vnto by maister Robinson e Iustification of Separat pag 123 this thinge is absolutelie condemned We speakinge there of Antichristian Assemblies professe that the faythfull may not haue any spirituall coÌ„munion in their publick administrations And for proofe thereof these scriptures are alleaged f Reu 18. 3. 4. Hos 4. 14. 15. 1 Cor 10 14. 17 2 cro 6. 14. 15. Son 1. 6. 7. But sayth he in the same place this is no act of communion I answere our Christian predicessours so vnderstood it and so doe the faithfull generally to this day besides this new deuise wants as truth so common sence for it is as if one should affirme that he eates and drinkes but partaketh not in the things he useth g Hoccine credibile est aut memorabile Teren. And Act. 4. so 1 â— But it may be he thinkes the following lines will helpe him If hearing simplie were an act of communion then euery heretique or Atheist or whatsoeuer he were that should come into the church should haue communion which if it were true it were good that euery Church that will auoyd Communion with prophane men to meete in priuate and then shutt the doore when their own companie is mett together or else I cannot see * Nevv you may if you shutt â— et your eyes against the ligâ—â— a Regula 〈◊〉 est distinguere aliter omnia quae a so invicem Possum seperari how they can auoyd communion with wicked men Answ It is a certane rule as Logicians teach thinges are really to be distinguished which in themselues are to be separated each from other The ignorance of this distinction is a maine cause as I haue obserued of some mens erring in this point of hearing ffor they thinke as the Pistler here vnwiselie writes that if members of true Churches haue not communion with the vnbeleeuers which come vnto their meetings that then it will follow that they may be present in false Churches in time of publick exercise and yet haue no communion Melano l. 4. distinct Systemat theol 1. c 4 P. 58. To reply breifly for I purpose to speake more largely of this in an other place There is besides Church communion a communion in the ordinances of the Church as in the state it selfe ministerie worship Gouernment Howsoeuer therfore a man be no member actually of such or such a body And so in that respect to speake properly he hath no Church communion yet beeing there a worshipper he communicates in the actions don I say whether they are good or euill The christian Corinthians were separated formally from the heathen-Heathen-state and constituted in a true church-Church-state notwithstanding Paul sayth b 1 Cor. 10. that such among them as went vnto Idol Temples had there communion as how not Church communion but they communicated in the euils there practised They communicated as c Comment 1 Cor. 10. ver 18. pag. 640. Pareus layth with idols or as Ierome d on the same place phraseth it the participation of devils To be short according to Bezas e ciusdem cultus ac sacrificij sunt conscij siue in eodem sacri ficio consortes ac socij ac ejus quasivinculo in eadem religione copâ—â—lati interpretation they were guilty of the same seruise sacrifice or were companions and consorts therein and coupled themselues as it were in the same religion To apply this to our point in controuersie If an Heretick Atheist or whatsoeuer he be come to our Churches we acknowleidge he hath communion to weet in the ordinances how be it no Church communion that is no communion in or with the saints gathered into the faith and order of the Gospel so in gooing vnto vnlawfull Assemblies if a man be no member his communion there is not with the people in that state but in the humane inventions Beza Annoâ—â— in 1. Cor. 10. 1 pag. 137. that is the Idol Church wil-worship false ministerie and other such abominations And this common reason sheweth for he that is not a member of a Corporation may yet communicate in the administrations thereof howbeit true it is in or with the body he doth it not We need not therfore shut our doores against any person for there followes no daunger by their comming vnto vs â—for howsoeuer as I said they haue communion yet not with vs but rather in the thinges practised with vs. Now what can the Pistler hence conclude only thus vnlesse he be Graculus inter musas ‡ If I may doe a lawfull thinge then I may doe an vnlawfull thinge Jf a foreiner may pertake in the ciuil iustice of true magistrates then he may so doe in the sinfull administrations of Rebels and Traitors I wrong him not for his reasoning and this â— is all one in substance If it be lawfull to communicate in a true Church Omnia idem puluiâ— Lucian with Christs ministerie and worship then a man may lawfully communicate in a false Church with Antichrists ministerie and worship I could say more but I am loth to discouer his nakednes too farre But no maruaile when men leaue the way of truth if foolish and false thinges doe follow 2. But admit this hearing were not against any article of our Churches what is the note that the Reader must then obserue Surelie vnlesse the Epistoler would be noted for nonsence we must needs conceiue that he holds as the Papists f Bellarmâ—de c Rom. poâ—â— l. 4. 1. 4. Rhemist n Luk. 18. sect 4 doe to wit that the Church cannot erre and therefore we must beleeue as the Church beleeues But are you in good earnest wel we will so take it till we are better informed In the meane time take you notise what the Lord saith g Esa 8 20 To the Law and to the Testimony h Serm deâ—em 〈◊〉 if they speake not according to this word it is because there is no light in them Take notise also what Augustine k Iust mart cont tryphâ— sayth we ought to beleeue a Church but not in a Church because the Church is not God but the house of God To the like purpose others Neither Pastor Councell i B Bilson par 2. p. 266 or Angel ought in point of faith to be receiued I say not against but without or besides the scriptures These k are only safe l Hilar in psa 86. to be credited for humaine praâ—pts they want weight m Lactan l 3. c 17. they bind not n Id cont Faist l. 23. ego soli scripturae fido said Theodoret o Zâ—nch de Tripl Epis p 103. J giue trust to the scripture alone And some papists in words say no lesse as Thomas of Aquine p l 9 art vlt. Abbas q Deelect cap significasti pan◠〈…〉 Gerson r In locchi Pâ—pper Mechâ—inienâ— Picus Mirandula s Quaest â—an Pa suâ— con Occam t Dial. l. â— p. 1. c.
◠1 Cor. 1. 9. 2 Cor. 6. 14. I will speake here a little touching the nature of Communion Philip. 2 1. 1 Ich. 1 3. For the word the Greeke koinoneo signifies to have a part or share in or with persons and things answerable to it is the Hebrew Chabar and imports a consociation copulation or meeting together Againe Communion is three-fould The first between God and Man The second between Man and Man The third between Man and actions For the two later the same is either civill or spirituall I call that a civill Communion when the matter or ground of it is not in of it selfe divine and spirituall but earthly and temporall For spirituall Communion this is practised two wayes 1. With persons and things 2. With things and not persons Where there is a foregoing joyning of people together in a spirituall outward societie or body Pelitick there is a Religious Communion with persons and things But where this is not there is a Communion with things as the State it selfe and the administrations done by the power thereof Howbeit as I have said else-where they have no Church communion that is to speake properly they have no Communion with the persons who are not in Church-estate or union with them And that this is so the Scriptures * 1 Cor. 10 18. not only shew but also the deniall of it leads unto grosse absurditie For if a man communicate not in and with the Worship he doth then it must follow that he neither helpes himselfe in performing true Worshipp unto God nor hurts himselfe to doe the contrary And so by this ground it is all one whether I doe the one or other But of this we shall have occasion to speake more hereafter Now to his distinctions 1. It cannot be proved that Hearing and so Reading of Gods Word are actions Religious only as they are performed by Religious persons This is not so for it is not the person that makes the action Religious The reason is if the action in it selfe be Religious it must then be reputed a Religious action be the dore Religious or not That no man may mistake me let it here be observed that actions are Religious either in respect of the matter alone or the matter and manner too I confesse it by a Religious action we understand the later that is a thing well done for matter and manner in this sence none but Religious persons can performe Religious actions But if by a Religious action we meane the thing it selfe and as eo nomine it is to be distinguished from what is civill naturall worldly then I say againe it is a Religious action and of this sort is Hearing and so Reading of Gods Word howbeit performed by irreligious people 2. Whereas he saith that Faith goes before all other asts of Religion inward or outward This also is untrue For men wanting faith witnesse Kaan Ahab Saul Iudas may yet performe acts of Religion The Scriptures here cited ‡ 1 Timo. 1 5. are extra organum not to the point For they doe not say Rom. 10 10. that Faith goes before all acts of Religion But thus without faith we cannot please God by them So then note the difference between the Scriptures and what he inferreth from them Gal. 2 20. Without faith all acts of Religion are without acceptation with God So these Scriptures Ergo saith he faith goes before all acts of Religion To his mis-applying here J may well apply that in the Poet Ego de alijs loquor Lucan tu respondere decepis 3. Here is made true the saying in the Poet. a Fallacia alia aliam tradit One falsehood or suttlety bringeth in another Teren. in Andr. His needs must follow followes not but it is an unsound inference from a false principle Hearing the Word of God is more though he deny it then a naturall action viz. Religious and Spirituall He reasoneth a specie ad genus negative because Hearing in some cases is so therefore it is so in all If it be his meaning that Hearing is a naturall action as it respects the Organ or meanes in and by which a man receives the knowledge of what he heares Then it is true according to that rule in Philosophie b Relata esse simul naturâ Relations in nature are alike But this is nothing to the purpose Arist in Categ Relat He that eates and drinkes bread and wine at the Lords Table or speakes to God in prayer performes naturall actions I meane as the members of the bodie are here used But if wee consider either the Sacrament or Prayer in the subject or object thereof so they are not naturall actions but religious and the like is Hearing of the Word of God For his two reasons they are of no weight For 1. though the light of nature teacheth a man to listen to another yet this proves not that it teacheth him to Heare in the way and manner here pleaded for 2. Were it granted it did yet might the action be Religious For the light of nature c Rom. 1. 20 21. Epictetus a Stoick writeth thus It is before all things to be learned that there is but one God that he ruleth all things that he provideth for all that whatsoever vve doe speake or thinke nothing can be hid from him that vve should vvorship him as our Creator and Father and the only authour of our felicity Epictus apud Arrian leadeth us to sundry divine duties howbeit insufficient to guide us in the right manner of dooing them 3. I grant a meere naturall man ought necessarily to heare Gods Word Notwithstanding it will not follow when he heares in a Church-way that he performes no Religious action This is as if one should say because a rebel is no good subject he cannot doe any civil service to his Prince I speake not of the ayme of his heart but only of a formall dooing That which the Treatiser unjustly layes as a fault on Mr. Iohnson in pag. 23. is most true of himselfe in pag. 26 27. to witt a want of distinction betweene things It is so as hee saith Preaching by some and Hearing by others may be performed without any Religious Communion passing betweene the persons preaching or hearing This I say is right but that which afterwards he makes one with it is different and otherwise namely that a man may heare a Minister teach officially and yet not have communion with the state of the Teacher I may apply here against him that in the civill Law testes dome stici househould witnesses are of no validitie This is but his owne saying said over many times and indeed argueth more witt then truth and sophestry then sincerity Scholers are taught out of the Topicks that it is ill arguing a consequenti when in two positions things utterly unlike shal be compared together and the one by no meanes can inferre the other I
strong and lies as a stumbling block in their way to hinder the due practice of Gods ordinances 10. By it Idolaters are caused to shut their eyes and harden u Cornel. a lapide in Epist Ich. Secun p. 505. their hearts against the truth and soe consequently held the longer and stronger in the snare of the Devill 11. Jt is for nature and kind the sinne of the high places For wherein did the Isralites offend that way But because as Rivetus w quod fi bi adoratio nis loca arbitrio delegerint in Hos 4. p. 146. saith of their owne accord they made choyse of them places for divine worship Iunius x Annot. levit 17 7. saith soe too when they sacrificed in ALIO LOCO in any other place then the Lord had prescribed it was offered to Dâ—vils I will not here dispute of the materiall place I meane their temples of woode and stone whether Christians in them may lawfully performe publicke worship But this I do affirme and will stand to it that it is every way as evill to bring our spirituall offerings unto an Idollâ—state and there in it by it or with it to present the same vnto God as it was vnlawfull for the Iewes vnder the law to offer in the places beefore named some say a Lyran. comment in Amo. 5 27. the former is much worse because the same was never warrantable whereas the other somtime was as we haue else where noted pag. 18. 19. 12. To conclude this practice takes away the crosse of Christ persecution for righteousnesse It decks an adulterer with the spoile of the spouse of Christ It maks schisme in the Church in that men breake the order and bounds which God hath set in it b Melan in Evan dom 4. Advent p 94. Maks way for greater evils as apostacie from God sliding back to great vngodlines c Pare in Hos 8. p. 592. and to bee corrupted in the substance of religion and purity of Doctrine And what shall I say more Jt gratifies the Iesuits in commending d Maffeus In vita Ignat Laiola blind obedience and argues great presumptioÌ„ pride of heart as if man were wiser then God could devise either some better meanes or some other way for his edefication then the Lord hath prescribed e D. Willet Comment in 1 Sam. 15. 23. I do not know vvhat engine of vvit and art some men haue to elude these reasons and to batter them so dovvne as to make a safe passage through for a good conscience For my part I confesse such do goe bejoynd my line and measure of faith I dare not bevvise aboue that vvhich is vvriten it is enough for mee to knovv and beleeve that in this point vvee haue the vvord of God vvith vs and for vs. SECT 8. OVr six Objection Object 6. as hee layes it downe for us is thus If there be no communion at all between the Teacher and taught what profit then commeth by such hearing To this his answere is Treat The Church Officer feedes the stocke of Christ over which he is set as the object of his ministery Such as come in beeing not in Church vnion therewith heares him so doing as a stander by heares mee talke or dispute with another c Here is communion onely in the effects of the truths taught It were vsurpation in any to pertake in a Church previleidge which the office of ministery is that were not in Church state first so if hearing imported Church Communion none but in Church members might lawfully heare The Treat answers are much like to one that turnes himselfe many times about but moves not out of the place All that he saith is Homoeologia one thing often said over and over That is a change of the state of the question which is not about church-Church-communion but whether a beleever when hee heares a false minister in a worke of his office doe such an action as can be proved lawfull by the word of God Now to this which is the maine * Sacra scriptura tota vera necessaria sufficiens viatori consequen dum fineÌ„ suum nec est dubia via salutis Harum etiam explicatio quantuÌ„ adcreden da quaÌ„ tum ad speranda et quantum ad operanda ex plicatur ex diversis scripturae locis Scotus in 1. sent quaest thing we finde nothing in the Treatise but much paper blotted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 about questions and strifes of words which are indeed vaine and vnprofitable and whereof commeth envie strife evill surmisings rather then edefying which is in faith so to doe Jf J should say nothing to this some would say there were some thing in it Therefore I answere 1. It is a false kind of resoning which Logicians condemne vnder the tearme non causae vt causae when a thing is spoken either with limitation or without to conclude more theÌ„ the proemisses this fault the Trea. commits here For he would perswade vs that because the Church-officer his flocke are relatives therefore no man not in Church vnion hath relation to his office a M. Const Cnrin Metaph. l. 2. c. 1. R. Goclen in coÌ„trâ—v log p. 1 c. 18 Seal c 93 de caus Lat. But we are not altogether such novices but know a little how to distinguish Sophestrie from Philosophie Touching Relation the same may be considered 1. in ordinatione 2. in applicatione For the first which is a Relation by order or coniunctione that is relatio per se as Logicians b Fonsec 5. Metaphy c. 18 Quoest 2 Sect. 3. Timpl. Metap l. 4. Phrase it Here now I grant in this kind of Relation no man hath relation to the office of the Teacher that is not in Church-communion therewith But for the second which is relatio imperfecta or per accidens Here I affirme that in this kind The Hearer howbeit not in Church-estate yet hath relation to the Office of the Teacher and so farr forth is the object of his Ministerie Aristotle c Meta. l. 5 c. 5. speaking of sundry wayes of Relations unto persons and things sets downe these particulars 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So then to goe where unlawfull Ministers teach observe the time hearken to their Doctrine shew the like outward submissive gestures and reverence that others doe performe divine worship there with them and among them This is to have relation to the idol-state both of Church and Ministerie if the Philosopher speake truelie Againe consider a relation in the parts thereof 1. Here is subjectum viz. Hearing 2. Fundamentum i. e. a false-state 3. Terminus viz. superstition but our Opposites name it edification 4. Relatum to weet the speaker 5. Correlatum viz. the Hearer And howsoever it may be said that in respect of Church-union the Relation here is properlie in the two later that is between the Church-officer and his Flock notwithstanding
this cannot be denyed But for the other kind and way of Hearing albeit it be not the Relation yet it is in Relation and belongs reallie to the praedicament or matter of the Relation I am sorry that J am constrained to speake so often of Philosophie but indeed I can doe no lesse considering that leaving the Word of God he seeks to lead men a stray by abstruse and ambiguous distinctions strange and wrapping words Now howsoever this may puzzel the understanding of some people as not able to apprehend the strong delusion yet the truth is let them be brought to the rules and grounds of true Philosophie d Vera Philosophia cum S. Theologia nusquam pugnat quod in Theologia verum est etiam in Philosophia contra Keckerm disput Philos p. 5 they are as unable to be defended by art and reason this way as by the Seriptures Notwithstanding I doe desire the person whosoever he shal be that undertakes the cause here against me to prove what he saith by divine authoritie For I would willingly deale with him by that booke alone as by the book of all truth Nay I require Scripture for without it I shall beleeve nothing though he bring whole Cartloads of such carnall caveling devises But to proceed 2. To apply the hearing in question to a stander by that heares a man to speake occasionallie and in a private way Here againe as in al the rest he takes his scope without orbe or order For where things are done ex mero alterius obsequio by a power institution there can be no participation in the administrations thereof e M. Const Cnirim Metaph. l. 2. c. 1 but it is a submission to the power whether it be true or false By such a gloze the Corinthians might finelie have put of Pauls reproofe Seeing we are not in union with them we can at their sacrifice only as standers by and in a private way and so have no relation to the idol But such a shift would not serve their turne For whatsoever they did it was to be determined and reputed according to the publick acts and not as themselves vainelie fantised So f comment in 1 Sam. c. 27 v. 4 Martyr Chytraeus ‡ De Eucharist p. 216 and others The time was when the Treat thought that there was use g Preface before religious Commun of a distinction of Religious actions into personall and Church-actions how he understood it he shewes afterwards h Treat of private Communion pag. 10 in private I communicate onlie with the presons and personall graces of holy men in publique I communicate with their Church-state and order as also with the publick Ministery and in and with it with the Prelacy whence it is The truth here is never the worse nor lesse howsoever he left it for he that joynes in the exercise and practice of publick actions he must necessarilie joyne himselfe tō the State Order Ministerie c. in which and by which the same are performed 3. In this answer he plainly confutes himselfe For marke all Readers that have sence In a true Church he grants there is Communion between the Teacher and taught and the reason which he gives for it is because the Flock is the object of his Ministerie Now if that in this way make a Lawfull Communion then by necessarie consequence there can be no hearing in the other way but must be an unlawfull Communion My reason is because the Office of a Preist is not an institution of any one independent bodie but of universall Hyerarchicall state and extendeth it selfe too and over all manner of persons whatsoever I say so many as doe congregate and bend an eare thereto If any should object and say but many of them are Parish-Priests and so resident in one place I answer this respects not the state of their Office at all but onlie imports a licence that some have from their Prelate to doe certaine services speciallie in this or that Assembly not that their Office of Preisthood is here by anie way limited or circumscribed but is as we said before universall and every where over Sea and Land Hence then everie hearer must needs be the object of such a Ministerie and so communicateth therewith if there be any weight of reason in the Treat words And here we have verefied the old saying Ipse sibi nocet is alium qui laedere quaerit 4. Where he saith here is communion only in the effects of the truths taught Here is another invention of his owne head and makes true the saying i Vno absurdo dato mille sequuntur grant one absurditie and a thousand will follow That the effects should be dividuated from the working-cause is against the rules of reason k Clement Templ Metaphy l. 3 p. 251 260. for common principles shew that there is an essentiall connextion between them and the former is to be considered for qualitie kind as the later is These Canons are well known as is the cause so that which is caused of the doing of the thing n Idem qua idem semper facit idem Arist l. 2. de Gen. corrupt c. 10 Againe l Rodolph Goclen c. 9 p. 90 as is the same so alwayes followes the same effect We speake not here of what may fall out by accident o Arist 2 Topic. c. 9 5 31 but of things considered in themselves m qualis causa tale causatum And to take it thus and say they effects are right and Lawfull when the instruments and working-causes are wrong and unlawfull Or to say I may communicate in the effects and yet not with the instruments or working-cause It is caput vacuum cerebro as vaine a thing as ever man held If a Traitor or Rebel should set up one to be a Iudge another a Major c. and give them commission to administer justice publicklie Were it Lawfull for any of the Kings subjects to communicate in the effect of their administrations because the same in it selfe was just I say no For it were treason so to doe And is it a lesser offence to offend God in a matter of the like nature If a man may communicate in the effects of such actions say good in themselves whose instruments and working-causes are unlawfull I say let this be granted there are few Idolaters Adulterers Theeves Witches but will easilie excuse themselves But as it is a Maxime in the civill Law p Fr. Connanus Comment juris civil l. 5 c. 9 and grounded on the Law of God q Mart. Azpilcueta Enchyrio c 17 p. 330 cals it a breach of the 7. ◠Commād That to have any thing rightlie just and lawfull instruments must be used So it is in this cause here For howsoever God may use what instruments he will I say bring his purpose to passe by what secondary meanes he pleaseth yet hath he bound vs straightlie
have proved before that howsoever a man stand not in spirituall and politicall church communion with a Church and ministery thereof yet he is there a participant or communicant in and with the ordinances as with the doctrines taught so with the state of the Teacher For the better clearing of this Let vs in few words consider a Church state Ministery and administrations make vp as I may so say the body of divine worship Now it is a knowne Maxime quidquid est pars partis est etiam pars tâ—tius The hand is a part of the body the finger a part of the hand he therefore that holds either my hand or finger toucheth my body So in iust proportion hee that toucheth any part or member of the spiritual politicall body hee toucheth the body or state bee the same true or false if true his communion is lawfull if false he toucheth an uncheane thing and â—oâ— sinneth against that precept in 1. Cor. 6. 17. To end this Section howsoever hearing of the word of God lies in common for all for the good of all Yet hath God appointed away and order vnto all how to heare it Food and rayment lies in common to all for the good of all What of this shall wee hence conclude it is noe matter by what meanes or course men have it indeed so he reasoneth or else Oleum et operam perdidit he speaketh neither for himselfe nor against vs. Mr. Baines f Diocesen triall p. 7. writes well no people can worship God in repairing to any Church or ministery without warrant of his word Let the reader note it SECT 3. THe Treatiser for this opposities hath framed 16 objections the which as himselfe saith * Pag. 13. he hath either heard from others or could conceiue of himselfe ooulerably against the practice by him propounded The first is laid downe thus No man may submit his conscience to be wrought vpon Object 1. by an unlawfull and antichristian ministery neither hath God promised or doth afford †These vvords in a different letter are the Treat ovvne and vve disclaime them any blessing upon it neither can any have the sanctified vse thereof His answere hereto is this The office of the ministery workes not vpon the conscience of the hearer properly the office gives onely power and charge to the Teacher to teach in such aplace it resides in the person of the officer alone the communion lawful or unlawfull which any hath with it is in regard of the lawfull or unlawfull relation and vnion foregoing between the persons and not in any working of the office vpon the conscience of any God may and doth blesse the truths taught fauls ministers Answ It was Heiroms k Paulum quotiescunque lego videor mihi non verba audire sed tonitrua cont Iovinian censure of Pauls Epistles that when hee read them He thought he heard not words but Thunder This cannot be well applied to his reply here For should I speake my conscience it is a meere Phrasiologie words without weight of reason 1. He denies our first assertion But how cleares he it to the contrarie As is his ground so are his proofes Only bare saying Sit pro ratione voluntas That the Office of the Minister workes upon the Hearers conscience It is certaine and not to be denyed without losse of credit both to the person and cause of the denyer in the eye of all reasonable men l Exo. 28. For this is evident by the Scriptures whether we respect an Office true or false Ephes 4 11. 2 Thes 2 Rev. 9. Againe if it be considered what we meane by the Office working upon the conscience Common reason will prove it too Our meaning is that the state or povver by which he administers is herein submitted too As Magistrates are obeyed in civill Justice because of their calling and were it not for it men could not for conscience sake receive their administrations So the conscience of a Hearer is brought in subjection to the ordinance of Hearing even for the Office sake of him that teacheth We intend here Ministeriall teaching It is most certaine saith one m Mr. Peitry of the Ministery of the Church of England Pag. 37. 38. Satan ruleth in the consciences of men not only by false doctrine but also by his false power and ordinances His Kingdome of darknes not only consisteth in the lies and false doctrine and worship which he hath coyned but also in the false and Antichristian Ordinances which he hath invented for the ruling of his Idolatrous denne And therefore the Children and Saints of God ought to avoyd both the one and the other So hee 2. It is not true that the Office only gives power and charge to the Teacher to teach in such or such a Church-state For properly it respects not that at all but rather the Office of the person gives him power to preach pray administer the Sacraments c. according to their Order and Canons He that that hath not a Church-state to preach in yet beeing ordained Preist hath power by his Office to doe the worke of a Preist any where And so much the Treat n Manumis to a Manuduct p. 70. in another Booke acknowledgeth The Office is the very state and function conferred upon a man by his calling from which Office ariseth immediate * Note this power and charge to administer and to performe the works of that Office In the performance of which workes the Office is executed power used And whereas he mentioneth here the truths they teach J grant these are from God but the Office which gives them power and charge to speake them is from Antichrist And a speciall Character or Marke as the Learned o Mr. Symon on the Rev. pag. 120. write of the Beast Thus said Iohn Chaydon p Acts and Monuments Edict 5. pag. 588. a Martyr of Christ The Bishops license to preach the Word of God is the true Character of the Beast that is of Antichrist The like Mr. Bale q On Revel chap. 14. 9. and others 3. Whereas he saith the false Office resides in the person of the Officer alone Here I might take that exception of the Law r In testimon dig de testibus against him They who wander against the credis of their owne Testimonies are not to be heard Against this we have his owne testimony For thus he saith s Manumiss to a manuduct pag. 5. those that pertake in the worke of preaching of one sent by the Bishops doe pertake in what lyeth in them in the authority of the sender And this is so indeed The sinfull Office of the Teacher becomes his sinne who practiseth will-worship with him For hereby hee enwraps himselfe into the guilt of the Office And this thing by another is so clearely proved t Treatise of the Ministery of the church of EnglaÌ„d by Fran Iohnson Pag. 5 6 7
necessitated to approue of all the acts conclusions they make but may dislike them if I see they are not as they ought to be The Corinthians for ought I can see resorted unto the Feasts of idols upon the same ground that the Treat layes downe for hearing They went not of superstition for they were to well instructed and Paul in their person brings forth an excuse for them * 1. Cor. â— 4. We know that an idol is nothing As if they should say we regard not what they have devised their publicke false-false-state concernes us not for we have left it We are in no church-Church-communion with their Officers our meaning is not to worship as they doe they intend one thing we another But did this satisfie the Apostle Not in the least For he knew their private differing intention was but a strong fruit of the flesh monstrous presumpt on and a meere delusion For their eating was not to be looked upon and judged after their secret meaning But according to that publicke state where they were And here I desire the Reader to note the difference betweene Paul and the Treat Paul makes the sinne of the Corinthians to be their resorting to an idol-state Not simply their eating for thaâ— they might have done else-where but because it was in by or from an institution of the Devil The Treat layes us downe a contrarie Doctrine and tels us a false church-Church-state is nothing And Antichristian Officer nothing And that we may lawfully worship God in the one and heare his Word preached by the other provided we be not in church-Church-communion with the Officer c. Truely the difference here is great For the Treat cleares the Corinthians of the thing for which the Apostle condemnes them But I will not presse this further now Only what Augustine * said of the learned Fathers I may speake of the Treatis in stead of him or rather above him Paul the Apostle commeth to my mind to him I runne to him I appeale from all sorts of writers that thinke otherwise For conclusion if the false state of a Church and Ministerie defile only the members thereof And as for other present worshippers they are blameles Jf this I say be a true saying theÌ„ hath he vainely confind himselfe to the Ministerie of the Church of England For his Position will serve as well to justifie hearing among Papists Arrians Sorcinians Iewes Turkes c. Yea further and to be present at any service or worship they doe For what should hinder but according to this ground a man may lawfully goe to the Temples of the Saracens and he are their Preists considering they doe deliver many materiall truths As that God is true and righteous in all his wayes a â— In Alcho ran Azoara 1. The Creator of all things b The giver of every good gyft c Azoar 14. Ad that Iesus Christ is the Sonne of Mary d Azoar 11. the Messenger of God and a true Prophet e Azoar 7. If any object but they utter many lies and blasphemies I answer the hearing simply of errours corrupts not the Hearer For so he consents not to them in judgement not practice but testifieth against them he delivers his owne soule SECT 5. THE Treatiser layes downe our next OBJECTION thus By this then it seemes a man may be present at any act of Idolatrie and doe as others doe that practice Idolatry yet not approue of it And so the three Nobles in Danial needed not to have put themselves upon such pikes of daunger as they did for not falling downe as others did in the place To this he answereth Treat 1. In preaching of the truths of the Gospell no idolatrous act is performed Answ I perceive it is an easie thing to conquest if begging may procure one that But wee are no such children as to give the cause so away 1. Therefore J say in preaching of the truths of the Gospell viz by a false Minister about which is our dispute an idolatrous act is performed And that the Reader may understand this thing the better He is to consider that divine worship is not to be determined by a particular thing howbeit in it selfe good but as all the essentiall parts belonging thereto whether they are persons or things are kept and observed The Church of Rome in Baptisme useth water and in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper gives bread and otherwhile wine too doth this cleare their administrations of idolatry So runns the Treat reasoning But wee cannot receive it for the Lord never spake so by him J thinke all men doe thinke that Vzziah a 2 Chro. 26. 16. committed an idolatrous act when he invaded the Priests Office But what made it so Tooke he unlawfull incense No. Used he strange fire No. Offered he prohibited sacrifice or upon a wrong Altar No. Where then lay the fault The Scripture tels us it pertained not to him to burne incense unto the Lord but to the Sonnes of Aaron b Ver. 18. To apply this if his act were idolatrous because he wanted a calling howbeit observed many truths of the Law By the same reason the Church-acts of Antichristian Ministers are idolatrous Yea as for the truths which they preach this clears their acts no more from idolatry then Vzziahs true incense and Altar quitted him from transgression It is truely said of one c Lavaret in Josh 22. Hom 61. pag 7. We ought not to conclude of an action that it is good because it hath in it some thing which in it selfe is so And this is true as in divine things so in humane too For it is a knowne Tenent of Philosophers d Omne totum suis partibus ordinatur mensuretur determinatur the vvhole is composed measured and determined of all the parts Vnto the constitution of the whole according to Aristotlec is required 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. As Iob f Iob. 24.4 saith vvho can bring a cleane thing out of an uncleane Not one The false Office by our Oppositâ—es is acknowledged to be uncleane Now to deny that their Ministeriall acts are not from thence is against common sence And this further may be amplyfied by that passage in the Prophet g Hag. 2. 12 13. See Iunius on the place where it is shewed that holy things are polluted by touching things uncleane e Arist 12. Met. 3 Lib. de Poet. cap. 7. 3. If in preaching the truth according to the point in question no idolatrous act is performed Then it will follow that a man may remaine a Minister of a false Church all his life time Provided he only teach * Note that such whom they call Lecturers in some places only preach and doe nothing else As I my selfe for some yeares stood soÌ„ the truths of the Gospell Our reason is for in this if he doe no idolatrous act then he sinneth not so Consequently no just cause of
he layes downe for hearing to wit that there is no Religious Communion betweene the persons preaching and hearing They cannot be chalenged to approve of the Ministers state or standing They have no communion with the office of the Ministery c. I say were these things so which are not yet would this practice be found sinfull because as we have before shewed herein men worshipp God in or by a way and meanes which idolaters have instituted Our second argument is taken from the Treat words following which are these Treat I professe I heare them as Ministers of the Bb. sending and of the Parishes sent 〈◊〉 Hence I argue thus He that heares the Ministers of the Bb. sending and of the Parishes sent too hee heares in the sence of the Scriptures false Prophets But it is not lawfull to heare false Prophets Therefore it is not lawfull to heare the Ministers of the Bb sending or of the Parishes sent too The Major is proved clearely in the defence of our 12. Objection The Minor is certaine by these reasons 1. The hearing of false Prophets is forbidden in the Word of God a Ex. 20. 5. Pro. 5. 8. Mat. 7 15. Philip. 3. 2. 1. Timot. 5. 22. 2. The practice of it is will-worshipp b Joh. 4. 23. Rom. 12. 1. 2. Mat. 15. 9 Col. 2. 23 the which is vnacceptable to God 3. It is to rebel against the Lord and to seeke what is in man to uphold that thing which the Lord will cast downe and consume c Num. 16. 2 Thes 2. 10. 11. Rev. 18. 1. 2. 1 Sam. 15. 22. 4. This is to embrace the bosome of a stranger so to coÌ„mitt spirituall whoredome against the Lord d Pro. 5. 20. Psal 106. 39. 5. It defileth the name of God e Ezech. 43. 7. 8. 6. This is to hold conformitie with idolaters and to be like them The which thing ought not to be f Levit. 18. 3. and 19. 19. 27. 28. Exo. 23. 24. Deu. 12. 30. 32. 7. It shewes that a man is not one of Christ sheepe but carnall and unconverted g Ioh. 10. 4. Esa 30. 22 27. 9. 8. It manifesteth great want of the love and zeale of God h 2 King 23. 4. Rev. 2. 3. 4. Psal 119. 128. Ioh. 2. 16. 9. It is to serve Satan and Anti-Christ as it is written His servants ye are vvhome ye obey i 2 Chro. 11 14. Rev. 9. 20. 10. It defiles the soule k Eze. 20 7 Lastly the doer hereby is exposed to the wrath of God l Re. 144. 2. Thes 2. 8 10. Thus the Treat like the Bee is drownd in his owne Honie And truely pitty it is but all pleaders for Baal were alwayes thus entangled in their owne words Rev. 14 9 Eze. 16. 54. according to that in Ovid. Non est lex iustior ulla Quam necis artifices arte periâ—e sua The Treat Lib. 2. de arte amand speakes on thus But not as my Ministers either sending Treat or sent to except I be of those Parishes or at least in Ecclesiasticall Vnion with them Answ A man bent to declyning is glad of every couler which he may pretend to justifie himâ—elâ—e in declyning It is a poore distinction which he useâ—h here to declyne the point in question For 1. what use was there to tell us He beares them not as his Ministers This well might have beene spared and something said to warrant by Scripture the hearing of them at all If a woman be accused of adultery and to excuse her selfe shall suy The adulterer is in no covenant or band with mee Is this enought to cleare her No. I have proved before that all religious performances in false Churches are idolatrous actions Now then to worship God there for excuse to say we are not in Ecclesiastical union vvith the state or Ministery I may well say lingua quo vadit it is idly spoken and much like the Fryars plea vve are exempted Lord. Againe for his distinction it is the same which Papists and others alleadge to justifie there idol-Ceremonies They say how soever these are things which Ievves Pagans did be ore them yet their end and respect in doing them is different What is said of some in answer thereunto I may here say the like To practice that thing in Gods worshipp which neither directly nor consequently is included in the word is an open breach of Gods Law bee the doers meaning this or that What jealous or wife husband if his wife should receive some love-tokens froÌ„ a knowne adulterer one that goes about to undermine her honestie would take it for a sufficient excuse if she should say I receive indeed such things from a knowne adulterer and as he is an adulterer but not wine c. The weight of the Treat distinction lies betweene meum tuum Hee proâ—esseth to reciue love-guifts from spirituall adulterers and as they are so but not his Now I maruaile how his pen could drop such poysen and he not smell the stinck of it When he wrote it I wish all men in all places to take heed that they deceave not their owne soules by such folish distinctions for if such things will not stand before sor-ry-man how then before the greate God Who is a jealous husband and a consuming fire Now let vs heare what followes in the Treat Treat By hearing and receiving there Christ meanes properly the hearkening too beleiving obeying the doctrine taught by the Apostles which many dispised vnto whome he opposeth the former that heard it Answ He that coÌ„es to the field without his weapon it is an argument he meanes to save himselfe by flying and not by fighting Whether the Treat had on any armour to fight with against this objection I will not determine but this I say and will abide by it he flyes away from the poynt and speakes nothing either for it or against it For 1. Were his distinction granted betweene hearing them as BB Ministers and not as his And againe that by receiving the Apostles Christ meanes properly hearking to and obeying their doctrines I say suppose this but I grant it not yet doth not this take a way the weight of our reason nor in truth so much as touch it I shall expect that he who comes nex to the field in the behalfe of Antichristian Ministers doe prepare a better Answer to this objection And that he may know what he hath to confute I will a litle inlarge the poynt 1. The Treat in applying hearing receiving to the doctrines of the Apostles doth not well For the first only respects their teaching the latter their persons This is evident in the Text Mat. 10. 14. whosoever shall not receiue you and heaâ—e my words c. Implying that Christ is two wayes received in the ministerie of the Gospel viz. In the person of the Teacher and in the doctrines taught by
good or evill quo ad speciem when in respect of the circumstances we terme it good or evill quo ad invidium Cartewr kist ch l. 1. p. 253. Now I will not deny but this hearing worship quo ad specium as God is made the object of it so it is right but quo ad invidium as it hath circumstances and parts so it is a false worship and this is so cleare a truth as no man will deny it vnlesse the denier will deny all religion and reason all sence ' and scinence It is not sufficient saith Rivetus n Comment in Hos 4 14 p 152 vnto theÌ„ true wor ' shippe of God that a man erres not in the object which he ought to worship that is if he propose to himselfe to worship the true God but also that that manner bee exactly kept which God hath prascriin his law from the tenour or rule whereof whosoever in the least departeth the same cannot be held lawfull He endes thus Treat And so farre forth as a man heares that is bearken too reciues them by receiving it he so farre bearkens too receives Christ 〈…〉 Answ This is spoken gratis and without any foundation and therefore not more easily avouched then rejected But say we grant that So farre forth Christ is hearkened too c. yet doth not this hinder but So farre forth as he heares in an Antichristitian assembly and a false officer 〈…〉 and performes a religious worship in away and manner which Idolaters haue divised c. I say let his so farre stand yet in these respects and consideration He so farre forth hearkens too and receiues Antichrist If I should put over the Treat reasoning in spiriturl things to things civill and worldly the very expression of them would make them odious For suppose aman should vse the helpe of a known sorcerer to recouer some lost gould or silver being afterward reproved for it would reply Seeing they were good things from God hee did well therefore to get them in the way manner that hee tooke Or if a theese offering certaine stollen goods should perswade another to receive them because howsoever he hath no right to give such things away yet seing they are good and from God hee may take them safely for it is all one whether they are received in away of false-hood theift or by the Ieaue and grant of the true owner If these things appeare vile and absurd no otherwise is his reasoning here if it be with the eye of Iudgment lookd vpon the Priests for whom he pleads in the Scriptures are said to be robbers and theeues yea Spirituall sorcery is charged vpon them But all this with the Treat is nothing For so they deliver good things the same may be received from them in a worke of their office But if a man stood before an earthly Iudge accused of vsing a forcerers assistance to recover his lost monyâ— or for receiving goods from a knowne theise it would not free him to say the things are good which I tooke Neither will it excuse men when they shall appeare before the Iudgment seat of Christ to say it was the truth which they heard though not in the way and order which the word taught them Be not deceived God is not mocked Gal. 6 7. for whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reape SECT 7. NOw we come to the 5 Objection the which is laid down for us by the Treat thus Yet such as heare them haue communion with their office of Ministery what in them lyes It is the manner of some to set up markes and afterwardes to shew their art in shooting of them downe againe One would thinke that the Treat former writings against the hearing of false Ministers were written by him to be as it were his But marke that thereby he might shew his skill and witt in striking downe the same afterwards Touching the objection which he here frames for vs vndertakes the confutation of It is his owne and vnder his owne hand even word for word published to the world and in defence of the same thing which he brings it here for vs as the Reader may see in his manumissi on to a manuduction pag. 5. But to let this passe hoping it was rather a slip in his penne then a downfall in his judgment Let us see now how he hits the marke his answer to it is thus That is they haue no communion at all with it if it ly not in them to haue any as it doth not If I hold vp my hand as high as I can I touch heaven with my finger what in me lies do I therefore at all touch it if such thinke to haue or that they haue any such communion it is their errour and Ignorance but makes not the thing to be the more then if they thought not so This is all his answer a capite vsque ad pedes from head to foot Vnto the which I answer 1. To his peremptory affirmation they haue no communion at al may apply the saying fathered on the old Philosopher multa dictiâ—sed pauca probat I le speakes much but proues little For our parts as I haue said we cannot take his bare saying de iure et de fide to bee a rule of faith to us For our consciences are not like Sampsons shoulders strong enough to beare it 2. He dallies deceives by a generall ambigious terme of Communion If it be intended in the order way of church-Church-state it is true then here is no such communion as haue members gathered into a body politick But if by the word we vnderstand such a communion as makes the hearer really pertaker of the sinne of the Officer in this sence here is a communion of fellowshipp For 1. Hereby is allowance and approbation given vnto a work of darknes I say his very presence there to heare is an open countenancing of an vnlawfull officer in an vnrghtteous course tanquam legimae et sacrae actionis approbatio As Davenat a deterâ— Quaest 7. p 40. Slater b Explic. Anal in 1 Cor. C. 2 p. 92. and others note in the like case 2. It is apparent to a right discerning eye that the ministers of Antichrist in all acts of their ministery do vse such waies and inventions in worshipping of God as are not commanded of God in his word but be devises of men Now whosoever joynes with theÌ„ in the practice of such worship becomes a pertaker of their sinne and trangression Of this writes Ioan. David c Veridicus Christian c 28 p 7. And the reason is because he commits will-worship for what is well-worship but to worship God not after his appointment but our owne And hence was Ahaz an Jdolater eo ipso for that as P. Martyr d Comment in 2 Reg â— 17 notes he tooke the patterne of an Alter from Idolaters to serue the true
meaning then must needes be that it was lawfull for Judah to heare the Doctrines of the Law Preached at Dan and Bethell by Ieroboams Preists The which expositioÌ„ is an unsufferable perverting of the Text * Sua si docere velint nolite audire nolite facire certe enim tales sua quaerunt non quae Iesu Christi August in Iohan Tract 46. leads unto great impietie For to distinguish things in such a sort is for all the World as if one should say the Law of God forbids adulterie True but how To satisfy lust not to begit Children as Sejanus did d Tacit. Annal Lib. 4. Againe the Law of God forbids perjurie as how As it tends to the shedding of innocent blood but not to accommodate a freind as Cicero merrily speakes of Clunius e Pro Q. Rassio Comaed I could multiplie instances this way of the same nature with his exposition The Lord sayth expresly goe not to Gilgal But how say our Opposites As to Offer Sacrifices but not to goe thither to heare the Doctrines of the Law preached by the Preists of Jeroboam Is not this horrible presumption to contradict * Sua si docere velint nolite audire nolite facire certe enim tales sua quaerunt non quae Iesu Christi August in Iohan Tract 46. the plaine Word of God For to establish their owne inventions What Heresie held by any Heretick may not by such bold distinctions be justified I may say as a Learned man sayth f Verba sine crimimine sunt sensus in crimine The words are without fault the sence is in fault Of this corrupt handeling of the Scriptures Bucer g Impium esse verba Christi ultra propositum materiam extrahere de regno Christi l. 2. c. 29. p. 149. writes judiciously Hilari de Trinit lib. 2. and shewes what a wicked thing it is to applie the Word of God beyond the proposed matter If it be an unjust thing saith he to streatch the Doctrines and answers of a wise and pruaent man beyond the matter and question unto which they are given But specially to apply them to the thing which he intendeth not neither doth it agree withall Then much more is it a vile thing to abuse the Doctrines and precepts of Christ in such a manner c. Of such as doe so that fitly may be said what Hierom h Rhetius eloquens quidem est sed ineptus interpres Hieren ad Marcellam saith of one Rheticius they may be wise men but are foolish interpreters 3. If the Prophets had so meant as the Treat closely insinuates but durst not it seemes speake it out viz. that the Hearing of the Word preached by Ieroboams Preists at Bethell Dan and Gâ—lgal able to open and applie the Doctrines of fayth by that Church professed both Lawfull and in cases necessarie for all c. They could easily have expressed it i We ought not so much as to know the things which the Booke of the Law conteyneth not Hilai in Psal 132. The Scripture denyeth it what it noteth not Tertull. Lib de Monog For they were filled with Spirit of God in all wisedome and Spirituall understanding But the truth is in plaine expressions they speake the contrarie And unlesse mens mindes be overcast in like sort as were the eyes of Elymas they cannot but see it But to presse them downe with authority for the preventing of errour in the simple and for caveling in such as desire to contend We will here set downe the judgement of the most Learned touching this thing The Prophet saith Zanchy k Comment in Hos 4 15. p. 82. sayth not Sacrifice not at Bethel and Gilgal but simply and plainly com ye not thither noting that they were interdicted not onely from sacrificing there BVT JNDEED THAT THEY SHOVLD NOT THITHER COME AT ALL. Rivetus l In Hos 4. p. 156. understands it of such a keeping away As that they might not be bodily present at any spirituall exercise there performed So Calvin m Praelect in Hos 4. p. 52. Pareus n In Hos 4. v. 14. p. 504. Tom. 4. Oecolampadius o In Esa 2. l. 1. fol. 20. Lyra p In Amo. 4. 4. Brocardus q In Levit. 10. pag. 69. Luther r In Amo. 4. Brentius s In Amo. 4. Fabritius t In Hos 4. Mollerus u In Hos 4. Osorius x In Hos 4. Shaddaeus y In Amo. 4. Sedelius a In Amo. 4. Cramerus b In Hos 4. 15. and others Moreover of the same judgement are the Iew Rabbines as Mercer c ibid noteth He that desires to see more let him read what the Lovanists d Annot in August Brevic. Collat. cum Donatist Collat. dici 3. c. 9. And Annot. in August Post Collation ad Donatist c. 20. have written about it 4. Jf we may not come to such places or persons for the doing of any evill and unlawfull thing with them then I conclude from his owne mouth that the practice he pleads for is sinfull And so I have alreadie manifested unto all men except some men will contend without cause and against reason out of a Spirit of contention and contradiction SECT 14. OUR 14. Objection is thus framed They that eat of the Sacrifice partake of the Altar 1 Cor. 10. 18. So they that receive the Word from an unlawfull Officer partake with his Office To which he thus answereth Treat I deny the consequence ‡ A Child can say so much but hee had need be no Child that shall prove so much The Office is not to the Word as the Altar is to the Sacrifice The Altar makes the thing to be offered actually to become a sacrifice which it was not before save only in destination as Christ plainly teacheth saying the Altar sanctifieth the gift But so doth not the Office make that to become the Word of God which was not so actually before There goes a story amoÌ„g Scholers of AEsops deceiving Mercurie He having promised him one part of his Nutts keeps all the meat to himselfe and delivers the shels to the other As the Treat gives us here but halfe of the Argument so that halfe is only the barke or outside For had he laid it downe unum ad unum according to the scope of the place and as we apply it thus it should have been Such as did eat of the sacrificed flesh taken off from the Altar under the Law approved of the Iewish worship a Par. Comment in 1 Cor. 10. ver 15 18 and shewed themselves to be of the same Religion b Calv. in 1 Cor. 10. 18. Againe they which went unto the idol-Temples and did there eate of the Heathen Sacrifices joyned themselves by this outward act to that society and superstition So by just consequence whosoever goeth unto false Churches to eate spiritually of any of the
Sacrifices there administred in and by an Antichristian state of Ministerie Hee justifieth c Guiliad Comment in 1 Cor. 10 18. by his going their idolatrous Church Ministerie vvorship c. and makes himselfe a will-worshipper with the rest according to Pauls Doctrine in the former Examples * See the Rhemist on the place How they will chop this argument small that they may the easier swallow it I know not But this I am sure off they cannot presse it downe with divine authoritie d Auserantur de medio quae adversus nes invicem non ex divinis Canonicis libris sed aliunde recitamus August de unita Eccles cont Petilian c. 3. But either they must verba dare as they speake and use technas peiseis uncunning proofs Or acknowledge it to be a truth as in truth it is To come to his answer which is like a fagot of thornes full of prickles bound up with straw the which by the fyre of Gods Word is quickly burned 1. He applies things here aschematiston very ilfavoredlie The Office saith hee doth not make that to become the Word of God which was not so actually before True Neither did the Altar make the thing to be offered to become that which it was not so actually before For we know before it was laid upon the Altar it was flesh but afterwards it became a Sacrifice The same is true concerning the Word For howsoever the Office makes it not to become the word of God as neither did the Altar make the thing to be offered to become flesh yet by the Office it is made a Church-sacrifice the which it was not so before e Daverba decive nerves Persius Sat 4. And here I desire the Reader to observe how disorderly he sets things downe The Altar makes the thing to be Offered actuallie to become a sacrifice which it was not before But so doth not the Office make that to become the Word of God which was not so actually before Inguinis Capitis quae sint discrimina nescit What Child may not see the absurditie of it For all that hee could conclude from the first assertion unlesse he would conclude nothing was either thus The Office makes the Word of God to become a Church-sacrifice which it was not before but in destination Or thus The Office makes not the Word of God to become a Church sacrifice for it was so before This latter howsoever it be voyd of truth yet there would have been some sence in it ‡ Doe not thinke that the Treat wrote this Elenchum sophisticuÌ„ ignoraÌ„tly but rather fore-saw what inconvenieÌ„ce vvould fol lovv if he should let the argument runn out orderly and proportionably I beleeve hee savv vvell enought should he grant that the Office makes the vvord to become a Ministeriall Church-Sacrifice This Scripture vvould stand in force against the thing they pleaded for 2. For the place of Scripture Mat. 23. 19. the meaning is As they had erected an Altar and dedicated it to the Lord according to his appointment whereon to offer Sacrifices So the things offered to God on it and by it were after a sort sanctified by the Altar f That is it made them publick Church-services acceptable to the Lord. And the same is true of Christs Ministerie As it is a divine institution given unto the Church for the performance of Holy things so it sanctifyeth the things that is makes them to become Lawfull Ministerial Church-Ordinances without which they were not so Neither could they be so reputed And this may be as applied also to a false Ministerie For as it is an institution of Satan and Antichrist to have their wicked devises administred So it defiles every administration done in it and by it And for the administrations they are all false unlawfull Antichristian Church-actions †Quamvis Dei solius sit sanctificare tamen aliquo modo quae principalius Deo sunt-consecrata ad se pertinentia sanctificare dicuntur Muscul in Evang. Mat. c. 23 p. 477. Tom. 3. offered to the Devill g Hoc est judicium Dei de quavis cultu de de quavis Religione quem non secundum verbum eius exercetur Non Deo sed demonijs prestatur Pare Com. in 1 Cor. 10. 20. Fingere enim falsum cultum est falsum Deum fingere quia tunc fingitur falsa Dei voluntas sic falsus Deus Par. in 1. Cor. 10. 7. and otherwise to be taken 3. Where he saith the eating of the Sacrifices in Israell became their Sacraments and the Heathen sacrifices were their Sacraments Howsoever were this so it neither hurts us nor helpes him Yet I cannot see how it can be so applyed For 1. Circumcision and the passeover were Israels Sacraments And therefore by Altar their whole Religion and Worship is understood As Zanchy h Altare pro tota religione cultu accipitur praecept 3 p. 534. truely observeth Againe the Apostle prohibiteth not only the eating of the Heathen Sacraments but all going to their Temples to doe any thing there with them or among them Yea though it were not with any intent to performe a Religious Action So i Respicit congressus c. Comment in Psul 16. pâ—g 53. Rivetus 4. As meats considered in themselves may Lawfully be eaten any where if it be done without the offence of the weake as Paul Teacheth at large 1 Cor. 10 25 29. Yet if meats bee considered as they are offered to idols and eaten in the Idolâ—Temples in the honour of idols * See his justificat of sep 94. they be unlawfull The like may be said of the word if we consider it in it selfe the same may be preached Lawfully any where But if the Word be considered as Antichrist useth it Distingue tempora locus reconciliabis scripturas or rather abuseth it in setting up a false Church and Ministerie to teach it in and by In this respect the Word is not Lawfully preached How oever here againe he insinuateth the contrarie Distinguish saith Augustine k times and places and thou shalt reconcile the Scriptures Lastly J desire the Reader to make it well Howsoever the Treat hath said something yet nothing at all to the Objection For he should have proved that howsoever they who did eate of the sacrificed Beasts of the Altar justified the Altar And they which went to idol-Temples honoured the idoll Yet now wee may Lawfullie take and eate the spirituall sacrifices which come off from the Altar of false Churches and false Ministeries And yet not justifie the Altar nor give any honour or consent thereto No nor any shew or appearance thereof †Quae Whether such as pretend to ground their practice of hearing on this Treatise doe not shew either lightnes in not weighing what is said Or ignorance in not discerning what they read or wilfulnes in doing a thing for some by respect pretending this Booke as a