people of weak judgements did satisfie themselves in these things in the judgement of their faithful learned wise and holy Teachers and Rulers Answ Bravely spoken had it been at Rome our English stomachs can scarce away with such Coleworts O dura Messorum ilia 1. The Animadverter all along takes for granted that which we expresly told him Chap. 5. 7. of the S. T. pag. 41 62. we denied viz. That there are any circumstances or particularities of Worship relating to it as such undetermined by the Lord. 2dly Under the notion of particularities of Worship undetermined he shrouds the many Popish toyes and Antichristian inventions as Cross in Baptism Ring in Marriage Surplice yet retained in the Church of England These he would not have persons too careful about But seriously Sir those that know the Lord know him to be a jealous God and that he hath manifested his jealousie in such terrible rebukes against some of the sons of men as Nadab and Abihu Levit. 10. 1 2. Vzza 2 Sam. 6. 6 7. whom he slew in his fury for their Worshipping him otherwise than he had determined that be they never so weak they tremble and abhor to draw nigh to God in a way they have no Scripture-warrant for 3dly They desire to be satisfied in the authority of the Children of men in their attempts to impose upon their Consciences and make those things the necessary parts of Worship which they themselves acknowledge Christ hath left as particularities undetermined 4thly They would also be directed by Mr. T. to those faithful learned wise and holy Teachers he speaks of for they can find few or none such in a whole County And yet 5thly One thing more they would be satisfied in Whether an implicite Faith in matters of Worship be any more tolerable and justifiable than in matters of Doctrine And whether this will ever be a satisfactory answer to their mighty Sovereign the Lord of Hosts when he shall demand of them Who hath required this at your hands Why truth Lord we never read that thou didst ever do so but our faithful Teachers told us we might yea ought notwithstanding to practise these things and believe it will never be accepted as such 6thly His scurrilous reflections they can freely pardon though they know that the brood of Ranters c. he speaks of have not been produced by the inquisitiveness of any after the mind of God with respect to Instituted Worship but persons taking up with such slight thoughts of the Worship of the Holy God as such expressions as these used by him are apt enough to beget in the minds of men together with the instability and inconstancy of persons whom they have it may be owned as their Teachers and Rulers being ready to imbrace and shake hands with whatever is uppermost in the world labouring to support uphold and draw others to the imbracement of that now which not long ago they Prayed Preached against and with hands and eyes lift vp to Heaven they swore to seek to the uttermost of their power to root out and demollish Sir these things are some of those occasions through the subtilty of Satan and the corruption of mans nature of that Raâ—tism Atheism c. that is in the world And blessed be the Lord the Congregations of his People have been but little emptied hereby they are a brood issuing for the most part out of the Womb of the Church of England and are such as it 's known that little enquired into these matters taking all for Gospel that their Preachers taught them The next attempt of the Animadverter is the exatnination of the Arguments advanced in the S. T. against hearing the present Ministers of England The first is That which there is no warrant for in the Scripture â—eing part of Instituted Worship is not lawful for the Saints to practise But there is no warrant in the Scripture for hearing the present Ministers and Heariug is part of Instituted Worship Therefore To which he answers Sect. 2. Chap. 1. The sum is There is a Twofold Warrant by Command or by Permission Of Instituted Worship there are two Parts 1. Essential without which it is not or is not rightly called Instituted Worship 2. Accidental which may be present or absent and yet the Worship be or righteously be so called If the Major be meant of Warrant by Command and part accidental of Instituted Worship it is denied and so is the Minor Hearing the Word from this or that person is a part accidental of Instituted Worship undetermined and hath a warrant by Permission as being not contrary to any Precept or Rule in Scripture about such Worship Answ 1. This Animadverter continues still his old trade of begging and dictating without proof which doth not become him and being in matters wherein our souls are so nearly concerned we cannot bear it in him 1. He teâ—ls us That with respect to Instituted Worship there is a twofold warrant by Command or by Permission but would he had thought it incumbent upon him to have proved what he asserted This we deny Whatever hath not a warrant of Command in the Scripture is plainly interdicted and forbidden therein Deut. 4. 2. 12. 32. Rev. 22. 18. punished with no less than death upon those that have adventured to act exorbitantly without such a warrant as we but now manifested 2dly He tells us That there are two Parts of Instituted Worship Essential and Accidental but this also is false and untrue we expect his proof of it A part Accidental of Instituted Worship is a sort of gibberish that as it is unscriptural so it is little less than down-right-nonsence Instituted Worship is such Worship as is appointed by command from Christ or that is by Christs institution saith Mr. T. in answer to the Preface of S. T. Sect. 2. How any part of instituted Worship can be an accidental part i. e. such a part of Worship as though enjoyned by Christ which if it be not it is not instituted as may be done or not done without sin I must profess I understand not And desire Mr. T. would inform me not in a Dictator-like way as if he were a second Pythagoras but from Scripture-evidence And lest he should mistake this is that which is incumbent upon him to prove That a part of instituted Worship which is a Worship commanded by Christ may be accidental i. e. performed or not performed without sin 3dly That hearing the present Ministers of England preach the Doctrines and Traditions of men as he must do at some time or other that constantly attends on their Ministry or according to Mr. T. the Word of God hath Warrant in Scripture by permission as being not contrary to any Precept about Worship is another dictate of his that he will make good ad Graecas Calendas 'T is true the Light of Nature dictates That God is to be heard by whomsoever he speaks and 't is as true that God having
hitherto asserted it may be lawful to attend them We say in S. T. 4ly That there is not a command in the Scripture enjoyning Saints to take heed of being deceived to try the spirits but is an abundant demonstration of the truth of the first Proposition To which Mr. T. subjoyns 1. If by acting in the holy things of God by vertue of an Antichristian power be meant their acknowledging the power teaching the doctrine owning the calling of him that is truly Antichrist 't is granted Answ To this we have already replyed 'T is enough to prove any person ought to be separated from if he act in the holy things of God by vertue of an Antichristian power though the doctrine he preach be true He adds 2ly The Scriptures mentioned forbid command he means only to reject Antichristian Doctrine and Worship not every thing said by any without proof to be a thing of Antichrist Answ 1. Very well If we prove then the Worship of the Church of England to be Antichristian it is to be reiected Now it being the Worship of the Papacy which is acknowledged by him to be so I cannot see how it can be otherwise 2ly The Scriptures mentioned fairly import not only a command for the rejection of the Doctrine and Worship which is Antichristian but them also that pretend to be but really are not of God The persons are to be proved and tryed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 try them as Goldsmiths try Gold whether it be pure and right and if you find them not to be so reject them 1 John 4. 1. We proceed and in S. T. say further 5ly The institution of Officers of his own by Christ to be continued to the end of the World Eph. 4. 11. evinceth the truth of the Major proposition To this our Animadverter answers 1. 'T is true some of the Officers mentioned Ephes 4. are to be continued to the end of the World in the way appointed by him but that there is any particular way of Election of ordinary â—astors and Teachers in those words appears not Answ Who saith there is 'T is sufficient they prove the continuation of the Officers in the Church to be an Institution of Christ Of the particular way of their election we have mentioned elsewhere as we have shewed 2ly 'T is well this Animadverter will acknowledg that there is a way appointed by Christ in which Church-Officers are to be continued which as I conceive is a part of Church-Government which therefore cannot be left to such an indifferency as he sometimes intimates He tels us 2ly How the Major is proved by it he discerns not unless this be the Argument Christ hath appointed these therefore no other are to be heard which overthrowes the hearing of Gifted-Brethren Answ We are contented with the form our words are by him cast into only with this alteration therefore no other are to be heard as Ministers acting by vertue of an Office-Power which makes nothing against the hearing of gifted Brethren We further add in S. T. 6ly That there is no promise of a blessing in the whole Scripture upon persons attending upon such a Ministry Mr. T. replies 1. Though there be no promise of a blessing upon persons attending on such a Ministry yet if they Preach the Gospel truly there is Luk. 11. 28. Answ 1. 'T is not probable they should Preach the Gospel truly as touching the present Ministers of England they do not so 1. They preach it from a false mission 2ly They preach it by halves as is known 3. They mixt many humane traditions therewith and thereby obscure the Gospel as Mr. T. himself in his Fermentum Pharisaeorum asserts 4ly There is no blessing promised to persons attending upon such a Ministry Luk. 11. 28. Christ speaks not there of any such Ministry the whole of his intendment is that no external pâ—iviledge though it were to bear him in the Womb c. who was a true Messiah renders a man glorious blessed and excellent as a conformity to the divine will which how much it is to his purpose others will judge He saith 2ly If there were no promise of a blessing the Major is not proved unless this were true They are not to be heard but separated from to whose Ministry as such a blessing is not promised which makes unlawful the hearing of gifted Bretheren unless they can produce such a promise Answ Let me seriously ask this Animadverter whether he doth not when he goes to hear go to meet with God in that duty and to receive a blessing from him This he will not sure deny now I would know further whence it is he expects to meet with God and be blessed by him in his so doing can he or any one in the world give any other reason but this Because God hath promised to meet and bless his people while they are waiting on him in his own wayes Whether the work be managed by a Minister of Christ as acting by Office-power or a private Brother acting by vertue of Talents received for the profiting and edification of the Body we are not destitute of a promise of a blessing Exod. 20. 24. Isa 64. 5. Mat. 18. 20. Eph. 4. 11 to 15. But if we run to a false Ministry to such as act from an Antichristian office and calling I know not any promise of a blessing but rather the contrary So that the Major Proposition remains unshaken notwithstanding Mr. T. his Battery against it His next attempt is against the Minor of which in the next Section Sect. 2. The present Ministers of England act in the holy things of God by vertue of an Antichristian power office or calling proved They are not from Christ There is a twofold Church Ministry Worship Of Luthers Ministry The names office of the present Ministers their admission thereinto forreign to the Scripture Of Suffragan Bishops THat the present Ministers of England act in the holy things of God by vertue of an Antichristian power office or calling which is the Minor Proposition of the last mentioned Argument we say in S. T. wants not sufficient demonstration 1. The present Ministers of England are either from Christ or from Antichrist there is no medium That they are not from Christ besides what is already proved may be further evinced To which our Animadverter answers 1. Mr. Bradshaw asserts that there is a medium and that a Ministry may be from Christ in reâ—pect of the thing ministred though from Antichrist in respect of the way of entry into it yea he saith it is not necessary that the ministry of Priests and Deacons though ordained by Antichrist himself should be the ministry of his apostasie but notwithstanding his Ordination their ministry may be the Ministry of Jesus Christ as was the Ministry of Luther Hus c. Answ 1. All that Mr. Bradshaw saith is not Gospel nor to be believed because he saith it 2dly That the thing ministred should render that Ministry that
parts of the Argument we premise 1. That there is a twofold denial of the Offices of Christ 1. Verbal and professional of this the Jews not the Papists noâ— the Ministers of England are guilty 2. Real and actual when persons do that which enwraps in the bowels of it a denial of the Offices of Christ Thus the Papists the present Ministers are guilty To this Mr. T. replies I allow the distinction but it is false that the Papists are not guilty of the verbal professional denying of the Offices of Christ for though they acknowledge Christ to be King yet their doctrine overthrows all the Offices of Christ as he that ascribes Kingly power to a Subject doth make another King and so doth unking him Thus the Papists do while they will have unwritten traditions to be received Answ 1st To dispute about words with any man living I shall not by a verbal professional denying of Christs Offices I mean express and down-right asserting that he is not King of his Church this I say the Papists do not they own preach up all the Offices of Christ i. e. they acknowledge him in their discourses of his Offices to be King to his Church which Mr. T. knows they do Their ascription of Kingly power to any but Christ in assertions mentioned I make a real and actual denyal and oppugning the Offices of Christ It being a doing what enwraps in the bowels of it such a denial of them 2dly This Animadverter hath already asserted what will in part at least make good our charge in this matter against the Ministers of England The ascription of Kingly power to any but Christ is a denying his Kingly authority the Papists Prelats and Ministers of England do so in asserting that traditions unwritten are to be received That the Pope a Convocation or Assembly of Prelates and Priests can make Laws to bind the Conscience by vertue of his their authority can dispense with Gods Laws incestuous Marriages by granting a License for a good Spill prohibited by God therefore the Papists the Ministers of England do deny the Kingly authority of Christ We premise in S. T. 2dly That a verbal professional acknowledgement of Christ is nothing when contradicted in practice To which we subjoyn that such as really oppose or deny any of the Offices of Christ are not to be heard but separated from which we prove 1. Because such aâ— do so are the Antichrists 1 Joh. 2. 22. and 4. 2 3. 2 Joh. 7. 2dly To hear such is to strengthen and encourage them in that their denial of and opposition to the Offices of Christ and thereby to become partakers with them in their sin Of which we treat more at large in S. T. chap. 4. p. 29 30. Whereunto Mr. T. replies 1. That a verbal professional acknowledgement of the Offices of Christ when contradicted by practice is nothing to the salvation of the person so professing his plea shall not be admitted before God or mans Ecclesiastcal censure i. e. he may be suspended excommunicated for his so acting notwithstanding his profession yet all this doth not prove that his doctrine may not be heard Answ 1. It seems then its lawful to hear persons not waâ—king exorbitantly but under Church censure for so doing which pours forth most fearful contempt upon that institution of Christ Excommunication To what purpose is it that any one is cast out of the Church if it may be lawful to hear them notwithstanding i. e. own them as the mouth of God to me and my mouth to God whom the Church thought not meet to be continued as a member in the body 2dly In vain then are all the exhortations of the Apostle to the Saints with relation to their withdrawment from such as these 1 Cor. 5. 9 10 11. Ephes 5. 11. 3dly To no purpose did Paul write to the Corinthians to receive the incestuous person had they but known their liberty they might have done so before for if his doctrine did not oppugn the Offices of Christ it might have been heard to their profit according to our Dictators dictates they might not only have received him but as a Preacheâ— amongst them Nay 4thly In vain is the charge of the Apostle 2 Cor. 3. 5. for if they profess to own the Offices of Christ i. e. Have a Form of Godliness though they contradict it in their walk i. e. deny the Power thereof they may be joyned with Poor Paul understood not so much of our Christian Liberty as rich confident Mr T. who is driven to such pittiful shifts and gross absurdities in the management of this Controversie that I really pitty him He adds 'T is not true that Christ saith the false Prophets are to be descried by their vitious Life only Nor do I say in this place he doth I say he saith they are to be known by their fruits Preaching and practising what invelops in it a denial of the Offices of Christ though attended with a visible holy Conversation I am contented that he make the fruits mentioned to be His discourse of Judas and false Prophets being so called not in respect of their outward Calling or vitious Lives but of their Doctrine that upon the least occasion he runs frequently forth into we have already answered Nor say we that teaching something through ignorance and inadvertency as is appointed by Christ which is not or denying something to be instituted which was so appointed is what doth denominate a man a false Prophet The Animadverter forgets what it is he attempts to answer we are not talking of false Prophets but of such as deny the Offices of Christ nor do we say that this as thus proposed by him doth render a man guilty of real denying the Offices of Christ or is a sufficient ground of separation from him much less then an opposing in heart any of the Offices of Christ is so as he suggests afterwards we do but that those that do really oppose any of the Offices of Christ viz. by setting themselves against the most if not the whole of Gospel-Institutions by owning a power in others to constitute Laws for the Family and Houshold of Christ even contrary to his Institutions and acknowledging another Head beside him of his Church is such a real denial of the Offices of Christ that upon whomsoever it is found 't is the duty of Saints to separate from them and that for the reasons before mentioned which Mr. T. may disprove when he can The rest of this Section being spent in railing and sorry impertinencies I come to his second Section were he sets himself to consider our Minor Proposition viz. That the present Ministers of England do oppose and deny the Prophetical and Kingly Offices of Christ Which we prove thus Those that hearken not to the Revelation Christ hath made and as Supream Lord and Lawgiver hath enjoyned to be observed touching the Orders and Ordinances of his House deny the Prophetical and Kingly Office of
ceasing because when ye received the Word of God which ye heard of us ye received it not as the word of man but as it is in truth the Word of God which effectually worketh also in you that believe Not to multiply words the Apostle with Silvanus and Timotheus chap. 1. 1. acquaints them in this verse 1. of the returns they were on their behalf making to God for the Grace was bestowed on them We thank God without ceasing 2. Particularly declares the ground and reason of this their thanksgiving which was their reception of obedience to the Gospel which he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Word of God which because they ministerially brought to them he calls also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word of hearing speech or report from them This he saith they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they tryed proved considered weighed in their spirits what was offered to them by the Apostles as learned Beza tells us the word signifies whereby it is saith he distinguished from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 An entertainment that the Gospel did not every-where meet with being many times cryed out against run upon and violently opposed as were the Publishers of it without so much as soberly considering whether things be so or no nor here but by a very few the Rabble in an hurly-burly furiously assaulting the house of Jason Act. 17. 5. whither 't was like the Disciples were wont to repair And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having upon tryal found it to be of worth and weight they received imbraced it as Beza Zanchy c. on the place say the word signifies and that as the Word of God with reverence giving up themselves to his conduct How this came to pass he also asserteth it was from the effectual energy of the Lord upon their hearts by his mighty Power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which they were not able to resist As learned Cameron in Myroth Evang. ad Phil. 2. And Praelect and holy Bains on Eph. 1. 11. say And they being thus powerfully and effectually wrought upon to the imbracing the Doctrine of the Gospel as the Word of God they become followers of the Churches of God which in Judaea were in Christ Jesus i. e. as they had before done who were in Christ before them so do they gather together into a distinct Body or particular Congregation for the celebrating the Ordinances of God together and worshipping him according to his will Therefore we worship God in hearing when we hear of which the Apostle speaks ne gry quidem as Mr. T. well knows Yet is this the only Scripture produced for the confirmation of his Assertion They were so far from worshipping God in their bare hearing that had they done no more they had not worshipped him at all no more than the rest of them of Thessalonica with the Jews who although they heard the Apostles consorted not with them but afterwards persecuted and opposed them Act. 17. 4 5. who 't is to be thought Mr. T. will not say worshipped him at all He need never fear miscarrying in any cause he thinks meet to undertake if he can but beforehand assure himself he shall meet with such partially addicted Readers as will take such proofs as these to be cogent and convincing but Parvas habet spes Troja si tales habet Strong and confident Assertions without more clear and evident proof are not likely to lead the understanding of persons soberly inquisitive after Truth into obedience of them Sect. 2. Of Instituted Worship Mat. 17. 5. explained What ever is to be practised by N. T. Saints in respect of Worship is solely to be bottom'd upon the authority of Christ Luke 10. 16. considered O. T. Precepts with respect to Hearing how obliging Luke 16. 29. explained The intendment of Christ in the Parable evinced 2 Pet. 1. 19. opened VVhom we are prohibited from hearing in the N. T. Mat. 15. 4. explained 2 Tim. 3. 5. considered and opened Of the scattered Disciples Acts 8. 1 4. touching whom Mr. T. egregiously trifles and abuseth his Reader No hearing the present Ministers as gifted Brethren VVhether hearing of Preachers be a moral and perpetual Worship common to all times MR. T. his first Section being spent in the consideration of the word Worship and some distinctions about the Worship of God the second is designed to the consideration of the word Instituted And having learnedly told us that the Instituted Worship of Christ is such as is by Christ's Institution i. e. the Instituted Worship of Christ is the Instituted Worship of Christ He further acquaints â—s what a Civil Lawyer saith of Institutions viz. That they are preceptions by which men are instructed and taught which after some exeâ—plification by particular instances he applies to the Worship of Christ under the Gospel and tells us that 't is such that is by Christ's preceptions taught directed or appointed in the time thereof which may be meant he saith of the Natural Worship which belongs to God or Christ such as Prayer to God giving Thanks to him Hearing which yet in respect of some peculiarities are to be divolved upon the Scriptures of the New Testament yet not excluding the Old or the Light of Nature so far as the Worship is perpetual and general to all people and times as being either natural or moral Answ Very good Hearing it seems then as a Gospel-duty to be performed by the Saints in the time thereof is part of Natural Worship for hereof must he speak or he speaks impertinently the question being about the duty of these Sober Testim pag. 13. which not attempting the least proof of we are bound to take no further notice thereof than to avouch the contrary If the Animadverter thinks that because some things are consonant to the dictates of right Reason the Light and Law of Nature therefore as to be performed by Saints under the Gospel they are not meerly of the institution of Christ and to be performed solely upon the account of his Authority and Command he shall not have me for his Rival Nor will any sober Christian tender of the honour and glory of his Lord and Master Christ swallow down such an Assertion without better proof About this matter a worthy and learned person hath spoken excellently in a Catechise lately published called A brief Instruction in the Worship of God where in pag. 84. Q. 18. are these words VVhereas sundry of these things viz. Prayer Preaching c. of which he had spoken before as principal Institutions of the Gospel are founded in the Light and Law of Nature as requisit unto all solemn Worship and are moreover commanded in the Moral Law and explications of it in the Old Testament how do you look upon them as Evangelical Institutions to be observed principally on the Authority of Jesus Christ Answ Neither their general suitableness unto the principles of right Reason and the dictates of the Light and Law of Nature
and indeed as by shadows we are sometimes to understand the Jewish administration of affairs under the old paedagogy so by day the time of the dispersion of those Shadows and the introduction of the Gospel-Churcâ—-state Cant. 2. 17. 4. 6. The whole of what Mr. T. would infer from this place would not only be enervated but a Sword ready furbished put into the hands of his Antagonist to put an end to his expiring cause Nor wil it at all avail him to say that the Gospel-administration was already introduced and brought in for although that was afoot some while before yet many Jewish Ceremonies were yet winked at and practised by the believing Jews of whom the charge was committed unto Peter Gal. 2. 7 8 9. to whom he writes these Epistles who were much in practise of their old Ordinances some of them till the time of the ruine and devastation of their Temple by Titus Vespasian when some think 2 Pet. 3. 7 9 10. of the burning and consuming of the then Heavens and Earth viz. the Jewish Paedagogy and old Administration of affairs had its accomplishment and the new Heavens or Gospel-Church-state was fully introduced Though we need not assert any thing of this nature The Apostle as was said is treating not of the Worship but Doctrine of the Messiah in particular of his Glory Power and Coming which the Prophets he tells them had abundantly bore witness to and to their Testimony it was their duty is ours to attend That hence such a conclusion as this is or can be logically inferred that therefore the Precepts and Directions of the Old-Testament are to be heeded and learned in respect of the matter therein contained and the persons that reveal it with respect to Worship of which he must speak or he saith nothing to the matter in hand is the first-born of absurdities and needs the abilities of one transcending the degree of a B. D. to make good But this Mr. T. thought not of No wonder his late Writings as he complains find so little acceptance amongst persons inquisitive after Truth if there be such chasma's betwixt the head and heels of his Arguments that 't is impossible the Reader should find mediums enough to fill up and render them in the least conclusive But he goes on and tells us that he meets with no prohibition to hear any but false Prophets Mat. 7. 15. Deceivers Tit. 1. 10. That teach other Doctrine 1 Tim. 1. 3. 2 John 10. Another Gospel Gal. 1. 8 9. Answ 1. Christ's institution of Officers of his own for the administration of the affairs of his House had there been no express interdiction had been interdiction sufficient to hear a Ministry not of his appointment The Lord having caused Fire to come down from Heaven and giving a charge that it should be kept alive continually upon his Altar was such an interdiction of offering Sacrifice with strange Fire that Nadab and Abihu not observing it though no express command against offering strange fire die by the immediate hand of the Lord as a punishment for their transgression But 2dly we reade of other prohibitions in the Scripture though Mr. T. is not pleased now to take notice of them as Mat. 15. 14. which about twenty five years ago he seems to suppose to be an injunction of Christ not to hear the Scribes and Pharisees and indeed the word there used plainly imports as much 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies to remove from forsaken so as never to come at them more which Beza saith is the proper signification of the word and the learned Grotias * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut remittere proprie et primigenio significatu est a se amovere atque ita sumitur Mat. 4. 20. et alibi saepe unde sumpta metaphora significat deserere dimittere permittere frequentissime autem rationem alicujus rei non habere quod Latini simili locutione dicunt missum aliquid facere ita sumi haâ—c voâ—em apparet Mat. 15. 14. Gâ—ot de saâ—is Christi saith little less and in them a prohibition to hear such as should act like them viz. teach for doctrines the traditions of men Nor is the Animadverter a stranger to that solemn Injunction of the Apostle 2 Tim. 3. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from such turn away The word signifies devocare avocare saith Aretius whence saith he we may understand that 't is our duty to shun them that we be not made like them That there is a dispensation granted to abide with Ministers of such a complexion I never yet read 3dly Were there no more prohibitions than those instanced by Mr. T. these were enow to prove it the duty of Saints to separate from the present Ministers of England That they are false Prophets Mat. 7. 15. we have evinced ch 6. of S. Test which is vindicated from Mr. T. his Exceptions chap. 7th of this Treatise and Sect. 10. of this chapter That they are Deceivers according to Tit. 1. 10. the second place instanc'd in by him were easie to demonstrate That they teach other Doctrine according to 1 Tim. 1. 5. the third place he is pleased to introduce he that thinks it any part of his concern to examine what they do cannot be ignorant Is not Canonical obedience compulsion in matters of Religion and Faith conveniency at least of Surplice Organs Cross in Baptism Regeneration thereby with many more that might be instanced in as a National Church in the time of the Gospel Communion with persons visibly wicked and prophane Subjection to which they have a Law to compel men to the necessity of Godfaâ—hers and Godmothers another Doctrine Did they learn these things from Christ and his Apostles or from the Cabal at Rome Nor will it avail this Animadverter to say that these cannot be called anotheâ— Doctrine because some of them not expresly forbidden nor directly contrary to what is taught by them For what is more than they taught is another Doctrine though not directly contrary thereunto Hear what the Assembly in their Annotations upon the place say Teach no other doctrine the chief Pastors of the Church who were endued with Apostolical Authority as was Timothy were to forbid any to preach not only doctrine that was contrary but that which was beside that which the Faithful have received from the Apostles And indeed the word is plainly so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 e. i. saith Piscator 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they teach not things divers viz. from the Doctrine of the Apostles So Beza And Hyperius is very full that they teach no other Doctrine either for matter or manner for substance or circumstance As to what he adds that Christ more especially tied his Disciples to hear his Apostles and such as were sent by them to them yet when all the Church at Jerusalem except the Apostles were scattered abroad by persecution and went every where preaching the Gospel Acts 8.
for the Saâ—nts in matters of Instituted Worship to practise what there is no warrant for in the Scripture because so to do 5thly pours out contempt upon the care of God over the New-Testament-Churches as if it were less to these than to that under the Law and the Oeconomy of the Gospel as not so compleat as that of old the whole of whose Worship Orders and Ordinances as was said was bottom'd upon pure revelation To this saith Mr. T. 1. This pours out no contempt upon the care of God over the New-Testament-Churches as is before proved in answer to the Preface Sect. 20. Answ What Mr. T. there dictates for he proves little we have already considered and removed out of the way in our reply thereunto 2dly He begs of us to yeeld him that Circumstantials of Worship as such are liable to variation are not bottom'd upon pure revelation divine but in many things left to humane prudence Answ 1. But be he never so importunately precaâ—ious herein we cannot yeeld it him but demand his proofs hereof else we judge he speaks injuriously both to Christ and Saints 2dly We cannot but demur a little upon that expression pure revelation divine upon which he saith these circumstantials of Worship are not bottom'd I hope he doth not think his Antagonists own any Revelation but that which is Divine Though as touching the Ceremonies he is under the notion of Circumstantials pleading for they are not indeed built upon Revelation Divine but Diabolical diametrically opposit to that which is Divine The language whereof is that nothing be offered up to God but that which is of his own prescription 3dly In many things he saith these Circumstantials of Worship are left to humane prudence Answ 1. Would he had told us in what things 2. Thought it incumbent upon him to prove his dictate 3. Manifested how we might be able to discern if an exect enumeration of particulars is not to be obtained betwixt those many that are left to humane prudence and the some that are not 4. Discover to us what security we have that if a Protestant-Bishop impose on us some of the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of Rome under the notion of Circumstantials and Accidentals of Worship though they are indeed such strange accidentals as were never heard-of in the world before viz. such as without which the Worship must not be performed that if the Papists should ever bear sway which is not impossible his Holiness the Pope shall not impose upon us all the rest that are as yet behind the Curtain upon the same pretentions 4. He tells us 'T is an effect of God's love and care over the New-Testament-Churches that he hath not tied them in so many things to external rites as he did the Jews Answ And we say so too but herein Mr. T. speaks not pertinently The Question is not Whether the Lord 's not tying us in so many things as he did the Jews to external rites be an effect of his care and love or no which we say it is but whether it be consistant with that his care and love in delivering us from these not to determine the whole of our Worship as he did determine the whole of theirs but leave us to the wills lusts and inventions of men to be ordered and ruled by them according as they should think meet and convenient Which when Mr. T. shall think himself able to perswade any but the blind when the Sun shines in its strength that it is not day he may attempt the proof of 5. He adds The Occonomy of the Gospel is not less compleat than that of old for this cause This reasoning if he understands the Apostle Col. 2. 8 9 10. is either the same or very like that of the Philosophical Judaizing-Teacher Answ 1. But Mr. T. his Assertion is no proof If the whole of the Worship of the Jews was compleat without humane additaments being built upon pure Revelation and ours be not compleat without many things that are left to humane prudence to determine relating to Worship as such ours is most assuredly less compleat than theirs 2dly Mr. T. his abilities of understanding I have little to say to Bernardus non videt omnia And he hath a strange faculty of discerning that can see our reasoning to be the same or much like to the reasoning of the Judaizing Teachers Col. 2. 8 9 10. 1st They diâ—puted for Jewish observances we argue as well as we can against them 2dly They asserted that they were not nor could be compleat without them this we oppose and affirm the contrary That neither our Persons or Worship are or can be any whit the more compleated by them or any other Observances in the world not instituted by Christ in the New-Testament Mr. T. indeed asserts that there are some Ceremonies left to be ordered by men according as they shall see convenient Which is somewhat like to the Doctrine of these Judaizing Teachers which the Apostle cautions the Church of Colosse against v. 8. That by the Rudiments of the world is meant Jewish Riâ—es we may grant the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Traditions of men seems to be somewhat else viz. humane Additions to Divine Institutions such as were those amongst the Jews that Christ calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mat. 15. 3 6. which he interprets v. 9. to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Commandments of men Whether our reasoning or the Animadverter's be more like that here of the Philosophical Teachers is left to the judgment of the Judicious to deâ—ermine 3dly How little to Mr. T. his purpose this Scripture-citation is he already may discern how much it makes against the grand Design he is labouring to advance the proposing of one or two Arguments from it will fully evince 1. Those Traditions and Rudiments that are not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after Christ i. e. according to the Doctrine and Institution of Christ which only ought to take place in the Church as say our Annotators upon the place are not to be complied with but to be watched warred against as such that do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lead us captive from Christ But the Rudiments Mr. T. pleads for are such as are not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after the Institution of Christ if they are let Mr. T. produce the place where they are so Therefore 2. If the Church at Colosse was so compleat in Christ that they needed not to subject ought not to do so to the Jewish Rites and Traditions of the Elders then much less need we to subject to the Rudiments of men or any of the accursed Rites and Ceremonies of the Papacy These Rites are much more weak and absurd than the former as never being of the Institution of the Lord but the devising and imposing of his profest enemy Therefore 6thly The Assertion That it 's lawful to practise any thing in Instituted Worship without warrant from Scripture we say
what is practised in his Worship without any warrant from him I must confess I know not what is Is not You shall sign with the Cross in Baptism kneel at the Sacrament wear the Surplice c. an adding to the Word of God when he is altogetheâ— in the Scriptures silent in these matters Mat. 15. 9. speaks of the Inventions of men with respect to accidental parts of Worship as Mr. T. accounts them The essentials of Worship as praying hearing c. they had from the Lord these things were not what Christ condemns in them as the Doctrines of men What was it then Mr. T. in his Fermentum Pharisaeorum on Mat. 15. 9. shall answer for me But in this place saith he that which our Saviour objects to them is That they sought to establish the Traditions of men chiefly that they taught men to observe things praeter Legem besides the Law in stead of Gods Law as the washing of hands before meals the washing of Cups and Potts with many such like Traditions inveâ—ted by men And afterwards Sect. 5. tells us That Bowings Duckings and such like Gestures Usages and Rites invented by men to express Humility Devotion and Reverence to God he contemns as Childish Apish Theatrical and ridiculous And Sect. 7. he adds That this teaching for Doctrine the Commandments of men intrencheth on Gods Prerogative who is the only Law-giver to his Church Jam. 4. 12. for his Worship and that with respect to the fashion and way of Service 'T is an injuring God whilest we conceive him to be so childish as to be affected with pomps and shews gestures and carnal Rites which he never appointed It opposeth Gods Word his Law his Gospel because it brings in another Rule of Worship than God's Law viz. Tradition of Elders Custom Example contrary to Deut. 4. 2. Pro. 30. 6. It opposeth the manifestation of the clear light of the Gospel as shadows the light of the Sun Look into the places where there is so much preaching of Ceremonies and Church-orders and such a regular observation of them as in places where the Cathedral and Canonical Preachers and officiating Priests do bear sway there is little spiritual understanding and lively feeling of the Doctrine and Grace of Christ to be found Sect. 8. with much more to the same purpose Lev. 10. â— Jer. 7. 31. expresly assert that their sin lay in doing that which God commanded them not which had he done it had been lawful Let Mr. T. shew where the offering of strange fire was expresly forbidden and he may be supposed to say somewhat that is pertinent Mr. Ainsworth whom he cites on Lev. 10. 1. is against him Strange fire he tells us is other fire than God hath sanctified on his Altar fire not commanded And the Assembly upon the place say rightly In God's Worship his Command not man's wit or will must be our rule The citation of Josh 22. 34. 2 Chron. 20. 3. 30. 23. Esth 9. 27 31. by this Animadverter is impertinent Josh 22. 34. gives us an account of their building an Altar but they expresly affirm it was not for burnt-offerings nor for Sacrifices not for an Ecclesiastical but a Civil use v. 22 23 24 26 28. Had they built it for the Worship of God it had in the judgment of the whole Congregation of Israel been Rebellion against him ver 16. So that this Scripture instead of supporting cuts the throat of his dying cause nor can Mr. T. ever satisfactorily answer this Argument 'T is great wickedness to commit a trespass against to turn away from following to rebel against the Lord But the doing or practising any thing in his Worship besides what God hath enjoyned to be done is to commit a trespass against him to turn away from following to rebel against him Therefore The Major no sober Christian will deny The Minor is evident from v. 16 18 19. Nor will Mr. T. his old shift of Essential and Accidental parts of Worship serve him in this case For 1. The erection of an Altar he supposeth to be but an accidental part of Worship 2. He produceth this Scripture to prove the lawfulness of mens orders in and about the Accidentals of Instituted Worship As for his other Scriptures 2 Chron. 30. 23. hath been already considered and answered in our Answer to Prof. Sect. 5. 2 Chron. 20. 3. Esth 9. 27 31. speak only of the Proclamation and Decree or Purpose of the King and People to observe and keep certain dayes unto the Lord upon the account of such signal providences that the Lord had brought them under wherein they judged he was calling them thereunto To what is added in S. T. touching the judgment of the Ancients Mr. T. replies but so jejunely that it deserves not to be taken notice of As for Cyprian's testimony 't is full up to the matter in hand the foundation upon which he dealt against the Aquarii being no other than what we are pleading-for that Christ alone is to be heard in matters of Instituted Worship as Mr. T. will grant the Sacrament to be I stand amazed at the confidence of the Animadverter in asserting that Beza's words on Phil. 1. 1. are to be understood of things determined in the Scripture when he expresly speaks of giving the title of Bishop for Polities sake peculiarly to him that did preside in the Assembly whereof he tels us the Devil began to lay the first foundation of Tyranny in the Church of God and then he adds Behold of how great moment it is to decline from the Word of God though but an hairs breadth if it be but in giving titles peculiarly to persons which are not so given to them in the Scripture And much more do I wonder if he did without blushing write that Luther is to be understood of Doctrines and Decrees if he oppose these to Church-Ceremonies which if he do not he yeelds his Cause when he expresly saith he means that nothing with respect to external Rites which he calls Traditions and the mixing the Worship of God with foolish Gewgaws is to be taught without the express words of God for our warrant 'T is true Dr. Whitakers words are meant of the Popish use of Oyl in their Sacraments but the ground of his opposing it is plainly the same with that we are contesting about viz. That nothing is to be added to the Instituted Worship as a part thereof without warrant from the Scripture for saith he we acknowledge no Oyl because we read nothing of Oyl in the Scriptures To these I say many may be added Take a few instances instead of many Whatsoever things men find and fain without the Authority and Testimony of the Scripture as if they were from Apostolical Tradition are smitten by the Sword of God saith Hierom Comment in Hag. c. 2. And again Men are saith he set to eat their meat without Salt when they are commanded any thing that hath no relish from the
the least some of the present Ministers are not guilty of them Let the Scriptures be perused if the evils mentioned may not be charged upon the most if not all of them and that without the least breach of charity I am mistaken Though 3dly The evil the Apostle calls disorderly walking is supposed to be only a Brother's living idely or not working which that it is a greater sin than what we have here charged the Ministers of England with will not in hast be believed by such as know the Lord to be a jealous God and the abhorrency of his Soul against humane Inventions in and additaments to his Worship I say supposed to be For I am of the mind that the disorderly walking v. 10. is but a branch of that disorderly walking v. 6. which may be taken in general for all kind of evil carriage and so includes in it the particulars mentioned That by tradition v. 6. should be meant only that command v. 10. is not likely 'T is rather to be extended to those mentioned 2 Thes 2. 15. And laid down as a direction or help to secure them from the cheats and innovations of Antichrist and his ministâ—â—s whom he tells them should come and that with all deceivableness of unrighteousness intimates that many should believe their lie v. 7 8 9 10 11. presses â—hem v. 15. to stand fast viz. in the doctrine of the Gospel with respect to Faith and Worship to hold the Traditions they had been taught by them v. 15. And having prayed for them v. 16 17. and exhorted them to pray for him he tells them of his Faith and Confidence touching their establishment by the Lord and keeping them from evil chap. 3. 1 2 3. And again praying for them v. 5. he presseth v. 6. to withdraw from every Brother that shall walk disorderly and not according to their Traditions i. e. shall so far side with Antichrist and his Ministers as to practise conform to his Innovations in the Worship of Christ which we prove they do And the things mentioned are known to be such Nor is it necessary that we produce an Apostolical tradition expresly against them because in matters of Worship that which is not commanded is forbidden What Mr. T. hath said in answer to Chap. 1. Sect. 3. we have already replied to To his Query Where is your Apostolical tradition for your Church-Covenant Election of Ministers we shall only say That when Mr. T. or any one for him shall be able to shew as much Apostolical tradition for the matters with respect to which we charge the Ministers of England as disorderly walkers as the learned Ainsworth Cotton Bartlet and we our selves in S. T. have shewed for the matters instanced in by him we shall surcease our accusation and acknowledge we have done them wrong That which he adds 3dly If every one that hath not a written Apostolical tradition for what he doth walks disorderly then every one that sins walks disorderly will receive a speedy dispatch Answ He doth so Yea but then this Author saith he if he be not a Perfectionist nor thinks himself excluded from the number of those of whom Jam. 3. 2. 1 Joh. 1. 8. is a disorderly walker and to be separated from Answ Setting aside his scoff which becomes him not at all I answer First Disorderly walking is twofold 1. Private known only to a mans own self which is matter of burden sorrow and lamentation to him under which he groans and wars against it 2dly More publick which is twofold 1. Such as through weakness and the remainders of corruption the Children of the Lord do fall into which they are ashamed of grieved for and are thankful to any that shall reprove them for it and help them against it Or 2. Such as is owned avowed men justifie themselves in the practice of will not whatever is said against them be reclaimed from Persons guilty of disorderly walking in this last sense we say are to be separated from and that this is the case of the Ministers of the Church of England is notoriously known He proceeds and tells us 4thly The present Ministers will be apt to alledge for themselves that they have Apostolical tradition for those practices for which they are accused as disorderly walkers viz. Rom. 13 1. Heb. 13. 17. and be ready to recriminate us for separating from our Brethren disobeying our Ministers and Governours commanding things lawful Answ 1. 'T is very like they may do the one and the other As for the latter Si accusari sufficiat nemo erit innocens Let them or â—ny for them prove that we have separated from any of them and therein broken any rule of the Gospel of Christ that they are by vertue of any appointment of Christ our Ministers and Governors whom we ought to obey and that the things required are lawful and they will be supposed to say somewhat that we are concern'd to take notice of but till then we are innocent Rom. 13. 1. Tells us We must obey the Powers that are of God but saith not we must do so in that which is sinful in their additaments to the Worship of Christ In such cases neither Solomon nor Jeroboam was to be obeyed neither Kings Popes or Bishopes are to be subjected to The Renowned Hus tels the Council of Constancâ— to their face that If the Popes Commandment be not concordant and agreeable with the Doctrine of the Gospel or the Apostles 't is not to be obeyed And cites Isidore speaking thus He which doth rule and doth say or command any thing contrary or BESIDES the will of God or that which is evidently commanded in the Scriptures he is honoured as a false-witness of God or Church-Robber whereupon we are bounden to obey no Prelate but in such case as he doth command or take counsel of the counsels and commandments of Christ Heb. 13. 17. tels us we must 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 obey our Rulers or Leaders but this doth not prove that we must obey those that we never own'd to be our Leaders that we are sure by vertue of any institution of Christ are not such and that in every foppery they shall devise Sure it was not the duty of the good people of England to obey the Guides or Rulers were set over them in the Marian dayes and yet they might with as good reason have urged this Scripture for subjection to them as these now It was a presentation institution and induction then as now together with an Episcopal Ordination that constituted them Ministers of this or that Parish Let the Individuals acquit themselves to be Ministers of Christ and we shall pay them whatever obedience can be manifested from any precept of Christ to be due to them from us but till then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But for a conclusion of all our Animadverter adds That if the Ministers were disorderly walkers and to be withdrawn from yet it doth not follow
that they might not be heard as gifted Brethren Of which he gives us three learned reasons 1. Because the withdrawing themselves from every Brother that walks disorderly cannot be meant of their excluding themselves from Hearing Praying or receiving the Lords Supper if such an one be present Answ Right but though this withdrawment from such a Brother cannot be meant of exclusion from hearing whilst he is present yet I hope it may from hearing him who walks thus disorderly The same may be said of receiving the Lords Supper If he be there as a looker-on meerly this ought not to hinder any from waiting upon Christ in that institution though the Church of England in imitation of the old Pagan custom of the Druides c. of old interdicts the Priests saying service whilst an excommunicate person is there but if he shall be forced upon the Congregation as a member to joyn with them in that ordinance and much more as their Minister to celebrate it as is our case it is the duty of the Saints to surcease the performance of that duty for that season It was the keeping themselves from being polluted that caused them to sever from him that reason remaining which it doth till he hath testified his repentance their withdrawment is to continue He adds 2ly That the withdrawment mentioned 2 Thes 3. 6 14. is only from arbitrary communion in entertainments c. Answ This is an old shift of Mr. T. we have already refuted He further tells us 3ly If we omit it we omit the Worship of God and so break his Commandments Answ 1. This is a meer petitio principii we deny the ministration of the Sacraments according to the rights of the Church of England to be the Worship of God strictly so called 2ly There 's no need through grace of omitting the Worship of God if we worship not with them there are meetings of his people whither we may have recourse to worship him in his own way To what follows in this chapter we have already answered We attend his advance towards the discussion of our third argument of which in the next chapter CHAP. IIII. Sect. 1. Such as act from an Antichristian calling not to be heard proved 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what it signifies Who is Antichrist what is Antichristian explained The Ministers of England derive their Office-power from the Papacie The Bishops of England Petty-Popes 'T is unlawful to attend upon the teachings of Antichrist therefore upon the teachings of such as act by a power derived from him Christ calls his People to separate from every thing of Antichrist Rev. 18. 4. and 14. 9. explained Of trying the Spirits 1 Joh. 4. 1. of Christs instituting Officers of his owâ— No promise of a blessing in attending upon an Antichristian Ministry IN Chap. 3. of S. T. a third Argument is produced against hearing the present Mâ—nisters viz. Those that act in the holy things of God by vertue of an Antichristian Power Office or Calling are not to be heard but to be seperated from But the present Ministers of England act in the holy things of God by vertue of an Antichristian Power Office or Calling Therefore The Major is evident for 1. The Power Office and Calling of Antichrist is opposite and contrary to the Power Office and calling of Christ not to separate from such as act by vertue of such an Office-power is to stand by and plead for Antichrist against Christ The sum of what Mr. T. answers hereunto is If by Antichristian Power Office and Calling be meant the Papal Power and the acting in the holy things be by preaching the doctrine of the Trent Council in the points determined therein against Protestants by administring Sacraments according to the Roman Missal and Discipline according to the Canon-Law of the Popes the Major is granted and the Minor denied But if by Antichristian power c. be meant by vertue of ministry according to the Liturgy Articles of Religion and Homilies of the Câ—urch of England from the Ordination and Licence of the Bishops his Major is denied that which he calls Antichristian is not truly such and it is denied that what he calls Antichristian is opposite and contrary to the Power Office and Calling of Christ Answ 1. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as this Animadverter tells us found only in the Epistle of John and principally 1 John 2. 18. where the Apostle distinguisheth between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 between the mean Antichrists and the main Antichrist The best interpretation of the word seems to be a false Christ or â— Counter-Christ one that under the pretence of being for Christ doth really oppose Christ the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both in opposition and composition signifies For in the Scripture as Mat. 2. 22. Acts. 13. 7. and in Classical Writers as Homer Hesycheius c. in his Offices Ministry Discipline Worship He is Antichrist that under the pretence of acting for Christ doth indeed though covertly act against him in his name and under the vizard of his authority That is Antichristian that though it be pretendedly for and from Christ it really is not And in this sense the Major is to be understood Those that act in the holy things of God viz. Praying Preaching Administration of Sacraments c. by vertue of a Power Office and Calling that is not though pretendedly really from Christ are to be separated from as we plainly declare in the first proof of the Major proposition in S. T. which Mr. T. would have disproved if he could But in the stead thereof he labours to raise a dust with a multitude of words before the eyes of the Reader that he might not be able to perceive wherein the weight of the Argument lay 2ly He acknowledges the Major to be true if understood of the Papal Power Office and Calling so that he which acts in the Holy things of God i. e. in Preaching for whether it be the doctrine of the Trent Councel or otherwise is not in this case considerable for if he act from an Antichristian Office-Power 't is not his preaching Truth which would make that Antichristian Office-Power Christian administration of Sacraments according to the Roman Missal and discipline according to the Canon-Law by vertue of an Antichristian Papal Power is not to be heard but in this sense he denies the Minor And I cannot but wonder at the confidence of the man doth he not know that they derive their Office-Power from the Papacy he is not so ignorant as noâ— to know it Do not the Bishops of England exercise the same power over the Clergy and Laity as they are called thereof as the Pope doth over his so that they are upon the matter Papilli Petty-Popes Is this power Antichristan in the Papacy and not so in the Prelacy Is not the manner of administation of Sacraments in use amongst us taken out of the Popish Missal Mr. T. knows
whether they were guilty of any such crime 2. If they were it might might not be known 3. The Scripture gives us another account of Herod's taking away his life Mark 14. 3. Therefore probably Josephus was mistaken He adds 2dly How irrational this Argument is We read not that Christ charged them with usurpation of Moses Seat therefore he did it not every Pung in the Schools knows it who have learned that rule of Logick an Argument from Testimony negatively is not of force especially in matters of fact it is not related therefore it was not done Answ 1. As irrational as this way of arguing is it is what is made use of by as learned Protestant Writers as Mr. T. who to prove that the Original Copies of the Scriptures of the Old Testament were not corrupted in Christs time make use of the same medium viz. Christ no where condemns the people of the Jews for corrupting the Original Text therefore they kept it intire towards whom he will sure exercise more modesty than to tell them its an irrational Argument though perhaps his good Friends the Jesuites may assume the confidence so to do 2. An Argument from testomony negatively is not of force in matters done whereof nothing at all is mentioned nor any just occasion so to do offered we grant is true but when any persons are frequently charged with evils by the Spirit of the Lord that their putridity rottenness and corruption might be seen read of all men and that in particulars instanced in to imagine that any particular Crime whereof they were guilty and that of so great moment as that whereof we are speaking should be omitted men of reason with the leave of our Animadverter be it spoken will be apt to conclude irrational to imagine We add in S. T. That if this also be granted except it be granted 3dly that when Christ saith What they say unto you do he is to be interpreted to command or at least to permit an attendance upon their ministry it will advantage the Objectors nothing Now this we deny for these reasons 1. The words are in the Original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which may more strictly be rendred the Scribes and Pharisees have sat in Moses Seat all things therefore whatsoever they have said unto you i. e. whatever in times past you have heard delivered by these men according to the Mind of God do you not now reject because of that hypocrisie pride covetousness you are made to see is predominant in them To which Mr. T. ◠The command to do what they bid implies a permission to hear Answ Not so they might hear what they bid in times past to which so far as it was consonant to Truth they were to conform without any command for the future attendance on their Ministry 2. Though the words v. 2. may be rendred have sat in Moses Seat yet the word sit being in the first Aorist is best rendred sit noting an indefinite time and so is to be conceived signifying a continued time past and present they have and do still sit and the words v. 3. according to the Greek Language must be rendred whatsoever they shall say unto you Answ 1. That the former part of the words may be rendred as we have rendred them Mr. T. grants 2. That the first Aorist of the Indicative Mood is most fitly and properly so rendred every one that hath but read his Grammar knows 3. Why it should not here be so rendred he gives no reason and we know not any Law compelling us jurare in verba Magistri 4. That the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be rendred whatsoever they shall say unto you He speaks after the same rate with the former 'T is true the first and second Aorist of the Subjunctive Mood is usually rendred in the Future Tense but that it is alway so or must be so rendred he will not upon second thoughts assert Since instances not a few lie near at hand to be produced that evince the contrary 1. 'T is sometimes rendred in the Present Tense Mat. 7. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whom if his Son ask Bread 3 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and think not to say 2. 'T is sometimes rendred in the Future Tense Mark 4. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but when they have heard John 16. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as soon as she is delivered after she hath brought forth So Beza Jud. 9. 43. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and laid wait for him To which many more migh◠be added He proceeds and saith Were it granted that the bidding were meant of the time past the Argument were of force they heard therefore they may hear for Christ doth not disprove their former practice but gives a reason which infers a continued permission to hear them because they sat in Moses Chair i. e. taught the Law of Moses which while they did they were to hear them notwithstanding other corruptions Answ 1. That because the Disciples had heard the Scribes and Pharisees therefore they might hear them our Dictator will never be able to make good it being no better an Argument than this Paul sat at the feet of Gamaliel before his Conversion therefore he might do so still The Corinthian Believers had communion with Idolaters therefore they might still Those that have gone to Mass may do so still That what they did in an uncovered state when they were in darkness blindness sin and Hell they might do when converted to Christ sanctified enlightned is such an absurd assertion that the very naming it is confutation sufficient Yet this is one of those solid Foundations upon which this Answer is built 2. That Christ doth not disprove their practice of hearing them is no better reason that they might do so than the former 1. 'T was needless that he should do so when they themselves were already taken off their attendment on their Ministry saw its emptiness discerned the wickedness blindness hypocrisie of the guides they once followed Yet 2. the very discourse of Christ in this Chapter and elsewhere touching them is a sufficient disapprobation of and disswasive from the hearing of them 3. Mr. T. takes for granted that which we deny and he should have proved that their sitting in Moses seat was their teaching the Law of Moses which for the most part they did not do They taught for Doctrines the Commandments of men Mat. 15. 9. They made void the Law by their Traditions Mat. 15. 6. Corrupted it with their false glosses Mat. 5. So that their teaching the Law of Moses could not be any reason at all why they should hear them We add in S. T. 2. Let the words be as they are rendred the Disciples might observe and do what they said from the knowledge thereof through their particular occasional meeting and discourse with them as otherwise though they had never spent one hour in attending upon their Ministry which that our Saviour
Reason of our Assertion that they denied Christ to be the Messiah blasphemed him in his Doctrine as the deceiver of the people in his Life as a Wine-bibber and gluttonous person in his Miracles as one that wrought them by the Devil who are therefore condemned by Christ as guilty of the very sin of blaspheming against the Holy Ghost Mat. 12. 31. And we cannot imagine that Christ would permit his Disciples to hear such as thus blasphemed him Our Animadverter replies The third Reason hath the same answer with this overplus that to prevent any conceit of allowing the hearing of them in their blasphemy he avoucheth himself to be their Master and Teacher v. 8 10. Answ 1. They took all occasions to blaspheme him and if they attended their Ministry with any constancy 't was impossible â—ut at one time or other they must hear them so doing But 2dly What is this to the purpose Is it lawful to hear such as blaspheme Châ—ist Is it likely that Christ would permit his Disciples to do so That the Scribes and Pharisees were persons of such a complection is known 3dly The same Answer he talks of is already replied to We add 4thly We no where find the Disciples attending upon the Ministry of the Scribes and Pharisees notwithstanding this supposed command or permission of Christ Mr. T. replies This is but from a testimony negatively â—nd so of no force we read not that they used the Lords Prayer yet none will say they did not less that they might not Answ 1. But if Christ had commanded or permitted them so to do and that with an intendment to make it a president to walk by with respect to persons of the same or like qualifications with these who should in the last dayes stand up to speak in his Name to his Childâ—en 'T is more than probable that the practice of the Apostles herein would have been registred as well as in matters of lesser concern 2dly We find expressions touching the practice and deportment of the Disciples that utterly evert this figment Acts 1. 23. 10. 41. 3dly That we no where read of the Disciples using the Lords Prayer when we have an account of other of their Prayers its an Argument they did not use it that they might not so do Of which before at large 4thly Of their Almes we have mention Acts 11. 29. Although they haviâ—g little in the world it was not possible they should be over-liberal oâ— over-frequent in almes-giving 5thly 'T is more than probable they did not fast while Christ was with them Mat. 9. 15. No wonder we have no account of their doing so during that season Afterwards we have mention made hereof Acts 13. 2 3. 10. 30. 14. 23. 2 Cor. 6. 5. We say in S. T. 5thly We cannot but think the supposition of Christ's permitting his Disciples to hear the Scribes and Pharisees not only inconsistent with and opposite to that expression concerning Christ Mar. 6. 31. but also to that command Acts 2. 40. and the practice of the Disciples vers 42. To which our Animadverter 1st Christ did conceive the People to be without a Shepherd notwithstanding the Pharisees teaching the duties of the Law because though that doctrine were right and to be observed yet it was not sufficient to feed them to Eternal Life Answ Here are several mistakes in these few words 1st That the Pharisees teaching the duties of the Law was right Doctrine which is most notoriously untrue 'T is true the Doctrine of the Law was right Doctrine but the Pharisees teaching the duties of the Law was not so For 1. they taught duties of the Law that were not contained in the Law Mat. 5. 43. 2. They corrupted perverted the duties of the Law by their traditions Mat. 15. 3. They prest the duties of the Law for justification of life which was not right Doctrine 2dly 'T is false and not to be supposed without great reproach to Christ that he should send his Disciples to attend upon such a Ministry as break not the Bread of life preached not the Doctrine which was sufficient to feed them to eternal life He saith further 2. Peter did well to exhort his Auditors to save themselves from that untoward Generation viz. in not doing their works nor following their perverse Doctrine and the Church did rightly practise in continuing in the Apostles Doctrine v. 42. Yet he was not to disswade them from hearing or practising the Pharisees Doctrine of observing the duties of Moses 's Law Answ 1. The Pharisees Doctrine of the observing the duties of Moses his Law was that men observe them for life this as I remember the Apostles opposed and it was their duty to do so 2. Our Animadverter supposeth That the exhortation of Peter Acts 2. 40. was only meant of their not doing their works non-embracement of their perverse Doctrine but 't is evident from v. 42. that Peter meant it of non-communion with them in acts of Worship And I cannot discern how I can hear a man preach but I must have Communion with him in that act which is an act of Worship We add 6. Were that the intendment of Christ as is suggested and the Argument of our Brethren valid a lawfulness to hear the veriest blasphemer in the World that denies Christ is the Messiah affirms that he was a deluder of the people a gluttonous person a Wine-bibber one that did Miracles by Belzebub the Prince of Devils that persecutes even to death Christ in his people might by a like parity of reason be deduced Christ commanded or at least permitted his Disciples to hear the Pharisees who were such as hath been proved therefore it s lawful to hear persons with the same Character upon them But God forbid any such injurious dealing should be offered to Christ or that any who pretend to fear God and I hope do so in reality should stand by a cause that hath no better Arguments to defend it than what may be as righteously every way made use of for their attending upon the Ministry of the greatest blasphemer and opposer of Christ in the World To which Mr. T. I grant it lawfull to hear any man preach Truth with whom God allows us converse and communion as we are mâ—n Answ 1. Would he had given us his reasons of his monstrous assertion 2. Thought it incumbent upon him to have reconciled it with former printed passages of his own 3. I am allowed converse and communion if my occasions and calling in the world compel me thereunto with the worst of men as men a Turk a Jew thâ— Pope himself a Drunkard Swearer Adulterer or Adulteress but that I may have Communion with these in instituted Worship as I have when I hear them is such a monstrous Figment so devoid of Scripture evidence so opposite thereunto so abhorred and abominable to the Spirit of God breathing in his Children that I stand amazed he should assert it But
to preach the Gospel ought to improve those abilities in their so doing and are therein to be attended Mat. 25. 15. Luke 19. 13. 1 Cor. 12. 7 8 28 29. Ephes 4. 11. But the present Ministers have received abilities to preach the Gospel and ought to improve their abilities in that work Therefore Answ 1. The Major is not absolutely true 'T is the duty of those who have received gifts from God to improve them and to be attended in their so doing but both the one and the other is to be done lawfully Because a Friar hath received gifts from God a Drunkard Idolater it doth not therefore follow that he is bound to exercise these gifts in a false Ministry or that I am bound to attend upon persons of such a Character in the exercise thereof 2. Nor do the Scriptures produced in this Argument or 1 Pet. 4. 10 11. in the following Argument which is comprehended in this and requires no other answer speak any such thing They relate to persons in and of the Kingdom of Heaven in a regular Gospel-Church-State and the improvement of gifts in a regular orderly way according to the appointment of Christ 3. This Principle lies at the bottom of this Argument That gifts received make a lawful Minister and we are bound to attend upon such as such who have received gifts from God be they never so wicked and scandalous in their Conversation which Mr. T. upon second thoughts will not assert 4. As to the most of the present Ministry the Minor may be righteously denyed They preach not the Gospel nor have they received gifts so to do His 18th Argument is for substance the same with this and hath received its Answer We proceed to his 19th Arg. 19. Every Christian hath an interest in every Preacher of the Gospel so that no Minister is to be accounted as peculiar to any party of Christians so as to be impropriated by them that the ability of every one may be used by any though not their proper Minister nor persons regularly ordained as is evident from 1 Cor. 3. 22. Acts 18. 24 25 26. Therefore â—he present Ministers may be heard by any Saints while they teach the Gospel though such irregularities as are objected against them were granted to be in them or their Ministry Answ 1. Every Christian hath an Interest in every Gospel Minister and may lawfully hear him is true But Mr. T. must prove the present Ministers to be such else he himself will acknowledge the Argument is invalid 2. Grant Apollos was not sent forth to peacâ— the Gospel by virtue of Office he might be heard as a gifted Brother which we have proved the present Ministers cannot 3. It doth not follow that because the Saints at Corinth had an Interest in every Minister Therefore 't is lawful for Saints to hear the present Ministers Arg. 20. The sum of his 20th Argument is Preferring one Minister of the Gospel before another because of our party and way is glorying in men forbidden by the Apostle 1 Cor. 3. 21. 4. 6. But to forbid hearing the present Ministers of England though Ministers of the Gospel and â—ying men to hear those only who are their elected Ministers is a preferring one Minister of the Gospel before another Therefore Answ We deny his Minor Because 1. The Ministers of England are not Ministers of the Gospel 2. We tie not persons to hear only those of our own way as he calls it Such as fear God act not as Ministers of the Gospel from an Antichristian Call walk orderly let Saints hear None as I know of will interdict them so to do I am sorry Mr. T. should discover his nakedness so much that every Argument almost should be a meer petitio principii a sorry begging the thing in question or build upon some monstrous notorious mistaâ—e in the review whereof he will surely be ashamed Thus fares it with him in his 21th Argument Arg. 21. Those Ministers who are the Ministers of Christ who labour among the Saints and are over them in the Lord and admonish them that are Elders that rule well especially those who labour in the Word and Doctrine who are their Rulers or Guides who speak to them the Word of God are to be esteemed honoured remembred for their works sake 1 Cor. 4. 1. 1 Thes 5. 12 13. 1 Tim. 5. 13. Heb. 13. 7. and therefore much more are to be heard But the present Ministers of England are the Ministers of Christ Therefore Answ The Minor is denied wherein the Animadverter pittifully beggs uâ— to grant what he should have proved That the Ministers of England are the Ministers of Christ which no one in their right wits will suppose he proves by this Argument The Ministers of Christ are Stewards 〈◊〉 â—he mysteries of God who labour in the Word and Doctrine who â—peak unto us the Word of God But the Ministers of England are Stewards of the mysteries of God for besides the begging of what we shall not grant him viz. That the Ministers of England are Stewards of the mysteries of God which none can be but those who are put into the Office of Stewardship by the Lord of the Family which we challenge Mr. T. or any one for him to make good with relation to the Ministers of England It invelops and wraps up in it this absurdity That whoever labours in the Word and Doctrine is a Minister of Christ Of which we have frequently spoken and beg Mr. T. for the future not to impose thus crudely upon us without proof 2. That they are over the People of God in the Lord i. e. by virtue of Divine appointment which we have disproved 3. That they are Elders who being only in and over a particular Church of Christ as we have proved they cannot be 4. That they are Elders who rule well whereas they have no authority to rule at all that is a flower that grows only in their Lord-Bishops Garden intrusted mostly in the hands of an Antichristian Officer call'd a Chancellour 5. That they labour in the Word and Doctrine which as touching the generallity of them is false who labour only in their Ceremonies and Service-book 6. That they are their Rulers and Guides which they cannot be but by their free consent as hath been shewed which they never had nor sought after Arg. 21. Retorted It may more justly be Argued Those Ministers who are not the Ministers of Christ nor Stewards of the Mysteries of God who labour not among the Saints nor are over them in the Lord nor admonish them who are not Elders that Rule well nor labour in the Word and Doctrine who are not legally their Rulers and Guides who speak not to them the pure Word of God but the Traditions of men 't is unlawful for Saints to hear But this is all true concerning some of the present Ministers and some what of it concerning all of them Therefore What he saith of denying the