that which is lawful to the command of Rulers for their own peace though some Brethren be thereby offended 2. It is not confess'd by all That the very nature of Scandal given lyes in the doing of what is judged by me to be my liberty which other Saints are not fully perswaded of in their own minds to be so but are ready to conclude it to be my sin and evil and from thence have occasion of grief or stumbling administred to them For 1. Dr. Hammond in his Treatise of Scandal after he had accurately considered the use of the word Scandal and the sorts of Scandal § 32 33 34 35 36 37. he inferrs That no man is offended or scandalized but he that falls into some sin That to be angry grieved troubled at any action of another is not to be offended in the Scripture sense Nor consequently doth it follow that I have done amiss in doing that which another man is angry at unless my action be in it self evil For if it be not then he is angry without cause and that is his fault not mine yea and he judgeth or censures his Brother that hath done no hurt which the weak are forbid to do Rom. 14.3 And secondly He is of aâ—l men most unlikely to do that after me which he is angry at me for doing and therefore I have least reason to fear or possibly to foresee that he will be scandaliz'd in the Scripture phrase Which fear or fore-sight were the only just motive to me to abstain from any justifiable indifferent action And as for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 grieved Rom. 14.15 he gathers it from the occasion of the grief of the grieved persons eating with a doubting conscience the three words by which it is explained v 21. Stumbling being offended and being weak or sick that the meaning is â—is grieved i e. wounded or falls into sin Which he endeavours to shew to be agreeable to Language in other words and in that word Whether he be in the right or not this seems to me most agreeable to the Text That 〈◊〉 grief mentioned Rom. 14.15 which is the only place where I find grief in the offended made the effect of offence forbidden is the grief of the offended from his own action in eating with a doubting conscience not from the action of him that used his liberty uncharitably For if the offended had been displeased angry and grieved because he did eat he had not followed his example but would have shunned his practice as judging him licentious in so doing And therefore it is not right that this Author and others object Scandal given by the Conformists because they do that for which their Brethren do mourn as done by them but do not follow them in only are displeased and angry with them for so doing Mr. Jeanes in the 2 d. Edition of his Treatise of abstinence from appearance of evil p. 128. The mistake of Scandal for the angring one is taken notice of by Calvin also upon 1 Cor. 8.13 having affirmed That some corrupted the doctrine of Scandal with foolish glosses and others with their impious calumnies he sheweth the original of both their mistakes touching the meaning of offence in the Apostle Utrique errant in verbo Offendendi Nam offendere accipiunt pro Incurrere in odium vel offensionem hominum aut quod idem ferè est facere quod ipsis displiceat vel minus arrideat Atqui clarissimè patet ex contexâ—u nihil esse aliud quà m malo exemplo ranquam obice fratiem impediâ—e à recto cuâ—su aut illi praebere Causam Lapsus Non ergo hic disputat Paulus de retinendâ hominum gratiâ sed de sublevandis infirmis nè concidant prudenter regendis ne à rectâ viâ deflectant 2 Were Dr. Hammond or my self mistaken yet all that I meet with do make it necessary to active Scandal That it be in all such words or deeds as culpably occasion the fall of another whether of themselves or by accident And for passive Scandal if it be culpably both given and taken then it is Scandalum datum if it be culpably taken and not culpably given then it is Scandalum acceptum as M. Jeanes speaks in his later Edition p. 95. of his Treatise of abstinence from appearance of evil So that until there appear something culpable in hearing the present Ministers they that hear them cannot be justly charged with Scandal given by them to their Brethren And this will not be proved untill it be shewed that either by the nature and condition of their hearing or the intention of the hearers their Brethren are made to sin against God For as it is in the Discourse concerning the Interest of Words in Prayer by H. D.M A. commended before by this Author ch 7. p. 60. in the Postscript p. 103. The true notion of a scandalous action is Any action done by us not being required by the Divine Law by which our Brother whether from the nature and condition of the thing done or the intention of him that doth it or both is made to sin against God And therefore it is not confess'd by all that the nature of Scandal given lyes in the doing of what is judged by me to be my liberty which other Saints are not fully perswaded of in their own minds to be so but are ready to conclude it to be my sin and evil and from thence have occasion of grief or stumbling administred to them unless that Stumbling be by falling into sin through the culpability of my action either from the faulty nature of it or my intention in the doing of it by my unseasonable doing it with fore-sight of the effect which I might have avoided Nor is what this Author saith of the nature of Scandal given evident beyond exception from the Apostles discourse 1 Cor. 8.10 For whereas he supposeth the case of the Church of Corinth concerning the practice of them that eat Idolothytes to have been as he expresseth it on the one side the offending persons judging it their liberty to sit at meat in the Idols Temple and on the other side others not being fully perswaded hereof were many wayes scandalized at this their practice which therefore the Apostle condemns as unlawful and conceives the nature of Scandal given to be in these two things one judging it his liberty to do it another judging it evil and grieving thereat and that such is the offence of them that hear the present Ministers he is many wayes mistaken 1. That the offending person it is not likely judged it his liberty to sit at meat in the Idols Temple he being described as one that had knowledge opposed to the weak who with conscience of the Idol eat it as a thing offered to an Idol and their conscience being weak was defiled Now it is not likely that the strong that had knowledge by the Doctrine of Christ that what entreth into the
mouth doth not defile and therefore the eating of the Idolothyte though he knew it offered to an Idol could not defile him would yet judge it his liberty to sit at meat in the Idols Temple which was manifestly evil even partaking of the Table of Devils 1 Cor. 10.20 21. Or that it was the weakness of the offended person that he was not fully perswaded of that liberty it had been his weakness and sin if he had judged it his liberty to sit at meat in the Idols Temple But it was the sin of him that had knowledge that he sate at meat in the Idols Temple though it was his liberty to eat it else-where knowing it had been offered to Idols and it was the weakness of the other that he was not so perswaded yet was by the others practice emboldned to it and so was defiled both with the errour and practice of eating against his conscience with the conscience of the Idol that is though he knew it offered to the Idol and therefore was thereby some acknowledgement of the Idol as something honourable or a thing sacred However if it were that the offending person judged it his liberty to sit at mâ—at in the Idols Temple yet this is ill applyed to the hearers of the present Ministers as if their hearing were such an action as was his that sate at meat in the Idols Temple for that was having fellowship with Devils 1 Cor. 10.20 but this is the service of the living God no Idolothyte or sitting at meat in the Idols Temple and as if being perswaded of the liberty to do the one were like thâ— perswasion of the liberty to do the other whereas the hearers judge it not only their liberty to hear the present Ministers but also their duty and so not as the case stands a thing indifferent 2. This Author conceives that the Corinthians were offended in that they were grieved at the practice of him that judged it his liberty to sit at meat in the Idols Temple and that giving occasion of such grief was Scandal given whereas the scandal given was not by causing grief for the offenders practice as evil but in that the offended being swayed by his practice did against his conscience eat the thing offered to Idols and perhaps in the Idols Temple which had been a great sin such as would wound his conscience make him weak or sick and tended to his perdition it being a degree of back sliding to Idolatry And therefore this is ill applyed to the effect of the hearing of the present Ministers which is not in the offended any such backsliding or sin against their conscience tending to their perdition or present wounding of spirit but mourning for their Brethrens conceited back sliding which they conceive tends to their salvation not to their perdition 3. The offence of the Corinthians is set down by this Author without any intimation that the Corinthians might have reason to be scandalized because the eating the Idolothyte was both against the precepts of the Mosaical Law and the Apostles decree Acts 15.25 which was of much moment to make the offence Scandal given and not only taken For if offence be taken where there is no probable reason why the scandalized should judge it evil it is his fault who thus judgeth not his who acts that which he sees no reason why any should conceive any evil in it The Apostle therefore did not require to forbear the eating of the Idolothyte but when the weak Brother said This is offered in sacrifice to Idols 1 Cor 10 28. which shewed the reason why he should be offended if he did eat it and that reason might probably induce him to conceive it unlawful which thing is a requisite condition to Scandal given sith if upon any surmise of a weak Brother I must forbear my liberty though there is no shew of reason or no probability why he should conceive it evil to use it my liberty would be as no liberty and a yoak more intolerable than the Law would be on my conscience Now that there is no probable reason why persons should imagine evil in my hearing the present Ministers notwithstanding what this Author saith hath been and shall be further shewed in answering that which is said by this Author 4. This Author doth not mention that which in the case of the Corinthians was requisite to Scandal given to wit that the Scandal should be fore-seen as the words 1 Cor. 10.27 28 intimate and that not only as possible but also as future with some moral certainty by reason of the presence of persons known to scruple the thing I do or some one that intimates his dislike of my action Calvin therefore upon 1 Cor. 8 13. saith Non jubet nos Apostolus divinare nunquid offendiculo futurum sit quod facimus nisi cum est praesens periculum The Apostle doth not bid us divine whether that we do will offend but when there is present danger Now this shews that the hearing the present Ministers is not Scandal given where none are present that are offended nor any give intimation of the futurity of the offence 5. This Author doth not take notice that Scandal given by the use of our liberty is not to be made perpetual as the Apostles words in the same place shew For if I must alwayes abstain from that at which another is offended it will be made sin in it self and so not Scandal given by the intempestive use of our liberty in a thing indifferent but that we must not yield to that we may not lose Truth for peace sake But if men must not hear the present Ministers for the reasons given they must never do it to avoid offence which will be perpetual and so the scandal supposed to be given not such as that which was in the Corinthians liberty in eating Idolothytes 6. It should not have been forgotten That the case of the offended among the Corinthians by eating Idolothytes and the Brethren now in England for hearing the present Ministers cannot be parallel'd rightly because the Corinthians offence was at the time wherein the Gospel had been but lately preached to them and the Doctrine of Gospel-liberty not fully cleared which cannot be said of Christian Professors in England who have been fully instructed therein and therefore in the use of our liberty now cannot be the like offence given and not taken only as was in those dayes among the Corinthians Yet this Author thus chargeth them with Scandal given Sect. 5. Offending some sincere Christians by hearing the present Ministers is not the scandalizing threatned Matth. 18.6 Should it for Arguments sake be granted though in truth it be not so That t is the liberty of Saints to hear the present Ministers yet many of the sincere Lambs of Christ being stumbled grieved and scandalized hereaâ— for that very reason â—f no more could be said herein it becomes our sin to be guilty whereof who can chuse but
daughters that did prophesie Acts 29.1 mention is made of the woman praying or prophesying 1 Cor. 11.5 we cannot exclude them from extraordinary Ministry when God gives such a gift nor sith Priscilla instructed Apollos Acts 18.26 can we exclude them from private teaching of the most able if they be fitted thereto Sect. 9. Receiving the Lords Supper kneeling is not directly opposite to Christs practice or precept of the abstaining from appearance of evil 1 Thess. 5.22 10. That the Lords Supper is to be received kneeling which is directly opposite to the practice of Christ in the first Institution thereof Mark 14.18 22 23. and positive precept as being what hath an appearance of evil in it being a gesture used by the Papists in the adoration of their Breadâ—n god 1 Thess. 5.22 as also to the practice of the Churches of Christ for several hundred years after to the time of the invention and the introduction of the Popish Breaden god not to mention its contrariety to the judgment and practice of most of the reformed Churches if not all at this day Answ. This Constitution and the subscription to it by the present Ministers of England cannot be denied nor that it hath been a great stumbling block to many persons and as great a cause of separation from the Communion as it is ministred in the Church of England as any other thing But that it is directly opposite to the practice of Christ in the first Institution of the Lords Supper is denied by them For though it is said Mark 14.18 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we translate as they sate yet it is denied that this gesture is mentioned as binding Christians to the the same gesture in the use of the Lords Supper in subsequent times 1. Because this gesture seems not to have been of choice used by Chrisâ— that thence he might prescribe the same gesture he used in the Institution making his example in this as a constant rule but it seems rather to have been used occasionally because it was instituted after the Paschal Supper at which they used that gesture as they did eat Mat. 26.26 Mark 14.22 2. Because St. Paul 1 Cor. 11.23 where he saith he delivered to them what he received of the Lord he omits the mention of Christs gesture which he would not have done if he had judged it binding and necessary to Christians 3. He mentions the night in which Christ was betrayed v. 23. that he took the cup after he had supped v. 25. Luke 22. â—0 and it it is not judged necessary that the Lords Supper should be either annually on the night in which he was betrayed or weekly or monethly in the night or after supper no not though it be termed by the Apostle the Lords Supper 1 Cor. 11.20 therefore with 〈◊〉 reason the gesture should be urged by them as obligatory 4. If the gesture Christ used be obligatory to Christians then they must use the self same gesture he used but that was neither sitting nor standing which are used by the opposers of Kneeling but lying along on beds as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used Mark 14.18 intimates and is gathered from Joh. 13.23 and other relations of the use of those times which I think will not be denied it being by the learned generally acknowledged See Ainsworth on Exod. 12.8 And so kneeling is no more directly opposite to the practice of Christ in the first Institution thereof than other gestures nor however it be different from his practice then can it be truly said to be directly opposite to his practice unless he had commanded the gesture he then used to be observed or forbidden by his practice at that time kneeling The positive precept 1 Thess. 5.22 is urged very importunely not only in this point of knâ—eling at the Lords Supper but also very frequently on many other occasions in Sermons Writings and Conferences to deterr persons especially of scrupulous Consciences and weak Understandings from any thing to which persons and practices are disaffected and therefore for the setling of such persons judgment as are not averse to the unlearning their mistakes as I did many years since in my Book of Scandalizing cap. 4. sect 23. somewhat fully open the meaning of that Text so I shall again with some enlargement in this place it being no grievance to me to write the same things again but necessary and so much the rather because Mr. Henry Jeans in his second Edition of his Tract upon this Subject gives me occasion to examine more exactly the meaning of this Precept The chief difficulty is concerning 1. The Translation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. Concerning the appearance of evil which we are to abstain from and how far we are by that precept bound to abstain from it 1. Concerning the Translation it is doubted whether it should not be rather read abstain from every kind or sort of evil answering to genus and species as Cicero renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and as Porphyry in his Isagoge Aristotle Plato and other Logicians use it That it may be so saith Mr. Jeans Mat. Flac. Illyricus and Beza determine that it is so the Syriack Interpreter and after him Faber and after them our own great and learned Doctour Hammond resolve But I would fain know upon what ground they are thus singular against the current both of an Ancient and Modern Expositors Wherein he might have been satisfied from Dr. Hammonds own words in his Annot. on the place where having said the meaning will be from all sort or the whole kind of evil from all that is truly so be it never so small according to that in Pirke avoth be as careful in the keeping a light as a heavy Commandement to this sense he cites St. Basil on the beginning of the Proverbs Theophylact and Leonâ—ius But saith Mr. Jeans It is used but four times in the New Testament besides this place and in none of them in a Logical notion It is true and it is true also that in none of them it is taken in his sense for an appearance to the understanding but either for the shape or representation to the sight or the sight it self as it is rendred 2 Cor. â— 7. However it is sufficient for the justifying of the Translation that it is used in that notion not only in other Greek Authors but also in Ecclesiasticus ch 23.16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 two sorts of men ch 25.2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 three sorts of men and in the LXX Version Jer. 15 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 four kinds which acception is enforced by this reason which out of St. Basil Dr. Hammond thus expresseth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 21. try all things being taken from Merchants that which is evil v. 22. is opposed to that which will upon trial bear the touch A good Merchant will keep that which is good unadulterate metal but will
thereupon and so his distinction as to this thing is rather to be accounted vain and idle than the fear he mentions were the distinction good yet the fear will not quickly vanish nor be discovered to be idle and vain sith if we must abstain from all appearance to others of our evil we must abstain from all appearance of evil whether it be real from the condition of our work of it self or imaginary by accident through others interpretation which must cause perplexities unavoidable without number Yea 3. That may appear to be evil to others which is our necessary duty as Christs doctrine and actions did to the Pharisees the Apostles preaching to the Jews yea to good men as Peters going in to Cornelius Acts 11.1 2. the Magistrates punishing some vices according to his duty may seem evil to good Subjects the obeying Laws of Governours Commands of Parents and Masters do often seem evil to some that are sincere-hearted but weak in judgment yea the necessary defence of truth may be opposed and appear as evil to godly learned and otherwise judicious Divines If we must abstain from every appearance of evil to others we must abstain from these duties Gods Laws will cross one another and we must infringe or suspend one or otherwise be necessitated to sin Governours must revoke their Laws and Subjects cease to obey Gods Laws and so all confusion and Anarchy must follow Lastly Were the precept so meant that we must abstain from every thing of ours which is an appearance of evil to another our Christian liberty were evacuated there being nothing we do which will not appear evil to some or other and many things lawful and indifferent will appear evil even to the best It s true there are many cases in which we are to forbear our liberty of which before Mr. Jeans his first Edition of his Treatise I wrote in the fourth Chapter of my Book of Scandalizing but the forbearance of our liberty I did not ascribe barely to the appearance of evil to others but to the scandal that is ruine or harm to another consequent thereon And to prevent the frequent abuse of the Text 1 Thess. 5.22 I wrote thus p 284. Lastly if it were granted that the Apostle for bids us to abstain from all that which appears to be evil to another yet no Interpreter that I meet with understands it of such appearance of evil as is conceited to be such upon some erroneous principles in him that conceives it to be such Or by reason of the meer phansie or rigid austerity or evil will or such like cause of him that thinks it evil but they usually apply it to such causes or signs of manifest evil as are means of drawing to some notorious sin as going to hear a Mass which is a cause and sign of Idolatry or wanton dalliance which is a cause or sign of whoredom And they apply hereto that saying of Julius Caesar that Caesars wife should be free not only from evil but also from the suspition of it So that even in their intent this Scripture is not appliable to this purpose as if the Apostle did prohibit a Christian to use any thing that another thought evil whether he thought so upon probable reason or no reason upon some ground or none And to speak truth the application of this Text in that manner as it is by some as if the Apostle did forbid us the use of any thing though in different in it self when it appears as evil to another without any further restraint is very absurd and so unreasonable as that it will bring a yoke upon mens consciences impossible to be born sith there is scarce any thing a man can do but some or other Infidel or Christian weak or strong in the faith Orthodox or Superstitious will think it to be evil that saying by experience being found true quot homines tot sententiae so many men so many minds nor shall a mans own Conscience only make a thing evil to him but the conscience of any other man in the World Out of all which I gather that the Ministers tenent or practice in receiving the Lords Supper kneeling is not directly opposite to this positive precept as being what hath an appearance of evil in it unless it be in it self evil or evil in their own opinion or else a probable sign and cause of their adoration of the Papists Breaden god Whereas this Author himself in this Chapter p. 40. does not say though some would say that kneeling at the Lords Supper smells very strong of the Popish leven and is but one peg beneath the adoration of their Breaden god In answering which passage sect 2. of this Chapter I shewed that it could not be taken for such by any that will candidly and charitably interpret their actions as for other reasons very clear and convincing so from the words of the Rubrick at the end of the Communion which I here subjoyn Whereas it is ordained in this Office for the administration of the Lords Supper that the Communicants should receive the same kneeling which Order is well meant for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgement of the benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy râ—ceivers and for the avoiding such prophanation and disorder in the holy Communion as might otherwise ensue yet lest the same kneeling should by any persons either out of ignorance and infirmity or out of malice and obstinacy be misconstrued and depraved it is here declared that thereby no adoration is intended or ought to be done either unto the Sacramental Bread and Wine there bodily received or unto any corporal presence of Christs natural flesh and blood For the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural substances and therefore may not be adored for that were Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians And the natural body and blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven and not here it being against the truth of Christs natural body to be at one time in more places then one Thus the Common Prayer Book That which is said that the receiving of the Lords Supper kneeling is a gesture used by the Papists in the adoration of their Breaden god is denied by Dr. John Burges in his Treatise of the lawfulness of kneeling in the act of receiving the Lords Supper cap. 21. p. 67. p. 479. of the Rejoynder where he thus saith With us the Bishops or Ministers communicate kneeling as well as the people But with the Papists the Pope when himself performeth the office receiveth sitting as being a type of Christ the Mass Priests receive standing reverently by the Canon of the Mass and for this he cites in the Margin Ord. Rom. apud Bâ—bl Pat. Col. â—om 8. p. 390. Colum. 1. liter â— edit Colon. 1618. The People indeed receive it kneeling as we do as did also the Priest till such time as the Doctrine of Transubstantiation bâ—got the
mouths of adversaries and if they have to be humbled for it as David was when Sâ—imei curst him and so make advantage of an opposite persons enmity to amend themselves And indeed it were very unequal that we should either be afraid to do a thing because of clamours or continue in that which we cannot justifie because mens mouths will be opened against us and perhaps hardened in their own way Such kind of blasphemies as they are termed are vented against non-Conformists Sepâ—ratists as turbulent persons and yet this Author would not have it thought that they by their course harden poor soâ—ls in rebellion and blasphemy against God Why then doth he charge this upon the Conformists as an argument by it self as if it poâ—red contempt and hardened others and not impute the same to his own way But he tells us Sect. 7. Gods people are not called out of the temples in England as places of false worship To all that hitherto hath been said we shall yet briefly add Argument 10. God calls his people out of and strictly chargeth them not to go to the places of false worship Therefore 't is unlawful for the Saints to attend upon the present Ministers of England The antecedent is clearly proved Hos. 4.15 Amos 4.4 The reason of the consequence is because we cannot go to hear the present Ministers of England without we go to their places and Assemblies of false worship as the Common-prayer-book-worship hath been proved to be Answ. This argument proceeds upon the opinion of the rigid Separatists termed Brownists who in their Apology p. 75.76 have this as their Twelfth Position That all monuments of Idolatry in garments or any other things all Temples Altars Chappels and other places dedicated heretofore by the Heathens or Antichristians to their false worship ought by lawful authority to be rased and abolished not suffered to remain for nourishing superstition much less imployed to the true worship of God Exod. 20.4 5 6. 23.13 Esa. 30.22 Gen. 35.2 3 4. Deut. 12.2 3 30 32. 17 18 19 20. 2 Kings 10.26 27 28. and 18.4 23.12 13 14 15. 2 Chron. 17.6 Acts 17.23 19.26 27. Jude v. 23. with Lev. 13.47 51 52. Rev. 17.16 18 11 12 c. which is asserted by Mr. Ainsworth in his answer to Mr. Bernard about the Twelfth Article page 128. and in his Letters to Mr. John Paget and since by Mr. Robinson in his Justification of the separation from the Church of England against Mr. Bernard about the Twelfth and last errour imputed to them p. 354. p. 356. where he writes thus I see not but as the Religion of the Papists in the opposition it hath to Christianity is rightly called Antichristianism so the Religion of the Ten Tribes in the opposition it had to the Law given by Moses may fitly be called Antijudaism And for the Baalims then and there worshipped they were even as the lesser Gods at this day which are called Patrons among the Papists The Devil to the end he might bring in again the old Idolatry craftily borrowing the names of the Apostles and Martyrs by whom it was in former times overthrown and driven away and by this means it hath put on another person that it might not be known Whereupon it followeth by proportion That as the temples altars and high places for those Baalims and other Idols were by godly Kings to be raced down and taken away and no way to be imployed to the true worship of God so are the temples with their appurtenances built to the Virgin Mary Peter Paul and the rest though true Saints yet the Papists false Gods and very Baalims to be demolished and overthrown by the same lawful authority and in the mean while as execrable things to be avoided by them which have none authority to deface or demolish them p. 357. The moral equity of those Commandments in the old Testament touching the demolition and subversion of idolatrous temples and other the like superstitious monuments doth as well bind now as then Which Commandments are also in effect renewed in the new Testament where the faithful are charged to touch none unclean thing 2 Cor. 6.17 to keep themselves from Idols 1 John 5.21 which they cannot do except they keep themselves from their appertenances to hate even the garment spotted by the flesh Jude 23. not to receive the least mark of the beast Revel 14.9 but to go out of Babylon Revel 18.4 which is also called Sodom and Egypt spiritually as for the other sins reigning in her so for her idolatry amongst the rest From whence it is that many at this day term the Temples the high places decline them bury not in Churchyards with other actions of separation in speech and gesture opposite to what other Protestants conform to And though the chief leaders of the Congrestational Churches not long ago did Preach and hear in the publique Temples in England yet it seems this Authour now holds it unlawful to attend upon the present Ministers of England not onely because of their calling and worship but also because of the places in which it is performed and therefore seems to revive the controversie about the use of places once polluted by Idolatry Concerning which I shall not need to answer what either the Brownists in their Apology or Mr. Robinson hath said about this point the thing being so fully argued and the arguments of Mr. Ainsworth and others answered by Mr. John Paget in his Arrow against the separation of the Brownists from Chap. 6. to the end of the Book wherein the supposed moral equity of those Judicial Laws is shewed not to be such and that it is a great derogation from the benefit of the Gospel purchased by Christ's death to intangle the consciences of Christians with such Jewish opinions as if any creature were now polluted by Paganish or Popish Idolatry as that it might not now be enjoyed by Christians and imployed for God contrary to what the Apostle determines concerning meat offered to an Idol 1 Cor. 10.25 26 27 28 29 30. 1 Tim. 4.4 nor do any of Mr. Robinsons Texts serve for the purpose he brings them 2 Cor. 6 17. the unclean thing not to be touched is not the place where Idols have been worshipped but the Idol it self v. 16. which by going to places heretofore abused to Idolatry but now the Idol and it's worship is removed and the living and onely true God onely served is not touched in the Apostles sense but then onely when the Idol is kissed adored or otherwise worshipped They who joyn not in any Idol-service or honour keep themselves from Idols as is required 1 John 5.21 although they go to the places heretofore abused to Idolatry The garments spotted by the flesh however it allude to legal pollution yet it is not meant of material garments as belonging to an Idol but by it is meant any tokens or means of sinful lusts Revel 14.9 and 18.4 have been
often shewed to be so impertinently alleadged against the actions of Protestants which are done in opposition to Popery that it is a wonder that men pretending tenderness of conscience should be so impudent as still to accuse Protestants as receiving the mark of the beast and staying in Babylon even for that for which the holy Martyrs died in opposition to Popery But if it be true which Mr. Paget hath in his Arrow p. 29. Mr. Robinson was not constant to this opinion As for what this Authour saith The Common-prayer-book-worship is proved by him to be false worship it hath been shewed not to be true in the answer to all he saith here Yet were there some superstition in the worship prescribed in the Common Prayer Book it is not sufficient to make the places in which the present Ministers and people meet places or assemblies of false worship every corruption in Gods worship not making the place or assembly to be a place or assembly of false worship as is manifest both in the case of the sin of Hophni 1 Sam. 2.17 of the Corinthians 1 Cor. 11.20 21 22. 14.26 Nor if the places and assemblies were for some corruption yet were it necessary to go out of them except they were idolatrous For so were the going up to Gilgal Bethaven or Bethel forbidden Hos. 4.15 Amos 4.4 to offer sacrifice to the calves set up by Jeroboam which therefore prove not going to a place of false worship to be forbidden except it be idolatrous and to joyn in that worship and therefore the antecedent of this Authours argument is denied if it be meant of false worship that is not idolatrous Gods people were required to go to the temple at Jerusalem after it had been defiled with Idolatry and the Idol removed and even then when corpuptions of buying and selling there and will-worship was in sundry things continued there yet our Lord Christ himself went up to the Temple at Jerusalem The consequence also is denied it being false that we cannot go to hear the present Ministers of England without we go to their places and assemblies of false worship To which I add That this is contrary to our Saviours doctrine John 4.21 22 23. to tie men to worship onely in the place and assembly of the separated Churches and contrary to S. Pauls doctrine 1 Tim. 2.8 to forbid any to worship God in any place and therefore herein this Authour and such separatists as are of his mind are guilty of Judaizing But he goeth on thus Sect. 8. There is ground to expect a blessing in hearing the present Ministers Argument 11. That upon the doing whereof Saints have no promise of a blessing nor any ground to expect it is not lawful for them to do But in the hearing of these men the Saints have no promise of a blessing nor ground to expect it Therefore The major or first proposition will not be denied As for the minor or second proposition That the Saints have no promise of a blessing from God nor ground to expect it in the hearing of the present Ministers of England may many ways be demonstrated If there be any promise of a blessing upon them from God in their so doing let it be produced and we shall willingly confess there is no weight in this argument But this we conceive to be no easie task for any to discharge and that for these reasons 1. The blessing of the Lord is upon Sion Psal. 87.2 78.68 there he dwells Psal. 9.11 74.2 Jer. 8.19 Isa. 8.18 Joel 3.17.21 The presence of Christ is in the midst of the golden Candlesticks Rev. 1.12 13. 2.1 't is his garden in which he feedeth and dwells Cant. 6.2 8.13 and we are not surer of any thing nor will it be denied by our conforming brethren many of them thaâ— we are of this That the assemblies of England in their present constitution are so far from being the Sion of God his candlestick his garden that they are a very wilderness and that Babel out of which the Lord commands his people to hasten their escape Revel 18.4 2. God never promiseth a blessing to a people waiting upon him in that way which is polluted and not of his appointment as we have proved the worship of England to be 3 The Lord hath expresly said concerning such as run before they are sent That they shall not profit the people Jer. 23.32 4. The Lord protesteth that such as refuse to obey his calls to come out of Babylon shall partake of her plagues Revel 18.4 5. Where the Lord is not in respect of his special presence and grace there is no ground to expect any blessing but God is not so in the midst of the Parochial assemblies of England Where are the souls that are converted comforted strengthened stablished that are waiting at theâ— doors of their house Though many will not see it yet aâ— sad spirit of withering and visible decaies is to be found upon many that are waiting upon the teachings of the Ministers of this day And we hope the Lord will in mercy cause those that are indeed his to see it that they may remember from whence they have fallen repent do their first works and watch to strengthen the things that remain that are ready to die for God hath not found their works perfect before him Answ. Blessings are of many sorts Any good in general yea any immunity or freedom from evil is a blessing in a large sense But in a strict sense that onely is called a blessing which is the conferring of some special good whether temporal or eternal corporal or spiritual In the former sense the major is true It is not lawful for the Saints to do that which there is no promise of good to them upon doing it nor ground to expect that the person shall not be punished for it But if it be meant of good as of long life to the honouring of parents eternal life to believing on Christ there are many things the Saints have no promise of special good to be conferred on them for doing them nor ground to expect any such blessing but what is common to all men and yet the thing is lawful to be done by them as eating and drinking for their sustenance buying and selling planting building c. common to other men with them and in this strict sense in which this Authour takes it the major is not true Ezekiel Preached lawfully when he was told Israel would not hearken Ezek. 3.2 7. and Jonah when he thought Nineveh would not repent Jonah 4.2 But to wave this exception the minor is not true I assert the Saints have a promise of spiritual blessing by hearing these men while they Preach the Gospel as much as any Preachers in the Congregational Churches Isa. 55.3 Hear and your soul shall live Luke 11.28 Blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep it are promises made to them that hear the