A Just Defense of Hearing the Sermons, Chapter 1
CHAP. 1. ARG. I.
Sect. 1. Some scruples of conscience are of ill consequence.
AS a preamble to his dispute, the Author writes thus. This is that which the Lord hath said, I will be sanctified in all that draw nigh me, and before all the people will I be glorified. The great care of Saints in matter of worship, is to sanctifie the name of the Lord therein: This is the great thing that God looks at, the omission whereof the often severely punishes, he children of men for: now in order hereunto, it's necessary that in all our approaches to God we see to the institution of the Lord, both in respect of the matter, and manner of worship, that it be according to Divine prescript, else we cannot sanct…fy the name of God therein, nor glorify him before the people.
Answer, This is yielded, that wherein God hath prescribed it is necessary we see to the institution of the Lord both in respect of the matter and manner of worship, even to determined particularities: but in those things which are not determined by God, yet it is requisite they should be some way determined by our selves or others, we and they are not so limited, but that keeping to general rules there may be liberty of variation, and there may be too anxious care, tending to beget unnecessary scruples, perplexities, divisions and censurings, even in and of Saints, which experience hath too much proved to cause fluctuations in mens minds, and inconstancy in their practice; and to produce a brood of Seekers, Quakers, Ranters, and prophane Atheists. For which reason it is very advisable, that persons of good meaning, but weak judgments did less busie themselves in questioning such undetermined particularities in Gods worship, and were received, but not to doubtfull disputations, Rom 14.1. and did satisfy themselves in such things by preferring the judgment of their faithful, learned, wise and holy Teachers and Rulers before their own, when their own capacity is insufficient to settle their Consciences. He proceeds thus, Hearing (as was said, and shall beyond contradictions in its proper place be evinced) is part of instituted worship, it therefore more nearly concerns Saints than many are aware of, to have their consciences resolved from the Scriptures of God, in the matter under enquiry, whether it be lawful for the Saints to hear the present Ministers of England? 'Tis the negative, which we have received under our maintenance, because we are satisfied Christ hath so; to the proof whereof we now address our selves.
Answer, Of hearing, how it is a part of instituted worship, somewhat hath been said in the answer to the preface, Sect. 1.2.3. what more is to be added, will come in it's proper place. I grant, that it concerns Saints to have their consciences resolved from the Scriptures of God in the matter under enquiry, and do therefore joyn issue with this Author, and whereas he denies it lawfull for the Saints to hear the present Ministers of England, meaning in their teaching of the Doctrins of faith and holiness according to that which is authorized in the Church of England, I affirm it, and address my self to the examination of this Authors arguments.
Sect. 2. There is warrant in Scripture to hear the present Ministers of England.
Argument 1. Is thus, That which there is no warrant for in the Scripture, being part of instituted worship, is not lawful for the Saints to practise: but there is no warrant in the Scripture for hearing the present Ministers of England, and hearing is part of instituted worship. Therefore.
Answer, The term [warrant] being a Law term, notes not only an injunction requiring that a thing be done, but also an allowance or permission of a thing to be done with impunity or without blame, and either way the thing warranted is lawfull. Instituted worship (as is before shewed) is either moral or meerly positive and ceremonial. Parts of instituted worship may be either subjective, if instituted worship be conceived as totum universale, an universal whole, and so hearing of the present Ministers of England may be conceived either as one sort of instituted worship, or one individual of that sort, or parts of instituted worship may be integrant, if instituted worship be conceived as an integral whole. I do not deprehend hearing of the present Ministers of England, is to be conceived as an integral part of instituted worship, sith it is one act, which without any other act is worship: or parts of instituted worship may be essential or accidental, instituted worship being conceived as an essential or accidental whole. Those are parts essential of instituted worship, without which it is not or is not rightly called instituted worship, those are accidental parts which may be present or absent, and yet the Worship be, or rightly be, so called. These things being premised, for answer to this Argument, I lay down these Propositions.
1. Every sort or kind of Instituted Worship of God, hath warrant in the Scripture by precept of command if it be lawful.
2. Those things which are determined by God, …n any part or sort of Instituted Worship of God, are to be counted Essential parts, so as that the omission or alteration of them, or any of them, makes the Worship not to be, or to be rightly so called, Worship of God.
3. Those things which are in this sense Essential parts, must have warrant in Scripture by precept express, or by just consequence.
4. Accidental parts, or adjuncts of Instituted Worship undetermined are lawful, if they have warrant in Scripture by permission, so as that they are not contrary to any precept or rule in Scripture about such Worship.
5. Hearing of the Word of God, is a sort or part of Gods Instituted Worship.
6. It is essential to it, that we hear it as Gods Word, with honest and good hearts, with attention and reverence, as being determined by Gods command.
7. It is but accidental, as being undetermined by God, that we hear it from this or that person, and therefore needs not warrant in Scripture by command to make it lawful.
8. The hearing of the present Ministers of England, Preaching the Word of God, hath warrant in Scripture by permission, as being not contrary to any precept or rule in Scripture about such Worship. Searching, and reading the Scriptures as the Word of God, is a part or sort of Instituted Worship, and accordingly hearing it read. When God commanded the Levites to read the Law, and all Israel to hear it at the end of every seven years, in the solemnity of the year of release in the Feast of Tabernacles, Deut. 31.9, 10, 11, 12, 13. The reading by such persons, and hearing at that time, was an essential part of Worship; but Shaphans reading before Josiah, (2 Chron. 34.18.) and his hearing of it then, was a part of Instituted Worship accidental, because not determined by Command, but ordered by Providence, and yet warrantable by Permission: Gods command being not exclusive, so as to forbid any other but Levites to read it, or the Israelites to hear it read by others at other times, there being general Precepts requiring all to hear the Word of God at all times, Deut. 5.1. and even the light of Nature dictating this, That a message from God is to be heard whoever brings it, of which the King of Moab was sensible, Judg. 3.20. and the King of Niniveh, Jonah 3 6. In like manner, when Christ tells the seventy Disciples, Luke 10.16. He that heareth you, heareth me; he doth not restrain hearers from hearing others who delivered the same truth: but the general speech, Joh. 8.47. He that is of God, heareth Gods words, warrants the hearing of Gods word. To the Argument I answer, That if the major be meant of warrant by command, and part accidental of Instituted Worship, it is denied, and the minor is denied in that branch, That there is no warrant in the Scripture for hearing the present Ministers of England. But let us view his proofs.
Sect. 3. Accidentals of Instituted Worship warranted without command in Scripture.
The major (or first) Proposition (saith he) is evident, 1. From the nature of Instituted Worship, which consists in this, that it be of Divine Revelation; else whatsoever it is, it is not Instituted Worship.
Answ. This is true concerning the kind or sort of Instituted Worship, and concerning the essential parts, those things, I mean, which are determined and necessary; but not true of accidentals, parts, or adjuncts of Worship undetermined; these may be from Men, and yet the worship be of God. If Jehoiakim had heard and believed the Roll which was dictated by Jeremiah, he had worshiped God, though Jehudi's reading were by his appointment, Jer. 36.21.
2▪ From the verdict of Christ, who pronounceth all the Worship of Man to be vain and fruitless, and so unlawful, that is bottom'd on any thing but Divine Revelation, Mark 7.7.
Answ. This is true, that all those actions, in which is placed the Worship of God, having no appointment from God, but onelyonly from men, are vain and fruitless, and so unlawful, and so much the Text alledged proveth: But this proveth not, that the Worship of God appointed by him is vain, fruitless, and unlawful, because of some adjuncts, or circumstances appointed by men, which God hath left undetermined. So though the receiving to hold Traditions of the Elders, and Dictates of Pharisees, as if they were of God, and God were worshiped by them, was vain, fruitless and so unlawful; yet the hearing of the Law of God read in the Synagogues, which we find not to have been appointed by God, but by the prudence and authority of Rulers, was lawful and approved, Luk. 4.16, 17. Act. 13.15, 27. Act. 15.21.
3. If it be lawful to Conform to any one part of Instituted Worship, without warrant from Scripture, 'tis also lawful to Conform to another, a third, the whole, which would banish Instituted Worship out of the world.
Answ. The first consequence is granted, yet the later is not necessary; for though it be true, If it be lawful to Conform to any one part of Instituted Worship without warrant from Scripture, 'tis also lawful to Conform to another, a third, the whole; yet this would not banish Instituted Worship out of the world. For when the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they washed their hands oft, eat not, holding the Tradition of the Elders, and when they came from the market, except they washed, they eat not. And many things there were, which they had received to hold, as the washing of cups and puts, brazen vessels and of tables, Mark 7.3, 4. Yet this did not banish the Instituted Worship of the Passeover, and other worship appointed by God to the Jews out of the world.
4. To assert, that it is lawful to conform to any part of Instituted Worship without warrant from Scripture, reflects sadly upon the wisdom and faithfulness of Christ: for either he was not wise enough to foresee, that such a part of worship was, or would be requisite, or had not faithfulness enough to reveal it, though the Scripture compares him to Moses for faithfulness, who revealed the whole will of God to the making of a pin in the Tabernacle.
Answ. It no way reflects, with any disparagement, upon the wisdom and faithfulness of Christ, to assert, that it is lawful to Conform to accidental parts, or rather adjuncts, or circumstances of Instituted Worship, without warrant from Scripture by express command; for though Christ was wise enough to foresee what parts of Worship were or should be requisite, and had faithfulness enough to reveal what God did require, and did make known by himself, or his Apostles, what kind of Worship should be observed by Christians, and what parts were essential or necessary to be observed, were determined in Scripture: yet many accidental things, adjuncts, or circumstances of that Instituted Worship, were left to the prudence, and authority of men, chiefly of Rulers, which the Lord foreseeing, that his Churches would be gathered out of many Nations of various Customs, Dispositions, Governments, thought fit to be permitted to them, though he did restrain the Jews more strictly by Moses, which was their burthen, and it is our ease, that we have more liberty than they had: Christ was faithful as Moses, in that he revealed to us what was his Fathers will in spirituals, more clearly than Moses; but for externals, appointed but few things, and those easie; in what else was to be added, he left it to be ordered under general rules, as it should be found convenient in after times. And to argue in this manner, if Christ did not appoint every accidental part of Instituted Worship, he had failed in wisdom or faithfulness, and had come short of Moses, seems to me to be like their arguing, who in the Canon Law say, If Christ had not appointed an Universal Bishop to end Controversies, as there was an High-Priest among the Jews, Non satis discretus esset, He had not been discret enough, very presumptuously, if not blasphemously, shaping Christs wisdom after the model of our understanding; and injuriously to us, in bringing again Christian believers under that yoke of bondage, from which Christ hath freed them.
5. It pours out contempt upon the care of God over the New-Testament Churches (as if it were less to these, than to those under the Law) and the Oeconomy of the Gospel, as not so compleat as that of old, the whole of whose Worship, Orders and Ordinances (as was said) was bottom'd upon pure Revelation.
Answ. It is before proved, in the Answer to the Preface, Sect. 20. that it pours no contempt upon the care of God over the New-Testament Churches, that the whole of Gods Worship, Orders, and Ordinances in circumstantials or accidentals, which are liable to much variation in Churches of different Nations, are not bottom'd upon pure Revelation Divine, but in many things left to humane prudence: yea it is an effect of Gods love and care over the New-Testament Churches, that he hath not tied them in so many things to external rites and particularities of Instituted Worship, as he did the Jews: Nor is the Oeconomy of the Gospel less compleat, than that of old for this cause; but if I understand the Apostle, Col. 2.8, 9, 10. this reasoning is either the same, or every like that of the Philosophical, or Judaizing Teachers, to which the Apostles caution is opposed, telling them, that all fulness was in Christ, they were compleat in him without the tradition of men, or rudiments of the world; by which the Jewish Rites to be meant, is apparent from Col. 2.16, 17, 20. Gal 4 3, 9.
6. Saith he, It carries with it a sad reflection upon the authority of the Scripture, as not thorowly furnished to make the man of God perfect.
Answ. The authority and use of the holy Scripture is delivered by St. Paul, 2 Tim. 3.15, 16, 17. that they were able to make Timothy wise unto salvation through faith in Christ Jesus, that they were profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. Whence is rightly deduced against the Romanists, the perfection and sufficiency of the Scripture without unwritten Traditions for all Doctrinals of Faith and Manners, and Worship, in respect of Essentials. But it is no ill reflection upon its authority, to say that some accidentals of instituted Worship undetermined in Scripture, ordered by men according to general Rules in Scripture, are warranted by permission, without command of those particularities in holy Scripture.
7. The Lord condemns not onelyonly that which is done against the warrant and direction of the Word, but also that which is done beside it, Deut. 4.2. and 12.32. Mat. 15.9. Lev. 10.1. (their sin lay not in this, that they offered strange fire, which was forbidden, but which God commanded them not) Prov. 30.6. Jer.7.31.
Answ. I suppose that this Author when he saith, the Lord condemns not only that which is done against the warrant and direction of the Word, but also that which is done besides it, means it of warrant and direction by command, and in instituted Worship; otherwise he should hold that nothing is indifferent, which is too absurd; and therefore I shall not charge him with it, till he do expresly assert it. But if his meaning be, as I conceive, that God condemns all that which is done besides the Warrant and Direction of the Word, by a command in the New Testament, even in accidentals of instituted Worship (which must be his proposition, if he argue to the purpose) his assertion is false, and not proved by any of the Texts alledged. Not Deut. 4 2. which is to be understood of Doctrines, Commands, or Institutions, as from God. Thus Ainsworth in his Annot. on Deut. 4.2. not add] Hereby all Doctrines of men are condemned, Mat. 15.9. and the all-sufficiency and authority of Gods Word stablished for ever, Gal. 3.15. 2 Tim. 3.16, 17. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be sound a Liar, Prov. 30 6. Which place is to be understood not of particularities of Instituted Worship undetermined; for then the reason should have been thus, Lest he reprove thee, and thou be found superstitious: but of Gods Commands, Promises, or Predictions, of which he had said, v. 5. Every Word of God is pure, he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him; and is opposed to the practice of false Prophets; who pretended revelations as from God, which they had not from him; and therefore were reproved by him, and found Liars. Which is also confirmed by that parallel place, Rev. 22.18, 19. Mat. 15.9. is the same with Mark 7.7. before alledged, and is taken from Isa. 29.13. and both by the Prophet against the Seers of his time, the Rulers and Prophets to whom the vision of God was as a sealed Book, and they understood not, or taught not according to his Law, but made shew of drawing nigh to God, whilest their fear towards him, that is, their Worship of him, or obedience to him, was taught by the precepts of men, and by our Lord Christ urged against the Pharisees, who were guilty of the same hypocrisie; and indeed proves, that all Doctrines are condemned wherein that is taught, or commanded, or urged as Gods Worship, which is onelyonly by the Command of men; but condemns not every particularity of accidentals in instituted Worship undetermined by God, because from men, who reach it not, nor observe it as Gods Worship by his Command. Which Exposition is agreeable with that which this Author puts after in the Margin, In a Translation of the New Testament in Edward the sixths time, the Author of the Notes on Mat. 15. saith, God will not be wo…shipped after the Doctrine and Precepts of men, but as he himself hath prescribed and taught us in his Word. The same is to be said of Deut. 12.32. where God, having warned the Israelites, that they should not do so unto the Lord their God, as the Nations destroyed by them served their Gods, adds whatsoever thing I command you, observe to do it; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. Which hath the same sense as the Words, Deut. 4.2. well expounded in the English large Annotations, Deut. 4.2. shall not add] not as a Comment, or Exposition to a Text, but man must not add any thing to Gods Word, either for words or meaning contrary to it; nor as Gods Word, with an intent to make that of Divine Authority, which is but humane, as the Papists do by Apocryphal Writings, and unwritten Traditions: See Chap. 12.32. and 18.20. Diminish] by denying any part of it to be of Divine Authority; or concealing any part of it, either for words or meaning, or by partial Belief of it, or obedience to it. God is not to be believed, obeyed, or served in part, and by halfs; but as he is to be loved, wholly; Chap. 6.5. Which Precept is not to be restrained to immediate Worship, but to be extended to all other duties enjoyned, not only to the Priests, by whom the solemn Worship of God was to be administred; but also the King, who was to have a Copy of the Law, and not to turn aside from the Commandment, to the right hand or to the left, Deut. 17.20 and yet might make Orders about Civil Government not expressed in the Law. Yea, were the prohibition Deut. 4.2. and 12.32. restrained (as it is not) to worship, it cannot be taken for a prohibition of all Orders made by men concerning Gods Worship, as might be proved from Josh. 22.34. 2 Chron. 20.3. and 30.23. Esther 9.27, 31. and other places, if there were need, but such as were different from Gods commands in things determined by him, or in things indeterminate, when urged as Gods command, and made his Worship; wherein it is to be considered, that God was more strict to the Israelites, being more full in Ordinances concerning Ceremonies Typical, and peculiar to them, than he is to Christians, whom he hath released of their burden of rites. Lev. 10 1. The sin lay in this, that they offered strange fire, which was forbidden; as even Mr. Ainsworth acknowledgeth, Annot. on Lev. 10.1. Strange fire] that is other fire than God had sanctified on his Altar. As strange incense was expresly forbidden, Exod. 30.9. So strange fire was not commanded, but implicitely forbidden, by Lev. 1.7. & 6.12. as afterward God plainly sheweth in Levit. 16.12. So that both the expression there, and Jer. 7 31. of Gods not commanding, must be expounded by a figure of Speech frequent in Scripture, wherein Words or Phrases often signifie more than is expressed, which must be understood of that place, Jer. 7.31. where the thing God is said not to have commanded, is that which he had most strictly forbidden, and severely punished; to wit, the building the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; and therefore is rightly paraphrased by Mr. Gataker, in the large English Annot. on Jer. 7.31. Which I commanded them not] or, which I never commanded: but expr…sly forbad, and professed to abhor, Levit. 18.21. and 20.3. Deut. 12.31. and 18.10. And therefore these Texts are ill alledged to prove the Lords condemning of that which is done onelyonly beside the warrant and direction of the Word, and that it is not lawful for the Saints to practise that which being but an accidental part, adjunct, or circumstance of instituted Worship hath not warrant by command in the Scripture. He adds 8. of the same mind with us in this matter, are the renowned Witnesses of Christ in all ages; generally all that write upon the second Commandment, speak fully hereunto.
Answ. This assertion cannot be proved, nor is it likely to be true, such those few testimonies alledged of Cyprian, Beza, Luther, and Whitaker, are impertinent. That of Cyprian, Epist. 63. to Caecilius, is manifestly meant of that which is prescribed by Christ, and not of adjuncts undetermined; the whole Epistle being against the Aquarii, who would have water only in the Lords Supper; whom Cyprian refutes, asserting that Christ used and commanded Wine mingled with Water, erring therein. Bezas words in his Annot. on Philip. 1.1. that it is unsafe to decline from the Word of God, though but an hairs breadth, are to be understood of things determined therein. Luthers words on 1 Pet. 4.11. as they are cited (which I have not the Book to examine) are meant of Doctrines or Decrees, which he would not have subscribed to, or taught, unless in the Word of God. The place where Dr. Whitakers words are, is not quoted: they seem to be against the Popish use of Oyl in their Sacraments, which they conceive to confer grace, and add it to Baptism, in which Christ hath appointed no other Element but Water, and therefore I conceive them not to assert that which is the Major to be proved, that the practice of adjuncts of instituted Worship undetermined, is unlawful without a Command in Scripture. That many others may be added to these, I doubt not; but that they speak home to his Proposition, I believe not. Voet. Polit. Eccles. part. 1. l. 2. h. 1. c. 7. sect. 2. Ecclesiae in genere potestatem ceremonias adiaphoras assumendi, & in cultu divino adhibendi nemo hactenus negarit qui ei tribuit potestatem clavium & cum ea potestatem regiminis foreign sive foreign, &c. The Declaration of the Congregational Elders, Ch. 1. saith, there are some circumstances concerning the Worship of God, and Government of the Church, common to humane actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of Nature and Christian Prudence according to the general rules of the Word.
Sect. 4. Prejudice is no argument, nor personal motives good proof.
He adds: The Minor, (or second Proposition) consists of two parts: 1 That Hearing is part of instituted Worship, one would wonder should it be denied; however 'tis evident it is so, from the light of this single demonstration: That in which we wait upon God in the way of an Ordinance for the Communication of good, beyond the vertue of any creature to conveigh to us, is part of the instituted Worship of God (for what I wait for, not being in the thing it self, in which I am waiting, no ground can be assigned for my expecting good through it, but Divine Institution) but in the Hearing of the Word, we wait upon God in the way of an Ordinance, for the Communication of good, beyond the vertue of any creature to conveigh to us: Therefore.
Answ. I do grant Hearing the Word of God to be one part, or sort of Gods instituted Worship in the sense delivered by me in the Answer to the Preface, in the three first Sections; because it is required by God, and tends to shew our subjection to him as our Soveraign Lord, and our acknowledgment of his transcendent Wisdom and Infallibility; and is for these ends an address immediately to God, on whom only we wait to know his Will, though brought us by his created Messenger, whose Doctrine we receive not as his Word, but as the Word of the living God; nor believe or obey it any farther than it appears to be his. But I do not take the argument here produced, to be demonstrative, sith there be many things, as Marriage, Eating, Drinking, Ploughing, Sowing, &c. in which we wait upon God in the way of an Ordinance for the Communication of good beyond the vertue of any creature to conveigh to us, and yet are not parts of the Instituted Worship of God.
2. Saith he, That hearing the present Ministers of England is not warranted in the Scripture: This will be manifested when we come to the ventilating and scanning of those places which are usually produced for the abetting of the practice of some in this matter: in the mean while, we crave liberty to profess, that it is not opinionativeness, singularity, vain-glory, uncharitableness, or any thing of that nature (as some are apt uncharitably enough to censure) but the dread and awe of God (who is a jealous God, and especially in point of worship) and an holy fear of offending him, that hinders us from complying in these matters: could but one word, tittle, or iota be produced from the Scriptures of God, for the warranting the hearing the present Ministers of England, we should quickly lay our mouths in the dust, confess and bewail our folly in refusing to conform thereunto: but this we are fully assured, those that dissent from us are not able to do: what they say therein, shall foreign, be sifted to the uttermost.
Answ. The hearing the present Ministers of England, while they teach the Doctrine of Gods Word, is warranted in Scripture, which forbids only the hearing of False Prophets, Mat. 7.15. Antichrists, that seduce, that bring not the doctrine of the Apostles, 1 Joh 2.18, 26. and 4.1, 5, 6. 2 Joh. 7.10 which if he prove the Ministers of England to be, his Minor is proved; but not either by personal exceptions against their entry on their Ministry, or their sinful practices; nor by ventilating or scanning of those places which are usually produced for the abetting of the practice of some in this matter. For though Ministers be as bad as Judas, yet they may be heard preach the Gospel, as he was; and though the places alledged should prove insufficient for what they are produced, yet is not the Minor proved, till the sin be shewed, which is committed by hearing the present Ministers, (for where there is no Law forbidding, there is no transgression, Rom. 4.15.) and not People affrighted, by filling them with unnecessary scruples; nor divided one from another upon such suggestions, as this Writing yields; nor drawn to separations and oppositions, which tend to the undoing of men in their Estates, hinder the publick Peace, and the furtherance of the Gospel. To prevent which it little avails, that this Author acquaints us with his motive in his writing this piece. For though all he sayes of himself were true (as Charity binds me to believe it to be) yet it serves only to create prejudice in the minds of well-meaning People, who are led more by the opinion they have of the Writer, than by the strength of his Arguments; and for the most part hinders the impartial search for truth, and makes men adhere faster to a party. We know the opinion that was had of the holiness of the Pharisees, was the greatest stumbling-block to the Jews against Christs Doctrine; and the opinion of the holiness of Monks, was the great furtherance of Popish Superstition and Idolatry; and the opinion of many Teachers, hath bred many Errours; of which I gave warning many years since, in a little Treatise, Entituled, Anthropolatria on 1 Cor 3.21. foreseeing (as it hath come to pass) that glorying in Teachers would be the mischief of the Churches; from which it is time to take off People, and to make them more diligent and serious in examining what is said on both sides; as the Apostle admonisheth us, 1 Thess. 5 21. Nevertheless I doubt not but in the progress of this dispute, I shall shew Scripture warrant for hearing the Ministers of England that preach the Gospel, notwithstanding the objections against them; and accordingly proceed in answering this Writing, that I may promote Truth and Peace, which is my aim, however I be censured; hoping that in time God will direct honest-hearted persons to unlearn that mischievous course of esteeming res ex personis, things by persons, and give over that evil custom of too many, who speak for, or against opinions, or practices, according to the affection they bear to men; and have no other argument why they refuse a thing, but this; that good people, as they judge them, are against it; nor why they adhere to it, but because they are for it. Which is in effect to make them their Masters, contrary to Christs Prerogative, Mat. 23.10. and in some sort idolizing of them. Nor do I think it unfit to mind this Author, that it were adviseable, that he did better examine his Tenet and Arguments, sith as, Gisbertus Voetius Professour of Utrecht saith, Polit. Eccl. part 1 lib. 2. Tract. 1. c. 7. Sect. 3. that it is the common opinion of all the Reformed Divines, who notwithstanding the defect of Reformation of Rites and Government in the Church of England, under Edward, Elizabeth, James have held fraternity with it constantly, that consent in Ceremonies, or the manner or form of Government, is not necessarily required to retain, or restore fraternity between Churches of the greatest, greater or lesser, diverse union and correspondence.