Word and Sacraments if then the Magistrate by his office may preach and dispense the Sacraments who made him a judge and a Ruler Will this satiâ—fie mens conscience The Magistrate as the Magistrate may play the Minister but the Minister may not play the Magistrate Now as Erastus saith the Minister in holy things is his servant called by him may not the Minister be called by him to the Bench also Erastus Eli and Samuel were both Priests and Iudges and so to Erastus they are not inconsistent 2. Ministers ought not to usurpe the civill sword Ergo they have no power of governing by the sword of the Spirit it followeth not the contrary is evident 1 Thes 5. 12. 1. Tim. 5. 17. 1 Cor. 12. 28. Rom. 12. 7 8. Erastus Peter Martyr saith Com. 1 Sam. 8. Those that live wickedly may be corrected by the Magistrate But Papists give one civill Ecclesiastick power to the Pope and another to the Magistrate whereas the civill Magistrate is sufficient enough Ans Pet. Martyr 1 Cor. 5. expresly asserteth Excommunication and acknowledgeth a Presbyterie of Pastors and Seniors or Elders Peter Martyr condemneth the use of both swords in the Pope and saith it is sufficient that the Magistrate have the Sword Erastus Christ saith my Kingdom is not of this world that is it is not pollitick externall visible for Christ reigneth in the world but his Government is invisible and spirituall in the Word and the Spirit Ans Christ denieth only that his Kingdome is of this World in regard it is not holden up by the civill sword of men or Magistrates as Erastus doth dreame who maketh the Magistrate with his club to be the onely Catholick and principall Ruler in all Christs courts which Christ refuteth when he saith If my Kingdome were of this world mine owne would fight for me Now Erastus will have no weapon but the Magistrates sword to hold out and cast out all offenders out of Christs Kingdom but it is false that Christs Kingdom is not politicall externall and visible this is to deny that Christ hath a visible Church Sure exhorting rebuking censuring withdrawing from the scandalous excommunication are visible externally and in a politick spirituall way exercised by Christ in his Ambassadors for externall and spirituall are not opposed nor are politicall and spirituall opposed as Erastus dreameth and therefore this is a non sequitur of Erastus His Kingdom is not of this world Ergo it is not externall Erastus When Pompeius invaded and possessed Iudea and Gabinius having overcome Alexander had changed the state of Iudea the Pharisees did reigne wholly at Ierusalem The Kingly power was removed and Aristocracy set up Ioseph bel Iud. l. 1. c. 6. Ioseph antiq l. 14. c. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Synedrie for the most part had its owne authority vnder Hyrcanus and under Archilaus it was more fully restored as is cleer by the Evangelists and Iosephus Claudius in the tenth year after Christs death setteth forth an Edict 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ioseph Ant. lib. 19. Titus Vespasianus promised the same thing to them Ans Will then Erastus have Christ Mat. 18. to restore the power of the Sanedrim in gaining a lost brother that is to cite him before the Roman Iudges But 1. the Romans made high Priests from yeere to yeere did Christ acknowledge the Sanedrim to be a restored Iudicature in this 2. Say that the Sanedrim in sacris in in the holy things of God had its full power the Romans not impeding them hath any man a face to deny but Pharisees corrupted both Law Gospell Sanedrim and all and doth Christ establish their most corrupt government especially when they set themselves against the Messiah Cesar or Pompeius could give the Sanedrim no more then it had before they were subdued but before they were subdued the Sanedrim was changed and corrupted 3. This is to beg the question to say they kept the power of the Sword For 1. We utterly deny that by Gods Law they ever had any such power and forsooth because the High-Priests servant smote our Saviour on the face and they scourged and imprisoned the Apostles What then therefore the Sanedrim had the Law of God for it and Aaron and his sonnes might beat scourge imprison and kill as they killed Steven without Law or warrant except the Law that they had from the Roman Emperours for which cause I judge their Sanedrim was then a mixed Judicature surely this is a vaine consequence 4. It is like enough Claudius and Tiberius both gave them liberty of their own Religion Ceremonies and customes at their pleasure and that is much for us the adversary so do reason from a corrupt unjust and wicked practice to infer a Law Erastus I have solidly proved there were not two distinct jurisdictions but that the Magistrate Governed all I deny not that the Magistrate took counsell at those that were skilled in the Law And I have proved that the Sanedrim in Christs time when he spake these words had the power of the sword in things pertaining to Religion Ans Let another man praise thee solidity of the probation to most of Protestant Divines is plain emptinesse 2. That the Magistrate took advice of Divines and learned men skilled in the Law is not like the first pattern of Moses David Solomon who as Magistrates saith Erastus did rule all in the Church gave the Law to Aaron his sons directed and commanded the Prophets from the Lord as nearest to him what they should do what Laws they should teach the people Shew us one precept practise or promise in the word where Moses David Solomon asked Counsell at Aaron the Priests Gad Nathan or the Prophets saying O sons of Aaron O Prophets advise us Magistrates what Laws we should command you touching your office your holy garments your washing your beasts clean and unclean your lâ—per your putting men out of the Camp touching the forme dimensions structure materials of the Arke Tabernacle Temple c. that we may know what to command you from the Lord for we are nearer to the Lord and have a more eminent place as Church-Officers then you who are but our Vicars Deputies and servants to be directed by us Now 1. Moses received all Laws immediatly from God and never consulted with any man either Aaron Priest or Prophet David and Solomon had the forme of the Temple given to them by the Lord in writing and advised with none at all therefore received from God and delivered to the Church what they received of the Lord. 2. What warrant the Magistrates should advise with Ministers what they should command-Ministers to preach and do in their Ministery if by vertue of their Office they command Ministers 3. So like as Christ referreth men to the Civill sword on their bodies to gain their souls which is the scope of Christ Matth. 18. CHAP. XVII Quest 13. Whether Erastus can make good that the
intention signifieth divine adoration p. 147 148 Objections of Swarez contending that intention of adoration is essential to adoration removed p. 148 149 Of the Idolatrous worship of the Iews and Papists p. 150 The relative expressioÌ„ of God in the creature is no ground of adoring the creature p. 151 The Iews beleeved not the Golden ca lt to be really God p. 151 152 The adoring of Images not forbidden by the Ceremonial law but by the Moral law p 154 The evasions of Bellarmine and Swarez answered p. 155 Papists did of old adore before or at the presence of the Image as a memorative signe and yet were Idolators p. 158 Two sort of signes ibid. Divers evasions of Papists touching the adoring of Images p. 161 162 scq Swarez is not content at the hungry expressions of Durandus Mirandula Hulcot in the worshipping of Images p. 165 166 The place worship at his footstool discussed Psal 99 ibid. Prayer may as lawfully be given to the creature as Adoration p. 169 170 Divers Fables touching Images p. 179 180 The original of Images p. 181 Images not in the ancient Church neither worshippeâ— therein p. 182 â—83 184 c. Vasquez will have all things to be adored p. 190 Joan. dâ— Lugo proveth the same by four Reasons p. 191 Whether sitting or kneeling be the most convenient and lawful gesture in the act of receiving the Sacrament of Christs Body and Blood p. 192 Sitting the onely convenient and lawful gesture p. 193 What is occasional in the first Supper ibid. Christ sate at the first Supper p. 194 195 Sitting a sign of our coheirship p. 197 198 199 A signe of our coheirship may well consist with our inferiority in worshipping Christ p. 198 Ceremonies fail against the Authority of Rulers p. 201 Whether humane Laws binde the conscience or not p. 201 202 seq How civil positive Laws binde not the conscience p. 202 203 A twofold goodnesse p. 207 The will of created Authority cannot create goodnesse in things p. 204 205 Humane Laws obliâ—ge onely in so far as they agree with the Law of God p. 206 A twofold consideration of Humane Laws p. 208 How Rulers are subordinate to God in commanding p. 209 Humane authority is not the nearest nor the instrumental cause of Laws p. 208 209 A double obedience due to Rulers objective and subjective p. 210 Objective obedience no more due to Rulers then to equals p 210 211 False Rules of obedience to Rulers proposed by D. Jackson refuted p. 212. The goodnesse of supposed obedience to Rulers cannot countervalue the evil in the sinful manner of doing with a doubting conscience p. 214 Other arguments for the obligation of humane Laws answered p. 216 What it is to resist to Ruler p. 217 Why men cannot make Laws that layeth a tie on the conscience p. 219 That Christ hath a spiritual Kingdom not onely in the power of Preaching but also in the power of the Keys by censures p. 220 That there is such a divine Ordinance as Excommunication p. 223 Objections against Excommunication removed p. 224 How we are to rebuke our Brother p. 225 The Church Matth. 18. is not the civil Sanedrim p. 226 227 229 How Heathen and Publicans were excluded from the Church p. 230 Binding and loosing acts judicial p. 235 236 Excommunication is a divine Ordinance proved by 1 Cor. 5. p. 238 239 seq fuse To deliver to Satan is not miraculous killing p. 238 239 The essentials of Excommunication 1 Cor. 5. p. 238 239 c. Whether the Word doth warrant censures and exclusion from the Seals ibid. Cutting off not alwayes killing p. 241 Moral scandals excluded men from holy things amongst the Iews p. 243 The prophecy Ezek 44. 11 12 c. to be fulfilled under the New Testament p. 244 245 Ceremonial exclusion from holy things under the old did typiâ—ie exclusion for moral uncleannesse under the N. Test p. 247 248 The Churches exclusion from the Seals declarative non coactive by violence ibid. Censures applyed to some by name ibid. Eschuing the society of scandalous Church-members must be a Church-censure p. 249 The hindering of Jezabel by preaching not sufficient p. 251 Debarring of the scandalous from the Seals proved p. 252. seq It belongeth not to the Magistrate to debar from the Seals p. 253 Erastus against exclusion from the Sacraments refuted p. 253 seq fuse By Erastus his way we cannot deny the Seals to a Turk p. 258 259 To exclude from the Kingdom of Heaven not one with Excommunication p. 260 Excommunication is no real separation of one from Christs invisible body p. 261 262 264 Though Excommunication be onely declarative yet it s not empty p. 266 Putting out 1 Cor. 5. p. 269 Whether Erastus doth prove that none were excluded amongst the Iews for moral uncleannesse from the holy things of God p. 271 A twofold forgivenesse p. 273 All are invited to come to the Sacraments but not that they come any way p. 274 The question whether all should be admitted to the Lords Supper perverted by Erastus p. 275 Two sort of signes amongst the Iews some purely holy some partly holy partly necessary for the bodily life the latter clean and unclean might eat but not the former p. 277 All are commanded to hear but not to â—ome to the Supper p. 280 Whether Erastus doth justly deny Excommucation to be typified of Old p. 281 Ceremonial uncleannesse typified exclusion out of the visible Church for scandals not out of the Kingdom of Heaven p 287 288 Legal uncleannesse was sin p. 289 The scope and sense of Matth. 18. perverted by Erastus p. 290 Our Saviour speaketh of all not of private or lesser scandals onely p. 291 By the word Brother is not meaned a Iew onely ib. Christs speaking in the second person argueth not the privacy of the scandal p. 294 A twofold forgiving p. 295 Christ speaketh not of such sins as private men may forgive as Erastus dreameth p. 297 Christs scope spiritual Erastus his way carnal p. 298 A Publican most odious to the Iews p. 305 It s not private forgivenesse which is holden forth Matth. 18. 17. p. 308 Binding and loosing proper to Stewarts p. 309 To excommunicate is not formally to debar from the Seals p. 311 Christ might well give directions touching a Church not yet erected p. 314 c. The place 1 Cor. 5. vindicated from Erastus his glosse p. 316 317 c. The prayers of the Church intervene not for this particular miracle p. 318 319 Faith of miracles not in all the faithful at Corinth p. 320 Delivering to Satan not miraculous p. 321 The Church not Paul alone had hand in delivering the man to Satan p. 326 What delivering to Satan is p. 327 The destruction of the flesh what it is p. 328 Hymeneus and Alexander not killed by Satan p. 332 Delivering to Satan not miraclous p 336 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to put away not alwayes to kill p. 337 To eschew the
Surplice or some such like But since we have a pattern of perfectly formed Churches in the Apostles times who had power even In actu excercitâ— of Discipline and Church-worship and the Apostles mention things of an inferiour nature How is it that we have no hint of Crossing Kneeling Surplice corner Cap nor any such like unto these And yet they were as necessary for decency then 1 Cor. 5. Col. 2. 5. 1 Cor. 11. 20. c. Rev. 2. 1. 2 14 18 20 21. 1 Cor. 14. 40. as now Others of great learning reply that Christ is not the only immediate Head King Law-giver and Governour of the Church for that is quite contrary to Gods Ordinance in establishing Kings Magistrates higher powers nurse-Fathers Pastors Doctors Elders for by this there should be no Kings Parliaments Synods no power of jurisdiction in them to make Lawes to suppresse and punish all manner of Idolatry Superstition Heresies But I answer that Christ is the only immediate Head King Law-giver and Governour of his Church as upon his shoulder only is the Government Isa 9. 6. And the key of the house of David Isa 22. 22. And by what right he is the head of all things and set above all principalities and power and might and dominion and every name that is named not only in this vvorld but also in that vvhich is tâ— come He is the head of the Catholick Church which is his body Eph. 1. 21 22 23. And he is such a head even in externals in giving Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors and Teachers who for the vvork of the ministery perfecteth the Saints in vvhom the vvhole body of the Church is fitly joyned together and compacted by that which every joynt supplieth according to the effectuall vvorking in the measure of every part maketh increase of the body to the edifying of it self in love Ephes 4. 11 12 13 14 15 16. Now these places maketh Christ the only immediate head in externals and internall operation of that body which is the fulnesse of Christ Let any of the Formalists if Christ be not the only immediate Head Shew us of King or Bishop who is the Mediate Ministeriall inferior Head of the Catholick Church even in externall Government For Iohn Hart in his conference with D. Roinald saith Christ is the only principall imperiall and invisible Head but the Pope saith he is the visible and Ministeriall Head So do all Papists say but our Protestant Divines Answer That it is a repugnancy that a Subject or a Member of the King and Head should be in any sense both a Subject and a King a part or Member and a Head and Roynald saith This name to be Head of the Church is the Royall Prerogative of Jesus Christ Yea the head in externals must be with the Catholick body as Christ hath promised to be with his Church to the end of the world neither King nor Pope can in the externall Government be with the particular Churches to the end It is true the King may be with his Church by his Laws and power yea but so may the Pope be if all Pastors on earth be but his Deputies and if Pastors be but the Kings Deputies and sent by the King so is the King the Head of the Church but then the Catholick Church hath as many heads as there be lawfull Kings on earth But we desire to know what mediate acts of Law-giving which is essentiall to Kings and Parliaments in civill things doth agree to Kings Parliaments and Synods Christ hath not made Pastors under-Kings to create any Laws morally obliging the conscience to obedience in the Court of God which God hath not made to their hand if the King and Synods only declare and propound by a power of jurisdiction that which God in the Law of nature or the written word hath commanded they are not the Law-makers nor creators of that morality in the Law which layeth bonds on the conscience yea they have no Organicall nor inferiour influence in creating that morality God only by an immediate act as the only immediate King made the morality and if King Parliaments and Synods be under Kings and under Law-givers they must have an under-action and a Ministeriall subservient active influence under Christ in creating as second causes that which is the formall reason and essence of all Lawes binding the conscience and that is the morality that obligeth the soul to eternal wrath though King Parliament Pastors or Synods should never command such a Morall thing Now to propound or declare that Gods will is to be done in such an act or Synodicall Directory or Canon and to command it to be observed under Civill and Ecclesiasticall paine is not to make a Law it is indeed to act authoritatively under Christ as King but it maketh them neither Kings nor Law-givers no more then Heralds are little Kings or inferiour Law-givers and Parliaments because in the name and Authority of King and Parliament they Promulgate the Lawes of King and Parliament the Heralds are meer servants and do indeed represent King and Parliament and therefore to wrong them in the promulgation of Lawes is to wrong King and Parliament but the Heralds had no action no hand at all in making the Laws they may be made when all the Heralds are sleeping and so by no propriety of speech can Heralds be called mediat Kings under-Law-givers just so here as touching the morality of all humane Laws whether Civill or Ecclesiasticall God himself immediatly yea from Eternity by an Act of his free-pleasure made that without advice of men or Angels for who instructed him neither Moses nor Prophet nor Apostle yea all here are Meri precones only Heralds yet are not all these Heralds who declare the morality of Lawes equals may declare them charitative By way of charity to equals but these only are to be obeyed as Heralds of Laws whom God hath placed in Authority as Kings Parliaments Synods the Church Masters Fathers Captains And it followeth no wayes that we disclaime the Authority of all these because we will not inthrone them in the chaire of the Supreame and only Lawgiver and head of the Church they are not under-Law-givers and little Kings to create Laws the morality of which bindeth the conscience for this God only can do Ergo there be no Parliaments no Kings no Rulers that have Authority over men it is a most unjust consequence for all our Divines against Papists deny that humane Laws as humane do binde the conscience but they deny not but assert the power of jurisdiction in Kings Parliaments Synods Pastors SECT III. IF Iesus Christ be as Faithfull as Moses and above him as the Lord of the house above the servant Heb. 3. 1 2 3 4. Then as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the Tabernacle for saith he See thou make all things according to the patternâ— shewed unto thee in the mount Heb. 8. 5. And
gather the Ordinances of God together distinctly and orderly to set them down according to their kindes for each Publique duty and Law But the Laws of Christ we rather finde mentioned by occasion in the writings of the Apostles then any solemn thing directly written to comprehend them in a Legall sort 1. The Law Moral and Ceremonial were not delivered one the same way the former was uttered by the Voice of God in the hearing of six hundred thousand 2. Written with Gods finger 3. Termedâ—a Covenant 4. Given to be kept without time how long or place where The latter not so and restricted to the Land of Jury Deut. 4. 5. 12. Deut. 5. 22. And if God had respect in Positive Laws to time and place and the Manners of that Nation seeing Nations are not all alike then the giving of one kinde of Positive Laws unto one only people without any Liberty to alter them is but a slender proof that therefore one kinde should be given to serve everlastingly for all Ans This Argument reduced to form shall want both matter and form and reason If the Laws of Moses be distinctly and orderly set down and gathered together according to their severall kindes for each Duty and the Laws of Christ be occasionally only written then Christ did not mean to set down particular Positive Laws for all things in such sort as Moses did But this difference is true Ergo c. Both the Major Proposition and the Assumption are false and neither of them can be proved For the occasionall writing of some Articles of Faith and of Dogmaticall points should then prove that Christ meant not to set down all Articles of Faith particularly for Christ Matth. 22. upon occasion of the Saduces tempting Paul upon occasion of some at Corinth who denied the Resurrection 1 Cor. 15. And of some that mourned for the dead 1 Thess 4. Set down and proved an Article of Faith to wit the Resurrection of the dead By this Argument the Scripture is not full and perfect in Fundamentals as Moses is in Ceremonials but hath left such and such Fundamentals to be altered added or omitted by the Church in that way that Surplice Crosse and Altars are alterable things Most of Dogmatick points concerning Christs sufferings are occasionall as his taking his betraying by Judas who knew the place he was in the valuing of him at Thirty pieces the giving him Gall and Vinegar a punishment not intended by the Iudge but occasionall in that Christ said he thirsted Yea the Crucifying of him rather then Barrabas upon occasion of the malice of the people when Pilate had scourged him upon a Policie to see if the people would demand he might be released the casting Lots for his garment the Crucifying of him between two Theeves the not breaking of his bones upon occasion he was dead the piercing of his side all which in regard of second causes were occasionall and so though Dogmaticall and Doctrinall these must be all such alterable and Ambulatory points of Doctrine as the Church and Prelats may change at their godly discretion and Christ meant not in these to set down particular Positive Laws in such sort as Moses did Yea the Evangel according to Luke is set forth occasionally because many have taken in hand to set forth in order a Declaration of these things which are most firmly believed therefore is seemed good to Luke also to write Luk. 1. 1 2 3 4. Upon occasion of Onesimus his fleeing from his master The Epistle to Philemon was written upon occasion of the unconstancy of the Galathians whose faith was perverted by false teachers that of Iustification by Faith without the works of the Law And the Epistle to the Galathians was written most if not all the Canonicâ— Epistles were written either upon occasion of false Teachers or for fear they should be scandalized at Pauls bonds By this vain Argument the most part of Canonick Scripture should be alterable imperfect not particular in most Doctrinals no lesse then in Ceremonials And so the Major Proposition is most false for its a vain thing to Collect Christs meaning to set down particulars of either Doctrine or Ceremonies from occasions of Providence for most of the Scripture is penned upon occasions from men and from second causes shall these things leave off to be of Divine Institution that hath their rise from occasions even sinfull occasions Yea the death of Christ is occasioned from mans fall in sin What then Is it an alterable Doctrine left to the determination of the Church that Christ died But this is no other then the shift of Papists for their unwritten Tradition Sanderus de Visib Monarch Lib. 1. c. 5. pag. 13. Si ergo per solas conscriptas leges dei civitas gubernaretur in valdè magnâ parte corum que passim contingunt quid faceret nesciret quia legem de his loquentâ—m non haberet Imo si tantum una Lex toti reipub necessaria esse posset eaque ipsa scriberetur a prudentissimis viris ac singulis annis ab orbe condito novae interpretationes eidem adderentur tamen nunquam eveniret ut ea lex tam plenè interpretata foret quin causae novae possent intervenire ob quas lex et legis interpretatio novam iterim postularet interpretationem adeo et foecunda est natura in suis eventis et Angustum ingenium humanum et varia surisperitorum sententia et verba tum pauca tum ambigua All cometh to this that this Papist saith That there cannot be one written unchangeable Law that is necessary for the whole Church for new events occasions and occurences of Providence should so change the case that there should be a necessity of a new interpretation and of a new Law 2. Nor can we say that Laws made upon occasion as that Law of transferring the inheritance to the Daughter made upon occasion of the Daughters of Zelophehad are in this sense occasionall that the Iews might at their pleasure alter or change a Law made by God and substitute one of their own in place thereof for then might the Iews change all the Ceremonies and Iudgements that God gave them for a time and occasionally Now then they might have abolished Circumcision the passeover and substitute other Sacraments in their place for these Sacraments were not given by Gods own voice 2. Nor written by Gods own finger Nor 3. Are they termed a Covenant in that sense that the Morall Law is termed a Covenant 4. Nor are they given without limitting of time and place expresly when and where Now if the Church of the Iews could change Sacraments at their pleasure because their Sacraments were no part of the Eternall Law Morall they might alter all Gods Law as the Church may alter Surplice Crossing and I see not but the Church of the New Testament upon the same ground may alter the Sacraments of the New Testament
Papists as Vasquez Becanus and others say that neither the Pope nor the Church can adde or devise a new Article of Faith Yet doth Horantius Loco Catholice l. 2. c. 11. fol. 129. teach That Christ hath not taught us all fully in the New Testament but that the holy spirit shall to the end of the world teach other new things as occasion shall require And this he bringeth as an Argument to prove that there must be unwritten Traditions not contained in Scripture even as the Formalists contend for unwritten Positives of Church-Policie 3. Morals of the Law of nature and the Morall Law do more respect occasions of Providence customes Laws and the manners of people they doing so nearly concerne our Morall practise then any Ceremonies of Moses his Law which did shadow out Christ to us and therefore this reason shall prove the just contrary of that for which its alledged for the Morall Law should be rather alterable at the Churches lust then Ceremonials for there be far more occurrences of Providence in regard of which the Laws Morall touching what is Sabbath breaking whether is leading an Ox to the water on the Sabbath a breach of the Sabbath the Jews held the affirmative Christ the negative touching obedience to Superiors Homicide Polygamie Incest Fornication Oppression Lying Equivocating Then there can be occasions to change the Law of sacrificing which clearly did adumbrat Christ who was to be offered as a sacrifice for the sins of the world yea all significant Symbolicall Ceremonies have their spirituall signification independent from all occasions of Providence and depending on the meer will of the Instituter Surplice or white linnen signifieth the Priests holinesse without any regard to time place or nationall customes for Christ might have made an immutable Law touching the Symbolicall and Religious signification and use of Saints-dayes white linnen Crossing and all the rest of humane Ceremonies which should stand to Christs second coming notwithstanding of any occurrences of Providence no lesse then he made an immutable Law touching the Sacramentall obsignation of water in Baptisme and of Bread and Wine in the Lords Supper if it had not been his will never to burden his Churches with such dumb and tooth-lesse mysteries as humane positives 4. The assumption is false for divers Ceremoniall Laws now altered were made without any regard to occasions of Providence and many Doctrinals that are unalterable were made with speciall regard to such occurrences 5. If positives of Policy be alterable because the occasions of such are alterable by God it shall follow that God who hath all revolutions of Providence in his hand must change these Positives and not the Authority of the Church and thus Doctrinals are alterable by God not by men which is now our question for Christ hath given a Commandment Take ye Eat ye Drink ye all of this Yet hath he not tyed us in the time of persecution to conveen in publick and Celebrate the Lords Supper but the Church doth not then change the Law nor liberate us from obedience to a Command given by God but God liberateth us himself Hooker But that which most of all maketh to the clearing of this point is that the Iews who had Laws so particularly determining and so fully instructing them in all affairs what to do were not withstanding continually inured with causes exorbitant and such as their Laws had not provided for and so for one thing which we have left to the order of the Church they had twenty which were undecided by the expresse word of God so that by this reason if we may devise one Law they may devise twenty Before the Fact of the sons of Shelomith there was no Law that did appoint any punishment for blasphemers nor what should be done to the man that gathered sticks on the Sabbath And by this means God instructed them in all things from heaven what to do Shall we against experience think that God must keep the same or a course by Analogy answering thereunto with us as with them Or should we not rather admire the various and harmonious dissimilitude of Gods wayes in guiding his Church from age to age Others would not only have the Church of the Iews a pattern to us but they would as learned Master Prynne with them saith take out of our hand the Apostolick Church that it should be no rule to us for saith he There was no Vniforme Church-government in the Apostles times at the first they had only Apostles and Brethren Acts 1. 13. no Elders or Deacons Their Churches increasing they ordained Dâ—acons Act. 6. And long after the Apostles ordained Elders in every Church after that widowes in some Churches not at all In the primitive times some Congregations had Apostles Acts 4. 11 12. 1 Cor. 12. 4. to 33. Evangelists Prophets workers of miracles Healers c. Other Churches at that time had none of these Officers or Members and all Churches have been deprived of them since those dayes Ans 1. What Hooker saith is that which Bellarmine Sanderus Horantius and all Popists say for their Traditions against the perfection of the word to wit that the word of God for 2373. years between Adam and Moses saith Horantius was not written so Turrianus Bellarmine and the reason is just nothing to say the Jews might devise twenty Laws where we may devise one because the Jews were continually inured with causes exorbitant such as their written Laws had not provided for This must be said which is in question and so is a begging of the controversie that the Iews of their own head and Moses without any speciall word from God or without any pattern shown in the mount might devise what Laws they pleased and might punish the blasphemer and the man that gathered stâ—cks on the Sabbath and determine without God the matter of the Daughters oâ— Zelophehad as the Formalists teach that the Church without any word of God or pattern from the word may devise humane Ceremonial Prelats Officers of Gods house shapen in a shop on earth in the Antichrists head and the Kings Court the Surplice the Crosse in Baptisme and the like Now we answer both them and Papists with one answer that it is true there was no written Scripture between Adam and Moses which was some thousands of years Yea nor a long time after till God wrote the Law on Mount Sinai But withall what God spake in visions dreams and apparitions to the Patriarchs was as binding and obliging a pattern interditing men then to adde the visions of their own brain to what he spake from heaven as the written word is to us so that the Iews might neither devise twenty Laws nor any one of their own head without expresse warrant of Gods immediate Tradition which was the same very will and truth of God which Moses committed to writing if then Formalists will assure us of that which Papists could never assure us we shall
warranted by Scripture it followeth only to him that so doth it is unlawfull Rom. 14. 14. In that he doth Bonum non benè a thing lawfull not lawfully 4. It is unpossible to deduce all truth out of any truth For then because the Sun riseth to day it should follow Ergo Crosse and Surplice are Lawfull I might as well deduce the contrary Ergo they are unlawfull Hooker Some things are good in so mean a degree of goodnesse that men are only not disproved nor disallowed of God for them as Eph. 5. 20. No man hateth his own flesh Matth. 5. 46. If ye do good unto them that do so to you the very Publicans themselves do as much They are worse then Infidels that provide not for their own 1. Tim. 5. 8. The light of nature alone maketh these actions in the sight of God allowable 2. Some things are required to salvation by way of direct immediate and proper necessity finall so that without performance of them we cannot in ordinary course be saved In these our chiefest direction is from Scipture for nature is no sufficient director what we should do to attain life Eternall 3. Some things although not so required of necessity that to leave them undone excludeth from salvation are yet of so great dignity and acceptation with God that most ample reward is laid up in Heaven for them as Matth. 10. A Cup of cold Water shall not go unrewarded And the first Christians sold their possessions and 1 Thess 2. 7. 9. Paul would not be burdensome to the Thessalonians Hence nothing can be evil that God approveth and he approveth much more then he doth Command and the precepts of the law of Nature may be otherwise known then by the Scripture then the bare mandat of Scripture is not the only rule of all good and evil in the actions of Morall men Ans 1. The Popery in this Author in disputing for a Platform of Government that is up and down and changeable at the will of men made me first out of love with their way for his first classe of things allowable by the light of Nature without Scripture is far wide for Eph. 5. 20. That a man love his own flesh is Commanded in the sixth Commandment and the contrary forbidden otherwise for a man to kill himself which is self-hatred should not be forbidden in Scripture the very light of nature alone will forbid ungratitude in Publicans and condemn a man that provideth not for his own But that this light of nature excludeth Scripture and the Doctrine of Faith is an untruth for Hooker leaveth out the words that are in the Text and most against his cause He that provideth not for his own is worse then an Infidel and hath denied the Faith Ergo the Doctrine of Faith commandeth a man to provide for his own What Morall goodnesse nature teacheth that same doth the Morall Law teach so the one excludeth not the other 2. It is false that Scripture only as conâ—adistinguished from the Law of Nature doth direct us to Heaven for both concurreth in a speciall manner nor is the one exclusive of the other 3. For his third classe it s expresly the Popish Works of supererogation of which Hooker and Papists both give two Characters 1. That they are not Commanded 2. That they merit a greater degree of glory Both are false To give a Cup of cold water to a needy Disciple is commanded in Scripture Isa 57. 9 10. Matth. 25. 41 42. And the contrary punished with everlasting fire in Hell For Paul not to be burdensome to the Thessalonians and not to take stipend or wages for Preaching is commanded for considering the condition that Paul was in was 1 Thess 2. 6. To seek glory of men was a thing forbidden in Scripture and so the contrary cannot be a thing not commanded and not to be gentle v. 7. As the servant of God ought to be even to the enemies of the truth 1 Tim. 2. 24. Not to be affectionately desirous to impart soul Gospel and all to those to whom he Preached as it is v. 8. is a sin forbidden and for the merit of increase of glory it is a dream Hence I draw an Argument against this mutable form of Government The changeable Positives of this Government such as Crossing Surplice and the like are none of these three enumerated by Hooker 1. They are not warranted by the Law of nature for then all Nations should know by the light of nature that God is decently worshipped in Crosse and linnen Surplice which is against experience 2. That these Positives are not necessary to salvation with a proper finall necessity as I take is granted by all 3. I think Crosse and Surplice cannot deserve a greater measure of glory for Formalists deny either merit or efficacy to their Positives The Jesuit Tannerus confirmeth all which is said by Hooker as did Aquinas before him And Eâ—kiâ—s in his conference with Luther and Oecolampadius who say for imagery and their Traditions that it is sufficient that the Church say such a thing is truth and to be done and the scripture doth not gain-say it SECT V. Morall Obedience resolved ultimately in Scripture FOR farther light in this point it is a Question What is the formall object of our obedience in all our our Morall actions that is Whether is the Faith practicall of our obedience the obedience itself in all the externals of Church Government resolved in this ultimately and finally This and this we do and this point of Government we believe and practise because the Lord hath so appointed it in an immutable Platform of Government in Scripture or because the Church hath so appointed or because there is an intrinsecall conveniency in the thing it self which is discernable by the light of nature Ans This Question is near of blood to the Controversie between Papists and us concerning the formall object of our faith that is Whither are we to believe the scripture to be the Word of God because so saith the Church or upon this objective ground because the Lord so speaketh in his own Word Now we hold that scripture it self furnisheth light and faith of it self from it self and that the Church doth but hold forth the light as I see the light of the Candle because of the light itself not because of the Candlestick Hence in this same very Question the Iews were not to believe that the smallest pin of the Tabernacle or that any officer High-Priest Priest or Levite were necessary nor were they to obey in the smallest Ceremoniall observance because Moses and the Priests or Church at their godly discretion without Gods own speciall warrant said so But because so the Lord spake to Moses so the Lord gave in writing to David and Solomon 1 Chron. 28. 11. 19. And so must it be in the Church of the New Testament in all the Positives of Government otherwise if we
are to obey Christ vvho is above the Pope And therefore his mind is that all obligation of Conscience in humane commandments commeth from Gods will and law that is from the just and necessary matter of the law not from the will of men 6. Conclus All humane or Ecclesiastick lawes binding the conscience have necessarie and not probable deduction onely by the warrant of both the Mâ—jor Proposition and Assumption from the Word of God and Law of Nature This conclusion is against Suarez he seeketh onely a probable connexion betwixt obliging Lawes and the Divine law And Gregorius de valent is in very deed against Gerson who teacheth three things of all humane lawes 1. That they are in so farre just 2. That they in so farre oblige the Conscience as they have necessary dependance upon natures law or Gods word and therefore compareth them to these precepts that Physitians give to sicke persons they oblige the conscience of the sicke as I thinke from the sixt Commandement Thou shalt doe no murther for if the patient sleepe at such a time or drinke wine in such a case he killeth himselfe but they have not obliging power from the fift Commandement not as if the King being sicke were obliged by the fift Commandement to obey the Physitian as his superiour 3. He will have all humane laws that properly obligeth to be onely declaratory and to manifest onely the Divine law and to apply it to such and such a matter The Conclusion is clear from what is said before because all civil laws as meerly positive in the cafe of non-contempt doe not oblige and in the case of non-scandall as Medin Almaine Gerson teach And it followeth from a sure ground that Vasquez layeth downe and he hath it from Driedo to wit that the efficacy of obligation in humane lawes cometh not from the will of Lawgivers or their intention but from the dignity or waightines of the matter If then the matter be not from Gods law just the obligation is none at all for if the law from mans will shall lay on an obligation of three degrees whereas Gods law from Gods vvill before men inacted this in a Law laid on an obligation of two degrees onely tying the Conscience then the will of man createth obligation or the obligative power of conscience in the matter of the Law and by that same reason he createth goodnes which is absurd for that is proper to God onely I grant it is hard because of the variety of singular actions in mans life to see the connexion betwixt particulars of humane lawes and Gods lawes yet a connexion there is and for this cause the learned worthy Divine Pareus will have humane lawes in particulari per se in the particular and of themselves to binde the Conscience Whereas Calvin and Beza Iunius Tilenus Sibrandus Whittakerus and others deny this But the truth is humane civill lawes are two waies considered 1. As they are meerly Positive according to the letter of the Law 2. As they have a connexion with 1. The principles of nature of right and wrong 2. With the end of the law which is the supream law The safety of the people as the Civill law saith he who entreth to an inheritance and maketh no Inventory of all his goods shall pay debts above the-whole heritage this law according to the letter in the Court of conscience is unjust and so cannot oblige in Conscience so as he is guilty before God and deserveth the vengeance of everlasting wrath who doth not make an inventory of all his goods and produce it to the Iudge so he that goeth up to the walls of a City may by the Law be commanded to be put to death yet is he not guiltie of eternall death before God and therefore if the presumption which is the ground of the law cease as this He that maketh not an inventory with a purpose to enjoy the whole inheritance and pay no debts sinneth before God against conscience as famous jurists to wit Jason Bartolus and others teach for this Law considered as having connexion with a principle of nature that every man should pay his debts is a law binding the Conscience and the truth is the end of these Lawes oblige the Conscience they being divine expressions of justice and righteousnesse but not the Lawes themselves for whatever obligeth the conscience as a divine truth the ignorance thereof is a sinfull ignorance and maketh a man guilty of eternall wrath but men are not guilty lyable to the eternal wrath of God because they are ignorant of all the civill Lawes in Iustinians book then were we obliged to be no lesse versed in all the civill lawes that bindeth in foro humano then of the Bible and law of God The adversaries strive to prove that these lawes oblige the conscience we may heare Bellarmine Vasquez Valentinian and the Formalist and Arminian Doctor Jackson say To resist the Rulers in giving and making lawes is to resist God as 1 Sam. 8. They have not refused thee but they have refused me that I should not raigne over them Suarez â—aith An humane law is the neerest cause of obligation of conscience as the eternall law is the remote cause And â—ackson as the immediate interposition of divine authority made the killing of Abrahams sonne holy which otherwise would have been cruelty so the interposition of authority derived from God make some actions that barely considered would be apparently evill and desperate to be honest and lawfull to strike a Prophet would seem sin but when a Prophet coÌ„mandeth to strike not to strike is disobedience 1 Kin. 20. 35 36. to rob a Spaniard is Piracie but to do it upon the Kings letter of Mart for wrongs done to the State is obedience to the King Answ To resist the servant in that wherein he is a servant and as a servant is to resist God as 1 Sam. 8. proveth well But the assumption then is most false for rulers in making lawes and creating by their sole pleasure goodnes morall in particular matters without the word of God are not Gods servants nor is humane authoritie as humane the nearest cause of obligation of conscience instamped in these lawes nor is it the cause at all and therefore to resist them is not to resist God They be Gods instruments and Ministers in 1. Propounding and expounding Gods laws 2. In executing them and defending them from the violence of men 3. In making positive and directory civil lawes for civill government that are lawes improperly so called which bind the conscience as above is said in so far as they have dependance upon Gods Law for Iames saith There is but one Law-giver As for Church-canons all except Physicall circumstances in them are to be warranted by the word Therefore it is a vaine consequence of Valentia humane lawes oblige dependenter
things of God Leviticus 10. 10. The Priests were not to drink wine when they went into the Tabernacle That ye may saith the Lord put difference between holy and unholy and between unclean and clean Now Haggai expresly saith cap. 2. 11 12. That it was the Priests part to put this difference and so to admit to or exclude from the holy things of God Hence for this cause it is said as 2 Chron. 23. 19. Iehoiada appointed the officers of the Lords house so he set porters at the gates of the house of the Lord that none which are unclean in any thing might enter in so Ezra 9. 21 22. None did eat the Passeover but such as were pure and had separated themselves from the filthinesse of the Heathen of the land for this cause doth the Lord complain of the Priests Ezech. 22. 26. Her Priests have violated my law and have polluted my holy things they have put no difference between the holy and the prophane neither have they shewed the difference between the unclean and the clean Ezech. 44. 6. And thou shalt say to the Rebellious even to the house of Israel thus saith the Lord God O ye house of Israel let it suffice you of all your abominations 7. That ye have brought into my sanctuary strangers uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh to be in my sanctuary to pollute it even my house when ye offered my bread the fat and the blood and they have broken my Covenant because of all your abominations 8. And ye have not kept the charge of my holy things But ye have set keepers of my Charge in my Sanctuary for your selves 9. Thus saith the Lord God no stranger uncircumcised in heart nor uncircumcised in flesh shall enter into my sanctuary of any stranger that is among the children of Israel Here is a complaint that those that have the charge of the holy things should suffer the holy things to be polluted I grant it cannot bear this sense that none should be admitted to be Members of the Visible Church under the New Testament but such as are conceived to be regenerate except it can be proved that the Sanctuary was a type of the visible Church 2. That the Apostles constituted their Churches thus but we read not in all the New Testament of any admission of Church Members at all but only of baptizing of those who were willing to be baptized and from this resulted the capacity of a Church Relation in all Churches visible Nor 2. Do we finde any shadow in all the word of God of tryall of Church Members by way of electing and choosing of such and such as qualified by reason of a conceived regeneration in the persons chosen or of rejecting and refusing others as conceived to have no inward work of grace in them this I believe can never be made good out of the word of God 3. They must prove the Apostles admitted into the Sanctuary of the Visible Church Ananias Saphira Simon Magus and others uncircumcised in heart to pollute the holy things of God and that the Apostles erred and were deceived in the moulding of the first Apostolick Church in the world which was to be a rule and pattern to all Churches in the New Testament to all Ages I deny not but they might have erred according to the grounds of these who urge the comparison for a Church of visible Saints but that the Apostles De facto did erre in their Election and judgement in that wherein the holy Ghost holdeth them forth and their acts to be our rule and pattern I utterly deny I grant Act. 15. In that Synod they did Act as men and Elders not as Apostles but that it could fall out that they should uctually erre and obtrude false Doctrine instead of truth to the Churches in that Synod which is the first rule and pattern of Synods I shall not believe But there is this Morall and perpetuall truth in these Scriptures 1. That there are under the New Testament some over the people of God in the Lord some that watch for their souls and govern them as here there were Priests Levites that taught and governed the people 2. That the Rulers of the Churches alwayes are to have the charge of the holy things and to see that these holy things the Seals and Sacraments and word of promise be not polluted and that therefore they have power given them to debar such and such profane from the Seals and so are to discern between the clean and the unclean and this which the Prophet speaketh ver 9. is a prophecie never fulfilled after this in the persons of the people of God therefore it must have its spirituall truth fulfilled under the New Testament as is clear ver 11. Yet the Levites that are gone away far from me shall be Ministers in my Sanctuarie having charge at the gates of the House and Ministering to the House 14. And I will make them keepers of the charge of the House for all the service thereof and for all that shall be done therein Ver. 15. And the Priests and the Levites the sons of Zadok that kept the charge of my Sanctuary when the children of Israel went astray from me they shall enter into my Sanctuary and they shall come neer to my Table to minister unto me and to keep my charge 23. And they shall teach my people the difference betweene the holy and prophane and cause men to discerne between the uncleane and the cleane 24. And in controversie they shall stand in judgement and they shall judge it according to my judgement and they shall keepe my Lawes and my Statutes in all mine assemblies and they shall hallow my Sabbaths Now this Temple was another house then Solomons Temple as is evident out of the Text it having roomes dimensions structures so different that none can imagine them one house and these chapters containe the division of the Holy Land which after the captivity was never done for the ten Tribes never returned and this Temple is clearely a type of the new Ierusalem and agreeth to that City spoken of Revelation chapters 21. and 22. As may appeare especially by the foure last chapters of Ezekiel and in the last words of the last chapter And the name of the city from that day shall be The Lord is there And the Priests after the captivity as well as before brake the covenant of Levi Mal. 2. And therefore I see it not fulfilled except in the visible Church of the New Testament and in the Assemblies of Christian Churches Mat. 18. Act. 15. and the rest of the Church-assemblies under the New Testament As for the Lords personall raigne on earth it is acknowledged there shall be no Church policy in it no Word Sacraments Ordinances no Temple as they say from Rev. 21. 22. And with correction and submission the Priests and Levites that Ezek. 44. 15. are said to keep the charge of the Lords
in the Idoll-Temple to come to the Lords Table except they repent and try themselves Hence it must follow that if Christ have commanded his Stewards to dispense the word of promise and threatnings and comforts according to the temper of the flock so must they dispense the Seals and so by good consequence Paul said I will not have the Lord and Satan mingled nor a partaker of Satans Table admitted to the Lords Table 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Erastus his Arg. 13. 1 Cor. 10. God spared not idolaters and murmurers yet they eat we and they of the same spirituall meat and drinke the same spirituall drinke and so had the same Sacraments otherwise the Argument of the Apostle were nothing if ours and their Sacraments were not all one if then those that were idolators fornicators were admitted to their Sacraments then also to ouâ—â— under the New Testament Ans Beza answereth well to that Manna and the water ouf of the Rock as they had a spirituall Relation to Christ were holy things and types of Christ just as our Sacraments are signes of Christ already come in the flesh and so agreed in the kinde of holy signes with our Sacraments yet Manna and the water out of the Rock were also ordained to be bodily food for the famishing and thirsty people good or bad holy or unholy these two Manna and water out of the Rock were given by the Commandment of God and the Priests to the people both as Gods people in Covenant with God and to them as men starving in the wildernesse and dying for thirst for they had not plowing earing harvest bread vineyards wine fountains in the wildernesse and therefore no marvell then such holy things being also beside that they were holy things such as were necessary to keep them from starving and bodily death as the shewbread which was also a type of the word of life revealed to the Ministers of God was given to keep David and his men from starving No marvell I say then these bodily helps though in another higher signification they were Sacramentalls were by Gods command bestowed on many wicked men who often partake both of outward Ordinances and temporall deliverance from death and famishing because they are mixt with the people of God But Erastus if he would prove any thing against us should have proved that circumcision the Passeover and other holy things of God ordained for the visible Saints to shew forth our spirituall Communion with Christ and which were never ordained for necessiry helps to sustain the naturall life were to be administred to those that were openly prophane and wicked and therefore we deny this connexion Manna signified the very same thing to wit Christ our food of life which bread and wine signifies Ergo As Manna was given both as a holy signe to figure out Christ our life and to feed the bodies of openly holy or openly prophane to sustain their bodily life so also baptisme and the Lords Supper which serve for no bodily use should be administred to those that are openly prophane Erastus is put to a poor shift with this solid Answer of that Reverend Learned and holy Divine Theod. Bezâ— he saith Vis dicam quod sentio Tui ubique similises The sea and the cloud saith he were not necessary to feed the body It is true Erastus the Physician would think the cloud and pillar of fire can neither be Physick for the sick nor food for the whole yet Physitians say Manna is apt for both not is the dvided Red-Sea food or Physick But good man he knowes the cloud was their guide and convey by night and day through the wildernesse and appointed by God to convey the Leapers the unclean and all those who were Excommunicated from the holy things and the Idolators and openly wicked as well as the clean and the holy and he knew the sâ—me that the people had no food but Manna a holy signe that those who were unclean seven dayes and often many times longer were not to starve for hunger but must eat Manna though a holy yet their only necessary food then without which they could not live But I hope Erastus cannot prove while they were unclean or put out of the Camp or yet extreamly wicked that they might eat the Passeover which was a meer holy Sacrament not ordained for the feeding of the body as Manna and water out of the Rock were Erastus may know the dividing of the Sea was necessary to preserve the life of the most wicked and unclean God being pleased for his Churches cause to bestow Temporall deliverances on wicked men mingled with the godly from being drowned with the Egyptians and that God who will have mercy and not sacrifice may well by a positive Law appoint that holy and unholy clean and unclean shall have the use of such holy things as are not meerly holy but mixt being both means of Divine institution and also necessary Subsidies for mans life but it followeth not therefore holy things that are purely holy should be prostitute to holy and unholy the clean and unclean Erastus God in the Church of the Jews punished wicked men with bodily punishments not with Exclusion from the Sacraments and Paul threatneth death and sicknesse not Excommunication to those that did eat and drink unworthily Ans Then putting out of the Campe was no Exclusion from the holy things of God all the world not onely will cry shame on this Divinity But they will say Erastus his Logick is bad God punisheth some wicked men with death and the sword of the Magistrate and stoning Ergo he appointed no Ecclesiasticall debarring of the unclean from Circumcision 2. It is false that Paul threatneth death to unworthy Communicants only he saith God â—lew many of them for that sin and hence it follows well the Officers should hinder the scandalous to rush into such a sin as is the not discerning the Lords body which bringeth death and diseases on the actors What consequence is this God punisheth wicked men Ergo the Officers should not rebuke them for those sins nor the Magistrate or Church punish wicked men God punisheth â—â—ubborn Rebels to parents Ergo the judge should not stone them the contrary Logick is the arguing of the Spirit of God Erastus Every one is to try himself therefore there is no need of any other to try him for Paul speaketh of that which is proper to every mans conscience Ans It is an unlearned and vain consequence It is commanded that every one try if he be in the Faith or no for the peace of his conscience and this is so proper to a man himself and so personall that no man can try or know certainly whether be in the state of grace but he himself 2 Cor. 13. 5. Rev. 2. 17. None can joyn with him in this as none can joyn with a man to try if he have faith to discern the Lords body and eat worthily
neglect to hear them he was to tell the Church Ergo If he should hear them he was gained and was not to tell the Church Ergo spirituall gaining must be Christs scope 2. If to tell the Church be as Erastus dreameth to tell the Civill Magistrate and then the Roman Emperour this was no suitable mean to gain the mans soul a club was never dreamed of by our Saviour to compasse the spirituall end or neerest scope of gaining any to repentance for the end of the Magistrate as a Magistrate is to bring no man to repentance but to take avvay evil out of the land to cause Israel fear and do so no more to be an avenger of evil doing far lesse is there any shadow of reason to dream that Christ intended by Cesars or any Heathen Magistrates sword to gain an offending brother to repentance and that he commandeth the offended brother to use such a carnal mean so unsuitable to such a spirituall end Lastly How a private brother cannot be said to binde and loose I have cleared already Erastus Least these words Let him be to thee as an Heathen should seem to make the offender every way as an Heathen therefore he addeth a restrictive word and a Publican and he addeth the article ◠common to them both so as he speaketh not of every Heathen and Publican but of those who were conversant amongst the Jews and none of those would answer to any Judge but the Roman Emperour or his deputies being the servants of the Romans to vex the people of the Jews Ans Here is a groundlesse conjecture for a Publican was large as odious as a Heathen being a companion to sinners and the worst of the Heathen 2. How proveth he that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Heathen is meant of those Heathen only that were servants to the Romans and would acknowledge no Iudge but Cesar 1. The Iews themselves said We have no King but Cesar 2. The holy Ghost doth not restrict the Heathen so What warrant hath Erastus to be narrower in his glosse then the holy Ghost is in the Text. If in these Let him be as an Heathen the threatning be perpetuall to remove all scandals to the end of the world when most of the Heathen shall not acknowledge the Iudicatures of Heathen Rome then the word Heathen must be as large as all Heathen all wicked and all scandalous men such as Publicans and so there is no hint at the Heathen Romish Iudge here which is the way of Erastus But the former is true or this Law of Christ is to remove scandals amongst the Disciples when the Roman Empire shall fall as the Lord in his word hath prophecied The Scripture speaks not so Mat. 6. 7. Vse no vain repitition in prayer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here is the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can Erastus say none use babling prayers but such heathen as were subject to the Roman Empire Gal. 2. 9. That we should goe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Heathen here is an Article also belike Paul should preach to no Gentiles but those under the Roman Empire A frothie dream Gal. 3. 8. The Scripture foreseeing God would justifie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Gentiles Here also an Article belike then no Gentiles are justified by faith but these that are Officers to the Romans and vexed the Iewes Act. 18. 6. Henceforth I will goe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Gentiles Act. 21. 19. Paul told what things the Lord had done by his Ministery 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 amongst the Heathen Act. 26. 23. that Christ should shew light to the people 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to the Heathen not the Romish heathen onely except Christ be a Saviour to no other Heathen in the world I need not weary the Reader to resute these unsolid conjectures of Erastus Erastus Converted Publicans were not scandalous as touching their office Ergo A publican signifieth not one that is none of the Church Zachens after his conversion remained a Publican Ans Converted Publicans left not off to be Publicans but they left off to be such as went under the name of Publicans that is abominable Extortioners and grinders of the Poore and therefore it followes well that to be as a Publican in the common speech of the Iewes familiar to our Saviour was to be a wretched godlesse prophane man without the Church and without God and Christ in the world as also the Heathen were Eph. 2. 11 12. 1 Cor. 5. 1. 1 Pet. 4. 3 4. Acts 21. 11. Rom. 2. 24 blasphemers of the Name of God and 1 Cor. 12. 2. Yee know that yee were Gentiles carried away with dumbe Idols Eph. 4. 17. That ye walke not as other Gentiles in the vanity of their minde 18. Having the understanding darkned being strangers from the life of God These and many other Scriptures confirmeth me much that in Christs time to be as a Heathen and a Publican was to be cast out whereas the man was once a brother a beleever and a member of the Church and in profession in the covenant of God and a brother to Peter Iohn and the Lords Disciples and a Christian and professing Saint as the disciples of Christ were but now one who is turned out of that society and as a Gentile serving Satan walking in the vanity of the minde as an uncircumcised man c. This is as like Excommunication as one egge is like another we have cleare Scripture for this Exposition but it is good Erastus never gave us one syllable of Scripture for his exposition Nor can it be shewen that to be as a Heathen and a Publican by Scripture or any that ever spoke Greeke is to be in subjection to the Roman Empire or lyable to their lawes onely we have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Erastus for it Erastus Who ever by no law of God or command was execrable and could for no just cause be hated by no Law of God could bee debarred from the Temple and holy things of God But such were the Publicans Ergo Ans 1. The Major is false The Leper because a Leper was by no Law of God cursed and execrable nor was he worthy of hatred but of pitty yet was he by an expresse Law debarred from the Temple and holy things of God 2. The Minor is false in the sense we contend for the office of a Publican in abstracto was not execrable nor worthy of hatred but the thing signified and that which proverbially went under the name of a Publican amongst the Iewes to wit a professed extortioner a robber a grinder of the face of the poore is both execrable and hatefull the conclusion in the former sense is granted and it is nothing against us But in the latter sense the Assumption being false the conclusion followeth not not to say that in ordinary none was a Publican but he that was either an heathen and so execrable or then an
with the Church it followeth not that the binding of the Church is not a Church-binding as the binding of the two private men is also a binding but no publick no Church-binding 4. How shall Christs words keep either sense or Logick with the exposition of Erastus If he will not hear the Christian Magistrate complain to the Heathen Magistrate and again I say if the Lord hear two praying on earth far more will he ratifie in Heaven what a prophane Heathen Magistrate doth on earth against a Christian offender judge what sense is in this glosse Erastus hath no reason to divide these words ver 19. Again I say if two agree c. from ver 17. 18. Because they are meant of the Magistrate saith Erastus against all sense and joyne them to the words of the. 15. and 16. verses for there is no mention of binding and loosing by prayer ver 15 16. But only of rebuking and here Erastus shall be as far from keeping his proportion of rebuking and praying as he saith we do keep proportion between Church-sentencing and praying To Theophylact Chrisostom and Augustine Beza answered well and Erastus cannot reply 6. If there be binding and loosing between brother and brother in the first and second Admonition before the cause be brought to the Church what need is there of binding the man as a Heathen before the Heathen Magistrate And what need of the Heathen Magistrates prayer to binde in Heaven Was there ever such Divinity dreamed of in the world Erastus These words Tell the Church prove only that the Church hath the same povver to rebuke the injurious man that a private man hath this then is poor reason The Church hath power to rebuke an offender Ergo it hath power to Excommunicate him Ans All know that Christ ascendeth in these three steps 2. Erastus granteth the cause is not brought to the Church but by two or three witnesses which is a judiciall power as in the Law of Moses and in all Laws is evident if he hear not a brother he is not to be esteemed as a Heathen and a Publican but if he hear not the Church he is to be reputed so 3. We reason never from power of rebuking to the power of Excommunication but thus The Church hath power to rebuke an offender and if he will not hear the Church then is the man to thee that is to all men as a Heathen and a Publican Ergo The Church hath power to Excommunicate Erastus Christ speaketh of the Church that then was How could he bid them go to a Church that was not in the world they having heard nothing of the constitution of iâ— did he bid them erect a new frame of Government not in the world Ans He could as well direct them to remove scandals for time to come as he could after his Resurrection say Mat. 28. 19 20. Go teach and baptize all Nations which commandment they were not presently to follow but Act. 1. 4. to stay at Jerusalem and not To teach all Nations while the Holy Ghost should come I ask of Erastus how Christ could lay a Ministery on his Disciples which was not in the world What directions doth Christ Mat. 24. and Luk. 21. give to his Church and Disciples that they had not occasion to obey many years after is how they should behave themselves when they should be called before Kings and Rulers 2. Nor were the Apostles who were already in the room of Priests and Prophets to Teach and Baptize he after being to institute the other Sacrament to wonder at a new forme already half instituted and which differed not in nature from the former Government save that the Ceremonies were to be abolâ—shed Erastus Only Matthew mentioneth this pretended new institution not Luke not Mark the Disciples understood him well they aske no questions of him as of a thing unknown only Peter asked how often he should forgive his brother Ans This wil prove nothing Iohn hath much which we believe with equall certainty of Faith as we do any Divine institutions shall therefore Erastus call the turning of water into wine the raising of Lazarus The healing of the man born blinde and of him that lay at the Pool of Bethesda Christs heavenly Sermons Ioâ— cap. 14. 15 16. his prayer cap. 17 which the other Evangelists mention not Fiâ—menâ—a hominum mens fancies as he calleth Excommunication 2. Did the Disciples understand well the dream that Erastus hath on the place and took they it as granted that to tell the Church is to tell the civill Magistrate And that not to hear the Church is civill Rebellion and to be as a Heathen is to be impleaded before Cesar or his Deputies only This is a wonder to me Matthew setteth up this way an institution of all Church-Government which no Evangelist no word in the Old or New Testament establisheth Erastus Christ would not draw his disciples who were otherwise most observant of the Law from the Synedry then in use to a new Court where witnesses are led before a multitude and sentences judicially set up it had been much against the Authority of the civil Magistrate and a scandall to the Pharisees and the people had no power in Christs time to choose their own Magistrate therefore he must mean the Jewish Synedry If by the Church we understand the multitude we must understand such a multitude as hath power to choose such a Senate but there was no such Church in the Jews at this time Ans That the Church here is the multitude of Believers men women and children is not easily believed by us 2. And we are as far from the dream of a meer civill Synedry which to me is no suitable mean of gaining a soul to Christ which is our Saviours intention in the Text. 3. Erastus setteth up a christian Magistrate to intercept causes and persons to examine rebuke lead witnesses against a Iew before ever Cesar their only King of the Iews or his Deputies hear any such thing this is as far against the only supream Magistrate and as scandalous to the Pharisees as any thing else could be 4. Had not Iohn Baptist and Christs disciples drawn many of the Iews and Profylites to a new Sacrament of Baptisme and to the Lamb of God now in his flesh present amongst them this was a more new Law then any Ordinance of Excommunication was especially since this Church was not to be in its full constitution till after the Lords Ascension Erastus It is known this anedrim delivered Christ bound unto Pilate condemned Steven commanded the Apostles to be scourâ—eâ— and put in Prison Tertullins saith of Paul before Felix we would have judged him according to our Law Paul said Act. 23. to Ananiâ—s thou sittest to judge me according to the Law Act. 26. Pâ—ul confesseth before Agrippa and Festus that he obtained power from the high Priests to hale to prison and beat the Christians and
did unworthily eat 1 Cor. 11. Ans There is no ground that God any way would have them to be killed that did eat unleavened bread and that we finde none for that cause ever killed is much for us for then God did not execute any such Law which as Erastus saith was broken by many It is like God never made any such Law 2. Because it is said he shall be cut off who eateth leavened bread it followeth not that therefore this was done immediately by God for it is said Lev. 18. 29. Whosoever doth any of these abominations even the soul that committeth them shall be cut off from amongst the people if that be killing it is known the Magistrate was to kill such as committed incest did lie with beasts But Vatablus expoundeth it of Excommunication thus Id est Deus non agnoscet illum tanquam Israelitam circumcisum and Vatablus understood the Hebrew Tongue better then Erastus who professeth he understandeth nothing of it 3. That which Erastus saith of Paul That God himself killed these at Corinth who did eat and drink unvvorthily may as well insinuate the Magistrate should kill with the sword all that communicateth unworthily which is absurd as it can prove that those that eat leavened bread were immediatly killed of God Erastus Those that eat leavened bread vvere debarred from the passeover But leavened bread signified scelera vvickednesse Ergo vvicked men should by us be debarred from the Sacraments 1. It is false that those that eat leavened bread vvere debarred from the passeover by Gods command These tvvo differ much he that eateth leavened bread shall be cut off and he that eateth leaven shall be debarred from the feast of the passeover even as these two the childe that clattereth in time of Sermon shall be whipt with rods and the childe that clattereth in time of Sermon shall be excluded from hearing Sermon when the Master forbiddeth to clatter in time of Sermon under a punishment he biddeth them not be absent from the Sermon so when God forbiddeth to eat leaven under a punishment be forbiddeth not to exclude the man from the passeover the Lord commandeth both to be done Ans 1. This is Erastus his Argument not the Argument of Beza for eating of leaven signifieth a scandalous and openly wicked man and if this be the Assumption it is true but the Syllogisme so formed shall conclude against Erastus 2. It is certain that God commandeth the Priests not to violate his holy things Ezech. 22. 26 Hag. 2. 11. 12. Ezech. 44. 8 9 10 11. Else how failed they in keeping the charge of the Lord in not differencing between the clean and the vnclean Now to eat the passeover with leavened bread is an expresse violation of the holy things of God Exod. 12. ver 8. You shall eat the flesh in that night rost with fire and vnleavened bread ver 11. And thus shall ye eat it ver 15. Seven dayes shall ye eat unleavened bread even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses 2. He that is unclean is forbidden to eat the passeover Lev. 9. 13. The clean only is to keep it And he that is clean and not on a journey and keepeth it not that man shall bear his sin Ergo the unclean are excepted and he who is sanctified according to the purification of the sanctuary only by the Law is to eat 2 Chro. 3â— 9. Therefore Hezechiah prayed that God would pardon them that were not so cleansed ver 18. To crave pardon presupposeth a sinne Num. 9. 3 4 5 6. But so it is That he that eateth unleavened bread in any of these seven dayes was unclean and to be cut off for his uncleannesse and transgressed this Ceremoniall Law Exod. 12. 8. 15. Levit. 9 13. Ergo he was not to be admitted to the holy things of God except the Priests and those who had the charge of the Passeover should know him to be purified Ezech. 22. 26. Hag. 2. 11 12. And we know it was the Priests part to pronounce any clean or unclean that the passeover was one of the chief of the holy things of God 3. Erastus his conjecture That he that did eat leavened bread was not to absent himself from the Passeover but to come tali modo according to the Law As the childe that clattereth in time of Sermon is not bidden be absent from the Sermon may prove as well that no unclean no heathen or uncircumcised are forbidden to eat the Passeover for no Law of God forbiddeth either to eat the Passeover except this that only the circumcised and the unclean were forbidden when the Lord in his Law putteth an expresse and a differencing or discriminative character on those that eat to wit that they be circumcised and clean who shall eat Ergo God in that putteth an evident inhibition on those that are uncircumcised heathen and unclean that they are not to eat as when God Commandeth every Male to be circumcised we infer then no Female were to be circumcised And by this means the uncircumcised Moabite the Philistine were not by the Priests and Porters debarred out of the Temple or from the Passeover so they would be circumcised and turn Jews Even as the childe is not excluded by a command of the Master from hearing Sermon only he is forbidden to clatter in time of Sermon But a Iew was both forbidden uncleannesse Ceremoniall by an expresse Law and by another Law he was forbidden to come to the Passeover and a heathen as heathen was both forbidden to eat and the Priests forbidden to admit him Erastus Though we should grant That those that eat leaven were debarred from the Passeover yet it shall not follow that those that live wickedly shall be debarred from the Lords Supper for the Feast of unleavened bread typified not the Supper of the Lord but the whole time of our life Otherwise saith he in his Thesis we may live wickedly all our dayes except when we come to the holy Supper as the Jews might eat unleavened bread at any time except on those dayes when the Lord forbade them Ans 1. We contend not that debarring of men from any one Ordinance was signified by putting away of the Leaven But that by putting of leaven from their houses and Table was typified as Paul here expoundeth it the putting of a wicked person out the midst of the Church 1 Cor. 5. 2. compared with ver 5 6 7. 13. If the Feast of unleavened bread typified all our life that we should be holy yet it had a speciall relation to our Purification when we did partake of the most holy Ordinances of God such as was the Passeover then and to us the Lords Supper Else Erastus might say God hath forbidden single Christians to live at all except they lived holily which is a vain conceit It is not lawfull to Erastus to put significations on types it his will and therefore that
his businesse performe both doth Paul make exceptions of Magistrates and Potentates when he saith 1 Cor. 14. You may all prophecie Hence he must grant that the civill Magistrate now may both preach baptize and administer the Supper of the Lord and therfore not only hath the Church no Senate nor Ecclesiasticall court to punish faults and scandals with Ecclesiastick censures but there is no Presbytery of Elders to give their judgement in matters of doctrine for the Magistrates and all Christians may as well prophecy by ◠Cor. 14. as Ministers saith he yea the faculty of preaching is no more proper to the Ministers of the Church then to the Magistrates of the city Now by this nothing is proper to the Magistrate as the Magistrate but to the Magistrate as a Christian and to all Christians But Erastus contendeth that the government of the Church and punishing of Scandals which we say belongeth to those that are over the people of God in the Lord and to Church Rulers doth belong to the Magistrate as the Magistrate and virtute officii by vertue of his office so that if any Iew or Turke or any ignorant or extreamely scandalous should attempt to intrude himselfe upon the Seals the Magistrate as the Magistrate and virtute officii is to examine and judge if he be unworthy to debar him or as he findeth him worthy admit him to the Seals Now any seeth that it is but a deceiving of the Reader to say that one man may discharge both the place of the Magistrate and the Minister of God as Moses did and Ioshua David For let Erastus and his followers shew us roundly and down-right whether or no prophecying debarring the unworthy from the Seals and all acts of Church government not proper to the Magistrate as the Magistrate and virtute officii And if so as indeed Erastus teacheth it is bu◠a poore shift to say that one and the same man may both exercise the part of a Magistrate and of a Minister Erastus Beza for ever shall not prove that there was a Church judicature that had power to punish scandalous men Iehoshaphat 2 Chron. 19. ordained judges in all the fenced cities and admonished them of their duty 2. And did the same at Ierusalem 3. And ordained judges of Levites and Priests and heads of families for the judgement of the Lord and for every cause and Amaziah the High Priest was chiefe in the causes of the Lord and Zebadiah in the Kings causes This Synedrie at Ierusalem was the politick Magistrate they judged of stroaks servitude deaths But your Synedrie judgeth not between blood and blood it judgeth not of every cause as Deut. 17. Those that are not well versed in Scripture are to note two things 1. That the cause of the Lord where mention is made of judicatures is not onely a cause of Religion but any cause proposed in judgement especially the causes of the widdow the Orphan oppressed which the Lord saith he will avenge 2. The Levites Priests were no lesse civil judges then others it is known that onely the Levits were Magistrats in the cities of refuge there was need of men exercised in the Law of God that the judges might judge righteously Ans If you take punishing for inflicting Church-censure as we here take it then all the places that sayes the Priests pronounced the Leper clean or unclean to put out of the campe or take in to judge of the adulterous woman of the restitution made by those for whom they offered Sacrifices to judge between the clean and unclean to hold out of the Sanctuary the unclean the uncircumcised in heart and flesh Levit. 13. 3 4 c. and 20 22. and 21. 26 and 30. 44. and 31. 50. Ezek. 22. 26. and 44. 8 9 10. Num. 3. 6 and 5. 18 19. Deut 17. 12. say the Priests had power to punish for transgressing of Gods Lawes and where the Prophets complaine of the Priests mis-government and unjustice it is presupposed they were to govern justly according to the Law Ier. 5. 31. 2 King 12. 4. Ier. 26. 7 8 11. Hag. 2. 11 12. Ezek. 44. 8 9 10. 2. For the place 2 Chron. 19. it is evident that Iehoshaphat doth reforme both Church and State and brought the corrupted Iudicatures to that which they should be by Law and v. 5 6 7. He set judges in the fenced cities of Iudah Here is the civill judicature And v. 8. Moreover in Ierusalem did Iehoshaphat set of the Levits and of the Priests and of the chiefo of the fathers of Israel for the judgement of the Lord and for controversies when they returned to Ierusalem Now that this second is a Church judicature I am confirmed 1. Because Iehoshaphat appointed civill judges in all the fenced cities of Iudah Ergo Also in Ierusalem the prime fenced city Now this civill judicature was not tyed to a place but was in every city even all the fenced cities but the Synedrie of Priests Levites and Elders was onely at Ierusalem in the place that the Lord should chuse Deut. 17. 8. Hence a judicature tyed to no city but which is in every fenced city 2 Chron. 19. 5. Deut. 17. 8. and a judicature tyed to Ierusalem the place that the Lord did choose Deut. 17. 8. 2 Chron. 19. 8. must be two distinct judicatures but such were these 2. There is a moreover put to the Iudicature at Ierusalem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and also in Ierusalem did Iehoshaphat set of the Levites c. This could not have been said if this had not been a judicature different from the former for if Iehoshaphat appointed Iudges in all the fenced cities Ergo He appointed them first at Ierusalem the Mother city and fountaine of justice now then he should say the same thing needlesly and with a moreover if this judicature at Ierusalem were not a judicature Ecclesiasticke and different from the judicature civill that he appointed at Ierusalem as one of the prime fenced cities which was common with the civill judicatures in other fenced cities 3. The persons in the judicatures are different for v. 5. the members of the court 2 Chro. 19. 5 6 7 are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 judges these could not be Churchmen for of these he speaketh v. 8. they are expresly distinguished from the Levites Priests and Elders v. 8. who are all Church-men for the fathers of the people were no other thing then our governing Elders and these were members of the other court v. 8. 4. The objects of these judicatures are very different The Spirit of God saith of the one ver 5. That they judge for the Lord ver 13. for all the Kings matters this must be all civill causes in which the King and inferiour judges under the King doe judge but the object of the other is higher The Priests and Levites are appointed by Iehoshaphat for the judgement of the Lord ver 8. And in every matter of
the Lord v. 13. Now whereas Erastus putteth a note of ignorance on all that hath been versed in the Old Testament before him whereas he confesseth he understandeth not the Originall Language let the Reader judge what arrogance is here where ever there is mention saith he of judgement there is signified not religious causes but also other causes especially the cause of the widow and Orphane It bewrayeth great ignorance For 1. The matters of the Lord and the matters of the King are so evidently distinguished and opposed the one to the other by two divers presidents in the different judicatures the one Ecclesiasticall Amaziah the chiefe Priest in every word or matter of the Lord and the other Zebadiah the sonne of Ishmael the ruler of the house of Iudah for all the Kings matters that the very words of the Text say that of Erastus which he saith of others that he is not versed in the Scripture for then the causes of the Lord and the causes of the King in the Text by Erastus should be the same causes whereas the Spirit of God doth distinguish them most evidently 2. If the cause of the King were all one with the judgement of the Lord and the cause of the Lord yea if it were all one with all causes whatsoever either civill or Ecclesiasticall what reason was there they should be distinguished in the Text and that Amaziah should not be over the people in the Kings matters though he were the chiefe Priest and Zebadiah though a civill Iudge over all the matters of the Lord and causes Ecclesiasticall 3. The Kings matters are the causes of the widow and orphan and oppressed as is evident Ier. 22. 2. O King of Iudah v. 3. execute yee judgement and righteousnesse and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor and doe no wrong doe no violence to the stranger the fatherlesse nor the widdow so Esa 1. 10. 17. Prov. 31. 4 5. Iob 29. 12 13 c. Then the Text must beare that every matter of the King is the Iudgement of the Lord and the matter of the Lord and every matter and judgement of the Lord is also the matter of the King and to be judged by the King then must the King as well as the Priest judge between the clean and the unclean and give sentence who shall be put out of the Campe and not enter into the Congregation of the Lord no lesse then the Priests Let Erastus and all his see to this and then must the Priests also releeve the fatherlesse and widdow and put to death the oppressour 2. The different presidents in the judicatures maketh them different judicatures 3. It is denied that all causes whatsoever came before the Ecclesiasticall Synedry at Jerusalem Erastus doth say this but not prove it for the place 2 Chron. 19. doth clearly expound the place Deut. 17. for the causes of the brethren that dwell in the Cities between Blood and Blood between Law and Commandement Statutes and judgements are judged in the Ecclesiasticall Synedrim at Ierusalem not in a civill coactive way by the power of the sword 1. Because all causes are by a coactive power judged as the matters of the King the supream sword bearer 2 Chron. 19. 5. v. 13. Rom. 13 4. to eschew oppression and maintain justice Ier. 22. 2 3. But the causes here judged in this Synedrim are judged in another reduplication as the matters of the Lord differenced from the matters of the King 2 Chron. 19. 13. now if the Priests and Levites judged in the same judicature these same civill causes and the same way by the power of the sword as Magistrates as Erastus saith why is there in the Text 1. Two judicatures one v. 5. in all the fenced cities another at Ierusalem v. 8 2. What meaneth this that the Kings matters are judged in the civill judicature not by the Priests and Levites as Erastus saith for the Ruler of the house of Iudah was president in these and the matters of the Lord were judged by the Priests and Levites and Amariah the chiefe Priest was over them for then Amariah was as well over the Kings matters as the Ruler of the house of Iudah and the Ruler of the house of Iudah over the Lords matters as over the Kings for if Priests and Levites judged as the Deputies subordinate to the King and by the power of the sword the Kings matters are the Lords matters and the Lords matters the Kings matters and Amariah judgeth not as chiefe Priests as he doth burne incense but as an other judge this truly is to turne the Text upside downe 2. The causes judged in the Synedrim at Ierusalem are said to be judged as controversies when they returned to Ierusalem 2 Chr. 19. 8. and matters too hard between plea and plea between blood and blood between stroke and stroke Deut. 17. 8. and so doubts of Law and cases of conscience Now Mal. 2. 7. The Priests lips should preserve knowledge and they should seek the Law at his mouth for he is the messenger of the Lord of hostes and this way only the Priests and Levites judged not that they inflicted death on any but they resolved in an Ecclesiasticall way the consciences of the judges of the fenced Cities what was a breach of the Law of God Morall or Judiciall what not what deserved Church censures what not who were clean who unclean and all these are called the judgement of the Lord the matters of the Lord because they had so near relation to the soul and conscience as the conscience is under a divine Law 3. Erastus saith it is knowen that the Levites only were Magistrates in the Cities of refuge but I deny it Erastus should have made it knowen to us from some Scripture I finde no ground for it in Scripture Erastus It is true that Beza saith that the Magistrate hath a supream power to cause every man do his duty But how hath he that supream power if he be also subject to the Presbyters for your Presbyters do subject the Magistrate to them and compell him to obey them and punish them if they disobey Ans The Magistrate even King David leaveth not off to be supream because Nathan commandeth him in the Lord nor the King of Niniveh and his Nobles leave not off to command as Magistrates though Jonah by the word of the Lord bring them to lie in sackcloth and to Fast all the Kings are subject to the rebukes and threatnings of the Prophets Isa 1. 10. Jer. 22. 2 3. Ier. 1. 18. 2 Kin. 12. 8 9. 10 11 12. 1 Kin. 21. 21 22 23. Isa 30. 33. Hos 5. 1 2. and to their commandments in the Lord If Presbyters do command as Ministers of Christ the highest powers on earth if they have souls must submit their consciences to the Lords rebukings threatnings and Commandment in their mouth Court Sycophants say the contrary but we care not 2. But they punish the
he instituted a Presbytery in place of the Magistrate Ans This consequence is so strong though the consequent be not ours to prove a Synedrie that Erastus shall never be able to refute it for that the Priests might teach the people they were to judge and governe the people and wâ—re to judge between the holy and prophane not onely that the Priests might informe the pâ—oples minds but that the Priests and Levites might 2 Chron. 9. 8 9 10. Deut. 17. 8 9 give judgement between blood and blood between plea and plea between stroake and stroake being matters of controversie and hard to be judged by the inferiour judges these concerned not the instruction of the people as matters of opinion as Erastus imagineth but they concerned the governing of the people in justice that v. 12. the man that will doe presumptuously or will not hearken unto the Priest or the judge shall die the death Was not this to governe the people and to judge them Certainly Erastus in the same Chapter saith so to wit that there was one common Synedrim of civill judges Priests and Levites at Jerusalem that the Priests and Levites were Iudges in capitall matters and gave out the sentence of death de capite sanguine and he proveth page 270. 271. that the Priests were civill judges and did give sâ—â—tences of blood of life and dâ—ath Ergo the Priests did not discerne between the clean and the unclean between blood and blood onely that they might teach the people but that they might regulate their owne practise in judgement and govern the people yea that the Priests might pronounce some unclean and to be put out of the Campe so many dayes that they might debar out of the Sanctuary the unclâ—an the uncircumcised the strangers and Lev. 10. the end of judging and governing is expresly set down v. 10. and so a judicature and the other end v. 11. that they may teach the children of Israel all the Statutes which the Lord hath spoken by the hand of Moses 2. From the Elders preaching the Word and dispensing the Sacraments simply we inferre no judicature at all farre lesse a politick judicature which we doe not ascribe to the Priests for Iohn Baptist both preached the Word and baptized and yet was no judge nor did he erect any Church judicature but from the power of the keyes given to the Church and exercised by the Church Mat. 16. 19. Mat. 18. 15 16 c. 1 Cor. 5. 1 2 3. c. Revel 2. 1 2 3 c. we inferre a Church judicature we never placed a Presbytery in place of the Magistrate for it is no more the Magistrates place then to sacrifice is the place of the Magistrate Erastus J wonder that you seeke your Presbytery in Moses Law all yours say the Synedrie Christ speaketh of did rise after the captivity at least when the sword was taken from the Iewes They say David and Solomon did punish vices they approve August 39. quest in Deut. that Excommunication doth now what putting to death did of Old and deny any Excommunication to have beene in the Church of the New Testament Ans Erastus declares himselfe to be a childe not versed in Protestant Divines for we except Musculus Gualther Bullinger some except Aretius all our Protestant Divines goe the way Beza goeth 2. Let him produce any of ours who say that the Synedry that Christ speaketh of was Iewish and ours say that Christ alludeth to the Iewish Synedrie But all few excepted that Christ Mat. 18. speaketh of the Christian Church to be erected 3. The Kings of Israel punished scandals but that is not enough did they governe the Church pronounce who were clean or unclean or middle with the charge of Ecclesiastick Government committed to Aaron and his sonnes 4. We say with Augustine that some that were killed of old are to be Excommunicated now Augustine speaketh not of all and what is that against us Erastus Not any but your self Beza say that Moses speaketh of thâ—se same persons things and office Levit. 10. and Deut. 17. in Levit. 10. he speaketh onely of the Priesthood and Deut. 17. of the Iudges or Magistrats Ans Beza expoundeth the one place by the other but he saith not these persons things and office are in both places 2. Erastus onely contradicteth Beza and saith Moses speaketh of the Magistrates Deut. 17. But he is refuted by the Spirit of God 2 Chron. 19. 8 9. who repeating the very words of Deut. 17. saith the Iudges here were Priests Levites and heads of Families whom all men deny to be Magistrates Erastus You say Deut. 17. mention is made of blood of the cause of Pleas not because the Synedrie judged of the fact but because they answered the true sense of the Law I say whether they answered of the fact or of the Law they sentenced judicially of life and death so that there was no provocation from them to the civill judicature for he was put to death who would not stand to their sentence but you deny that any politick causes or matters of blood or death belongs to your Presbytery Ans 1. Beza said well the fact and the putting of the man to death which is the assumption and conclusion belonged to the civill judge not to the Priests But the questio juris the question of Law belonged to the Ecclesiasticall judicature of Priests Levites and Elders and it is evident that it was a case of conscience concerning a matter or an admirable cause that cannot be determined by the judges in the city they not being so well versed in the Law as the Priests whose lips should preserve knowledge Mal. 2. 7. Therefore it is not a fact that may be cleared by Witnesses there is not such difficulty in facts except in adultery or secret Murthers the word commeth from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to admire or to be separated from sense and reason Lament 1. 9. Gen. 18. 14. Is there any thing hard to or â—id from Jehovah 2. They are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 causes or matters of contention Vatablus causa insolita difficilior Our translation hath it matters of controversie 3. It is said thou shalt come and inquire or diligently search out 4. The Priests and Levites shall shew thee the sentence of judgement so it is evident that the Priests and Levites did not so much judge as declare and resolve the law-part of which the inferiour judges did doubt for the difficulty of the question as Saul came to Samuel the Seer to aske concerning his fathers asses and it is true bloods and stroakes came under the cognizance of the Priests but as bloods comes before Lawyers and those that are expert in the civill Law in the Parliament of England and Scotland the Lawyers as Iudges put no man to death the King could say fall upon such an evill doer and kill him and the judges and Princes might put to death But
The Assumption is false Deut. 17 saith the contrary 3. Though we could not shew a place for the formall institution of an Ordinance yet if we show the thing instituted it is sufficient 4. Erastus much doubteth himselfe if Moses his government was altogether civill especially before the Lord separated Aaron his sons and the Tribe of Levi to teach and governe the people in an Ecclesiasticall way for Erastus said before that Moses prescribed Lawes to Aaron sacrificed and did that which was proper to the Priests though after that God forbad the Kings to usurpe the Priests office and punished Saul and Vzziah for so doing though I never read that Saul usurped the Priests office you may take it upon the word of Erastus and we all know that Moses was a Prophet of God Deut. 18. 18. I will raise them up a Prophet from amongst their brethren like unto thee Deut. 34. 10. And there arose not a Prophet in Israel since like unto Moses whom the Lord knew face to face Heb. 3. 5. Moses verily was faithfull in all his house as a servant Now those that will say Moses his government of the Church was all civill and politicall as a civill judge and King and that he acted not in the governement of the Church as in writing and delivering Laws and in doing many things yea in commanding the will of God as a Prophet to Aaron to his sons and the whole tribe of Levi to me speakes non-sense Erastus That judicature to the which the inferiours appealed as to the supreame is politick Ans It is denied they appealed to it as the supreme Ecclesiastick in point of Law and Conscience Ergo It was not politique all the rest are answered before yea Iehoshaphat 2 Chron. 19. putteth this as a thing peculiar to the Priests v. 12. What cause soever shall come before you of your brethren between blood and blood between Law and Commandement Statutes and Judgements ye shall even warne them that they trespasse not against the Lord that is as Erastus yeeldeth ye shall teach them what is just and agreeable to and what is unjust and repugnant to the Law of God Civill judges lips were not to preserve knowledge as the lips of the Priests Mal. 2. 7. and Deut. 17. 11. According to the sentence of the Law that they shall teach thee and according to the judgement that they shall tell thou shalt doe Hence it is clear that this judicature in civill things was a teaching a telling a declaring and resolving judicature and that in blood they resolved of causes of blood of stroakes but judged not persons nor bloody men nor violent persons Erastus Moses and Iehoshaphat speake of one and the same judicature Moses doth not give teaching and commanding divisibly to some but joyntly to all the Synedrie Though the Priests were more skilled in the Law for Moses commandeth to teach the sense of the Law by judgeing as he saith himselfe Exod. 18. 16. I judge between one and another and I doe make them know the statutes of God and his lawes Moses putteth them all joyntly together they shall tell thee thou shalt doe what they shevv thee according to the Lavv that they shall teach thee shalt thou doe not declining to the right-hand or to the left-hand Ans 1. That Iehoshaphat speaketh of the same judicature that Moses speaketh of is clear 2 Chron. 19. 8 9. 10. The very words of Moses Deut. 17. 8. are the same both the same judges and the same causes compared with v. 5 6 7. But Iehoshaphat maketh two judicatures as I have proved and Iehoshaphat reformed according to Moses his Lavv as Erastus granteth 2. I cannot be induced to beleeve that the judges here teached by judging it is spoken contrary to Theology The end of teaching is to informe the conscience and Teachers as Teachers watch for the soule and the end of civill and politick judging is a quiet and peaceable life 1 Tim. 2. 2. the vveapons of teachers are not carnall but spirituall 2 Cor. 10. 4 5. the weapons of civill Iudges are carnall for the civill Iudge beareth not the svvord in vaine Rom. 13. 4. then these same civill judges did not both teach and judge at once they taught not as civill judges but as Priests they judged not as Priests but as civill Iudges and therefore there is no ground to say that Moses ascribeth these same acts to civill judges and Priests and Levites as if they made one Synedry for in both Texts not one word of teaching which is proper to the Priests Mal. 2. 7. Ier. 2. 8. Hos 4. 6. is ascribed to the civill Iudge and not one word of judging and condemning to death which is proper to the civill Iudge Num. 35. 24. Deut. 22. 18 19 Deut. 17. 2. 3 4 c. and 21. 19 20. 1 King 21. 11. 2 Sam. 14. 15. 1 Kings 2. 28 c. Rom. 13. 4. Luke 12. 13. 14. c. is ascribed to the Priests and Levites but the Priest or the judge are set downe by way of disjunction Deut. 17. 12. which could not be if they made one and the same judicature and therefore Iehoshaphat 2 Chron. 19. clearely distinguisheth them in two judicatures one v. 5 6 7. Another v. 8 9 10. having two sundry presidents and two sundry objects to treat about to wit the matters of Iehovah and the matters of the King 3. The place cited Exod. 18. 16. confirmeth much our opinion for Moses as a Iudge saith vvhen they have a matter they come unto me and I judge between one another This he spake as a civill Iudge and when he saith And I make them knovv the statutes of God and his lavves This he spake as a prophet for Moses was both a Iudge and a Prophet Now if all civill Iudges be such mixt persons as to teach the Stautes and Laws of God they doe this either as civill judges or as Prophets then there was reason why Malachie should have said the civill judges lips should preserve knowledge and they should seeke the Law at his mouth for if a civill judge as a Iudge teach the people and watch for their souls what marvell then he beare the sword to preserve their bodies as a Prophet and not as a Iudge and if he beare the sword as a Prophet and Teacher all Teachers must beare the sword which is against reason and Scripture and what reason is there if Moses teach as a civill judge but he may as properly be obliged in conscience to teach and so he should sin if he imploy not his talent that way as he is obliged to exercise the sword as a judge and by the contrary a Prophet as a Prophet should be obliged in conscience as kindly and per se to exercise the Sword as to preach the Gospel for nothing agreeth more kindly to the subiect then that which agreeth to it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under that reduplication as it is
Magistratibus as Vtenbogard speaketh from and under the Magistrate as the Vicars Deputies and Ambassadors of the Magistrate yea that Magistrates teach the people by the Pastors as by their Vicars then Zebadiah should more diligently care for the matters of God then Amariah as the Lord and Master should more care his own businesse then his servant should do 3. More or lesse doth not vary the nature of things then must the Magistrate Sacrifice Teach judge between the clean and the unclean minister before the Lord as the sons of Aaron and the sons of Levi but lesse diligently But what calling hath he to any of these Acts at all Hath the Lord chosen the Tribe of Iudah or the Tribe of Levi to minister before him And by the same reason the Priests Levites should do these same things but more diligently And again Amariah is to use the sword and to condemne ill doers to death But lesse diligently these be pleasant dreams 5. The Priest and Judges are companions as Moses and Aaron Ergo the one is not Master and the other servant and Deputy â—â— Erastus dreameth and they are the rather of that in divers Senats 6. But how proveth Erastus That the Levites were common Servants both to Priests and Judges For though it were so this will never subject the Priests to the Civill Iudge nor confound these two Iudicatures David 1 Chron. 26. divided the Levites and set them in their courses for service Ergo They were King Davids servants as King it followeth not except Erastus prove David did not this as a Prophet and that the Lord did not choose the Tribe of Levi. But David did it as a King and so all Magistrates may appoint offices in the House of God and call men to the Ministry by vertue of the Magistrates place But David 1 Chro. 24. distributed the Priests as well as the Levites Ergo the Priests are servants to the King as well as the Levites But the Levites are expresly 1. Chron. 26. given by office to wait on the sons of Aaron for the service of the house of the Lord for the purifying the holy things for the shew bread for the fine flour for meat offerings and for the unleavened Cakes and that which is baked in the pan and for that which is fryed and for all manner of measures and size to praise the Lord at morning and night to offer all burnt sacrifices to the Lord c. In all which no man can say they were servants to the King For then the King sacrificed by them as by his servants no Divinity is more contrary to Scripture It is true 1 Chron. 26. 30. some of the Hebronites were Officers in all the businesse of the Lord and the service of the King But that is because ver 26. they had the oversight of the spoile that the King dedicated to the house of the Lord for the building of the Temple and that is called the Kings businesse Erastus Jehoshaphat 2 Chron. 19. did not depart from Moses his Law But we read not that there were two distinct Iurisdictions commanded and instituted by God Ans If this be a good Argument all that David and Solomon did for and in the building of the Temple in the structure forme length breadth Cedars gold Altars c. of the Temple shall be without Warrant Solomon and David departed not from Moses But Moses spake nothing of the Temple and a thousand things of Divine institution in the Temple But this is our Argument Jehoshaphat did erect no new Iudicatures but restore those that had their Warrant from Moses his Law But so it is that Iehoshaphat reinstituteth two distinct Iudicatures Ergo The Lord by Moses at the beginning did institute these two distinct Iudicatures Erastus We are not anxiously to inquire what be the matters of God it is all one with what he said before ye judge not for men but for the Lord. The Rabbines the judgement of Capitall causes is the judgement of souls the scripture nameth all judgements most frequently the judgements of the Lord Deut. 1. Ye shall not fear men for the judgement is the Lords Exod. 18. The people come to me to inquire of God that is to seek judgement Therefore are the Judges Exod. 22. Psal 82. called Gods The matter of God is any cause expressed in the Law of God and proposed to the Judges to be judged and the Kings matter is that which properly belongeth to the King Ans Erastus his anxiety to inquire is little because he cannot Answer 1. The matter of the Lord cannot be all one with this Ye judge not for men but for the Lord For the matter of the King or a point of Treason to be judged is to be judged not for men but for the Lord. But the Text differenceth between the matters of Lord and the matters of the King 2. In the former 2 Chron. 19. 5. he speaketh of civill businesse but the matters of the Lord are such as concern the Law of God and the true sense and meaning thereof to be proposed to the conscience and 3. That is a common thing to all causes that in the manner of Iudging Iudges are to look that they do as men in the place of God so then as God if he were judging would do no iniquity nor respect persons nor take gifts as he saith ver 7. So neither should men do iniquity or respect persons in judgement and so is it taken Deut. 1. 17. Now this clearly is the manner of righteous judgement and Modus judicandi but the matter of Iehovah is Res judicata the thing to be judged which may be unjustly Iudged and this matter of Iehovah is not common to all causes but is contradistinguished in the Text from the matters of the King which in the manner of judging is no lesse to be judged according to the judgement of the Lord then the matters of Jehovah 4. The Chalde Paraphrast Vt inquir at instructionem Vatab. Vt consulat deum This is a false interpretation That to inquire of God is to seek judgement from God For it is to ask the Lords minde in doubtsome cases and this they asked from Moses as he was a Prophet not as he was a civill Iudge except Erastus will have the Magistrate of old to give responses and to have been Oracles by vertue of their Office which is a clear untruth Saul David Solomon Joshua though Kings did not give responsals and answers when they did go to War or were in doubtsome perplexities But did ask Counsell at the Priest and Oracle of God and the Ark 1 Sam. 15. 37. Iosh 9. 14. Iudg. 20. 27. 1 Sam. 30. 8. and 23. 2. 4. And by this the Magistrate as the Magistrate should resolve all doubts of conscience now to perplexed consciences under the New-Testament 5. The Iudges are called Gods because they are under-Deputies in the room and place of the great God not because every judgement of
theirs is the judgement and very sentence of God and according to that the cause they judge is nothing but the cause of God for they are to judge the Kings matters no lesse then Gods matters 6. For what end Erastus speaketh of the Rabbines here I know not I think he knoweth not himself the man was ignorant of them and innocent of their language Erastus I am not against that the things of God be things belonging to the Worship of God and the matters of the Kings Civill businesse The Priest must especially take care that there be no error in Faith and Ceremonies and this belongeth also to the King as is clear Deut. 17. So Zebadiah is not excluded from Gods matters Nor Amariah from the Kings businesse Ans This interpretation is fully refuted Zebadiah is in the Text excluded from judging Ecclesiastically in the matters of God as a Priest Levite or Elder For if he must judge so he must either judge as a Priest or Levite which he was not or as a Civill Iudge if as a Civill Iudge then is he no lesse over the people in the matters of God then in the Kings matters Now the Text could not exclude him from these things which belongeth to his office and put him in another Sphere in the businesse of the King and put such a wide difference between the object of the two men as the Kings matters and the matters of the King of Kings The like I say of Amariah 2. The King Deut. 17. as King is to Iudge according to the Book of the Law that he may be a godly King and fear God and keep the words of the Law Ergo he is to teach the people no lesse then the Priest and to judge between the clean and unclean and that as King This no way followeth Erastus If you please by the matters of God to understand the causes of appeals and by the Kings matters other judgements I contend not And because the Priest was better accustomed with the Law of God then others therefore the High Priest was set over these yet so as Zebadiah was over the Kings businesse But I think the two first especially the first the best Exposition But 1 Chron. 26. These same persons are set over both the Kings and the Lords matters Ans Consider how dubious Erastus is in his three Expositions to elude the force of the place If it was the Magistrates place virtute officii by vertue of his office to command the Priests and to direct them as Erastus and Vtenbogard say in the internall and specifick acts of Sacrificing Iudging between the clean and the unclean teaching the people then the King and the Civill Iudge were by office to be more skilled in the Causes of God then the Priests because the Commander and the directer who may by his office exercise those same acts that he commandeth his servants yea and is by office to command him to do thus in these internall Acts and not thus he ought by his office to be more skilled in these then the servant I grant the King Commandeth the Painter all the morall equity requisite in Painting that he endamage not the Common-wealth by prosuse lavishing of Gold and in this it is presumed there is more Iustice and morall equity by office in the King Commanding then in the Painter Commanded But if the King should take on him to Command virtute officii that the Painter regulateth his actions of art thus and thus and direct and Command by his Royall office as King that the Painter draw the face of the Image with more pale and white and lesse red and incarnate colour in such a proportion according to art and not in such a proportion Then by office the King as King might paint Pourtraictâ— himself and behoved by office to be more skilled in Painting then the Painter Now Erastus presupposeth Whatever the Priests do as Priests in an Ecclesiasticall way he excepteth Sacrificing and burning incense but for a time that the King as King may do the same also so the King as King may teach give responses in matters of God and now under the new Testament Preach and dispense the Sacraments and judge as King whether Priests and Pastors do right or no and that not only in order to Civill but also to Ecclesiasticall punishments as deprivation from their offices and debarring from the Sacraments Hence it must follow that Zebediah should by office be better skilled in the matters of God then Amariah or any Priest and by office he should rather be over the matters of God then any Priest in the world 2. Now its clear that these same things to be over men in the matter of God and in the matters of the King 1 Chron. 26. proveth nothing except they be over these same matters by one and the same power of the Sword as Erastus saith Amariah the High Priest and Zebediah the Civill Iudge promiscuously were both of them without exclusion of either over the people in the matters of the Lord and in the matters of the King and in the same judicature by the same coactive power of the sword as Erastus saith Priests and Civill Iudges were in the same judicature by the same Civill power Iudges to give out joyntly in a judiciall way the sentence of a bloody death and to inflict a bloody death by the same power 3. It is Erastus his ignorance of the Originall Text to say these same words that are 2 Chron. 19. 11. are also 1 Chron 26. ver 30 32. for 2 Chron. 19. 11. it is said Amariah is over you in all the matters of the Lord Hence the matters of the Lord were the formall object of his judging But 1 Chron. 26. 30. the Hebronites were officers in the businesse of the Lord or to the businesse of the Lord and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the service of the King Levites might have been imployed in both Ecclesiasticall and Civill businesse in the Temple and in the overseeing of those spoiles that David in Wars had taken from the Enemies and Dedicated for building the House of the Lord which are called the Kings businesse and the construction ver 32. is varied where it is said The Hebronites mighty men of valour and so fit for war were made by King David Rulers over the Reuâ—eniâ—es Gadites and the half Tribe of Manasseh for every matter not in every matter pertaining to God The affixum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here and the affaires of the King These Levites seem to be imployed in the war and are called valiant men which must be some extraordinary case But otherwise when God commanded to number the Children of Israel for War Numb 1. 3. 45. The Levites were not numbred God did forbid Moses to number them because they were appointed for another service ver 48 49 50. Yet it seemeth in Davids time when there were exâ—raordinary warres that they were not exempted from
himselfe also in and through Pastors as his servants as Erastus teacheth then he must consent that they threaten and rebuke himselfe 2. The proposition is false it is presumed all the subjects do consent to lawfull penall Lawes against sorcery murther incest in the generall and virtually that they shall be put in execution against themselves yet the Sorcerer will never formally consent that he himselfe be put to death though he once as a subject consented to the Law that all Sorcerers be put to death For when the penall Law against sorcery was enacted he consented to this 3. He whose consent accumulative is requisite that scandalous offenders in generall be Excommunicated but not that this or this man possibly the Magistrate himselfe he is not to be Excommunicated is most false he whose consent negative is requisite for Excommunication he is not to be Excommunicated himself the proposition is true But I assume the Magistrates consent negative is requisite to Excommunication there is nothing more false For shall that which the Church bindeth on earth not be bound in heaven except the King the Iustice or Master Constable say Amen to it on earth We say not that the Magistrates consent as a Magistrate is requisite for the Excommunicating of himselfe For though as a Magistrate he ought to give his consent to Excommucate all offenders and adde his civill sanction as one of the seven wise men of Greece said Patere legem quam ipse tuleris Yet he is not Excommunicated as a Magistrate except with Kata-baptists you condemne the Office of Magistracie as an unlawfull Ordinance but as a scandalous man 3. The old penances as they do us that service to make good that Excommunication was in the ancient Church and that Erastus wanteth the authority of the Fathers and upon his ingenuity should have been ashamed to cite them for his way so we condemne them as introductory to Popery but let Erastus forme an Argument from this and logick shall hisâ—e at it That which bringeth in old satisfactions and penance is not to be holden But Excommunication or the Excommunicating of Magistrates doth this Ergo The assumption must be proved Erastus It hath no more truth which you say that the Magistrate while he punisheth cureth not the conscience for God calleth many by tribulations to himselfe and farre more then by your Excommunication Ans I would Erastus had drawen up an Argument which seldome he doth for this it must be That which is a saving mean to gaine scandalous offenders to Iesus Christ and better then Excommunication is an Ordinance of God and the other no Ordinance But the Magistrates punishing with the sword the scandalous offenders is a saving meane to gaine scandalous offenders and better then Excommunication Ergo Ans Neither Major nor Minor proposition hath any truth at all 1. Though the Magistrates sword were a better meane to gain souls it followeth not that Excommunication is no mean The Law is lesse powerfull for gaining souls The Gospel more powerfull But the Law is not for that no Ordinance of God 2. Erastus his reason to prove that the Magistrates punishing cureth the conscience as a saving Ordinance no lesse then Excommunication must be this That by which God calleth and draweth many to himselfe is a saving mean to cure the conscience but by the Magistrates punishing of scandalous men God doth this as by other tribulations The proposition must be a propositio per se That by the Magistrates heading and hanging scourging and imprisoning of themselves as kindly and intrinsecally saving means such as rebukes promises commands excommunication are the Lord calleth men and converteth them that is false God no more useth the Sword of the Magistrate as a kindly mean of gaining souls then the sword of an oppressing Tyrant so Nebuchadnezzars oppressing of the Church of God and the Assyrians unjust wasting of the people of Israel shall be kindly means of gaining of souls because God blessed the rod to many to humble their uncircumcised heart but this is accidentall to and beside the nature of the rod but it is not accidentall to rebuking threatning promises to the preaching of the Gospel nor to Excommunication to save souls and gaine them to Christ The Gospel and all the parts of it are kindly and of themselves the power of God to salvation The Magistrates sword to Erastus must be the power of God to salvation and Christ Matth. 18. in his order of gaining an offending brothers soul by this reason must descend not ascend contrary to the order of Christ for Christ maketh the rebuking between brother and brother to be the first step of gaining an offender to Christ 2. The rebuking before two or three 3. Before the Church 4. Excommunication Now all these are spirituall means and more efficacious the second then the first the third then the second the fourth then any of them But Erastus maketh Christ in the fourth step to descend from three spirituall steps of gaining the mans soul to a fourth which is carnall to wit let him be as a heathen c. this is Caesars sword which certainly is a carnall weapon proper to the Kingdomes of this world Ioh. 18. 36. whereas rebuking exhorting promises and Excommunication are the spirituall weapons of the warfare of the Ministers of Christ 2 Cor. 10. 4 8 9. Rev. 1. 16. Esai 11. 4. Psal 45. 4. Rom. 1. 16. The exercise of the sword is a mean of edifying consequenter by removing false teachers that hindreth edification but no man can say it is a mean of it self and kindly in regard of the man against whom the sword is used Farther that which is a common mean of conserving peace in all societies and corporations even without the Church where the Gospel was never heard cannot be a kindly mean of gaining mens souls that are within the visible Church Erastus Ambrose following the example of Azariah cannot be defended in debarring Theodosius from the Sacraments Yea it was tyranicall and damnable to debarre a man desirous to hear the word who otherwayes repented and acknowledged his fault from the means of salvation It was like the Popes proud fact in trampling â—on the Emperours neck he had no cause of wrath against Theodosius but as Nicephorus saith the Emperour hated Ambrose Ans 1. If Erastus had come to Logick he refuteth here but a Law by a fact of Ambrose 2. What if Ambrose debarred Theodosius from hearing the word Ergo there is no Excommunication it followeth not 3. That he debarred Theodosius from the Sacrament after he gave evidences of his repentance to the Church is an untruth 4. That after such a cruell fact of murthering so many innocent persons of Thessalonica Theodosius should have been admitted to the Sacrament or remained a Member of the Church to eat and drink his owne damnation and not be cast out as 1 Cor. 5. no man but Erastus could say so it is cleare that
by Law do so His adversaries accuse him that he taught against the Law and that he profaned the Temple by bringing in the Gentiles he openly saith he had done nothing against the Law Then to be cast out of the Synagogue is not to be excommunicated for one cast out of the Synagogue could not but do against the Law if he should go to the Temple and sacrifice Ans If Erastus would argue logically as to me in my humble apprehension he is still weak in all his book in this we should find frothy grounds as thus If those who were scourged and cast out of the Synagogue to wit unjustly and against all Law of God for preaching Christ Iesus were never accused for going into the Temple and using the Sacraments and say truly they did nothing against the Law then the cast out of the Synagogue might lawfully go to the Temple and partake of the Sacraments the proposition is the greatest untruth that can be 1. Erastus must prove that the Iews accused the Apostles of all and every thing which they conceived to be against the Law I conceive this is a conjecture and false 2. The other part of the proposition is as false as to say light is darknesse if Paul cast out of the Synagogue and excommunicated against all Law of God and Moses yet go to the Temple and sacrifice and partake of Sacraments say he doth nothing against the Law then casting out of the Synagogue and Excommunication doth not exclude any from the Temple sacrifices and Sacraments this is as much as Paul should say unjust Excommunication against all Law of God and of Moses for righteousnesse sake doth exclude no man from the Temple and the sacrifices and Sacraments Ergo casting out of the Synagogue and Excommunication rightly administred doth exclude none from the Temple sacrifices and Sacraments Surely 〈◊〉 is abominable to ascribe as much to unjustly administred ordinances as to the jâ—st ordinances of Christ Erastus must lay downe the Popish ground of Navar and Gregory that Excommunication sive de justa sive de iâ—justa causa either for a just or an unjust cause is to be feared and hath force Might not Paul though he had been unjustly excommunicated go to the Temple and Sacraments and yet say he had done nothing against the Law might not the man whom Iesus found after he was unjustly cast out of Temple and Synagogue Ioh. 9. 39. say I have done nothing against the Law nor do against it though I go to the Temple 3. How will Erastus prove that the Apostles Act. 4. and 5. or Paul were câ—st out of the Synagogue or excommunicated I never could read it They commanded them neither to preach in Temple or Synagogue any more in the name of Iesus But that they cast them out of the Synagogue or cast Paul out of the Synagogue where is it to be read let Erastus teach us Erastus It is hard to say what it is to be cast out of the Synagogue it was not Excommunication it seemeth to be some note of infamy Ioh. 12. or a particular banishing them out of a towne and Iesus seemeth Luk. 4. to be banished by the Nazarites and it seemeth to be a denying of right of the City so as the cast out of the Synagogue shal be no more esteemed for a true Iew but as a prosylite Prosylites dwelt amongst the Iews and had right to those same holy things with them yet were they distinguished from the Iews so it seemeth to be that which is Ezra 10. to be separated from the Crongregation of those that had been carried away captive It agreeth with that Deuteronomy 23. where the Children of Edom were admitted â—â— enter into the Congregation of the Lord in their third generation It s absurd to thinkâ— that God who is no accepter of Persons will not have one cut off a Bastard an Ammonite a Moabite received into his Kingdome So the Lord refused not that they should be circumcised and admitted to the Sacraments but he would not have them counted for true Iews He would have Egyptians and Edomites received in their third generation so their Father Grand-father and great Grandfather had been circumcised otherwise to the thousand generation they were â—ot received and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to cast out or to be cast out of the Synagogue are meeker words then to condemne cast out excommunicate and though the Pharisees should debarre from the Sacraments those that are cast out of the Synagogue we are not to imitate the examples of ill men Ans 1. If it be hard to determine what it is to be cast out of the Synagogue it is hard to deny it to be Excommunication for to be a Member of the Synagogue as an Elder or a Ruler of the Synagogue was to be a Member of the Church and a Church priviledge Ergo to be cast out of the Synagogue must be to be unchurched and made no Member of the Church and this is very like Excommunication however Erastus cannot deny it to bee some Church censure like to Excommunication as any thing can be 2. That it was a civill banishing out of a Towne or that Christ was banished by the Nazarites out of Nazareth leaneth upon Erastus his ita videtur so it seemeth To which I crave leave to say non ita videtur it appeareth to be no such thing Christ came againe to Nazareth and till his death was never banished from Synagogue or Temple Iohn 18. 20. They should rather have been said to cast Christ out of the Temple and banish him from Ierusalem for Ioh. 10. 22 23 31. They took up stones to stone him v. 39. then to banish him out of Nazareth or cast him out of the Synagogue 3. Prosylites had all the right that Iews had by Gods Law what men denyed them is not the question Erastus spake nothing from Scripture or Gods Law that was one and the same to the born Iew and the stranger that came in and was circumcised and gave his name to the Israel of God 4. To be deprived of the priviledge of a city is a civill punishment Ergo to be cast out of the Congregation or Synagogue which was a spirituall and Church punishment was no such thing 5. The separating from the Congregation Ezra 10. 8. was Excommunication the Annotation of the English Divines say it was Excommunication such as casting out of the Synagogue Ioh. 9. 22. 6. If it agree with Deut. 23. 8. To enter in the Congregation of the Lord is to be a Member of the Church of God and therefore the Hebrew readeth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into the Church of God The Chalde Paraphrast 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 erint mundi ut ingrediantur Ecclesiam Domini They shall be cleane that they may enter into the Church of God Sure this was not Physicall or civill cleannesse but cleannesse spirituall according to the
Law of God so the seventy translate it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hieronym intrabunt in Ecclesiam Domini Vatablus in Not. erint de consortio populi Sancti The English Annotators cite for this Nehe. 13. 1 2. the Law is that the Moabite and the Ammonite should not enter into the Congregation of the Lord for ever It is said v. 3. They separated from Israel all the mixed multitude so that cleare it is to enter into the Congregation is to become a Member of the Church then to be separated from the Congregation must be to be cast out of the Church and deprived of the holy things of God as heathens and strangers were according to that Levit. 22. 10. There shall no stranger eate of the holy thing What is this but Excommunication call it with another name we care not it is really to be separated from the Church 7. It is admirable to me to heare Erastus say It cannot be that God who is no accepter of of persons will not receive into his Kingdome a Bastard an Ammonite a Moabite Is not this to reason against the Law of God and the wisedome of God Deut. 23. 1. 2 3. who saith that he will not receive such into his Church which is his Kingdome and a company of Kings and Priests unto God which he hath freely loved Exod. 19. 5 6. Psal 149. 1. Deut. 7. 7. Deut. 26. 16 17 18. as â—oâ— the rejecting of men from his heavenly Kingdome according to Gods decree of eternall Reprobation I deny Excommunication to be any such rejection of men it being onely a casting them out from the visible Church and the speciall Church priviledges that their Spirits may be saved in the day of the Lord and what can be more contrary to the Word then that Erastus should say God declared not that it was his will that Moabites Ammonites should not be circumcised anâ— admitted to the Sacraments Why then did hee not chuse Moabites and Ammonites for his people and make a covenant with them and give Circumcision a Seale of the Covenant as he dealt with the Iewes if he mean God will not exclude Moabites and Ammonites from the Sacraments so they repent and turne to him but now Erastus fights with his owneshaddow Who denieth but Iewes and Gentiles so they call on him are welcome to all the holy things of God and not to be cast out of either Church or Synagogue 8. To say to cast out of the Synagogue is a meeker word then to Excommunicate is but to beg the question Yea but saith Erastus it is lesse and a milder thing then to destroy and pro deplorato habere to esteeme a person lost we say Excommunication is not to destroy or to give for lost but though it be the most violent yet it is a saving remedy that the man may be ashamed humbled and his Spirit saved 9. We reason not from the fact of Pharisees if they cast any out of the Synagogue for a just cause they ought also by Gods Law to debarre them from Temple and Sacraments and therefore if they did not debarre it was their sinne not our Rule CHAP. XXI Quest 17. Divers other Arguments vindicated as from Communion with the Church subjection of Magistrates and Ministers The Ceremonially unclean from Matth. 18. Tell the Church Erastus Christ hath given a power to his Church to loose Ergo also to binde The Church admitteth Believers into Communion Ergo they cast out the impenitent Erastus Answereth Such a power as they have to Ioose and to admit such and no other have they to binde and to cast out but it follovveth not Ergo it is a povver to debar from the Sacraments and to Excommunicate it is à Genere and Speciem affirmativè Ans Erastus is mistaken and formeth the Argument as he pleaseth The Church pardoneth as a Church and receiveth into her body believers to participate of Church-priviledges and Sacraments in a Church Communion Ergo the Church hath power to binde and cast out from this same Church-Communion those that leaveneth the whole lump as a City may admit a stranger to all the City priviledges Ergo the same City may for offences against the City cast out and deprive of City priviledges offenders is this a Genere ad speciem affirmativè If the Church have a power to cast out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from amongst them a Member we shall not contend for the name of Excommunication Erastus The Ministers have none by whom in their office they can be corrected But saith Erastus If every soul be subject to the higher powers how are Ministers excepted if Ministers correct Ministers they play to others hands spare thou the nails and I shall spare the teeth Ans The Author doth not except Ministers from civill subjection to Magistrates But only he saith In Ecclesiasticall censures the Magistrate is not to judge the Ministers because a Ministery being an Ecclesiasticall office as such it is not liable to the civill power only the Ministers as they erre and sin in their persons are liable to civill punishment but not to Ecclesiasticall to be inflicted by the Magistrate 2. Through the corruption of mens nature every one may wink at anothers faults It is true But consider if this slow from the nature of Gods Ordinance to wit that the Citizen obey the Laws of the City whereof he is a member This is an Argument against any Senate Parliament Counsell of State or War or Aristocracy on earth if of an hundreth Lords of the States Generall one or ten play the Traytor to the State who shall take order with them Their Collegues and fellow-Senators Partiall judging falls out here through mens corruption spare thou the nails and I le spare the teeth and from Erastus his way if you Argue from mens corruption the same will follow May not the Magistrate say to the Minister Honour me before the people and Preach not against the sins of King and Court and I will oversee and wink at thy Pluralities non-residencies soul-murthers And may not the Minister say to the Magistrate Let me be above all Civill Laws and be Lord Prelat and sit on the necks of my Brethren and defraud oppresse and I shall be silent and preach nothing against the idolatry oppressions Sodomy uncleannesse of Magistrate and court Erastus The Ceremonially unclean were excluded from the Sacraments Ergo far more the Morally unclean But how saith he doth this follow You Excommunicate none but the obstinate for those that were Ceremonially unclean against their will were excluded from the holy things Ergo far more he that is Morally unclean is to be debarred though he be not obstinate How could Paul Excommunicate the incestuous man 1 Cor. 5. he was never admonished or Peter Excommunicate Annanias as you say Ans All Types or comparisons hold only in that for which the spirit of God doth bring them Now the Ceremonially unclean were debarred from
29. Deut. 10. 8 18. Numb 1. 50. and 3. 9 12 41. and 8. 10. Psal 122. 5. In Jerusalem there were set thrones of judgement the thrones of the house of David Mat. 22. 21. Christ commanded to give to Cesar the things that are Cesars and he in his own person refused to usurpe Cesars place Luke 12. 14. Man who made me a Iudge and interdicted his Apostles thereof Luke 22 24 25 26. and yet appointed for them a Judicature of another kinde Mat. 18. 15. Mat. 16. 19. Ioh. 20. 21. 1 Tim. 5. 17. Heb. 13. 17. 1 Cor. 5. and if any should deny that the Civill Magistrate had another Court in which he judged the Scriptures will refute him 3. It is evident that Iehoshaphat did not institute but restore those two courts 2 Chron. 19. 11. And behold Amariah the chiefe Priest is over you in all matters of the Lord and Zebadiah the son of Ishmael the ruler of the house of Iudah for all the Kings matters never any Erastian could satisfie either themselves or others to shew us what were those two courts so distinguished by their two sundry Rulers Amariah and Zebadiah the one a Priest the other a Magistrate 2. By the different formall objects the matters of the Lord the matters of the King and confounded they must be if the King and Ruler be a judge in the matters of God except God make him both a civill judge and a Prophet as were Moses and Samuel which yet were differenced when the God of order established his Church in Canaan The Church convenes for a Church businesse Iosh 18. 1. to set up the Tabernacle but for a civill businesse to make war the State conveneth Iosh 22. 12. 15. 16. Iudg. 21. 12. and Ier. 26. 8. there is the Church judicature discerning that Ieremiah was a false Teacher and they first judge the cause and v. 16. The Civill Iudicature discerneth the contrary and under Zorababel Ezra and Nehemiah they indured different judicatures Iesus Christ was arraigned before Caiphas the High Priest for pretended blasphemie before Pilate the civill judge for treason but Caiphas was to determine onely by Law in questione juris whether it was blasphemie which Christ had spoken but he had no power by Gods Law to lead Witnesses or condemn Christ Nor is it true that the Priests had their government onely about Ceremonialls for they were to judge of Morall uncleannes also which even then debarred men from the holy things of God as is cleare Hag. 2. 12. Ezek. 44. 9. 10 23 24. and if any say that the Magistrate amongst the Iewes did judge of Ecclesiasticall things and reformed Religion We answer extraordinarily the Magistrate might prophecie and did prophecy as did Samuel David Solomon Why do not Erastians bring those examples to prove that Kings Provasts Iustices may now preach the Word and administer the Sacraments which yet is unlawfull to them by grant of Adversaries for the examples of the Kings amongst the Iewes is as strong for preaching as for governing and because Prophets did judge the people of old yet no Protestant Divine will say that now Pastors may also usurpe the civill Sword Now least any should object the case is not alike in the Jewish and Christian Church surely the King of the Church hath no lesse separated such men as Paul and Barnabas for the Ministery now then at that time Rom. 1. 1 2. Act. 2. And sent labourers to his vineyard Luk. 10. 2. Matth. 20. 2. 9. 37 38. And Ambassadors to Preach in his Name 2 Cor. 5. 20. Ministers of Christ and Stewarts of the mysteries of God 1 Cor. 4. 1. Men sent of God whose feet are pleasant for their good News as were the Prophets of old who were not only gifted to preach but instructed with Divine Authority as is clear Rom. 10. 14. 15. Isa 52. 7. 40. 9. Nahum 1. 15. Yea and men that feeds the flock not only by Preaching but also Govern the Church so that they must take heed that Ravening Wolves creep not into the Church who shall not spare the flock Act. 20. 28. 29. Men who must be obeyed because they watch for our soules Heb. 13. 17. And can govern the Church as well as they are apt to teach 1 Tim. 3. 5. 2. Men that labour amongst us and are over us in the Lord 1 Thes 5. 12. And men who are to call to the work other faithfull men that are able to teach others 2 Tim. 2. 2. Such as are separated from the affairs of this life such as Magistrates are not 1 Cor. 6. 3. such as Rule well 1 Tim. 5. 17. and are not to receive accusations but under witnesses and are to lay hands suddenly on no man not to call them to the holy Ministery till they be sufficiently tryed 1 Tim. 5. 19 20 22. all which import teaching and governing Now if all these directions be given to Timothy and other Pastors till the end of the world then must all these directions be principally written to the Magistrate as the Magistrate and these Epistles to Timothy agree principally to the Christian Magistrate and to Pastors and Doctors at the by as they be delegates and substitutes of the Magistrates and that by office the Emperour of Rome was to lay hands suddenly on no man and commit the Gospel to faithfull men who could teach others and was not to receive an accusation against an Elder and certainly if the Magistrate call to office those that are over us in the Lord and if those who watch for our soules especially be but the curates and delegates of the King and Parliament then the King and Parliament behoved in a more eminent manner to watch for our souls for directions and commandments of God in this kinde are more principally given to the Master Lord and chief Governour of the house of God if the Magistrate be such then to the servants delegates But where is there any such directions given to the Emperour King or Christian Magistrate by any shadow of ground in the Word It is not much to say The Magistrate was an heathen an enemy at this time and therefore those could not be written to him For 1. No force can strain these two Epistles to Timothy and the other to Titus which contain a form of Church-policy to any Christian Magistrate for then the qualification of the King if he be the supream Governour of the Church should far rather have been expressed then the qualification of a Bishop and a Deacon which is no where hinted at 2. All these directions notwithstanding this do and must actu primo agree to the Magâ—strate for his office who is chief governour what he should be is described in the Word 3. When Christ ascended on high he gave as a fruit of his ascension sufficient means for his intended end The perfecting of the Saints the gathering of his Body the Church and the edifying thereof even
cannot judge the heart or intention whether they do those with conscience to God and reverence and subjection of spirit to his holy Law nor can the manner of doing be proved by witnesses to the magistrate 2. The Magistrate as Magistrate doth not command what he doth not praise or reward for well doing is the object of the Magistrates praising and rewarding power Rom. 13. 3. But as a Magistrate he doth not praise and reward the qualification or spirituality or sincerity of Pastors dispensing of word and seals if they feed the flock the Magistrate is to take care they be rewarded with wages noâ— can the Magistrate as the magistrate withhold praise or wages from labourers in the vineyard because they preach Christ out of envy as some did Phil. 1. 15. or because they feed not the lambs out of a love to Christ as they ought to do Ioh. 21. 15 16 17. it is true magistrates as godly men may love and commend sincerity in faithfull labourers and hate the contrary but this they do as Christian men not as magistrates not by their office and authoritatively 3. Magistrates command that as magistrates the not doing of which they can aâ— magistrates punish with the sword for the object of their vindicative and revenging power is ill doing Rom. 13. 4. But if Pastors feed the flock and rule them the magistrate cannot use the sword against the feeders for that they want sincerity love cheerfulnesse in the manner of doing these things for the sword of the magistrate doth only reach men for their externall facts not for opinions in the mind not for crooked intentions not for hollow-heartednesse hypocrisie infidelity in the manner or inward principles of the actions II. Asser when magistrates command Churchmen to do their duty and to feed the flock sincerely and in the fear of the Lord they do it not as magistrates but as touching the manner they may exhort them to do their duty sincerely cordially and zealously as godly men hence that charge that King Iehoshaphat gave to the Priests and Levites 2 Chron. 19. 9. This shall ye do in the fear of the Lord faithfully and with a perfect heart is a mixt command as touching the judging of the people in all causes and controversies that should come before them the King as King commanded them to do this But for the manner of the doing of it that they should do it faithfully in the feare of the Lord and with a perfect heart this he commanded them not as a King but exhorted them to it as a godly religious man for 1. any godly man might have said this and the King might have punished the Levites and Priests if they had not judged the causes according to the Law But though they had not judged in the fear of the Lord and with a perfect heart yet could not the King as King have punished them therefore nor can any say that the spirituall exhortation of Hezekiah 2 Chron. 29. to the Priests and Levites came from him as King but as from a graced and religious man as King he might command them to Sanctifie themselves legally for so they were to do by office and he might use the sword against them if they failed in that and as King he may command all externall duties not only to Church-men but to all others only he cannot punish them for failings in the spirituall manner of doing externall duties 2 A spirituall and Christian exhortation ex conditione operis and intrinsecally hath influence on the conscience to turne the soul to God But nothing that the magistrate can do as a magistrate hath such an influence on the conscience all that he doth as a magistrate and directly is toward the outward man by rewards and punishments if the magistrate remove false teachers and wolves which would devour the flock and if that work upon the conscience it is indirectly and by accident for quoad actus imperatos he can command that the Gospel which hath a kindly and intrinsecall power to work upon the conscience be preached if the magistrate convince the conscience of a murtherer that he hath failed against the Law of God he doth not that as a magistrate but as a godly and religious man he may convince him as a magistrate that he hath failed against the Lawes of the State and bands of humane society and externall peace and scarce that for ignorantia juris nemimeâ—â— excusat Obj. 1. It may be objected against this If the Elders not only omit to do their duty but also if they erre in the nature and quality of what they do the Magistrate is to punish Ergo the Magistrate not only commandeth the Church to do the externall facts but also commands the facts with such and such qualities the Antecedent is proved because the Magistrate not only punisheth the omission of a Church duty as if Pastors preach not but also if they preach not â—alâ— modo Orthodox and sound Doctrine Ans We never denied but the Magistrate commandeth both the exercise of Church power simply and the manâ—er and such qualifications as are externall and obvious to the knowledge of the Magistrate such as blasphemous and false Doctrine is But we deny that as a Magistrate he doth command those things that arâ— internall and invisible that is the spirituallity of the actions he can exhort and stirre men up to the spirituallity and sincerity of doing as a godly and Christian man Obj. 2. The Pastors and guides of the Church as such do only command externall obedience for they can onely in â—oro Ecclesiae in the Court of the Church censure externall disobedience before men the heart and sincerity thereof is no more obvious to the eye of Elders then of Magistrates Ans 1. I deny the connexion of the Antecedent for Elders may command as Elders more then the not doing of which they can censure which the Magistrate cannot do for Elders have committed to them the word of reconciliation as the Ambassadors of Christ Now the word hath an immediate influence on the conscience on the thoughts and intents of the heart 2 Cor. 5. 18 19 20. 1 Cor. 3. 5. 1 Cor. 4. 15. Ps 19. 7. Heb. 4. 12 13. And therefore their Ministery hath action on the thoughts yet can they not in the externall court of the Church censure the thoughts as not being able to see them but the Gospel which they preach can arraigne the conscience and thoughts 2 Cor. 10. 4 5. But the Magistrate carrieth not such a message and therefore his Magistraticall command can reach no farther then his temporall praise and reward and his sword and that is commensurable and of equall latitude with those Obj. 3. The Object of the Magistrates power is well doing and ill doing both civill and also supernaturall both for the first table or as well for the spirituall acts of worship and Religion in the first table as for acts of Iustice and mercy
But the King is head of the Church Ergo he maketh lawes to regulate the Family Ans The Antecedent is false if not blasphemous it is proper to Iesus Christ only Col. 1. 18. Eph. 1. 22. The King is the head of men who are the Church materialiter he is not formally as King Head of the Church as the Church and therefore we see not how this Statute agreeth with the Word of God Henric. 8. Stat. 37. c. 17. The Archbishops Bishops Arch-deacons and other Ecclesiasticall persons have no manner of Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall but by under and from the Kings Royall Majesty the onely and undoubted supream head of the Church of England and Ireland to whom by holy Scripture is given all authority and power to hear and determine all manner of causes Ecclesiasticall and to correct all vice and sin whatsoever for neither is the subject the Archbishops Bishops c. lawfull nor is the limitation of the subject lawful for Ecclesiasticall officers are the Ambassadors of Christ not of the King Obj. All Christians are to try the Spirits Ergo Much more Magistrates Ans This proveth that Christians as Christians and Magistrates as Christians may judge determine of all things that concerneth their practise and that they are not with blinde obedience to receive things Mr. Pryn cannot say that 1 Iohn 4. 1. is meant of a Royall Parliamentary or Magistraticall tryall Iohn speaketh to Christians as such But this is nothing to prove the power of the Magistrate as the Magistrate for thought the man were neither King nor Magistrate he ought to try the Spirits 1 Iohn 4. 1. The speciall objection moved for Appeals is that which Paul did in a matter of Religion that we may do in the like case but Paul Acts 25. did appeal from a Church Iudge to a civill and a heathen Iudge in a matter of Religion when he said before Festus Acts 25. I appeal to Cesar Ergo so may the Ministers of Christ far more appeal to the Christian Magistrate and that Paul did this jure by Law not by Priviledge but by the impulsion of the Holy Ghost is clear in that he saith He ought to be judged by Cesar so Maccovius so Videlius so Vtenbogardus so Erastus Ans 1. This Argument if it have nerves shall make the great Turk when he subdueth people and Churches of the Protestant Religion to be the head of the Church and as Erastus saith by his place and office as he is a Magistrate he may preach and dispense the Sacraments and a Heathen Nero may make Church constitutions and say It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to me and by this Nero by office is to excommunicate make or unmake Pastors and Teachers judge what is Orthodoxe Doctrine what not debarre hereticks Apostates and mockers from the Table and admit the worthie and Paul the Apostle must have been the Ambassador and Deputie of Nero in preaching the Gospel and governing the Church and Nero is the mixt person and invested by Iesus Christ with spirituall jurisdiction and the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven This Argument to the Adversaries cannot quit its cost â—or by this way Paul appealed from the Church in a controversie of Religion to a Nero a Heathen unbaptized Head of the Church and referred his faith over to the will judgement and determination of a professed Enemy of the Christian Church and Paul must both jure by the Law of God and the impulsion of the Holy Ghost appeale from the Church to a Heathen without the Church in a matter of Religion and Conscience then Nebuchadnezzar was head of the Church of Iudah and supreame judge and governour in all causes and controversies of Religion how can we beleeve the adversarie who doe not beleeve themselves and shall we make Domitian Dioclesian Trajan and such heads of the Church of Christ 2. It is not said that Paul appealed from the Church or any Ecclesiasticall judicature to the civill judge for Paul appealed from Festus who was neither Church nor Church officer and so Paul appealeth from an inferiour civill judge to a superiour or civill judge as is clear Acts 28. 6. And when Festus had tarried amongst them more then ten dayes he went downe to Cesarea and the next day sitting in the judgement seat commanded Paul to be brought vers 10. And Paul said I stand at Cesars judgement seat where I ought to be judged he refused v. 9 10. to be judged by Festus at Ierusalem but saith v. 11. I appeal to Cesar Now he had reason to appeal from Festus to Cesar for the Iews laid many grievous complaints against Paul which they could not prove vers 7. And it is said vers 8. That Festus was willing to doe the Iewes a pleasure and so was manifestly a partiall Iudge and though the Sanedrim at Ierusalem could have judged in point of Law that Paul was a blasphemer and so by their Law he ought to die for so Caiphas and the Priests and Pharisees dealt with Iesus Christ yet his appeal from the Sanedrim 1. corrupted and having manifestly declared their bloodie intentions against Paul 2. From a Sanedrim in its constitution false and degenered far from what it ought to be by Gods institution Deut. 17. 8 9 10. it now usurping civill businesse which belonged not to them Paul might also lawfully appeal from a bloodie and degenerating Church judicature acting according to the bloodie lusts of men against an innocent man to a more unpartiall judge and yet be no contemner of the Church this is nothing against our Thesis which is that it is not lawfull to appeal in a constituted Church from a lawfull unmixt Church Judicature to the civill Magistrate in a matter of life and death 3. Paul appealed from the Sanedrim armed with the unjust and tyrannicall power of Festus a man willing to please the bloodie accusers of Paul as is clear v. 9. And Festus willing to doe the Iewes a pleasure answered Paul and said Wilt thou go up to Ierusalem and there be judged of these things before me 3. The cause was not properly a Church businesse but a crime of bodily death and sedition I deny not but in Pauls accusation prophaning of the Temple teaching against the Law of Moses was objected to him Materialiter the enemies made the cause of Paul a Church businesse but formally it was sedition 1. It was a businesse for which the Sanedrim sought Pauls life and blood for which they had neither authority nor Law by divine Institution therefore they sought the helpe of Felix Festus and the Roman Deputies so Lysias vvrote to Felix Act. 23. 29. I perceived Paul to be accused of questions of their law but to have nothing layd to his charge worthy of death or of bonds Now it is clear the Roman Deputies thought not any accusation for the Iewish Religion a matter of death and bonds and therefore Gallio the Deputie of Achaia Acts 18. 14. saith
an Artificer to make swords though he know some shall abuse them to murthering the innocent is no scandalous work I take not on me to prescribe rules for eschewing scandall in all occurrences of providence The godly learned can see more then I can doe in this matter where love should be warie to lay a straw in the way of any weake traveller Quest III. Whether or no we may deny obedience to the lawes of our Superiours for feare of Scandall causleslie taken THis is not my question but a question of the Doctors of Aberdeen yet it conduceth for the times and because one of the learnedest of these Doctors did agitate the question of scandall with me in private before the writing of that book I desire libertie to vindicate my selfe by discussing two chapters of this purpose And first the question seemeth to me many wayes vaine 1. They aske about denyall of obedience which is not proved but presumed to be obedience 2. They presume that the Masters the Lord Prelates of Pearth faction are our Superiours by no law of God or our Church was ever any superioritie conferred upon them 3. They say for scandall causlesly taken if they meane that there be no just reason indeed why any should take scandall they say nothing against us for we thinke to take scandall is to sinne if they know any just reason or cause of sinne except Satan and mens free-will we shall be taught of them If they meane scandalously taken that is not culpably given by the practisers of Ceremonies this is a Chimera and to us no question for we are not to denie obedience to lawfull lawes for eschewing Scandall when obeyers doe give no cause culpably of Scandall they would have formed the question to our reverend and learned Brethren if they had dealt plainly Whether or no we may desist from practising Coremonies which setting aside the law of Superiours are indifferent when from the practising of them ariseth the ruine of many soules for whom Christ died In things necessarie commanded and forbidden of God we cannot deny obedience but the matter of the lawes is silenced in the question to deceive the reader Duplyers IF the Scandall arising from the Articles of Pearth come ex conditione operis from the very enormitie in these Articles then are we to forbeare these â—rticles ever and not onely while they be tryed in a lawfull Assembly for such are either sinne or have a manifest show of sinne But if the scandall arise not from the Articles themselves but from malice or weaknesse we deny that we are totally to abstaine from obedience to lawfull Superiours for eschewing Scandall causlesly taken and we marvell from whence ye have learned this strange and harsh doctrine Answ 1. Your enumeration is weake for we know no Scandall justly taken but proceeding from both these weaknesse or wickedness of nature is the neerest cause of all Scandall taken because it is the cause of all sinne and to be scandalized is sinne Also it is here taken from the enormitie of the deed in that practising of things indifferent if a scandall taken either weakly or maliciously thence arise there is enormitie in the deed yet totall abstinence is not hence concluded because cessante ratione scandali when the ground of the Scandall is removed there is no enormitie in the fact 2. You define to us or rather divine that then there is an irregularitie in the fact that justly scandalizâ—th when either the fact is a sinne or then hath a manifest shew of sinne And we wonder where you learned this strange Divinitie for 1 Cor. 10. 27. To eat meat at a Feast that you are invited unto is neither sinne because v. 23. 25. it is lawfull The earth is the Lords nor is it such as hath a manifest shew of sinne as all having sense knoweth One of your prime Doctors defined to me these onely have manifest appearance of sinne Quae plâ—rumque fiunt malo fine which for the most part are done for an evill â—nd such as is to lye in bed with another mans wife to kneele before an Idoll The formâ—r in the exposition of all is done for adulterie the latter for Idolatrie I am sure to eat meats at an Infidels feast is not of that nature which is done ordinarily for an evill end it is ordinarily done to refresh nature and to solâ—â—e it which hath no manifest shew of sinne and yet if there be a weake one beside who saith that meat is offered to Idols in that case to eat is to scandalize 32. and is against the glory of God v. 31. 3. You aske from whom we learned this strange doctrine to deny obedience to the lawes of Superiours for scandall causlesly taken And we answer we learned it from the Apostle Paul who saith 1 Cor. 8. 13. If meat offend my weake brother I will eat no flesh I will abstaine totally and absolutely while the world standeth This abstinence for the date of the worlds standing God be thanked is longer then the time to a lawfull Generall Assembly was at that time yet the Apostle proveth Rom. 14. That to eat or not to eat was at that time as indifferent as to practise or not practise Ceremonies also who ever offended at Pauls eating of fleshes were offended out of weakness v. 7. and it was in that sense scandall causlesly taken Duplyers pag. 59. n. 34. The Author of the popish English Ceremonies saith that both Cajetan and Bannes affirm that we should abstain a spiritualibus non necessariis from spirituall duties not necessarie to salvation when Scandall ariseth from the doing of them but none of the Schoolemen euer taught to abstaine totally and altogether from any spirituall dutie for eschewing the scandall of either weake or wicked Answer What the author of the English Popish Ceremonies saith in that subject all your learning shall never be able to Answer for our brethren required but abstinece from these Ceremonies till they be tryed in a lawfull Generall Assemblie for they never were yet tryed in a lawfull Assemblie till the late Assemblie at Glasgow anno 1638. 2. That Author argueth a Majore and we desire an Answer if we may abstaine from spirituall duties commanded by the most high Superiour the Lord our God hic nunc in case of Scandall Ergo farre more are we to abstaine from practising of dead Ceremonies voyd of all spirit of life in the case of scandall yea and universally and totally we are to abstaine because the Superiours have no power to make lawes in materia scandalosa when that which they command is scandalous and in the very matter soule-murther Duplyers Thomas and his followers say Bona spiritualia non necessaria sunt dimittenda propter scandalum in ijs quae sunt sub consiliâ— non vero sub praecepto We may omit spirituall duties for eschewing scandall which fall under counsell but not under commandement Answer We conceive you not to
and such meats before a weake Iew for feare to scandalize him for whom Christ died But this later is untrue for by the law of nature and a perpetuall law Paul would never for meat offend his brother the law of naturall Charitie will dictate this to us without any positive mandate we are not for a mâ—â—thfull of meat the losse whereof is so small to put the soule of our brother to so incomparable a hazard as to be losed Ans These meats Rom. 14. and 1 Cor. 8. 10. were then indifferent but they are not so now when the Gospell is fully promulgate for we may not now to abstaine from Meats forbidden in the Ceremonial law for feare to offend a weake Iew for our abstinence should harden them in their â—â—beliefe that Christ is not yet come in the flesh To make Temples and houses dedicated to Saintâ— as indifferent now as meats were then and the argument were concludent But to demolish Churches and remove their physicall use now were as Iudaicall as to forbeare to eat Swines flesh We are not to deprive our selves of the physicall use of 〈…〉 of this or this meat as thinking we are bound by any law of God to forbeare the use thereof and especially we are not to doe it as conceiving we are under the tye of a law given to the Iewes whereas we are under no such tye or law at all But the disusing of Temples dedicated to Saints that the Adversaries plead for Deut. 7. is a totall renouncing of all use of them the places they alledge from the Ceremoniall law doth conclude it for the Temples silver and gold of the Idols of Canâ—an were altogether uselesse to Israel It was Achan's sinne that he tooke the Babilonish garment and the wedge of Gold for any use civill or religious though he should have bestowed these for any religious use or the reliefe of the poore and indigent yea though it was scandalous to none he having taken these privately and by theft yet the very taking of them was a curse to him and the whole Camp of Israel for the totall abandoning of all use whatsoever of these houses Gold and Silver which in themselves and by the law of Creation were physicall and in regard of that naturall use they had from their Creator to supply our necessitie can have its rise from no other totall and compleat cause but from the sole positive will of God discharging his people of the whole use of these creatures at all as if they had never been created for the use of man whether their use should be scandalous to others or not scandalous But by the law of nature which I grant saith Thou shalt not scandalize nor murther the soule of him for whom Christ hath died The Romans Rom. 14. and the Corinthians 1 Cor. 8 were forbidden the eating of fleshes forbidden in Moses law But with these two restrictions 1. they were forbidden not all eating of these meats in private but only in the presence of a weak Iew and for the conscience of others in the case of scandal 1 Cor 10 28 29. 2 They were not by the law of nature that inhibites scandall forbidden the totall use of these meats in any case so as they should make these meats utterly uselesse to themselves or to any others As the Iewes were forbidden to make use of the Canaanitish Idols Gold and money And of the Cattell of the Amalekites either secretly or openly either in the case of scandall given to others or not given And Achan payed deare for his Babilonish garment and his wedge of Gold though he tooke it by theft Ob. 2. But the reason of the law is the soule of the law Now the reason of the Law Deut. 7. 25. why God forbade his people to take the Gold or Silver of the graven image is lâ—st thou be ensnared therein But this reason holdeth under the Now Testament and is moral and perpetuall The very matâ—riall house dedicated to Saints and Idolâ— by Papists is a snare to our soules if we shall worship God in them or if we shall name the Church from Cutbert Giles or the like except we would say as Papists doe that we are not now under the New Testament so much â—â—clined to Idolatrie as the people of the Iewes were of old Ans The halfe-reason or incompleat morall ground of the law is not the soule of the law But you must take in all the reasons the words of the text are these Thou shalt not desire the silver and gold that is on them nor take it to thee lest thou be insnared therein for it is an abomination unto the Lord thy God v. 26. Neither shalt thou bring an abomination into thine house lest thou be a cursed thing like it Now what made that Gold an abomination to the Lord more then all the gold of the earth it is of it selfe the good and usefull creature of God no lesse then all the gold of the earth nothing made it an abomination to God but if we look to the originall cause there was a positive free command of God forbidding Israel to covet or use that Gold The Canaanites themselves by the law of nature might lawfully have melted that same very Gold and made use of it without sinne 2. It is not a good reason Such a law had a morâ—ll and perpetuall reason Ergo the law it selfe is perpetuall and morall It followeth only Ergo the moralitie of that law is perpetuall For all the Ceremoniall laws had a morall and perpetuall reason As the shadows had a moral substantiall ground in Christ the bodie of all shadowes but it doth not follow therefore the shadows and Ceremoniall law in the letter must bee perpetuall Very often in the booke of Leviticus there is no reason given of the Ceremoniall laws But be ye holy I am the Lord that sanctifies you This is a morall and perpetuall reason that endureth to the end of the world yet it is no due consequence therefore all these shadowes and Ceremonies shall indure to the end of the world The reason is because it is the sole positive will of God that maketh a temporarie concatenation between not eating blood and not being cruell and between sacrificing and being holy and yet not being cruel is perpetuall not eating blood temporarie 3 If things indifferent as the eating of flesh before a weak Jew Rom. 14. be a snare to my owne soule and to the soules of others I am to abstaine from these and the like But that I must abstaine from the totall use of any creature that God has made usefull for the life of man by the law of creation as Israel was to abstaine from the cattell of the Amalakites and to stamp in powder and make altogether uselesse the Gold and Silver of the heathen Idol-Gods is altogether unlawfull and a very Judaizing and it s to make as Paul saith Jesus Christ of no effect Object
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