Disputing your self and not Christ say some to make Preachers the Alpha and Omega of mens Consciences and the Circle which beginneth and endeth at it self you would be satisfied if Scandals be punished by the Magistrate Is not the Magistrate a Christian as you are Paul was glad that the Gospel was Preached he made no account by whom But I should be grieved that such a hard conclusion should be drawn out of such innocent Principles This were to extract Blood out of Milk a Domination out of a meer Ministery and I confesse Self is a great Sophist in Debates and that any man is inclinable to miscount himself and to think he may stand for an hundred when the product is scarce one if not a cypher I conceive nothing is here taught that may reach a blow to the Honour and Majesty of the Godly Magistrate The Magistrate is a Christian as well as the Preacher and in some sense so all the People were holy as were Moses Aaron and the Levites Uzziah who burned Incense was a Member of the Church of the Jews and Circumcised no lesse then the Sons of Aaron Yet I hope these stretched themselves beyond their line when they usurped what was due to the Priests and Levites It s another thing to punish evil doing with the Sword the Magistrate is to do this But there is a Spiritual removing of Scandals by the saving of the Spirit in the day of the Lord 1 Cor. 5. 5. Matth. 18. 15. 2 Cor. 10. 8. and a gaining of the Soul of an Offender This Spiritual removing of Scandals doth only bring Christ and the Gospel in request in the hearts of both such as are within and without the Church as Scandals raiseth up an evil report of Christ and the Truth Now the Sword can never this way remove Scandals and because Christ hath appointed Spiritual means and Spiritual Censures to restore the Lord Jesus to his Honour 2 Cor. 2. It is presumption with all submission I speak it for men to horse out and decourt such Censures Spiritual as the Apostles in the Spirit and Wisdom of Christ used as most sutable to that end and which the Lord commandeth in the second Command and to substitute in their room nothing but a Sword void of all activity on the Conscience I do also here plead for the perfection of the Word of God against Humane Ceremonies which are deservedly by the Honorable Houses of Parliament and Reverend Assembly laid aside Religion needeth not any such Ornaments except men would make the Worship of God when naked under shame and so under sin for Justice Married shame and sin once But as Roses Lillies the Sun and other glorious Creatures are most beautiful without Garments and not capable of shame so is the Worship of God I confesse Ceremonies were the Seas and Rivers that Prelats delighted to swim in and if their Element be dried up they have the lesse pleasure to live But if they would repent of their bloody Persecution that their Souls might be saved no matter Ceremonies as they have nothing of Christ in them so have they been injurious to Magistrates It is but a Ceremony that the Emperour kisse the sole of the Popes foot because there is indented on it a curious Crucifix And when Prelacy was yong and its beard not grown a Deacon was sent to Theodosius the Emperor by the Prelats to chide him because he presumed to sit in the Chancel a place too holy for Lay-men What I have here said against Erastus a friend too dear to worthy Bullinger and Rodolp Gualther often we love both the Friend and his Error I humbly submit to the Judgement of the Godly and Learned But I conceive I am unwilling that Error should lodge with me willingly and I professe I am afraid that wrath is gone out from the Lord against the Rulers if they shall after a Reformation obtained with the Lives Blood Tears and Prayers of so many of the Saints whereof a great number are asleep in the Lord rear up a building to the Lord so maimed and lame as Jesus Christ shall say Offer it now to your Governour will he be pleased with you or accept your persons But it is a Controversie say some whether the Government of the Church of the New-Testament belong to the Magistrate or to the Church to which I say 1. It was a Controversie created by men willing to please Princes with more power in the Courts of Christ then ever the Law-giver and Apostles gave them and that against the minde of glorious Lights the first Reformers and the whole Troops of Protestant Divines who Studied the Controversie against the usurped Monarchy of the Man of sin more exactly then one Physitian who in a cursory way diverted off his road of Medicine of which he wrote Learnedly and broke in on the By upon the deepest Polemicks of Divinity and reached a Riders blow unawares to his friends 2. In things doubtful Conscience hath refuge to the surest side Now it s granted by all and not controverted by any That in the Apostolick Church the Government of the Church of the New Testament was in the hands of Apostles Pastors Teachers and therefore Conscience would sway to that in which there can be no Error except on supposal of abuse and Christian Rulers would not do well to venture upon Eternity Wrath the Judgement to come confiding on the poor Plea of an Erastian Distinction to incroach upon the Prerogative Royal of Jesus Christ This very God of Peace build Zion and make her an Habitation of Peace Yours in Jesus Christ S. R. A Table of the CONTENTS of the Book Introduction SECT 1. CHrist hath not instituted a mutable Church-Government Page 1 2 Some things moral some things natural in Gods worship Ibid. Physical Circumstances are all easily known and numbred p. 2 Circumstances and such and such Circumstances p. 3 Time and place of Ceremonies need not be proved by Scripture as being supposed p. 4 5 1. Argument to prove that the platform of Ch. governmâ—is not mutable at mens wil p. 7 The Script way of teaching that indifferent things are alterable is it self unalterable p. 8 2. Argument p. 9 The Scripture shall not teach when we sin in Church-policy when not if the platform be alterable at mens will Ibid. There is no reason why some things positive are alterable in Ch. -policy some not p. 10 3. Argument ibid. The place 1 Tim. 6. 13. touching the unviolable coÌ„mand given to Timothy discussed p. 10 11 12 Pauls cloak of lesse consequence then Positions of policy p. 11 Widows p. 12 SECT 2. 4. Argument p. 13 Christ is the head of the Church even in the external policy thereof p. 13 14 A promise of pardon of sin made to the right use of the Keys proveth Discipline to be a part of the Gospel p. 15 16 The will of Christ as King is the rule of the Government of his house p. 17 18 Things
appointed yet is it not Morall that a Pastor be such or such a Country man so he be apt to teach and holy Crossing signifying the dedication of the Baptized Childe to the service of Christ must be Morall but what sort of River the â—â—ter of Baptisme be is meerly Physicall not Morall So there be two sort of things in Gods Worship things either meerly Morall or meerly Naturall And here also we consider things Circumstantiall as Time Place c. And circumstances are either meerly Physicall or 2. meerly Morall or 3. mixt partly Morall partly Physicall Circumstances meerly Physicall are such adjuncts of divine worship as are common and unseparable concomitants of both civil naturall and Religious or Sacred actions performed by men and as they are such contribute no Morall goodnesse or badnesse to the action or Agent in the performance thereof such as I take to be the seven individuall proprieties of every man Forma figura locus tempus strips patria nomen under Forme and figure The first two I comprehend such a proportion of body a man of a high stature or low a man beautifull or not beautifull to which I crave leave to reduce all externall Formes of habites as cloathes the head covered or not covered the situation of the body as as they are in themselves meer Physicall acts kneeling sitting standing the eyes cast down to the earth or lifted up the hands lifted up or not lifted up the knocking on the breast or not knocking motions of the soul that are naturall Time Place Family Country Name as such a person Thomas not Iohn the son of such a man not of such a man 1. All these are common concomitants of Civill Naturall and Religious actions for all actions performed by man of what kinde soever as naturall to eat sleep or civill to declaime an oration before the people or religious to preach or pray must be done by some persons Iohn or Thomas men of some Family in some time in some place for they are not actions eternall and so must be done in time and place so the Agents must have some habite some gesture in the doing of all these actions and they are unseparable Adjuncts of all these actions because neither actions naturall civill nor Religious can be performed but by some persons in some habite and gesture in some time in some place and lastly they are meere circumstantials and contribute no Morall goodnesse or badnesse to the actions as they are but common and unseparable circumstances for because he preacheth in time or in place simply the preaching is neither Morally good nor ill better or worse because Thomas prayeth in Gown or Cloak in this place rather then that place so it be not Locus ut sic of intention such a Religious place before the Image of Christ or the Father or the Virgin Mary the praying is neither the more or the lesse acceptable to God because of these common and unseparable adjuncts Hence there can be no such force in these circumstances as to make the actions indifferent Such as contend for the lawfulnesse of Ceremonies say our circumstances of time place and the like is nothing but a meerblinde for we cannot say they enumerate all these circumstances for habite gesture person are not meer circumstances and they mustcome in under the lap of this general c. or the like To which I answer that to my knowledge all these that are meer Physical circumstances are particularly enumerated such as are 1. Time 2. Place 3. Person or Agent 4 Name 5. Family 6. Condition as Country Family House 7. Habits or Garments 8. Gestures as sitting standing lifting of the eyes or hands knocking on the breast kneeling and there is no blinde in this enumeration for there be no other particulars that can be enumerated except this time of the day eight or ten of clock this place not any other this person not another and these are only considered here as circumstances not as such and such circumstances but the truth is the enumeration of Symbolicall Rites as Crosse Surplice and the like is really a blinde and is an enumeration with a wide belly and includeth species and not individuals only as Symbolicall Ceremonies such as are Crossing Bells Oyle Salt Spettle Milk turning to the East toward the people from the people toward the Altar with a high voice with a low voice and a thousand the like yea all the old Ceremonies of Moses with a new face all the toyes of the Masse of the Dedication of Churches which would fill a Volumne like the Rationale of Durandus 2. Some Circumstances are meerely Morall for as Divines distinguish Time and Place in Time as Time and as such a Religious Time the Lords Sabbath Tempus tempus ut sic and Place as Place or such a Religious place Locus locus ut sic So we may distinguish here between circumstances in common or in grosse and such and such circumstances As time is a common adjunct of Divine Worship But such a time to wit the Lords-day is both the time of Worship and Worship it self So there is place of Worship and there is such a Religious place The holy of holiest the Temple A habit is a meer accident of Worship the person John or Thomas is also an accident but if God command such an Ephod as Aaron and the Priests were to wear this is not a meer circumstance that the person who administreth the Lords-Supper be John or Thomas is a meer circumstance but that this person be a called Pastor not a private man is more then a circumstance And therefore these circumstances taken in common and their Universall nature are meerly Physicall circumstances but taken in their particular and determinate restrictions as such circumstances they may be meerly Morall circumstances such as are the common adjunct of the time of Worship the place and the Sabbath time and the Temple for Iewish Worship The former are circumstances meerly Physicall the latter meerly Morall I mean as they are restricted other wayes The Temple of Jerusalem served as our meeting places do to sence off the injuries of Heaven and Sun but that is as a place not as such a place 3. There be some mixt circumstances as these same Physicall circumstances clothed with their own seasonable conveniences so time for Worship and due and convenient time is required there may be some Scandalous and Superstitious time for Worship A habit in the Preacher is required and that a grave one a place is required for private Worship and a fit place such as is not the Market-street for private Praying the inconveniency of the circumstance may vitiate the Worship I did say that Christ Iesus hath set down in the Word a perfect Plat-form of Church-Government in all Morals I say in all Morals because the Word doth not teach us any thing of circumstances Physicall as Physicall Scriptura talia non ponit sed
things of God Leviticus 10. 10. The Priests were not to drink wine when they went into the Tabernacle That ye may saith the Lord put difference between holy and unholy and between unclean and clean Now Haggai expresly saith cap. 2. 11 12. That it was the Priests part to put this difference and so to admit to or exclude from the holy things of God Hence for this cause it is said as 2 Chron. 23. 19. Iehoiada appointed the officers of the Lords house so he set porters at the gates of the house of the Lord that none which are unclean in any thing might enter in so Ezra 9. 21 22. None did eat the Passeover but such as were pure and had separated themselves from the filthinesse of the Heathen of the land for this cause doth the Lord complain of the Priests Ezech. 22. 26. Her Priests have violated my law and have polluted my holy things they have put no difference between the holy and the prophane neither have they shewed the difference between the unclean and the clean Ezech. 44. 6. And thou shalt say to the Rebellious even to the house of Israel thus saith the Lord God O ye house of Israel let it suffice you of all your abominations 7. That ye have brought into my sanctuary strangers uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh to be in my sanctuary to pollute it even my house when ye offered my bread the fat and the blood and they have broken my Covenant because of all your abominations 8. And ye have not kept the charge of my holy things But ye have set keepers of my Charge in my Sanctuary for your selves 9. Thus saith the Lord God no stranger uncircumcised in heart nor uncircumcised in flesh shall enter into my sanctuary of any stranger that is among the children of Israel Here is a complaint that those that have the charge of the holy things should suffer the holy things to be polluted I grant it cannot bear this sense that none should be admitted to be Members of the Visible Church under the New Testament but such as are conceived to be regenerate except it can be proved that the Sanctuary was a type of the visible Church 2. That the Apostles constituted their Churches thus but we read not in all the New Testament of any admission of Church Members at all but only of baptizing of those who were willing to be baptized and from this resulted the capacity of a Church Relation in all Churches visible Nor 2. Do we finde any shadow in all the word of God of tryall of Church Members by way of electing and choosing of such and such as qualified by reason of a conceived regeneration in the persons chosen or of rejecting and refusing others as conceived to have no inward work of grace in them this I believe can never be made good out of the word of God 3. They must prove the Apostles admitted into the Sanctuary of the Visible Church Ananias Saphira Simon Magus and others uncircumcised in heart to pollute the holy things of God and that the Apostles erred and were deceived in the moulding of the first Apostolick Church in the world which was to be a rule and pattern to all Churches in the New Testament to all Ages I deny not but they might have erred according to the grounds of these who urge the comparison for a Church of visible Saints but that the Apostles De facto did erre in their Election and judgement in that wherein the holy Ghost holdeth them forth and their acts to be our rule and pattern I utterly deny I grant Act. 15. In that Synod they did Act as men and Elders not as Apostles but that it could fall out that they should uctually erre and obtrude false Doctrine instead of truth to the Churches in that Synod which is the first rule and pattern of Synods I shall not believe But there is this Morall and perpetuall truth in these Scriptures 1. That there are under the New Testament some over the people of God in the Lord some that watch for their souls and govern them as here there were Priests Levites that taught and governed the people 2. That the Rulers of the Churches alwayes are to have the charge of the holy things and to see that these holy things the Seals and Sacraments and word of promise be not polluted and that therefore they have power given them to debar such and such profane from the Seals and so are to discern between the clean and the unclean and this which the Prophet speaketh ver 9. is a prophecie never fulfilled after this in the persons of the people of God therefore it must have its spirituall truth fulfilled under the New Testament as is clear ver 11. Yet the Levites that are gone away far from me shall be Ministers in my Sanctuarie having charge at the gates of the House and Ministering to the House 14. And I will make them keepers of the charge of the House for all the service thereof and for all that shall be done therein Ver. 15. And the Priests and the Levites the sons of Zadok that kept the charge of my Sanctuary when the children of Israel went astray from me they shall enter into my Sanctuary and they shall come neer to my Table to minister unto me and to keep my charge 23. And they shall teach my people the difference betweene the holy and prophane and cause men to discerne between the uncleane and the cleane 24. And in controversie they shall stand in judgement and they shall judge it according to my judgement and they shall keepe my Lawes and my Statutes in all mine assemblies and they shall hallow my Sabbaths Now this Temple was another house then Solomons Temple as is evident out of the Text it having roomes dimensions structures so different that none can imagine them one house and these chapters containe the division of the Holy Land which after the captivity was never done for the ten Tribes never returned and this Temple is clearely a type of the new Ierusalem and agreeth to that City spoken of Revelation chapters 21. and 22. As may appeare especially by the foure last chapters of Ezekiel and in the last words of the last chapter And the name of the city from that day shall be The Lord is there And the Priests after the captivity as well as before brake the covenant of Levi Mal. 2. And therefore I see it not fulfilled except in the visible Church of the New Testament and in the Assemblies of Christian Churches Mat. 18. Act. 15. and the rest of the Church-assemblies under the New Testament As for the Lords personall raigne on earth it is acknowledged there shall be no Church policy in it no Word Sacraments Ordinances no Temple as they say from Rev. 21. 22. And with correction and submission the Priests and Levites that Ezek. 44. 15. are said to keep the charge of the Lords
Circumcision did typifie much naturall and originall heart corruption which cannot be punished by men or the Church but it followes not because Legall uncleannesse signifieth some other uncleannesse then that which is scandalous and censurable by the Church Ergo it signifieth not sinnes scandalous and censurable by the Church Erastus He that was legally unclean a long time or all his life as a Leper was not esteemed as no Iew or uncircumcised or a damned man he was to keepe the Sabbath yea none unclean were excluded from the Sacrament of the generall expiation in the 10. Moneth Lev. 16. and 23. Yea every soul under the pain of cutting off was to afflict his soule that day then the Lepers were not as Heathen and Publicans and condemned men yea the Magistrate could not punish a man for Leprosie Ans This is a poor argument because Ceremoniall Excommunication differeth from Christian Excommunication Ergo the former is not a type of the latter it followeth not Isaacs blood was never really shed Christ was really crucified Isaac was not mocked spitted on did not wear a crown of Thornes Iews and Gentiles crucified him not between two Theevs Ergo Isaac was no figure of Christ offered for our sins it followeth not 2. Nor are Lepers no Iews but in some respect they might no more come to the Temple 2. Nor amongst the people of God nor 3. Eate the Passeover then Heathens might doe and so are the Excommunicated with uâ— they are not exempted from faith repenting afflicting their soule for the sinnes of the Land nor are they eternally damned so they repent But Erastus hath no ground to say because the unclean were to afflict their soules and abstaine from servile worke in the day of atonement as our Excommunicants are not loosed from the duties of the ten Commandements wholly but from some publike Church duties but I see not how it followes Ergo The uncleane were to come to the holy convocation in the day of expiation and to observe the publike solemnities with Gods people One Law of God is not contradicent to another and the Leper and unclean were separated Ergo God could not tie them to be mingled with his people 3. The Leper was not punished by the Magistrate for he suffered onely for his Leprosie But it followeth not that the Magistrate should not punish a person obstinate to the Church Erastus When some uncleane persons were debarred from the Tabernacle and sacrifices many wickedmen were admitted Ergo. Moses both commanded men at the same time to come to the holy things and not to come Answ Moses bade the unclean come he bade all clean so they were not scandalously and openly wicked come and some came that were not bidden but rebuked for their coming as Ier. 7. 8. 9. Psal 50. 15. Here is no contradiction Erastus There be no figures of things present but of things to come morall uncleannesse was present at least there be no figures of things that incurre in the senses as theft and homicide Ans Circumcision the Lords Supper are signes and Symbols of things present as of Originall sinne our present union with Christ and communion of love amongst our selves Col. 2. 11. 1 Cor. 10. 16 17 18. 2. Scandals as they are spirituall wickednes incurre not in our senses yet other wayes they are visible 3. Christs dying was both tyipfied to Iohn the Apostle and Mary and his death incurred in their senses they saw him die So was Christ raised from the dead typified by Ionas in the belly of the Whale and with their eyes they saw him after he rose againe Erastus Houses cloaths trees stones were capable of legall uncleannes men onely of Morall Legall uncleannes is a qualitie wickednes morall is in actions Ans I am ashamed and wearied to put in Paper such childish things all this will not prove that Legall uncleannes is no type of Morall uncleannes Isaac was but a man Moses a man onely Ergo they cannot be Types of Christ who is more then a man Bread and Wine are some other thing then Christ then cannot these be symbols of Christ and our spirituall communion with him I see nothing here but a challenging of Gods wisedome who hath chosen leprosie bodily to figure out sinnes spirituall Leprosie Erastus will say not so Leprosie is in the category of quality and sinfull actions in the category of actions Erastus Legall uncleannes signifieth naturall corruption not scandals Ans Yea but Leprosie and other uncleannes legall was contagious and infectious and did relate to wicked actions that infect as a canker sin originall being common to all is not that contagious from one to many nor did the Lord ever command Separation for sinne Originall but for transgression of Ceremoniall Lawes he did Erastus The Ceremoniall uncleannes does typifie the justification and washing of a sinner in Christs blood because no unclean thing can enter in the New Ierusalem and so the Scripture Rev. 21. Esa 4â— Ioel 3. Acts 15. And it shadowes out no such thing as Excommunication out of the Church Ans All the arguments that Erastusmade to prove that legall separation and uncleannes proveth not Excommunication and Morall uncleannes will with the same force conclude that Legall uncleannes is not that which excludes men out of heaven As for instance to begin with the last Legall uncleannesse signifieth sinne originall not wicked actions therefore it signifieth not scandals then by this Legall uncleannes that caused legall separation is signified mens exclusion out of the high Jerusalem for onely sinne Originall not for actuall sins This type must be a lying type for actuall sins especially debaâ—res us out of the New Jerusalem Rev. 21. 8. c. 22. 15. 1 Cor. 6. 9. 2. Legall uncleannes and corruption of nature differ as much as legall uncleannes and actuall wickednesse But Erastus said the former cannot typifie the latter 1. Because Legall uncleannes is often involuntary 2. It is not universally forbidden 3. Many godly men may be legally unclean but actuall morall wickednesse is not so even so say I. 1. All naturall or originall uncleannes is voluntary in Adam 2. Is universally forbidden 3. It cannot consist with that holines which we must have or we cannot see God 3. By Erastus his fourth difference legall uncleannes was otherwise punished then naturall corruption for naturall corruption is punished with the first and second death Ephes 2. 2. Rom. 5. 15 16. the like may be said of all the rest 4. Numb 12. 14. Shame was unseparably annexed to Leprosie with contagion so leavening of others and shame is annexed to â—oul scandals and annexed to casting out of the Church 1 Cor. 5 6 7. 2 Thes 3. 14. Gal. 5. 9 10. But though a necessity of washing may be holden forth to us in Legall uncleannes ere we enter into Heaven yet not so directly as in legall separation for in it men scandalous are excluded out of the church least the uncleane
is not to kill were Hymeneus and Alexander delivered to Satan that they might learn not to blaspheme what learning or Discipline can dead men be capable of 2. There 's need of mourning when any is cut off from Christs body it being the highest judgement of God on earth 3. Without the visible Church altogether as Heathens are there is no salvation But to be so without the Church as the casting out is a medicinall punishment That the soul may be saved in the day of the Lord is a mean to bring the soul in to both the invisible and visible Church and putteth none in that state that they cannot be saved but by the contrary in a way to be saved so the man periret nisi periret Erastus It would seem it may be proved from the Text that the man persevered not in that wickednesse for the Text saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that hath done and that hath wrought this deed not he that doth this deed and therefore it seems Paul would inflict punishment as a good Magistrate useth to do even though the man repent and he saith that his spirit may be saved then the man repented Ans 1. Reconcile these two Paul was as a good Magistrate to kill the man though he should repent and yet at their intercession saith Erastus he did forgive him durst Paul at the request of men pardon a Malefactor contrary to the duty of a good Magistrate 2. Can Paul intend in miraculous killing only the saving of the mans soul and knowing that he was saved and having obtained his end yet he will use the mean that is he will kill him or if he intended another end also that others might fear how could he not kill for this end A good Magistrates zeal should not be softned and blunted for the request of men Erastus he saith He decreed to deliver the man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh that the soul may be saved now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to give over to permit here a person given a person to whom a person giving to wit Paul and the end wherefore that the spirit may be saved it is as if I would give my son to a Master either to be instructed or chastised so 1 Tim. 1. Act. 27. 28. Matth. 5. 18. Matth. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mar. 15. The brother shall deliver the brother to death and the Lord saith to Satan behold 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I give him to thee this is to deliver one afflicted killed condemned Ans All this is needlesse to be delivered over is to be recommended and taken in a good sense also Act. 14. 26. Commended to the grace of God Act. 15. 40. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and we deny not but to be delivered to Satan is to be delivered to be afflicted but the question is what affliction is meant here the affliction of the flesh say we or of the unrenewed part opposed to a saved spirit Erastus It is unpossible that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 destruction can be shown to signifie the destruction of the desires of sinfull flesh in all the New-Testament it alwayes signifieth killing death destruction nor doth the thing it self compell us to take it other wayes here nor for killing and death as 1 Thes 5. It is true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to kill destroy crucifie are so taken but never 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in either sacred or prophane Authors Ans I conceive Chrysostom knew Greek better then Erastus the man was delivered to Satan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That he might scourge him as he did Job with a hurtfull boyle or some other sicknesse Hence as that learned and judicious Divine who hath deserved excellently of the Protestant Churches Petrus Molineus saith on the place Chrysostom Homo Grece eloquentiae Râ—rum exemplum A rare example of Grecian eloquence doth think per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the word destruction not death but some heavy torment to be meant And I am sure Hieronymus a man in the tongues incomparably skilled said by destruction here was meant jejunia egrotationes fasting and diseases 2. Nor need we contend for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in all Authors of the world signifieth destruction for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to destroy the question will rather be what is meant by the flesh but certainly it is in prophane Greek Authors as unusuall I except sacred Greek Authors such as Basil Chrysostom who knew what mortification meant to speak as Paul doth Rom. 8. 13. If ye mortifie the deeds of the flesh ye shall live Let Erastus finde me a parallel to that in the New Testament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I think Erastus may not deny that this is to mortifie the sinfull works of the body of sin yet Aristotle Plato Lucian Plutarch Hâ—siod Homer nor any prophane Greek Author ever spake so We shall therefore deny that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth never to Greek Authors any thing but bodily death for 2 Thess 1. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 everlasting destruction is some more then bodily destruction 3. We say it is unpossible that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can be showen to signifie in either Old or New Testament a miraculous destroying of the body by Satan we retort this reason back upon Erastus his Exposition is not tollerable because it wanteth a parallel place it is his own reason Erastus The destruction of the flesh must be the destruction of the body not of concupiscence because he addeth that the spirit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be saved here the soul is opposed to the body Ans Though we should grant that by the flesh is meant the body yet it followeth not it is the miraculous killing of the man as I observed before 2. It maketh nothing against Excommunication for many learned Protestants teach that though to deliver to Satan were a bodily punishment or conjoyned therewith as the Learned Anto. Waleus doth observe yet the Apostle is clear for Excommunication in this chapter the learned Molineus denyeth delivering to Satan to be expounded of Excommunication and will have the destruction of the flesh to be some bodily tormenting of his body by Satan so doth sundry of the Fathers especially Ambrose Hyeronimus Augustinus and Chrysostom though Augustine be doubtful Yet Molineus saith Certum est paulum velle hunc incestum moveri communione Ecclesia sed id vult fieri ab ipsa Ecclesia Corâ—nthiacâ dicens ver 13. Tollite istum sceleratum è medio vèstrúm And that grave and judicious Divine Piscator saith on the place That the forme of Excommunication is this delivering to Satan but the destruction of the flesh he thinketh to be the exhausting of the naturall strength of the body with sorrow for his sin according to that Prov. 17.
out a corrupting and leavening incestuous man and this is all we seeke for Excommunication Erastus I never finde the name of the Passeover in the New Testament put for the Supper of the Lord. Ans We are not in such need of that interpretation as to put the name of the one for the other But let Erastus shew where he readeth that the thing to wit that the one Sacrament succeeded to the other and Beza may thence inferre his point if God would have no man to eat the Passeover with leavened bread and if eating of leavened bread and bread it selfe was to be put out of all the houses of Israel thereby signifying that incestuous and scandalous persons are to be cast out of the Church and so from the Sacraments let Erastus see what Beza hath said amisse here Erastus God would have the Iewes to eate the Passeover without leavened bread that they might remember of their wonderfull deliverance out of the hard bondage of Egypt and of the deliverance of their first borne Ans Reverend Beza saith thesetwo were by-past benefits remembred in that Sacrament But we have the Holy Ghost expounding that â—he putting away of leavened bread did typifie the purging out of the incestuous men and other scandalous persons out of the Church which is our point otherwise let Erastus shew us what is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole Masse and lumpe for it signifieth either one single man Or 2. The Masse and body of the visible Church of which the incestuous man was a Member or some third thing which Erastus and his followers must teach us Now the whole lumpe can neither signifie the incestuous man nor any other single member of the Church Not the incestuous man 1. He was not the whole lumpe in danger to be leavened for he was the leven then he was not the lump in danger to be leavened for the one is the agent infecting the other the patient infected The whole lumpe was the thing out of which the leaven was to be removed the terminus à quo the incestuous man was to be purged out therefore the leaven cannot signifie wickednesse in abstracto as Erastus saith but the wicked man in concreto for the leaven must signifie that which is cast out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of the midst of them v. 2. Now this was not incest but the man that had his fathers wife and had done that deed 2. Again the leaven was the person to be delivered to Satan that had a soul to be saved in the day of the Lord Iesus But wickednesse in abstracto is not delivered to Satan nor hath it a Spirit to be saved in the day of the Lord. 3. The leaven is such a one as is to be judged as is within the Church v. 12. and is called a brother with whom we are not to eat v. 11. now this cannot be said of wickednesse in abstracto But neither can the whole lumpe be one single man 1. One single man needed not the solemn conveening of the Church in the Name and power of the Lord Jesus for his personall purging for his personall purging is not a Church-act but an act of a mans daily conversation and Christian walking 2. The purging out and the casting out is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 2 out of the midst of them then there was a society to be purged Ergo not a single man onely Much more I said before which cannot but mist Erastus or any his followers except they expound this whole lump to be the body of the visible Church of Corinth 2. So Gal. 5. 9. he addeth v. 10. he that troubleth you the lump in danger to be leavened shall bear his judgement v. 12. I would they were cut off that trouble you Then the whole Churches of Galatia were the troubled lumpe so it must be here if this truth be so convincing out of the Text let any Erastian extricate himself if he can deny but here is a Church-lump a Church of Rulers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gathered together in the Name and power of the Lord Iesus that purgeth out of it selfe leaven not wickednesse in abstracto as I have demonstrated but a wicked man named a brother lest he leaven the whole Church to the end his Spirit may be saved Iudge reader if this be not name nature and thing of that which Erastians deny to wit of Excommunication I humbly provoke them to make good sense of the 1 Cor. 5. and shew me what is the wicked man 2. The casting out of the midst of you 3. The saving of his Spirit 4. The convened together court instructed with the Name and authority and power of Christ and if this be not a Church power efficacion and authoritative being steeled with the power of the Head of the Church 5. What is the leaven 6. What is the act of leavening 7. What is the whole lumpe 8. What is the purging out putting out and judging of the man 3. We know Erastus denieth any Church Government at all but some acts of punitive justice in the Magistrate But the Churches praying consenting that a scandalous person shall be delivered to Satan or some other waies punished by the Christian Magistrate are acts of Church government so proper to the Church as the Magistrate as the Magistrate cannot exercise such Acts. Erastus Paul-delivered Hymeneus and Alexander the same way to Satan by miraculous killing of him and whereas it is said that they may learne not to blaspheme Judges speake so when they kill Murtherers and Theeves that he shall teach them to doe so no more by taking the head from them Ans That word of a judge killing a man for Murther Sirra I le teach you other manners then to kill can no waies be ascribed to Paul who doth not scoffe so at taking away mens lives Paul who wished to be separated from Christ for the contumacious Iewes and would not kill any by Satan since his rod and power was for edification 2 Cor. 10. 8. and that the Spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord 1 Cor. 5. 5. he speaketh more gravely and lesse imperiously and without boasting and jeering in a matter of Salvation 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they may be instructed or disciplined not to blaspheme cannot be simply that they may blaspheme no more because killed by the Devill For 1. let Erastus in the Old or New Testament produce a parallel place for that Exposition where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be instructed is ascribed to the dead but this is a common fault in all Erastus his expositions of Scripture that they want all ground in Scripture as let me put upon all the followers of Erastus to give a parallel to this Exposition of Mat. 18. Let him bee to thee that is to thee onely when Christ speaketh of a generall Rule of all that scandalizeth 2. Let him be as a
my judgements and they shall keep my Laws and my Statutes in all mine assemblies and hallow my Sabbaths so 2 Chron. 23. 19. And Iehojada set the porters at the Gates of the house of the Lord that none which was uncleane in any thing should enter in And shall we concelve that porters that is Levites would hold out those that were only ceremonially unclean and receive in murtherers who had killed there Children to Molech that same day there was not to enter in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the unclean in any matter the text is generall excludes idolaters and murthers and such as should refuse to enter in Covenant with the Lord of which the Text speaketh As for Erastus his consequence which he unjustly imputeth to us to wit Israel sinned in coming to the Lords temple to prophane it in the very day that they slew their Children to Molech Ergo there ought to have been Priests and now there must be Presbyters and selected overseers in a Church judicature to debarre murtherers and the like scandalous persons from the Sacraments 1. This is not our consequence But this we say if the Priests knew that same day that they came to the Temple they slew their Children to Molech the Priests should have debarred them from coming to the Temple and from eating the Passeover as their office and duty was by the Law of God Num. 9. v. 6 7. Num. 19. 11 12. Lev. 22. 6. The soul that hath touched any such unclean shal be unclean till even and shall not eat of the holy things unlesse he wash his flesh with water 7. and when the Sun is downe he shal be clean and shall afterward eat of the holy things because it is his food Now it was the Priests office Lev. 10. 10. that he put a difference between holy and unholy and between clean and unclean so if Eli knew that his sonnes made themselves vile before the people and committed furnication with the women at the doore of the Tabernacle of the Congregation Ergo Eli should as a judge have restrained them 1 Sam. 3. 13. But from this antecedent we draw not this consequence Elies sonnes do publikely make themselves vile Ergo there ought to be such an Ordinance as a judge with Civill power to punish them and Ergo there ought to have been no King to punish them but a judge like unto Eli and Samuel this consequence followeth not from this antecedent but only hoc posito that Eli hath the sword and be the Civill judge Ergo he ought to punish from scandals in the Church and prophaning the holy things of God we inferre not Ergo there must be such a judicature erected as if the antecedent were the cause of the consequent But this only followeth Ergo supposing there be a Church and Presbytery invested with this power they ought not to admit murtherers or any unclean persons to come and partake of the Sacraments and so defile the holy things of God as for the place Ezek. 33. I undertake not from thence to conclude debarring of any from the holy things of God by the Priests what may follow by consequent is another thing Erastus Whereas it is said Deut. 23. the Lord would not have the price of a whore offered to him Ergo far lesse would he have a whore admitted to the sacrifice it followeth not but a penitent or a whore professing repentance may be admitted to the sacrifices 2. He forbiddeth only the price of a whore to be offered to him as a vow or a thing vowed it may be that agree not to all sacrifices For God forbiddeth a living creature that is unperfect in a vow But Lev. 22. he forbiddeth not such imperfect living creatures to be offered to him in a free will sacrifice so God forbiddeth honey to be offered in an offering by fire but not in all other oblations But will not the Lord have a whore to offer to God that which is lawfully purchased or which is her patrimony or may not a whore offer her first borne to the Lord or circumcise him We find not that forbidden From things to persons we cannot argue we may not offer a lame beast to God Ergo doth the Lord so abhor a lame man that he may not come to the Temple God alloweth not tares amongst the wheat yet he will not have the externall Ministers to pluck up the tares while harvest Ans If the hire received for a whores selling of her body to uncleannesse must not be applyed to the service of God farre more cannot a whore as a whore be admitted to partake of the holy things of God for the price or money is called abomination to God Deut. 23. for the whore not the whore for the money and so we may well argue from the things to the persons 2. It is false that God forbiddeth the price of a whore onely in vows and not in sacrifices he forbiddeth it because as Moses saith Deut. 23. 18. it is an abomination to the Lord and as Erastus saith it is money unjustly purchased Yea Davids practise teacheth that what we bestow on sacrifices as well as in vows it must be our own proper goods and not so much as gifted to us 2 Sam. 24. 24. Neither will I offer burnt offerings unto the Lord my God of that which cost me nothing farre lesse would he offer the price of a whore in sacrifices and the Divines of England say on the place hereby is forbidden that any gaine of evill things should be applied to the service of God Mich. 7. 1. Vatablus saith the like 2. For the Lords forbidding to offer in a vow Bullock or Lambe or any thing that is superfluous or lacking in his parts and permitting it in a free-will offering by a free will offering is meant that which is given to the Priest for food of a free gift but otherwise what is offered to the Lord in a vow or a free will offering must be perfect for the blind broken maimed having a wenne scurvy or scab can in no sort be offered to the Lord Lev. 22. 20 21 22 23. There is no word of the Lord in the free will gift that Erastus speaketh of but only the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is liberall free from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to give freely to God or man 3. A whore repenting or professing repentance was not debarred from sacrifices but that is without the bounds of the question an heathen could say Quem penitet facti is pene innocens est Senec. in Traged We debarre none that professe repentance from the seals of the Covenant 4. When a whore as a whore did offer her first borne being a bastard in the Temple I conceive neither she nor her childe were accepted Deut. 23. 2. Abastard shall not enter into the Congregation of the Lord if the childe was born of Married Parents the woman repenting the question now must be far altered 5. For a lame
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
to the power civil that is of God If the Magistracy be an Ecclesiastical ordinance and a vicegerent power of the mediator as they say it is then to be subject to the Magistrate is to be subject to this Church power and to be subject to the Church 2. The punishing power of the Magistrate as such doth not bind and loose on Earth and open and shut Heaven for then hoc ipso because the Magistrate doth judge and punish evil doers the mans sin should be bound in Heaven now so the judging and punishing power should take hold of the conscience But it is certain the Magistrate as judge may take away the life of a Capital Delinquent when he knoweth the man repenteth and believeth and findeth mercy with God Ergo this magistratical power is not Ecclesiastical for if the man to the knowledge of all repent the Church hath no power to bind his sin on Earth nor will God bind his sin in Heaven but yet the Magistrate as a Magistrate is to punish Ergo this punishing power is no Ecelesiastical power nor any part of Church-government 3. The punitive power of the Magistrate hath influence on men as ill-doers whether they be within the Church or without the Church and worketh on men as Members of the Common wealth whether Christians or Heathens Indians or Americans But no punitive power of the Church is or can be extended to those that are without the Church but Pastors and the Church leaveth them to be judged of God 1 Cor. 5. 12. nor can they be cast out of the visible Church who were never within it 4. The punitive power of the Church as such floweth from Christ as Mediator Head and King of the Church because Christ as Head and Mediator hath appointed a shepheards staffe discipline or rebukes Church-censures and Excommunication for his sheep his redeemed ones family and people for whom he is Mediator his Scepter and Rod must be congruously and sutably proportioned to his Crown and spiritual Royal power But the punitive power of Magistrates floweth from God the Creator as the whole world is the family of God so for the preservation of humane society the Lord hath been pleased to appoint Magistrates and the punitive power of them by the sword to correct ill-doers for the peace good and safety of humane societies 5. All punitive Church-power is for edification 2 Cor. 10. 8. That the mans spirit may be savdd in the day of the Lord 1 Cor. 5. 5. that the party may be gained by private and publike Church rebukes Mat. 18. 15. If he hear thee thou hast gained thy Brother v. 18. If he neglect to hear the Church let him be to thee as an Heathen c. Ergo if he hear the Church his soul is gained 2 Thess 3. 14 15. 1 Tim. 1. 19. but the intrinsecal end of punishing an evil doer is not the gaining of his soul but a political civil satisfaction of justice for a wrong done to humane society that others may fear and do so no more the Magistrate in using his sword as a Magistrate looketh not to this as the intrinsecall end of the sword to convert a soul to augment the number of the subjects of Christs mediatory Kingdom nor doth he as a Magistrate proportion the measure of the stroke of the sword according to the repentance aud godly sorrow of the man who hath sinned but in justice his eye is not to pity or spare the blasphemer though as dear to him as a father and friend Deut. 13. 6 8 9. 10. Deut. 33. 9. whether he repent or not repent but the Church censure respecting intrinsecally the gaining of the soul is proportioned to the offenders sorrow for his sin that he be not swallowed with over much sorrow 2 Cor. 2. 7 8 9 10. 6. This punitive part of Church Government is neither in name nor in thing in Scripture Triglandius denieth that there is any Ecclesiastical co-active or compulsive power properly so called in the Church there is no violence used by Christ as King of his Church this shepheard carrieth the Lambs in his bosome Isai 40. 11. Hyeronimus said well The King or Magistrate ruleth over men that are unwilling he meaneth in punishing them but the Pastor doth it to men that are willing And renowned Salmasius citing this addeth that of the Apostle Peter to the Elders Feed the flock 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is not pena a proper punishment that the Church doth inflict nor doth the Scripture speak so nor is the thing it self punishment or any punitive power here indeed all co-active power of the Magistrate as the Magistrate and all punishment issuing from it is against the will of the punished and is inflicted with the dominion of the sword we know how the Adversarie side here with Papists who make all Church censures to be pennances inflicted upon penitents against their will Therefore saith Salmasius Of old censures were so voluntary that to deny them was a punishment and they were desired and sought as a Benefit as the ancient Canons of Councels and Canonick Epistles and writings of Fathers bear witnesse and this doth prove if Iesus Christ have a willing people Psal 110. and if rebukes and censures be to the Saints as medicine that will not break the head Psal 141. 5. no medicine is received unwillingly by wise men and no medicine is a punishment then the punitive power of the Magistrate hath no place in the Church as the Church 7. The Magistrate dispenseth no Ecclesiasticall censures as a Magistrate For 1. He rebuketh not as a Magistrate for rebukes as rebukes intrinsecally tend to the gaining of the soul so as to receive rebukes willingly is a Character of a child of God and to hate it a signe of a wicked man Ecclesi 7. 5. Prov. 28. 23. and 6. 23. and 1. 23. c. 13. 18. c. 15. 5. 10. 31. 32. Prov. 5. 12. and 10. 17. and 15. 10. and 9. 8. and 13. 1. so the sword cannot inflict this censure nor can the Magistrate cast out of the Synagogue or Church he can banish which is a locall casting out but not excommunicate if he be said to be an Ecclesiasticall person exercising punitive power in the Church because he judgeth and punisheth sins against the Church 1. This is nothing except he inflict spirituall punishment of rebuking and excommunication which he cannot do because he hath not to do with the conscience or the converting of a sinner 2. If he be a Church-governour because he punisheth sins against the Church but in so far as they disturb the Peace of the State then Pastors may be civil Governours and use the sword which Christ forbiddeth Luk. 22. 26 27. and 12. 13 14. because they inflict spirituall punishment such as publike rebukes on murtherers parricides but in a spirituall way to gain souls to Iesus Christ and they rebuke murthers thefts thought not as committed against the State and Peace of
the civil Magistrate may lawfully dispence the Word and Sacraments 4. They never condemned the Discipline of Geneva Erastus doth 5. They acknowledge there was in the apostolick Church an Ecclesiastical Senate or Presbytery Erastus saith this is a devise wanting Scripture 6. They denied Excommunication to be exercised by all the Church as a devise of the Anabaptists Bullinger saith 1 Cor. 5. a dilectis ad hoc hominibus Erastus saith it must be exercised by the whole Church if there be any such thing 7. Bullinger and Gualther think that Discipline is necessary in the Church Erastus refuseth any such thing 2. Bullinger and Gualther do think that the Lords Supper which is an action of publike thanksgiving and communion should not be turned into a punishment which is a Use that Christ and his Apostles hath not taught us But this is easily answered 1. The pearls and holy things of the Gospel are not turned into another Vse then Christ hath ordained because they are denied to dogs and swine as a punishment of their swinish disposition and if these pearls were given to swine should they not be turned to another Use then is ordained by Christ Is not the union of members in a Church-body a sweet bound is this communion translated to a bastard end unknown to Christ and the Apostles because the incestuous man is cast out of that Communion This is as who would say the Table of the House is a symbol of a sweet Communion of all the children of the House Ergo the Table is turned from its native Use and is abused if a flagitious and wicked son be turned out at the doors and removed from the Table I think the contrary is true the Lords Table ordained for children is converted into an Use not known to Christ and his Apostles when the Table is prepared for dogs and swine and this argument is against Christ Mat. 7. as much as against us 2. By this the excommunicated cast out of the House is not debarred from the Table of the House What sense is here the offender is cast out from amongst the children of the Lords family and yet is admitted to the Table of the family 3. These great Divines teach that in the dayes of Christ and the Apostles there was such an ordinance as excommunication and that the Church who worketh not miracles for any thing that we read and received a precept from the Holy Ghost for Excommunication as a moral and perpetual mean to remove scandals to humble and shame an obstinate offender to preserve the Church from contagion and to edifie all as is clear Mat. 18. 15 16 17 18 19. 1 Cor. 5. 1 2 3 4 5 6. 2 Thes 3. 14 15. Rom. 16. 17. 2 Cor. 10. 8. that the Church I say or men must be wiser then Christ and remove this mean of edification and substitute the sword of the Magistrate that hath no activity or intrinsecal influence for such a supernatural end as edification this cannot but be a condemning of the lawgiver Christs wisdom Whereas Mr. Prinne and others say that by the preaching of the Word not by Church-discipline men are converted to Christ as witnesse the many thousands of godly people in England where there have been no government but prelatical I answer 1. This is to dispute against the wisdom of Christ who ascribeth to private rebukes and Church censures the gaining of souls the saving of the spirit repentance and humiliation Mat. 18. 15 16. 1 Cor. 5. 5 6. 2 Cor. 2. 6 7 8 9. 2 Thes 3. 14 15. Rom. 16. 17. 2 Cor. 10. 8. because preaching is more effectual Ergo is the Discipline not effectual 2. Consider if thousands more would not have been converted if Christs Government had been set up for which Mr. Cartwright Mr. Vdal Mr. Dearing and the godliest did supplicate the Parliament 3. Consider if there hath not been in Scotland as many thousands comparing the numbers rightly when the Church was terrible as an Army with Banners 4. Consider how the Tigurine Churches and others for want of the hedge have been scandalously wicked 5. The Magistrate by punishing drunkennesse or fornication or extortion for he cannot take away the life for these doth not keep the lump of the whole Church from being leavened and infected with the contagion of such The Church by removing and casting out such an one must do that and the personal separating from such as walk inordinately cannot be an act of the Magistrate and yet cannot but be a perpetual and moral mean or ordinance that the Church is to use not only when they have not a Christian Magistrate but perpetually for we are to withdraw from those that walk inordinately and are not to be corrupted with having intire fellowship with wicked men whether the Church have a Christian Magistrate or no I am to gain my brother by rebuking and by telling the Church and to esteem one that heareth not the Church as an Heathen or a Publican that I may gain him Whether there be a Christian or an Heathen Magistrate in the Church except it can be proved that the Magistrate as the Magistrate is to gain souls to God Yea Musculus Bullinger and Gualther have alike reason to say there is no need that we rebuke privately a trespasing brother and that we forgive him seven times a day when the Church hath a Christian Magistrate as they can say there is no need of Excommunication for if the sword can supply the room of one spiritual ordinance of God why not of another also and the text will bear us out as well to say we are not to eschew the company of a scandalous brother for shaming of him and for the danger of being leavened by him because the Magistrates sword may supply the want of that mean of edifying as well as it may supply the want of Excommunication Yea they may say there is no need of publike rebukes by the Word the sword may supply these also The Helvetian Conâ—ession is approved by the Tygurine Pastors by the Divines of Berne Basil Geneva Deus ad colligendam vel constituendam sibi Ecclesiam eamque gubernandam et conservandam semper usus est Ministris Ministrorum virga institutio functio vetustissima ipsius Dei est non nova non hominum est ordinatiâ— cumque omninò oporteat esse in Ecclesia disciplinam et apud veteres quondam usitata fuerit excommunicatio fuerint que judicia Ecclesiastica in populo Dei in quibus per viros prudentes et pios ipsisimum presbyterium exercebatur disciplina Ministorum quoque fuerit ad edificationem disciplinam moderari c. Magistratus officium praecipuâ—m est pacem et tranquillitatem publicam procurare et conservare Gallica Confessio the 29. Credimus veram Ecclesiam gubernari debere eâ politiâ sive disciplinâ quam D. N. I. C. sanciviâ— ita ut viz. in ea sâ—nt pastores presbyteri sive
Church to a supernaturall happinesse nor can the Church be governed by the light of nature or by the rules of morall Philosophie or civill prudence or humane lawes as Cities Common-wealths and Kingdomes are 4. It is a rule in Circumstantials of worship because some time some thing as the Lord day is both worship and a Circumstantiall of worship but not properly a Circumstance in all these the Church as the Church must â—â—ir by the Word of God 3. What ever is in Rome in physicall or natural circumstances is not by us judged Popisâ—â— But what ever religious observance Symbolicall signe new worship such as â—renging to Bread Altars humane Festivals Surplice and the like that are neither things of nature nor 2. things of prudence and civill policie nor 3. Miraculous things nor 4. Things of art and science nor 5. meere Circumstances and yet are added to the worship of God not necessarie in themselves not warranted by Precept practice or promise in the word of God we take to be devised by the wil of men and if by Papists so much the more unlawfull and may well be tearmed Popish as Popish is contradistinguished from that which is â—ound and warranted by the Word and that which is not thus agreeable to the Word is repugnant thereunto and either Popish or worse or heathenish Hooker The question is whether wee may follow Rome in orders Rites and Ceremonies wherein we doe not thinke them blamable or else ought to devise others and to have no conformitie with Rome no not so much as in these Ans We never dreamed of such a Question it is as if one should have formed such a question to debate with Moses Whither may we follow Egypt and Canaan in rounding the corners of our head and cutting our flesh for the deaâ— in sowing oâ—r land with mingled seeds c. or ought we to devise others the like and have no Conformitie with them no not so much as in these Now Moses gave never leave to Israel to devise either these or any other the like The Question supposeth two things for granted which are plainly false 1. That if we may refuse Popish Ceremonies as scandalous because Papists devised them that therefore the worship of God hath need of other Symbolical and religious signes of the like nature which we ought to devise But the worship of God neither needeth these nor any Phylactaries of that kind 2. It supposeth we doe not thinke the Rites of Rome blamable this is a begging of the question for both we blame them as positive religious Rites beside and so contrary to the Word and because Romish and so in a high degree scandalous Hooker When Reason evicteth that all such Ceremonies are not to be abolished they answer they doe only condemne Ceremonies unprofitable or Ceremonies in stead whereof as good or better may be devised so they cannot get out of the Bryars Ans 1. Who answereth so Hooker should have knowne that if the Testament of Christ warrant not Ceremonies they and all their kind are unprofitable and to be abolished whither they lay in the wombe of the mother of â—ornications or be bastards of any other Mother 2. Yea we condemne all such Ceremonies because unnecessarie as devised by the will or lust of men for all necessatie and usefulnesse of positive religious and teaching observances is from the will of God And when he saith we condemne only all unprofitable Ceremonies wee are not in the briars for he saith his owne Ceremonies are unprofitable briars for we condemne them as unprofitable Chartwright that godly and learned witnesse of Jesus Christ from whom Hooker would bring this answer saith Popish Ceremonies are not to be used to adorne the worship when as good or better may be established But he meaned never that as good positive Symbolicall rites without the word of God can be lawfully devised at all this should have been proven from Cartwrights words But saith he we retaine these because we judge them profitable yea so good that if we had either simply taken them cleane away or else removed them so as to place others in their stead wee had done worse But who authorized them to sit judges the burden of proving them inconvenient lyeth on them Ans 1. It is a proud Reply Wee retaine popish Ceremonies because we judge them profitable where as the question is not what the Prelates who must bee called the Church judge them to be but what they are for it is a farre other question who should sit Judges though we can prove Christ never made Prelates at all and so he never made them judges and whether the Ceremonies be profitable or not When Prelates say we retaine Popish Ceremonies because we judge them profitable it is to say We judge Popish Ceremonies to be profitable because we judge them profitable For we say to retaine them is to passe a law and a judgement that they are profitable But our argument is against their judgeing them to be profitable and against their retaining them Might not Pharisees say as much Wee retaine the precepts and traditions of men used by our fathers because we judge them profitable and who authorized Christ and his Disciples to judge the Church the burden of proving them inconvenient lyeth on the Disciples Christ said their Ceremonies were the doctrines of men and so unlawfull and the like argument bring wee against the Ceremonies and so they must be unprofitable 2. If the Church make or retaine lawes beside and without the Word they are under the burden of proving them to be profitable for they affirme and affirmanti incumbit probatio for they ought to give another reason of their lawes then we judge We affirme it is Gods prerogative to say that 3. If Prelates should doe worse to have cleane removed these or brought others in their place Then must the Prelaticall Church be better then the Apostolike Church for they neither had these nor any in their stead except they make us see that Peter and Paul dispensed the Word and Sacraments clothed either with lineing Rochets and crossing the aire with the Thumbe or then they adorned Word and Sacraments with other the like mysticall Rochets or some merry toyes like crossing the aire with the Thumbe and if not they did worse then our Prelats who raise bloody warrâ—s in three Kingdomes for such fooleries and for an office which of old for shame had no kinred nor house but mans law jus humanum by their owne grant But that saith Hooker wherein the Israelitâ—â— might not be like to the Egyptians and Canaanites was such as peradventure as had beene no whitlesse unlawfull although those Nations had never been I would know what one thing was in these nations and is here forbidden being indifferent in it selfe yet forbidden only because they used it Ans This is not our argument I am not to say the only reason why the Lord forbade
scripta reâ—nuimus and August Lib. de pasto c. 11. Quicquid inde è scriptura Andieritis hoc nobis bene sapiat Quicquid extraest respuite nâ— erretis in nebulâ Now to say we may receive some truths of things Arbitrary or mutable crosseth Cyrill Allexand Glaphyre in Gen. l. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That which the holy Scripture hath not said by what means should we receive and account it amongst these things that be true Cyrill would deny all your Ceremonies to speak any thing but lies and so would I Yea to bring in any thing that is not written Basilius saith it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a demonstration of Pride and Origen in Levit. Hom. 5. Si quid autem superfuerit quod non Divina Scriptura decernat nullam aliam debere tertiam Scripturam ad autoritatem scientiae suscipi licet I think some third Scripture which is neither the old or the New-Testament must be sought to make good the Doctrines that dumbe humane Ceremonies teach us 2. That the blind lead the blinde is not safe but it is no Argument to prove that this is an immutable thing in policy that there should be Leaders and some that are led except you suppose the Prelates to be the seeing men and the Pastors and People to be blinde 3. I utterly deny this consequence The Clergy is a great multitude Ergo order necessarily requireth that by degrees they be distinguished in Prelates and Pastors for the Prelats are a multitude Ergo order requireth that one be Pope to command all the rest The Apostles were a multitude Ergo There was a necessiâ—y of a Monarch-Apostle the Prelaticall Government is Monarchicall doth order require in all multitude no Government but a Monarchy Nor do we finde any warrant that Apostles had jurisdiction over Pastors in the Scripture nor in any Ecclesiasticall Records but where Papacy was working Paul as if he had been to go out of this life and never to see the faces of the Elders of Ephesus Act. 20. 25. Left unto them as Elders all of equall degrees of power of jurisdiction the feeding and Governing of the Church of God Act. 20. 28 29 30. 4. The particulars of Policy as Surplice Crossing are no more circumstances of Worship then Aarons Ephod a vesture is a circumstance but a Religious vesture teaching us of Pastorall holinesse is worship not a Circumstance Men can place no Religion in Circumstances Hooker Eccle. Poli. l. 3. p. 125. It is in vain to argue from Christs office if there be an immutable Platforme in Scripture it is as if one should demand a Legacy by vertue of some written Testament wherein there being no such thing specified he pleadeth that there it must needs be and bringeth Arguments from love and good will which awayes the Testator bore him imagining that these or the like proofes will convict a Testament to have that in it which other men can no where by reading finde it s our part to admire what he hath done rather then to dispute what he in congruity of reason ought to do how unsearchable are his judgements Ans 1. It is very true a Platforme of discipline is questio facti A question of Fact rather then Law we hear nothing in this comparison but what Papists with equall strength of reason do bring for their unwritten Traditions for they say Protestants are to prove a fact and deed of Jesus Christ that he hath left in his written Testament a perfect and immutable Platforme of Doctrine and manners to which nothing can be added and this they prove from the care wisdom and love of Christ to his Church for he ought to reveale his will perfectly and compleatly in his Scripture otherwise he hath not the love care and wisdom of a Law-giver to his own people if he leave them in the mist and in the dark and write not down all things touching Faith and manners Now we can no where finde by reading Scripture any thing for the Baptizing of Infants or a remedy for women to be cured of Originall sin in the Old-Testament in lieu of circumcision we finde no warrant for the Feast of Dedication in the Law of Moses nor for the dayes of puring observed by the Iewes nor for Images invocation of Saints Prayer for the dead the perpetuall Virginity of the Virgin Mary and many such Doctrines which the Church believeth But we answer because these vain doctrines we except the Baptizing of Infants warranted by Scripture are not in Scripture they are the vaine and saplesse doctrines of men and will-worship But to presse the comparison If any should demand a Legacy by vertue of a Testament in which the Testator hath testified his good will wisdom care to his Brethren in such a manner that he had said I have left in my Testament to my Brethren my mind to instruct them for every good worke to lead them in all truth to teach them every good way to understand equity judgement and righteousnesse to cause them walke safely so that their feet shall not stumble and I have left them my word to be a Lamp and light to their feet in walking Then I would inferre from this Testament two things 1. That the love and care of our Testator Christ so revealed warranteth us to plead for light in Christs Testament how to walk in every good way and so how to walk in all the wayes of the orderly worship of God and of Governing of Gods house by Pastors Teachers Elders Deacons by their Lawfull calling qualifications duties by the Churches Courts in admonition excommunication by the use of the keys 2. Because the Testament is perfect to instruct in every good way particularly and in all duties of worship and this Testament forbiddeth all adding and diminishing and speaketh not one word of Crossing Cringing and bowing to Altars of wearing of Surplice Therefore these are not Gods Lawfull wayes and if I walk in them I can do nothing but fall and stumble 3. We do not here argue simply from the wise and congruous dealing of God what he ought to do nor from the love of Christ as a King and heâ—d simply but from the love care and wisdom of Christ as he is such a King and Head upon whose shoulder is the whole Government and upon whom are all the vessels of the house great and small 4. It is no lesse then blasphemy to ascribe the not particularizing of Ceremonies such as Crossing Surplice humane Feasts to the unsearchable Wisdom and wayes of God to which Paul Romanes 11. referreth the great deeps of Supernaturall Providence in Gods Election and Reprobation his calling of the Gentiles and rejecting of the Iewes and observe I pray this consequence the wayes of the Lord past finding out Ergo The Lord hath set down no Platforme of Church-Policy in his Sons Testament but hath left it to the wisdom of the Church to devise Crossing kneeling to Creatures
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
First the Canonick Scripture is not Uniform and perpetual Why for certainly once there was no Canonick Scripture but the Books of Moses and after the holy Ghost added the Book of the Psalmes and the Prophets and after the Nativity and Ascension of our Lord to Heaven the Apostles did write Canonick Scripture I hope this is but a poor Argument to infer that there is no Vniform and unalterable Platform of Divinity in the Old and New Testament and yet the Argument is as concludent the one way as it is the other 3. We do not so contend for an Vniform and unalterable Platform of Church-Government in the Word as it was not free to the Lord and Law-giver to adde and alter at his pleasure only we hold it so Vniform and unalterable that this Platform is not shaped like a coat to the Moon or alterable at the will of men without expresse warrant of the Lords Word and to rise and fall with the climate and the elevation of Nationall customes and therefore the Argument is nothing concludent and judge what can be made of these words of the learned Mr. Prynne The Government and Officers of all Churches not being De facto one and the same in all particulars in the very Primitive times as well as since it can never be proved to be of Divine right and the self same in all succeeding Ages without the least variation â—inee it was not so in the Apostles dayes For this is all one as to say the Canonick Scripture was not one and the same in the Apostles and Prophets times but admitted of divers additions Ergo now in our daies Canonick Scripture is not one and the same but may also suffer the like additions 2. Because God himself added to Canonick Scripture and to the Government of the Church in the Apostles dayes Ergo men may without Warrant from God adde in our dayes to Canonick Scripture and to the Government and Officers of the Church 3. The Government and Officers in the Apostles time were not of Divine right but alterable by God Ergo Apostles Evangelists Pastors Teachers Workers of miracles were not of Divine right in the Apostles times but might have been altered by men without the expresse Warrant of God But will any wise man believe that Pauls Apostleship was alterable and might be changed by the Church Since he saith Gal. â— 1. Paul an Apostle not of men neither by men but by Iesus Christ and 1 Cor. 12. 28. When Paul saith And God hath set 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or instituted some in the Church first Apostles secondly Prophets thirdly Teachers after that miracles then gifts of healing c. and Eph. 4. 11. When Christ ascended on high he gave some Apostles some Prophets and some Evangelists and some to be Pastors and Teachers 12. For the perfecting of the Saints c. Can it enter into the head of any man to say some Churches had Apostles and Evangelists and Pastors and miracles and some not Ergo Apostles and Pastors are not by Divine right Ergo because they were not in all Churches therefore they were alterable at the will of men and a Surplice and Crosse in Baptisme hath as much of Divine institution as the calling of the Apostle or of a Pastor and truly to me it is bold Divinity to say that Pastors set over the flock by the holy Ghost Act. 20. 28. and whos 's due qualifications are so specified 1 Tim. 3. and Elders 1 Tim. 5. 17. and Teachers placed by God in the Church 1 Cor. 12 28. may be all turned out of the Church by men as having no Divine right to be there and that men may set up other alterable Officers in their place for by this reason the Apostles by that ordinary spirit that is now in Church-Rulers might without their Apostolick spirit or any immediate Warrant from Christ have altered the whole frame of Apostolick-Government and Church-Officers as the Church may upon motives from themselves not warranted from the word turne out Surplice Crosse and all such stuffe out of the Church Master Prynne The Apostles speech 1 Cor 12. 4 5 6. There are diversity of gifts but the same spirit there are diversity of operations but the same God compared with chap. 8. to 13. and c. 9. v. 19. to 24. I made my self a servant to all that I might gain all c. parallel'd with Act. 15. 1 2 5 6 10. to 32. and chap. 21. 18. to 30. The Churches of Judea did retain the use of Circumcision Purification and other Iewish Rites which the Gentiles by the Apostles resolution were not to observe and Act. 2. 22. The Apostles frequented the Iewish Temple and Synagogues conforming themselves to the Order and Discipline thereof and their own private Christian Assemblies all this will clear that all Churches had not one and the self same Church-Government Ans If diversity of Gifts as to be a speaker with Tongues a Prophet a Pastor will prove the Discipline to be alterable at the Churches will as are Surplice Crosse c. I shall think men may infer any thing they please out of the Scripture and that to be Apostles Pastâ—rs are as indifferent and variable as eating of meats 1 Cor. 8. and Pauls taking of wages at Corinth 1 Cor. 9. Which none can say for if the Church should now command us to abstain from such and such meats as the Apostle doth 1 Cor. 8. We should call that and do call it in the Romish Church a Doctrine of Devils 1 Tim. 4 1 2 3. All brought for this from Act. 15. Act. 21. tendeth to this the Lord himself for the then weaknesse of the Jews of meer indulgence appointed some things to be indifferent and abstained from in the case of scandall Therefore Circumcision Purification Sacrifices of Bullocks and sheep And all the Ceremonies of Moses his Law may be commanded by the Church so they have another signification then they had before and shadow out Christ who is already come But because God hath made some things indifferent shall it follow that the Pope yea or any Church on earth can create an indifferency in things they must then take from things their Morall goodnesse or conveniency with Gods Law and take from them their moral badnes disconveniency to Gods Law which to me is to change the nature of things and to abrogate and change Gods Laws it is true P. Martyr 1 Cor. 9. 19. saith Paul was made all things to all men Quoad Ceremonias res medias in that he Circumcised Timotheus The Law saith he was abrogated Vâ—rum id non adhuc Judaeis liquebat The Jews were to be spared for a time but only for a time and therefore when the Gospel was sufficiently promulgated Paul said Gal. 5. to be Circumcised was to lose Christ and he refused to be a servant to Peter in his sinful Iudaizing Gal. 2. And withstood him in the face Now certain it
that he dishonoreth God 2. The Jewes to this day as of old used not uncovering the head as a sign of honour But by the contrary covering was a sign of honour If therefore the Jews being made a visible Church shall receive the Lords Supper and Pray and Prophecy with covered heads men would judge it no dishonouring of their head or not of dis-respect of the Ordinances of God Though Paul having regard to a Nationall Custome in Corinth did so esteem of it Antonius Corduba a Franciscan enumerateth nine externall acts of Adoration but speaketh nothing of uncovering the head as 1. Sacrificing 2. Martyrdome 3. Giving and Receiving the Sacraments 4. Suiting of Pardon 5. Suiting of Grace 6. Smiting the breast 7. Building of Churches 8. Institution of Feasts 9. Vows and Oaths Prelaticall Formalists side with them in Building and Consecrating of Churches and Holy-dayes which are but will worship as used by them And for Martyrdome it is formally an act of Christian fortitude not worship the confession of Gods truth a Concâ—mitant of Martyrdome is indeed worship How suiting of Pardon and suiting of Grace are two externall acts of Adoration I see not for by this way if we regard the multitude of things that we suit there should be moe then two Consecrating of Churches is taken two wayes 1. For a meer dedication or Civill destination of any thing to its end and use As when a house is builded a garment is first put on when we refresh our selves with a draught of water we may pray for a blessing on these and on all the Creatures for our use and the very habituall intention of the builder of an house to dwell in is a Civill dedication of it to that use for which it is Ordained Prayer added to it for a blessing of it in the use maketh not a Consecrated thing for then my clothes every day put on my sleep my dayly walking in and out my Physick my meals my horse my ship I sail in should all be Holy Consecrated and Religious things which I were to Reverence as Religious things for all these may be blessed in their use But here is that we condemn in Religious dedication of Churches 1. That the end being sacred to wit the habituall worshipping of God in that place 2. The praying for the Church or house of worship to say nothing of the vain Ceremonies used in the dedication of Churches These two are applyed to make the Church holy and to denominate it the house of God and capable of Religious veneration and salutation Then certainly all the Synagogues of Judea should be Religiously holy as was the Temple 2. And Prayers should be more acceptable to God in the Synagogue for the houses sake then prayers in any other place 3. God shall binde himself by promise to hear prayers in the Synagogue or made with the face toward the Synagogue as he did toward the Temple we were obliged in the New Testament to pray with our faces toward the Churches or meeting places in the New Testament and we should have one famous and celebrious Church for all Iews and Gentiles more holy then all the little holy Temples now consecrated as holy places and where shall this be And what typicall signification shall it have It must signifie Christ to come or already come both is unlawfull 2. Again if habituall Dedication by vertue of Prayer make a place holy by the same reason actuall Dedication should make a place holy and the belly of the Whale should have been holy because there Jonah prayed and every place a believer prayeth shall be holy his closet a private corner of his Orchard or Garden where he prayeth shall be holy for these may be habitually destined and appointed if you call this Dedication for prayer only and it shall be unlawfull to do any civill businesse there more then it is unlawfull as Formalists teach to do any other civil businesse in the Churches or places of meeting in the New-Testament 3. God himself appointed the place the Time when it should be built the person by whom by Solomon not David the length the breadth the Chambers Porches Ornaments of the only holy place at Jerusalem he hath no where appointed and prescribed these for the meeting places of the New Testament but hath said that all places are alike as touching any Religious holinesse Ioh. 4. 23. 1 Tim. 2. 8. 4. Shall we think God is not acceptably served and that the Synagogues of the Iews of which we read not any patern or rule for Dedication are Prophane because they are not Dedicated by the Bishops laying the first foundation stone of the house Or because they want the ornaments of whorish Ceremonies that Durandus enumerateth or because they have not the surpassing beauty of admirable Temples that Christians now a little overswelling with the zeal of prosperity builded for the worship of God out of superlative detestation of Dioclesian and Maximinus who had demolished all the Churches which Christians had leave to build under tollerable Emperors such as Severus Gordianus Philip and Galienus as Eusebius teacheth Or that we are to give a Testimony of as cheerfull affection for the beautifying of Temples void of all typicall relation to the glory of Iesus Christ as David did show 1 Chron. 28 14. 2 Chron. 2. 5. And that it is Morall and perpetually obligatory under the New Testament that we bestow charges upon sumptuous Temples upon these fancied grounds of Master Hooker For his first Morall ground is Nothing is too dear to be bestowed about the furniture of Gods service 2. Because sumptuous Temples serve to the world for a witnesse of his almightinesse whom we outwardly serve and honour with the chiefest of outward things as being of all things himself incomparably the greatest 3. It were strange that God should have made such store of glorious creatures on earth leave them all to be consumed on secular vanity allowing none but the baser sort to be imployed in his own service 4. Rarest and most gorgeous treasures are too little for earthly Kings 5. If the corruptible Temples of the holy spirit are to be served with rich almes what should be done for houses to edifie the living Temples redeemed by Iesus Christ To all which I say 1. The Temple of Ierusalem in its glory proportion and beauty was a Positive worship and so must be warranted by the positive Warrant of the Word and the like Warrant must all our Churches in the New-Testament have 2. If we must extend our liberality and bounty towards God to the highest and to testifie the greatnesse and Almightinesse of him whom we serve then did David and Solomon in both fail there were more glorious and rich houses on earth and divers times have been builded to the honour of false gods and to declare the Royall magnificence of mortall Kings God never for his own honour appointed such a banquet as
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
Aristotle faith well in an indivisible point It is a non-consequence and so mens will is the best house that Ceremonies are descended of If they can be proved by a necessary and infallible consequence we desire to hear it for it must be thus or the like Things not contrary to the Word and commanded as apt to edifie may be Lawfull Arbitrary Worship But Ceremonies are such Ergo the Proposition is not true because Rulers judge either such things apt to edifie because they see them to be so in themselves or because they judge them to be so in themselves therefore they are so in themselves the former cannot be said because this light whereby Rulers see Ceremonies to be apt to edifie is either light of Scripture or nature or both If this be said they can make others see this light Also if there be goodnesse and aptitude to edifie souls in Ceremonies by natures light sound reason or the Word of God they cannot be Arbitrary or indifferent worship but must be essentiall worship having warrant and Commandment from God for what natures light or Scripture Commandeth that God himself Commandeth and what God Commandeth is essentiall not Arbitrary worship 2. And secondly they are not Arbitrary things but necessary and Lawfull by natures light by Scripture or both which they deny if the latter be true then is the will of Rulers that which maketh Ceremonies good and Lawfull aâ—â—in and blasphemous assertion for Pope or Prince or mens pleasure finde pre-existent goodnesse and Lawfulnesse in things and they do not make them good It is proper to God alone who calleth things that are not to create both beings and goodnesse of beings 5. If Arbitrary goodnesse and Lawfulnesse of Ceremonies be thus warrantable because nor contrary to the word and esteemed Arbitrary I might fail against the first four Commandments by superstition and idolary so I esteem these to wit Idolatry and superstition Arbitrary and not of Divine necessity and yet in so doing I should neither sin nor commit acts of false worship because superstition and Idolatry are indeed forbidden but superstition and Idolatry with the opinion that they have neither holinesse merit nor Divine necessity but are meerly Arbitrary are no where forbidden in the word Let Formalists by their grounds shew us a Scripture for it for they cannot by their Doctrine be forbidden as false worship seeing they want that which essentially constituteth false worship as they teach for they as the Argument supposeth want opinion of necessity Divine merit and holinesse 6. If the Churches will commanding Crossing and Surplice make them Lawfull then their forbidding them shall make them unlawfull and mans will shall be a Pope and God 7. If Rulers conclude them Lawfull then either upon Nationall reasons concerning Britain rather then other Nations or upon reasons immutable eternal if the latter be said they be essential worship not Arbitrary if the former be said they be more apt to stir up the dull senses of Brittish men then otheâ—s which is a dream Dull senses are alike every where sin originall alike in all places and God in his perfect word hath provided alike remedies against naturall dulnesse to all mankinde else we in Britaine do supererogate and the word must be perfect to some Nations in that which is common to all and not to others 8. By as good reason Arbitrary mercy and Arbittary justice is holden as Arbitrary worship for the Lords word is as perfect in works of charity for the second Table as in works of Religion for the first and if so be then it were in mens will to do things conducing for the murthering or not murthering of our brethren of their own wit and will without the word of God and there should be some lawfull acts of will-love or will-murther 9. Laws oblige as Papists grant as Driedo and Vasquez say after Gerson Occam Almain and other Papists from the goodnesse of the matter commanded in the Law not from the will of the Law-giver If then the generall will and command of God constitute Arbitrary worship this worship from Gods will layeth a band on the conscience no lesse then essentiall worship For Hezechiah is no lesse obliged in conscience to apply Figs to his boyle and Moses to make every little ring in the Tabernacle when God commandeth these then the Prophets are to write Canonick Scripture for Gods Authority in Commanding is equall in all though in respect of the matter there be great things and lesse things of the Law therefore Gods generall permissive-will doth no lesse oblige the conscience then his approving will 10. To this Arbitrary worship agreeth all the properties of will-worship as 1 Colos 2. 18. It beguileth us of our reward for no promise of God is made of a Bishoprick for conformity 2. It is will-humility to be devouter then God willeth us 3. It intrudeth in things not known in the word 4. It holdeth not the head Christ for it maketh him not a perfect Law-giver if Prelares under him give Laws added to his word and that after the Traditions of men 5. It inthralleth men dead with Christ to a yoak They object But not to yoak upon the conscience Answer yea but we are in Christ freed also from the externall yoak as from shedding of blood in Circumcision removall out of the Campe seven dayes many Ceremoniall Sabbaths presenting of the male-children and going up to sacrifica at Jerusalem yea expensive offerings all called burdens Act. 15. 10. Col. 2. 20. Gal 4. 3 4 5. Col. 2. 14. 15. And multiplied holy dayes Surplice Crossing keeping us in that same bondage though lesse they may say Magis minus non variant speciem 6. This worship perisheth vvith the use 7. Subjecteth us to the Ordinances of men 8. Hath a shew of wisdom Mr. Burges saith Some will-worship iâ— not unlavvfull aâ— three Sermons in one day The free-vvill offerings and vows vvere in some sort vvill-Worship The Church at her godly discretion and will may appoint some Formalities to attend the Worship Answer Gregor de valent saith That some Idolatry is Lawfull some unlawfull This man saith some will-worship is lawfull some unlawfull that is some sin is Lawfull some unlawfull 2. Three preachings come from zeal not from will and is no new worship different from preaching and there may be reason therefore where all cannot be present in one day at all the three there is reason for three preachings none for Crossing 3. Will as will is carver of will-worship Will createth not the worship but determineth the circumstances according to the light of reason in Lawfull worship But where will as will void of reason hath influence in the worship it is wills brood 4 The Freewill offerings were determined by God the poor should offer a pair of Doves in the Free-will offering But the rich a Lamb and it was sin for the rich to offer a pair of doves and therefore
these Traditions by an Argument taken from the want of a lawfull Author while he calleth them Precepts of men opposed to the Commandments of God and while he saith v. 13. That every plant not rooted by his heavenly Father shall be rooted out Yea and Christ expresly proveth their worship vain because they taught the fear and worship of God by the precepts of men and not by the word of God and Ceremonies are the precepts of men 3. Mar. 7. 10 11 12. He alledgeth their corrupt and false exposition of the fifth Commandment in saying It is a gift whereby Parents may benefit which Children offer to God though they help not their Parents in their poverty necessity so you free them from obedience to the fifth Commandment of God by setting up your false glosse saith Christ which is a human tradition Then to Christ this is a good argument your corrupting of the fift Cōmandment with your false glosses is a rejecting of Gods 5. Commandment why because it is a doctrine of men and one of the Pharisees Traditions For whether they placed operative sanctity in preferring mens Commandment to Gods or not none can deny but Christ reasoneth against these evils because they were mens Traditions otherway Formalists shall be forced to say that if the Pharisees have esteemed them Arbitrary and of no operative sanctity mens Commandments had not been vain worship Christs Argument from Isa 29. should prove nothing for false glosses and corrupting the fifth Commandment is not vain worship because it is a doctrine of men for Doctrines of men as only coming from men and esteemed Arbitrary are not vain saith Formalists yea except they be contrary in the matter to Gods Law and proffered or equalized in the opinion of sanctity to Gods Law they are not a whit vain because they come from men or are doctrines of men 4. Christ defendeth his Disciples practice in abstaining from externall not-washing Ergo he esteemed the externall washing unlawfull But if the Disciples abstinence was because of the impiety of washing and the opinion of sanctity put upon washing otherwayes Lawfull he should have defended his Disciples in a thing unlawfull for to disobey the Elders and Church-guides who sate in Moses's chair and were to he obeyed Matth. 23. 2 3. in an externall indifferent act of washing not contrary to the washings commanded in Moses Law and so negatively conforme to Gods Law is Lawfull as Formalists and Papists both teach but Christ defended his Disciples in their non-obedience externall for they were not challenged for denying the opinion of operative holinesse to these Ceremonies Christ who commanded obedience to sitters in Moses his chair in all things Lawfull would have obeyed himself and cleared his Disciples in so far as they ought to obey or not to obey 5. Vasquez sayes These Traditions were unlawfull because they were invented Sola voluntate hominum absque ratione by the sole will of men without reason But so are Popish Ceremonies for if they can be proved by the word of God and the light of nature they are essentiall parts of Gods word and not accidentall nor left to the Churches will 2. It is good then the Iesuit confesseth the Church from sole will and so the Pope and Prelat can make no Laws but either Scripture or natures light must warrant them and sole will cannot rule them 3. They had as good reason in generall from Moses his writings and the Law-washings as Pope and Prelats have for their Traditions But saith Vasquez Christ complaineth of these traditions because they held them to be Summam Religionis the marrow of Religion and took no care of Gods Law Ans That will no more prove them to be vain worship and that the Disciples were to be justified in their non-conformity to these Church washings then that Gods Disciples and sound believers under the Old Testament should abstain from keeping Gods Sabbaths his new-Moons and from offering Sacrifices because the people placed all holinesse in these of old and neglected works of mercy and justice Isa 1. 11 c. Jer. 7. 4 5 6. But say Formalists Christ condemneth them because the Pharisees thought eating with unwashen hands defiled the conscience and meat defiled the soul when the eaters did not wash as the elders commanded Whereas Christ saith It is not that which goeth in at the mouth which defileth the man but the wickednesse that cometh out at the heart Ans It is true and I think Pharisees believed meat eaten contrary to the Elders Traditions defiled the conscience as is clear Mat. 15. 16 17 18. And that also Christ condemneth as a Doctrine of men and of ignorant men and so doth non-conformity to your Ceremonies pollute the conscience as a breach of the fifth and second Command as you say QUEST IV. Whether humane Ceremonies can consist with Order Decency and the sincerity of our profession of true Religion CEremonies fight with Order and Decency 1. These Rites pretended by Gods command to adde order and decency to Gods worship and yet deface his worship and addeth none thereunto be unlawfull But humane Ceremonies be such Ergo That they pretend Order is proved D. Burges saith They have no place in all the New-Testament save only 1 Cor. 14. 26. Let all things be done in order and decency a place as a Estius citeth Magnified by Papists for all their Ceremonies The Major is undeniable I prove the Assumption 1. Because Magick-like Rites honoured with Gods name as Christian-Masse Christs-Masse an Adored Tree called Gods board when there is no use for a Table a Crossing honoured with dedication to Christs service is like Gods name used by sorcerers in Charming Spelling Divining where vertue is ascribed to signes characters and words which have no such vertue from God or nature and this Valentia justly calleth Superstition So the Iews called the Calfe Jehovah Papists call a creature of their making Agnus Dei a stile due to Christ only Joh. 1. 29. 2. All creatures are means of glorifying God Rev. 4. 11. Prov. 16. 4. Rom. 11. 36. And may be invited to praise God as Psal 148. Now it were strange bleating to say O Crossing Surplice Praise ye the Lord when things ordained by mans sole will and so idle and sinfull are made means to glorifie God with as good reason dancing in the Church and blowing feathers in the Aire which have by nature or reason no aptitude for these ends may be decent means of glorifying God 2. Order and decency supernaturall in the Church is in the Word Cant. 6. 4. Clear as the Sun terrible as an Army with Banners Nothing wanting Gods institution can reach a supernaturall end as our Ceremonies are 2. But also Ceremonies relatively sacred in Religious state must be more then civilly decent as also right order produceth supernaturall joy Gal. 2. 5. Civill order cannot do this Or 3. Ceremonies adde naturall order but this is not in colour
the Sacraments to a Turk and yet we may Preach the Gospel and make offer of Christ in the word to him 1 Cor. 14. 23. And this Scripture shall also conclude we are not to admit scandalous persons to the Sacraments being both uncapable of them as also because they can but trample on these pearls no lesse then the Turk should do the Argument then is just nothing We exclude many from the Kingdom of Heaven whom we do not excommunicate on earth But he should say we Excommunicate many whom we do not exclude out of Heaven Erastus These two are not one to declare a person hatefull in Heaven to God and to be cast out of the visible Church for if they be both one then one private Pastor may Excommunicate for he may declare from Gods word that an offender is excluded out of Heaven hath not the word of God in the mouth of one as much authority and power as out of the mouth of many the authority of the word dependeth not on a multitude also why should this be as good a consequence God judgeth not this man worthy of the Kingdom of God Ergo he is to be cast out of the visible Church as this God judgeth not this man worthy of life eternall Ergo God will not have him to live in this temporall life Are we ignorant that God esteemeth many not worthy of life eternall to whom he hath given power to cast out devils in his name Matth. 7. Ans All this is but with carnall reason to speak against the wayes of God for 1. Not every denouncing of a sinner unworthy of Heaven is Excommunication So Iudas might have Excommunicated himself and when one Pastor declareth an offender unworthy of Heaven he is not formally excommunicated out of the visible Church he is cast out of the invisible Church But that is not Excommunication except it be done for a publick scandall that offendeth the Church 2. Except it be done by the visible Church 3. According to the rule of Christ Matth. 18. 4. That he may be ashamed and repent and be saved Gods binding of the offender in Heaven is a part of Excommunication but not all nor the very same with Excommunication 2. The Churches casting out for Christs institutions cause is of more Authority then the Conscionall casting out performed by one Pastor and yet the Conscional casting out by one insuo genere is as valid as the other subordinata non pugnant 3. We are not to take our compasse and rule of Gods waies by his outward dispensation but the revealed will of Christ is our Rule God thinketh those who walketh inordinately and causeth divisions not worthie of the Christian society of the Saints and must binde them in heaven to that censure in regard he expresly so commandeth in his Word Rom. 16 17. 18. 2 Thes 3. 14 15. 1 Cor. 5. 11. Yet he thinketh them worthy of Salvation and may give repentance and Iesus Christ to many of these he may deny salvation to the wicked and upon that feed them to the day of slaughter dare flesh and blood quarrell this consequence God hath appointed the wicked for the day of wrath Ergo he giveth them more of this life then heart can wish This consequence dependeth on the meer dispensation of God nor is this our Consequence God judgeth such unworthy of heaven Ergo they must be cast out of the visible Church we never made Excōmunication a necessary consequent of the Lords judging men unworthy of Heaven for then all these that God judgeth unworthy of life eternall should be excommunicated and only these which is false for God may judge some worthy of life eternall in Christ and yet they are to be excommunicated if they refuse to hear the Church as many regenerate may go that sar in scandalous obstinacy and many whom God judges unworthy of life eternall may so belie a Profession as they deserve not to be excommunicated and both these may fall out and do fall out according to the revealed will of Christ Erastus 4. objecteth Excommunication must exclude men from only the externall society of the Church for he only can joyne us to Christ or separate us from internall and spirituall society of Christ who can beget lively faith in us and extinguish lively faith when it is begotten for by faith only we are made living members of Christs body and by only infidelity we leave off to be members of his bodie But no Church no creatures can either beget lively faith in us or extinguish it in us or thus men can neither give to us nor take from us salvation therefore Excommunication should not be defined by cutting men off from salvation Ans This is the only Argument of Erastus that seemeth to bear weight But it is false and groundlesse it supposeth the false principle that Erastus goeth on that Excommunication is a reall separation of a member from Christs Invisible and Mysticall body and that the Excommunicated person who may be an Invisible member of Christ and regenerated may be an Apostate and fall from Christ and leave off to be a member The contrary of which all our Protestant Divines teach against Papists whereas Excommunication is only a Declarative but withall an Authoritative Act or Sentence of the Church and no reall cutting off of a believer from Christ But you will say It presupposeth a cutting off in heaven from Christ and therefore the Excommunicated person is declared to be cut off Let me Answer I conceive Excommunication hath neither Election nor Reprobation Regeneration or non-Regeneration for its object or terminus but only it cutteth a contumacious person off from the Visible Church on earth and from the head Christ in heaven not in regard of his state of Regeneration as if Christ ratifying the Sentence in heaven did cut him off so much as conditionally from being a member of his body No but in regard of the second Acts of the life of God and the sweet efficacy and operation of the spirit by which the Ordinances are lesse lively lesse operative and lesse vigorous the man being as the Learned and Reverend Mr. Cotton saith As a palsie Member in which life remaineth but a little withered and blunted and he in Satans power to ve◠his spirit and therefore I grant all to wit that Excommunication is not a reall separating of a member from Christs body only unbelief doth that but it followeth not Ergo it is a separation only from the externall society of the Church For 1. This externall cutting off is ratified in heaven And 2. Christ hath ratified it by a real internal suspension of the influence of his spirit in heaven But I deny that this universall doth follow from Christs binding in heaven That whomever God judgeth unworthy of heaven all these are to be cast out of the Church he cannot prove this consequence from our grounds Erastus Argueth thus If God dam any as
as Christ did forgive as man those that Crucified him though they did not repent 1 Pet. 2. 21 22 23. Luk. 24. 35 36 5. Erastus cannot deny but great injuries should be brought before the Magistrate and a little injury when an offender refuseth to obey the Christian Magistrate must be a great injury which maketh the man as a heathen and a publican What is before answered I shall not need to trouble the Reader withall to repeat Erastus The reason vvhy Christ speaketh here of the transaction of private iniuries is because he speaketh alvvaies in the singular numher if thy brother offend thee rebuke him betvveen him and thee alone take tvvo other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tell thou the Church Let him be to thee as a Publican he that is Excommunicated is not Excommunicated to one only but to all the Church Ans This shall make the whole ten Commandments Exod. 20 and the whole Gospel and the profession of it Rom. 10. 9. which are all spoken to one in the singular number often in the second person to command private vertues and forbid private sins only and not to be Laws obliging the Church in publick duties and to eschew publick sins Erastus Answereth Let him be to thee vvho art injured and to all that are injured as a Publican not to the vvhole Church for there be some lawes that agree privatly to the Magistrate and to none other some to Parents not to children to Masters not servants so neither is this precept to all Christians as the Decalogue is and such like but only to those that are privately hurt he saith not rebuke every brother thou meetest with but the brother that sins against thee Christ speaketh not in the third person nor to the Church for the Disciples were not the Synedrie or that Church Ans 1. It s most false that all the precepts of the Decalogue are all of them spoken to all and every man Honour thy Father and mother that begat thee is one of the Commandments and it is not spoken to those that are onely Parents themselves and have their naturall parents dead but doth it follow that that Command doth injoyne private obedience and forbid onely private not publick disobedience to naturall Parents So the sixth Command saith If thy brother fall in a Lyons den to the hazard of his life pull him out if thou cannot rescue him thy self alone take three with thee and assay it if thou cannot so rescue him tell it to twenty The man is not to rescue every brother here but onely the brother that is in danger to be devoured with the Lyon will any say the Law of the sixth Commandment is given here to one private man to help another in a private danger This rebuke thy brother is the Law of nature and it is under this Levit. 19. 17. Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart And if I rebuke him not for sinne any sinne and the most publick and so most offensive and scandalous to many I hate him nay I am not so much to rebuke him and gain his soul because the sin is an injury done to me as because it is done against the Majesty of God and destructive to the offenders soule and I must labour to gaine his soule 2. Erastus dreames that that is a private sin which is done to one man or one ranke of men to a Magistrate not a subject he is beguiled an offence and publick stumbling-block may be laid before one man and it is often a publick sin 3. The speaking of it in the second person is nothing for If thou beleeve thou art saved Rom. 10. 9. is as publike and universall as Iohn 3. 16. Whosoever beleeveth he is saved The second person in all precepts of Law and Gospel and this rebuke an offending brother is both is as broad as the third person and as large in extent except you say the verse Iohn 3. 16. comprehendeth some more beleevers that are saved then Rom. 10. 9. which is against sense 4. Christ ought not to have spoken to his Disciples as a Church because he is directing them as members and parts of a Church how to deale with an offender but if he heare not the Church that is the Christian Magistrate he should die saith Beza Erastus answereth But the Church or Iewish Synedrie had not power of life and death now they were under the Roman Empire Ans Christ here then sheweth not a way to remove Scandals because the Roman Emperors sword is not Christs Spirituall way 2 Cor. 10. The weapons of our warfare are not carnall but mighty through God Erastus By this same place I cannot prove there is such a thing as Excommunication what is said to one is said to the whole Church but it is said to one that he should forgive an offending brother seventy seven times in one day if he acknowledge his fault Ergo there can be no just cause vvhy the vvhole Church should not doe that vvhich every member is obliged to doe but your Presbyters vvill punish though any one should confesse his fault Ans There is a twofold forgiving one private in passing the private revenge of the fault and grudge against the person of the offender thus the whole argument is granted for Members and Church both are to pray Forgive us our sinnes as vve forgive them that sin against us I hope the Synedrie the Roman President the Magistrate thus are obliged to forgive those whose heads they justly take from them so Luke 17. We are to forgive our brother seventy seven times a day though he neither repent nor crave pardon but far more if he crave pardon But by this Argument the Christian Magistrate should use the sword against no bloody Parracide for he is thus to forgive him and much more if he say he repenteth 2. To forgive is to remit all punishment and so what is said to one Member of the Church is not said to the whole Church Private men have not power of Church-punishment to forgive it The Church hath a power limited by Christ that is to forgive and open heaven in so farre as they see Christ goe before and see the man penitent and therefore Erastus his consequence is short it followes not that the Church should no more excommunicate then one Member Erastus looks farre beside the booke in that he thinkes it is all one to forgive an injury and to remove a scandall in the way of Christ in labouring to gaine a brother I may forgive one that offendeth me and not labour at all to gaine his soul Erastus We cannot expound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against thee against the Church because he saith after tell the Church then the sense should be O Church tell the Church Ans It is not denyed by us but that the Scandall in the rise may be private but Erastus will have our Saviour to speake onely of private Scandals 2.
If one Church shall offend another the offended may admonish and if the Church be not gained the offended Church is to tell more Churches Synodically conveened as may be gathered from Christs Scope to remove all Scandals between brother and brother Church and Church Erastus Tell him between thee and him if it be told me conscio I onely knowing then he hath sinned against me privately should I not reprove him before others if he have sinned against others but Christ will not have me to take any Witnesses at the first Ans 1. I may tell him between me and him a publike fault this proveth onely my admonition to be private when the fault is known to twenty and scandalizeth them and it proveth not the fault to to be private But you will say then I must take these twenty who are offended no lesse then I am to goe my selfe I answer not so For 1. I may be ignorant that any knowes it and I am not to uncover what God hath covered except it were a sin that bringeth wrath on the whole Land as blood and the Canaanites sinnes 2. Though I should know twenty were offended charity will bid me try if I onely can gaine him and then love maketh the worke easier to twenty Erastus But Matthew and Luke compared together doe teach that Christ speaketh of such sinnes as one Brother may pardon another seventy seven times and the question of Peter to Christ how oft shall my brother offend and I forgive him saith that Christ speaketh not of the sinnes that the Church onely can forgive for Peter knew well that he his alone could not forgive these sins which onely the Church and a multitude can pardon Ans Though it be true Matthew and Luke c. 17. speake both of scandals and scandalous sins in generall yet it is evident they speak of two sorts of scandalls Luke speaketh v. 3. of scandals between brother and brother which may at first be taken away by rebukes but he hath nothing of the Churches part touching these But Matthew hath it at length chap. 18. ver 15 16. 17 18. 19. 20. The Luke 17. 4. and Matthew more distinctly chap. 18. ver 21. upon the occasion of Peters question resolveth a case of conscience how Christians are to passe by in love the faults one of another even to seventy times seven they are not scandals of one and the same nature as Erastus conceiveth The former is how we may gain an offending brother from the guilt of active scandall in giving offence to us and that is by free rebuking and if that gain him not then by taking witnesses and rebuking him and if neither that can do it by telling the Church to which Christ hath given a more powerfull way to binde and loose in earth and heaven saith Matthew Luke speaketh onely of simple rebuking which tendeth to the other two The latter way is how we our selves may be freed from passive scandall if our brother provoke us seven times or seventy seven times a day this must be by a private pardoning and laying aside all grudge or hints of revenge toward our brother and this is a great mistake in Erastus that he confoundeth those two scandals which by two Evangelists are distinguished for Peter upon occasion of the former Church-scandals proposeth the second Mat. 18 21. then came Peter to him and said Lord how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him Peter asketh nothing of gaining the offender and Christ answereth nothing of gaining him having satisfied them fully in that before But Peter came in with a new question concerning private forgiving 2. It is evident in the former that Christ speaks not of sins that one brother may forgive another for then it were free to the offended after two admonitions ineffectuall to gain the offender to forgive and desist as he doth in the matter of forgiving But it is not free to him to desist if the offender refuse to be gained and adde contumacy the offended cannot pardon the punishment he ought to remit the private grudge he is under a command of Christ to tell the Church that is one punishment and if he yet be obstinate he is to be reputed as a Heathen and a Publican that is another punishment which a private man cannot dispense with 1. He cannot dispense with Christs command 2. He cannot omit all Lawfull means of gaining the soul of his brother for the Law of nature tyeth him to it Erastus will have it a matter of holding off of an injury only by complaining to the Roman Emperour a carnall way Christ is on a higher and more spirituall strain to gain a soul as is clear If he hear thee thou hast gained thy brother rest there But if he hear thee not go yet on to gain him Take with thee two or three then if he had been gained at first a second admonition before two or three were needlesse But if yet he be not gained then go yet on to seek the gaining of his soul and tell the Church and if the Church cannot gain him then let him be as a Publican and cast out This is also a way of gaining that his spirit may be saved 1 Cor. 5. Therefore this is most false that Christ speaketh of those sins which we may forgive Who can believe that it is credible that our Saviour hath a more noble end and more excellent then to gain a brothers soule or that he doth teach us in these words to discend from such a spirituall end as the repentance of an offender to a far baser end to hold off injuries by fleeing to a heathen Iudicature Erastus Christ speaks of such sins as the offender cannot deny before witnesses But sins to be punished by Excommunication so hainous as deserveth to be delivered to Satan he would deny Ergo he must speak of smaller sins Ans This is for us he speaketh of such sins that the offender will persist in against the Authority of witnesses Synedrie or Church and Magistrates as Erastus thinketh while he be as a Profane Heathen Ergo he may deny them 2. If we suppose three faithfull witnesses who have seen and heard such as will testifie the sin before the Church it is like to be a grievous and publick trespasse Nor would Christ have the Magistrate troubled and the Church offended for such sins as may fall out in a brother seven times yea seventy seven times in one day and may be by private transactions pardoned as Erastus saith How should Erastus his civill throne sink under threescore and ten scandalls in one day Erastus The Church punisheth not the man for such sins but dismisseth him as an injurious person Ans True if we believe Erastus begging the question 2. To declare a brother no brother but a prophane Heathen without Christ in the world nad out of the Covenant of Grace must be the highest Church-censure must be more highly
most at this time Ergo If the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inferre that a disobedient brother is most like these Heathen they must be greatest enemies to the Iewes and so remotest from Circumcision and all right to the holy things of God being the worst of the Heathen and so Erastus hath gained nothing but lost much by his poore Grammattication Yea if the offended brother should repute the offender as the worst of the Heathen he is to esteeme him who was once a Member of the Church in that he was obliged to heare the Church now as a Heathen and so no brother no Member of the Church and here Erastus must grant that one brother may un-church and Excommunicate any other for disobedience to the Church but the Church may not Erastus They are as absurd who say by Publicans here are understood wicked men for then by Heathen must be understood also the wickedest of the Heathen and not all the Heathen dwelling in Judea Ans I deny the consequence for by Publicans are meant men wicked and unpure by conversation and by Heathen men unclean by condition because without the Church and strangers to the Israel of God and without Christ and God in the world 2. We have proved what is meant by a Publican by evident Scriptures but that by a Publican is understood one who acknowledged no Magistrate but a Roman no Scripture no Greeke Author warranteth us to thinke it never man dreamed it but Erastus Erastus The Pharises hindred not Christ and his Apostles to come to the Temple Ans Christ was a born Jew and circumcised yea and what can the Practise of the Murtherers of Christ prove It is no Law But the Romans never sacrificed in the Temple but gave Liberty to the Iews to serve God according to his word and to hear Christ preach and that Christ kept the Ceremoniall Law and taught others even the cleansed Leapers so to do Matth. 8. is clear Erastus Private men do forgive sins Matth. 18. Luk. 17. Ergo to binde and loose is not a proper judiciall act of a Court Matth. 16. Christ speaketh not to Peter only but to all the faithfull who by teaching one another may bring one another to acknowledge their sin and if they do it they are pardoned if not their sins are bound in Heaven Ans To these the keys are given who retain and remit sins as Erastus saith But these be such as are sent of Christ as the Father sent his son Ioh. 20. 2. Either in this place there is given power to binde and loose by publick preaching the word or by some other place but this power to binde and loose by publick preaching is only given to Pastors and Teachers 1 Cor. 12. 29. Eph. 4. 11. 12. And Erastus granteth elsewhere that every private man by his office cannot preach nor administer the Sacraments and by no other place is this given to Pastors for I could elude all places with the like answer and say there is a publick Baptizing and Administration of the Supper by Ministers and sent Pastors only and a private also performed by private Christians yea by a woman and both are valid in Heaven and the binding and loosing of both ratified in Heaven 3. Christ spake this to the Disciples who before were sent to Preach and cast out Devils Matth. 10. and saith not Whom thou bindes on earth but in the plurall number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What things you binde on earth shall be bound in Heaven Erastus saith all this upon the fancy that binding and loosing of the Church and Peters private forgiving of his brother seven times a day must be all one which I do prove in another place to be different and amongst other reasons this is one because the Church pardoning hath a threefold order 1. between brother and brother 2. before two or three 3. Before the Church and the end of all is the gaining of the offending brother Matth. 18 15 16 17 18 19 20. But the private forgiving of a brother of which Peter speaketh Mat. 18. 21 22 23. and Luke 17 4 5. is of an inferiour nature for I know not if you can gain a brothers soule seven times a day if he but say It repenteth me Luke 17. 4. or seventy seven times Mat. 18. 22. These words It repenteth me said seventy times a day to the Church cannot satisfie to the gaining of a soule whereas to the private remitting of revenge it were enough We have the Text to warrant us that Christ spaâ—e to Stewards to whom the keyes are committed Erastus doth but wickedly assert he spoke to those who were as Christians in that act but the Text is cleare he speaketh of binding and loosing spiriâ—ually which is nothing to the holding off of a civill injurie which Erastus saith is the scope of our Saviour here and how hungry must that sense be That you deal with him as with an Heathen who acknowledgeth no Iudge but a Roman judge is a matter ratified in heaven 4. A private man is to forgive an injury even though the offender repent not Mat. 14. 15. Rom. 12. 19 20. Col. 3. 13. but that pardon cannot be ratified in heaven 5. See what we have said of binding and loosing before Erastus Though Christ should speake this onely to Ministers yet it followeth not that he speaketh this to other Presbyters Ans That dependeth on the proving that there be ruling Elders in the Church which I conceived have proved else where from Rom. 12. 8. 1 Cor. 12. 28. 1 Tim. 5. 17. I conceive when Christ spake this there was neither a formed Presbytery nor a formed Church Erastus Christ saith not if two or three Presbyters or two or three Ministers agree in one I will heare them but where two or three Christians agree Ans Nor doe we say that two or three can make an Excommunicating Church but Christ argueth a minore if the Lord heare two or three on earth farre more will he heare a Church and ratifie in heaven what they doe in binding and loosing offenders in Earth But how shall these words agree to the interpretation of Erastus for he expoundeth two or three and the whole Church to be but one Christian Magistrate can he be said to agree to himselfe Or can one or two or three meet together in Christs Name And what coherence is here Two or three conveeneth to pray that he that will not hear the Christian Magistrate may be dealt with as a Heathen man before the Roman judge how violent and farre off is this glosse and how unsuitable to the Text Erastus What other thing is it to a private brother to gain another to himselfe and to God then binding and loosing in Heaven Ans To bring him before the civill Magistrate either Christian or Heathen whose intrinsecall end by vertue of their office is not to gaine soules but to draw the blood of ill doers is farre
that Feast pointed out holinesse all our life is utterly denyed for eating of leavened bread except in these dayes forbidden was not a sin nor any Ceremoniall type at all no more then our common bread and wine are signes of Christs body and blood 2. Paul compareth the Feast to the lump of the Visible Church so as the leaven was to be removed out of all houses of Israel because it did Ceremonially infect corrupt and leaven them and so was to be purged so did the inâ—â—stuons man leaven the Visible Church of Corinth and was to be purged out Nor do I contend that the Lords Supper here is meant though I know no solemn Spirituall Feast that the visible Church now hath but the Supper of the Lord But rather I understand Church-Communion in the dainâ—ies of the Gospel which are set forth to us under the similitude of a Feast Matth. 22. Luke 14. 16 17 18 c. Prov. 9. 2 3 4 5. Cant. 5. 1. Erastus The leaven of the Passeover does not so signifie impurity of life that Excommunication can be hence gathered therefore the Apostle alludeth to that place that or the like way as the Jews did Celebrate their Passeover without leaven so it becometh us to Celebrate our Passeover without the leaven of malice and wickednesse Leaven simply may either signifie good or evil as Matth. 13. and 16. and Potuit it might signifie our naturall corruption For God not only forbiddeth to eat leaven but to have it in the house and leaven signifieth 〈…〉 sse so to be punished as yeâ— say even by death Ans The Leaven of the Passeover signified so impurity as we are to put out the person that leaveneth the Church out of the Church as they were to put leaven out of the house and not only simply not to eat it so are we not only not to eat and drink with a scandalous man but he is to be reputed no member of the Church but a leavening and contagious man and therefore Paul doth not here as Erastus dreameth show what way every one in his own personall practise and duty as a single Christian is to do that he may save his own soul and therefore every one was to celebrate a Christian Passeover in his own soul laying aside the leaven of malice Though I grant That Paul ver 8. doth infer and draw a conclusion of a personall purging out of the leaven of malice and hypocrisie out of every mans heart But Paul doth expresly command the Corinthians as a convened Church to put out from amongst them another man for the saving of that other mans soul And what they should do in a Church society toward the man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Who hath done this to wit down right they should Iudge him Cast him out purge him out as a leavening peece And the world cannot give any other meaning of the words then that as the Iews were to put all leaven from amongst them when they were to celebrate their Passeover So the Corinthians were to exercise the like work upon this incestuous man and to put him out from amongst them as one delivered to Satan as a lump of sowre leaven and we seek no more for Excommunication 2. Leaven signifieth Matth. 13. good the Kingdom of God is compared to leaven But here it is corruption of contagious scandall in this incestuous man and such leaven as is to be cast out and purged away Now I hope we must not purge out and cast away the Kingdom of heaven and Matth. 16. 6. The leaven of the corrupt and false Doctrine of Pharisees and Sadduces that corrupteth the hearts of men is meant and of this leaven we are to beware But why doth Erastus strive to bring the reader in a good opinion of leaven which Paul would have us to detest I know not a reason but because the place is so evident for the casting out of an incestuous man from amongst the Corinthians lest he should infect the flock and that by the Church convened together in the name and power of Christ that his soul may be saved and this is the very excommunication that we assert 3. This leaven saith he may signifie naturall corruption Now Erastus putteth us to a may be but a may be will not do it For the Text saith not I hope by Erastus his confession that the poor man must be delivered to Satan that is miraculously killed for naturall concupiscence All the world thus are delivered to Satan as being heirs of wrath for sin Originall at least in demerit 2. The man was not judged purged out and cast out as leaven that sowred the Church for naturall corruption 3. Paul offendeth not with them that they were puffed and mourned not for the mans Originall sin but for his actuall wickednesse because he had gone in to his fathers wife an Abomination that the Gentiles are ashamed to name Erastus Then the man must be killed as he that eat leavened bread was killed and though the punishments of Moses Law as such must not be brought in the Christian Church yet if God subject men to the Magistrates Sword men cannot free them from it though there may be degrees of punishment Ans We denyed that those that eat leavened bread with the Passeover were killed but onely excommunicated and cut off from the congregation God never subjected any to the sword for that cause 2. We deny that therefore by proportion the incestuous man should be killed by what consequence will Erastus prove that those that gathered sticks on the Lords day those that are stubborn to Father or Mother those who commit fornication now in the Israel of God under the New Testament must be stened to death by the Magistrate or miraculously killed by the Apostles it must be by the same consequence that Erastus reasoneth here But did God kill immediatly any offenders at all for originall sin some one more nor other as Erastus dreameth this man was killed 3. What warrant hath Erastus that the Devill killeth any one of the visible Church now under the New Testament and any of the children of God whose spirit are saved in the day of the Lord proferat tabulas Erastus saith it neither Prophet nor Apostle in the Old or New Testament ever said it Erastus said an Anagogicall sense is not concludent Ans Where the Holy Ghost giveth the sense it is false saith Beza 2. Why doth then Erastus conclude miraculous killing from the Types of the Old Testament Erastus Where I pray you doth Paul say that the punishment of eating leavened bread did typifie your Excommunication Ans The word Excommunication may be by the Church used as the Word Sacrament Trinity But the thing is not ours but an ordinance of Iesus Christ 2. Paul saith in this very place as Israel were to put away leaven in their Passeover so is the convened Church of Corinth in the name and power of Christ to put out judge and purge
and every where to be observed in all Churches Yet Paul neither practiseth it here nor else where nor commandeth others to practise it now here he desireth they may be cut off but not excommunicated Ans We say the last is no question you never read in the New-Testament or in the Old that Prophets or Apostles consulted or advised with the people whether they should work miracles or not 2. Though Excommunication was an ordinary power as the power of binding and loosing given to the Church Matth. 16. 19. and 18. 18. Ioh. 20. 22 23. Yet the actuall exercise of Excommunication being the highest and weightiest censure and the most severe of any other on earth it is no wonder that Paul be as sparing and rare in the exercise of it as the Apostles were in killing mens bodies 3. It is a begging of the question to say Paul neither practised himself nor commanded others to excommunicate for he did both Erastus That which is Rom. 16. spoken for eschewing of those who cause offences is that every one single person beware of false Teachers it is not spoken to the Church to Excommunicate those false Teachers and therefore there is no such need of such a Presbytery as you dream of but only of good and diligent Ministers who may rightly instruct and prudently teach their hearers what Teachers they ought to eschew Ans 1. The eschewing of false Teachers is a generall and a duty no question given to all and every one of the Church But the place doth no more say in expresse terms that a single Pastor should give warning particularly by name that this man Iohn Hymeneus Alexander are those false Teachers to be eschewed then it saith that the Presbytery which we assert doth in expresse termes shew what false Teachers they be who by name are to be Excommunicated and eschewed but you see that Erastus is overcome by truth so far as he must say one single Minister may declare that such a false Teacher by name is to be eschewed as a Heathen and a Publican and so in effect excommunicated and put out of the Church but he denieth that the Church may declare him a Heathen as Matth. 18. and that many Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gathered together in the name of Christ as it is 1 Cor. 5. may put out a false Teacher or a wolf out of the flock 2. We grant that it is spoken to every one that he should eschew false teachers yea and 2 Thes 3. All that walketh unordinately all fornicators extortioners drunkards 1 Coâ— 5. But that every man should eschew those whom he in his private judgement conceiveth to be such before he rebuke them and labour to gain them and in case of obstâ—nâ—cy Tell the Church as Christ commandeâ—h Matth. 18. is not commanded buâ— forbidden Matth. 18. Lev. 1917. Col. 3. 15. For if this should be that I might immediatly upon my own private grudge unbrother and cast out of my heart and intire fellowship every one whom I conceive offendeth me and walketh unordinately without observing Christs order or previous rebuking of him I make a pathway to perpetuall Schismes 2. A violation of all Laws of fraternity and Christian Communion 3. A dissâ—lving and breaking of all Church Communion and iâ— were strange if Erastus will have Christs order kept Matth. 18. in private offences done by one brother to another and not in publick offences when a brother offendeth twenty and a whole Church as if I were obliged to seek to gain my brothers soul in private and lâ—sse injuries and not in publick and more hainous offences Hence it is clear to me If we are to reject an Heretick after once or twice admonition and not to receive in our houses false Teachers and 1 Tim. 6. 3. If any teach otherwise and consent not unto the wholesome word even the words of our Lord Iesus Christ being given to perverse disputing as men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth 1 Tim. 6. 3 4 5. We are to withdraw our selves from such and to save with severity and plucking out of the fiâ—e those that cannot be cured then certainly the Church of Christ must also turn away from such men and acknowledge them as no members of the body whereof Christ is the head if we say not this if one hath leave in a constituted Church to jâ—dge and condemne his brother and then we shall not take the course of the Apostles in the like case as Act. 15. which is not Apostolick for when false Teachers troubled the Brethren they would not peremptorily though great Apostles as Paul and Barnabas determine against either the false doctrine or the persons of the Teachers while the Apostles Elders and Brethren did meet in a Synod and determine against the Error and against the men as such as troubled the Brethren with words and perverted their souls Act. 15. Now Erastus is willing to acknowledge a sort of Divine Excommunication not a humane as he is pleased to call that Ordinance of separating of wicked men from the Church and holy things of God which yet was in the Church of the Jews instituted by Christ and his Apostles and which no Church wanted as learned Beza saith even in the time of persecution had Erastus explained to us his divine Excommunication as he calleth it it were easie to bring most of his owne Arguments with greater strength of reason against it then against ours which is the truely divine Excommunication CHAP. XIV Quest 10. Whether Erastus doth strongly prove that there is no Presbytery nor two distinct judicatures one of the Church another of the State Erastus I deny not First such a Presbytery as the Evangelists mention which is called a Presbytery a Synedry a Synagogue this was the civill Magistrate who had amongst the Jews the power of the sword 2. I deny not a Presbytery 1 Cor. 6. when the Church wanteth a civill Magistrate 3. I deny not a Presbytery of learned men who being asked may give their judgement of doubts of which Ambrose there was nothing of old done sine seniorum consilio without the Counsels of the Elders But I deny a Senate collected out of the body of the Church to judge who repenteth and are to be excommunicated and debarred from the Sacraments and who not or I deny any Ecclesiasticall judicature touching the manners and conversation of men different from the judgement or court of the civill Magistrate or that there be two supream Courts touching manners in one Common wealth Ans One simple head in a moment may deny more then many wise men can prove in a whole day it proveth they are more cumbersome in their disputes then strong that there was a Iewish Presbytery â—hat is a civill judicature is conâ—uted by Lev. 10. 10. where there is a Court of Aarons sonnes whose it was to judge of Church matters only and to put difference betweene holy and unholy betweene
saith Ergo beside Ministers there must be some chiefe men which we call ruling Elders to represent the people that there may be as all our Divines and Scripture teach a threefold government in the Church A Monarchy in regard of Iesus Christ the onely head and King of the Church as the Iewish Church had their High Priest a Type of him and Aristocracy in Pastors and Teachers as the Iewes had their Priests and Levites and a Democracy in the ruling Elders as the Iewes had their Zekenim and their Heads of families and Elders in the Ecclesiasticall Sanedrim and we in the Presbytery to represent the people and of these three the Iewish Ecclesiastick Sanedrim is made up 2 Chron. 19. 8. of the Levites and the priests 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the heads of Fathers or Masters of families Now Erastus yeeldeth that good Iehoshaphat departed not from Gods institution in his reformation all this Erastus passeth over in silence being ignorant of the Iewish Church government and not able to answer and he addeth something of Doctors not to a purpose and saith there be no Doctors but Pastors onely in the Word contrary to Rom. 12 7 8. Ephes 4. 11. where they are clearly distinguished Erastus Some chosen men must be in the Presbytery to represent the people Ergo these must be Doctors and Prophets but there is no need of that for Bishops of old represented the whole Church Ans Beza hath not any such argument he contendeth for Ruling Elders not for Prophets and Doctors to represent the people 2. Where doth the Scripture speake of such an office as a Bishop having Majority of power above Presbyters for since Erastus denieth all Ecclesiasticall Government in Teachers he must deny all Majority of Ecclesiasticall Governement also he that denieth the positive denieth also the comparative degree now this is a Bishop that neither Scripture nay nor popish Antiquity dreamed of 3. In what is a Bishop the representative Church The like is Erastus his third Argument Erastus 1 Cor. 12. How is Government a Presbytery how are Overseers governments Doctors Prophets There be many kinds of Governours I wonder that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Miracles you understand not the power of Excommunication that hath terrified all the World how are Doctors Prophets added to Pastors are they not teachers as well as Pastors but that they administer not the Sacraments how doe you prove that how prove you Overseers to be â—ther then Ministers Ans Governements to us are but a part of the Presbyterie 2. There be many kinds of Governours but he durst not venture to shew what is signified by governments lest he should say his Magistrate must be the onely Church Governour but he knoweth that a Magistrate as a Magistrate is no member nor part of the Church but as he is a Christian for then Cesar Herod Pontius Pilate as Magistrates must be set in the body of Christ as Apostles and Teachers and Prophets which all the World will cry shame on 3. Beza said never that Teachers and prophets are cast to Ministers to make a Presbyterie for by Teachers he meaneth Pastors 4. Because Paul setteth downe Governments different from Apostles Prophets and Teachers they must be some Officers different from them we can finde none else but such as rule well and yet labour not in the Word 1 Tim. 5. 17. let Erastus shew us what they are he dares not open his minde for he meaneth a Justice of Peace or a King or a heathen judge must be in the wombe of this 1 Cor. 12. 28. let himselfe be mid-wife Erastus answering to 1 Tim. 5. 17. saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to labour is to labour diligently the meaning is like this I wish well to all Pastors but especially to those who with great industrie fidelity and paines feed the flocke committed to them as I love all inclined to studie but especially such as watch night and day upon studies for some are more diligent in teaching then others here 's no Tautologie to say I love all that sincerely and soundly teach the Word especially those that diligently teach it Ans I cannot particularly discusse this place I have done it else where fully 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with two Articles noteth two species of Elders as Tit. 1. 11. 1 Tim. 5. 8. Gal. 6. 10. Phil. 4. 22. 2. This is a Tautologie I love all well governing and faithfull Elders especially those that labour in the word they may be well and painful feeding Pastors who are not painfull in preaching the Word and this is Tautologie I love all that are studious and studie excellently and especially those that studie night and day as Erastus must say if he make the phrase agree to the purpose to feed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 well in a feeding Pastor includeth labouring in the Word since Erastus expoundeth the place 1 Tim. 5. 17. of Church officers he cannot deny but the place holdeth forth a Government and a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Church Officers for beside labouring in the Word and doctrine which is preaching here is well governing it is a shame then to Erastus to expound this place so and yet deny all Church Government except in the hands of the Magistrate Erastus Ancient and moderne Doctors deny two sorts of Elders Ans I have made the contrary appear in the place cited I will not weary the Reader with reasons set downe at full in another place Erastus Shew where the Church hath a judicature to punish sins different from the Magistrates judicature as the Lord made a power of burning incense to the Lord to be different from the Kings royall power Ans Mat. 18. Mat. 16. Ioh. 20. Mat. 28. 19 20. Eph. 20. 28. 1 Cor. 5. 1 2 c. Rev. 2. 1 2. and 20. 21. Ministers are no lesse separated under the New Testament to all ministeriall acts of feeding by the word and rod of Discipline then Priests were of Old Erastus Nathan did not Excommunicate David Ans Nathan had assurance from God that his sin was pardoned 2. That the Sanedrim did not cast David out is a fact and proveth not they had no power for 80. Priests cast Vzziah out of the house of God for a lesse fault that carried in its face lesse scandall Erastus The Prophets never accuse the Priests that they admitted the unclean to the sacrifices and holy things of God Ans The contrary is evident Ier. 5. 31. Ezek. 22. 25 26. and 44. 8 9 10. contrary to their Office Deut. 17. 11 12. Levit. 10. 10. Erastus David Psal 51. sheweth he would have given Sacrifices but God craved a broken heart Ergo he had power to sacrifice Ans Not except withall he had offered a contrite heart to God Paul saith Erastus speaketh of coming to them with the rod of delivering to Satan of his comming with the authority God had given him of his
The Church of the Iews was tyed to one certaine place but every particular Church hath alike power To be cast out of the Synagogue then with the Iews must be another thing then to be Excommunicated now for he that is cast out of one particular Church is cast out of the whole Catholick Church But it was not so in Iudea for Sacrifices and Sacraments except circumcision and expiation were only at Ierusalem not in Synagogues how then could they deny Sacraments which they wanted themselves they could not deny what was not in their power to give Moses was read in their Synagogues every Sabbath No man could be forbidden to heare the word read this had been against a manifest precept It is like they admitted heathens to the Synagogue Act. 13. 14. c. 12. c. 18. But it was not lawfull for heathen to enter into the Temple And when Moses commanded all the clean to go to Ierusalem no Synagogue could forbid them to go Ans That the Synod might have divers significations I deny not but that to be cast out of the Synagogue had divers significations we deny Yea it signified no other thing but to be cast out of the Church and the Lord Iesus speaketh of it and the Evangelists as of a standing censure in the Jewish Church which the spirit of God condemneth no where except when it was abused Ioh. 9. 22. Ioh. 12. 42. Ioh. 16. 2. Luk. 6. 22. Ioh. 9. 35. so is the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nadah to Excommunicate as an unclean thing Esay 66. 5. Your Brethren that cast you out Pagnin and Mercer expound it of casting out of the Synagogue and they cite Ioh. 9. and 12. and 16. to make it signifie Excommunication 2. That a circumcised Iew could by no Law be cast out of Iudea seemeth to say that banishment was not a lawfull punishment Surely David against all Law then did banish Absolon 2 Sam. 14. 13. and when the King of Persia Ezra 7. 25 26. commandeth Ezra to restore judicatures as at the beginning It would seem that banishment was an ancient punishment amongst the Iews Therefore Erastus craftily saith that no born Iews were so cast out of Iudea that they were compelled to say they were not Iews Surely we never dreamed of such an Excommunication that the excommunicated should be compelled to lie and say that though they were Iews and Christians yet they should say they were not Iews or Christians 2. When the people was in Egypt 2 Mac. they were killed who denyed themselves to be Iews and deservedly for they denied their Religion and their God What is this against Excommunication We plead not for such an Excommunication as was a locall extrusion of a person out of the land of Iudea nor for such a one wherey they denyed their Nation that was a sinfull lying But such whereby Church priviledges were denyed to some for scandals 3. Nor do we expound casting out of the Synagogue literally as Erastus doth to be a casting out of the Synagogue or from the Ordinances there and from hearing the word or the Law of Moses for the Synagogue is the Church and it was to be debarred from the Temple Passeover and other Holy things though these should be tyed to one certaine place to wit to the Temple and I doubt if the excommunicated be to be debarred from hearing the word 1. Because the excommunicated is to be admonished as a brother 2 Thes 3. 15. and the word preached is a mean simply necessary for the mans gaining 2. Because heathens were not excluded from hearing the word 1 Chron. 14 23. Act. 17. 16. 17 18 19 20. c. Act. 14. v. 15 16 17. But from the Temple and Sacraments they were excluded We have often answered that all the Morally unclean though they were ceremonially clean are not only not commanded to go up to Ierusalem that is to the Temple and holy things that they are rebuked and accused because they stood in the Lords Temple with their bloods and idolatries and other abominations in their skirts Ieremiah 7. verse 9. 10. Ezekiel 23. 38 39. Esay 1. verse 10 11 12 13 14 15 16. Erastus They call Christ a Samaritan Ioh. 8. Those of Nazareth not onely cast him out of the Synagogue but out of the town and strove to throw him over the brow of a mountain Who dâ—ubts then but they cast Christ out of the Synagogue when they made a Law that if any should confesse him he should be cast out of the Synagogue Yet never man objected to Christ It is not lawfull to thee to go into the Temple for thou art cast out of the Synagogue Ergo to be cast out of the Synagogue was not to be excommunicated Ans All these are poor conjectures for Erastus granteth there was such a censure as casting out of the Synagogue But he sheweth not what it is But I retort this argument if Christ had been cast out of the Synagogue those that called him a Samaritane and cast out of their Synagogues such as confessed him would have sometime said it is not lawfull to thee to go into the Synagogues and teach for thou art cast out of the Synagogue But by the contrary Christ till the day of his death openly taught in the Synagogues Ioh. 18. 20. I spake openly to the world I ever taught in the Synagogue and in the Temple whither the Iews alwayes resort Luke 4. 15. he taught in their Synagogues Luke 4. 16. as his custome was he went into the Synagogues Mat. 4. 23. Mark 1. 39. Mark 3. 1. Luk. 6. 6. Mat. 9. 35. Luke 13. 10. and therefore it is a demonstration to me that they never cast Christ out of the Synagogue what hindred them saith Erastus I answer Let him shew me what hindred them to stone him Ioh. 10. and not to put him to death till his houre came Erastus speaketh not like a divine who scoffeth at the secret Counsell of God For God had the sufferings of his owne sonne Christ in a speciall manner determined and weighed in number weight and measure And therefore though they made a Law that all that confesseth Christ should be cast out of the Synagogue and though those that sinned against the Holy Ghost Matt. 12. called him a Samaritane and out of a sudden passion those that wondred at the gracious words that proceeded out of his mouth would cast him over the brow of a Mountaine Yet I hold they never made any Law noâ— did execute any Law nor did cast out of their Sgnagogue or excommunicate the Lord Iesus I leave Erastus to his conjectures Erastus Act. 4. and 5. The Apostles were scourged and cast out by the high Synagogue summa Synagoga yet presently they teach in the Temple and use the Sacramenâ—s Act. 21. When Paul Act. 21. was to go to the Temple to sacrifice the Apostles who counselled him so to do do not object that he was excommunicated and so could not
holy things to signifie how much God detests filthinesse 2. Filthinesse polluting and leavening others Now the lesse will in any sin the lesse sin and so the lesse contagion to others and therefore where there is much infirmity lesse will and no contumacy it rather followeth Ergo there should be no casting out no Excommunication Erastus The Ceremonially unclean were not counted as condemned and lost as your Excommunicated persons were they were admitted to Sacraments and the yearly expiation Ans This is Answered fully The Excommunicated because Excommunicated are to us in a way to be saved under Medicine and not given for lost no more then those to whom the Pastors do threaten eternall wrath or those with whom we will not eat because of their inordinate walking are given for lost though conditionally they are in danger of damnation if they repent noâ— 2. It is denyed that the Ceremonially unclean were admitted to the Sacraments Philo Judaeus no lesse well versed in Jewish Antiquities then Josephus Tract de sacerdotum honoribus saith Nulli homicidae licebat introire Templum and Josephus l. 19. c. 7. saith Herod Agrippa who beheaded James the brother of Christ accused one Simon who being a wicked man went into the Temple Qâ—ia Templum non nisi puris dignis pateret he witnesseth the same De Bel. Jadaic l. 4. c. 13. Erastus The comparison holdeth not between two sins which have both of them their own appointed punishment but when both is punished vvith one punishment for it is like this He that killed any imprudently vvas compelled to flee to the City of Refuge vvhich vvas a lesse sin Ergo he that vvittingly and vvilfully killeth should rather flye to that City or a drunken man is to pay a fine Ergo a bloody Robber is far rather to pay a fine Ans When the comparison is made between a Ceremoniall breach which is punished with a punishment Ceremonially or mystically significant the comparison to a morall sin punished with punishment reall signified by that Ceremoniall punishment is inconsequent But when both sins have the same punishment in the generall in genere it followeth not that both should have the same in speâ—iâ— in nature as a drunkard ought to be punished with stripes Ergo parricide ought rather to be punished with death but not Ergo a parricide ought rather to be punished with stripes only And so the consequence is nought the leper was punished with being put out of the Camp seven dayes It followeth not Ergo he that is defiled with the soul-leprosie of murther sorcery should far rather be punished only with being put out of the camp seven dayes Because there is a higher punishment ordained for morall then for a Ceremoniall transgression Ceteris paribus Erastus If Peter Excommunicated Ananias as you say for a private far more should Christ have Excommunicated Iudas for a more haincus private sin Ans We say not that Peter Excommunicated Ananias but that his killing of him pointed at the punishment of wicked men in the bosome of the Church 2. Gods punishing of sinners both in the time when and in the manner with what kinde of punishment is no rule to the Churches or Magistrates punishing If God spare Joab all Davids time it followeth not Ergo David the Magistrate ought also to spare him If God command to kill the man that gathereth sticks on the Sabbath it followeth not Ergo the Church or Magistrate may do the like now if any should gather sticks on the Sabbath Erastus Let every man try himself he speaketh of the secrets of Conscience Erastus That is saith he false he speaketh of open sins of Schismaticks of those that came drunk to the Table and eat things Sacrificed to Idols Ans Erastus mistaketh close the Authors meaning which is to speak of the private and personall self-examination that every Communicant is to enter in before he eat not of the publike trying 1 Cor. 5. men are to make a secret tryall even of publike sins so though the sins were publike yet was the tryall secret and personall but did not exclude a publike examination by the Church if need were Erastus Though those that come to the Supper professe Repentance yet many hypocrites come So Isa 1. those Hypocrites might have said We testifie by our sacrificing that we have hands full of blood If we deal Hypocritically or sincerely God who knoweth the hearts only must judge men must judge the best Erastus saith to the place Isa 1. we have Answered before But saith he if they had said It is true our hands are full of blood but we repent and are sorry O Prophets pray to God to have mercy on us and we shall pray They could not be debarred Ans The man that was unreconciled to his brother might say all that at the Altar to the Priest Yet Christ seeketh some more of him he will not have him admitted to offer his gift but he must leave it there and give more then words to both God and the Priest he must go and humble himself to his offended Brother and be reconciled to him And so the Prophet Isa 1. seeketh more of them ere he will have them to Sacrifice Wash you make you clean put away the evil of your doings cease to do evil learn to do well All this is not done in a moment at the Altar Erastus Tell the Church that is Tell the Magistrate if he be not a defender of a wicked Religion For I suppose 1. That Christ speaketh of the Church in Iudea which the Disciples understood where to finde it Now the Disciples understood so well the Church that they put no Question to Christ of the matter 2. Peter only saith How oft shall my Brother offend and I forgive him Now Peter and the Disciples knew nothing of the spirituall Fraternity of the Gentiles before his Resurrection For they knew only Jews were their Brethren and they were forbidden to preach to the Gentiles or Samaritans now 3. Let him be to thee as an heathen and a Publican that is Let him be as a man most opposite to the Jews Heathens and Publicans did grievously oppresse them and made the Roman yoak very burdensome to them Ans 1. Erastus doth suppose which is most false as I have Answered before that Christ speaketh to Paul from heaven and Ananias also of bearing the Name of Christ to the Gentiles and Paul neither knew Name nor thing Act. 26. 15 16 c. and 9. 15 16 c. He speaketh to his Disciples of the promise of the Father and of the Testimony of the Gospel they were to Preach Luk. 24. 46 47. c. which they knew not till afterwards And what was the use of the holy Ghost to be powred on them Was not this one of the chief Joh. 14 26. He shall teach you all things and bring all things to your remembrance whatsoever I have said unto you Then
1 Cor. 5. 12. Ergo their being Members of the Church is not enough to admit them to the Lords Supper except they be to the Church otherwise qualified and fitted for it And this doth clearly evidence That the word of the Kingdom may ought to be Preached to many within the Church that they may be converted to whom the Supper is not to be dispensed that they may be cōverted which is enough for our point to exclude promiscuous admission of all to the Supper and to prove some other qualification must be requisite in those that come to the Supper before the Ministers without violation of the holy things of God and being guilty of not distributing aright can administer the Supper to them and this is another visible qualification then is requisite in those that hear the word For Erastus and Mr. Prynne require That all that come to the Supper be rightly instructed 2. That they promise amendment of life But they cannot say none are to be admitted to hear the word while they be qualified thus you exclude the ignorant from the Sacrament do you exclude the ignorant from hearing the word Farther I desire to be resolved why Erastus and his require any qualification at all in the one more then in the other according to their way For suppose persons Baptized be only negatively blamelesse and not visibly scandalous yet Erastus and Mr. Prynne cannot deny the Supper to such Suppose they know not whether they be as ignorant of God as Indians and suppose they promise no amendment and do positively professe no repentance at all 1. Ministers can deny no converting Ordinances to persons because ignorant for if the Supper of the Lord be a converting Ordinance it shall convert men from their ignorance and an Indian ignorant of Christ ought to be Baptized to the end that Baptisme may convert him from his ignorance Now I think our Brethren cannot say this and therefore they must yield that Ministers dare not admit all within the Church to the Seals except they would be guilty of their sin in eating to themselves damnation and yet they dare not debar the ignorant within the Church from hearing the word and so are no way compartners with them in the sin of unprofitable hearing 2. Mr. Prynne may here see some ignorants debarred from the Lords Supper yet I hope he would not be so rigid as to Excommunicate all ignorants because ignorant the most rigid Novatians would condemne that and here is sole suspension without Excommunication which Mr. Prynne saith is not to be found in all the word of God I wondred much when I read those words of the learned and reverend Master Prynne That God who bestoweth no Ordinances on men in vaine must intend in instituting the Supper that visible morall unregenerate Christians may be converted thereby as well as reall Saints be confirmed to which I reply 1. Neither word nor Sacraments nor any thing on the part of the Almighty can be intended in vaine though the end of the Ordinance be not obtained I should have expected some such divinity from the pen of Arminians and Socinians who make God to intend the salvation of all and every one in both the promises of the Gospel precepts and Sacraments and yet he falleth from this end so you may read in Arminius Anti-Perkins pag. 60. that God is disappointed in his end in both Law and Gospel and God shooting beside his mark misseth the salvation of many say the Remonstrants at the Synod of Dort pag. 216. and in their confession c. 7. sect 3. and because Socinus thought it hard thus to take from God wise intentions he did no lesse then blasphemously deprive him of his omniscience So Socians contra puccium c. 10. and in prelectionib Theolog. c. 11. made all things that are contingently to come uncertaine to God But if you speak of intentio operis non operantis that the Supper in its nature is ordained this may rather be your meaning that morall men like Cicero and Seneca and Iudas and the like for all are alike in regard of the nature of the ordinances and of that which is the genuine intention not of God but of this Sacrament then you speak not of the supper as divided from the word but as the word going before the Sacrament hath converted the man and the Sacrament following doth adde to and confirme in grace So Sir you depart from the question for we grant that the Sermon going before in the same day of the celebration of the Supper may and doth convert and thus if an Indian heare a Sermon to which the celebration of the Supper is annexed if he be converted by that Sermon as you teach the heart in those is only knowne to God the Church is not to judge he may forthwith ere he be baptised come at the same time to the Lords supper which were much precipitation little speed and so the word formally converteth not the Sacrament But if you mean that the Sacrament formally as the Sacrament is of its nature a mean of converting a morall Seneca you mistake the nature of the seal very farre God never intended that food as food should give life to the dead the Supper as the Supper is spirituall food and presupposeth the eater hath life and how gate he life but by the word of God 2. Doth the Sacrament as the Sacrament humble or speak one word of the Law doth the Sacrament say any thing here but Christ died for thee O Seneca and there is a pledge of his love in dying for thee and the like it speaketh to Iudas as Master Prinne thinketh and can this convert a morall man never yet humbled for sinne But I have gone thus out of the way in this purpose I returne and desire pardon for this digression not I hope fruitlesse at this time If the Magistrate be the chiefe Church-officer how is it that the Church was without Christian Magistrates in the Apostles time then is there no exact paterne of a Christian Church what it should be de jure hath Christ in the New Testament not moulded the Church the second temple in all the dimensions of it as Moses David Solomon did by immediate inspiration shew us the measure of the first Tabernacle Sanctuary and Temple finally should Cesar suppose he had been a Christian have received imposition of hands from the Elders a◠his deputies the Ministers do and be over the Church in the Lord as King and receive accusations against Elders ordaine Elders in every Church put out and cast out the unworthy only for the iniquity of the time Ministers were forced to do these Erastus and his have not one word of Scripture for this or were the keys of the Kingdome of heaven given to Cesar and because Cesar was without the Church therefore Peter received them Matth. 16. while Cesar should be converted what Scripture have we for this for to rule the Church
Christ mediator for he denieth expresly Ioh. 18. 36. that he hath such a Kingdom as Mediator or that he was instructed with the sword as Mediator Luk. 12. 13. Now as God and Creator of the world Christ could not deny but he had a Kingdom worldly and that he hath a regnum potentiae an universall Kingdom of power as Lord of Hoasts to dispose of all the Kingdoms of the world and to rule amongst the children of men and to rule over the children of men and to give them to whomsoever he will Dan. 4. 25. 8. 18. â—er 27. v. 6 7 8 9. Psal 24. 1. Psal 50. v. 12. Nor is this Kingdom and Power given to Christ nor is he made Prince and a King as God but as Mediator to give repentance to the House of Israel and forgivenesse of sins Act. 5. 31. I grant it is said Phil. 2. 9. God hath highly exalted Christ and given him a name above every name that at the name of Iesus every knee should bow of things in heaven and of things in earth and things under the earth What doth not this say the adversaries comprehend a royall power given to Christ and hath not Christ from this power to substitute Magistrates in his place as his vicars under him and as little mediators I answer it doth in no sort follow for that is a spirituall power as is clear Rom. 14. v. 9. For to this end Christ both died and rose and revived that he might be Lord both of dead and living v. 11. For it is written as I live saith the Lord every knee shall bow to me and every tongue shall confesse God So it is clearly expounded of Christs exalting at the right hand of God Act. 5. 31. for spirituall and supernaturall ends I grant as Mediator and King he breaketh his enemies Devils and men Psal 2. 9. With a rod of yron and dasheth them in pieces like a potters vessel and maketh his enemies his footstool Psal 110. 1. But that is no carnall power such as earthly Kings useth it is a spirituall power for the reason is given ver 2. The Lord shall send the rod of thy strength out of Sion By which v. 5. as a great Anti-royalist He strikes through Kings in the day of his wrath Now Christ as Mediator sendeth not out Kings and Princes to conquer souls to him with their sword Renowned Salmasius saith When Christ sent his Apostles first to preach the Gospel and to lay the foundation of the Christian Church did he send out with them lictors pursevants men of war with a bundell of rods and with axes to compell men to come in to his Kingdome Commanded he to smite them with swords and axes who would not receive the Gospel No yea he would not have them to take with them a staffe a scrip or shoes But though Christ subdue all his enemies Devils and wicked men it shall never follow that Christ is for that King and head of Devils and wicked men For Christ is as Mediator King and Head or mediatory King and Head of those that are the subjects and redeemed conquest of this King and of those who are members of the body of which he is Head now this body is his Church only Col. 1. 18. He is the Head of the Body the Church Eph. 1. 22 23. And gave him to be Head over all things to the Church Which is his Body the fulnesse of him that filleth all The Body of Christ to be edified Ephesi 4 12. Till we all all that body of the Saints to be perfected v. 11. come in the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect man unto the measure of the stature of the fulnesse of Christ v. 16. from whom the whole Body fitly joyned together and compacted by that which every joynt supplieth according to the effectuall working in the measure of every part maketh increase of the Body unto the edifying of it selfe in love Now never Divine can say that Devils and wicked men who shall bow to Iesus are the subjects of this Kingdom of Christ who have right to the fruits of the Kingdom Righteousnesse and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost Rom. 14. 17. far lesse that they are of the Body that is Christs Body Christs fulnesse Christs Body to be perfected edified to Come in the unity of faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God into a perfect man c. Arg. 6. These Megistrates that are the mediatory vicars deputies and heads of the Head Iesus Christ and his Kingdom these are of his Body and subjects under the King and Mediator Christ the chiefe Head and King For it is not to be presumed that Christ will appoint these to be heads and vicars of his Body and little Kings over his Kingdom as he is Mediator who are not members of his Church nor subjects of his mediatory Kingdom But Magistrates as Magistrates are not members of his Church nor subjects of his mediatory Kingdom no more then Husbands as Husbands Fathers as Fathers are members and their should have been Husbands and Fathers though the Lord Iesus never had been Mediator advocate and Priest of a redeemed Church Obj. But are Pastors and teachers and Elders as such members of the Christian Church Ans If eyes and ears be members of the body and watchmen members of the city then are they ex officio by their office members of the Church But if the Magistrate as a Magistrate be a member of the Church then all Magistrates Heathen and Turkish are members of the Christian Church ex officio by vertue of their office Arg. 7. That opinion is not to be holden which layeth ground that Christ Mediator is a temporary King hath under him Magistrates even heathenish who have nothing to do with a Mediator to bear a temporall sword for a supernaturall and spirituall end as Christâ— under heires he himselfe being the first heir of all such and so maketh heathens within the verge of the mediatory Kingdom as if Christ were as Mediator a King to Heathen and all and every one of mankind who must have Magistrates and so maketh the Kingdome of men as men and the Kingdom of Grace commensurable and of alike latitude and extension and maketh nature and grace of equall comprehension But such is the former opinion the proposition cannot be denied except by Arminians Socinians Papists who do maintain an universall redemption a grace universall a Catholick Kingdom of Grace comprehensive of all and every man of Pharoah Evil merodach Belshazer all the Kings of Romans Persians Assyrians Chaldeans and of Turk India and such as worship the Sunne and Moon the Devil and the work of mens hands The assumption is granted by Master Coleman who saith Christ is the rightfull King of the whole earth he meaneth Christ as Mediator to whom the Father hath given a Kingdom Obj. Doth not Christ as King make all
be Papists to hold this distinction then farre more things indifferent for a time in case of scandall may be forborne when Counsells the performance whereof merit a greater degree of glorie in heaven may be suspended 2. It is false for Aquinas saith Actiones quantumcunque rectae atque utiles omittendae So D. Bannes Duplyers The most accurat Casuists and Interpreters of Thomas deny that we can deny obedience to civill and Ecclesiasticall lawes for â—schewing scandall of the weake So Navarrus in manâ—ali cap 19. sect 44. Vasquez to 5 Tract de Scandalo dub 1. sect 5. Becanus to post part 2 tract 1. cap 27. q. 5. Ferdin de Castro Palao oper moral tract 6. disp 6 pâ—nct 16. Duvall 22. tract de Charit q. 19. art And they â—ite Thomas Duranaus Almain Anton â—lorent Answer 1. Aquinas saith Excommunication may be omitted in the case of scandall Now the Churches precept of Excommunication is no counsell but a precept And it is lawfull saith Thomas to rebuke our brother and an act of Mercy and Charitie commanded saith he in the law of nature and so not a Counsell Yet saith Thomas in case of scandall it may be omitted Navar. doth contradict you read when you please And Ferdinâ—â—d de Castro Palao you thought we had not these authors to find you outâ— and give â—o Vasquez right play Wee may omit the â—â—aring of a Masse which is no Counsell but command to save the temperall life of our brother Becanus Duvallius may be seen to crosse you Dupliers The School-men well us not to forbeare obedience with a quite disclaiming of the authoritie of the Law as you doe Ans Lawfull authoritie of Prelates lawes we know none 2. School-men say more that the obligation of lawes doe cease in case of scandall Duplyers This kinde of forbearance for eschewing of scandall we improve 1. Arg. The author of English Popish Ceremonies part 1. cap. 4. sect 4. Not to obey the lawes of the Church in things whereof we are certainly perswaded they are not unlawfull and inexpedient is a contempt and a scandall But we are perswaded the things here to wit Articles of Pearth be neither unlawfull nor inexpedient Ergo The major is yours the Assump we prove by the light of our conscience Answer The author sayth so indeed but withall he sayth that Church lawes bind not the conscience because they are Church lawes Sed propter rationem legum for the reason of the lawes and such you cannot show to be in your Ceremonies 2. The Assumption is badly proved for your consciences are not transparent glasse except that light come out in arguments founded upon the law and testimonie and where this is not there is no light Es 8. 20. an erring conscience proveth nothing so you beg the question Duplyers 2. arg n. 37. That which may be removed by information and instruction cannot be awarrand to us of a totall abstinence from the obedience of the lawes or which is all one of an avowed disclaiming of the authoritie of them But the scandall of the weake taken by Pearth Articles may be removed by information or instruction Ergo. I must crave here leave for a pause and aske the question 1. If information and light given to beware of the scandall of Ceremonies and things indifferent can make them the lawfull object of Church Canons D. Forbes and other say so But 1. This is that which Papists say to our Divines who object that Images are pits and snares to Idolatrie This danger saith Johannes de Lugo the Popes Professor at Rome is easily prevented by the instruction and care of Prelates who are to teach that Images have no dignitie of themselves but onely from the samplar And so Bellarm. the Jesuit Vasquez Estius The Councell of Magountine helpeth the matter Let our Pastours say they carefully teach the people that Images are not set up that we should adore them but that they should be helps for our memorie 2. Paul gave strong reasons for lawfulnesse of dayes and meats that weake Jewes should not be scandalized at the eating thereof yet he would neither passe them in a Church Canon nor practise them himselfe while the world standeth 1 Cor. 8. 13. yea he proveth Rom. 14. by eight strong Arguments that it was not lawfull to practise them Ergo he presuproseth that information of Pastours should not take away the scandall of the weake as Rom. 14. 14. There is nothing uncleane of it selfe Ergo It is lawfull to eat all meats 1 Cor. 10. 26. The earth is the Lords Ergo eat what is set before you v. 23. all things are lawfull and yet he saith eat not give no offence if meat offend my brother I will not eat to the worlds end 1 Cor. 8. 13. 3. This vaine argument presupposeth that the want of literall information is the adequat cause of falling in scandall a vaine reason Peter actively and culpably scandalized Christ in his carnall counsell Master pitty thy selfe Mat. 16 21. 22. 23. yet Christ was sufficiently inlightened that he could not be scandalized But certaine it is that the will and depraved inclination is the cause why we fall in scandall even when we know that others who publickly sinneth doth sinne and that we should not be scandalized Now no reason in Pastors preaching or in Church-Canon can take away the inclination of the heart to evill and therefore no information of Pastors can remove the scandall of the weake For then David in committing adulterie Noah in drunkenness Lot in his incestuous folly with his owne daughters Peter in denying his Saviour should not have caused others within or without the Church to stumble nor have culpably scandalized them So David Noah Lot and Peter had preached to all that heard of their fall that adulterie drunkenness incest and denyall of Christ were grievous sinnes to be avoyded and that it was sin for any to be scandalized thereat for such information should have given sufficient literall information to beware of the like sinnes Yea a father might inclose in a chamber his sonne and a beautifull virgin and if he should sufficiently informe his son of the guiltiness and punishment of harlotrie he should not lay a stumbling-block before his sonne Yet we all know a stumbling-block may be layed before the inclination no lesse then before the blind minde yea suppose to warne a Traveller of a pit in his way might be sufficient to make the digger of the pit free of laying a stumbling-block in the way as it is not seeing to make a pit is not indifferent yet it shall not free the Commanders of Ceremonies and the acts of Pearth Assemblie of active scandall because men naturally loving life and health hate to fall into pitts which may indanger their life and so have no inward morall inclination to fall into a pitt but men though informed
of spirituall falls and warned to beware of them yet love and incline to Idolatrie and therefore to warne them to beware and yet set the powder neere the fire is but to scorne the craft and to mock men Yea in that they desire and require that the people beware of the Ceremonies and require that Pastours informe them of the danger they grant that Ceremonies are powder amongst the pitchers and yet they be innocent and indifferent creatures as if they would call them indifferent pitts indifferent whoores to allure beware of them indifferent pest-cloathes see that your inclination touch them not Yea then Ezechiah had given no scandall if he had commanded the brazen Serpent still to stand and had commanded the Priests to preach that the Serpent was not God and therefore warned the people of their Idolatrie in burning Incence to it onely let it stand as a memoriall of Gods power in curing the people who were stinged with Serpents in the Wildernesse So if the Israelites should give their sonnes and daughters to marry strange women of the Canaanites if they should ordaine the Priests to teach carefully their married children to beware that they were not drawne away by these idolatrous marriages to serve the Gods of the Canaanites they should not lay a stumbling-block before their sonnes and daughters Yea these who excell in light may be weake in grace and in hazard to be insnared by the idolatrie and superstition of Ceremonies 4. The law of nature provideth all possible and lawfull meanes for the removall of every thing that may rnine his soule for whom Christ died but not onely information of the danger of Ceremonies but also the removall of the pitts themselves to wit the Ceremonies are possible and lawfull meanes 5. 1. This were an idle Sabbath work to expound such theams as these Sacramentall bowing is an humble adoring of God not of bread and as it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save beleevers so it pleased Prelates by the foolishnes of holy dayes and Saints dayes to teach the people articles of faith and by the Surplice to teach pastorall innocencie and by confirmation to blesse children 2 Calvin and Luther teach that no word should be heard in the Church nisi purum Dei verbum but the pure word of God Surplice humane and Saints dayes crossing kneeling cannot be a text that Ministers can preach on and expound for they are commanded to speak Gods word Ezech. 7. To read Gods law and give the meaning and sense thereof Nehem. 8. 8. and to expone the Scriptures Luk. 24. 27. not to teach the meaning of wretched Ceremonies for in that they should not be the Pastours of Christ but speak with the mouth of Antichrist and Exod. 12. 26. 27. If the children ask the fathers what mean yee by this Passeover they were to answer It is the Sacrifice of the Lords Passeover So if they ask what meaneth your kneeling to Bread your Saints dayes your Surplice and Crossing you must answer they are the Ceremonies of the Lords Supper and Baptisme What uncouth bleating were this 6. Shall people saith D. Ammes be fedde with this East wind the vertue of Surplice when there be so little time to learne the maine things of the Gospell also some preach none some studie never Ceremonies some blush to speake of such toyes Yea and alas often saith Bannes the weake are not capable of distinctions it is hard to draw the wits of rude people along the untwisted threed of distinctions that the elements are objectum adorationis à quo significative and objectum adorationis relativae materiale non adorationis formale I conceive the Doctors of Aberdeen have adoe with their wits to understand them they must be taught of D. Mortounes essentiall and accidentall worship of Bellarmines additions perfecting and additions corrupting the word of God And whereas D. Forbes saith It is a shame for Ministers and teachers of others to pretend weaknes though the flock might be ignorant Answer Weakness is weakness of faith Rom. 14. 1. and weaknesse of grace not weakness in literall light And I thinke Ministers may pretend this upon too good grounds and weaknes of faith is often a great inclination to superstition 2. Though the Ministers refusing the Ceremonies should understand them as well as these who writ bookes for their defence yet it will not follow that they should practise them for their forbearance is for feare of scandalizing the weak Paul had perfect knowledge of his Christian libertie as any man yet he would not eat meats to the worlds end which should offend his brother The stronger should not scandalize the weak because they are stronger Duplyers pag. 63. n. 38. Thirdly if for Scandalls taken especially by the malicious we may disclaime the authority of a Law then we may ever disclaime the authoritie of all lawes of Church and State for there is nothing commanded by lawes but some either through weaknes or through malice may take offence at it Answer 1. For scandalls taken and also given by either weak or wilfull when the matter is indifferent and hath evident conformitie with Jewish and Popish rites and is not necessarie we may disclaim the authoritie of all such lawes true Ergo we may for scandall maliciously taken deny the authority of all lawes it followeth not Ex affirmatione spâ—ciei male colligitur negatio generis It is not for taken scandall but for given scandall that we disclaime the authoritie of these lawes 2. The Doctors will have us believe upon the sole light of their conscience n. 36. that they thinke the Ceremonies lawfull and expedient But for us they will not credit us in that but out of malice we are soandalized and not out of weaknesse Duplyers n. 39. 4. arg Fourthly We ought not for eschewing scandall causlesly taken to injure or offend any man by denying to him that which is due to him and therefore we ought not for eschewing scandall causlesly taken to offend and injure our Superiours The Antecedent is proved for if a man be excommâ—nicated shall his wife children and servants flie his company and so deny these duties which they owe to him for feare that others be scandalized and if we may not for scandall causlesly taken abstaine from these duties that we owe to private persons farre lesse may we abstaine from obedience which we owe to Superiours c. Answer Against the Law of disputing you lay downe a ground which is a principall part of the question that is practising these Ceremonies be obedience due to Superiours and none practising for a time an injuring of Superiours in their due though Gods affirmative precepts be omitted for a time as the not hearing the Word the not receiving the Sacraments in case of Scandall Gods due is not taken from him If you will be more zealous for the honour of Prelates and men then for the honour of God Answer the Argument
into the world to save sinners in regard of Canonicall authority stamped upon both R. Hooker with other Formalists Will have the lightnesse of matter to make the Law alterable Truly to eat of the Tree of knowledge of good and ill being put in the ballance with the love of God in it self is but a light thing yet the breach of that Law involved all the world in condemnation And what else is this but that which Papists say that there be two sort of things in scripture so saith Cornelius a Lapide Comem on 2 Tim. 3. 16. 1. The Law and the Prophets these God revealed and dyted to Moses and the Prophets but there are other things in Scripture as Histories and morall exhortations which Canonick writers learned either by hearing seeing reading or meditation there was no need these should be dyted by the inspiration of the holy Spirit for they know them themselves though they were assisted 2. Excited by the holy spirit to write Conceptum memoriam eorum quae sciebant non iis suggessit spiritus sanctus sed inspiravit ut hunc potius conceptum quam illum scriberent omnes eorum sententias conceptus ordinavit digessit direxit spiritus sanctus v. g. Vt hanc sententiam primò illam secundò aliam tertiò collocarent Yet Estius saith on the place The Scriptures are given by divine inspiration ita ut non solum sententiae sed verba singula verborum ordo ac tota dispositio fit a deo tanquam per seipsum loquente ac scribente So as not only the sentences but every word and the order and disposition of words is of or from God as if he were speaking and writing himself Now for the additions Canonicall that the Prophets and Apostles made to the writing of Moses I hope Papists and Formalists cannot with any forehead alledge them to prove that the Church may adde Traditions and alterable Positives of Church-Policy to the written word of God except upon the same ground they conclude That the Church now hath the same immediatly inspired spirit that the Prophets and Apostles had and that our Prelats saw the visions of God when they saw but the visiones aulae the visions of Court and that their calling was as Pauls was Gal. 1. 1. not of men neither by men but by Iesus Christ When as it is not by Divine right and was both of the King and by Court 2. Except they infer that the Church that now is may adde Canonicall and Scripturall additions to the Scripture for such additions the Prophets and Apostles added to the writings of Moses and 3. that that precept Thou shalt not adde c. was given to the Lord himself to binde up his hands that no Canonick Scripture should ever be but the only writings of Moses which is as some write the dream of Saduces whereas inhibition is given to the Church of God not to God himself for what the Prophets and Apostles added God himself added yea to me it is a doubt while I be better informed if the Lord did ever give any power of adding to his Scripture at all without his own immediate inspiration to either Prophet or Apostle or that God did never command Moses or Prophet or Apostle to write Canonick Scripture of their own head or that his Commandment to write Scripture was any other then an immediate inspiration which essentially did include every syllable and word that the Apostles and Prophets were to write For I do not coaceive that 1. God gave to Apostles and Prophets power to devise a Gospel and write it I suppose Angels or men could not have devised it yea that they could no more have devised the very Law of nature then they could create such a piece as a reasonable soul which to me is a rare and curious book on which essentially is written by the immediate finger of God that naturall Theology that we had in our first creation 2. I do not conceive that as Princes and Nobles do give the Contents or rude thoughts of a curious Epistle to a Forraign Prince to their Secretary and go to bed and sleep and leaves it to the wit and eloquence of the Secretary to put it in forme and stile and then signes it and seals it without any more ado so the Lord gave the rude draughts of Law and Gospel and all the pins of Tabernacle and Temple Church-officers and Government and left it to the wit and eloquence of Shepherds Heardsmen Fishers such as were the Prophets Moses David Amos and Peter and divers of the Apostles who were unlettered men to write words and stile as they pleased but that in writing every jot tittle or word of Scripture they were immediatly inspired as touching the matter words phrases expression order method majesty stile and all So I think they were but Organs the mouth pen and Amanuenses God as it were immediately dyting and leading their hand at the pen Deut 4. 5. Deut. 31. 24 25 26. Mal. 4. 4. 2 Pet. 1. 19. 20 21. 2 Tim. 3. 16. Gal. 1. 11 12. 1 Cor. 11. 23. so Luk. 1. 70. God borrowed the mouth of the Prophets As he spake by the mouth of his holy Prophets which hath been since the world began Now when we ask from Prelates what sort of additionall or accidentall worship touching Surplice Crosse and other Religious Positives of Church Policy it is that they are warranted to adde to the word and how they are distinguished from Scriptures Doctrinals They give us these Characters of it 1. God is the Author of Doctrinals and hath expressed them fully in scripture But the Church is the Author of their Accidentals and this is essentiall to it that it is not specified particularly in scripture as Bread and Wine Taking and Eating in the Lords Supper is for then it should be a Doctrinall point and not Accidentall 2. It is not in the particular a point of faith and manners as Doctrinals are But hear the very Language of Papists for Papists putteth this essentiall Character on their Tradition that it is not written but by word of mouth derived from the Apostles and so distinguished from the written word for if it were written in scripture it should not be a Tradition So the Jesuit Malderus in 22. tom de virtut de obj fidei Q. 1. Dub. 3. Pro Apostolica traditione habendum est quod eum non inveneatur in Divinis literis tamen Vniversa tenet ecclesia nec consiliis institutum sed semper retentum 2. That the Traditions are necessary and how far Papists do clear as I have before said for the Church may coin no Articles of faith these are all in Scripture For the Iews two Suppers and their additions to the passeover as Hooker saith and their fasting till the sixth hour every Feast day we reject as dreams because they are not warranted by any word of institution not to adde that
the Church of the Jews never took on them to command the observation of these forgeries under the pain of Church-censures as Papists and prelats did their Crossing and their Surplice Hooker saith A Question it is whither containing in Scripture do import expresse setting down in plain terms or else comprehending in such sort that by reason we may thence conclude all things which are necessary to salvation The Faith of the Trinity the Co-eternity of the Son with the Father are not the former way in Scripture for the other let us not think that as long as the World doth indure the wit of man shall be able to sound to the bottom of that which may be concluded out of Scripture Traditions we do not reject because they are not in Scripture but because they are neither in Scripture nor can otherwise sufficiently by any reason be proved to be of God That which is of God and may be evidently proved to be so we deny not but it hath in its kinde although unwritten yet the self same force and authority with the Written Laws of God Such as are alterable Rites and Cystomes for being Apostolicall it is not the manner of delivering them to the Church but the Author from whom they proceed which gave them their force and credit Ans 1. The consequences of Scriptures are doublesse many and more then are known to us and the particulars of that Government that we contend for are in Scripture that is there should be no Government but what is either expresly in Scripture or may be made our by just consequence we believe if they cannot be proved from Scripture let them fall as mens hay and stubble But in the mean time these are two different questions Whither there be an immutable Platform of Discipline in the Word Or whither ours be the only Platform and no other If we carry the first Ceremonies must fall And certainly in all reason we are on the surest side If we cannot observe all that is written it is not like that God hath laid upon us unwritten burdens 2. Hooker doth not reject all the Popish Traditions as our Divines Reformed do because they are not warranted by the Word so that if the Images of God and Christ and the Worshipping of them and Purgatory and the Supremacy of the Pope can be proved to be of God though they be no more in Scripture then Crossing and Surplice then would he receive all these as Having the self same force and authority with the Written Laws Now we know no other weightier Argument to prove there 's no Purgatory but because the scripture speaketh of Heaven and Hell and is silent of Purgatory 2. That naturall reason can warrant a positive instituted Worship such as Surplice betokening Pastorall Holinesse without any Scripture is a great untruth for naturall reason may warrant new Sacraments as well as new Sacramentals 3. If Traditions have their force and credit from God not from the manner of delivering them that is from being contained in scripture or not contained in it then certainly they must be of the same Divine necessity with scripture For whither Christ Command that the Baereans believe in the Messiah by the Vocall Preaching of Paul or by the written scriptures of the Prophets and Apostles it is all one it is the same word and coming from Christ must be of the same Divine authority But this is to beg the question for that we are to believe no unwritten tradition because it is unwritten to have the self same force and authority with the Written Laws of God For Lorinus Cornelius a Lapide Com. in 4. Deuter. Estius Com. in 2. Thes 2. 15. Bellarmine Tannerus Malderus Becanus say Whither the Lord deliver his minde to us in his Written Scripture or by Tradition it is still the Word of God and hath authority from God But the truth is to us it is not the Word of God if it be not a part of the Counsel of God written in Moses or the Prophets and Apostles for though the Word have authority only from God not from the Church nor from men or the manner of delivering of it by word or writ yet we with the Fathers and Protestant Divines and evidence of scripture stand to that of Basilius Homil. 29. Advers câ—lâ—mnianâ—es S. Trinit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Believe what are written vvhat are not vvritten â—eek not after And so seek not after Surâ—lice Crossiâ—g and the like And that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Every word and so this That Crossing Surplice are Religious signes of spirituall duties and every thing or action must be made good by the Testimony of the heavenly inspired Scripture these things that are good and so Religiously decent and significant may be fully confirmed and these that are evil corfounded And to us for our Faith and practise if it be not Law and Testimony it is darknesse and not light And as Gregor Nyssen the Brother of Basyl saith Dialog de anim et Resurrect tom 2. ed. Grecolaâ— pag. 639. Edit Greâ— pag. 325. That only must be acknowledged for truth in which is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the seal of the Scriptures Testimony 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And how shall it be true to us iâ— Scripture say it not Or how shall it appear to us to be from God For Cyril Alexandrin saith What the holy Scripture saith not such as are your Positives of mens devising how shall we receive it and account it amongst things that are true And it is not that which Hereticks of old said for their Heresies to say â—s Hooker doth that any thing may be proved to be of God which is not written in Scripture For saith Hieronimus in Hag. c. 1. Sed alia quae absque authoritate testimoniis Scripturarum quasi Traditione Apostolica sponte reperiunt atque confingunt percutit Gladius dei The Scripture doth bar the door upon Hereticks saith Chrysostome And he is a Theef that taketh another unlawfull way then the Scripture And by what Argument can reason without Scripture prove that Crosse and Suplice are of God But by that same reason Papists without Scripture can and may prove their Traditions to be of God And if we admit reason and exclude Scripture it is as easie to prove their Traditions as our Positive additions to Worship And what Answers Papists give for their Traditions to â—lude the power of Scripture and evidence of Testimonies of fathers all these same are given by Prelats for their additions to say nothing that Hooker asserteth unwritten Traditions to be Gods Word and in the very stile of the Councel of Trent we are to acknowledge Traditions though unwritten yet to have the self same authority and force with the Written Laws of God And shal the Surplice and Crosse and such stuffe be of the self same force and authority with the Evangel according to Luke and John