A Defense of the Principles of Love, Part 2 · Exception 19 – Exception 23
EXCEPT. XIX. Answered. You proceed, [But Mr. B. being once got into the chair of the scornful will not easily out, and therefore goes on [It is an odious sound to hear an ignorant, rash, self-conceited person, especially a Preacher, to cry out Idolatry, Idolatry, against his brethrens prayers to God, because they have something in them to be amended,] Whereas we do not therefore think any thing to be guilty of Idolatry, because it hath something in it to be amended, [but because it is used in the worship of God, without any command of God to make it lawful;] And this we must tell our Dictator, is a species of Idolatry, and forbid in the second Commandement: And if he will not receive it so, it is, to use his own arrogant and imperious words, because he understands not Christian sense and reason.
Answ. 1. The charge of Idolatry against the Liturgie and Conformable Ministers I found in Iohn Goodwins book, and Mr. Brownes, and others: But this, Brother, carrieth it much further.
2. He contradicteth himself in his Negation and Affirmation: For, whatsoever is to be amended, which is used in Gods worship, hath no command of God to make it lawful (For it is sin:) But whatsoever is used in Gods worship without any command of God to make it lawful, he affirmeth to be Idolatry: Ergo, whatsoever is used in Gods worship which is to be amended, he maketh to be Idolatry.
3. Reader, if this one Section do not make thy heart grieve for the sake of the Church of Christ, that our poor people should be thus taught, and our Congregations thus distracted, and unholyness, that is, uncharitableness, fathered upon the God of Love, and our sufferings and non-conformityWhether all that use any thing in Gods worship not commanded (and in particular a form of prayer) be Idolaters? And what this censure of Idolatry signifyeth. thus turned to our reproach, and wrath and reviling pretended to be Religion, thou hast not a true sense of the concernments of Christianity and the souls of men. I shall propose here these few things to thy consideration.
Quest. 1. Whether an Idolater be not an odious person, and unfit for Christian Communion? (That these men think so, their practise sheweth.)
Q. 2. Whether he that writeth and preacheth to prove others Idolaters, do not write and preach to make them (so far) seem odious, and to perswade men from loving them, and having communion with them as Christians?
Q. 3. Whether he that preacheth up hatred causelesly, and preacheth down Christian love, do not preach down the sum of true Religion, and preach against God, who is Love?
Q. 4. Whether preaching against God and Religion, be not worse than talking against it in an Ale-house, or in prophane discourse? And fathering all this on God and Religion be not a sad aggravation of it?
Q. 5. Whether this, brother, that affirmeth this to be Idolatry that he speaketh against, should not have given us some word of proof, especially where he calleth me that deny it, a Dictator? And whether both as Affirmer among Logicians, and as Accuser among men of justice, the proof be not incumbent on him?
Q. 6. Whether here be a syllable of proof, but his angry affirmation?
Q. 7. Whether thou canst receive this saying of his, if thou have Christian sense and reason, so far as to believe that all the Churches of Christ fore-named, the Greek, the Abissine, the Armenian, the Coptics, the Lutherans, and all the Reformed Churches that fall under his Charge, are Idolaters? And couldst bring thy heart accordingly to condemn them, and separate from them? And whether thou canst take all the holy Conformists of England, such as Bolton, Preston, Sibbes, Stocke, Dike, Elton, Crooke, Whateley, Fenner, &c. for Idolaters? yea, and all the non-Conformists that used and joyned in the Liturgie?
Q. 8. Whether thou canst believe that this same brother himself, that writeth at this rate, do use nothing in Gods worship which hath no command of God to make it lawful? Is all this reviling, all this false doctrine, all his untruths commanded of God? Or doth he not make himself an Idolater?
Q. 9. Whether, if he teach true doctrine, there by any Church or person in the World that worshippeth not God with Idolatry; I give my reasons. 1. There is no one but sinneth, (or useth sin) in the worship of God. But no sin is commanded or lawful: Ergo there is no one, according to his doctrine, but useth Idolatry in the worship of God.
2. There is no one that useth not some things not commanded to make them lawful, in the worship of God: Therefore, if he teach true doctrine, there is no one but useth Idolatry. The antecedent I have oft proved by many instances: The method of every Sermon, and Prayer, the words, the time and length, the translation of the Scripture, whether it shall be this or that, the dividing of the Scripture into Chapters and Verses, the Meeter of Psalms, the Tunes, Church utensils, Sermon notes (which some use,) Catechisms in forms, &c. the Printing of the Bible, or any other books, &c. none of these are commanded. And all these are used in the worship of God. And must all Christians in the World be taught to fly from one another as Idolaters? Is this the way of Love and Unity?
Q. 10. Why should this, brother, be so extream impatient with me for calling Dividers, weak and pievish, and censorious Christians? If in his own judgement all men be Idolaters, that use any thing in Gods worship not commanded? Is not this to censure all men as Idolaters? And yet is a censure of previshness on these Censurers a justifying of persecution.
Q. 11. Whether this kind of talk be not sport to the Papists, to hear us call one another Idolaters, as well as them? and do not make them deride us; and harden them in their bread-worship, and image-worship, as being called Idolatry on no better grounds than we so call one another.
Q. 12. Whether it be not a great dishonour to any man to suffer silencing, because he cannot add to Gods worship, the Ceremonies and Liturgie, and at the same time to add to Gods word new and false doctrines of our own, by saying that [It is a species of Idolatry, forbidden in the second Command, because it is used in the worship of God without any command to make it lawful.] And if we should suffer such false doctrine, and additions, and Love-killing, dividing principlesas this, to go uncontradicted, whether we do not betray the truth and our flocks, and shew that we were too worthy of our sufferings?
But that this assertion or definition of Idolatry is false, I need to prove no otherwise, than, 1. That it is unproved by him that is to prove it, and, 2. That it denieth Christ to have a Church on earth, or to have any but Churches of Idolaters. 3. That it turneth all sin in Gods worship into one species, even Idolatry. And so every false doctrine used in Gods worship is Idolatry: Every Antimonian, Anabaptist, Separatist, or of any other error be it never so small, must be presently an Idolater, if in prayer or preaching he speak his error: And what man is infallible? When your Companion promised in the Pulpit, that there should be no more Tythes, no more Taxes, nor no more King, in Worcestershire after Worcester-Fight, this must be Idolatry. For certainly no error is commanded of God. 4. That it maketh the description of a thing indifferent, to be the description of Idolatry. For as [a thing forbidden] is the description of sin, so to be [not commanded] speaketh no more but Indifferency (Though the prohibition to do any thing not commanded, speaketh more, if it could be proved.) 5. It is contrary to the Scripture which never useth the word
[IDOLATRY] in that sense? Peruse the several texts, and try. 6. It equalleth almost all Churches with the Infidel and Pagan World. 7. It heinously injureth God, who is a hater of Idolaters, and will visit their sins (as God-haters) on the third and fourth Generations; to feign him to be thus a hater of his Churches, and of them that use any thing in his worship not commanded. 8. It tendeth to drive all Christians to despair, as being Idolaters, and so abhorred of God, because they have all some uncommanded, yea forbidden thing in worship: For by this mans doctrine, a sinful wandring thought, a sinful disorder, or tautologie, or bad expression is Idolatry, (as being not commanded.) 9. It tendeth to drive men to give ever worshipping God; because while they are certain to sin, they are certain to be Idolaters, when they have done their best▪ 10. It hardeneth the Mahometans in their enmity to Christianity, who being the great exclaimers against Idolatry do already falsely brand us with that crime.
But what ever else it do, I am sure it is so pernicious an engine of Satan, to kill Love and divide the Church, to feign every Conformist how holy soever, and every one that useth in worship any thing not commanded, to be an Idolater, that I may well advise all Christians, as they love Christ and his Church, and their own souls, to keep themselves from such mistakes. Were it not that it is unmeet to do great works … rily, on such slight occasions, in such a discourse as this is, I would here stay to open the meaning of the second Commandement; and shew, 1. That there are abundance of lawful things in Gods worship, as circumstances and outward modes that are not commanded in specie or individuo. 2. That somethings forbidden in that Commandement indirectly, are not Idolatry. 3. Much less are they a sufficient cause of separation. But this is fitter for another place. And I again refer you to Mr. Lawson in his Theopolitica.
EXCEPT. XX. Answered. This Exception is but a bundle of mistakes, and the fruit of your false interpretation of my design, 1. That I prove not what I say, is not true, when the many instances fully prove it, and you your self deny them not. 2. When I explain my self frequently and fully, who I do not mean by Dividers, and what separation I allow, you feign me to open my mind [very unwillingly,] and to [defend those whom I traduce,] that you may make men believe that I mean those whom I still profess that I mean not, and that you know my mind better than I my self. This is not true and righteous dealing.
EXCEPT. XXI. p. 12. Answered. When I say [Our presence at the prayers of the Church, is no profession of Consent to all that is faulty in those prayers] he saith, [The Apostle thought otherwise in a like …ase of sitting at meat in an Idols Temple.]
Answ. Brother, of all the men that everWhither we are guilty of consenting to all that is faulty in the prayers that we are present at. I had to do with, scarce any hath dealt so superficially, without saying any thing against the proofs which I lay down, no… seeming to take any notice of them. How can you choose but see your self, that by denying my proposition. 1. You make it unlawful to joyne with any Church or person in the World; and so would dissolve all Church-Communion and Family-worship; For do not all men sin in prayer? And must any man consent to sin?
2. How do you reflect on God that forbiddeth us, to forsake the assembling of our selves together? If consenting to sin be unavoidable?
3. I told you, we Consent not to the faults of our own prayers, much less to anothers, that are less in our power? What work would this one opinion of yours make in the World? If we are guilty of all that is faulty in all the prayers of the Church (or Family) we joyn with, yea more, do by our presence profess Consent to them; and withal, if all not commanded in worship be Idolatry▪ what a World are we then in? It's time then to turn seekers, and say that Church and Ministry are lost. It is these principles, brother, that I purposely wrote my book against.
But you speak much besides the truth, when you say [The Apostle thought otherwise in a like Case;] For you never prove that he thought otherwise: Dare you say, (I beseech you think on it) that Paul and all the Apostles, and all the Churches, professed consent to all the faults in worship which they were present at? How know you that they were never present at any such as Paul reproveth in the Corinthians? Yea, was Christ a professed Consenter to all that he was present at? Or all that he commanded men to be present at, when he went to the Synagogues, and bade the cleansed, go shew themselves to the Priests, and offer, &c. And bade his Disciples, hear the Scribes and Pharisees, &c. I do not charge the Consequences on your person, but it's easie to see, that it will follow from this opinion, that Christ was a sinner, and consequently no Saviour, and so no Christ. Alas, whither would you carry the people of the Lord?
Nor do you prove Paul's Case to be like this. Eating at the sacrifi…s in the Idols Temples was visible Corporal Idolatry, forbidden indeed, in the second Commandement as Idolatry (interpretative, visible, external, corporeal.) It was that very Act by which an Idol was outwardly worshipped. Therefore it was a Professing-act interpretatively. Symbolizing with Idolaters I have told you, is Professing; for a Symbole is a Professing sign. But he that is present, with a Church professing to worship, not an Idol, but the true God, and that according to the Scripture, and is united to the Church only in this profession, doth not by so doing Profess Consent to a Ministers ill wording, or methodizing of his Prayers or his Sermons, which is the work of his own office.
2. As for your charge of Blasphemy, &c. on me, for intreating you to take heed lest you blaspheme, by making Gods foreknowing of faults, to signifie an approbation, I pass it by, and will not by so frivolous a return be drawn to enter further on that point.
EXCEPT. XXII. p. 13. Answered. Whether it be bitterness, fierceness, fury, or proud impatience, to reprove these sins, in an instance which your self presume not to contradict; And whether the opinion that [no truth is to be silenced for peace] be fit for judicious peaceable men to own, or be not fit to be gain-said, I have long ago debated in my book of Infant-Baptisme, pag. 218.
EXCEPT. XXIII. p. 13. Answered. If you dissent, why did you answer none of the six Reasons I gave for what I said, nor seem to take notice of them? But only when I say [It were easie to instance in unseasonable and imprudent words of truth, spoken to Princes which have raised persecutions of long continuance, ruined Churches, caused the death of multitudes, &c. Upon which you put four questions, To which I answer, 1. The flattery of some, will not justifie the sinful imprudence of others. 2. If you should be guilty of the blood of thousands by one sin, will it excuse you that another was more guilty? 3. Elijah, Micaiah, and Iohn Baptist, spake not unseasonably or imprudently: Nor is all imprudent that bringeth suffering or death. 4. Gospel Ministers may follow them that spake prudently; but unseasonable and imprudent speaking, is not following them. I have recited elsewhere a saying even of Dr. Th. Iackson, that It is not because great men have not sins and wrath enough, that there are no more Martyrs under Christian Rulers; but because there be not John Baptists enough to tell them of them (to that sense.)
But, either by all this you mean to defend unseasonable and imprudent speaking, or else you mean that there is no such sin, or else you must needs contend where you consent. If it be the first or third, I will not be so imprudent as to sence with you. If the second, it is gross contradiction of reason and morality, and of Christ himself, Matth. 7. 6. 1 Tim. 2. 11, 12. 1 Cor. 14. 28. 34. Amos 5. 13. Eccl. 3. 7.