(468) £gusto teach and excite Devotion, is to make new humane Ordinances : whereas it belongs to ùs only to 'Life well fuck as he bath made : and to make no Laws but fuck as are thus need- full for the executing of his Laws. But Ofall this I have more largely fpoken already. 4. 3. Ref 2. The impofing ofthefe Myflical Rites doth feet» to accule Chrifì of ignorance or negligence, in that he bath not himfelf impofed them, when he bath taken upon him that Royall office to which fuchLegiflation doth belong. If Chrift would have fuch Rites impofed on the Churches, he could bet- ter have done it himfelf, thenhave left it to man. For I, There being not mutable circumflances, but the matter of flanding Laws, are equaily neceffary or unneceffary to this ageof the Church as to that in which Chrifl lived upon earth , and to thòfe Countreys in which he converfed as to thefe. IfImages, Croffing, fignifieant garments, &c. be needfull to be impofed in England, why not in Judea, Galatia, Cappadocia, Afa,&c; And if they are needful' now, why not then ? Noman can give a rational caule of difference, as to this neceflity. If therefore Chrifl didneither by himfelf nor by his Apofiles, ( who formed the firfl Churches, and delivered us his mind by the Spirit ) inftitute and impofe there Rites, then either the impofing of them is needlefs, and confequently noxious : or elfe you muff fay that Chill bath omitted a needful! part of his Law and worfhip, which implies that hewas either ignorant what todo,or carelefs and negle&iveof his own a ffairs, which are not to be imagined. ,ilefofcs left nothing out of the Law that he delivered, that was to be the flanding matter of the Law: nor omitted heany thieg that God required in the inflituting of the Legal worfhip. But Chrifl was faithful) to him that appoinredhim as Mof.r was in all his houfe, Heb. 3. 2, 3. therefore certainly Clarífi bath omit- tednothing that was to bea flanding Gofpel Law and Werfhip nor done his work imperfe&ly. 4.4. Real 3. And as thisImpofition ofMyflical Rites (loch imply an accufation of Chrifl, lò doth it imply an accufation ofhis Laws, and ofthe holy Scriptures, as if they were infuf- ficient. For ifit belong to Scripture fufficiency'to be the full revelation ofthe will of God concernng Ordinances ofworfh"p and duties of univerfal or ftated Necellity, then raufl we not imagine
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=