Page images
PDF
EPUB

and thereby wrongs the reader;" thus Mather complains, under the twentieth chapter; "by leaving out those words wherein the plainness and strength of our argumentation lies." And at the end of the succeeding chapter, touching "the supreme magistrate," he writes, "We neither had mind nor meaning to meddle at all with that question, Whether churches may assemble in national synods against the temporal magistrates' will?.. And therefore, for his discourse which here he falls upon, maintaining at large against malignants, and, namely, against Thomas Fuller, that the Reformation begun in Scotland and prosecuted in England against the King's will, is lawful and warrantable by the Word: this discourse, I say, being altogether concerning others and not us, I will therefore pass it over.

To Rutherfurd's requirement, in the twenty-third chapter,—“ we desire our brethren to prove, which they must if they oppose our principles, that the word 'church' is never taken for eldership alone in all the Word of God;" Mather replies, "Must we prove a negative? . . If we prove what we undertook, we have done as much as can in reason be required of us:.. that the word 'church' is taken for a congregation in other Scriptures besides 1 Chron. xiv.; and this we have performed... Mr. Rutherfurd himself allowing some of our proofs for good!"

[ocr errors]

The next chapter, relating, in part, to "Those children of Israel, Num. viii. 10.," contains this passage, "It is marvel that our Reverend Brother should thus go on in representing our words and mind amiss; for as here he sets down the objection under our name, some of our words are changed and altered, others being substituted; .. some are wholly suppressed, as if there had been none such; and others are added as ours which never came from us." Subsequently Mather writes, "There is not,' saith he, a place in all the Word of God, where People confer ordination to the pastors of the New Testament; therefore our Brethren flee to the Old Testament, to prove it from the Levites.'.. We have given a reason," Mather continues, "why no such Scripture can be expected in the New Testament, namely, because in those times Elders were not wanting; for there were the apostles and apostolic men, who were Elders in all the churches: and we do willingly grant that 'where Elders are not wanting, imposition of hands is to be performed by the Elders.'.. If it be such a disparagement to our cause,.. how will Mr. Rutherfurd free his own way from another objection, which we think as sore and weighty against the same?.. I mean,.. That there is not any place in all the New Testament, where ordinary pastors or elders imposed hands on ordinary pastors or elders; but all the examples,.. where either the persons imposing, or the persons on whom hands were imposed, or both, were officers of extraordinary note and degree, such as now are not extant in the church, but are ceased long ago! Not that I deny but an argument may be taken from those examples, for imposition of hands in these days; but the thing I stand upon is this, That no example can be given from Scripture directly parallel to the way which our Brethren in these days do practise and allow; but some dissonancy will be found therein from their way as well, and a "Answer," p. 49.

perhaps as much, as from the way of imposition of hands perforined by the People in some cases. Let them tell us of Acts vi. 6, and xiv. 23, and 1 Tim. v. 23; and we answer, The persons imposing hands in those places were apostles and evangelists, such as our Brethren are not, nor do so account themselves. Let them name Acts xiii. 3, and 1 Tim. iv. 14; and we answer, The persons on whom hands were there laid were the like, even apostles and evangelists, whatever the imposers were; and therefore neither will these places perfectly suit the case. So that if we could give no example in the New Testament, of imposition of hands performed, in some cases, by the People, we think Mr. Rutherfurd and our Brethren of his way might be favourable to us for their own sake!"

Chapter the twenty-fifth comprises the points "Whether a minister's 'calling' consist in election, or in imposition of hands; and, whether of those is greater; and, whether is prior, or posterior: Whether 1 Tim. iv. 14, Acts vi. 2—4, xiii. 1—3, do prove that the minister's 'calling' consist in imposition of hands by the presbytery; and, that such imposition of hands is not a consummatory rite, or benedictory sign: also, Whether Rom. x. 15, do prove that a man cannot be a minister except some presbytery ordain him afore the People choose him; and, whether otherwise, the People do send a minister to themselves and, Whether the People of God may not as well discern a man's fitness to be ordained, as his fitness to be elected." Mather writes here, "Take 'ordination' as we take it, for imposition of hands on a church officer, and then we think it less than election, as being but a note or ceremony used at a minister's entrance into his office, but not at all of the essence thereof... Election is something essential, and so consequently more than imposition of hands, which is but a rite, or ceremony, which may be absent and yet a man have all the essentials of a minister notwithstanding. As for 1 Tim. iv. 14,.. I consider it only an approbatory sign or rite, which might be used by inferiors towards superiors: for Timothy being an evangelist, how could any ordinary presbytery have authority over him or give authority to him?..a The substance of the Levites' calling' was in the immediate designment and appointment of the Lord, and not in the performance of this laying on of hands: and therefore it follows, that if laying on of hands were granted to be a ministerial act, yet still it may be merely a benedictory sign, and the substance, or essence, of the minister's 'calling' not consist in it, but in something else... If God do furnish a man with gifts and a holy propensity of mind to the work in general, and to such or such a people in particular, and make way by his Providence thereto; then, who can deny but such a man is 'sent' of God, unto that people? And then, if that people, observing God's sending of him in this sort, do hereupon elect and choose him, and promise to be obedient to him in the Lord; what is there now wanting to the substance and essence of such a man's 'calling' to such a people? And yet the man is not 'sent' by them to themselves, but 'sent' by God, and received and chosen by them... And to understand it otherwise would be to condemn the prophets and apostles, who were not "See more in the Plea for the Churches in New England,' pt. ii. chap. xii. qu. 2, 4." b Rom. x. 15.

'sent' by men at all, and yet did truly answer to this Scripture, in that they were 'sent' of God. True it is, ordinary ministers are not 'sent' of God in such an extraordinary way as the prophets and apostles were, but in an ordinary way, and by ordinary means; which way and means if they do observe, they also may be truly said to be 'sent' of God unto the people. It would be requisite to be cleared, that some men besides the church have authority to send ministers to the church; and who these men are that have such authority had need be cleared also; which, I, for my part, think will not be done in haste!.. Mr. Rutherfurd.. should have given some reason why the people may discern a man's fitness for election, and yet not discern his fitness for ordination; for this is the consequence of our argument, which he denies."

The last, or twenty-sixth chapter, upon "Whether the epistle to Timothy and Titus" prove that the action of laying on of hands "may not, in any case, be performed by non-officers, etc.," presents nothing for our purpose beyond the remark that "as for Timothy, Scripture tells what the presbytery did to him, but what he must do with the presbytery it tells us nothing... If there be rules in the epistles that do belong to Elders alone, yet since it is confessed, and may not be denied, that other things therein do concern all Christians, how shall we be assured that such passages as concern laying on of hands are of the former sort, and not of the latter? For to say 'it is so,' and 'it is clear,' we think doth not 'clear' it at all!"

CHAP. XLV.

FERNE AND BRIDGE ON RESISTANCE.-BOOK OF SPORTS BURNT.ASSEMBLY OF DIVINES CALLED.-THEIR ADDRESS TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLYSOLEMN League and COVENANT. THE FIVE DISSENTING BRETHREN.

b

NOT the most inefficient of the timely manifestations of that moral heroism which dared to discuss, in a tyrannical reign, the just relationship of Princes and Subjects, but which it had been the long labour of venal parasites and prostituted advocates of a Church virtually above the King, and a King claiming to be above the laws, to disparage and to vilify, were produced by the pens of Herle," Burroughes, and others, compatriots with Milton, and precursors of Locke and Hoadly; all whose efforts have succeeded in deducing from the immaculate precepts of primordial reason and Divine institution—and, consequently, determined-the basis and the boundaries of Civil Government, in a Christian State.

“An Answer to Misled Dr. Hen. Ferne, according to his own Method of his Book. 1642." And, “A Fuller Answer to a Treatise written by Dr. Ferne, intituled The Resolving of Conscience, &c.' Lond. 1642.”

"The Glorious Name of God, the Lord of Hosts, opened in two Sermons; with a Postscript: Briefly answering a late Treatise by Henry Ferne, D.D. By Jeremiah Burroughes. Lond. 1643." 4to.

[ocr errors]

When Charles had retired to York, one of his attendants, "having the honour to be the first that printed anything, as it is said, for the King," put out, in November," "The Resolving of Conscience: Upon this Question, Whether upon such a Supposition or Case as is now usually made, The King will not discharge his Trust, but is bent or seduced to subvert Religion, Laws, and Liberties,'-Subjects may take Arms and resist? And, Whether that Case be now? By H. Fern[e], D.D.-York, 1642." 4to. pp. 50. Among the answers which rapidly appeared, was "The Wounded Conscience cured, the Weak one strength Bridge

ened, and the Doubting satisfied: By way of Answer to Doctor Ferne. -Lond. 1642." 4to. This first attack by Bridge, was met with "Conscience Satisfied, that there is no Warrant for the Arms now taken up by Subjects: By way of Reply unto several Answers made to a Treatise formerly published for The Resolving of Conscience upon the Case: Especially unto that which is intituled A Fuller Answer.' By H. Ferne, D.D. Oxf. 1643." 4to. pp. 85. No time was lost, unnecessarily, in producing "The Truth of the Times Vindicated: Whereby the Lawfulness of Parliamentary Proceedings in taking up of Arms is Justified; Dr. Ferne's 'Reply' Answered; and the Case in Question

Ath. Ox. edit. Bliss. vol. iii. col. 534.

b Reprinted, Lond. 1643. 4to. In the first edition, Ferne writes, "Conscience will discern whether part[y] is upon the defensive, by inquiring first, Who were first in Arms? He that can number the succession of books and months in his almanack may decide this. He shall find that armed men were thrust into Hull; the King's arms seized against his will; the militia set up, and by that the King's subjects drawn into arms before the King had anything to oppose but proclamations: that subscriptions for plate, money, horse; that listing of soldiers for the field, and appointing of officers of the army; were begun upon their part, before his Majesty did the like." p.36. Milton supplies an answer to these queries, incidentally, in his "Eiconoclastes," 1649, where he says, "Hull and the magazine there had been secretly attempted under the King's hand; from whom, though in his Declarations renouncing all thought of war, notes were sent over sea for supply of arms; which were no sooner come, but the inhabitants of Yorkshire and other counties were called to arms, and actual forces raised, while the Parliament were yet petitioning in peace, and had not one man listed. As to the act of hostility, though not much material in whom first it began, or by whose commissions dated first, after such counsels and preparations discovered, and so far advanced by the King, yet in that act also he will be found to have had precedency, if not at London by the assault of his armed court upon the naked people, and his attempt upon the House of Commons, yet certainly at Hull, first by his close practices on that town, next by his siege. Thus, whether counsels, preparations, or acts of hostility, be considered, it appears with evidence enough, though much more might be said, that the King is truly charged to be the first beginner of these civil wars. To which may be added as a close, that in the Isle of Wight he charged it upon himself at the public treaty, and acquitted the Parliament!" Chap. x.-It will be useful to remind the reader here, that in Laud's obnoxious Canons of 1640, the first, or that "Concerning the Regal Power," directs to be read "upon some one Sunday in every quarter of the year," that "The most high and sacred order of Kings is of Divine right, being the ordinance of God himself, founded in the prime laws of nature, and clearly established by express texts both of the Old and New Testaments... For Subjects to bear Arms against their King, offensive or defensive, upon any pretence whatsoever, is at the least to resist the powers which are ordained of God: and though they do not invade, but only resist, St. Paul tells them plainly, 'They shall receive to themselves damnation." And all the Clergy are required to "exhort their people" that "they presume not to speak of his Majesty's Power in any other way than in this Canon is expressed."

1642

[ocr errors]

1643 3 vida pp. 54. This piece will afford some insight into the nature of the

more fully Resolved. By William Bridge, Preacher of God's Word, at Great Yarmouth.-Printed according to Order.-Lond. 1643." 4to.

controversy.

In his Dedication, to the Right Worshipful the Knights and Gentlemen, Deputy Lieutenants of the County of Norfolk, the author tells them that "because it hath pleased God to lay the foundation of your proceedings in your good success at Crowland, by the hand of that worthy gentlemen Sir Miles Hobert, I wish you that blessing which the Abbot of Crowland... would have made the foundation thereof, Perpetuam felicitatem." But in an Advertisement, signed I. A., they are informed that Dr. Ferne's Reply "somewhile went up and down in the dark;" that when it fell into the hands of this author" he soon dispatched his answer," but "new Licensers being appointed, much time was spent." Bridge's Introduction follows: here he writes, "The disputing time is almost now over; the Doctor hath stayed so in bringing up his rear, that I fear the controversy depending is now rather to be determined with the dint of the sword than with the strength of the pen... I am not unwilling, for truth's sake, once more to appear in this cause... It is not long since I met with the Doctor's Reply:' and at the first, I thought it not necessary to give any answer unto it: partly, because the subject is so well beaten that he is almost answered before he hath objected; partly, because I count the 'Reply' scarce worth a solemn answer, which is clothed with so many scoffing jeers and vile reproaches, things unworthy of a D. D., especially such as pretend satisfaction of conscience; but it will find entertainment with conscience according to its own nature... Yet, because I have been earnestly desired, by friends, to open more fully the nature of Government, aud Civil Government of England, I am not unwilling to set pen to paper again."

[ocr errors]

The treatise consists of six chapters. In the first, are laid down six propositions" Concerning the nature of government, rule, and authority; or ruling and governing power." Noticing the literal interpretation of ovoíu, Rom. xiii. 1.,—a liberty, or authority, to work or act towards others; and having instanced where else in Scripture, it is used in the abstract, and where in the concrete, Bridge remarks, after Gerard and others, that it was advisedly used here in "an abstractive manner" to show that not the persons so much as their office is what we ought to regard. And the dominion of jurisdiction which is Civil, and concerning which is "our question," if not distinguished from the absolute dominion of property, produces " State errors." Secular, or civil power, he defines, after Alman, d to be " that power which regularly is given to one or more, by the People, for the ordering and preservation of the Commonwealth, according to the civil laws thereof." The voice of

Among Bridge's works is "A Sermon preached unto the Volunteers of the City of Norwich, and also to the Volunteers of Great Yarmouth in Norfolk. Lond. 1642." 4to.

b Perhaps John Arrowsmith, D. D. See Brook's Hist. Puritans vol. iii. P. 315. In Epist. ad Rom.

De Potest. Eccl. et Laic. i. q. i. apud Gerson.

« PreviousContinue »