we be all one body in Christ 1 Cor. 10. 16. 2. If he mean Ceremonies as such speciall materialls to wit Surplice c. as ordained of man who may ordain another Ceremony doth not immediatly respect the honour of God 1. This is to beg the question 2. A white garment upon a priest of Jupiter Sacrificing to that Idoll should immediatly respect the honour of Iupiter though the Priest might honour Iupiter with garments of white Roses or some other like device while he officiateth So bowing of the knee in prayer doth immediatly honour God though I may pray sitting or standing 3. It is a dream that the honour of the subject is given to the adjunct yea and properly is the adjunct and agreeth to the adjunct as Surplice hath the very Office and place of Gods word and Sacramentâ— to teach and signifie and yet they are but adjuncts if a mans Coat or his Hat or Shooes could discourse and reason as only the man can do in reason we should say the Coat is the man 2. They say God forbiddeth efficient and operative means of worship and grace in the second Commandment or means immediate which worketh by vertue in themselves or wrapped in them for so the word and Sacraments are means of grace and worship yea the Sacraments be exhibitive seals and therefore we owe to such means subjection of conscience immediatly both to the things instituted and particular means of admonition and to the duties admonished or called to our remembrance by them for they have vertue residing and inherent in them by divine institution to work upon us But God forbiddeth not in the second Commandment means that teach occasionally as Objectum a quo therefore we owe subjection of conscience to the things admonished but not to the particular means of admonition therefore we are tied in conscience to Ceremonies only collaterally and propter aliud they be only externall objects or occasions For whoever saith he expected that men should be stirred up by Ceremonies as by causes or any otherwayes but as by sensible objects as we are by the sight of the creatures or other memorials therefore saith he they are not means by the which grace is wrought by the power of God wrapped in them but resident in God himself that freely giveth the grace by the right use of them so D. Burges Ans All cometh to this Ceremonies taketh the place of Word and Sacraments but cannot fill the chaire and discharge the office so well as Gods Ordinances doth A Clown taketh on the Crown and usurpeth the Throne and cannot do Regall Acts with such grace of Royall Majesty as the Lawfull King what is he for that no usurping Traitor 2. He will not have Ceremonies to be causes of worship but occasions so do Papists say Images saith Vasquez do only set before us the History and effects of God Bellarmine Suarez as all know do say That Images cannot so represent Iehovah as he is in himself or described in his word nor can the Idoll or Image of God represent God as a cause but onely as an object externall and occasion and yet God forbiddeth it Isa 40. 18. Hab. 2. 19. 20. 2. Gods word to the reprobate is a sealed Book and is as if you would teach letters to a new weaned childe Isa 29. 11. c. 29. 9. It worketh by no inherent vertue wrapped in it self but though it be mighty yet is it mighty through God 2 Cor. 10. 4. Ioshuahs twelve stones the Phylacteries the Manna the Rainbow did only as Aquinas saith well worke upon the senses and memory The word it self doth but work morally or objectively and is not a cause having the power of God wrapped in it If Surplice work only as an occasion the Preachers Napkin the bands of women doth so excite the memory and the affection 3. All our Divines teach that the Sacraments are exhibitive seals but not of themselves or by any vertue inherent in them as Papists say but by the power of God which worketh by the right receiving of the Sacraments and the Sacraments Actu Primo and essentially are only signes which worketh objectively and occasionally as you say your unhallowed Ceremonies do 1. because they are Sacraments essentially whether they be received by Faith or not and they are exhibitive seals only to believers 2. Vnbelievers should not prophane the Sacraments by their unworthy receiving of them if they were not Sacraments to them only signifying and if they were exhibiting seals to them then should they receive them worthily which is against what we suppose 3. The Fathers as Justine Martyr Ireneus Epiphanius Chrysostom Ambrose prove that Circumcision in its nature except to believers did only signifie Grace 5. Here be a most vilde distinction That we owe subjection of conscience to the thing admonished but not to Surplice or to such means and particular admonishers but only collaterally But â— is the Church ordaining Ceremonies a collaterall Mistresse over the conscience who is the other collaterall judge here who but Christ 2. We owe this collaterall subjection of Conscience to the Image of the Trinity for though we owe not subjection of Conscience to the image as such an admonisher or such an exhorting object seeing the Word of God may also admonish us of God yet we owe subjection of conscience to the thing admonished to wit to the blessed trinity 3. Neither owe we subjection of conscience to the word as written with ink on paper nor to the sound of the word Preached yea nor do we owe subjection of Faith to the Word as the Word but only collaterall when we say I hope in the Word I believe the Word I rejoyce in the Word of God we take the Word for Objetum quo and God for Objectum quod for the word is not the formall object of any subjection of Conscience I owe to the Word not a subjection of Conscience collaterall or coequall with the subjection that I owe to God but only subordinate as to a mean and to the Word for God and because it is instituted by God but I owe subjection of Conscience to God solely independently and onely yea subjection of Conscience is not due to the Word for its manner of working and not due to the Ceremonies because they work not as the Word of God doth as no wonder they being but hay and stubble but subjection of Conscience is due to the Word because God is the Author of it and speaketh in it himself as is clear Ier. 13. 15. Amos 3. 8. Heb. 2. 3. Hear for the Lord hath spoken and it is to be received only and in Conscience yielded unto as it is the Word of God Isa 1. 2. 1 Thess 2. 13. Now because we cannot receive the Surplice Crossing Capping as the Surplice of God and as the Crossing of Christ therefore are we not to submit at all to the Doctrines which these
glory on every Assembly on Mount Zion for we are witnesses of Your Honours Travels for both that glory may dwell in our Land Your Honours at all respective observance in the Lord S. R. To the Ingenuous and Equitable Reader IT lieth obvious to any ordinary underderstanding worthy Reader that as alwayes we see a little portion of God so now the Lord our God in his acting on Kingdoms and Churches maketh Darknesse his Pavilion to finde out the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Demonstrative Causes and true Principles of such bloody conclusions and horrible vastations as the Soveraign Majesty of Heaven and Earth hath made in Germany Bohemiah and the Palatinate as if they were greater sinners then we are and why the windows of Divine Justice have been opened to send down such a deluge of blood on Ireland and why in Scotland the Pestilence hath destroyed in the City and the Sword of the Lord not a few in the fields their Lovers and Friends standing aloof from their calamities is from the Lord who is wonderful in Counsel but to finde reasons to quiet the understanding is not an easie scrutiny matters are rolled on invisible wheels It is enough to us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no Men no Angels can hunt out the tracings of Divine Providence Nor can we set a day of Law nor erect a Court to implead this Lord who is not holden in Law to answer for any of his matters It were our wisdom to acknowledge that the actions of our Lord ad extrà are so twisted and interwoven thred over thred that we can see but little of the walls and out-works of his unsearchable counsels sure Divine Providence hath now many irons in one fire and with one touch of his finger he stirtâ—â—h all the wheels in Heaven and Earth I speak this if happily this little piece may cast it self in the eye of the Noble and Celebrious Judges and Senators who now sit at the â—eâ—m for I hope they consider it is but a short and sorry Line or rather a poor Circle Job 1. 21. Gen. 3. 19. between the Womb and the Grave between Dust and Dust and that they then act most like themselves Psal 82. 6. I have said ye are Gods when they remember they are sinful men and when they reckon it for gain that the King of Ages gives them a Diurnal of 24 hours to build the House of the Lord to cause the heart of a Widow Church though her Husband live for evermore to sing for joy and are eyes to the blinde and legs to the lame and withall do minde that when the Spirit is within half a Cubit or the sixth part of a Span to Eternity and Death cannot adjouâ—n for six hours to repent or do any more service to Christ in the body the welcom and testimony of God shall be incomparably above the Hosanna's of men Undeniable it is that we destroy again what we have builded if we behead the Pope and divest him of his Vicarious Supremacy and soader the Man of Sins head in the Ecclesiastical Government to the shoulders of any Man or Society of men on Earth It is not an enriching spoyl to pluck a Rose or Flower from the Crown of the Prince of the Kings of the Earth Diamonds and Rubiâ—s picked out of the Royal Diadem of Jesus Christ addeth but a poor and sorry Lustre to Earthly Supremacy it is Baldnesse in steaâ— of Beauty An Arbitrary power in any whether in Prince or â— relats is intolerable Now to cast ouâ— Domination in one and to take it in in another is not to put away the Evil of our doings but to Barter and Exchange one sin with another and mockingly to expiate the Obligation of one Arrear to God by contracting new Debt Again how glorious is it that Shields of the Earth lay all their Royalty and Power level with the dust before him that sitteth on the Throne and to make their Highnesse but a Scaffold to heighten the Throne of the Son of God Yea if Domination by the Sword be the Magistrates Birth-right as the Word of Truth teacheth us Luke 22. 25 26. Psal 82. 1 6. Rom. 13. 4. and the Sword can never draw blood of the Conscience It is evident that the Lord Jesus alloweth not Carnal weapons to be used within the walls of his Spiritual Kingdom and if Power be an enchanting Witch and like strong Drink which is dolosus luctator a cosening Wrestler we are to be the more cautelous and circumspect that it incroach not upon Jesus Christ for fear that we provoke the eyes of his glory and cause Jerusalem to be plowed and Zion become heaps and many houses great and fair desolate Let the Appeal be to the Spirit that speaketh to the Churches in the Word The Golden Reed can measure every Cubit of the Temple as well the outer Porch as the Holy of Holiest and all the dimensions the length and bredth of the City which is named 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Lord is there If the Scripture be no Rule of Church Government but the Magistrates Sword be upon the shoulders of Christ as the prime Magistrate we come too near to the Jewish Earthly and Temporary Mesâ—iah And if Excommunication and Censures and that Ministerial Governing which was undeniably in the Apostolick Church be Fictions we are in the dark I confesse we know not whether the Vessels of the House should be of Gold and Silver or if they should be but Earthen Pitchers It is said That all this is but a Plea for a Dominion of an higher Nature even over the Consciences of men by Censures But why a Dominion Because a power of Censures Surely if they were not Spiritual Censures and such as hath influence on the Conscience we should yield a Domination were the businesse But this power of Censuring Spiritually is as strong as Authoritative in Dispensing Rebukes Threats Gospel-charges and Commands in the Word Preached as in Censures The power is Ministerial only in the Word not Lordly and why should it be deemed a Dominion and an Arbitrary power in the one and not in the other If the will of the Magistrate may carve out any Government that seems good to him and the Word of God in this plea be laid aside as perfect in Doctrine but imperfect and uselesse in Government we fall from the Cause But if the Word of God stand as a Rule in matters of Church-Government then the Question is only on whose shoulders the Ark should be carried and by whose Ministery doth Jesus the Lord and King of the House punish if I may use this word Scandalous men And whether doth the Head of the Church Christ in laying Judgement to the Line and Righteousnesse to the Plummet use the Magistrates Sword for a Spiritual and Supernatural end of the Service and Ministery of his Church or doth he send Pastors and Teachers as his Ambassadors for this end But if you were not
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
any intention or purpose to adore therefore this externall Adoration is a false signe and signifieth not a thing as it is and so is no worship Ans That externall bowing is not true but false I distinguish it is not true Morally because it is a false signe and a sinfull abusing of worship for there ought to be a bowâ—d heart when there is a bowed knee but if the meaning be this externall bowing is not true metaphysically and partaketh not of the nature of Religious worshipping it is false for it is truly worship and the essence and definition of worship agreeth to it for from Religious bowing there resulteth by the nature of the externall Act which is of divine institution an honouring of that before which we do bow as before a proposed object what ever be the present purpose or intention of the bower else if I bow to an Idol intending and conveying in my heart-purpose all honour to God only I should not worship an Idol The three Children cast into the fiery Furnace did but refuse externall bowing to Nebuchadnezzar and would hazard upon burning quick before they should give that to the Image for the Kings commandment was not that all should give and convey in purpose of heart to that Image all divine glory but only Religious prostration before it yet the three Children say Dan. 3. Well be it known to thee O king that we will not serve thy Gods nor worship thy golden Image 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They expresly refuse knee-bowing the reason is because if ye bow your knee Religiously to a stock it is not in your power or free choice to stay the flux and motion of Religious honour off or from the stock but because Religious bowing doth not convey honour to the thing before which ye bow by your free will but by God and natures institution even as weeping naturally expresseth sorrow laughing gladnesse so doth Religious bowing signifie Religious honouring without any act of the free choice of the worshipped intervening It is impossible to adore God in and through an Image and give no Religious reverence to the Image at all as it is impossible to hear the word and tremble at it and yet none of that Religious trembling be bounded and terminated upon the Word as it is impossible to kneel to the Kings Ambassador conveying all and whole that civill honour to the King but some honour must redound to the Ambassador a father cannot love the Doctor for his sons cause but some love he must confer really upon the Doctor if not absolute yet relative for his sons cause Jacob could not kisse Joseph his sons coat and yet refer that whole expressed affection to Ioseph and nothing at all to the coat for then should there be no reason why he should kisse the coat rather then the skin of the beast supposed to be the devourer of his son if therefore the Communicant should kisse the Sacramentall Bread as he boweth Religiously before it as the object of his Sacramentall worship which he receiveth I hope it would be thought very like the kissing of the Calves of Samaria and a Religious expression of love to the bread and by the same case Religious bowing to God by the interveening of bread a representative object must be an expression of Religious honouring of Bread but no Religious honouring by Religious bowing can be expressed but Adoration of bread for as I have proved it is not in our free Election that Religious kneeling signifie what honour we please as if it were in our power that Religious kneeling signifie Religious or civill honour or more or lesse Religious honour but our will or thoughts cannot change the nature of things kneeling is essentially Religious as Iohannes Delugo defineth it Nota submission is internae 2. Suarez objecteth Adoration is a voluntary action proceeding from the will of the Adorer and therefore excluding this will it is not Adorations but only the materiall action of adoring also adoration is honouring but none can honour without an intention of honoring and therefore he who externally giveth signes of honour to an Idol without an intention to honour the Idol doth not truly honour and adore the Idol but only dissembleth Ans Qui bené distinguit benè solvit Our third distinction doth well answer this The naked materiall action of bowing Physically considered wanting all Religious will of adoring is not an honouring if a Carpenter bow before an Image to drive a naile in it he doth not worship the Image because that is an action In statu artis non in statu Religionis In a state of Art not in 〈◊〉 Religious state But the voluntary bowing before any thing in a state of worship or Religion as it s here is Adoration for there is voluntary bowing in a Religious way of a state but there is not required a particular intention to Adore the signe that is accidentall to the nature of worship Suarez objecteth The eâ—â—â—nce of Adoration requireth the intention of the Adorer therefore the adoring of this or that thing requireth a proportionable intention of adoring the thing Ans 1. The Antecedent is not universally true and is a begging of the question because externall adoring of an Idol may be without intention to adore an Idol 2. Though the Antecedent were true that an absolute Adoration of God requireth the intention of the doer as it is not true Lawfull and sincere Adoration indeed requireth the intention but not absolute adoration Though I say it were true yet it followeth not that a relative adoration requireth an intention of giving co-adoration or relative worship to the signe Suarez 3. Objecteth The honouring of one thing cannot properly be called the honouring of another thing different therefrom except that honouring be some way referred by the minde to that other thing or except they be partakers one of another but the Image and first samplar or prototype are different things therefore the honouring of the first samplar cannot be called the honouring of the Image except the honouring by the intention be referred to the Image I answer The Image and Samplar are one in a sinfull imagination as Jehovah and the Golden Calf are one but it followeth not that there must be two distinct intentions one in adoring the Prototype and in coadoring the Image another But he who intendeth to honour the King in his Ambassadors person needeth not two intentions one by which he intendeth to honour the King another whereby he intendeth to honour his Ambassador SECT II. Whether the Idolatrous Jevvs were charged with the crime of Idolatry because they adored the creature as such or because they adored the Godhead in with or under the creatures shape and whether or no do Papists commit Idolatry with them in this point LEt these considerations go before 1. That the Jews believed the Image to be God by vvay of representation not essentially or really they believed
his glory laid down in the hand of any creature as it dishonoureth the Husband that his wife give her body to another representing his person For this cause Bernardus Puiol faith Images are properly to be Adored contrary to that which Durandus saith And Azorius saith It is the common opinion that Images are to be worshipped with Latreia the highest honour due to God So saith he Thomas Alexander Bonaventura Richardus Albertus Paludanus Alman Marsilius Capreolus Cajetanus caeteri juniores sic sentiunt The fourth expression of wit is this distinction of Vasquez That that internall submission to God as to the Creator and chief God is due to God only and that the image seeing it is a Creature is not capable of that high honour But the externall act of kissing and kneeling he will have due to the image for the excellency of the Samplar And so he denyeth contrary to Suarez That the image separated from the Samplar or the humanity of Christ separated from Divinity can be Adored But if externall Adoration may be given to images so also internall submission Thou shalt not bow down to them Religiously it is expounded in the second Commandment Thou shalt not Worship them It is grossenesse in Vasquez to say The Worshipping of images was forbidden the Iews in the second Commandment as a Ceremoniall inhibition because of the Iews propension to idolatry But Act. 17. 29. Paul expoundeth the second Commandment Forbidding the similitude of God And the Athenians were not under the Law of Ceremonies Ioannes de Lugo saith This is a probable opinion But it is clear Cornelius a devout man one who feared and worshipped God whose Prayers were heard in heaven for Christs sake knew that Peter was a man which lodged in the house of Simon a Tanner yet his Religious externall bowing though he knew Peter was not God but a Divine man resembling God by Peter is rebuked as idolatry Act. 10. v. 25 26. I cannot help Ioan. de Lugo to say That Peter forbade Cornelius to worship him not because it was a sin but for modesties cause But 1. Peters Argument striketh against idolatry ver 26. Stand up he forbiddeth Religious kneeling for I my self also a man The very Argument that Paul and Barnabas useth Act. 14. â—er 15. We also are men c. and used against the idolatry of Lystra expresly condemned in that place And the Angels Argument against the idolatry of Iohn Rev. 19. 10. I am thy fellow servant Worship God Ergo externall Religious bowing should not be given to any save to God 2. Peter and the Angel should have opened the Jesuits and Formalists distinction if worshipping of Saints and dumbe images be worshipping of God and the honour principally of inward acknowledgment of the Supremacy and Soveraignty of God be intended in bowing to images and modesty should not forbid honouring of God And whereas Ioannes de Lugo saith Iohn was forbidden to Worship the Angel to signifie that our nature in Christ was advanced to a dignity above the Angels But 1. then it is unlawfull to any to worship Angels 2. Nor is it Lawfull to give the Virgine Mary Divine worship as Suarez saith 1. For her excellency in touching Christ 2. For her Grace and Sanctity 3. For her mothers place in bearing Christ because her nature in Christ is not exalted above the nature of other believers for the nature common to all believers and Eadem specie was assumed by Christ 3. The Angel saith Worship God he therefore believed the Worshipping of Angels was not the Worshipping of God All these fight against Religious bowing before the elements in due regard of so Divine mysteries the Bread would say if it could speak See thou do it not for I also am a Creature The fifth trick of wit is a distinction of Suarez That one and the same act of Adoration may be given and is given in externall Worship to the image and to God but in reference to God it is Latreia the high Honouring of God and in reference to the image it is an inferior Veneration So do our Formalists say as Burges saith Adoration and Veneration differ not but by mens will and if it be lawfull to Adore God before the Ark Why not at the Sacrament The Bread and the Wine are Christ significative as the Ark had the title of Iehovah by occasion of the elements not as they are but as they signify we may tender a knee-worship not at all to them but only to God or Christ And again he holdeth it lawfull to Adore the elements but then Adoration as given to the elements is Veneration and Adoration in a large sence 1 Chron. 29. 20. The people Worshipped God and the King The outward Adoration was one as the word by which it is expressed was one but the Religious and Civill worship were distinct in the minde and intention of the worshippers Edward the 6. Book saith Kneeling is to eschew prophaning of the Sacrament Opposit to prophaning is externall Religious honouring expressed by kneeling and that is Adoring Hence one and that same Adoration and externall bowing is given to Bread and to Christ but the minde and will of the Adorer maketh the same act in reference to Christ Adoration or Latreia of the highest degree of honour but in reference to the Bread lawfull Veneration of an inferior nature Answer 1. If it were possible that the Wise could transmit her body in the act of Harlotry by or through a strange Lover to her Husband her will and minde might change Adultery if she saith she giveth her body to a stranger but in her minde and will intendeth to bring forth children to her own Husband So if divers acts of the minde make Religious kneeling to a stock or Bread lawfull if one should Adore the man Iudas as a memoriall of Christ his intention of will might save his Soul if he say I give one and the same externall worship to Iudas and to Christ Or if Cornelius should say I give one and the same knee worship to Peter and to Christ but in my intention they be far different For I Worship Iudas and Peter in that act with Civill homage Commanded in the fifth Commandment as they be Christs Apostles and represent him but in that same I Worship Christ with the highest honour called Latreia Vasquez and Burges make them one externall Worship The three Children might have kneeled to the Image of Nebuchadnezzer for their minde and will as Formalists say might have put another signification of honouring the Lord Iehovah upon their knee-worship and externall kneeling could not have been denyed to the Lord Iehovah and so the three Children should not have given Divine honour and knee-glory to the Image and they were fooles who did hazard their bodies to the fire But wisemen think if they had given knee-worship what ever their heart thought they should
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
sendeth his Apostles and Pastors to the end of the world as is clear if we compare Matth. 18. 18. and Matth. 16. 19. with Ioh. 20. 20 21 22. 23. Mar. 16. ver 15 20. Matth. 28. 18 19 20. Luk. 24. 45 46 47 48. 5. It is against the course of the Text that we should restrain this to private pardoning of light injuries between brother and brother 1. Becase Christ labours to decline this that one shall be both his brothers judge to put him in the condition of an Heathen and Publican and binde his brothers sins in Heaven and Earth and also that he should be his party and accuser Now Christ will have the private brother do no more personally but admonish his brother and gain him 2. If that prevail not then he is to admonish him before two or three witnesses See here the brother is not both party and judge but witnesses have place 3. If that prevail not the businesse is to ascend higher even to the Church which undoubtedly is an Organicall body 1 Cor. 12. 28. Rom. 8. 6 7 c. Act. 20. 28 29 30. Whereas two or three private Christians are not a Church but an homogeneal body Now who would believe that Christ is to bring down the businesse which is so high as before the Church to the lowest step again to a private binding and loosing to one brother who both as judge and party judgeth his brother yea and may do this though there were no Chuâ—ch on earth What power hath the Church above the offended brother or the offender if the one may binde the other under guiltinesse in earth and heaven 2. Erastus will have light and private offences only spoken of here Now Christ speaketh of offences that God taketh notice of in Heaven and earth 3. Christs way is a wise and meek way that that which one cannot do and the offence that two three four cannot remove the Church shall remove but Erastus maketh one private man to remove it and to Excommunicate and binde in heaven and earth I might cite Tertullian Cyprian Augustine Chrysostom The ophylact Hyeronimus and all modern interpreters both Popish and Orthodox for this interpretation not any of them dreaming of the insolent opinion of Erastus who misapplieth Augustine and Theophylact for his own way as Beza cleareth CAP. IV. Quest 1. That the place 1 Corinthians 5. doth evince that Excommunication is an Ordinance of God THE Argument for Excommunication may be thus framed from 1 Cor. 5. If Paul command that the incestuous man should be delivered to Satan ver 5. purged out of the Church least as leaven he should corrupt the Church ver 6 7. That they should iudge him ver 12. And put him avvay from amongst them ver 13. So as they vvere not to eat vvith him ver 9. 10. Then is there a divine command for Excommunication for the Commandments of the Apostles are the Commandments of the Lord 1 Cor. 14. 37. 2 Pet. 3. 2. But the former is true Ergo so is the latter There is no ground or shadow of reason to expound this expelling of the incestuous man by the preaching of the word without any Church-censures for all that is required in Excommunication is here 1. This putting out was not done by one single Pastor as putting out by the preaching of the word is done but by a company and Church ver 4. In the name of the Lord Iesus vvhen ye are gathered together and my spirit 2. Paul should have written to any one Pastor to cast him out by preaching but here he writeth to a Church 3. He forbiddeth company or eating with such like men v. 10. Now this is more then rebuking by preaching 4. This is a judging of the incestuous man and a casting of him out of their society which is another thing then preaching the word Erastus and others expound the giving to Satan of a delivering of the man to Satan to be miraculously killed as were Ananias and Saphira Act. 5. 5. And because at this time there was no Christian Magistrate to use the sword against the man therefore he writeth to the Church that they by their prayers would obtain of God that Satan might take him out of the midst of them Ans This insolent interpretation wanteth all warrant of the word For 1. To deliver to Satan hath no Scripture to make this sense of it to pray that Satan would destroy the man 2. It wanteth an example in the old or new Testament that the whole Church are fellow-Agents and joynt causes in the bodily destruction of any or in working of miracles such as was the killing of Ananias and Saphira The Apostles wrought miracles and that by their Faith and Prayers and Christ and the Prophets but that the Believers who should have mourned for this scandall 1. Who were puffed up 2. Who were in danger to be leavened with the mans sin and had their consent in Excommunication should joyn in a miraculous delivering to Satan is an unparalleld practise in the word 3. To deliver to Satan cannot be expounded here but as 1 Tim. 1. 20. Where Paul saith he had delivered Hymenaeus and Alexander to Satan now that was not to kill them but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they might receive instruction and be disciplined by this medicinall Church-revenge not to blaspheme I know of no instructing of these who are dead if there be two deliverings to Satan let Erastus and his expound it to us 4. The Apostle expresly saith he wrote to them not to keep company with such men nor with Fornicators covetous men Drunkards Extortioners Idolators Now Erastus his minde must be that the Apostles and Churches of Corinth Philippi Thessalonica grievouâ—ly sinned against God in that they did not miraculously kill all the Drunkards the covetous persons the fornicators whereas they are commauded to admonish them as brethren 2 Thess 3 14 15. and to pray for them if they sin not against the holy Ghost 1 Ioh. 5. 16. 1 Tim. 2. 3. 5. Paul rebuketh this as a morall fault amongst the Corinthians such as is not to mourn for this mans fault and to keep him as leaven in the midst of them and not to cast him out Whereas in all the Scripture you finde none ever rebuked because they put not forth in Acts an extraordinary and miraculous power to work miracles working of miracles came upon persons called thereunto by extraordinary rapts and were in men not as habits under the power of free-will but as immediate Acts of God even as fire-flaughts are in the Aire So I conceive while I be better informed 6. And shall it not follow that now when the Churches have Christian Magistrates it is the will of our meek saviour that they kill with the sword all the Drunkards Fornicators and all that walketh unorderly which should make the Church of Christ a Butcher-house whereas we are to admonish all such as brethren 2 Thess 3.
the preaching of the word in which Commandments Promises and threatnings are proposed to all in generall there be rebukes of the Church the sentencing of such and such persons by name as Hymeneus and Philetus and other Blasphemers the Authoritative Declaration that such a brother is to be esteemed as a Heathen and a Publican and brotherly fellowship of eating and drinking with such an one denied that he may be ashamed if these be then are some debarred from the holy things of God by Church-Censures beside the preaching of the word of God But the former is true Ergo so is the latter The Proposition is proved because all wicked persons and heart-hypocrites are excluded from the holy things of God by the Preaching of the Word But only these that are notoriously and by testimony of witnesses convinced to be scandalous or contumacious in atrocious sins after they are by name rebuked and are declared to be esteemed as Heathen and Publicans and from whom we are to withdraw brotherly fellowship are excluded from the holy things of God by Discipline and Church Censures The Assumption I prove Because the word is preached to all by one in office and that a Steward and dispenser of the mysteries of God and he excludeth all unworthy ones known to be such or invisible only from the kingdom of God But the Censure 1. Is inflicted by many 2 Cor. 26. by the Church Matth. 18. 17. conveened together 1 Cor. 54. 2. It is applied to such persons by name 1 Cor. 5. 5. He that hath done such a deed ver 2. Hymeneus Alexander 1 Tim. 1. 20. Jezabel Rev. 2. 20. 3 The whole congregation is not to eat or Table with such an one 1 Cor. 5. 11. We are to note and observe him and to have no company with him that he may b ashamed 2 Thes 3. 14. to esteeme him as an Heathen and a Publican and exclude him from the Seals of the Covenant so long as he remaineth in that state 3. Arg. If a person may for not hearing the Church be judged as an Heathen and a Publican and his sinnes bound in heaven by the Church then by discipline he is excluded from the holy things of God in a peculiar way in the which contumacious persons uncircumcised in heart are excluded in foro interno Dei in Gods secret Court But the former is true Matt. 18. 15. 16 17 18. Ergo c. Now if there be two Courts one before God Rom. 2. 16. Rom. 14. 4. 1 Cor. 14. 25. 1 Ioh. 3. 21. Another of the Church Mat. 18. 15. 16 c. 1 Cor. 5. 4 5 6 11 12. and two sorts of bindings two sorts of Witnesses two sorts of Sentences then can it not be dedenyed but the Church hath a spirituall Court for censures as well as for preaching the Word 4. Arg. Exclusion of an offender from the societie of the Saints and not to eate or drinke with him is some other reall visible censure accompanied with shame then any censure by the preaching of the Word but there is such a censure inflicted by the Church Ergo The Proposition is cleare from Rom. 16. 17. Now I beseech you brethren marke them that cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which yee learned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and avoid them Here is a reall visible and personall note of shame put on Schismaticks a bodily declining and avoiding of their company which could not possibly be done by preaching of the Word But some may say this was not done by the Church court but every one as private christians were to eschew the society of Schismaticks and by this you cannot conclude any Church censure Answ Not to say that it were unjustice to decline any and renounce society with him before he were convinced to be factious according to Christs order Mat. 18. which to Erastus is a way of common and naturall equity And so in order to some publique censure before the Church Paul wâ—iâ—eth to a constitute Church at Rome in which he prescribeth Rom. 12. the Officers duty as what Pastor Doctor Elder Deacon ought to doe in a Church body We cannot imagine he could command every private Christian to inflict the censure and punishment for a punishment it is in order to a publike sin of avoiding any in Church communion professing they serve the Lord Iesus Christ as these doe verse 18. upon their owne private opinion Iesus Christ and his Apostles must have left men loose in all order and discipline by this way howbeit the adversary would deny a church punishment here is a punishment inflicted by many 2 Cor. 2. 6. And it is not inflicted by way of preaching so 2 Thes 3. 14. If any man obey not our word by this Epistle note that man have no company with him that he may be ashamed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the learned is to put a publike church note on him that he may be confounded make him a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a publike wonder that he may be ashamed as Piscator and P. Baynes observe on the place expounding it of excommunication and the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is here is used toward the incestuous man who was to be excommunicated 1 Cor. 5. 9. I wrote unto you in an Epistle not to keepe company with fornicators the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ver 1. is ascribed to the incestuous man and here they are not to be mixed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with fornicators vers 11. But now I have written unto you not to keepe company if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator or covetous or an idolater or a railer or an extortioner with such a one no not to eate And that we may know that this is a church censure he addeth ver 12. For what have I to doe to judge them also that are without Ergo this no keeping company with such is a Church judging 5. Arg. The Church of Pergamus is rebuked for having amongst them such as hold the doctrine of Balaam and Revel 2. 14. and Thyatira that they suffered Iezabel to preach and seduce the servants of God ver 20. as the Church of Ephesus is praised v. 2. that they cannot beare with them that are evill but had tryed such that said they were Apostles and were not and had found them liars Rev. 2. 3. Here is it clearely supposed that these churches were to censure false teachers if any shall say they were to censure them no other waies but by preaching against their errors 1. This would establish a Prelate above the Church contrary to that of Mat. 18. Tell the Church and 1 Cor. 5. Where the Church gathered together was to excommunicate 2. The Angel of the Church is taken collectively for all the Rulers and the whole Church to whom Christ writeth as is cleare in that he saith so often He that hath an eare let him heare what the Spirit saith to
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
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
in way of Preaching or in way of censure is a part of the Gospel But Pastors are to Preach the Gospel to all to great and small who stand in need of Reconciliation 2 Cor. 5. 20 Act. 9. 15. He is a chosen vessel to me to bear my name before Gentiles and Kings and the Children of Israel Erastus It is false that the Sword of the Magistrate is not sufficient to coerce sins Psal 101. Kings have put to death those that seek not God It is nothing that you say the Priest judged those same sins in a spirituall manner that the Magistrate judged politically for it is false that the Priests judged in a Judicature separated from the Civill Judges as your Presbytery sitteth See Levit. cap. 4. 5. 6. God seemeth to have given no Laws of punishing offenders by themselves as with us least we should imagine two distinct Judicatures Ans We deny not but the Sword is sufficient to punish offenders in its own kinde in order to the peace of the Common-wealth to remove evil to cause others fear to pacifie Gods wrath as the Scriptures speak so David and good Kings purged the city of God but Erastus cannot deny but God ordained spirituall means of rebukings putting out of the Camp eschewing the company of offenders that they may be ashamed and those spirituall means have a spirituall influence on the soul to remove offences to gain the offenders Matth. 18. 15. Psal 110 2. Isa 11. 4. Psal 141. 5. 2 Thess 3. 14 15. 2. The word maketh the Priests separated from Civill Iudges Zach. 3. 7. The Angel of the Lord protested unto Ioshua the high Priest if thou wilt walk in my wayes and keep my charge then thou shalt also judge my house and thou shalt keep my courts The Civill Magistrate judged not the house of God the way that the High Priest did The Divines that noteth on the place say The chief part in Ecclesiasticall affairs was upon the High Priest Deu◠17. 12. 2 Chron. 19. 11. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is given to the Priest is to judge to give out sentence in judgement the very word that is given to King Iosiah He judged the cause of the poor and needy and Ier. 5. 28. They judge not the cause the cause of the fatherlesse and Ier. 21. 12. O house of David execute judgement in the morning and the sons of Aaron the Priests 1 Chron. 24. 5. are made some of them Governors of the sanctuary and Governors of the house of God It is the word that signifies Princes 2 Kin. 9. 5. A word to thee O Prince 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Sam. 22. 2. 1 Chro. 11. 6. Ier. 17. 25 Num. 23. 3. 10. All the princes of Moab Isa 30. 4. Isa 10. 8. Are not my princes Kings and Lev. 4. 5 6. chapters judiciall acts are given to the Priest that are proper to him as Priest which none do but he nor have the Civill ludges any part in it more then they can offer sacrifices which none do but the priests for he was to judge of the quality of the sins and might not offer any sacrifice for every sin nor dip his finger in the blood of the bullock seven times for every sin this spirituall judicature was the Priests And neither Moses the Prince nor any Civill Iudge on earth could share with the Priests in judging this all the world will say the judge may use the sword against the Murtherer and Elders or Pastors have not to do with the sword at all and the Pastors are to convince rebuke and work upon the conscience of the Murtherer to gain him to repentance and no civill judge as a civill judge hath to share with him in this here be distinct punishments one corporall and civill another spirituall why then must they not flow from two distinct Iurisdictions or if it displease any man that we call Church-censures with the name of punishment we can forbear the name for rebukes suspension from the Sacraments Excommunication because they are intrinsecally and of their own nature such as tend not to the hurt but to the gaining and saving of the souls of the persons censured they are unproperly punishments as the power and court they come from is unproperly a rod a Iudicature a Court and those that inflict the censures improperly Iudges yet can it not be denied to be spirituall Government and that there is a spirituall sword the word of God and a spirituall coaction flowing from Heralds or servants in the name of the King of Kings and Head of the Church who reigneth in his own Ordinances and Ministers Erastus The priests bade Uzziah not burn incense because it was their part only to sacrifice But vvhere is it vvritten that the King vvas condemned by the sentence of the Priests Ans The Priests were a Colledge of Elders who not only judicially condemned the Kings fact as against the Lavv of God but 2 Chron. 26. Azariah and eighty priests vvith him vvithstood him and resisted him yea they gave out sentence against him ver 18. It pertaineth not unto thee Vzziah to burn incense to the Lord but to the Priests the sons of Aaron that are consecrated to burn incense go out of the sanctuary for thou hast trespassed they give out the sentence of the Law of God Numb 16. 40 Nor might any come in to the Holy place but the Priests and Levites Num. 18. 6 7. here is a sentence judiciall by the voyces of 80. Priests in an externall court given out against the supream Magistrate for they gave not out this sentence as private men but as Priests judging according to the Law and in this the King was subject to Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction Erastus It is a vaine thing to say they Excommunicate not the Magistrate as the Magistrate none but Kata-baptists and such as deny Magistracy to be an Ordinance of God can say that Every man might excuse rebellion so and say I persecute not the Magistrate as he is a Magistrate but as he is a tyrant But I say you may not reproach the Magistrate Exod. 22. farre lesse may you punish him How can I obey him whose whole life and actions I may by Power and coaction limit The Magistrate so is but a servant to the Presbytery Ans Erastus scorneth this distinction to say the Magistrate not as a Magistrate but as a scandalous man is Excommunicated Yet we can make him receive the distinction whether he will or not For Erastus saith that Pastors may rebuke convince and threaten the Magistrate Good man may Pastors threaten and rebuke the Magistrate as the Magistrate or may they only threaten and rebuke him as an offending man Erastus dare not say the first for so he were a grosse Kata-baptist for then Pastors were to rebuke the very office and to condemne it if he say the latter as he doth in expresse words then he acknowledgeth that Pastors may bind
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
corrupt Heterodox and all the Pastors have corrupted their wayes 5. Civill punishing of Church-men when they are Hereticall and scandalous we heartily yield to Magistrates But that Magistrates as such should Excommunicate and admit such to the Sacrament and reject other such and rebuke or that the Magistrate as the Magistrate did of old judge between the clean and the unclean cast out from the congregation and camp and receive in and so governe the Church is altogether unwarranttable Now the adversaries as Erastus grant that Idolaters Apostates and extreamly prophane men are to be cast out of the Christian society and not to be suffered there and also that Dogs and Swine and Apostates persecutâ—rs are neither to be admitted to hear the Word nor partake of the Sacraments So also Mr. Pryn if Magistrates must cast them out of the Church by vertue of their office and judge as Magistrates who are prophane and who truly feare God and who are dogs and Apostates who not surely then Magistrates as Magistrates must discerne between the cleane and the uncleane as Priest of old and must separate the precious from the vile as the Prophets did of old and so were the mouth of God and must stand before the Lord leâ— 15. 19. Then must Magistrates as Magistrates be Pastors called in the Pulpit as well as in the Throne and the Bench and that by vertue of their calling which neither Erastus nor the reverend Mr. Pryn will owne Now if the Elders of the Church with the consent of the people must cast such out of the Church and from communion in the holy things of God here is in expresse termes the very Ecclesiasticall Excommunication which Mr. Pryn denieth to be an Ordinance of God and yet it must be commanded by Iesus Christ in these words Mat. 7. 6. Give not holy things unto dogs and therefore keep not in Church communion the prophane and by the way Mr. Pryn to me yeeldeth the cause and granteth that Excommunication and suspension from the Sacraments doe both fall under this precept of Christ Mat. 7. That which falleth under a command of Christ to me is a Divine Ordinance 2. He saith also reasoning against are suspension from the Sacraments Obstinate scandalous sinners make no conscience at all of receiving the Sacrament and voluntarily suspend themselves there-from in case they be freely admitted to other Ordinances it being onely the totall Exclusion from the Church and all Christian society not any bare suspension from the Sacrament which worketh both shame and remorse in excommunicate persons as Paul resolveth 1 Thes 3. 14. 1 Cor. 5. 13. compared with 1 Cor. 1. to v. 10. 3. This is in terminis excommunication proved from divers places of Scripture for it is a totall Exclusion from the Church and all Christian society working shame and remorse as Paul resolveth We seeke no more Pauls resolution to us is a Divine right Those words of that Learned and Reverend man have give me leave by the way to say for I hope worthier then I am do answer fully all he hath said in this subject all that we crave For 1. obstinate men will voluntarily suspend themselves from the Sacrament Ergo the Church should not suspend them onely but also Excommunicate them I grant all if they be obstinate they are to be not only suspended but also excommunicated Ergo they are not solie and onely to be suspended Pro hac vice for this time it followeth no waies all that this Reverend Lawyer saith against sole suspension from the Sacrament of an obstinate offender is nothing against us if he be obstinate he is not onely to be suspended from the Sacrament but also if he goe on in refusing to heare the admonitions of brethren and of the Church he is to be excommunicated Ergo he is not first hac vice to be suspended from a confirming Ordinance given to those onely who are supposed to have the life of faith and can onely eat and drinke spiritually and by faith the body and blood of Christ It followeth not I thinke Mr. Pryn would not have Hereticks and Apostates suddenly and at the first totally as he saith excluded from the Church and all Christian society sure we owe some gentlenes and patience even to them If God peradventure may give them Repentance to scape out of the snare of the Devil 2 Tim. 2. 24. 25 26. yet if an Heretick and Apostate that same day that the Lords Supper were to be celebrated should deny the Resurrection and Iesus Christ to be God blessed for ever and not equall with the Father nor consubstantiall with him and withall should that same day have offered his childe to Molech and yet professe his desire to come to the Lords Supper professing he had tryed and examined himselfe and his desire to come to eate and drinke with Iesus Christ the great Prophet of his Church Would not Mr. Prynne thinke he should not be admitted to the Lords Supper and yet that he should not totally be excluded from the Church and all communion from the Church and holy things of God I should think if he cannot be presently excommunicated yet he should not be admitted to the Sacrament for sure he cannot but be in a doggish and swinish disposition in one degree or other And my reason is he is as Erastus saith non rectè institutus not rightly instructed but heterodoxe and so cannot try and examine himselfe while he be better principled in the faith so a suspension for a time from the Lords supper and ex natura rei without totall exclusion from the Church and all Christian society were as necessary whether the Magistrate or Church suspend I dispute not now as a degree of punishment or a preventing of eating of damnation is necessary hiâ— nunc O but saith Master Prinne Christ knew that Iudas was worse than an heretick and yet he denied not to admit him to the Supper Ergo though we knew such a one the Sacrament being a converting Ordinance it followeth not that we should debarre him from the Sacrament Ans Whether Iudas did eat the Supper of the Lord or not I think nothing of the matter only Master Prinne hath duram provinciam and a very hard task to prove it from Scripture If I were to examine his book I should deny his consequences from the Evangelists for not any of them can prove that Iudas did communicate at the last Supper But 1. Christs example in this being an act of Christ as God permitting the greatest hypocrisie on earth is no rule to the Church to give the Lords Supper to Iuddasses First Iudas was visibly and infallibly to Christ a man who deserved to be totally excluded out of the Church and all Christian societie and to Christ a knowne traitor a Devill an hypocrite Ergo as Christ did not exclude him out of the Church neither should the Saints now exclude from their society nor should the Christian
in the second table Rom. 13. 3 4. Isai 49 23. and you said elsewhere that externall peace is too narrow an object for the Magistrate for the intrinsecall end of a Magistrate is also a supernaturall good and not only a peaceable but also a godly life 1 Tim. 2. 2. Ans It is true the Magistrate as the Magistrate doth care for the supernaturall good of subjects and the duties of Religion and the first table but how intrinsecally and as a magistrate that is that men worship God according to his word But 1. The magistrate as such hath nothing to do with the spirit nor can he command the sincerity of the worship his care is that there be a divine worship that is materially and externally right and consonant externally to the rules of the word and for this cause learned divines make the externall man the object of the magistrates office but not the externall man as doing the duties of the second table only but also as serving God in the duties of the first table for which cause I said Augustine meant the same when he said that Kings serve God as men and as Kings 2. Magistrates as magistrates are to extend their power for Christ that is that not only there be Iustice and Peace amongst men but also that there be Religion in the land yea that the Gospel be preached so all our Divines make the King to be custos â—t vindex utriusque tabule Yea I think he is a keeper and preserver of the Gospel also and is to command men to serve Christ and professe the Gospel and to punish the blaspheming of Iesus Christ and this is royall and magistraticall service that the King as King performeth to God and to Iesus Christ the mediator ex conditione operis in regard that good which he procureth as King materially and externally is consonant to the supernaturall Law of the Gospel but it is not magistraticall service to Christ ex intentione operantis Obj. 4. When it s required that the Magistrates be men fearing God hating coveteousnesse c. is not this an essentiall ingredient of an King as a King that he read in the book of the Law that he may feare God Deut. 17 Ans There is a twofold goodnesse here to be considered one of the magistrate as a magistrate another as a good and Christian magistrate The former is an officiall goodnesse or a magistraticall prudence justice and goodnesse this is required of all magistrates as such to judge the people so the acts of an heathen magistrate done according to common naturall equity by Nebuchadnezzar Pilate Cesar Felix Festus are to be acknowledged as acts of a Lawfull Magistrate valide and no lesse essentially Magistraticall then if performed by King David and of this goodnesse the Scriptures speak not as essentiall to a Magistrate as a Magistrate But there is another goodnesse required of Magistrates as they are Members of the Iewish Church and as they are Christians and of these the Scripture speaketh and so Magistrates not as Magistrates but as good and Christian are to be such as feare God hate covetousnesse respect not the face and favour of men so it s denied that the fear of God hating of covteousnesse are essentiall ingredients of Kings as Kings For Kings as Kings intend justice peace godlinesse materially considered both ex conditione operis and operantium But for justice and righteous judgement in a spirituall and an Evangelick way that belongeth not to the essence of a Magistrate nec ex conditione seu ex intentione operis nec ex conditione operantis The Holy Ghost requireth it of judges as they would approve themselves as truly Holy and Religious and would be accepted of God and in this sense Kings as Kings do not serve God nor the mediator Christ nor yet as men only they serve God and the mediator Christ as Christian Kings or as Christian men rather III. According to that third member of our seventh Distinction The unjust and evil exercise of the Ministeriall power is obnoxious to the magistrate as the magistrate thus in that he beareth the sword against all evil doers Ro. 13. 1. The magistrate as the magistrate doth only command well doing in order to praise and a good name or temporall reward amongst men Rom. 13. 3. Do that which is good and thou shalt have praise of the power 1 Tim. 5. 17. Matth. 10. 10. Nor can the magistrate as the magistrate promise or command the Elders to feed the Flock with the promise of the reward that Peter promiseth 1 Pet. 5. 4. to wit That when the chief shepheard shall appear they shall receive a Crown of glory that fadeth not away The magistrate as a Preacher if he be one as David and Solomon were both or as a godly religious Christian man may hold forth such a promise but not as a Magistrate and upon the same ground the Magistrate as the Magistrate cannot forbid careles unsound preaching and rigorous and tyrannicall ruling or rather domineering over the Flock under the pain of death eternall for he can but kill the body and hath but the carnall and temporall sword Rom. 13. 4. and so he can inhibite ill doing only in order to temporary punishment and though the duty of the former be spirituall and the sinne of the latter also yet the externall man is capable only of the Magistrates promises and threatnings as they respect evill or good temporary so that it is a wonder to me that M. Pryn or any learned man can say that magistrates can make Lawes to binde the conscience sure it is ill divinity 2. If there never had been sin there should have been no government but of Fathers and Husbands there should have been no magistraticall dominion not any magistraticall allurement to weldoing by temporall rewards not any terrifying from evill doing from fear of the sword death stripes or bands and God governed the Apostolick Church and they attained the Crowne and supernaturall end of life eternall without the accessory hire of a a temporary reward from the magistrate and the subsidy of his sword Ergo it is evident that the magistrate is neither an essentiall nor an integrall part of the visible Church as the visible Church injoying all the Ordinances of God Word Sacraments Discipline Censures Rebukes Admonition Excommunication Prayers Mutuall edification in as great perfection as is happily attainable in this life without yea against the will of the civill magistrate Though it be a great incouragement to have the King a Nurse-father yet hath not Christ counted it simply necessary to his visible Church injoying all the Ordinances of God to the full 3. If the magistrate do only command the teachers and Pastors to preach and determine synodically in order to a temporall reward and forbid them to abuse their ministeriall power in order to temporary punishment by the temporary sword then surely the Pastors and Teachers are
his enemies his footstool and subdue all things to himselfe Ergo his Kingdome is as large as all things Ans The Lord Iesus Christs power Kingly and his power mediatory which includeth a power as God for he is Mediator and a mediatory King according to both natures doth no way make him King of Devils of Hell of sin of the reprobate and damned no more then Davids power over Ammonites and Moabites makes him King and feeder of the Ammonites and Moabites Never Divine said that Christ was King of Devils and King of Hell though he subdue Devils and Hell and make them his footstool Col. 2. 15. But as hability and gifts was not sufficient to make Christ a Priest but he behooved to have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 authority and a lawfull calling Heb. 5. 4 5. so he behooved to be called set and established on the Holy-hill of Zion as a King of the Fathers making Psal 2. 5 6. Psal 89. 26 27 28 29. Luk. 1. 32 33. ver 68 69. 54 55. And therefore though as King and an eternall King he subdue all things even his enemies yet it followeth not he is King and Mediator and Head of his enemies Arg. 8. All those whom Christ maketh officers Legats and Ambassadors of his mediatory Kingdom they have either the word of the Kingdom committed to them as Pastors and Doctors and of old Apostles Evangelists Prophets that they may make work on the consciences of men to make them Kings and Priests unto God or they are by the word of admonition and rebuke to deal for the same end as governours and Elders 1 Cor. 12. 28. 1 Tim. 5. 17. for the officers of the Kingdome and sword or scepter of the Kingdome the Word of God Psal 45. 4. Rev. 19. 15. Heb. 4. 11. Rev. 1. 16. which are the means are congruously proportioned to the end the gathering of the Saints the perfecting of his body Eph. 2. 11 12. But never did Christ appoint the Magistrate with his sword and his temporary rewards and praise of well doing to have any action on the conscience of men or to co-operate for so high an end directly and kindly for sure the sword cannot reach that end except indirectly and by accident in some imperated acts He may procure that there be such means as word and seals and Church-officers and so be an intrinsecall mean to set up those which are the spirituall and truly intrinsecall means and this is all Object 1. Was not this the first step of papal tyranny that the Church-men would be exempted from the power of the Magistrate and sâ—t themselves up as supream collaterall Independent powers in all Ecclesiasticall affairs as the Magistrate was supream in all politick businesse Ans It is a calumnious consequence Pastors and Teachers will not be judged by the Magistrate in things meerly Ecclesisticall â—o stand to his Ecclesiasticall decision as if his lips ex officio should preserve knowledge Ergo Pastors and Doctors do exempt themselves from the Lawfull power of the Magistrate in his civill judging by the sword it is as if they would say Church-men refuse to submit to an usurped and unlawfull power of the Magistrate Ergo they refuse to submit to their lawfull power 2. They bring not one word to prove that this was the first step of papal tyranny now a supremacy and independency in doctrinals and civill things the adversaries deny not If King Ahab finde the Priests of Iehovah turn Priests of Baal and the Prophets prophesie lies we and the adversaries agree that King Ahab hath a supream independent power to judge and punish them with the sword and if King Ahab will take on him to burne incense to the Lord the Priests and Prophets of the Lord have an immediate supream independent power to rebuke King Ahab for usurping that which is independently and incommunicably proper to the Priests onely and they may refuse to bee judged by King Ahab when he would judge them for giving out this sentence It belongeth not to King Ahab or King Vzziah to burne incense to the Lord but to the Priests the sons of Aaron 2 Chron. 26. Will they say this supremacy of the Priests is a step to papall Tyranny 3. This is rather papall Tyranny it selfe that the Magistrate as head of the Church and as an Ecclesiasticall person may as a Magistrate governe in all externalls the Church as he pleaseth with a royall supream independent power and because the Magistrate may send others to rule for him 2 Chron. 19. 8 9. 1 Pet. 2. 13 14. Ergo he may commit this royall power to a creature called a Prelate as to his Deputie in his name to judge as Phocas gave first a supremacy to Boniface the third which no Bishop of Rome had before and judge if this be not the first step to Papall Tyranny They possibly may say The Magistrate can commit no Magistraticall power to any Churchman for Christ for bad them to take on them the civill domination of the Lords of Gentiles Luke 22. 26 27. Ans But this is an Ecclesiastick not a civill administration and if it be a lawfull Ecclesiasticall supremacy why may not the Magistrate who hath power to send Deputies to act in his name depute a lawfull Ecclesiasticall power to Ecclesiasticall persons Pastors and Doctors who in the mind of the adversaries are all but the Deputies of the Magistrate in all that they doe Obj. 2. But is it not Popery that the Magistrate shall be obliged as a Lictor to execute the decrees of the Church Ans I know not if the Lictor with blind obedience be to behead Iohn Baptist or if Doeg should kill the Lords Priests because King Saul commandeth him 2. This Argument concludeth that neither Magistrate nor people should beleeve Articles of faith because the Church and Pastors saith so but because Iehovah saith so nor is the Ruler to beleeve or execute what the Church decrees because they decree it but because he beleeveth it is the will of Christ what they give out in Name of Christ 3. Is it not Popery that the Pastors and Teachers should execute the lawes of the Magistrate both in dispensing Word Sacraments and Discipline for they may not as Pastors and Doctors judge whether the Ecclesiasticall decrees of the Magistrate be the will and minde of Jesus Christ or no. The Magistrate in doctrine and discipline is the onely supream judge here as in all causes civill as he exerciseth a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and a dominion in the on Luke 22. 27. so also in the other except the Adversaries shew us a difference Yea as Mr. Pryn with the Erastians say Because there is no certain form of the government of the Church in Scripture he hath an Arbitrary power as Magistrate to appoint any government in the Church not contrary to the Word any Officers Prelates and Cardinals any ceremonies as pleaseth him and may impose them on the consciences of Pastors
members of the Church and that they are to be cast out of the Church as he doth also he must either grant that Christian Magistrates cannot turn Apostates and Idolaters which is against Scripture and experience or that if they turn Apostates and Idolaters they remain no longer members of the Church but are to be excommunicated or then Christ must have made some speciall exception that Kings though Idolaters and Apostates do yet remain members of the Church and are not to be cast out of the Church which beside that Erastus cannot shew is contradictory to his words Hence it is clear the Magistrate if he turn as Saul did a wicked man he is to be excommunicated But 1. By whom by the Church Erastus will deny he can be judged by the Church because he is above the Church by himselfe that is against reason By other Magistrates he is the only supream in that Church and by what reason he is above the Church he is above the other Magistrates and other Magistrates are guilty of the same fault Obj. 5. The supream and principall power called Architectonica of governing the Church in externals either agree to the Magistrate or to the Church not to the Magistrate as they say if to the Church Then 1. The universall care and inspection over the Church is taken from the Magistrate and given to the Church Ergo 2. Then the Christian Magistrate not indirectly only but directly must be obliged to follow the judgement of the Church in ordaining depriving punishing of Ministers or of any excommunicated 3. The subjects must be obliged not to obey yea to disobey the Magistrate if he decern any thing contrary to the Church and the Magistrate as a lictor and servant must execute all Ans 1. There is no reason to say that the supream and principall power by way of royall dominion as the argument supposeth in Church matters should agree to either Magistrate on earth or Church it is a Rose of the Crown of him who is the only King of Kings and Lord of Lords and so the Major is false Nor is that care and inspection which is due to the Magistrate taken from him when we ascribe to Christ what is his due 2. Neither doth it follow that the Magistrate is directly obliged to follow the judgement of the Church except we did make the judgement of the Church supream and absolute and armed with such a dominion as the adversaries give to the Magistrate in which case it followeth that the Church is directly and absolutely obliged to follow the judgement of the Magistrate according to the way of the adversaries and that if this argument be good they must ascribe blind obedience either to the Church or Magistrate not to the Magistrate they say Ergo to the Church Nor can they take it off by saying that the Magistrates dominon is limited by the Word of God for they know that we teach that all the constitutions and decrees of Synods made by the Church as the Church is limited by the Word of God yet they cease not to object to us that we make the Magistrate a servant and a lictor to the Church and obliged by his place to give blind obedience to the Church and therefore they are obliged to answer the argument and remove papal dominion from their way according to their owne argument if they will be willing to take in to themselves with the same measure that they give out to others But if they give a ministeriall power of judging to the Church the argument is easily answered which they cannot give to the Magistrate except they make his office to oblige the conscience and his commands as magistraticall to be given out under the pain of the second death Now his sword is too short to reach to this I hope except you make the vengence that he executeth on evil doers Rom. 13. to be eternall fire and his sword to be no materiall nor visible sword but such as commandeth Devils and Hell which is absurd for the Magistrates power of judging and commanding is commensurable to his power of rewarding and punishing that is both is temporary within time on the body of this world The Pastors have a power of commanding though only ministeriall but free of all domination or externall coaction which is spirituall and the punishment is accordingly spirituall a binding in earth and heaven I borrow only the word of punishment it being no such thing properly Obj. 6. If the end of the Church be a spirituall and of the Magistrate be a temporall good and if the Magistrate have no spirituall power to attain to his temporall end no more then the Church hath any temporall power to attain to her spirituall end is not this a contradiction that the Magistrate should determine what the true Church and Ordinances are and then set them up with the power of the sword for the Magistrates power to judge and punish in spirituall causes must be either spirituall or civill or then he hath none and so acts without commission Now for civill power the Magistrate hath it only over the bodies and goods of men and hath it not over the soul nor can he have it say â— in soul cases It is confessed that the Magistrate hath no spirituall power to attain a temporall end and therefore those who provoke the Magistrate without either civill or spirituall power to punish or prosecute in spirituall causes are to fear that they come too near to those frogs that proceed out of the mouth of the Dragon and Beast and false Prophet who with the same argument stirre up the Kings of the earth to make war against the Lambe and his followers Rev. 17. Bloody Tenent Answ 1. All this argument is builded on a great mistake and a conseqence never proved except by this one word of the Author Therefore say I and it is this The Magistrate hath no civill power over the soul therefore say I he hath no power in soul matters and cannot judge and punish in spirituall causes Sir this is a non sequitur The learned Divine Rivetus saith well The Magistrates power in spirituall things to judge and punish is formaliter and in it self and intrinsecally civill but objective in regard of the object and extrinsecally it is spirituall 1. I ask when the Author and his take a professor into Church-communion they judge whether he be just mercifull and peaceable when they excommunicate any member for murther for unjustice in taking away the goods of his brother whether the Church doth judge and punish in the causes of justice mercy and peace which properly belongeth to the civill Magistrate not to the Church properly but only ratione scandali as they are offensive in the Church of God I ask I say if the Churches power in judging and punishing be civill or spirituall not civill for this Author will say that the Church hath no power over the lives and goods
as he had said Yet a band of men had been more necessarie then the Ceremonies So 2 King 23. 10 Josiah is commended for defiling Tophet to prevent occasion of offering Children to Molech for this cause God iudgeth an house without Battlement and the sending abroad a goaring Oxe to be murther Deut. 27. 28. Exod. 22. 28. 29. 33. Exod. 23. â— Deut. 7. 3. and Levit. 19. 14. Thou shalt not lay a stumbling block before the blind Marrying with the Canaanites was forbidden for the ruine occasioned by that to the soules of Gods people I prove the Assumption Gretzer saith In Ceremonies Calvinists are the apes of Catholicks 2. If such a worship had been in the Temple or Synagogue so as the Jewes in the same act might have worshipped Jehovah and the Canaanites Baall or Dagon as at one table the Papists may kneele and adore bread with the Protestant receiving the Sacrament it would be a raigning scandall 3. Atheists have mocked Religion for the Surplice and other Masse-toyes 4. Papists say Protestants are returning to their Mother Church of Rome 5. Wee cannot in zeale preach against Popish traditions and practise Popish Ceremonies 6. Lascivious carousings drunkenness harlatrie come from observing of holy dayes That this may be more cleare 1. The nature of a scandall would bee cleared 2 The Doctrine of the Apostle Paul about Scandall proponed A Scandall is a word or action or the omission of both inordinately spoken or done whence we know or ought to know the fall of weake wilfull or both is occasioned to thâ—se who are within or without the Church 1. It is a word or deed seene to others Sinfull thoughts not being seen are not publick scandalls though to the man himselfe they occasion sinne Hence non-conformitie simply to a thing indifferent must onely be scandalous as joyned with contempt formall contempt in things indifferent is inward and invisible to men 2. Omission of words and deeds scandalize Silence in Preachers when God matters go wrong is scandalous So Sanches 3. Not every word deed doth scandalize but such as are done unorderly Sanches saith these words and deeds Quae carent rectitudine which want some morall rectitude oâ— as Aquinas saith of themselves are inductive to sinne doth scandâ—lize or that M. Anton. De Dominis Archiep. Spalatens saith which is indictive to sinne or the cause of great evill or hindereth good as our faith zeale love c. that scundalizeth For though none of these fall out if the work or word or omission of either be such as of it selfe is apt to scandalize it is an active scandall Hence every little scandall is a sinne either in it selfe or in the unordinate way of doing â— But what objects are properly scandalous shall be discussed 3. When we know such words and deeds doe scandalize and they be not necessarie to be done yea and if wee ought to know for though the pronness and proclivitiâ— of our brethren or others to sinne be in some respect questio facti yet is it also questio juris a question of Law the ignorance whereof condemneth when the things themselves are doubtsomely evill but not necessary to be done Hence the practice of a thing indifferent when there be none that probably can be scandalized and hath some necessitie is lawfull as Colos 2. 16. Let no man therfore judge you in meat â—r drinke c. yet in case of scandall it is unlawfull to cat See 1 Cor. 10. 27. Eat whatsoever is set before you asking no question for conscience sake 28. But if any say this is offered in sacrifice to Idolls eat not for his sake who shewedit for conscience sake Conscience I say not thine owne but of others Therefore practising of things indifferent or non-practising are both lawfull according as persons are present who may be scandalized or not scandalized but this is in things though in nature indifferent yet in use having some necessitie as eating of meats but the case is otherwayes in things altogether indifferent as our Ceremonies are which are supponed to lay no ty on the conscience before God o incline to either side as they say to crosse or not to crosse laying aside the Commandement of men For if no-crossing be all 's good as crossing then though there be non-scandalized yet because it is such an action in Gods worship as is acknowledged to be indifferent and hath appearance of adding to Gods word and worship it is inductive to sinne and scandalous though none should hence be actu secundo ruinated and made to stumble But if any in Pauls time as the case was in the Church of Corinth should eat meates at a table forbidden in the Law he not knowing that a Jew was there this may seeme invincible ignorance because ignorance of a meere fact not of a law if that Jew should be scandalized through his eating it should seeme to me to be scandall taken but not culpably given 4. It is said in the definition That these inordinate words or deeds occasioneth the fall of others 1. Because the will of the scandalized or his ignorance is the efficacious and neerest cause why he is scandalized that is why he sinneth actions or words are occasions onely or causes by accident for none ought to be scandalized as none ought to sinne ad peccatum nulla est obligatiâ— 2. Because as to be scandalized is sinne so to scandalize actively is sinne though actuall scandall follow not as Peter scandalized Christ culpably when he counselled him not to die for sinners though it was impossible that Christ could be scandalized 5. It is said whereby weake or wilfull within or withoâ—t the Church may be scandalized For I hope to prove that it is no lesse sinne actively to scandalize the wilfull and malicious then the weak though there be degrees of sinning here and we must eschew things scandalous for their sake who are without the Church For the Second I set down these Propositions 1. from Rom. 14. 1. Proposit The weake are not to be thraled in judgement or practice in thornie and intricate disputes in matters indifferent This is cleare Rom. 14. v. 1. Ergo When people know not mistie distinctions of relative and absolute adoration of worship essentiall or accidentall they are not to be here thraled by a Law to practice Ceremonies humane 2 Proposit If a weake one eat herbs fearing the practice of things forbidden by Gods law he is commended and his abstinence praise-worthy as Rom. 14. v. 2. 3. and he ought not to be judged and so ought not to be a wed by a Law Then abstinence and non-conformitie is lawfull in such a case 3. Proposit He that eateth he that eateth not he that practiseth he that practiseth not indifferent things is not to be judged 1. God hath received the eater 2. You are not to judge another mans servant It is against the Law of Nations 3. If the weake fall God is able
your selfe I am not to reprove a scorner because of the scandall he shall but trample as a sow upon any word of reproofe yet the scandall were causleâ—ly taken if we should doe so The good word of God should furnish no just cause to him yet am I not taking from God his due and your bare word that this is disobedience to Superiours not to practise Pearth Ceremonies is not enough to us 2. Your probation is weak That children and wife keep company with the Excommunicate father is a commandement of the law of nature and Gods necessary law and to deny this to an husband and father is such a sinne as the eschewing of a scandall can never legitimate but I hope kneeling to Bread and Crossing and Surplice commanded in our Canons and Service-book are at the best commanded by a positive law and not commanded in the law of nature and so very unlike to naturall duties that wife and children owe to father and husband 3. I retort this Argument We may not wrong men in that which is their due Ergo We may not wrong God in his due but it is his due Murther not him for whom Christ died practise not Ceremonies before the weake who shall be scandalized thereat Duplyers 5. arg n. 40. What if the thing be commanded by the Civill Magistrate under paine of death and by Ecclesiasticall authoritie under paine of Excommunication shall we for feare of scandall causlesly taken which may be removed by information or for the scandall of the malitious abstaine from a thing lawfull and expedient injoyned by authoritie and incurre these grievous punishments of death temporall and spirituall We believe your selves who speake most of scandall would be loath to take such a yoake upon you Answer The first part of this Argument is Logick from a sore skinne That which we are bidden doe under paine of death that we must doe the just logick of the King of Babylon to prove it is lawfull to worship the Kings golden Image Dan. 3. 15. I have scarce heard Papists for shame presse to conclude the equity and lawfulnesse of a Law from the penaltie of a law Suffering as your Jesuits and Arminians teach you falleth not under Free-will and is not culpably evill nor is Excommunication except you be Papists death of the soule when the cause of Excommunication is not just and deserveth no censure but it may be some of you think Mr. Sibbald I know doth it that Navarrus and their Gregorie said true that unjust Excommunication is valid and to be feared but if this argument as I see not head nor feet in it be founded upon the lawfulnesse and expediencie of Ceremonies commanded then not to practise them at all So first they be lawfull 2 Expedient 3 Commanded by lawfull authority is sinne and all sinne is a death of the soule and then you may put your Argument from grievous punishments of body and soule in your pocket for it is of no use here for whether punishment Civill or Ecclesiastick follow upon disobedience to Superiours it is sinne 3. That none of us would die or be Excommunicated for eschewing Scandall is no good argument though many have suffered as hard as death banishment and proscription of all and Excommunication also But the truth is you might have said Shall we incurre for scandall the losse of our stâ—pends and one faire before the wind qualification for a Bishoprick Duplyers 6. arg pag. 64. n. 41. Sixtly The denying of obedienâ—e to the lawfull commandements of our Superiours is forbidden in the â—iâ—â— commandement and consequently it is sinne shall we then for a scandall causlesly taken deny obedience to our Superiours and so incurre the guiltiness of sinne Ye commonly answer to this that the negative part of the fift Commandement wâ—â—ch forbiddeth the resisting of the power Rom. 13 2. is to be understood with the exception of the case of any scandall taken by others For â—â— we say say â—â— that any may or will take offence at the â—â—ing of that which is commanded by our Superiours we are not holden to oby them 42. But first we aâ—ke what â—arr and ye have â—o say that the negative part of the fift Commandement â—â— to be understood wâ—â—â— the exception of the case of Scandall more then other negative precepts in the second Table Answer â— To fill the field an Argument already answered is brought again to make the figure of fiâ— up The refusall of the Ceremonies till they be tryed in lawfull Assembly is not forbidden in the fift Commandement prove that and take it with you 2. You bring an Answer as commonly given â—â— us that is neither ours commonly nor rarely but it is good build a strawâ—astle and you may soone cost a fire-ball at it and blow it up We never taught that the negative part of the fifâ— Commandement is to be understood with the exception of the case of any scandall taken by others For this includeth all scandalls both passive and active Who of ours ever dreamed such a thing if Superiours command what God commandeth before them doe we teach that because others take scandall at that Command therefore we are not holden to obey that is scandall taken not given We teach no such thing Rulers command to honour father and mother if any take offence at this commandement and obedience to either the affirmative or negative part of it we are not to esteeme that scandall the weight of a feather the Commandement obliedgeth But this we teach if when the matter of the Commandement of Rulers is indifferent as you plead Ceremonies to be if from obeying of these any weake or wicked be scandalized then the Rulers doe command spirituall murther and then their commandement is no commandement noâ— is it the fift Commandement It is just like this You shall not refuse obedience to your Rulers commanding you to rubbe your beards when you come to the Church or to draw a crosse line with your thumbe in the aire above a baptized infants forehead though many soules by obedience to these Commandements be induced to love Poperie many be made sad thinking zealous Rulers love popish toyes better then the simplicitie of the Gospell Now such is the Commandements of Pearth-articles and these suffer no exceptions for we judge them no Commandements at all and if any such be injoyned upon pretence of any other of the nine Commandements we hold them to be impious commandements and no obedience to be given to them at all So if according to the sixt Commandement and the seven and eight Rulers command to run Carts amongst a multitude of young Children whence killing of some might fall out If they should command a young man and a faire virgine to chamber together and command Paul in the case he was at Corinth to take stipend though it should hinder the progresse of the Gospell as 1 Cor. 9. 23. all these were to command culpable scandalls and were unlawfull as
1. disp 54. Sect. 3. Actus Adorandi respectu prototypi est proprie Latreia c. Respectu vero imaginis est inferior Veneratio 5. Distin r Burges Lawfulnes of kneeling cap. 8. p. 14 15. s p. 34 35. t p. 84 85. w Edward 6. book of Engl. serv rubr 5. x Joan. Giseniue in â—uo Patisiâ—o disp 25 n. 40. y Didocl in Altari damasc Hospinianus de originc festorum Christian contra Gretser Profeste corporis Christi fol 94. 7. Arca non est babâ—â—a pro dâ—â— vivente nec propterea adorata So answereth Molinaus in his buckler of faith of Images Sect. 118. and Fran. Whites way to the Church Cap. 9. pag. 3. z Weames 3. Volumn of the Ceremon Law Cap. 3. pag. 12. The place worship at his footstool discussed a Arias Montanus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 b Musculus c Calvine comment in Psal 99. 5. d Junius Annotation ibid. Lyranus a dorandam Deum aute arcam non ipsam arcam Tylenus in syntag nat de preca disp 49. th 2. nu 29. particula 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Notat idem quod versus Vatablus adorate ad scabellum i. e. in templo ante arcam e Gratian de conser dist 1. cap. 68. Prayer may as lawfully be given to the Creature as Adoration There is a Prayer made to the image of the face of Jesus written in linnen Salve Sancta facies nostri redemptoris salve vultus domini imago beata nos deduc ad propria â— felix figura ad videndum faciem qua est Christi pura f Concilium Tridentinum Sessione 25. g Raphael de la Torres in 22. q. 95 art 2. disp 6. dub 5. Eusebius lib. 3. De praeparat Evang. teacheth us that Rudiores tantum ad ligna lapides respiciunt sapientes autem Gentiles voluerunt Deum dci virtutes sensibus nostris per imagines nobis familiariter deferri They made Images books of God Athanasius in orat contr idolat Dieunt Philosophi statuas quidem non essedcos sed simulacbra deorum ideo baberi ut dys sub istis imaginibus respondeant h Suarez in 3. Tho. q. 25. art 3. disp 54. Sect. 4. * O crux ave We may pray to Images and the elements in the Supper as well as we may kneel to them i Suarez de tripli virt supr dis 51. Sect. 1. pag. 757. k Antonius Capellus adversusprimatum Regis Angliae contrav 2. Cap. 30. l Vasquez to 1 part 3. q 25. art 23. disp 109. cap. 4. m Suarez tom 1. in 3. q. 25. art 3. disp 54. Sect. 5. Si tantum coram imaginibus Adoratur deus hoc multum derogat imaginum venerationi nam â—x eo non tantum sequitur imagines clementa Sacramentalia minus coli quam exemplaria sed etiam sequitur illas non coli omnius sed exemplaria tantum n Vasquez tom 1. part 3. q. 25. disp 108. cap. 14. Nam iconomachi qui ad solam recordationem imaginibus utuntur ante illas genuâ— a non flectunt nec se prostemunt sic enim ipsas notâ— exteriore adorarent sed erecti absque ullo corporis gestu qui reverentiam indicet â—oram imagine exemplaris recordantur ipsum spiritu solum adorant o Gregorius Mag. l. 7. Epist 53. if these be his Epistles p Vasquez ibid. Hee who adoreth a saint saith Ioan. dâ— lugo de myster inincarnat disp 36. sect 3. n. 29. for friendship and grace which hee hath arguitivè by consequence hee worshipeth God of whom the man hath grace yet it is not needfull that he formally adore God and in recto in so doing for he may honour the saint and not formally honour God for the saint and God are two divers objects Answ This proveth our point that when I adore an Image intending to adore God some â—oule-adoration adhereth to the Image and that is a taste of Gods proper glory given to a stocke or a stone q Ioan. de lugo de myst incar disp 36. sect 3. n. 25 26 27. seq Respectus imaginis est quasi materialis inanimatus quia sic apâ—rimus caput imagini ut per illam actionem nihil velimus imagini dicere aut significare sed soli exemplari ad quod dirigitur ille actus pro ut significativus prout civilis communicatio ideo respectu illius solum videtur esse actio animata De Lugo ibid. Hoc enim esset stultum mendacium quia absoluté loquendâ— meliores sumus nos quam Imago sancti Petri. And conforme to this the seventh pretended and bastard Councell calleth them halfe holy and halfe true halfe false worshipers of God Antonius Capellus citeth it Advers prim regis Anglia c. 30. Who will have Images to stand onely for memorialls but not to be worshipped Concil seventh art 1. p. 458. Qui vero dicunt suâ—â—icere usum imaginum ad memoriam solum non vero ad salutationem â—as habentes illud quidem recipientes hoc vero reâ—icienâ—es sâ—miprobi quadantenus falso vâ—ti ut ita dicam deprehenduntur Answ r De Lugo ibid. 39. imagiâ—s vere cedo exterius daudo illi melioreÌ„ superiorem loâ—um honorifice eam tractaâ—do s Orat. 5. dâ— imagin t 7. Synod act 4. x Iuo 4. part sui decret c. 38. y Nicephorus hist lib. 2. c. 17. z Nicephorus hist li. 2. c. 43. lib. 6. c. â—6 a Lib. 7. c. 33. b Canisius lib. 5. De Beata virgine c. 22. Divers Fables touching Images c Sâ—p 14. d De idolo vanit e Euseb lib. 7. c. 8. f August contra Adamant c. 13. g Gregor mag Epist ad Serenum Massilien sem lib. 7. Ep. 109. h Voetius in desper caus papat lib. 3. c. 6. sect 2. i Sympson 6. Century of the worshipping of Images p. 38. k Pet. Molinâ—us Buckler of Faith of Images Sect. 118. pag. 308. l Bellarm de scrip in Chron. m Genebrard â—hron an 794. p. 308. n Barronius An. 726. Observe that Aeneas Sylvius epist 301. saith ante Nicenam Synodum unusquisque sibi vivebat quemadmodum sibi visum est paroâ—s respectus ad Romanam ecclesiam â—abeâ—atur a Metropolitan Bishop a step to the Popedome was first created here in Romes Carâ—bage Constantinâ—ple Antiochia o Pontific p Paulus diaconus lib. 13. q Bergomensis lib. 10. r Synod Franckford s Aventinus lib. 4. t Hincmarus cap. 20. contra Ianduâ—â—nsâ—m w Vrspergens in Histor x Hincmarin Archiepiscopus Remorum c. 10. cont Hincmarin â—andunensem Episcop y Eccius in Eâ—chirid z Hospin dâ— orig imag p 197. a Calvin justit lib. 1. cap. 11. Sect. 13. b Iosephus antiq lib. 18. cap. 11. c Euseâ— bistor lib. 2. cap. 6. d Epist Plinii 2 ad Imporat Trajan e Euseb Histor lib. 3. cap. 33. f Bucolâ— in Alexand. severo g Symson 1. Century cap. 1. h Justin Martyr in Dialog cum Trypho apolog 2. i Tertullian apo cap.
God removed the doubts and answered him 5. Paul in eating or not eating which are things most indifferent requireth a certain perswasion of positive assurance Rom. 14. 14. I know and am perswaded by the Lord Iesus that there is nothing unclean of it self but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean it is unclean Master Sanderson saith In things substantiall of Gods Worship and in things to be done upon necessity of salvation what is not of Faith certainly assuring us it is conforme positively to Gods word it is sin so we abhor Popish Additions But in the actions of our life as the lifting of a straw and in Ceremoniall worship or accidentals it holdeth not saith Morton and Doctor Burges not in all particulars saith Paybodie for there should be no end saith Doct. Iackson of doubting for Papists might doubt to assist our King against Roman Catholicks Ans 1. Let Formalists explain themselves Doctrinals Substantials and essentiall worship is such as God hath commanded in the Proposition and in the Assumption and particularly in Gods word Accidentals are such as he hath commanded in generall but left particulars to mens will so they define like Mâ—sters of Arts. But this our Masters say in all that Christ hath particularly Commanded his Testament is perfect and so I believe what God hath set down he hath set down and so we have Scripture right down as perfect as the Fables of Esop Nasoes Metamorphosis what is in Esopes and Nasoes books is in their books and what they command you are with certainty of Faith to believe they command and what the Prophets and Apostles writ that they writ and that is essentiall worship what they writ not they writ not 2. Mr. Sandersons lifting up a straw is a straw for an instance actions of imagination are not Morall we give him leave to ruh his beard without Faith as he weareth white sheets above his garments in Divine service against Faith 3. To do in Faith is to know that in that I serve Christ and am accepted of God Rom. 14. 2. To do that which condemneth me not and maketh me happy in the doing thereof v. 21. 3. It is a Faith that I have before God in my conscience v. 2â— 4. It is a perswasion by the Lord Iesus that it is clean 5. It is such as I know is positively Lawfull by Scriptures expresse warrant 1 Cor. 10. 26. The earth is the Lords and the fulnesse thereof Ergo I have certainty of faith that it is positively conform to Scripture what I do but in things negatively Lawfull as lifting a straw wearing a Surplice I have no perswasion by the Lord Iesus that I serve Christ and am accepted of God in so doing and know not from Psa 24. 1. or from any other scripture that it is lawfull what I do 3. A generall warrant is either when the major Proposition only is sure by Scripture but you must take the Assumption upon the Formalists Merchant-word or where both Proposition and assumption can indure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according as it is written this latter wee imbrace with both our hands but Formalists deny it to us The first is their meaning This what is decent and not contrary to Gods Word that the Rulers may command But Surplice Crossing c. are decent and not contrary to Gods Word Ergo. So one Giles Widdows saith Man and Wife are one flesh Ergo the Ring in Marriage is good And Fine linnen is the Righteousnesse of the Saints Rev. 19. Ergo a Surplice is good And Matth. 16. Take up your crosse Ergo the Crossing in Baptisme is lawfull Enough of this But so the worship of the Devil is lawfull and Aarons golden Calf is lawfull for I can finde a major Proposition for them in Scripture of which you have a Faith both Negative and Positive as this Whatever God commandeth in his Word that is lawfull But God commandeth the Indians Devil vvorship in his Word Ergo c. I am not holden to give my Faith for the Assumption Yet it is as good as our Masters reasoning 4. Jackson is wide in his lawfull Negatives for to fight against Roman Catholicks at our Kings Command upon good grounds is not an indifferent thing Except to kill men and shed blood be indifferent and lawfull Negatively I thought to make War had been amongst the Substantials and Positively conform to Gods Word 5. The Fathers as Origen Ambrose Chrysostom Theophylact Oecumenius Theodoret Anselm and Ierome upon the place Rom. 14. 23. as Vasquez saith from this place Rom 14 23. that What any doth must be warranted by the light of the conscience as lawfull If Formalist stand to this they must give us some things against conscience and something beside conscience that is morally lawfull and therefore if conscience see not such a thing against Scripture though it have no warrant in Scripture yet it is lawfull and done in a certain perswasion of a well informed conscience but these who eat things thought to be unclean by Gods Law to the scandall of others who knew these meats were not against Piety and Gods Lavv nor yet that the eating of them was against charity while Paul delivered the Doctrine of Scandall yet their eating was unlawfull 6. Formalists say nothing here but what Papists said before them they say Men may go to War doubting of the lawfulnesse thereof and therefore Vasquez Angelus Corduba and Navarr will us While the doubt remaineth to choose the surest side as conscience ought to do And Vasquez saith Manente dubio c. To do so long as the doubt remaineth is to do against the judgement of conscience And Adrianus saith While they doubt and yet go to War they expose themselves to the danger of Man-slaughter and by not going to War they should onely sin by not obeying Suarez saith It is a speculative doubt vvhen Superiors commandeth it And Sylvester saith Such a doubt should be expelled at the commandment of Superiors And no marvell the command of Superiors to Papists is an Oracle and blinde obedience is good meriting therefore Gratian and the Iesuit Sanches saith Inferiors are not holden to examine the commandments of Superiors 5. Iackson saith This Whatsoever is not of Faith is Sin holdeth in omission of good as in commission of evil Ergo Your not practising indifferent Ceremonies is not of Faith and so Sin Ans He that obeyeth doubtingly is condemned and he that obeyeth not doubtingly is condemned But Master Doctor your enumeration is not sufficient and may strike against doubting to worship a Romish Idol at the command of Superiors for I shew you a third and its Pauls way Eat not obey not and abstain with perswasion of Faith that what you do is agreeable Positively to Gods Word Jackson saith They sin not by doubting if the fear of evil after mature
deliberation be not extraordinary and such as cannot be recompenced by the goodnes which appeareth in the act of Obedience Doubting is no internall part or essentiall cause of sin vve sin not because vve doubt but because vvhile vve doubt vve prefer an evil or a lesse good before a good or a greater good So their sin vvas not doubting but they preferred not eating vvhich vvas a bodily losse onely to the evil feared vvhich vvas to be partakers of the Table of Devils and being Apostates from the Israel of God Ans Paul expresly saith doubting is sin and condemneth it ver 23. and requireth ver 5. Let every man be perswaded in his conscience v. 21. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that which he alloweth v. 23. Whatsoever more or lesse in Morall actions is not of Faith is sin 2. Internall perswasion Rom. 14. 14. Is an internall cause of obedience as v. 21. And therefore doubting being a sin that condemneth Rom. 14. 23. must be such a sinfull ingredient as maketh the action sinfull 3. We both sin because we doubt and also because we prefer a lesse good or an evil to a greater good 4. No feared evil though never so evil whether of sin or punishment if it follow not kindly but only by accident and through the corruption of our nature should or can make us do any thing doubtingly or sinfully for then we might do evil that good might come of it No good of obedience can warrant me to sin and disobey God nor should that be called obedience nor is it obedience to men which is disobedience to God 5. It is an untruth that non-eating was only a bodily losse for non-eating Physicall is a bodily losse but Paul urgeth non-eating morall to eschew the fall of one for whom Christ died 6. The Doctor saith Ibidem No power under the Heaven could make a Law over the Romans injoyning such meats because Gods law as they conceive condemned them Now how pleasant are right words I assume we conceive God hath denounced all the plagues written in his Book upon practisers of humane Ceremonies as upon adders to the word of God Rev. 22. 19. Yea Heresies to with that Christ is not the consubstantiall Son of God may seem probable to us shall the good of obedience in believing my Pastor whom God hath set over me hinder me to obey 7. Papists say also that Scripture is perfect in generall allowing that Ceremonies should be when Paul saith Let all things be done in order and decency 1 Cor. 14. But the Scripture giveth no particular warrant for these but onely the Churches determination So Scotus Suarez Bellarmine Vasquez Bannes and Duvallius The Scripture implicitely and generally containeth all the substantials necessary for salvation but not traditions in particular that is the Churches part just as Formalists say order and decency is commanded in the word but Crossing Surplice Humane dayes and such are left to the Prelates Kalender to fill up what his Lordship thinketh good So Hooker c Speech is necessary but it is not necessary that all speak one kinde of Language Government is necessary but the particulars Surplice Crossing c. Are left to the Church 2. What is negatively Lawfull here cannot be admitted If Rulers may Command one thing that is negatively Lawfull they may Command all things because what they Command under this formall reason as not against Scripture they should not adde nor devise new worship though they Command all of that kinde But the latter is absurd for so they might Command in Gods worship 1. The actions of sole imagination the lifting of a straw and all idle actions that cannot edifie 2. They might Command a new Ark to represent Christ incarnat as the Jews Ark did represent him to be incarnat a new Passeover to represent the Lambe already slain and all the materials of the Ceremoniall Law with reference to Christ already incarnat dead and risen again For all these are by Formalists Learning negatively Lawfull Shew us a Scripture where they are forbidden more then Surplice Crossing except because they be not Commanded If it be said They do not Command things negatively Lawfull as such but as they edifie and teach Well then 1. As they edifie and teach they are positively good and apt to edifie and so must be proved by the Word as Commanded and so not negatively Lawfull and not as beside but as Commanded in the Word 2. Yet it will follow that all these may be used in Faith that is out of a sure perswasion that they are not contrary to Gods Word and so Lawfull I might dance in a new linnen Ephod before a new Iewish Ark representing Christ already incarnat and that in the negative Faith of Mr. Sanderson Hooker and Jackson for this Ark is not against Scripture yet this Ark is not Commanded and so not forbidden 3. Idle actions that have no use or end might be Lawfully Commanded by this because they are not forbidden yet are such unlawfull Quia carent justâ necessitate et utilitate as Gregorius saith I prove the connexion because an action Morall such as to Sign with the Crosse performed by a Subject of Christs visible Kingdom for Gods glory and edification of the Church which yet is neither Commanded nor forbidden by God nor Commanded by natures light for none but those that are beside reason will say this nor light of Gods word or the habit of Religion hath no more reason then the making or forming a Syllogisme in Barbara which of it self cometh only from Art and as such hath no Morall use and by as good reason may the Church Command dancing before a new devised Ark yea such an action involveth a contradiction and is Morall and not Morall for of its own nature it tendeth to no edification for then it might be proved by good reason to be edificative and an action cannot be edificative from the will of men for Gods will not mens will giveth being to things 4. What is beside Scripture as a thing not repugnant thereunto wanteth that by which every thing is essentially Lawfull Ergo It is not Lawfull The Consequence is sure I prove the Antecedent Gods Commanding will doth essentially constitute a thing Lawfull Gods Commanding will only maketh eating and drinking bread and wine in the Lords Supper Lawfull and the Lords forbidding will should make it unlawfull and Gods forbidding to eat of the Fruit of the Tree of knowledge of good and evil maketh the non-eating obedience and the eating disobedience As the killing of Isaac by Abraham is Lawfull and that because God Commandeth it and the not killing of him again is Lawfull when God forbiddeth it But things negatively Lawfull and beside the word of God wanteth Gods Commanding will for God Commandeth not the materials of Jewish Ceremonies to represent Christ already come and such like for if he should Command them they