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
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
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
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
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
perfect though it teach us not any thing of tradionals in speciall yet in generall it doth hold forth the traditions of the church So Tostat Abulens in Deut. 4. v. 2. ad lit saith Hic commendatur lex ex perfectione quia perfecto nec addi potest nec auferri debet Here the Law of God is commended saith he from its perfection and that is perfect to which nothing can be added and from which nothing should be taken Yea so far forth is the scripture perfect in the Articles of Faith that Castro in summa c. 8. Canus locor Theolog. l. 2. c. 7. and l. 4. c. 4. and Tannerus tom 3. in 22. disp 1. de fide Q. 1. dub 7. saith We are not now to wait for any new revelation of any verity unknown to the Apostles Et nihil novi definiri ab ecclesia Apostolis incognitum and all verities now revealed were implicitely believed by the Apostles and contained in Vniversall generall precepts as that the Saints are to be worshipped that Canonicall Books containeth the word of God the Bishops of Rome are the true successors of Peter and Catholick pastors c. and he saith Quod ecclesia non posset novum fidei articulum condere communiter etiam docent Scholastici in 3. dis 25. he subscribeth to that truth of Vincentius Lyrinensis c. 17. In ecclesia nulla nova Dogmata procudi sed pretiosam divini Dogmatis Gemmam exsculpi fideliter cooptari adornari sapienter ut intelligatur illustrius quod antea obscurius credebatur No new points of saith or manners are forged in the Church but the precious pearl of divine truth is in it polished faithfully applied and wisely illustrated that they may be more clearly understood which before was more obscurely beleeved so that to say the perfection of scripture consisteth not in particularizing all the small positives of policy is no more then Papists say of the perfection of the scripture in their traditions 2. Moses speaketh both of the Morall and Ceremoniall Law called by the names of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Statutes rights and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Judgements and Laws whatsoever extolled by David Psal 119. As his delight his joy his heritage his songs in the house of his pilgrimages and of both he saith that there is life in keeping them Now the Ceremonies of Moses had an exceeding great excellency in looking to Christ and being shadows of good things to come Heb. 10. 1. And our Ceremonies have the same aspect upon Christ Why but the day of the commemoration of Christs Death Nativity Ascension Dedication to Christ by a Crosse in the Aire should have the same influence and impression on our hearts if they be lawfull that the like Ceremonies and Laws had upon Davids spirit Christ being the object and soul of both 2. Of these Ceremonies and Laws Moses faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 6. for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the Nations Why but these same Ceremonies looking with a broader and fuller face on Christ already come if Christ have put any life of lawfulnesse in them then their dim shadows of old should also be our wisdom in the hearing of Pagans who know not God 3. It is a wonder to me that the learned Master Prynne should say that the place Deut. 4. speaketh nothing of Church-Government and Ceremonies but only of Doctrines of Canonicall Books For that is as much as to say the place speaketh nothing of Divine Ceremonies but only of divine Ceremonies for what a number of Divine Ceremonies and Laws are in the Law of Moses which were given by the Lord himself as is clear by the words ver 1. Now therefore hearken O Israel unto the Statutes and judgements that I teach you that ye may live and v. 5. Behold I have taught you Statutes and judgments which the Lord my God commanded me v. 8. And what nation is there so great that hath statutes and judgements so Righteous as all this Law which I set before you this day Now of all this Law the Lord saith v. 2. Ye shall not adde unto the Word which I commanded you Neither shall ey diminish The Learned and Reverend Mr Prynne must restrict this word of the Law which can admit of no addition to some speciall Law either the Morall only or the judiciall and Ceremoniall only not to the former for then additions to the Decalogue only should be forbidden this never man taught Stapleton indeed Relect. Prin. fid Doctrin cont 4. Q. 1. Art 3. restricteth it to the Ceremoniall Law only but Moses maketh it a Law as large v. 2. as the word which God Commandeth And as saith he v. 5. the statutes and the judgements which the Lord Commanded me v. 8. All this Law Deut. 31. 9. This written Law delivered to the Priests and kept in the Ark the Law that all Israel heard read v. 11. Of which it is said v. 24. When Moses had made an end of writing of the words of this Law in a Book untill they were finished Now this was the whole five Books of Moses And were there nothing of Church-Government in Moses Law What shall we then say of the High Priest his calling Office habit of the Priests Levites their charge calling attire of the Law of the Leaper his healing his extrusion out of the Camp of the Law of those that were defiled with the dead of their qualification who were to be Circumcised who were to eat the Passeover or who not who were to enter into the house of God and Congregation who not not a few of these touching Church-Government are included in the Law that God Commanded Israel as their wisdom 4. That there were many additions made to the service of God in the Temple not mentioned by Moses is nothing to purpose except it be proved that these additions were made by the Church without any word of God the conâ—rary whereof is evident for the Temple and whole patern thereof was delivered in writing by the Lord to David 1 Chron. 28. 11. 19. If Formalists will have no Laws made but by Moses as the only Law-giver they have as good reason to say That Moses was the only Canonick writer and none but he which is absurd Or 2. That Moses by his own spirit was a Law-giver and had active influence in excogitating the Law We conceive that Protestants are to own this Doctrine which Tostatus imputes to us as Hereticks Com. in Loc. Q. 2. Quasi Moses nudus minister relator verborum dti esset non legem conderet As if Moses were a meer servant and a naked reporter of the Lords Law and words and not a Law-maker For in the making of Laws and Divine institutions we judge that all the Canonick writers were meer patients as the people are for God is the Commander and Moses the person Commanded and a meer servant Deut. 4. 5. Mal. 4. 4. Heb. 3.
into the world to save sinners in regard of Canonicall authority stamped upon both R. Hooker with other Formalists Will have the lightnesse of matter to make the Law alterable Truly to eat of the Tree of knowledge of good and ill being put in the ballance with the love of God in it self is but a light thing yet the breach of that Law involved all the world in condemnation And what else is this but that which Papists say that there be two sort of things in scripture so saith Cornelius a Lapide Comem on 2 Tim. 3. 16. 1. The Law and the Prophets these God revealed and dyted to Moses and the Prophets but there are other things in Scripture as Histories and morall exhortations which Canonick writers learned either by hearing seeing reading or meditation there was no need these should be dyted by the inspiration of the holy Spirit for they know them themselves though they were assisted 2. Excited by the holy spirit to write Conceptum memoriam eorum quae sciebant non iis suggessit spiritus sanctus sed inspiravit ut hunc potius conceptum quam illum scriberent omnes eorum sententias conceptus ordinavit digessit direxit spiritus sanctus v. g. Vt hanc sententiam primò illam secundò aliam tertiò collocarent Yet Estius saith on the place The Scriptures are given by divine inspiration ita ut non solum sententiae sed verba singula verborum ordo ac tota dispositio fit a deo tanquam per seipsum loquente ac scribente So as not only the sentences but every word and the order and disposition of words is of or from God as if he were speaking and writing himself Now for the additions Canonicall that the Prophets and Apostles made to the writing of Moses I hope Papists and Formalists cannot with any forehead alledge them to prove that the Church may adde Traditions and alterable Positives of Church-Policy to the written word of God except upon the same ground they conclude That the Church now hath the same immediatly inspired spirit that the Prophets and Apostles had and that our Prelats saw the visions of God when they saw but the visiones aulae the visions of Court and that their calling was as Pauls was Gal. 1. 1. not of men neither by men but by Iesus Christ When as it is not by Divine right and was both of the King and by Court 2. Except they infer that the Church that now is may adde Canonicall and Scripturall additions to the Scripture for such additions the Prophets and Apostles added to the writings of Moses and 3. that that precept Thou shalt not adde c. was given to the Lord himself to binde up his hands that no Canonick Scripture should ever be but the only writings of Moses which is as some write the dream of Saduces whereas inhibition is given to the Church of God not to God himself for what the Prophets and Apostles added God himself added yea to me it is a doubt while I be better informed if the Lord did ever give any power of adding to his Scripture at all without his own immediate inspiration to either Prophet or Apostle or that God did never command Moses or Prophet or Apostle to write Canonick Scripture of their own head or that his Commandment to write Scripture was any other then an immediate inspiration which essentially did include every syllable and word that the Apostles and Prophets were to write For I do not coaceive that 1. God gave to Apostles and Prophets power to devise a Gospel and write it I suppose Angels or men could not have devised it yea that they could no more have devised the very Law of nature then they could create such a piece as a reasonable soul which to me is a rare and curious book on which essentially is written by the immediate finger of God that naturall Theology that we had in our first creation 2. I do not conceive that as Princes and Nobles do give the Contents or rude thoughts of a curious Epistle to a Forraign Prince to their Secretary and go to bed and sleep and leaves it to the wit and eloquence of the Secretary to put it in forme and stile and then signes it and seals it without any more ado so the Lord gave the rude draughts of Law and Gospel and all the pins of Tabernacle and Temple Church-officers and Government and left it to the wit and eloquence of Shepherds Heardsmen Fishers such as were the Prophets Moses David Amos and Peter and divers of the Apostles who were unlettered men to write words and stile as they pleased but that in writing every jot tittle or word of Scripture they were immediatly inspired as touching the matter words phrases expression order method majesty stile and all So I think they were but Organs the mouth pen and Amanuenses God as it were immediately dyting and leading their hand at the pen Deut 4. 5. Deut. 31. 24 25 26. Mal. 4. 4. 2 Pet. 1. 19. 20 21. 2 Tim. 3. 16. Gal. 1. 11 12. 1 Cor. 11. 23. so Luk. 1. 70. God borrowed the mouth of the Prophets As he spake by the mouth of his holy Prophets which hath been since the world began Now when we ask from Prelates what sort of additionall or accidentall worship touching Surplice Crosse and other Religious Positives of Church Policy it is that they are warranted to adde to the word and how they are distinguished from Scriptures Doctrinals They give us these Characters of it 1. God is the Author of Doctrinals and hath expressed them fully in scripture But the Church is the Author of their Accidentals and this is essentiall to it that it is not specified particularly in scripture as Bread and Wine Taking and Eating in the Lords Supper is for then it should be a Doctrinall point and not Accidentall 2. It is not in the particular a point of faith and manners as Doctrinals are But hear the very Language of Papists for Papists putteth this essentiall Character on their Tradition that it is not written but by word of mouth derived from the Apostles and so distinguished from the written word for if it were written in scripture it should not be a Tradition So the Jesuit Malderus in 22. tom de virtut de obj fidei Q. 1. Dub. 3. Pro Apostolica traditione habendum est quod eum non inveneatur in Divinis literis tamen Vniversa tenet ecclesia nec consiliis institutum sed semper retentum 2. That the Traditions are necessary and how far Papists do clear as I have before said for the Church may coin no Articles of faith these are all in Scripture For the Iews two Suppers and their additions to the passeover as Hooker saith and their fasting till the sixth hour every Feast day we reject as dreams because they are not warranted by any word of institution not to adde that
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-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
God removed the doubts and answered him 5. Paul in eating or not eating which are things most indifferent requireth a certain perswasion of positive assurance Rom. 14. 14. I know and am perswaded by the Lord Iesus that there is nothing unclean of it self but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean it is unclean Master Sanderson saith In things substantiall of Gods Worship and in things to be done upon necessity of salvation what is not of Faith certainly assuring us it is conforme positively to Gods word it is sin so we abhor Popish Additions But in the actions of our life as the lifting of a straw and in Ceremoniall worship or accidentals it holdeth not saith Morton and Doctor Burges not in all particulars saith Paybodie for there should be no end saith Doct. Iackson of doubting for Papists might doubt to assist our King against Roman Catholicks Ans 1. Let Formalists explain themselves Doctrinals Substantials and essentiall worship is such as God hath commanded in the Proposition and in the Assumption and particularly in Gods word Accidentals are such as he hath commanded in generall but left particulars to mens will so they define like Mâ—sters of Arts. But this our Masters say in all that Christ hath particularly Commanded his Testament is perfect and so I believe what God hath set down he hath set down and so we have Scripture right down as perfect as the Fables of Esop Nasoes Metamorphosis what is in Esopes and Nasoes books is in their books and what they command you are with certainty of Faith to believe they command and what the Prophets and Apostles writ that they writ and that is essentiall worship what they writ not they writ not 2. Mr. Sandersons lifting up a straw is a straw for an instance actions of imagination are not Morall we give him leave to ruh his beard without Faith as he weareth white sheets above his garments in Divine service against Faith 3. To do in Faith is to know that in that I serve Christ and am accepted of God Rom. 14. 2. To do that which condemneth me not and maketh me happy in the doing thereof v. 21. 3. It is a Faith that I have before God in my conscience v. 2â— 4. It is a perswasion by the Lord Iesus that it is clean 5. It is such as I know is positively Lawfull by Scriptures expresse warrant 1 Cor. 10. 26. The earth is the Lords and the fulnesse thereof Ergo I have certainty of faith that it is positively conform to Scripture what I do but in things negatively Lawfull as lifting a straw wearing a Surplice I have no perswasion by the Lord Iesus that I serve Christ and am accepted of God in so doing and know not from Psa 24. 1. or from any other scripture that it is lawfull what I do 3. A generall warrant is either when the major Proposition only is sure by Scripture but you must take the Assumption upon the Formalists Merchant-word or where both Proposition and assumption can indure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according as it is written this latter wee imbrace with both our hands but Formalists deny it to us The first is their meaning This what is decent and not contrary to Gods Word that the Rulers may command But Surplice Crossing c. are decent and not contrary to Gods Word Ergo. So one Giles Widdows saith Man and Wife are one flesh Ergo the Ring in Marriage is good And Fine linnen is the Righteousnesse of the Saints Rev. 19. Ergo a Surplice is good And Matth. 16. Take up your crosse Ergo the Crossing in Baptisme is lawfull Enough of this But so the worship of the Devil is lawfull and Aarons golden Calf is lawfull for I can finde a major Proposition for them in Scripture of which you have a Faith both Negative and Positive as this Whatever God commandeth in his Word that is lawfull But God commandeth the Indians Devil vvorship in his Word Ergo c. I am not holden to give my Faith for the Assumption Yet it is as good as our Masters reasoning 4. Jackson is wide in his lawfull Negatives for to fight against Roman Catholicks at our Kings Command upon good grounds is not an indifferent thing Except to kill men and shed blood be indifferent and lawfull Negatively I thought to make War had been amongst the Substantials and Positively conform to Gods Word 5. The Fathers as Origen Ambrose Chrysostom Theophylact Oecumenius Theodoret Anselm and Ierome upon the place Rom. 14. 23. as Vasquez saith from this place Rom 14 23. that What any doth must be warranted by the light of the conscience as lawfull If Formalist stand to this they must give us some things against conscience and something beside conscience that is morally lawfull and therefore if conscience see not such a thing against Scripture though it have no warrant in Scripture yet it is lawfull and done in a certain perswasion of a well informed conscience but these who eat things thought to be unclean by Gods Law to the scandall of others who knew these meats were not against Piety and Gods Lavv nor yet that the eating of them was against charity while Paul delivered the Doctrine of Scandall yet their eating was unlawfull 6. Formalists say nothing here but what Papists said before them they say Men may go to War doubting of the lawfulnesse thereof and therefore Vasquez Angelus Corduba and Navarr will us While the doubt remaineth to choose the surest side as conscience ought to do And Vasquez saith Manente dubio c. To do so long as the doubt remaineth is to do against the judgement of conscience And Adrianus saith While they doubt and yet go to War they expose themselves to the danger of Man-slaughter and by not going to War they should onely sin by not obeying Suarez saith It is a speculative doubt vvhen Superiors commandeth it And Sylvester saith Such a doubt should be expelled at the commandment of Superiors And no marvell the command of Superiors to Papists is an Oracle and blinde obedience is good meriting therefore Gratian and the Iesuit Sanches saith Inferiors are not holden to examine the commandments of Superiors 5. Iackson saith This Whatsoever is not of Faith is Sin holdeth in omission of good as in commission of evil Ergo Your not practising indifferent Ceremonies is not of Faith and so Sin Ans He that obeyeth doubtingly is condemned and he that obeyeth not doubtingly is condemned But Master Doctor your enumeration is not sufficient and may strike against doubting to worship a Romish Idol at the command of Superiors for I shew you a third and its Pauls way Eat not obey not and abstain with perswasion of Faith that what you do is agreeable Positively to Gods Word Jackson saith They sin not by doubting if the fear of evil after mature
unlawfull teaching means doth bring to our memory because they have no warrant of Christ to speak or spell us the very language and minde of God which God hath spoken in his word by his holy Prophets and Apostles Yea though crosses and afflictions work only upon us as occasions and externall objects yet are we to submit our Conscience to them as to warnings because they be sent as Gods Messengers appointed by him as Mic. 6. 9. Hear the Rod and who hath appointed it 4. Ceremonies work saith Burges as sensible objects and as other Creatures yea but he is far wide the Creature doth book as the word is Psal 19. v. 1. the glory of God and that which may be known of God is made manifest in them and God hath manifested 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these things by the Creatures Rom. 1. 19. But Ceremonies are not books of Gods writing God hath not written nor booked this upon a Surplice Be holy ye who bear the Vessels of the Lord he hath written it in Isaiahs book c. 52. 11. And we submit to the teaching of the Creatures though they work not upon the soul as the Word and Sacraments do because God hath appointed such books to teach us Erg◠we are in no sort to submit to the Devils books Printed by Prelats or to their Ceremoniall Volumnes because God hath written nothing upon them and here by the way I say it is unlawfull yea and Hypocrisie to be devouter then God will have us as to enlarge the Phylacteries and make them above Gods measure Numb 15. 38. To be humble by a mean not appointed of God Ioh. 13. Or to do what God only should do as to make Annointing Oyl besides Gods Oyl Exod. 30. 31 32 33. Or to set a threshold and a post beside Gods own threshold Ezek. 43. 8. is presumption Lastly Gods spirit worketh not with Ceremonies and so they are as the offering of Swines blood and the slaying of a man and so Abomination to God Isa 66. 1 2. The holy spirit is merited to us by Christ Ioh. 16. 14. He shall receive of mine and shew unto you But who can say that the grace of joy in the holy Ghost wrought by the droning of Organs and the holinesse taught by Surplice is a work of the spirit merited by Christ as our High Priest 3. God hath made no promise that he will work by Ceremonies for the spirit worketh not without the Word so then I might resist the working of the spirit and not sin against the Word and this is Anabaptists Enthusiasme If God work not by them they be vain and fruitlesse and the Idol is unlawfull for this that it profiteth not Also the spirits action is either naturall or supernaturall here If naturall it is a naturall work and a naturall spirit and to be rejected If supernaturall we may devise means to produce supernaturall effects mens Ceremonies can produce supernaturall joy comfort peace and acts of grace purchased to us by Christs merit this is a miracle 3. They say All this may be said against your Circumstances of time and place for they are appropriated to Religious uses and not for that made holy parts of Divine Worship 2. Time and place are new things as our Ceremonies are 3. Spirituall signification maketh Ceremonies so much the better but hindreth them not but that they may be Rites of meer Order Burges Ans Time Place Pulpit Table-cloath are new Physically often not new Morally or Religiously they have no Spirituall influence in worship A civill declamation hath the same time place pulpit with a Preaching for then if for application you call them Religious as D. Ammes saith well An hill whereon a Preacher Preacheth a Iudge perswadeth a Law a Captain speaketh to his Souldiers is both a Sacred a judiciall a Military hill 2. Signification spirituall maketh Ceremonies capable of being ordered for Surplice wearing and Crossing being Doctrinall as teaching signifying stirring up the dull affections as doth the Word and Sacrament they require order and decency Now things of meer order requireth no ordering as time place require not other time place to circumstance them right 2. This is that which Papists say as Suarez that by consequent only they have signification putupon them Now fourthly The place Matth. 15. where Christ reproveth the Traditions of Pharisees as Doctrines of men The Jesuit Vasquez his Answer is their Answer Vasquez Tom. 2. in 12. disp 152. cap. 4. That Christ reproveth them not because they kept the Traditions of the Elders Sed quod in falsis praeceptis Divinae legi contrari isputarent esse summam Religionis Because they believed all Religion to stand in their Traditions which were contrary to Gods Law and for their own omitted Gods Commandments And Suarez Tom. de legib lib 4. cap. 2. He reproveth what they added Tanquam nova as new things Corduba Ad. victor rel 1. de potestate Ecclesiae q. 3. Prop. 6. But Chrysostom Hom. 32. in Matth. Thinketh better that they had no power to make Laws yea he condemneth the Laws written in their forehead But this exposition is false 1. They brought in Traditions at first for vain glory to be called Rabbi Matth. 23. 7 8. Ergo they thought them not at first of Religious necessity 2. Mark saith cap. 7. 5. Why walk not thy Disciples according to the Traditions of the Elders Therefore the externall practice and not the internall opinion of necessity and holinesse is condemned as is clear And when the Pharisees saw some of the Disciples eat bread with unwashen hands they found fault The challenge was for an external omission of an outward observance which may be seen with the eyes Ergo these Traditions are not condemned by Christ because they were contrary to Gods Word or impious but in this that they were contrary because not Commanded for in the externall Religious act of washing hands there was no other impiety of a wicked opinion objected to Christs Disciples for if the Pharisees eye had been satisfied in that the Disciples should wash before they eat they would not have contended with Christs Disciples about the Piety of these Traditions nor about any inward opinion that they added under this Reduplication as new as Suarez saith But the Church which cannot erre including the Jewish Pope the High Priest can adde nothing as new contrary to Gods Law nor is there any question betwixt the Pharisees and the Lords Disciples Whether the Traditions of the Elders should be esteemed the marrow and sum of all Religion as Vasquez saith But only anent externall conformity with walking in the Traditions of the Elders or not walking as is most clear in the Text It is true Christ objected they accounted more of mens Traditions nor of Gods Commandments as Papists and Formalists do But that was not the state of the question betwixt the Disciples of Christ and the Pharisees 2. Christ rejecteth
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
this worship 8 Only the rich who are able to sustain Images should be saved and not the poor 9. There is no profit but great vanity in adoring Images To the Arguments from miracles it is answered that these miracles are lying signes for Ea miracula nulla Evangelii lectio tradit 2. They deny that all things are to be adored in the which or by the which God wrought miracles Gregorius Nyssenus bowed his knee to the Image of Abraham What then the Councell saith these books of Nyssenus are perished The fable of Agbarus to whom the Image of Christs face painted in a cloath was sent was not in the world till the year of God 700. It is a counterfeit work ascribed to Athanasius in stile and phrase of writing not like to him where it is said that it was the image of Christ crucified by the Iews in Berythus a Town in Syria out of whose side flowed blood and water which being mixed with water could cure all diseases so Symson The Testimony of the Councell of Eliberia is clear that images should not be in Churches Canus Surjus and your own men say this Councell condemneth images For 370. years there were no Images in Churches in this age Martyrs were admired and the Grecians first especially Gregorius Nyssenus the brother of Basilus had Images in Churches Sozomen saith Christians took into Churches pieces of Christs image broken by Iulian the Apostat in the first age when Religion was born down and holy Pastors killed Gregorius Magnus first defended that images should be in Churches It s like the Apostate Iulian would hate any thing bearing the name of Christ most falsly yea and Antiquity beareth contradictions most aparent touching images But Nicephorus saith the creatures of God are the Lawfull Images of God But it is more then evident by what I have said that ancient Papists and Synods used images to be memorials of God and not to be adored CAP. II. QUEST 1. Whither kneeling or sitting be the most convenient and Lawfull gesture in the Act of receiving the Sacrament of Christs Body and blood 1. Conclus SItting is the most and only lawfull gesture That gesture that Christ and his Disciples used upon morall and unalterable grounds which doth not concern the first Supper as first but as a Supper and that not upon no occasionall and temporary reasons belonging to that Supper more then to all the Suppers of that kinde that we are to follow as a pattern and must be most Lawfull But the gesture of sitting is such Ergo The Proposition is evident in Scripture I prove the Assumption 1. Sitting was either 1. Miraculous 2. Customable 3. Occasionall or 4. Morall None in reason can say the first that sitting was a miracle 2. Nor is it customable For 1. Customes laudable are grounded upon decency and reason and so morall or grounded upon no reason at all But Christ did nothing in Gods worship nor did he any humane morall actions for the meer fact and will of others going before for these were not reasonable humane actions and if it be customable only it is not lawfull to put away a customable action out of worship and to put a morall action of kneeling and Divine signification in the place thereof for so we might change places times persons and all physicall circumstances and make them supernaturall 2. The action could not be occasionall for then the occasion of the Supper as first and because of such persons such time at night such place an upper chamber should have moved Christ to sitting rather then to kneeling or to any other gesture but kneeling or any other gesture might have consisted well with that first Supper with the upper chamber with the time and persons as well as sitting except the Law givers will had been a reason of the contrary Some object Christ choosed an upper chamber not the Temple twelve persons not ten not twenty at night for he might have celebrated it at dinner but we are not holden to imitate Christ in these Ergo neither in sitting Ans Occasionall properly is that which hath a reason not from the nature of the thing it self but from such occasionall occurrences of Providence as God will not alter and its that which hath no morall nor sacred conveniency with the nature of worship but hath only a conveniency for such a time and place as Christs preaching in a ship when he is at the sea side and a multitude are to hear him the ship hath no agreement with the nature of preaching more then an house hath time place and persons are clearly such as agreed with that supper as first not as a sacred worship and therefore were meerly occasionall and so not imitable and though Christ might have altered them yet had they been occasionall and they have no sacred conveniency with this Supper as this Supper and if Christ had altered these for meer will upon no reasons that concerneth all Suppers they had not been occasionall but positive points of worship and so had obliged us yea the upper chamber and these twelve persons by no possibility can concern all Suppers to the end of the world but sitting agreeth kindly and natively to all Suppers in generall as kneeling to all praying indefinitely Christ might have changed bread and wine in flesh and milk or water will it hence follow we are not to imitate Christ in bread and wine And that bread and wine are occasionall Lastly Pauls practise in passing from an upper chamber and from twelve men to a Church full of men and women 1 Cor. 11. 23 17 18 22. warranteth us to passe from these we have not the like reason to warrant us to passe from sitting 2. That gesture which Christ choosed and that refusing all other even kneeling having the same Religious reasons at the first supper as now that must be most convenient and lawfull But sitting is such Ergo The Proposition is clear The Assumption is proved from Matth. 26. While they did eat the Passeover he took bread Mar. 14 22. As they did eat Jesus took bread But while they did eat the Passeover they sate Ergo while they took the Supper they sate I prove the Assumption Matth. 26. 20. And when the evening was come he sate down with the twelve Mark 14. 18. And as they sate and did eat Jesus said c. v. 22. And as they did eat Iesus took bread eating the Passeover and sitting were co-existent and taking the Sacramentall bread of the Supper and eating the Passeover were co-existent Ergo Taking the bread of the Supper and sitting were co-existent Paybodie saith Paul expoundeth as they did eat after they had ended eating and so after they had ended sitting and possibly passed to another gesture 1 Cor. 11. After Supper he took the Cup. Ans If you wholly remove the Passeover you remove the Table also 2. Though the
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.