Theodulia, or, A just defence of hearing the sermons and other teaching of the present ministers of England against a book unjustly entituled (in Greek) A Christian testimony against them that serve the image of the beast, (in English) A Christian and sober testimony against sinful complyance, wherein the unlawfulness of hearing the present ministers of England is pretended to be clearly demonstrated by an author termed by himself Christophilus Antichristomachus / by John Tombes.

CHAP. 8. ARG. 7th. and 8th. (Book 8)

Sect. 1. Every Offence of others, makes not sinful, that which otherwise is lawful.

* 1.1TIs not lawful for Saints to do any thing, for the do∣ing whereof, there is no positive p••ecept in the Scripture, that is an offence, grief, scandal, and cause of stumbling to their Brethren: But the hearing the present Mini∣sters of England (as there is no positive precept in the Scripture for it, so it) is an offence, grief, scandal, and cause of stum∣bling to the Brethren: Therefore. The major (or first Proposi∣tion) is bottom'd upon express precepts in the Scripture, Rom. 14.13, 15, 20. 1 Cor. 8.9, 13▪ and 10.24.

Answ. There are varieties of circumstances and cases inci∣dent to the point of Scandal▪ which make the action from which it ariseth to be lawful or unlawful: there are se∣veral effects of Scandal, and divers degrees considerable: there are several states of persons offending, and offended. All which, and more besides, do require caution in deny∣ing or granting the major Proposition: Of these I wrote ma∣ny years agoe, a Treatise of Scandalizing, sold by Richard R••yston at the Sign of the Angel in Ivy-Lane, in London: from whence many limitations may be fetch'd by the intelligent Reader, wherewith to limit the major Proposition, without which it is not to be granted, nor is it to be proved from the Texts alleged. Nevertheless, because if •• should take them in here, I should enlarge and encumber the present Dis∣pute too much, I think to let the major pass at present, and to wave also the exception which might be taken at the form of the Argument, the conclusion either not being

that which is to be proved but by consequence, or if it be, there be four terms in the Syllogism, and to examin what he saith for his minor.

Sect. 2. Hearing the present Ministers may be the Saints duty▪

The minor (or second proposition), saith he, consists of two parts.

1. That for hearing the present Ministers of England, there is no positive warrant in the Scripture; if there be, let it be pro∣duced, and this controversie is at an end: The contrary thereunto hath all along been manifest in this present d••scourse. It cannot enter into our hearts, to imagin, that the Lord Jesus having insti∣tuted Officers of his own, for the management of affairs in his house, should ordain, that any of his houshold should attend upon the Ministry of such as are not of his institution (as hath been a∣bundantly demonstrated touching the present Ministers of Eng∣land, that they are not) nor is it by many pleaded as their duty so to do; but onely as their liberty, which they judge they may, or they may not do, without sin.

Answ. What warrant there is to hear the present Mini∣sters of England hath been shewed▪ and that which hath been produced to the contrary examined especially ch. 1. & 2. The institution of Christ concerning Ministers, and what concerns their calling hath been also discussed especially in answer to the preface, and the 2 chapter: in which places is shewed, that warrant by permission is sufficient to justify the hearing of Ministers; that the positive precept for hearing determins not hearing of Ministers as thus called, but as teaching the word of God; that such election and ordination, as this Au∣thor requires, are not necessary to make make men institu∣ted officers of Christ, that while the present Ministers preach the word of God the Saints may, and ought to attend on their ministery: and that they are not bound to examine their outward calling, but to leave that to Rulers, and them∣selves only to examin their doctrine; that they may as law∣fully attend on their ministry if edifying them in the faith, as on the ministers of a gathered congregation, that they ought rather in obedience to Rulers, and to avoid Schism▪ and to prevent the intangling of themselves with private and novel opinions which are more easily vented in private meetings then in publique, and more readily entertaine••

by private persons (few of whom are learned and judicious) than in more publique and solemn auditories: to hear mi∣nisters that preach the truth in publique congregations caeteris paribus, if their abilities, and faithfulness be alike, than to hear ministers in gathered churches privately meeting. And with these explications, I asse••t it not onely the Saints liberty, but also their duty to attend upon the ministry of the present Ministers of England. It follows.

Sect. 8. Sinful scandalizing is not by hearing the present Ministers.

2. That for the Saints (such as are visibly so, profess them∣selves to be such) to hear the present Ministers of England, is an Offence, Grief, Scandal and occasion of stumbling to their Brethren. This is too evident to be denyed, to how many thousands in England, for whom (those that as yet attend upon the present Ministry thereof, dare not but think) Christ dyed, is the practice of some herein, a Grief, Scandal and occasion of stumbling? Their Groanes and Tears alone, and together upon this foot of ac∣count, will better demonstrate the truth thereof, than our words can. Yea, how many poor souls have been drawn, by reason of the practice of some leading bretheren in this matter, against the checks of their own consciences to a conformity herein, to their after grief and wounding? Vpon whose doors 'tis to be feared (and we wish they would in the fear of God, lay it to heart) may be written, The bloud of souls.

Answ. The term of visible Saints hath been too much con∣tracted by being almost appropriated to the members of those Churches, which are termed Congregational in con∣tradistinction to Presbyterial, and Prelatical: or if applyed to any of the more zealous of the Presbyterial way of dis∣ciplin, yet scarce vouchsafed to any of them, who are for Episcopal government, or conformable to the worship and ministry of the Church of England, who are commonly ter∣med Antichristian, persons without, in Babylon: and for men to profess th••mselves visible Saints is in effect all one as to say they are of a gathered Church; all others being counted without. Which abuse of words, as it smels of arrogance, in appropriating to themselves the title, which is common to all true believers, and uncharitableness in conceiving of o∣thers as no visible Saints, because they are not entered into

that, which is termed Church covenant; so is it injurious to others, though godly, from whom such are estranged as no visible Saints, but they are censured and declined as persons without, that have nothing in them of God, yea as adversaries to the power of Godliness, meer formalists, if they speak for the common-prayer book, or any thing fa∣vourably of any of the Bishops; and this serves for a de∣sign of keeping them to themselves without joyning in prayer and hearing in publique, which they call hearing with the world out of the Church. This I conceive to be the reason of this Authors expressions here of the saints visibly so scandalizing their bretheren by their hearing the Ministers that now preach publickly. By which it may be seen, that he re∣gards not much who do hear the present ministers of Eng∣land, so that they do not; as if it were not necessary to de∣terre all others from hearing them, if they be false Pro∣phets and Idolaters, as this Author accuseth them, yea and to oppose them even unto the death, if they be such: so that this argument is unnecessary, if the other be good, and rather supposeth all that is formerly disputed to be weak; yet this point of scandal may serve turn to affright them from communion with the publique Ministery and keep them to themselves, though it prove never so injurious to their peace and outward estate, and sinful by reason of the Schism that is continued by it. For this reason I shall ex∣amin this Argument also as it is here delivered, and so much the rather because I have found by experience, that when in this and other doubts of conscience I have in conference with honest but scrupulous christians satisfied them con∣cerning the lawfulness of that which they doubted of, yet in this I could hardly quiet their consciences, that they might do without sin what they scrupled to do, because they should offend good people, the scandalizing of whom our Saviour and the Apostle Paul make a hainous sin, and pro∣curing an heavy curse. For which reason I printed the treatise of scandalizing forementioned, more then twenty years ago; in the epistle dedicatory whereof are these words In my small reading and experience I finde few doubts of conscience, concerning mens patent actions, in the resol∣ving of which the difficulty hath not most of all rested on this point of Scandal. At present, I shall not open the word scandal, nor insist on the definition of Scandal, nor the sorts

of scandalizing or causes of it, or the various cases concern∣ing it, leaving the Reader to that Treatise, or to what else hath been since written by D. Henry Hammond of scandal, Ma. Henry Jeanes, of abstinence from appearance of evil, and o∣thers for a fuller understanding of this point, but assert that notwithstanding what is here said of the offence of brethren▪ and the sad consequence of blood guiltiness, which this Author would have it conceived the hearing the present Ministers tends to: yet neither the so termed visible Saints, nor any other by hearing the present Ministers, do sin a∣gainst the precepts of non-scandalizing, given by Christ or his Aposte St. Paul. Matth. 18.6. Luke 17.1. 2 Rom. 14.13.15.20. 1 Cor. 8.8.9.13. and 10 24. Which I prove thus.

1. That is not scandalizing forbidden in these texts which is neither by giving evil example in doing▪ that which is intrinsecally or of it self evil, though none were offended, nor by enticing practices, or persecution impelling to evil; nor by abuse of liberty in things lawful to the harm of a∣nother; which are all the wayes I know of scandalizing there forbidden, if there be any other shewed I think how∣ever it will not reach to the present case: that which this Author seems to reduce it to is the last, in that he puts in a Parenthesis in the minor these words (there is no positive pre∣cept in Scriptures for it.) But it is not to be reduced to that sort of scandalizing, for the hearing of the present Mini∣sters of England cannot be accounted a matter of liberty, or indifferency, but either duty or sin, hearing the word of God being an express precept in the general, and so is o∣beying them that are Rulers: now the ministers preaeh the word of God, and our Rulers command us to hear them, and this they have power to do, and in this they have power over their subjects as parents have over their children, and masters over their servants, and are to be obeyed in that which is not evil, but good, and therefore the scanda∣lizing is not by abuse of liberty in things indifferent; nor is it scandalizing in doing a thing in it self evil or impelling to it, as hath been shewed in the foregoing chapters of this answer. Therefore the offending Bretheren what ever it be by hearing the present ministers is not the scandalizing for∣bidden.

2. That is not Scandalizing forbidden in those Texts, which doth not tend to any of those evils, for preventing of which, those precepts of not scandalizing were given▪ But the hearing of the present Ministers tends not to any of those evils, for preven••ing whereof, those precepts of not scandalizing were given. This is proved, because it tends not to any sin, but to the performance of duty in hearing Gods word: nor to any such sorrow or vexation, as the precepts would have prevented; which were such, as made either persons to be discouraged in Christianity, or to walk uncomfortably in the profession of it, as by view of the Texts may appear. But to neither of these effects doth the hearing of the present Minister tend. This Author saith, It makes visible Saints to grieve, as their grones and tears alone and together demonstrate. But, how doth the Hearing the present Ministers tend to it? Sure, neither in the na∣ture of the action, no•• in the will of him that hears, if the person do hear, as perswaded he may, and ought to do it, is any tendency to such grief: neither is there aptitude to beget it, in what he doth, which harms not the grieved: nor intention to produce it, when he does but what he is to do▪ and neglects not what belongs to him to do, to hin∣der it. In this case, the persons grieved, if it be, because they are displeased with what is done, out of a contrary judgement, they grieve themselves; if they mourn for it, as the hearers sin, because it is a recession from their party, it is not out of zeal that they groan, but out of frowardness, out of passion, not out of compassion, out of an erroneous principle, to which they adhere, not out of weakness of Faith. This Author saith, Many poor souls have been drawn, by reason of the practice of some leading Brethren in this matter, against the checks of their own conscience, to a conformity herein, to their after grief and wounding, and so those leaders guilty of spilling the blood of Souls. Surely this were a direful Scan∣dalizing, if this conformity were a Return to Babylon, as they would make it: But being no such matter, this is but a scarbug: If there be such checks of conscience, after grief and wounding, it is to be imputed to such as this Author, who represents it to such a poor soul, as a horrid sin; not to him, that by doing what he may and ought, leads o∣thers to do the like. But the truth is, those offended Bre∣thren, for the most part, are vexed and enraged, (as their

reviling speeches, and hard censures shew) rather for the crossing them in their way, than affected with godly sor∣row for it, as a sin, counting him as an Enemy, scarce ever ad∣monishing as a Brother, contrary to 2 Thes. 3.15. Which is so much the worse in them, in that, by representing the hearing of publick Teachers as dangerous and odious, ma∣ny fall to the opinions of Quakers, Seekers, and other erro∣neous opinions and practises, which by hearing the present Ministers, might have been prevented; which whether they groan and weep for, their own consciences can tell them: so farr as I discern, the principles of the Separatists, and their practice, have occasioned them; and for that I think they ought to mourn.

3. That is not Scandalizing forbidden in those Texts, which doth not arise from any defect of charity, or undue behaviour of the person offending; but from the distemper of the person offended. But the offence by the hearers of the present Ministers, doth not arise from any defect of cha∣rity, or undue behaviour of the person offending; but from the distemper of the person offended. Therefore it is not the Scandalizing forbidden in those Texts, which do im∣pute the offending to defect of charity, or pride, in con∣tempt, or the like undue behaviour, towards the offended, Rom. 14 10.15. 1 Cor. 8 1.11, 12. But that it is preju∣dice in the offended, wherewith they are pre-possessed, and such other malignity as comes from thence, will be made manifest in the examination of what is said by this Author, in answer to the Objection of Scandal taken.

4. That is not Scandalizing forbidden in those Texts, which is not offending of persons weak in the faith, and of doubting consciences, yet peaceably minded; but of persons conceiving themselves strong, able to argue against the pra∣ctice of hearing the present Ministers, that oppose it with violence, will entertain no fair debate with them that dis∣sent, but inveigh against them, with many more evidences of wilfulness in their way. But such is the disposition and carriage of those, that pretend to be offended with the hearing of the present Ministers, as experience doth too frequently evince. Therefore, the offence is not such, as is forbidden in the Texts, which forbid offending the weak, Rom. 14.1. and 15.1. 1 Cor. 8.7, 10.11.

5. That is not scandalizing forbidden in those texts, which is by using our liberty where we know not any pre∣sent that will be offended at the use of our liberty, or that signifies his offence at our action, when we do it, in which case the Apostle allows the eating of things offered to Idols 1 Cor. 10.27, 28, 29. and consequently the use of our liberty in other things lawful And if any that are absent are likely to be offended, we have given a just rea••on, or are ready to give a just reason of our doing, for this is all, that in this case charity binds us to, to wit, to do what lies in us to re∣ctify them. But so it is in the offence of persons at hea••ing the present Ministers: they that are offended are either ab∣sent, or signify not their offence, or exception, if present; or if they do before or after shew their dislike, have the reasons given of our practise; or the offending person is rea∣dy to do it, as experience shews: therefore the offence taken at their hearing is not scandalizing forbidden.

6. That is not the scandalizing forbidden in those texts, in which, if the offence be regarded, the pe••son supposed to offend shall be deprived of his liberty, and the benefit of the use of it, and not for one time only but alwayes, contra∣ry to the Apostles resolution 1 Cor. 10.29▪ 30. And that not in a thing which he ma•• be well without, such as was flesh offered to an Idol▪ but also that, which is of grea••est moment for his souls welfa••e, the hearing of the word of God, and thereby his liberty will be lost, and a yoke of bondage received contrary to Gal. 2.5, and 6.1. But so it is in the offence for the hearing the present Ministers, if it were regarded, so as to abstain from hearing to satisfy this Author, and such as are like minded, the persons supposed to offend them must never hear them, nor any of them though preaching never so profitably, and so must not only lose the present benefit, but also be deprived perpetually, and judge that which is their liberty to be unlawful, and ••o intangle themselves in a yoke of bondage, which it were sinful for them to do, and that without any real benefit to the offended, therefore they cannot be rightly judged to scandalize, as it is forbidden in the texts mentioned who offend others by their hearing of the present Ministers, as they are charged.

7. That is not the scandalizing forbidden in those texts, the avoiding of which drawes after it a greater scandal and

of worse consequence; and that which is not imaginary only, but real Scandal. This I conceive none should deny: For if every Scandal should be avoided, then the chiefest, in which case the lesser, and only imaginary, cannot be said to be forbidden. But in shunning to hear the present Mini∣sters, there is a real, manifold worse Scandal, than is by hearing of them. Which I demonstrate thus,

1. The person that might hear a profitable Preacher, by shunning hearing of him, upon the conceit of unlawfulness to hear him, doth scandalize himself, contrary to Matth 5.29, 30. and 18.8, 9. in that he confirms himself in his su∣perstitious errour, and hinders his spiritual good, and pro∣gress in Christianity, and ensnares himself in an unjustifia∣ble separation.

2. He doth also truly scandalize▪ others by his example; confirming those that refuse to hear, in their errour and schism, whom he ought to oppose, as St. Paul did St. Peter, Gal. 2.11. when their shunning to hold communion with some, as unclean, tends to the establishing of an errour and schism, as his did.

3. By this refusing to hear the present Ministers, through such suggestions as this Author instills into the minds of men against them, people are driven from the publique Con∣gregations, and thereby the sheep of Christ are scattered; some betake themselves to the meetings of Quakers, where they are mis-led by the delusions of Satan, under pretence of following the light within them, other joyn with the Fifth monarchy men, who pervert them with peruicious te∣nents and designes against Magistrates; and in the best of the Separatists, there is so much bitterness and enmity, against dissenters from them, instilled into their minds, as quite breaks the bond of charity, that should unite all Christs Discipl••s, which surely is real Scandal.

4. The Refuser to hear the p••esent Ministers, doth really scandalize tho••e that a••e confo••mists in hearing, who are therefore unrighteously judged, censured and shunned, as lapsed Brethren, or meer Formalists, and thereby are grieved, and moved to mourn, for this evil spirit, that is between them, and their Brethren. The present Mini∣sters are al••o much scandalized for the same cause, and are much hind••ed in the performance of their ministry, by rea∣son of the opposition of the Separatists; which experience

hath too much shewed, in former and later times, to have hindred the fruits of many holy Preachers, even Non-con∣formists labours and to have shortned their dayes; so that upon the doors of the Separatists may be written, with greater reason, than upon the doors of the diligent conform∣ing Preachers of the Gospel, The Blood of Souls There∣fore scandalizing by hearing the present Ministers, is not forbidden in the Texts alleged.

8. That Scandalizing is not forbidden in those Texts, by avoiding of which, the Magistrate is scandalized, his go∣vernment disturbed, his power excited against others, as disobedient to his Laws; and for that reason▪ many per∣sons, with their families, undone in their liberties, and outward estate. For the offence of our Brother is not to be regarded, by observing of that which will include in it dis∣obedience to the command of the Magistrate, which may be lawfully obeyed, whereby his authority is n••glected, his government disturbed, division and ruine of families oc∣casioned: But so it is, when the present Ministers are not heard, as the state of things now is Therefore the Scan∣dalizing by hearing the present Ministers, is not forbidden in the Texts, Rom. 14. 1 Cor. 8. and 10. It follows,

Sect. 4. It is not Scandal given but when the offensive action is done blameably.

If it be said, Object. That there is a twofold scandal, 1. Scandalum acceptum, a scandal, or offence taken, 2. Scanda∣tum datum, a scandal or offence given. In respect of the former, possibly many may be offended at their practice in the matter trea∣ted of, and so would some or other whatever is done by them: 'Tis impossible but offences should come, that there is any just offence given by them, herein, is denied To this we answer.

Answ. 1. That as we admit of the distinction, so no doubt there is a truth in what is suggested thereupon, that what ever I do, some one or other will be offended at it: there are a generation of men, whom the doing of my duty will offend, and cause to blas∣pheme; th••se are not to be minded, but to be pittied: Christ him∣self was to some a rock of offence and stone of stumbling.

2. But tis not yet proved (nor like to be) that the Scandal treated of, is a Scandal taken and not given, the very nature of ••candal given, as is confest by all, and evident beyond exception

from the Apostles discourse, 1 Cor. 8.10. lying in the doing of what is judged, by me, to be my liberty, which other Saints are not fully perswaded of in their own minds to be so, but are ready to conclude it to be my sin, and evil, and from thence have occasion of grief, or stumbling, administred to them. This was the very case of the Church of Corinth (upon the occasion whereof, Paul writes to them, 1 Cor. 8.) 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.

Answ. 1. That there is any generation of men, whose offence is not to be minded, is not the Doctrine of the Apostle, but contrary to it, 1 Cor. 10.32, 33. Give none offence, nei∣ther to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the Church of God. Even as I please all men, in all things: not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved. Which practice of his he had expressed, 1 Cor. 9.19, 20, 21, 22, 23· For though I be free from all men, yet have I made my self servant unto all, that I might gain the more. And unto the Jews, I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the Law, that I might gain them that are under the Law; to them that are without Law, as without Law, (being not without Law to G••d, but under the Law to Christ) that I might gain them that are without Law. To the weak, I became as weak, that I might gain the weak: to all, became I all things, that I might by all means save some. And this I do for the Gos∣pels sake, that I may be a joynt partaker thereof. Where his avoiding of offence, and pleasing all, is not restrained to the Saints, or the Church of God, but is extended even to ad∣versaries, that opposed the Gospel, to whom he would both forbear his liberty, and do that which was otherwise not to be done; as in the case of circumcising Timothy, Acts 16.3. and taking on him a vow, Acts 18.18. and purifying him∣self with others, Acts 21.26. and 24.17. and other wayes, Acts 26.25, 26, 27. while there was any likelyhood, either of winning them to the liking of the Gospel, or abating their opposition, and procuring his own peace and safety: But when it was dis-advantage to the truth of the Gospel, he would not have Titus to be circumcised, nor any compliance with the Jews in declining eating with the Gentiles, Gal. 2.3, 11, 14 which yields us a rule, whose offence we are to avoid; with whom, and when we are to comply in things

lawful; to wit, with all, either when we may win them to the embracing of the truth, or the abating the opposition of adversaries, or procuring our own peace. Which is a good plea for them, that, by hearing the present Ministers, do accommodate themselves in doing that which is lawful to the command of Rulers for their own peace, though some Brethren be thereby offended.

2. It is not confess'd by all, That the very nature of Scandal given, lyes in the doing of what is judged, by me, to be my liber∣ty which other Saints are not fully perswaded of in their own minds to be so, but are ready to conclude it to be my sin and evil, and from thence have occasion of grief or stumbling administred to them. For,

1. Dr. Hammond in his Treatise of Scandal, after he had accurately considered the use of the word [Scandal] and the sorts of Scandal, §. 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37. he inferrs, That no man is offended or scandalized, but he that falls into some sin: That to be angry, grieved, troubled, at any action of another, is not [to be offended] in the Scripture sense: Nor consequently doth it follow, that I have done amiss, in doing that which another man is angry at, unless my action be in it self evil. For if it be not, then he is angry without cause, and that is his fault, not mine; yea, and he judgeth or censures his Brother, that hath done no hurt, which the weak are forbid to do, Rom. 14.3. And secondly, He is of a••l men most unlikely to do that after me, which he is angry at me for doing; and therefore I have least reason to fear, or possibly to foresee, that he will be scanda∣liz'd in the Scripture phrase: Which fear, or fore-sight, were the only just motive to me, to abstain from any justifiable indifferent action. And as for the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, grieved, Rom. 14.15. he gathers it from the occasion of the grief of the grieved persons eating with a doubting conscience, the three words by which it is explained, v 21. Stumbling, be∣ing offended, and being weak or sick; that the meaning is [••is grieved] i e. wounded, or falls into sin. Which he endea∣vours to shew, to be agreeable to Language in other words, and in that word. Whether he be in the right, or not, this seems to me most agreeable to the Text, That 〈◊〉〈◊〉 grief mentioned Rom. 14.15. (which is the only place where I find grief in the offended, made the effect of of∣fence forbidden) is the grief of the offended, from his own action, in eating with a doubting conscience: not

from the action of him that used his liberty uncharitably. For if the offended had been displeased, angry and grieved, because he did eat, he had not followed his example, but would have shunned his practice, as judging him licenti∣ous in so doing. And therefore, it is not right, that this Author and others, object Scandal given by the Conformists, because they do that, for which their Brethren do mourn, as done by them, but do not follow them in, only are dis∣pleased, and angry with them for so doing. Mr. Jeanes, in the 2d. Edition of his Treatise of abstinence from appearance of evil, p. 128. The mistake of Scandal, for the angring one, is taken notice of by Calvin also, upon 1 Cor. 8.13. having affirm∣ed, That some corrupted the doctrine of Scandal with foolish glos∣ses, and others with their impious calumnies, he sheweth the ori∣ginal of both their mistakes, touching the meaning of offence in the Apostle Utri{que} errant in verbo Offendendi: Nam offende∣re accipiunt, pro Incurrere in odium vel offensionem ho∣minum, aut, quod idem ferè est, facere quod ipsis displiceat, vel minus arrideat. Atqui clarissimè patet ex contex••u, nihil esse aliud quàm malo exemplo ranquam obice fratiem impedi••e à recto cu••su, aut illi praebere Causam Lapsus. Non ergo hic disputat Paulus de retinendâ hominum gra∣tiâ▪ sed de sublevandis infirmis, nè concidant; & prudenter regendis ne à rectâ viâ deflectant

2 Were Dr. Hammond, or my self mistaken, yet all that I meet with, do make it necessary to active Scandal, That it be in all such words, or deeds, as culpably occasion the fall of an∣other, whether of themselves, or by accident. And for passive Scandal, if it be culpably both given and taken, then it is Scan∣dalum datum: if it be culpably taken, and not culpably given, then it is Scandalum acceptum, as M. Jeanes speaks, in his later Edition, p. 95. of his Treatise of abstinence from appear∣ance of evil. So that, until there appear something culpa∣ble in hearing the present Ministers, they that hear them cannot be justly charged with Scandal given by them to their Brethren And this will not be proved, untill it be shewed, that either by the nature and condition of their hearing, or the intention of the hearers, their Brethren are made to sin against God. For, as it is in the Discourse concerning the Interest of Words in Prayer, by H.D.M A. (commended before by this Author, ch. 7. p. 60.) in the Postscript, p. 103. The true notion of a scandalous action, is,

Any action done by us, not being required by the Divine Law, by which our Brother, whether from the nature and condition of the thing done, or the intention of him that doth it, or both, is made to sin against God And therefore, it is not confess'd by all, that the nature of Scandal given, lyes in the doing of what is judged, by me, to be my liberty, which other Saints are not fully perswaded of in their own minds to be so, but are ready to conclude it to be my sin and evil, and from thence have occasion of grief or stumbling administred to them; unless that Stumbling be by falling into sin, through the culpability of my action, either from the faulty nature of it, or my intention in the doing of it, by my unseasonable doing it, with fore-sight of the ef∣fect, which I might have avoided.

Nor is what this Author saith of the nature of Scandal gi∣ven, evident beyond exception, from the Apostles discourse, 1 Cor. 8.10. For, whereas he supposeth the case of the Church of Corinth, concerning the practice of them that eat Idolo∣thytes, to have been, as he expresseth it, on the one side, the offending persons judging it their liberty to sit at meat in the Idols Temple: and on the other side, others not being fully perswaded hereof, were many wayes scandalized at this their practice, which therefore the Apostle condemns as unlawful: and conceives, the nature of Scandal given, to be in these two things, one judging it his liberty to do it, another judging it evil, and grieving thereat, and that such is the offence of them that hear the present Ministers, he is many wayes mistaken.

1. That the offending person, it is not likely, judged it his liberty to sit at meat in the Idols Temple, he being described as one that had knowledge, opposed to the weak, who with conscience of the Idol, eat it as a thing offered to an Idol, and their conscience being weak, was defiled: Now it is not like∣ly, that the strong, that had knowledge by the Doctrine of Christ, that what entreth into the mouth doth not defile, and therefore the eating of the Idolothyte, though he knew it offered to an Idol, could not defile him, would yet judge it his liberty to sit at meat in the Idols Temple, which was manifestly evil, even partaking of the Table of Devils, 1 Cor. 10.20, 21. Or that it was the weakness of the offended person, that he was not fully perswaded of that liberty, it had been his weakness and sin, if he had judged it his liberty to sit at meat in the Idols Temple. But it was the sin of him that had knowledge, that he sate at meat in the Idols

Temple, though it was his liberty to eat it else-where, knowing it had been offered to Idols: and it was the weak∣ness of the other, that he was not so perswaded, yet was by the others practice emboldned to it, and so was defiled both with the errour and practice of eating against his con∣science, with the conscience of the Idol; that is, though he knew it offered to the Idol, and therefore was thereby some acknowledgement of the Idol, as something honour∣able, or a thing sacred. However, if it were, that the of∣fending person judged it his liberty to sit at m••at in the Idols Temple, yet this is ill applyed to the hearers of the present Ministers, as if their hearing were such an action, as was his, that sate at meat in the Idols Temple: for that was having fellowship with Devils, 1 Cor. 10.20 but this is the service of the living God, no Idolothyte, or sitting at meat in the Idols Temple: and, as if being perswaded of the li∣berty to do the one, were like th•• perswasion of the liberty to do the other, whereas, the hearers judge it not only their liberty to hear the present Ministers, but also their duty, and so not, as the case stands, a thing indifferent.

2. This Author conceives, that the Corinthians were of∣fended in that they were grieved at the practice of him that judged it his liberty to sit at meat in the Idols Temple, and that giving occasion of such grief, was Scandal given: whereas the scandal given, was not by causing grief for the offenders practice, as evil; but in that the offended being swayed by his practice, did, against his conscience, eat the thing offered to Idols, and perhaps in the Idols Temple, which had been a great sin, such as would wound his consci∣ence, make him weak or sick, and tended to his perdition, it being a degree of back sliding to Idolatry: And therefore, this is ill applyed to the effect of the hearing of the pre∣sent Ministers, which is not in the offended any such back∣sliding or sin against their conscience, tending to their per∣dition, or present wounding of spirit; but mourning for their Brethrens conceited back sliding, which they con∣ceive tends to their salvation, not to their perdition

3. The offence of the Corinthians is set down by this Au∣thor, without any intimation, that the Corinthians might have reason to be scandalized, because the eating the Ido∣lothyte was both against the precepts of the Mosaical Law, and the Apostles decree, Acts 15.25. which was of much

moment to make the offence, Scandal given, and not only taken. For if offence be taken, where there is no proba∣ble reason, why the scandalized should judge it evil, it is his fault who thus judgeth, not his who acts, that, which he sees no reason why any should conceive any evil in it. The Apostle therefore did not require to forbear the eating of the Idolothyte, but when the weak Brother said This is offered in sacrifice to Idols, 1 Cor 10 28. which shewed the reason, why he should be offended, if he did eat it; and that reason might probably induce him to conceive it un∣lawful, which thing is a requisite condition to Scandal gi∣ven, sith, if upon any surmise of a weak Brother, I must forbear my liberty, though there is no shew of reason, or no probability why he should conceive it evil to use it, my liberty would be as no liberty, and a yoak more intolera∣ble than the Law would be on my conscience. Now, that there is no probable reason, why persons should imagine evil in my hearing the present Ministers, notwithstanding what this Author saith, hath been, and shall be further shewed, in answering that which is said by this Author.

4. This Author doth not mention that, which, in the case of the Corinthians, was requisite to Scandal given, to wit, that the Scandal should be fore-seen, as the words 1 Cor. 10.27, 28 intimate; and that not only as possible, but also as future, with some moral certainty, by reason of the presence of persons known to scruple the thing I do, or some one that intimates his dislike of my action. Calvin therefore upon 1 Cor. 8 13. saith, Non jubet nos Aposto∣lus divinare nunquid offendiculo futurum sit quod facimus, nisi cum est praesens periculum. The Apostle doth not bid us divine, whether that we do will offend, but when there is present danger. Now this shews, that the hearing the present Mi∣nisters is not Scandal given, where none are present that are offended, nor any give intimation of the futurity of the offence.

5. This Author doth not take notice, that Scandal given by the use of our liberty, is not to be made perpetual, as the Apostles words in the same place shew: For if I must alwayes abstain from that at which another is offended, it will be made sin in it self, and so not Scandal given by the intempestive use of our liberty in a thing indifferent: but that we must not yield to, that we may not lose Truth for

peace sake: But if men must not hear the present Ministers, for the reasons given, they must never do it to avoid of∣fence, which will be perpetual, and so the scandal suppo∣sed to be given, not such as that which was in the Corinthi∣ans liberty, in eating Idolothytes.

6. It should not have been forgotten, That the case of the offended among the Corinthians, by eating Idolothytes, and the Brethren now in England, for hearing the present Ministers, cannot be parallel'd rightly: because the Corin∣thians offence was at the time, wherein the Gospel had been but lately preached to them, and the Doctrine of Gospel-liberty not fully cleared, which cannot be said of Christian Professors in England, who have been fully instructed there∣in; and therefore, in the use of our liberty now, cannot be the like offence given, and not taken only, as was in those dayes among the Corinthians: Yet this Author thus char∣geth them with Scandal given.

Sect. 5. Offending some sincere Christians, by hearing the pre∣sent Ministers, is not the scandalizing threatned Matth. 18.6.

Should it, for Arguments sake, be granted, (though in truth it be not so) That tis the liberty of Saints, to hear the present Ministers; yet many of the sincere Lambs of Christ, being stum∣bled, grieved and scandalized herea••, for that very reason (••f no more could be said herein) it becomes our sin, (to be guilty whereof, who can chuse but be filled with trembling, that hath ever with seriousness, read that terrible Commination of Christ, Matt. 18.6. Who so shall offend one of these little ones, that be∣lieve in me, it were better for him, that a milstone were hanged about his neck, and he were drowned in the depths of the Sea?) especially, when those that are thus scandalized, are able to de∣monstrate, that their offence is not any peevish humour, or foolish nicety, but what is too really administred by the actions of their Brethren: When they shall hear Christ commanding them to sepa∣rate from every thing of Antichrist, Revel. 18.4. and there∣fore from his ministry; and they are in conscience perswaded, the Ministers of England are such, which they judge, they are able to demonstrate: When they consider, how the Laws of their dear Lord and Law-giver are made void, by the traditions of these ••••e••ended Ministers, whose Kingship they see them visibly oppo∣sing:

When they find upon them the characters of false Prophets and Apostles; and are able to manifest, that they are deeply guilty of the sin of Idolatry, (from whom they are enjoyned by Christ to turn away:) Yea, when they take a view of the frame of the Spirits of their now Conforming-Brethren in dayes past, and the principles were then owned by them: That they did then (some of them at least) separate from the Assemblies of England, as not true Churches of Christ; and accounted the Common-Prayer Book Priests, persons not meet to preach, unworthy to be attended upon in their so doing: and see them now saying, A confederacy with, and attending upon the ministry of those very persons and things, from whom, not only Christ hath commanded them to se∣parate, but these very Brethren did formerly decry, and, at least seemingly, abominate; they judge, they have just ground of Offence given them: Nor can it be denied, but it is indeed so.

Answ. It were indeed very grievous to a Christian, if it were their sin, and such as brings them under the terrible Com∣mination of Christ, Matth. 18.6. to do, what many of the sincere Lambs of Christ (much more those whom this Author counts such) are stumbled, grieved and scandalized at, for that very reason, if no more could be said therein: It were to make every honest-hearted Christian, though simple, a Law-giver to me, a Pope, a Lord over my conscience, an infallible Judge, so that what he determines, I may not do or omit, because it wil grieve or offend him without any other reason, why I must not do or omit it; This sure would take away Christs King-ship really, and invest every sincere Lamb of Christ with it, which this Author makes so hainous a thing in the present Ministers, as to justifie separation from them; it would be, to ascribe dominion to them over my faith, to spoyl me of my Christian liberty, and to make me in almost every thing I do, uncertain what I may do, lest I grieve some of them, whom I have found to be so scrupu∣lous, and so censorious, as that they are offended, if there be a prejudice against a person, at every thing he doth or saith, if it agree not with their minds. To deliver the con∣sciences of people from such a slavery (worse than the bon∣dage of the Mosaical Law) which this principle brings to, I conceive my self bound to do my best, and to decry it as Antichristian. I think I have read seriously Christs Com∣mination, Matth. 18.6. and I presume my Treatise of Scan∣dalizing shews it to be meant of other Scandalizing than

such as this Author means, to wit, such as is opposite to receiving them, v. 5. and is with despising, and persecution of them, v. 10. causing their perdition, v. 8, 9. I dare not say, that the offence of the sincere Lambs of Christ, is out of a peevish humour, or foolish nicety; I hope it will not be deni∣ed, that they are weak, many of them; I am sure, none of them are infallible, or free from undue passions and preju∣dice: And this is enough to quiet my conscience, in doing what I do, notwithstanding the offence of many honest Christians, yea and holy learned Preachers. I find cause, I confess, to mourn on their behalf, and to pitty them, whom I have heard or seen offended at my actions, which they never examine, nor by conference, or otherwise, en∣quire into the reasons or equity of them, taking reports up∣on trust, and judging them evil, without any brotherly affection, or sober consideration. I may truly say, my peace of conscience would be desperate▪ if I must judge of my self, as they judge of me. I will not mention my own experiences, lest I should be thought to particularize; but I find an Author, one Paybody, in a Treatise about Kneeling at the Lords Supper, Printed 16.9. part 3. ch. 5. p. 438. say∣ing, concerning the Professors of his time, opposing Kneeling (and I think opposers of the present Ministers now are too like them) thus,

Let not our Brethren be offended, that I say, Many of their Professors are set on work by humour and prejudice. For,

1. They which profess, in great resolution, without grounds or reasons, that is, which meerly profess, in imitation of certain men of note, or for company of the best sort of Christians, (as they judge opposers to be) or out of ill opinion conceived of conformable persons, or Church government, are led by humour and prejudice.

2. So are they which cannot abide to be instructed or directed by them of contrary judgement; despising the words and writings of such, before th••y know them.

3. They, which upon discourse, hearing many things which they cannot satisfie their consciences in, do yet never seek to have their doubts resolved, but rest in one song, say what one can to the contrary.

4. They which dare avow the necessity of confessing against Kneeling▪ upon pain of eternal damnation, charging other men, in the deepest obligation that may be, to stand out; and yet, upon some other mans declaration of the lawful liberty of Kneeling, at

some time, can be content, without gain-saying, to profess, they never studied the point.

5. They which make no conscience of slandering, back-biting, conformity to the world in vaniti••s of apparel, pleasure, and scan∣dalous covetousness, unfaithfulness in their callings, unjustice in their dealings, and such like, in opposing Kneeling, are led by humour.

6. They which have confessed themselves to be convinced of the lawfulness, and yet will not, or would, but for their discredit in the world, specially among the persons of that side. But there is nothing more manifest, than, that many of your Professors are thus and thus disposed and carried, which I doubt not, but I can particula••ly maintain, so farr, as outward expressions can dis∣cover the inward meaning or purpose. Now I know you would not have us bound to abstain from Kneeling (may I not say, Hea••ing) for avoiding the scandal of such persons.

But, saith this Author, Their offence is too really administred by the actions of their B••ethren. But who do suggest these actions, to be a sufficient reason of separation, but such as this Author (who is indeed, with others like minded, the true Scandalizer, or he by whom the offence cometh) or else it is the offended persons own inference, from the real or imaginary actions of their Brethren, of a necessity of separation, that scandalizeth him. That which this Au∣thor brings here, is farr from a Demonstration. We find, Revel. 18.4. that St. John heard a voice from Heaven, saying, Come out of her•• my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. But to ••erch out of this passage, this Proposition, Christ commands them to separate from every thing of Antichrist; and to inferr this conclusion, and therefore from his ministry, needs a Delian Diver, or cun∣ning Alchymist, or Sophister, that can deduce quidlibet ex quolibet. It is plain, that the Exhortation is, to goe out of Rome, called Babylon, ch. 17, 18. Nor do I gainsay, that it is meant of it, as it is corrupted by the Papacy: Nor do I question, but the Papal monarchy is an Antichristian state; and that, though the plain meaning is no more, but that Gods people (whereof I doubt not, some are, and will be in Rome when it shall be destroyed) should abandon that place afore it be destroyed, to avoid participation of its sins and plagues; yet too, it may be understood of com∣munion with the Papacy in their Idolatry and Heresies.

But it is a wild conceit, to make every thing done or used by Popes, to be a thing of Antichrist; much more is it, to make the ministry of the Ministers of England, the ministry of the Pope, when it is so directly contrary to the Pope, and Popish Doctrine and Worship expresly abjured and ab∣horred by them. How frivolous his proofs are, of the pre∣sent Ministers opposing visibly Christs Kingsh••p, having the cha∣racters of false Prophets, of being guilty of Idolatry, is shewed already. What the frame of the spirits of the present Con∣formists is, or hath been, God only, who is the searcher of hearts, is fit to judge, what their principles were for∣merly, and are now, is to be known, either by those that have conversed with them, or heard them preach, or read their writings: sure every sincere Lamb of Christ is neither fit nor able to judge or examine the truth of any number of Conformists spirits or principles; and therefore, if these al∣terations, which are here mentioned, be the ground of the offence that is taken against them, it cannot be a just ground of their taking offence. If it were, there were just ground of offence given to separate from the Separatists. Not to mention what of old was charged upon the Brown∣ists, whose spirits and principles were such▪ as made many, as holy persons, as England yielded, to dehort the godly from joyning with them in their way of Separation: Nor what either Mr. Edwards, in his Gangraena; or Mr. Baillee, in his Disswasive; or Mr. Weld, in his Story of the Antinomians, have written, of the state of the Congregational Churches, The Elders and Messengers of the Congregational Churches, in the Preface to their D••claration of their Faith and Order, in their meeting at the Savoy, Octob 12. 1658. say, It is true, That many sad miscarriages, divisions, breaches, fallings off from holy Ordinances of God, have along this time of tentation, been found in some of our Churches; yet they do not at all stumble us, as to the truth of our way▪ had they been many more: And a∣vow this as their great Principle, That, amongst all Christian States and Churches, there ought to be vouchsafed a forbearance, and mutual indulgence, unto Saints of all perswasions, that keep unto, and hold fast the necessary Foundations of Faith and Holi∣ness, in all other matters extra fundamental, whether of Faith or Order. Mr. Weld. in his Answer to Mr. Rathband, hereto∣fore denied not the Congregations Parochial in England, to be true Churches, though impure: And Mr, Norton, in his An∣swer

to Appollonius, ch. 16. saith, We reject the Separatists, who distinguish not between the Church, and the Impurities of the Church: Whence the great crime of Schism. Yet this Au∣thor, not considering, that the Congregational men dis∣claim his rigid separation, avows separation as commanded by Christ from the Church of England, as no true Church; and condemns hearing the present Ministers, as the Ministers of Antichrist, though they preach the Gospel of Christ, be∣cause of some defects conceived in their calling, and some impurities, real or imaginary, in their worship, as if it were saying A Confederacy, forbidden Isai. 8 12. and a just ground of offence given to the sincere Lambs of Christ, in that they do not separate from the Assemblies of England. But he hath not yet done, but adds,

Sect. 6. The Separatists give more just cause of Offence to godly sober Christians, than the Conformists do to them.

If it be yet further said, Obiect. 2. But if I do not goe to hear the Preachers of this day, many truly godly and sober Christians will be offended at my forbearance; so that whether I hear, or whether I forbear, I shall offend. To this I answer,

1 That, granting the case to be as is suggested, (though per∣haps somewhat else, upon a serious and strict search, may be found to lye at the bottom of our Conformity, beyond what is here plead∣ed: I am very apt to believe, were but a Toleration granted, tis not the fear of offending any, would cause our conforming Brethren to attend upon the ministry of the present Priests of England. Yet supposing it to be as is intimated) we ask

1. Do you look upon your going to hear, as your duty, or meerly as your liberty? If the first, let it be proved from any positive precept of Christ, and we are satisfied: if the second, you are bound by many solemn injunctions (which are at least reduceable to the moral Law) not to use your liberty to scandalize your Bre∣thren.

2. Let both parties be weighed in an upright ballance, such as you judge to be offended with you for not hearing, and such as are offended thereat: I am bold to say, That the last mentioned, for number, holiness, spirituality, and tenderness, do farr surmount the former, who will really be scandalized at your forbearance.

3. Let also the grounds of the offence on both sides be weighed: the one are offended at you, That you build not up in practise, in a

day of trouble; and cause thereby the enemies of the Lord to tri∣umph and blaspheme, what in a day of liberty, you did, in your preaching and practice, pull down and destroy: The other, be∣cause of your disobedience to what they are satisfied, and you your selves once were, God is calling you to (viz. to have nothing to do with, separate from this generation of men.) But,

4. That tis your duty (especially if in a Church-relation) to meet together, as a people called and picked by the Lord out of the Nations of the world, cannot be denied: The neglect of which, is charged by the Lord, as the first step to Apostacy, Heb. 10.25. Be you in the practice of this duty, and see what spiri∣tual Saint will be offended at you; if any should, you might have peace therein: you doing your duty, no just cause of Scandal is given. Yet further,

5. Consider on which side the Cross lies, which the flesh, and fleshly interest is most opposite to, whether in going, or forbearing to goe to hear these men: Vsually, that is the way of God, that hath most of the Cross in it, and the flesh is most strugling and contesting against. But thus much of the 7th. Argument.

Answ. If the case be granted as is suggested, the same Ar∣gument, which proves it unlawful to hear the present Mi∣nisters, proves it unlawful not to hear them, unless omissi∣on may not be said to scandalize, which is contrary to Matth. 17.27. No serious and strict search of men, can find what lies at the bottom of mens conformity, till God discover it. It is not fit to insinuate conceits of others, which beget evil surmises in us of them; true charity believeth all things, 1 Cor. 13.7. It is a fruit of malignity, to say, I am very apt to believe, what may beget evil prejudice in me, or ano∣ther, towards a Brother. But what if there were an em∣bracing a Toleration, if granted? This would only shew, That they did not tye themselves to the present ministry; not that then, or now, they hold it unlawful to hear them; nor that their hearing is only to avoid offence: but for o∣ther reasons conjunct with it, which may be lawfully aimed at in the same act. Sure it is not evil in doing that which is lawful to arm at our own peace, and other outward advan∣tage besides the avoiding of offence. If a man were disposed to retaliate, it might perhaps be told this Author, that per∣haps somewhat else lay at the bottom, besides his not of∣fending the Lambs of Christ: that he did separate hereto∣fore, it may be credit▪ preferment, power and gain, lay

that way; it may be, adherence to a party, interest in their affections, that, I say no more, retains him still in this way: Yet would he take this ill; and why he should do to other, what he would not they should do to him, I see no cause: Christ taught otherwise, Matth. 7.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 12. But to the question, I answer, It is their duty to hear the present Ministers, while they preach the Gospel, or Word of God: And though, by immediate precept, a man is not bound to hear this or that particular Minister, of this or that way of Church-government or perswasion, but is at liberty to choose, as may be (all things considered) for his conveniency; yet, if other things concurr, he ought to hear such, as the providence of God hath placed over him, or near his habitation, though he be not chosen by himself to be his Pastour, which I think may be proved from 1 Th••s 5.12. Heb. 13.17 John 10▪27 Mark 4.23. How we are to avoid Scandalizing our Brethren, is shewed above: But it favours of Schism, to appropriate the term [Brethren] to Christians of our perswasion, or of our so∣ciety. Who exceed in number, holiness, spirituality and tenderness, is a hard thing to determine. Vivorum difficilis est censura. Who can tell what measure of these qualifica∣tions there is in them that are living? Who can point out, who are such, who not? Who can tell, what men may prove, for all their fair shews? How is it possible for this Author, or any other, to number them, compare, weigh them in an upright ballance? May not those be more carnal, yea very hypocrites, which he counts spiritual Saints? Are not he, and all others, specially of his way of separation, most apt to magifie those who jump with him in his way; and to disparage dissenters? Are not the sincere Lambs of Christ oftentimes carried away with false shews, and par∣tial affections, and wrong reports? What a Lesbian leaden rule doth this Author then give, whose offence is to be a∣voided, rather than anothers? Yea, the rule is against his scope: For if those non-hearers be such holy spiritual per∣sons, as he makes them, there is the less danger of offend∣ing them. Yet I dare not grant it they are: The experi∣ence the world hath had of the Brethren of the Congrega∣tional way, hath yet given us no such assurance of their surpassing holiness, but that they have been, many of them▪ ca••nal, and walked as men. Have not they, even some of the prime leaders of them, shewed as much passion, pride.

covetousness, self-seeking, and other sinister affections, as others of different wayes? Sure Hildersham, Ball, Bradshaw, Gataker, and many other, who have opposed the way of Separation of old, and of late have given as much proof of their holiness, spirituality and tenderness as Johnson, Ains∣worth, Robinson, and others, in Old or New-England, or Hol∣land have done▪ Nor do I think any of the Congregational way have exceeded, I will not say the martyr'd Bishops in Q. Maries dayes, but even late Bishops, Vsher, Bedel, Potter, and others of the Prelatical Ministers and Churches, in ho∣liness, spirituality and tenderness. Let the Reader pardon my just indignation at this rotten and stinking course of puf∣fing up his own party, and disparaging dissenters, which can never tend to clear truth, and beget righteous judge∣ments in men, but to delude men with specious pretences, and ••oment divisions. Non est ex personis fides aestimanda, sed ex fide persona, said Tertullian, Truth is not to be measured by the persons, but the persons by truth. If we must know our duty, by this Authors rule, we must leave studying the holy Scripture, and study men. Every weak Christian must take upon him an impossible task, to weigh two parties in an upright ballance, one offended at hearing the present Ministers, and the other for not hearing them, and both being conceived godly and sober Christians, judge which party is most numerous, holy, spiritual, and tender. Nor is the next direction much better. It supposeth, that they who conform, whether Ministers or h••arers, blame the Separa∣tists, that they do not build up in practice in a day of trouble, what in a day of liberty they did in their preaching and practice pull down and destroy: and thereby cause the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, and that this is the ground of the offence on the one side: That th••y are disobedient to what they are satisfied, and the Conformists Ministers, or hearers of them, or both, once were; that God is calling them to have nothing to do with, to separate from this generation of men, and that this is the ground of the of∣fence on the other side: and that the ground of the offence is more just on the side of these later. These words are aenigmatical, and require an O••dipus to unriddle them. However, this I conceive is his meaning. That the godly and sober Christi∣ans have no reason to be offended at him, and others of his way, that, what in their preaching and practice, he and they did pull down and destroy, conce••ning the P••elatical conforming Preachers, their communion, and Church go∣vernment,

and worship by the Common-Prayer Book; they do not by conformity in hearing and communion build up; be∣cause if they should do so, they should cause the opposite party (whom he counts the enemies of the Lord) to tri∣umph, that they have brought them to recantation, and re∣turning to what they had left; and to blaspheme, or speak evil of the holy way of endeavouring Reformation they for∣merly took in the day of liberty, because they are now fal∣len into a day of trouble: On the other side, That this Au∣thor, and those of his way, being satisfied, that God is cal∣ling all godly sober Christians to have nothing to do with, but to separate from this generation of men, that is, Mini∣sters that conform to the Common-Prayer Book, and Episco∣pal Government; and that these now hearers of them, were once satisfied of the same; that yet they should disobey this calling of God, and hold communion with them, have most just cause of offence for their so doing. But I presume the godly sober Christians in the Objection, were never sa∣tisfied with this way of separation, which this Author saith, God calls them to, but though they have been for Refor∣mation, yet not for such violent practises and preaching, as, it may be gathered, this Author hath been for, as to pull up root and branch of the old form of Government, to unset∣tle all the Ministers, to set up itinerant Preachers▪ any gifted Brethren, though many of them never studied Divinity, but had gotten some ability by hearing Preachers, and other wayes, to speak of practical points, without any ability to convince gainsayers; and that they should take away the frame of parochial Churches, and gather Churches out of Churches, which should, though but a few, be an entire Church within themselves for government, without appeal or subordination to any other Minister or Synod; that they should be tyed to use no Form, no not the Lords Prayer; in effect, that there should be, as some were wont to speak, overturning, overturning, overturning, without setling any thing, making the Pastors eligible by every small company, that should call themselves a Church, who should admit and excommunicate by most voices, censure their Pastor, desert him, allot him maintenance, and deprive him, as they saw cause Sure the godly sober Ch••istians, who now are offend∣ed at this Authors separation, were then offended, as many of their writings then did shew, and the Apology of the ejected Non-conformists lately hath shewed, p 136. of the

2d. Edition; and particularly at that eminent Independent, who would not have the Lords Prayer used in the prescript form of words, p. 10. which, and the like courses, they con∣ceive were in the day of liberty evil, and occasions of the day of trouble, and if persisted in, likely to bring more trouble on themselves and others, who neither then, nor now did, o•• do approve of such rigid separation, or deformation of all, instead of Reformation, conceiving a middle way might a∣gree better with truth and peace▪ They condemn such heavy censures of them that a••e of the opposite party, as if they were the enemies of the Lord, a generation of men they were called by God to have nothing to do with, but to separate from them, sith they are Christians of the same Faith, they judge, that this Author, and such as acted, as he seems to have done, should have brought glory to God, and peace to their own consciences, if they had un-said those things, which abusing their liberty, they vented hereto∣fo••e▪ and did endeavour to promote union, as they have done division, and this would tend to their honour, as Augustine's Ret••acta••ions did, and would not cause the enemies of the Lord to triumph and blaspheme, but both them, and all so∣ber godly Christians, to rejoyce, and bless God for their so doing, who are now justly offended at these Separatists per∣tinacy, and have, by their moderate conformity in hearing Ministers, who preach the Gospel, and joyning in the pub∣lique worship of prayer, and the communion, given no just cause of offence to this Author, or any other. Nor do they think i•• their duty to meet together as a sepa••ate Church: Nor do they conceive, that Heb. 10.••5 requires such assem∣bling, but that the fo••saking th•• assembling there meant, was the forsaking the assembl••ng of Christ••ans, and going back from Christianity to Judaism, as the whole series of the Text shews; and that their joyning in the publique assemblies in England▪ is agreeable to the precept there, and that it ••ends no•• to Ap••stacy. But the Assemblies, according to the Sepa∣ratists p••inciples, are Schismatical, and that spiritual Saints will be offended at them, at giving just cause of Scandal, nor can they expect peace by so doing: Nor is that which is here, made a rule [〈◊〉〈◊〉 that way, that hath most of the cr••ss in it;] right, suffe••ings being n••t ••ight, unless the cause be for God Sometimes the ••onforming 〈◊〉〈◊〉, sometimes the Popish Pr••est••, have been under sufferings; yet I suppose this Author would not have men go their way; and therefore

his rule is not sale, until the cause for which we are to suffer, be proved to be for God.

Sect. 7. Hearing the present Ministers, may be without partici∣pation with them in sin.

Arg. 8. That which Saints cannot do, without being guilty of partaking with others in their sin, is utterly unlawful for them to do: But the Saints cannot attend upon the ministry of England, without being gu••lty of partaking with them in their sin: There∣fore. The major Proposition is clearly bottom'd upon Scripture, Psal. 50.••8. Ephes. 5.7 1▪ Tim. 5.22. 2 John 11. Revel. 18.4. which m••ght be abundantly demonstrated, were it need∣ful: Sure that God, who commands me to abstain from all appear∣ance of evil, 1 Thes. 5.22. never enjoyned, expects no•• that I should be in the practice of what, without sin, cannot be perform∣ed by me. The 〈◊〉〈◊〉 P••••p••sition, That the Saints cannot at∣tend upon the m••••••stry of England, without being partakers with them in thei•• sin, will admit of a speedy dispu••••h Two things are briefly to be enquired into. 1. What that, or those sins are, we suppose the Ministers of England to be guilty of? 2. How it will appear, That any person's amending upon their minist••y, ren∣ders him guilty of partaking with them therein. Of the former we have already trea••••d, and proved, (beyond what any are able to say to the contrary) That they are guilty of the sins of worshipping God in a way that is not of his appointment; of acting in the holy things of God, by vertue of an Antichristian p••wer, office, or cal∣ling; of opposing really the Prophetical and Kingly Office of Christ; of using and conforming to modes and rites in worship, not appoint∣ed by the Lord, that have been abused to Ido••atry, &c. Nor is it de∣nied by our conforming Brethren, but with some of these things, the present Ministers of England may be justly charged: That they worship God after the way of the Common Prayer Book, with modes and rites used in the Papacy, cannot be denied: Nor can their undue administration of that great ordinance of our Lord Je∣sus, of b••eaking bread to all, according to th•• form therein prescri∣bed▪ That they are Ordained, and some of them re-ordained by the Episcopacy, is also known. I ask, are these things the sin and evil of th••se men, or are they not? If they are not, Why did not our preaching Brethren receive the Ordination from the Bish••ps these received? Yea, why do not our half-conforming Brethren attend upon the reading of the Service used, joyn with them in the Sacra∣ment of the Lords Supper, as administred by them? Doth not their absenting themselves herefrom, abundantly demonstrate, that they

in their consciences are perswaded, that, tis the sin and evil of the prese••t Priests of England thus to act, and from such a mission, in the worship of the Lord?

Answ. The major Proposition is granted: To what he saith he hath already proved, answer is made before, That the present Ministers are justly charged by him; or that they worship God with modes and rites Popish; that their b••eaking bread to all, according to the form prescribed, is undue; or their Ordination requires proof. The not re∣ceiving Ordination, may be from another cause, than per∣swasion in conscience, that tis the sin and evil of the Mini∣sters, that they act by such a mission, perhaps they cannot subscribe to what is required. They may forbear the Com∣munion, not because Ministers sin in not keeping back some, but because they scruple the gesture prescribed. Here then is no proof of their sin, let's see how, if it were granted, that they did sin, participation in their guilt is proved.

As for the Second, saith he, That the hearing the present Mi∣nisters of England, is that which renders a man guilty of being partaker with them in their sin; the consideration of the several wayes persons may be justly charged with being guilty of partaking with ••thers in their sin, will abundantly demonstrate the▪ truth thereof. To instance in a few particulars: Then may persons be justly cha••ged as guilty hereof. 1. When they are found any way consent∣ing with th••m in their sin. Ps. 50.18. When thou sawest a thief, then thou consentedst with him: and hast been partaker with the adulterers. Tis not the doing of the act, that was done by these wicked persons, that is here called, partaking with them, but a secret consenting with them therein. 2. When they do that which hath a real tendency to encourage persons in their sin. 2 John 11. Receive them not into your houses, bid them not God speed: for he that biddeth them God speed, is parta∣ker of their evil deeds. 3. When they neglect the doing of those duties, which the Lord requires at their hands, for the reclaiming of them from their sin; such are watching over, rebuking, admo∣nishing, first privately, then by two, and in case of obstinacy and perseverance therein, telling it to the Church: which are duties eminently c••mprised in the ensuing Scriptures, 1 Thes. 5 14. Heb. 3.12, 13. and 10.24, 25. Levit. 19.17. Mat. 18 15, 16, 17. 4. When they (notwithstanding all that they have done, or can do, being under an utter incapacity of proceeding further therein) perceive them to persevere in their sin, shall still conti∣nue

to hold communion with them, and not separate from them· Rev. 18.4. Come out of her, my people; left being parta∣kers of her sins, ye receive of her plagues. The abiding with obstinate persevering Offenders (as it is against positive injunctions of the most High, Rom. 16.17. 2 Cor. 6.14, 15, 16, 17. 1 Tim. 6.5. Ephes. 5.8, 11. Rev. 18.4. So is it in the last place instanc'd in) assigned by the Spirit to be one way of parta∣king with others in their sins. Not to multiply more particulars, let us, in a few words, make application of these remarkes to the business in hand. Is there any thing in the world, that car∣ries a greater brightness and evidence with it, than this, That the hearing the present Ministers of England, is to be partakers with them in their sin? Is not our so doing, a secret consenting with them, and encouraging of them in their evil deeds? Is this to discharge those duties incumbent upon us (if we indeed look upon them as Brethren) for their reclaiming? Yea, is this to come out of, and separate from them? What less? So then, ex∣cept it can be proved, that the particulars instanc'd in, are not some of those wayes, whereby persons do become guilty of parta∣king with other mens sins: Or, that to attend upon the present Ministers of England, is not what doth symbolize with some one, more, or all of them, (which can never be done) it evidently follows, That tis not lawful for Saints to hear the present Mini∣sters of England, the doing whereof, is apparently a partaking with them in their evil deeds.

Answ. I grant, consent in sin, doing that which hath a re∣al tendency to encourage persons in their sin, neglect of re∣buking, admonishing, when they are our duty, makes us guilty of others sins. Nor do I except against the Texts brought to prove these, except that Mat. 18.15, 16, 17. which I have said before, in my Answer to the Preface of this Book, sect. 15. is a rule, not of reproving all sorts of sins, but only of particular injuries; and that telling the Church, is not telling a particular separate Congregation in the Inde∣pendent way, but such a number of Brethren (as may be fit to compose the difference) above two or three: and that not of necessity, so as if the Complainant did not do, it should be his sin; but as of indulgence and conveniency, as being the way fittest to rectifie the Offendor. The last way of par∣taking with other mens sins is not true, to wit, that if after admonition, and obstinacy of the Offendor, we joyn in hear∣ing the Word of God, praying with him, receiving the Lords Supper, we are partakers with the Minister that preacheth,

prayeth or administers the Lords Supper, in his personal sins, such as are acting by an unlawful mission, or other, using a sinful irregular way in his calling: Nor do the Texts alleged prove it. The first, Rom. 16.17. is an admonition to them which cause divisions and offences, contrary to the doctrine they had learn••d, which is nothing to the avoiding of him, that teacheth the same Doctrine that the Apostles taught, because of his personal sins: It may more fitly be applyed against such as this Author, who causeth divisions and of∣fences by his doctrine of Separation from them that hold and teach the true Faith, which is contrary to the Doctrine of St. Pa••l, R••m. 15.5, 6. The coming out from among Infidels, being 〈…〉〈…〉 not touching the unclean thing, that is, the Idol, or un••ighteousness. 2 Cor. 6.14, 15, 16, 17. is nothing to prove a separation from hearing, or joyning in prayer, or the communion, with a Minister that preacheth the truth, prayes to God, in the name of Christ, for things agreeable to Gods will administers the Lords Supper in remembrance of Christs death, because of his personal sins: Partaking with a Minister in these things, in this case, is not having fel∣lowsh••p with the unfruitful works of darkness, or being partakers 〈◊〉〈◊〉 who••••mongers, or unclean persons, or covetous, Idolaters, for∣bidden Eph••s. 5 7.17. It is nothing for, but against this Authors pu••pose, which the Apostle chargeth Timothy, 1 T••m 6.3, 4, 5. That he should withdraw himself, that is, not 〈…〉〈…〉 to himself in the work of the ministry, such as 〈◊〉〈◊〉 otherwise than St. Paul had instructed Timothy; that con∣sen•• not to wh••lesome words, the words of our Lord Jesus Christ 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Doctrine which is according to godliness. As for the last Text though it be still in the mouths of the Separatists, and is ridiculously applyed to every thing, that they call Baby∣lon, as Bishops, Common Prayer, Ministers of any party be∣sides their own, Tythes, at the last by the Quintomonarchi∣ans, to all the p••esent Rulers, so it is by this Author often u••ged, still besides the purpose of the holy Ghost, it being only a warning for the people of God to come out of Rome, whe∣ther by local departure from the City, or by leaving the communion of the Papacy in Doctrine and worship, which is nothing to a separation from hearing, or joyning with the Ministers in holy things, because of their personal sins. Ne∣vertheless, this Author cracks of abundant demonstration; and, as if nothing in the world carried a greater brightness and evi∣dence with it, than this, That the hearing the present Ministers of

England, is, to be partakers with them in their sins: just as if one should say, He that heard Judas preach the Gospel, was partaker with him in his theft, which is more like the infe∣rence of a man crazed in his intellectuals, than a sober minded man But because some mens confident words pre∣vail with some persons addi••ted to them, more than sound reason, let's consider what brightness is in his application▪ Is not our so doing, saith he, a secret consenting with them, and en∣couraging of them in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 evil deeds? Marvellous brightness! clear evidence! No wonder he applauds himself like an Ar∣chimedes, and cryes 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I have found, I have found the Demonstra••••on; and that his followers add their plaudite thereto 〈◊〉〈◊〉 we mo••••s do not see the brightness of this consequence▪ A Christian Professor goes to hear a Mini∣ster that preacheth the Word of God truly, therefore he consents to his intrusion into his place; he doth openly hear, therefore he doth secretly consent; he applyes him∣self to learn the word of God from him, therefore he encou∣rageth him in his evil deeds. It is too favourable a censure, to say, his Argument is a baculo ad angulum as if a man ar∣gued, the staff stands in the corner, therefore it will rain to morrow; he seems to me 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to speak con∣tradictions. He that goes to hear him preach Gods Word, doth consent with him, that teacheth, in doing well, and encourage him to preach the truth; not, as this Author saith, in evil deeds: it may more truly be said, that this Au∣thor, and other Separatists, are guilty of sin, in not consent∣ing with the Preacher, but discouraging him in well doing. Did not Ministers heretofore, and perhaps this Author, complain, that their auditories were thin, that good people withdrew from publique exercises to p••ivate meetings, that this was a discouragement to them in their work, and is it now to go hear them an encouragement in their evil deeds? Is not this to blow hot and cold with the same breath? We silly Ignaro's think, we ought not to discourage any who preach the truth of the Gospel, be they Episcopal, Presby∣terian, Independent, Antipaedobaptist, by our absence, or exceptions against him for his personal failings, but to coun∣tenance and encourage him by our presence and otherwise, and think we have the example of St Paul, Philip 1.18. to warrant us therein, and marvel that such should argue thus, who blame them that silence good Preachers▪ for not assen∣ting to the Liturgy, not considering,, that they may thus ar∣gue,

If we should permit the Separatists to preach, we should consent secretly with them, and encourage them in their evil deeds, such as they conceive their gathering a se∣parate Congregation, and taking their mission from it, to be. Yet we have more of this doughty Demonstration, in a So∣cratical way of disputing, by questioning, Is this to discharge those duties incumbent upon us (if we indeed look upon them as Brethren) for their reclaiming? It seems it can hardly go down with this Author, to call them Brethren, their con∣formity hath unchristened them. But I answer, If it be not the discharging their duty, for the reclaiming them (which as it is stated, would perhaps be rather their sin, than their duty) yet it is to discharge their duty in hearing Gods Word, which is so farr from hindring them in the discharge of any duty incumbent on them, for the reclaiming of Mini∣sters from any sin, they are to reprove in them, that it rather fits them for it. For the hearing them, shews, they do not, as this Author, count them their, or the Lords enemies, which makes a reproof to be better taken, and is agreeable to the Apostles rule, even when we shun the company of any that is unruly, to count him not as an enemy, but to admonish him as a brother, 2 Thes. 3.15. But doth indeed this Author think it the duty of every hearer, to reclaim, or else separate from every Minister, that either enters into his ministry unduly, or doth not discharge his function as he should? Suppose a John de Cluse is unduly made an Elder, or a Johnson excom∣manicate his Brother and Father rashly, an Ainsworth disa∣gree with Johnson or Robinson, about private communion with the members of the Church of England, a Wheel-wright vent Antinomian errours, must every hearer reclaim them, or separate from them, or be guilty of their sin? They that leave the Church of England, to be in Congregations of such principles, would find it to be matter of repentance: to a∣void Episcopal government, to be under popular, would be like Tinkers work, to stop one hole and to make two; un∣der shew of better Discipline, to introduce Anarchy and confusion. But enough of answer to this wild Argument, in which the Author accuseth deeply, but brings no proof, on∣ly puts questions for proofs, and would have the Defendant prove himself Not guilty, when it concerned the Accuser to prove his Indictment. I hasten to the remainder.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Arg. 7.