Surplice or some such like But since we have a pattern of perfectly formed Churches in the Apostles times who had power even In actu excercitâ— of Discipline and Church-worship and the Apostles mention things of an inferiour nature How is it that we have no hint of Crossing Kneeling Surplice corner Cap nor any such like unto these And yet they were as necessary for decency then 1 Cor. 5. Col. 2. 5. 1 Cor. 11. 20. c. Rev. 2. 1. 2 14 18 20 21. 1 Cor. 14. 40. as now Others of great learning reply that Christ is not the only immediate Head King Law-giver and Governour of the Church for that is quite contrary to Gods Ordinance in establishing Kings Magistrates higher powers nurse-Fathers Pastors Doctors Elders for by this there should be no Kings Parliaments Synods no power of jurisdiction in them to make Lawes to suppresse and punish all manner of Idolatry Superstition Heresies But I answer that Christ is the only immediate Head King Law-giver and Governour of his Church as upon his shoulder only is the Government Isa 9. 6. And the key of the house of David Isa 22. 22. And by what right he is the head of all things and set above all principalities and power and might and dominion and every name that is named not only in this vvorld but also in that vvhich is tâ— come He is the head of the Catholick Church which is his body Eph. 1. 21 22 23. And he is such a head even in externals in giving Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors and Teachers who for the vvork of the ministery perfecteth the Saints in vvhom the vvhole body of the Church is fitly joyned together and compacted by that which every joynt supplieth according to the effectuall vvorking in the measure of every part maketh increase of the body to the edifying of it self in love Ephes 4. 11 12 13 14 15 16. Now these places maketh Christ the only immediate head in externals and internall operation of that body which is the fulnesse of Christ Let any of the Formalists if Christ be not the only immediate Head Shew us of King or Bishop who is the Mediate Ministeriall inferior Head of the Catholick Church even in externall Government For Iohn Hart in his conference with D. Roinald saith Christ is the only principall imperiall and invisible Head but the Pope saith he is the visible and Ministeriall Head So do all Papists say but our Protestant Divines Answer That it is a repugnancy that a Subject or a Member of the King and Head should be in any sense both a Subject and a King a part or Member and a Head and Roynald saith This name to be Head of the Church is the Royall Prerogative of Jesus Christ Yea the head in externals must be with the Catholick body as Christ hath promised to be with his Church to the end of the world neither King nor Pope can in the externall Government be with the particular Churches to the end It is true the King may be with his Church by his Laws and power yea but so may the Pope be if all Pastors on earth be but his Deputies and if Pastors be but the Kings Deputies and sent by the King so is the King the Head of the Church but then the Catholick Church hath as many heads as there be lawfull Kings on earth But we desire to know what mediate acts of Law-giving which is essentiall to Kings and Parliaments in civill things doth agree to Kings Parliaments and Synods Christ hath not made Pastors under-Kings to create any Laws morally obliging the conscience to obedience in the Court of God which God hath not made to their hand if the King and Synods only declare and propound by a power of jurisdiction that which God in the Law of nature or the written word hath commanded they are not the Law-makers nor creators of that morality in the Law which layeth bonds on the conscience yea they have no Organicall nor inferiour influence in creating that morality God only by an immediate act as the only immediate King made the morality and if King Parliaments and Synods be under Kings and under Law-givers they must have an under-action and a Ministeriall subservient active influence under Christ in creating as second causes that which is the formall reason and essence of all Lawes binding the conscience and that is the morality that obligeth the soul to eternal wrath though King Parliament Pastors or Synods should never command such a Morall thing Now to propound or declare that Gods will is to be done in such an act or Synodicall Directory or Canon and to command it to be observed under Civill and Ecclesiasticall paine is not to make a Law it is indeed to act authoritatively under Christ as King but it maketh them neither Kings nor Law-givers no more then Heralds are little Kings or inferiour Law-givers and Parliaments because in the name and Authority of King and Parliament they Promulgate the Lawes of King and Parliament the Heralds are meer servants and do indeed represent King and Parliament and therefore to wrong them in the promulgation of Lawes is to wrong King and Parliament but the Heralds had no action no hand at all in making the Laws they may be made when all the Heralds are sleeping and so by no propriety of speech can Heralds be called mediat Kings under-Law-givers just so here as touching the morality of all humane Laws whether Civill or Ecclesiasticall God himself immediatly yea from Eternity by an Act of his free-pleasure made that without advice of men or Angels for who instructed him neither Moses nor Prophet nor Apostle yea all here are Meri precones only Heralds yet are not all these Heralds who declare the morality of Lawes equals may declare them charitative By way of charity to equals but these only are to be obeyed as Heralds of Laws whom God hath placed in Authority as Kings Parliaments Synods the Church Masters Fathers Captains And it followeth no wayes that we disclaime the Authority of all these because we will not inthrone them in the chaire of the Supreame and only Lawgiver and head of the Church they are not under-Law-givers and little Kings to create Laws the morality of which bindeth the conscience for this God only can do Ergo there be no Parliaments no Kings no Rulers that have Authority over men it is a most unjust consequence for all our Divines against Papists deny that humane Laws as humane do binde the conscience but they deny not but assert the power of jurisdiction in Kings Parliaments Synods Pastors SECT III. IF Iesus Christ be as Faithfull as Moses and above him as the Lord of the house above the servant Heb. 3. 1 2 3 4. Then as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the Tabernacle for saith he See thou make all things according to the patternâ— shewed unto thee in the mount Heb. 8. 5. And
not subordinate to the Ministers of the Gospel as Ministers far lesse to the Magistrate as the Magistrate because it dependeth upon none on earth Minister or Magistrate but the only good pleasure of him who when he ascended to heaven gave gifts unto men that there is such an office as Minister Pastor or teacher And the Church cannot create a new office of a Prelate because of its nature it tendeth to a supernaturall end the governing of Christs body in a way to life eternall purchased by Christ Now the question in this sense whether the power of the Ministery be subordinate to the Magistrate in its constitution it is alike in its subordination to Magistrate and Minister certain it is subordinate to neither Other lawfull and profitable offices and Arts are from God mediately possibly by the intervening acts of rationall nature though Magistracy be from God Rom. 13. 1. yet it would seeme God by the naturall reason of men might devise and constitute the very office of Magistracy in abstracto and the Art of sayling painting c. yet is there no subjection of power to power here by way of dominion Hence the question must be of the subordination of the power quoad exercitium whether Ministers in the exercising of their Ministeriall calling be subordinate to the Magistrate as the Magistrate 5. Dist A judge is one thing and a just judge another thing so here are we to distinguish between a Magistrate and a Christian Magistrate As 1. a husband is one thing and a Christian husband another thing a Captaine is one thing and a Christian and a beleeving Centurion or Captain such as Cornelius Acts 10. is another a Physitian is one thing and a gracious Physitian is another thing sure a heathen Husband hath the same jus Maritale the same Husband power in regard of Marriage union that a Christian and beleeving Husband hath 2. A Magistrate and a Christian Magistrate may be one and the same Magistrate with one and the same Magistraticall power as being first heathen Magistrate as Sergius Paulus Act. 13. 7 12. and there after converted to the faith Paulus was no lesse a civill Deputie when Heathen then when Christian and not more a Deputy as touching the essence of a Magistrate when a Christian beleever then he was before when a Heathen yet to be a Magistrate and to be a beleeving Magistrate are two different things even as Christianity is a noble ornament and a gracious accident and to be a Magistrate is as it were the Subject even as a man and the accidents of the man are two different things 6. There be two things here considerable in the Magistrates office 1. There is his jus and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Magistraticall power or the authority officiall the power of office to beare the sword 2. There is aptitudo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a speciall heavenly grace of well governing this is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a gift or grace of God to use that power for Christ These two make one Christian husband one Christian captain Physitian Master in relation to to the wife souldiers sick servants Now the Magistrate heathen as Magistrate even Nero when the Church of God is in his court and dominions hath the same jus the same Authority and Officiall power to be a keeper of both Tables of the Law and to defend the Gospell and to command the Preachers and Synods to fulfill their charge and to see that the officers doe their dutie and to punish dumbe dogs Idolaters excommunicated persons to drive away with the sword false Teachers from the flock he hath I say the same Magistraticall power while he is a Heatheâ— and when he is converted to the Christian faith and he is equally head of men that professe Christ when Heathenish as when Christian but in neither States is he the Head of the body the Church and you give not to Cesar the things that are Cesars if you make converted Nero because a Magistrate now the head of the Church and deny non-converted and heathenish Nero to be the Head of the Church for he is a Magistrate with compleat power of the Sword in the one case as in the other that he neither doth nor can use the sword for the Church it is from Nero his state of infidelity that he is in as a man and not the fault of his office for when Paul saith the Husband is the head of the Wife doth hee meane a Christian husband onely and exclude all heathen Husbands No for then the wife were not to be subject to the Husband if a Heathen and an unbeleever which is against Pauls mind 1 Cor. 7. and the Law of Nature But the converted Magistrate who was before a heathen Magistrate hath a new aptitude faculâ—y and grace to keep both Tables of the Law and to govern in a civill way and indirectly the affaires of Christs Kingdome Hence the adversaries clearly contradict themselves by confounding those two a Magistrate and a Christian Magistrate one while they give supream power over the Church to the Magistrate as the Magistrate sometime to the Magistrate as Christian So Vtenbogard in his book De officio authoritate supremi Magistratus Christiani in rebus Ecclesiasticis p. 7. and p. 8. hoc addo ut intelligatur Magistratum cum religioneÌ„ Christianam amplectitur non acquirere novam authoritatem sed quod eam authoritatem quam ante etiam in rebus religiâ—nis â—ultus divini habebat authoritateÌ„ rectè utitur If the Magistrate when he becommeth a Christian acquireth no new authority as a Magistrate but onely useth well his old Authority in matters of Religion and of Gods worship which he had before while he was Heathen as he saith then the Heathen Magistrate as a Magistrate hath a supreame power in Church matters and yet in the same place he draweth the state of the question to a Christian Magistrate De solo Christiano Magistratu acturus The Arminians in their Apologie fol. 297. as saith their Declaration speake onely of the Christian Magistrate and yet page 298. potestati enim supremae sive Architectonicae qua potestas suprema est jus hoc ut competat ratio ordinis sive boni Regiminis natura sua postulat si Magistratui qua tali jus hoo competit â—rgo multo magis competit Magistratui Christiano Sure if the Magistrate in generall and as the Magistrate have a supream Authority in the Government of the Church such as the Adversaries contend for then the Christian Magistrate farre more must be Head of the Church and so the Magistrate as the Magistrate must be supreame Governour and judge in all Ecclesiasticall causes and in these same causes he must not be Iudge as a Magistrate but as a Christian Nor can they make a Christian Magistrate à medium per participationem utriusque extremi a middle betweene a Magistrate and a Christian 1. For where is there such an
not a first converting ordinance yet a confirming one ibid. The Lords Supper presupposeth Faith and Conversion in the vvorthy Receiver in a Church-profession p. 523 c. The Magistrate subject to the Church p. 528 The Church a perfit society without the Magistrate p. 529 530 God efficacious by Preachers not by Magistrates p. 532 Differences between the Preachers and the Magistrate p. 532 c. The Magistrate cannot limit the Pastors in the exercise of their calling p 535 That Magistrates are more hot against the Churches punishing of sin then against sinful omissions argueth that they are unpatient of Christs yoke rather then that they desire to vindicate the liberty of the Subject p. 536 c. Of the Reciprocation of the Subordinations of Magistrates and Church-Officers to each other ibid. Not any power or office subject to any but to God immediately subjection is properly of persons p. 538 A Magistrate and a Christian Magistrate different p. 539 Two things in a Christian Magistrate jus authority aptitudo hability p. 539 c. Christianity maketh no new power of Magistracy p. 542 A fourfold consideration of the exercise of Ministerial power most necessary upon which and the former distinction followeth ten very considerable assertions page 542 c. The Magistrate as the Magistrate commandeth the exercise of the Ministerial power but not the spiritual and sincere manner of the exercise p. 544 Magistrates as godly men not as Magistrates command sincerity and zeal in the manner of the exercise of Ministerial power p. 545 c. A twofold goodnesse in a Christian Magistrate essential accidential p. 548 The Magistrate as such commandeth onely in order to temporary rewards and punishments nor holdeth he forth commands to the conscience p. 549 c. Magistrates as Magistrates forbid not sin as sin under the pain of eternal wrath p. 550 Two sorts of Subordinations Civil Ecclesiastick p 553 Subordination of Magistrate and Church to each others p. 554 c. Church Offices as such not subordinate to the Magistrate ibid. What power Erastians give to Magistrates in Church matters p. 557 The minde of Arminians touching the power of the Magistrate in Church matters ibid. A threefold consideration of the Magistrate in relation to the Church p. 558 Reciprocation of subordinations between Church and Magistrate p. 560 The Ministers as Ministers neither Magistrates nor Subjects p. 564 c. The Magistrate as such neither manageth his office under Christ as mediator nor under Satan but under God as Creator ibid. The Prince as a gifted Christian may Preach and spred the Gospel to a Land where the Gospel hath not been heard before page 570 c. The King and the Priest kept the Law but in a far different way p. 572 c. The Pastors and the Iudges do reciprocally judge and censure one another p. 574 c. God hath not given power to the Magistrate and Church to Iudge contrary wayes justly and unjustly in one and the same cause p. 577 Whether Appeals may ly from Church-assembles to the Civil Magistrate p. 578 Of Pauls appeal to Caesar ibid. Divers opinions of the Magistrates power in Causes Ecclesiastical p. 579 c. It is one thing to complain another thing to appeal p. 580 What an appeal is ibid. Refuge to the Magistrate is not an Appeal p. 581 A twofold appeal p. 582 The Magistrates power of punishing or his interest of faith proveth him not to be a Iudge in Synods p. 585 c. Pauls appeal proveth nothing against appeals for appeals from the Church to the Christian Magistrate p. 587 Paul appealed from an inferiour Civil Iudge to a superior Civil Heathen Iudge in a matter of his head and life not in a controversie of Religion p. 588 What power a conqueror hath to set up a Religion in a conquered Nation p 590 There were no appeals made to the godly Emperours of old p. 594 To lay bands on the conscience of the Magistrate to ty him to blinde obedience the Papists not our Doctrine p 595 Subjection of Magistrates to the Church no Papal tyranny p. 600 c. The Magistrate as a Magistrate cannot forbid sin as sin ibid. The Magistrate pomoteth Christs mediatory Kingdom ibid. The Magistrate as such not the Vicar of the mediator Christ p. 601 The Adversaries in the Doctrine of the Magistrate Popish not we at all ibid. Pastors are made inferiour Magistrates in their whole Ministery by the Adversaries p. 603 c. Christian Magistracy no Ecclesiastical Administration p. 604 The Magistrate as such not the Vicar of the mediatory Kingdom ibid. Heathen Magistrates as such are not oblieged to promote Christs mediatory Kingdom p. 606 Magistracy from the Law of Nations p. 608 The Adversaries must teach universal Redemption p 610 Magistrates as such not members of the Church p. 613 Christ mediator not a temporary King p 614 The Magistrat not the servant of the Church p. 616 The adequate and complete cause why the Magistrate is subject to the Church p. 617 That the Magistrate is subject to the Rebukes and censures of the Church is proved from the Word p. 618 c. The supreme and principal power of Church-affairs not in either Magistrate or Church p 620 Though the Magistrate punish Ecclesiastical scandals yet his power to Iudge and punish is not Ecclesiastical and spiritual as the Church censureth breaches of the second Table and yet the Churches power is not Civil for that p. 622 People as people may give power to a Magistrate to adde his auxiliary power to defend the Church to judge and punish offenders therein p. 625 A Governour of or over the Church a Governour in the Church a Governour for the Church different p. 628 The distinction of a Doctrinal or Declarative and of a Punitive part of Church-Government of which the former is given to Pastors the latter to the Magistrate a heedlessâ— and senselesse notion p. 629 c. That the Magistrates punishing with the sword scandalous persons should be a part of Church-government a reasonlesse conceit p. 631 There is neither coaction nor punishment properly so called in the Church p. 632 Bullinger not of the minde of Erastus p. 634 The Iudgement of Wolfâ—ag Musculus Aretius and Gualther p. 634 c. The Errour of Gualther to please the usurping Magistrate p. 638 Their minde different from Erastus p. 639 The Christian Magistrates sword cannot supply the place of Excommunication in the Church p. 640 The confessions of the Protestant Church for this way p. 642 c. The testimony of Salmasius p. 644 Of Simlerus p. 645 Lavater Ioan. Wolphius ibid. Of Râ—b Burhillus 646 The Contents of the Tractate or Dispute touching Scandal WHether things indifferent can be commanded Introduction p. 1 Indifferent things as such not the Matter of a Church-constitution Introd Actions are not indifferent because their circumstances are indifferent Introd Marrying not indifferent Introd Indifferency Metaphysical and Theological Introd Necessity of obeying the Church
the Churches not to the Pastors only 2. The removing of the Candlestick is not from the Angel but from the Church and repentance and the fighting and overcomming a reward of the crown of life and many other things are evidently spoken to the Churches not to the Angels of the Churches And therefore the tryall of false Apostles must be by a Church a Court a colledge of church rulers as Paul speaketh unto Act. 20. 17. Where it is said Paul called the Elders of the Church of Ephesus and exhorted them to beware of false teachers that should not spare the flocke and should teach perverse things v. 28. 29. 30. and of this sort were these lying and seducing Apostles now how can one Angell or many Pastors by preaching onely try false Apostles and finde them lyars This trying and sentencing of lying seducers Rev. 2. 2. must be by a court such as we find to be the practise of the Apostles and Elders at Ierusalem who in a Synod Act. 15. did finde these who taught a necessitie of Circumcision to be perverters of soules and liars saying They had the Apostles authority for what they taught whereas they had no such thing and Schismatick troublers of the people Acts 15. See what further I have said for Excommunication before cap. 2. and sect 7. which proveth also the same thing The Church of Thyatira would not be rebuked for suffering Jezabel to teach if they had no power of Church censures to hinder her It is not enough to say that the Angel of that Church did sufficiently hinder Jezabell to teach when in publike he declared and preached against her false doctrine and by the same reason Pastors exoner their conscience if they preach that such and such scandalous persons are not to eate and drinke their owne damnation though they debarre them not in a visible court by name from the Lords table and though they never excommunicate them and therefore there is not any censure but Pastorall rebukes by way of preaching not any other by way of discipline Ans The Angel of Thyatira had not sufficiently hindered Jezabel to seduce the servants of God by only preaching against her false doctrine in regard that Paul and Barnabas not only hindred those that teached that the Gentiles ought to be circumcised Act. 14. cap. 16. by Preaching but also had recourse to the power and authority of a Synod that in a Synod which is a Court essentially consisting of many Pastors and Elders they might be declared to be perverters of souls and liars as indeed they were judicially declared to be such Act. 15. 24. Hence I argue if the Apostles could not be said sufficiently to hinder Jezabels and Seducers by only Preaching and Disputing against their errors except in case of their persisting in their errors they should tell the Church convened in a Synod as Christs order is Mat. 18. Then the Angel of Thyatira or any one Pastor do not sufficiently hinder scandals but may be well said to suffer them by only private rebuking and publick Preaching except they use all these means to hinder Iezabels false Teachers and all scandalous persons that the Apostles used and therefore the Angel of the Church of Thyatira must be rebuked for not using the Authority and power of the Church against Iezabel And here by the way when these false Teachers had sinned against their brethren in perverting their souls they take not the course that Erastus dreameth to be taken according to Matth. 18. They complain not to the Synedrim or Civill Magistrate who should use the sword against them but to the Church Synodically convened at Ierusalem who used against them the Spirituall power that Christ the head of the Church had given them 6. Arg. If there be an Ecclesiasticall debarring of scandalous persons from the holy things of God especially from the Supper of the Lord by Censures and not by the preaching of the word only then there be Censures and power of jurisdiction in the word beside preaching of the word But the former I make good by these following Arguments 1. Arg. If the Stewards and dispensers of the mysteries of God are to cut the word aright as approved workmen 2 Tim. 2. 15. And are to give every one their portion of bread according to their need and measure Matth. 24. 45 46 47. 1 Cor. 4. 1. 2. 3. and must not sâ—ay the souls which should not die by denouncing wrath against the righteous nor save the souls alive that should not live by lying words Ezec. 13. 19. by offering mercy to the wicked and impenitent then as they should not deny the seals of salvation to Believers hungring and thirsting for Christ neither should they give the seals of life to those that are walking openly in the way of destruction But the former is true Ergo so is the latter The Proposition is clear As the word should not be divided aright if wrath should be Preached to believing Saints and life and salvation offered to the obdurate and wicked so neither should the Stewards cut the seals of the word aright if the Supper were given to wicked men If they should say This is the blood of the Covenant shed for the Remission of your sins Drink ye all of it They should save alive those that should die with lying words for the seals speak to the Communicant and apply to him in particular the very promise that in generall is made to him and this will prove as the Magistrate being no Steward of the word and not called of God thereunto as Aaron was Heb. 5. 4. can no more distribute the word and seals to whom he pleaseth Ex officio then he can Preach and Administer the Sacraments nor should another man who is no Steward but a Porter or Cook Teach and that by his office how and to whom the Steward should distribute Bread nor is it sufficient to say by this one man not the Church is to debar from the Sacraments for the seals being proper to the Church as the Church he must act here in and with the power of the Church 2. It is another question whether by the Minister or by the Church any ought to be debarred and whether there be any such Censure as debarring from the Seals and it s another question by what power whether by the power of order or by the power of jurisdiction Ministers may debar the scandalous from the seals I conceive by both powers they may keep the Ordinances pure and if it belong to the Magistrate to debar any more then to preach the word and by the way of Erastus The Magistrate by his office as he is a Magistrate only is deputed of Iesus Christ to Steward the seals to whom he pleaseth Ergo say I to cut the word aright to whom he pleaseth must be his due 2. Arg. As the dispensers of the word must not partake of other mens sins 1 Tim. 5. 22. so neither should
the Gospel to them if they were amongst us except that such as are to communicate according to the will of Christ are Christians members of the Church who doth try and examine themselves and Jews and Turks though dwelling and born amongst us are not such yet Erastus would that such should never be admitted to the Lords Supper though they should desire it Officers also have a command not to dispense some parts of the word to all as we are not to rebuke open Scorners Should any of our Church turn Iew and blaspheme Christ and pertinaciously after conviction persist in his Apostacy might not Erastus aske by what command of Christ will ye not Preach the Gospel to such an one Christ made no exception but said Preach to all Nations why do you make Exceptions might we not answer Christ hath given a power of dispensing the Gospel to all yet hath he excepted some because it s against the will of Christ that such can obey the Gospel We are bidden pray for all yet are there some that we are not to pray for because they sin unto death so is the case here in some kinde 7. It is for our instruction that the Priests were rebuked for that they admitted into the Sanctuary the uncircumcised in flesh and heart that they put no difference betweene the cleane and the uncleane and prophaned the holy things of God Ezek. 44. 9. Ezek. 22. 26. Hag. 2. 11 12 13. And this was a shadow of things to come as was observed before teaching us that farre lesse should the Pastors of the New Testament suffer the holy things of God to be prophaned 8. We read that Iohn Baptist and the Apostles baptized none but such as confessed their sinnes and professed â—aith in Iesus Christ it would then appeare to be the will of Christ that every one should not be admitted to the Lords Supper though some say the Apostles baptized single persons not in Church communion so that Pastors administer the Sacraments by reason of the power of order as they are Pastors not by power of jurisdiction as having warrant from any Church in regard Churches at the beginning had the Word and Sacraments before they had any Church Government yet I conceive the Lords Supper is a Seale of a Church-communion 1 Cor. 10. 16. 17. and the like I say of Baptisme typed by Noahs Arke 1 Pet. 3. 19 20 c. and though the Apostles partly by priviledge partly through necessitie the parts existing before the whole were necessitated first to baptize and then to plant Churches yet the Churches being once constitute these are Church priviledges to be dispensed both by the power of order and the power of jurisdiction CHAP. VI. Quest 2. Some speciall Reasons of Thomas Erastus against Excommunication examined THomas Erastus a Physitian who medled not much with Divinity save in this in which he was unsound in his reply to Beza laboureth to make Excommunication a dreame and nothing but a device of Pastors affecting domination 1. Object Onely Petâ—r killed Ananias onely Paul excommunicated Alexander and Hymeneus onely Paul said he would come to the Corinthians with the rod and for a long time onely Bishops excommunicated Presbyters gave advise onely Ergo This power is not in the Church Ans The consequence is naught Christ said only to his Disciples in person Go teach and Baptize Is it a good consequence therefore that none hath power to teach and Baptize but only the Apostles Only Paul exhorted the Corinthians to mourn for the incestuouâ— mans fall therefore no Pastors have power to exhort in the like kinde 2. We grant the Apostles did many things out of their Apostolick power which in a constitute Church the Church onely may doe as Paul his alone disputed against Circumcision of the Gentiles Act. 15. 2. What Ergo Paul in a Synod and a Synod hath not power to dispute and determine the same the contrary is evident Act. 15. 12 22 23. 3. It is false that the Authority and rod with which Paul said he would come to the Coriuthians 2 Cor. 10. 8. was proper only to Paul an Apostle the same he giveth to Timothy and to all the Elders 3. If Bishops exercised the same power for many ages Erastus must shew us Bishops who could kill miraculously such as Ananias and Elimas and work miracles now beside that Erastus must with his new opinion hold up a new creature called a Prelate unknown to the Apostles or Ierome and the Fathers he must parallel Bishops for working of miracles to Paul and the Apostles Obj. 2. The Apostles declared many to be excluded out of the kingdom of heaven and so bound in heaven whom they did not excommunicate from the Sacraments so also do the Ministers daily and yet Christ in his word commanded not those to be debarred from the Lords Supper Ans It is very true the Apostles and Pastors of Christ that now are denounce eternall wrath and that authoritatively against those that are invisibly to men heart-hypocrites who yet before the Church who know not the heart go for Saints and are neither excluded from Sacraments nor so much as rebuked But it is a vain collection that therefore externally scandalous are not to be debarred from the Supper and Excommunicated The Prophets 1 Cor. 14. did preach that Heathens remaining Heathens were excluded out of the Kingdom of God yet Heathens cannot be Excommunicated and yet I hope Erastus dare not deny but Christ hath forbidden that Heathen remaining Heathen be admitted to the Sacraments Though I dare provoke any Erastian and attest them by their new Doctrine to shew me a warrant from Christs Testament why the Church should refuse the Seals to a Turke they will say A Turk is not willing to receive and therefore the Seals may be denied to him and yet cannot be denied to a member of the Church though scandalous if he desire it and professe repentance But I answer Though a Turk be unwilling to receive the Seals What if he should be willing and require to be Baptized yet remaining ignorant of Christ and the Gospel we should not Baptize him Now by the Doctrine of Erastus we have no more re warrant to deny the seals to him then to deny them to Judas we desire a Scripture from the adversary which will not conclude with equall strength of reason against the giving of the seals to any scandalous member of the Church it is true a Turk ignorant of Christ though he should desire the seals is uncapable and he is unwilling vertually in regard he as yet refuseth the knowledge of the Gospel and so is the scandalous professor no lesse uncapable though we may grant degrees of incapacity for he is vertually unwilling to receive Christ in regard he is unwilling to part with his idol-sins 2. Though a Turk should be unwilling as its like enough he will be yet we desire a Scripture why we cannot make offer of
the Sacraments to a Turk and yet we may Preach the Gospel and make offer of Christ in the word to him 1 Cor. 14. 23. And this Scripture shall also conclude we are not to admit scandalous persons to the Sacraments being both uncapable of them as also because they can but trample on these pearls no lesse then the Turk should do the Argument then is just nothing We exclude many from the Kingdom of Heaven whom we do not excommunicate on earth But he should say we Excommunicate many whom we do not exclude out of Heaven Erastus These two are not one to declare a person hatefull in Heaven to God and to be cast out of the visible Church for if they be both one then one private Pastor may Excommunicate for he may declare from Gods word that an offender is excluded out of Heaven hath not the word of God in the mouth of one as much authority and power as out of the mouth of many the authority of the word dependeth not on a multitude also why should this be as good a consequence God judgeth not this man worthy of the Kingdom of God Ergo he is to be cast out of the visible Church as this God judgeth not this man worthy of life eternall Ergo God will not have him to live in this temporall life Are we ignorant that God esteemeth many not worthy of life eternall to whom he hath given power to cast out devils in his name Matth. 7. Ans All this is but with carnall reason to speak against the wayes of God for 1. Not every denouncing of a sinner unworthy of Heaven is Excommunication So Iudas might have Excommunicated himself and when one Pastor declareth an offender unworthy of Heaven he is not formally excommunicated out of the visible Church he is cast out of the invisible Church But that is not Excommunication except it be done for a publick scandall that offendeth the Church 2. Except it be done by the visible Church 3. According to the rule of Christ Matth. 18. 4. That he may be ashamed and repent and be saved Gods binding of the offender in Heaven is a part of Excommunication but not all nor the very same with Excommunication 2. The Churches casting out for Christs institutions cause is of more Authority then the Conscionall casting out performed by one Pastor and yet the Conscional casting out by one insuo genere is as valid as the other subordinata non pugnant 3. We are not to take our compasse and rule of Gods waies by his outward dispensation but the revealed will of Christ is our Rule God thinketh those who walketh inordinately and causeth divisions not worthie of the Christian society of the Saints and must binde them in heaven to that censure in regard he expresly so commandeth in his Word Rom. 16 17. 18. 2 Thes 3. 14 15. 1 Cor. 5. 11. Yet he thinketh them worthy of Salvation and may give repentance and Iesus Christ to many of these he may deny salvation to the wicked and upon that feed them to the day of slaughter dare flesh and blood quarrell this consequence God hath appointed the wicked for the day of wrath Ergo he giveth them more of this life then heart can wish This consequence dependeth on the meer dispensation of God nor is this our Consequence God judgeth such unworthy of heaven Ergo they must be cast out of the visible Church we never made Excōmunication a necessary consequent of the Lords judging men unworthy of Heaven for then all these that God judgeth unworthy of life eternall should be excommunicated and only these which is false for God may judge some worthy of life eternall in Christ and yet they are to be excommunicated if they refuse to hear the Church as many regenerate may go that sar in scandalous obstinacy and many whom God judges unworthy of life eternall may so belie a Profession as they deserve not to be excommunicated and both these may fall out and do fall out according to the revealed will of Christ Erastus 4. objecteth Excommunication must exclude men from only the externall society of the Church for he only can joyne us to Christ or separate us from internall and spirituall society of Christ who can beget lively faith in us and extinguish lively faith when it is begotten for by faith only we are made living members of Christs body and by only infidelity we leave off to be members of his bodie But no Church no creatures can either beget lively faith in us or extinguish it in us or thus men can neither give to us nor take from us salvation therefore Excommunication should not be defined by cutting men off from salvation Ans This is the only Argument of Erastus that seemeth to bear weight But it is false and groundlesse it supposeth the false principle that Erastus goeth on that Excommunication is a reall separation of a member from Christs Invisible and Mysticall body and that the Excommunicated person who may be an Invisible member of Christ and regenerated may be an Apostate and fall from Christ and leave off to be a member The contrary of which all our Protestant Divines teach against Papists whereas Excommunication is only a Declarative but withall an Authoritative Act or Sentence of the Church and no reall cutting off of a believer from Christ But you will say It presupposeth a cutting off in heaven from Christ and therefore the Excommunicated person is declared to be cut off Let me Answer I conceive Excommunication hath neither Election nor Reprobation Regeneration or non-Regeneration for its object or terminus but only it cutteth a contumacious person off from the Visible Church on earth and from the head Christ in heaven not in regard of his state of Regeneration as if Christ ratifying the Sentence in heaven did cut him off so much as conditionally from being a member of his body No but in regard of the second Acts of the life of God and the sweet efficacy and operation of the spirit by which the Ordinances are lesse lively lesse operative and lesse vigorous the man being as the Learned and Reverend Mr. Cotton saith As a palsie Member in which life remaineth but a little withered and blunted and he in Satans power to ve◠his spirit and therefore I grant all to wit that Excommunication is not a reall separating of a member from Christs body only unbelief doth that but it followeth not Ergo it is a separation only from the externall society of the Church For 1. This externall cutting off is ratified in heaven And 2. Christ hath ratified it by a real internal suspension of the influence of his spirit in heaven But I deny that this universall doth follow from Christs binding in heaven That whomever God judgeth unworthy of heaven all these are to be cast out of the Church he cannot prove this consequence from our grounds Erastus Argueth thus If God dam any as
brother that is a fornicator Erastus saith he forbiddeth no such thing 2. Though I think Christians may eat with heathens 1. Cor. 10. 27. and that Paul did eat with heathen yet it is no argument to say it is therefore lawfull to eat with one cast out of the Church because we may eat with heathens to gain them and we are not bidden abstain from heathens company that they may be ashamed of their religion though Christians are to use no heathens with intimate familiarity as we do our brethren in Christ But we are to eschew intire fellowship with a scandalous and cast out brother to gain him that he may be ashamed 2 Thes 3. 14. and in this a scandalous brother is in worse case then a heathen But in other respects he is in better condition as being under the medicine of the Church 3. Though we may have commerce and buy and â—ell with heathens and neglect no dutieâ— of humanity to them as to receive them into our house and to be hospitall to them Heb. 13. 2. Iob 31. 32. Yet this will conclude intire fellowship with neither heathen or scandalous brethren Yea we are not to receive a false teacher into our house 2. Ioh. ver 10. Yet are we not forbidden to neglect duties of common humanity to false Teachers though we be forbidden intirenesse of Brotherly fellowship with them Erastus There is not the same reason of holy things and of private civill things for this not eating belongeth to private conversing with men not to publike Communion with them in the holy things of God One saith It is in our liberty Whether we converse familiarly with wicked men or not But it is not in our power Whether we come to the Lords Supper or not And Paul will not have us to deny any thing that belongeth to Salvation and therefore he saith 2 Thess 3. Admonish him as a Brother and none I hope can deny but the Sacraments are helps of godlinesse and Salvation Ans 1. It is true that avoiding of the company of scandalous Brethren hath in it something civill but it is a censure-spirituall and a Church-censure two wayes 1. Objectively in its tendency Respectu termini ad quem 2. Effectively in its rise and cause Respectu termini à quo it is a spirituall censure Objectively because it tendeth to make the party ashamed that he may repent and become a Brother with whom we are to converse and therefore is destinated for no civill use but for the good of his soul that is a member of a Church that he may return to what he was 2. This censure though one private Brother may exercise it upon another yea a woman on a man who yet hath no Authority over the man is notwithstanding in its rise and efficient cause a Church-censure 1. If Christ will not have one Brother to condemne another while first he rebuke him and if he be not convinced while he do the same before two or three witnesses and if he yet be not gained one private Brother may not after conviction before two or three witnesses repute him as a Heathen or complain of him before an Heathen Iudge as Erastus saith How shall we imagine any one single Brother may withdraw Brotherly fellowship from another Brother by his own private Authority while he first be sentenced before the Church And the Church shall convince him to walk disorderly to cause divisions and offences to be a Fornicator a Covetous person and so to be unworthy of the intire Brotherly fellowship of another For if this order were not in the Church every Brother might take up a prejudice at his Brother and so break all bands of Religious Communion and Brotherly fellowship and dissolve and make ruptures in the Churches Now certain it is These Texts Rom. 16. 17 18. 2 Thes 3. 11 12 c in the letter intimate no such order as is Matth. 18. But it is presupposed as clear by other Scriptures we are not to withdraw from an offending Brother but after such an order Now the places in the letter except we expound them by other Scriptures do not bear that we are to rebuke our Brother before we withdraw from him contrary to Levit. 19. 17. 2. If I am to withdraw from a Brother all Brotherly fellowship by these places then I am to esteem him as a Heathen and as a Brother in name not in reality 1 Cor. 5. 11. Whereas once I esteemed him a Brother and did keep Brotherly fellowship with him now this is materially Excommunication I do no more in this kinde to one who is formally Excommunicated yea I am not so strange to a Heathen Ergo This I must have done upon some foregoing sentence of the Church otherwise I might un-Church and un-Brother the man whom the Church neither hath nor can un-Church and un-Brother 3. Eschewing of Brotherly fellowship to any is an act of Government distinct from the Preaching of the Word tending to make a Brother that walketh disorderly ashamed that he may repent and of a Brother in name only may become a Brother in reallity 2 Thes 3. 14. But this act of Government belongeth not to the Christian Magistrate for every Brother saith Erastus may exercise it toward his Brother Ergo here is Church-Government that the Magistrate hath no hand in contrary to the way of Erastus and not in the hands of Pastors for it is distinct from Preaching nor is it in a Colledge of Pastors Doctors and Elders for Erastus denyeth any such Colledge Ergo here every one must govern another the man the woman and the woman the man the son the father if he walk unorderly and the Father the Son this can be nothing but the greatest Confusion on Earth 4. To put any to shame especially publikely by way of punishment for publike sins must come from some Iudges or others armed with Authority Iudg. 18. 7. 1 Cor. 4. 14. 1 Cor. 6. 5. 1 Cor. 25. 34. Then the Apostles sense cannot be that every one hath power of himselfe without the Church or any authority there from to put his brother to shame for when a brother is not to eat with a scandalous brother he must be convinced by the Church to be scandalous and so cast our 1 Cor. 5. 11 12 13. as we have proved before and every man here should be his owne judge and party in his owne cause except he put his brother to some shame by an higher authority then his owne The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to put a publike note or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon the offender So Stephanus So Piscator Nota ignominiosâ excommunicationis Pomponius laetus de Magistr Rom. â— 21. Censores quintoâ— quoque anno creari solebant hic prorsus cives sic notabantur ut qui Senator esset ejeceâ—etur Senatu qui eques Romanus equum publicum perderet c. Mathaeus Harnish Gec Gabellus who adde to Zanchius his Commentary in 2
and God inviteth them to repentance and the staying in the Church And the Sacraments are to Erastus means of repentance and this casting out must be to save them for no power is given of God to the Magistrate or Church for destruction but for edification Now to put them out of the Church that they may be saved is as Erastus conceiteth to cast a lascivious Virgin out of the company of chaste Matrâ—ns to the end she may preserve her chastity I speak here all in the language of Erastus who useth all those against casting any out of the Church by Presbyters but they stand with equall strength against his casting out of idolaters and apostates out of the Church and so do the rest of his Arguments Therefore this conclusion of Erastus is a granting us the whole cause after in six books he hath pleaded none should be Excommunicated he falleth on Bellarmines Tutissimum igitur c. when he had written six books against justification by faith Lastly why should idolaters apostates and obstinately wicked men be excluded from the dispute of Excommunication and suspension from the Sacraments for he knoweth that Beza and Protestant Divines do make these the speciall though not the whole subject of the dispute Now Erastus concluding his six books doth hereby professe he hath never faithfully stated the question when he excludes those from the subjectum questionis who especially heareth not the Church and ought to be Excommunicated Thus have I given an account as I could of the wit of Erastus against the freedome of the Kingdome of the Lord Iesus CHAP. XXIII Of the power of the Christian Magistrate in Ecclesiasticall Discipline QUEST XIX Whether or no the Christian Magistrate be so above the Church in matters of Religion Doctrine and Discipline that the Church and her Guides Pastors and Teachers do all they do in these as subordinate to the Magistrate as his servants and by his Authority Or is the spirituall power of the Church immediately subject to Iesus Christ only VVEE know that Erastus who is Refuted by Beza Vtenbogard whom Ant Walens Learnedly Refuteth Maccovius opposed by the Universities and Divines of Holland Vedelius Answered by Gu. Apolonius and others and the Belgick Arminians in their Petition to the States and Hu. Grotins against Sibrandus Lubert Divers Episcopall Writers in England do hold That the Guides of the Church do all in their Ministery by the Authority of the Christian Magistrate I believe the contrary And 1. We exclude not the Magistrate who is a keeper of both Tables of the Law from a care of matters of Religion 2. We deny not to him a power to examine Heresies and false Doctrine 1. In order to bodily punishment with the sword 2. With a judgement not Antecedent but Subsequent to the judgement of the Church where the Church is constituted 3. With such a judgement as concerneth his practise lest he should in a blinde way and upon trust execute his office in punishing Hereticks whether they be sentenced by the Church according unto or contrary to the word of God as Papists dream 3. We deny not but the Prince may command the Pastor to Preach and the Synod and Presbytery to use the keys of Christs Kingdom according to the Rules of the Word But this is but a Civill subjection though the object be spirituall But the Question is not 1. Whether the Christian Magistrate have a care of both Tables of the Law 2. Whether he as a blinde servant is to execute the will of the Church in punishing such as they discern to be Hereticks we pray the Lord to give him eyes and wisdom in his Administration 3. Nor thirdly Whether he may use his coercive power against false Teachers that belongs to the controversie concerning Liberty of Conscience 4. The Question is not Whether the Magistrate have any power of jurisdiction in the Court of Conscience they grant that belongeth to the Preaching of the Word But the Question is touching the power in the externall Court of Censures 5. The Question is not Whether the power of exercising Discipline be from the Magistrate I mean in a free and peacable manner with freedome from violence of men we grant that power and by proportion also that exercise of Discipline is from him But whether the intrinsecall power be not immediately from Christ given to the Church this we teach as the power of saying peacably from danger of Pirats and Robbers is from the King but the Art of Navigation is not from the King But the Question is whether the Magistrate by vertue of his office as a Magistrate hath Supream power to Govern the Church and immediatly as a little Monarch under Christ above Pastors Teachers and the Church of God to Iudge and determine what is true Doctrine what Heresie to censure and remove from Church-Communion the Seals and Church-offices all scandalous persons and that if Pastors or Doctors or the Church Teach or dispense censures they do it not with any immediate subjection to Christ but in the Name and Authority of the Magistrate having power from the Magistrate as his servants and delegates To this we answer negatively denying any such power to the Magistrate and doe hold that the Church and Christs courts and Assemblies of Pastors Doctors and Elders hath this power onely and immediately from Iesus Christ without subordination in their office to King Parliament or any Magistrate on earth by these Arguments 1. Because in the Old Testament the Lord distinguished two courts Deut. 17. 8. If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgement 10. Thou shalt come unto the Priests the Levites and unto the Iudge that shall be in those dayes and inquire and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgement And thou shalt doe according to the sentence which they of that place which the Lord shall chuse shall shew thee c. There be here two Courts clearly one court of Priests and Levites that were Iudges another of the Iudge Now the King by vertue of his Kingly office might not usurpe the Priests office 1. Vzziah was smitten with Leprosie for so doing 2. It is evident in Moses his writing that Aaron and his sonnes the Priests and Levites were separated for the service of the Tabernacle to teach the people to carry the Arke to sacrifice to judge the Leper and to judge between the clean and the unclean to put out of the campe out of the congregation the unclean and to admit the clean Lev. 1. 7 9 12 c. and 5. 8. and 7. 7. and 13. 3 4 c. 23. Numb 5. 8. c. and 18. 4 5. 2 Chron. 29. 11. You hath the Lord chosen to stand before him 1 Sam. 21. 1 2. Lev. 21. 1. Iosh 3. 8. 1 Kin. 8. 3. 1 Chron. 8. 9. 2 Chron. 5. 7. and 7. 6. and 8. 14. Zeph. 3. 4. Hag. 2. 11 12. Mal. 2. 7 Deut. 10 9. and 21. 5. Num. 1.
fail in their judging the Magistrate is to command the Church to judge it over againe but the Magistrate cannot judge it himself as there is a complaint made to the Magistrate that the Pâ—inter hath not drawn the image exactly according to the samplar the Magistrate judgeth not of the Art of the Painter nor can the Magistrate as the Magistrate draw the image himselfe But the Magistrate may judge of the Painters breach of promise who did â—action to draw it exactly according to the samplar and hath not kept faith to the man who payeth him wages and therefore the Magistrate may either punish his morall error his breach of promise not his error of Art the faculty or company of Painters must judge of of that or then command the Painter to paint the same image again according as the Painter convenanted But it may be objected You then make the Magistrate to meddle no more with matters of faith and preaching truth or falsehood and giving out Ecclesiasticall rules in Church government as Act. 15. then he meddleth with painting according to the principles of Art now painting according to Art belongeth not at all to the conscience of the Magistrate but sound preaching right ruling in Gods house belongeth in a far nearer relation to the conscience of the godly Magistrate I Answer As touching the formall judging Ecclesiastâ—cally and as concerning this that the Magistrate should say it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to me or his dispensing of Word and Sacraments or his burning incense before the Lord it no more belongeth to him as a Magistrate to do these in his owne person formally because God hath not called him to act these then it belongeth to him to paint an Image to sew shooes to siâ— at the helme of a Ship and stir and guide her to such a Port as is clearer Heb. 5. 4. 1 Cor. 7. 17. 21. Rom. 10. 14. 1 Tim. 5. 17. and 3. 1 2 3. Act. 13. 23. and 20. 28 29 30. Heb. 13. 17. 2 Chro. 26. 18 19 20 21. But in another consideration as sound or unsound dispensing of Word and Sacraments as right or unjust ruling in the house of God may more or lesse hurt or benefit the souls of men which he is to care for indirectly in ordine ad penas vel premia civilia et corporalia it belongeth more to the Magistrate to take care of the Church of Religion of preaching and governing Gods house then any painting or Arts in the earth Again the Church proceeding in these things that are against common iustice in all judicatures no lesse then in the Church as to condemn the party never heard or not convinced either by confession or under two sufficient witnesses or to do manifest unjustice in the manner of proceeding leaveth a clear place to the wronged party by the Law of nature if not to appeal yet to flee and have re-course to the Christian Magistrate who is Parâ—ns Patrie the father of the Common wealth 6. The question may either be of any really wronged by the Church whether he may appeal to the Magistrate or whether he who either beleeveth or thinketh or falsly lyeth and saith that he was wronged may appeal to the Magistrate 7. An Appeal is different from a Declinature a Declinature is properly a refusing to be judged because the judge is incompetent and the businesse belongeth not to him those who follow Erastus and deny all power of censures to the Church doe decline but not appeal from the Church thinking the Church hath no power at all to judge or censure the scandalous An Appeal is properly from the same inferiour judicature to a superiour judge in eadem serie in the same kind and it is either proper or unproper Proper it is when a particular Church doth appeal to a Synod of many Churches in the same place Unproper when either a wronged person hath recourse to one or many Pastors of Authority as Chrysostome Flavianus Athanasius appealed to the Bishop of Rome that he would request the Church to proceed orderly Or 2. The godly Magistrate would command that the Church would unpartially proceed to right an oppressed man as Cabeljavius saith Or 3. When there is no Synods to be had then as Triglandius saith well from Beza the Christian Magistrate may provide â—it meanes of releeving the oppressed 8. This would ever be remembred that in case of the Churches erring in judgement which must be thought of as a sort of extraordinary case the godly Magistrate may do more then what ordinarily he can doe and so may the Church when the Magistrate oppresseth in judgement as great Iunius saith 9. We grant when any complaineth to the Magistrate that they are oppressed in judgement by the Church that the Church is obliged to give an account of their doings but that from common charitie to remove the scandall and that they owe to all Christians as may be evidently collected from 1 Pet. 4. 15. but this will not prove a subordination to common Christians as to Iudges nor yet to the Magistrate 2. The Magistrate when his judging is deemed scandalous is to give an account to the preachers of the Gospel who watch for his soul as King Saul gave an account to Samuel with a false Apologie I grant that he had obeyed the Commandement of the Lord but if Saul had been faultlesse in sparing â—gag and the cattell yet was he obliged to give an account to Samuel But that will not prove that King Saul was subordinate to Samuel to be judged of him because Prophets are but servants and Ministers to declare Gods will yet is it all the subordination that we require in this according to that And the people beleeved the Lord and Moses Now all the Arguments before alledged to prove that Pastors as Pastors are not subordinate in their pastorall acts to the civill Magistrate do also prove that there is no appeal from the Church in an Ecclesiasticall businesse to the civill Magistrate For 1. If two Painters contend touching any controversie in the mysterie of their Art they cannot appeal to the King as Iudge the King then should formally be a painter and which is absurd not by accident but as a King and so here if the King were the judge to whose determination we might appeale from the Church in a Church controversie sure the King as King should be a Church Officer if the Priests in controversie touching burning incense or offering strange fire to God should appeal to the decision of the King as the King sure the King in that as King should be an eminent High Priest and right of burning incense to the Lord should belong to him in as farre as the Kings lips in that controversie should preserve knowledge and they should seek the Law from his mouth which is proper to the Priests Mal. 2. 7. Ezek. 22 26. and 44. 23 24. Deut. 17. 11. 2. The Church of Antioch should have
by Gods Word Ergo They are unlawful and so not indifferent If then nothing be good because Rulers command it but by the contrary they do lawfully command it because it is good The Churches power is one and the same in things indifferent and necessary in matters of Doctrine Discipline and Order for in both the Church doth not create goodnesse but doth by the Light of the Word or which is a part of the Word by natures Light finde pre-existent goodnesse in Doctrine Discipline and matters of Order Therefore Will of Authority as Will hath no power to dispose of the least Circumstance of time place or person but the Churches power is Ministerial and determined to what is good expedient and convenient Object Humane Actions according to their specifice nature may be indifferent in Gods Worship For example to pray to God in the morning in your Bed or out of it in the House or in the Fields to Preach the Word in thiâ— or that habit in a Gown or in a Cloak these are actions in their kinde indifferent because they are neither commanded nor forbidden for that is according to the kinde of action good which is so commanded of God that it is unlawful to neglect it or to do any thing repugnant to it as to love God and our Neighbour and that is evil according to its kinde which is so forbidden by Gods Law as it is not lawful to do it or command it in any sort so it is evil to blaspheme God to commit adultery So Forbs Ans In the Field or in the Bed Cloathed with Gown or Cloak when we Pray or Preach are meer Accidents and Circumstances of praying and preaching and we grant them to be variable and indifferent howbeit they admit of Regulation Moral and so are not simply indifferent for to pray in the Fields and Streets to be seen of men is vain glory But I hope they are not indifferent in your meaning as are Surplice Holydays c. For you will not say the Church may make Laws that no Prayers be but in the Fields no Preaching except the Preacher be cloathed with a Cloak 2. It is not good Logick to say ` To pray in House or Field is an action according to its kinde neither good nor evil when as it is an individual action contracted to such a place House or Field because Field or House are indifferent in Prayer To pray is not indifferent according to its kinde because Accidents of Actions are indifferent it followeth not that the action is indifferent for then the Doctors Opinion maketh an Act of loving God and beleeving in Christ indifferent in its kinde for it is as indifferent to love God in the Field as in the House and to love him while you are cloathed with a Gown as with a Cloak As it is indifferent to pray in House or Field cloathed with Gown or Cloak so to love God and the most necessary actions in the world hic nunc in this time or in this place shall be actions according to their nature neither good nor evil but indifferent which is against the Doctors own Distinction 3. Place or habit doth not constitute Praying and Preaching in their specifice nature that were a wonder for their Objects do constitute their nature and their Objects are God and Gods Word and if they be indifferent according to their nature it shall be indifferent to pray to God or to some other thing possibly an Idol Nay if Actions good of their own nature such as to Pray or Preach be made indifferent according to their kinde because cloathed with indifferent Circumstances of time and place and habit then by that same reason Actions of their own nature evil as to murther commit adultery should also become indifferent from these Circumstances then should it be indifferent to kill in House or Field and indifferent according to its kinde which is most absurd Object Howbeit it be objected that every voluntary action is either honest or not honest yet there are some things honest that are indifferent and free For there are two kindes of honest things 1. Some honest and necessary things as all the duties commanded in Gods Law the contrary of these polluteth a man before God and they are formally positively and inclusively laudable and commendeth men before God and are rewarded This way every voluntary action is not either honest or unhonest for there is a middle betwixt these two to wit something honest and lawful but not necessary but morally free as Marriage which commendeth not a man to God so that he is therefore rewarded neither doth the contrary to wit non-marriage pollute a man before God or is blame-worthy because marriage is onely negatively honest Honestum irreprchensibile honestum exclusive honestum per compossibilitatem cum honesto formali positivo So marriage is neither positively honest nor unhonest but free morally Neither is marriage necessary by absolute necessity or necessity that toucheth the action for men may marry and not to marry is no sin onely marrying is necessary by a conditional necessity 1 Cor. 7. 39. A Widow is free to marry whom she will but with this condition That she marry in the Lord the necessity toucheth not the action but the manner of the action And this necessity of the manner or goodnesse of the action of marriage doth not make the action necessary but leaveth it as free to men to marry or not to marry and so there are some actions according to the spece or nature that are indifferent and not unhonest yet lawful So Doctor Forbs Answ 1. Marriage hath something in it natural even before the Fall It was naturally good that man should not be alone and this way before and after the Fall Marriage in the ground that maketh it necessary which is an aptitude and inclination to procreation is most necessary and so now after the Fall of man all that burneth and marrâ—eâ—h not despiseth Gods remedy of lust and sinneth and so by necessity of Gods command in the Law of nature and repeated by the Apostle 1 Cor. 7. 2 9. it is necessary in individuo And although that which is meerly natural in marriage as the Act of marriage according to the substance be not formally laudable and rewarded because of the naturality thereof yet it is not for that free or indifferent 2. And when the Doctor saith That marriage is indifferent in its nature and free so that there is no necessity of the action but onely of the goodnesse of the action he speaketh wonders For howbeit marriage be indifferent by a Metaphysical indifferency of contrahibility to such and such persons because marriage may be in some without sin and no marriage may also be in other some without sin and so praying is indifferent it is in some without sin and not praying is in some also without sin when the man is necessitated to some other
marrying both free to the conscience and also not necessarie to salvation they had laid bands upon Pauls libertie 3. We see not how the Ceremonies are left free to the conscience because they are alterable by the Church for the reason of kneeling to bread of humane dayes of Surplice is morall not Nationall there is no reason why prophaning of the Lords Supper should not be eschewed in all the world and at all times as in Britaine and at this time and Crossing and Surplice doth signifie dedication to Christs service and Pastorall holinesse in all the world as in Britaine and therefore they cannot be nationall rites and alterable but must be universall and at all times and in all places doctrinall 4. The very externall Washings Feasts New-Moones Offerings though they should be thought free toward the conscience are externall burdens against Christian libertie as our Divines Calvin Chemnitius Polanus teacheth and Bellarmine answereth the places alledged speaketh of Jewish servitude But our Divines especially Junius and Whittakerus answer Bellarmine that Paul Coll. 2. speaketh against all Commandements of men yea hee speaketh against Angel worship which is not a Jewish shadow whereof Christ is the bodie But they say it is a wide rule that all things that may be wanting in Gods worship are to be omitted in the case of scandall I answer there be three sort of things here considerable 1. Things not commanded of God as all religious observances these are utterly unlawfull when the using of them scandalizeth 2. Things that fall under an affirmative precept and these cannot be totally omitted for eschewing scandall for what ever God hath commanded is some way necessarie Ergo it some wayes and in some cases may be done though offence be taken at it but branches or parts of affirmative precepts may be omitted for eschewing of scandall as such a particular kneeling in prayer in such a place but Gods affirmatiue precepts leave not off to be alwayes scandalous actively though information be given for where the use hurteth the abuse and scandall is not taken away by teaching to teach how Images should not be abused make not Images to leave off to be scandalous objects 3. There bee some things of meere civill use as Bells Gownes Pulpits preaching on Tuesday or Thursday These be considered two wayes 1 As necessarie with necessitie of conveniencie simply 2. With necessitie of conveniencie secundum prevalentiam graduum as convenient in the highest degree of necessitie or that morall maximum quod sit in the first degree what scandalizeth is to be rejected in the last respect they oblige and if any be scandalized thereat it is taken and not given It may be the Church sees not alwayes the highest and superlative conveniencie in these Physicall circumstances but they oblige not because of the Churches authoritie no more then the word of God borroweth authority from the Church but they have an intrinsecall necessitie in themselves though right reason in the Church see not alwayes this necessitie therefore that a signe be given for convening the people that the Preacher officiate in the most grave and convenient habite is necessarie Jure divino by Gods law and that tolling of Bells and a Gowne a Pulpit bee as particulars most convenient for these ends the Church Ministerially doth judge so as the obligatorie power is from the things themselves not from the will of humane Superiours No necessitie of peace which is posterior to truth no necessitie of obedience to authoritie no necessitie of uniformitie in these externals simply and as they are such are necessities obliging us to obedience for things must first in themselves be necessarie before they can oblige to obedience I must obey Superiours in these things of convenient necessitie because they are convenient and most convenient in themselves and so intrinsecally most necessarie but they are not necessarily to be done in themselves because I must obey Superiours and because I must keep uniformitie with the Church The will of Superiours doe find in things necessitie and good of uniformitie but they doe not make necessitie nor the good of uniformitie We should be servants of men if our obedience were ultimatè resolved in the meere will of Superiours in any the least circumstance of worship and what I say of actions holdeth in matters of meere custome also But Master Sanderson D. Forbes M. Paybodie teach that we are not to regard the scandall of the malitious as of Pharisees To which I answer We are to have alike regard in case of scandall to wicked and malitious as to weake and infirme For we are not to regard the passive scandall of the weake more nor of the wicked for who ever stumble at the necessarie ordinances of God they take a scandall which is not culpably given But that we are to regard the active scandall of all even the most malitious I demonstrate thus 1 Rom. 14. 15. Paul proveth that we are not to scandalize our brother 1. because it is against charitie 2. Because we are not to destroy him for whom Christ died but we owe love to the malitious even to our enemies and must not walke uncharitably toward him as the law of God requireth 3. A malitious man is one for whom Christ died very often as is cleare in Paul before his conversion 2. 1 Cor. 10. 32. Wherefore give no scandall neither to the Jewes nor to the Gentiles nor to the Church of God 33. Even as I please all men in all things not seeking mine owne profit but the profit of many that they may be saved Here be many arguments for our purpose All men whether weake or wilfull are either Jewes or Gentiles and none more malitious against Paul and the Gospell then the Jewes yet must we take heed that we give them no scandall 3. If we must please all men in all things indifferent Ergo also malitious men 4. If we must seeke the profit not of our selves but of all men and seeke to save them and so seeke the salvation even of the malitious as Christ prayed for his malitious enemies so must we not scandalize them 5. I argue from the nature of scandall scandall is spirituall murther but the sixt Commandement for biddeth murthering of any man either weake or wilfull for no murtherer can have life eternall 1 Joh. 3. 15. Now weaknesse or malice in the scandalized is accidentall to the nature of scandall active for active scandalizing is to doe inordinately and unseasonably that which hic nunc may be omitted from which any is scandalized either weake or wilfull to lay a snare to kill a wicked man except it be by the authoritie of him who beareth the sword under God is murther no lesse then to kill an innocent man 6. To scandalize actively is to be accessarie to the sinne of the partie scandalized but we may not be accessarie to the sinne of either wilfull wicked or weake
of policy because lesse weighty then the greater things of the Law are not therefore alterable at the will of men p. 19 20 Order requireth not a Monarchical pâ—elate p. 21 22 How the care wisdom of Christ hath left an immutable platform of Discipline p. 22 23 Christ the onely immediate King Head and Law-giver of his Church without any deputy heads or Vicars p. 24 25 SECT 3. 5. Argument p. 26 27 Moses and David might not alter or devise any thing in Worship or Government nor may the Church now p. 27 28 Two notes of Divinity ought to be in the New Testament Ceremonials as were in the Old p. 29 30 How Moses his doing all according to the patern proveth an immutable platform The Objections of Mr. Hooker and Mr. Pryn answered at length p. 30 31 32 33 34 c. Gods care to us leadeth us to think he hath given us a better guide theÌ„ natural Reason in all morals of Church-Discipline p. 33 34 The occasional writing of things in Scripture no reason why they are alterable p. 35 36 Papists pretend as Formalists do that things are not written in the Word because of the various occurrences of providence p. 36 37 That there was no uniform platform of Government written in the time of Moses and the Apostles is no Argument that there is none now p. 39 40 Fundamentals because successively delivered are not alterable p 41 42 The Church of Ierusalem as perfect in Doctrine and Discipline is our patern p. 42 43 The indifferency of some things in the Apostolick Church cannot infer that the Government is alterable p. 45 46 The Argument of Moses his doing all in the Tabernacle to the least pin according to special direction further considered p. 47. 50 The Ark of Noah proveth the same ib. Formalists acknowledge Additions to the Scripture contrary to Deut. 4. 2. 12. 32. the same way that Papists do p. 51 -56 c. Moses and Canonick Writers are not Law-givers under God but Organs of God in writing and meer reporters of the Law of God p. 62 63 Papists say that the Church is limited in the making of Ceremonies both in the matter and the number and so do Formalists p 62 63 64 Four wayes Positives are alterable but by God onely p. 64 All things never so small are alike unalterable if they be stamped with Gods authority speaking in the Scripture p. 64 65 By what authority Canonical Additions of the Prophets and Apostles were added to the Books of Moses p. 65 Canonick Writers how immediately led by God p 66 The Characters of Formalists Ceremonies Papists Traditions one and the same p. 67 What is it to be contained in Scripture and how far it maketh any thing lawful according to Hooker p. 68 The Fathers teach that all things are to be rejected that are not in Scripture p. 69 70 â—t derogateth nothing fâ—om the honour of God in Scripture that hee be consulted in the meanest things p. 70 How things are in Scripture p. 71 Some actions are supernaturally moral some naturally or civilly moral some mixt p. 72 Some habitual reference to Scripture is required in all our moral actions p 73 Works of Supererogation holden by Hooker p. 77 Whether our obedience be resolved in all Church policy in This saith the Lord in his Word or in This saith the Church p. 79 Two thingâ— in the external worship 1. Substantials 2. Accidentals or Circumstantials p. 80 SECT 5. The question who should be judge of things necessary or indifferent in Church-policy not to purpose in this question p. 81 82 c. SECT 6. What are Honour Praise Glory Reverence Veneration Devotion Religion Service Worship Love Adoration p. 82 83 84 85 Two acts of Religion imperated and elicite p. 83 Honouring of holy men is not worship p 84 The Religions object with the act of reverencing maketh adoration to be Religious but a civil object except the intention concuâ—s maketh not religious adoration of a civil object p. 85 86 What Worship is p. 86 87 Worship is an immediate honouring of God but some worship honoureth him more immediately some lesse p. 87 88 A twofold intention in worship p. 88 89 Vncovering the head is veneration not adoration p. 89 Consecration of Churches taken two wayes condemned p. 90 Master Hookers moral grounds of the holinesse of Temples under the N. T. answered p. 92 The place 1 Cor. 11. Have ye not houses to eat and drink in c. maketh nothing for hallowing of Churches p. 93 Nor the place Psa 74 8. p. 94 The Synagogue not Gods house as the Temple was ib. Question 1. The negative argument from Scripture valid p 95 Not to command is to forbid p. 96 How far Davids purpose to build the Temple was lawful p. 97 Of additions to the Word p. 98 Even perfecting additions of men are unlawful p. 99 Every moral action is to be warranted by the Word p. 102 What is man's in worship is not lawful p. 103 Not all actions in man as actions of meer nature of arts or trades of sciences but only moral actions are regulated by Scripture p 104 Helps of faith and the formal object of faith are different p 105 What certitude of saith is required in all our actions of our daily conversation p. 107 The Scripture a Warrant for the morality of our acts of the second Table p. 107 Many actions of the second Table are purely moral all actions of the first Table are purely moral p. 107 108 What ever is beside the Word of God in morals is contrary to it p. 109 The vanity of the perfection of Scriptures in Essentials not in Accidentals p. 110 Whatsoever is not of faith how true p. 110 111 Doubting condemneth p 113 Papists say the Scripture in general is perfect but not in particulars and so Form lists p 114 What is onely negative in Gods worship cannot be commanded ibid. Opinion of sanctity and divine necessity not essential to false-worship ibid. The distinction of worship essential and accidental of Gods general and particular will is to be rejected p. 118 119 The distinction of divine and apostolike traditions rejected p. 125 126 Circumstances not positive religious observances as ceremonies are p. 127 Ceremonies usurpe essential properties of divine Ordinances p. 128 129 130 We owe subjection of conscience collateral onely to Gods Ordinances p. 135 The spirit worketh not with Ceremonies p. 136 The place Matth. 15. concerning the traditions of the Elders discussed p 137 138 Ceremonies Magical p. 141 If the third command shall enjoyn decency in general then must it enjoyn this special decency Crosse and Surplice p. 141 142 Iewish and Popish Ceremonies are fruitlesse professions of unlawful worship p. 142 143 Whether the Ceremonies be Idolatry p 144 Of religious kneeling ibid. Four things in adoration ibid. Intention of worship not essential to worship p. 145 Religious bowing of its nature and not by mans arbitrary and free
3 4 5. And Moses and all Canonick writers were only to receive the word at Gods mouth and to hear it Ezek. 3. 8. As meer servants and in this the Church of Prophets and of Apostles and the Church that now is were alike I know no Authority of the one above the other Indeed in writing and relating to the Church the will of God and the Scriptures Canonick writers are agents inspired with the Holy spirit immediately breathing on them in Prophecying and in writing Scripture But the Proclaimer of a Law as such hath no influence in making the Law Let it be also remembred that as Papists say two things to the place so do Formalists 1. That it is not against Ceremonies 2. That the Church is limited in making Ceremonies beside the Word that they may not make them too numerous and burdensome This I make good in the words of a famous Iesuit who citeth the words of a Learned Papist approving them Lorinus Coment in Loc. Refellit idem Oleaster Hereticos hinc inserentes institui non posse Ceremonias ac ritus novos circa cultum dei Quam vis ipse optat moderationem in preceptis ac censuris ut facilius suavius possint servari To whom I oppose that golden sentence of a man endued with the spirit of God above any Papist Calvin Com. in Deut. 4. v. 2. Insignis locus quo apertè damnatur quicquid hominum ingenio excogitari potest Ibid. Quoniam preposter â lasciviâ rapitur totus ferè mundus ad cultus fictitios qui tamen precise une verbo damnantur ubi deus ita jubet suos acquiescere positae legi ne justiores esse appetant quam illic docentur All Worship is precisely condemned here or any thing devised about the Worship by the wit of men I would here meet with a Grand exception of Mr. Hooker Eccles Polic. 3. Book pag. 111. Their distinction of matters of substance and of circumstance though true will not serve for be they great things or be they small if God have Commanded them in the Gospel and if his Commanding them in the Gospel do make them unchangeable there is no reason that we should change the one more then the other if the authority of the maker do prove their unchangeablenesse which God hath made then must all Laws which he hath made be necessarily for ever permanent though they be but of circumstances only and not of Substance Ans 1. Our distinction of matters of substance and circumstance rightly taken will serve the turn But the mistake is in that 1. Many things are but circumstances of worship such as are Positives and Religious significant Ceremonies to Formalists that are not so to us for to wear a surplice in sacrificing to Jupiter were to make the Act of wearing that Religious habit an act of Religious honouring of Jupiter but to wear Surplice and to sacrifice in that habit to Iupiter at eight of clock in the morning rather then at ten in this place Physicall rather then this is no worshipping of Iupiter but a meer Physicall circumstance neither up nor down to the worship and time and place Physicall are neither worship nor Religious means of worship 2. Time and Place Name Country Form Figure Habit or Garments to hold off injuries of Sun and Heaven as such â—re never commanded never forbidden of God and therefore the change of these circumstances can be no change of a Commandment of God We never advanced circumstances as such to the orbe and spheare of Morals Formalists do so advance their Ceremonies and therefore if God command Surplice though by the intervening authority of his Church such cannot be altered except God command to alter the Religious signification of white linnen but we know not where God hath commanded the alteration of any Ceremonies except that the Lords coming in the flesh as a thing to come must alter all Ceremonies which shadow forth Christ to come when the body Christ is come already Let us know such a ground for alteration of corner Cap Altar Surplice except to drive such Oxen out of the Temple 3. We hold that the Lords commanding such a thing in the Gospel is a reason why it should be necessarily permanent for ever except the Lord hath commanded it should be for a time only as he commanded Moses's Ceremonies and so Gods Authority of commanding a thing to be unchangeably in his worship is a reason why it should be unchangeably in his worship and his commanding any thing to be for a time only and alterably in his worship is a reason why it should be for a time only alterably in his worship so to us Gods Commandment is a reason why his own Ceremonies and Sacraments of the New Testament should be in the Church because the Law-giver hath in scripture commanded them to be and the reason why Hookers surplice and crossing should not be is because he hath commanded no such thing Now the reasons of alteration of any Laws in the Gospel is from God never from the Church as 1. If God immediately inspire Moses to make a tabernacle and thereafter inspire David and Solomon to make the Temple in the place of the tabernacle and give them no Commandment for a tabernacle its evident that God hath altered and removed the Tabernacle and that the alteration is not from David nor Solomon 2. If God command types and Ceremonies to be in his Church till the body Christ come Col. 2. 17. then when Christ is come and his coming sufficiently published to the world then are his own Ceremonies altered and removed but not by the discretion of Peter and Paul or the Church but by God himself 3. When God commandeth such Offices to be in his house which dependeth immediately upon his own immediate will of giving gifts essentially required to these Offices then these offices are so long in his Church as God is pleased by his immediate will to give these gifts and when God denyeth these gifts essentially requisite sure it is his immediate wil hath altered and removed the office not the will of the Church so the Lord hath alterd and removed these Offices and gifts of Apostles who could speak with tongues and seal their doctrine with Miracles Evangelists Prophets extraordinarily inspired gifts of healing c. 4. Some things are not matters of worship at all but of goods as the community of goods love-Feasts matters of civill conversation these are only in their morality as touching distribution to the necessities of the Saints and brotherly kindenesse unalterable and no otherwise Now for these things that are smaller or weightier we hold they are not in their weightinesse or smallnesse of importance to be considered but as the Authority of God hath imprinted a necessity on them so are they obligatory to us I am obliged to receive this as scripture that Paul left his cloak at Troas no lesse then this Christ came
should be according to the word of God and not beside the word of God If it be said they have Gods Commanding will in so far that he doth not forbid any thing not contrary to his own word but hath given the Church Authority to adde to his worship things not contrary to his word as they shall see they do promove godlinesse or may edifie the Church But then if the Church must see by the light of reason and naturall judgement aptitude in these to promove godlinesse they are Commanded by God who hath even stamped in them that aptitude to edifie and so are not beside Gods word 4. Our Divines condemne all the Traditions of the Church of Rome as Purgatory Prayer for the dead Imagery Adoring of Reliques all the Crossing Holy water Chrisme Oyl Babies Bells Beads c. Because God hath no where Commanded them and sins veniall and beside the Law and sins mortall and contrary to the Law we condemne because as what is capable of seeing and life and hearing and yet doth not see live nor hear that in good reason we call blinde dead and deaf all beside the word are capable of Morall goodnesse and yet not Morally good because not warranted by Gods word therefore they must be Morally evil III. Conclus Opinion of Sanctity holinesse and Divine necessity is not essentiall to false worship Formalists will have their Ceremonies innocent and Lawfull so they be not contrary to the word of God 2. So they be not instamped with an opinion that they binde the Conscience and are of Divine necessity holinesse and efficacy So Morton their Prelat for opinion of justice necessity efficacy and merit saith he make them Doctrinals and so unlawfull But this is but that which Papists say So Suarez saith That their unwritten Traditions are not added to the word of God as parts of the word of God but as things to be believed and observed by the Churches Commandment and these who did swear by Jehovah and Malcom Zeph. 1. esteemed Malcom and an oath by Malcom not so Religiously and so holy as an oath by Jehovah and Malcom and yet no doubt they ascribed some necessity to oaths by Malcom and Jehoram saying Am I Jehovah to kill and make alive who yet worshipped Ieroboams Calves esteemed the worshipping of these Calves lesse necessary and lesse holy and meritorious then the worshipping of the true Yehovah yet the Calves called their gods which brought them out of the Land of Aegypt had some necessity and opinion of holinesse For 1. Aaron in making a Calf and Proclaiming a Feast to the Calf committed false worship but Aaron placed not holinesse justice or merit in that worship Because Exod. 32. 22. for fear of the people who in a tumult gathered themselves together against him he committed that Idolatry Ergo necessity of Sanctity Merit and Divine obligation is not essentiall to false worship Ieroboam Committed Idolatry in saying These are thy Gods O Israel but he placed no efficacy or merit therein because 1 King 12. 27. He did it least the people going to Ierusalem should return to Rehoboam and kill him And the Philistims dis-worship in handling the Ark unreverently had no such opinion they doubting whither God or Fortune ruled the Ark 1 Sam. 6. 9. It were strange if these who say in their heart There is no God Ezech. 9. 9. Psal 94. 6. And so fail against inward worship due to God should think that the denying of God were service and meritorious service to God and that Peter denying Christ and Iudaizing Gal. 2. 12. for fear thought and believed he did meritorious service to Christ therein Pilate in condemning Christ Iudas in selling him the Souldiers in scourging him did dis-worship to their Creator the Lord of glory Shall we think that Pilate who for fear of the people did this believed he was performing necessary Divine and Meritorious worship to God 2. If opinion of necessity Divine of Merit and sanctity as touching the conscience were essentiall to false worship it were impossible for gain and glory to Commit Idolatry to preach lies in the Name of the Lord for a handfull of barley as Ezek. 13. 19. Mic. 3. 5. 1 Kin. 22. 6. 1 Tim. 4 1 2. Tit. 1. 11. For its a contradiction to Preach Arrianisme Turcisme Popery against the light of the minde only for gain and yet to think that in so doing they be performing meritorious service to God Yea they who devise will-worship know their own will to be the Lord-carver of that worship at least they may know it yet shall we think they hold themselves necessitated by a Religious obligation so to do Else it were impossible that men could believe the burning their Children were will-worship indifferent and Arbitrary to the worshippers which is open war against reason Now a worship cannot be false wanting that which is essentaill to false worship 3. False worship is false worship by order of nature before we have any opinion either that there is Religious necessity in it or meer indifferency Ergo Such an opinion is not of the essence of false worship 4. By that same reason opinion of unjustice or opinion of doing justice should be of the essence of unjustice Cains killing of his Brother should not be Man-slaughter except Cain placed some divine Sanctity in that wicked fact which is against all reason and the reason is alike in both Gods Commanding will and his forbidding will They Answer Gods will constituteth Lawfulnesse in essentiall worship and mans will in things arbitrary but this is to beg the question for when we ask what is essentiall worship they say it is that which God commandeth and what is accidental or arbitrary it is that which human authority commandeth this is just Gods wil is the essentiall cause of that worship whereof it is the essentiall cause mans will is the essentiall cause of that whereof it is the essentiall cause 5. All the materials of Jewish and Turkish worship might be appointed for right worship so we held them to be Arbitrary 6. God cannot forbid false worship but in that tenure that he commandeth true worship but whether we esteem it true or not holy or not he cōmandeth true worship Erg. c. IV. Conclusion It is a vain and unwarrantable distinction to divide worship in essentiall which hath Gods 1. Particular approving will to be the Warrant thereof and worship accidentall or Arbitrary which hath only Gods generall and permissive will and hath mans will for its father so Ceremonies say they In these hath Gods generall will according to their specification whether a Surplice be decent or not is from mans will therefore they are called worship reductively because in their particulars they have no Divine institution and they tend to the honouring of God not as worship but as adjuncts of worship so Morton so Burges Ans As Sacramentall worship is lawfull essentiall worship
will was not determinatrix in this 5. The man jumbleth together godly discretion and will they be much different but for godlinesse in short sleeves and Crossing a finger in the Aire I understand it not nor can reason dream of any warrant for it but will as will that is mans lust made it Neither do Formalists go from Suarez and Bellarmine who call that will-worship which is devised only by a manâ— wit and is not conforme to the principles of Faith and wanteth all reason and the received use of the Church But we are disputing here against the Churches use as if it were not yet a received use But upon these grounds I go 1. Reason not binding and strongly concluding is no reason but meer will So Ceremonies have no reason If the reason binde they are essentiall worship 2. Authority is only ministeriall in ordering Gods worship and hath no place to invent new worship 3. Authority as Authority especially humane giveth no light nor no warrant of conscience to obey and therefore authority naked and void of scriptures-light is here bastard authority 11. In all this Formalists but give the Papists distinction of Divine and Apostolick Traditions for power of inventing Ceremonies to them is Apostolick but not infallible and Divine Suarez giveth the difference God saith he Is the Immediate Author of Divine Traditions and the Apostles only publishers But the Apostles are immediate Authors of Apostolick Traditions God in speciall manner guiding their will So Cajetan Sotus Bellar. So our Formalists Duname Hooker Sutluvius But I like better what Cyprian saith That no Tradition but what is in the word of God is to be received But this distinction is blasphemous and contrary to Scripture 1 Cor 14 57. The things that I write unto you even of decency and order as v. 29. 40. Are the Commandment of the Lord 2. Pet. 3. 2. Peter willeth them to be mindefull of the vvords which were spoken before by the holy Prophets and of the Commandments of us the Apostles of the Lord and Sâ—vioâ—â— Then the Apostles Commandments are equall with the Commandments of the Prophets But in the Old Testament there were not some Traditions Divine and some not every way Divine but Propheticall for the Prophets were the mouth of God as is clear 2 Pet. â— 19 20 21. Luk. 1. 70. Rom. 1. 2. So 1 Tim. 6. 13. I give thee charge in the sight of God 14. That thou keep this Commandment without spot unrebukable untill the appearing of the Lord Iesus Now the Commandment as Beza noteth Are all that he writ of discipline which Formalists say are for the most Apostolicke but not Divine Traditions 2. If Ceremonies seem good to the holy Ghost as they say they do from Act. 15. then they must seeme good to the Father and the Son as the Canon is Act. 15. But that Canon was proved from expresse Scripture as Peter proveth v. 7 8 9. and James v. 13 14 15 16. If they come from the Spirit inspiring the Apostles they cannot erre in such Traditions If from the spirit guided by the holy Ghost they come from Scripture 3. If these traditions come from no spirit led by light of Scripture we shall not know whether they be Lawfull or not for the Scripture is a Canonick rule of lawfull and unlawfull 4. If any Apostolick spirit be given to Authors of Ceremonies why not also in preaching and praying How then do many of them turn Arminians Papists Socinians 5. The Apostolick spirit leading institutors of Ceremonies doth either infuse light naturall supernaturall or Scripturall in devising Ceremonies and so Eatenus in so far they were essential worship or the Apostolick spirit doth lead them with no light at all which is brutish Enthusiasme or 3. Gods Apostolick spirit infuseth the generall equity and negative Lawfulnesse of these truths Surplice is an Apostolicall signe of Pastorall holinesse and Crossing a signe of Dedication of a childe to Christs service Now light for this we would exceedingly have If this light be immediatly infused then Surplice Crossing are as Divine as if God spake them for truths immediatly inspired lost no divinity because they come through sinfull men for Balaam his Prophesie of the star of Jacob was as Divine in regard of Authority as if God had spoken it but if these trash come from an inferiour spirit we desire to know what spirit speaketh without the word But some may object The preaching of the word is somewhat humane because it s not from the infallible spirit that dited the word Ergo Ceremonies may come from the holy Spirit though they be not as lawfull as Scripture Ans Let them be proved to be from the warrant that the word is preached and we yeeld to all 5. Apostolick Ceremonies but not Divine have Gods generall allowing will for the accepting of them Now Sampsons mother Judg. 13. 23. proveth well The Lord hath accepted our offering Ergo it is Lawfull and he will not kill us So God atcepted Abel and Noah their Sacrifices Ergo they were Lawfull and Divine worship So Hosea 8. 8. They sacrifice flesh for the sacrifices of my offerings and they eat it but the Lord accepteth them not Ergo offerings of flesh without offering of themselves as living sacrifices to God are now unlawfull If God accept of Ceremonies they must be Divine service if he accept them not they must be unlawfull They Answer He accepteth them as Arbitrary worship not as essentiall I Answer God might have accepted so Sampsons sacrifice and Noahs as arbitrary worship and yet not be gracious to them nor reward their sacrificing as good service contrary to the Texts alledged but I doubt much if the Lord be gracious to men and accept in Christ corner Caps Surplice Crossing humane holy dayes They object Our Circumstances of time place persons c. are no more warranted by the Scripture then Ceremonies are And God might in his wisdom â—aith Burges have calculated the order of times and places such climats and seasons but he hath left these as he hath left our Ceremonies to the Churches liberty Ans Time and place as I observed already being circumstances Physicall not Morall nor having any Religious influence to make the worship new and different in nature from that which is commanded in the Law though they be not expresly in the Word do not hinder but you may say Such an act of worship is according as it is written for as Praying Preaching hearing is according as it is written so is Praying and Preaching in this convenient place proved by that same Scripture As it is written but one and the same Scripture doth not warrant Order and Surplice 2. The question is not what Gods wisdom can do for he could setdown all the names of Preaching Pastors Doctors Deacons Elders in the Word but his wisdom thus should have made ten Bibles more then there be But
and setting downe a perfect discipline in the New Testament in all particulars that have influence religious morall mystically significant in Gods worship and there is reason that Synods and Pastors should rather promulgate Gods Lawes then the people 1. Because God hath given to them by office the key of knowledge 2. Because by office they are watch-men and so have authority of office to heare the Law at Gods mouth and in Synods to give Directories or Canons according to that word which people have not and that their Canons must be according to Gods Word is said in the word Nehemiah 10. 32. Also we â—â—ade ordinances for us 34. as it is written in the law of the Lord. Iackson saith Of things good in themselves and apprehended so by us without any scruple of evil every mans conselence htah sufficient authority to inioyn it only the alacrity of doing in what time or measure it is to be done or such circumstances cometh within the subiect of obedience to governours Answ Then because faith in Christ is evidently good by the Doctors learning the Pastor hath no more authority to command the people to beleeve in Christ then the people hath to command the same to him So in preaching all the necessary fundamentals of salvation the authority of Pastors is meerely titular There be then little necessitie of a publike Ministery as Socinians teach us 2. The alaâ—rity and manner and measure of beleeving and doing things evidently good is as particularly set downe in Gods Word as obliging the Conscience as the Mandates themselves God who commandeth us to love him and to beleeve in his Sonne hath not left that power to Prelates that createth wretched Ceremonies to command us to love God with all our heart or not and to serve God with alacrity or not or to beleeve in Christ with all the heart or with halfe a heart the sincerity measure and manner of the loving of God is no more the subject of obedience to rulers then the loving of God Rulers doe command both alike Pari authoritate except the man say that we obey Gods Law perfectly when we give obedience to it according to the substance of the acts though we obey not sincerely The Doctor giveth us Rules in obeying Rulers We are not to adventure on the action whereof we are perswaded there be much evil and no good in it Ans Then we cannot venture upon Ceremonies that bringeth adders to Gods word under all the Plagues written in Gods word 2. Gods word not mens perswasions of conscience except in this also he be an Arminian is the rule of mens actions The servants of Caiaphas may be perswaded there is no good but much evil in confessing Christ We are to lay aside the erroneous perswasion and obey if the action be good in itself Iackson Some actions apprehended as meerly evil may be undertaken with lesse danger then others which are apprehended partly as evil partly as good the action is evil as long as we fear the evil in it to be greater then the good we can hope for Ans To do any thing as apprehended evil of which sort are humane Ceremonies to us for any respect is to do with a doubting conscience and to sin Rom. 14. 23. 2 God 's word not probabilities should lead us in adventuring upon actions Iackson 3. If the measure of the good apprehended be as great as the evil feared in private choice we may adventure upon the action leaving the event to Gods providence which favoureth actions more then privations works rather then idlenesse and following of that which is good rather then abstinence from evil for vvhere this indifference of perswasion is authority may cast the ballance and sway the private choice so also Hooker Ans This is the Iesuit Suarez his doctrine and so saith the Iesuit of Corduba Sanches when the subject is in a doubt whether the thing commanded by the Superiour be lawfull or not he is obliged to obey and he is to be excused because of the command of the superiour 1. Because say they the Commanders condition is better and for a speculative doubt he is not to be spoiled of his power of commanding where reason saith he commandeth nothing against reason 2. Because the inferiour hath resigned his will to the superiour Deut. 17. 2. Paral. 19. Ergo In things doubtsome God commanded to stand to the determination of the Priest and it is a truth that the will of the Superiour doth not vary and change the nature of a thing in it self yet it varieth to the inferiours conscience Now indifference of perswasion is all one to Doctor Iackson with indifferency of the thing for so he dictates If one have indifferency of reasons of twelve degrees on both sides that Arianisme or Arminianisme is truth if authority determine both to be truth the weight of authority in indifferency of perswasion should cast the ballance and to believe this or not to believe it where Arguments are of twelve grains of light of truth on both sides it is to the doubting man as if the thing were indifferent so is the doubter to give up his soul conscience and faith to believe Arianisme to be truth not from light of conscience for equally as much light of conscience are in either side as is supposed but for the meer will of humane authority without Gods word Now though the matter here be indifferent in it self yet not so to the doubter for Ceremonies in our perswasion are not indifferent See here Ignatius Loyola say Give over your self to your Ruler Give the Prelate your faith to keep while ye be in eternity and at the last judgement he will restore the pawn And this is â—aith Gregory de Valent. to give your two eyes to your guide I had rather they stick in my own head To these Iesuits I oppose the minde of Vasquez and Salas who say in that case the subject should first lay aside his errour and then obey 2 God requireth a full perswasion by the Lord Iesus even in things indifferent Rom. 14. 14 22 23. But poor naked humane authority cannot ingender perswasion of faith and here is doubting 3. It is false That providence favoureth positive actions more then privations for Rom. 14. God loveth better abstinence from meats in themselves lawfull and clean as the Apostle proveth ver 14. Because nothing is unclean of it self then that the eater doubt if he be not transgressing the Law of God in eating though a great Apostle say there is no danger in eating And Jackson addeth of the same nature these The good of obedience is not a consequent only of the action but either an essentiall part or such a circumstance and motive precedent as bringeth a new essence for its concomitant whereby the evil which we out of private perswasions fear may be countervaled by the goodnesse that is in the purpose
window in the conscience of others 4. Pauls practise at Corinth is but a negative ex particulari and not concludent The heathen came to hear the word at Corinth 1 Cor. 14. 23. And Paul doth no where command the Heathen should be excluded from the Sacraments Will Erastus then have them admitted 5. When Paul saith that unworthy Communicants were guilty of the Lords body and blood and required fidelity in the Stewards 1 Cor. 4. He taketh for confessed scandalous persons should not be admitted by the Church its true the sin of others who communicate unworthily is not the sin of another fellow-communicant who hath not authority to debar his fellow-communicant Erastus The Scripture debarred no Iews of old neither from sacrifices nor other sacraments but commandeth that all the male children Iews or Strangers that were not legally unclean nor from their homes should thrice a year appear before the Lord in Ierusalem for to partake of the holy things of God Ergo None were Excommunicated from the holy things of God for morall wickednesse Ans Erastus counteth this an Argument that cannot be Answered but it Answers it self to me And Erastus proposeth a Law that is Catholick to all the males yet he maketh it not Catholick himself but propoundeth a number of males that are excepted as he excepteth those that were legally unclean those that are from home and yet Deut. 16. 16. Exod. 23. 17. Exod. 34. 23. in the Letter of the Law there is no such exception as Erastus maketh I hope if he make an exception so may we according to the word of God Though we should give but not grant that there was no Excommunicaâ—ion amongst the Iews but only for Ceremoniall uncleannesse yet it proveth not there is no Excommunication in the Christian Church but the contrary for if for touching the dead by Gods Law men were separated from the holy things in that Church far more for Morall uncleannesse are men to be separated from the holy things of God under the New Testament for undeniably Ceremoniall separation signified and typed out Morall separation Col. 2. 21. 2. What ground Erastus hath to except those that were Ceremonially unclean and so as uncircumcised in flesh that they were not to appeare before the Lord let him shew the Letter of Scripture for it the same ground have we to shew that the uncircumcised in heart are not to appeare before the Lord Ezek. 44. 7 8 9. Ezek. 22. 26. Nor shall I thinke God would both command all the male without exception to compeare before him thrice a yeare whether they were Adulterers Theeves Murtherers Idolaters or not such but truly sanctified and holy and that he would expresly rebuke the Males that were Adulterers Theeves Murtherers Idolaters because they compeared for him in his House Ier. 7. 8 9 10. So then as he commandeth the the Males to compeare except they be legally uncleane or Lepers and would rebuke them if they should appeare before him being Ceremonially unclean and therefore in that case God would have them not to come So also if they should be Morally unclean he would have them not to come that is it is not their sin that they appeare before the Lord quoad substantiam actus but their obedience but it is their sinne that they appeare â—ali mâ—do in their unrepented guiltinesse yet is it the sinne of the Priests in not differencing betweene the cleane and the uncleane that they suffer them to come tali modo that as Swine they pollute the holy things of God to the Male it is their sinne that they come so and so guilty and that they come not it is their sinne but to the Priests it is their sinne that they admit the uncleane and cast Pearles to Dogs But as God would not rebuke unworthy Eaters at the Lords Table 1 Cor. 11. if they might eate unworthily by Gods Law so neither would he rebuke Theeves and Murtherers for appearing before him in his Temple if they ought not by Law not to appeare in that state No doubt saith Erastus pag. 106. there were many wicked persons in the time of Ioshua Iudges and the Kings in such a multitude yet they were bidden all to compeare before the Lord and none are excepted for their wickednesse and it is certaine God would not both bid them compeare and not compeare Ans All that sinned in Israel were bidden offer Sacrifice yet those who are wicked as Sodom are expresly debarred from Sacrifices except they were morally clean Esai 1. 13. Bring me no more vaine oblation incense is an abomination unto me 16 Wash you make you cleane So say I here God said expresly Ier. 7. 9 10. Except you be washed from your lying stealing come not before me to stand in my house to prophane my holy Name Ergo the Morally unclean are excommunicated from those holy things so all the wicked by the same reason were forbidden they remaining in their wickednes without Repentance to eate the Passeover yea to take the Name of God in their mouth Psal 50. 16 17. to Sacrifice Esai 66. 3. to touch the Altar of God except their hands were washed in innocency Psal 26. 6. And the Priests had the charge of the house of God to put difference betweene the cleane and the uncleane and the Priests are said to violate the holy things of God if the wicked as well as the Ceremonially unclean were not debarred Hag. 2. 11 12. Ezek. 22. 25 26. Ezek. 44. 7 8 9. and certainly the Males that were Leapers were expresly excepted and forbidden to come in the Congregation of Gods people as is before proved Erastus The Pharisees and Sadduces debarred none from the Sacraments for their wicked life Ans What will Erastus make the Pharisees practise our Rule they killed the Lord of Glory and then eat the Passeover with bloody hearts and hands Is such a Practise our Rule Erastus Iohn Baptist refused Baptisme to none willing to bee baptized and referred the inward Baptisme by the Spirit and fire to Iesus Christ Ans Iohn baptized those who confessed their sinnes and professed their Repentance and the like we crave of those that are admitted to the other Sacrament And the instance of Iohn or an Apostles baptizing cannot warrant the Baptizing of all Murtherers Idolatrous persons or the wickedst living as Erastus saith and the vildest on earth if they should but desire Baptisme and give no confession of their Faith nor profession of their Repentance Erastus Christ who rebuked many abuses and cast the buyers and sellers out of the Temple would have rebuked the pollution of the Sacraments also but that he never did and Christ said that Peter should forgive his offending Brother often in one day if he but say It repenteth me and he saith This transaction shall be ratified in heaven Will you be more cruell then God Do not we often lie to God in our Confession to God He meaneth well who desires to
from gaining of Souls Erastus Though binding and loosing be judiciall and forinsecall words they agree not to the Ministery onely but rather to the Magistrate except you say that in the time of Christ amongst the Iewes there was a Church court beside the Magistrates court Ans That they argue authority judiciall is proved already by many Scriptures and judiciall authority Ecclesiasticall it must be which agreeth to the Church and it was never heard that the Church especially in the New Testament doth signifie the Magistrate 2. There is no necessity to say there was a Christian Church court in Christs time because there was not a Christian Magistrate at this time but the Iewes had then a Church-court before which Christ was conveened Caiphas being President and the blinde man Iohn 9. who was cast out of the Synagogue for that he confessed Christ 3. Christ speaketh of that which was to be though in its frame not yet erected Erastus Christ hath the like words of binding and loosing Mat. 16. which signifieth also to preach the Gospell that he who beleeveth may be loosed and he who beleeveth not may be made inexcusable and therefore it is no other but to pray a brother to desist from his injury shewing him that that is acceptable to God for to binde and loose in all the Scripture is never to debarre any from the Sacraments if you divert your brother from doing an injurie by declaring the will and wrath of God out of his Word thou hast gained him and loosed him if he will not be perswaded the wrath of God abides on him and thou hast bound him Ans If loosing and binding Matth. 16. be preaching of the Word of God and loosing be Christian forgiving of an injury then are women who are taught in the prayer of Christ Mat. 6. to forgive one another invested with the keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven to preach the Gospell and why not also to administer the Seals and so are all private men clothed with the keyes to take in and cast out at their pleasure and what are Ministers that are over the people in the Lord and watch for their soules 2. We never said to binde was to debarre from the Sacraments except consequently onely to binde is to declare an obstinate man as a Heathen and so no member of the house of Christ and consequently to have no right to the bread of the children of the house nor say we that to Excommunicate is formally to debarre men from the Sacraments it is to cast them out of the house hence it must follow that the priviledges of the house belongeth not to them 3. You may disswade a man from doing a civill injurie and never gaine his soule but the Magistrates club for which Erastus contendeth in these words cannot reach the soule Erastus None can remit a debt but the creditor nor pardon an injury but he who suffereth the injurie Ans Then none can binde and loose but private men and the keyes of heaven are given to all private persons nor can private persons by forgiving so remit the person as he is loosed in heaven 2. The Church is offended at Scandals and are sufferers Ergo The Church must binde and loose Let Erastus teach us the way except by Church-censures Erastus Casting out of the unclean is not to binde because to purifie is not to absolve the unclean might be purified by any cleane and not by the Priests onely Ans The legall purging of the Leper was onely by pronouncing him cleane and could not be done but by the Priest and it was a loosing of him Erastus Where Christ instituteth any new ordinance he omitteth nothing that is substantiall but here he speaketh nothing of publike sins for which you doe especially excommunicate Ans Christ according to the minde of Erastus does here institute a throne for the Christian Magistrate how doth he then institute a way how the Christian Magistrate may remove private Scandals and not publike for publike Scandals hurt the Church ten to one more then private doe Christ speaks of sins in their rise private betweene brother and brother but he speaketh of publike Scandals of such as will not heare the Church and for these onely we Excommunicate 2. Tha◠is not true that any one place of Scripture where an institution is that all the substantials of that institution should be expresly set down in that place it is enough that all be held forth in either one Scripture or other as in Christs sufferings Baptisme Pastors c. Erastus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Again I say unto you if two of you shall agree on earth these words must referre to private men not to the Church it is cleare that Christ speaketh nothing of two as hee doth in this verse but when he saith that one private man is to rebuke and gain another private man nor is it enough to say its an argument à comparatis for if the same thing be not kept in both extreames it is a vaine comparison if you say a childe understandeth this Ergo An aged man understandeth it it followeth well But if you say a child understandeth this Ergo An aged man is rich and good who would not laugh But if God heare the prayer of two Ergo farre more will he heare the prayers of the Church it followeth not except you say if those things that two or three bindes on earth be ratified how shall we thinke that that is ratified which the Church bindes and looses Ans Here is nothing but Grammatications that cannot convince it is true that Christ speaking of two he speaketh of private men but many will not grant so much for they say that by two the smallest number is meant a Church of the fewest by a Synecdoche and two may be taken for a small convention and number which doe literally exceed two Jer. 3. 14. Rev. 11. 3. I will give power to my two Witnesses they be more Martyrs who witnessed against Babylon then two literally and this Exposition seemeth to me as good as the other and then if the smallest Church doe binde and loose in heaven and earth so much more the Church and so all shadow of this unsolid Grammattication is removed 2. The proportion is well kept if two praying on Earth be so heard in Heaven as by their prayers they may obtaine that these be ratified in Heaven which they aske on earth farre more is that ratified in heaven which the Church in a judiciall and authoritative way doth on earth in the Name of Christ for praying of private Christians and publike and authoritative binding of the Church doe both agree in this that the Father of Christ ratifieth both in heaven which is a due keeping of proportion and not such a crooked comparison as Erastus would make between an aged man a rich good man 3. Though two private men have the same Analogicall binding in Heaven and earth
Paul for fear of the iniquity of this Church or Sanedrim dealt with them as Heathen and appealed to Cesar Ans But by what Law of God did they this It is not denyed but the Iews Synedrim being two courts did inflict punishment But that Christ establisheth a civill Sanedrim as a mean Matth. 18. To gain the soul of a brother is now the question we utterly deny this and gave reasons before thereof to which I adde if any obeyed not the Church that is the Sanedrim as Erastus saith they might be stoned to death as Steven was Was this Christs milde way to cite them onely before the Romane Senate Were dead men capable of answering to any further Iudicatures 2. The last step of conveening Heathens and Publicans before the Romane Senate according to Christs order is not to be observed with them for even Heathens and Publicans are so far forth our brethren that 1. We are not when they offend us to suffer sin in them but to rebuke them as Christians Lev. 19. 18. For this is the Law of nature The Law of nature will teach us not to hate an Heathen in our heart 2. We are to labour to gain all even those that are without the Church 1 Cor. 9. 19 20 21 22. 1 Pet. 3. 1. And this is Christs way of gaining all to rebuke and admonish them Ergo it was never Christs meaning to deal with Heathens and Publicans so as at the first we are to drag them before the Heathen Magistrate that by his sword he may gain them or take away their life yea and Erastus granteth in Ecclesiasticall crimes that the Iews had power of life and death in the matter of Steven and of Paul if he had not appealed to Cesar to save his head Josephus de bel Judaic Lib. 5. Cap. 26. Antiquit. Lib. 14. Cap. 12. But in things politick Cesar took all power of life and death from them Hence only is Christs time the footsteps of the two distinct courts remained and the Priests not the civill Magistrate had the power of Church-discipline But all was now corrupt CHAP. IX Quest 5. The place 1 Cor. 5. for Excommunication vindicated from the Objections of Erastus Erastus Paul did nothing contrary to the Command of Christ But Christ excluded no man from the Passeover not Iudas Ergo Neither minded â—e to exclude the incestuous man he saith not 1 Cor. 5. Why debarred you him not from the Sacrament But why did you not obtain by your tears and prayers as Augustine expoundeth it that the man might be cut off by death Ans Christ would not take the part of a visible Church on him to teachus that none should be cast out of the Church for secret and latent crimes 2. Paul did nothing without the Command of Christ But Christ neither in the Old or New Testament commanded his Church to pray for the miraculous cutting off of a scandalous person give an instance in all Scripture except you make this one which is contraverted your instance Erastus Paul 2 Cor. 2. absolveth the man from all punishment and nameth onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rebuking Ergo He was not excluded from the Sacrament Ans Exclusion from the Sacrament is but one of the fruits of Excommunication not formally Excommunication yet he harpeth on this alway that to be excommunicated or to be delivered to Satan is but to be debarred from the Sacrament 2. The answer presupposeth he was Excommunicated we urge the place for a precept only of Excommunication if he repented to the satisfying of the Church there was no need of Excommunication 3. If the man 2 Cor. 2. was delivered from rebuke onely and if that was all his punishment Ergo he was not miraculously cut off for then he must have been miraculously cut off and raised from death to life againe unlesse miraculous cutting off had been no punishment But if he was not miraculously cut off because he prevented it then with what faith could the whole Church pray for the miraculous killing of a brother and not rather that he might repent and live 4. In all the Word of God the intrinsecall end of putting to death a Malefactor is to avenge Gods quarrell Rom. 13. 4. That all Israel may hear and feare and doe no more any such wickednes Deut. 13. 11. To put away the guilt of sinne off the Land Numb 34. 33 34. that the Lords anger may be turned away and a common plague on the Church stayed when justice is executed on the ill doer Psal 106. 28 29 30 31. And it concerneth the Church and Common-wealth more then the soule of the Malefactor and there is nothing of such an end here But the intrinsecall end here is that the mans Spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus and this delivering to Satan is in the Name and authority and by the power of the Lord Iesus 1 Cor. 5. 4. 5. Now the Sonne of man came to save soules not to destroy bodies and burne cities and though by the power of Christ Peter miraculously killed Ananias and Saphira and Paul stroke Elimas the Socererer blinde yet these being Miracles we heare not that this was done by any interveening act of the Church conveened or by their prayers to bring vengeance by a miracle on the ill doâ—r Peter and Paul doe both these not asking any consent or intervention of the peoples prayers but by immediate power in themselves from the Lord Jesus 2. If any such power were given to the Church by their Prayers to obtain from God a miraculous killing of all scandalous persons who infecteth the Church in case the civill Magistrate were an Heathen and an enemy to Christian Religion and refused to purge the Church Christ who provideth standing remedies for standing diseases must have left this miraculous power to all the christian Churches in the earth that are under Heathen Magistrates or some power by way of Analogie like to this to remove the scandalous person but we finde not any such power in the Churches under Heathen Magistrates except power of refusing to the offender the Communion and rejecting him as an Heathen and Publican that he may be ashamed and repent 3. The whole faithfull at Corinth men women and children and all the Saints for to those all iâ— this power given as Erastus saith must have had a word of promise if they ought to have prayed in faith as the Prophets and Apostles prayed in faith that they might work miracles that Paul was miraculously to kill the incestuous man But that all and every one who were puffed up and mourned not at this mans fall had any such word of promise I conceive not imaginable by the Scriptures for the Proposition I take it as undeniable if Paul rebuked the Corinthians all and every one because they prayed not and mourned not to God that Paul wrought not this miracle in killing the incestuous man they behoved to have
of men 3. If God have not commanded either Elders or any other as Erastus saith to examine and judge who are fit for the Lords Supper who not Then seeing Erastus saith the prophane the ignorant the impenitently scandalous knowne to be such are to be debarred I aske of Erastus to whom Christ hath commanded the tryall of this who are ignorant and non rectè instituti Men cannot debarre themselves from the Sacraments in a judiciall way most of men conceiting well of themselves rush upon the ordinances of God not knowing that they doe evill Workers of iniquity who cry Lord Lord Adulterers Theeves Idolaters who dare come to the Temple of the Lord and cry The temple of the Lord The temple of the Lord are these Ier. 7. 9 10 11. will also fast and professe Repentance Esa 57. 3 4 5. even when their wickednes testifieth to their face against them in the eies of all Ier. 2. 1 c. Ier. 2. 34. Esa 1. 9. and they will desire â—o partake of the Lords Supper as is evident Esa 57. 2. Now there are none on earth neither Elders or any any others to debarre them Erastus saith Taceo jam quod Deus non praecepit vel Presbyteris vel aliis tale examen Let Erastus answer us in this and by what charity is Erastus obliged to beleeve all that seeketh the Lords supper do it in truth God has given to us mens works not their words of which hypocrites are liberall and shall we foment hypocrisie and mens eating their owne damnation under Erastus his pretence of incouraging and not suffocating seeming godly desires Lastly Erastus saith it doth not concern the Church that the man deferre to do that which Christ commands him to do this is to beg the question Doth Christ command a man to eat his owne damnation CHAP. XIII Quest 9. Other Arguments for Excommunication vindicated Erastus The Apostle writeth if any man love not the Lord Jesus let him be accursed Ergo Paul will have the Elders to sit and judge who truely repent who not that they may admit the one to the supper not the other if this be excommunication excommunication is grounded on a thousand places to love Christ is to kâ—ep his commandements Ioh. 13. and 15. then who ever saith those that keep not the commandements of Christ are cursed of God he shall this way excommunicate then Moses did often excommunicate But because the false Apostles did strive to make Paul contemptible therefore Paul saith God be judge which of us loveth Christ and let God destroy him who loves him not this is the true meaning Ans Erastus perverteth the sense of Beza his words for Beza has no such conclusion as to prove a formall excommunication by the Elders or Church judicature this is Erastus sained conclusion Beza inferreth from these words that there is here gravissimae excommunicationis species a kind of heavy excommunication materially to be eternally separated from Christ called the great excommunication And it was to be accursed while the Lord come and therefore this may prove there is a kind of lesser excommunication in the Church and Moses his cursing by way of preaching may well inserre that because there be Church censures therefore there is a Church cursing heavy and lesse heavy But Beza intendeth not to prove excommunication by the Church from this but only that Christs enemies are cursed though they be other wayes in the Church and this kinde of excommunication of shutting impenitent sinners out of heaven is in a thousand places of scripture and nothing can hence be concluded against Beza and the like excommunication is Gal. 1. And when Ioh. 2. Ep. forbiddeth to receive a faâ—â—e teacher into your house if he be a member of the Church he is to be farre lesse kept in Christs greater house the Church but is to be cast out Erastus When Paul saith Gal. 5. I would they were cut off who trouble you he saith not conveene the Elders and cast such men out of the Church or deliver them to Satan but he wisheth that they were cut off by God Ans 1. The place Gal. 5. 12. I wish they were cut off that trouble you is expounded by Piscator of cutting off from the visible Church Yea he saith conveene the Church when he saith v. 9. a little leaven leaveneth the whole lumpe that is a little false Doctrine infecteth the whole Church and v. 10. I am confident of you that ye will be no otherwise minded but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgement who ever he be then he hopeth well of the Galathians that they will be of one mind to judge and cast out the false teacher this is parallel to 1 Cor. 5. though Paul do not so right downe chide them for neglect of Church censures as he doth 1 Cor. 5. But saith Erastus if Paul wished them to be cut off that troubled them why did he not cut off those false teachers and deliver them to Satan Erastus answereth it was not Gods will so to do and the Apostles could not in every place and at every time kill miraculously but when it was profitable and necessary Ans Then Paul 1 Cor. 5. farre lesse could rebuke the Corinthians because they prayed not that the incestuous Corinthian might be miraculously killed by Paul for Paul had not power to kill him because it was not necessary nor profitable the man repented and was never killed 2. Iudge if it be probable that Paul would wish to work a miracle in killing false teachers when it was neither profitable necessary nor saâ—e for the Church to have them killed 3. Paul was confident the man who troubled them should beare his judgement Erastus saith it was not Gods will he should be miraculously killed Ergo it was not miraculous killing but some Church censure or then Erastus must find out another kind of judgement And why may some say doth not Paul write to Excommunicate him as he did the incestuous Corinthian Beza Answereth Paul would not 1 Cor. 5. take that Authority to himself but would do it by the suffrages of the Church So here he sheweth what he desireth but happily it was not expedient that they should be presently cut off So Beza Yea the words do well bear that Paul thought fit That they should bear their Iudgement who had troubled them and that that leaven should be purged out 2. Yea if this cutting off be miraculous it is clear Paul could not Communicate it to others for it was Pauls will that the incestuous Corinthian should be delivered to Satan by the suffrages of the Corinthians Nor do we read that the Apostles wished to cut off men miraculously but were not able to do it Erastus It is false That Paul willed the man to be delivered to Satan by the suffrages of the Corinthians For he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have already Concluded Ordained Decreed to deliver him
the sinnes of wicked Magistrates in heaven is this good Thoma no Ecclesiasticall coaction no jurisdiction and this is to receive the distinction whether you will or not 2. The rejecting of this distinction is a tenet of Royalists for certainly we use no defensive armes against the King as King but as he is a misled man and I think the King will say he useth not offensive armes against the Parliament as the Parliament but under another very undeserved notion as Rebels 3. It is lesse that we may not rail on rulers which is a sinne for to rail upon any cursing-wise is unlawfull then that we cannot punish the ruler which is more To punish the ruler as a sinfull and wicked man is a work of justice and so lesse unlawfull then sin Erastus taketh for confessed as his custome is that which we deny that to punish rulers with an Ecclesiastick censure is a sin as to rail on them and curse them is a greater sin But to binde the rulers sinnes in heaven is a punishment and this the Elders may lawfully do and to eschew the company of a ruler if he be a fornicator an extortioner and idolater is either to punish him or put shame upon him 2 Thes 3. 14. But one private Christian farre more a Church may do that Rom. 16. 17. 1 Cor. 5. 9 10. 2 Thes 3. 14. except Erastus except the Magistrate from being under a Divine and Apostolick command this he must say and so we have the Apostles meaning withdraw from those that cause divisions and walk unordinately and are fornicators coveteous extortioners least they infect you and that they may be ashamed and repent except they be Magistrates though in the lowest rank if they be Magistrates they are gods and you their subjects and you may in no sort shame them I should think God both accepted persons and would not have us to indeavour the repentance and gaining of the souls of Magistrates because they are above Gospel-rules by this way of Erastus and because the Presbytery may not rail on Magistrates for that is sinne it followeth not the Presbytery may inflict no Ecclesiasticall censure on them Yea let me retort this The Magistrate may not rail on or curse and revile the Priests So Paul expoundeth it Act. 23. 5. against reviling of Priests nor may the Magistrate revile or curse any subject for I conceive reviling to be sinne Mat. 5. 11. and 27. 39. Joh. 9. 28. 1 Cor. 4. 12. 1 Pet. 2. 23. 1 Cor. 6. 10. Isai 51. 7. Zepha 2. 8. 1 Pet. 3. 9. Jude 9. and the Magistrate is under the Moral Law Hence I inferre by Erastus his reasoning that the Magistrate may not punish Priests Prophets Pastors or any subject though they most hainously trespasse against all Lawes which is absurd 3. That the Magistrate is made a servant not a Magistrate if the Elders may use the rod of Christ against him is a vaine consequence Paul preached himself a servant in a spirituall Ministery to all the Christians in Corinth 2 Cor. 4. 5. and all Elders are thus servants to Magistrates and flock Yet Erastus knoweth that Paul had a rod of miraculous killing the disobedient as Erastus expoundeth 1 Cor. 5. 1 Cor. 4. 21. What will ye shall I come unto you with a rod or in love Suppose there had been a Christian Magistrate at Corinth that should fall in incest as one did 1 Cor. 5. 1. Paul could not come to him with the rod or suppose the Roman Emperour had been a Christian and within the Church and should have his Fathers wife Paul could use no rod against him and should he not have in readinesse revenge against all disobedience 2 Cor. 10 6. and authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 given him by the Lord for edification v. 8. against all offenders within the Christian Church in regard that Christ is head and King of the Church but he should have neither rod nor revenge in readinesse against the disobedience of the Emperour why is not the rod of Paul the rod of Christ 2 Cor. 10. 8. yea certainly is not then the Christian Emperour the subject of Christs Kingdome and subject to the King Christ and his rod No but saith Erastus Paul Is the Emperour subject to thee and if Paul should have a rod to punish the Emperour then the Apostle could not be the Emperours subject nor obey him as a God on earth for saith Erastus no subject may punish the Magistrate This is downe right to make God an accepter of persons nor can Erastus deny but sharp rebuking was a punishment Tit. 1. Rebuke them sharply that they may be sound in the â—aith And this the Apostle urgeth all Ministers and watchmen to do not being afraid of the faces of Kings Iere. 1. 17 18. Joh. 2. 1 2 3 4. 2 Tim. 4. 1 2 3. Erastus teacheth Magistrates to break Christs bounds and to say we will not have this man to reigne over us he needed not employ a wicked pen for this they need no teacher vitia discuntur sine Magistro Erastus Some of yours say there is need of the Magistrates consent to Excommunication but certainly he will never consent to be Excommunicated himself Theodosius was not willing nor will good Magistrates consent when they see the danger on themselves you would not bring in again the Church-penances of the ancients Ans 1. We all think the Cumulative consent of the godly Magistrate is necessary to Excommunication Because he is obliged to joyne his sanction and authority to all Christs Ordinances but we think not the privative or negative consent is required so as no mans sinnes should be bound in heaven except the Magistrate say Amen 2. Put Erastus his Arguments in forme and you shall see their weaknesse as thus He whose consent is required to Excommunication cannot be punished with Excommunication himselfe because no man will consent not Theodosius nor the godliest man that he be punished himselfe But the Magistrates consent say the Presbyterians is to be had to Excommunication Ergo the Magistrate cannot be punished with Excommunication himselfe Ans I retort it he whose consent is required for threatning wrath â—o and rebuking of offenders and scandalous men he is not to be threatned with wrath and rebuked for his own offences and scandals because no man no Theodosius no godly Magistrate when he seeth the present danger will consent that he be threatned with the wrath of God and rebuked himselfe We know Nathan was afraid to rebuke a Magistrate according to Gods heart but in the third Person But Erastians teach that the Magistrate when he scandalously offends should be threatned and rebuked Ergo the Magistrates consent is not requisite to threatnings and rebukings of Pastors But the conclusion is against Erastus for the Pastors preach and rebuke and threaten as the deputies and servants of the Magistrate and as sent by him and the Magistrate preacheth rebuketh threatneth all offenders and
himselfe also in and through Pastors as his servants as Erastus teacheth then he must consent that they threaten and rebuke himselfe 2. The proposition is false it is presumed all the subjects do consent to lawfull penall Lawes against sorcery murther incest in the generall and virtually that they shall be put in execution against themselves yet the Sorcerer will never formally consent that he himselfe be put to death though he once as a subject consented to the Law that all Sorcerers be put to death For when the penall Law against sorcery was enacted he consented to this 3. He whose consent accumulative is requisite that scandalous offenders in generall be Excommunicated but not that this or this man possibly the Magistrate himselfe he is not to be Excommunicated is most false he whose consent negative is requisite for Excommunication he is not to be Excommunicated himself the proposition is true But I assume the Magistrates consent negative is requisite to Excommunication there is nothing more false For shall that which the Church bindeth on earth not be bound in heaven except the King the Iustice or Master Constable say Amen to it on earth We say not that the Magistrates consent as a Magistrate is requisite for the Excommunicating of himselfe For though as a Magistrate he ought to give his consent to Excommucate all offenders and adde his civill sanction as one of the seven wise men of Greece said Patere legem quam ipse tuleris Yet he is not Excommunicated as a Magistrate except with Kata-baptists you condemne the Office of Magistracie as an unlawfull Ordinance but as a scandalous man 3. The old penances as they do us that service to make good that Excommunication was in the ancient Church and that Erastus wanteth the authority of the Fathers and upon his ingenuity should have been ashamed to cite them for his way so we condemne them as introductory to Popery but let Erastus forme an Argument from this and logick shall hisâ—e at it That which bringeth in old satisfactions and penance is not to be holden But Excommunication or the Excommunicating of Magistrates doth this Ergo The assumption must be proved Erastus It hath no more truth which you say that the Magistrate while he punisheth cureth not the conscience for God calleth many by tribulations to himselfe and farre more then by your Excommunication Ans I would Erastus had drawen up an Argument which seldome he doth for this it must be That which is a saving mean to gaine scandalous offenders to Iesus Christ and better then Excommunication is an Ordinance of God and the other no Ordinance But the Magistrates punishing with the sword the scandalous offenders is a saving meane to gaine scandalous offenders and better then Excommunication Ergo Ans Neither Major nor Minor proposition hath any truth at all 1. Though the Magistrates sword were a better meane to gain souls it followeth not that Excommunication is no mean The Law is lesse powerfull for gaining souls The Gospel more powerfull But the Law is not for that no Ordinance of God 2. Erastus his reason to prove that the Magistrates punishing cureth the conscience as a saving Ordinance no lesse then Excommunication must be this That by which God calleth and draweth many to himselfe is a saving mean to cure the conscience but by the Magistrates punishing of scandalous men God doth this as by other tribulations The proposition must be a propositio per se That by the Magistrates heading and hanging scourging and imprisoning of themselves as kindly and intrinsecally saving means such as rebukes promises commands excommunication are the Lord calleth men and converteth them that is false God no more useth the Sword of the Magistrate as a kindly mean of gaining souls then the sword of an oppressing Tyrant so Nebuchadnezzars oppressing of the Church of God and the Assyrians unjust wasting of the people of Israel shall be kindly means of gaining of souls because God blessed the rod to many to humble their uncircumcised heart but this is accidentall to and beside the nature of the rod but it is not accidentall to rebuking threatning promises to the preaching of the Gospel nor to Excommunication to save souls and gaine them to Christ The Gospel and all the parts of it are kindly and of themselves the power of God to salvation The Magistrates sword to Erastus must be the power of God to salvation and Christ Matth. 18. in his order of gaining an offending brothers soul by this reason must descend not ascend contrary to the order of Christ for Christ maketh the rebuking between brother and brother to be the first step of gaining an offender to Christ 2. The rebuking before two or three 3. Before the Church 4. Excommunication Now all these are spirituall means and more efficacious the second then the first the third then the second the fourth then any of them But Erastus maketh Christ in the fourth step to descend from three spirituall steps of gaining the mans soul to a fourth which is carnall to wit let him be as a heathen c. this is Caesars sword which certainly is a carnall weapon proper to the Kingdomes of this world Ioh. 18. 36. whereas rebuking exhorting promises and Excommunication are the spirituall weapons of the warfare of the Ministers of Christ 2 Cor. 10. 4 8 9. Rev. 1. 16. Esai 11. 4. Psal 45. 4. Rom. 1. 16. The exercise of the sword is a mean of edifying consequenter by removing false teachers that hindreth edification but no man can say it is a mean of it self and kindly in regard of the man against whom the sword is used Farther that which is a common mean of conserving peace in all societies and corporations even without the Church where the Gospel was never heard cannot be a kindly mean of gaining mens souls that are within the visible Church Erastus Ambrose following the example of Azariah cannot be defended in debarring Theodosius from the Sacraments Yea it was tyranicall and damnable to debarre a man desirous to hear the word who otherwayes repented and acknowledged his fault from the means of salvation It was like the Popes proud fact in trampling â—on the Emperours neck he had no cause of wrath against Theodosius but as Nicephorus saith the Emperour hated Ambrose Ans 1. If Erastus had come to Logick he refuteth here but a Law by a fact of Ambrose 2. What if Ambrose debarred Theodosius from hearing the word Ergo there is no Excommunication it followeth not 3. That he debarred Theodosius from the Sacrament after he gave evidences of his repentance to the Church is an untruth 4. That after such a cruell fact of murthering so many innocent persons of Thessalonica Theodosius should have been admitted to the Sacrament or remained a Member of the Church to eat and drink his owne damnation and not be cast out as 1 Cor. 5. no man but Erastus could say so it is cleare that
the Iewes that he should not be taken and crucified as is clear in the words but he opposeth not his Kingdome to an externall visible Kingdom for his Church visible consisting of visible Officers is his Kingdom Eph. 4. 11 12. 1 Cor. 12. 13 c. The Word of the Kingdom is audible and it is visibly professed and Ministers are visibly and externally called to the holy Ministery by the laying on of the hands of the Elders and voices of the People but he opposeth his Kingdome to a Kingdome fighting with the Sword and using the coactive power of the sword to save him from being apprehended and crucified by the Iewes Now this is the Magistrates Kingdome for he beareth not the sword in vain Rom. 13. 4. and so Christ evidently proveth in these words that the power that beareth the sword which is the very essence of the Magistrates office as a Magistrate is not a part of his Kingdome for his Kingdome is of another World and Spirituall but the Magistrates power is of this World and useth worldly weapons as the sword Then it is evident that the Magistrate as the Magistrate 1. Is not subordinate to Christ as Mediator and head of the Church 2. That when it was said All power in heaven and earth is given to the Mediator Christ The sense cannot be the power of the sword was given to him as Mediator to be a judge and a Ruler on earth which he refused Luke 12. 13 14. though as God he hath the power of the sword 3. That the supream Magistrate as Magistrate is not the onely Deputie Delegate and Vicar of Christ as Mediator for if Christ as Mediator have a substitute and Deputie such as the Magistrate as the Magistrate who beareth his bloodie sword to cut off the enemies of the Church and to fight for Christ then 1. Christs Kingdome surely should be of this World 2. By the same reason since as Mediator he is Priest and a High Priest to offer a sacrifice to God as all Priests must doe that are proper Priests Heb. 8. 3. c. 9. 7. c. 10. 14. c. 10. 1 2 3. c. there must be Priests under Christ properly so called to offer some bloodie sacrifice satisfactorie for sinne which is blasphemie to say I meane proper Priests for otherwise in a figurative and borrowed sense all beleeevers are Priests to offer themselves to God Rom. 12. 1. Revel 1. 5. 6. 1 Pet. 2. 9. but not the Deputies of the High Priest Iesus Christ and by the same reason he must have Prophets under him that are Vicars and Deputies which is unpossible for Christ as Prophet and great Prophet is essentially Lawgiver and the Author of Cannonick Scripture and he who really by a supernaturall power teacheth the heart but so he hath no Deputies nor any Ministers or Prophets nor any under Law-givers or under Prophets which by an action or any active power communicated to them can as under Lawgivers devise any part of Law or Gospell or any other part of Cannonick Scripture or have any active influence supernaturall to make a new heart Hence all our Divines say Christ as Mediator and King of the Church hath no Deputies neither King nor High Priest nor Pope nor Saint 4. It must follow that the Magistrate who as Magistrate beareth the Sword is not the head officer of the Church under the Mediator for as Magistrate he must act with the sword upon the Church as the Church and the Ministers of the Gospell as they are such whereas when the Magistrate doth act as Magistrate on the Ministers with the sword he doth it on them as men erring and sinning But onely so he procureth as a Magistrate the spirituall good of the Church as the Church indirectly and by the sword in driving away Hereticks and wolves from the flock That Church which is the pattern and rule to all the Churches unto the end of the world in those things that belongeth to a Church as a Christian Church must be our rule and paterne in Government But in the Apostolick Church of Jerusalem Antioch Ephesus Thessalonica Corinth Galatia Philippi Colosse the seven Churches of Asia planted and framed up as perfect Christian Churches by the Apostles the Magistrate was not the only supream Governour of Churches nor did the Apostles Elders and Teachers in those Churches nor the Church act preach dispence the Sacraments rule governe as servants under and through and from the Authority of the Magistrate or King as his Vicars deputies and servants But by immediate Authority from Iesus Christ placed in them without the interveening mediation of Magistrates Ergo that Church should be the patern of our Church though the adversaries deny the proposition to wit that the Apostolick Churches as Apostolick should be our patern in all things in regard that the Magistrates were then heathens enemies to the Church and Gospel and so de facto actually and by accident could not be the supream officers and Governours of the Church yet now when we have Christian Magistrates that are nursefathers to the Church and beleevers professing the Gospel such as David Solomon Iosiah Iehoshaphat and Ezekiah and other godly Princes of Israel and Iudah were and therefore that the Church as it is a Generall both to the Iewish and Christian Church should be our paterne in Government yet we have though I say they deny this Major a great advantage of the adversaries in these 1. We have the first Christian Church to be our paterne and the New Ierusalem that came downe from Heaven from God Revel 21. 10. The mother of us all Gal. 4. 26. Which is builded upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himselfe being the chief corner stone Ephe. 2. 20. to be our rule and paterne and all that was prophecied though not compleatly in all the degrees of the Church of the Apostles was then fulfilled as touching the essence of a Church 2. Yet here the Magistrate was no chief officer 3. The adversaries must prove Moses David Solomon and those godly Kings as Kings and Magistrates and virtute officij were supream rulers and Church-officers and so that Constantine and all the godly Princes and Emperours were by vertue of their office as Magistrates all such Prophets as were Moses David Solomon for certainly they as Prophets wrote Scripture had the form and structure of the Temple revealed to them of God received Laws from God for the Priests if our Kings as Magistrates now can do the like we shall then say something to their Headship over the Church 4. And if they reformed Religion in the time of the defection of the Priests when they were holy and zealous and walked with God and did right in the sight of the Lord like unto David such as Jehoshaphaet Josiah when the Priests were corrupt we shall grant the like to Parliaments made up of Josiahs and Ezechiahs when the Assembly of Divines are
as the Magistrate doth is an act of the Magistrate performed by power of the sword Whether the Magistrate do rule in his owne person or by his deputies and servants Ergo the Apostles governing the Church medled with the sword which Christ forbade Luk. 22. 25 26. Rom. 13. 4. Luk. 12. 13 14. and all the Pastors and teachers now in the exercise of discipline do usurpe the sword Yea if they be the deputies of the Magistrate in dispensing word and Sacraments they must use the Magistrates sword as Ministers of the Gospel for what servants do in the name of the supream swordbearer that the swordbearer must principally do by the servants so Ministers by this use both swords 5. That the Magistrate cannot be the chief officer of the Church is thus proved he who is subject himself to heare the Church and to submit to those that watcheth for his soul and to be put out from amongst the midst of the Church if he be scandalous is not the principall Governour and head of the Church to command all But all Christians and so the Christian Magistrate is such for if God accept not the persons of men those places Matth. 18. If he hear not the Church c. Heb. 13. 17. and 1 Cor. 5. 1 2 4 12 13. must tye the Christian Magistrate except God have excepted him but God hath no where excepted the Magistrate But as David had Gad Nathan and other Seeâ—s so the Magistrates now have some to watch for their souls The proposition is proved because if the Magistrate be supream to command Elders as Elders both in Doctrine and discipline and in all Ecclesiasticall censures then the Magistrate as the Magistrate cannot be under the Elders and Ministers as such for that involveth a contradiction that Pastors as Pastors should watch over the souls of Magistrates that they erre not and oppresse not in judgement and that the Magistrate as Magistrate should be over the souls of Pastors to watch for them in the same kind if any object that the Pastors as Pastors have souls and therefore they must have some to watch for their souls and therefore can neither be supream nor excepted in those places Mat. 18. Heb. 13. 1 Cor. 5. It is answered by granting all of this or this single Pastor but not of the whole company for when they erre we know not a whole communitie over them but those of the Catholick visible Church and if they erre the Kings of the earth here may command them to do their duty under paine of bodily censure and punish them But none are above them to watch for their souls that we know but they by office watch both for their owne souls and for the souls of others even as the King governeth himselfe and the people both politically 6. Whatever power in matters of Christs Kingdome or the Government thereof the Magistrate hath that must be given of Christ who only can appoint Elders and officers over his owne house but no where in Scripture find we any such power given to the Magistrate Ergo we are to beleeve he hath not any such power The proposition is true because Christ being a perfect Lawgiver and King doth give Lawes for his owne house as particularly as Moses did for every severall pinne in the Lords Tabernacle and David and Solomon for the Temple the assumption I prove because the Government of Christs house is spirituall as the weapons of their warfare are not carnall 2 Cor. 8. 5. and it is in binding and loosing forgiving and retaining sinnes by the power of the keys of the Kingdome of God given to the Church and to such as are sent as the Father sent his Son Christ Matth. 18. 18. 16. 19. Ioh. 20. 21 22 c. But Magistrates as Magistrates do punish sinnes with the sword Rom. 13. 4. but not forgive sins nor binde and loose in earth or heaven nor exercise any spirituall power nor deal with the consciences of men no more then they cure the diseases of the body though indirectly and externally they take care that there be Physicians who can cure diseases The power of governing the Church is the supream power under Christ which can say to the Magistrates power We must obey God rather then men But no such supream power agreeth to the Magistrate as Magistrate For Ministers as Ambassadors of Christ can and may preach binde and loose Rebuke Excommunicate against the will of the Magistrate though he command the contrary as Prophets have rebuked Kings Jer. 1. 18. 22. 1 2. 2 Sam. 12. 7 8 9. 1 King 21. 18 19. Mark 6. 17 18. The Magistrate as the Magistrate can do none of these nor hath he power to command the Ministers of Christ by way of privation but only by way of accumulation he may command them to do their dury and to preach the Gospel soundly and forbid and punish the preaching of false Doctrine the same way Whatever power Christ hath given to his Church that the Christian Magistrate when he becomes Christian cannot take from the Church But Christ gave to the Churches of Jerusalem Antioch Ephesus Corinth to the seven Churches of Asia c. a full power to dispense the word and Sacraments to govern the Churches to censure Wolves and false Teachers who draw Disciples after them in Synods to condemne perverters of Soules and refute their Doctrine to put out incestuous persons to Excommunicate such as will not hear the Church and a power to reject a Heretick after twice admonition and to rule well the Church as they should rule their own house and to rule well and to labour in the Word and Doctrine c. when they had no Magistrates at all to rule and govern them as a Church Now if the Church be a perfect visible body society house city and Kingdom of Jesus Christ in esse operari in being and all Church-operations then the Magistrate when he cometh to be Christian to help and nourish the Church as a father he cannot take away and pull the keys out of the hands of the stewards and throw the rod authority power to rule govern binde loose convene in Christs courts and Assemblies from the Church and inthrall the Church This evidenceth how falsely some say That the Church as the Church is without a Magistrate as an Army without a Commander or Leader a Ship without a Pilot a body without a head When the Church in the Apostles times wanting a Magistrate was a perfect spirituall body gathered edified attaining to the unity of faith Eph. 4. 11 12 c. 1 Cor. 12. 28. Rom. 12. 4 5 c. Builded upon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles Eph. 2. 20. Feed by their own Pastors Act. 20. 28. Sufficiently secured by Jesus Christ from Wolves 29. 30. Golden Candlesticks perfect and intire Christ walking in the midst of them and praised and commended of Christ Rev. 1. 20. 2.
them but in publick places and at all occasions and dayly in the Temple and in every house they câ—â—sed not to teach and preach Iesus Christ Act. 6. 2 4. 4. 1. 20. 5. 20 21. The Magistrate being Antichristian forbiddeth not preaching of saving truths because of the place be it private or publick but he forbiddeth them because they are saving and if Iesus Christ have called a man to preach in publick in the house tops the Magistrate hath no power from God to silence him in publick more then in private the Magistrate forbiddeth that any teach false Doctrine not for the place but because it is injurious and hurtfull to humane societies that men should be principled in a false Religion and cannot but disturbe the publick peace IX Asser The Christian magistrate must here come under a threefold consideration 1. As the Object of that high office is meerly and purely civill and positive relating only to a civill end of Peace as in importing or exporting of goods of wooll waxe moneys for the good of the common-wealth the crying up or crying downe of the value of coyned Gold or Silver the making of Lawes meerly civill as not to carry Armor in the night in such a City So in Warre Commanders Captains and Colonels are Magistrates to order the Battle lay stratagems the way of besieging Townes of fortifying Castles of issuing out mandates for the Navy The Parliaments power in disposing of Fouling Fishing Hunting Eating of Flesh or not eating at such a time all these as the Word of God doth not particularly warrant the one side more then the other are meerly civill and positive It is sure the Magistrate hath a supremacy and an independency above the Church or Ministers of the Gospel in all these and as these prescinde from all Morality of the first and second Table I hold that neither the power nor person of the Magistrate is subordinate to the Church and Church-assemblies and Ministers of the Gospel should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and exceed the limits and bounds of their calling if they should meddle with these as the Church should exceed their bounds if they should make Canons touching the way of sayling painting tilling the earth according to such and such principles of Art for these are without the sphere of the Churches activity in this consideration that learned and grave Divine Doctor Andrew Rivetus in Decalo in c. 5. saith well pag. 204. That as we beleeve a man well skilled in his owne Art so that his judgement is a supream rule so the supream authority of the Magistrate to us in things positive is a rule for indeed it cannot be denied but there be Arcana Imperiâ— secrets of State that are not to be communicated to Pastors or to any in which the Rulers have a supremacy The Magistrate falleth under a second consideration as he giveth out Lawes just or unjust and executeth judgement in the morning or suffereth the eyes of the poore the widdow and Orphane to faile for went of justice and in these he is not subject to the Church and Pastors so but only as if he sinne in making Lawes the Pastors may humbly supplicate that he would recall those unjust Lawes and judge over againe righteous judgement and this exhorting of the Pastors is a subjecting of the Magistrate to the Pastors quoad actus imperatos so have Generall assemblies in the Church of Scotland humbly supplicated the King and Parliament to retreat Laws made against the liberties of the Church in savour of Antichristian Prelates and Ceremonies but quoad actus elicitos The Church and Pastors themselves cannot usurpe the throne and give out civill Lawes that are righteous and judge righteously for the poor in the place of King Parliament and Iudges for in this also the judges are supream and independent and subject only to God the Creator as his Vicars and Deputies in Gods universall Kingdome of power called universale regnum potentiae by Divines they are Gods and the shields of the world and here only as they erre not as they iudge are they subject to rebukes and threatnings and admonitions of the Church and Ministers of the Gospel Even as the Magistrate may command the Pastors to preach and dispense the Sacraments aright but the Magistrate himselfe can neither preach nor dispense the Sacraments so the Schoolmen say that the actions of the understanding depend on the will quoad excercitium the will may set the mind to think on this or that truth but not quoad specificationem The will it selfe can neither assent nor dissent from a truth nor can the will command the mind to assent to a known untruth or dissent from a known truth the mind or understanding naturally doth both and this distinction holdeth in acts of the civill power and in acts meerly Ecclesiasticall The third consideration of the Christian Magistrate is as he is a man and a member of a Christian Church who hath a soul to be saved and in this he is to submit to Pastors as those that watch for his soul Heb. 13. 17. as others who have souls to be saved X. Ass Hence I am not affraid to assert a reciprocation of subordinations between the Church and the Magistrate and a sort of collaterality and independent supremacy in their own kind common to both for every soul Pastors and others are subject to the Magistrate as the higher power in all civill things Rom. 13. 1 2 3 4. Tit. 3 1. 1 Pet. 2. 13 14. Mat. 22. 21. and all members of the common-wealth being members of the Church in soul-matters are subject to the Church and Pastors in their authoritative dispensing of Word Sacraments and Church censures Nor are any Magistrates or other who have souls excepted Heb. 13. 17. Mat. 16. 19. Mat. 18. â—8 Joh. 20. 21. Act. 15. 20 21 22 23. Mat. 10. 4â— 41 42. So Protestant writers who have written on this subject Teach As the learned Walens judicious Trig. that most learned Divine And. Rivetus the grave and learned professors of Leyden Zipperus Calv. Petr. Cabel Javiâ—â— reverend and pious M. Iohn Cotton judicious P. Mar. D. Pareus all the Protestant confessions The Augustine confession distinctly of Helvetia The confession of Sweden the Saxon. The English confession and that of Scotland all our Divines while Erastus Vtenbogard Hu. Grotius Vedelius Bullinger Gualthâ—rus going before them yet not every way theirs did teach the contrary The Arminians in Holland did thus flatter the Magistrate for their owne politick ends and some Court Divines made the King of England Head of the Church in the place of the Pope which P. Mar. excused and expounded benignly some say it is against reason that there should be two supream collaterall powers and especially in a mutuall subordination But can we deny this reciprocation of subordinations it is evident in many things if the King be in an extream feaver one of his own subjects a
Devil God save the Magistrate datur tertium he is for Christ as a Christian and as a Christian but as a Magistrate he is not for Christ as mediator that is as having his office of Christ as mediator and being from Christ a Magistrate that is as M. Coleman expoundeth it an officer having power of both the Swords for Mr. Coleman saith p. 20. Christian Magistracy is an Ecclesiasticall administration Ergo he hath the power of the Spirituall Sword and Paul Rom. 13. saith he hath from God the power of the other Sword Yea we cannot say that a Magistrate as a Magistrate or a Minister as a Minister are either redeemed and saved in Christ nor no redeemed or no saved in Christ but in another reduplication The Magistrate as a Magistrate is not redeemed but as an elected man nor is he damned or not redeemed as a Magistrate but as a reprobate and an unbeleeving man and the like I say of a Minister he that is not with Christ as his immediate and supream swordbearer is not against Christ for so all the world except the Prince should be against him Obj. 5. The Magistrate as he defendeth the body and goods so also the the fame of men hence what is a matter of good or ill report is judged by the Magistrate who may put ill doers to shame Iudg. c. 187. But Church scandals blasphemy heresie apostacy are matters of ill report and of shame Ergo they are to be judged by the Magistrate Ans Non concluditur negatum We deny not but the Magistrate may judge and put to shame offenders but it is civill shame by which the Magistrate judgeth any offender to be an evill Citizen and hurtfull member of the common-wealth Iudg. 18. 17. The Church hath no power thus to judge or thus to put to shame But there is an Ecclesiasticall shame in which the Church judgeth whether such a man be a sound and faithfull subject of the Kingdome of Christ or a hurtfull Member of the Church and of this shame speaketh Paul 2 Thess 3. 14. keep no company with him that he may be ashamed and the same way we are to distinguish a good name for it is an honour that it be said of any man as Psal 87. This man was borne in Zion Obj. 6. What the Magistrate as a Magistrate punisheth that as a Magistrate he judgeth but as a Magistrate he punisheth Idolatry and heresie Ergo as a magistrate he judgeth it Ans What the Magistrate punisheth that he judgeth distinguo What he punisheth that he judgeth the way that he punisheth for as he punisheth civilly and with the sword so he judgeth in a civill way not as a Church scandal but as a civill disturbance 2. In a constitute Church by a subsequent judging after those whose lips should preserve knowledge have judged it to be Idolatry and heresie he is to judge it and in order to corporall punishment its true and thus the Major is granted But the assumption is false for the Magistrate judgeth nothing as scandalous no Idolatry or heresie with an antecedent judgement and with order to Ecclesiasticall punishment to gain the soul Obj. But there is no other judging or punishing required but such as the magistrate inflicteth Ans This is a false principle and everteth all Church Government Obj. 7. But so you make two supream magistrates the King and the Church two collaterall supremacies yet so as the magistrates conscience lyeth under the feet of the Church Ans The Church hath a Ministery no dominion of Magistracy 2. There is a collaterality without equality The Magistrate is highest and worthiest the other hath no dignity no supereminency but to be authoritative declarers of the mind of Christ 3. The Magistrate is no more tyed to the judgement of a Synod or Church then any private man is tyed in his practice the tye in Discipline and in all Synodicall acts and determinations is here as it is in preaching the Word the tye is secondary conditionall with limitation in so farre as it agreeth with the Word not absolutely obliging not Papal qua or because commanded or because determined by the Church and such as Magistrates and all Christians may reject when contrary to or not warranted by the Word of God Obj. 8. But Pastors have authority equally immediate and independent under God as the magistrate hath and what more can they have except the Crowne and Scepter is not this an emulous and odious equality beside a collaterality hence they cry the liberty the liberty of the Kingdome of Christ the right the power of the Church is taken away so often as the magistrate punisheth scandals Ans Non-subordination can never inferre equality who denieth that the Magistrate may command the Husband and Wife to do a duty to each other the father not to provoke the son the sonne not to disobey the Father the Pastor and People the Master and Servant the Captaine and Souldier to do a duty each one to another And there is a proper right and liberty and power immediately given by God without the King or Magistrates interposing of their authority to all these the Kings authority maketh not the man a Father nor the Sonne subject to the Father nor the Servant to the Master nor the Souldier to the Commander God immediately made those powers and God in the Law of nature hath given a power to the Father over the sonne without the Magistrate yea though there had never been a Magistrate in the world so the Pastors and Elders by divine institution have a power and liberty to feed and governe the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made them overseers and set them over as those who must give an account to the great Shepherd Acts 20. 28 29. 1 Thes 5. 12 13. Heb. 13. 17. 1 Tim. 5. 17. now it no more followeth that all Fathers are equall to the Magistrate all Masters all Captains to the King then that the Church or Pastors are equall to the King for Fathers Masters Captaines Husbands have immediately from God in the Law of Nature a supream a high and independent Authority as the Church hath without any intervention of the will or authority of King or any earthly Magistrate and without any subordination as they are such to the Prince 2. The emulation between the Magistrate and Pastors is no more in point of government then in point of preaching exhorting rebuking even of Kings and all that are in Authority now we have both demonstrated from the Word and have the grant of Adversaries that in point of preaching and rebuking the Pastors have an immediate supremacy and independency under Iesus Christ and all emulation here is from men who will noâ— submit to the yoke of Christ 3. If the Magistrate should usurpe over Husbands and Masters and Fathers their jus maritale herile Paterum and spoil them of Husband-power and masterly and fatherly power as our Adversaries counsell the Magistrate to take
the spirituall right and power of the keyes of the Kingdome of God from the Church and Pastors the former should complaine as do the latter Object 8. But if the Kingdome be heathenish and the heart of the King be first supernaturally affected then Religion beginneth at him as a Magistrate and he may appoint gifted men after they are converted to preach the Gospell Ergo The first rise of Religion is from the Magistrate as the Magistrate Ans If the King be converted first as a Christian not as a Magistrate he may spread the Gospell to others and preach himselfe but not as a Magistrate as Iehoshaphat commanded the Levites to do their dutie so might he command those of the house of Aaron who had deserted the Priests office to take the office on them to which God had called them so here gifts and faithfulnes appearing to the new converted Prince he is to command those so gifted for their gifts and faithfulnes is as evident a call as to be borne the sonnes of Aaron to take on them the calling of preaching and of dispensing the Seals But 1. he ordaineth them not Pastors as a Prince but commandeth them to follow the calling which now the Church not constitute cannot give 2. He can preach himselfe as a gifted beleever in an extraordinary exigence but he cannot doe this as a Magistrate yea Moses did never prophecy as a Magistrate nor David as a King 2. All the rise that Religion hath from the Prince as the Prince in this case is civill that men gifted may be commanded by civill Authority to dispence Word and Sacraments but nothing Ecclesiasticall is here done by the Prince as the Prince 3. The highest power in the Church as the Church and the highest amongst men as men are much different The Magistrates power in commanding that this Religion that is true and consonant to the Word of God be set up and others that are false be not set up in his Kingdome is a civill power and due to him as a Magistrate but a highest Church power to dispense Word and Sacraments agreeth to no Magistrate as a Magistrate but it followeth not that when the true Religion is erected by his power as a Magistrate that he may as a Magistrate dispence Word Sacraments and Synodicall acts and censures except God have called him to preach the Word and to use the sword of the other Kingdome as a Member of the Church joyned with the Church Object 9. But the Magistrate is unproperly subject to the Pastor who is but a meer Herald servant and Minister who hath all his authority from the word of another and so it is but imperium alienum a borrowed power he is subject properly to Christ speaking in his Word Titius is subject to the King properly but unproperly to the Kings Herald Ans 1. Let the subjection be unproper there can no conclusion from thence be drawn against us If 1. The Pastors as Pastors have their commissions from Christ and be his immediate Servants and have no Commission Pastorall from the Magistrate as the power of the Herald floweth immediately from the royall power of the King and he is the Kings immediate servant then to obey him in those acts which he performeth in the Kings name is to obey the King and in those acts subjects doe properly obey the Herald and so here Heb. 13. Obey those that are over you in the Lord according to that He that heareth you heareth me he that despiseth you despiseth me 2. It is enough for our purpose that Magistrates are so to obey Pastors in the Lord and Pastors are so supreame under Christ as the Magistrate is not above them and they have their Ambassage calling and commission immediately from Iesus Christ without the intervention of the Magistrates Authority Obj. But the obedience of the Magistrate to the Pastors is not absolute but conditionall if they command in the Lord Ergo It is no kindly obedience and subjection Ans It followeth not for so we should give no kindly obedience to Kings to Parents to Masters for we obey them onely conditionally in the Lord as they warrant their Commandement from the Word Yet Vedelius will not say it is unproper subjection we owe to the King nor can he say that the Royall power is imperium alienum a begged power all obedience to men this way is begged and if we come to Logick if I should say the nature and definition of obedience agreeth not univocally to obedience to God and to obedience to the creature Vedelius should hardly refute me It is enough Ministers of the Gospell discharge an Ambassage in the roome and place of God 2 Cor. 5. 20. God commandeth in his Ministers a limited obedience is kindly obedience Obj. 10. The keeping of the booke of the Law is given to the King Deut. 17. and 2 Kin. 11. v. 12. Iehoiada the Priest gave the booke of the Testimony to King Iehoash when they made him King the Priests indeed kept the booke of the Law in the side of the Arke but as servants of the King and custodes Templi Ans You may see solid answers to this in Walens Cabel Iavius and Iac. Triglandius 1. The booke of the Law was given to the King for his practise that he might feare the Lord his God and his heart not be lifted up above his brethren Deut. 17. 18 19 20. and this was common to him with the Priests and all the people of God but to the King in an exemplary and speciall manner that 1. The people might follow his Example and therefore these same words which concerne the practice of the King Deut. 17. 19. are also given to the people Deut. 6. 2. and 10. 13. and 111 2 13 22. and 12. 1 2 28. and 13. 4. and 27. 1. and 28. 1. with a little change sure no change that by any consequent will make the book of the Law to be delivered to the King to this end that his lips by his Royall office should preserve knowledge and that the people should require the Law at the Kings mouth which was the speciall office of the Priest Mal. 2. 7. as proper and peculiar to the Priest as the Covenant of Levi ver 8. and that they should not be partiall in the Law but should teach the people the difference between the cleane and the unclean the precious and the vile in Iudgement not accepting the persons of father and mother Ezek. 44. 23 24. and 22 26. Lev. 10. 10 11 Ieremiah 15. 19. Deut. 33. 9. Yea it was no lesse peculiar to the Priests then to offer Sacrifice to the Lord Leviticuâ— 10. 10 11 12 13. Mal. 2. 7 8. compared with v. 2. and with c. 1. v. 6 7 8. Now the King as King was not a confederate in the Covenant of Levi to burne incense and teach the people but in a farre other Covenant â— Kin. 11. 17 18. 2. In which the
King was to use the sword in defence of the Law and punishing Idolaters for 1. the King is neither commanded to teach Priests and people out of the booke of the Law Nor 2. rebuked for his neglect in this both these we may read of the Priests every where in the Prophets Deut. 33. 10. Mal. 2. 7. Lev. 10. 10 11. Ier. 2. 8. and 6. 13 14. Hos 4. 6 7 8. Deut. 17. 11 12. yea the booke of the Law is put in the keeping of the Priests and Levites Deut. 31. 25. And Moses commanded the Levites which bare the Arke of the Covenant of the Lord saying 26. Take this book of the Law and put it in the side of the Arke of the Covenant of the Lord your God Now if the Priests had been onely the Kings servants immediately subordinate to the King and mediately onely to Iesus Christ the Arke all the holy things the booke of the covenant the burning of incense before the Lord had been principally and first injoyned to the King Ezra the Priest read the book of the Law not Nehemiah nor was it ever commanded that the King should read it in the hearing of the people and give the sense of it as the Priests were to doe by their office Hilkiah 2 Kin. 22. found the booke of the Law that was lost and Shaphan the Scribe read it before the King that they might see their Apostacie and Iosiah might accordingly reforme 2 King 22 9 10. Object 11. Isai 49. Kings shall be thy Nurse-fathers Ergo Kings were Fathers and heads of the Church Ans This text is brought for the Popes Supremacy but it is Isai 60. 10. Their Kings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall serve thee this is no dominion And the breasts of Kings which the Church is to suck is not the sincere milk of the Word which the King preacheth by himself or others but the externall strength dignity that the King shall adde by his Authority to the Church but the Tutor cannot â—ob the Pupil of the Law and priviledges of the inheritance 2. The Prince is not a father spirituall of the second birth of the Church as Paul was 1 Cor. 4. 15. Object 12. He for whom we are to pray that under him we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godlinesse and honesty and procureth the good of the Church as the Church to him as the supream Officer and Shepherd is the Church as the Church subject but the Magistrate is such 1 Tim. 2. 1 2. Ergo. Ans The Major is false and the Assumption untrue also and all that the conclusion can bring forth is that the Prince hath 1. An externall coactive care by way of dominion to procure the removall of Wolves from the fold 2. To procure the good of the Church in order to a naturall and civill good 3. To procure good to the Church as the Church in a coactive way by the sword in punishing Idolators 2. The Church as the Church is not subordinate to the Prince but as Subjects of the common wealth because he by a coactive power may procure the good of the Church as the Church for indirectly and by the sword the Magistrate defending godlines and procuring the good of souls doth not prove that his dominion and sword extendeth to their soules or that he watcheth for their soules as Heb. 13. 17. Obj. 13. The Kings of Israel and Iudah have reformed Religion Ans I cannot trouble the Reader to adde here what I have answered elsewhere but let the Reader see Triglandius Ant. Walens Gabel Iavius in the cited places they have in the defection of the Priests which is extraordinary Reformed Religion 2. They did many things as Prophets not as Magistrates 3. They have done much in Religion quoad actus imperatos non elicitos by their civill power commanding Priests to doe their dutie Object 14. It s true in severall respects he that is a Governour may be a subject but in one and the same spirituall respect to judge and to be judged to sit on the Bench and stand at the barre of Christ Iesus is as impossible as to reconcile the East and the VVest together so The Bloodie Tenent I demand if the Church be a Delinquent who shall judge It is answered the magistrate Again if the magistrate be a delinquent I ask who shall judge it It is answered The Church Whence I observe which is in most cases of the world monstrous that one person to wit the Church or the Magistrate shall be at one time the delinquent at the Barre and the judge upon the Bench for the Church must judge when the magistrate offends and yet the magistrate must judge when the Church offends whether she contemâ—â— civill authority in the Second Table for thus dealing with him or whether she hath broken the rules of the first table of which say they God hath made him a keeper and preserver what blood what tumults hath been and must be spilt upon these grounds Ib. so the Church calleth one of her members to office and ordaineth him an officer The Magistrate opposeth him as an unworthy officer and according to his conscience suppresseth him upon this the Church complaineth of the Magistrates violation of her priviledges and that he is turned persecutor and not prevailing with admonition She excommunicateth the Magistrate The Magistrate again not induring such violation of ordinances he cutteth off with the sword such prophaners of ordinances Ans All this is but wind devised against the Magistrates punishing of Idolaters and I shew the same followeth upon the Magistrates or Church erring the one in abusing civill authority or the other in prophaning ordinances or preaching the word for instance The Iudges of a land or of Ierusalem make grievous and bloody decrees against the poor the widdows and the Orphane A faithfull Isaiah a zealous preacher by authority from the Lord judgeth and condemneth according to his conscience these judges and cryeth out as Isai 10. 1 in the name of the Lord before all the Congregation Woe be to you who decree unrighteous decrees and write in the Bench grievousnesse to turne aside the needy from judgement and to take away right from the poore Now the Magistrate that decreed those decrees judgeth in his conscience they are righteous decrees and he according to his conscience noâ— induring that Isaiah or any preacher should thus abuse and prophane so holy an Ordinance of prophecying and preaching as to preach lies in the name of the Lord he proceedeth in his civill court and cuâ—teth off with the sword such false Prophets because they â—lander the Lords annoynted and preach lies of him is not here a reciprocation of judging in the same cause What will the Author say to this O saith he the Magistrate ought not to use his sword against those Prophets for they preach according to their conscience the truth of God But say that Shimei were a Prophet and
But the King is head of the Church Ergo he maketh lawes to regulate the Family Ans The Antecedent is false if not blasphemous it is proper to Iesus Christ only Col. 1. 18. Eph. 1. 22. The King is the head of men who are the Church materialiter he is not formally as King Head of the Church as the Church and therefore we see not how this Statute agreeth with the Word of God Henric. 8. Stat. 37. c. 17. The Archbishops Bishops Arch-deacons and other Ecclesiasticall persons have no manner of Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall but by under and from the Kings Royall Majesty the onely and undoubted supream head of the Church of England and Ireland to whom by holy Scripture is given all authority and power to hear and determine all manner of causes Ecclesiasticall and to correct all vice and sin whatsoever for neither is the subject the Archbishops Bishops c. lawfull nor is the limitation of the subject lawful for Ecclesiasticall officers are the Ambassadors of Christ not of the King Obj. All Christians are to try the Spirits Ergo Much more Magistrates Ans This proveth that Christians as Christians and Magistrates as Christians may judge determine of all things that concerneth their practise and that they are not with blinde obedience to receive things Mr. Pryn cannot say that 1 Iohn 4. 1. is meant of a Royall Parliamentary or Magistraticall tryall Iohn speaketh to Christians as such But this is nothing to prove the power of the Magistrate as the Magistrate for thought the man were neither King nor Magistrate he ought to try the Spirits 1 Iohn 4. 1. The speciall objection moved for Appeals is that which Paul did in a matter of Religion that we may do in the like case but Paul Acts 25. did appeal from a Church Iudge to a civill and a heathen Iudge in a matter of Religion when he said before Festus Acts 25. I appeal to Cesar Ergo so may the Ministers of Christ far more appeal to the Christian Magistrate and that Paul did this jure by Law not by Priviledge but by the impulsion of the Holy Ghost is clear in that he saith He ought to be judged by Cesar so Maccovius so Videlius so Vtenbogardus so Erastus Ans 1. This Argument if it have nerves shall make the great Turk when he subdueth people and Churches of the Protestant Religion to be the head of the Church and as Erastus saith by his place and office as he is a Magistrate he may preach and dispense the Sacraments and a Heathen Nero may make Church constitutions and say It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to me and by this Nero by office is to excommunicate make or unmake Pastors and Teachers judge what is Orthodoxe Doctrine what not debarre hereticks Apostates and mockers from the Table and admit the worthie and Paul the Apostle must have been the Ambassador and Deputie of Nero in preaching the Gospel and governing the Church and Nero is the mixt person and invested by Iesus Christ with spirituall jurisdiction and the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven This Argument to the Adversaries cannot quit its cost â—or by this way Paul appealed from the Church in a controversie of Religion to a Nero a Heathen unbaptized Head of the Church and referred his faith over to the will judgement and determination of a professed Enemy of the Christian Church and Paul must both jure by the Law of God and the impulsion of the Holy Ghost appeale from the Church to a Heathen without the Church in a matter of Religion and Conscience then Nebuchadnezzar was head of the Church of Iudah and supreame judge and governour in all causes and controversies of Religion how can we beleeve the adversarie who doe not beleeve themselves and shall we make Domitian Dioclesian Trajan and such heads of the Church of Christ 2. It is not said that Paul appealed from the Church or any Ecclesiasticall judicature to the civill judge for Paul appealed from Festus who was neither Church nor Church officer and so Paul appealeth from an inferiour civill judge to a superiour or civill judge as is clear Acts 28. 6. And when Festus had tarried amongst them more then ten dayes he went downe to Cesarea and the next day sitting in the judgement seat commanded Paul to be brought vers 10. And Paul said I stand at Cesars judgement seat where I ought to be judged he refused v. 9 10. to be judged by Festus at Ierusalem but saith v. 11. I appeal to Cesar Now he had reason to appeal from Festus to Cesar for the Iews laid many grievous complaints against Paul which they could not prove vers 7. And it is said vers 8. That Festus was willing to doe the Iewes a pleasure and so was manifestly a partiall Iudge and though the Sanedrim at Ierusalem could have judged in point of Law that Paul was a blasphemer and so by their Law he ought to die for so Caiphas and the Priests and Pharisees dealt with Iesus Christ yet his appeal from the Sanedrim 1. corrupted and having manifestly declared their bloodie intentions against Paul 2. From a Sanedrim in its constitution false and degenered far from what it ought to be by Gods institution Deut. 17. 8 9 10. it now usurping civill businesse which belonged not to them Paul might also lawfully appeal from a bloodie and degenerating Church judicature acting according to the bloodie lusts of men against an innocent man to a more unpartiall judge and yet be no contemner of the Church this is nothing against our Thesis which is that it is not lawfull to appeal in a constituted Church from a lawfull unmixt Church Judicature to the civill Magistrate in a matter of life and death 3. Paul appealed from the Sanedrim armed with the unjust and tyrannicall power of Festus a man willing to please the bloodie accusers of Paul as is clear v. 9. And Festus willing to doe the Iewes a pleasure answered Paul and said Wilt thou go up to Ierusalem and there be judged of these things before me 3. The cause was not properly a Church businesse but a crime of bodily death and sedition I deny not but in Pauls accusation prophaning of the Temple teaching against the Law of Moses was objected to him Materialiter the enemies made the cause of Paul a Church businesse but formally it was sedition 1. It was a businesse for which the Sanedrim sought Pauls life and blood for which they had neither authority nor Law by divine Institution therefore they sought the helpe of Felix Festus and the Roman Deputies so Lysias vvrote to Felix Act. 23. 29. I perceived Paul to be accused of questions of their law but to have nothing layd to his charge worthy of death or of bonds Now it is clear the Roman Deputies thought not any accusation for the Iewish Religion a matter of death and bonds and therefore Gallio the Deputie of Achaia Acts 18. 14. saith
c. 12. Zozomen l. 7. e. 8. Theodoretus l. 5. c. 9. Historia tripartit l. 9. c. 14. say that the Emperor ordained him the Synod named him the truth is the Bishops were devided in judgement and its like they referred the matter to the godly Emperour In the mean time Athanasius Epist de solit vita Ambros l. 5. orat ad auxentium and l. 5. Epist 32. ad valentinianum Zozomen l. 6. c. 7. Concilium Toletanum III. Concilium milevitanum and divers others which I have cited elsewhere make the Emperor a Son of the Church not a Head and Lord intra Ecclesiam filium Ecclesiae non judicem non dominum supra Ecclesiam I might adde Augustin Epist 48. 50. 162. l. 1. de doctr Christ c. 18. Cyril Alexandrinus in an Epistle to the Synod of Antioch all Protestant Divines of note and learning CHAP. XXVII Quest 23. Whether the subjecting of the Magistrates to the Church and Pastors be any papal Tyranny and whether we differ not more from Papists in this then our adversaries The Magistrate not the Vicar of the mediator Christ The Testimonies of some learned Divines on the contrary answered IT is most unjustly imputed to us that we lay a Law upon the conscience of the Magistrates that they are bound to assist with their power the decrees of the Church taking cognizance only of the fact of the Church not inquiring into the Nature of the thing This Doctrine we disclaim as Popish and Antichristian It hath its rise from Bonifacius the III. who obtained from Phocas a bloody tyrant who murthered Mauritius and his Children as Baronius confesseth and yet he saith of this murtherer optimortum imperatorum vestigia sequutus he made an Edict that the Bishop of Constantinople should not be called Oecumenick nor universall Bishop but that this should be given only to the Bishop of Rome So Baronius yieldeth this tyranny was inlarged by Hildebrande named Gregorius the seventh a monster of tyrannicall wickednesse and yet by Papists he is sanctitate et miraculis clarus Baronius extolleth him these and others invaded both the swords Bishops would be civill judges and trample first upon the neck then upon the consciences of Emperors and make Kings the hornes of the beast and seclude them from all Church businesses except that with blind obedience having given their power to the beast as slaves they must execute the decrees of the Church Paul the III. the confirmer of the order of Iesuits who indicted the Councell of Trent as Onuphrius saith up braideth Charles the V. for meddling with Church businesse They write that Magistrates do not see in Church matters with their owne eyes but with Bishops eyes and that they must obey without examining the decrees of Councels and this they write of all subject to the Church Toletus in Instruct Sacerdâ—t l. 4. c. 3. Si Rusticus circa articulos fidei credat suo episcopo proponenti-aliquod dogma hereticum morâ—tur in credendo licet sit error Card. Cusanus excit l. 6. sermon obedientia irrationalis est consumata et perfectissima obedientia sicut Iumentum obedit domino Ib. sententia pastoris ligat te pro tua salute etiam si injusta fuerit Envy cannot ascribe this to us Calvin Beza yea all our writers condemne blind obedience as brutish But our Adversaries in this are more Popish for they substitute King and Parliament in a headship over the Church giving to the King all the same power in causes Ecclesiastick that the Pope usurped 2. They make the King a mixed person to exercise spirituall jurisdiction to ordaine Bishops and deprive them and Mr. Prinne calleth the opinion of those who deny Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction legislative a high word proper to God only coercive power of Christian Emperors Kings Magistrates Parliaments in all matters of Religion what in fundamentall Articles of salvation Church-government Discipline Ceremonies c. Anti-monarchicall Anti-parliamentarie Anarchicall as holden by Papists Prelates Anabaptists Arminians Socinians c. It s that which Arminians objects to us and calleth the soul heart and forme of papall tyranny But that the Magistrate is not obliged to execute the decrees of the Church without further examination whither they be right or wrong as Papists teach that the Magistrate is to execute the decrees of their Popish councels with blind obedience and submit his faith to them because he is a layman and may not dare to examine whether the Church doth erre or not is clear 1. Because if in hearing the word all should follow the example of the men of Berea not relying on the Testimony of Paul or any preacher try whether thâ—â— which concerneth their conscience and faith be agreeable to the Scriptures or no and accordingly receive or reject so in all things of Discipline the Magistrate is to try by the word whether he ought to adde his sanction to these decrees which the Church gives out for edification and whether he should draw the sword against such a one as a heretick and a perverter of souls But the former is true the Magistrates practise in adding his civill sanction and in punishing herericks concerneth his conscience knowing that he must do it in faith as he doth all his moral actions Ergo the Magistrate must examine what he practiseth in his office according to the word and must not take it upon the meer authority of the Church else his faith in these moral acts of his office should be resolved ultimaté on the authority of the Church not on the word of God which no doubt is Popery for so the warrant of the Magistrates conscience should not be Thus saith the Lord but Thus saith the Church in their decrees 2. The Magistrate and all men have a command to try all things Ergo to try the decrees of the Church and to retain what is good 1 Thes 5. 21. To try the spirits even of the Church in their decrees 1 Joh. 3. 1. 3. We behooved to lay down this Popish ground that 1. The Church cannot erre in their decrees 2. It s against Scripture and reason that Magistrates and by the like reason all others should obey the decrees of the Church with a blinde faith without inquiring in the warrants and grounds of their decrees which is as good Popery as Magistrates and all men are to beleeve as the Church beleeveth with an implicite faith so ignorance shall be the mother of Devotion who ever impute this to us who have suffered for non-conformity and upon this ground that Synods can erre refused the Ceremonies are to consult with their own conscience whether this be not to make us appear disloyall odious to Magistracy in that which we never thought â—ar lesse to teach and professe it to the world 4. Their chiefe reason is the Magistrate by our doctrine by his office is obliged 1. To follow the judgement of the Church and in that he is a servant or inslaved Qui enim
action either Civil Natural or Supernatural yet marriage is not Morally or Theologically indifferent So as to marry or not marry is a matter of a mans free choice and of his own free will not obnoxious to any binding Law as is kneeling not-kneeling crossing not-crossing in the minde of our Adversaries 1. If it were morally indifferent to marry or not to marry Rulers might make Laws either commanding all to marry or none to marry or some to marry some not to marry which were no small tyranny and the very doctrine of Devils 2. The gift of Continency is to some a commandment of God that they marry not and burning is to some a commandment obliging them in conscience to marry else they sin therefore to marry or not to marry is necessary to all men or then unlawful and so not indifferent as our Divines teach against Papists their Supererogatorie Works The Lords calling of any to suffer for his Truth is instead of a command of God though the man might be saved though he suffer not for the Truth 3. If there be no necessitie in marrying but onely conditional in the manner oâ— marrying then all mankinde without sin might abstain from marrying which it most absurd 4. The place 1 Cor. 7. 39. saith not that a Widow is under no necessitie of marrying but onely under a necessity of well and spiritual marrying For the libertie that the Widow hath there is not that it is indifferent to her to marry or not to marry for since our Adversaries teach That Rulers may make Laws in things indifferent they might then make a Law that no Widows shall marry which were vile tyrannie But the libertie that the Widow hath to marry whom she will is opposed onely to a Law and Obligation Matrimonial that she was under while her Husband did live And the words clearly speaketh onely of thiâ— freedom not of Moral freedom of indifference from all Law of God necessitating her to marry The Wise is bound by the Law as long as her Husband liveth but if her Husband be dead she is at liberty to marry whom she will onely in the Lord. But there are no smal oddes betwixt libertie to marry this or that man because the Husband is dead of which libertie onely the Apostle speaketh and liberty and indifference without all restraint of Gods Law to marry at all or not to marry This latter libertie the Scripture speaketh not of onely the Doctor alleageth it Object Kneeling at the Sacrament howbeit antecedente and immediately it be necessary by Gods Law yet consequently and by the mediation of lawful Authority it is now necessary to us not by necessity of the thing it self but by necessity of obedience order and peace and so according to the practice it is for the time necessary by Gods Law and cannot be omitted without sin So Forbes Answ Necessitie of obeying the Church can make nothing necessary and good for the Church commandeth it because it is necessary and good and it hath not goodnesse necessitie and aptnesse to edifie from mens will and the Churches commandment 2. I ask if no kneeling now in Scotland laying aside the respect of Authority and Law be in it self undecent and unapt to edifie if not then the Church hath no more ground and reason for order and decency in our Ceremonies for what I say of one holdeth true in all then there is for the want of Ceremonies and if that be true the sole will and lust of Authority maketh our Ceremonies lawful What can Romish impudence give more to the Man of sin But if there be unorderlinesse and indecency in our Ceremonies then kneeling now must be sin even laying aside the respect of Humane Laws 3. It is strange Divinity That that which is no sin of it self cannot be omitted without sin for the sole will and pleasure of men Humane Authority then may make it sin not to rub our Beards not to claw our Heads when we come to the Church to hear Gods Word If Humane Authority can make an indifferent Act lawful and the omission of it sinful they may make all the indifferent Acts in the World lawful Acts they might then make piping leaping laughing Acts oâ— Divine Worship and might make a Decalogue of their own And if they may make an indifferent Act to be sin if it be omitted they may by as good reason make sinful Acts as Adulterie Incest Murther Robbery to be lawful Acts For if mans inhibiting will be the formal reason of sin then his commanding will must be the formal reason of obedience And so Rulers might command Murther Robbery Incest Blasphemy Object We may perform an individual act coming from deliberate will and that without sin and we may omit the same without sin Whether we practise these indifferent actions or omit them we should refer both practice and omission to Gods glory and these actions we call indifferent or free as indifferent and free is opposed to that which is morally necessary which are either necessary to be done or necessary to be omitted by necessity of a Divine Law Howbeit every action that is not of Faith be sin Rom. 14. 23. Yet the faith whereby I beleeve this action is necessary and must be done is not necessary to the eschewing of sin But if I do it that I do it in Faith and for Gods glory is necessary but the necessity of the goodnesse of the action doth not make the action necessary for it were to lay a yoak of continual doubting upon mens conscience if they should beleeve every individual act that they do to be necessary for whether should they turn them while they think of doing or not doing these actions that they know to be commanded by no Word of God That a Widow marry in the Lord if she marry is necessary but it is not necessary that she marry but it is indifferent to her to marry or not to marry Doctor Forbes Answ It is a contradiction that an action individual should be indifferent and so neither good nor evil and yet done in Faith and referred to Gods glory For the ground of doing which is Faith and the end which is Gods glory are individual properties necessarily concurring to the individuation of the Action Moral 2. An action individual that is meerly indifferent and so without sin may be performed without sin or omitted without sin cannot be an action of Faith referred to Gods glory For what may be done without sin and may not be done without sin is a will-action and wanteth all necessitie of reason and so is an idle and sinful action but a sinful action may be done in fancy but in Faith it cannot be done it may in the vain intention of the doer be referred to Gods glory In intentione erronea operantis but ex conditione operis according to the nature of the work it serveth not for Gods glory This way to cast stones in the water
is not now an ordinance of God necessarie if any burne Incense to it these who are by authoritie obliedged to remove it and doth not remove it they doe morally and culpably scandalize Hence we see it is foolish and vaine that some say such as Hooker D. Forbes D. Sanderson and Lyndesay pretended Bishop of Edinburge and Mr. Paybodie That as Rome and Corinth the Church had not past her determination upon eating and not eating nor made any Church lawes upon these things indifferent and therefore to eat or not to eat were matters of every private mans choise But it is not the like case with our Ceremonies for they remaine no longer indifferent but are necessarie to us after that the Church hath now made a commanding law upon them and so the scandall that ariseth from our dutie of obedience to lawfull authoritie is taken and not given I answer it is most false that eating and not eating in case of scandall was under no law in the Church of Rome and Co rinth For these most indifferent acts in their use and cloathed with their Circumstances when where and before what persons were under the unalterable law of nature as destroy not him with thy meat for whom Christ died a law which as the course of conformitie saith well cannot be dispenced with by no power but Gods And Paul proveth by stronger arguments to eat in the case of Scandall was not indifferent but simply evill Then all the Prelates Canons on earth can afford as Rom. 14. by eight Arguments as we have seen that it fighteth against Charitie v. 15. Now walkest thou not charitably 2. It is a destroying of him for whom Christ died and so murther 3. Contrary to Christs love who died for that weake brother 4. It maketh Religion and Christian Libertie to be evill spoken of v. 6. c. It is a sham then to say that eating or not eating was indifferent because free from any ty of a Church Canon seeing eating before a weake brother is under the ty of unanswerable Arguments taken from the law of nature and Gods Canons written in the heart forbidding under the pain of Goa's anathema and curse heavier then the Church anathema that we should for meat destroy him for whom Christ died and so are the Canon-makers and Lords of Ceremonies under a curse if they for crossing kneeling surplice destroy him for whom Christ died or command him to be destroyed by the practice of Ceremonies 3. If this be a good reason the Church of Rome and Corinth might have made such Ceremonies as these Notwithstanding the eating of meates which some suppose to be forbidden by Gods law be a killing of him for whom Christ died and against Charity and a reproaching of our Christian liberâ—ie yet it seemed good to the holy Ghost and to us the Prelates of Rome and Corinth to command eating of such meats before weake ones for whom Christ died But certainly Paul would never have commandâ—d in a Canon that which he writeth in Canonicall Scripture to be a murthering of him for whom Christ died and that which he would not practise himself to the worlds end so long as it standeth in the case of indifferencie as he saith of eating of fleshes conceived by some weake ones to be against Gods law 1 Cor. 8. v. last The Pope himselfe would nor dare in conscience to practise any of his owne Canons even though they were yet not Canonically commanded or forbidden Paul would not dare to put a law upon the Romans or Corinthians to eat or not to eat meats before the weake but commandeth not eating in the case of scandall 4. Idolatrie is ever idolatrie saith the course of conformitie and so scandall being sinne it cannot cease to be sinne because superiours commandeth it 5. Though Apostolick authoritie being meerly divine should command that which is in it self murther and was â—urther before it be Canonically commanded which I think also is a false hypothesis yet it shall never follow that humane authoritie or Ecclesiastick authoritie can command scandall which is spirituall murther For if Ecclesiastick authoritie may command murther they may command idolatrie for active scandalizing is as essentially murthering of one for whom Christ died as to worship an idoll is essentially idolatrie Therefore Master Sydserfe pretended Bishop of Gallâ—way being straited with this argument sayd Though humane authoritie cannot invert the nature of things or make spirituall murther to be no murther yet they can by a Church Canon put the mindes of people in such a change as now they are not in the hazard to be justly scandalized for a scandall sayd the Prelate is ens rationis no reall thing but a fiction of reason the nature of it being in the apprehension of the ignorant and blind who are scandalized and a law may remove this ignorance when it giveth light and sheweth the expediencie of things indifferent To which I answered you may call idolatrie if you please and all sinnes fictions of reason but not only doth scandall given proceed from ignorance and blindnesse of the apprehension of the partie scandalized but also from the unseasonable practising of a thing which is no wayes necessarie in the worship of God The course of confirmitie saith well He that denieth that there is any scandall is like one who could not see the wood for the trees the walking of Diogenes is meetest for a Zeno who against all reason denyeth that there is any motion We may hence judge what to say of D. Forbes his Answer to the place 1 Cor. 9. Who saith that Paul was under no Ecclesiasticall law not to take wages and therefore in not taking wages he was not a contemner of Ecclesiasticall authoritie but we are under a Church law to practise the Ceremonies and yet we refuse them I answer If then the Church of Corinth had commanded Paul in their Canons to take stipend for preaching he was obliedged to take stipend yet he proveth that it was not lawfull for him as the case of scandall then stood to take wages v. 18. he should abuse his power in the Gospell and v. 19. 20 21. he should not have becommed all things to all men to save some and these things had been sinfully scandalous if as the case was then Paul for a penny of wages which he might have wanted having no familie to provide for should have layd a stumling block before many And the Doctor â—aith No humane power can compell a man to doe that which he cannot doe except inevitably he give scandall The Doctor addeth The Apostle teacheth not that to take stipend was unlawfull or of it selfe scandalous yea he taught it was lawfull and that they should not be scandalized thereat because Christ hath ordained that he who serveth at the altar should live upon the Altar but you teach that the Ceremonies are unlawfull I Answer 1. In this argument of Scandall we
positive Commandements hic nunc for esehewing of Scandall farre more may we hic nunc not crosse not kneele hic nunc when crossing and kneeling murthereth one for whom Christ died even though it offend our Superiours Ergo this provision of the Doctors is vaine and Superiours are unjustly offended if our non-murthering of weake brethren offend them nor are we to care for the Doctors provision here 4. No utilitie can truly redound to the whole Church by practising of an indifferent thing which culpably occasioneth the murthering of a weake brother Except our Doctors meane that sinne may edifie the whole Church 5. They say if the things in our private judgement be inexpedient the second way that is to the Church the Church cannot Command them except the Church command against her conscience 6. If matters in their expediencie be questionable and probable on both sides the Churches determination should end the controversie saith the Doctors this is the Doctrine of the Jesuites Suarez Thomas Sanches and Gregor de valent as I shew before when a thing is probable and I be resolved in conscience against neither of the sides and feare the one side be murthering him for whom Christ died which is against Gods commandement and know that humane authoritie commandeth the contrary and am perswaded it is indifferent and a positive commandement of men if the Churches determination be here to sway my conscience to practise is to me blind obedience for humane authoritie as it is such giveth no light Ergo it cannot remove my doubting and beget faith and also the conscience is so much the bolder to venture on a sinne against God for feare of eschewing a sinne against men which is questionable and in a matter indifferent this is also the stout conscience of Bonaventura 2 sent dist 39. plus est standum praecepto Praelati quam conscientiae 7. Our Doctors say our way is against the peace of the Church But I answer their way is Popish and against the truth of God in commanding our consciences to rest upon the wicked will of men And their instance of a Synod of a hundred Pastors may be brought aswell to prove the Synode of Trent is to be obeyed as for the present purpose Duplyers pag. 69. Yee will say this argument is Popish and leadeth men to acquiesce without tryall upon the determination of the Church But we answer in matters of faith the truth whereof may be infallibly concluded out of the word of God we ought not without tryall to acquiesce unto the Doctors of the Church and in this respect we dissent from Papists who ascribe too much to the authoritie of Councells as if their decrees were infallible But in matters of Policie if we be certaine that in their owne nature they are indifferent and if the expediencie of them onely be called in question seeing no certaine conclusion concerning their expediencie can be infallibly drawn out of Gods word we are to acquiesce to the decrees of the Church 1. Because otherwise it is impossible to agree in one conclusion in matters of this kind 2. Disobedience shall prove more hurtfull then obedience Answer 1. This is a wide step to make all things in Scripture either matters of faith or matters indifferent That there were eight persons in Noahs Arke and that Sampson sâ—ew a thousand with the jaw bone of an asse are not matters of faith as matters of faith are contradistinguished from things indifferent many are saved who neither know nor believe many things of this historicall veritie in Scripture yet are they not matters indifferent But the Doctors are reconcilers with the Belgik Arminians who deny all the things contraverted betwixt Papists and us and betwixt us and Arminians and Anabaptists at least the most part of them to be fundamentall and that either side may be believed and holden without hazard of salvation and therefore we are to leane to the Churches determination in these without farther inquirie 2 They mean that in matters contraverted and in all things indifferent as whether in this or that fact we doe murther him for whom Christ died Wee are to give our faith and conscience over to the Church without further tryall 3. What if wee be not perswaded of the indifferencie of the things commanded but doubt whether they bee commanded or forbidden in the Word as is now the present case of Ceremonies to us for we cannot be perswaded of their indifferencie and the Doctors saith they are not matters of faith Ergo by their own doctrine their distinction is defective 4. Scripture is also perfect in resolving us what is scandall and murthering of our brother as what is Idolatrie and Blasphemie and therefore we are not to hang our faith here upon the Churches Canons without farther tryall as you say 5. That the Scripture is perfect in matters of faith but imperfect in matters of Policie that is in matters wherein we may kill him for whom Christ died is no better then the Papists distinction who teach us that the Scripture is perfect in the articles of faith not in traditions so Scotus saith True Theologie according to Divine revelation is onely of things in Scripture or which may be deduced out of Scripture And Suarez saith Things that belong to accidentarie rites are left to the Churches determination but the Scripture implicitly containeth all articles of feare faith And so saith Bannes and Duvallius 6. Your feare is vain that we shall have no order nor peace if Scripture be judge and not the authoritie of the Church in matters which you call indifferent for the Church giveth out Canons concerning things strangled blood which were matters indifferent and that from the word of God Act. 15. and that in great unitie and peace Gods word maketh unitie and not mens authoritie 7. Disobedience to Church Canons in case of given Scandall is neither disobedience nor hurteth at all It possibly offendeth men who will tyrannize over the Conscience and if any be induced thereby to sin it is a scandall taken not given Abstinence from murthering a weak brother is obedience to God and so no active Scandall In the 48 Section The Duplyers doe but redouble over again the arguments already brought and answered by me divers times to D Robert Barron in private while he was silenced and as I conceived satisfied Especially they say our disobedience to superiours in things lawfull and expedient is most scandalous to others and that because we by nature are most unwilling to be curbed and to have our libertie restrained Therefore Calvin saith God that he may allure us to obedience to â—â—â—â—riours called superiours Parents I answer 1. The Doctors are too hastie to call that obedience to Superiours which is in question We say it is disobedience to the â—ixt Commandement because it is a scandalizing of our brother Ergo it is not obedience to the fift Commandement to practise
names and most superstitious and cannot be used in a religious state I grant we may not term our Jehovah Jupiter or Baal nor Christ Mercurius though he be the word of Gods mind to us for God teacheth us other words and language in his Word The truth is that learned noble Lord said well and judiciously all the indifferencie in the world lyeth in our understandings and the darkenesse thereof but there is none in the things themselves or actions which are still either unlawfull or necessarie And this is most true in actions morall and humane The Church putteth indifferencie on nothing there a necessitie in respect of our darknesse many be scandalized at things which seeme not necessarie to them yet are they in re in themselves necessarie But conformists object That the very will of the Church Act. 15. made things indifferent before the act now to become necessarie if then the Church may take away indifferencie she may give also But I answer The antecedent is most false Junius Calvin Beza Bullinger Brentius Pomeranus Marloret and the text clearly saith by the law of Nature these were scandalous So Origen thinketh to eat blâ—oà was scandalous And Strabo saith the heathen in their sacrifice dranke blood Yea saith Tertullian the heathen dranke mens blood and Augustine saith they forbade these for a time in the case of scandall that the ancient Synogogue might be buried with honour Yea Ireneus Tertullian and Cyprian will have these drawne to a spirituall sense that they should abstaine from Idolatrie shedding of blood and fornication And the Jesuit Lorinus saith this was a positive Law which without the case of scandall doeth not strictly abolish Cajetanus Fornication by Gods law was forbidden the other things in the Canon were forbidden to gratifie the Jews Philippus Gamethaeus a Sorbenist saith they were forbidden to nourish concord betwixt Jew and Gentile for the infirmitie of the Jewes 2. That the will of the Councell made them not necessarie whereas before the act they were indifferent is cleare 1. It had then been needlesse to discusse the matter by Scripture 2. To alledge the holy Ghost as author of the Synod It seemed good to the Holy Ghost c. if the bare will of men had made them necessâ—rie But saith Paybodie Any good thing may become an occasion of evill by accident and through our fault the Word condemneth not occasions of ill by accident but such only as are occasions of evill and in themselves evill things indifferent are not in themselves evill Ans All occasions whether ill in themselves or indifferent are occasions of sinne by accident and through our fault who abuse them but all occasions because occasions and not because evill are forbidden when as they are not necessarie and this is Gods argument to prove that the Jewes are not to marry with the Canaanites for saith the law they will turne away your heart after their Gods to send abroad a goaring oxe to seeke his food hath no sinne in it save only it may occasion the killing of men and the building of houses without battlements and the going by the doore of the whoore or comming neere her house are not of themselves ill but only forbidden under this reduplication because they are occasions of ill sinnes as sinnes are forbidden and as occasions of sinnes they are also new sinnes having a distinct illegalitie and guiltinesse in them from this that they occasion sinne and Gods law as all Divines reach forbiddeth sinne and all occasions of sinne Drunkennesse is both forbidden as intemperancie and also as an occasion of lust and of speaking perverse things as is evident Pro. 23. 33. For then the spirit of Gods argument were null to disswade from drunkennesse as he doth in these woâ—ds Thine eye shall behold strange women and thine heart shall utter perverse things Now we can shew that many wayes Ceremonies occasion sinne as 1. they trimme and decore a Church for harlot lovers from Rome forbidden Jer. 2. 33. Suarez Franciscus de sancta clara Gretserus and other Papists for these werein love with the Church of England 2. They occasion dissention in Gods house and are contrary to peace Ps 34. 14. Heb. 12. 19. Rom. 12. 18. and so to be rejected 3. They beare false witnesse of Poperie which we disclaime 4. They are against the spirituall worshiping of God and lead us backe to the carnall commandements and beggerly rudiments of the law from the Gospell against the word of God Joh 4. 24. Gal. 4 9 10. Heb. 7. 16. Heb. 9. 8. 9. Gal. 3. 25. 26. Gal. 4. 1. 2. Coll. 2. 20. They are torches in day light and vaine and uselesse 5. They bring us under bondage to men contrary to the Apostle Col. 2. 20. and to the ordinances of men and under the power of things 1 Cor. 6. 12. 6. They are against our Christian libertie They answer especially Paybodie and D. Forbes that Christian libertie is not restrained by doing or not doing a thing indifferent for so there should be no lawes made at all by the Church concerning things indifferent but Christian libertie not hurt if 1. the Ceremonies be free to the conscience and not made necessarie 2. If they be not made necessarie to salvation 3. If they be holden alterable by mans authoritie Ans The question is perverted for we question not if the use of things indifferent lay a bond on Christian libertie but if the will of authoritie can make a law of things indifferent when there is no intrinsecall necessitie in the things themselves when necessitie of edification layeth on a tye Christian libertie is not indeed restrained for God then layeth on a bond 2. Externall eating of meats and observing of dayes is a part of the libertie wherewith Christ hath made us free Coll. 2. 21. Eat not touch not taste not men eat not meat with their minde or conscience but with the teeth of their body and to such externall eating men are dead with Christ as touching externall observation thereof and Paul Gal. 2. 19. as dead to the Law living to God and crucified with Christ is freed from such Judaizing as Peter fell into but that Judaizing did not bind Peters conscience neither was it repute of him as necessarie to salvation as he had taught Act. 10. And the false Apostles pressed Circumcision not as tying the conscience or as necessarie for salvation but Gal. 6. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. only that they may not suffer affliction for the crosse of Christ and yet to be circumcised externally without necessitie of conscience before God crossed directly the libertie wherewith Christ had made them free Gal. 5. 1. and 1 Cor. 9. Have we not power to lead about a wife and sister aswell as others Yet if the Prelates at Corinth should have made an act forbidding Church-men to marry though they had esteemed not