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
censeri debet Learned D. Roynald Answereth Apolog. Thes de sac Script pag. 211 212. and saith This very Law of Moses promiseth life Eternall to those that love the Lord vvith all their heart and that the Prophets added to the Writings of Moses no Article of Faith necessary to be believed but did expound and apply to the use of the Church in all the parts of piety and Religion that vvhich Moses had taught Lorinus followeth them in Deut. 4. 1. Christus inquit et Apostoli pentateucho plura adjecerunt immò in vetere Testamento Iosue Prophetae Reges Christ saith he and the Apostles added many things to the five Books of Moses yea in the Old Testament Ioshua the Prophets and the Kings David and Solomon did also adde to Moses But the truth is suppose any should arise after Moses not called of God to be a Canonick writer Prophet or Apostle and should take on him to write Canonick Scripture though his additions for matter were the same Orthodox and sound Doctrine of Faith and manners which are contained in the Law of Moses and the Prophets he should violate this Commandment of God Thou shalt not adde For Scripture containeth more then the sound matter of Faith it containeth a formall a heavenly form stile Majesty and expression of Language which for the form is sharper then a two edged sword piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit and of the joynts and marrow and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart Heb. 4. 12. If therefore the Prophets and Apostles had not had a Commandment of God to write Canonick Scripture which may be proved from many places of the Word they could not have added Canonick Scripture to the writings of Moses But the Answer of D. Roynald is sufficient and valid against Papists who hold that their Traditions are beside not contrary to the Scripture just as Formalists do who say the same for their unwritten Positives of Church-policy But our Divines Answer That traditions beside the Scripture are also traditions against the Scripture according to that Gal. 1. 8. But if we or an Angel from Heaven preach any other Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beside that which we have preached unto you Let him be accursed And Papists more ingenious then Formalists in this confesse That if that of the Apostles Gal. 1. 8. be not restricted to the written Word but applyed to the Word of God in its Latitude as it comprehendeth both the written word or Scripture and the unwritten word or Traditions then beside the word is all one with this contrary to the word which Formalists constantly deny For Lorinus the Jesuit saith Comment In Deut. 4. 2. Quo pacto Paulus Anathèma dicit Gal. 1. 8. Iis qui aliud Evangelizant preter id quod ipsi Evangelizaverit id est adversum et contrarium So doth Cornelius a Lapide and Estius expound the place Gal. 1. 8. And they say that Paul doth denounce a Curse against those that would bring in a new Religion and Judaism beside the Gospel But withall they teach that the Traditions of the Church are not contrary to Scripture but beside Scripture and that the Church which cannot eâ—re and is led in all truth can no more be accused of adding to the Scripture then the Prophets Apostles and Evangelists who wrote after Moses can be accused of adding to Moses his writings because the Prophets Apostles and Evangelists had the same very warrant to write Canonick Scripture that Moses had and so the Church hath the same warrant to adde Traditions to that which the Prophets Evangelists and Apostles did write which they had to adde to Moses And therefore the Councel of Trent saith S. 4. c. 1. That unwritten traditions coming either from the mouth of Christ or the ditement of the holy spirit are to be recieved and Religiously Reverenced with the like pious affection and Reverence that the holy Scriptures are received Pari pietatis affectu ac Reverentiâ And the truth is laying down this ground that the Scripture is unperfect and not an adequat rule of Faith and manners as Papists do then it must be inconsequent that because Traditions are beside the Scripture which is to to them but the half of the Word of God Yea it followeth not this Popish ground supposed that Traditions are therefore contrary to the Scripture because beside the Scripture no more then it followeth that the Sacraments of the New Testament Baptisme and the Supper of the Lord in all their positive Rites and Elements are not ordained and instituted in the Old Testament and in that sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beside the Old Testament that therefore they are against the Old Testament though we should imagine they had been added in the New Testament without all warrant of speciall direction from God by the sole will of men or because some Ceremonials commanded of God are not commanded in the Morall Law or Decalogue either expresly or by consequence and so these Ceremonials though instituted by the Lord be beside the Morall Law that therefore they are contrary to the Morall Law Yea to come nearer because the third Chapter of the Book of Genesis containing the Doctrine of mans fall and misery and Redemption by the promised seed is beside the first and second Chapters of the same Book it doth not follow that it is contrary or that Moses adding the third Chapter and all the rest of the five Books did therefore â—ail against this precept Thou shalt not adde to that which I command thee for certain it is that there are new Articles of Faith in the third chapter of Genesis which are neither in the first two Chapters expresly nor by just consequence but if the Church or any other of Jews or Gentiles should take upon them to adde the third Chapter of Genesis to the first and second except they had the same warrant of Divine inspiration that Moses had to adde it that addition had been contrary to the first two Chapters and beside also and a violation of the Commandment of not adding to the word so do Formalists and the Prelate Vsher in the place cited presuppose that the Scripture excludeth all Traditions of Papists because the Scripture is perfect in all things belonging to faith and manners but it excludeth not all Ceremonies which are left to the disposition of the Church and be not of Divine but of Positive and humane Right Hence it must infer the principle of Papists that the Scripture is not perfect in all Morals for it is a Morall of Decency and Religious signification that a childe be dedicated to the service of Christ by the sign of the crosse Now what can be said to thiâ— I know not but that the sufficiency and perfection of scripture doth no whit consist in holding forth Ceremonials but only in setting down doctrinals Why and Papists say the same that the scripture is
First the Canonick Scripture is not Uniform and perpetual Why for certainly once there was no Canonick Scripture but the Books of Moses and after the holy Ghost added the Book of the Psalmes and the Prophets and after the Nativity and Ascension of our Lord to Heaven the Apostles did write Canonick Scripture I hope this is but a poor Argument to infer that there is no Vniform and unalterable Platform of Divinity in the Old and New Testament and yet the Argument is as concludent the one way as it is the other 3. We do not so contend for an Vniform and unalterable Platform of Church-Government in the Word as it was not free to the Lord and Law-giver to adde and alter at his pleasure only we hold it so Vniform and unalterable that this Platform is not shaped like a coat to the Moon or alterable at the will of men without expresse warrant of the Lords Word and to rise and fall with the climate and the elevation of Nationall customes and therefore the Argument is nothing concludent and judge what can be made of these words of the learned Mr. Prynne The Government and Officers of all Churches not being De facto one and the same in all particulars in the very Primitive times as well as since it can never be proved to be of Divine right and the self same in all succeeding Ages without the least variation â—inee it was not so in the Apostles dayes For this is all one as to say the Canonick Scripture was not one and the same in the Apostles and Prophets times but admitted of divers additions Ergo now in our daies Canonick Scripture is not one and the same but may also suffer the like additions 2. Because God himself added to Canonick Scripture and to the Government of the Church in the Apostles dayes Ergo men may without Warrant from God adde in our dayes to Canonick Scripture and to the Government and Officers of the Church 3. The Government and Officers in the Apostles time were not of Divine right but alterable by God Ergo Apostles Evangelists Pastors Teachers Workers of miracles were not of Divine right in the Apostles times but might have been altered by men without the expresse Warrant of God But will any wise man believe that Pauls Apostleship was alterable and might be changed by the Church Since he saith Gal. â— 1. Paul an Apostle not of men neither by men but by Iesus Christ and 1 Cor. 12. 28. When Paul saith And God hath set 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or instituted some in the Church first Apostles secondly Prophets thirdly Teachers after that miracles then gifts of healing c. and Eph. 4. 11. When Christ ascended on high he gave some Apostles some Prophets and some Evangelists and some to be Pastors and Teachers 12. For the perfecting of the Saints c. Can it enter into the head of any man to say some Churches had Apostles and Evangelists and Pastors and miracles and some not Ergo Apostles and Pastors are not by Divine right Ergo because they were not in all Churches therefore they were alterable at the will of men and a Surplice and Crosse in Baptisme hath as much of Divine institution as the calling of the Apostle or of a Pastor and truly to me it is bold Divinity to say that Pastors set over the flock by the holy Ghost Act. 20. 28. and whos 's due qualifications are so specified 1 Tim. 3. and Elders 1 Tim. 5. 17. and Teachers placed by God in the Church 1 Cor. 12 28. may be all turned out of the Church by men as having no Divine right to be there and that men may set up other alterable Officers in their place for by this reason the Apostles by that ordinary spirit that is now in Church-Rulers might without their Apostolick spirit or any immediate Warrant from Christ have altered the whole frame of Apostolick-Government and Church-Officers as the Church may upon motives from themselves not warranted from the word turne out Surplice Crosse and all such stuffe out of the Church Master Prynne The Apostles speech 1 Cor 12. 4 5 6. There are diversity of gifts but the same spirit there are diversity of operations but the same God compared with chap. 8. to 13. and c. 9. v. 19. to 24. I made my self a servant to all that I might gain all c. parallel'd with Act. 15. 1 2 5 6 10. to 32. and chap. 21. 18. to 30. The Churches of Judea did retain the use of Circumcision Purification and other Iewish Rites which the Gentiles by the Apostles resolution were not to observe and Act. 2. 22. The Apostles frequented the Iewish Temple and Synagogues conforming themselves to the Order and Discipline thereof and their own private Christian Assemblies all this will clear that all Churches had not one and the self same Church-Government Ans If diversity of Gifts as to be a speaker with Tongues a Prophet a Pastor will prove the Discipline to be alterable at the Churches will as are Surplice Crosse c. I shall think men may infer any thing they please out of the Scripture and that to be Apostles Pastâ—rs are as indifferent and variable as eating of meats 1 Cor. 8. and Pauls taking of wages at Corinth 1 Cor. 9. Which none can say for if the Church should now command us to abstain from such and such meats as the Apostle doth 1 Cor. 8. We should call that and do call it in the Romish Church a Doctrine of Devils 1 Tim. 4 1 2 3. All brought for this from Act. 15. Act. 21. tendeth to this the Lord himself for the then weaknesse of the Jews of meer indulgence appointed some things to be indifferent and abstained from in the case of scandall Therefore Circumcision Purification Sacrifices of Bullocks and sheep And all the Ceremonies of Moses his Law may be commanded by the Church so they have another signification then they had before and shadow out Christ who is already come But because God hath made some things indifferent shall it follow that the Pope yea or any Church on earth can create an indifferency in things they must then take from things their Morall goodnesse or conveniency with Gods Law and take from them their moral badnes disconveniency to Gods Law which to me is to change the nature of things and to abrogate and change Gods Laws it is true P. Martyr 1 Cor. 9. 19. saith Paul was made all things to all men Quoad Ceremonias res medias in that he Circumcised Timotheus The Law saith he was abrogated Vâ—rum id non adhuc Judaeis liquebat The Jews were to be spared for a time but only for a time and therefore when the Gospel was sufficiently promulgated Paul said Gal. 5. to be Circumcised was to lose Christ and he refused to be a servant to Peter in his sinful Iudaizing Gal. 2. And withstood him in the face Now certain it
Moses the Prince is Commanded to make all according to the Patern in the Mount 2. God speaketh to all Israel and not to the Princes only Deut. 4. 1. Hearken O Israel he speaketh to these who are bidden to keep their soul diligently v. 6. 3. It is Bellarmines groundlesse charity to think private heads who were not Princes and Law-givers did not take on an hâ—iry Mantle to deceive Zach. 13. 4. And say Thus saith the Lord when God had not spoken to them Ier. 23. 16. 32. Yea and Private women added their own dreams to the word of God Ezech. 13. 17 18. 3. They say Traditions are from Gods Spirit But hath Gods Spirit lost all Majesty Divinity and power in speaking If the Popes Decretals the Councels the dirty Traditions wanting life Language and power be from Gods Spirit Formalists admit Traditions from an humane spirit and in this are shamed even by Papists who say God only â—an adde to his own Word whereas they say men and the worst of men Prelates may adde to Gods vvord 4. But that additions perfecting are forbidden is clear 1. Additions perfecting as Didoclavius saith argueth the word of imperfection and that Baptisme is not perfect without Crossing 2. It is Gods Prerogative to adde Canonick Scripture to the five books of Moses and the new-Nevv-Testament and the doctrine of the Sacraments which cannot be Syllogistically deduced out of the Old Testament Matth. 28. 19 20. Ioh. 21. 31. Heb. 3. 2. Rev. 1. 19. and these are perfecting and explaining additions therefore men may by as good reason adde Canonick Scripture to the Revelation as adde new Positive Doctrines like this The holy Surplice is a sacred signe of Pastorall Holinesse Crossing is a signe of dedicating the childe to Christs service for Papists â—ay even Vasquez That the Pope neither in a generall Councell nor out of it can ordain any nevv points of Faith vvhich are not contained in the principles or Articles revealed and may not be evidently concluded out of them Formalists answer It is not lavvfull to adde any thing as a part of divine worship but it is Lawfull to addâ— something as an indifferent Rite coming from Authority grounded upon common equity And this is the ansvver of the Jesuite Vasquez The Pope and Church cannot make an Article of Faith for that is believed by divine Faith to come from God only but as Law-givers they may give Laws that bindeth the conscience and yet are not altogether essentiall in worship If additions as divine parts of Gods worship say we be forbidden God then forbidding to adde such Traditions forbiddeth his own spirit to adde to Gods word for no man but God can adde additions Divine that is coming from God but God himself by good consequence the forbidding men to add additions as really coming from God should forbid men to be Gods for divine additions are essentially additions coming from God but if he forbid additions only of mens divising but obtruded to have the like efficacy and power over the conscience that Canonick Scripture hath then were it lawfull to adde killing of our children to Molech so it were counted not really to come from God with opinion of divine necessity and by this God should not forbid things to be added to his Word by either private or publick men but only he should forbid things to be added with such a quality as that they should by Divine Faith be received as coming from God and having the heavenly stamp of Canonick Scripture when as they are come only from the Pope and his bastard Bishops so all the fables of the Evangell of Nicodemus The materials of the Iewish and Turkish Religion might be received as lawfull additions so they do not contradict the Scripture as contrary to what is written but only beside what is written and with all so they be received as from the Church Also 3. Additions contrary to the word are diminutions to adde to the eight Command this addition The Church saith it is lawfull to steal were no addition to the ten Commandments but should destroy the eight Commandment and make nine Commandments only and the meaning of Gods precept Deut. 12. Thou shalt neither adde nor diminish should be Thou shalt neither diminish neither shalt thou diminish And so our Masters make Moses to forbid no additions at all 6. Commentaries and Expositions of the Word if sound shall be the word of God it self the true sense of a speech is the form and essence of a speech and so no additions thereunto but explanations except you make all sound Sermons Arbitrary Ceremonies and Traditions whereas Articles of Faith expounded are Sermons and so the Scripture it self materially taken is but a Tradition QUEST II. Whether Scripture be such a perfect rule of all our Morall Actions aâ— that the distinction of essentiall and necessary and of accidentall and Arbitrary worship cannot stand And if it forbid all worship not only contrary but also beside the word of God as false though it be not reputed as divine and necessary FOrmalists do acknowledge as Morton Burges Hooker and others teach us that Ceremonies which are meer Ceremonies indifferent in nature and opinion are not forbidden yea that in the generall they are commanded upon common equity and in particular according to their specification Surplice Crossing Knâ—eling before consecrated Images and representations of Christ are not forbidden and negatively Lawfull having Gods allowing if not his commanding will but only God forbiddeth such Ceremonies wherein men place opinion of divine necessity holinesse and efficacy in which case they become Doctrinall and essentiall and so mens inventions are not Arbitrary and accidentall worship But let these considerations be weighed 1. Distinct The Word of Go being given to man as a Morall Agent is a rule of all his Morall Actions but not of actions of Art Sciences Disciplines yea on of meer nature 2. Distinct Beside the Word in actions Morall and in Gods worship is all one with that which is contrary to the Word and what is not commanded is forbidden as not seeing in a creature capable of all the five senses is down right blindenesse 3. Lawfulnesse is essentiall to worship instituted of God but it is not essentiall to worship iâ— generall neither is opinion of sanctity efficacy or Divine necessity essentiall to worship but only to Divine worship and its opinion not actuall nor formall but fundamentall and materiall 4. Seeing the Apostles were no lesse immediatly inspired of God then the Prophets it is a vain thing to seek a knot in a rush and put a difference betwixt Apostolick Commandments or Traditions and divine Commandments as it is a vain and Scripturelesse curiosity to difference betwixt the Propheticall truths of Moses Samuel Isaiah Ieremiah Ezekiel c. And Divine Prophecies which is as if you would difference betwixt the fair writing of Titus the writer and the writing made by the pen of Titus
as the eating of the Lords Supper no question but God invited the uncircumcised to repentance but forbiddeth them to eat the Passeover Beza said Sinners vvere indeed called to the sacrifices but such as professed repentance Erastus saith Then â—â—e agree for vve dispute only of those vvho acknovvledgeth their sins and promise amendment Ans We are not willing to hold up a needlesse controversie with Erastus but Erastus saith and his Arguments conclude in the Old Testament None for Morall uncleannesse and impenitency vvere debarred from the holy things of God Ergo We are to debarre none in the Nevv Testament yea 2. Paul did never command to debar any nor did Christ debar Judas nor the Pharisees debar the â—ewdest Publicans nor the Apostles Simon Magus from the Sacraments Ergo saith he we are to debar none at all now here Erastus clearly contradicteth himself and saith We dispute only of such as acknowledge their â—ins and promise amendment But let Erastus say Did Iudas acknowledge his â—in and promise amendment Did all the morally unclean in Corinth such as repented not of their uncleannesse and fornication and lasciviousnesse which they committed 2 Cor. 12. 21. acknowledge their sin and promise amendment and did those that were partakers of the Table of Devils acknowledge their sin and promise amendment And yet I brought the very words of Erastus in which he saith right down in a Catholick assertion without exception not any of those are to be debarred from the Sacraments Why The Sacraments saith he are Adminicula piâ—tatis et resipiscentiae are helps to godlinesse and repentance And I aske of Erastus doth the Lord invite none to repentance but those that do acknowledge their sin and promise amendment And will Erastus have helps of repentance denied to all those who acknowledge not their sins then let him give us Arguments in the Old or New Testament by which he can demonstrate that those who acknowledge not their sins and promise not amendment are debarred in the Old Testament from all the holy things of God and in the New from the Sacraments Let Erastus extricate himself if he can It is worthy consideration whether Erastus will have all those only that acknowledged their sins and repent admitted to the holy things of God in the Old Testament if not he must shew a difference why pearls might be cast to Swine and scorners rebuked and holy things prophaned by the uncircumcised prophane in the old Testament not in the New this he shall not shew if they were debarred who repented not how saith he in all his book that none were debarred from the holy things of God in the Old Testament for Morall uncleannesse Erastus But we impugne this which you say that God hath ordained Presbyters or Elders to be judges and examinators of that businesse But we say that God neither commanded in the Old or New Testament that Priests or any other should examine those who brought oblations for sin whether they did truly repent or dissemble only and ye say there be chosen Elders who should try this in the New Testament Ans 1. Elsewhere I have proved from Scripture that the Priests did try judicially those for whom they offered Sacrifice If the Leaper had not bidden so many dayes as the Law required if the Priests should offer for him he should be partiall in the Law and if the disease be not removed he cannot offer for him Matth. 8. 4. Lev. 14. 3 4 9 10 11 12 2. Observe good Reader How craftily Erastus passeth from one question to another All his Arguments hitherto both in his Thesis and in his Book conclude that no man in either Old or New Testament ever was or ought to be debarred from the holy things of God Because there is neither precept nor promise nor practise in Moses in the Prophets or Apostles for it 2. Because The Sacraments are helps of repentance 3. Because all are invited and commanded to come Now here Erastus flyeth to another Question Whether the unworthy should be debarred by Priests in the Old and by certain select and chosen Elders in the New Testament This is a far other Question for let him answer our Arguments by which we prove that pearls and the holy things of God ought to be denied to all Dogs Swine and prophane men whereas Erastus saith all those are invited to come and then we shall yoak with Erastus or any other by whom or by whose authority these pearls ought to be denied whether by the Church that is by the Elders of the Church and people consenting or by the civill Magistrate Now this latter question to Erastus is no question at all for if none ought to be debarred from the Sacraments at all but all must come promiscuously as their owne good or evill spirit inclineth them it is a vaine thing for Erastus to make any question at all by whom they ought to be debarred for it is all one as to aske the question by whom should those who are to be gradued Doctors of Physick be tryed and examined whether by the faculty and Colledge of of Physitians of the place or by none at all If you lay downe this ground that there neither is nor ought to be any graduated Doctors at all in the world the other of those who are to try those who are graduated is vaine if all be invited to a free banquet poor and rich leaper and clean it is a vain question whether be there some Masters of the house who should try who are worthy and to be admitted to the feast and who unworthy and to be debarred Erastus It is madnesse to say that Paul by forbidding private â—ating doth understand nothing but a debarring from the Sacraments for 1 Cor. 11. he debarreth none from the Sacrament Ans Neither Beza nor any of ours say that they are both one punishment but that where we are forbidden to eat with a scandalous brother it is presumed the Church doth cast him out of her society nor doth Paul 1 Cor. 11. invite all to come to the supper Beza said he to whom lesse is denied as that we eat not with him in our private houses to him more is denied to wit that he should not be admitted to the Lords supper Erastus saith that to whom lesse is denied to him more is denied is true in gifts but not in punishments and in things of the same kind but not in things divers and in things free not in things of which one is commanded by God and another thing not commanded it holdeth not in punishments he to whom the city is denied and who is banished his life is not denied to him he who is punished in his purse is not killed for that a father denieth to his son an unworthy thing yet he denieth not rayment to him Ans Erastus in this granteth he wrongeth Beza as if he had said to deny a private table and the
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
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 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
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
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.
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
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