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
Kneeling at the Sacrament is wisely done and had he wav'd the whole Controversie some think it had been no argument of his indiscretion but his so doing is no Answer He that will justifie the present Ministry and Worship of the Church of England persons of such dull capacities as our selves conceive must justifie these too They being made so necessary a part of their Worship that the Worship it self must rather be omitted than these devices of their Prelates or rather the Arch-Priest of Rome a Minister though never so able must not Preach if he will not wear the Surplice nor Baptize if he will not Cross nor may any either administer the Communion or receive it without Kneeling In which things if they transgress they are liable to be presented suspended excommunicated I have no power to compel Mr. T. to plead for any thing that he hath no mind to plead for In due time for ought I know he may as fast draw off from the tents of these men as he hath of late been advancing towards them He will not plead for their Canons nor for their Ceremonies at least some of them he tells us p. 54. It may be the next step may be nor for their Ministry To what purpose Mr. T. disputes for the power of Governors to Institute Rules for Church-Polity when he will not plead for those they Institute I know not We manifested in S. T. the invalidity of this Argument The Apostle by an infallible Spirit adviseth the Church of Corinth That all things de done decently and in order and discovers to them wherein that Decency and Order lay therefore persons that pretend not to such a Spirit may of their own head bind our Consciences by Laws and Rules of their own in the Service of God To this Mr. T. replies He conceives none would thus unadvisedly conclude Answ And I believe so too but if they will argue rightly from this Scripture thus must they argue as we have demonstrated But he will yet prove the power of Governours in this matter from 1 Cor. 14 40. thus That which belonging to Decency and Order is commanded in general but not in the particularities determined is in respect of Communities left to be determined by their Rulers But so is the Apostles command 1 Cor. 14. 40. Therefore Answ 1. Both Propositions are liable to exception 1. Upon supposition that what in the Worship of Christ belongs to Decency and Order is left undetermined it doth not follow that it belongs to the Rules of the Church to determine thereof which is to make the Rulers Lords over Gods Heritage to introduce insupportable Tyranny into the Churches of Christ They are the Churches Servants not Lords that are her Ministers 2dly The Minor Proposition is notoriously false and untrue the Apostle is debating the business of Prophesying touching this he lays down particular rules for Decency and Order which he requires them to conform to Let any sober Christian peruse the Chapter he will see this shining therein in brightness So Ambrose Aquinas c. inform us Decently and in Order that no unseemliness or tumult arise But this prescription of the Apostle is not to be applied to any Episcopal Traditions but the Apostles own viz. such as he had delivered to the Churches saith a learned man Thus the heat of this contest is allayed Pulveris exigui jactu We further reply in S. T. But let this be granted suppose that 't is the Priviledge and Duty of the Church to make Laws and Constitutions for the binding of the Consciences of men in matters of Decency and Order this Church herein is bounded by the Scripture or 't is not If it be then when it hath no prescription therein for its commands it 's not to be obeyed and so we are where we were before That Decency and Order is to be determined by the Scripture If it be not bounded thereby then whatever Ceremonies it introduceth not directly contrary thereunto they must be subjected to which how fair an inlet it is to the whole Farrago of Popish Inventions who sees not To this Mr. T. adjoyns That he doth not plead that it is the Priviledge and Duty of the Church to make Laws and Constitutions for the binding of the Consciences of men in matters of Decency and Order Answ Very good The Church of England Mr. T. thinks hath no such Power Priviledge or Authority granted unto them by the Lord Jesus Then have they whilst they have so done invaded his Throne and Kingly Authority The Parish Priests whilst they own abet and subscribe to what they have done in this matter are Co-partners with them in their iniquity are really guilty of opposing the King-ship of Christ which was the matter we have been all this while contesting about and is now in effect granted by our wary Antagonist We argue thus Those that assume power to make Laws and impose the reception of them upon the People of a Nation beside those and without any Priviledge or grant to them by such given in whom the Soveraign Power of Ruledom resides are guilty of Rebellion against such their Rulers and Governours Those that abet them herein are guilty of the same Rebellion But this the Church of England with respect to Jesus Christ the onely Soveraign Lord and Ruler of his Churches hath done her Ministers have abetted her herein Therefore The Major cannot be denied The Minor is evident 1. That the Church of England hath made Constitutions for the binding thâ— Consciences of men in the maters of Decency and Order their Book of Canons and Constitutions Ecclesiastical evince that they have no authority from Christ so to do Mr. T. grants So that in what follows we are little concerned partly because he hath already yeelded the cause and partly because the particularities he speaks of be they what they will are only he tells us of Decency and Order not determined in the Scripture Now we deny any such particularities undetermined we think it a most fearful undervaluing of the Wisdom of Christ to assert That mans ' Devices can add Beauty Order or Decency to Christ's Institutions i. e. They are not Orderly or Decent without Humane Impositions Nor see we how these can be prescribed by Canons Ecclesiastical to be obeyed because enjoyned by the Rulers of the Church to whom we are saith Mr. T. in Conscience bound to submit if it be not the Priviledge nor Duty of the Church to make Laws and Constitutions for the binding the Consciences of men in matters of this nature and think that the latter part of his Answer is in contention with the former Besides we are yet â—o seek for a proof of this matter That we are obliged to obey Rulers Ecclesiastical commanding us any thing in the Worship of God as such under the notion of Decency and Order and believe this very assertion is contrary to the Law of Nature and right Reason which teacheth us That God
asserted so it gives us light into the intendment of the Spirit of the Lord in the rest instanced according to the measure whereof they are to be interpreted Nor can it be otherwise the holy and wise God having given forth Laws for his People to walk by they must needs be perfect and compleat To accuse them of Imperfection as to the end for which they were given forth and they were given forth for a Law and Rule to walk by is to accuse and charge the infinitly holy and blessed God with Imperfection That a People having a perfect Law revealed to them to conform to should not be indispensibly bound so to do is the first-born of improbabilities and absurdities But Mr. T. will prove the contrary we attend his dictâ—tes He tells us 1. Our Lord hath determined the contrary Answ But this is nothing to the purpose We say not that they were so bound to the observation of these Laws that God could not dispense with them that he sometimes did and at last at the least as to one part of them that emiâ—ently related to instituted Worship he hath wholly removed and taken out of the way but so bound that it was not lawful for any of the sons of men to add to or deâ—â—act from them The case of the Disciples plucking the ears of Corn and David's eating the Shew-bread is not at all to the business Christ who was present with the Disciples waâ—râ—nting the action who is Lord of the Sabbath and might have done so had they on that day done some greater work than the plucking the ears of corn And this he asserts as one part of the plea he makes for them Matth. 12. 8. The Animadverter will never be able to make good this consequence Christ the Lord of the Sabbath dispensed with his Disciples when they brake a Law of the Sabbath though indeed the plucking the ears of Corn was no breach of any Law of the Sabbath but of the Tradition of the Elders who by their corrupt glosses had nefariously added to the Law granting for Argument-sake that they had done so Therefore the people of the Jews were not bound to conform to the Laws given to them by the Lord for the management of their Ecclesiastical and Civil Affairs without addition or diminution And as for the matter of Shew-bread and David's eating it it was 1. A case of necessity an extraordinary case which the Lawgiver might dispense with under such a circumstance and yet the people of the Jews bound to conform to his Statues and Judgments without addition or diminution 2dly 'T is evident that David did nothing but what the Law of God permitted him to do 'T is true Christ saith Mat. 12. 4. that it was not lawful for him to eat But that is to be interpreted that out of the case of necessity as David's case at present was it was not lawful for him so to do or that by the Ceremonial Law or Law of the Priesthood which by the Law of God ought to give place to works of mercy and necessity it was not lawful But that it was not absolutely forbidden him is evident 1. The Priest when he comes to him makes little or no scruple of his taking the Bread so be the young men that were with him were legally clean 1 Sam. 21. 4. 2dly David tells him as the case stood the Bread was in a manner common v. 5. for Ceremonies ought to give place to Charity by the Law of the same Lawgiver that instituted them Yea 3dly Our dear Lord in the place mentioned by Mr. T. Matth. 12. 5. tells us that the practice both of his Disciples and David was according to the Warrant and Law of God v. 7. But if ye had known what that means I will have mercy and not sacrifice ye would not have condemned the guiltless Which is a citation out of the Prophet Hos 6. 6. The meaning seems to be that in cases of real necessity some Ceremonial Institutions should give place to Moral Duties Now how weakly doth Mr. T. argue God did in the Law in some cases dispense with the violation of some particular branches of the Ceremonial Law therefore the People of the Jews were not indispensibly bound to the observation of it The question not being what God did or could dispense with who was the absolute and supream Lawgiver but what the duty of the sons of men was with respect to the Law where there was no such dispensation and whether they were not bound without additions and diminutions of their own solely to conform to it So that Mr. T. his Argument is no better than A Baculo ad Angulum and altogether inconclusive of what he would prove thereby But it may be what follows is more to his purpose Let that be considered He tells us that as for additions to Laws Ecclesiastical the Assemblies keeping other seven dayes besides those prescribed in the Law of the Passover 2 Chron. 30. 23. and to Civils the Ordinance of David 1 Sam. 30. 20 25. shew that in both some additions might be by the Prince c. Ans 'T is true indeed the Assembly in Hezekiah's time did over and above the seven dayes prescribed by the Law of the Passover keep also other seven dayes and 't is as true that this Animadv openly prevaricates in the cause he is pleading For 1. This was an extraordinary case not to be reduced to ordinary practice nor of force to enervate a general Rule 2dly This was no Institution or positive Law nor was there any Injunction laid upon the People for the observation of those Laws but the People might if they would or otherwise observe them and therefore cannot properly be said to be an addition to the Laws Ecclesiastical it being no more than any agreement of men amongst themselves to keep a day or dayes of Thanksgiving or Humiliation which had there been it had been abominable wickedness Mr. T. himself saith in his third part of the full review of the Dispute concering Infant-Baptism c. That Jeroboams Sacrifice and keeping a Feast at another time than God appointed is condemned as Will-worship p. 3 4. The Ordinance of David 1 Sam. 30. 20. is to as little purpose instanc'd in by this Animadverter 1. It was a Military Ordinance made by David when in a wandring state driven out of the borders of Israel 2dly Some refer the words v. 25. to David as if he alledged an old Law and Custom as if it were written It is both now and hath been ever So Vatablus who renders the words that was observed from that day and above i. e. from the beginning of the World to that day Some say it was a Statute from Abraham's time so Grotius acquaints us who asserts that Eschol and Mamre Gen. 14. 24. abode by the Carriages yet Abraham will have them receive a part of the spoil 3dly This Ordinance is no more than a particular exemplification of what
communion with God getting ready trim'd for the coming of Jesus That any of these directions are such as weak Christians are not able to make use of that they would be dangerous to them as Mr. T. speaks causing them to decay in the exercise of Godliness grow barren and lifeless in Prayer occasioning them to fall into errors enthusiastick conceits to turn Seekers is absurd to imagine How far publick hearing is required for hallowing the Lords Day when and how not we have but now declared and need not add more CHAP. XII Sect. 1. Mr. T. his Arguments for hearing the present Ministers answered Some things are unlawful in which is no sin There is sin in hearing the present Ministers Nothing relating to instituted Worship as such but is necessary Against hearing them lie Exceptions that are not meerly extrinsecal but essential to the duty of hearing Gods cautions restrain us from hearing them 'T is no characteristical property of Christ's Sheep so to do but the contrary John 8. 27. 10. 27. considered Not to hear them is no sign of one that is not of God No such prophanness that is condemned in Esau No refusing the Pearl of great price Of the efficaciousness of the Word We have no ground to expect the present Ministers preaching should be made effectual to us The neglect of which is no occasion or reason of mens condemnation John 3. 20. opened They have not the words of eternal life John 6. 68. explained The words of eternal life what they import MR. T. closeth his Theodulia with no fewer than 40 Arguments Sect. 15. whereby he endeavours to prove the lawfulness of hearing the present Ministers which are briefly to be considered Arg. 1. That is lawful in which is no sin In hearing the present Ministers preach the Doctrine of the Gospel is no sin Because it s no breach of any Law of Nature or of the Scriptures and sin is a transgression of the Law and where there is no Law there is no transgression 1 John 3. 4. Rom. 4. 13. Answ Both Propositions are liable to exception The Major is not universally true There are some things unlawful in which there is no sin per se as the eating the Idolothite which was only per accidens so in respect of the offence of the weak brother and yet utterly unlawful to be done how much this concerns the present case we have shewed already 2. The Minor is notoriously false 1st In hearing the present Ministers is sin 't is a violation and transgression of the Law of Nature the voice whereof is That God must be served and worshâ—pped according to the revelation of his will That nothing be done herein but what he gives direction and commandment about so say the Scriptures as we have proved Chap. 2. Now Mr. T. is not able to produce one Scripture wherein God commands us to hear them VVhat he replies hereunto is frivolous He saith 1. That a command is not necessary to prove a thing lawful but to prove it a necessary duty Answ But there is nothing relating to Instituted VVorship as such of which we have proved hearing to be a part that is lawful but is our necessary duty viz. necessary necessitate praecepti instituting it 2. That as express command may be shewed for hearing them as he saith as for hearing the Congregational Ministers is his mistake The hearing these is shewed to be a positive duty by command from Christ The other contrary to many solemn commands given forth by him all along this Treatise So that His Argument may be Retorted upon himself That which is a breach of the Law of Nature and Scripture moral or positive in express tearms or by good consequence is sinful and unlawful to be practised This Mr. T. grants But such is the hearing the present Ministers this we have already proved Therefore He adds Arg. 2. Those Ministers may lawfully be heard against the hearing of whom lie no exceptions but such as are extrinsecal to the duty of hearing as it is a part of Gods Worship But so it is concerning the hearing the present Ministers Therefore Answ 1. We deny his Minor and to the proof thereof we say that the duty of hearing consists not only in this that we apply our selves to learn the mind of God but that we do this lawfully and according to the mind of God when he hath appointed Officers of his own and given his Spirit unto his Children to inable them to communicate his mind and will to the Sons of Men to imagine that an attendment upon those to learn the mind of God whom he hath not deputed to dispense it charged us as Antichristian-Officers persons that walk disorderly to have nothing to do with but separate from is extrinsecal to the duty of hearing is a fearful contempt and disvaluation of the soveraignty and authority of Christ His 2d Argument may easily be Retorted upon himself thus Those Ministers may not lawfully be heard against the hearing of whom â—e exceptions that are not meerly extrinsecal but essential to the duty of hearing as it is a part of Gods Worship But so it is concerning the hearing the present Ministers 'T is not extrinsecal but essential to the duty of hearing Ministers that I hear the mind of God not from such as act from an Antichristian Call that walk disorderly oppose Christ in his Offices but such as are deputed by him to dispense it Therefore His 3d Argument is thus formed That is not unlawful from which Gods cautions restrain us not But from hearing the present Ministers Gods cautions restrain us not for they only restrain us from hearing such as teach false Doctrine Deut. 13. 3. Mat. 7. 15. Mar. 4. 24. Answ 1. We deny his Minor 1. Every command enjoyning us not to attend upon have communion with Antichristian Ministers such as walk disorderly are cautions against hearing them As are 2dly the Scriptures produced by him since we prove that they are false Prophets who labour to draw the People off the pure Institutions of Christ to the putrid Inventions of men Whence we argue 3dly That is unlawful for us from which Gods cautions restrain us But Gods cautions restrain us from hearing the present Ministers for they restrain us from having to do with a false Ministry false Prophets who mingle their own Dreams and Humane Inventions with the Word and Truths of the Lord which we have proved true of the present Ministers Therefore He adds Arg. 4. That is not unlawful which may be a duty and characteristical property of one that is of God or Christs Sheep But to hear the present Ministers being supposed to teach the Word of God and the Voice of Christ may be a duty and characteristical property of one that is of God or Christs Sheep John 8. 47. 10. 27. Therefore Answ We deny the minor the Scriptures produced prove not that it is the duty of one that is of God to hear
in lesser matters differing in judgment from me according to that Apostolical rule Phil. 3. 15. Rom. 14. 1. That from Christs appointment of some as Ministers enjoyning others as their duty upon the collation of Gifts upon them to preach the Gospel for the edification of his Body a lawfulness to hear them as Ministers or gifted Brethren doth not necessarily arise is to say no more a strange assertion as implying that 't is unlawful to hear some whom Christ hath appointed to preach which is absurd as good we may reject Christ The reason he gives us hereof viz. Because a Minister or gifted Brother 't is possible may be Heretical and so to be shun'd Tit. 3. 10. is of no weight For those whom it is our duty to hear at one time whilst walking in the wayes of Christ 't is most undoubtedly our sin to hear at another when departed from those wayes But he hath found nodum in scirpo an assertion of mine that he makes himself for a season merry with and thinks he hath no small advantage by I say saith he 't is lawful to others to preach as their liberty permitted to them which if so then First 'T is lawful for Ministers to Preach as their liberty Answ 1. Who denies it 2. Why doth this Animadverters good friends the Bishops hinder them 3. It doth not sure thence follow that 't is lawful for Antichristian Ministers so to do He adds Secondly Then it follows that there is some practice that is a part of instituted Worship that is warranted in Scripture as persons Liberty by permission without command Therefore hearing the present Ministers may be warranted by permission without command which was my Answer to this Authors first Argument against hearing them is now confirmed by his Concession Answ 1. But what if this be not any Assertion of the Author of S. T. but a mistake of this Animadverter His conceived advantage and triumph is then suddenly extinct 2. That I no where assert it not in the place mentioned the review of the passage he descants upon may inform him 1st I say only that the permission of such as have received enablements from the Lord to exercise and improve them in praying and preaching for the edification of the Body of Christ though not solemnly invested into Office is assented unto by some of those with whom I have to do 2dly I immediately add that 't is enjoyned them as their duty viz. by Christ so to do Which with what Conscience the Animadverter could over-look that he might impose upon his Antagonist to his own seeming advantage what was never asserted by him I know not These things ought not to be Sect. 2. 'T is not lawful to hear the present Ministers as Ministers of the Gospel They are not such therefore may not be heard as such The validity of the consequence evinced Mr. T. his Exceptions enervated Hearers bound to satisfie themselves that he who pretends to come and act in the Name of Christ is indeed sent by him 'T is not above the ability of hearers to judge of the Ministers call Peaceable possession no evidence of Gospel-right The testimony of Nazianzen The impertinency of Mr. T. his arguing from Pauls speech to Ananias Acts 23. 5. from Caiaphas his prophesying John 11. 51. c. evinced IN Sect. 2. Mr. T. considers the proof we bring for the confirmation of the Minor Proposition viz. That 't is not lawful to hear them either as Ministers of the Gospel or as gifted Brethren 1. Not as Ministers of the Gospel they are not such therefore may not be heard as such To this Mr. T. replies I deny this consequence a man may be heard as a Minister of the Gospel though he be not such Answ 1. Nor can I help it or any man in the world if Mr. T. be resolv'd on 't if he deny the Sun to shine at noon-day 2dly The consequence presents it self with that evidence to the understanding of unbiassed men and shines so clearly in its own brightness that 't is hardly capable of further demonstration 3dly To hear a man as a Minister of the Gospel is to hear him as a Preacher sent from Christ that I may that is that it is my duty to hear one as sent from Christ that is not sent from Christ is an Assertion that the bear naming of is confutation sufficient I must believe that he is sent from Christ ere I can hear him as such that I am bound to believe a lie Mr. T. will not in haste prove We attend to what he is able to say for the confirmation of this Assertion whereof he gives you three Reasons First Because every hearer is not bound to examine the enterance of the Teacher into his Function Answ 1. This if meant of Christian hearers is false every such hearer is bound to satisfie himself that he who pretends to come and act in the Name of Christ is indeed sent by him else I see not how he can own or receive him as a Minister of Christ to him and perform those other duties if he so do he is obliged to do and perform to him by express command from Christ 2. Should it be granted That every hearer is not bound to examine the entrance of the Teacher into his Function it doth not follow that its lawful or the duty of persons to hear such as are not Ministers of Christ as Ministers of Christ This indeed would follow That 't is possible had they no other way of satisfying themselves in the truth of their Ministry they might through mistake do so but that they are bound by command from Christ so to do M. T. cannot prove 3. What if they receive Letters Testimonial from persons of known integrity in the Church or some verbal satisfaction from them touching them and it be the duty of Hearers not to receive them without these this may sure help to mend the matter Now this seems to be evident from the practise of the Saints Rom. 16. 1 2. Col. 4. 10. Acts 18. 27. 2 Cor. 3. 1. Acts 9. 26 27. Yâ—t 4. His inference makes much against himself Therefore saith he it is enough to hear them as such that there is nothing appears to the contrary for hence it follows that if there be any thing appearing to the contrary 't is not lawful to hear them as such Now we manifest in S. T. chap. 3 4 5 6 7 c. that there is much appears to the contrary Therefore 't is not our duty to hear them He adds 2dly 'T is lawful to hear them as Ministers of the Gospel though they are not such because it is above the ability of the hearers to judge of the Ministers call c. Answ 1. We deny this Consequence 'T is above the ability of Hearers to judge of the Ministers call therefore 't is lawful for them to hear as Ministers of the Gospel such as are not such who have indeed nothing
to be Brethren and Members of all the Churches in the world Gal. 3. 26 1 Cor. 10. 16. and 12. 12 Eph. 4. 4. They make them to be Brethren only of those particular Churches to whom those Epistles are directed as the serious reading them will evince 2. Were what he saith true He would reduce the brotherhood to a narroer compass than we either do or dare For if his notion be true only those that are baptized into Christ can be so accounted but Mr. T. thinks that only such as are baptized at years of discretion are thus baptized into Christ Therefore only such are Brethren and then I am sure the Ministers of England are not to be so accounted Thus frequently doth he wound to the heart the cause he undertakes the management of with his own sword We add in S. T. Secondly We cannot as things stand perform the duties of Brethren to them according to Mat. 18. nor will they or can they in the state in which they stand to us What Mr. T. hath answered to Maâ— 18. in his answer to the Preface Sect. 15. we have refuted in the Vindication thereof Sect. and have evinced a Congregational Church is there meant 'T is no Argument of hatred as Mr. T. according to his wonted candor suggests that we cannot perform the duties of Brethren to them 1. They are a Church of such a Latitude that 't is almost impossible we should do so 2. We are in no Church-state together 3. Should we reprove them we could do no more therefore we cannot perform the duties of Brethren required by that Scripture which indoctrinates us in case of non-repentance to bring it before the Church we know no Churth to whom we may complain The Parochial Assemblies have no power to deal with them The Bishops Court is no Church of Christ yet thither must we appeal if any where and we have little encouragement to do so it consisting of persons altogether â—â— vicious and deboyst as those we are to complain of We say further in S. T. Thirdly If we acknowledge the best of them for Brethren we must acknowledge the worst of them For 1. They are all members of the the same Church 2. They profess themselves to be one Brotherhood To which Mr. T. pretends a Reply in a Rhapsodie of words little or not at all to purpose He tells us 1st Of a twofold Communion Private or Publick and that the worst of the present Ministers are to be accounted as Brethren in respect of private Gospel-Communion i. e. we are to restore them as Brethren open our hearts to them according to Gal. 6. 1. Mal. 3. 16. Jam. 5. 16. I industriously omit his Scoffe of Pharisaically minded reputed Saints which he must shortly account for to him who will reckon with men for their hard and reproachful words to his Children And to what may be thought of any moment in this his Answer we Reply Answ 1. His distinction of Private and Publick Gospel-Communion is impertinent as is his discourse of the lawfulness of holding private Gospel-Communion with them 'T is of Communion with them in preaching c. that we are treating which he accounts Publick Communion 2. Not one of the Scriptures produced but condemn what he would have them justifie The Brethren Paul speaks of Gal. 6. 1. were Members of a particular instituted Church Gal. 1. 2. Such as had received the Spirit Chap. 3. 2. The Sons of God by Faith Vers 26. Baptized into Christ putting him on Vers 27. Sons into whose hearts God had sent forth the Spirit of his Son crying Abba Father Chap. 4. 6. Heirs of God through Christ Vers 7. Such as knew God were known of him Vers 9 c. Mal. 3. 16. Speakes expresly concern-such as feared the Lord in opposition to the proud and them that work wickedness such as those mentioned Jam. 5. 16. which Mr. T. knows in his conscience cannot be affirmed of the worst of the present Ministers Certainly the forementioned Characters fit not the drunkards swearers adulterers that are known to be of that Tribe Nor 3. Am I able to make any tollerable sence of what follows that concerning this it follows not if we acknowledge the best of them as Brethren we must also acknowledge the worst of them he having asserted and introduced the Scriptures but now requoted to prove it that concerning this The worst of the present Ministers are to be accounted as Brethren 2dly As touching publick Gospel-Communion he tells us It consists in hearing them praying with them receiving the Lords Supper c. Answ Very well How proves he that with respect hereunto we mâ—y own them as Brethren Why 1. Judas might be heard as an Apostle was perhaps a Communicant at the Lords Supper It 's therefore lawful to hear and joyâ— in the Lords Supper with the worst of the present Ministers Answ 1. Of the case of Judas that is repeated usque ad naâ—sâ—am we shall have occasion to speak hereafter At present we shall only say 2. He was an Apostle sent forth by Jesus Christ which the present Ministers of England are not 3. He was a visible Saint carried it so well that but immediately before his betraying his Lord the Disciples seemed rather to suspect themselves than him which cannot be affirmed of visible Drunkards 4. That he received the Communion is uncertain If he did they were in a Church-state he was a visible Saint no actual crime or evil could be laid to his charge so that this instance makes not aâ— all for Communion with the worst or best of the Ministers of England who are not in a Gospel Church state c. He further tells 3dly A mixt multitude made acclamation to Christ yet our Lord justified their joyning together in their praying and praising God Mat. 21. 16. Luke 19. 39. Answ 1. This was but one act 2. Out of a Church-state 3. From an extraordinary impulse of Spirit 4. They joyned with the Disciples were not the mouth of the Disciples to God and therefore reacheth not at all our present Casâ— 5. Mr. T. Can never prove this Consequence valid The Disciples sing Hosanna to Christ and others a mixt multitude by an extraordinary impulse of Spirit sing so to Ergo It 's our duty to joyn with the present Ministers as Brethren in praying preaching receiving the Sacrament c. which yet he must make good or confess he hath hitherto proved nothing He adds 4thly 'T is no sin to joyn in the true Worship of God wâ—th any if we have no command to withdraw from that Service because of their presence nor power to exclude them and yet bound to the duties then performed Believers might prophesie and hear it though unbelievers came in 1 Cor. 14. 24. Answ 1. This Animadverter takes for granted what we deny First That the true Worship of God is performed in the Parish Assemblies All praying and preaching is not the true Worship of God The offering
Sacrifice at Jerusalem was so but not elsewhere These things must be performed in the way appointed by him else they cannot be so accounted 2dly 'T is true bound we are to perform the duties they pretend to perform but according to the Institution of the Lord not mans devising as they are performed in the Church of England Isa 29. 13. Mat. 15. 7. 3ly Though it be no sin to joyn in the true Worship of God yet 't is a sin to joyn with false worshippers in a false way of Worship as praying after the way of the Common-Prayer-Book hearing an Antichristian Minister 4thly Believers 't is true might prophesie though unbelievers came in but it doth not therefore follow that ' â—is lawful for Believers to joyn with Unbelievers or forsake the Way and Institutions of Christ to go to the Assemblies of Unbelievers and hear them Prophesie As the worst of Ministers of whom he is discoursing and the generality of Parochial Assemblies undoubtedly are if a Spirit of prophaness visible debauchery an excess of riot bespeak persons to be such And from such he grants we are to separate by command from Christ 2 Cor. 6. 17. to which may be added Eph. 5. 11. 2 Tim. 3. 5. Acts 2. 39 40. But why talks he of our separating from them when they separate as much from us as we do from them we were never no more of them than they were of us Of Rev. 18. 4. we shall hereafter speak For the present we deny that by Babylon there is meant only literal Rome and expect the proof of his dictate The keeping company and eating interdicted 1 Cor. 5. 11. he tells us must be meant of eating Common Bread Because vers 10. That keeping company which is forbidden to such Brethren is allowed in vers 9 10. to the Fornicators of the world which cannot be Gospel-Communion keeping company in eating of the Lords Supper Answ 1. It seems then that with the Fornicators of the world we may not have Gospel-Communion if so then not with the Church of England for with it we cannot have Communion without holding fellowship with such as these 2dly If it be not lawful to have Communion with a Brother one of the same particular Church for of such an one the Apostle speaks that is a Fornicator or Covetous or an Idolater or a Railer or a Drunkard or an Extortioner so far as to common eating and drinking then a fortiori may we argue it is utterly unlawful to have communion with him in the Worship of God and much more unlawful to have fellowship with one we never walked with in the way of the Gospel according to any institution of Christ 3. That 't is lawful to hold Communion in eating the Lords Supper with Railers Drunkards c. I am sorry to find Mr. T. asserting of which we expect his proof The contrary is evident 1. Persons must be in a Church-state before they are capable of the regular enjoyment of that Ordinance which is a Church-Ordinance and part of Instituted Worship but Persons of such a Complexion are not fiâ— matter for a Church as we before proved Therefore 2. Those who ought to be excommunicated out of a Church were they in we may not have Communion with especially when in a false Church-state as is the case of the members of the Church of England But persons of such a character as the Apostle mentions should be excommunicated out of the Church Therefore 3. Those with whom we have Communion in breaking Bread as a Gospel-Ordinance with them we are one Bread 1 Cor. 10. 17. But we may not be one Bread with Drunkards c. Therefore 4. Those with whom we are commanded to have no fellowship with them we may not have fellowship in that Ordinance of breaking Bread But with such as these we are commanded to have no fellowship Eph. 5. 11. That the People of God can scarce ever break Bread with comfort in the best instituted Churches as he tells us from this doctrine is a notoriously false Crimination a meer Calumny His subsequent scoff is such froth and vanity as becomes not his years nor profession we pass it over as beneath us to take further notice of We add in S. T. 3dly That we cannot acknowledge the present Ministers for our Brethren but we must acknowledge the Bishops for our Reverend Fathers for theirs they are but that we cannot do To this Mr. T. adjoyns Sect. 5. 1. They are call'd their Reverend Fathers in respect of their Ordination Answ 1. But we cannot own them as Reverend Fathers with respect hereunto when we assuredly know they are herein usurpers of what doth not appertain to them But 2dly This is not all they own them as such upon the account of their Authority over them and the Parochial-Assemblies in the respective Diocesses who are to give forth Canons and Laws for them to walk by in not a few things relating to Worship as is known Now so we cannot own them as our Reverend Fathers we know no honour or obedience we owe them as such We think the inspection of one Bishop over an hundred Congregations can be proved by no better Arguments than the inspection of the Pope over an hundred thousand That a Diocesan and Oecumenical Bishop are much of the same kind and have their standing on the same foundation We know no Bishop of the institution of Christ but a Pastor of a particular Congregation He that pretends to more must prove his pretensions or we cannot but look upon him as an usurper I would gladly know whether Mr. T. thought it lawful to own them as his Reverend Fathers when he swore to exâ—irpate them with the whole Hierarchy and whether his so doing were an act of filial obedience That they are to be accounted Fathers in respect of their Antichristian Office because the Apostle saith 1 Tim. 5. 1. That an Elder is to be entreated as a Father when they are not Elders but a degree above them not from the Institution of Christ but the Courtesie at the best of Princes he will never prove Of their success in begetting others to Christ I understand nothing Those whom they have begotten may upon the account thereof esteem them as their Reverend Fathers but yet I am apt to think should they not be invested in the Title till then for the most of them at least they would go to their graves without it These are but Figleave-coverings The Animadverter knows they are not upon this bottom so called or accounted but with respect to that Office-power they have in the Church over the rest of the Ministers and Parochial-Assemblies thereof which being a meer incroachment usurpation and innovation we dare not own them as such We further argue in S. T. 4thly We cannot hear them as Brethren because they are if Brethren such as walk disorderly from whom we are bound to separate by express precept Mat 18. 2 Thess 3. 6. That they walk
express ones self in variety and suitableness of expressions to the Children of men is a gift given by the Lord and that not to every one that to be able so to do to God should not be a gift of his is absurd Rom. 8. 26. speaks not solely of the gift but of the grace Prayer which sometimes meet in the same subject but are distinct There may be the gift where there is not the grace of Prayer and on the contrary I say not p. 62. That the gift of prayer is the donation of the Spirit as if I thought this could not be where the Spirit did not indwell though indeed none but such can be in the acceptable exercise of that gift I account not the gift of Prayer to be a gift proper to Ministers i. e. exclusively to others but affirm that all Christs Ministers have the gift of Prayer and ought to use it which the Common-Prayer-Book-Worship shuts out of doors as unnecessary and therefore is not of Christs appointment To this our Animadverter replies 1. That Ephes 4. expresses not Ministerial gifts Answ This is evidently his mistake they are expresly mentioned v. 7 8. He adds 2dly If they are implied it 's questionable whether they are ordinary or extraordinary Answ They are ordinary for they are such as are to continue with the Ministry to the perfecting the Body of Christ 3dly If ordinary whether the gift of Prayer as he means were one Answ This must be one if the exercise of the duty be for the edification of the Body of Christ v. â— 11 12. To imagine that Christ doth not continue to dispense this gift unto his Gospel-Ministers for the foresaid end is injurious to his faithfulness to love and care of his Children to conceit that better provision can be made than he makes by the bestowment of his gifts for that end and such as shall exclude the exercise of them is derogatory to his Wisdom and blasphemous He adds 4thly That though the Apostles said Acts 6. 4. We will give our selves continually to prayer and Paul 1 Tim. 2. 1. Exhorts that prayers be made for all men yet we read not that it 's made the Ministers work to express the necessities of the Church in the publick Auditory Answ 1. But this is not to the question whoever they are that are called forth to this work they are to do it according to the abilities the Lord hath given them But 2dly if it be not the Ministers work whose is it whence is it that they who repute themselves such exclude all others and monopolize this work unto themselves 3ly2 Christ and his Apostles used no forms of prayer before or after their preaching he grants and I am sure there is not the least tittle of direction touching the composing and imposing any for the future hence it follows not that either way of praying I conceive he means by stinted prescribed forms or otherwise is lawful but that devâ—sed and imposed forms of prayer are utterly unlawful for who shall dare to prescribe where Christ is silent upon his free-born Subjects What he further adds That the one way of Worship he must mean that of imposed stinted Liturgies if he speak pertinently shuts not out of doors the other is notoriously false But 4ly Christ hath given to his Ministers gifts for the edification of his Body amongst the rest the gift of Prayer which they are bound to improve when ever call'd to the discharge of that duty as we prove from 2 Tim. 1. 6. 1 Cor. 12. 7. Ephes 4. 11. Prov. 17. 16. Luke 19. 20. The exercise whereof is shut out by the Common-Prayer-Book-Service This Mr. T. should have disproved The reading of a Prayer cannot possibly by a man of the least understanding in the things of God be supposed to be the exercise of this gift Reading is not praying nor any where so called in the Scripture As for Women we assert if they have the gift of Prayer when ever call'd forth to the performance of that duty they are bound to the exercise of that gift which is a sufficient Answer to what follows though persons are not bound to be alway in the actual exercise of this gift yet when call'd to the performance of the duty of prayer for which it is eminently given of God they are obliged to be improving it their not being so is a napkening up of their Talent and Mr. T. may prove the contrary when he is able 'T is added in S. T. That it will not in the least take off the weight of the Argument to say That liberty is granted for the exercise of this gift before and after Sermon For 1. the whole Worship of God may according to these mens Principles be discharged without any Sermon at all and is requently in most of the Assemblies of England 2. Those their prayers are also bounded and limited by the 55. Canon and that both in words and matter for they are enjoyn'd to pray in that form or to that effect as briefly as conveniently they may which will by all sober persons be accounted a boundary notwithstanding Mr. T. his confident Dictate to the contrary 3. We had alwayes thought that Christ having given gifts unto Men did require the use of those gifts whenever persons were called to the performance of that service to which they were designedly given by him by virtue of the forementioned precepts When Christ hath given a gift of Prayer unto his Children and charged them to stirr up the gift given them and not to napkin their Talent we had verily thought that whenever they had been called forth to the performance of that duty he did really intend and expect that they should be found in the exercise of the Gift given To the first and last of these Mr. T. is wholly silent what he saith to the second we have already removed but of the way Mr. T. adds yet further The Common-Prayer-Book-Worship may further the duty of exercising the gift of Prayer and therefore may lawfully be used Which he proves thus That form may be lawfully used for Worship which may be a means to further any positive Duty charged by Christ to be performed by the Saints But such may be the Forms of Prayer in the Liturgy of the Church of England Therefore The Major he proves thus That which requires a Duty requires the Means conducing thereto The Minor thus The Common-Prayer-Book directs what things are to be prayed for by reason of the brevity of the Colects the Responds the frequent use the plain expressions help the memory and cloqution wherein the gift of Prayer consists Answ 1. A Papist may say as much and as truly for their Books of Devotion their Whippings Pilgrimages Mr. T. knows they do so They are means they tell us tending to the furtherance of positive duties To which our Divines answer as we do Mr. T. That only those things are to be accounted a means of furthering any positive
Answ 1. Not as he is when he ties himself to a Form of Words in Prayer 2. Not so but if the Spirit whose motions are regular and leads not to such confusions as Mr. T. talks of of all speaking together moves powerfully upon the heart of the hearer he ought after the other hath done to proceed further in that work according to the ability shall be given him and not to do so were his sin So that of these things there is not the same reason How the true motions of the Spirit of God are to be discerned from the stirrings of our natural affections is of greater import than in this haste to be spoken to caution and carefulness is herein to be used To the second he answers In some cases a stinted Form is helpful to the understanding memory affections utterance in Prayer Answ 1. To this we have already replied 2ddly The experience of many Saints is far otherwise 3dly The Spirit is given to help our infirmities in Prayer Rom. 8. 26. both as to matter and manner of expression the donation of the Spirit as to both these ends is by a Form of Prayer rendred useless direct me as to matter he must not for what I am to pray for is in my Prayer-book under my eye nor as to words for I am absolutely tied up to the use of those verbal expressions are in the Prayer before me To the third he tells us 1st That that of 2 Tim. 1. 6. is to be understood of his ability to preach the Gospel so is the improving the Talentâ— Mat. 25. 15 27. Luke 19. 13 23. Answ By the Gift given and the Talents we are to understand every gift and ability given to us of the Lord which we are bound to improve by virtue of the forecited Scriptures for to that end was it given us If God hath given the gift of Prayer for the edification of the Body of Christ to any one wo be to that man that shall neglect to improve it Mr. T. talks carnally whilst he calls the gift of Prayer a mean thing Spiritual Saints know it to be sublime excellent and glorious being in them the fruit of the Spirit of Adoption He adds 2dly He may stir up the gift of expression at another time who is tied to a Lyturgical Form Answ 1. The gift of Prayer is more than the gift of Expression as we have shewed 2. Gifts received are alwayes to be exercised when called to the work for which they are received We must offer of our own that God hath graciously given us when we offer to him not another mans 3. We are alwayes obliged to those Lyturgical Forms in every Church-administration except before and after Sermon and then we are not without a boundary as was shewed To the fourth he answers The lawfulness of Saints praying in a Form is neither because they have not the Spirit nor because he is not sufficient to help them in their approaches to God but because there is nothing in such praying done that is forbidden nor any thing that is required omitted Answ The falsity and vanity of this we have evinced but even now nor is there any thing further offered touching this matter that is worth the considering but what is already replied to What he hath spoken Chap. 5. Sect. 7. we have answered in our Reply thereunto 'T were easie to multiply Arguments to prove the unlawfulness of stinted Forms of Prayer were it needful As fifthly They are no where commanded by Christ or permitted Sixthly They are neither lawful for unregenerate or regenerate persons Not for the first because 1. They teach them to blaspheme belie and misreport God viz. to call him Father when they are not begotten again of him 2. They harden them in a way of sin and strengthen their vain confidences that they are in a saved state 3. They lead them forth to a plain mocking of God viz. In praising him for that he never bestowed upon them as regeneration the holy Spirit peace joy through believing c. Nor for the regenerate are they lawful for the reasons but now mentioned as also because the most exact Forms are not expressive of what they want They bound them where God hath not bound them Ask what ye will saith God Ask only what is in the Form saith the Formalist They hinder their spiritual growth divert the intention of the mind cool the fervency of the Spirit in the performance of the duty of Prayer with much more that might be offered were it needful We add in S. T. 3dly That the Objection supposeth that Forms of Prayer imposed are but meer circumstances of Worship and not parts thereof The contrary hereunto we say is evident That which is made so the condition of an action that without it the action is not to be done is not a circumstance of it but such an adjunct as is a necessary part thereof But Forms of Prayer imposed are so made by that their imposition Therefore Sacrificing of old on the Altar at the Tabernacle and Temple was part of the Worship of God that they were to perform this Worship only at those places being once commanded was not a circumstance of that Worship but as real an essential part thereof as sacrificing was The case is the same here Prayer is commanded so is the use of these Prayers which are as really by that command made alike parts of Worship To this Mr. T. replies That what is made so the condition of an action by virtue of Gods appointment as that without it the action is not to be done is thereby made a necessary part of Worship Not so when made such a condition of an action by virtue of mans precept as is the case of Lyturgical Forms which are therefore notwithstanding that imposition but meer circumstances of Worship Answ 1. What strange Circumstances and Adiaphorisms doth Mr. T. make which are so essential to Worship as that without them it may not be performed Andr. Frisias though a Papist speaâ—s better If it be Adiaphorus why is it not left to the Liberty of every one to use or not to use as he pleaseth for that is the nature of those things that are Adiaphorus De Eccles Lib. 2. Tract 13. in Epist ad Paul 4. fol. 542. 2. How bloodily cruel and sanguinary doth he make our Spiritual Fathers who deliver their own Children over to Satan yea imprison if not banish or hang them for trivial circumstances Strange paternal affections Yet 3dly There is indeed somewhat of Truth in what is asserted by our Dictator 'T is the Authority of God alone that can make any thing a part of his own Worship the imposition and commands of men make it a part of theirs Bowing the knee falling down is no essential part of Gods Worship but it was of Nebuchadnezzars when the Decree was once published neglect of Conformity to which had neaâ— cost the Three Children their Lives Worshipping at Dan
their Parish-Churches in the Marian dayes was that which scandalized the Magistrate disturbed as was said the Government excited the Magistrate against others as disobedient to his Laws whereby many persons were as to their Families and Estates undone they themselves lost their lives yet were they not to scandalize the Saints by adhering to the foresaid abominations 2. The Minor understood of a just ground of scandal is not true i. e. the Magistrate hath no real or just ground to be scandalized by persons not coming to hear the present Ministers nor is the Government disturbed thereby nor hath he as we know of any Scripture-Warrant to exert his power against the Non-conformists to their and their Families ruine and if he do so 't is better to suffer than sin to hazard the loss of all than debauch our Consciences and sin against God Sect. 2. Of Scandal taken and given Wherein the nature of it consists Of offening the World Hearing the present Ministers a scandal given 1 Cor. 8. 10. explained Of sitting in the Idols Temple Some of the Corinthians thought they might be present at the Sacrifice of Idols Of having fellowship with Devils 1 Cor. 10. 20. exponed The Judgment of the Learned Paraeus thereupon The offended Brother had not greater reason to be offended at persons eating the Idolothyte nor so great as we have at persons hearing the present Ministers Of the Scandalizing Mat. 18. 6. Rom. 14. 3. explained Of offence by forbearing to go to hear Mat. 17. 27. 1 Thes 5. 12. Heb. 13. 17. John 10. 27. Mark 4. 23. opened THE next attempt in S. T. is to answer Objections that might be made against what was in the foregoing Discourse in the matter of scandal argued by us The first is this Object 1. There is a two-fold scandal 1. A scandal or offence taken 2. A scandal or offence given In respect of the former possibly many may be offended at persons hearing the present Ministers that there is any just offence given by them herein is denied To this we answer 1. That as we admit of the distinction so no doubt there is a truth in what is suggested thereupon That whatever I do some one or other will be offended at it there are a Generation of men whom the doing my duty will offend and cause to blaspheme these are not to be minded but to be pittied To which Mr. T. replies Sect. 4. That there is any Generation of men whose offence is not to be minded is not the Doctrine of the Aposile but contrary to it 1 Cor. 10. 32 33. 9. 19 20 21 22 23. Answ Nor is it any doctrine delivered by us We say not That in matters of liberty we are not bound to heed giving offence to the World we believe the contrary But this we affirm thaâ— such persons as will be offended at me and blaspheme because I do my duty for so are the words are not to be heeded i. e. I am not to surcease what God requires me to do because they are offended and blaspheme which what is cited by Mr. T. doth not contradict That which follows touching hearing the Ministers of England being avowedly asserted upon this Foundation that it is lawful so to do we pass by as what we are not in the least concern'd to take notice of though there is indeed upon that supposition nothing of Argument in it We add in S. T. 2dly But 't is not yet proved nor like to be that the scandal treated of is a scandal taken and not given the very nature of scandal given as is confest by all and evident beyond exception from the Apostleâ— discourse 1 Cor. 8. 10. lying in the doing of what is judged by me to be my liberty but other Saints account my sin and from thence have occasion of grief and stumbling administred to them This was the very case of the Church of Corinth upon the occasion whereof Paul writes to them some of them judged it their liberty to sit at Meat in the Idols Temple others not being fully perswaded hereof were scandalized many wayes at this their practice which the Apostle therefore condemns as unlawful To which Mr. T. 1. 'T is not confest by all that the nature of scandal given lies in the doing what is judged by me to be my liberty which other Saints are ready to conclude to be my sin and from thence have occasion of grief and stumbling administred unto them Dr. Hammond Mâ— Jeans are otherwise minded Answ But Mr. T. abuseth us and his Reader we say not that scandal given lies in angring our Brother but evidently assert that there are two things that constitute it 1. It must be a matter that the giver of it judgeth to be his liberty and the receiver accounts his sin 2. It must administer occasion of stumbling grief and sorrow unto the scandalized i. e. he is either grieved troubled at it or by it influenced to sin against God And this I say is confest by all Nor do the Authors cited by him or he himself contradict this notion of scandal given so that the heat of this velication is allayed Pulveris exigni jactu He adds 2dly This Authors notion about the nature of scandal given is not evident beyond exceptions from the Apostles discourse 1 Cor. 8. 10. Answ 1. That the Apostle speaks there of scandal given Mr. T. will not deny 2. That the nature of the scandal lay in this the Corinthians eating the Idolothyte or sitting at meat in the Idols Temple wherewith others were scandalized many wayes 't was an occasion of causing them to eat the Idolothyte with a doubting Conscience or being wounded grieved discouraged in the way of Christianity 1 Cor. 8. 9. which he more plainly if possible expresseth Rom. 14. 13 15 20 21. which if it consort not with our notion of scandal given I know not what doth As for what follows we are little concern'd whilst he attempts not the confutation of what is asserted by us touching the nature of scandal given He tells us We are mistaken in these things 1. That the offending person judg'd it his liberty to sit at meat in the Idols Temple Answ But this is Mr. T. his mistake not mine 1 Cor. 8. 10. In the house of Idols saith the Arabick And the Learned Paraeus in 1 Cor. 10. 21. tells us That some of the Corinthians were of this Opinion That they might be present at the Sacrifices of the Idols Yea but saith our Animadverter this is ill applied however to the case of hearing for the sitting at meat in the Idols Temple was having fellowship with Devils 1 Cor. 10. 20. But this is the Service of the living God the hearers of the present Ministers judge it not only their liberty but their duty so to do Answ 1. If they judge it to be their duty they are able to produce some Scripture to evince it so to be let them do that and take the Cause 2. Many