observe Saints-dayes and believe Crossing and Surplice hath this Religious signification because the Church saith so then is our obedience of conscience finally resolved in the Testimony of men so speaking at their own discretion without any warrant of scripture 2. To believe and obey in any Religious Positives because it is the pleasure of men so to Command is to be servants of men and to make their will the formall reason of our obedience which is unlawfull If it be said that we are to believe and Practise many things in naturall necessity as to eat move sleep and many circumstantials of Church-Policy because the Law of naturall reason saith so and because there is an intrinsecall conveniency and an aptitude to edifie to decore and beautifie in an orderly and a decent way the service of God and not simply because the Church saith so nor yet because the Lord speaketh so in the Scripture and therefore all our obedience is not Ultimately and finally resolved into the Testimony of the Scripture I Answer That there be some things that the Law of Nature commandeth as to move eat sleepe and here with leave I distinguish Factum the common practise of men from the jus what men in conscience ought to do as concerning the former morall and naturall mens practise is all resolved in their own carnall will and lusts and so they eat move and sleep because nature and carnall will leadeth them thereinto not because God in the Law of nature which I humbly conceive to be a part of the first elements and principles of the Morall Law or Decalogue and so a part of Scripture doth so warrant us to do and therefore the moving eating drinking of naturall Moralists are materially lawfull and conforme to scripture for God by the Law of nature commandeth both Heathen men and pure Moralists within the visible Church to do naturall acts of this kinde because the Lord hath revealed that to be his will in the Book of nature But these Heathen do these acts because they are suitable to their Lusts and carnall will and not because God hath commanded them so to do in the Book of nature and this is their sin in the manner of doing though materially Et quod substantiam actus the action be good and the same is the sin of naturall men within the visible Church and a greater sin for God not only commandeth them in the Law of nature but also in Scripture to do all these naturall acts because God hath revealed his will in these naturall actions as they are morall to naturall men within the visible Church both in the Law of nature and in the scripture and De jure they ought to obey because God so commandeth in both and in regard all within the visible Church are obliged to all naturall actions in a spirituall way though their eating moving sleeping be lawfull materially Et quod substantiam actus yet because they do them without any the least habituall reference to God so commanding in natures Law and scripture they are in the manner of doing sinfull otherwise Formalists go on with Papists and Arminians to justifie the actions of the unregenerated as simply Lawfull and good though performed by them with no respect to God or his Commandment 2. As concerning actions of Church-Policy that cannot be warranted by the light of nature and yet have intrinsecall conveniency and aptitude to edifie and decently to Accomodate the worship of God I conceive these may be done but not because the Church so commandeth as if their commandment were the formall reason of our obedience but because partly the light of the Law of reason partly scripture doth warrant them but that Crosse and Surplice can be thus warranted is utterly denied Again I conceive that there be two sort of positives in the externals of Government or worship 1. Some Divine as that there be in the Publique Worship Prayers Praising Preaching Sacraments and these are substantials that there be such Officers Pastors Teachers Elders and Deacons that there be such censures as rebuking Excommunication and the like are morally Divine or Divinely Morall and when the Church formeth a Directory for worship and Government the Directory it self is in the Form not simply Divine And if it be said that neither the Church of the Jews nor the Church Apostolique had more a written Directory nor they had a written Leiturgy or book of Common Prayers or Publick Church-service I answer nor had either the Iewish or Apostolick Church any written Creed or systeme written of fundamentall Articles such as is that which is commonly called the Apostolick Creed but they had materially in the scripture the Apostolick Creed and the Directory they had also the same way for they practised all the Ordinances directed though they had no written Directory in a formall contexture or frame for Prayers Preaching Praising Sacraments and Censures never Church wanted in some one order or other though we cannot say that the Apostolick Church had this same very order and forme But a Leiturgy which is a commanded imposed stinted Form in such words and no other is another thing then a Directory as an unlawfull thing is different from a Lawfull 2. There be some things Positive humane as the Ordering of some parts or worship or Prayer the forme of words or phrases and some things of the Circumstantials of the Sacrament as what Cups Wood or Mettall in these the Directory layeth a tie upon no man nor can the Church in this make a Directory to be a Church Compulsory to strain men And this way the Directory is not ordered and commanded in the frame and contexture as was the service-Service-Book and the Pastor or people in these are not properly Morall Agents nor do we presse that scripture should regulate men in these But sure in Crossing in Surplice men must be Morall Agents no lesse then in eating and drinking at the Lords-Supper and therefore they ought to be as particularly regulated by Scripture in the one as in the other Quest But who shall be judge of these things which you say are Circumstantials only as time place c. and of these that Formalists say are adjuncts and Circumstances of worship though also they have a Symbolicall and Religious signification must not the Church judge what things are indifferent what necessary what are expedient what Lawfull Answer There is no such question imaginable but in the Synagogue of Antichrist For as concerning Norma judiâ—andi the Rule of judging without all exception the scripture ought to be the only rule and measure of all practicall truths how Formalists can make the Scripture the rule of judging of unwritten Ceremonies which have no warrant in Scripture more then Papists can admit scripture to regulate and warrant their unwritten Traditions I see not we yield that the Church is the Politick Ministeriall and visible judge of things necessary and expedient or of things not necessary
Image therefore it is not required to the essence of adoration that we acknowledge debt due to every thing adored for another it is sufficient a debt be acknowledged either to the Image or the samplar Answ The debt of love and the debt of honour are not alike I owe honour to superiours onely as superiours I owe love to superiours equals inferiours If I truly adore an Image I truly acknowledge excellency in the Image I truly yeeld to it a worthier place then I deserve to have my selfe saith de Lugo Ergo by the fifth Commandement according to the debt of justice I owe feare honour and reverence to it else I adore it by a figure which the Iesuite doth deny I am not afraid that they say Damascen a superstitious Monke alloweth Images to be adored So doeth that pretended seventh Synod or u the second Nicene Synod and Stephanus and Adrianus as we may read in Juo Nicephorus speaketh many fables for Images he sheweth us that Luke the Evangelist should have painted the Images of Christ and the Virgin Mary And that holy Silvester had the Images of Peter and Paul and shewed them to the Emperour Constantine and Canisius a fabulous man saith there appeared to Silvester at the dedication feast of Saint Salvators church the picture of Christ in the Wall but the originall of Images seemeth to be the vanity of man saith the Wiseman 2. The keeping of the dead in memory saith Cyprian ad defunctorum vultus per imaginem detinendos expressa sunt simulachra inde posteris facta sunt sacra quae primitus assumpta fuerunt solatia in aliis codicibus ad solatia 3. The blinde heathen wanting the light of Scripture began to worship Images Eusebius saith it began first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the Heathenish custome it came that Peter and Pauls Images were first made Men did it saith Augustine ut Paganorum concilient benevolentiam to conciliate the favour of Pagans it may bee seene out of Gregorius Magnus saith Voetius that the worshiping of Images crept in but the sixt age In the first three hundred yeeres Images were not admitted saith our Country-man Patrick Sympson into the place of worship in the fourth fifth and sixt Centurie they were admitted into temples but for the most part without opinion of adoration In the second Nicene Councell an obscure age saith Petrus Molinaeus when the scriptures were taken away it is ordained that Images should be adored but not the Images of the Father Quoniamquis sit non novimus deique natura spectanda proponi non potest ac pingi But onely the Image of the Son This Councell was Anno 787. as saith Bellarmine But this wicked Fathers argument proves also that the Image of God the Father may be painted while they prove worshipping of Images because the Psalmist saith The Lord arose as a mighty man after Wine But Genebrard saith this Councell of Nice was controuled by a Councell in the West Barronius mentioneth two Epistles written by Gregorious 2. a defender of Images wherein he saith the Sonne may be painted not the Father This Councell was approved by Constantine Ireneus and a Greeke copie of the Synod sent to Adrian the Pope But 1. this wicked Synod did not maintaine adoration of Images such as Suarez Bellarmine Vasquez Periâ—rius c. now hold but onely veneration 2. Images were placed in the Churches saith Paul Diaconus multis contra dicentibus many speaking against iâ— And Bergomens saith the Emperour Constantine himselfe not long after did abrogate the Acts of this Synod and the Synod of Franckford condemned this Synod See Aventinus Hincmarus saith it is true they of Franckford allowed Images to be in Churches but not to be adored Vrspergensis saith that this synod did write a book against the second Councell of Nice called otherwise the seventh generall Councell A booke came out in France and after in Germany under the name of Charles the Great condemning by strong reasons the adoration of Images and answereth all the arguments of the Nicene Fathers on the contrary Tannerus the Iesuite saith this was a forged Booke But against famous and learned Authors saying the contrary and so Hincmarius and Ectius make mention of this book and Pope Adrianus as Hospinianus doth well observe doth approve of this Synod of Francford by his Letters written to the Emperour of Constantinople and the Patriarch Tharasius The first five hundred years saith Calvin images were not worshipped Cajâ—s Caligula a proud Tyrant commanded the Iews to set up his image in the Temple the Iews answered they should rather die then pollute the Temple of God with images as â—aith Iosephus and Eusebius and this fell out while the Apostles lived Ann. 108. Plunius 2. writeth to Trajanus under the third Persecution That Christians were men of good conversation and detested vices worshipped Christ and would not worship Images as that Letter beareth and Eusebius reporteth Adrian had a purpose as saith Bucol to build a Church for the honour of Christ void of Images See Symson that ancient Writer Justine Martyr in this Age Omnes imagines ad cultum proposit as simpliciter damnant Christiani Tertullian a most ancient writer who lived under Severus in time of the fifth Persecution as the Magdeburgenses testifie saith Nos adoramus oculis ad caelum sublatis non adimagines seu picturas and indignum ut imago Dei vivi imagini idoli mortu fiat similis saith he also and not only thinketh it unlawfull to represent God by an Image but also saith that Craftsmen who professe themselves Christians ought noâ— to make Images of God An ancient Writer Clemens Alexandrinus Non est nobis imago sensibilis de materiâ sensibili nisi quae precipitur intelligentiâ Deus enim qui solus est verè Deas intelligentiâ precipitur non sensu We have no sensible Image of sensible matter because God is taken up by the understanding not by the sense and Nihil in rebus genitis potest referre Dei imaginem This ancient Writer flourished saith Catolog Testium veritat Anno 150. or as Hospinian saith Ann 200. and Ireneus the disciple of Polycarpus an hearer of John the Apostle maketh it the Heresie of the Gnosticks that they held that Pilate made the Image of Iesus Et quod imagines baberent Christi Apostolorum atque Philosophorum easque coronarent ac colendas propoâ—erent Cyprian saith Idols or Images be not only against the Law of God but against the nature of man Origen said The Images of Christians are Christians indeed with Gods Image and Nos veno ideo non honor amus simulachrá quia quantuÌ„ possumus cavemnus ne inâ—idamus in eam crudelitatem ut et
Church in creating Prelats Surplice and all the positives of Church-policy so did she And so saith Calvin on Genesis 6. 22. And P. Martyr and Musculus piously on this place and with them Vatablus Hence I judge all other things in this and the following Arguments Answer SECT IV. ANy Positives not warranted by some speciall word of God shall be additions to the word of God But these are expresly forbidden Deut. 4. 2. Deut. 12. 32. Prov. 30. 6. Rev. 22. 18 19. To this Formalists answer 1. They have a generall Commandment of God though not a speciall Ans So have all the unwritten Traditions of Papists hear the Church she is Magistra fidei so doth the Papist Horantius answer Calvin That the spirit of God hath given a generall and universall knowledge of mysteries of Faith and Ceremonies belonging to Religion but many particulars are to be received by tradition from the Church but of this hereafter 2. Master Prynne answereth that is a wresting These Texts saith he speak only of additions to books or doctrines of Canonical Scriptures then written not of Church-Government or Ceremonies yea God himself after the writing of Deutronomy caused many Canonicall books of the old and New Testament to be written Many additions were made to the service of God in the Temple not mentioned by Moses Another answer R. Hooker giveth teaching with Papists Bellarmine as in another place after I cite with Cajetane Tannerus and others That additions that corrupt the word are here forbidden not additions that expound and perfect the word True it is concerning the word of God whither it be by misconstruction of the sense or by falcification of the words wittingly to endeavor that any thing may seem Divine which is not or any thing not seem which is were plainly to abuse even to falcifie divine evidence To quote by-speeches in some Historicall narration as if they were written in some exact form of Law is to adde to the Law of God We must condemn if we condemn all adding the Jevvs dividing the supper in tvvo courses their lifting up of hands unvvashed to God in Prayer as Aristaeus saith Their Fasting every Festivall day till the sixth hour Though there be no expresse word for every thing in speciality yet there are general Commandments for all things say the Puritans observing general Rules of 1. Not scandalizing 2. Of decency 3. Of edification 4. Of doing all for Gods glory The Prelate Vsher in the question touching traditions We speak not of Rites Ceremonies vvhich are left to the disposition of the Church and be not of Divine but of Positive and Humane right But that traditions should be obtruded for Articles of Religion parts of Worship or parcels of Gods vvord beside the Scriptures and such Doctrines as are either in Scriptures expresly or by good inference we have reason to gainsay Here is a good will to make all Popish Traditions that are only beside not contrary to Scripture and in the Popish way all are only beside Scripture as Lawfull as our Ceremoniall additions so they be not urged as parts of Canonicall Scripture Well the places Deut. 4. 12. Prov. 30. Rev. 22. say our Masters of mutable Policy forbid only Scripturall or Canonicall additions not Ceremonial additions But I wonder who took on them to adde additionals Scripturall if Baals Priests should adde a worship of Iehovah and not equall it with Scripture nor obtrude it as a part of Moses's Books by this means they should not violate this precept Thou shalt not adde to the word c. 2. Additions explaining the Word or beside the Word as Crossing the bread in the Lords-Supper are Lawfull only additions corrupting or detracting from the word and everting the sense of it are here forbidden and in effect these are detractions from the word and so no additions at all by this distinction are forbidden but only detractions The word for all this wil not be mocked it saith Thou shalt not add Thou shalt not diminish But the truth is a Nation of Papists answer this very thing for their Traditions 1. Bishop Ans to the 2. part of Refor Catho of Trad. § 5. pag. 848. The words signifie no more but that we must not either by addition or substraction change or pervert Gods Commandments be they written or unwritten Else why were the Books of the Old Testament written aftervvard if God had forbidden any more to be written or taught beside that one Book of Deutronomy Shall we think that none of the Prophets that lived and wrote many Volumns after this had read these vvords or understood them not or did vvilfully transgresse them D. Abbot answereth What the Prophets vvrote serve to explain the Law they added no point of Doctrine to Moses Lavv for Exod. 24 4. Moses vvrote all the vvords of God Deut. 31. 9 10. Moses wrote this Lavv then he vvrote not a part of the Law and left another part unvvritten The Iesuit Tannerus answereth the same in terminis with the Formalists Colloquio Ratisbonensi foll 11. 13. D. Gretserus ad dicta Resp Prohiberi additionem quae repugnet verbo scripto non autem illam quae verbo scripto est consentanea cujusmodi sunt traditiones Post pentateuchum accesserunt libri josue Prophetarum c. Tamen nemo reprehendit quia illi libri fuerunt consentanei sacrae Scripturae Additions contrary say they to the vvord are forbidden not such as agree vvith the vvord such as are all the traditions of the Church for after Deutronomy vvere vvritten the Books of Ioshua and the Prophets so Cajetan Coment in Loc. Prohibemur ne â—ingamus contineri in lege quod in ea non continetur nec subtrahamus quod in ea continetur Gloss Interline Non prohibet veritatem veritati addere sed falsitatem omnino removet Lira Hic prohibetur additio deprâ—vans intellectum legis non autem additio declarns aut clucidans Tostatus in Loc. Q. 2. Ille pecat qui addit addit tanquam aliquid de textu vel necessarium sicut alia quâ— sunt in textu velut dictum a spiritu sancto hoc vocatur propriè addere Formalists as Dr. Morton say It is sin to adde to the vvord any thing as a part of the written vvord as if Ceremonies were a part of the vvritten Scripture and spoken by the immediate inspiring spirit that dyteth Canonick Scripture they come only aâ— Arbitrary and ambulatory adjuncts of Worship from the ordinary spirit of the Church and are not added as necessary parts of Scripture or as Doctrinals so Papists say their traditions are not additions to the written vvord nor necessary parts of the vvritten Scripture but inferiour to the Scripture 1. They say their Traditions are no part of the written word or Scripture for they divide the word of God in two parts as Bellarmine Turrian Tannerus Stapleton Becanus all of them say Aliud est verbum dei scriptum
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
image which by a common name is called the honour Worship and Adoration tendred to the image in a bodily manner and being done before the image tendeth to the honouring of the samplar but the outward action of Praising Praying Sacrificing is commonly called Praising Praying Sacrificing in relation to the Samplar to wit God and no way in relation to the image or to things without life neither are they by accident referred to the images only they be tendred to God before images Coram illis But I Answer This is but to beg the Question for we deny that from Adoring the image there resulteth any Adoring of God but a great dishonouring of his Name 2. Durandus Mirandula Hulcot deny that Adoring of God Coram imaginibus tanquam signis memorativis before the images as memorials of God should be an Adoring of the images And Suarez saith If images be only remembrances and memorials in the act of Adoration this taketh much honour from the images and is saith he An Adoring of the Samplar but not an Adoring of the image Though Vasquez expounding Gregories minde which superstitious man calleth them good books contradict Suarez in this yea and himself also for he saith The enemies of images he meaneth the Reformed Churches who use them only for memorials and books it is a lye that we use them as books will not bow their knee to them for then saith he they should Adore them and therefore saith Vasquez if Christ be not in very deed in his presence in the Sacrament present the knee-worship is tendred to bread and wine which is saith he Idolatry therefore either our Formalists are Transubstantiators or Idolaters or both by this learned Iesuites judgement and why by this same reason may we not say against Vasquez that the bodily offerings of prayers prayses and sacrifices to God before the Image as the Image is an honouring of the Image by prayer they say to the tree of the Crosse Auge piis justitiam reisque dona veniam Increase righteousnesse in us and give remission of sinnes O tree crosse to guilty sinners Names at Rome goe as men will but the honour it selfe is put upon the dumbe wood which is due to Christ O it is but a figure say they yea but say we prayers and praises in a bodily manner and vocally are tendred to the wood yet if the wife commit adultery with her husbands brother because he representeth her husband I thinke the matter should be washen with Inke and badly excused to say O the loving wife for strong love to her husband committeth figurative adultery and that bodily harlotry is referred to the brother of her husband by accident and to her husband kindly and per se for himselfe The same way if Formalists bow their knee to bread that such a holy mystery be not prophaned We know they cannot understand civill or countrey non-prophanation that they intend for kneeling and evill maners at the Lords table doe well consist together Now religious non-prophanation by knee-worship is adoring of these mysterious elements Ergo they make prayers and sing praises and offer sacrifices to the bread Let them see to this and answer to it if they can The sixt evasion of wit I find in Johannes de Lugo who saith 1. That the image and samplar making one and the same object by aggregation the inward affection besides externall knee-worship is given to both but to the Image relatively and for God or the samplar and not for proper divine excellencie in it and therefore the Councels saith he call it not adoration in spiritu but it is tendered to God absolutely 2. We give adoration of internall submission to God or the samplar as the debt of potestative justice but we doe not so worship the Image we have no civill or politick communication with the Image because it is not a reasonable creature and therefore the worship of the Image is as it were a materiall and livelesse action when we uncover our head to the Image by that action we would say or signifie nothing to the Image but to the samplar or to God onely 3. The inward submission that we tender to the Image is not that we submit to it as to a thing more excellent then we for that were a foolish lye yet saith he that the man might fulfill the cup of the iniquity of his Fathers we kisse not the Image in recto directly tendring honour to it but to God and the samplar before it 1. Because then I should adore my owne breast when I knocke upon it adoring the Eucharist 2. Because so I bow to the wall before me 3. If I have no honourable opinion of the Image I doe not adore it at all 4. By kneeling to the Image I have a will of submitting externally my affection to the Image I yeeld to it as a thing above me giving to it the higher place 4. The act of adoration is simply terminated upon the Image as a thing contra distinguished from the samplar though it be adored with the same action with which the samplar is adored Thus the â—eâ—uite Answ But here all men may see many contradictions and that he casteth downe all that formerly he hath said â—â— Images even as they represent God are dead things and lesse then a redeemed Saint Ergo I can give them no submission of externall honour 2. I signifie and say nothing of honour to the Image even as it respecteth God and representeth him because the dignity of representing God doth not elevate it to be a reasonable creature therefore I cannot honour it and it were a foolish lye to say that the Image as representing God were a reasonable creature 3. As it representeth God it cannot heare payers nor deliver in trouble as the Holy One of Israel can doe Ergo by the Holy Ghosts argument I cannot bow to a lye Esa 44. 17. and 46. 9. Hab. 2. 19. 20. it made not the heaven and the earth but by a figure because it representeth the maker of heaven and earth wherefore it should have but figurative honour at the best and that is no reall honour Jer. 10. 8 11 12 4. There is no debt of justice due to the dumb wood or element honour of externall submission is a debt of potestative justice due to a superiour the Images and Elements are not my superiour 1. They be meanes I the end 2. They bee void of life and reason which I have 3. They are not redeemed sanctified and to be glorified as I am Ioan. de Lugo answereth As I may love Peter for the goodnesse that is not in Peter but in another as I may love and desire good to Peter for the goodnesse that is in his father and not in himself and so pay the debt of affection to him for another so I may honour an Image for the debt of honour that I owe to the samplar represented by the
Barnabas Angels and Cornelius forbade men to worship them 9. It is a shame to adore a beast endowed with sense and life farre more to adore a dumbe and livelesse creature August ps 113. Chrysostome is against Images 1. Because the Law of God forbiddeth them 2. God must be honoured as he willeth himselfe 3. It is a depressing of soules to worship Images It commeth from Satan to take Gods glory from him it is mockerie that man should be the creator of God the Creator of all things Cyrillus Alexandrin who lived An. 415. saith We neither beleeve the martyrs to be gods nor doe we adore them Damascen a superstitious man much for Images acknowledgeth two things 1. That Images are but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unwritten traditions 2. He ackowledgeth that the brazen Serpent the Cherubims were made for signification not for imitation or adoration i Gregorius Magnus though he be alledged by Papists for adoration of Images Yet in his Epistle to Serenus Bishop of Massilia An. 600. he forbiddeth the adoration of Images and alloweth onely the Historicall use of them as is observed by Fran. White by Hospinian and Catol testum veritatis and this man being the first who brought Images into the Church hath this Caveat atque indica saith he to Sirenus quod non tibi ipsa visio historiae quae pictura teste pandebatur displicueri◠sed illa adoratio quae picturis fuerit in competenter exhibita si quis imagines facere voluerit minimè prohibe adorare vero imagines omnibus modis divita sed hoc solicitè admoneas ut ex visione rei gestae ardorem conjunctionis percipiant in adoratione solius Trinitatis prosternantur It is cleare that this man teacheth an adoration of Images though he make them onely bookes to the rude This same Gregorius will have the signe of the crosse adored because when the Devill came to a Iew sleeping in the night in the Temple of an Idoll the Iew being afraid signed himselfe with the Crosse and the Divell fled but when doth Iewes come in any Christian Churches or Idoll-Temples who abhorre the name of Christ and so hate both the Crosse and Christ and what can be proved from a fact of Sathan In the eighth age Beda Imaginum cultus adoratio the worshipping and adoring of Images is unlawfull 1. Because they have no office in the doctrine of the Gospell 2. We are forbidden to adore salute or worship them 3. The d Church is not taught to seeke the Lord by Images but by faith and good workes 4. The Apostolique Church did not worship God in Images 5. Images want documento antiquitatis antiquity example and the Scripture 6. We frustrate God of worship due to him 7. Peter Paul Angels forbad to worship them but God only We forbid the Church saith the civill Law to be obscured with Images Have the Image of God saith Ephrem in thy heart non colorum varietate in ligno not in Images and colours Who can make saith Damascen a representation of the invisible God Gretserus saith the Iewes would not admit of Ensignes and Trophies of the Romans for fear Images should be hidden under them So said Josephus before him Their own men say with us Hulcot who lived an 1346. saith Latreia divine worship belongeth to God onely the Image is not God neither the Crosse saith Ioan. Pic. Mirandula Concl. 3. nor the Image of Christ is to be adored adoratione Latreia eo modo quo ponit Thomas with divine worship the guise of Thomas Aquinas Peresius Ajala a Popish Bishop for adoration of Images saith he there is neither Scripture nor Church tradition nor consent of Fathers nor good reason to make it good For saith Gabriel Biel The image either considered in it self as it is mettall or stone or as it is a holy signe is a sensible Creature to which Latreia Divine honour should not be given and the Romish Decrees saith We commend you that you forbid images of Saints to be Worshipped The Doway Doctors say Idols have eyes and cannot see c. Now if they have Images of God and Christ which can see and hear and speak we exceedingly desire to know Alexander Allensis Durandus say That images in themselves and properly are not to be Worshipped Geo Cassander wisheth That they had continued in majorum suorum sententia in the minde of their forefathers and that the Superstition of people in Worshipping images had been suppressed The Councell convened by Constantius Capronimus condemneth Worshipping of Images or placing them in Churches 1. Because it is forbidden in the second Commandment 2. The Picturing of Christ is a dividing of the two Natures 3. It is against the Ancients Epiphanius Nazianzen Chrysostome Athanasius Amphylocius Theodorus Eusebius Pamphili The Councell of Nice is builded upon lies Adrian Bishiop of Rome writeth to the Councell of Nice That the Emperour Constantine being a Leaper and labouring to cure his Leprosie by shedding of innocent Babes blood Peter and Paul appeared to him by night in a Vision and bade him go to be Baptized by Sylvester and that he to be cured by Sylvesters Baptizing builded a Temple with the Images of Peter and Paul This is as true as the Image of Christ spake to Tho Aquinas at Naples Bene Scripsistti de me Thoma Why is not all Evangell that Aquinas hath written then For their own Platina saith The story of Constantines Leprosie is a fable and Socrates saith That Constantine was sick when he was 65. years and he maketh no mention of his leprosie so Hospinianus saith and our own Simson saith That Sylvester and Marcus his successor were both dead before Constantine was Baptized Genebradus a Papist saith down right that the Councell of Frankford condemned the second Nicene Councell But Bellarmine Suarez Sanderus ' Alanus deny that the Doctrine of the second Nicene Councell for Adoring images is Condemned by the Councell of Frankford they say it is onely expounded and that the right way of Adoring images is made manifest Yea saith Nauclerus Sabellicus and Blandus The Councell of Frankford reserveth due honour to images and saith nothing against the Councell of Nice But this is to deny daylight at Noon-day For Annonius is most clear in it and Abbot Vspergens the Book of Charles the Great saith the same The Synod of Frankford was convened An. 794. of purpose to condemne the second Synod of Nice called the seventh pretended and false Synod Aventinus saith expresly Scita Grecorum in Synodo Nicena decreta de imaginibus adorandis in concili◠francofurtensi rescissa abolita sunt and Vspergensis saith in this Synod it was decreed Vt septima universalis Synodus nec septima nec
as Christ did forgive as man those that Crucified him though they did not repent 1 Pet. 2. 21 22 23. Luk. 24. 35 36 5. Erastus cannot deny but great injuries should be brought before the Magistrate and a little injury when an offender refuseth to obey the Christian Magistrate must be a great injury which maketh the man as a heathen and a publican What is before answered I shall not need to trouble the Reader withall to repeat Erastus The reason vvhy Christ speaketh here of the transaction of private iniuries is because he speaketh alvvaies in the singular numher if thy brother offend thee rebuke him betvveen him and thee alone take tvvo other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tell thou the Church Let him be to thee as a Publican he that is Excommunicated is not Excommunicated to one only but to all the Church Ans This shall make the whole ten Commandments Exod. 20 and the whole Gospel and the profession of it Rom. 10. 9. which are all spoken to one in the singular number often in the second person to command private vertues and forbid private sins only and not to be Laws obliging the Church in publick duties and to eschew publick sins Erastus Answereth Let him be to thee vvho art injured and to all that are injured as a Publican not to the vvhole Church for there be some lawes that agree privatly to the Magistrate and to none other some to Parents not to children to Masters not servants so neither is this precept to all Christians as the Decalogue is and such like but only to those that are privately hurt he saith not rebuke every brother thou meetest with but the brother that sins against thee Christ speaketh not in the third person nor to the Church for the Disciples were not the Synedrie or that Church Ans 1. It s most false that all the precepts of the Decalogue are all of them spoken to all and every man Honour thy Father and mother that begat thee is one of the Commandments and it is not spoken to those that are onely Parents themselves and have their naturall parents dead but doth it follow that that Command doth injoyne private obedience and forbid onely private not publick disobedience to naturall Parents So the sixth Command saith If thy brother fall in a Lyons den to the hazard of his life pull him out if thou cannot rescue him thy self alone take three with thee and assay it if thou cannot so rescue him tell it to twenty The man is not to rescue every brother here but onely the brother that is in danger to be devoured with the Lyon will any say the Law of the sixth Commandment is given here to one private man to help another in a private danger This rebuke thy brother is the Law of nature and it is under this Levit. 19. 17. Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart And if I rebuke him not for sinne any sinne and the most publick and so most offensive and scandalous to many I hate him nay I am not so much to rebuke him and gain his soul because the sin is an injury done to me as because it is done against the Majesty of God and destructive to the offenders soule and I must labour to gaine his soule 2. Erastus dreames that that is a private sin which is done to one man or one ranke of men to a Magistrate not a subject he is beguiled an offence and publick stumbling-block may be laid before one man and it is often a publick sin 3. The speaking of it in the second person is nothing for If thou beleeve thou art saved Rom. 10. 9. is as publike and universall as Iohn 3. 16. Whosoever beleeveth he is saved The second person in all precepts of Law and Gospel and this rebuke an offending brother is both is as broad as the third person and as large in extent except you say the verse Iohn 3. 16. comprehendeth some more beleevers that are saved then Rom. 10. 9. which is against sense 4. Christ ought not to have spoken to his Disciples as a Church because he is directing them as members and parts of a Church how to deale with an offender but if he heare not the Church that is the Christian Magistrate he should die saith Beza Erastus answereth But the Church or Iewish Synedrie had not power of life and death now they were under the Roman Empire Ans Christ here then sheweth not a way to remove Scandals because the Roman Emperors sword is not Christs Spirituall way 2 Cor. 10. The weapons of our warfare are not carnall but mighty through God Erastus By this same place I cannot prove there is such a thing as Excommunication what is said to one is said to the whole Church but it is said to one that he should forgive an offending brother seventy seven times in one day if he acknowledge his fault Ergo there can be no just cause vvhy the vvhole Church should not doe that vvhich every member is obliged to doe but your Presbyters vvill punish though any one should confesse his fault Ans There is a twofold forgiving one private in passing the private revenge of the fault and grudge against the person of the offender thus the whole argument is granted for Members and Church both are to pray Forgive us our sinnes as vve forgive them that sin against us I hope the Synedrie the Roman President the Magistrate thus are obliged to forgive those whose heads they justly take from them so Luke 17. We are to forgive our brother seventy seven times a day though he neither repent nor crave pardon but far more if he crave pardon But by this Argument the Christian Magistrate should use the sword against no bloody Parracide for he is thus to forgive him and much more if he say he repenteth 2. To forgive is to remit all punishment and so what is said to one Member of the Church is not said to the whole Church Private men have not power of Church-punishment to forgive it The Church hath a power limited by Christ that is to forgive and open heaven in so farre as they see Christ goe before and see the man penitent and therefore Erastus his consequence is short it followes not that the Church should no more excommunicate then one Member Erastus looks farre beside the booke in that he thinkes it is all one to forgive an injury and to remove a scandall in the way of Christ in labouring to gaine a brother I may forgive one that offendeth me and not labour at all to gaine his soul Erastus We cannot expound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against thee against the Church because he saith after tell the Church then the sense should be O Church tell the Church Ans It is not denyed by us but that the Scandall in the rise may be private but Erastus will have our Saviour to speake onely of private Scandals 2.
their office Preach the Word and dispense the Sacraments which is against the word Heb. 5. 7. Mat. 9. 38. 10. 5. 28. 19 20. Joh. 21. 20 21. Rom. 10. 14 15. 3. Where doth Erastus reade in the New Testament that Kings may not write Canonick Scripture as King David did and build a Typicall Temple to the Lord as Solomon did and give out Laws of Divine institution as Moses did Kings in the Old Testament did these and he can finde the contrary no where written 4. If the Church as the Church cannot chuse a Senate of Elders to Govern themselves without wronging the Magistrate how did the Apostolick Church without so much as asking advice of the Civill Magistrate set up a new Gospel new Sacraments new officers a new Government Did the Lord Iesus and the Gospel teach them to spoil Cesar Christ had said the contrary Give unto Cesar those things that are Cesars 5. To subject Magistrates to Excommunication is no more to subject them to externall dominion then to subject them as Erastus doth to rebukes warnings and threatnings for the former hath no more of coaction of dominion or of coercive power then the latter yea if to subject Kings to the rebukes of the Ministers of Christ be nothing but to subject them to internall and spirituall dominion no more is suspension from the Sacraments and Excommunication any thing but internall and spirituall dominion In this sense that neither of these two are bodily dominions no more then rebuking of Kings 2. Yet both these work upon the conscience in a spirituall way for the humiliation of the King and putting him to shame and fear 2 Thes 3. 14 15. that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord as rebukes do work 1 Tim. 5. 20. Gal. 2. 11. 1 Cor. 5. 6. Iude ver 23. Yea to say to a King He shall be buried with the buriall of an Asse as Ieremiah did cap. 22. And to call the Rulers Princes of Sodome Isa 1. 10. And King Herod a Fox and Rulers and Princes Dogs Psal 22. ver 16. and Bulls and Lyons ver 12. 13. and Wolves ravening for the prey Ezek. 22. 27. putteth no lesse shame upon Magistrates before men and so externall dominion on them and over them then Excommunication and debarring from the Seals of the Covenant doth Now Erastus subjecteth Magistrates to rebukings threatnings and reprehensions no lesse then we do Well Erastus will have one single Minister to exercise externall dominion over the Magistrates because this is manifest out of the Word but because he would flatter Princes as much as he can he denies that a Colledge of Elders may rebuke the Magistrate or convene him before them though he were the most flagitious Prince that lived and yet one man may summon him before the Tribunall of Christ and charge him to come to hear a Sermon and rebuke him in the face of the Congregation and denounce the Iudgements of God against him openly Is not this the Lord arming one single man against the Magistrate to put shame and confusion on him for his sins And if many Pastors convened should do this This were to arm the subjects against the Magistrate and to take the power from him that God hath given to him as Erastus talketh CHAP. XXII Quest 18. Of exclusion from the Sacrament of profession of repententance the judiciall Law bindeth not Christians The sword not a mean of conversion Of Idolaters and Apostates in the judgement of Erastus IN this Chapter Erastus disputeth against a Treatise written in the German Tongue in which he acknowledgeth there is more learning and truth then in the other writtings All the opinions that Erastus ascribeth to this Author justly or unjustly I know not but Erastus his faith may be justly suspected I cannot defend Erastus Touching those to be admitted to the Sacrament we speak alwayes de illis solis c. of those only who rightly understand the Doctrine of the Gospel and do approve and imbrace the same and who desire with others to use the Sacraments aright in regard of the externals of which only the Church can judge for the heart is rightly knowne to God only so the Author and we agree Ans The agreement is but poore by your owne relation But 1. Let Erastus answer what if the Christian Magistrate as Achab be a dog and sell himselfe to do wickedly What if he understand not the Doctrine of the Gospel Magistrates as Magistrates by vertue of the throne or place are not priviledged to be Orthodox and holy Let one Iulian once a Christian yet turning a sow an enemy to the Gospel be witnesse if we descend to the Iustices and to Master Constables it may be we finde even of those dogs and swine in their conversation though their place be a power lawfull and ordained of God We thinke saith Erastus the custome of the Church should be observed What by the custome of the Church onely by no precept or command of Christ should the holy things of God the pearls of the Gospel be denied to dogs and swine contrary to Christs command Mat. 7 2. Erastus must exclude the Magistrate out of the lists of his disputation in six books and say If the Christian Magistrate be ignorant and scandalous and yet desire to use the Sacraments right and professe he will learne to know God and to beleeve soundly and walke holily Yet the Sacraments are not to be denied to him Tell Erastus in sincerity who should debarre the Magistrate For in all your six books you by these words de illis solis c. professe that you plead not that he should be admitted to the Sacraments who shall exclude him not he himselfe for his credites sake he shall desire to come to the Sacraments as many for gaine and loaves follow Christ Ioh. 6. will they not follow him also to be seen of men as the Pharisees prayed in the streets 2. Let Erastus say when our Saviour said Give not holy things to dogs Did he mean to accept the persons of Kings and Iudges and professe though Kings and Iudges be dogs and swine yet deny not holy things to them 3. Hath Christ appointed no way in the New Testament as he did in the Old to debarre unclean men from our Passeover Or shall there be no Government no charge in the Ministers of the New Testament to keep the holy things of God from pollution If Master Iustice be an incestnous man a drunkard a dog shall he not be cast out of the midst of the Church Vzziah though a King yet for bodily leprosie was separated from the people of God and men of high places though doggs and swine shall be admitted to all the holy things of God under the New Testament 2. Erastus will have all admitted who desire to use the Sacraments right As touching all externalls of which onely the Church doth judge But 1. Where did we assert that the
saith he But the Magistrate himselfe is the apostate the heretick the idolater 2. He that may debarre from the seals may admit to the seals he that may do both Ex Officio is the formall dispenser of the seals by office that the Magistrate is not He that may put out or take in into the house by supream power is the Lord of the house He who by office may admit some to the Table and debarre other some is the Steward But the Magistrate is neither the lord of the Church nor the steward of the house by office We do not hold this consequence the Lord commanded ill doers to be killed Ergo He ordained in that same commandement that they be Excommunicated Nor do we say all those who were to be Excommunicated were to be killed as Erastus saith Nor that Excommunication in the New Testament succeedeth in place of killing in the Old Testament we see no light of Scripture going before us in these Erastus It is a wonder that you say that the godly Magistrate doth procure the externall Peace of the Common-wealth but not the salvation of the subjects that the Presbyters do only care for Ans The Sword is no intrinsecall mean of the saving of any mans soul It is true the godly Magistrate may procure a godly life but as a cause removens impedimentum removing idolatry heresie wolves and false teachers from the flock and commanding under the paine of the Sword that Pastors do their duty But Christ ascending on high gave Pastors and Teachers to gather a Church but not Magistrates armed with the Sword Erastus The Magistrates Sword is a most efficacious mean to bring men to the knowledge of God nothing more effectuall then affliction and the crosse when right teaching is joyned therewith examples teach us that in danger of death men have seriously turned to God who before could be moved by no exhortations But you say all die not in the Lord nor repent nor say I do they all die in the Lord who are taken away by diseases or are excommunicated yea Excommunication maketh many hypocrites Ans 1. Erastus here extolleth the Sword of the Magistrate as a more effectuall mean to salvation then exhortations or the Gospel But I read that Pastors are the Ministers by whom we beleeve and that they are workers with God and fellow-builders and Fathers to convert edifie to salvation and beget men over again to Christ 1 Cor. 3. 5 9. 1 Cor. 2. 4 15. Ambassadors of God 2 Cor. 5. 20. Friends of the Bridgroome 2 Cor. 11. 2. Ioh. 3. 29. Angels Rev. 2. 1. But I never read any such thing of the Magistrate and that the Gospel is the power of God to salvation Rom. 1. 16. The arme of the Lord Esay 53. 1. Sharper then a two edged sword lively and mighty in operation Heb. 4. 12. You never read any such thing of the Sword of the Magistrate the rest are before answered Erastus Some may be changed in a moment as the publican Luke 18. Zâ—cheus The repenting woman Luke 7. If therefore they professe repentance they are not to be debarred from the Lords supper Ans Put it in forme thus Those who may be changed and translated from darknesse to light in a moment and say that they repent are to be admitted to the Lords supper I assume But doggs and swine and doggish and furious persecutors who are to be debarred from the Sacraments As Erastus saith pag. 207. may be changed in a moment and say they repent Ergo those are to be admitted to the Sacraments who are not to be admitted to the Sacraments let Erastus prove the Major proposition 2. We finde no such sudden change in the Publican Zacheus or the repenting woman as Erastus seemeth to insinuate 3. Christ who knoweth the heart and can change men in a moment can at first welcome persons suddenly converted Ergo Must the stewards and dispensers of the mysteries upon a may be or a may not be reach the pearls of the Gospel to doggs and swine whom they see to be such It is a wide consequence He that bringeth his gift to the Alter may in a moment be changed Ergo He should not leave his gift at the Altar and go and first be reconciled to his brother He is presently without more adoe to offer his gift his heart is straighted in a moment if we beleeve Erastus But the rather of this that the man is in a moment changed He is to be debarred least his scandalous approaching to use the holy things of God make the work of conversion suspitious to others 4. This argument presupposeth that unvisible conversion giveth a man right in foro Ecclesiâ— in the Churches court to the seals of the Covenant and so there should be no need of externall profession at all which is absurd Erastus Shall not then idolaters and apostates be debarred as wâ— saith he deny an idolater and an apostate to be a Member of thâ— Church of Christ so we thinke the man that defendeth his wickednesse is not to be reckoned amongst the Members of the Church Anâ— as we think the former are to be banished out of the society of Christians so we think the latter are not to be suffered in that society Ans The Idolater that maketh defection and the apostate were once Members of the Church what hath made them now no Members Who should judge them and cast them out the Magistrate I answer there is no Christian Magistrate If the Church must do it here truly is all granted by Erastus that he hath disputed against in six books even this very Excommunication But if there be a Christian Magistrate what Scripture is there to warrant that he should cast out a Member out of Christs body Here is an Excommunication without precept promise or practise in the word we read that the Church of Corinth congregated together hath a command to judge and cast out a scandalous Member 1 Cor. 5. 4 5 11 12 13. out from amongst the midst of them Let Erastus say as much from the New Testament for his Magistraticall casting ouâ— 2. What reason is there by Erastus his way for casting out an idolater and a man that defendeth his owne wickednesse 1. May not God convert those suddenly as he did the thiefe on the crosse and Saul Ergo They should not be cast out 2. The Magistrate cannot more cut off those from being Members of Christs body then he can remove their faith and internall communion with Christ Now for this cause Erastus saith the Church cannot Excommunicate pag. 1. 2 Thess 3. and 4. 3. Christ and the Apostles did neither cast out Iudas nor Scribes Pharisees or Publicans out of the Church though they were worse then idolaters 4. No helps of salvation are to be denied even to idolaters and to men that defend their owne wickednesse but their remaining in the Church amongst the godly is a helpe of their salvation
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.
corrupt Heterodox and all the Pastors have corrupted their wayes 5. Civill punishing of Church-men when they are Hereticall and scandalous we heartily yield to Magistrates But that Magistrates as such should Excommunicate and admit such to the Sacrament and reject other such and rebuke or that the Magistrate as the Magistrate did of old judge between the clean and the unclean cast out from the congregation and camp and receive in and so governe the Church is altogether unwarranttable Now the adversaries as Erastus grant that Idolaters Apostates and extreamly prophane men are to be cast out of the Christian society and not to be suffered there and also that Dogs and Swine and Apostates persecutâ—rs are neither to be admitted to hear the Word nor partake of the Sacraments So also Mr. Pryn if Magistrates must cast them out of the Church by vertue of their office and judge as Magistrates who are prophane and who truly feare God and who are dogs and Apostates who not surely then Magistrates as Magistrates must discerne between the cleane and the uncleane as Priest of old and must separate the precious from the vile as the Prophets did of old and so were the mouth of God and must stand before the Lord leâ— 15. 19. Then must Magistrates as Magistrates be Pastors called in the Pulpit as well as in the Throne and the Bench and that by vertue of their calling which neither Erastus nor the reverend Mr. Pryn will owne Now if the Elders of the Church with the consent of the people must cast such out of the Church and from communion in the holy things of God here is in expresse termes the very Ecclesiasticall Excommunication which Mr. Pryn denieth to be an Ordinance of God and yet it must be commanded by Iesus Christ in these words Mat. 7. 6. Give not holy things unto dogs and therefore keep not in Church communion the prophane and by the way Mr. Pryn to me yeeldeth the cause and granteth that Excommunication and suspension from the Sacraments doe both fall under this precept of Christ Mat. 7. That which falleth under a command of Christ to me is a Divine Ordinance 2. He saith also reasoning against are suspension from the Sacraments Obstinate scandalous sinners make no conscience at all of receiving the Sacrament and voluntarily suspend themselves there-from in case they be freely admitted to other Ordinances it being onely the totall Exclusion from the Church and all Christian society not any bare suspension from the Sacrament which worketh both shame and remorse in excommunicate persons as Paul resolveth 1 Thes 3. 14. 1 Cor. 5. 13. compared with 1 Cor. 1. to v. 10. 3. This is in terminis excommunication proved from divers places of Scripture for it is a totall Exclusion from the Church and all Christian society working shame and remorse as Paul resolveth We seeke no more Pauls resolution to us is a Divine right Those words of that Learned and Reverend man have give me leave by the way to say for I hope worthier then I am do answer fully all he hath said in this subject all that we crave For 1. obstinate men will voluntarily suspend themselves from the Sacrament Ergo the Church should not suspend them onely but also Excommunicate them I grant all if they be obstinate they are to be not only suspended but also excommunicated Ergo they are not solie and onely to be suspended Pro hac vice for this time it followeth no waies all that this Reverend Lawyer saith against sole suspension from the Sacrament of an obstinate offender is nothing against us if he be obstinate he is not onely to be suspended from the Sacrament but also if he goe on in refusing to heare the admonitions of brethren and of the Church he is to be excommunicated Ergo he is not first hac vice to be suspended from a confirming Ordinance given to those onely who are supposed to have the life of faith and can onely eat and drinke spiritually and by faith the body and blood of Christ It followeth not I thinke Mr. Pryn would not have Hereticks and Apostates suddenly and at the first totally as he saith excluded from the Church and all Christian society sure we owe some gentlenes and patience even to them If God peradventure may give them Repentance to scape out of the snare of the Devil 2 Tim. 2. 24. 25 26. yet if an Heretick and Apostate that same day that the Lords Supper were to be celebrated should deny the Resurrection and Iesus Christ to be God blessed for ever and not equall with the Father nor consubstantiall with him and withall should that same day have offered his childe to Molech and yet professe his desire to come to the Lords Supper professing he had tryed and examined himselfe and his desire to come to eate and drinke with Iesus Christ the great Prophet of his Church Would not Mr. Prynne thinke he should not be admitted to the Lords Supper and yet that he should not totally be excluded from the Church and all communion from the Church and holy things of God I should think if he cannot be presently excommunicated yet he should not be admitted to the Sacrament for sure he cannot but be in a doggish and swinish disposition in one degree or other And my reason is he is as Erastus saith non rectè institutus not rightly instructed but heterodoxe and so cannot try and examine himselfe while he be better principled in the faith so a suspension for a time from the Lords supper and ex natura rei without totall exclusion from the Church and all Christian society were as necessary whether the Magistrate or Church suspend I dispute not now as a degree of punishment or a preventing of eating of damnation is necessary hiâ— nunc O but saith Master Prinne Christ knew that Iudas was worse than an heretick and yet he denied not to admit him to the Supper Ergo though we knew such a one the Sacrament being a converting Ordinance it followeth not that we should debarre him from the Sacrament Ans Whether Iudas did eat the Supper of the Lord or not I think nothing of the matter only Master Prinne hath duram provinciam and a very hard task to prove it from Scripture If I were to examine his book I should deny his consequences from the Evangelists for not any of them can prove that Iudas did communicate at the last Supper But 1. Christs example in this being an act of Christ as God permitting the greatest hypocrisie on earth is no rule to the Church to give the Lords Supper to Iuddasses First Iudas was visibly and infallibly to Christ a man who deserved to be totally excluded out of the Church and all Christian societie and to Christ a knowne traitor a Devill an hypocrite Ergo as Christ did not exclude him out of the Church neither should the Saints now exclude from their society nor should the Christian
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
appealed to Cesar if he had been a Christian in the controversie touching circumcision he should have determined who were perverters of souls who not and should have said by his office as Emperour It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to me 3. We have not any practise or precept or promise in the Old or New Testament for any such appeal except they say all hard questions belonging to the Priests office were to come before Moses as a civill Magistrate and not as the great Prophet to whom God revealed his minde 4. If so then all Church controversies in doctrine and discipline should be ultimately resolved into the will of the Magistrate speaking according to the word and faith in most points should come by hearing a Magistrate determining against Arrius that Christ is God consubstantiall with the Father and all binding and loosing in Earth as in heaven should be from the Magistrate as the Magistrate he should forgive and retaine sins and Christ should have given the keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven to the Magistrate as the Magistrate certainly we should have the doctrine of the Church of Christ and the building and edifying thereof most obscure in the New Testament in which there is not one word of such a supream and chiefe officer as the Magistrate 5. The Parliament colledge of civill judges as they are civill Magistrates should be the Church assemblies and determine all doctrines debarre the ignorant and Hereticks and Apostates from the Sacraments and totally cast them out of the Church and excommunicate them I see not but then the Parliament as the Parliament is the Church and the two Kingdomes Ioh. 18. 36. must be confounded and no difference at all made between the civill state and the Church because the Magistrate as the Magistrate is made by the adversaries the chiefe officer over the Church the Ecclesiasticall head the mixt Governour halfe civill whole Ecclesiasticall in whose power all Pastors Elders preach dispense Sacraments make Church-canons as his Ministers and Servants Christ when any brother trespasseth against a Christian brother saith Tell the Church never Tell the christian Magistrate But truly it is a great mistake in the learned Mr. Pryn to call them Anti-Monarchicall Anti-Parliamentary and Novators who deny that the Parliament hath any Nomothetick power in Church-canons Nor hath hee in any measure answered the Arguments of those Learned and godly Divines Mr. Iohn Goodwin and Mr. Hen Burton he is pleased to cite the practise of many Parliaments of England who laudably impatient of the Popes yoke have made Church-canons when the man of sin sate upon the neck of the Christian church but these numerous citations of Parliaments and Councels in time of Popery conclude nothing against us who grant when the Church is not her selfe the christian Magistrate may extraordinarily reform and take from the man of sin his usurped power but in a constituted Church the case must be otherwise and 1. Whereas he proveth Emperors and Kings to have a power to convocate Councels It hath not strength against us all our Divines teach so But how 1. an accumulative civill power so Iewel Alley Bilson Whitaker Willet White Roger he might have cited more but no privative no Ecclesiasticall power so as Synods may not lawfully conveen without the command of the civill Magistrate our Divines say many Synods and Church meetings were in the Apostolique Church without the consent and against the will of the civill Magistrate our Divines oppose the Pope who claimeth the only accumulative civill privative and Ecclesiastick power to convocate Synods and that no Synods are lawfull without the consent and mandate of the holinesse of such a Beast 2. Master Prinne saith The Magistrate hath power to direct for time and place and to limit for matter and manner the proceedings liberty and freedome of all Church Assemblies But 1. he asserteth this in the most from corrupt practises 2. He proveth Laymen should have hand as well in Synods as Clergymen the one having interest in the faith as well as the other Ans Then must all the people be members of Synods for all have alike interest of Faith but this proveth not interest of defining which is the question in dispensing Word and Sacraments they have interest of trying all things as well as Pastors but it followeth not Ergo they may dispense Word and Sacraments no lesse yea more principally then Pastors as Erastus saith the Magistrate more principally determineth Synodicall constitutions Hence this is easily answered we may appeal in Church businesse to him as to the supream judge who may punish the erring Church and Pastors but the Magistrate may in Church businesse do this For answer 1. I retort it the Magistrate in making civill Lawes that must in their moralitie be determined by the Word of God may appeal to Pastors whose lips by office should preserve knowledge Ergo the Magistrate in making civill Lawes may appeal to the Pastor which is absurd 2. If men in Church-constitutions may appeal to the Magistrate as to one who may in his person determine Synodically in Assemblies above all the Pastors 1. Because Magistrates may punish the Pastors erring and oppressing in Synods 2. Because the Magistrate and all laymen have interest in the faith as well as Pastors then may people in hearing the Word and receiving the Sacraments and in all Pastorall rebukings and threatnings in believing of all Gospel promises and threatnings and fundamentall truths appeal from Pastors to Magistrates as Magistrates and Magistrates as such may determine all fundamentall truths all conscionall promises and rebukes and that is formally they may preach for he that can distinguish these hath a good engine Because Magistrates may punish hereticall preaching and superstitions and idolatrous abusing of the Sacraments by preachers and Magistrates and all Laymen have interest of Faith in Word Doctrine and Sacraments as in Discipline yea the Magistrate may punish the Priest that offered strange fire to the Lord offered bastard incense and the people had their interest of saith in sacrifices offered for their own sins but can it follow therefore the Magistrate might sacrifice and burne incense in his own person as Mr. Pryn will have him to make Church-laws in his own person Other Arguments of Mr. Pryns are light as that there were brethren and Lay-men that had hand in the Councell at Hierusalem Acts 15. Ans This is nothing for Magistrates as Magistrates but all Christians as Christians so must have hand in Synods which I grant in so far as concerneth their faith and practise that they try all things and try the Spirits whether they be of God or not but will it follow Ergo Magistrates as Magistrates are those only who govern the Church and make all Ecclesiasticall constitutions as having in them all power of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction and deriving it to Bishops and Pastors at the second hand as Mr. Pryn saith in the same booke Obj.
these rites was because the Egyptians and Canaanites used them But it is enough for our purpose that God useth this reason Yeâ— shall not doe so to the Lord your God Yee shall not doe after the doings of the Land of Egypt or of the Canaanites Deut. 12. 30. 31. See that then inquire not after their Gods saying how did these Nations serve their God even so will I doe likewise Levit. 18. 3. 4. This is enough to prove that it is a strong argument and Gods argument to prove that a worship that Heathen useth to their Gods though in it owne nature indifferent can not lawfully be given to the Lord it wanting all warrant in Gods word because heathens doe so to their Gods and it is cleare to me Deut. 12. 2. Yee shall utterly dâ—stroy all the places wherein the Nations which ye possesse served their Gods upon the high Mountaines and under every greene tree 3. And you shall breake downe their Altars and breake their Pillars and burne their Groves with fire and you shall hew downe the Graven Images of their Gods and destroy the Names of them out of this place 4. Yee shall not doe so to the Lord your God 5. But unto the place which the Lord your God shall choose out of all your Tribes to put his name there even unto his habitation shall yee seeke and thither shall you come There is nothing more indifferent then the place of worship yet doth the Lord in these words Yee shall not doe so to the Lord your God forbid to worship God in the place where the Canaanites worshipped their Idols And this proveth our point that Rites used by heathen indifferent in their owne nature as place stone-altars hils are not to be used as positives with a new signification as our Ceremonies have to the Lord our God because Heathens have done so to their Idol-Gods Wee know the Lord may have and hath other reasons in the depth of his unsearchable wisdome why he forbiddeth some things of their owne nature indifferent then because heathen and wicked men doe so as he forbade the eating of the tree of knowledge a thing in it selfe indifferent not for any such conformitie with wicked men And Hooker yeeldeth our argument to be concludent when he saith Notwithstanding some fault undoubtedly thire is in the very resemblance with idolaters Then notwithstanding all that Hooker saith on the contrarie our argument is good The rest of this subject is more fully and learnedly discussed by others and therefore no more of this Peace bee on the Israel of God and to the most high Dominion and Glorie Amen FINIS Isa 9. 6. Isa 35 1 2. Psal 97. 1. Vel lubentes vel vi attracti decreta Dei se quamur necesse est Ille crucem sceleris pretium tulit hic diadema Iuven. Saty. 10. Ier. 51. 35. Rev 17. 3. 5. Isa 62. 1 2 Iob 37. 23. Iob 33. 13. Mal. 1. 8. Christ hath not instituted a mutable Church Government Some things Morall some things naturall in Gods worship Circumstances either meerly morall or 2 meerly Physicall or 3. mixt Our Physic â—â— Circumstances are all easily known and numbred Circumstances and such and such circumstances The Scripture teacheth not meer circumstances but supposeth them Time and place of Ceremonies need not be proved 1. Argum. to prove that the Platform of Church-Government is not mutable at mens will Act. 15. The Scriptures way of teaching that indifferent things are alterable is it self unalterable 2 Argum. The Scripture shall not teach when we sin in Church Policie when not if the Platform be alterable at mens wiâ—â— There is no reason why some things Positive of Church-Policie are alterable some not 3. Argum. 3. Book Eccles Polic pag. 117 118. The place 1 Tim 6. 13. discussed Pauls cloak of lesse consequence then Positives of policie Bilson of perpetuall Gover. c. 3. Hooker of Eccles Polic l. 3. 4. Arg. Christ the Head of hiâ— Church iâ— the externall poliâ—y thereof A promise of Pardoning of sin made to the right use of the keys proveth discipline to be a part of the Gospel The will of Christ as King is the Rule of the Government of his house Hooker Eccles Policie l. 3. 123 124. Things of Policie because lesse weighty then the greater things of the Law are not therefore mutable at the pleasure of men Basil l. de Fide Order requireth not a Monarchical Prelate How the care and wisdom of Christ proveth that Christ hath left an unalterable platforme in his testament Mr. Prynne Truth triumphing over falsehood p 113. 114. Collat. Roinal cum Io. Hartio Sect. 2. p 40 Christ the only immediate King and head and Law-giver of his Church without any deputy heads or Vicars D. Roinald 16. d. 41. 5. Arg. As Moses and David were not to follow their own spirit far lesse is the will of the Church a rule to shape an unalterable Government Da. Dicksonus Expos Analyti in Epist aâ— heb c. â— v. 5. Pagâ—i Ariâ—â—ont Vatablus in notis Tostatus in 1 Chron 18. 19. 2. 7. Ista Scriptura tam poterat fieri per Angelos quam per deum Tostatus Q. 1. ibid. Cornel a Lapide com 1. Paralip 29. 19. Dâ—us ergo in tabula descripsittotam ideam Templi alioqui delincatio â— Davide vix intelligi potuisset Degrees de Templ Ded. p. 73. Lavater Ex â—o quod â—dificium et vasa secundum formam sibi ostensam facere debuit significatur in â—ultu dei non secundum humâ—nam ratioâ—â—m sed verbum dei agendum esse quo patefecit quomodo colivâ—lit Si Salomon suas imaginationes fuisset sequitus Templum aliâ form â construxisset vasa aliter fecisset et plura quam deus prescripserat Ceremonials of Moses his Law are of lesse weight then Morals but not of lesse divine authority Two notes of Divinity ought to be in the New Testament Ceremonials which were in Divine Ceremonies Eccles Policy book 3. pag. 122. How Moses doing all according to the pattern proveth an immutable platforme Gods care for us leadeth us to think he hath given us a better guide then naturall reason in all Positive Morals of Church-Policie Theologia Atramentaria Book of Eccles Policiâ— 3. pag. 113 114. The occasionall writing of things in Scripture no reason why they are alterable Papists pretend that things are not written in the word because of the various occurrences of Providence Horantius Loc. Com. lib. 2. c. 11. fol. 129. Quaecunque audiâ—t loquâ—tur que futura sunt annunciabit vobis quasi dicerâ—â— Quotiâ—s râ—i occasio fuerit revelabit vobis Quae â— re vestra esse viderit suggerit ac quoties revelare expedâ—eâ—it l. 2. c. 12. fol. 132. Sed quis non videâ—â— multa verbo esse tradita quae Ecclesiae solum memoriae mulius â—â—mirum Scriptis sunt mandata Hooker 3. Book pag. 114. 115. Horantius loc Catho Lib. 2. c. 12 fâ—l 131. Turrian to
de fide spe et Charit disp 20. duo 2. Bellâ—rm de Verb dei non script l. 4. c. 3. That there was no Vnifâ—rm Platform of Government in the time of Moses and the Apostles is no Argument that there is none now Horantius in loe Catholic l 2. c. 12. fol. 1 â—1 Sanderus de visib Monarch l. 1. c. 5. â— 13. Malderus in 22. de virtu Theolog q. 1. de Object fidei tract de trad q. unic dub 1. Fundamentals were by succession delivered to the church yet are they not alterable The church of Ierusalem as perfected in Doctrine and Discipline is our patern Acts 1. 4. Mr. Prynne Truth Triumphing c. p. 128. Mr. Prynne Truth Triumphing p. 128. The indifferency of some things in the Apostolick Church cannot infer that the Government is alterable Ibid. Ib. p. 129. Mr. Prynne Truth triuphing p. 130 131 132 133. The Argument of Moses his doing all to the least pin in the Tabernacle by speciall direction considered The Ark of Noah proveth the same Calvin Com. in Gen. 6. 22. Quare discamus per omnegenus impedimenta perrumpâ—re nec locum dare pravis cogitationibus quae sâ— Dei verbo opponunt hunc enim honorem haberi sibi flagitat Deus ut â—um siâ—amâ—â—s pronobis seperâ— P. Martyr in loc Nihil negligit fides omnia pro viribus exoquitur quaecunque scit deum vâ—lle Musculus Moses fidem obedientiam Noah comprehendit qua secundum verbum dei arcam construxit Vatablus Hebraismus pro quo fecit Noah prorsus ut ci preceperat deus Horantius in loc Catholic l. 2. c. 12. so 13â— Constatcom plura Dei spiritum post Christi ascensionem ecclesiam do euisse quorum etsi a Christo universalâ—m quandam in genere cognitionem habuissent fideles non tamen in specie aut certè in numero singulariter unde universa fidei nostrae mysteria que ad religionem spectarent intelligit Ceremonias Ecclesiae omnia literis conscripta esse non sine igno ratione affirmare potest Calvinus Mr. Prynne Truth Triumphing p. 134. Hooker 3. book Eccle. pol. p 93. Usher in his Answer to the Jesuits challenge of Traditions pag. 3â— 36. Formalists acknowledge additions to the word of God contraâ—y to Deut 4. 2. 12. 32. The same way that Papists do Moses and Canonick writers are not Law-givers under God but organs of God in writing meer reporters of the Law of God Papists say that the Chrch is limited in making Ceremonies both in matter and number and so do Forma lists Four wayes positives are alterable by God only All things though never so smal are a like unalterable if they be stamped with Gods authority speaking in the Scripture By what authority Canonicall additions of the Prophets and Apostles were added to the Books of Moses Canonick writers how immediatly led by God The Characters of Formalists Ceremonies Papists Traditions one and the same 1 Book eccles Pol. p. 42. Pag. 44. What is it to be contained in Scripture and how far it maketh any thing unlawfull according to Hooker The Fathers teach that all things in Worship are to be rejected that are noâ— in scripture Basil in Ethicis Reg 26. Cyril Alex. Glaphyro in Gâ—â—t l. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys hom 10. in Ioan. 59. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concilen Tridenti c. 1. Sess 4. Synodus traditiones â—ine scripto atque scripturam paripictat is affectu ac reverentia suscipit ac veneratur Ibib. p. 46. It derogateth nothing from the honour of God in Scripture that he be consulted in the meanest things Hooker l. 2. p. 60. How things are in Scripture Pag. 56. Some actions super naturally morall some morall naturally or civilly others are mixt Some habituall reference to Scripture is required in all our Morall actions Book â— Eccl. pol. p. 54. 2. Book p. 78. Works of Superogation holden by Hooker Tanner in 22. to 3. disp 5. de Relig. q. 2. Dub. 3. Aquinas 22. q. 25. Art 3. Quando dicitur adorationem imaginum non esse Scriptam adeoque non esse licitam in cultu dei respondetur Apostoli familiari spiritus instinctu quaedam ecclesiis tradiderunt servanda quae non reliquerunt in scriptis sed in observatione fidelium per successionem Colloquio Helvâ—tiorum ita Eckius Collat. 44. concl 4. Audet Hen. Linick disserit enim Cont. Luther Zwinglium dicere deum in nostris imaginibus Christianis nullam habere Complacentiam Quis â—oe ei retulit sacrae literae non contradicunt Whither our obedience in Church-policy be ultimately resolved in this saith the Lord or in this saith the church Two things in the externall worship 1. Substantials 2. Accidentals The question who should be judge of things necessary or indifferent is nothing to the present controversie 1. Honour 2. Praise 3. Glory 4. Reverence 5. Veneration 6. Devotion 7. Religion 8. Service 9. Worship 10. Love 11. Adoration what they are Two acts of Religion imperated or commanded and elicite Raphael to â— in 22. q. 81. Art 4. disp vnica Honoring of Holy men is not worship Obedience Adoration The Religious object with the act of reverencing maketh adoration to be Religious but a civill object except the intention concur maketh not Religious adoration of a civill object Martyr comment in 1 King c. 1. v. 16. What worship is Worship is an immediate honoring of God but some worship honâ—reth him more immediately some lesse A twofold intention in worship De la Tor. tom 2. in 22. q. 94. Art 2. Si quis interâ—ellarit idolum dicens expressis verbis Jupiter deus meus adjuva me quamvis conarctur fingere istam invocationem deâ—estans interius Jovem et omnes falsos dâ—os vere idolatra esset quia ab illis verbis in separabilis est significatio ex hibendi cultum Divinum idolo Vncovering of the head is Veneration not Adoration Corduba l. 1. q. 5. dub 6. Consecration of Churches taken two wayes Consecration of Churches condemned Durand Rati l. 1. c. 6. Eusebius l. 8. c. 8. 9 l. 10. c. 2 3. Hooker ecl pol. 5. book p 208. Mr. Hookers fancied Morall grounds of the holinesse of Churches under the New Testament answered The place 1 Cor 11. Have ye not houses c. Makethnothing for hallowing of Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nor the place Psal 74. 8. The Synague not Gods house as the Temple was Arg. 1. The negative Argument from Scripture valid a Morton defense of Cere gener q 1. Sect. 12. b Burges rejoynder p. 41. c Gregor de Valent. to 3 dis 6. q. 2. reâ— ad 2. obj Constat quandoquo dici non preceptum id quod adeo non est preceptum ut sit etiam contra preceptum Not to command is to forbid d Morton gener defe c. 1. Sect. 6 7. e Burges rejoynder c. 1. Sect. 7. p. 34. Of Davids purpose to build the Temple how far
sed adduntur ut crâ—denda servanda The distinction of worship essentiall and accidentall of Gods generall and particular will is to be rejected a Morton gener def cap. 1. S. 22. b Burges Treatise of kneeling cap. 2. p. 2. a Driedo de Libert Christ l. 3. c. 3. ad arg 3. Non est in potestate legislatoris prout voluerit obligare ad mortale veniale sed hoe provient ex materiaegravitate b Vasquez Tom. 2. in 12. disput 154. c. 3. Neque enim in voluntate legislator is est obligare vel non obligare a Burges rejoynd c. 2. S. 7. p. 179. a Suarez de relig to 2. de houest vâ—ti lib. 1. c. 1. n. 8. 9. b Bellar. de esfic Sacram. l. 2 c. 32. ad arg 2. c Suarez de tripl virtut tract 1. dis 5. Sect. 4. d Cajetan opusc to 1. tract 27. e Sotus de justific l. 7 c. 6. ar 1 f Bellar. de verbo non Scripto g Douna l. 3. c. 36. h 3 Book p. 153. i Sutluvius de Presbyt c. 11. p. 67. k Cyprian epist 74. Vnde ista traditio c. si in Evangelio praecipitur aut in Apostolorum Epistolis aut actibus continetur observetur Divina et sanctahaes traditio The distinction of divine and of Apostolick Traditions rejected l Beza an in loc a Burges rejoynder cap. 1. Sect. 16. p. 90. Circumstances not positive religious observances as Ceremonies are a Hogo Grotius de jure belli l. c. 20. n. 48. Arg. 4. Against humane Ceremonies because they usurp the essential properties of Divine ordinances b Levit. 20. 8. Exod. 20. 11. 16 17. Exod. 29. 29. 33. 36 37. Exod. 40. 9. cap. 2. 10. cap. 26. 1 2 3. cap. 27. 1 2. a Hooker Book 3. p. 129. a Estius 1 3. dist 37. S. 14. b Palud m. 3. d. 9. q. 1. art 2. c Cajet in 3. q. 25. art 3. d Vasquez to 3. de Ado. disp 103. c. 4. e Ainsworth commu of Saints b Burges Rejoinder c. 3. Sect. 9. p. 279. And in a Treatise of kneeling c. 18. q. 4. p. 57. c Vasquez 3. p. To. 1. de ador 103. c. 4. Cum nos eas form as quibus Deus apparuit dâ—pingimus nolumus aliud quam bistoriam illam effectum ob oculos ponâ—re d Aquin. 12. q. 102. art 6. ad 7. Et idco per aspectum hujus signi induccbantur in memoriam suae legis a Just Martyre Dialog cum Tryph. ante medium b Irenaeus l. 4. c. 30. c Epiphanius heres d Chrys hom 27. in Gen. e Ambros lib. 1. de Abraham cap. 4. We owe subjection of Conscience collaterall only to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The spirit worketh not with Ceremonies Burges rejoynder c. 1. S. 15. p. 57 58. b Ammes his fresh suit against Ceremonies ib. c Suarez tom de legib lib. 4. cap. 1. n. 10. Praecepta Ecclesiastica feruntur quatenus convenientiâ— sunt ad bonos more 's ut res sacrae cum debito honore fiant consequenter vero interdum habent significationem moralem quae homines excitat ad virtutem spem gloriae The place Matth. 15. touching Traditions of the Elders discussed d Janseâ—ius Concord Evange p. 120. Becanus the Iesuit in opusc to 2. de Analog vet et New Test cap. 1. q. 7. n. 13 14 15. reckoneth out three causes why Christ reproved all the Traditions of the Pharisees 1. Because they sought vain glory in some of them Matth. 23. v. 5. 2. They sought gain of others of their Traditions Matth. 23. 14. â—3 They preferred some of them to weightier matters of Gods Law Ans None of these toucheth the point in this text because the Tradition of washing hands is reproved by Christ for want of a lawfull Author and so the matter of it also was unlawfull for Christ calleth it a Doctrine of men IV. Arg. Estius l. 3. â— 37. p. 139 b Gregor de valent to 3. dis 6. q 13. pun 1. Sâ— effectus intentus superet vimmedii erit superstitio Ceremonies Magicall If the third CommaÌ„dment command Decency in its generality as they say then it must command decency in this or this Rite as in Surplice Crossing c. V. Arg. Iewish and Popish Ceremonies are professions of a false Religion Arg. 6. D. Ammes fresh suit Arg. 7. Of Religious kneeling a Rathael de la Torres or din. praedicat tom 1. in 22. Tho. q. 84. tra 2. disp 5. b Abulensis in Levit cap. 13. q. 10. c Virgil. An. 3. Et capiteante aras phrygio velatus amictu d Lod. vives com in August de civit dei lib. 15. c. 2. e Suarez Tom. 1. in 3. Thom. q. 25 art 5. Sect. 4. Four things in Adoration f Joannes de Lugo de myster incarnaâ— dis 23. Sect. 2. n. 23. Intention of worship not essentiall to worship Also to intend worship is essentiall to worship as sincere and hearty Ergo â—â— is not essentiall to worship in generall as what is essentiall to the spece as such is not essentiall to the general that com prehendeth that spâ—ce g Field of the Church 4. book cap. 31. Religious bowing of its nature not by mans free and Arbitrary intention signifieth divine Adoration a Ioannes de Lugo de mystei incarnat disp 13. S. 2. n. 14. b Suarez to 1. in 3. q. 25. art 5. S. 4. Objection of Suarez contending that intention of adoring is essentiall to Adoration removed Of the Idolatrous worship of the Iews and Papists The relative expression of God in the creature no ground of Adoring the creature The Iews believed not the golden Calf to be really God a Bellar. contr tom 2. l. 2 c. 13. b Gregor de Valent. to 3. dis 6. q. 11. de Idolat punct 6. c Aquinas par 3. q. 25. art 3. ad 2. Adorabant Gentiles ipsas imagines ut res quasdans credcutes iis in esse alâ— quid numi nis propter responsa quae daemones in ipsis dabant alios mirabilcs effectus d Vasquez in 3. tom 1. q. 25. disp 91. art 3. Verâ—ssimum est quod tradit Augustinus Gentiles pro dijs habuisse ipsamet simulachra putantes in ipsis numen aliquod latere cum illis responsa darent e Bellar. ibid. f Abulensis in Exodus 23. g Cajetan in Exodus 23. The Adoring of Images not forbidden by the Ceremoniall but by the Morall Law a Suarez tom 3. q. 25. dis 1. in 54. art 3 Sect. 2. b Bellar. to 2. de relig sanct lib. 2. c. 8. The evasions of Bellarmine and Suarez answered c Joannes Rotnaldus de idolatriâ— Ecclesiae Roman lib. 2. cap. 9. d Valent. ibid. c Lindsey pretended Bishop of Edinbrough parth Assembly pag. 29. a Concil triden Sess 25. Statuimus imagines in templis habendas retinendas ijsquedebitum honorem vencrationem impertiendam non quod credatur esse aliqua in his di vinitas vel virtus propter
myster incarnat disp 37. Sect. 1. n. 1. 2 3. d Leo. 1. Serm. 7. De nativita abstinendum ab ipsa specic offiâ—ij e Salmeron in 1 Tim. 2. disp 8. f Alex. alâ—n 3. p. q. 30. memb 3. art 3. sect â— g Albertus dist 9. art 4. h Bonavent art 1. q. 2. ad 1. in contrarium i Martuinus de ajala tract de trad 3. par k Abulens Deut. 4. q. 4 5. l Carol. lib. 2. cap. 25. m Ibid. n Carol. l. 4. cap. 27. a Carol. l. 4. cap. 27. b Carol. l. 1. cap. 2â— c L. 4. c. 10. l. 3. c. 21. d L. 3. c. 2â— e Symson treats of the worshipping of Images pag. 50 51. f Concilium Eleherio cap. 36. Placuit in Ecclesiis picturas non esse debere ne quod colitur aut adoratur in parictibus pingatur g Caâ—us line 5. cap. 4. h Surjus 1 Tom. of concell an in can 36. cont Eliber i Sozomen l. 5. c. 20. b Nicephor hist l. 11. cap. 43. c Prov. 2. â—0 Eph. 5. 1. â— Thes 1. 16. 2 Thess 3. 6 7. â— Cor. â—â— Phil. 3. 17. 2. Tim. 3. 4. Sitting the only convenient gesture What is occasionall in the first supper 2. Arg. Christ sate at the first Supper Of kneeling part 2. pag. â—â— Part. 2. Page 62. Sitting a signe of our co-heireship Part 2. pag. 187. Paybodie p. 268. 269. Disputer against kneeling Arg. 1. c. 6. A signe of our coheirship may well consist with our inferiority in worshipping Christ 4. Arg. Arg. 8. Ceremonies fail against the authority of Rulers a Pareus Com. in Rom. 13. dub v. 5. How civill positive laws binde not the conscience b Pareus Com. in Rom. c. 13. Dub. 7. c Richard Field on the Church 4. book c. 33. d Gerson de vita spir part 3. lect 4. e Greg. de val to 1. disp 7. punct 6. Sect. â— f Suarez tom de legibus lib. 3. cap. 22. h Aquin. 22 q. art 1. ad 3. i Suar. Deoper 6. dierum Tract 3. disp 5. Sect. 1. num 2. k Ferra. câ—â—â— Genteâ— cap. 21. l Conrad 12. q. 20. art 1. A twofold goodnesse in things The will of authority cannot treate goodnesse in things m â— F. de conâ—â—iâ— Prineip Quâ—d Principi placuit legis babet vigorem est verum de placito justo n Carduba in sum quest 18. part 1. o Thom. 22. q. 104. art 6. p Soto de inst leg 1. 4. 6. art 4. q Medinâ— C. de paenitentia tract 4. de jujun c. 7. r Adrian quod 6. art 2. Å¿ Navar. in sum cap. 23. num 55. t Driedo l. 3. De liber Christ c. 3. ad 5. u Castro lib. 1. de lege pena c. 4. x August De Baptis l. c. 6. y Cajet verbo pracepti transgressio z Silvest verbo praecept q. 9. a Angelus verb. lex 11. 3. b Corduba q. 189. part 2. rat 1. 2. c Gers de vit spir lect 4. c. 7. Nulla lex sâ—reuda est tanquam necessaria ad salutem quâ— non est de jure Divino d Durand l. 2. d. 44. q. 5. numb 6. Si Papa praeciperet Monacho ea quae sum contra suam professionem non motus aliqua necessitate vel utilitate Ecclesiae sed sola voluntate de hoc constaret Abbas praeciperet contrarium obediendum esset Abbati non Papae e Suarez Tom. de leg lib. 3. c. 24. f Greg. de valent tom 2. disp 7. q. 5. punct 6. Sect. 1. Humane lawes oblige onely in so farre as they agree with the Law of God g Medina tract De jejunio cap. 7. h Almain Moral c. 12. i Gers uti supra k Vasquez 12. disp 158 c. 4. num 32. Praecipient is intentio non facit praeceptum habere majorem vel minorem obligandi efficaciam sed necesfiâ—as diguitas vel utilitas corum quae praecipiuntur l Driedâ— de lib. Christ l. 3. c. 3. ad 5. m Pareus com in Rom. 13. v. 5. Dub. 7. Conclus 5. n Calvin inst l. 3. c. 19. Sect. 15. 16. o Beza in Notis in Rom. 13. A twofold consideration of humane laws p Iason q Baldus in rubrica Fâ—de acquirendis bâ—reditatibus nu 23. seq r Bellarm. tom 1. cont 5. l. 3. c. 11. s Vasquez tom 2 in 12. disp 152. cap. 2. t Valent. tom 2. disp 7. q. 5. punct 6. v Doctor Iackson on the Creed lib. 2. cap. 4 How inferiour rulers are subordinate to God in commanding x Bellar cont Barclai cap. 3. Bonâ— sensu Christus dedit Petro potestatem faciendâ— de peccato non peccatum de non peccato peccatum Humane authority is not the nearest or instrumentall cause of Lawes y Stapleton de statu Eccles cont 5. q. 7 art 2. z Field on the Church booke 4. c. 33. a Gerson b Almain oper moral cap. 12. c Decius namcoâ—â—upiscen lect 1. d Mencha questionum illustrium l. 1. c. 19. num 1. e Iunius animadv f Doctor Iackson 16. g Sutluvius de Presbyter c. 11. 66. Sic non magis Ecclesiae Synodo logâ—s scribere promulgaâ—e liceres quam populâ— subditis sibilâ—geâ— coâ—deâ—â— prâ—ter sui principis Magistratus voluntatem si nimirum Christus esset externâ— politiae legislator h Bellar. de interp verbi lib 3. cap. 4. A double obedience due to Rulers objective and subjective i 1 Thes 2. 13. Esa 1. 2. â—er 1. 2. Ezek. 2. 7. Objective obedience no more due to Rulers then to equalls Ibid. p. 259 260. False rules of obedience to Rulers proposed by Doctor Jackson refuted 3. Rule a Hooker Churchpolicy 5. book p. 197. 198. b Suarez de Relig. tom 4. lib. 4. tract 9. cap. 15. Considerare â—rgâ— aporteâ— aâ— secluso precepto res sit utraque ex parte probabilis tunc universaliter verum erit adjuncto praecepto obediendum esse c Thomas Sanches Jesuita Cordubensis in Decalog tom 2. l. 6. c. 3. n. 3. Quado subditus dubius est an res precepta sitlicita nec ne tenetur obedire exeusatur abpreceptun superioris d Ignat. loyola cat Jesuit lib. 2. cap. 17. 18. Prudentia non obedicntis sed imperantis est Item non est dignus nomine obedientis qui legittimo superiori non cum voluntate judicum suum submittit e Greg. dâ— Valentia to 3. dis 7. q. 3. punct 2. Subditus non suo judicio atque authoritati nititur superioris f Vasquez 12. q. 19 disp 66. c. 9. num â—1 g Salas 12. q 21. tract 8. disp unic sect 17. num 152. The good nesse of obedience to Rulers cannot countervalue the evil in the manner of doing with a doubting conscience and so sinfully i Vasquez in 12. â—om 1. disp 68. cap. 2. k Câ—ssian collat 17. cap. 17 l Chrysâ—â—â— oper imperf fi ejus â—it opus homil 9. cap. 7. m Ambr. lib. iâ—de offic cap. 30. n Aquin. 12. q. 19. art 7. o
aliquid diceretur quasi supervacua ab omnibus abdica tu est and the same saith Eginradus Geoâ— Cassander But the very Arguments in the Nicene Councell are set down and dissolved in the Frankford Councell as our own Master Simson observeth As the Nicene Councell reasoneth from the Cherubims and the brazen Serpent Frankfoord Answereth These were made at Gods Commandment images not so 2. Yea say they and with them Lorinus The Cherubims and brazen Serpent were not made to be Worshipped see these and many other Arguments set down and Answered by the Councell of Frankfoord As also saith the Learned Author of Catol Test Verit. The Arguments used by this Councell proveth that no Adoration is due to Images as may be hence collected As also out of the book of Charles against the dreames of Tarasius whose entry to the Priesthood was unlawfull and was a grosse Idolater and against the Idolater Pope Adrian Because 1. There is no holinesse in images either as they are figures or colours or as they are Consecrated 2. Because to Adore is to glorifie but only God is to be glorified 3. God Commandedus not to love images but men and sent his son in the flesh for men and not for images and if they be not to be believed on neither are they to be Adored 4. It cannot be proved that the honour of the image is the honour of the Samplar Christ said not What ye do to images ye do to me nor he that receiveth images receiveth me This Argument proveth that Veneration is not due to the Images as to books of the Trinity because that the Veneration of the Image is an honouring of God there must be an union betwixt the Images and God or Christ betwixt the Tree and Christ 1. There is no union lawfull that can be a Warrant of honouring any thing but an union Warranted of God betwixt Crossing in the Air and Dedication to Christs Service betwixt Surplice and Pastorall Sanctity There is no union nor is there a personall union betwixt Christ and the Image Nor 2. an union of parts as betwixt the shoulders and the head Nor 3. is there a Divine relative union as betwixt the mean or the end the Servant or the Lord for as John White saith well and the Scripture proveth all union betwixt God and the meanes of Worship which are to be reverenced as meanes of Worship in relation to God is by divine institution now certainly if by divine ordination there had been an union betwixt the Image and God then had it been lawfull to lay the Image in the heart to say How love I thy Image the painted pictures and wooden portracts of Christ the wood of the Crosse are my delight I hope in the wood I have taken images for my heritage they are sweeter to me nor the honey or the honey combe hovv pleasant are the wooden feet of these dead and senslesse Ambassadors of Christ who bring to my soul news of God or of my Redeemer Iesus Ambrose Gregorius Augustine Chrysostom saith The honour of the servant redoundeth to the Master when he is a servant by appointment of the Master and he that heareth faithfull Pastors heareth Christ who sent them And Athanasius and Basill to prove the honouring and adoring of Christ the substantiall Image of God to be the honouring of God the Father say The hearing of the Image or of the servant of the King is the hearing of the King But the Image is formally made an Image of God and the saints by mens imagination not by Gods word or his ordination Their own Peresius saith If the imagination were carried upon the image or samplar with one motion yet it cannot be concluded that the same is to be done in Adoration And we are not to worship God by our fantasies saith Augustine nor by our carnall thoughts Suarez Bellarmine Vasquez Gretserus buildeth all their Adoration of images upon the saying of Aristotle De memor remiscen cap. 2. Hence the Fathers of Trent dreaming Damascene doting Nicephorus if we believe Suarez make this a principle of their Bible of Idoll worship That God and the Image are one but we see not how they be one nor can we say that God is present in the Image as in a place for if he be present in the Image In loco ut sic as in such a place then he is there as in a consecrated place and by promise and so they must give us the word of God for Gods presence in Images but if God be present in Images as In loco simpliciter non ut in loco ut sic As he is in all places then is he not present in images as in images but as in all creatures and then let us say Amen to Vasquez who saith all things which have a being A Mouse and Frog are to be adored as having resemblance with God the first being And he saith this is the opinion of Cajetanus and citeth Leontius the dreamer who was at the Councell of Nice the seventh false Synod who saith all Creatures visible and invisible are to be adored And the Popes Professor Joannes de Lugo proveth by four great reasons that all creatures should be adored 1. Because all creatures are the effects and as it were the hand writing of God 2. Because we use to kisse and adore materiall places and the stone or field where an Angel or Saint hath been for the touching and propinquity of the place and that holy thing but Gods omnipresence sanctifieth all creatures Be doing then Masters kisse and adore the sanctified Devil and Hell fire but take heed you scald not your lips 3. We kisse and worship a gift of a Prince but all creatures even the most abject and contemptible are the gifts of God the Creator 4. Man in a speciall manner is the living image of God But true it is God is to be praised for all his creatures but externall Adoration before them and laying a part of Gods glory upon them for that is forbidden by your own for Leo the first saith the contrary and Salmeron saith The body of Moses was hidden of old for fear of Idolatry and the use of Images and pictures were by God forbidden to the Iews in the second command saith f Alexander Alens Albertus Bonaventura Martinus de Ajala Abulensis who I am sure have with them in this Albertus and Bonaventura that the Images of God because say they he is an invisible Spirit are forbidden by the Law of nature But I return to the Synod of Franckeford 5. Because images are void of senses and reason 6. It cannot be proved by the example of the Apostles Ergo say I Images are neither to be teaching books nor adored creatures 7. The ancient Fathers were ignorant of
this worship 8 Only the rich who are able to sustain Images should be saved and not the poor 9. There is no profit but great vanity in adoring Images To the Arguments from miracles it is answered that these miracles are lying signes for Ea miracula nulla Evangelii lectio tradit 2. They deny that all things are to be adored in the which or by the which God wrought miracles Gregorius Nyssenus bowed his knee to the Image of Abraham What then the Councell saith these books of Nyssenus are perished The fable of Agbarus to whom the Image of Christs face painted in a cloath was sent was not in the world till the year of God 700. It is a counterfeit work ascribed to Athanasius in stile and phrase of writing not like to him where it is said that it was the image of Christ crucified by the Iews in Berythus a Town in Syria out of whose side flowed blood and water which being mixed with water could cure all diseases so Symson The Testimony of the Councell of Eliberia is clear that images should not be in Churches Canus Surjus and your own men say this Councell condemneth images For 370. years there were no Images in Churches in this age Martyrs were admired and the Grecians first especially Gregorius Nyssenus the brother of Basilus had Images in Churches Sozomen saith Christians took into Churches pieces of Christs image broken by Iulian the Apostat in the first age when Religion was born down and holy Pastors killed Gregorius Magnus first defended that images should be in Churches It s like the Apostate Iulian would hate any thing bearing the name of Christ most falsly yea and Antiquity beareth contradictions most aparent touching images But Nicephorus saith the creatures of God are the Lawfull Images of God But it is more then evident by what I have said that ancient Papists and Synods used images to be memorials of God and not to be adored CAP. II. QUEST 1. Whither kneeling or sitting be the most convenient and Lawfull gesture in the Act of receiving the Sacrament of Christs Body and blood 1. Conclus SItting is the most and only lawfull gesture That gesture that Christ and his Disciples used upon morall and unalterable grounds which doth not concern the first Supper as first but as a Supper and that not upon no occasionall and temporary reasons belonging to that Supper more then to all the Suppers of that kinde that we are to follow as a pattern and must be most Lawfull But the gesture of sitting is such Ergo The Proposition is evident in Scripture I prove the Assumption 1. Sitting was either 1. Miraculous 2. Customable 3. Occasionall or 4. Morall None in reason can say the first that sitting was a miracle 2. Nor is it customable For 1. Customes laudable are grounded upon decency and reason and so morall or grounded upon no reason at all But Christ did nothing in Gods worship nor did he any humane morall actions for the meer fact and will of others going before for these were not reasonable humane actions and if it be customable only it is not lawfull to put away a customable action out of worship and to put a morall action of kneeling and Divine signification in the place thereof for so we might change places times persons and all physicall circumstances and make them supernaturall 2. The action could not be occasionall for then the occasion of the Supper as first and because of such persons such time at night such place an upper chamber should have moved Christ to sitting rather then to kneeling or to any other gesture but kneeling or any other gesture might have consisted well with that first Supper with the upper chamber with the time and persons as well as sitting except the Law givers will had been a reason of the contrary Some object Christ choosed an upper chamber not the Temple twelve persons not ten not twenty at night for he might have celebrated it at dinner but we are not holden to imitate Christ in these Ergo neither in sitting Ans Occasionall properly is that which hath a reason not from the nature of the thing it self but from such occasionall occurrences of Providence as God will not alter and its that which hath no morall nor sacred conveniency with the nature of worship but hath only a conveniency for such a time and place as Christs preaching in a ship when he is at the sea side and a multitude are to hear him the ship hath no agreement with the nature of preaching more then an house hath time place and persons are clearly such as agreed with that supper as first not as a sacred worship and therefore were meerly occasionall and so not imitable and though Christ might have altered them yet had they been occasionall and they have no sacred conveniency with this Supper as this Supper and if Christ had altered these for meer will upon no reasons that concerneth all Suppers they had not been occasionall but positive points of worship and so had obliged us yea the upper chamber and these twelve persons by no possibility can concern all Suppers to the end of the world but sitting agreeth kindly and natively to all Suppers in generall as kneeling to all praying indefinitely Christ might have changed bread and wine in flesh and milk or water will it hence follow we are not to imitate Christ in bread and wine And that bread and wine are occasionall Lastly Pauls practise in passing from an upper chamber and from twelve men to a Church full of men and women 1 Cor. 11. 23 17 18 22. warranteth us to passe from these we have not the like reason to warrant us to passe from sitting 2. That gesture which Christ choosed and that refusing all other even kneeling having the same Religious reasons at the first supper as now that must be most convenient and lawfull But sitting is such Ergo The Proposition is clear The Assumption is proved from Matth. 26. While they did eat the Passeover he took bread Mar. 14 22. As they did eat Jesus took bread But while they did eat the Passeover they sate Ergo while they took the Supper they sate I prove the Assumption Matth. 26. 20. And when the evening was come he sate down with the twelve Mark 14. 18. And as they sate and did eat Jesus said c. v. 22. And as they did eat Iesus took bread eating the Passeover and sitting were co-existent and taking the Sacramentall bread of the Supper and eating the Passeover were co-existent Ergo Taking the bread of the Supper and sitting were co-existent Paybodie saith Paul expoundeth as they did eat after they had ended eating and so after they had ended sitting and possibly passed to another gesture 1 Cor. 11. After Supper he took the Cup. Ans If you wholly remove the Passeover you remove the Table also 2. Though the