of sincere obedience to lawfull authority as well as we conceited good probably included in the very obiect of the action he that doth that which in his private opinion he suspecteth to be evil because injoyned by lawfull authority doth not evil that good may come of it seeing the goodnesse of obedience is no consequent of the action but a motive precedent authority maketh actions indifferent to be good and necessary Ans He beggeth the question The goodnesse of sincere obedience to authority saith he may countervail the evil that we in our private choice fear to be in the action But first obedience to authority in things wanting Gods word whereof he speaketh now is not obedience but sinning because doing without faith 2. I take the Doctor at his word refusing obedience to mens will-worship or to practise even to the ruin of the weak things indifferent for fear of the greatest evil the offending of God by adding to his worship Rev. 22. 18 19. is obedience to God and not a privation the purpose I say of this obedience to God may countervail all evil that can be imagined in non-obedience to men and sure obedience to God though probably obedience is as good and better then obedience to men though probably obedience Jesuites and Formalists say Rulers are in possession to command Ergo We cannot thrust them out of possession where we are not perswaded that they command against reason saith Sanches So I say God is in just possession commanding us to venture upon no indifferent action where the conscience doubteth and shall we not no lesse contend for Gods just possession as time-servers do for mortall Rulers unjust possession in this 2. I prove that it were Lawfull then to sin against God A Iew is alike perswaded that Maries Son iâ— the true Messiah and that he is a deceiver Opinions about a man might seem indifferent to the Iews And it is all one saith Jackson as if the thing be indifferent Now the Pharisees in a Councell determine that Maries Son is a deceiver Then it is lawfull for the Jew upon purpose of sincere obedience to Pharisees who sit in Moses chair to believe that Maries son is a deceiver because the conceit of sincere obedience is an essentiall motive to transubstantiate unbelief into sincere obedience and the Iew may venture upon the faith that Maries Son is a deceiver and crucifie the Lord of glory being commanded thereunto by his Commanders because Gods providence favoureth more positive actions then privations 3. He saith He that obeyeth for the sole authority of Rulers doth not evil that good may come of it 1. Because the goodnesse of obedience countervaileth the evil of the actions But 1 The question is if it be obedience Ergo If it be no obedience it cannot countervail the evil 2. If it be the evil of sin with a doubting conscience to do what judges commandeth having no warrant of faith but the will and lust of men no purpose of good though it were to save all the world can counter-redeem the evil of sin against God 2. Because saith he such a one doth not evil that good may come of it Then he that stealeth moneys to give to the poor doth not evil that good may come of it by Dr. Jacksons reason Because the goodnesse of purposing to help the poor is not a consequent but a precedent motive of the action and so maketh it good We all know the intention of the end goeth in the intention before the action but not as an essentiall cause to make an evil action good or make an indifferent action necessary and honest A good intention doth make a good action good and better but that a good intention as Idolators are full of good intentions can never so season the means as this Doctor saith that it can make evil to be good Vasquez condemneth the Fathers of ignorance because they said Propositum bonum excusat malum opus so Cassianus said It was lawfull to lie for a good end and Chrysostoâ— and Ambrose said the same as Vasquez saith see Aquinas for this 3. It is the doctrine of the man of sin That Pope or Rulers sole and bare authority can make an action indifferent and so neither good nor evil to be indifferent and good as Bellarmine saith for God only by his institution createth morall goodnesse in actions mans will is no creatrix of goodnesse 4. Neither resolutions nor skill are to be credited or followed because private or publick because authority of man as such is no light nor warrant to the conscience to adventure upon moral actions and the Lord giveth light to private men to obey Psal 25. 8 9. 1 Cor. 2. 14 15. Ioh. 7. 17 â—8 Ioh. 7. 27. 2 Cor 3. 18. 2 Cor. 4. 4. As he doth to Rulers to Command So Sylvester Tartaretus so Rivetus Doctot Field I proceed to answer other Arguments As 1. We must not obey Not only for wrath but for conscience the violation of a speciall Law necessarily draweth with it the violation of the generall Law of the fift Commandment But the violation of the generall saith Learned Pareus hurteth the Conscience and the Magistrate punisheth not for generall Violation but for the Violation of this speciall Law Ergo this speciall Law obligeth in Conscience And it seemeth to carry reason Every just punishment presupposeth essentially a sin else it is not a just punishment but the Ruler doth justly punish the particular Transgression of an humane Law Ergo the Transgression of a particular Law of Rulers is sin The Proposition is confirmed by grave School-men Soto Sylvester and Ioan Eselius Who thinke that there cannot be a Law obliging to a punishment and not to a fault because punishment hath an intrinsecall relation to a sin nor can it be a just punishment that is not proportioned to a sin for the Law saith That cometh not under damage which cometh not under fault Ans Though the Violation of the generall Law hurteth the Conscience it being against the fifth Commandment it followeth not that the Violation of every particular Law even that that is meerly Positive hurteth the Conscience before God For then the carrying of Armour in the Night Suppose no Ruler on earth make a Law there anent should be a sin before God which no wise man can say 2. The other reason is more important and draweth with it that School-question agitated by Iurists also and Ganonists An ulla detur lox pure paenalis If there be a Law purely Penall without sin in it And if the Law of Rulers in things meerly Positive be meerly Penall and co-active and not formally obliging to sin But I Answer Rulers do justly punish the Transgression of a Positive Law not as particularly humane and Positive But as 1. It hath connexion with the Morall Reason of the Law 2. As the particular transgression is scandalous
and against order in which case the formall object of the just punishment inflicted by the Ruler is in very deed not the simple omission of the positive act of a particular humane Law but the violation of the morall goodnesse annexed to it and of the scandall given Now in this meaning the transgression of the positive humane Law is not kindely Per se of it self punishable but by accident and so it bindeth the conscience by accident And in this sense great Doctors as Ambrose Anselme Theodoret Chrysostom Navarra Felinus Taraquel say That humane Laws oblige the conscience But the most learned of the Canonists aver that not to obey civill Laws laying aside the evil of scandall is no mortall sin and so doth not involve the conscience in guiltinesse before God 2. They object To resist the Laws of the Magistrate is to resist himself and to resist himself is to resist the Ordinance of God Ans To resist the Laws positive and particular in connexion with the morall reason of the Law is to resist the Ruler true But so the question is not concluded against us for by accident in that sense humane Laws binde the conscience but to resist the particular Laws as particular Laws as particular positive Laws is not to resist the Ruler A Ruler as a Ruler doth never command a thing meerly indifferent as such but as good edificative profitable and except you resist the morality of the positive humane Law you resist not the Ruler yea nor yet is the Law resisted 3. The Iesuit Lod. Meratius objecteth Every true Law obligeth either to guiltinesse or to punishment but the civill and Canonick Laws are Laws properly so called But they do not ever oblige to punishment only Ergo They oblige to sin Ans It is denied that Laws civill or Canonicall as meerly particularly positive do oblige as Laws or that they are Laws they be only Laws according to the morality in them that can promove us to our last end eternall felicity It is also false that the Iesuit saith If thou wilt be saved keep the Commandments doth command the keeping of all Civill and Canonick Laws or that hence is concluded a Law obliging the conscience that is humane and positive as if a Lent Fast a Pilgrimage and not carrying Armour in the night were commanded by Christ as necessary to life eternall The same Meratius striveth to answer the Argument of Almain and Gerson which is this Who ever can oblige to sin mortall before God he can inflict eternall punishment but no mortall man can inflict eternall punishment 1. Saith he This Argument would prove sins against the Law of nature as homicide and adultery not to be deadly sins for by the Law of nature eternall punishment is not inflicted for sins against the Law of nature but by the positive will of God If any say God is the author of the Law of nature because he is the Creator of that humane nature in the which this law is written So if that be sufficient that the law of nature oblige under eternall punishment so also the civill and Ecclesiasticall lavv shall binde the conscience because he is the author of that power which maketh Civill and Ecclesiastick laws for there is no power but it is of God Ans 1. By the Law of nature sins against the Law of nature deserve eternall punishment and that essentially laying aside the positive will of God to whom I grant it is free to inflict punishment or not to inflict and this agreeth to all sin But to carry Armour in the night laying aside the case of scandall and the morality thereof that no murther follow thereupon deserveth neither temporall nor eternall punishment And if this Argument of the Iesuits hold good no mortall sin shall oblige to eternall punishment because Gods positive will is the nearest cause of actuall punishment eternall in all sins 2. God is not the Author of a propper noâ—othetick power in man for that is the question 2. He answereth Distinguishing the Proposition None can oblige to a mortall sin but he who can inflict the eternall punishment of a mortall sin It is true saith he of the punishment which wholly dependeth upon the will of the judge who made the Law but it is not true of that punishment which no way dependeth upon the will of the Iudge such as is eternall punishment excommunication dependeth upon the vvill of man and it obligeth to eternall punishment yet man cannot inflict that eternall punishment for a man may command an act the omission whereof or the commission whereof is of such moment that it serveth much for the good of a community and therefore he vvho of knowledge and vvillingly doth such an act doth sin against right reason and so against the eternall lavv of God Ans 1. The distinction of the Jesuit is but a begging of the question He vvho can oblige to mortall sin by his Lavv can also oblige to eternall punishment if eternall punishment depend vvholly on his free vvill as the Lavv doth What is that but the inflicting of eternal punishment belongeth to him who maketh a Law obliging to sin mortal so being the inflicting of eternall punishment belong to him But our Argument is he who hath dominion and authority to make a Law hath dominion and authority to inflict a punishment answerable to the transgression of that Law for it is one dominion and power to make the Law and to inflict the penalty of the Law Man cannot make the penalty of eternall wrath Ergo he cannot make a Law obliging to eternall wrath 2. Excommunication is not done by mans will but by the power of the keys for a mortall sin deserving excommunication and so eternall wrath If any Excommunicate upon his sole will as wicked Popes have done in that case the will of a man obligeth neither to punishment nor to eternall punishment it is but Brutum Fulmen and not to be feared 3. If any Commit an act that hurteth a whole Community and is forbidden by men in Authority he sinneth against the Law of God though men had never forbidden that Act And we deny not but humane Laws agreeing with the Law of Nature doth oblige the Conscience both to sin and eternall punishment but then they are not humane Laws but Divine Laws and in that case two guiltinesses Duo reatus are Committed one against the fifth Commandment in doing what Superiors according to Gods Word forbiddeth and there is another guiltinesse against the matter it self and a Divine Law which also should stand as a sin before God thought the Ruler had never forbidden it But if any carry Armour in the Night being forbidden by the Iudge for eschewing of night homicide if no homicide follow at all and the matter be not known and so not scandalous the carrier of Armour is involved in no guiltinesse before God CAP. III. Of the power of the
spake nothing from his Father either in his own person or his Apostles in the New-Testament or in the old by Moses and the Prophets of invocation of Saints Purgatory Worshipping of Images and Reliques and the rest of their unwritten Traditions these being positives of worship and more then unseparable and connaturall attendants such as are common Time Place Person Name Country Habite Gesture are therefore unlawfull because Christ neither heard them of the Father nor spake them to the Apostles and just the like say we of Surplice Crosse c. That they are no part of the will of God which the Father revealed to Christ and these same Texts Papists use to prove that the Scriptures are not perfect because they speak nothing of the Traditions of the Church so Bellarmine Because the Counsell of Trent Andradius Stapleton and all the rest and they prove as well if Crosse and Surplice and humane Offices as Prelates stand good and lawfull that yet the Scriptures are unperfect 3. We say that the whole will of God revealed by the Father to Christ and by Christ to the Prophets and Apostles requireth the immutability of all Laws of Church-Policy in this sence that men should not dare to make and unmake erect command alter and injoyne positive Laws of doctrine or policy at their pleasure Hooker ibid. p. 113. There is more reason to say that God hath a lesse care of the Church under the New-Testament then under the Old then a Philosopher had to say because God hath provided better for beasts that are born with hornes skins hair and garments by nature then man who is born without these that therefore nature is a carefull mother to beasts and a hard-hearted Step-dame to man for Gods affection consisteth not in these for even herein shineth his wisdom that though the wayes of his providence be many yet the end which he bringeth all at the length unto is one and the self same yea it should follow that because God hath not prescribed Rites and Laws of civill Policy to us as to the Iews that he hath lesse love to us and lesse care of our Temporall estate in the world then of theirs Ans 1. It s true indeed God should have lesse care of man who is born naked then of beasts born with hair in lieu of garments if God had not given reason to man according to which by nature he may provide garments for himself and the comparison should go aptly on four feet God should have lesse love and should declare lesse love to some of mankinde if he gave some naturall reason to devise a Bible and a Religion of their own that they might walk to heaven in the light of a fire of their own kindling without the Scriptures of God which is a false supposition and if he had denied reason to another part of mankinde surely all would say God had so far forth been more carefull of the salvation of the former as he should have willed their salvation and loved those in a higher measure to whom he gave reason on these termes and should have been lesse carefull of the salvation of those to whom he denied reason as he he had no more created such capable of salvation and of his love for the saving of them then brute beasts are and this answer layeth down a ground that naturall reason is sufficient without the light of Scripture to guide us in all these things of policy that are alterable then say I God did take a great deal of needlesse and superfluous pains in setting down so many particular Laws of Ceremonies and Civill Policy for the Iews if with the help of reason they might have steerd their course to Christ and salvation by the help of the star light of reason as a man though born naked may by help of reason make shift for garments to infants which beasts void of reason cannot do for thus the comparison must run and it shall be indeed a cavilling at Gods wisdom as Papists do calling the Scriptures inky Divinity 2. The word of God maketh it a great love of God and a work of Free grace that the great things of Gods Law are written to Ephraim Hos 8. 12. And their sin the greater that they should dare to multiply Altars v. 11. without warrant of Gods word as Formalists multiplied Altars Saints-dayes Surplices c. And it is an act of singular love that God gave his judgements Word and Statutes even of Ceremonies and policy to Israel and Iacob and did not so to every Nation Psal 149. 19 20. Ezek. 20. 11 12 13. This was Israels excellency above all Nations on earth Deut. 4. 6. Deut. 20. 33. Rom. 3. 1 2. Rom. 9. 4. that God gave them particular Lawes Iudgements Statutes not only in Morals but also in Ceremonials and Policy yet Hooker dare say We may not measure the affection of God towards us by such differences 3. It shall not hence follow God hath a greater love to the Iews then to us because he gave them Laws concerning civill policy which he gave not to us Except the Lord had given us power to make civill Laws which laid Morall obligation on our consciences even in civill things which morality He expressed in particular Laws written to them and not to us as Formalists teach for then he hath left us in Moralls to the darknesse of naturall reason in which condition we could not but erre and sin and make that morally good and obligatory of conscience which is morally evil for reason knoweth not what is positive Morally good except the light of Gods Word teach us and in Morals such as judiciall Laws were to the Jews the Lord should have been more carefull in his particular directing of them then of us and more tender to have them preserved from the sin of will-worship then us which cannot consist with the Dispensation of lesse light greater obscurity in regard of types and shadows toward them and of the Day-light of the Gospel and the arising of the Day-star and the filling of the earth with knowledge of the Lord toward us under the New Testament But the comparison must go upon this supposition that the Lord purposed to make Politick Laws in their Positives Morall and Obligatory of the Conscience of the Jews and the Civill Laws of the Gentiles under the New Testament in their Positives such as is not to carry Armour in the night and the like not to be Morall nor Obligatory of the Conscience But as touching that which is Morall in all Civill Laws the Lord is as carefull of our Temporall state as of theirs in condescending to particularize all Morals to us as well as to them Hooker That Christ did not mean to set down particular Positive Laws for all things in such sort as Moses did the very different manner of delivering the Laws of Moses and the Laws of Christ doth plainly shew Moses had Commandement to
in the second table Rom. 13. 3 4. Isai 49 23. and you said elsewhere that externall peace is too narrow an object for the Magistrate for the intrinsecall end of a Magistrate is also a supernaturall good and not only a peaceable but also a godly life 1 Tim. 2. 2. Ans It is true the Magistrate as the Magistrate doth care for the supernaturall good of subjects and the duties of Religion and the first table but how intrinsecally and as a magistrate that is that men worship God according to his word But 1. The magistrate as such hath nothing to do with the spirit nor can he command the sincerity of the worship his care is that there be a divine worship that is materially and externally right and consonant externally to the rules of the word and for this cause learned divines make the externall man the object of the magistrates office but not the externall man as doing the duties of the second table only but also as serving God in the duties of the first table for which cause I said Augustine meant the same when he said that Kings serve God as men and as Kings 2. Magistrates as magistrates are to extend their power for Christ that is that not only there be Iustice and Peace amongst men but also that there be Religion in the land yea that the Gospel be preached so all our Divines make the King to be custos â—t vindex utriusque tabule Yea I think he is a keeper and preserver of the Gospel also and is to command men to serve Christ and professe the Gospel and to punish the blaspheming of Iesus Christ and this is royall and magistraticall service that the King as King performeth to God and to Iesus Christ the mediator ex conditione operis in regard that good which he procureth as King materially and externally is consonant to the supernaturall Law of the Gospel but it is not magistraticall service to Christ ex intentione operantis Obj. 4. When it s required that the Magistrates be men fearing God hating coveteousnesse c. is not this an essentiall ingredient of an King as a King that he read in the book of the Law that he may feare God Deut. 17 Ans There is a twofold goodnesse here to be considered one of the magistrate as a magistrate another as a good and Christian magistrate The former is an officiall goodnesse or a magistraticall prudence justice and goodnesse this is required of all magistrates as such to judge the people so the acts of an heathen magistrate done according to common naturall equity by Nebuchadnezzar Pilate Cesar Felix Festus are to be acknowledged as acts of a Lawfull Magistrate valide and no lesse essentially Magistraticall then if performed by King David and of this goodnesse the Scriptures speak not as essentiall to a Magistrate as a Magistrate But there is another goodnesse required of Magistrates as they are Members of the Iewish Church and as they are Christians and of these the Scripture speaketh and so Magistrates not as Magistrates but as good and Christian are to be such as feare God hate covetousnesse respect not the face and favour of men so it s denied that the fear of God hating of covteousnesse are essentiall ingredients of Kings as Kings For Kings as Kings intend justice peace godlinesse materially considered both ex conditione operis and operantium But for justice and righteous judgement in a spirituall and an Evangelick way that belongeth not to the essence of a Magistrate nec ex conditione seu ex intentione operis nec ex conditione operantis The Holy Ghost requireth it of judges as they would approve themselves as truly Holy and Religious and would be accepted of God and in this sense Kings as Kings do not serve God nor the mediator Christ nor yet as men only they serve God and the mediator Christ as Christian Kings or as Christian men rather III. According to that third member of our seventh Distinction The unjust and evil exercise of the Ministeriall power is obnoxious to the magistrate as the magistrate thus in that he beareth the sword against all evil doers Ro. 13. 1. The magistrate as the magistrate doth only command well doing in order to praise and a good name or temporall reward amongst men Rom. 13. 3. Do that which is good and thou shalt have praise of the power 1 Tim. 5. 17. Matth. 10. 10. Nor can the magistrate as the magistrate promise or command the Elders to feed the Flock with the promise of the reward that Peter promiseth 1 Pet. 5. 4. to wit That when the chief shepheard shall appear they shall receive a Crown of glory that fadeth not away The magistrate as a Preacher if he be one as David and Solomon were both or as a godly religious Christian man may hold forth such a promise but not as a Magistrate and upon the same ground the Magistrate as the Magistrate cannot forbid careles unsound preaching and rigorous and tyrannicall ruling or rather domineering over the Flock under the pain of death eternall for he can but kill the body and hath but the carnall and temporall sword Rom. 13. 4. and so he can inhibite ill doing only in order to temporary punishment and though the duty of the former be spirituall and the sinne of the latter also yet the externall man is capable only of the Magistrates promises and threatnings as they respect evill or good temporary so that it is a wonder to me that M. Pryn or any learned man can say that magistrates can make Lawes to binde the conscience sure it is ill divinity 2. If there never had been sin there should have been no government but of Fathers and Husbands there should have been no magistraticall dominion not any magistraticall allurement to weldoing by temporall rewards not any terrifying from evill doing from fear of the sword death stripes or bands and God governed the Apostolick Church and they attained the Crowne and supernaturall end of life eternall without the accessory hire of a a temporary reward from the magistrate and the subsidy of his sword Ergo it is evident that the magistrate is neither an essentiall nor an integrall part of the visible Church as the visible Church injoying all the Ordinances of God Word Sacraments Discipline Censures Rebukes Admonition Excommunication Prayers Mutuall edification in as great perfection as is happily attainable in this life without yea against the will of the civill magistrate Though it be a great incouragement to have the King a Nurse-father yet hath not Christ counted it simply necessary to his visible Church injoying all the Ordinances of God to the full 3. If the magistrate do only command the teachers and Pastors to preach and determine synodically in order to a temporall reward and forbid them to abuse their ministeriall power in order to temporary punishment by the temporary sword then surely the Pastors and Teachers are
not subjected to them in conscience after any Ecclesiasticall way for the power of commanding in magistrates as magistrates must be commensurable to the power of punishing the transgressors of the command if the one be in order to a temporary good the other cannot but be in order to an eternall ill if ministers command in the name of Christ in order to an eternall reward they cannot threaten the transgressors in order to a temporary punishment but it must be in order to an eternall punishment so that it is most clear that the magistrate though he be in some sense a little God and invested with the authority and Majesty of God in that he commandeth and threatneth upon proposall of temporary reward and temporary good the very same duties that God injoyneth and forbiddeth the same evills of sinne that God forbiddeth yet he holdeth not these out to the soul and conscience of the subjects as the Ambassador of Iesus Christ upon condition of eternall life if they obey and of eternall death if they disobey but he holdeth out to the external man these that are materially divine commandements divine inhibitions but in another consideration but formally only they are the mandates of the Magistrates in order to temporary reward and temporary punishment Then the Ministers as Ministers in preaching and Synods forbid adultery incest murther but they propose them to those that are within the visible Church And that 1. to their consciences 2. Under the paine of eternall wrath 3. As the Ambassadors of Christ craving spirituall subjection of conscience and divine faith to those charges But Magistrates as Magistrates hold forth in their Law-abstinence from those same sinnes of adultery incest murther But 1. Not to the consciences of their subjects but to the outer man as Members of the common-wealth 2. Not under the paine of eternall wrath and condemnation before the judge of quick and dead Magistrates as Magistrates have neither calling office place nor power to threaten or inflict eternall punishment if Magistrates do perswade the equity of abstinence from adultery incest murther in their Statutes or Acts of Parliament from the word of God from the sixth and seventh command of the Decalogue from the judgement and eternall punishment that followeth these sinnes they so perswade not as Magistrates but as Divines and as godly and Christian men yet my sense is not that the Magistrate can Lawfully command obedience in matters of Religion not understood or knowne by the subjects that were to exact blind obedience but my meaning is that the Magistrate as the Magistrate holdeth not forth his commandements to teach and informe the conscience as Pastors do but he presupposeth that his mandates are knowne to be agreeable to the word of God and proposeth them to the subjects to be obeyed 3. Magistrates as Magistrates hold forth in their Law abstinence from these sinnes not as the Ambassadors of Christ craving subjection of coâ—science and divine faith to those charges but only externall obedience for though Ministers as Ministers crave faith and subjection of conscience to all commandements and inhibitions as in Christs stead 2 Co. 5. 19 20. yet the Magistrate as the Magistrate doth not crave either faith or subjection of conscience nor is he in Christs stead to lay divine bands on the conscience to submit the soul and conscience to beleeve and abstaine he is the depâ—â—y of God as the God of Order and as the Creator and founder and another of humane societies and of Peace to exact externall obedience and to lay bands on your hands not to shed innoceat blood and on your body not to defile it with adultery or incest nor to violate the châ—stâ—â—y of your brother hence it is evident that the adversaries are far our who would have Ministers who do hold forth commands that layeth hold on the conscience and craveth faith and soul-submission under the paine of eternall wrath to do and act as the deputies and Vicars of those who have nothing to do with the conscience and have neither office nor authority to crave soul submission or to threaten or inflict any punishment but such as is circumâ—cribed within the limits of time and which the body of clay is capable of yea when the Magistrate punisheth spirituall sinnes heresie idolatry he punisheth them only with temporary punishment Obj. 5. When a Minister speaketh that which is treason against the Prince in the Pulpit by way of Doctrine the Church only doth take on them to judge him and censure him and he will not answer the civill judge for his Doctrine but decline him and appeal to a Synod and yet if another man in private speak these same words of treason he is judged by the civill judge and can give no deâ—linature against this civill judicature this must be unequall dealing except the civill judge may by his office judge whether the Minister spoke treason or not Ans It cannot be denied but that which is spoken by way of Doctrine by an Ambassador speaking the word in publick and that which is spoken in private although the â—ame words are very different for a private man in private to slander the Prince may be treason he hath no place nor calling to speak of the Prince but a Pastor hath a calling as the watchman of the Lord of hosts to rebuke Herod for incest and in a constitute Church the Church is to try whether Iohn Baptist preached treason or not 2. If it be a slander of the Prince and treason indeed the Prophet who preached it is first subject to the Prophets who are to condemne and censure him and then the magistrate is to inflict bodily punishment on him for it but the Church should labour to gaine the slanderers soule before the civill judge take away his life IV. Assert The Magistrate de jure is obliged not only to permit but also to procure the free exercise of the ministery in dispensing Word Sacraments and Discipline and owe his accumulative power to convene Synods to adde his sanction to the lawfull and necessary constitutions and ordination of worthy and to the Deposition of unworthy officers in the Church 1. Because he is a Nurse-father in the Church Isa 49 23. 2. And by office as a Publike father to procure the good of the soules of the subjects in his coactive way that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godlines and honesty 1 Tim. 2. 2. 3. He is not onely to permit but also positively to procure all peace in the exercise of all lawfull and profitable trades and Arts Ergo farre more that glory may dwell in the Land and that the Peace thereof may be as a River Isa 48. 18. by the presence of Christ walking in the midst of the Golden Candlesticks V. Assertion When the Magistrate commandeth painfull and sound administration in preaching and governing with provision of the praysing and rewarding of well doing he doth not subordinate
the Canons of Pearth faction 3. You say the negative part of the fift Commandement forbidding the resisting of the power Rom. 13. 2. by us is to be understood with exception of the case of scandall taken whereby you insinuate that not to obey the acts of Pearth Assembly is a resisting of the power of Rulers Rom. 13. 2. It is ignorantly spoken to resist every law of the Rulers is not to resist his power when the lawes are such as commandeth scandall yea by your own doctrine it is lawfull to flie when a Ruler unjusty commandeth persueth his subjects pag. 3. n. 19. And to â—â—ie I am sure is to refuse subjection to the Lawes of the Ruler from whose tribunall we â—liâ— yeâ— and to flie so is to resist his lawes but I hope it is not to resist the power for to resist the power bringeth damnation and guiltinesss before God Rom. 13. 2. But to flie from his legall Citations is to resist his lawes but doth not I hope bring damnation before God and sinne upon the conscience as you grant Duplyers n. 43. Men are ready to stumble and to be scandalized at our refusing obedience to the lawfull Commandements of our Superiours for they will take occasion by our cariage to doe that unto which by nature they be most inclined to wit to vilipend Lawes and Authoritie Answer If any stumble at our non-obedience to Pearth Articles and thence be induced to vilipend Lawes and Authoritie it is a scandall meerely taken no wayes given as is cleare because they stumble at our obedience to God in that we refuse to kill one for whom Christ died 2. It is no wayes true that men are naturally inclined to vilipend Laws in a matter indifferent as you hold Ceremonies to be from whence ariseth Scandall yea we are by nature much bent to extoll and love-lawes commanding soul-murther and all lawes inductive to Poperie which is but a masse of carnall propositions of heterodox Divinitie every way sutable to our flesh The third exception is answered already the fourth is to be discussed in the following Chapter Quest IIII. Whether the Precept of obedience to Superiours or the precept of eschewing scandall be more obligatorie Dupliers pag. 65. n. 43. LAst of all when a man is peremptâ—rily urged by his Superiours to obey their lawfull Commandements and in the meane time feareth that if he doe the thing commanded by them some through weaknesse shall be scandalized by his carriage in this case he is not onely in difficultie and strait betwixt the Commandement of men and the Commandement of God who forbiddeth us to doe that whereby our weake brother may be offended But also he seemeth to be in a strait betwixt two Commandements of God to wit the precept that forbiddeth us to doe that whereby our weake brother may be scandalized and the other which forbiddeth the resisting of Authoritie Answer 1. The question of purpose is perversly set do â—ne for they should say whether the precept of obedience to Superiours in a straw lifting in things indifferent and meerely positive and not necessarie to salvation be more obligatorie then the precept of God in the law of nature in a matter necessarie to salvation as a Commandement of God forbidding soul-murther and scandalizing him for whom Christ died Or thus Whether am I obliedged rather to obey God forbidding me to murther my brother or to obey man commanding me to kneele towards Bread and Wine and to crosse the aire with my thumbe upon the face of a baptized infant 2. The question seemeth to make a collision of Commandements as if God could command things contradictorie and certainly if the not obeying of Pearth Articles be a scandall given as you say it is I shall undertake to prove that the practice of these Ceremonies is a Scandall given and so it is not a seeming strait as you say but a reall strait by your doctrine There be cases wherein whether Rulers command things or command the contrary a passive scandall doth arise but because a passive Scandall is the sinne of the scandall taker and not of Rulers giving the Church is not to regard it as Matth 11. 18 19. The Jewes are scandalized at Christs eating and drinking and are scandalized at John the Baptists not eating and drinking But neither Christ nor John doe culpably give scandall But there can be no such exigence of providence wherein non-practising of your commanded Ceremonies is a given scandall and the practising of them is also a given scandall Because as Bannes and our owne Amâ—sius saith There is not such a perplexitiâ— 1. God should have brought a man then in some cases under an absolute necessitie by way of contradiction to sinne and murther his brother whether he doe such a thing or not doe it 2. Twentie Jewes are scandalized Rom. 14. Because Paul eateth such and such meats which they conceive are forbidden by Gods law And twentie Christians are scandalized because Paul eateth not such and such meats then we suppose and it s very casuall for seeing to be scandalized ariseth from the knowledge or ignorance of the minde and divers men may have contrary opinions about one thing Some thinke it unlawfull for Paul to eat some thinke it unlawfull not to eat Hence upon the use of a thing indifferent twentie are scandalized and upon the non-using of that same indifferent thing twentie are also scandalized What shall Paul doe in this strait I answer he taketh Rom. 14. 1 Cor. 8. the negative I will not eat flesh if meat offend my brother Then the twentie that are scandalized by the non-practice of the thing indifferent doe take scandall onely whereas Paul giveth no scandall actively Also the othet twentie who are scandalized by Paul his practice of the thing indifferent are justly scandalized it is both a scandall taken and active and a scandall given and passive Some object but if either of the sides be indifferent to wit either to use a thing indifferent or not to use it If ten take offence at the use of it and ten take offence at the non-use of it there is a necessitie of scandalizing either of the sides for the twentie weake Christians are scandalized at Pauls abstinence from such meats conceiving that he Judaizeth whereas the Profession of his Christian libertie in eating would edifie them and not scandalize them Answer The use of a thing indifferent is not Gods lawfull mean of edification God hath appointed his Word Workes the holy and blamelesse profession of his children to edifie and not the using of actions indifferent yea actions indifferent as they are such and separated from necessitie and morall reason are not lawfull and so the cessation from that action is lawfull and necessarie and if the use scandalize non-using of things indifferent is not indifferent but necessarie as non-scandalizing and negative precepts alwayes binding abstinence with Paul is necessarie It is vaine that Paybodie saith that
others seemeth better to me who deny that the least veniall should be committed to eschew a greater sinne 6. Rule There is a principle obligation a lesse principle a least principle Hence these three degrees issue from love 1. God 2. Our selves 3. Our Neighbour The love of God is most principle and is the measure of the love of our selves the love of our selfe is lesse principall then the love of God and so the obligation lesse I am to make away life and all things yea eternall glory as devided from holinesse and as it includeth only happinesse rather ere I sinne against God The obligation to care for my owne salvation is more principall then my obligation to care for the salvation of my Brother for the love of my selfe is the measure and rule of the love of my Neighbour Now because the obligation of caring for the soule of my brother is only secondarie in compare of the obligation of caring for my owne salvation I am not to sinne my selfe or sinfully to omit any thing that is commanded me in a positive precept to prevent the sinne of my brother Yet hence it doth not follow that a positive Precept is more excellent then the law of Nature which is Thou shalt not murther nor scandalize him for whom Christ died Because though to care for the soule of my brother be of the law of nature simpliciter yet is a secondarie obligation and may cease and yeeld to a stronger obligation that tyeth me more principally to care for my owne soule for though the Command be positive yet knowingly to sinne by a sinfull omission is no lesse a destroying of my owne soule and so of the law of nature in a higher obligation then the other is 7. The Jesuits and Popish Doctors as they are of a large conscience in many things so in the doctrine of scandall to extoll obedience to men so high as we may doe things in themselves not necessarie yea that hath no necessitie but from the will of Commanders And Formalists in this conspire with them even though from this doe flow the ruine of many soules and though the sinfull scandalizing and ruine of these soules flow from sinfull corruption of either ignorance or frailtie or wilfulnesse or malice yet the scandall ceaseth not to flow kindly from the pretended obedience to an unlawfull command for the thing commanded having no Necessitie but the will of man is unlawfull and it is no good reason to say Men are scandalized through their owne ignorance and Malice Ergo the scandall is taken and not given for these who were enemies to the Truth and were so scandalized at Davids murthering of Uriah and Adulterie 2 Sam. 12. 14. as they were by him occasioned to blaspheme Certaine their actuall scandall was from their owne corruption But what Ergo it was not also from Davids murther and adulterie and ergo it was a scandall only taken by the enemies not given by David Surely it solloweth not You may hence judge of the Rule of Lodo Caspensis a Capucean These saith he that doe a worke of it selfe indifferent for a weightie cause and use their owne right â—tutaâ—tur suo jure are excused from mortall sinne as these who lett a house to Whores and publick Usurers that are not strangers though they may commodiously lett it to others they doe not cooperate with sinne because the house it but a place and extrinsecall and remote to the sinne So Christians taken by Turkes for danger of their life which is a weighty necessitie may furnish instruments necessarie for warre against Christians because they doe a worke indifferent of it selfe for a just cause so may a servant convey his Master to a Whore yea and make the Bed for a Concubine and open the doore and if his Master be to climbe in at a window to a whore he may lift up his foot or reach him a ladder Why the servant saith he useth his owne right in doing a worke of it selfe indifferent Uâ—itur suo jure faciens opus exse indifferens modo non placeat ei peccatum A. But sure all out jus and right that men have over their houses and that Captives and servants have to their Masters and Lords is jus limitatum a right ruled limited bounded by the word of God nor is the worke they performe morally indifferent physically it is and Captive Christians if for danger of their life they may prepare necessary instruments of warre against Christians they may kill Christians also for what power the conquering Lords have over Captives to command them to prepare fire and sword against the innocent witnesses of Jesus Christ because they are such the same jus right have they to command to kill the innocent But for no cause the most weighty can we choose either to shed innocent blood or to co-operate with the shedding of it nor to co-operate with the works of darknes for it is shamefull that a servant may lawfully co-operate with and thrust his master in at a window to goe to a whore the jus or dominion of Masters to command and the right of servants to obey is only in the Lord. Yea to kill a man is Physically indifferent for that is physically yea morally without relation to any law indifferent which is capable of lawfulnesse or unlawfulnesse according as it shall bee commanded of or forbidden by God But for a man to kill his son is of it selfe such certaine if God command a Judge to kill his son it is lawfull for the father to kill his son if the Lord forbid Abraham to kill his son it is unlawfull for Abraham to kill his son And therefore Caspensis hath no more reason to use the Instance of captives preparing warre against innocent Christians and of a servant thrusting his Master in at doore or window to a whore then of captives killing the innocent or of servants breaking a house and taking away the goods of a man in the night or of servants committing whoredome at the command of their Conquerors or Lords the one kinde of action in it selfe is as indifferent and susceptible of morall lawfulnesse and unlawfulnesse as the other And if the Master doe co-operate to commit harlotrie in climbing in at a window to a whore and to robbing in digging thorow an innocent mans house in the night to kill the Master of the house and to steale his goods then the servant that co-operateth in these same physicall actions and also diggeth thorow the innocent mans house and kills himselfe is the harlot and the robber by cooperation and participation no lesse then the Master The naked relation of a captive and of a servant cannot make the captive and servant innocent and guiltlesse co-operators for then to sinne at the command of any Conqueror and Master because I am in the condition of a captive and servant were lawfull though God forbid and inhibite me to doe what I doe by the
intention signifieth divine adoration p. 147 148 Objections of Swarez contending that intention of adoration is essential to adoration removed p. 148 149 Of the Idolatrous worship of the Iews and Papists p. 150 The relative expressioÌ„ of God in the creature is no ground of adoring the creature p. 151 The Iews beleeved not the Golden ca lt to be really God p. 151 152 The adoring of Images not forbidden by the Ceremonial law but by the Moral law p 154 The evasions of Bellarmine and Swarez answered p. 155 Papists did of old adore before or at the presence of the Image as a memorative signe and yet were Idolators p. 158 Two sort of signes ibid. Divers evasions of Papists touching the adoring of Images p. 161 162 scq Swarez is not content at the hungry expressions of Durandus Mirandula Hulcot in the worshipping of Images p. 165 166 The place worship at his footstool discussed Psal 99 ibid. Prayer may as lawfully be given to the creature as Adoration p. 169 170 Divers Fables touching Images p. 179 180 The original of Images p. 181 Images not in the ancient Church neither worshippeâ— therein p. 182 â—83 184 c. Vasquez will have all things to be adored p. 190 Joan. dâ— Lugo proveth the same by four Reasons p. 191 Whether sitting or kneeling be the most convenient and lawful gesture in the act of receiving the Sacrament of Christs Body and Blood p. 192 Sitting the onely convenient and lawful gesture p. 193 What is occasional in the first Supper ibid. Christ sate at the first Supper p. 194 195 Sitting a sign of our coheirship p. 197 198 199 A signe of our coheirship may well consist with our inferiority in worshipping Christ p. 198 Ceremonies fail against the Authority of Rulers p. 201 Whether humane Laws binde the conscience or not p. 201 202 seq How civil positive Laws binde not the conscience p. 202 203 A twofold goodnesse p. 207 The will of created Authority cannot create goodnesse in things p. 204 205 Humane Laws obliâ—ge onely in so far as they agree with the Law of God p. 206 A twofold consideration of Humane Laws p. 208 How Rulers are subordinate to God in commanding p. 209 Humane authority is not the nearest nor the instrumental cause of Laws p. 208 209 A double obedience due to Rulers objective and subjective p. 210 Objective obedience no more due to Rulers then to equals p 210 211 False Rules of obedience to Rulers proposed by D. Jackson refuted p. 212. The goodnesse of supposed obedience to Rulers cannot countervalue the evil in the sinful manner of doing with a doubting conscience p. 214 Other arguments for the obligation of humane Laws answered p. 216 What it is to resist to Ruler p. 217 Why men cannot make Laws that layeth a tie on the conscience p. 219 That Christ hath a spiritual Kingdom not onely in the power of Preaching but also in the power of the Keys by censures p. 220 That there is such a divine Ordinance as Excommunication p. 223 Objections against Excommunication removed p. 224 How we are to rebuke our Brother p. 225 The Church Matth. 18. is not the civil Sanedrim p. 226 227 229 How Heathen and Publicans were excluded from the Church p. 230 Binding and loosing acts judicial p. 235 236 Excommunication is a divine Ordinance proved by 1 Cor. 5. p. 238 239 seq fuse To deliver to Satan is not miraculous killing p. 238 239 The essentials of Excommunication 1 Cor. 5. p. 238 239 c. Whether the Word doth warrant censures and exclusion from the Seals ibid. Cutting off not alwayes killing p. 241 Moral scandals excluded men from holy things amongst the Iews p. 243 The prophecy Ezek 44. 11 12 c. to be fulfilled under the New Testament p. 244 245 Ceremonial exclusion from holy things under the old did typiâ—ie exclusion for moral uncleannesse under the N. Test p. 247 248 The Churches exclusion from the Seals declarative non coactive by violence ibid. Censures applyed to some by name ibid. Eschuing the society of scandalous Church-members must be a Church-censure p. 249 The hindering of Jezabel by preaching not sufficient p. 251 Debarring of the scandalous from the Seals proved p. 252. seq It belongeth not to the Magistrate to debar from the Seals p. 253 Erastus against exclusion from the Sacraments refuted p. 253 seq fuse By Erastus his way we cannot deny the Seals to a Turk p. 258 259 To exclude from the Kingdom of Heaven not one with Excommunication p. 260 Excommunication is no real separation of one from Christs invisible body p. 261 262 264 Though Excommunication be onely declarative yet it s not empty p. 266 Putting out 1 Cor. 5. p. 269 Whether Erastus doth prove that none were excluded amongst the Iews for moral uncleannesse from the holy things of God p. 271 A twofold forgivenesse p. 273 All are invited to come to the Sacraments but not that they come any way p. 274 The question whether all should be admitted to the Lords Supper perverted by Erastus p. 275 Two sort of signes amongst the Iews some purely holy some partly holy partly necessary for the bodily life the latter clean and unclean might eat but not the former p. 277 All are commanded to hear but not to â—ome to the Supper p. 280 Whether Erastus doth justly deny Excommucation to be typified of Old p. 281 Ceremonial uncleannesse typified exclusion out of the visible Church for scandals not out of the Kingdom of Heaven p 287 288 Legal uncleannesse was sin p. 289 The scope and sense of Matth. 18. perverted by Erastus p. 290 Our Saviour speaketh of all not of private or lesser scandals onely p. 291 By the word Brother is not meaned a Iew onely ib. Christs speaking in the second person argueth not the privacy of the scandal p. 294 A twofold forgiving p. 295 Christ speaketh not of such sins as private men may forgive as Erastus dreameth p. 297 Christs scope spiritual Erastus his way carnal p. 298 A Publican most odious to the Iews p. 305 It s not private forgivenesse which is holden forth Matth. 18. 17. p. 308 Binding and loosing proper to Stewarts p. 309 To excommunicate is not formally to debar from the Seals p. 311 Christ might well give directions touching a Church not yet erected p. 314 c. The place 1 Cor. 5. vindicated from Erastus his glosse p. 316 317 c. The prayers of the Church intervene not for this particular miracle p. 318 319 Faith of miracles not in all the faithful at Corinth p. 320 Delivering to Satan not miraculous p. 321 The Church not Paul alone had hand in delivering the man to Satan p. 326 What delivering to Satan is p. 327 The destruction of the flesh what it is p. 328 Hymeneus and Alexander not killed by Satan p. 332 Delivering to Satan not miraclous p 336 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to put away not alwayes to kill p. 337 To eschew the
Surplice or some such like But since we have a pattern of perfectly formed Churches in the Apostles times who had power even In actu excercitâ— of Discipline and Church-worship and the Apostles mention things of an inferiour nature How is it that we have no hint of Crossing Kneeling Surplice corner Cap nor any such like unto these And yet they were as necessary for decency then 1 Cor. 5. Col. 2. 5. 1 Cor. 11. 20. c. Rev. 2. 1. 2 14 18 20 21. 1 Cor. 14. 40. as now Others of great learning reply that Christ is not the only immediate Head King Law-giver and Governour of the Church for that is quite contrary to Gods Ordinance in establishing Kings Magistrates higher powers nurse-Fathers Pastors Doctors Elders for by this there should be no Kings Parliaments Synods no power of jurisdiction in them to make Lawes to suppresse and punish all manner of Idolatry Superstition Heresies But I answer that Christ is the only immediate Head King Law-giver and Governour of his Church as upon his shoulder only is the Government Isa 9. 6. And the key of the house of David Isa 22. 22. And by what right he is the head of all things and set above all principalities and power and might and dominion and every name that is named not only in this vvorld but also in that vvhich is tâ— come He is the head of the Catholick Church which is his body Eph. 1. 21 22 23. And he is such a head even in externals in giving Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors and Teachers who for the vvork of the ministery perfecteth the Saints in vvhom the vvhole body of the Church is fitly joyned together and compacted by that which every joynt supplieth according to the effectuall vvorking in the measure of every part maketh increase of the body to the edifying of it self in love Ephes 4. 11 12 13 14 15 16. Now these places maketh Christ the only immediate head in externals and internall operation of that body which is the fulnesse of Christ Let any of the Formalists if Christ be not the only immediate Head Shew us of King or Bishop who is the Mediate Ministeriall inferior Head of the Catholick Church even in externall Government For Iohn Hart in his conference with D. Roinald saith Christ is the only principall imperiall and invisible Head but the Pope saith he is the visible and Ministeriall Head So do all Papists say but our Protestant Divines Answer That it is a repugnancy that a Subject or a Member of the King and Head should be in any sense both a Subject and a King a part or Member and a Head and Roynald saith This name to be Head of the Church is the Royall Prerogative of Jesus Christ Yea the head in externals must be with the Catholick body as Christ hath promised to be with his Church to the end of the world neither King nor Pope can in the externall Government be with the particular Churches to the end It is true the King may be with his Church by his Laws and power yea but so may the Pope be if all Pastors on earth be but his Deputies and if Pastors be but the Kings Deputies and sent by the King so is the King the Head of the Church but then the Catholick Church hath as many heads as there be lawfull Kings on earth But we desire to know what mediate acts of Law-giving which is essentiall to Kings and Parliaments in civill things doth agree to Kings Parliaments and Synods Christ hath not made Pastors under-Kings to create any Laws morally obliging the conscience to obedience in the Court of God which God hath not made to their hand if the King and Synods only declare and propound by a power of jurisdiction that which God in the Law of nature or the written word hath commanded they are not the Law-makers nor creators of that morality in the Law which layeth bonds on the conscience yea they have no Organicall nor inferiour influence in creating that morality God only by an immediate act as the only immediate King made the morality and if King Parliaments and Synods be under Kings and under Law-givers they must have an under-action and a Ministeriall subservient active influence under Christ in creating as second causes that which is the formall reason and essence of all Lawes binding the conscience and that is the morality that obligeth the soul to eternal wrath though King Parliament Pastors or Synods should never command such a Morall thing Now to propound or declare that Gods will is to be done in such an act or Synodicall Directory or Canon and to command it to be observed under Civill and Ecclesiasticall paine is not to make a Law it is indeed to act authoritatively under Christ as King but it maketh them neither Kings nor Law-givers no more then Heralds are little Kings or inferiour Law-givers and Parliaments because in the name and Authority of King and Parliament they Promulgate the Lawes of King and Parliament the Heralds are meer servants and do indeed represent King and Parliament and therefore to wrong them in the promulgation of Lawes is to wrong King and Parliament but the Heralds had no action no hand at all in making the Laws they may be made when all the Heralds are sleeping and so by no propriety of speech can Heralds be called mediat Kings under-Law-givers just so here as touching the morality of all humane Laws whether Civill or Ecclesiasticall God himself immediatly yea from Eternity by an Act of his free-pleasure made that without advice of men or Angels for who instructed him neither Moses nor Prophet nor Apostle yea all here are Meri precones only Heralds yet are not all these Heralds who declare the morality of Lawes equals may declare them charitative By way of charity to equals but these only are to be obeyed as Heralds of Laws whom God hath placed in Authority as Kings Parliaments Synods the Church Masters Fathers Captains And it followeth no wayes that we disclaime the Authority of all these because we will not inthrone them in the chaire of the Supreame and only Lawgiver and head of the Church they are not under-Law-givers and little Kings to create Laws the morality of which bindeth the conscience for this God only can do Ergo there be no Parliaments no Kings no Rulers that have Authority over men it is a most unjust consequence for all our Divines against Papists deny that humane Laws as humane do binde the conscience but they deny not but assert the power of jurisdiction in Kings Parliaments Synods Pastors SECT III. IF Iesus Christ be as Faithfull as Moses and above him as the Lord of the house above the servant Heb. 3. 1 2 3 4. Then as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the Tabernacle for saith he See thou make all things according to the patternâ— shewed unto thee in the mount Heb. 8. 5. And
observe Saints-dayes and believe Crossing and Surplice hath this Religious signification because the Church saith so then is our obedience of conscience finally resolved in the Testimony of men so speaking at their own discretion without any warrant of scripture 2. To believe and obey in any Religious Positives because it is the pleasure of men so to Command is to be servants of men and to make their will the formall reason of our obedience which is unlawfull If it be said that we are to believe and Practise many things in naturall necessity as to eat move sleep and many circumstantials of Church-Policy because the Law of naturall reason saith so and because there is an intrinsecall conveniency and an aptitude to edifie to decore and beautifie in an orderly and a decent way the service of God and not simply because the Church saith so nor yet because the Lord speaketh so in the Scripture and therefore all our obedience is not Ultimately and finally resolved into the Testimony of the Scripture I Answer That there be some things that the Law of Nature commandeth as to move eat sleepe and here with leave I distinguish Factum the common practise of men from the jus what men in conscience ought to do as concerning the former morall and naturall mens practise is all resolved in their own carnall will and lusts and so they eat move and sleep because nature and carnall will leadeth them thereinto not because God in the Law of nature which I humbly conceive to be a part of the first elements and principles of the Morall Law or Decalogue and so a part of Scripture doth so warrant us to do and therefore the moving eating drinking of naturall Moralists are materially lawfull and conforme to scripture for God by the Law of nature commandeth both Heathen men and pure Moralists within the visible Church to do naturall acts of this kinde because the Lord hath revealed that to be his will in the Book of nature But these Heathen do these acts because they are suitable to their Lusts and carnall will and not because God hath commanded them so to do in the Book of nature and this is their sin in the manner of doing though materially Et quod substantiam actus the action be good and the same is the sin of naturall men within the visible Church and a greater sin for God not only commandeth them in the Law of nature but also in Scripture to do all these naturall acts because God hath revealed his will in these naturall actions as they are morall to naturall men within the visible Church both in the Law of nature and in the scripture and De jure they ought to obey because God so commandeth in both and in regard all within the visible Church are obliged to all naturall actions in a spirituall way though their eating moving sleeping be lawfull materially Et quod substantiam actus yet because they do them without any the least habituall reference to God so commanding in natures Law and scripture they are in the manner of doing sinfull otherwise Formalists go on with Papists and Arminians to justifie the actions of the unregenerated as simply Lawfull and good though performed by them with no respect to God or his Commandment 2. As concerning actions of Church-Policy that cannot be warranted by the light of nature and yet have intrinsecall conveniency and aptitude to edifie and decently to Accomodate the worship of God I conceive these may be done but not because the Church so commandeth as if their commandment were the formall reason of our obedience but because partly the light of the Law of reason partly scripture doth warrant them but that Crosse and Surplice can be thus warranted is utterly denied Again I conceive that there be two sort of positives in the externals of Government or worship 1. Some Divine as that there be in the Publique Worship Prayers Praising Preaching Sacraments and these are substantials that there be such Officers Pastors Teachers Elders and Deacons that there be such censures as rebuking Excommunication and the like are morally Divine or Divinely Morall and when the Church formeth a Directory for worship and Government the Directory it self is in the Form not simply Divine And if it be said that neither the Church of the Jews nor the Church Apostolique had more a written Directory nor they had a written Leiturgy or book of Common Prayers or Publick Church-service I answer nor had either the Iewish or Apostolick Church any written Creed or systeme written of fundamentall Articles such as is that which is commonly called the Apostolick Creed but they had materially in the scripture the Apostolick Creed and the Directory they had also the same way for they practised all the Ordinances directed though they had no written Directory in a formall contexture or frame for Prayers Preaching Praising Sacraments and Censures never Church wanted in some one order or other though we cannot say that the Apostolick Church had this same very order and forme But a Leiturgy which is a commanded imposed stinted Form in such words and no other is another thing then a Directory as an unlawfull thing is different from a Lawfull 2. There be some things Positive humane as the Ordering of some parts or worship or Prayer the forme of words or phrases and some things of the Circumstantials of the Sacrament as what Cups Wood or Mettall in these the Directory layeth a tie upon no man nor can the Church in this make a Directory to be a Church Compulsory to strain men And this way the Directory is not ordered and commanded in the frame and contexture as was the Service-Book and the Pastor or people in these are not properly Morall Agents nor do we presse that scripture should regulate men in these But sure in Crossing in Surplice men must be Morall Agents no lesse then in eating and drinking at the Lords-Supper and therefore they ought to be as particularly regulated by Scripture in the one as in the other Quest But who shall be judge of these things which you say are Circumstantials only as time place c. and of these that Formalists say are adjuncts and Circumstances of worship though also they have a Symbolicall and Religious signification must not the Church judge what things are indifferent what necessary what are expedient what Lawfull Answer There is no such question imaginable but in the Synagogue of Antichrist For as concerning Norma judiâ—andi the Rule of judging without all exception the scripture ought to be the only rule and measure of all practicall truths how Formalists can make the Scripture the rule of judging of unwritten Ceremonies which have no warrant in Scripture more then Papists can admit scripture to regulate and warrant their unwritten Traditions I see not we yield that the Church is the Politick Ministeriall and visible judge of things necessary and expedient or of things not necessary
Moses the Prince is Commanded to make all according to the Patern in the Mount 2. God speaketh to all Israel and not to the Princes only Deut. 4. 1. Hearken O Israel he speaketh to these who are bidden to keep their soul diligently v. 6. 3. It is Bellarmines groundlesse charity to think private heads who were not Princes and Law-givers did not take on an hâ—iry Mantle to deceive Zach. 13. 4. And say Thus saith the Lord when God had not spoken to them Ier. 23. 16. 32. Yea and Private women added their own dreams to the word of God Ezech. 13. 17 18. 3. They say Traditions are from Gods Spirit But hath Gods Spirit lost all Majesty Divinity and power in speaking If the Popes Decretals the Councels the dirty Traditions wanting life Language and power be from Gods Spirit Formalists admit Traditions from an humane spirit and in this are shamed even by Papists who say God only â—an adde to his own Word whereas they say men and the worst of men Prelates may adde to Gods vvord 4. But that additions perfecting are forbidden is clear 1. Additions perfecting as Didoclavius saith argueth the word of imperfection and that Baptisme is not perfect without Crossing 2. It is Gods Prerogative to adde Canonick Scripture to the five books of Moses and the Nevv-Testament and the doctrine of the Sacraments which cannot be Syllogistically deduced out of the Old Testament Matth. 28. 19 20. Ioh. 21. 31. Heb. 3. 2. Rev. 1. 19. and these are perfecting and explaining additions therefore men may by as good reason adde Canonick Scripture to the Revelation as adde new Positive Doctrines like this The holy Surplice is a sacred signe of Pastorall Holinesse Crossing is a signe of dedicating the childe to Christs service for Papists â—ay even Vasquez That the Pope neither in a generall Councell nor out of it can ordain any nevv points of Faith vvhich are not contained in the principles or Articles revealed and may not be evidently concluded out of them Formalists answer It is not lavvfull to adde any thing as a part of divine worship but it is Lawfull to addâ— something as an indifferent Rite coming from Authority grounded upon common equity And this is the ansvver of the Jesuite Vasquez The Pope and Church cannot make an Article of Faith for that is believed by divine Faith to come from God only but as Law-givers they may give Laws that bindeth the conscience and yet are not altogether essentiall in worship If additions as divine parts of Gods worship say we be forbidden God then forbidding to adde such Traditions forbiddeth his own spirit to adde to Gods word for no man but God can adde additions Divine that is coming from God but God himself by good consequence the forbidding men to add additions as really coming from God should forbid men to be Gods for divine additions are essentially additions coming from God but if he forbid additions only of mens divising but obtruded to have the like efficacy and power over the conscience that Canonick Scripture hath then were it lawfull to adde killing of our children to Molech so it were counted not really to come from God with opinion of divine necessity and by this God should not forbid things to be added to his Word by either private or publick men but only he should forbid things to be added with such a quality as that they should by Divine Faith be received as coming from God and having the heavenly stamp of Canonick Scripture when as they are come only from the Pope and his bastard Bishops so all the fables of the Evangell of Nicodemus The materials of the Iewish and Turkish Religion might be received as lawfull additions so they do not contradict the Scripture as contrary to what is written but only beside what is written and with all so they be received as from the Church Also 3. Additions contrary to the word are diminutions to adde to the eight Command this addition The Church saith it is lawfull to steal were no addition to the ten Commandments but should destroy the eight Commandment and make nine Commandments only and the meaning of Gods precept Deut. 12. Thou shalt neither adde nor diminish should be Thou shalt neither diminish neither shalt thou diminish And so our Masters make Moses to forbid no additions at all 6. Commentaries and Expositions of the Word if sound shall be the word of God it self the true sense of a speech is the form and essence of a speech and so no additions thereunto but explanations except you make all sound Sermons Arbitrary Ceremonies and Traditions whereas Articles of Faith expounded are Sermons and so the Scripture it self materially taken is but a Tradition QUEST II. Whether Scripture be such a perfect rule of all our Morall Actions aâ— that the distinction of essentiall and necessary and of accidentall and Arbitrary worship cannot stand And if it forbid all worship not only contrary but also beside the word of God as false though it be not reputed as divine and necessary FOrmalists do acknowledge as Morton Burges Hooker and others teach us that Ceremonies which are meer Ceremonies indifferent in nature and opinion are not forbidden yea that in the generall they are commanded upon common equity and in particular according to their specification Surplice Crossing Knâ—eling before consecrated Images and representations of Christ are not forbidden and negatively Lawfull having Gods allowing if not his commanding will but only God forbiddeth such Ceremonies wherein men place opinion of divine necessity holinesse and efficacy in which case they become Doctrinall and essentiall and so mens inventions are not Arbitrary and accidentall worship But let these considerations be weighed 1. Distinct The Word of Go being given to man as a Morall Agent is a rule of all his Morall Actions but not of actions of Art Sciences Disciplines yea on of meer nature 2. Distinct Beside the Word in actions Morall and in Gods worship is all one with that which is contrary to the Word and what is not commanded is forbidden as not seeing in a creature capable of all the five senses is down right blindenesse 3. Lawfulnesse is essentiall to worship instituted of God but it is not essentiall to worship iâ— generall neither is opinion of sanctity efficacy or Divine necessity essentiall to worship but only to Divine worship and its opinion not actuall nor formall but fundamentall and materiall 4. Seeing the Apostles were no lesse immediatly inspired of God then the Prophets it is a vain thing to seek a knot in a rush and put a difference betwixt Apostolick Commandments or Traditions and divine Commandments as it is a vain and Scripturelesse curiosity to difference betwixt the Propheticall truths of Moses Samuel Isaiah Ieremiah Ezekiel c. And Divine Prophecies which is as if you would difference betwixt the fair writing of Titus the writer and the writing made by the pen of Titus
in the first Table yet the Morallity of the second Table is as expresly in Gods Word as the Worship of the first Table 1. Because what is justice and mercy and love toward man in the second Table doth no more depend upon mans sole will but upon Gods Morall Law the Law of nature then it dependeth upon mans will or human wisdom how God should be worshipped according to the first Table For Gods will in his Word is called by our Divines a perfect Canon and rule of Faith and also of Manners And as the grace of God T it 2. teacheth us what is Piety so also what is Righteousnesse and Sobriety 2. Because as Gods Word condemneth will-worship which is come of no Nobler blood then mans will so condemneth it idle words and idle actions which are but will-works and will-words and deeds of will-justice and will-mercy and a will-conscience in the second Table putteth no lesse a rub upon the wisdom of the Lord the Law giver then a will conscience in the first Table But Formalists say If mans will and authority cannot appoint Crossing Holy humane-dayes Surplice and such the decent expressions and incitements of Devotion in the kinde of Arbitrary Mutable and Ambulatory Worship but they must be therein guilty of adding to the Doctrine of Piety and Religion in the first Table by that same reason they cannot make humane Civill and Positive Laws in War and Peace to be means of conserving justice and mercy tovvard humane societies in the kinde of duties of Righteousnesse and sobriety tovvards our selves and Neighbours but they must be guilty of adding to the Doctrine of the second Table I Answer 1. The case is not alike we cannot be Agents in the performing of any worship to God nor can we use any Religious means for honouring God which belong to the first Table But in these we are Morall Agents doing with speciall reference to conscience and to true happinesse and the glory of God as the ends both of the work and workers and therefore in these we are precisely ruled by the wisdom of God who hath in his word set down what Worship and what means of exciting Devotion and decoring of his Worship pleaseth him and hath not left men to Lord-will or Lord-wit but in many actions that belong to humane societies we are not Morall Agents but often Agents by Art as in Military discipline Trades usefull for mans life Oeconomy and Policy in Kingdoms and Cities in Sciences as Logick Physick Mathematicks in these Finis operis the end of the work is operation according to the principles of Arts and Policy and we are not in them Morall Agents and so not to be regulated by Gods Word For the Scripture giveth not to us precepts of Grammar of War of Trades and Arts teaching us to speak right Latine to make accurat demonstrations nor is the end of the work here a thing that pitcheth upon that tender and excellentest peece in us our Conscience and our Morall duties to God and men but to make such humane Laws just and suitable with sobriety and justice is not left to Lord-will but right reason the principles of a naturall Conscience which are parts to us of Scripture and the Word of God it self hath determined whether to carry Armour in the night in such a case Whether to eat flesh in such a season of the year when the eating thereof hurteth the Common-Wealth and the like belong to works of justice and mercy or no Now it is no marvel that in things belonging to our naturall life peace societies policy where the end of the work is naturall or civill and belongeth not as such to the Conscience and Salvation of the soul that there men be Artificers or Agents according to Art Oeconomy Policy whereas the end of the work Finis operis in the Worship of God is Morall and a matter of an higher nature and so the means and manner of Worship here are determined by Gods Word But when actions of Arts Sciences Trades Oeconomy Policy and Laws positive are elevated above themselves Ad finem operantium to the end that Agents are to look unto as they be Morall Agents Gods Word is as perfect a rule for acts of good manners in the second Table as in the first For example that I speak good Latine I am to see to Disputers Precepts but that I lie not and speak not Scandals or Blasphemies while I speak Latine there I am to look to Gods Law given by Moses That a Tradesman make works according to Art he is to advise with Art but that he sell not his work at too dear a price he is to advise with the eight Commandment and when all these acts of Art are referred to Conscience Salvation and the glory of God as they ought to be Respectus finis operantis in respect of the Morall intention of the doer all their Morallity is squared by Gods-Word Hence there be no actions of Worshipping God but they be purely Morall Et respectu finis operis Et respectu finis operantiis but many actions belonging to the second Table are either purely not Morall as actions of meer Art or they be mixed and Respectu finis operis in respect of the end of the work they are not Morall nor to be squared by the Word at all and in respect of the Morall intention of the doer they be Morall and so mixed actions and partly ruled by the Word and partly ruled by Art or Policy according to our seventh distinction II. Conclusion In actions or Religious means of Worship and actions Morall whatever is beside the Word of God is against the Word of God I say in Religious means for there be means of Worship or Circumstances Physicall not Morall not Religious as whether the Pulpit be of stone or of timber the Bell of this or this Mettall the house of Worship stand thus or thus in Situation Our Formalists will have it in the power of rulers to Command in the matter of Worship that which is beside the Word of God and so is negatively Lawfull though it be not Positively conform to Gods Word nor Commanded or warranted by practice which I grant is a witty way of Romes devising to make entry for Religious humane Ceremonies But 1. Whatever is not of Faith and a sure perswasion that what I do pleaseth God is sin Rom. 14. 14. 23. And therefore neither can be Commanded by Rulers nor practiced by inferiours But things besides Scripture and negatively Lawfull are things not of Faith Ergo The Assumption I Prove 1. I doubt if Lord-will be the Lord-carver of what pleaseth God 2. If it may stand with the wisdom of Christ the Law-giver for no Ceremonies maketh Christ a perfect Law-giver 3. In things doubtsome abstinence is the surest side Ergo Rulers ought not to command them 4. Samuel David even wicked Saul abstained in things doubtsome while the Oracle of
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
feet in that he could not have said I have put the honour of Table-fellowship on you for you stand and wash my feet and I sit this I say had been no table-honour but most contrary to it It had been indeed servant-honour Luk 22. 27. and more then sinfull men are worthy of To kneel to Christ is an honour but to kneel at Tabling with him as kneeling is no more an expressing signe of table-honour nor standing and serving Christ while he did eat is an honour of table-fellowship Now if any shall take away eating with Christ at that table he taketh away table-honour as Papists do in taking away drinking with Christ from the people yet eating with Christ maketh us not equall to Christ but take away eating and you take away Table-honour so take away sitting at Table and you take away eatenus in so far the Table-honour But by this mean say they you make it necessary to sit and of Divine necessity I answer Table sitting is not so necessary as that the want thereof doth annihilate the Sacrament and make it to be no Sacrament at all but it is as I think many wayes necessary as first it is morally or Theologically necessary as being gesture sanctified by the practice of Christ and his Apostles upon Morall grounds and so to be imitated by us 2. It is necessary by necessity of expediency as free from hazard of Idolatry of which crime kneeling in this act is guilty 3. It is necessary sacramentally for the integrity of the Sacrament as signifying our honour of Table-fellowship 4. It is by natures grounds necessary that as this banquet is materiall having bread wine taking breaking distribution eating drinking so the externall solemnity of a banquet such as is table-sitting requireth the same And 5. which is our 4. Argument it is necessary by necessity of Divine precept Do this in remembrance of me that this is included in the precept we certainly believe 1. Because nothing in reason can be excluded from the precept of the first pattern but what is meerly occasionall such as sitting is not 2. The practise of Christ and the Apostles cannot be a will-action and therefore must fall under a precept sitting cannot be occasionall upon the reason that it was continued through occasion of the passeover for if this be good then eating and drinking and the Analogy betwixt the signe and Christ shall be occasionall and the singing of a Psalm as was at the Passeover shall be occasionall for Christ retained what did equally belong to the Supper of the Iews and this Christian Supper as concerning the common nature of sacred Feasts 5. What is proper to a table of solemn feasting should not be denyed to this But sitting was such Ergo More of this may be seen in the Nullity of Pearth examination and the re-examination of the five Articles of Pearth QUEST II. Whether humane Laws binde the consciences are not OUr Argument against Ceremonies is that they fail against the fifth Commandment and the Authority of Rulers What the Civill or Church-Ruler can command must be good necessary apt to edifie and not indifferent or neither good nor evil Ceremonies are acknowledged by their Fathers to be indifferent and neither good nor evil Ergo They are such as cannot be lawfully commanded The Proposition is clear the Ruler must command for good Rom. 13. 4. He is the minister of God for thy good and all for edification 1 Cor. 10 23. 1 Cor. 14. 3. v. 12 17 26. And therefore all means injoyned for this end good and Edification must conduce thereunto of their own nature and not by the will of men else they edifie not But that this may be further cleared it is questioned if humane Lawes binde the conscience for which consider 1. Dist An humane Law is taken in Concreto when judges command what God commandeth as when they make a Law against murther 2. In abstracto when the judge forbiddeth what may tend to murther as carrying Armour in a City in the night 2. Dist There is some morall equity in right humane Laws 3. Something positive 4. Dist There be four things to be regarded in humane Laws 1. Publick peace of the society 2. The credit honour and Majesty of the Ruler even when the Law is unjust 3. Obedience passive and subjection by patient suffering 4. Obedience active by doing which is now to be considered Dist 5. An humane Law Civill may oblige Ratione generalis praecepti In regard of the generall command to obey our superiors as the fifth Command saith But the question is if a humane Law as meerly positive oblige in conscience as if this which the Captain forbiddeth as not to speak the vvatch-word be in it self against the sixth Commandment Thou shalt not murther if no murther follow upon the not speaking of the watch-word though it be against the fifth in the generall Dist 6. The question is not whether we be obliged in conscience to obey superiors in things Lawfull or whether we be obliged in conscience to obey Superiors when they are sole authoritative relaters and carriers of Gods expresse Law to us for then they bring nothing of their own to lay upon us and in these cases their laws are rather Gods Laws delivered by Superiors to us and binde the conscience But the question is if positive laws in particular matters negatively only conform to the word as in matters of Oeconomy and policy as not to eat flesh in Lent for the growth of cattell in matters of Art and in ordering of war and Military Acts commanded by Captains if these commandments as such oblige the conscience Now to oblige the conscience is when the not doing of such a thing bringeth an evil conscience now an evil conscience as Pareus saith Is the sense of sin committed against God and the fear of Gods judgement Distinct 7. The conscience iâ— obliged by doing or not doing two wayes 1. Per se kindly when the fact of it self obligeth and for no respect without as to give almes to the poor at the Commandment of the superior 2. When the fact obligeth for a reason from publick peace good example and order 1. Conclusion When Rulers command what God expresly commandeth their Laws obligeth the conscience Psal 34. 11. Come ye children hearken unto me and I will teach you the fear of the Lord Prov. 4 1. Hear ye children the instruction of a Father 2. Conclus Publick peace in all the commandments of Superiors in so far as can be without sin obligeth the conscience as Heb. 12. 14. Follow peace with all men and godlinesse Psal 34. 14. Seek peace and follow after it Rom. 12. 18. 3. Conclus Subjection to the censures of Rulers by suffering patiently is an obligation lying upon all private persons 1 Pet. 2. 20. But if vvhen ye do vvell and suffer for it ye take it patiently this is acceptable to God Rom. 13. 2. Whosoever therefore
resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God 4. Conclus Nothing in non-obeying unwarrantable Commandments must be done that redoundeth to the discredit of the Ruler or the hurting of his Majesty and honour 1 Pet. 2. 17. Honour the King Eccles 10. 20. Curse not the King For even when we deny subjection or obedience objective to that which they command yet owe we obedience officiall and all due respect and reverence to the person and eminent place of the Ruler as Act. 7. 2. Steven calleth them Men brethren and fathers Act. 7. 51. And yet stiffe-necked resisters of the holy Ghost 5. Conclus Humane Laws whither civill or Ecclesiastick in that particular positive matter which they have of Art Oeconomy policy and in Gods matters of meer humane coyne and stamp do not bindes the conscience at all per se kindely and of themselves 1. Nothing but what is either Gods expresse word or his word by consequence doth lay a band on the conscience of it self But not to eat flesh in Lâ—nt upon civill reasons Not to carry Armour in the night To wear Surplice and to Crosse infants in Baptisme are neither Gods word expresly nor by consequence The major is sure because the word is the perfect and adequate object of matters of Faith and morall practice which concerneth the conscience Psal 19. 7. 8. Psal 119. 9. Iohn 20. 31. Prov. 8. 9. 2. Because whatever thing layeth a band on the conscience the not doing of that would be a sin before God if the Ruler should never command it But the carrying Armour in the night the not wearing Surplice in Divine service should be no sin before God if the ruler should never command them as reason Scriptures and adversaries teach The Proposition I instruct from the diffinition of an obligation of conscience for to lay a band on the conscience is defined to lay a command on the soul which ye are obliged before God to do as you would eschew sin and obtain eternall salvation So the learned Pareus so Dr. Field so Gerson and so teach Gregorius de Valentia and Suarez 3. None can lay on a band of not doing under the hazard of sin but they that can remit sins for the power that looseth the same bindeth But mortall men cannot binde to sin nor loose men from sin but where God goeth before them in binding and loosing for they cannot bestow the grace of pardoning sin But he onely who hath the keys of David who openeth and no man shutteth and shutteth and no man openeth 4. Whoever can lay on bands of Laws to bring any under the debt of sin must lay on bands of obligation to eternall punishment but God only can do this Mat. 10. 28. The Proposition is clear because sin against God essentially includeth a relative obligation to eternall punishment 5. In matters of Gods worship this is clear The School-men as Aquinaâ— Suarez Ferrariensis Conradus teach us that there is a twofold good The first is an objective and primordiall goodnesse whereby things are agreeable to Gods Law if rulers finde not this in that good which they command they are not just and so not to be obeyed There is another goodnesse that cometh from the will of authority so only divine authority must make things good the will and authority of Rulers findeth objective goodnes in them and therefore enacteth Laws of things but because they enact Laws of things they do not therefore become good and Lawfull It is the will of the Creator of all beings which is the measure rule and cause of the goodnesse of things as Adams not eating of the tree of knowledge is good and gratefull obedience from Gods forbidding will and it should have been as gratefull obedience to eat of that tree if God had commanded so Men cannot make worlds nor can their will create goodnesse in acts indifferent nor can their forbidding will illegittimate or make evil any actions indifferent and therefore things must be morally good and so intrinsecally good without the creative influence of humane Authority and from God only are they apt to edifie and to oblige the conscience in the termes of goodnesse morall And this is strengthened by that which in reason cannot be denied to wit that it is essentiall to every human Law that layeth any obligation on the conscience that it be just nor is it to be called a Law except it be just and justice and equity humane Laws have from God the law of nature and his word not from the Authority and will of men therefore Iurists expound that What pleaseth the Prince hath the vigour of a Law of just things Also the School-men as Carduba Thomas Soto Medina Adrianus Navar Driedo Castro as I gather out of their writings give strong reasons why Rulers cannot lay an obligation on the conscience when the matter of the Law is light and naughty for this were to make a man a trangressor before God for a word a straw a toy which is unjust Because the just weight of the matter is the only just ground of the Laws obligation Ergo the will of the Lawgiver except he make a moat a mountaine cannot lay an obligation of necessity on man 2. It were a foolish law and so no law to oblige to eternall punishment and the offending of 2. God for a light thing for this were to place the way of salvation in that wherein the way consisteth not 3. Such a law were not for edification but for destruction of soules 4. This was the Pharises fault Mat. 23. to lay on intollerable burthens on mens soules 5. The law of God and nature freeth us in positive lawes from guilt in case of necessity as David did lawfully eat Shew-bread 6. A Civill law may not take away a mans life for a straw farre lesse can it bind to Gods wrath 7. Augustine saith they be unjust ballances to esteeme things great or small for our sole will Out of all which I conclude that no law as a Law doth oblige the Conscience but that which hath from the matter morall equity and not from the intention of the Law-giver as Cajetan Silvester Angelus and Corduba teach which intention must take a rule from the matter of the law and not give a rule Gerson No law saith he is a law to be called as necessary to salvation as all good lavves should be but that vvhich de jure Divino is according to Gods lavv yea vve are not saith Durandus to obey the Pope if he command a Monke to doe somthing vvhen he is not moved to command by the necessity the profit of the Church but by his ovvne free vvill and if this be knovven If the Pope faith he for his ovvne vvill and vvithout necessity and utility should seclude vvorkes of supererogation that command should tend to destruction and vve
are to obey Christ vvho is above the Pope And therefore his mind is that all obligation of Conscience in humane commandments commeth from Gods will and law that is from the just and necessary matter of the law not from the will of men 6. Conclus All humane or Ecclesiastick lawes binding the conscience have necessarie and not probable deduction onely by the warrant of both the Mâ—jor Proposition and Assumption from the Word of God and Law of Nature This conclusion is against Suarez he seeketh onely a probable connexion betwixt obliging Lawes and the Divine law And Gregorius de valent is in very deed against Gerson who teacheth three things of all humane lawes 1. That they are in so farre just 2. That they in so farre oblige the Conscience as they have necessary dependance upon natures law or Gods word and therefore compareth them to these precepts that Physitians give to sicke persons they oblige the conscience of the sicke as I thinke from the sixt Commandement Thou shalt doe no murther for if the patient sleepe at such a time or drinke wine in such a case he killeth himselfe but they have not obliging power from the fift Commandement not as if the King being sicke were obliged by the fift Commandement to obey the Physitian as his superiour 3. He will have all humane laws that properly obligeth to be onely declaratory and to manifest onely the Divine law and to apply it to such and such a matter The Conclusion is clear from what is said before because all civil laws as meerly positive in the cafe of non-contempt doe not oblige and in the case of non-scandall as Medin Almaine Gerson teach And it followeth from a sure ground that Vasquez layeth downe and he hath it from Driedo to wit that the efficacy of obligation in humane lawes cometh not from the will of Lawgivers or their intention but from the dignity or waightines of the matter If then the matter be not from Gods law just the obligation is none at all for if the law from mans will shall lay on an obligation of three degrees whereas Gods law from Gods vvill before men inacted this in a Law laid on an obligation of two degrees onely tying the Conscience then the will of man createth obligation or the obligative power of conscience in the matter of the Law and by that same reason he createth goodnes which is absurd for that is proper to God onely I grant it is hard because of the variety of singular actions in mans life to see the connexion betwixt particulars of humane lawes and Gods lawes yet a connexion there is and for this cause the learned worthy Divine Pareus will have humane lawes in particulari per se in the particular and of themselves to binde the Conscience Whereas Calvin and Beza Iunius Tilenus Sibrandus Whittakerus and others deny this But the truth is humane civill lawes are two waies considered 1. As they are meerly Positive according to the letter of the Law 2. As they have a connexion with 1. The principles of nature of right and wrong 2. With the end of the law which is the supream law The safety of the people as the Civill law saith he who entreth to an inheritance and maketh no Inventory of all his goods shall pay debts above the-whole heritage this law according to the letter in the Court of conscience is unjust and so cannot oblige in Conscience so as he is guilty before God and deserveth the vengeance of everlasting wrath who doth not make an inventory of all his goods and produce it to the Iudge so he that goeth up to the walls of a City may by the Law be commanded to be put to death yet is he not guiltie of eternall death before God and therefore if the presumption which is the ground of the law cease as this He that maketh not an inventory with a purpose to enjoy the whole inheritance and pay no debts sinneth before God against conscience as famous jurists to wit Jason Bartolus and others teach for this Law considered as having connexion with a principle of nature that every man should pay his debts is a law binding the Conscience and the truth is the end of these Lawes oblige the Conscience they being divine expressions of justice and righteousnesse but not the Lawes themselves for whatever obligeth the conscience as a divine truth the ignorance thereof is a sinfull ignorance and maketh a man guilty of eternall wrath but men are not guilty lyable to the eternal wrath of God because they are ignorant of all the civill Lawes in Iustinians book then were we obliged to be no lesse versed in all the civill lawes that bindeth in foro humano then of the Bible and law of God The adversaries strive to prove that these lawes oblige the conscience we may heare Bellarmine Vasquez Valentinian and the Formalist and Arminian Doctor Jackson say To resist the Rulers in giving and making lawes is to resist God as 1 Sam. 8. They have not refused thee but they have refused me that I should not raigne over them Suarez â—aith An humane law is the neerest cause of obligation of conscience as the eternall law is the remote cause And â—ackson as the immediate interposition of divine authority made the killing of Abrahams sonne holy which otherwise would have been cruelty so the interposition of authority derived from God make some actions that barely considered would be apparently evill and desperate to be honest and lawfull to strike a Prophet would seem sin but when a Prophet coÌ„mandeth to strike not to strike is disobedience 1 Kin. 20. 35 36. to rob a Spaniard is Piracie but to do it upon the Kings letter of Mart for wrongs done to the State is obedience to the King Answ To resist the servant in that wherein he is a servant and as a servant is to resist God as 1 Sam. 8. proveth well But the assumption then is most false for rulers in making lawes and creating by their sole pleasure goodnes morall in particular matters without the word of God are not Gods servants nor is humane authoritie as humane the nearest cause of obligation of conscience instamped in these lawes nor is it the cause at all and therefore to resist them is not to resist God They be Gods instruments and Ministers in 1. Propounding and expounding Gods laws 2. In executing them and defending them from the violence of men 3. In making positive and directory civil lawes for civill government that are lawes improperly so called which bind the conscience as above is said in so far as they have dependance upon Gods Law for Iames saith There is but one Law-giver As for Church-canons all except Physicall circumstances in them are to be warranted by the word Therefore it is a vaine consequence of Valentia humane lawes oblige dependenter
a lege aeternâ as they depend on the eternall law Ergo they oblige in Conscience it followeth not They oblige in Conscience as their Major and Minor proposition in that which is morall can be proved out of Gods word but so in their morallity they are meerely divine and not humane and positive and so the argument concludeth not against us They oblige in Conscience as they depend upon the eternall law that is as they are deduced from the eternall Law of God in a Major proposition without probation of the assumption that we deny and it is in question now The people 1 Sam. 8. in rejecting Samuel from being their judge rejected God not because Samuel had a power of making lawes without the warrant of Gods word Neither Moses nor Jeremiah nor Ezekiel nor any Prophet were in that servants subordinate to God for they vvere onely to heare the vvord at Gods mouth 3. We could have no more at Bellarmines hand then Jackson saith For Bellarmine saith In a good sense Christ gave to Peter a power to make that which is sinne to be no sin and that which is no sinne to be sinne So Iackson the interposition of derived authority maketh that which would be murther other wayes to bee a good worke that is men may doe what God onely can doe If Isaac then at the commandement of Abraham his father offer his sonne Iacob to God in a bloody Sacrifice then Abrahams derived authority maketh that a lawfull sacrifice as to strike a Prophet of it selfe is a degree of murther but when a Prophet commandeth another to strike a Prophet it is lawfull But can any blasphemer say that this was humane derived authority without warrant of the word of the Lord such as are humane positive lawes and our humane ceremonies see the text 1 King 20. 35. And a certaine man of the sonnes of the Prophets said unto his neighbour in the word of the Lord smite me This was immediate divine and Propheticall authoritie and not humane Doth the Kings letter of Mart make robbing a Spaniard lawfull Court Parasites speake so he refuteth himselfe The Kings letter of Mart for wrongs done to the State maketh that which is Piracy lawfull then the Kings authority doth not here by a nomothetick power and a law laid upon the Conscience but the wrongs of Piracy by Spaine done to the State of England may make the robbing of Spaniards an act of lawfull warre and an act of justice flowing from the King as a lawfull Magistrate Now Iackson is speaking of mandates of Rulers in that place which have no warrant of the word of God Yea even Stapleton a Papist saith as Doctor Field also observeth That humane laws binde for the utility and neoessity of the matter and not from the will of the Lawgiver And so saith Gerson Almain Decius Mencha and our owne Iunius saith The plenitude of power of lawes is onely in the princpall agent not in the instrument Doctor Iackson saith unlimited and absolute faith or submission of conscience we owe not to rulers that is due to God but we owe to them conditionall assent and cautionary obedience if they speake from God suppose they fetch not an expresse commission from Scripture for if Pastors be then onely to be obeyed when they bring evident commission out of Scripture I were no more bound to beleeve obey my governours then they are bound to beleeve and obey in Bellarm. contr 3. lih 4. cap. 6. not 89. my Governours then ther are bound to believe and obey me for equals are oblieged to obey equalls when they bring a warrant from Gods word and so the povver of Rulers vvere not reall but titular and the same do th Sutluvius and Bellarmine say Answ We owe to equalls to Mahomet conditionall and cautionary faith and obedience thus I beleeve what Mahomet saith so he speake Gods word yea so Samaritans who worshipped they knew not what John 4. 26. gave saith to their Teachers in a blinde way so they speake according to Gods word 2. It followeth in no sort if Rulers are onely to be obeyed when they bring Gods Word that then they are no more to be obeyed then equalls Infetiours because there is a double obedience one of conscience and objective coming from the thing commanded And in respect of this the word hath no lesse authority and doth no lesse challenge obedience of Confcience and objective when my equall speaketh it in a private way yea when I writ it in my muse then when a Pastor speaketh it by publike authority for we teach against Papists that the word borroweth â—o authority from men nor is it with certainty of faith to be received as the Word of man but as indeed the Word of God as the Scripture saith 1. There is another obedience officiall which is also obedience of Conscience because the fifth Commandement injoyneth it Yet not obedience of Conscience coming from the particular commanded in humane Lawes as humane so I owe obedience of subjection and submission of affection of feare love honour respect by vertue of the fift Commandement to Rulers when they command according to Gods Word and this I owe not to equals or inferiours and so it followeth not that the power of Rulers and Synods is titular because they must warrant their mandates from the Word But it s alwayes this mans hap to be against sound truth But 3. That I owe no more objective subjection of conscience to this Thou shalt not murther Beleeve in Iesus Christ when Rulers and Pastors command them then when I read them in Gods word I prove 1. If this from a Ruler Thou shalt not murther challenge faith and subjection of Conscience of six degrees but as I read it my selfe or as my equall in a private way saith Thou shalt not murther it challenge saith and subjection of foure degrees onely then is it more obligatory of Conscience and so of more intrinsecall authority and so more the word of God when the Ruler commandeth it then when I read it or my equall speaketh it to me This were absurd for the speaker whether publike or private person addeth not any intrinsecall authority to the word for then the word should be more or lesse Gods word as the bearers were publike or private more or lesse worthy As Gods word spoken by Amos a Prophet should not be a word of such intrinfecall authority as spoken by Moses both a Prince and a Prophet 2. My faith of subjection of Conscience should be resolved as concerning the two degrees of obedience of faith to the word spoken by the Ruler on the sole authority of the Ruler and not on the authority of God the Author of his own word 4. I answer to Sutluvius That Christ in the externall policy of his owne house is a Lawgiver ordaining such and such officers himselfe Ezek. 4. 11. commanding order and decency
but will it follow therefore the Pastor should not watch over him to try in another way in a Pastorall way by his walking profession and practicall knowledge whether he be in Christ or no. The contrary is Heb. 13. 17. They watch for the souls of the people as they that must give an accompt And they are so far to try that are Shepherds that they are obliged in a Pastorall way to know those of the flock that are diseased Ezech. 34. 4. Sick broken driven away and lost And to what end should they try themselves least they eat damnation to themselves Ergo the Stewards should try the stomacks that they eat not poyson If then the Lords Law bid men beware they be not tempted to Sorcery Sodomy Murthers and if every man ought to have personall watchfulnesse over his own conscience that he be not insnared to those sins and Achan was to try if his heart was ingaged to the wedge of Gold and to be wary to meddle with it but it doth not follow that Magistrates as Joshua should not try out Sorcerers Sodomites and other Achans to punish them Erastus 2 Cor. 13. is against this a person is to try himselfe Will it follow when he hath tryed himselfe that he cannot come to the Lords Supper except he seem meet to the Elders And this not our consequence let Erastus owne it we care not In a constitute Church he should else Erastus provides no way against a Pagan who hath heard the Word as he may doe 1 Cor. 14. 23. may without the Elders and Church sit downe at the Lords Supper for Erastus provides no stop for him but only his own pagan Conscience and so may one by that rule but trample on the Sacrament his owne Conscience is all his rule contrary to what he saith himselfe lib. 3. c. â— p. 207. Erastus 1 Cor. 11. Paul forbiddeth none to come to the Supper but upon supposition that they come as the manner is he biddeth them come worthily as all are bidden hear the Word though they â—e forbidden to he are it as if it were some prophane History nor doth the Lord command sinfull coming for no act commanded of God is evill Ans 1. Paul then forbiddeth not Pagans more to come to the Supper and Children then he forbiddeth them to heare the Word which is absurd he commandeth all to heare but he commandeth not all to come to the Supper but those onely that can discerne the Lords body for to heare the Word though I be not prepared is simply necessary if I would be saved and to sacrifice if I would be reconciled and to pray if I would obtaine any blessing though the manner of doing all these be commanded that I heare sacrifice and pray in faith But to come to the Supper is not commanded to all not to Pagans not to children not to the unregenerated but onely to the regenerated and to those who discerne the Lords body and for a child to come to the Lords Supper or an unrenewed man is forbidden not commanded and no ill act is commanded and it is a sinne that they come at all But Erastus will have it lawfull as it is to heare the Word then doth Christ command Turks and children to come to the Supper for he commandeth them to heare the Word and Peter bade Simon Magus pray Act. 8. 22. but he neither bids give the Supper to him nor bids he him receive it but by the contrary forbids pearles to be cast unto Swine Erastus Arg. 16. God will not have fewer Christians to be members of the Church now then of Iewes to be members of the Iewish Church But God would have all circumcised even the most flagitious that were punished by the Magistrate to be members of the Iewes Church Ergo God will have all the baptized to be Members of the Church Ans This will prove that all baptized even children should come to the Supper 2. I deny the Minor to wit that all the most wicked remained Members of the visible Iewish Church jure before God the wicked Iewes to God were as Sodom and Gomorrah Esa 1. 10. Yea he saith Amos 9. 7. Are ye not unto me as children of Ethiopians O children of Israel saith the Lord What they were de facto and not cast out was the fault of the Priests and that the Church does tollerate Iezabels Wolves Lions in the flock and admitteth them to holy things is their sin Erastus But Repentance was not alwaies commanded to those Iewes especially who were unclean by touching an unclean thing against their will and ignorantly and the purging of them depended on their owne will so they observed the Ceremonies of Moses Ans That is much for us if those who were uncleane against their will and cast out of the campe it being a trying Type that far more those that are wickedly scandalous are to be cast out of the Church Erastus The Church is a draw-â—et a field a marriage Supper there be good and ill in it and it was not the sinne of the inviters who are bidden invite all good and bad Mat. 22. But the man that came himselfe without the wedding garment he is cast into utter darkenesse Ergo The Officers are to invite all and forbid none Ans They are to invite all to all Ordinances and Seals even Dogs and Swine that is false They are to invite all to some Ordinances to heare the Law and Gospel preached but not the Seales that were to cast Pearles to Swine 2. The way of Erastus is that none are to be debarred nor to debarre themselves from the Seales more then from the Word The Lords forbidding Adam to touch the tree of Life and his casting of him out of Paradise and Cains being cast out from the presence of the Lord to me are rather Types presignifying Excommunication and that God will have wicked men debarred from holy things then patternes of Excommunications and so are they alledged by Beza and our Divines CHAP. VII Quest 3. Whether Erastus doth justly deny that Excommunication was typified in the Old Testament VVEe take types of uncleannesse in the Old Testament to be rightly expounded when the holy Ghost in the New-Testament doth expound them Now that Ceremoniall uncleannes did typifie Morall uncleannesse is cleare 2 Cor. 7. 17. Touch no uncleane thing and I will receive you 18. And I will be a Father unto you and yee shall be my Sonnes and Daughters saith the Lord Almighty This is a manifest Exposition of the Ceremoniall holinesse and cleannesse commanded in the booke of Leviticus for after the Lord hath given them a number of Lawes about eschewing of uncleane things he saith in generall Lev. 26. 3. If ye walke in my Statutes and keepe my Commandements and doe them 11. I will set my Tabernacle amongst you and I will be your God and ye shall be my people And it is a cleare allusion to Numb 19. 11. He that toucheth
rebuking the rod of Church-discipline to reject Hereticks after admonitions Hence I argue negatively in all the Scripture never did the Lord command that they should pray to God and mourne that he would inflict bodily vengeance and death or yet sicknesse on any scandalous professor nor is there promise precept or practise in any Scripture of this Church censure 5. Erastus doth thinke a court of the Church that hath power to lead Witnesses judge and censure offenders an extream wronging of the Magistrate and an incroaching on his Liberties but here is a more bloody Court for if the whole faithfull are to pray for bodily death by the Ministery of the Devill upon one of their own brethren because he hath lyen with his fathers wife or fallen in Adultery or Murther as David did Surely they must pray in faith and upon certaine knowledge that he is guilty the Law of God and Nature must then have warranted the whole Saints Women and Children to meet in a grand Jurie and Inquest either to have the fact proved by Witnesses or to heare his owne confession else how could they pray in faith if it was not sure to their conscience that the man had done this deed Here is a Jury of men and women I am sure unknowne to the Apostolique Church 2. A greater abridging of the Magistrates power then we teach The Church shall take away the life of a Subject never aske the Magistrates leave 6. It is against Christs minde Mat. 18. â—s Erastus expoundeth it that Christians should go any further against an offending brother then implead him before an Heathen though he adde injurie to injurie But this waâ— maketh the Holy Ghost sharply to rebuke all the Saints when they are offâ—â—ded before the barre of Heaven by crying miraculous bloodâ—e vengeance upon the Offender 7. It is evident this man repenâ—ed and that the Corinthians confirmed their love to him and did forgive him 2 Cor. 2. 7. 10. Ergo He was not miraculously killed But we never read where it was Gods will and Law that an â—ll doers life should be spared though he should repent because his taking away is for example that others may feare 2. That evill and as it is here leaven may be taken away if then it had been bodily death I see not how Paul and the Corinthians could have dispensed with it 8. Erastus doth not nor can he confirme his unknown Exposition by any parallel Scripture of the Old and New Testament which I objected to him in his Exposition of Matth. 18. Let the Reader therefore observe how weak Erastus is in arguing against pregnant Scriptures for Excommunication Erastus You must prove that to mourn because the man is not taken away is all one as to mourn that he is not debarred from the Sacraments by the Ministers and Elders Ans That is denyed to be debarred from the Sacraments is but a consequent of Excommunication 2. It is a putting of the man from amongst them not by death that we have refuted not from eating and drinking with him onely that I improved before Ergo it must be a Church ouâ—-casting Erastus Paul might deliver the man to Satan though he did Repent as the Magistrate did punish Malefactors whether they Repented or noâ— An. Ergo he repen ed and was pardoned by the Corinthians 2 Cor. 2. 10. after he had been killed which is absurd Erastus If to deliver to Satan were nothing but to debar the man from the Sacraments ever while he should repent Why should Paul with a great deal of pains and many words have excused himself to the Corinthians 2 Cor. 2. and cap. 7. and as it were deprecate the offending of them for they should know that this manner of coercing and punishing was and ought to be exercised in the Church if it was but a saving remedy and invitation to repentance Why were they sad They should rather have rejoyced as the Angels of Heaven doth at the Conversion of a sinner then Paul must have intended another thing Ans This is a meer conjecture as Erastus granteth most he saith against the place is for he saith Aliam conjecturam etiam addidi such a violent remedy of repentance as is the cutting off of a member from Christs body being the most dreadfull sentence of the King of the Church nearest to the last sentence was to Paul and ought to be a matter of sorrow to all the Servants of God as the foretelling of sad Iudgements moved Christ to tears Matth. 23. 37 Luke 19. 41 42. And moved Ieremiah to sorrow cap. 9. 1. And yet Christ was glad at the home-coming of sinners Luke 15. 6 7 c. These two are not contrary as Erastus dreameth but subordinate to wit That Christ should inflict the extreamest vengeance of Excommunication which also being blessed of God is a saving though a violent remedy of repentance and To rejoyce at the blessed fruit of Excommunication which is the mans repentance And the Apostle 2 Cor. 7. professeth his sorrow That he made them sad ver 8. and also rejoyceth at their gracious disposition who were made sorry He is far from excusing himself as if he had done any thing in weaknesse this were enough and it is an Argument of our Protestant Divines to prove that the Books of the Macabees are not Dited by the Holy Ghost as Canonick Scripture is because the Author 2 Macab 15. 38. excuseth himself in that History as if he might have erred which no Pen-man of holy Scripture can do And Erastus layeth the like blame on Paul as if he had repented that he made them sorry by chiding them for not praying for a miraculous killing of a Brother This is enough to make the Epistles of Paul to be suspected as not Canonick Scripture yea Paul saith the contrary 2 Cor. 7. 9. Now I reioyce not that yee were made sorry but that yee sorrowed to repentance for yee were made sorry after a godly manner that ye might receive dammage by us in nothing and 2 Cor. 2. 8 9. he exhorteth them to rejoycing at the mans Repentance and to confirme their love to him which demonstrates that he was now a living man and not miraculously killed and commendeth their obedience v. 9. in sorrowing as he did chide them that they sorrowed not 1 Cor. 5. 2. So that Paul is so farre from accusing himselfe for making them sad that by the contrary he commends himselfe for that and rejoyceth thereat And if the matter had been Excommunication while the man should repent saith Erastus they knowing this ought to be in the Church they should rather have reioyced then bin sorry And I answer if the matter had been a miraculous killing of him that his Spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord should they not reioyce at his saving in the day of the Lord whether this saving be wrought by bodily killing or by Excommunication And so this conjecture may well be
the Lord v. 13. Now whereas Erastus putteth a note of ignorance on all that hath been versed in the Old Testament before him whereas he confesseth he understandeth not the Originall Language let the Reader judge what arrogance is here where ever there is mention saith he of judgement there is signified not religious causes but also other causes especially the cause of the widow and Orphane It bewrayeth great ignorance For 1. The matters of the Lord and the matters of the King are so evidently distinguished and opposed the one to the other by two divers presidents in the different judicatures the one Ecclesiasticall Amaziah the chiefe Priest in every word or matter of the Lord and the other Zebadiah the sonne of Ishmael the ruler of the house of Iudah for all the Kings matters that the very words of the Text say that of Erastus which he saith of others that he is not versed in the Scripture for then the causes of the Lord and the causes of the King in the Text by Erastus should be the same causes whereas the Spirit of God doth distinguish them most evidently 2. If the cause of the King were all one with the judgement of the Lord and the cause of the Lord yea if it were all one with all causes whatsoever either civill or Ecclesiasticall what reason was there they should be distinguished in the Text and that Amaziah should not be over the people in the Kings matters though he were the chiefe Priest and Zebadiah though a civill Iudge over all the matters of the Lord and causes Ecclesiasticall 3. The Kings matters are the causes of the widow and orphan and oppressed as is evident Ier. 22. 2. O King of Iudah v. 3. execute yee judgement and righteousnesse and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor and doe no wrong doe no violence to the stranger the fatherlesse nor the widdow so Esa 1. 10. 17. Prov. 31. 4 5. Iob 29. 12 13 c. Then the Text must beare that every matter of the King is the Iudgement of the Lord and the matter of the Lord and every matter and judgement of the Lord is also the matter of the King and to be judged by the King then must the King as well as the Priest judge between the clean and the unclean and give sentence who shall be put out of the Campe and not enter into the Congregation of the Lord no lesse then the Priests Let Erastus and all his see to this and then must the Priests also releeve the fatherlesse and widdow and put to death the oppressour 2. The different presidents in the judicatures maketh them different judicatures 3. It is denied that all causes whatsoever came before the Ecclesiasticall Synedry at Jerusalem Erastus doth say this but not prove it for the place 2 Chron. 19. doth clearly expound the place Deut. 17. for the causes of the brethren that dwell in the Cities between Blood and Blood between Law and Commandement Statutes and judgements are judged in the Ecclesiasticall Synedrim at Ierusalem not in a civill coactive way by the power of the sword 1. Because all causes are by a coactive power judged as the matters of the King the supream sword bearer 2 Chron. 19. 5. v. 13. Rom. 13 4. to eschew oppression and maintain justice Ier. 22. 2 3. But the causes here judged in this Synedrim are judged in another reduplication as the matters of the Lord differenced from the matters of the King 2 Chron. 19. 13. now if the Priests and Levites judged in the same judicature these same civill causes and the same way by the power of the sword as Magistrates as Erastus saith why is there in the Text 1. Two judicatures one v. 5. in all the fenced cities another at Ierusalem v. 8 2. What meaneth this that the Kings matters are judged in the civill judicature not by the Priests and Levites as Erastus saith for the Ruler of the house of Iudah was president in these and the matters of the Lord were judged by the Priests and Levites and Amariah the chiefe Priest was over them for then Amariah was as well over the Kings matters as the Ruler of the house of Iudah and the Ruler of the house of Iudah over the Lords matters as over the Kings for if Priests and Levites judged as the Deputies subordinate to the King and by the power of the sword the Kings matters are the Lords matters and the Lords matters the Kings matters and Amariah judgeth not as chiefe Priests as he doth burne incense but as an other judge this truly is to turne the Text upside downe 2. The causes judged in the Synedrim at Ierusalem are said to be judged as controversies when they returned to Ierusalem 2 Chr. 19. 8. and matters too hard between plea and plea between blood and blood between stroke and stroke Deut. 17. 8. and so doubts of Law and cases of conscience Now Mal. 2. 7. The Priests lips should preserve knowledge and they should seek the Law at his mouth for he is the messenger of the Lord of hostes and this way only the Priests and Levites judged not that they inflicted death on any but they resolved in an Ecclesiasticall way the consciences of the judges of the fenced Cities what was a breach of the Law of God Morall or Judiciall what not what deserved Church censures what not who were clean who unclean and all these are called the judgement of the Lord the matters of the Lord because they had so near relation to the soul and conscience as the conscience is under a divine Law 3. Erastus saith it is knowen that the Levites only were Magistrates in the Cities of refuge but I deny it Erastus should have made it knowen to us from some Scripture I finde no ground for it in Scripture Erastus It is true that Beza saith that the Magistrate hath a supream power to cause every man do his duty But how hath he that supream power if he be also subject to the Presbyters for your Presbyters do subject the Magistrate to them and compell him to obey them and punish them if they disobey Ans The Magistrate even King David leaveth not off to be supream because Nathan commandeth him in the Lord nor the King of Niniveh and his Nobles leave not off to command as Magistrates though Jonah by the word of the Lord bring them to lie in sackcloth and to Fast all the Kings are subject to the rebukes and threatnings of the Prophets Isa 1. 10. Jer. 22. 2 3. Ier. 1. 18. 2 Kin. 12. 8 9. 10 11 12. 1 Kin. 21. 21 22 23. Isa 30. 33. Hos 5. 1 2. and to their commandments in the Lord If Presbyters do command as Ministers of Christ the highest powers on earth if they have souls must submit their consciences to the Lords rebukings threatnings and Commandment in their mouth Court Sycophants say the contrary but we care not 2. But they punish the
he instituted a Presbytery in place of the Magistrate Ans This consequence is so strong though the consequent be not ours to prove a Synedrie that Erastus shall never be able to refute it for that the Priests might teach the people they were to judge and governe the people and wâ—re to judge between the holy and prophane not onely that the Priests might informe the pâ—oples minds but that the Priests and Levites might 2 Chron. 9. 8 9 10. Deut. 17. 8 9 give judgement between blood and blood between plea and plea between stroake and stroake being matters of controversie and hard to be judged by the inferiour judges these concerned not the instruction of the people as matters of opinion as Erastus imagineth but they concerned the governing of the people in justice that v. 12. the man that will doe presumptuously or will not hearken unto the Priest or the judge shall die the death Was not this to governe the people and to judge them Certainly Erastus in the same Chapter saith so to wit that there was one common Synedrim of civill judges Priests and Levites at Jerusalem that the Priests and Levites were Iudges in capitall matters and gave out the sentence of death de capite sanguine and he proveth page 270. 271. that the Priests were civill judges and did give sâ—â—tences of blood of life and dâ—ath Ergo the Priests did not discerne between the clean and the unclean between blood and blood onely that they might teach the people but that they might regulate their owne practise in judgement and govern the people yea that the Priests might pronounce some unclean and to be put out of the Campe so many dayes that they might debar out of the Sanctuary the unclâ—an the uncircumcised the strangers and Lev. 10. the end of judging and governing is expresly set down v. 10. and so a judicature and the other end v. 11. that they may teach the children of Israel all the Statutes which the Lord hath spoken by the hand of Moses 2. From the Elders preaching the Word and dispensing the Sacraments simply we inferre no judicature at all farre lesse a politick judicature which we doe not ascribe to the Priests for Iohn Baptist both preached the Word and baptized and yet was no judge nor did he erect any Church judicature but from the power of the keyes given to the Church and exercised by the Church Mat. 16. 19. Mat. 18. 15 16 c. 1 Cor. 5. 1 2 3. c. Revel 2. 1 2 3 c. we inferre a Church judicature we never placed a Presbytery in place of the Magistrate for it is no more the Magistrates place then to sacrifice is the place of the Magistrate Erastus J wonder that you seeke your Presbytery in Moses Law all yours say the Synedrie Christ speaketh of did rise after the captivity at least when the sword was taken from the Iewes They say David and Solomon did punish vices they approve August 39. quest in Deut. that Excommunication doth now what putting to death did of Old and deny any Excommunication to have beene in the Church of the New Testament Ans Erastus declares himselfe to be a childe not versed in Protestant Divines for we except Musculus Gualther Bullinger some except Aretius all our Protestant Divines goe the way Beza goeth 2. Let him produce any of ours who say that the Synedry that Christ speaketh of was Iewish and ours say that Christ alludeth to the Iewish Synedrie But all few excepted that Christ Mat. 18. speaketh of the Christian Church to be erected 3. The Kings of Israel punished scandals but that is not enough did they governe the Church pronounce who were clean or unclean or middle with the charge of Ecclesiastick Government committed to Aaron and his sonnes 4. We say with Augustine that some that were killed of old are to be Excommunicated now Augustine speaketh not of all and what is that against us Erastus Not any but your self Beza say that Moses speaketh of thâ—se same persons things and office Levit. 10. and Deut. 17. in Levit. 10. he speaketh onely of the Priesthood and Deut. 17. of the Iudges or Magistrats Ans Beza expoundeth the one place by the other but he saith not these persons things and office are in both places 2. Erastus onely contradicteth Beza and saith Moses speaketh of the Magistrates Deut. 17. But he is refuted by the Spirit of God 2 Chron. 19. 8 9. who repeating the very words of Deut. 17. saith the Iudges here were Priests Levites and heads of Families whom all men deny to be Magistrates Erastus You say Deut. 17. mention is made of blood of the cause of Pleas not because the Synedrie judged of the fact but because they answered the true sense of the Law I say whether they answered of the fact or of the Law they sentenced judicially of life and death so that there was no provocation from them to the civill judicature for he was put to death who would not stand to their sentence but you deny that any politick causes or matters of blood or death belongs to your Presbytery Ans 1. Beza said well the fact and the putting of the man to death which is the assumption and conclusion belonged to the civill judge not to the Priests But the questio juris the question of Law belonged to the Ecclesiasticall judicature of Priests Levites and Elders and it is evident that it was a case of conscience concerning a matter or an admirable cause that cannot be determined by the judges in the city they not being so well versed in the Law as the Priests whose lips should preserve knowledge Mal. 2. 7. Therefore it is not a fact that may be cleared by Witnesses there is not such difficulty in facts except in adultery or secret Murthers the word commeth from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to admire or to be separated from sense and reason Lament 1. 9. Gen. 18. 14. Is there any thing hard to or â—id from Jehovah 2. They are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 causes or matters of contention Vatablus causa insolita difficilior Our translation hath it matters of controversie 3. It is said thou shalt come and inquire or diligently search out 4. The Priests and Levites shall shew thee the sentence of judgement so it is evident that the Priests and Levites did not so much judge as declare and resolve the law-part of which the inferiour judges did doubt for the difficulty of the question as Saul came to Samuel the Seer to aske concerning his fathers asses and it is true bloods and stroakes came under the cognizance of the Priests but as bloods comes before Lawyers and those that are expert in the civill Law in the Parliament of England and Scotland the Lawyers as Iudges put no man to death the King could say fall upon such an evill doer and kill him and the judges and Princes might put to death But
you never read that the Priests yea or the High Priest said fall upon such an ill doer and kill him nor was this any Law of God that the Ecclesiastick Sanedrim should put to death and politically condemne any man to die or command any mans blood to be shed they but declared and resolved a case of conscience to the judges and a plea and said This is a matter of blood and deserveth death by the Law of God and he that hath done such a fact in point of Law ought to die But there were two things left to the civilâ— Iudges 1. Whether this man hath done such a fact 2. A sitting in the Tribunall and saying I or we command and decree such a man who hath shed such blood hath inflicted such a stroake on this woman who is with childe of living birth to be stoned to death to be hanged Erastus hath not proved nor never shall prove that the High Priests Priests or Levites by Gods Law did thus judge any That Ananias commanded Paul to be beaten and the lictors of the High Priest smote Christ on the face at the command of the Priests was against Law they had no power so to doe by Law yea and our Presbyteries that judge of sorceries witchcrafts incests adulteries and other capitall crimes and of bloods in point of Gods Law what is witchcraft what is incest that the husband that striketh his wife being with quick child and killeth the birth is a Murtherer but that they judicially say such a woman is a Witch and so ordain her to be hanged and burnt and such a husband is a Murtherer and decerne him to die is utterly unlawfull therefore this is an ignorant speech of Erastus This synedrie of Priests and Levites whether in point of Law or in point of â—act did give out sentences of death therefore they were politick judges it followeth not and that the Priests said this man deserveth to die and therefore they gave out as civill judges sentences of death for the civill judge draweth not the sword with his owne hand is a foul consequence for lawyers do say such a man is worthy to die but it followeth not that Lawyers are civill judges to condemne a man to die for the Priests said this man deserveth to die in point of Law not absolutely as this man but upon supposition that he hath committed the fact deserveth to die and their meaning is any man whosoever he be though they never hear nor see the man who hath committed such a fact ought to die Now Gods Law never appointed any judge to condemn a man to die whom the judge never did accuse heare or see this were extreame unjustice Now this supposition is and was to be proved and judged by the civill Iudge and whereas Erastus saith the judge draweth the sword with his owne hand against no man 1. It is not to purpose for the hangman is in Law the hand and instrument of the judge but he is neither hand nor instrument of the Lawyer of the Priests and Levites who in matters criminall of life and death judge of the Maior proposition and of the Law except Erastus would have a Major proposition to prove an Assumption which were to shame all Logick For the Priest never commanded this or this man because he had done this fault to be stoned by such such executioners 2. It is doubtful whether the judge did never with his owne hand cast a stone at any stoned to death Lastly there was no provocation from the great Sanedrim at Ierusalem true in matter of Law what then Ergo they were politick judges it followeth as the like consequences of Erastus doth follow Yea for the fact and the judiciall condemning of the man they were neither the highest judicature nor any judicature at all the civill Iudges of the high Sanedrim did that onely It is true he was to die who would not stand to the sentence of the judge or Priest in the matter of Law the man being judged to be guilty of the fact by the civill judge but this shall never prove that the Priests were civill judges Erastus The late Iewes referre to this Sanedrim at Ierusalem questions of making warre or consecrating the Priest of tributes of charges of the Temple of judging of Tribes of the censuring of false Prophets and of Soothsayers c. How then is it not a politick judicature in which all causes belonging to worship Ceremonies civill policy bloods and capitall punishments were handled for when Moses had spoken of the punishing of Idolaters he presently addeth Deut. 17. If any thing be hard for thee c Ans It is like enough the Iewes referred such as these to the Sanedrim but we contend for two Sanedrims one civill and another of Priests Levites and Elders who judged of matters onely of Ecclesiasticall cognizance and of bloods and punishing Idolaters and false Prophets with death onely in a spirituall way in point of Law and I judge the holy Ghost Deut. 17. hath so framed the words that it is evident as I have proved that capitall crimes belonged to them in point of Law for he saith not he that refuseth to die when the Priests and Levites condemne him to die hee shall surely die and have the benefit of appeal to no higher judicature Now this he should have said by Erastus his way but he that will not stand to the sentence of the Priest or judge shall die Hence it is clear he speaketh of things in matters of Law in which the guilty might dis-assent and alledge the Priests had not judged according to Law But how was it the minde of the holy Ghost that any could refuse the Sentence of death given out by the Priests for the meaning must be by Erastus his way he that refuseth to die when the Priest condemneth him to die he shall surely die 2. He saith not that the Priests and Levites shall give out sentences of death and blood against any man but they shall shew and teach thee when thou shalt inquire the sentences of judgement even of Idolaters blasphemers of Murthers and blood according to the Law of God the knowledge of which the Priests lips should preserve Erastus Moses instituted no other publike judicatures for punishing of wickednes but those he maketh mention of Exod. 18. Numb 11. Deut. 1. 16 17. But all thâ—se were onely civill not Ecclesiasticall Iudges The seventy that were indued with the spirit of prophecy were given to helpe Moses and â—ase him not to be assistants to helpe Aaron and it cannot be doubted but Moses his government was civill Ans Both the Major the Minor is false the Major is from some particular places negativè he should argue from all the Old Testament and he argueth from some places onely he leaveth out Levit. 10. and all the places where the Priests were onely to judge the Leper the uncleane which are spirituall judicatures not civill 2.
The Assumption is false Deut. 17 saith the contrary 3. Though we could not shew a place for the formall institution of an Ordinance yet if we show the thing instituted it is sufficient 4. Erastus much doubteth himselfe if Moses his government was altogether civill especially before the Lord separated Aaron his sons and the Tribe of Levi to teach and governe the people in an Ecclesiasticall way for Erastus said before that Moses prescribed Lawes to Aaron sacrificed and did that which was proper to the Priests though after that God forbad the Kings to usurpe the Priests office and punished Saul and Vzziah for so doing though I never read that Saul usurped the Priests office you may take it upon the word of Erastus and we all know that Moses was a Prophet of God Deut. 18. 18. I will raise them up a Prophet from amongst their brethren like unto thee Deut. 34. 10. And there arose not a Prophet in Israel since like unto Moses whom the Lord knew face to face Heb. 3. 5. Moses verily was faithfull in all his house as a servant Now those that will say Moses his government of the Church was all civill and politicall as a civill judge and King and that he acted not in the governement of the Church as in writing and delivering Laws and in doing many things yea in commanding the will of God as a Prophet to Aaron to his sons and the whole tribe of Levi to me speakes non-sense Erastus That judicature to the which the inferiours appealed as to the supreame is politick Ans It is denied they appealed to it as the supreme Ecclesiastick in point of Law and Conscience Ergo It was not politique all the rest are answered before yea Iehoshaphat 2 Chron. 19. putteth this as a thing peculiar to the Priests v. 12. What cause soever shall come before you of your brethren between blood and blood between Law and Commandement Statutes and Judgements ye shall even warne them that they trespasse not against the Lord that is as Erastus yeeldeth ye shall teach them what is just and agreeable to and what is unjust and repugnant to the Law of God Civill judges lips were not to preserve knowledge as the lips of the Priests Mal. 2. 7. and Deut. 17. 11. According to the sentence of the Law that they shall teach thee and according to the judgement that they shall tell thou shalt doe Hence it is clear that this judicature in civill things was a teaching a telling a declaring and resolving judicature and that in blood they resolved of causes of blood of stroakes but judged not persons nor bloody men nor violent persons Erastus Moses and Iehoshaphat speake of one and the same judicature Moses doth not give teaching and commanding divisibly to some but joyntly to all the Synedrie Though the Priests were more skilled in the Law for Moses commandeth to teach the sense of the Law by judgeing as he saith himselfe Exod. 18. 16. I judge between one and another and I doe make them know the statutes of God and his lawes Moses putteth them all joyntly together they shall tell thee thou shalt doe what they shevv thee according to the Lavv that they shall teach thee shalt thou doe not declining to the right-hand or to the left-hand Ans 1. That Iehoshaphat speaketh of the same judicature that Moses speaketh of is clear 2 Chron. 19. 8 9. 10. The very words of Moses Deut. 17. 8. are the same both the same judges and the same causes compared with v. 5 6 7. But Iehoshaphat maketh two judicatures as I have proved and Iehoshaphat reformed according to Moses his Lavv as Erastus granteth 2. I cannot be induced to beleeve that the judges here teached by judging it is spoken contrary to Theology The end of teaching is to informe the conscience and Teachers as Teachers watch for the soule and the end of civill and politick judging is a quiet and peaceable life 1 Tim. 2. 2. the vveapons of teachers are not carnall but spirituall 2 Cor. 10. 4 5. the weapons of civill Iudges are carnall for the civill Iudge beareth not the svvord in vaine Rom. 13. 4. then these same civill judges did not both teach and judge at once they taught not as civill judges but as Priests they judged not as Priests but as civill Iudges and therefore there is no ground to say that Moses ascribeth these same acts to civill judges and Priests and Levites as if they made one Synedry for in both Texts not one word of teaching which is proper to the Priests Mal. 2. 7. Ier. 2. 8. Hos 4. 6. is ascribed to the civill Iudge and not one word of judging and condemning to death which is proper to the civill Iudge Num. 35. 24. Deut. 22. 18 19 Deut. 17. 2. 3 4 c. and 21. 19 20. 1 King 21. 11. 2 Sam. 14. 15. 1 Kings 2. 28 c. Rom. 13. 4. Luke 12. 13. 14. c. is ascribed to the Priests and Levites but the Priest or the judge are set downe by way of disjunction Deut. 17. 12. which could not be if they made one and the same judicature and therefore Iehoshaphat 2 Chron. 19. clearely distinguisheth them in two judicatures one v. 5 6 7. Another v. 8 9 10. having two sundry presidents and two sundry objects to treat about to wit the matters of Iehovah and the matters of the King 3. The place cited Exod. 18. 16. confirmeth much our opinion for Moses as a Iudge saith vvhen they have a matter they come unto me and I judge between one another This he spake as a civill Iudge and when he saith And I make them knovv the statutes of God and his lavves This he spake as a prophet for Moses was both a Iudge and a Prophet Now if all civill Iudges be such mixt persons as to teach the Stautes and Laws of God they doe this either as civill judges or as Prophets then there was reason why Malachie should have said the civill judges lips should preserve knowledge and they should seeke the Law at his mouth for if a civill judge as a Iudge teach the people and watch for their souls what marvell then he beare the sword to preserve their bodies as a Prophet and not as a Iudge and if he beare the sword as a Prophet and Teacher all Teachers must beare the sword which is against reason and Scripture and what reason is there if Moses teach as a civill judge but he may as properly be obliged in conscience to teach and so he should sin if he imploy not his talent that way as he is obliged to exercise the sword as a judge and by the contrary a Prophet as a Prophet should be obliged in conscience as kindly and per se to exercise the Sword as to preach the Gospel for nothing agreeth more kindly to the subiect then that which agreeth to it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under that reduplication as it is
Magistratibus as Vtenbogard speaketh from and under the Magistrate as the Vicars Deputies and Ambassadors of the Magistrate yea that Magistrates teach the people by the Pastors as by their Vicars then Zebadiah should more diligently care for the matters of God then Amariah as the Lord and Master should more care his own businesse then his servant should do 3. More or lesse doth not vary the nature of things then must the Magistrate Sacrifice Teach judge between the clean and the unclean minister before the Lord as the sons of Aaron and the sons of Levi but lesse diligently But what calling hath he to any of these Acts at all Hath the Lord chosen the Tribe of Iudah or the Tribe of Levi to minister before him And by the same reason the Priests Levites should do these same things but more diligently And again Amariah is to use the sword and to condemne ill doers to death But lesse diligently these be pleasant dreams 5. The Priest and Judges are companions as Moses and Aaron Ergo the one is not Master and the other servant and Deputy â—â— Erastus dreameth and they are the rather of that in divers Senats 6. But how proveth Erastus That the Levites were common Servants both to Priests and Judges For though it were so this will never subject the Priests to the Civill Iudge nor confound these two Iudicatures David 1 Chron. 26. divided the Levites and set them in their courses for service Ergo They were King Davids servants as King it followeth not except Erastus prove David did not this as a Prophet and that the Lord did not choose the Tribe of Levi. But David did it as a King and so all Magistrates may appoint offices in the House of God and call men to the Ministry by vertue of the Magistrates place But David 1 Chro. 24. distributed the Priests as well as the Levites Ergo the Priests are servants to the King as well as the Levites But the Levites are expresly 1. Chron. 26. given by office to wait on the sons of Aaron for the service of the house of the Lord for the purifying the holy things for the shew bread for the fine flour for meat offerings and for the unleavened Cakes and that which is baked in the pan and for that which is fryed and for all manner of measures and size to praise the Lord at morning and night to offer all burnt sacrifices to the Lord c. In all which no man can say they were servants to the King For then the King sacrificed by them as by his servants no Divinity is more contrary to Scripture It is true 1 Chron. 26. 30. some of the Hebronites were Officers in all the businesse of the Lord and the service of the King But that is because ver 26. they had the oversight of the spoile that the King dedicated to the house of the Lord for the building of the Temple and that is called the Kings businesse Erastus Jehoshaphat 2 Chron. 19. did not depart from Moses his Law But we read not that there were two distinct Iurisdictions commanded and instituted by God Ans If this be a good Argument all that David and Solomon did for and in the building of the Temple in the structure forme length breadth Cedars gold Altars c. of the Temple shall be without Warrant Solomon and David departed not from Moses But Moses spake nothing of the Temple and a thousand things of Divine institution in the Temple But this is our Argument Jehoshaphat did erect no new Iudicatures but restore those that had their Warrant from Moses his Law But so it is that Iehoshaphat reinstituteth two distinct Iudicatures Ergo The Lord by Moses at the beginning did institute these two distinct Iudicatures Erastus We are not anxiously to inquire what be the matters of God it is all one with what he said before ye judge not for men but for the Lord. The Rabbines the judgement of Capitall causes is the judgement of souls the scripture nameth all judgements most frequently the judgements of the Lord Deut. 1. Ye shall not fear men for the judgement is the Lords Exod. 18. The people come to me to inquire of God that is to seek judgement Therefore are the Judges Exod. 22. Psal 82. called Gods The matter of God is any cause expressed in the Law of God and proposed to the Judges to be judged and the Kings matter is that which properly belongeth to the King Ans Erastus his anxiety to inquire is little because he cannot Answer 1. The matter of the Lord cannot be all one with this Ye judge not for men but for the Lord For the matter of the King or a point of Treason to be judged is to be judged not for men but for the Lord. But the Text differenceth between the matters of Lord and the matters of the King 2. In the former 2 Chron. 19. 5. he speaketh of civill businesse but the matters of the Lord are such as concern the Law of God and the true sense and meaning thereof to be proposed to the conscience and 3. That is a common thing to all causes that in the manner of Iudging Iudges are to look that they do as men in the place of God so then as God if he were judging would do no iniquity nor respect persons nor take gifts as he saith ver 7. So neither should men do iniquity or respect persons in judgement and so is it taken Deut. 1. 17. Now this clearly is the manner of righteous judgement and Modus judicandi but the matter of Iehovah is Res judicata the thing to be judged which may be unjustly Iudged and this matter of Iehovah is not common to all causes but is contradistinguished in the Text from the matters of the King which in the manner of judging is no lesse to be judged according to the judgement of the Lord then the matters of Jehovah 4. The Chalde Paraphrast Vt inquir at instructionem Vatab. Vt consulat deum This is a false interpretation That to inquire of God is to seek judgement from God For it is to ask the Lords minde in doubtsome cases and this they asked from Moses as he was a Prophet not as he was a civill Iudge except Erastus will have the Magistrate of old to give responses and to have been Oracles by vertue of their Office which is a clear untruth Saul David Solomon Joshua though Kings did not give responsals and answers when they did go to War or were in doubtsome perplexities But did ask Counsell at the Priest and Oracle of God and the Ark 1 Sam. 15. 37. Iosh 9. 14. Iudg. 20. 27. 1 Sam. 30. 8. and 23. 2. 4. And by this the Magistrate as the Magistrate should resolve all doubts of conscience now to perplexed consciences under the New-Testament 5. The Iudges are called Gods because they are under-Deputies in the room and place of the great God not because every judgement of
himselfe also in and through Pastors as his servants as Erastus teacheth then he must consent that they threaten and rebuke himselfe 2. The proposition is false it is presumed all the subjects do consent to lawfull penall Lawes against sorcery murther incest in the generall and virtually that they shall be put in execution against themselves yet the Sorcerer will never formally consent that he himselfe be put to death though he once as a subject consented to the Law that all Sorcerers be put to death For when the penall Law against sorcery was enacted he consented to this 3. He whose consent accumulative is requisite that scandalous offenders in generall be Excommunicated but not that this or this man possibly the Magistrate himselfe he is not to be Excommunicated is most false he whose consent negative is requisite for Excommunication he is not to be Excommunicated himself the proposition is true But I assume the Magistrates consent negative is requisite to Excommunication there is nothing more false For shall that which the Church bindeth on earth not be bound in heaven except the King the Iustice or Master Constable say Amen to it on earth We say not that the Magistrates consent as a Magistrate is requisite for the Excommunicating of himselfe For though as a Magistrate he ought to give his consent to Excommucate all offenders and adde his civill sanction as one of the seven wise men of Greece said Patere legem quam ipse tuleris Yet he is not Excommunicated as a Magistrate except with Kata-baptists you condemne the Office of Magistracie as an unlawfull Ordinance but as a scandalous man 3. The old penances as they do us that service to make good that Excommunication was in the ancient Church and that Erastus wanteth the authority of the Fathers and upon his ingenuity should have been ashamed to cite them for his way so we condemne them as introductory to Popery but let Erastus forme an Argument from this and logick shall hisâ—e at it That which bringeth in old satisfactions and penance is not to be holden But Excommunication or the Excommunicating of Magistrates doth this Ergo The assumption must be proved Erastus It hath no more truth which you say that the Magistrate while he punisheth cureth not the conscience for God calleth many by tribulations to himselfe and farre more then by your Excommunication Ans I would Erastus had drawen up an Argument which seldome he doth for this it must be That which is a saving mean to gaine scandalous offenders to Iesus Christ and better then Excommunication is an Ordinance of God and the other no Ordinance But the Magistrates punishing with the sword the scandalous offenders is a saving meane to gaine scandalous offenders and better then Excommunication Ergo Ans Neither Major nor Minor proposition hath any truth at all 1. Though the Magistrates sword were a better meane to gain souls it followeth not that Excommunication is no mean The Law is lesse powerfull for gaining souls The Gospel more powerfull But the Law is not for that no Ordinance of God 2. Erastus his reason to prove that the Magistrates punishing cureth the conscience as a saving Ordinance no lesse then Excommunication must be this That by which God calleth and draweth many to himselfe is a saving mean to cure the conscience but by the Magistrates punishing of scandalous men God doth this as by other tribulations The proposition must be a propositio per se That by the Magistrates heading and hanging scourging and imprisoning of themselves as kindly and intrinsecally saving means such as rebukes promises commands excommunication are the Lord calleth men and converteth them that is false God no more useth the Sword of the Magistrate as a kindly mean of gaining souls then the sword of an oppressing Tyrant so Nebuchadnezzars oppressing of the Church of God and the Assyrians unjust wasting of the people of Israel shall be kindly means of gaining of souls because God blessed the rod to many to humble their uncircumcised heart but this is accidentall to and beside the nature of the rod but it is not accidentall to rebuking threatning promises to the preaching of the Gospel nor to Excommunication to save souls and gaine them to Christ The Gospel and all the parts of it are kindly and of themselves the power of God to salvation The Magistrates sword to Erastus must be the power of God to salvation and Christ Matth. 18. in his order of gaining an offending brothers soul by this reason must descend not ascend contrary to the order of Christ for Christ maketh the rebuking between brother and brother to be the first step of gaining an offender to Christ 2. The rebuking before two or three 3. Before the Church 4. Excommunication Now all these are spirituall means and more efficacious the second then the first the third then the second the fourth then any of them But Erastus maketh Christ in the fourth step to descend from three spirituall steps of gaining the mans soul to a fourth which is carnall to wit let him be as a heathen c. this is Caesars sword which certainly is a carnall weapon proper to the Kingdomes of this world Ioh. 18. 36. whereas rebuking exhorting promises and Excommunication are the spirituall weapons of the warfare of the Ministers of Christ 2 Cor. 10. 4 8 9. Rev. 1. 16. Esai 11. 4. Psal 45. 4. Rom. 1. 16. The exercise of the sword is a mean of edifying consequenter by removing false teachers that hindreth edification but no man can say it is a mean of it self and kindly in regard of the man against whom the sword is used Farther that which is a common mean of conserving peace in all societies and corporations even without the Church where the Gospel was never heard cannot be a kindly mean of gaining mens souls that are within the visible Church Erastus Ambrose following the example of Azariah cannot be defended in debarring Theodosius from the Sacraments Yea it was tyranicall and damnable to debarre a man desirous to hear the word who otherwayes repented and acknowledged his fault from the means of salvation It was like the Popes proud fact in trampling â—on the Emperours neck he had no cause of wrath against Theodosius but as Nicephorus saith the Emperour hated Ambrose Ans 1. If Erastus had come to Logick he refuteth here but a Law by a fact of Ambrose 2. What if Ambrose debarred Theodosius from hearing the word Ergo there is no Excommunication it followeth not 3. That he debarred Theodosius from the Sacrament after he gave evidences of his repentance to the Church is an untruth 4. That after such a cruell fact of murthering so many innocent persons of Thessalonica Theodosius should have been admitted to the Sacrament or remained a Member of the Church to eat and drink his owne damnation and not be cast out as 1 Cor. 5. no man but Erastus could say so it is cleare that
Ambrose did no more then a faithfull Pastor and Amariah and the 80. valiant Priests did in not suffering the holy things of God to be polluted Lipsius no religious man saith l. 2. c. 24. de Constantia quo facto nihil magis impium omnis veâ—us impietas habuit Beza Bucer P. Martyr Melancton Calvin Anto. Waleus Gomaras commend Ambrose And truly to kill seven thousand Citizens of Thessalonica of which the most part were innocent deserved more then Excommunication if more could be inflicted by the Church See Ambrose Epist 5. 28 29. Erastus had no reason to compare so laudable a fact to the proud fact of an abominable Pope trampling on the Emperours neck and abusing the word of God Psal 91. to defend his devilish pride CHAP. XX. Quest 16. A vindication of other Arguments for Excommunication as from sacrificing offering of gifts c. with bloody hands Erastus Esay 1. c. 52. c. 66. Ier. 6. 7. Ezech. 23. and 33. Psa 50. are alledged for Excommunication to which I answer 1. The Lord doth not condemne sacrificing for he commanded it but the abuse thereof as he that commendeth modesty to one that eateth undecently doeth condemne unmannerly eating but commandeth not abstinence from eating so Christ Mat. 6. removeth not fasting and praying but the abuse of them When the Hebrews propound two just and right things of which they approve the one and deny the other there is only a comparison understood as Hos 6. I will have mercy and not sacrifice that is rather mercy then sacrifice Prov. 8. Receive my instruction and not silver that is receive rather my instruction then silver so this is no good consequence God hateth the sacrifice of the wicked Ergo Presbyters are to be chosen who should hinder wicked men to sacrifice it followeth not for then this should be as good a consequence God hateth the prayers of the wicked Ergo Presbyters are to be chosen who should hinder men to call upon God to praise God to rest on the Sabbath to give almes except these Presbyters judge them worthy Ans In the following books Erastus refuteth some Treatises of Authors without names the books I cannot have and if he doe them right in repeating their minde faithfully I know not but I know in many things and in this very argument Erastus fancied arguments on Beza which he would reject as none of his 1. Sacrificing seemeth to be a confirming ordinance as eating the Passeover and the Communion of the Lords bodie and blood and as there was some examination of the persons for whom sacrifices were offered required in the Priests as I said before from Mat. 8. 4. Levit. 14. 3 4. 9 10 11 12. So there is Morall cleannesse required in all that are to partake of the Sacraments that presupposeth conversion and I grant the first and native consequence of these is that it was the sin and hypocrisie of the persons themselves who sacrificed first and principally But that it was not the sins of the Priests who admitted those that were no better then Sodom and Gomorrah Esa 1. 10. and had hands full of blood ver 15. is now the question I conceive that it is a taxing of the Priests and Church Rulers that is Esa 1. 10. no lesse then of civill judges and the people yea that he rather taxeth the Priests called Rulers v. 10. and that that is not as Socinians say a new commandement of Christ but an old Mat. 5. 23. Therefore if thou bring thy gift unto the Altar and there remembrest that thy brother hath ought against thee What if the Priest should know that he had killed an innocent man and beside the guilt of innocent blood that the sad hearted widow and the weeping Orphanes had any blood to charge him withall was the Priest either to offer or sacrifice for him while he were reconciled to the widdow and fatherlesse Christ addeth v. 24. Leave there thy gift before the Altar and goe thy way first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be reconciled to thy Brother and then come and offer thy gift I offer it to the consideration of the Reader if as the offerer of the gift was to leave his offering knowing himself to be under blood and to have offended his brother he was to leave his offering at the Altar so if the Priest who offered the same should also know that the same day he had offered his childe to Molech or the Devill if the Priest in this case should offer for him and if the Priest should not eat this mans sin and communicate with the bloody impenitent man in offering with him and for him the sacrifice of fools if he should not leave offering for him till he went and was reconciled with his brother for the Priest by office was to forbid such a bloodie man to offer Ergo he could not by office also offer for him Here an order prescribed that is morall perpetuall and common both to the ordinances of the Old and New Testament for Christ doth here expound the Law which was corrupted by the Pharisees 2. He doth not set down a rule concerning the Ceremoniall Law which was shortly to be abrogated but sure he hath an eye to the worship of the New Testament What if he that is come to the Table to eat and drinke with Christ and both his owne conscience and the Elders remember the widdow orphane have a just accusation against this man of late yesterday he killed their husband and father should either this man eat and drinke at this time with Iesus Christ or should the Elders give these holy things to him I thinke noâ— And to come to the argument it is true Isa 1. sacrificing is not condemned but sacrificing by such Princes of Sodom and tali modo by men of bloodie hands Ergo they were not to abstaine from sacrificing but at that time and in that condition nor doe we forbid either coming to or debarring from the Lords Table by the Elders but onely haec vice and onely while 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 first he be reconciled to his brethren and testifie that he repenteth we never heighten Excommunication to such an extremity as it doth totally unchurch the man and exclude him from the Seals simpliciter and absolutely but according to Christs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and his order and therefore the Elders are to exclude for a time just as this God will have mercy and not sacrifice that is rather mercy first mercy and first faith and repentance then sacrifice that is then afterward externall worship afterward receiving of the Passeover the Lords Supper and offering of gifts at the Altar And secondarily even in the second place in regard of time he will have all these externalls whence the man is to debarre himselfe and by the same reason the Elders as the 80. Priests did to a King 2 Chron. 26. are to debarre the man while he repent And 2. This also I will have mercy
or State a power to unjustice ad malum nâ—â—la est potestas Obj. 14. How can the Magistrate determine what the true Church and ordinances are and then set them up with the power of the sword and how can he give judgement of a â—alse Church false Ministery false Doctrine and false Ordinances and so pull them down by the sword and yet you say the Magistrate is to give no spirituall judgement of these nor hath he any spirituall power for these ends and purposes Bloody Tenent Ans The Magistrate judges of these as a Magistrate not in a Pastorall way or Ecclesiastically for then by office he should be a preacher of the Gospel but civilly as they are agreeable or contrary to the Laws of the Common-wealth made concerning Religion and in order to the civill praise and reward of stipends wages or benefices or to the bodily punishment inflicted by the sword Rom. 13. 4 5. So though the object be spirituall yet the judging is civill and the Magistrates power in setting up true or pulling downe false ordinances is objectively spirituall or civilly good or ill to speak so against the duty or agreeable to that which men owe as they are members of a civill incorporation a City or Common-wealth But the same power of the Magistrate is formally essentially in it selfe civill and of this world CHAP. XXVI Quest 22. Whether appeals are to be made from the Assemblies of the Church to the civill Magistrate King or Parliament and of Paul his appeal to Cesar FOr the clearer explanation of the question its possible these considerations may help to give light 1. There be these opinions touching the point Some exclude the Magistrate from all care of Church-discipline â— As Iesuits and Papists will have Princes not to examine what the Church the Pope and the cursed Clergy of Rome decrees in their Synods To these the Sorbonists of Paris oppose and the Parliament of France cause to be burnt by the hand of the hangman any writings of Iesuits that diminisheth the just right of the Magistrate 2. Those who in the Low-countries did remonstrate under the name of Arminians as they are called hold that the Magistrate ought to tollerate all Religions even Turcisme and Iudaisme not excepted because the conscience of man cannot be compelled Some of them were Socinians as Henry Slatius who saith right downe he that useth the sword or seeketh a Magistracy is not a Christian yea war is against the command of Iesus Christ or in any tearms to kill any saith Henry Welsingius Episcopius their chief man will have the Magistrate going no further then reall or bodily mulcts or fines Ioan. Geisteranus pronounceth it unlawfull to be a Magistrate to use the sword But all say the Magistrate ought not to use the sword against Hereticks Blasphemers Idolaters or against any man for his conscience or Religion 3. Those that think the Magistrate bear the sword lawfully yet do confine him to the defence of the halfe of Gods Law the duties of the second Table and not to these all but to such as border not directly on conscience for if some should sacrifice their children to Molech and Devils as some do the Magistrate were not to punish them it being a joynt of their Religion and a matter of conscience and all these will be found to give to the Magistrate as the Magistrate just as little as Iesuits do in the matters of Religion and that is right downe nothing except possibly the Magistrate be of their Religion only whom he Governs only as a Christian man the Magistrate hath more with these then with Papists 4. Erastus giveth all in Doctrine and Discipline both in power and exercise to the Magistrate even to the dispensing of Word and Sacraments 5. Others forsaking Erastus in a little But following him in the main deny power of order 2. Power of internall jurisdiction granteth to him all the externall government of the Church 6. We hold that the Magistrate keeps both Tables of the Law and that he hath an inspection in a civill coactive way in preserving both Tables of the Law but that he is not as a Magistrate a member of the Church but as a Christian only 2. The exercise of Discipline is one thing and the exercise of it as the modus the way of exercising of it either in relation to Ecclesiasticall constitutions or in relation to the politick and civill Laws of a Common-wealth is a far other thing 3. As the Church is to approve and commend the just sentence of the civill judge in punishing ill doers but only conditionally in so far as it is just so is the magistrate obliged to follow ratifie and with his civil sanction to confirme the sound constitutions of the Church But conditionally not absolutely and blindely but in so far as they agree with the Word of God 4. Hence there is a wronging of the Church as the Church and a civill wronging of the Magistrate as the Magistrate or of the members of the Church as such or of the members of the Common-wealth as such the former and the latter both cannot belong to one judicature No more then the failing of a Painter against the precepts of Art because he hath drawn the colours proportion and the countenance beside the samplar and the failing not against Art but against the Lawes of the King in that he hath lavished out too much gold in the drawing of the image doth belong to one judgement for the Painter as a Painter according to the Law of Art must judge of the former and the Magistrate as a Magistrate of the latter 5. An appellation is one thing and the complaint of an oppressed man is another thing or a provocation to a competent judge is one thing and the refugium the refuge and fleeing of an oppressed man to a higher power is another thing if the Church erre and fail against the Law of Christ in the matter and decree the man to be a heretick who is none and that to be heresie which is truth the oppressâ—d man in a constituted Church may have his refuge to the godly Magistrate and complain but he cannot appeal for an appellation is from an erring judge to an higher judge in eadem sâ—rie in the same nature and kinde of judicatures as from a civill Court to a higher civill Court and from an Ecclesiasticall Court to a higher as suppose the Church of Antioch judge that the Gentiles must be circumcised the godly there may appeal to the judgement of Apostles and Elders in a Councell conveened from Antioch and Ierusalem both and therefore because the Magistrate can no more judge what is heresie what truth as a Magistrate then he can dispense Word and Sacraments an appeal cannot be made to him who is no more a judge ex officio nor he can dispense the Sacraments ex officio but a complaint may be made to the Magistrate if the Church
But the King is head of the Church Ergo he maketh lawes to regulate the Family Ans The Antecedent is false if not blasphemous it is proper to Iesus Christ only Col. 1. 18. Eph. 1. 22. The King is the head of men who are the Church materialiter he is not formally as King Head of the Church as the Church and therefore we see not how this Statute agreeth with the Word of God Henric. 8. Stat. 37. c. 17. The Archbishops Bishops Arch-deacons and other Ecclesiasticall persons have no manner of Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall but by under and from the Kings Royall Majesty the onely and undoubted supream head of the Church of England and Ireland to whom by holy Scripture is given all authority and power to hear and determine all manner of causes Ecclesiasticall and to correct all vice and sin whatsoever for neither is the subject the Archbishops Bishops c. lawfull nor is the limitation of the subject lawful for Ecclesiasticall officers are the Ambassadors of Christ not of the King Obj. All Christians are to try the Spirits Ergo Much more Magistrates Ans This proveth that Christians as Christians and Magistrates as Christians may judge determine of all things that concerneth their practise and that they are not with blinde obedience to receive things Mr. Pryn cannot say that 1 Iohn 4. 1. is meant of a Royall Parliamentary or Magistraticall tryall Iohn speaketh to Christians as such But this is nothing to prove the power of the Magistrate as the Magistrate for thought the man were neither King nor Magistrate he ought to try the Spirits 1 Iohn 4. 1. The speciall objection moved for Appeals is that which Paul did in a matter of Religion that we may do in the like case but Paul Acts 25. did appeal from a Church Iudge to a civill and a heathen Iudge in a matter of Religion when he said before Festus Acts 25. I appeal to Cesar Ergo so may the Ministers of Christ far more appeal to the Christian Magistrate and that Paul did this jure by Law not by Priviledge but by the impulsion of the Holy Ghost is clear in that he saith He ought to be judged by Cesar so Maccovius so Videlius so Vtenbogardus so Erastus Ans 1. This Argument if it have nerves shall make the great Turk when he subdueth people and Churches of the Protestant Religion to be the head of the Church and as Erastus saith by his place and office as he is a Magistrate he may preach and dispense the Sacraments and a Heathen Nero may make Church constitutions and say It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to me and by this Nero by office is to excommunicate make or unmake Pastors and Teachers judge what is Orthodoxe Doctrine what not debarre hereticks Apostates and mockers from the Table and admit the worthie and Paul the Apostle must have been the Ambassador and Deputie of Nero in preaching the Gospel and governing the Church and Nero is the mixt person and invested by Iesus Christ with spirituall jurisdiction and the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven This Argument to the Adversaries cannot quit its cost â—or by this way Paul appealed from the Church in a controversie of Religion to a Nero a Heathen unbaptized Head of the Church and referred his faith over to the will judgement and determination of a professed Enemy of the Christian Church and Paul must both jure by the Law of God and the impulsion of the Holy Ghost appeale from the Church to a Heathen without the Church in a matter of Religion and Conscience then Nebuchadnezzar was head of the Church of Iudah and supreame judge and governour in all causes and controversies of Religion how can we beleeve the adversarie who doe not beleeve themselves and shall we make Domitian Dioclesian Trajan and such heads of the Church of Christ 2. It is not said that Paul appealed from the Church or any Ecclesiasticall judicature to the civill judge for Paul appealed from Festus who was neither Church nor Church officer and so Paul appealeth from an inferiour civill judge to a superiour or civill judge as is clear Acts 28. 6. And when Festus had tarried amongst them more then ten dayes he went downe to Cesarea and the next day sitting in the judgement seat commanded Paul to be brought vers 10. And Paul said I stand at Cesars judgement seat where I ought to be judged he refused v. 9 10. to be judged by Festus at Ierusalem but saith v. 11. I appeal to Cesar Now he had reason to appeal from Festus to Cesar for the Iews laid many grievous complaints against Paul which they could not prove vers 7. And it is said vers 8. That Festus was willing to doe the Iewes a pleasure and so was manifestly a partiall Iudge and though the Sanedrim at Ierusalem could have judged in point of Law that Paul was a blasphemer and so by their Law he ought to die for so Caiphas and the Priests and Pharisees dealt with Iesus Christ yet his appeal from the Sanedrim 1. corrupted and having manifestly declared their bloodie intentions against Paul 2. From a Sanedrim in its constitution false and degenered far from what it ought to be by Gods institution Deut. 17. 8 9 10. it now usurping civill businesse which belonged not to them Paul might also lawfully appeal from a bloodie and degenerating Church judicature acting according to the bloodie lusts of men against an innocent man to a more unpartiall judge and yet be no contemner of the Church this is nothing against our Thesis which is that it is not lawfull to appeal in a constituted Church from a lawfull unmixt Church Judicature to the civill Magistrate in a matter of life and death 3. Paul appealed from the Sanedrim armed with the unjust and tyrannicall power of Festus a man willing to please the bloodie accusers of Paul as is clear v. 9. And Festus willing to doe the Iewes a pleasure answered Paul and said Wilt thou go up to Ierusalem and there be judged of these things before me 3. The cause was not properly a Church businesse but a crime of bodily death and sedition I deny not but in Pauls accusation prophaning of the Temple teaching against the Law of Moses was objected to him Materialiter the enemies made the cause of Paul a Church businesse but formally it was sedition 1. It was a businesse for which the Sanedrim sought Pauls life and blood for which they had neither authority nor Law by divine Institution therefore they sought the helpe of Felix Festus and the Roman Deputies so Lysias vvrote to Felix Act. 23. 29. I perceived Paul to be accused of questions of their law but to have nothing layd to his charge worthy of death or of bonds Now it is clear the Roman Deputies thought not any accusation for the Iewish Religion a matter of death and bonds and therefore Gallio the Deputie of Achaia Acts 18. 14. saith
c. 12. Zozomen l. 7. e. 8. Theodoretus l. 5. c. 9. Historia tripartit l. 9. c. 14. say that the Emperor ordained him the Synod named him the truth is the Bishops were devided in judgement and its like they referred the matter to the godly Emperour In the mean time Athanasius Epist de solit vita Ambros l. 5. orat ad auxentium and l. 5. Epist 32. ad valentinianum Zozomen l. 6. c. 7. Concilium Toletanum III. Concilium milevitanum and divers others which I have cited elsewhere make the Emperor a Son of the Church not a Head and Lord intra Ecclesiam filium Ecclesiae non judicem non dominum supra Ecclesiam I might adde Augustin Epist 48. 50. 162. l. 1. de doctr Christ c. 18. Cyril Alexandrinus in an Epistle to the Synod of Antioch all Protestant Divines of note and learning CHAP. XXVII Quest 23. Whether the subjecting of the Magistrates to the Church and Pastors be any papal Tyranny and whether we differ not more from Papists in this then our adversaries The Magistrate not the Vicar of the mediator Christ The Testimonies of some learned Divines on the contrary answered IT is most unjustly imputed to us that we lay a Law upon the conscience of the Magistrates that they are bound to assist with their power the decrees of the Church taking cognizance only of the fact of the Church not inquiring into the Nature of the thing This Doctrine we disclaim as Popish and Antichristian It hath its rise from Bonifacius the III. who obtained from Phocas a bloody tyrant who murthered Mauritius and his Children as Baronius confesseth and yet he saith of this murtherer optimortum imperatorum vestigia sequutus he made an Edict that the Bishop of Constantinople should not be called Oecumenick nor universall Bishop but that this should be given only to the Bishop of Rome So Baronius yieldeth this tyranny was inlarged by Hildebrande named Gregorius the seventh a monster of tyrannicall wickednesse and yet by Papists he is sanctitate et miraculis clarus Baronius extolleth him these and others invaded both the swords Bishops would be civill judges and trample first upon the neck then upon the consciences of Emperors and make Kings the hornes of the beast and seclude them from all Church businesses except that with blind obedience having given their power to the beast as slaves they must execute the decrees of the Church Paul the III. the confirmer of the order of Iesuits who indicted the Councell of Trent as Onuphrius saith up braideth Charles the V. for meddling with Church businesse They write that Magistrates do not see in Church matters with their owne eyes but with Bishops eyes and that they must obey without examining the decrees of Councels and this they write of all subject to the Church Toletus in Instruct Sacerdâ—t l. 4. c. 3. Si Rusticus circa articulos fidei credat suo episcopo proponenti-aliquod dogma hereticum morâ—tur in credendo licet sit error Card. Cusanus excit l. 6. sermon obedientia irrationalis est consumata et perfectissima obedientia sicut Iumentum obedit domino Ib. sententia pastoris ligat te pro tua salute etiam si injusta fuerit Envy cannot ascribe this to us Calvin Beza yea all our writers condemne blind obedience as brutish But our Adversaries in this are more Popish for they substitute King and Parliament in a headship over the Church giving to the King all the same power in causes Ecclesiastick that the Pope usurped 2. They make the King a mixed person to exercise spirituall jurisdiction to ordaine Bishops and deprive them and Mr. Prinne calleth the opinion of those who deny Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction legislative a high word proper to God only coercive power of Christian Emperors Kings Magistrates Parliaments in all matters of Religion what in fundamentall Articles of salvation Church-government Discipline Ceremonies c. Anti-monarchicall Anti-parliamentarie Anarchicall as holden by Papists Prelates Anabaptists Arminians Socinians c. It s that which Arminians objects to us and calleth the soul heart and forme of papall tyranny But that the Magistrate is not obliged to execute the decrees of the Church without further examination whither they be right or wrong as Papists teach that the Magistrate is to execute the decrees of their Popish councels with blind obedience and submit his faith to them because he is a layman and may not dare to examine whether the Church doth erre or not is clear 1. Because if in hearing the word all should follow the example of the men of Berea not relying on the Testimony of Paul or any preacher try whether thâ—â— which concerneth their conscience and faith be agreeable to the Scriptures or no and accordingly receive or reject so in all things of Discipline the Magistrate is to try by the word whether he ought to adde his sanction to these decrees which the Church gives out for edification and whether he should draw the sword against such a one as a heretick and a perverter of souls But the former is true the Magistrates practise in adding his civill sanction and in punishing herericks concerneth his conscience knowing that he must do it in faith as he doth all his moral actions Ergo the Magistrate must examine what he practiseth in his office according to the word and must not take it upon the meer authority of the Church else his faith in these moral acts of his office should be resolved ultimaté on the authority of the Church not on the word of God which no doubt is Popery for so the warrant of the Magistrates conscience should not be Thus saith the Lord but Thus saith the Church in their decrees 2. The Magistrate and all men have a command to try all things Ergo to try the decrees of the Church and to retain what is good 1 Thes 5. 21. To try the spirits even of the Church in their decrees 1 Joh. 3. 1. 3. We behooved to lay down this Popish ground that 1. The Church cannot erre in their decrees 2. It s against Scripture and reason that Magistrates and by the like reason all others should obey the decrees of the Church with a blinde faith without inquiring in the warrants and grounds of their decrees which is as good Popery as Magistrates and all men are to beleeve as the Church beleeveth with an implicite faith so ignorance shall be the mother of Devotion who ever impute this to us who have suffered for non-conformity and upon this ground that Synods can erre refused the Ceremonies are to consult with their own conscience whether this be not to make us appear disloyall odious to Magistracy in that which we never thought â—ar lesse to teach and professe it to the world 4. Their chiefe reason is the Magistrate by our doctrine by his office is obliged 1. To follow the judgement of the Church and in that he is a servant or inslaved Qui enim
judicia aliorum sequi tenetur is non regit sed regitur adeoque servus est mancipium brutum eorum quorum judicium sequi obligatur and the Magistrate say they as such is neither to judge nor try what the Church decrees but as a Burrio or Hangman to execute that which the Church hath decreed But 1. I put it in forme and retort it thus They are servants and slaves who are obliged not to despise but to hear and obey and so to follow the judgement of the Prophets the faithfull Pastors of Christ preaching the Word of God soundly and Orthodoxly But not onely Magistrates but all within the visible Church are obliged not to despise but to hear and obey and so to follow the judgement of the Prophets the faithfull Pastors of Christ preaching the Word of God soundly and Orthodoxely Ergo Magistrates and all within the visible Church are slaves and servants But the conclusion is absurd Ergo some of the premises but the Assumption is the word of God Iudah was carried captive because they would not hear the Prophets rising early in the morning and speaking to them Also in the New Testament this is true to the second coming of Christ He that heareth you heareth me he that despiseth you despiseth me And this He that will not obey the servant of the supream Magistrate in that wherein he is a servant and holdeth forth the Lawfull commands of the supream Magistrate he will not obey the supream Magistrate The Major proposition is the adversaries the assumption is expresse Scripture let them see then to the conclusion 2. When the adversary shall answer this argument with equal strength made against preaching and hearing the word they will answer their owne argument made against Church-government 3. This argument is made against Synods Popish that cannot erre as our Protestant Divines object and therefore the adversarie is Popish here not we Thus they are servants and slaves who are obliged to follow the judgement of Councels absolutely without limitation and because they say it whether they warrant their decrees by the word of God or not that is a true Major proposition But now the assumption is most false for neither Magistrates nor any other are to follow the judgement of the Church absolutely without limitation and because they say it The other part is they are servants and slaves who are to follow the judgement of the Church and Councels with a reserve and a condition and limitation in so far as they agree with the word now the Major is false 2. He that is obliged to follow the judgement of another does not rule but is ruled true in that in which he followeth the judgement of another the Magistrate in so far as in matters of Religion that concerneth his conscience faith and practise he followeth Pastors he is not a ruler formally to those whose judgement he is obliged to follow But in civill matters he may be and is a ruler to those same for we answer to Papists who by this same argument would prove that Churchmen are not subject to the Magistrate nor to civill Laws He that is a sheep is not to rule and command his shepheard but the Magistrate is a sheep and a member of the Church and Pastors and Doctors are shepheards We answer in divers considerations a Magistrate as a Magistrate in civill things is not ruled by Pastors and Doctors but he is to rule them But a Magistrate as a member of the Church as a Christian in things that concerneth his conscience is a sheep and to be ruled not a ruler to Pastors and Doctors and so here and therefore non concluditur quod est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. The adversaries are to answer this also for if Pastors and Doctors be as such but servants under the Magistrate and if he have that same Architectonica potestas that same supremacy and headship in Ecclesiasticall matters as in civill matters to command alike in both by the same power Then 1. The Pastors and Doctors are obliged to follow his judgement without appeal or examination and they are servants and slaves and ruled and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not over the Magistrates as Christians neither over the people in the Lord. 2. The Elders as Elders are not to examine what the Magistrates as Magistrates command in Ecclesiasticall matters or in Religion they may possibly not as Elders but as as Christians judge with the judgement of discretion as all other Christians may do For Videlius Erastus and other Adversaries say the Magistrate may not command what he pleaseth for in Church matters he may command but according to the rule of the word and in civill matters according to equity justice and prudence True But 1. The Magistrate as supream head of the Church is by office to judge what government of the Church is most agreeable to the word what is sinfull Antichristian and tyrannicall and the Magistrates lips in thus judging as he is a Magistrate and not the Pastors are to preserve knowledge and both Pastors as Pastors and the people as members of the Church and as they may worship and serve God in this government or may sin are to seek the Law at the Magistrates mouth and directions for their conscience from him as from a Magistrate and not as from a Christian not from Pastors as Pastors that handle the Law And if the government as a way of serving God may be prescribed and held forth to the consciences of all by the Magistrate as the Magistrate by the same reason all the wayes of God in which the Church of Ephesus Pergamus Thyatira may so approve themselves to Christ and as he is to walk in the midst of the Golden Candlesticks and as a Magistrate he is to forbid such sins in Government as may procure the removing of the Candlestick and why may he not by the same reason hold forth to their conscience all the other parts of the Gospel If any say who can deny but the Magistrate as the Magistrate may command that which is obedience to Christ and reward it and forbid sin and punish it Ans But the Magistrate as such forbiddeth not sin as sin for then as a Magistrate he should forbid sin under the punishment of eternall wrath which he cannot do as a Magistrate he onely can forbid sin under the pain of his temporary punishment which he can inflict and as it disturbes societies and incorporations Obj. The Magistrate as the Magistrate shall not serve Christ as Mediator if he doe not command the dispensing of Word and Sacraments as they are spirituall meanes leading us to a supernaturall end and if he forbid not Idolatry and blasphemie against Christ as they are sins and Gospel sins done against Christ as Mediator Ans I utterly deny this consequence For 1. the Magistrate may serve Christ as Christ and promote and advance the Kingdome of Iesus Christ as Mediator
Deu. 17. they are not to chuse a stranger but one from amongst their brethren and men fearing God and hating coveteousnes Exo. 18. 21. Deu. 17. 15 16 17 18 19 20. and 1. 16. and that a Christian Magistrate receive power to govern in the Church I deny him to be a Governour of the Church from Christian people I see no inconvenience Suppose that a Christian woman chuse a Pagan Husband she sins in her choise and as a sinful woman chuseth a Pagan who hath no other then a Pagan conscience to be the guide of her youth and her head and to love her as Christ loved his Church and to rule her according to his marital and Husband-power in some acts of her Christian conversation Yea when Christians did fight under Heathen Emperours they gave power as all souldiers do to their Commanders to those Heathen Captains to command Christians according to their Pagan consciences for other consciences it cannot be supposed Heathen have as this Author speaketh nor do I see such an inconvenience that men as men chuse a Magistrate who is a Heathen to see not the Church as the Church but men of the Church do their duty and to punish them civilly when they omit Church duties when providence compelleth Iudah Yea when God commandeth Iudah to submit to a Babylonish or Persian King who according to his Babylonish conscience is to command them to keep the oath of God to abstain from murther yea to build again the house of God and is to punish the men of Iudah if they do the contrary Here evidently the Church is to chuse Heathen Kings who according to their Heathen consciences are to judge and punish sins against both Tables but they chuse them to adde there auxiliary power to help and desend the Church not any privative or absolute power to set up what ordinances they will Nor is it supposed that men as men may give to Indian and American Magistrates power to judge by rule of Indian consciences what is blasphemy against Iesus Christ what is apostacy from the Christian saith to Iudaâ—sme and to punish it For in that fare the Indian Magistrate is uncapable of Magistracy in those acts though essentially he be a lawfull Magistrate in other acts just as Christian men and Saints by calling may make a Christian Corinthiaâ— amongst themselves their Magistrate and yet he cannot judge whether Tiâ—ius the Physiâ—ian in Corinth hath poysoned Sempronius as he hath a Christian conscience but not a medicinall conscience to speak so or the skill and art of a Physiâ—ian to know what is poyson what not yet did men as men create this Christian Magistrate to judge punish murthers and poysoning of Christians 2. Let us also turn the Tables the Author cannot deny but Ten thousand Christians and Indians half of each side may come to be one civil incorporation they create with common consent a Christian Magistrate over themselves this they do as a society of men The Indians worship their God in that society by offering their children to the Devil and this is their Indian conscience for it is not to be supposed that an Indian can worship his God with other then an Indian conscience By this Authors way Indians and Christians gave to this Christian Magistrate to judge of this Indian and bloody worship with a Christian conscience for it is supposed he can judge with no other conscience I demand whether or not this Magistrate be obliged to punish such horrid shedding of innocent blood If he be he is set over this incorporation to bear the sword of the Lord and with a Christian conscience to judge and punish Indian consciences Is not this as great an inconvenience as what he objecteth to us Besides that according to this way he must not punish the killing of the children to the Devil why this is against the will of the meek Saviour in whom the Christian Magistrate believes to persecute an Indian for his conscience as this Author thinketh Now it is no lesse an Indian conscience worship and no murther to offer an innocent child to the Indian God then it was to the Jews to offer an innocent Bullock or a Ram to Jehovah Obj. But God hath forbidden in the Law of nature to kill infants to God upon any pretence Ans In the Law of nature God hath forbidden all false worship 2. The Law of nature hath forbidden to offer any blood to God that is the Law of nature will never warrant us to offer in a whole brunt offering an innocent Beast to God created for the use of man and it should be against the Law of nature to kill Beasts for any religious use or for any use except to be food or medicine for man Except God in a positive Law had commanded whole burnt offerings and offering of Beasts to God so the Law of nature forbids Indians to kill infants but they tell you there is a positive Law of their God and in conscience they are obliged to kill their children to this God and you must convince their conscience that this is murther not right worship by reason and light of truth not with a club and force of sword which hath no influence upon the conscience 3. It followeth not that God hath subjected God Christ Heaven the Spirit to naturall men for an Indian Magistrate remaining an Indian never received power from mem as men nor from God to judge of Christian worship yea Indian Magistrates as Indians are uncapable of judging or punishing what is against Christ Heaven the Spirit and yet they are Lawfull Magistrates for their ignorance of Christ excludeth them from having any such formal power what Magistraticall power they have which they cannot put forth in acts is not to a purpose for this power which they cannot exercise shall never subject Christ Heaven the Spirit to the consciences of naturall men or Indian Magistrates this consequence therefore should have been proved not presumed as a truth 4. He saith If any Church should arise amongst those who have Indian Magistrates Christ should betrust the Indian civill power with his Church I answer This is non-consequence also for the state of heathenship in the Indian should exclude him from any such trust if a Church arise they are to be under the Indian Magistrate while God in his providence free them from under him that they may chuse a Christian Magistrate who may be a nurse-father to them 5. The Lord be trusteth his Church to the civil power as an auxiliary power not to exercise any magistraticall power over the Church and over their conscience but only for the Churches good and for their conscience These would be distinguished a governour of or over the Church 2. A Governour in the Church 3. A Governour for the Church neither Christian nor Heathen Magistrate is a Governor of the Church or over the Church An Heathen Magistrate may be a Governour in the Church giving to
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
is not now an ordinance of God necessarie if any burne Incense to it these who are by authoritie obliedged to remove it and doth not remove it they doe morally and culpably scandalize Hence we see it is foolish and vaine that some say such as Hooker D. Forbes D. Sanderson and Lyndesay pretended Bishop of Edinburge and Mr. Paybodie That as Rome and Corinth the Church had not past her determination upon eating and not eating nor made any Church lawes upon these things indifferent and therefore to eat or not to eat were matters of every private mans choise But it is not the like case with our Ceremonies for they remaine no longer indifferent but are necessarie to us after that the Church hath now made a commanding law upon them and so the scandall that ariseth from our dutie of obedience to lawfull authoritie is taken and not given I answer it is most false that eating and not eating in case of scandall was under no law in the Church of Rome and Co rinth For these most indifferent acts in their use and cloathed with their Circumstances when where and before what persons were under the unalterable law of nature as destroy not him with thy meat for whom Christ died a law which as the course of conformitie saith well cannot be dispenced with by no power but Gods And Paul proveth by stronger arguments to eat in the case of Scandall was not indifferent but simply evill Then all the Prelates Canons on earth can afford as Rom. 14. by eight Arguments as we have seen that it fighteth against Charitie v. 15. Now walkest thou not charitably 2. It is a destroying of him for whom Christ died and so murther 3. Contrary to Christs love who died for that weake brother 4. It maketh Religion and Christian Libertie to be evill spoken of v. 6. c. It is a sham then to say that eating or not eating was indifferent because free from any ty of a Church Canon seeing eating before a weake brother is under the ty of unanswerable Arguments taken from the law of nature and Gods Canons written in the heart forbidding under the pain of Goa's anathema and curse heavier then the Church anathema that we should for meat destroy him for whom Christ died and so are the Canon-makers and Lords of Ceremonies under a curse if they for crossing kneeling surplice destroy him for whom Christ died or command him to be destroyed by the practice of Ceremonies 3. If this be a good reason the Church of Rome and Corinth might have made such Ceremonies as these Notwithstanding the eating of meates which some suppose to be forbidden by Gods law be a killing of him for whom Christ died and against Charity and a reproaching of our Christian liberâ—ie yet it seemed good to the holy Ghost and to us the Prelates of Rome and Corinth to command eating of such meats before weake ones for whom Christ died But certainly Paul would never have commandâ—d in a Canon that which he writeth in Canonicall Scripture to be a murthering of him for whom Christ died and that which he would not practise himself to the worlds end so long as it standeth in the case of indifferencie as he saith of eating of fleshes conceived by some weake ones to be against Gods law 1 Cor. 8. v. last The Pope himselfe would nor dare in conscience to practise any of his owne Canons even though they were yet not Canonically commanded or forbidden Paul would not dare to put a law upon the Romans or Corinthians to eat or not to eat meats before the weake but commandeth not eating in the case of scandall 4. Idolatrie is ever idolatrie saith the course of conformitie and so scandall being sinne it cannot cease to be sinne because superiours commandeth it 5. Though Apostolick authoritie being meerly divine should command that which is in it self murther and was â—urther before it be Canonically commanded which I think also is a false hypothesis yet it shall never follow that humane authoritie or Ecclesiastick authoritie can command scandall which is spirituall murther For if Ecclesiastick authoritie may command murther they may command idolatrie for active scandalizing is as essentially murthering of one for whom Christ died as to worship an idoll is essentially idolatrie Therefore Master Sydserfe pretended Bishop of Gallâ—way being straited with this argument sayd Though humane authoritie cannot invert the nature of things or make spirituall murther to be no murther yet they can by a Church Canon put the mindes of people in such a change as now they are not in the hazard to be justly scandalized for a scandall sayd the Prelate is ens rationis no reall thing but a fiction of reason the nature of it being in the apprehension of the ignorant and blind who are scandalized and a law may remove this ignorance when it giveth light and sheweth the expediencie of things indifferent To which I answered you may call idolatrie if you please and all sinnes fictions of reason but not only doth scandall given proceed from ignorance and blindnesse of the apprehension of the partie scandalized but also from the unseasonable practising of a thing which is no wayes necessarie in the worship of God The course of confirmitie saith well He that denieth that there is any scandall is like one who could not see the wood for the trees the walking of Diogenes is meetest for a Zeno who against all reason denyeth that there is any motion We may hence judge what to say of D. Forbes his Answer to the place 1 Cor. 9. Who saith that Paul was under no Ecclesiasticall law not to take wages and therefore in not taking wages he was not a contemner of Ecclesiasticall authoritie but we are under a Church law to practise the Ceremonies and yet we refuse them I answer If then the Church of Corinth had commanded Paul in their Canons to take stipend for preaching he was obliedged to take stipend yet he proveth that it was not lawfull for him as the case of scandall then stood to take wages v. 18. he should abuse his power in the Gospell and v. 19. 20 21. he should not have becommed all things to all men to save some and these things had been sinfully scandalous if as the case was then Paul for a penny of wages which he might have wanted having no familie to provide for should have layd a stumling block before many And the Doctor â—aith No humane power can compell a man to doe that which he cannot doe except inevitably he give scandall The Doctor addeth The Apostle teacheth not that to take stipend was unlawfull or of it selfe scandalous yea he taught it was lawfull and that they should not be scandalized thereat because Christ hath ordained that he who serveth at the altar should live upon the Altar but you teach that the Ceremonies are unlawfull I Answer 1. In this argument of Scandall we
names and most superstitious and cannot be used in a religious state I grant we may not term our Jehovah Jupiter or Baal nor Christ Mercurius though he be the word of Gods mind to us for God teacheth us other words and language in his Word The truth is that learned noble Lord said well and judiciously all the indifferencie in the world lyeth in our understandings and the darkenesse thereof but there is none in the things themselves or actions which are still either unlawfull or necessarie And this is most true in actions morall and humane The Church putteth indifferencie on nothing there a necessitie in respect of our darknesse many be scandalized at things which seeme not necessarie to them yet are they in re in themselves necessarie But conformists object That the very will of the Church Act. 15. made things indifferent before the act now to become necessarie if then the Church may take away indifferencie she may give also But I answer The antecedent is most false Junius Calvin Beza Bullinger Brentius Pomeranus Marloret and the text clearly saith by the law of Nature these were scandalous So Origen thinketh to eat blâ—oà was scandalous And Strabo saith the heathen in their sacrifice dranke blood Yea saith Tertullian the heathen dranke mens blood and Augustine saith they forbade these for a time in the case of scandall that the ancient Synogogue might be buried with honour Yea Ireneus Tertullian and Cyprian will have these drawne to a spirituall sense that they should abstaine from Idolatrie shedding of blood and fornication And the Jesuit Lorinus saith this was a positive Law which without the case of scandall doeth not strictly abolish Cajetanus Fornication by Gods law was forbidden the other things in the Canon were forbidden to gratifie the Jews Philippus Gamethaeus a Sorbenist saith they were forbidden to nourish concord betwixt Jew and Gentile for the infirmitie of the Jewes 2. That the will of the Councell made them not necessarie whereas before the act they were indifferent is cleare 1. It had then been needlesse to discusse the matter by Scripture 2. To alledge the holy Ghost as author of the Synod It seemed good to the Holy Ghost c. if the bare will of men had made them necessâ—rie But saith Paybodie Any good thing may become an occasion of evill by accident and through our fault the Word condemneth not occasions of ill by accident but such only as are occasions of evill and in themselves evill things indifferent are not in themselves evill Ans All occasions whether ill in themselves or indifferent are occasions of sinne by accident and through our fault who abuse them but all occasions because occasions and not because evill are forbidden when as they are not necessarie and this is Gods argument to prove that the Jewes are not to marry with the Canaanites for saith the law they will turne away your heart after their Gods to send abroad a goaring oxe to seeke his food hath no sinne in it save only it may occasion the killing of men and the building of houses without battlements and the going by the doore of the whoore or comming neere her house are not of themselves ill but only forbidden under this reduplication because they are occasions of ill sinnes as sinnes are forbidden and as occasions of sinnes they are also new sinnes having a distinct illegalitie and guiltinesse in them from this that they occasion sinne and Gods law as all Divines reach forbiddeth sinne and all occasions of sinne Drunkennesse is both forbidden as intemperancie and also as an occasion of lust and of speaking perverse things as is evident Pro. 23. 33. For then the spirit of Gods argument were null to disswade from drunkennesse as he doth in these woâ—ds Thine eye shall behold strange women and thine heart shall utter perverse things Now we can shew that many wayes Ceremonies occasion sinne as 1. they trimme and decore a Church for harlot lovers from Rome forbidden Jer. 2. 33. Suarez Franciscus de sancta clara Gretserus and other Papists for these werein love with the Church of England 2. They occasion dissention in Gods house and are contrary to peace Ps 34. 14. Heb. 12. 19. Rom. 12. 18. and so to be rejected 3. They beare false witnesse of Poperie which we disclaime 4. They are against the spirituall worshiping of God and lead us backe to the carnall commandements and beggerly rudiments of the law from the Gospell against the word of God Joh 4. 24. Gal. 4 9 10. Heb. 7. 16. Heb. 9. 8. 9. Gal. 3. 25. 26. Gal. 4. 1. 2. Coll. 2. 20. They are torches in day light and vaine and uselesse 5. They bring us under bondage to men contrary to the Apostle Col. 2. 20. and to the ordinances of men and under the power of things 1 Cor. 6. 12. 6. They are against our Christian libertie They answer especially Paybodie and D. Forbes that Christian libertie is not restrained by doing or not doing a thing indifferent for so there should be no lawes made at all by the Church concerning things indifferent but Christian libertie not hurt if 1. the Ceremonies be free to the conscience and not made necessarie 2. If they be not made necessarie to salvation 3. If they be holden alterable by mans authoritie Ans The question is perverted for we question not if the use of things indifferent lay a bond on Christian libertie but if the will of authoritie can make a law of things indifferent when there is no intrinsecall necessitie in the things themselves when necessitie of edification layeth on a tye Christian libertie is not indeed restrained for God then layeth on a bond 2. Externall eating of meats and observing of dayes is a part of the libertie wherewith Christ hath made us free Coll. 2. 21. Eat not touch not taste not men eat not meat with their minde or conscience but with the teeth of their body and to such externall eating men are dead with Christ as touching externall observation thereof and Paul Gal. 2. 19. as dead to the Law living to God and crucified with Christ is freed from such Judaizing as Peter fell into but that Judaizing did not bind Peters conscience neither was it repute of him as necessarie to salvation as he had taught Act. 10. And the false Apostles pressed Circumcision not as tying the conscience or as necessarie for salvation but Gal. 6. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. only that they may not suffer affliction for the crosse of Christ and yet to be circumcised externally without necessitie of conscience before God crossed directly the libertie wherewith Christ had made them free Gal. 5. 1. and 1 Cor. 9. Have we not power to lead about a wife and sister aswell as others Yet if the Prelates at Corinth should have made an act forbidding Church-men to marry though they had esteemed not
and such meats before a weake Iew for feare to scandalize him for whom Christ died But this later is untrue for by the law of nature and a perpetuall law Paul would never for meat offend his brother the law of naturall Charitie will dictate this to us without any positive mandate we are not for a mâ—â—thfull of meat the losse whereof is so small to put the soule of our brother to so incomparable a hazard as to be losed Ans These meats Rom. 14. and 1 Cor. 8. 10. were then indifferent but they are not so now when the Gospell is fully promulgate for we may not now to abstaine from Meats forbidden in the Ceremonial law for feare to offend a weake Iew for our abstinence should harden them in their â—â—beliefe that Christ is not yet come in the flesh To make Temples and houses dedicated to Saintâ— as indifferent now as meats were then and the argument were concludent But to demolish Churches and remove their physicall use now were as Iudaicall as to forbeare to eat Swines flesh We are not to deprive our selves of the physicall use of 〈…〉 of this or this meat as thinking we are bound by any law of God to forbeare the use thereof and especially we are not to doe it as conceiving we are under the tye of a law given to the Iewes whereas we are under no such tye or law at all But the disusing of Temples dedicated to Saints that the Adversaries plead for Deut. 7. is a totall renouncing of all use of them the places they alledge from the Ceremoniall law doth conclude it for the Temples silver and gold of the Idols of Canâ—an were altogether uselesse to Israel It was Achan's sinne that he tooke the Babilonish garment and the wedge of Gold for any use civill or religious though he should have bestowed these for any religious use or the reliefe of the poore and indigent yea though it was scandalous to none he having taken these privately and by theft yet the very taking of them was a curse to him and the whole Camp of Israel for the totall abandoning of all use whatsoever of these houses Gold and Silver which in themselves and by the law of Creation were physicall and in regard of that naturall use they had from their Creator to supply our necessitie can have its rise from no other totall and compleat cause but from the sole positive will of God discharging his people of the whole use of these creatures at all as if they had never been created for the use of man whether their use should be scandalous to others or not scandalous But by the law of nature which I grant saith Thou shalt not scandalize nor murther the soule of him for whom Christ hath died The Romans Rom. 14. and the Corinthians 1 Cor. 8 were forbidden the eating of fleshes forbidden in Moses law But with these two restrictions 1. they were forbidden not all eating of these meats in private but only in the presence of a weak Iew and for the conscience of others in the case of scandal 1 Cor 10 28 29. 2 They were not by the law of nature that inhibites scandall forbidden the totall use of these meats in any case so as they should make these meats utterly uselesse to themselves or to any others As the Iewes were forbidden to make use of the Canaanitish Idols Gold and money And of the Cattell of the Amalekites either secretly or openly either in the case of scandall given to others or not given And Achan payed deare for his Babilonish garment and his wedge of Gold though he tooke it by theft Ob. 2. But the reason of the law is the soule of the law Now the reason of the Law Deut. 7. 25. why God forbade his people to take the Gold or Silver of the graven image is lâ—st thou be ensnared therein But this reason holdeth under the Now Testament and is moral and perpetuall The very matâ—riall house dedicated to Saints and Idolâ— by Papists is a snare to our soules if we shall worship God in them or if we shall name the Church from Cutbert Giles or the like except we would say as Papists doe that we are not now under the New Testament so much â—â—clined to Idolatrie as the people of the Iewes were of old Ans The halfe-reason or incompleat morall ground of the law is not the soule of the law But you must take in all the reasons the words of the text are these Thou shalt not desire the silver and gold that is on them nor take it to thee lest thou be insnared therein for it is an abomination unto the Lord thy God v. 26. Neither shalt thou bring an abomination into thine house lest thou be a cursed thing like it Now what made that Gold an abomination to the Lord more then all the gold of the earth it is of it selfe the good and usefull creature of God no lesse then all the gold of the earth nothing made it an abomination to God but if we look to the originall cause there was a positive free command of God forbidding Israel to covet or use that Gold The Canaanites themselves by the law of nature might lawfully have melted that same very Gold and made use of it without sinne 2. It is not a good reason Such a law had a morâ—ll and perpetuall reason Ergo the law it selfe is perpetuall and morall It followeth only Ergo the moralitie of that law is perpetuall For all the Ceremoniall laws had a morall and perpetuall reason As the shadows had a moral substantiall ground in Christ the bodie of all shadowes but it doth not follow therefore the shadows and Ceremoniall law in the letter must bee perpetuall Very often in the booke of Leviticus there is no reason given of the Ceremoniall laws But be ye holy I am the Lord that sanctifies you This is a morall and perpetuall reason that endureth to the end of the world yet it is no due consequence therefore all these shadowes and Ceremonies shall indure to the end of the world The reason is because it is the sole positive will of God that maketh a temporarie concatenation between not eating blood and not being cruell and between sacrificing and being holy and yet not being cruel is perpetuall not eating blood temporarie 3 If things indifferent as the eating of flesh before a weak Jew Rom. 14. be a snare to my owne soule and to the soules of others I am to abstaine from these and the like But that I must abstaine from the totall use of any creature that God has made usefull for the life of man by the law of creation as Israel was to abstaine from the cattell of the Amalakites and to stamp in powder and make altogether uselesse the Gold and Silver of the heathen Idol-Gods is altogether unlawfull and a very Judaizing and it s to make as Paul saith Jesus Christ of no effect Object
according to the places cited by our godly Brethren of the contrary minde except the Churches were first purified in some Ceremonial way as God prescribeth that the spoyle of Midian be purified which our Brethren cannot say except we would make our selves debtors to the whole Law for so the law was Num. 31. and so Paul doth reject Circumcision Gal 5. 3. and if it be said the necessitie of the poore requireth that these Temples be not loosed but imployed for the poore as David in point of necessitie eat the Shew-bread I answer 1. The poore as the case was Rom. 14. might eat Swines flesh and so ruine him for whom Christ died which is absurd for their necessitie might require it But certaine it is Davids necessitie was layd on him by the sixt Commandement as an act of mercie in the point of starving and if any poore Iew were in the like case I conceive it should have been scandalizing to that Jew to eat Swines-flesh before another weake Iew. Providentiall necessitie may make that which is a sinfull scandalizing to bee obedience to the sixt Commandement but the will of Superiours can make no such providentiall change as the D of Aberdeene doe dreame But if the necessitie bee lesse then the Necessitie in point of sterving it could justifie the poore Iewes eating of meats conceived to be against the law of God as the case was Rom. 14. But that the Church or house dedicated to a Saint should have no physicall use in the worship of God to defend us from the injuries of Sunne and Heaven and yet have the same use in common for the poore to dwell in wanteth all shadow of reason for how can it be proven that the same physicall use in the worship is unlawfull and yet out of worship is lawfull except there intervene some Ceremoniall and religious purging of the house by fire or some other way which were Iudaical under the New Testament for the necessity of the poor is not like the necessity of Davids eating of Shew-bread It s certain that the necessity of disusing the creature in a Physical usage in the worship must have a warrant in Scripture as well as the using of the same in the same usage must have the like warrant Object 5. But Bels are more hurtful to the souls of Gods people who are scandalized by them then they are useful for the tymous and seasonable convening of the people and therefore they may well be abolished being lesse necessary and necessary onely ad melius esse for the better ordering of the Worship of God and not simply necessary for the being of the Worship Now as the Lord our God will have a lesser necessity to yeeld to any greater a bodily necessity to give place to a soul-necessity the soul being more excellent then the body as is clear in that God would have his people to dispence with the lesser losse of the spoyl of the Amalakites of their Idols gold and silver that the greater necessity may stand to wit their not being allured nor their teeth put a watering and their heart to a lusting after the Idols of Canaan so would he have us to abolish the Saints Temples the gold of Popish Images the Bels that are lesse necessary seeing the Sun may teach as well as the Bell for eschewing soul-dangers in laying stumbling blocks both before our own souls and others Answ 1. It is denyed that Bells which have a necessary use though onely for the better ordering of the worship of God are any active objects of scandal and the meer passive scandal taken at any thing not indifferent but physically necessary and so necessary that without it sinful inconvenients of either wearying in the service of God or sinful neglect should follow is no sinful scandal given but meerly taken 2. There be two necessities of things one natural and first in that regard another religious and in that regard secondary the former necessity doth alwayes stand except God remove it by some posteriour commandment It s necessary that Adam and Evah eat of all things that God created for eating God I grant may remove this necessity in some and command either Adam to fast for a time or not to eat of the tree of Knowledge So say I warning by Bells hath a physical necessity the use of the Temples in worshipping hath the like necessity so have Gold and Silver a necessity god onely either by a Commandment or by an exigence of providence that standeth to us as in the case of a scandal for a command can remove the physical necessity and inhibite Israel to use such and such Gold as have been in use in the Heathen Idols and may forbid to perform an act of obedience to an affirmative command in the case of scandal as he may forbid Paul to take wages for Preaching the Gospel though Paul have some natural necessity of taking wages But the Church without a higher warrant from God hath no power to restrain us in the necessary use that God hath given us Make Bells and Temples as indifferent and unnecessary as some meats were Rom. 14. and I shall yeeld the Argument 3. That the Lord our God will have a bodily necessity as the smaller to yeeld to a soul-necessity as the greater is a ground not so sure but it ought to have been proved except by a soul-necessity you mean a necessity of saving the soul and not sinning against God and oppose it to a meeâ— bodily necessity including no sin in it then I shall grant the Assertion That the one necessity iâ— greater then the other But otherwise Cateris paribus other things being alike I conceive it is contradicted by Iesus Christs saying Matth. 12. cited out of Hosea Chap. 6. I will have meâ—â—â— and not sacrifice And here we must determine the case of scandal to the soul from the exsuperance of necessity to the body and life The case falleth out David and his followers are at the point of starving for hunger it may be a question if the presenâ— necessity be so great there being no bread for them but the Shew-bread which by a Ceremonial Law of God onely the Priests should eat If any of the followers of David out of a groundlesse scrupulosity of conscience should have taken Pauls Argument Rom. 14. and said to David I will starve rather ere I eat this bread for a divine law forbidâ— me and if thou eat of it it shall be a scandal to â—â— and wilt thou for bread destroy him for whom Christ died The Apostle Paul would not for so smal a thing as to eat swines flesh before a weak Jew in the case Rom. 14. destroy the soul of one for whom Christ died by laying before him a stumbling block by his unseasonable and scandalous eating I think if Scripture cannot possibly be contrary to Scripture this doubt might easily be removed by answering the case was not alike with David in his hunger and
myster incarnat disp 37. Sect. 1. n. 1. 2 3. d Leo. 1. Serm. 7. De nativita abstinendum ab ipsa specic offiâ—ij e Salmeron in 1 Tim. 2. disp 8. f Alex. alâ—n 3. p. q. 30. memb 3. art 3. sect â— g Albertus dist 9. art 4. h Bonavent art 1. q. 2. ad 1. in contrarium i Martuinus de ajala tract de trad 3. par k Abulens Deut. 4. q. 4 5. l Carol. lib. 2. cap. 25. m Ibid. n Carol. l. 4. cap. 27. a Carol. l. 4. cap. 27. b Carol. l. 1. cap. 2â— c L. 4. c. 10. l. 3. c. 21. d L. 3. c. 2â— e Symson treats of the worshipping of Images pag. 50 51. f Concilium Eleherio cap. 36. Placuit in Ecclesiis picturas non esse debere ne quod colitur aut adoratur in parictibus pingatur g Caâ—us line 5. cap. 4. h Surjus 1 Tom. of concell an in can 36. cont Eliber i Sozomen l. 5. c. 20. b Nicephor hist l. 11. cap. 43. c Prov. 2. â—0 Eph. 5. 1. â— Thes 1. 16. 2 Thess 3. 6 7. â— Cor. â—â— Phil. 3. 17. 2. Tim. 3. 4. Sitting the only convenient gesture What is occasionall in the first supper 2. Arg. Christ sate at the first Supper Of kneeling part 2. pag. â—â— Part. 2. Page 62. Sitting a signe of our co-heireship Part 2. pag. 187. Paybodie p. 268. 269. Disputer against kneeling Arg. 1. c. 6. A signe of our coheirship may well consist with our inferiority in worshipping Christ 4. Arg. Arg. 8. Ceremonies fail against the authority of Rulers a Pareus Com. in Rom. 13. dub v. 5. How civill positive laws binde not the conscience b Pareus Com. in Rom. c. 13. Dub. 7. c Richard Field on the Church 4. book c. 33. d Gerson de vita spir part 3. lect 4. e Greg. de val to 1. disp 7. punct 6. Sect. â— f Suarez tom de legibus lib. 3. cap. 22. h Aquin. 22 q. art 1. ad 3. i Suar. Deoper 6. dierum Tract 3. disp 5. Sect. 1. num 2. k Ferra. câ—â—â— Genteâ— cap. 21. l Conrad 12. q. 20. art 1. A twofold goodnesse in things The will of authority cannot treate goodnesse in things m â— F. de conâ—â—iâ— Prineip Quâ—d Principi placuit legis babet vigorem est verum de placito justo n Carduba in sum quest 18. part 1. o Thom. 22. q. 104. art 6. p Soto de inst leg 1. 4. 6. art 4. q Medinâ— C. de paenitentia tract 4. de jujun c. 7. r Adrian quod 6. art 2. Å¿ Navar. in sum cap. 23. num 55. t Driedo l. 3. De liber Christ c. 3. ad 5. u Castro lib. 1. de lege pena c. 4. x August De Baptis l. c. 6. y Cajet verbo pracepti transgressio z Silvest verbo praecept q. 9. a Angelus verb. lex 11. 3. b Corduba q. 189. part 2. rat 1. 2. c Gers de vit spir lect 4. c. 7. Nulla lex sâ—reuda est tanquam necessaria ad salutem quâ— non est de jure Divino d Durand l. 2. d. 44. q. 5. numb 6. Si Papa praeciperet Monacho ea quae sum contra suam professionem non motus aliqua necessitate vel utilitate Ecclesiae sed sola voluntate de hoc constaret Abbas praeciperet contrarium obediendum esset Abbati non Papae e Suarez Tom. de leg lib. 3. c. 24. f Greg. de valent tom 2. disp 7. q. 5. punct 6. Sect. 1. Humane lawes oblige onely in so farre as they agree with the Law of God g Medina tract De jejunio cap. 7. h Almain Moral c. 12. i Gers uti supra k Vasquez 12. disp 158 c. 4. num 32. Praecipient is intentio non facit praeceptum habere majorem vel minorem obligandi efficaciam sed necesfiâ—as diguitas vel utilitas corum quae praecipiuntur l Driedâ— de lib. Christ l. 3. c. 3. ad 5. m Pareus com in Rom. 13. v. 5. Dub. 7. Conclus 5. n Calvin inst l. 3. c. 19. Sect. 15. 16. o Beza in Notis in Rom. 13. A twofold consideration of humane laws p Iason q Baldus in rubrica Fâ—de acquirendis bâ—reditatibus nu 23. seq r Bellarm. tom 1. cont 5. l. 3. c. 11. s Vasquez tom 2 in 12. disp 152. cap. 2. t Valent. tom 2. disp 7. q. 5. punct 6. v Doctor Iackson on the Creed lib. 2. cap. 4 How inferiour rulers are subordinate to God in commanding x Bellar cont Barclai cap. 3. Bonâ— sensu Christus dedit Petro potestatem faciendâ— de peccato non peccatum de non peccato peccatum Humane authority is not the nearest or instrumentall cause of Lawes y Stapleton de statu Eccles cont 5. q. 7 art 2. z Field on the Church booke 4. c. 33. a Gerson b Almain oper moral cap. 12. c Decius namcoâ—â—upiscen lect 1. d Mencha questionum illustrium l. 1. c. 19. num 1. e Iunius animadv f Doctor Iackson 16. g Sutluvius de Presbyter c. 11. 66. Sic non magis Ecclesiae Synodo logâ—s scribere promulgaâ—e liceres quam populâ— subditis sibilâ—geâ— coâ—deâ—â— prâ—ter sui principis Magistratus voluntatem si nimirum Christus esset externâ— politiae legislator h Bellar. de interp verbi lib 3. cap. 4. A double obedience due to Rulers objective and subjective i 1 Thes 2. 13. Esa 1. 2. â—er 1. 2. Ezek. 2. 7. Objective obedience no more due to Rulers then to equalls Ibid. p. 259 260. False rules of obedience to Rulers proposed by Doctor Jackson refuted 3. Rule a Hooker Churchpolicy 5. book p. 197. 198. b Suarez de Relig. tom 4. lib. 4. tract 9. cap. 15. Considerare â—rgâ— aporteâ— aâ— secluso precepto res sit utraque ex parte probabilis tunc universaliter verum erit adjuncto praecepto obediendum esse c Thomas Sanches Jesuita Cordubensis in Decalog tom 2. l. 6. c. 3. n. 3. Quado subditus dubius est an res precepta sitlicita nec ne tenetur obedire exeusatur abpreceptun superioris d Ignat. loyola cat Jesuit lib. 2. cap. 17. 18. Prudentia non obedicntis sed imperantis est Item non est dignus nomine obedientis qui legittimo superiori non cum voluntate judicum suum submittit e Greg. dâ— Valentia to 3. dis 7. q. 3. punct 2. Subditus non suo judicio atque authoritati nititur superioris f Vasquez 12. q. 19 disp 66. c. 9. num â—1 g Salas 12. q 21. tract 8. disp unic sect 17. num 152. The good nesse of obedience to Rulers cannot countervalue the evil in the manner of doing with a doubting conscience and so sinfully i Vasquez in 12. â—om 1. disp 68. cap. 2. k Câ—ssian collat 17. cap. 17 l Chrysâ—â—â— oper imperf fi ejus â—it opus homil 9. cap. 7. m Ambr. lib. iâ—de offic cap. 30. n Aquin. 12. q. 19. art 7. o
Bellar. de Pont if Rom l. 4. cap. 16. Quiounque potest precipere polest etiam actum indifferentem suo precepto facere necessarium per se bonum p Silvest in voce abrogat q Tartar in moral cap. 5. 7. r River catho orth tom 1. q. 9. tract 2. q. 2 Å¿ Field l. 4. cap. 33. t Pareus u Soto l. 1. de just q. 6. art 3. x Sylvest Verbâ— in obedientia in â—iâ—c y Jo Eselius in ezpos Decall praecept 4. cap. 36. z Cap. 2. De constit Rem quae culpa caret in damnum vocari non convenit Other Arguments for the obligation of humane Laws Answered a Ambros b Anselm c Theodoretus in loc Rom 13. d Chrysos in Rom. 13. hom 23. e Navar. in sum cap. 23. numb 54. f Felinus cap. 1. de sponsalib n. 18. g Taraqu Prefat de utroque retractu n. 74. What it is to resist the Ruler h Lodovi Merat par 1. tract de leg disp 1. Sect. 13. i Merat ib. Sect. 2. Why men cannot make laws that layeth a tye on the Conscience That Christ hath a spirituall kingdom not only in the power of preaching the word but also in the power of the keys by discipline That there is such a divine ordinance as Excommunication Objections against excommunication removed Praelee in Math. 18. ver 15. page 144. We mayrebuke our brother in a prudent way 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Erastus Mat. 18. Object 4. The church Mat. 18. is not the Civill Sanedrim How Publicans were excluded from the Temple a Dâ—uâ— 23. 1 2 3 4 5. I'sa 79. 1. Lam. 1. 10. b Lev. 25 44. Lev. 26. 45 2 Kin. 16. 3. 2 Kin. 17. 8. 11. â— Chro. 16. 35. 2 Chro. 33. 2 9. Neh. 5. 8 9 Psa 9. 19. Psal 10. 16. Psal 33. 10. Psal 44. 2. Psa 80. 9. Ier. 10. 2. Ezech. 23. 30. Eze. 25. 7. Ioel 2. 7. Obad. v. 15 Miâ— 5. 15. Hag. 2. 22. Zach. 1. 15. Theophylact in Math. 18 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Object 8. Beza de de Presbyterio excom p. 60. Joseph de bello Iudaiâ— l. 1. c. 4. Pharisaei omnia pro arbitrio administrabant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lucian dialo 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So doth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Num. 11. 28. signifie Binding and loosing acts judiciall a Camero prelect in Mat. 16. b Vatablus on Esay 22. c Calvin prelect in Esay 22 d Muscu com ibid e Gualther Homil. in loc f Piscator shol in Esa g Beza on Mat. 16. h Pareus comment in Mat. 16. i Cotton Keyes of the Kingdome p. 2. Beza de Pres byter pag. 63 64. That Excommunication is a divine Ordinance is proved by 1 Cor. 5. To deliver to Satan is not miraculous killing The essentials of excommunication 1 Cor 5. Cutting off not alwaies killing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ab interiâ—re populâ—rum sacrum Morall guiltinesse excluded men from holy things amongst the Iews The place Ezekiel 44. v. 11. 12. 13. 14. to be fulfilled under the New Testament Object Ceremoniall exclusion from holy things under the old did tipifie exclusion for morall uncleannesse under the New Testament Levit. 5. 2â— The Churches exclusion from the Seales declarative not coactive by violence Remonstrant in Apollo Censures applied to some by name Arg. 2. Eschewing the society of scandalous church members must be a church censure The hindering of Jezabel by preaching onely not sufficient Debarring of the scandalous from the seals proâ—ed It belongeth not to the Magistrate to â— debar from the seals Thomas Erastus lib. 3. confirmat Thesium lib. 3. â— 3. pag. 207. Nam et sacramenta sub sub 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nomine comprehendi concedo Erastus Confi thes l. 3. c. 3. pag. 207. Qui membra externae volunt ecclesiae videri illi non calcabunt Sacramenta nec offereâ—tem laniare tentabunt fiquis talis reperiatur hune ego minime admittendum censeâ— Confirmatiâ— Thosium Erast Consâ—â— thes l. 1. c. 1. p. 72. Erast will have no man excluded from the Sacraments pag. 86. Si per subductionem pabuli intelligis verbi aut sacramentorum negationem de tuâ— hoc dicis non lâ—queris cum scripturis quae nusquam jubent pabula haec subducere According to Erastus his way we cannot deny the seals to a Turk P. 75 76. Toexclude men from the Kingdom of Heaven not one with Excommunication Pag. 78. Excommunication is no reall separation of one from Christs invisible body Pag. 79. P. 81 82. Pag. 83. Pag. 86. Pag. 88. 8â— Though Excommunication be onely declarative yet it is not empty Cap. 2. l. 1. p. 93. Putting out 1 Cor. 5. Excommunicating Lib. â— c. 2. pag. 103. Whether Erastus doth prove that none were excluded amongst the Iewes from the Sacraments for Morall uncleannesse A twofold forgivenesse Pag. 117. All are invited to the SacrameÌ„ts but not that they come any way they please The question whether all should be admitted to the Lords Supper perverted by Erastus Cap. 3. l. 1. p. 117. Lib. 3. c. 3. pag. 207. Et si quis talis qui caleabit sacramenta reperiatur hunc ego numinè admittendum censeo Pag. 118. Two sorts of signes some purely holy some partly holy partly necessary for the bodily life Pag. 120. P. 120 121. All are commanded to hear the Word but not to come to the Supper Arg. 16. Page 124. Page 124. Confirm Thes l. 2. c. 1. p. 130. 131. 133. 134. 136. 137. Ceremoniall uncleannes typified Exclusion out of the visible Church for Scandals not out of the Kingdome of Heaven Page 140. Page 142 143 144 145. Page 146. Page 140. At nemo propter ingenitam naturae corruptionem pâ—nitur Page 147. Legall uncleannesse was sin Page 150. Lib. â— c. 2. p. 154. 155. The scope and sense of Mat. 18. perverted by Erastus Our Saviour speaks of all not of private and lesser scandals onely Page 26. in Thes 41. By the word brother is not meant a Iew onely Erast conf Thes l. 2. â— 1. p. 133. Sive facinorosos facinoris paeniteret sive non paeniteret paena non minuebatur L. 2. cap. 2. page 155. Thes 41. p. 46. Pag. 156. Christs speaking in the second person argueth not the privacy of the scandall Page 158. Page 156. 157. A twofold forgiving Thes 42. page 27. Page 16. Christ speaketh not of such sins as private men may forgive as Erastus dreameth Christs scope spiritual Erast his way is carnall Thes 42. pag. 28. Lib. 3. c. p. 181. Pag. 186. 187. Pag. 188. A Publican most odious to the Iews Lib. 3. c. 3. p. 190 191. Page 191. P. 192. 193. Pag. 195. 196. A publican most odious to the Iewes No private forgivenesse Mat. 18. pag. 198 â—ed si docendo priâ—atus aliquem ad duxcrit ut peccata sua agnoscat et ex certa side â—â— Dei be â—â—gnitate propter meritum Christi acquiescat an non solutus erit Si frustraÌ„