Miniſterie is, that our adminiſtration and exerciſe of that office whereunto we are thus called, is alſo Antichriſtian. were indeed Antichriſtian, or Heretickes (as we judge them not to be) yet why ſhould wee bee bound to ſeeke for any other ordination, more than another baptiſme, then that which we have received from Popiſh Prieſts in the time of ignorance; And ſeeing that Barrow and Groenwood, in the 54. page of their refutation, doe not onelyonly account many to be true Chriſtians, that never had other outward Baptiſme, then that which they had from Popiſh Prieſts, but plainely affirme, that ſuch neither need, nor ought to be baptized againe; we wonder why they dare not account us true Miniſters, becauſe of this ordination received from the Biſhops.
Shall ordination bee thought more neceſſary to the being of a Miniſter, than baptiſme is to the being of a Chriſtian; or ſhall an error in ordination, have more force to prove one no Miniſter, than an error in Baptiſme hath to prove one no Chriſtian; or are our Biſhops worſe than the Popiſh. Prieſts, or the corruption in the forme of our ordination, greater than thoſe that are uſed in popiſh Baptiſme.
The third thing they object againſt our Miniſterie, Is, that the admiſtration, and exerciſe of our function, is not agreeable to the Word, but Antichriſtian becauſe (ſay they) as at our entrance, we ſweare Cannonicall Obedience to the Biſhops; Fifthly, Which is inſufficient to warrant their ſeparatiō, for it is not utterly unlawfull for us to yeeld ſome kinde of obedience to, Biſhops.ſo doe we performe it in our whole adminiſtration, by going to their Courts, by ſtanding, and falling at their commandement?
Whereunto we anſwer.
Firſt, that ſo long as the Chriſtian Magiſtrate requireth we ſhould yield obedience to the Biſhops (and that with this limitation, (viz.) only in things lawfull and honeſt) wee thinke it not unlawfull for us to give obedience to them, in thoſe things they doe by civill authoritie, though neither themſelves, nor the Magiſtrate might well require us to doe, for even our Saviour Himſelfe yeelded obedience to Ceſar, in ſuch a thing wherein Caeſar could not lawfully exact obedience of him; as for the excommunication and ſuſpentions,Mat. 17.24, 27 and ſuch other cenſures as are meerely Eccleſiaſticall? We anſwer. As the true Church of God, which from the Lord Ieſus hath received theſe keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven, did though unadviſedly, and unlawfully deliver them over into the hands of the Biſhops: And the Biſhops being Preachers of the Word, though they ſhould not have this power wholly committed unto them, yet are they capable of it. We ſee not how it ſhould be utterly unlawfull to reverence and yeeld to the cenſures of Chriſts Church, being exerciſed, and adminiſtred even by them, unleſſe wee will ſay, that the Church preſently looſeth her right and power, to cenſure Offenders, when ſhe committeth it unto any ſuch men, as unto whom of right, either not at all, or not of right, only it belongeth.
Secondly,Secondly, Not bind our ſelves thereto by oath, ſo far as we doe. Now as wee may lawfully yeeld ſome obedience to the Biſhops in theſe things, ſo wee may lawfully binde our ſelves by oath to doe it: if our oathes be required or us by the Chriſtian Magiſtrates anthoririe, eſpecially ſeeing we doe by oath binde our ſelves, to obey in regard of the civill authoritie, which is committed to them, by the Chriſtian Magiſtrate.
Thirdly, For our going to their Courts, this we anſwer. That ſeeing we doe teſtifie in our callings, our diſlike to the vile, and odious corruptions of their Courts; And doe alſo utterly refuſe to yeeld obedience to any o… their unlawfull decrees, we cannot juſtly bee condemned for appearing intheir Courts, or any other place whereunto we are by His Majeſties authoritie ſummoned. And whereas the perſons before whom wee appeare are judged uſually corrupt, and enemies to that Reformation which wee deſire, and ſome of them alſo, ſuch as (being no miniſters themſelves) do by all meanes ſeeke the diſgrace of our calling, and the utter diſcoutagement of ſuch Chriſtians, as in whom they perceive any ſparkes of true zeale) wee account this our appeating at their Courts, not onelyonly for an abridgment of our libertie, but alſo for ſuch a burthen, as wee have juſt cauſe to groane under, and to pray, that God would in His good time, move His Majeſties heart, to eate us of it. And yet as the Apoſtle being free was content, for the Churches ſake, not onelyonly to become bound, in ſerving it with the labour of his hands, but alſo, by ſubjecting himſelſe to thoſe Ceremonies, which in Chriſt were aboliſhed, ſo may, and ought we for the Churches ſake, to beare this burden, rather than to forſake, or refuſe the miniſterie, when the Lord hath called, and fitted us unto it.
For our yeelding to the ſuſpentions, and deprivations, wee anſwer. That ſo long as the Biſhops ſuſpend, and deprive according to the Law of the Land, wee account of the action herein,Fourthly, To ceaſe from the execution of our miniſterie when they ſuſpend or deprive us. as of the act of the Church, which wee may and ought to reverence, and yeeld unto, if they doe otherwiſe, wee have liberty given us by the Law, to appeale from them, if it bee ſaid, that the Church is not to bee obeyed when it ſuſpends, and deprives us, for ſuch cauſes as wee in our Conſciences know to be inſufficient? We anſwer. That it lyeth in them to depoſe, that may ordaine; and they may ſhut, that may open. And that as he may with a good conſcience, execute a miniſterie, by the ordination, and calling of the Church, who is privie to himſelfe of ſome unfitneſſe (if the Church will preſſe him to it) ſo may he who is privie to himſelfe, of no fault that deſerveth deprivation, ceaſe from the execution of his miniſtery, when he is preſſed thereunto by the Church. And if a guiltleſſe perſon put out of his charge by the Churches authoritie, may yet continue in it, what proceedings can there bee againſt guiltie perſons, who in their owne conceit, are alwaies guiltleſſe, or will at leaſt pretend ſo to be; Seeing they alſo will bee readie alwayes to object againſt the Churches judgment, that they are called of God, and may not therefore give over the execution of their miniſterie at the will of man.
And yet admitting it were meerely unlawfull,Fourthly, If this obedience wee yeeld to them were utterly unlawfull yet may we be true Miniſters of Chriſt notwithſtanding. upon any reſpect to yeeld any new obedience at all, to the cenſures of the Biſhops; yet how will it follow, that this our unlawfull yeelding, hath force ſufficient to make us (ipſo fasto) no true Miniſters, unleſſe you will ſay, that the High Prieſts, who were in Chriſts time, that took and left their offices, at the will of tyrants, and heathen Princes, Were therefore not to be accounted Prieſts, for further anſwer, hereunto we referre the Reader, to that which wee have above ſaid to the fourth thing which they object againſt the whole body of our Aſſemblies; And to that alſo which wee have already anſwered unto the fourth reaſon, which they bring againſt our office.
The ſpeech of the Apoſtls,The ſpeech of the Apoſtles. Acts 4.19, 20, 15. moſt unskilfully alleaged againſt us. 1 Tim. 6.2. which they are wont to object againſt us in this caſe, may eaſily appeare how unskilfully, it is alleadged to them that will conſider theſe three differences betweene their caſe and ours.
Firſt, they that inhibited the Apoſtles, were knowne, and profeſſed enemies to the Goſpell.
Secondly, the Apoſtles were charged not to teach in the name of Chriſt, nor to publiſh any part of the Doctrine of the Goſpell, which commandement might more hardly bee yeelded unto, then this of our Biſhops, who though they cannot indure them, which teach that part of the truth that concerneth the good government, and reformation of the Church, yet are they not only content that the Goſpell ſhould bee preached, but are alſo preachers of it themſelves.
Thirdly, The Apoſtles received not their calling, and authority from men(c)Galath. 2.1. nor by the hands of men, but immediately from God Himſelfe, and therefore alſo might not bee reſtrained, or depoſed by men; whereas wee, though we exerciſe a function, whereof God is the Author, and we are alſo called of God to it, yet are we called and ordeined by the hand, and miniſterie of men, and may therefore by men, be alſo depoſed and reſtrained from the exerciſe of our miniſterie.
The fourth Objection againſt our miniſtrie is,There fourth Objection againſt our Miniſterie is that our maintenance is not according to Chriſts directions, but Iewiſh and Antichriſtian, which is not of force to condemne our miniſterie, Becauſe wee may be the true Miniſters of Chriſt although we receave maintenance from all ſorts of men. That we are not maintained a cording to the direction Chriſt bath given in his Teſtament, but our maintenance is lewiſh, and Antichriſtian: That this is a principall matter objected againſt our miniſterie, appeareth in the fourth page of their Collection of letters, and conferences, and ſundry other parts of their writings,
And leaſt they ſhould ſeeme to ſay it only, they bring ſundry reaſons, to prove that our maintenance is ſuch, as no Miniſter of Chriſt, can accept, or live by, for ſay yee, our Miniſters receive maintenance from all ſorts of men in their pariſh without difference. This is alleadged in their collection of liberties and page 18. and called in the 145. page of the refutation. An execrable ſacriledge, and covetous making marchandize of the holy things of God, a letting out of our ſelves to hire to the prophan, for filthy Lucre. To this firſt reaſon they bring againſt our mintenance, this anſwer we give.
Firſt, That the Chriſtian Magiſtrate is bound to uſe his authoritie for the furtherance of the ſubjects in all things that concerne godlines, and honeſtic, and ſo ſee that the morall Law bee kept by them, whereas therefore the Chriſtian Magiſtrate (in conſcience of his dutie) hath provided by the Law, that all his Subjects ſhould (of the increaſe God giveth them) contribute ſomewhat towards the maintenance of their Miniſter; we may truly be ſaid to receave our maintenance, rather from the Magiſtrate then from the people.
Secondly, the Magiſtrate may lawfully appoint ſo much of the Subjects goods (as by Law is given to the Miniſters maintenance) to bee imployed to this or any other good uſe, as is evident by that, which the Apoſtle ſaith, Rom. 13.7.
Thirdly, the Magiſtrate may without any ſhew of wrong compell the ſubjects to pay this part of their goods, which they give to their Miniſter, becauſe in Parliament it was voluntarily beſtowed, even by the people themſelves: whoſe free act that is, to be accounted, which is enacted and done in Parliament.
Fourthly, It is evident by the Word, that the offerings which heathens voluntarily brought, and gave to the building, and beautifiing of the Temple were accepted of, as appeareth in the ſtories.(a)Ezra. 1.4, 6
Fifthly, Seeing the Apoſtle calleth it our owne bread,Mehem 2.8. 2 Theſ. 3.12. wee get by our honeſt labours,(b)Eph. 4.28 and our Saviour ſaith in this caſe, that the labourer is worthy of his hire,(c)Luke 10.7 we may with comfort, and good conſcience, take maintenance of the wicked that live in our pariſhes, for whoſe ſake, both publikely and privately, we take paines, and to whom the benefit of our labour is offered; ſeeing that the Apoſtle avoucheth(d)1 Cor. 9.11. that ſuch as ſow ſpirituall things amongſt people (though God bleſſe not their feed) may lawfully, and honeſtly, reape their carnall things.
Sixthly, As for the teſtimonie of the holy Scriptures, which our brethren alleadge in this point, wee give this anſwer unto them. To the place, Levit. 22.25. we anſwer.
Firſt, that the meaning is, that a ſtranger being a Proſelite, might no more lawfully offer any of theſe uncleane, and imperfect ſacrifices ſpoken of in the verſes going before, then a Jew might.
Secondly, If the unbelieving ſtranger were meant here, yet is there nothing ſpoken here of the maintenance, which ſhould come to the Prieſts, for the intent of the Law, in this place is to ſhew what manner of ſacrifices ſhould bee offered to the Lord, and not what maintenance Prieſts ſhould have, which is evident, both for that the ſacrifice is here called, the bread of their God, and alſo for that elſewhere the Prieſts might receave maintenance, which might have blemiſh, as in the firſt fruits, and firſt borne. To that place, Pro. 15.8. and all ſuch like, we anſwer.
Firſt, that thought the action their ſpoken of (for the ſubſtance thereof) bee good and lawfull; yet as it commeth from them whoſe hearts are not purged by faith, it is indeed abominable in Gods ſight, as all other the actions of the wicked are.
Secondly, That they abuſe this place, for it is there meant of the ſpirituall ſervices of God, and not of corporall maintenance, and laſtly, if it were to be underſtood of the maintenance of the Miniſter, yet ſhould not the Miniſter ſinne, in taking it, becauſe they ſinne in giving it; Becauſe by the Law, it was provided, that all Iewes cleane, or uncleane, good or bad ſhould pay tythes without exception. To the place Phil 4 18. We anſwer.
Firſt, That he ſpeaketh not there of maintenance due to the miniſterie, but of the contribution, made to the afflicted Saints, and to himſelfe in particular, that had a principall portion, in the ſufferings of the Saints.
Secondly, if they urge that the maintenance of the Miniſter is alſo an odour that ſmelleth ſweet, and a ſacrifice acceptable to God, which nothing that proceedeth from the wicked can be: wee referre our ſelves herein to the anſwer wee have made to the Prov. 15.8. cited by them to the ſame purpoſe.
Their ſecond reaſon againſt our maintenance is,Secondly, although onr main'enance be fixed and certaine. That it is fixed and certaine. This is alledged in the 61. page of their Diſcovery, and in ſundry other parts of their writings, Concerning which we anſwer.
Firſt, that this can be no good reaſon againſt all our Miniſters, ſeeing that we have ſome preach ordinarily and painfully, who yet either live wholly of themſelves, or take nothing of the people, but that which they give voluntarily.
Secondly, if it be a great fault to live upon a ſet ſtipend, yet ſeemeth it ſtrange unto us, that they ſhould account it ſo great to make a nullitie of our Miniſtrie.
Thirdly, wee can ſee no reaſon why it ſhould be thought either unlawfull or unconvenient to ſet ſtipends to be given unto, and receaved by the Miniſter: for firſt, under Moſes law,(a)Deut. 14.22 Numb. 35.2.9. Ioſh. 21.18. &c. 2 Chron. 6.64. a certaine and ſet courſe was preſcribed for the Miniſters maintenance, and the people appointed what they ſhould give. Now if it be ſaid of the manner of the Leviticall maintenance, that it was Ceremoniall, yet would we fain know what Ceremony or ſhadow there can be in the certainty thereof: Shall we ſay that together with the Ceremonie it ſelfe, all the equitie alſo and morall reaſon is abrogated.
Secondly, as Ezekiel deſcribing the pattern of the new Sanctuarie that ſhould be under the Goſpel, alludeth unto a certaine and ſet maintenance that ſhould be given to the miniſtrie:(b)Ezr. 45.1.5 ſo there be fundry Phraiſes and Compariſons in the new Teſtament uſed by Chriſt and the Apoſtles, from which the ſame may be very probably gathered to be lawfull and fit, as when the Miniſters maintenance is compared to the wages and hire of a ſervant,(c)Luke 10.17 2 Tim. 5.18. and when it is compared to the ſouldiers pay,(d)1 Cor. 9.7. which both things are certaine and ſet.
Thirdly, it ſtandeth with ſound reaſon that the Miniſters maintenance ſhould be certaine: For firſt, ſeeing it is already proved that a ſufficient maintenance muſt neceſſarily be given to the Miniſter of the people, how can it be unlawfull, either for the people by their owne promiſe, or for the Magiſtrate by law to binde them unto that which they ſhould voluntarily do of themſelves? Secondly, by this kinde of maintenance, ſundry of the peoples infirmities (as their grudging to give ought when it is in their power to give or not to give, their baſe eſtimation likewiſe of the Miniſter, and looking for civill dutie at his hand, and many other ſuch like) are beſt prevented: Yea, we deny that ever any Church was ſo well informed, wherein the moſt part of the people had not need to have ſuch infirmities reſtrained in them, by the wiſedom and authority of the Chriſtian Magiſtrate.
Touching the places of Scripture(e)1 Theſſ. 2.5. 1 Tim. 6.8. Iude 11.13. in this point alleadged, by them we give this anſwer. Firſt, that they condemne onelyonly the covetouſneſſe of men, and not the ſet maintenance of Miniſters, which may be receaved without covetouſneſſe. Secondly, if they will enforce theſe places againſt ſet payments to the Miniſter, they may as well enforce them againſt all ſet payments to the Prince, to the ſervant, to the labourer, or any other. Thirdly if not, then ſeeing the Apoſtles rule(a)Tim. 5.8. doth concern even the Miniſters as well as others, why ſhould it be thought covetouſneſſe in him to provide a certaine and ſet maintenance for himſelfe and his family, more then the ſame care is in any other Chriſtian?
To the place Mat. 10. we ſay that the Commandment which our Saviour Chriſt gave there to his diſciples was temporary, and concerned that eſpeciall voyage onelyonly wherein (for their incouragement to the Miniſtry) our Saviour aſſureth them, that they ſhould not need to feare the want of maintenance; for he would ſupply that extraordinarily as it were, by his eſpeciall providence, in inclining the hearts of men to maintaine them: And that this is ſo, may appeare by theſe reaſons.Verſe 7.8. Firſt, if it be a perpetuall rule we may thence gather, 1. that the Miniſter ought now to have no abiding place, neither two coates, two paire of ſhooes, nor a ſtaffe; neither that they may poſſeſſe any thing of their owne.
Secondly, they then received their gifts of preaching and working of miracles freely without coſt, and therefore were bound from covenanting for ſtipend, to diſpence thoſe gifts, receaving no more then for their preſent neceſſitie of food and raiment, which cannot be ſo ſaid of thoſe, whoſe bringing up in learning is coſtly, and whoſe ſtudy is painfull.
Thirdly, by the commandement which our Saviour Chriſt giveth(b)Luke 22.35 36. 1 Cor. 96, 7. Matth. 20. for proviſion for themſelves; And that which Paul challengeth, it is evident, that the reſtraint given, Mat. 10. was but temporarie, yea ad mit it might be proved from hence, that no ſet maintenance were given to the Miniſters during the Apoſtles time (which cannot be) yet followeth not that there ſhould be none: Now ſeeing that the Church was then without thoſe nouriſhing fathers which the Lord promiſed by the Prophet,(c)Eſay 49 23, … without whoſe authoritie wee ſee not how that order for forced maintenance could be taken. Neither doubt we to acknowledge even this for a ſpeciall fruit of that bleſſing promiſed to come to the Church by Chriſtian Magiſtrates, whereas they ſaid, that whatſoever is given to the maintenance of Gods Service, ſhould be free, and voluntarie, and alleadge for that, theſe places, Exodus 15.2. 2 Cor. 8.12. 2 Cor. 9.5, 7. we anſwer. That the bond of the peoples promiſe, and Magiſtrates Law is no hinderance, to the freedom and voluntarines, ſeeing the ſervice, and obedience of David was free and voluntary; Notwithſtanding the vow and oath hee bound himſelfe with.Pſal. 119.106. N…bem. 10.38. So was that alſo which is mentioned in Nehemiah, for if Covenanting, ſhould take away the voluntarineſſe of the act, then ſhould it not bee lawfull to covenant with ſervants and labourers or any other; Yea the Lord our God doth binde Himſelfe by Covenant, to give that reward to the faith, and obedience of his ſervants, which yet he giveth moſt freely and voluntarilie.
The third reaſon they alleadge againſt our maintenance,Thirdly. Although we bee maintained by Tythes. Is this; That we are maintained by Iewiſh tythes, and concerning which, they have theſe words, In the 60. page of their diſcoverie; It is evident, who are thus maintained by thoſe Iewiſh Tythes, and offerings, are not the miniſters of Chriſt, and a little after, theſe Prieſts, and people ſtill retaine the Leviticall decimations, in the ſame forme, to the ſame ends. And page 16. I could never ſee any difference betweene the Iewes and them, ſave that the Swine-heards, tythe-Pïgges and Geeſe, &c.
To all which, wee thus anſwer: Firſt, It is evident, that the tythes are not held amongſt us, by vertue of the Leviticall Law, but only by the poſitive Law of our Land, for proofe whereof, theſe reaſons following may be ſufficient.
Firſt, If this kinde of maintenance were given to the Miniſter, for conſcience and obedience to that Law; why ſhould not the firſt fruits alſo, offerings and diverſe other things, which by a plaine commandement, were due to the Leviticall Prieſt-hood bee given us as well as tythes?
Secondly, The manner of tything (which in diverſe parts of our Land is diverſly uſed, and which through cuſtome alſo, is many wayes altered) proveth that paying of tythes amongſt us, is not according to the Leviticall Law, nor in religeous obedience thereunto.
Thirdly, The Law (by conſent of the ſtates in the Parliament) having alenated, the tythes in many places, from the Miniſter, unto the Prince, and other men; doth thereby declare, that it appointeth not the paying of the tythes, by vertue of the Law of God.
Fourthly, Sundry of our Miniſters are (and that even in the judgement of our whole Church) lawfully by other meanes maintained, then by tythes, which is alſo a plaine demonſtration, that both the Leuiticall Law is not held to be in force with us; and if it were, wee might yet have ſome true Miniſters in our Land notwithſtanding.
Secondly, As the Prince (without any ſhew of Jewiſh ſuperſtition) may require of the Miniſters firſt fruits, and tenths, and of all the reſt of the ſubjects fifteenes, and ſubſidies for the maintenance of the wars, and other civill purpoſes, ſo doubt we not, but he may as well eſpecially by act of Parliament (which is alſo the act of the people) require tenths of his people to the maintenance of the miniſterie, of which (as wee have ſaid before) he is bound to have a more ſpeciall care, and regard then of the maintenance of the warres, or any other civill eſtate.
Their fourth reaſon againſt our maintenance is,Fourthly, Although we bee maintained by offerings and mortuary. That it ariſeth from popiſh offerings and mortuaries: Concerning which, wee anſwer, as followeth.
Firſt, Their be ſundry of our Miniſters that receive none at all, againſt whoſe Congregations, and Miniſters, this reaſon cannot hold, and many even of them to whom the Law alloweth offerings, have refuſed them that were accuſtomed to bee given at the Churchings, and burialls, and ſuch other, as the receiving whereof, they ſee would bee likely to nouriſh ſuperſtition in the people.
Secondly, If all did receive and live by offerings, we ſee not what pollution can come to their miniſterie thereby, for why may not that creature of God, which was firſt given to profane, and ſuperſtitious uſes, bee now lawfully tranſlated to the maintenance of Gods ſervice, ſeeing that even under the Law, tranſlation was lawfull, when (for a Ceremony, to ſhadow what deteſtation the people of God ſhould beare to the manners of the heathen, and how they ſhould be ſeparated from them:) Many things were made uncleane to the Iewes, that are not ſo to us; So alſo the Iron, and Braſſe, Silver, and Gold of Jericho,a Ioſua 6.24. was put into the treaſure of Gods houſe, as appeareth in the ſtory of Joſhuab: And David dedicated unto the Lord, the braſſe, and ſilver, and gold, of all the Nations, that he ſubdued; as may alſo appeare by Samuel. b2 Sam. 8.11.Now if thoſe goods that were not onelyonly put a part to an Idolatrous uſe, by a civill inſtitution, but alſo actually abuſed to Idolatrie, might yet lawfully bereceaved for the maintenance of the true ſervice of God, how much more may the mony wee receave for offerings, &c. be lawfully taken and enjoyed by us, ſeeing whatſoever originall the money, and inſtitution had, yet was it never applyed to any Idolatrous uſe.
Thirdly, If thoſe offerings were polluted things, yet are they too accidentall to overthrow the very being, and nature of our miniſterie.