the Apostle would have them abstain from 2. Mr. T. himself saith pag. 279 That it was unlawful for them to touch or go to the Idols Temple and sit at meat there 3. The place it self in our case is the Idol it s worshipped adored idolized by the People of the Nation as it s known therefore not to be touched He saith further 2. They which joyn not in any Idol-Service or Honour keep themselves from Idols as is required 1 John 5. 21. Answ All self-devised Worship as is the Worship carried on in those places at this day is Idol-worship the deviser thereof being in a conformity thereunto idolized the second Precept touching Idolatry thereby violated those that would keep themselves from Idols must upon Mr. T. his own grounds keep themselves from that Worship and consequently from those places where it is solemnized and carried on 2. The place it self as was said is the great Idol of the Nation if we must keep our selves from Idols we must keep our selves from it Jude 23. enjoynes us to avoid the very appearances and occasions of evil and is therefore righteously urged by Mr. Robinson for Separation from the places of false Worship Rev. 14. 9. 18. 4. enjoyn a total relinquishment of all the things of Antichrist whereof his Ecclesiastical Holds as Mr. Mede calls them are a part What he talks with respect to the Common-Prayer-Book-Worship hath been shewed we have already replied to and proved it to be false-worship notwithstâ—nding all our Dictator is able to say to the contrary He adds Were there some superstition in the Worship it were not sufficient to make the places places of false-Worship as is evident from 1 Sam. 2. 17. 1 Cor. 11. 20 21 22. 14. 26. nor were it necessary to go out of them except Idolatrous Answ But if false-worship be managed and carried on in the places they must undoubtedly be places of false-worship i. e. places where false-worship is managed and carried on to assert the contrary were absurd and ridiculous Nor is there any thing in either of the Scriptures produced by our Animadverter that speaks the least syllable to what 〈◊〉 produced by him for The first gives us an account of the wickeâ—â—â—â—s of Samuels Sons but that they offered not the Sacrifices commanded by the Lord upon the Altar of the Lord at the place appointed by him it saith not The latter condemns some disorder about some acts of Worship in some Members of the Church but thâ—t there was any superstition in the Worship it saith not much less was there as in our case the introducing a new formal sapless Service cut out dressed and served in for the nourishment of an Idol and idle dumb Priesthood of which the Scriptures speak not a tittle 3. The places themselves are superstitious and Idolatrous as we have shewed and therefore Hos 4. 15. Am. 4. 4. are rightly cited by us as our Animadverter hiâ—self acknowledgeth What he adds That Gods People were required to go up to Jerusalem to worship after it had been defiled with Idolatry and the Idol removed and that Christ himself went up thither he â—ill upon the review I suppose raze out upon the account of its egregious impertinency That place was built by the appointment of the Lord his Name placed there there was the Ark Altar c. there he was solemnly to be worshipped and would be no where else none of which can be said of the Temples of England He further tells us That its false that we cannot go to hear the present Ministers without we go to their places and Assemblies of false Worship Which if understood of the publick Meeting-places allowed by Law as he must mean if he speaks pertinently for of such is the reason of the consequence meant I suppose he cannot prove That they frequent private Meetings set up Conventicles as they are call'd is not likely it being expresly against the Canons of their Church To which he adds That we are guilty of Judaizing in tying people to worship only in the place of the separated Churches contrary to John 4. 21. 1 Tim. 2. 8. Answ 1. This is notoriously false we tie persons to worship in no place upon the account of its holiness but an House a Mouâ—tain a Ship any place if not polluted with Idolatry is equal and alike esteemed by us 2. This may righteously be retorted upon the Clergy of England who judaize in their going about to compel us to worship in their Temples dedicated to Antichristian Mahuzzims and consecrated with Popish Holy Water and Prayers and accounted more holy than other places in the Nation of which they are notoriously guilty contrary to John 4. 21. 1 Tim. 2. 8. Sect. 3. There is no promise of a blessing upon hearing the present Ministers therefore 't is not lawful to hear them Isa 55. 3. Luke 11. 28. explained Sion typical of the New-Testament-Churches Babylon of the Antichristian Herd National Churches bear a resemblance not to Sion but old Babel THE 11th Argument produced in S. T. against hearing the present Ministers is That upon the doing whereof Saints have no promise of a blessing nor ground to expect it is not lawful for them to do But in the hearing the present Ministers there is no promise of a blessing nor ground to expect it Therefore The Major or first Proposition we took for granted But Mr. T. is pleased to enter his demurrer against it Sect. 8. He tells us Blessings are of many sorts 1. Immunity from evil or punishment in this sense the Major is true 2. Collation of some special good in this sense it is not true there are many things lawful to be done as eating drinking buying selling in respect of which men have no ground to expect any such blessing Ezekiel preached lawfully when he was told Israel would not hearken Ezek. 3. 2 7. And Jonah when he thought Niniveh would not repent Jonah 4. 2. Answ 1. Not to make many words the things done by the Saints are either such as appertain to the sustenance of their life and being the management and carrying on the concerns of their particular Callings in the World in respect unto which they have ground to expect not only a general but a special Blessing Psalm 1. 3. 1 Tim. 4. 8. 2. The things relating to the Worship and Service of God in which sense the Major is to be understood his instances of eating drinking are impertinent hereunto that I am to do nothing in the Worship of God in the doing of which I have no promise of a blessing nor ground to expect it viz. a special Spiritual Blessing God having said Where he records his Name he will meet with his People and bless them Exod. 20. 24. That where two or three are met together in his Name he will be in the midst of them Mat. 18. 20. viz. In respect of his gracious prâ—sence or communication of special Grace I had thought we
JERUBBAAL OR A Vindication of the Sober Testimony against Sinful Complyance from the Exceptions of Mr. Tombs in Answer to his THEODULIA Wherein the unlawfulness of hearing the present Ministers is more largely discussed and proved The Arguments produced in the Sober Testimony reinforced The Vanity of Mr. Tombs his Reply thereunto evinced His forty Arguments for Hearing fully answered The Inconsistency of Mr. T. his present Principles and Practices with passages in his former Writings remarked and manifested in an Appendix hereunto annexed Will ye plead for Baal will ye save him he that will plead for him let him be put to death whilst it is yet morning If he be a God let him plead for himself because one hath cast down his Altar Judg. 6. 31. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gal. 2. 18. Nulla potest lingua satis exprimere quantum malum quantum periâ—ulum quantum confusionem sacrae Scripturae contempâ—us quae pâ—ocul dubio sufficiens est pro Ecclesiae gubernatione alias Christus imperfectus Legislator esset Et humanorum inventorum affectatio in Ecclesiam invexit Ad hujus rei evidentiam consideretur clari status cui sapientia coelestis desponsari debuit sua cum me etrice ilia sapientia humana adulteriam commiserunt illi si ut status Ecclesiae mere bestialis monstrosus evaseâ—it infra coelum supra vero terra subest Spiritus dominatur caro c. non erubescunt tamen quidam dicere humanis inventionibus melius Ecclesiam gubernari quam Lege Divina Lege Evangelii Christi quae assertio blasphema est c Johannes Gerson Seâ— in die Circumcis p. 3. consider 1. London Printed in the Year 1668. An ANSWER to the Epistolary Preface of Mr. Tombs his Theodulia To the Christian Readers especially those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil Dearly Beloved T Is now some five years since 〈◊〉 little Treatise call'd A Sober Testimony against Sinful Complyance was for my own and some few Christians of my intimate acquaintance use and further information in the grand Controversie of the Time viz. the Hearing of the present Ministers of England compiled and about two years after upon the earnest request of some Friends whom I could not deny published for the satisfaction and further establishment of others also What the success by the blessing of the Lord of that undertaking was with the acceptance it had with many truly fearing God I list not now to declare Not long after its publication without any enquiry of mine I had frequent intimations of an Answer by some one or other thereunto which by several it seems was deemed necessary I confess being in my own spirit assured I had pleaded for nothing but what in the substance of it would be found to be the Truth of Christ I was not over-solicitous into whose hands that undertaking would be committed When I heard not long after that the party whose Exceptions thereunto we have in the ensuing Treatise considered had undertaken the refutation thereof I was not a little well-pleased since an opposition thereunto was deemed necessary that it fell into such a hand For although I had frequent intimations of that sad frame of spirit he hath of late been under and from some Tractulates lately published by him had some ground to believe it yet was I unwilling to entertain any evil surmise concerning him which I knew to be a fruit of the flesh or to give way without most evident proof to the belief of the suggestion intimated Two things I did assure my self of 1. That he would deal like a Scholar in the management of the present Controversie candidly and fairly for the bolting-out of Truth as he phraseologiseth p. 1. Nor could it enter into my mind that a person of such Learning as Mr. Tombs would be accounted to be in stead of a fair and sober Answer should have turn'd aside by Cobweb-like and unnecessary distinctions like the obs and sols of the Schoolmen of which it may be said as one †Prudent Apothe. of some of the Ancient Philosophers of old-spake of others Statum lacessunt omnipotentis Dei Calumniosis litibus Fidem minutis dissecant ambagibus Ut quisque est lingua nequior Solvant ligantque quaestionum vincula Per Syllogismos plectiles to the clouding and obscuring of what was plain and obvious to the understanding of the meanest capacity and the perverting the intendment of his Antagonist nakedly represented to a meaning never intended by him as not once that he might seem to say somewhat he hath done setting up a man of straw of his own foâ—ming to spend the heat of his misgâ—ided zeal upon 2dly I supposed also that a man of that repute in days past for Sobriety to which he is still no mean pretender and Holiness as Mr. T. would never have defiled himself with the vomit and shameful spewing of passionate and most unchristian expressions worse than which had he been disputing with the Devil if he would have taken a measure of modesty from the Archangel he could not have made use of he is frequently venting and disgorging against his Adversaâ—y The review whereof I am assured will not be over-pleasing to him if his heart be but in the least fixt upon that frame of spirit in which our services for God of which he deems his present undertaking to be a part should be managed He hath sure read and I wish he would lay it to his very heart Jam. 1. 20. that the wrath of man worketh not the Righteousness of God and 2 Tim. 2. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Lud. de Dieu and others interpret de verborum as well as verberum pugna of tongue-strifes and contentions and is by some rendred to scold as also Tit. 1. 7. from the guilt whereof I know not how he will acquit himself He talks indeed of Billings-gate Rhetorick used by others p. 16. and expects he saith in his Epistle to the then Lord Chancellor no other event than Obloquy from persons of the mind of this Author For my part I am not conscious to my self of giving the least occasion of such expressions from this Animadverter not remembring what one sentence throughout the whole Treatise doth justly deserve such a castigation and am resolved not to return him the same measure he is pleased to mete out not liking the Copy so well as to write after it So that what-ever he meets with from others I assure him how grateful soever it may be unto him upon some accounts which may make him expect it as he speaks he shall miss of the returnal of Obloquy for Obloquy those wrathful passionate expressions he is frequently venting in the Papers under consideration Through Grace we have otherwise learned Christ and can say touching this Animadverter as Calvin touching Luther Though Luther call me Dog c. yet I will say of him he is I hope
ever he met with hath judged them Antichristian must be imputed to the shortness of his memory He haâ—h I suppose met with Zuinglius Keckerman who say little less The former Art 34. p. 254 255 tells us That for any to claim any Rule Power or Superiority over any Church of Christ which we know out Bishops do is Devilish Proud and Popish Arrogancy And Aretius in his Problems producing Christ's prohibition of Superiour power to his Apostles Mar. 10. 5. Luke 22. 25. saith None but Antichrist dare be so fancy as to usurp it Marlorat on Rev. 17. 3. saith That Arch-Bishops are in Office under Antichrist And on Chap. 19. The tailes of Antichrist Bale on Rev. 17 saith That Canterbury and York are the Beastly Antichrists Metropolitans And on Chap. 13. That Arch-Bishop Diocesan are very Names of Blasphemy Of these we spake pag. 28. S. T. who I dare say were sober Writers and considerate men Mr. T. his answer to their Testimony viz. That they writ thus against the Romish Hierarchy is ridiculous they writ against the Offices of Arch-Bishops as such which are not a whit the better because they constitute the English Hierarchy We mention Cartwright the seekers of Reformation in Queen Elizabeths dayes proclaiming them to come out of the bottomless Pit of Hell to be Antichristian Devilish These also must pass in the Roll of inconsiderate fellows yet others as wise as Mr. T. think otherwise of them For the proof of the Antichristianism of the Office of Lord-Bishops I propose a few things briefly in the S. T. as 1st That Office that is not to be found in the Scripture of the Institution of Christ but is contrary to express Precepts of his is Antichristian But the Office of Lord-Bishops is not to be found in the Scriptures is contrary to express Precepts Therefore The Major Mr. T. is nibling at but he doth but think he tells us if Universal it is not true The Office of the Religious Votaries he talks of is Antichristian If there be any Antichristian Office in the World that must needs be so that is introduced into the Church of Christ though not of his Institution directly contrary to express Precepts That this Assertion should necessitate any one to affirm every sin to be Antichristian though in a large sence as Antichristian signifies that which is against Christ every sin every errour is so is absurd to imagine The Minor I say consists of two parts 1. That the Office of Lord Bishops is not to be found in Scripture of the Institution of Christ This I manifest by considering the most remarkable places where the Officers and Offices that are of Christs appointment are enumerated in which we have a total silence of them Ephes 4. 11. Rom. 12. 7 8. 1 Tim. 3. 12. Acts 14. 23. Tit. 1. 5 7. Acts 20. 28. I add also that they were never dreamt of in the world for some hundreds of years after Christ We introduce the Testimony of Clemens Lombard Dr. Hamonds acknowledgment of their Rise To which Mr. T. answers The whole Discourse is impertinent the thing to be proved was that the Office of Lord-Bishops was not to be found in the Scriptures and the whole Discourse is about the Superiority of Order above Presbyters Primacy or Supremacy of Degrees among Bishops Answ 1. We have examined the particular places wherein mention is made of the Officers of Christs Institution and find no Lord-Bishops instituted in any of them which manifests that they are not If this be not taken for proof I know not what will If this be not to the purpose I am in dispair of producing any thing that he will account so 2dly The Office of Lord-Bishops as such consists in the Primacy Superiority and Supremacy mentioned as is known If Mr. T. grants this not to be found of the Institution of Christ in the Scripture he gives away the Cause 3dly They themselves do own and avow a great part of their Office to consist in the foresaid Primacy Jurisdiction And if this be not it I am sure some of them are seldom or never minding their Office these things are what is most attended by them Of whom we may complain as Bernard of old Vides omnem Ecclesiasticum Zelum forvere prâ— sola dignitate tuenda honori tantum datur sanctitati nihil aut parum Si causâ requirente paulo submissius agere aut socialius to habere tentaveris absit inquiunt non decet tempori non congruit majestati non convenit quam geras personam attendito De placito Dei ultima mentio est pro jactura salutis nulla cunctatio quod sublime est hoc salutare putamus quod gloriam redolet id justum De Considerat Lib. 4. His following Exceptions are not worth the heeding I mention Diotrephes in S. T. and say That some appearances of a Spirit striving to ascend into this Chair of wickedness was seen in him and others in the Apostles dayes To this Mr. T. But this was not the usurping the Superiority of Order of a Bishop above a Presbyter Answ Nor do I say it was I expresly affirm the contrary whâ—n I say that such a Superiority was not in the world for some hundred of years after Christ we only say that some appearances of that Spirit was seen in him which the Apostle affirms John Epist 3. Vers 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He loveth the preheminence among them attempts the Primacy so Beza Which if it be not an appearance of the Spirit mentioned I know not what is he endeavoured to rule all himself carried it proudly pragmatically arrogantly over the Church the Brethren John himself who was an Elder saith Mr. T. He that cannot see somewhat of our Episcopal Spirit in this is I fear willfully blind I am fure he must wink hard He takes notice that in reciting Ephes 4. 11. I twice leave out Evangelists which he knows not the reason of Answ Nor do I my self possibly it was an oversight it may be an omission of the Amanuensis However it was it was not I assure him any fear I had that he or any one could justly plead that our Prelates were Evangelists 1. I know that Title is declined by Pleaders for Episcopal Jurisdiction 2. Our Bishops do not the works of Evangelists They had no setled residence but travelled up and down with or after the Apostles to help forward the work of Christ that was set on foot in the world by them We find Titus who was an Evangelist somtimes at Crete Gal. 2. 3. At Dalmatia 2 Tim. 4. 10. appointed to meet Paul at Nicopolis Tit. 3. 12. Sent to Corinth 2 Cor. 12. 18. At Macedonia 2 Cor. 7. 5 6. Such an itinerant laborious life that our Bishops are unacquainted with 3. Evangelists were such extraordinary Officers as ceased with that Age for we find no directions given touching their future Election in in the Churches Mr. T. tells us Our Prelates