men or rudiments of the world by which the Jewish Rites to be meant is apparent from Col. 2.16 17 20. Gal 4 3 9. 6. Saith he It carries with it a sad reflection upon the authority of the Scripture as not thorowly furnished to make the man of God perfect Answ. The authority and use of the holy Scripture is delivered by St. Paul 2 Tim. 3.15 16 17. that they were able to make Timothy wise unto salvation through faith in Christ Jesus that they were profitable for doctrine for reproof for correction for instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect throughly furnished unto all good works Whence is rightly deduced against the Romanists the perfection and sufficiency of the Scripture without unwritten Traditions for all Doctrinals of Faith and Manners and Worship in respect of Essentials But it is no ill reflection upon its authority to say that some accidentals of instituted Worship undetermined in Scripture ordered by men according to general Rules in Scripture are warranted by permission without command of those particularities in holy Scripture 7. The Lord condemns not onely that which is done against the warrant and direction of the Word but also that which is done beside it Deut. 4.2 and 12.32 Mat. 15.9 Lev. 10.1 their sin lay not in this that they offered strange fire which was forbidden but which God commanded them not Prov. 30.6 Jer. 7.31 Answ. I suppose that this Author when he saith the Lord condemns not only that which is done against the warrant and direction of the Word but also that which is done besides it means it of warrant and direction by command and in instituted Worship otherwise he should hold that nothing is indifferent which is too absurd and therefore I shall not charge him with it till he do expresly assert it But if his meaning be as I conceive that God condemns all that which is done besides the Warrant and Direction of the Word by a command in the New Testament even in accidentals of instituted Worship which must be his proposition if he argue to the purpose his assertion is false and not proved by any of the Texts alledged Not Deut. 4 2. which is to be understood of Doctrines Commands or Institutions as from God Thus Ainsworth in his Annot. on Deut. 4.2 not add Hereby all Doctrines of men are condemned Mat. 15.9 and the all-sufficiency and authority of Gods Word stablished for ever Gal. 3.15 2 Tim. 3.16 17. Add thou not unto his words lest he reprove thee and thou be sound a Liar Prov. 30 6. Which place is to be understood not of particularities of Instituted Worship undetermined for then the reason should have been thus Lest he reprove thee and thou be found superstitious but of Gods Commands Promises or Predictions of which he had said v. 5. Every Word of God is pure he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him and is opposed to the practice of false Prophets who pretended revelations as from God which they had not from him and therefore were reproved by him and found Liars Which is also confirmed by that parallel place Rev. 22.18 19. Mat. 15.9 is the same with Mark 7.7 before alledged and is taken from Isa. 29.13 and both by the Prophet against the Seers of his time the Rulers and Prophets to whom the vision of God was as a sealed Book and they understood not or taught not according to his Law but made shew of drawing nigh to God whilest their fear towards him that is their Worship of him or obedience to him was taught by the precepts of men and by our Lord Christ urged against the Pharisees who were guilty of the same hypocrisie and indeed proves that all Doctrines are condemned wherein that is taught or commanded or urged as Gods Worship which is onely by the Command of men but condemns not every particularity of accidentals in instituted Worship undetermined by God because from men who reach it not nor observe it as Gods Worship by his Command Which Exposition is agreeable with that which this Author puts after in the Margin In a Translation of the New Testament in Edward the sixths time the Author of the Notes on Mat. 15. saith God will not be woâ—shipped after the Doctrine and Precepts of men but as he himself hath prescribed and taught us in his Word The same is to be said of Deut. 12.32 where God having warned the Israelites that they should not do so unto the Lord their God as the Nations destroyed by them served their Gods adds whatsoever thing I command you observe to do it thou shalt not add thereto nor diminish from it Which hath the same sense as the Words Deut. 4.2 well expounded in the English large Annotations Deut. 4.2 shall not add not as a Comment or Exposition to a Text but man must not add any thing to Gods Word either for words or meaning contrary to it nor as Gods Word with an intent to make that of Divine Authority which is but humane as the Papists do by Apocryphal Writings and unwritten Traditions See Chap. 12.32 and 18.20 Diminish by denying any part of it to be of Divine Authority or concealing any part of it either for words or meaning or by partial Belief of it or obedience to it God is not to be believed obeyed or served in part and by halfs but as he is to be loved wholly Chap. 6.5 Which Precept is not to be restrained to immediate Worship but to be extended to all other duties enjoyned not only to the Priests by whom the solemn Worship of God was to be administred but also the King who was to have a Copy of the Law and not to turn aside from the Commandment to the right hand or to the left Deut. 17.20 and yet might make Orders about Civil Government not expressed in the Law Yea were the prohibition Deut. 4.2 and 12.32 restrained as it is not to worship it cannot be taken for a prohibition of all Orders made by men concerning Gods Worship as might be proved from Josh. 22.34 2 Chron. 20.3 and 30.23 Esther 9.27 31. and other places if there were need but such as were different from Gods commands in things determined by him or in things indeterminate when urged as Gods command and made his Worship wherein it is to be considered that God was more strict to the Israelites being more full in Ordinances concerning Ceremonies Typical and peculiar to them than he is to Christians whom he hath released of their burden of rites Lev. 10 1. The sin lay in this that they offered strange fire which was forbidden as even Mr. Ainsworth acknowledgeth Annot. on Lev. 10.1 Strange fire that is other fire than God had sanctified on his Altar As strange incense was expresly forbidden Exod. 30.9 So strange fire was not commanded but implicitely forbidden by Lev. 1.7 6.12 as afterward God plainly sheweth in Levit. 16.12 So that both the
Answ. Though I doubt not but I could retort this Argument upon this Authour whom by sundry passages in this Book I judge to be one that hearkens not to the Revelation Christ hath made and as supreme Lord and Law-giver hath enjoyned to be observed touching the Order and Ordinance of his house even that most express Mat. 28.19 Mark 16.15 16. one of the principles of the Doctrine of Christ and part of the foundation Heb. 6.1 2. Yet I shall wave that and answer directly by denying the major of which I give these reasons 1. Because denial is more than not hearkning to the one is by positive contradiction the other may be only by Omission 2. The not hearkning may be out of ignorance incapacity to understand dulness slothfulness fearfulness mistakes prevalency of temptation without any enmity of heart habitual stubbornness or willful gainsaying which are requisite to a plain denial of the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ. 3. There may be sundry Orders of his House revealed by Christ which are controverted whether they be such or no there may be some acknowledged to be Orders of his House yet thought not of such moment as that the peace of the Church should be broken by contending for them or judged not perpetual but temporary or not binding the Ministers to observe till the Magistrate reform as in the case of putting down Images or conceiving in cases of necessity or for avoiding of Scandal they may not hearken to them as in Davids eating the Shew-bread the Apostle Pauls not hearkning to the Order of discontinuing Circumcision and a Jewish Vow and Offering in these and perhaps more cases a person may not hearken to the Revelation Christ hath made and as supreme Lord and Law-giver hath enjoyned to be observed touching the Orders and Ordinances of his House and yet be so far from denying the Prophetical and Kingly Office of Christ that he may be sound in the Faith and a zealous and faithful maintainer of them by holding forth the truth of the Gospel unto the death And therefore I take the major proposition of this Argument to be manifestly false which he seems by not proving to take for manifest truth Sect. 3. It is not proved that Christs Soveraign Authority is rejected by the present Ministers But he goes on thus 'T is the minor or second Proposition that in the thoughts of some is capable of a denial but the verity thereof shines forth as the Sun in its brightness in the review of the Orders and Ordinances of the House of Christ appointed by himself and the present frame and deportment of the present Ministers of England with respect thereunto which of them have they not made void by their Traditions This is that which Christ hath said 1. That all power for the Calling Institution Order and Government of his Church is invested solely in him as the alone Lord Soveraign Ruler and Head thereof Mat. 28.19 1 Tim. 6.14 15. Joh. 3.35 Acts 3.22 and 5.31 'T is upon this foot of account that Christ chargeth his Disciples not to be called of men Rabbi nor to call any Father viz. not to impose their authority upon any or suffer themselves to be imposed upon by any in the matters of their God Mat. 23.8 9 10. because one is their Master and Lord viz. Christ. Hence also the Apostles lay the weight of their exhortations upon the Commandment of Christ 1 Cor. 11.23 and 14.37 Proclaim all to be accursed that preach any other Gospel Gal. 1.8 yea though Angels from Heaven should they live and speak as such charge those to whom they write not to receive any into their houses that bring any other doctrine much more not to receive them as their Teachers 2 Joh. 10. Yea the Spirit of the Lord in the close of the last Revelation of his Will it pleased this great King and Law-giver in such a way to give forth testifies that if any man shall add unto these things the Lord shall add unto him the Plagues that are written in his Book Rev. 22.18 Do the present Ministers of England conform unto this great Institution in words indeed they do so But what meaneth the bleating of the Sheep and lowing of the Oxen in our ears Do they not own other Lords Heads and Governours that have a Law-making power and would enforce the Consciences of the free-born Subjects of Christ over his Churches besides him what doth this less than evidently proclaim their disobedience and rebellion which is as the sin of Witchcraft against the King of Kings and the rejection of his Scepter and Soveraign Authority over them But of this more hereafter Answ. It is no strange thing to find in this Author high Charges backed only with confident assertions and no proofs so that men comparing the one with the other may think he wrote his Dreams rather than Meditations For what are we to think otherwise when we read such passages as these the verity of his minor proposition shines forth as the Sun in his brightness Which is no more than is to be said of the first universal indubitable principles of the light of Nature or Reason which are indisputable and yet he saith in the thoughts of some it is capable of a denial and when he should prove it so clear in stead of an Argument proves all with Interrogations which if the Reader deny he is put to a stand But to shew the vanity of his arguings to his Question which of the Orders and Ordinances of the house of Christ appointed by himself have not the present Ministers of England he means all even the best of them as his words ch 2. and arguings against them indiscriminatim do evince have they not made void by their Traditions I answer by another Question Which of them have they so made void Sure the Ordinances of searching the Scriptures hearing the Word praying to the Father in the name of Christ believing on the Son with many more which are the chief Orders and Ordinances of the house of Christ appointed by himself have not been made void by the Traditions of the Ministers of England that now are at least not by all or the best of them that I know or hear of But he imagines he can prove it by an induction of particulars of which he names only seven though to make his induction full without which it is no good Argument he should have reckoned seven times seven But perhaps he thinks if he can make good the charge in these seven it will be without question his charge is true of the rest Let us then view each of these in order and see how well he hath acquitted himself therein The first of these Orders or Ordinances of Christ is that all power for the Calling Institution Order and Government of his Church is invested solely in him as the alone Lord Soveraign Ruler and Head thereof Which I grant as a truth though I assent not to
Disciples hearing the Scribes and Pharisees in his time notwithstanding other defects Therefore the present Ministers preaching or declaring the will of God notwithstanding other defects warrants the Saints hearing now the present Ministers of England The minor is grounded upon that which is intimated to be the reason of Christs direction Matth. 23.2 3. that they sate in Moses his chair that is taught the observation of Gods Law and that what they bid them observe according to it they were to hear and do as on the contrary they were not when they taught corrupt traditions of men and other leavened Doctrine To these things this Author thus answers Sect. 2. The Scribes and Pharisees sate in Moses his chair as Teachers not as Magistrates Many things are supposed by the Objecters and taken for granted and must be so by all that judge any weight to be in what is from this supposed command of Christ argued which they will never be able to prove and yet they are the very basis upon which the stress of the Objection lies As 1. 'T is supposed that the Scribes and Pharisees here spoken of were in the Ministerial seat Teachers and Expounders of the Law which at first view seems to be a difficult task for any to demonstrate That some of the Scribes and Pharisees which were particular Sects among the Jews as is known were so cannot be denied that these here mentioned by our Saviour are such is not so evident They are expresly said to sit in Moses seat not Aarons who though he were of the Tribe of Levi yet was not the Ministerial but Magistratical seat committed to him To the posterity of Aaron did the office of Priesthood appertain as is known to all that have but in the least turned aside to consider of this affair nor is it altogether frivolous that is by some observed that these Scribes and Pharisees are especially charged with the omission of judgement and mercy things most nearly relating unto the Office of Magistracy to whom it doth especially appertain to look thereunto Nor will it in the least follow that supposing Christ enjoyned his disciples to attend upon the Scribes and Phariseees acting as Magistrates and conform to what is justly and righteously prescribed by them as such That therefore it is lawful to attend upon the present Ministers of England I reply That it is indeed supposed that the Scribes and Pharisees here spoken of were in the seat of Moses Teachers and Expounders of the Law But not that they were Officers about the sacrifices and services belonging to the worship of God at the Templé as were the Priests and Levites nor need we so to suppose It is sufficient for rhe Argument That they took upon them the expounding of the Law and to resolve consciences what they were to do they did as Casuists or Doctors of Divinity in Schools or Synagogues or in the Temple Which is proved from that which is said That they did bind heavy burdens and lay them on mens shoulders v. 4. which was by their precepts their affecting to be called of men Rabbi Rabbi Masters Fathers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Leaders v. 8 9 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Doctors or Teachers translated Master in Israel John 3. but were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matth. 23.24 blind guides Matth. 15.14 blind leaders of the blind And that they were not Priests appeared by their paying Tythes Matth. 23 23. Luke 18.12 Nor were they ordinary Magistrates except such as were in their Synedria the Romans were then the ordinary Magistrates Nor could they be said to sit in Moses chair either as Magistrates having the same power he had or as Law-givers For the power and office of Moses whether as Magistrate Judge or Prophet was singular He was a Prophet to whom there arose none like in Israel Deut. 34.10 and he was a Judge or Prince under God supreme who had jurisdiction and Empire supreme in matters sacred and profane although the function of doing holy rites was committed to Aaron and his sons and the Levites as is proved by Selden l. 2. de Syned Ebrae c. 2. from Exod. 4.16 Deut. 33.5 the address to him in difficult causes his sentences and other things acknowledged by Writers Jewish and Christian. It is not denied that the Pharisees and Scribes were many of them Rulers of the Jews as it is said of Nicodemus John 3.1 and of the Priests and Levites John 1.19.24 But not as Scribes or Pharisees who were as such onely particular Sects among the Jews as this Authour truly acknowledgeth nor as sitting in Moses chair which onely noted their function of teaching and expounding of the Law being bred up at the feet of Rabbins or Doctors of the Law as St. Paul at the feet of Gamaliel and after sitting in the School or auditory of the Temple or Synagogues where Moses of old time had in every City them that preached him being read in the synagogues every sabbath-day Acts 15.21 wherein the Scribes and Pharisees affected and obtained the chief seats Matth. 23 6. and had much sway with the people though they taught not with such authority as Christ did Matth. 7.26 Mark 1.22 now wherein they taught according to Moses Law or the truth as about Elias coming Matth 17.10.11 they were to be heard in other things as in their own traditions and the commandments of men their doctrine was to be rejected Matth. 15.9 It is frivolous which is observed That because judgement and mercy the omission of which is charged on the Scribes and Pharisees Matth. 23.23 and those nearly relate to the office of Magistracy to whom it doth especially appertain to look thereunto that therefore the Scribes and Pharisees v. 2 3. are considered as Magistrates For as is in the Assembly Annotations on the place the judgement mercy and faith are just dealing with all men mercy in relieving the poor and faithfulness in covenants promises and contracts judgement being there taken for right ordering the conversation towards God and men as Matth. 12.18 which is manifest in that it is joyned with mercy and faith or as it is Luke 11.4 The love of God opposed to ravening extortion intemperance or excess Matth. 23.25 rapine and wickedness Luke 11.39 such as was when they devoured widows bouses making long prayers for a pretence Matth. 23.14 compassing sea and land to make one proselyte and when he was made making him twofold more the child of hell then themselves v. 15. No such argument therefore is or needs be made as this Authour frames as made by his opponent That supposing Christ to injoyn his disciples to attend upon the Scribes and Pharisees acting as Magistrates therefore it is lawful to attend upon the present Ministers of England For neither do we say that Christ injoyned attendance on them nor that they acted as Magistrates but our supposition is That they acted as Teachers and his disciples were permitted to hear them though liable to greater
and more exceptions then the present Ministers It is added Sect. 3. The Pharisees were not Church-officers of Gods appointment But let this be granted Suppose 2. The Scribes and Pharisees to be the preachers and expounders of the Law in that day the seat mentioned to be a Ministerial seat Yet this will not at all help them in the matter in controversie except it be granted to them that the Scribes and Pharisees were not a lawful but a false Ministry that had surreptitiously climbed up into this Ministerial seat for who sees not the invalidity and nothingness of this argument 'T was lawful to hear the Scribes and Pharisees which were the lawful Church-officers of that day of the appointment of the Lord acting by vertue of an authority derived from him therefore 't is lawful to hear persons that have not any such authority from Christ but are meer intuders and Ministers of Antichrist as the present Ministers of England have been proved to be now this upon that supposition that they were Ministers we cannot yield to these reasons 1. The Pharisees are expresly said to be Priests and Levites John 1.19 and this is the record of John when the Jews sent Priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him Who art thou v. 24. And they that were sent were of the Pharisees which were the ordinary lawful Ministers of that day 2. These of all others were most apt to question the authority of such as taught the people So when John appears preaching and baptizing and professes to them that he was not the Christ nor Elias nor Prophet who was expected by the people of the Jews they immediately question his authority John 1.25 Why baptizest thou then which they could not be supposed to have the face to do if they themselves of all others had been the greatest intruders Nay 3. When they question Christ himself about his authority he asks not them from whence they had theirs which doubtless upon that occasion he would have done had they not been lawfully seated in the seat they did possess but from whence John had his who was esteemed as a prophet 4. We have the Lord Jesus many times crying out above all others against the Pharisees condemning them of pride hypocrisie avarice c. but not the least tittle of the usurpation of Moses seat is by him charged upon them or in the least intimated which doubtless would have been had they been guilty thereof I reply that this grant that the Scribes and Pharisees were preachers and expounders of the Law in that day will help the objectours in the matter in controversie though it be not granted to them that the Scribes and Pharisees were not a lawfull but a false Ministry that had surrepticiously climbed up into this ministerial seat For they are assured that this Author hath not proved nor can prove the present Ministers of England to be meer intruders and Ministers of Antichrist and therefore need not this supposition concerning the Scribes and Pharisees to prove Christs allowing the hearing of the present Ministers Only this is urged that there is as much exception and more against the Pharisees teaching than against the present Ministers and yet they might be heard therefore with better reason may the present Ministers be heard Nevertheless I deny that the Scribes and Pharisees which they were to hear were the lawfull Church Officers of that day of the appointment of the Lord acting by vertue of an authority derived from him it being certain that as he saith they were a particular Sect among the Jews no where appointed by God to this office of Priesthood or teaching but taken up by men as orders of Friers among the Papists though some of them were Priests and some of them Rabbins or teachers of the law and educated thereunto as teachers of Divinity are in the Schools among us at this day which if the Ministers of England had no further ordination being the condition of most or very many of the present Ministers in England might justifie the hearing of them as well as the hearing the Pharisees who had no better calling to that function As for the reasons of this Author the first is not valid For it proves only that some of the Priests and Levites were Pharisees not all St. Paul certainly was not though a Pharisee nor that those that sate in Moses chair were Priests for all were not there being many thousands of Pharisees who were not Rabbins St. Paul was a Pharisee the son of a Pharisee when he sate at Gamaliels feet Acts 22.3 yet not a Doctor of the Law sitting in Moses his chair Nor if they were Priests doth it prove they were the lawfull Ministers of that day For to say nothing of Christs Apostles who were at that day the lawfull Ministers with and under Christ himself it is certain the Priests of those times got their places as for instance the High Priest by undue and unlawfull wayes by bribing the Roman Deputy as Josephus reports and therefore if it were proved they were Priests yet they are not proved to be lawful Ministers Yea that which is said of their Ordination and Education by the most favourable Writers of the Jewes proves they had some kind of entrance into their profession according to the customs of those times which were of human invention but nothing of Gods institution that they should sit in the chair of Moses As for the Second reason there is no marvel they had the impudence to question Iohns authority though themselves intruders when they were puft up with conceits of their authority though they had none when they were so proud and impudent as to conceive themselves righteous and despise others Luke 18.9 and to allege it in prayer to God though their Consciences might tell them they were covetous and unrighteous yea to deride Christ when he told them they could not serve God and Mammon Luke 16.14 Nor is the Third reason of force For Christ might question their authority though he did not when they questioned Johns and he seems after John to have done it in calling them a generation of vipers blind guides with sundry other expressions disparaging of them and their traditions And his charging them with affectation and ambitious seeking of the chief Seats and to be called Rabbi Rabbi what is it but an evidence that they did unlawfully climb into Moses his seat which they did so ambitiously gape after As for the not in express words charging them with usurpation it is no marvail it is not related sith their instigation of Herod to take away John Baptists life related by Iosephus is not related as imputed to them by Christ in any of the Evangelists Besides how irrational this argument is we read not that Christ charged them with usurpation of Moses seat therefore he did it not every puny in Schools knows who hath learned that rule in Logick argumentum non valet ab authoritate negativè an
you heareth me he doth not restrain hearers from hearing others who delivered the same truth but the general speech Joh. 8.47 He that is of God heareth Gods words warrants the hearing of Gods word To the Argument I answer That if the major be meant of warrant by command and part accidental of Instituted Worship it is denied and the minor is denied in that branch That there is no warrant in the Scripture for hearing the present Ministers of England But let us view his proofs Sect. 3. Accidentals of Instituted Worship warranted without command in Scripture The major or first Proposition saith he is evident 1. From the nature of Instituted Worship which consists in this that it be of Divine Revelation else whatsoever it is it is not Instituted Worship Answ. This is true concerning the kind or sort of Instituted Worship and concerning the essential parts those things I mean which are determined and necessary but not true of accidentals parts or adjuncts of Worship undetermined these may be from Men and yet the worship be of God If Jehoiakim had heard and believed the Roll which was dictated by Jeremiah he had worshiped God though Jehudi's reading were by his appointment Jer. 36.21 2 From the verdict of Christ who pronounceth all the Worship of Man to be vain and fruitless and so unlawful that is bottom'd on any thing but Divine Revelation Mark 7.7 Answ. This is true that all those actions in which is placed the Worship of God having no appointment from God but onely from men are vain and fruitless and so unlawful and so much the Text alledged proveth But this proveth not that the Worship of God appointed by him is vain fruitless and unlawful because of some adjuncts or circumstances appointed by men which God hath left undetermined So though the receiving to hold Traditions of the Elders and Dictates of Pharisees as if they were of God and God were worshiped by them was vain fruitless and so unlawful yet the hearing of the Law of God read in the Synagogues which we find not to have been appointed by God but by the prudence and authority of Rulers was lawful and approved Luk. 4.16 17. Act. 13.15 27. Act. 15.21 3. If it be lawful to Conform to any one part of Instituted Worship without warrant from Scripture 't is also lawful to Conform to another a third the whole which would banish Instituted Worship out of the world Answ. The first consequence is granted yet the later is not necessary for though it be true If it be lawful to Conform to any one part of Instituted Worship without warrant from Scripture 't is also lawful to Conform to another a third the whole yet this would not banish Instituted Worship out of the world For when the Pharisees and all the Jews except they washed their hands oft eat not holding the Tradition of the Elders and when they came from the market except they washed they eat not And many things there were which they had received to hold as the washing of cups and puts brazen vessels and of tables Mark 7.3 4. Yet this did not banish the Instituted Worship of the Passeover and other worship appointed by God to the Jews out of the world 4. To assert that it is lawful to conform to any part of Instituted Worship without warrant from Scripture reflects sadly upon the wisdom and faithfulness of Christ for either he was not wise enough to foresee that such a part of worship was or would be requisite or had not faithfulness enough to reveal it though the Scripture compares him to Moses for faithfulness who revealed the whole will of God to the making of a pin in the Tabernacle Answ. It no way reflects with any disparagement upon the wisdom and faithfulness of Christ to assert that it is lawful to Conform to accidental parts or rather adjuncts or circumstances of Instituted Worship without warrant from Scripture by express command for though Christ was wise enough to foresee what parts of Worship were or should be requisite and had faithfulness enough to reveal what God did require and did make known by himself or his Apostles what kind of Worship should be observed by Christians and what parts were essential or necessary to be observed were determined in Scripture yet many accidental things adjuncts or circumstances of that Instituted Worship were left to the prudence and authority of men chiefly of Rulers which the Lord foreseeing that his Churches would be gathered out of many Nations of various Customs Dispositions Governments thought fit to be permitted to them though he did restrain the Jews more strictly by Moses which was their burthen and it is our ease that we have more liberty than they had Christ was faithful as Moses in that he revealed to us what was his Fathers will in spirituals more clearly than Moses but for externals appointed but few things and those easie in what else was to be added he left it to be ordered under general rules as it should be found convenient in after times And to argue in this manner if Christ did not appoint every accidental part of Instituted Worship he had failed in wisdom or faithfulness and had come short of Moses seems to me to be like their arguing who in the Canon Law say If Christ had not appointed an Universal Bishop to end Controversies as there was an High-Priest among the Jews Non satis discretus esset He had not been discret enough very presumptuously if not blasphemously shaping Christs wisdom after the model of our understanding and injuriously to us in bringing again Christian believers under that yoke of bondage from which Christ hath freed them 5. It pours out contempt upon the care of God over the New-Testament Churches as if it were less to these than to those under the Law and the Oeconomy of the Gospel as not so compleat as that of old the whole of whose Worship Orders and Ordinances as was said was bottom'd upon pure Revelation Answ. It is before proved in the Answer to the Preface Sect. 20. that it pours no contempt upon the care of God over the New-Testament Churches that the whole of Gods Worship Orders and Ordinances in circumstantials or accidentals which are liable to much variation in Churches of different Nations are not bottom'd upon pure Revelation Divine but in many things left to humane prudence yea it is an effect of Gods love and care over the New-Testament Churches that he hath not tied them in so many things to external rites and particularities of Instituted Worship as he did the Jews Nor is the Oeconomy of the Gospel less compleat than that of old for this cause but if I understand the Apostle Col. 2.8 9 10. this reasoning is either the same or every like that of the Philosophical or Judaizing Teachers to which the Apostles caution is opposed telling them that all fulness was in Christ they were compleat in him without the tradition of