in another way than he hath said he will be worshipped and is prescribed by him is in S. T. thus demonstrated Those that worship God after the way of the Common-Prayer-Book worship him in another way than he hath said he will be worshiped in and is prâ—scribed by him But the present Ministers of England worship God after the way of the Common-Prayer-Book Therefore The Minor cannot be denied their subscription before they are admitted into the Ministry with their daily and constant practice are sufficient evidences thereof To this Mr. T. replies Sect 3. 1. Way of Worship not prescribed by God he tells us may be 1st When the Worship is to another thing besides or with God in which sense the Minor was denied and should have been proved Answ 1. But in this sense we discharged the Ministers of England of the guilt of Idolatry What obligation lies upon us to prove a charge against them we never impleaded them as guilty I know not 2. If this be all Mr. T. contends about That they worship not another thing besides or with the true God he fights with a man of straw of his own making 3. When he demonstrates as he how dictates that this alone proves Idolatry i. e. there is no other Idolatry but the worshipping that which is not God by Nature I will acknowledge my mistake we have proved the contrary in which we have the concurrent testimony of the most all Expositors and Casuists that have written about Idolatry who make worshipping the true God in a way not of his perscription to be the Idolatry forbidden in the second Commandment Dr. Willet one of their own tells us as much Com. on Exod. p. 338. So doth the learned Usher Ball Ursin Calvin Wendeline Altingius Ravanellus Maccovius c. besides those we have already mentioned He adds 2dly By another way may be meant another Ceremony or Rite in which the Worship of God is placed but this Author goes not about to prove the minor in this sense Answ 1. By worshipping God in another way I understand the tendring to God a Worship and Service of humane devising that he no where calls for This I prove the Ministers of England do when they draw nigh to God with their Common-Prayer-Book-Service in their hands And Mr. T. talks idely when he saith The Worship of God is not placed therein If it be not they have in many places of the Land no Worship of God at all 't is frequently by them call'd Diviâ—e Service and the Service of the Church 'T is made such a necessary part of Worship that Preaching must give place to it As to what he adds 1. That I suppose that God hath appointed the particularities of the way of his Worship We answer ' That particularities of Worship as such are determined by the Lord we have asserted and proved what Mr. T. hath offered to the contrary in answer to the Preface Sect. 20. chap. 1. Sect. 3. chap. 4. Sect. 9. chap. 5. Sect. 3 4 5 7. is fully answered in our Reply thereunto 2. That the Argument may be retorted upon my self is a vanity of the Animadverter because 1. our dispute is not as he would bear the Reader in hand about every form of expression but of such a form wherein the Worship of God is placed which is â—mposed upon the Churches of Christ without subjection to which it is denied them to worship God at all as such for refusing whereof they are exposed to Excommunications and total ruine in this World 2. We have already proved that forms of prayer enjoyned are condemned by the Lord and praying in the Spirit commended and commanded We proceed in S. T. and prove That to worship God after the way of the common-prayer-Common-Prayer-Book is to worship him in a way that is not of his appointment which is the major proposition because the least footsteps of such a way of Worship is not to be found in the Old or New Testament enjoyned by Christ or his Apostles nor for several centuries of years afterwards of which we treat at large in S. T. What Mr. T. is pleased Sect. 4. in the first and second place to answer hereunto we have already replied to He adds 3dly He still acknowledgeth that the Common-Prayer-Book-Worship is the Worship of the true God Answ 1. I do so indeed and so was the Athenian Worship Acts 17. 23. yet an Idolatrous Worship and they themselves Idolaters 2dly Though I grant it to be the Worship of the true God yet I prove it not to be the true Worship of God and therefore Idolatrous He adds 4thly That he doth not except against the matter of the prayers in the Common-Prayer-Book Answ True in the place under consideration I do not but it doth not therefore follow that it 's not liable to exception Somewhat was hinted in S. T. touching this matter and more may be added in its proper place He adds That these three things are affirmed by me 1. That all Liturgies or stinted forms of prayer are not of Gods appointment but of humane invention 2. That they are unduly imposed on Ministers 3. That Ministers do sinfully yea idolatrously use them because it 's â— way of Worship not appointed of God With respect to which he affirms 1. That stinted forms of Prayer and Service of God which are not otherwise faulty then in that they are stinted may be lawfully used by a Minister of the Gospel in his publick Administration 2. That such Prayers and Service are a Worship of God in a way of his appointment Answ 1. And both these might be granted him without the least detriment to the Cause undertaken by us For the Common-Prayer-Book-Service is otherwise faulty than in that it is stinted viz. because abused to Idolatry the matter of it is in not a few things liable to exceptions the Rites and Modes enjoyned therein abominable 2. He should have proved one thing more viz That a Service devised by man as the Common-Prayer-Book is may lawfully be imposed and as so submitted to and that this is justifiable A failure wherein renders us unconcern'd in what is nextly offered by him This he expresly tells us p. 222. He will not justifie So brave a Champion is he for the Clergy that when he should come to a close encounter he fairly takes his heels and quits the Field leaving them poor men to shift for themselves as well as they can However we attend the proof of his Assertions 1. Christ appointed the Lords Prayer to be used by the Apostles as a stinted form tying them to the use of so many words and no more Mat. 6. 9. Luke 11. 2. Answ 1. Notoriously false as we have manifested together with the invalidity of mens arguings from hence for a stinted imposed Liturgie cap. 6. of this Treatise 2. Nor is this one of the Placita of the Separatists Grotius is of the same mind on Luke 11. 1. Teach us a compendium of those
Epistl 1. ep 4. Soperemini inquit Dominus a taberuaculis hominum istorum durissimorum nolite tangere ea qua ad eos pertinent ne simul pereat is in peccatis eorum Propter quod plebs obsequens praeceptis Domini Deum meturus à peccato praepofitó seperare se debet nec se ad Sacrilegi Sacerdotis Sacrificia misare quando ipsa defectu sidelis Magistratus maxime habeat potestatem vel eligendi dignos Sacerdotes vel recusandi indignos Thus far he in open defiance of his present undertaking But to proceed in Sect. 2. and afterwards we have an account notwithstanding his late discouragement in writing why he still follows that employment and in particular of his engaging in the confutation of the Treatise under consideration which may be reduced to these heads 1. The expectation of hâ—â— giving account of the Talents committed to him by hâ—s â—ord and Master which being restrained from publick preaching he thinks he ought to make use of this way Answ That a strict account must be given to the Lord for the improvement of Talents received is undeniable The Parable Mat. 25. 14 to 31. evâ—nceth as much The consideration whereof should quicken us to our duty the most exact and diligent performance of it imaginable that we have not at the last the most direful judgment of the wicked and slothful Servant ver 26 28 30. past upon us But every use of our Talent is not a faithful improvement of it for God Wisdom parts c. are Talents given by him many have used them against him and smitten him if I may so say with his own weapons nor had they been in a capacity of doing so much against him had they not received so much from him Whether Mr. T. hath in his present undertaking been improving his Talent according to the mind of Christ I humbly beg him in his more retired thoughts to consider That none can so improve their Talents without the blessed supplies of the Spirit of Christ this Animadverter will not deny 'T is impossible any duty or service should be accepted of God without these 'T is one end for which he is sent from the Father and the Son to in-dwell in the hearts of Believers to enable them hereunto Rom. 8. 26. How little of the Spirit of the Lord in those Magisterial and Dictator-like expressions manifesting too much of a spirit of pride and self-fulâ—ess with an horrible contempt of what is opposit to the mind of this Animadv together with those reproachful biting passionate words that without any just cause given do ever and anon drop from him he will upon a review be able to discern I am not able to foresee We are â—oo apt to judge partially in our own causes and of our own actions but the day will declare it Should I muster up the many expressions of this nature scattered almost from the one end of this Book to â—he other and represent them at once possibly it might somewhat startle this Animadverter of his being restâ—ained from publick preaching I have nothing to say but only this That if Mr. Tombs supposeth himself to be called forth by the Lord to the work of preaching the Gospel I see not now at least whilst not under corporal restraint he can answer the obligation is upon him by such a call by a total neglect of that duty either publickly or privately notwithstanding the interdiction of any Our retreat in such cases to the old Apostolical Maxime Act. 5. 29. Whether it be lawful to obey God or man judge ye being suitable and warrantable Nor is it I believe justifiable to improve Talents given in one work or duty with the neglect of another to which we are as equally obliged by the reception of them He adds as a second Reason of this undertaking his meeting with the Book under consideration and another entituled Prelatical Preachers none of Christ's Teachers which manifesting that the seeds of most rigid Separation were sown and spread themselves amongst many out of the greatness of his love and design to do them good and for the publick peace of the Nation he conceiv'd himself bound to pluck up such roots of bitterness and the rather because some that had known him to be for Believers Baptism have been ready to think him for Separation also Answ That he met with the Book under consideration I readily yeeld him being informed that in some heat of spirit about two years before the publishing his Theodulia he threatned the Refutation thereof But that the seeds of Separation are roots of bitterness is as warmly said as weakly proved in his following Treatise The word though it sounds ill in the ears of the world is of a middle signification denoting neither that which is evil nor good in it self as Mr. T. well knows A twofold Separation we read of in the Scripture 1. A wicked and unlawful Separation which is a causless departure from the People and Appointments of Christ as not able to bear their spirituality strictness purity and glory in contempt of Christ's Institution and meerly for the satisfying their lusts Jude 19. This is the Separation that is condemned in the Scripture Do either of the Tracts mentioned undertake the defence or vindication of it Are there not Principles laid down and asserted therein wholly opposite hereunto 2dly A warrantable lawful Separation enjoyned by Jesus Christ which is a peaceable departure from a Church or People not rightly constituted according to the mind of Christ the pattern exhibited by him or degenerated therefrom beyond a possibility of recovering their first state purely for the enjoyment of the Ordinances of God in power and purity This is the Separation no other pleaded for in the Papers mentioned Which â—â—ch poor worms as we are apt to think there is ground enough in the Scriptures for 1. 'T is of old prophesied of Num. 23. 9. Isa 52. 11 12. 62. 10. 2dly Commanded by the Lord Prov. 4. 14. 9. 6. 14. 7. Eph. 5. 11. 2 Cor. 6. 16. Act. 2. 39. Psa 45. 10. 2 Tim. 3. 5. Rev. 18. 4. 3dly Practised by the Saints not to mention them of old Gen. 4. 26. Exod. 19. 5. Deut. 7. 6. 33. 28. Numb 33. 52. Exod. 24. 12 15. John 15. 19. Rev. 19. 7 8 9. which the Epistles of the Apostles to the Churches justifie who writ to them as Saints separated from the World and the Worship thereof What the Animadverter hath done in order to the plucking up the seeds of this Separation is afterwards considered He that is successfull in such an undertaking oâ— desires to be so had need do more than â—ent his passion in some biting satyrical expressions against the men of his contest or dictate to them as if Wisdom only rested with him and all others were to hang on his lips for Indoctrination whose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without controul were to be submitted But Christ's School knows
things we are to pray for for at that time they were not bound to the use of so many words and syllables as are Tertullian Cyprian Cornelius a Lapide Musculus c. But 3dly should it be granted that Christ enjoyned the use of that form of Prayer as a form this will not prove that stinted forms of Prayer are lawful and as such may lawfully be imposed and used which can have no other basis then this 't is as lawful for Civil or Ecclesiastical Rulers to devise and impose forms of Prayer upon the Churches as for Christ a most absurd and blasphemous assertion As touching what he adds 2. Christ justifies the Childrens crying of Hosanna uses himself the forms which David used before in the Psalms c. We answer That in all this he doth but beat the Air and speaks not one word to the purpose We find no footsteps of any enjoyned Liturgie or stinted forths of Prayer imposed either in the old Testament or the New though we find the same words used sometimes by them yet that they might never use any other in their publick devotions which is the condition of stinted enjoyned forms the known case of the Ministers of Engl. with respect to their Church-Service we find not which is also a full answer to what he cites out of Cyprian touching their use of the Lord's Prayers and other Forms if they used any they were not bound to use them and no other When he proves this consequence the Saints of old used the same words in prayer sometimes and Christ used words before used by them Therefore a set and stinted Liturgy was in use amongst them and such an one as our Common-Prayer-Book-Worship I will be his Convert He knows the contrary His answers to Justin Martyr and Tertullian are impertinent and not worth the reciting The words of the former are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Atheists we are not seeing we worship the Maker of the World And in all our Oblations we praise him according to our abilities in the way of prayer and thanksgiving And afterwards tells us that the President of the Assembly poureth our prayers according to his ability and continues long in this work Tertullian tells us The Christians looking towards Heaven not on their common-prayer-Common-Prayer-Book with their hands spread abroad prayed without a Moniter because from their hearts expressions wholly exclusive of inconsistant with the formes of prayer contended for The sayings of Socrates in his Eccl. Hist l. 5. c. 21. who lived about the year 430. tells us That among all the Christians in that Age scarce two were to be found that used the same words in prayer He passeth over in silence as he doth the account I give of the use of them not till about the year 600. and the imposition by Charles the Great of Gregories Liturgy as is thought and the support thereof by threats and punishments ever since These things hâ— knows to be true and yet they are such as the Dragon he labours to support cannot possibly stand before Sect. 3. Common-Prayer-Book-Worship not of the appointment of Christ because an obstruction of some positive Duty charged by Christ upon the Saints Mr. T. his Exceptions refuted Of resting on the Sabbath Day Whether Sacrificing was an obstruction of that Duty Mat. 5. 12. explained Following Christ no obstruction of positive Duties to Parents Of the gift and grace of Prayer Rom. 8. 26. opened 'T is the duty of Saints to improve Gifts received Common-Prayer-Book-Worship contrary to Scripture 'T is not necessary to the edification of the Saints The Judgment of the Reformed Churches A Second Argument advanced in S. T. to prove that Common-Prayer-Book-Worship is not of the appointment of Christ is thus formed That Worship which is an obstruction of any positive Duty charged by Christ to be performed by the Saints is not a Worship that is of his appointment But this is undeniably true of the Common-Prayer-Book-Worship Therefore Christ hath given Officers to his Church Ephes 4. 11. to them he hath given gifts every way suiting the imployment he calls them forth unto the improvement whereof he expects and charges upon them 2 Tim. 1. 6. 1 Cor. 12. 7. Ephes 4. 11. Prov. 17. 16. Luke 19. 20. To think after all this that any Worship should be of the institution of Christ that shuts ouâ— as unnecessary the exercise of the gifts given is absurd and injurious to Christ To which Mr. T. answers Sect. 5. 1. The major is not in all cases true resting on the Sabbath Day was a positive Duty yet sacrificing which was an obstruction of that Duty called prophaning the Sabbath Mat. 12. 5. was Worship of Gods appointment following Christ preaching of the Gospel were Worship of Christs appointment yet they were obstructions to positive duties to be done to Parents Answ 1. Resting from our own works on the Sabbath Day was a positive Duty not from the works of Religion and the Worship of God as was Sacrificing 'T is true Christ saith Mat. 12. 5. That the Priests in the Temple prophaned the Sabbath but this is spoken in respect of the vulgar Opinion that thought the Sabbath violated if any necesâ—â—ry work were done therein not that indeed the Sabbath day was broken by them So Dr. Willet on Exod. 20. 9. and our Annotaâ—ors upon the place expound it 2. That following Christ is an obstruction of any posstive duty we owe to Parents Mr. T. will prove Quum durae quercus sudabunt roscida mella i. e. never 'T is true Christ sometimes calls us to leave Father and Mother for his Name and Gospel-sake but then our abiding with them is no longer any positive duty enjoyned us by him but the contraty so that the major Proposition abides firm To the minor viz. That the Common-Prayer-Book-Worship is an obstruction of a positive duty viz. the exercise of the gift of Prayer which is excluded hereby He answers 1. 'T is supposed that the Common-Prayer-Book-Worship is a different sort of Worship from such as is used by those who exercise the gift of Prayer Answ And so it is the one being of the Earth earthy carnal devilish the other from Heaven as good he may say the Ark and Dagon are the same as that the Common-Prayer-Book-Worship and the Worship of Jesus Christ is so When he proves the absurdities mentioned are the proper issue of this assertion we shall think our selves concern'd to take notice of them but till then we reject them as the spurious off-spring of his own begetting He adds 2dly The Author intimates that ability to conceâ—ve compose and utter in variety of Expressions Petitions to God is the gift of Prayer and the exercise of it is the exercise of that gift Answ I do so indeed That there are some that have ability so to do Mr. T. will not cannot deny nor that this ability may be where there is not true Grace what will Mr. T. call this Ability to
did not enjoyn no not so much as permit we suppose may be clearly demonstrated from the ensuing considerations To which Mr. T. Sect. 5. 1. If by attendance on their Ministry be meant a constant and ordinary hearing of them as their ordinary Shepherds doubtless neither Christ did command nor permit his Disciples such an attendance Answ 1. Very good a constant attendment upon the present Ministers of England cannot be proved from this Scripture Christ did not permit his Disciples so to attend on the teaching of the Scribes and Pharisees 2. Own them as our ordinary Shepherds we may not for so the Scribes and Pharisees were not to be own'd by the Disciples of Christ as Mr. T. grants Wherein how much the greatness of Truth hath prevailed upon him others will judge But 3. hearing being an institution of Christ to be conformed to according to the directions given forth by him thereabout I am not able to divine by what Law or Rule I may hear a man rarely upon whose ministry if by providence I have an opportunity afforded so to do I may not more frequently constantly attend Nay 4. I am apt to think that Mr. T. by this one concession hath given away the whole of his concern in this Argument The Scribes and Pharisees might not be heard as their ordinary Shepherds by the Disciples the present Ministers of England should it be granted it were proved by this Argument lawful to hear them are not then to be heard as our ordinary Shepherds or Ministers because of any thing that is contained in this Scripture or can be deduced from it Now as such for the most part we must hear them or not at all they being imposed on us as our Parish Ministers our hearing required of us by Law is hearing them as such This by this Argument Mr. T. grants cannot be proved We produce several reasons in S. T. why we suppose Christ neither commanded nor permitted his Disciples to hear the Scribes and Pharisees 1. There are not a generation of men of whom he speaks more contemptuously and chargeth with greater enormities than he doth that generation of Scribes and Pharisees and that in this very Chapter see v. 5 23 25 27 28 29. and v. 6 7. and v. 13 15 16 19 24 26. and v. 16 17 18 33 34. And can it be imagined that Christ should have no more tenderness to poor Souls than to direct them to an attendance upon such persons as these for teachings are they likely motives to perswade or enforce any thereunto 2. Yet this is what he immediately subjoyns having said Whatever they bid you observe that observe and do To which Mr. T. These personal evils were not sufficient motives to keep them back from hearing Gods Law expounded by them Answ 1. But their exposition of Gods Law was abominable intollerable had they been guilty of no personal evils not to have been born a sufficient ground of it self to have forborn hearing them they corrupted perverted it by their expositions 2. We are in the mind Mr. T. hath not his second in the World of sober-minded men who will aver that such personal evils as those mentioned are not a sufficient Bar to hinder the attendment of Saints upon preaching or expounding of the Law by those upon whom they are to be found 3. 'T is sure a bad cause he hath undertaken the defence of that in the pursuit thereof he is forced to assert the lawfulness of heâ—ring persons that we infallibly know to be Hypocrites for Christ having told them so they knew it to be infallibly true proud men whom the Lord abhors such as shut up the Kingdom of Heaven against men will not go in themselves nor suffer others such as make their Proselites worse than themselves either by their evil example or by making them more zealous for their Traditions and more bitter against the Preachers and preaching the Gospel than themselves who are blind guides preverters of Scripture such as make void the Commandments of God by their Traditions that are Serpents a Generatâ—on of Vipers that cannot escape the damnation of Hell that kill crucifie scourge persecute the Messengers of the Lord. To repeat â—o absurd a Position is confutation sufficient and honour more than enough I wonder if our Animadverter could write it without blushing Jeroboam was not to be blamed who made Priests of the lowermost of the people Our Animadverter thinks if the scum of the World and Hell get into a Pulpit with a Bible and common-prayer-Common-Prayer-Book in their hand and a Surplice on their back they may lawfully be attended Tush Paul was too scrupulous and almost a Phanatick who talks of qualifications in Bishops 1 Tim. 3. 2 Tim. 2. Tit. 1. 'T is no great matter what they are so they read some Scripture and interlâ—ce it with the traditions of men persons may lawfully hear them witâ— out more adoe This is some of that Hay and Stubble that Mr. T. his Theodulia is stuft with that will one day be burnt up We add 2. 'T is not likely that Christ would command or permit his Disciples to attend upon the preaching of the Scribâ—s and Pharisees because they preached false Doctrine viz. justification by the works of the Law which was diametrically opposite to the Doctrine he preached and the work he was upon To which our Animadverter replies Christ doth not permit them to hear the Pharisees teach all the Doctrines of their Sect touching some of which he forewarns them Mat. 15. 14. 16. 12. but as they taught them the duties of Moses Law Answ 1. But if Mr. T. calls this an answer I am afraid he will not find a second in his Assertion it being indeed nothing like one The Question is Whether Christ commanded or permitted his Disciples to hear the Scribes and Pharisees We prove he did not because they preached false Doctrine another Gospel to what was preached by Christ Mr. T. answers He did not permit them to hear all the Doctrines of their Sect. But Sir the Question is Whether he permitted them to hear any at all to attend upon their preaching who were every way such Anti-Gospellarians that he should do so we conceive is not rational to imagine when the very scope of their preaching tended to the overthrow of that he came to promulgate But 2. if they were to attend them only as they taught the duties of Moses Law as he saith they were so seldom to attend them that upon search it will be found they were not to do so at all since they had so foully perverted it that upon the matter they made it another thing 3. By Mr. T. his Argument 't is lawful for persons to hear such as preach another Gospel for so did the Scribes and Pharisees Paul was out when he wisheth such accursed calls them Dogs Gal. 1. 8. Phil. 3. 2. and bids them beware of them i. e. not attending upon their preaching We add as a third