receive both the unwritten Traditions of the one and the unwritten Positive inventions of Crosse and Surplice devised by the other as 1. Make us sure as God himself immediatly spake to the Patriarchs and to Moses nothing but what after was committed to writing by Moses and the Prophets at Gods speciall Commandment as Papists say their unwritten Traditions are agreeable to the word and though beside Scripture yet not against it And the very will of God no lesse then the written word and let Formalists assure us that their positive additaments of Surplice and Crosse are the same which God commandeth in the Scriptures by the Prophets and Apostles and though beside yet not contrary to the vvord But I pray you what better is the distinction of beside the vvord not contrary to the vvord of God out of the mouth of Papists to maintain unvvritten Traditions which to them is the expresse word of God then out of the mouth of Formalists for their unwritten Positives which are worse then Popish Traditions in that they are not the expresse word of God by their own grant 2. Let the Formalist assure us that after this some Moses and Elias shall arise and write Scripture touching the Surplice and Crosse that they are the very minde of God as the Lord could assure the Church between Adam and Moses that all Divine truths which he had delivered by Tradition should in Gods due time be written in Scripture by Moses the Prophets and Apostles I think they shall here fail in their undertakings Hence the Argument standeth strong the Jevvs might devise nothing in doctrine Worship or Government nay neither the Patriarchs nor Moses nor the Prophets of their own head without Gods immediate Tradition or the written Scripture which are all one Ergo Neither can the Church except she would be wiser then God in the Scriptures 2. Hookers Various and Harmonious Dissimilicude of Gods gâ—iding his Châ—rch is his fancy This variety we admire as it is expressed Heâ— 1. 1. But Hooker would say for he hath reference to that place God at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the Fathers by the Prophets and now to us by hiâ— Son But test of all he hath revealed his Will by the Pope of Rome and his cursed Clergy that we should Worship Images pray to Saints and for the dead beleeve Purgatory c. and now by humane Prelates he hath shown his will to us touching Crossing Surplice Now Papists as Horantius Sanderus Malderus Bellarmine and others say Most of the points that are in Question between them and Protestants and particularly Church-Ceremonies are unwritten Traditions delivered by the Church beside the warrant of Scripture 3. We grant that there was no Uniform Church-Government in the Apostles time Deacons were not at the first Elders were not ordained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in every Church But this is nothing against a Platform of Vniform Government which cannot be altered in Gods Word For by this reason the Learned and Reverend Mr. Prynne because points of Government did grow by succession of time cannot infer therefore that Government which the immediately inspired Apostles did ordain in Scripture is alterable by men then because 1. Fundamentals of Faith and Salvation were not all delivered at first by God there is no Uniform no unalterable Platform of Doctrinals and Fundamentals set down in Scripture For first the Article of Christs death and incarnation was obscurely delivered to the Church in Paradise Sure the Article of Christs making his Grave with the wicked of his being put to death for out Transgressions though he himself was innocent his justifying of many by Faith were after delivered by Isaiah Chap. 53. And by succession â—f time many other Fundamentals as the Doctrine of the written Moral Law in the Moral Positives thereof were delivered to the Church But I hope from this successive Addition of Fundamentals no man can infer 1. There is no Uniform Platform of the doctrine of Faith set down in the Old Testament 2. None can hence infer because all points Fundamental were not delivered to the Church at first the refore the Church without any expresse warrant from God may alter the Platform of Fundamentals of Faith as they take on them to adde Surplice Crossing c. and many other Positives to the Government of Christ without any expresse warrant of the Word 3. Our Argument is close mistaken we argue not from the Patern of Government which was in the Apostles times at the laying of the first stone in that Church then the Apostolike Church had indeed no Officers but the Apostles and the seventy Disciples we reason not from one peece but from the whole frame as perfected by the Ministery of the Lords Apostles 2. We argue not from the Apostolike Church as it is such a Church for Apostles were necessary then as was community of goods miracles speaking with tongues c. but we draw an argument from the Apostolike Church as the first Christian Church and since the Law was to come from Zion and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem Isai 2. 3. And the Lord was to reign in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem before his Ancients gloriously Isai 24. 23. And the Lord was to reign over his people in Mount Zion from henceforth and for ever Micah 4. 2 7. And Christ for that gave a special command to his Disciples not to depart from Jerusalem but wait for the promise of the Father which they had heard from Christ therefore this Church of Jerusalem was to be a rule a patern and copy for the Government of the Visible Kingdom and Church of Christ in which Christ was to reign by his own Word and Law Miâ— 4. 2 7. And so the Spirit descended upon the Apostles in the framing and Governing of the first Church in so far as it was a Christian Church and they were to act all not of their own heads but as the Holy Ghost led them in all Truth in these things that are of perpetual necessity and in such as these the first Church is propounded as imitable Now we do not say in Apostles which had infallibility of writing Canonick Scripture in Miracles speaking with Tongues and such like that agreed to the Apostolike Church not as a Church but as such a determinate Church in relation to these times when the Gospel and Mystery of God now manifested in the flesh was new taught and never heard of before did require Miracles gift of Tongues that the Gospel might openly be preached to the Gentiles we do not I say urge the Apostâ—like Church and all the particulars for Government in it for a rule and patern to be imitated And if Master Prynne deny that there is an Uniform Government in the Apostles times because God himself added to them Deacons Elders which at first they had not removed Apostles miracles gifts of healing and tongues then say I
of policy because lesse weighty then the greater things of the Law are not therefore alterable at the will of men p. 19 20 Order requireth not a Monarchical pâ—elate p. 21 22 How the care wisdom of Christ hath left an immutable platform of Discipline p. 22 23 Christ the onely immediate King Head and Law-giver of his Church without any deputy heads or Vicars p. 24 25 SECT 3. 5. Argument p. 26 27 Moses and David might not alter or devise any thing in Worship or Government nor may the Church now p. 27 28 Two notes of Divinity ought to be in the New Testament Ceremonials as were in the Old p. 29 30 How Moses his doing all according to the patern proveth an immutable platform The Objections of Mr. Hooker and Mr. Pryn answered at length p. 30 31 32 33 34 c. Gods care to us leadeth us to think he hath given us a better guide theÌ„ natural Reason in all morals of Church-Discipline p. 33 34 The occasional writing of things in Scripture no reason why they are alterable p. 35 36 Papists pretend as Formalists do that things are not written in the Word because of the various occurrences of providence p. 36 37 That there was no uniform platform of Government written in the time of Moses and the Apostles is no Argument that there is none now p. 39 40 Fundamentals because successively delivered are not alterable p 41 42 The Church of Ierusalem as perfect in Doctrine and Discipline is our patern p. 42 43 The indifferency of some things in the Apostolick Church cannot infer that the Government is alterable p. 45 46 The Argument of Moses his doing all in the Tabernacle to the least pin according to special direction further considered p. 47. 50 The Ark of Noah proveth the same ib. Formalists acknowledge Additions to the Scripture contrary to Deut. 4. 2. 12. 32. the same way that Papists do p. 51 -56 c. Moses and Canonick Writers are not Law-givers under God but Organs of God in writing and meer reporters of the Law of God p. 62 63 Papists say that the Church is limited in the making of Ceremonies both in the matter and the number and so do Formalists p 62 63 64 Four wayes Positives are alterable but by God onely p. 64 All things never so small are alike unalterable if they be stamped with Gods authority speaking in the Scripture p. 64 65 By what authority Canonical Additions of the Prophets and Apostles were added to the Books of Moses p. 65 Canonick Writers how immediately led by God p 66 The Characters of Formalists Ceremonies Papists Traditions one and the same p. 67 What is it to be contained in Scripture and how far it maketh any thing lawful according to Hooker p. 68 The Fathers teach that all things are to be rejected that are not in Scripture p. 69 70 â—t derogateth nothing fâ—om the honour of God in Scripture that hee be consulted in the meanest things p. 70 How things are in Scripture p. 71 Some actions are supernaturally moral some naturally or civilly moral some mixt p. 72 Some habitual reference to Scripture is required in all our moral actions p 73 Works of Supererogation holden by Hooker p. 77 Whether our obedience be resolved in all Church policy in This saith the Lord in his Word or in This saith the Church p. 79 Two thingâ— in the external worship 1. Substantials 2. Accidentals or Circumstantials p. 80 SECT 5. The question who should be judge of things necessary or indifferent in Church-policy not to purpose in this question p. 81 82 c. SECT 6. What are Honour Praise Glory Reverence Veneration Devotion Religion Service Worship Love Adoration p. 82 83 84 85 Two acts of Religion imperated and elicite p. 83 Honouring of holy men is not worship p 84 The Religions object with the act of reverencing maketh adoration to be Religious but a civil object except the intention concuâ—s maketh not religious adoration of a civil object p. 85 86 What Worship is p. 86 87 Worship is an immediate honouring of God but some worship honoureth him more immediately some lesse p. 87 88 A twofold intention in worship p. 88 89 Vncovering the head is veneration not adoration p. 89 Consecration of Churches taken two wayes condemned p. 90 Master Hookers moral grounds of the holinesse of Temples under the N. T. answered p. 92 The place 1 Cor. 11. Have ye not houses to eat and drink in c. maketh nothing for hallowing of Churches p. 93 Nor the place Psa 74 8. p. 94 The Synagogue not Gods house as the Temple was ib. Question 1. The negative argument from Scripture valid p 95 Not to command is to forbid p. 96 How far Davids purpose to build the Temple was lawful p. 97 Of additions to the Word p. 98 Even perfecting additions of men are unlawful p. 99 Every moral action is to be warranted by the Word p. 102 What is man's in worship is not lawful p. 103 Not all actions in man as actions of meer nature of arts or trades of sciences but only moral actions are regulated by Scripture p 104 Helps of faith and the formal object of faith are different p 105 What certitude of saith is required in all our actions of our daily conversation p. 107 The Scripture a Warrant for the morality of our acts of the second Table p. 107 Many actions of the second Table are purely moral all actions of the first Table are purely moral p. 107 108 What ever is beside the Word of God in morals is contrary to it p. 109 The vanity of the perfection of Scriptures in Essentials not in Accidentals p. 110 Whatsoever is not of faith how true p. 110 111 Doubting condemneth p 113 Papists say the Scripture in general is perfect but not in particulars and so Form lists p 114 What is onely negative in Gods worship cannot be commanded ibid. Opinion of sanctity and divine necessity not essential to false-worship ibid. The distinction of worship essential and accidental of Gods general and particular will is to be rejected p. 118 119 The distinction of divine and apostolike traditions rejected p. 125 126 Circumstances not positive religious observances as ceremonies are p. 127 Ceremonies usurpe essential properties of divine Ordinances p. 128 129 130 We owe subjection of conscience collateral onely to Gods Ordinances p. 135 The spirit worketh not with Ceremonies p. 136 The place Matth. 15. concerning the traditions of the Elders discussed p 137 138 Ceremonies Magical p. 141 If the third command shall enjoyn decency in general then must it enjoyn this special decency Crosse and Surplice p. 141 142 Iewish and Popish Ceremonies are fruitlesse professions of unlawful worship p. 142 143 Whether the Ceremonies be Idolatry p 144 Of religious kneeling ibid. Four things in adoration ibid. Intention of worship not essential to worship p. 145 Religious bowing of its nature and not by mans arbitrary and free
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
gather the Ordinances of God together distinctly and orderly to set them down according to their kindes for each Publique duty and Law But the Laws of Christ we rather finde mentioned by occasion in the writings of the Apostles then any solemn thing directly written to comprehend them in a Legall sort 1. The Law Moral and Ceremonial were not delivered one the same way the former was uttered by the Voice of God in the hearing of six hundred thousand 2. Written with Gods finger 3. Termedâ—a Covenant 4. Given to be kept without time how long or place where The latter not so and restricted to the Land of Jury Deut. 4. 5. 12. Deut. 5. 22. And if God had respect in Positive Laws to time and place and the Manners of that Nation seeing Nations are not all alike then the giving of one kinde of Positive Laws unto one only people without any Liberty to alter them is but a slender proof that therefore one kinde should be given to serve everlastingly for all Ans This Argument reduced to form shall want both matter and form and reason If the Laws of Moses be distinctly and orderly set down and gathered together according to their severall kindes for each Duty and the Laws of Christ be occasionally only written then Christ did not mean to set down particular Positive Laws for all things in such sort as Moses did But this difference is true Ergo c. Both the Major Proposition and the Assumption are false and neither of them can be proved For the occasionall writing of some Articles of Faith and of Dogmaticall points should then prove that Christ meant not to set down all Articles of Faith particularly for Christ Matth. 22. upon occasion of the Saduces tempting Paul upon occasion of some at Corinth who denied the Resurrection 1 Cor. 15. And of some that mourned for the dead 1 Thess 4. Set down and proved an Article of Faith to wit the Resurrection of the dead By this Argument the Scripture is not full and perfect in Fundamentals as Moses is in Ceremonials but hath left such and such Fundamentals to be altered added or omitted by the Church in that way that Surplice Crosse and Altars are alterable things Most of Dogmatick points concerning Christs sufferings are occasionall as his taking his betraying by Judas who knew the place he was in the valuing of him at Thirty pieces the giving him Gall and Vinegar a punishment not intended by the Iudge but occasionall in that Christ said he thirsted Yea the Crucifying of him rather then Barrabas upon occasion of the malice of the people when Pilate had scourged him upon a Policie to see if the people would demand he might be released the casting Lots for his garment the Crucifying of him between two Theeves the not breaking of his bones upon occasion he was dead the piercing of his side all which in regard of second causes were occasionall and so though Dogmaticall and Doctrinall these must be all such alterable and Ambulatory points of Doctrine as the Church and Prelats may change at their godly discretion and Christ meant not in these to set down particular Positive Laws in such sort as Moses did Yea the Evangel according to Luke is set forth occasionally because many have taken in hand to set forth in order a Declaration of these things which are most firmly believed therefore is seemed good to Luke also to write Luk. 1. 1 2 3 4. Upon occasion of Onesimus his fleeing from his master The Epistle to Philemon was written upon occasion of the unconstancy of the Galathians whose faith was perverted by false teachers that of Iustification by Faith without the works of the Law And the Epistle to the Galathians was written most if not all the Canonicâ— Epistles were written either upon occasion of false Teachers or for fear they should be scandalized at Pauls bonds By this vain Argument the most part of Canonick Scripture should be alterable imperfect not particular in most Doctrinals no lesse then in Ceremonials And so the Major Proposition is most false for its a vain thing to Collect Christs meaning to set down particulars of either Doctrine or Ceremonies from occasions of Providence for most of the Scripture is penned upon occasions from men and from second causes shall these things leave off to be of Divine Institution that hath their rise from occasions even sinfull occasions Yea the death of Christ is occasioned from mans fall in sin What then Is it an alterable Doctrine left to the determination of the Church that Christ died But this is no other then the shift of Papists for their unwritten Tradition Sanderus de Visib Monarch Lib. 1. c. 5. pag. 13. Si ergo per solas conscriptas leges dei civitas gubernaretur in valdè magnâ parte corum que passim contingunt quid faceret nesciret quia legem de his loquentâ—m non haberet Imo si tantum una Lex toti reipub necessaria esse posset eaque ipsa scriberetur a prudentissimis viris ac singulis annis ab orbe condito novae interpretationes eidem adderentur tamen nunquam eveniret ut ea lex tam plenè interpretata foret quin causae novae possent intervenire ob quas lex et legis interpretatio novam iterim postularet interpretationem adeo et foecunda est natura in suis eventis et Angustum ingenium humanum et varia surisperitorum sententia et verba tum pauca tum ambigua All cometh to this that this Papist saith That there cannot be one written unchangeable Law that is necessary for the whole Church for new events occasions and occurences of Providence should so change the case that there should be a necessity of a new interpretation and of a new Law 2. Nor can we say that Laws made upon occasion as that Law of transferring the inheritance to the Daughter made upon occasion of the Daughters of Zelophehad are in this sense occasionall that the Iews might at their pleasure alter or change a Law made by God and substitute one of their own in place thereof for then might the Iews change all the Ceremonies and Iudgements that God gave them for a time and occasionally Now then they might have abolished Circumcision the passeover and substitute other Sacraments in their place for these Sacraments were not given by Gods own voice 2. Nor written by Gods own finger Nor 3. Are they termed a Covenant in that sense that the Morall Law is termed a Covenant 4. Nor are they given without limitting of time and place expresly when and where Now if the Church of the Iews could change Sacraments at their pleasure because their Sacraments were no part of the Eternall Law Morall they might alter all Gods Law as the Church may alter Surplice Crossing and I see not but the Church of the New Testament upon the same ground may alter the Sacraments of the New Testament
First the Canonick Scripture is not Uniform and perpetual Why for certainly once there was no Canonick Scripture but the Books of Moses and after the holy Ghost added the Book of the Psalmes and the Prophets and after the Nativity and Ascension of our Lord to Heaven the Apostles did write Canonick Scripture I hope this is but a poor Argument to infer that there is no Vniform and unalterable Platform of Divinity in the Old and New Testament and yet the Argument is as concludent the one way as it is the other 3. We do not so contend for an Vniform and unalterable Platform of Church-Government in the Word as it was not free to the Lord and Law-giver to adde and alter at his pleasure only we hold it so Vniform and unalterable that this Platform is not shaped like a coat to the Moon or alterable at the will of men without expresse warrant of the Lords Word and to rise and fall with the climate and the elevation of Nationall customes and therefore the Argument is nothing concludent and judge what can be made of these words of the learned Mr. Prynne The Government and Officers of all Churches not being De facto one and the same in all particulars in the very Primitive times as well as since it can never be proved to be of Divine right and the self same in all succeeding Ages without the least variation â—inee it was not so in the Apostles dayes For this is all one as to say the Canonick Scripture was not one and the same in the Apostles and Prophets times but admitted of divers additions Ergo now in our daies Canonick Scripture is not one and the same but may also suffer the like additions 2. Because God himself added to Canonick Scripture and to the Government of the Church in the Apostles dayes Ergo men may without Warrant from God adde in our dayes to Canonick Scripture and to the Government and Officers of the Church 3. The Government and Officers in the Apostles time were not of Divine right but alterable by God Ergo Apostles Evangelists Pastors Teachers Workers of miracles were not of Divine right in the Apostles times but might have been altered by men without the expresse Warrant of God But will any wise man believe that Pauls Apostleship was alterable and might be changed by the Church Since he saith Gal. â— 1. Paul an Apostle not of men neither by men but by Iesus Christ and 1 Cor. 12. 28. When Paul saith And God hath set 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or instituted some in the Church first Apostles secondly Prophets thirdly Teachers after that miracles then gifts of healing c. and Eph. 4. 11. When Christ ascended on high he gave some Apostles some Prophets and some Evangelists and some to be Pastors and Teachers 12. For the perfecting of the Saints c. Can it enter into the head of any man to say some Churches had Apostles and Evangelists and Pastors and miracles and some not Ergo Apostles and Pastors are not by Divine right Ergo because they were not in all Churches therefore they were alterable at the will of men and a Surplice and Crosse in Baptisme hath as much of Divine institution as the calling of the Apostle or of a Pastor and truly to me it is bold Divinity to say that Pastors set over the flock by the holy Ghost Act. 20. 28. and whos 's due qualifications are so specified 1 Tim. 3. and Elders 1 Tim. 5. 17. and Teachers placed by God in the Church 1 Cor. 12 28. may be all turned out of the Church by men as having no Divine right to be there and that men may set up other alterable Officers in their place for by this reason the Apostles by that ordinary spirit that is now in Church-Rulers might without their Apostolick spirit or any immediate Warrant from Christ have altered the whole frame of Apostolick-Government and Church-Officers as the Church may upon motives from themselves not warranted from the word turne out Surplice Crosse and all such stuffe out of the Church Master Prynne The Apostles speech 1 Cor 12. 4 5 6. There are diversity of gifts but the same spirit there are diversity of operations but the same God compared with chap. 8. to 13. and c. 9. v. 19. to 24. I made my self a servant to all that I might gain all c. parallel'd with Act. 15. 1 2 5 6 10. to 32. and chap. 21. 18. to 30. The Churches of Judea did retain the use of Circumcision Purification and other Iewish Rites which the Gentiles by the Apostles resolution were not to observe and Act. 2. 22. The Apostles frequented the Iewish Temple and Synagogues conforming themselves to the Order and Discipline thereof and their own private Christian Assemblies all this will clear that all Churches had not one and the self same Church-Government Ans If diversity of Gifts as to be a speaker with Tongues a Prophet a Pastor will prove the Discipline to be alterable at the Churches will as are Surplice Crosse c. I shall think men may infer any thing they please out of the Scripture and that to be Apostles Pastâ—rs are as indifferent and variable as eating of meats 1 Cor. 8. and Pauls taking of wages at Corinth 1 Cor. 9. Which none can say for if the Church should now command us to abstain from such and such meats as the Apostle doth 1 Cor. 8. We should call that and do call it in the Romish Church a Doctrine of Devils 1 Tim. 4 1 2 3. All brought for this from Act. 15. Act. 21. tendeth to this the Lord himself for the then weaknesse of the Jews of meer indulgence appointed some things to be indifferent and abstained from in the case of scandall Therefore Circumcision Purification Sacrifices of Bullocks and sheep And all the Ceremonies of Moses his Law may be commanded by the Church so they have another signification then they had before and shadow out Christ who is already come But because God hath made some things indifferent shall it follow that the Pope yea or any Church on earth can create an indifferency in things they must then take from things their Morall goodnesse or conveniency with Gods Law and take from them their moral badnes disconveniency to Gods Law which to me is to change the nature of things and to abrogate and change Gods Laws it is true P. Martyr 1 Cor. 9. 19. saith Paul was made all things to all men Quoad Ceremonias res medias in that he Circumcised Timotheus The Law saith he was abrogated Vâ—rum id non adhuc Judaeis liquebat The Jews were to be spared for a time but only for a time and therefore when the Gospel was sufficiently promulgated Paul said Gal. 5. to be Circumcised was to lose Christ and he refused to be a servant to Peter in his sinful Iudaizing Gal. 2. And withstood him in the face Now certain it
Church in creating Prelats Surplice and all the positives of Church-policy so did she And so saith Calvin on Genesis 6. 22. And P. Martyr and Musculus piously on this place and with them Vatablus Hence I judge all other things in this and the following Arguments Answer SECT IV. ANy Positives not warranted by some speciall word of God shall be additions to the word of God But these are expresly forbidden Deut. 4. 2. Deut. 12. 32. Prov. 30. 6. Rev. 22. 18 19. To this Formalists answer 1. They have a generall Commandment of God though not a speciall Ans So have all the unwritten Traditions of Papists hear the Church she is Magistra fidei so doth the Papist Horantius answer Calvin That the spirit of God hath given a generall and universall knowledge of mysteries of Faith and Ceremonies belonging to Religion but many particulars are to be received by tradition from the Church but of this hereafter 2. Master Prynne answereth that is a wresting These Texts saith he speak only of additions to books or doctrines of Canonical Scriptures then written not of Church-Government or Ceremonies yea God himself after the writing of Deutronomy caused many Canonicall books of the old and New Testament to be written Many additions were made to the service of God in the Temple not mentioned by Moses Another answer R. Hooker giveth teaching with Papists Bellarmine as in another place after I cite with Cajetane Tannerus and others That additions that corrupt the word are here forbidden not additions that expound and perfect the word True it is concerning the word of God whither it be by misconstruction of the sense or by falcification of the words wittingly to endeavor that any thing may seem Divine which is not or any thing not seem which is were plainly to abuse even to falcifie divine evidence To quote by-speeches in some Historicall narration as if they were written in some exact form of Law is to adde to the Law of God We must condemn if we condemn all adding the Jevvs dividing the supper in tvvo courses their lifting up of hands unvvashed to God in Prayer as Aristaeus saith Their Fasting every Festivall day till the sixth hour Though there be no expresse word for every thing in speciality yet there are general Commandments for all things say the Puritans observing general Rules of 1. Not scandalizing 2. Of decency 3. Of edification 4. Of doing all for Gods glory The Prelate Vsher in the question touching traditions We speak not of Rites Ceremonies vvhich are left to the disposition of the Church and be not of Divine but of Positive and Humane right But that traditions should be obtruded for Articles of Religion parts of Worship or parcels of Gods vvord beside the Scriptures and such Doctrines as are either in Scriptures expresly or by good inference we have reason to gainsay Here is a good will to make all Popish Traditions that are only beside not contrary to Scripture and in the Popish way all are only beside Scripture as Lawfull as our Ceremoniall additions so they be not urged as parts of Canonicall Scripture Well the places Deut. 4. 12. Prov. 30. Rev. 22. say our Masters of mutable Policy forbid only Scripturall or Canonicall additions not Ceremonial additions But I wonder who took on them to adde additionals Scripturall if Baals Priests should adde a worship of Iehovah and not equall it with Scripture nor obtrude it as a part of Moses's Books by this means they should not violate this precept Thou shalt not adde to the word c. 2. Additions explaining the Word or beside the Word as Crossing the bread in the Lords-Supper are Lawfull only additions corrupting or detracting from the word and everting the sense of it are here forbidden and in effect these are detractions from the word and so no additions at all by this distinction are forbidden but only detractions The word for all this wil not be mocked it saith Thou shalt not add Thou shalt not diminish But the truth is a Nation of Papists answer this very thing for their Traditions 1. Bishop Ans to the 2. part of Refor Catho of Trad. § 5. pag. 848. The words signifie no more but that we must not either by addition or substraction change or pervert Gods Commandments be they written or unwritten Else why were the Books of the Old Testament written aftervvard if God had forbidden any more to be written or taught beside that one Book of Deutronomy Shall we think that none of the Prophets that lived and wrote many Volumns after this had read these vvords or understood them not or did vvilfully transgresse them D. Abbot answereth What the Prophets vvrote serve to explain the Law they added no point of Doctrine to Moses Lavv for Exod. 24 4. Moses vvrote all the vvords of God Deut. 31. 9 10. Moses wrote this Lavv then he vvrote not a part of the Law and left another part unvvritten The Iesuit Tannerus answereth the same in terminis with the Formalists Colloquio Ratisbonensi foll 11. 13. D. Gretserus ad dicta Resp Prohiberi additionem quae repugnet verbo scripto non autem illam quae verbo scripto est consentanea cujusmodi sunt traditiones Post pentateuchum accesserunt libri josue Prophetarum c. Tamen nemo reprehendit quia illi libri fuerunt consentanei sacrae Scripturae Additions contrary say they to the vvord are forbidden not such as agree vvith the vvord such as are all the traditions of the Church for after Deutronomy vvere vvritten the Books of Ioshua and the Prophets so Cajetan Coment in Loc. Prohibemur ne â—ingamus contineri in lege quod in ea non continetur nec subtrahamus quod in ea continetur Gloss Interline Non prohibet veritatem veritati addere sed falsitatem omnino removet Lira Hic prohibetur additio deprâ—vans intellectum legis non autem additio declarns aut clucidans Tostatus in Loc. Q. 2. Ille pecat qui addit addit tanquam aliquid de textu vel necessarium sicut alia quâ— sunt in textu velut dictum a spiritu sancto hoc vocatur propriè addere Formalists as Dr. Morton say It is sin to adde to the vvord any thing as a part of the written vvord as if Ceremonies were a part of the vvritten Scripture and spoken by the immediate inspiring spirit that dyteth Canonick Scripture they come only aâ— Arbitrary and ambulatory adjuncts of Worship from the ordinary spirit of the Church and are not added as necessary parts of Scripture or as Doctrinals so Papists say their traditions are not additions to the written vvord nor necessary parts of the vvritten Scripture but inferiour to the Scripture 1. They say their Traditions are no part of the written word or Scripture for they divide the word of God in two parts as Bellarmine Turrian Tannerus Stapleton Becanus all of them say Aliud est verbum dei scriptum
censeri debet Learned D. Roynald Answereth Apolog. Thes de sac Script pag. 211 212. and saith This very Law of Moses promiseth life Eternall to those that love the Lord vvith all their heart and that the Prophets added to the Writings of Moses no Article of Faith necessary to be believed but did expound and apply to the use of the Church in all the parts of piety and Religion that vvhich Moses had taught Lorinus followeth them in Deut. 4. 1. Christus inquit et Apostoli pentateucho plura adjecerunt immò in vetere Testamento Iosue Prophetae Reges Christ saith he and the Apostles added many things to the five Books of Moses yea in the Old Testament Ioshua the Prophets and the Kings David and Solomon did also adde to Moses But the truth is suppose any should arise after Moses not called of God to be a Canonick writer Prophet or Apostle and should take on him to write Canonick Scripture though his additions for matter were the same Orthodox and sound Doctrine of Faith and manners which are contained in the Law of Moses and the Prophets he should violate this Commandment of God Thou shalt not adde For Scripture containeth more then the sound matter of Faith it containeth a formall a heavenly form stile Majesty and expression of Language which for the form is sharper then a two edged sword piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit and of the joynts and marrow and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart Heb. 4. 12. If therefore the Prophets and Apostles had not had a Commandment of God to write Canonick Scripture which may be proved from many places of the Word they could not have added Canonick Scripture to the writings of Moses But the Answer of D. Roynald is sufficient and valid against Papists who hold that their Traditions are beside not contrary to the Scripture just as Formalists do who say the same for their unwritten Positives of Church-policy But our Divines Answer That traditions beside the Scripture are also traditions against the Scripture according to that Gal. 1. 8. But if we or an Angel from Heaven preach any other Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beside that which we have preached unto you Let him be accursed And Papists more ingenious then Formalists in this confesse That if that of the Apostles Gal. 1. 8. be not restricted to the written Word but applyed to the Word of God in its Latitude as it comprehendeth both the written word or Scripture and the unwritten word or Traditions then beside the word is all one with this contrary to the word which Formalists constantly deny For Lorinus the Jesuit saith Comment In Deut. 4. 2. Quo pacto Paulus Anathèma dicit Gal. 1. 8. Iis qui aliud Evangelizant preter id quod ipsi Evangelizaverit id est adversum et contrarium So doth Cornelius a Lapide and Estius expound the place Gal. 1. 8. And they say that Paul doth denounce a Curse against those that would bring in a new Religion and Judaism beside the Gospel But withall they teach that the Traditions of the Church are not contrary to Scripture but beside Scripture and that the Church which cannot eâ—re and is led in all truth can no more be accused of adding to the Scripture then the Prophets Apostles and Evangelists who wrote after Moses can be accused of adding to Moses his writings because the Prophets Apostles and Evangelists had the same very warrant to write Canonick Scripture that Moses had and so the Church hath the same warrant to adde Traditions to that which the Prophets Evangelists and Apostles did write which they had to adde to Moses And therefore the Councel of Trent saith S. 4. c. 1. That unwritten traditions coming either from the mouth of Christ or the ditement of the holy spirit are to be recieved and Religiously Reverenced with the like pious affection and Reverence that the holy Scriptures are received Pari pietatis affectu ac Reverentiâ And the truth is laying down this ground that the Scripture is unperfect and not an adequat rule of Faith and manners as Papists do then it must be inconsequent that because Traditions are beside the Scripture which is to to them but the half of the Word of God Yea it followeth not this Popish ground supposed that Traditions are therefore contrary to the Scripture because beside the Scripture no more then it followeth that the Sacraments of the New Testament Baptisme and the Supper of the Lord in all their positive Rites and Elements are not ordained and instituted in the Old Testament and in that sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beside the Old Testament that therefore they are against the Old Testament though we should imagine they had been added in the New Testament without all warrant of speciall direction from God by the sole will of men or because some Ceremonials commanded of God are not commanded in the Morall Law or Decalogue either expresly or by consequence and so these Ceremonials though instituted by the Lord be beside the Morall Law that therefore they are contrary to the Morall Law Yea to come nearer because the third Chapter of the Book of Genesis containing the Doctrine of mans fall and misery and Redemption by the promised seed is beside the first and second Chapters of the same Book it doth not follow that it is contrary or that Moses adding the third Chapter and all the rest of the five Books did therefore â—ail against this precept Thou shalt not adde to that which I command thee for certain it is that there are new Articles of Faith in the third chapter of Genesis which are neither in the first two Chapters expresly nor by just consequence but if the Church or any other of Jews or Gentiles should take upon them to adde the third Chapter of Genesis to the first and second except they had the same warrant of Divine inspiration that Moses had to adde it that addition had been contrary to the first two Chapters and beside also and a violation of the Commandment of not adding to the word so do Formalists and the Prelate Vsher in the place cited presuppose that the Scripture excludeth all Traditions of Papists because the Scripture is perfect in all things belonging to faith and manners but it excludeth not all Ceremonies which are left to the disposition of the Church and be not of Divine but of Positive and humane Right Hence it must infer the principle of Papists that the Scripture is not perfect in all Morals for it is a Morall of Decency and Religious signification that a childe be dedicated to the service of Christ by the sign of the crosse Now what can be said to thiâ— I know not but that the sufficiency and perfection of scripture doth no whit consist in holding forth Ceremonials but only in setting down doctrinals Why and Papists say the same that the scripture is
3 4 5. And Moses and all Canonick writers were only to receive the word at Gods mouth and to hear it Ezek. 3. 8. As meer servants and in this the Church of Prophets and of Apostles and the Church that now is were alike I know no Authority of the one above the other Indeed in writing and relating to the Church the will of God and the Scriptures Canonick writers are agents inspired with the Holy spirit immediately breathing on them in Prophecying and in writing Scripture But the Proclaimer of a Law as such hath no influence in making the Law Let it be also remembred that as Papists say two things to the place so do Formalists 1. That it is not against Ceremonies 2. That the Church is limited in making Ceremonies beside the Word that they may not make them too numerous and burdensome This I make good in the words of a famous Iesuit who citeth the words of a Learned Papist approving them Lorinus Coment in Loc. Refellit idem Oleaster Hereticos hinc inserentes institui non posse Ceremonias ac ritus novos circa cultum dei Quam vis ipse optat moderationem in preceptis ac censuris ut facilius suavius possint servari To whom I oppose that golden sentence of a man endued with the spirit of God above any Papist Calvin Com. in Deut. 4. v. 2. Insignis locus quo apertè damnatur quicquid hominum ingenio excogitari potest Ibid. Quoniam preposter â lasciviâ rapitur totus ferè mundus ad cultus fictitios qui tamen precise une verbo damnantur ubi deus ita jubet suos acquiescere positae legi ne justiores esse appetant quam illic docentur All Worship is precisely condemned here or any thing devised about the Worship by the wit of men I would here meet with a Grand exception of Mr. Hooker Eccles Polic. 3. Book pag. 111. Their distinction of matters of substance and of circumstance though true will not serve for be they great things or be they small if God have Commanded them in the Gospel and if his Commanding them in the Gospel do make them unchangeable there is no reason that we should change the one more then the other if the authority of the maker do prove their unchangeablenesse which God hath made then must all Laws which he hath made be necessarily for ever permanent though they be but of circumstances only and not of Substance Ans 1. Our distinction of matters of substance and circumstance rightly taken will serve the turn But the mistake is in that 1. Many things are but circumstances of worship such as are Positives and Religious significant Ceremonies to Formalists that are not so to us for to wear a surplice in sacrificing to Jupiter were to make the Act of wearing that Religious habit an act of Religious honouring of Jupiter but to wear Surplice and to sacrifice in that habit to Iupiter at eight of clock in the morning rather then at ten in this place Physicall rather then this is no worshipping of Iupiter but a meer Physicall circumstance neither up nor down to the worship and time and place Physicall are neither worship nor Religious means of worship 2. Time and Place Name Country Form Figure Habit or Garments to hold off injuries of Sun and Heaven as such â—re never commanded never forbidden of God and therefore the change of these circumstances can be no change of a Commandment of God We never advanced circumstances as such to the orbe and spheare of Morals Formalists do so advance their Ceremonies and therefore if God command Surplice though by the intervening authority of his Church such cannot be altered except God command to alter the Religious signification of white linnen but we know not where God hath commanded the alteration of any Ceremonies except that the Lords coming in the flesh as a thing to come must alter all Ceremonies which shadow forth Christ to come when the body Christ is come already Let us know such a ground for alteration of corner Cap Altar Surplice except to drive such Oxen out of the Temple 3. We hold that the Lords commanding such a thing in the Gospel is a reason why it should be necessarily permanent for ever except the Lord hath commanded it should be for a time only as he commanded Moses's Ceremonies and so Gods Authority of commanding a thing to be unchangeably in his worship is a reason why it should be unchangeably in his worship and his commanding any thing to be for a time only and alterably in his worship is a reason why it should be for a time only alterably in his worship so to us Gods Commandment is a reason why his own Ceremonies and Sacraments of the New Testament should be in the Church because the Law-giver hath in scripture commanded them to be and the reason why Hookers surplice and crossing should not be is because he hath commanded no such thing Now the reasons of alteration of any Laws in the Gospel is from God never from the Church as 1. If God immediately inspire Moses to make a tabernacle and thereafter inspire David and Solomon to make the Temple in the place of the tabernacle and give them no Commandment for a tabernacle its evident that God hath altered and removed the Tabernacle and that the alteration is not from David nor Solomon 2. If God command types and Ceremonies to be in his Church till the body Christ come Col. 2. 17. then when Christ is come and his coming sufficiently published to the world then are his own Ceremonies altered and removed but not by the discretion of Peter and Paul or the Church but by God himself 3. When God commandeth such Offices to be in his house which dependeth immediately upon his own immediate will of giving gifts essentially required to these Offices then these offices are so long in his Church as God is pleased by his immediate will to give these gifts and when God denyeth these gifts essentially requisite sure it is his immediate wil hath altered and removed the office not the will of the Church so the Lord hath alterd and removed these Offices and gifts of Apostles who could speak with tongues and seal their doctrine with Miracles Evangelists Prophets extraordinarily inspired gifts of healing c. 4. Some things are not matters of worship at all but of goods as the community of goods love-Feasts matters of civill conversation these are only in their morality as touching distribution to the necessities of the Saints and brotherly kindenesse unalterable and no otherwise Now for these things that are smaller or weightier we hold they are not in their weightinesse or smallnesse of importance to be considered but as the Authority of God hath imprinted a necessity on them so are they obligatory to us I am obliged to receive this as scripture that Paul left his cloak at Troas no lesse then this Christ came
unlawfull teaching means doth bring to our memory because they have no warrant of Christ to speak or spell us the very language and minde of God which God hath spoken in his word by his holy Prophets and Apostles Yea though crosses and afflictions work only upon us as occasions and externall objects yet are we to submit our Conscience to them as to warnings because they be sent as Gods Messengers appointed by him as Mic. 6. 9. Hear the Rod and who hath appointed it 4. Ceremonies work saith Burges as sensible objects and as other Creatures yea but he is far wide the Creature doth book as the word is Psal 19. v. 1. the glory of God and that which may be known of God is made manifest in them and God hath manifested 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these things by the Creatures Rom. 1. 19. But Ceremonies are not books of Gods writing God hath not written nor booked this upon a Surplice Be holy ye who bear the Vessels of the Lord he hath written it in Isaiahs book c. 52. 11. And we submit to the teaching of the Creatures though they work not upon the soul as the Word and Sacraments do because God hath appointed such books to teach us Erg◠we are in no sort to submit to the Devils books Printed by Prelats or to their Ceremoniall Volumnes because God hath written nothing upon them and here by the way I say it is unlawfull yea and Hypocrisie to be devouter then God will have us as to enlarge the Phylacteries and make them above Gods measure Numb 15. 38. To be humble by a mean not appointed of God Ioh. 13. Or to do what God only should do as to make Annointing Oyl besides Gods Oyl Exod. 30. 31 32 33. Or to set a threshold and a post beside Gods own threshold Ezek. 43. 8. is presumption Lastly Gods spirit worketh not with Ceremonies and so they are as the offering of Swines blood and the slaying of a man and so Abomination to God Isa 66. 1 2. The holy spirit is merited to us by Christ Ioh. 16. 14. He shall receive of mine and shew unto you But who can say that the grace of joy in the holy Ghost wrought by the droning of Organs and the holinesse taught by Surplice is a work of the spirit merited by Christ as our High Priest 3. God hath made no promise that he will work by Ceremonies for the spirit worketh not without the Word so then I might resist the working of the spirit and not sin against the Word and this is Anabaptists Enthusiasme If God work not by them they be vain and fruitlesse and the Idol is unlawfull for this that it profiteth not Also the spirits action is either naturall or supernaturall here If naturall it is a naturall work and a naturall spirit and to be rejected If supernaturall we may devise means to produce supernaturall effects mens Ceremonies can produce supernaturall joy comfort peace and acts of grace purchased to us by Christs merit this is a miracle 3. They say All this may be said against your Circumstances of time and place for they are appropriated to Religious uses and not for that made holy parts of Divine Worship 2. Time and place are new things as our Ceremonies are 3. Spirituall signification maketh Ceremonies so much the better but hindreth them not but that they may be Rites of meer Order Burges Ans Time Place Pulpit Table-cloath are new Physically often not new Morally or Religiously they have no Spirituall influence in worship A civill declamation hath the same time place pulpit with a Preaching for then if for application you call them Religious as D. Ammes saith well An hill whereon a Preacher Preacheth a Iudge perswadeth a Law a Captain speaketh to his Souldiers is both a Sacred a judiciall a Military hill 2. Signification spirituall maketh Ceremonies capable of being ordered for Surplice wearing and Crossing being Doctrinall as teaching signifying stirring up the dull affections as doth the Word and Sacrament they require order and decency Now things of meer order requireth no ordering as time place require not other time place to circumstance them right 2. This is that which Papists say as Suarez that by consequent only they have signification putupon them Now fourthly The place Matth. 15. where Christ reproveth the Traditions of Pharisees as Doctrines of men The Jesuit Vasquez his Answer is their Answer Vasquez Tom. 2. in 12. disp 152. cap. 4. That Christ reproveth them not because they kept the Traditions of the Elders Sed quod in falsis praeceptis Divinae legi contrari isputarent esse summam Religionis Because they believed all Religion to stand in their Traditions which were contrary to Gods Law and for their own omitted Gods Commandments And Suarez Tom. de legib lib 4. cap. 2. He reproveth what they added Tanquam nova as new things Corduba Ad. victor rel 1. de potestate Ecclesiae q. 3. Prop. 6. But Chrysostom Hom. 32. in Matth. Thinketh better that they had no power to make Laws yea he condemneth the Laws written in their forehead But this exposition is false 1. They brought in Traditions at first for vain glory to be called Rabbi Matth. 23. 7 8. Ergo they thought them not at first of Religious necessity 2. Mark saith cap. 7. 5. Why walk not thy Disciples according to the Traditions of the Elders Therefore the externall practice and not the internall opinion of necessity and holinesse is condemned as is clear And when the Pharisees saw some of the Disciples eat bread with unwashen hands they found fault The challenge was for an external omission of an outward observance which may be seen with the eyes Ergo these Traditions are not condemned by Christ because they were contrary to Gods Word or impious but in this that they were contrary because not Commanded for in the externall Religious act of washing hands there was no other impiety of a wicked opinion objected to Christs Disciples for if the Pharisees eye had been satisfied in that the Disciples should wash before they eat they would not have contended with Christs Disciples about the Piety of these Traditions nor about any inward opinion that they added under this Reduplication as new as Suarez saith But the Church which cannot erre including the Jewish Pope the High Priest can adde nothing as new contrary to Gods Law nor is there any question betwixt the Pharisees and the Lords Disciples Whether the Traditions of the Elders should be esteemed the marrow and sum of all Religion as Vasquez saith But only anent externall conformity with walking in the Traditions of the Elders or not walking as is most clear in the Text It is true Christ objected they accounted more of mens Traditions nor of Gods Commandments as Papists and Formalists do But that was not the state of the question betwixt the Disciples of Christ and the Pharisees 2. Christ rejecteth
these Traditions by an Argument taken from the want of a lawfull Author while he calleth them Precepts of men opposed to the Commandments of God and while he saith v. 13. That every plant not rooted by his heavenly Father shall be rooted out Yea and Christ expresly proveth their worship vain because they taught the fear and worship of God by the precepts of men and not by the word of God and Ceremonies are the precepts of men 3. Mar. 7. 10 11 12. He alledgeth their corrupt and false exposition of the fifth Commandment in saying It is a gift whereby Parents may benefit which Children offer to God though they help not their Parents in their poverty necessity so you free them from obedience to the fifth Commandment of God by setting up your false glosse saith Christ which is a human tradition Then to Christ this is a good argument your corrupting of the fift Cōmandment with your false glosses is a rejecting of Gods 5. Commandment why because it is a doctrine of men and one of the Pharisees Traditions For whether they placed operative sanctity in preferring mens Commandment to Gods or not none can deny but Christ reasoneth against these evils because they were mens Traditions otherway Formalists shall be forced to say that if the Pharisees have esteemed them Arbitrary and of no operative sanctity mens Commandments had not been vain worship Christs Argument from Isa 29. should prove nothing for false glosses and corrupting the fifth Commandment is not vain worship because it is a doctrine of men for Doctrines of men as only coming from men and esteemed Arbitrary are not vain saith Formalists yea except they be contrary in the matter to Gods Law and proffered or equalized in the opinion of sanctity to Gods Law they are not a whit vain because they come from men or are doctrines of men 4. Christ defendeth his Disciples practice in abstaining from externall not-washing Ergo he esteemed the externall washing unlawfull But if the Disciples abstinence was because of the impiety of washing and the opinion of sanctity put upon washing otherwayes Lawfull he should have defended his Disciples in a thing unlawfull for to disobey the Elders and Church-guides who sate in Moses's chair and were to he obeyed Matth. 23. 2 3. in an externall indifferent act of washing not contrary to the washings commanded in Moses Law and so negatively conforme to Gods Law is Lawfull as Formalists and Papists both teach but Christ defended his Disciples in their non-obedience externall for they were not challenged for denying the opinion of operative holinesse to these Ceremonies Christ who commanded obedience to sitters in Moses his chair in all things Lawfull would have obeyed himself and cleared his Disciples in so far as they ought to obey or not to obey 5. Vasquez sayes These Traditions were unlawfull because they were invented Sola voluntate hominum absque ratione by the sole will of men without reason But so are Popish Ceremonies for if they can be proved by the word of God and the light of nature they are essentiall parts of Gods word and not accidentall nor left to the Churches will 2. It is good then the Iesuit confesseth the Church from sole will and so the Pope and Prelat can make no Laws but either Scripture or natures light must warrant them and sole will cannot rule them 3. They had as good reason in generall from Moses his writings and the Law-washings as Pope and Prelats have for their Traditions But saith Vasquez Christ complaineth of these traditions because they held them to be Summam Religionis the marrow of Religion and took no care of Gods Law Ans That will no more prove them to be vain worship and that the Disciples were to be justified in their non-conformity to these Church washings then that Gods Disciples and sound believers under the Old Testament should abstain from keeping Gods Sabbaths his new-Moons and from offering Sacrifices because the people placed all holinesse in these of old and neglected works of mercy and justice Isa 1. 11 c. Jer. 7. 4 5 6. But say Formalists Christ condemneth them because the Pharisees thought eating with unwashen hands defiled the conscience and meat defiled the soul when the eaters did not wash as the elders commanded Whereas Christ saith It is not that which goeth in at the mouth which defileth the man but the wickednesse that cometh out at the heart Ans It is true and I think Pharisees believed meat eaten contrary to the Elders Traditions defiled the conscience as is clear Mat. 15. 16 17 18. And that also Christ condemneth as a Doctrine of men and of ignorant men and so doth non-conformity to your Ceremonies pollute the conscience as a breach of the fifth and second Command as you say QUEST IV. Whether humane Ceremonies can consist with Order Decency and the sincerity of our profession of true Religion CEremonies fight with Order and Decency 1. These Rites pretended by Gods command to adde order and decency to Gods worship and yet deface his worship and addeth none thereunto be unlawfull But humane Ceremonies be such Ergo That they pretend Order is proved D. Burges saith They have no place in all the New-Testament save only 1 Cor. 14. 26. Let all things be done in order and decency a place as a Estius citeth Magnified by Papists for all their Ceremonies The Major is undeniable I prove the Assumption 1. Because Magick-like Rites honoured with Gods name as Christian-Masse Christs-Masse an Adored Tree called Gods board when there is no use for a Table a Crossing honoured with dedication to Christs service is like Gods name used by sorcerers in Charming Spelling Divining where vertue is ascribed to signes characters and words which have no such vertue from God or nature and this Valentia justly calleth Superstition So the Iews called the Calfe Jehovah Papists call a creature of their making Agnus Dei a stile due to Christ only Joh. 1. 29. 2. All creatures are means of glorifying God Rev. 4. 11. Prov. 16. 4. Rom. 11. 36. And may be invited to praise God as Psal 148. Now it were strange bleating to say O Crossing Surplice Praise ye the Lord when things ordained by mans sole will and so idle and sinfull are made means to glorifie God with as good reason dancing in the Church and blowing feathers in the Aire which have by nature or reason no aptitude for these ends may be decent means of glorifying God 2. Order and decency supernaturall in the Church is in the Word Cant. 6. 4. Clear as the Sun terrible as an Army with Banners Nothing wanting Gods institution can reach a supernaturall end as our Ceremonies are 2. But also Ceremonies relatively sacred in Religious state must be more then civilly decent as also right order produceth supernaturall joy Gal. 2. 5. Civill order cannot do this Or 3. Ceremonies adde naturall order but this is not in colour
Magistrate in matters Ecclesiasticall QUEST 1. 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 COncerning the Christian Magistrate we are to consider two heads the one negative what he cannot do in the matters of Christs Kingdom 2. Positive What he ought to do for the opening of the former We are to cleare whether or no all externall scandalls Ecclesiasticall as well as civill are to be punished by the Civill Magistrate and that as in Civill scandals that disturbeth the peace of the Common-wealth the Magistrate hath a twofold power one to command what is good and just another to reward and punish so the Lord Jesus in his Kingdom hath not onely a directive power to teach and forbid but also a power by way of Discipline upon the external man ecclesiastically to reward and punish to binde and loose in an externall Court on earth It is granted by the Adversaries that Christ as King hath a power of binding and loosing but meerly internall purely spirituall in regard of the Conscience by the Preaching of the Word but for any externall power to take in and cast out of the Visible Kingdom of Iesus Christ his Visible Church This they deny and so refuse all externall Ecclesiasticall censures of receiving into the bosome of the Church and casting out by rebukes or Excommunication and therefore that there is no externall Court in the Church to punish Ecclesiasticall scandals all scandals and externall offences of the Church are to be punished by the Christian Magistrate onely In opposition to which error I say 1. Conclusion There is not only a rebuking of an offender in the Church by private admonition as between Brother and Brother common to all Christians Col. 3. 16. Levit. 19. 17. And of the Pastor only he applying the Word by way of Preaching to such and such offenders and closing the Gates of the Kingdom of Heaven upon impenitent sinners which is acknowledged by the Adversaries But there is also a Church-rebuking by way of censure which must presuppose an Ecclesiasticall Court and a rebuking of a Publique sin put forth by many whereas one only not a Church or multitude may Preach the Word and so rebuke by way of Preaching which I make out from the Word of God 2 Cor. 2. 6. Sufficient to such a man is this punishment which was inflicted of many The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a rebuke or punishment in the old Translation it is Objurgatio in the Newer Increpatio Piscator Muleta is a chastisement whether this punishment was actuall excommunication as many Learned Interpreters do not improbably gather out of the Text or if it was a Rebuke of the Church in order thereunto Certain it included a rebuking not of one man but a Church-rebuking inflicted by many 2 Cor. 2. 6. And by the Representative Church of Corinth gathered together with Pauls spirit and the power of the the Lord Jesus 1 Cor. 5. 4 5. And so presupposeth a Court or Convention of many inflicting this punishment 2. The Adversaries who deny that there is such a thing as Excommunication say it was onely a rebuke but if it was Excommunication it must include a rebuke coming from the many who do excommunicate 3. It is such a rebuke as must be taken off and pardoned by many as ver 7. So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him and comfort him ver 10. To whom ye forgive any thing I also forgive So here is a rebuking put upon an offender by many convened in a Court who did rebuke by way of judiciall Authority and the power of the Lord Iesus Ergo it was some higher censure which was inflicted by many and taken off by many then that which was inflicted by one by way of Preaching where there is no necessity that many either rebuke or comfort the rebuked for one Pastor is to give out the sentence of Death or Life rebuking and comforting toward any one offender or a person Repenting whether many be convened to consent and joyn or not Yea I may being a Pastor of Iesus Christ dispense rebukes and comforts by way of Preaching against the will and minde of the whole flock But a rebuke and a forgiving by many cannot be dispensed except these many convene together in the Name of the Lord Iesus in a Church way and consent 2. If the convened Church must be heard and obeyed when she rebuketh a Brother for a fault done between Brother and Brother and that upon the Testimony of two or three witnesses then is the Church a Court that is to rebuke an offender and so to convene him before her and that is some other censure then by way of Preaching but the former is true Matth. 18. 16 17. 3. If the Churches of Ierusalem and Antioch convened in a Synod do give forth an Ecclesiasticall rebuke on false Teachers as those that troubled the Churches and perverted their Souls with false Doctrine then is there rebuking of offenders by a Church or Churches beside a Pastorall rebuking by one single Brother or Pastor But the former is true Act. 15. ver 24 25. The Proposition is clear in that a select company of Apostles Elders and Brethren doth not only Doctrinally conclude against their errour who did hold the necessity of Circumcision but also against the Persons and their Schismaticall way of troubling the Church by a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in making a side and Faction in the Church ver 2. 24. And this not any one single man could do in an ordinary way except we say that it was an idle and unnecessary remedy which the Apostles used to quench the sire as if any one man might have done all this or as if they had rebuked these men publikely not having heard and convinced them by the Word of God or as if an offence touching conversation and against the second Table had risen betweene Church and Church no lesse then in the present case of an offence in matter of doctrine that the Apostles would not have taken the same course all which are not to be imagined And in very deed this was not a point of meer doctrine but also of peace and charity violated by a Faction ver 2. And a scandall in eating things strangled was raised in the Churches Acts 15. 24. 1 Cor. 10. 28 29. Rom. 14. 14 15 16 17. 4. If Timothy be to rebuke publikely those that sin publikely and that judicially upon the Testimony of Witnesses Then is there a publike Church-rebuking by way of censure beside the pastorall rebuking But the former is expresly said 1 Tim. 5. 19 20. This must be a rebuking in a Church-court except we say Timothy his alone was the Church and a Monarch of the Church who hath power to lead witnesses against Elders 2. Conclusion There is such a censure as excommunication in the hands of the Church by
things of God Leviticus 10. 10. The Priests were not to drink wine when they went into the Tabernacle That ye may saith the Lord put difference between holy and unholy and between unclean and clean Now Haggai expresly saith cap. 2. 11 12. That it was the Priests part to put this difference and so to admit to or exclude from the holy things of God Hence for this cause it is said as 2 Chron. 23. 19. Iehoiada appointed the officers of the Lords house so he set porters at the gates of the house of the Lord that none which are unclean in any thing might enter in so Ezra 9. 21 22. None did eat the Passeover but such as were pure and had separated themselves from the filthinesse of the Heathen of the land for this cause doth the Lord complain of the Priests Ezech. 22. 26. Her Priests have violated my law and have polluted my holy things they have put no difference between the holy and the prophane neither have they shewed the difference between the unclean and the clean Ezech. 44. 6. And thou shalt say to the Rebellious even to the house of Israel thus saith the Lord God O ye house of Israel let it suffice you of all your abominations 7. That ye have brought into my sanctuary strangers uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh to be in my sanctuary to pollute it even my house when ye offered my bread the fat and the blood and they have broken my Covenant because of all your abominations 8. And ye have not kept the charge of my holy things But ye have set keepers of my Charge in my Sanctuary for your selves 9. Thus saith the Lord God no stranger uncircumcised in heart nor uncircumcised in flesh shall enter into my sanctuary of any stranger that is among the children of Israel Here is a complaint that those that have the charge of the holy things should suffer the holy things to be polluted I grant it cannot bear this sense that none should be admitted to be Members of the Visible Church under the New Testament but such as are conceived to be regenerate except it can be proved that the Sanctuary was a type of the visible Church 2. That the Apostles constituted their Churches thus but we read not in all the New Testament of any admission of Church Members at all but only of baptizing of those who were willing to be baptized and from this resulted the capacity of a Church Relation in all Churches visible Nor 2. Do we finde any shadow in all the word of God of tryall of Church Members by way of electing and choosing of such and such as qualified by reason of a conceived regeneration in the persons chosen or of rejecting and refusing others as conceived to have no inward work of grace in them this I believe can never be made good out of the word of God 3. They must prove the Apostles admitted into the Sanctuary of the Visible Church Ananias Saphira Simon Magus and others uncircumcised in heart to pollute the holy things of God and that the Apostles erred and were deceived in the moulding of the first Apostolick Church in the world which was to be a rule and pattern to all Churches in the New Testament to all Ages I deny not but they might have erred according to the grounds of these who urge the comparison for a Church of visible Saints but that the Apostles De facto did erre in their Election and judgement in that wherein the holy Ghost holdeth them forth and their acts to be our rule and pattern I utterly deny I grant Act. 15. In that Synod they did Act as men and Elders not as Apostles but that it could fall out that they should uctually erre and obtrude false Doctrine instead of truth to the Churches in that Synod which is the first rule and pattern of Synods I shall not believe But there is this Morall and perpetuall truth in these Scriptures 1. That there are under the New Testament some over the people of God in the Lord some that watch for their souls and govern them as here there were Priests Levites that taught and governed the people 2. That the Rulers of the Churches alwayes are to have the charge of the holy things and to see that these holy things the Seals and Sacraments and word of promise be not polluted and that therefore they have power given them to debar such and such profane from the Seals and so are to discern between the clean and the unclean and this which the Prophet speaketh ver 9. is a prophecie never fulfilled after this in the persons of the people of God therefore it must have its spirituall truth fulfilled under the New Testament as is clear ver 11. Yet the Levites that are gone away far from me shall be Ministers in my Sanctuarie having charge at the gates of the House and Ministering to the House 14. And I will make them keepers of the charge of the House for all the service thereof and for all that shall be done therein Ver. 15. And the Priests and the Levites the sons of Zadok that kept the charge of my Sanctuary when the children of Israel went astray from me they shall enter into my Sanctuary and they shall come neer to my Table to minister unto me and to keep my charge 23. And they shall teach my people the difference betweene the holy and prophane and cause men to discerne between the uncleane and the cleane 24. And in controversie they shall stand in judgement and they shall judge it according to my judgement and they shall keepe my Lawes and my Statutes in all mine assemblies and they shall hallow my Sabbaths Now this Temple was another house then Solomons Temple as is evident out of the Text it having roomes dimensions structures so different that none can imagine them one house and these chapters containe the division of the Holy Land which after the captivity was never done for the ten Tribes never returned and this Temple is clearely a type of the new Ierusalem and agreeth to that City spoken of Revelation chapters 21. and 22. As may appeare especially by the foure last chapters of Ezekiel and in the last words of the last chapter And the name of the city from that day shall be The Lord is there And the Priests after the captivity as well as before brake the covenant of Levi Mal. 2. And therefore I see it not fulfilled except in the visible Church of the New Testament and in the Assemblies of Christian Churches Mat. 18. Act. 15. and the rest of the Church-assemblies under the New Testament As for the Lords personall raigne on earth it is acknowledged there shall be no Church policy in it no Word Sacraments Ordinances no Temple as they say from Rev. 21. 22. And with correction and submission the Priests and Levites that Ezek. 44. 15. are said to keep the charge of the Lords
and every where to be observed in all Churches Yet Paul neither practiseth it here nor else where nor commandeth others to practise it now here he desireth they may be cut off but not excommunicated Ans We say the last is no question you never read in the New-Testament or in the Old that Prophets or Apostles consulted or advised with the people whether they should work miracles or not 2. Though Excommunication was an ordinary power as the power of binding and loosing given to the Church Matth. 16. 19. and 18. 18. Ioh. 20. 22 23. Yet the actuall exercise of Excommunication being the highest and weightiest censure and the most severe of any other on earth it is no wonder that Paul be as sparing and rare in the exercise of it as the Apostles were in killing mens bodies 3. It is a begging of the question to say Paul neither practised himself nor commanded others to excommunicate for he did both Erastus That which is Rom. 16. spoken for eschewing of those who cause offences is that every one single person beware of false Teachers it is not spoken to the Church to Excommunicate those false Teachers and therefore there is no such need of such a Presbytery as you dream of but only of good and diligent Ministers who may rightly instruct and prudently teach their hearers what Teachers they ought to eschew Ans 1. The eschewing of false Teachers is a generall and a duty no question given to all and every one of the Church But the place doth no more say in expresse terms that a single Pastor should give warning particularly by name that this man Iohn Hymeneus Alexander are those false Teachers to be eschewed then it saith that the Presbytery which we assert doth in expresse termes shew what false Teachers they be who by name are to be Excommunicated and eschewed but you see that Erastus is overcome by truth so far as he must say one single Minister may declare that such a false Teacher by name is to be eschewed as a Heathen and a Publican and so in effect excommunicated and put out of the Church but he denieth that the Church may declare him a Heathen as Matth. 18. and that many Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gathered together in the name of Christ as it is 1 Cor. 5. may put out a false Teacher or a wolf out of the flock 2. We grant that it is spoken to every one that he should eschew false teachers yea and 2 Thes 3. All that walketh unordinately all fornicators extortioners drunkards 1 Coâ— 5. But that every man should eschew those whom he in his private judgement conceiveth to be such before he rebuke them and labour to gain them and in case of obstâ—nâ—cy Tell the Church as Christ commandeâ—h Matth. 18. is not commanded buâ— forbidden Matth. 18. Lev. 1917. Col. 3. 15. For if this should be that I might immediatly upon my own private grudge unbrother and cast out of my heart and intire fellowship every one whom I conceive offendeth me and walketh unordinately without observing Christs order or previous rebuking of him I make a pathway to perpetuall Schismes 2. A violation of all Laws of fraternity and Christian Communion 3. A dissâ—lving and breaking of all Church Communion and iâ— were strange if Erastus will have Christs order kept Matth. 18. in private offences done by one brother to another and not in publick offences when a brother offendeth twenty and a whole Church as if I were obliged to seek to gain my brothers soul in private and lâ—sse injuries and not in publick and more hainous offences Hence it is clear to me If we are to reject an Heretick after once or twice admonition and not to receive in our houses false Teachers and 1 Tim. 6. 3. If any teach otherwise and consent not unto the wholesome word even the words of our Lord Iesus Christ being given to perverse disputing as men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth 1 Tim. 6. 3 4 5. We are to withdraw our selves from such and to save with severity and plucking out of the fiâ—e those that cannot be cured then certainly the Church of Christ must also turn away from such men and acknowledge them as no members of the body whereof Christ is the head if we say not this if one hath leave in a constituted Church to jâ—dge and condemne his brother and then we shall not take the course of the Apostles in the like case as Act. 15. which is not Apostolick for when false Teachers troubled the Brethren they would not peremptorily though great Apostles as Paul and Barnabas determine against either the false doctrine or the persons of the Teachers while the Apostles Elders and Brethren did meet in a Synod and determine against the Error and against the men as such as troubled the Brethren with words and perverted their souls Act. 15. Now Erastus is willing to acknowledge a sort of Divine Excommunication not a humane as he is pleased to call that Ordinance of separating of wicked men from the Church and holy things of God which yet was in the Church of the Jews instituted by Christ and his Apostles and which no Church wanted as learned Beza saith even in the time of persecution had Erastus explained to us his divine Excommunication as he calleth it it were easie to bring most of his owne Arguments with greater strength of reason against it then against ours which is the truely divine Excommunication CHAP. XIV Quest 10. Whether Erastus doth strongly prove that there is no Presbytery nor two distinct judicatures one of the Church another of the State Erastus I deny not First such a Presbytery as the Evangelists mention which is called a Presbytery a Synedry a Synagogue this was the civill Magistrate who had amongst the Jews the power of the sword 2. I deny not a Presbytery 1 Cor. 6. when the Church wanteth a civill Magistrate 3. I deny not a Presbytery of learned men who being asked may give their judgement of doubts of which Ambrose there was nothing of old done sine seniorum consilio without the Counsels of the Elders But I deny a Senate collected out of the body of the Church to judge who repenteth and are to be excommunicated and debarred from the Sacraments and who not or I deny any Ecclesiasticall judicature touching the manners and conversation of men different from the judgement or court of the civill Magistrate or that there be two supream Courts touching manners in one Common wealth Ans One simple head in a moment may deny more then many wise men can prove in a whole day it proveth they are more cumbersome in their disputes then strong that there was a Iewish Presbytery â—hat is a civill judicature is conâ—uted by Lev. 10. 10. where there is a Court of Aarons sonnes whose it was to judge of Church matters only and to put difference betweene holy and unholy betweene
any Law-power except usurped when the Iews were now riper for destruction and had taken on them the blood of the Lord of glory and so growing more daring and insolent against the Roman povver to their own just desolation that came on them under Vespasian That they used witnesses will not prove they had Law to stone Steven for Timothy had no power of life and death over Elders one brother hath no power of life and death over another as Erastus will grant yet with both there is use of witnesses 1 Tim. 5. 19. Matth. 18. 16. This I hope concludeth but weakly any lawfull civill power so all this is from a naked practise of those that alvvayes resisted the holy Ghost And the like I say of Paul who saith Act. 26. 10. of himself Many of the Saints did I shut up in prison having received authority from the high Priests 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 suppose it were true that Saul had Law and Authority from the high Priests to imprison the Saints and to murther the Saints no high Priest can make over a Law-power to another which he hath not himself now certain this Law-power of the Pharisees and High Priests by Gods Law is the question Let us see Law or institution where the High Priests for of these only the Text speaketh did imprison and put to death either blasphemer or false Prophet or if by Moses his Law which must be a rule to all the High Priests in the time of persecuting Saul it was either Law or practise that the High Priest had power to imprison or scourge or put to death any man and this was most proper to the King and the Civill judge and the Elders and Iudges in every City 2 Sam. 1. 14. 15 16. 1 Kin. 2. 9. 2. 6 7. Isa 1. 23. Ier. 22. 1 c. Ier. 22. 27. Numb 35. 12. 24. Deut. 22. 18. 7. 5. 19. 12. 13. ver 18 19 20 21. 21. 19. 1 Kin. 21. 11. Hos 6. 8. Zeph. 3. 1 2 3. Rom. 13. 4. We know undoubtedly the King the Civill Iudge had power of all bodily punishments as of scourging death stoning strangling crucifying hanging But shew meany Vestigium or the least consequence where the Priests or High Priests had such power or did execute such power in any one man it is true Deut. 17. the Priests might determine in Law what was blasphemy and so what deserved the punishment of blasphemy which is death But so the written Law of God the very letter of it could in many cases clearly resolve the Civill judge even though there had been no controversie about the fact whether it was condemned in the Law of God or not we know Samuel not being judge but Saul being King supream Magistrate not executing judgement on the Amalekites he killed Agag certainly all Divines even Popish not excepted say Saul the Civil Magistrate ought to have killed Agag that Samuel not by vertue of his place as a prophet or as a Priest or a Member of the Sanedrim as Erastus would say but excited by an extraordinary motion of Gods spirit killed him as Phineas the son of Aaron slew Num. 25. Zimri and Cosbi 7 8. And Elijah slew Baals Priests 1 Kin. 18. 40. 2 Kin. 1. 10. If Phineas by office and Elias by office killed those ill doers as Erastus would dream The Prophets and Priests by their office were Civill Iudges and had power to put to death evil doers Now Erastus denyeth and with good reason that the Lords disciples should bear civill dominion over men as the Lords of the Gentiles Luk. 22. 24 25 26. and that Christ though both a Prophet and a Priest could not take on him to be a Iudge and a Ruler Luk. 12. yet here Erastus will have the High Priest by a Law-power to imprison and put to death 2. Erastus may with as good reason say that the high Priests had a Law-power by Gods institution to punish and to compell Christians to blaspheme God and to persecute them to strange Cities and to murther the Saints that believed in the Lord Iesus for he went to Damascus for this effect Act. 26. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with povver and Commission from the chief Priests This was not a Law-power in generall to punish such as the Law of Moses discerned to be blasphemers but a limited particular Commission to murther the Saints who should hear and obey the Prophet like unto Moses whom the Lord should raise up Deut. 18. What Law had the High Priests for this Had they not a Law on the contrary Deut. 18. Erastus Paul confesseth ingenuously before the Roman Judges that he persecuted the Saints and that he had authority and power from the Priests and Elders so to do Act. 22. 26. and we read not that the Priests or Paul were censured for these things as having done any thing against the Laws or will of the Romans Act. 5. They send their Officer the Captain of the Temple they imprison the Apostles they convene a Councell give out a sentence and agitate the killing of the Apostles amongst them while Gamaliel impede them Ans It is true the Romans heard that the Sanedrim exercised Civill jurisdiction and inflicted bodily punishment But for false Doctrine the Romans I conceive took as little care as Gallio did of any of Gods matters and whether the Sanedrim kept the rule of the Lords first institution Deut. 17. yea they looked not much whether the Priests might put to death false Prophets or if the Civill judges only might do it and Erastus said before that the Romans gave the Iews liberty of all their own laws and customes in matters of Religion 2. What care would the Romans take whether the Iews killed and oppressed Iews for questions of their owne Religion so they remained loyall and true to Cesar 3. We know Herod Felix Festus Agrippa being willing to pleasure the Iews did oversee many breaches of Law in them especially in matters of the Gospel Act. 12. 3. and 24. 27. and 16. 36 37 38 39 40. Ioh. 19. 15 16 17. 4. How doth he prove that the Romans did not take this for a breach of their Lawes Because they accuse not the Sanedrim for this surely it followeth not We read not that the Romans challenged them for a manifest breach of Law when they scourged and cast in prison Paul and Silas who were Romans and had not condemned them Act. 16. 38 39. 5. We deny not a lawfull judicature of the Sanedrim Act. 5. But that they had any Law of God to scourge and imprison and put to death the Apostles is the question we say they neither had Gods law nor durst be answerable to the Romans Laws for that fact and so this is a fact brought to prove a Law Erastus If this was insolencie in the Jevvs which rose from the confusion of the two jurisdictions hovv say some of yours none can be
contrary to what they judge in conscience ought to be done So Tell the Church to Erastus is Tell the one individuall single Magistrate who by office may judge without and contrary to the advice of all the Church Pastors Doctors Elders yea people and all Now though we grant that what the Emperour doth as Emperour and the Magistrate as Magistrate hath done that the Empire City and Incorporation doth which yet is never true in the Church which hath no King as a Church save onely the head and King Iesus Christ yet Erastus hath not proved what the Emperour doth without and contrary to the advice of all the Empire that the Empire hath done that Erastus Christ either understandeth by the Church the whole multitude of Ierusalem or then the Magistrates But he understandeth not the multitude 1. Because Christ would not change the Government of heathens farre lesse of that which his Father had appointed in Iudea in which the people did never Governe Yea the Apostles to their death did nothing against Moses his Law and how they take Christ to speak of a Church to be founded of new after his resurrection who beleeved not he should die and rise againe and after his resurrection knew not what a kingdome whether worldly or spirituall he was to â—ave cannot be conceived Ans 1. Many will deny the Major for he understood the rulers of the Christian Church not excluding the consent of the Christian Church of beleevers in the matter of Excommunication 2. I deny that Christ doth here re-establish a Synedry and bid them Tell the Scribes and Pharisees and those that were to crucifie himselfe and to persecute the Apostles to the death Christ knew those to be miserable healers of scandals betweene brother and brother 2. He knew this Sanedrim to be the Disciples of Christs capitall enemies he warned the Disciples to beware of the leaven of their corrupt Doctrine he prophecied this Sanedrim should be destroyed as a degenerated plant that his heavenly father had not planted and was it like Christ would direct them a perishing and degenerate remedie against scandals that he would have removed by his Church even till the end of the world 2. It is most false that the Apostles did keep to death the institutions and ordinances of Moses Act. 15. They abrogated all the ceremoniall Law except that of blood and things strangled and Paul said he that would amongst the Galathians be circumcised was falâ—e from Christ see Col. 2. Gal. 4. Heb. 13. and elsewhere the contrary The Government was now to expire with Christs death and ascension in so farre as it was pedagogicall 3. Christ spake often of his Kingdome to them and they understood nothing but an earthly and temporall Kingdome and that they understood perfectly All this time the Church of Pastors Teachers Elders Deacons beleevers in Christ is denied Let Erastus answer when Christ said Mat. 16. He would build his Church on a rock unpregnable and insuperable to hell If the Apostles understood a Church to be founded after the resurrection and when Christ said Loe I am with you to the end of the world if Christ meant not he would give his presence to the Christian Church not then founded for even after his resurrection they dreamed of an earthly Kingdome Act. 1. and that our divines do rightly expound that place I am with you All the faithfull Pastors Doctors Church-officers and beleevers to the Lords second appearance is clear Erastus Christ bade Tell that Church which hath power to conveene the offender before it examine Witnesses judicially cognosce and give sentence but in Christs time the multitude could not doe this Ans Ergo the Church hath a spirituall judicature This is for uâ— 2. Nor had the Sanedrim the power in all offences as Erastus would make the world beleeve for it was but a shadow at this time void of power and used what power they had against Christ and the Gospel Nor needeth Erastus to prove that by the Church the multitude cannot be understood though he cannot exclude them from their owne part in Church Government both in consenting and in withdrawing from the Excommunicated Erastus But Tell the Church is all one vvith this Appoint some who in the name of the Church may mannage the businesse but how prove they this Then Christ bade Tell the Elders that then were else he did not accommodate himselfe to their understanding to whom he spake when he was to teach hovv our sacrifices pleaseth God be biddeth us first be reconciled to our brother and then sacrifice yet he knevv that sacrifices vvere to be abolished but by Analogie he vvould teach us vvhat he requireth vvhen he saith he vvill have mercy and not sacrifice Ergo by your ovvn confession to tell the Church is to tell the Sanedrim for there vvas then no Church but the multitude Ans 1. Tell the Church cannot in any sense have such a meaning as Appoint Elders and tell them for then Tell the Sanedrim must have this meaning set up a sound Sanedrim according as Moses appointed and tell the Sanedrim The Sanedrim in its right constitution and due power as the Law of Moses required it was not to be had at this time Herod had killed the Sanedrim the Romans made High Priests from yeere to yeere against the institution the power of life and death in the civill Sanedrim was now none at all The Scepter was departed from Iudah those that sate in Moses Chaire corrupted all so the right Sanedrim was no more now to be had then a Christian Church not yet erected Again Tell the Church presupposeth a constituted Church and therefore cannot include a command to erect a new mould 2. Tell the Elders of the Christian Church may as well be meant in these words Tell the Church as the Iewish Church can be understood 3. The word Church and to conveene offenders hear Witnesses give out sentence were all plaine Language to the disciples though they knew not the frame of the Gospell Church as yet Christ being now teaching an ordinance of a Church and the censure of Excommunication that was not to fall under practise while Christ should ascend to heaven and therefore though this Church was not yet it followeth not that the Lord Iesus speaketh of the Sanedrim 4. Say that he meane the Sanedrim Ergo say we he speaketh nothing of the Christian Magistrate 1. Because there was no Magistrate now but Iewish Magistrates as Erastus cannot deny 2. Because this Sanedrim that gained soules of offending brethren was Ecclesiasticall not civill 3. By proportion and Analogie Christ must understand the Church of Christians though the Sanedrim was to be removed shortly Erastus It is a great controversie vvho are to be chosen out of the bodie of the Church to excommunicate judicially Ans The controversie was moved partly by Erastus partly by Morellius not in the reformed Churches Erastus Some say the Magistrate
1 2 3. ver 8 9 10. cap. 3. 8 9 10. Coming behinde in no gift 1 Cor. 1. 7. In Covenant with God casting out the incestuous 1 Cor. 5. Separated from Idols 2 Cor. 6. 16 17 18. Espoused to one husband Christ 2 Cor. 11. 2. Established in the faith and increasing in number daily Act. 16. 5. Yea the Churches had rest throughout all Judea and Galile and Samaria and were edified walking in the â—ear of the Lord and in the comforts of the holy Ghost and were multiplied Act. 9. 31. Now if the Christian Magistrate be their only Head and chief Feeder and all Elders but his servants Edifying à sub Magistratu from and under the Magistrate How were they edified and the compleat house of God the house wanting a head and the Church of the living God without the chief feeder and shepheard the Magistrate when all this time the Lord set spirituall Pastors and watchmen over them It is true it might be some defect that they wanted a Christian Magistrate who was their Nurse-father and keeper and avenger of both Tables of the Law But this defect was 1. A defect of the Church as men who may be injured and do violence one to another as men if they want one who beareth the sword to be avenged on evil doers But it is no defect of the Church as the Church 2. There might be some defect in the Church as a Church in this regard that without the Magistrate his accumulative power the edification of the Church extrinsecally might be slower Church Laws lesse vigorous extrinsecally without the sword and evil doers might infest the Church more but there should be no privation or intrinsecall defect or want in the Church either of an officer or integrall part of the Church because they wanted the Magistrate 3. When the first three hundreth year the Churches wanted Christian Magistrates afterward Constantinus convocated the Councell of Nice against Arrius yet professing that he was Episcopus without After him the Empire being divided into three Constantinus Constantius and Constans the second adhered to Arrius oppressed the godly Constans and Constantinus lived not long Though Jovianus Theodosius elder yonger Gratianus Martianus were favourers of the Church yet most of the Northern Kings were persecuters In the sixth hundreth year they began to be obstinate favourers of Heresie In the West Antichristianisme in the East Mahumetisme rose for the most part the Church wanted godly Magistrates and alway hath wanted Whatever power or means of life Christ hath given to his Church or pastors for the edifying of their soules either in Doctrine or Discipline by these is the holy Ghost efficacious on the hearts and conscience of the people of God as immediatly given by Iesus Christ without the mediation or intervention of any other means But Christ hath given power and means of life to preach the word to admonish rebuke Excommunicate to the Church and Pastors by which the holy Ghost worketh efficaciously on the hearts of the people of God which God hath given immediatly to the Church and Pastors especially in the Apostolick Church when there were no Magistrates and the holy Ghost is no wayes efficacious in the hearts of the children of God by the Laws Statutes and sword of the Magistrate Ergo God hath given to his Church and Pastors not to the Magistrate power and means of life in which the holy Ghost is effectuall and that immediatly and not to the Magistrate Or thus Whoever is the supream officer and head of the Church having under him all Church-officers as his servants by such God is effectuall in the consciences of men But Pastors Teachers Elders are such and no wayes the Magistrate Ergo The Proposition is thus made good by the word of reconciliation and the rod of the Lords power in the hands of men The holy Ghost worketh efficaciously in men Now the question will only be to whom this word of reconciliation is committed and the rod of God the Scripture saith to the Ministers never to the Magistrate 2 Cor. 5. 18. And hath committed to us the word of Reconciliation ver 20. Now then we are Ambassadors for Christ 2 Cor. 10. 8. Though I should boast somewhat more of our Authority which the Lord hath given us for edification 2 Cor. 2. 13. If I come again I will not spare 1 Cor. 4. 21. What will ye Shall I come unto you with a rod or in love 1 Tim. 5. 17. Act. 20. 28. 29. 30. 1 Cor. 5. 12. Do not you judge them that are within Matth. 16. 19 18. 18. Ioh. 20. 21 22. This word is no where committed to the Magistaate nor is the holy Ghost efficacious by the Laws and sword of the Magistrate to convert souls we know not Magistrates to be Ministers by whom we believe but Ministers only 1 Cor. 3. ver 5. Nor is the sword a kindely and intrinsecall mean of conversion This Argument may be further confirmed by all the notable differences that the Scripture holdeth forth to be between the Magistrate and the Ministers and Church As 1. The Church judgeth only those that are within the Church 1 Cor. 5. 11 12. The heathen Magistrate may â—udge both those that are within and without the Church and every soul is under his power Rom. 13. 1 2 3. Tit. 3. 1 2. 1 Tim. 2. 1 2 3. 1 Pet. 2. 13 14 15. Matth. 22. 21. And by these same Scriptures the Christian Magistrate being a lawfull Magistrate having under him both believers and heathen may and ought to judge both Ergo the Magistrate as the Magistrate cannot judge those that are within by the word as the Church doth but only in some common coactive way by the sword to compell them to do their duty 3. The Magistrates Kingdom is of this world and he may fight with his sword to defend his own subjects and his subjects may fight for him But the Church and Kingdom of Christ are not of this world nor can the Church as the Church and the Ministers thereof fight or use the sword as is clear Joh. 18. 36. Rom. 13. 4. The Magistrate beareth not the Sword in vain but he beareth the sword in vain over the consciences of men or to judge those that are within for the Church judgeth those that are within with no such weapon as the bloody Sword There is neither sword nor dagger nor any weapon of War required in the Church of Ephesus their censuring of grievous Wolves or false Teachers Act. 20. 28 c. Nor in the Apostles and Elders determining truth against perverters of souls Act. 15. 21 22 c. and 16. 4. Nor in the Church of Thyatira their not suffering Jezabell to teach Rev. 2. 20. Nor in Pergamus their not suffering those that held the Doctrine of Balaam Rev. 2. 14. Erastus l. 4. c. 6. p. 285. saith The Church can kill no man with the Sword There was no sword ever
is onely possible and the good lesse necessary then the good of non-scandalizing then we are not for hope of a possible dutie and lesse necessarie to doe that from whence a Scandall doth arise So it was not lawfull for Paul to take stipend which should have hindered the promoving of the Gospell though he might have imployed that stipend upon charitable uses because that Charitie was a dutie onely possible and incomparably lesse necessarie then the promoting of the Gospell So 1 Cor. 6. 7. Why suffer ye not rather losse yet by that suffering losse they were lesse able for workes of Charitie and to provide for their Familie and Children but the gaine was temporall and not to be compared with a good fame upon Christian religion which was slandered by heathen when they went to law Christian against Christian before an Heathen Judge The fourth scandalous object is that which hath appearance of evill Not every thing is such for good hath the appearance of evill Paybodie to elude this sheweth a number of things which have appearance of evill but â—are good and he nameth among them Hushaies abiding with Absolon in his conspiracie which was plaine dissimulation but that properly hath appearance of evill 1. Quod plaerumque fit malo fine as the Schoolemen define it that which ordinarily is done for an evill end as to ly in bed with another mans wife to sit at the Idols table to bow to an Image 2. That which being good in it selfe yet because of the circumstances is exponed vain-glory as to pray in the streets it s ordinarily exponed to be for this end to be seen of men These who expone that place 1 Thess 5. Abstaine from all appearance of evill to be abstaine from that which seemeth evill to the conscience and judgement of the doer or onely of doctrine reach not the Apostles minde for to sit at the Idols table to bow to an Image and keepe the heart to God are out of doubt appearances of evill forbidden in the text yet are they not doctrines seeming evill alwayes to the judgement of the practisers They object to looke up to the beavens and Sunne may have appearance of praying to the Sunne and heavens for in the externall fact no more could be done by a person adoring the Sun Ergo such appearances cannot be scandalous Objects Answer lifting up of the eyes in prayer are naturall adumbrations and expressions of the elevation of the heart required in prayer Psal 25. v. 1. and so commonly exponed by all Nations and therefore cannot be appearances of evill Hence these rules I. Suppose all be strong in whose presence I practise a thing indifferent yet if it have no necessitie no aptitude to edifie and have onely all its goodness from the will of commanders in practising I scandalize 1. Because the strong are apt to sinne and so apt to be scandalized and the action is idle and not reasonable having no other reason but the meere will of Rulers 2. If I probably know my practice shall come to the knowledge of these who shall be scandalized I scandalize them in such an action II. Rule Though the practice of things indifferent having some necessitie be lawfull as 1 Cor. 10. 27. Eat what is set before you asking no question for conscience sake Yet the â—aith and conscience of things indifferent is never indifferent we are never to judge a thing indifferent necessarie nor a thing necessarie indifferent and practice in that judgement so erroneous is finfull and not of faith Rom. 14 â— 22. III Rule An universall omission of good of obeying affirinative precepts for the eschewing of scandall cannot be lawfull for it is 1. necessarie for my salvation to obey affinnative precepts though not in all differences of time In this meaning Augustine said We are not to abstaine from good workes he meaneth a totall abstainence for any scandall And Tertullian good offendeth non save a wicked minde But at sometime an obedience to an affirmative precept hic nunc may be omitted when we see that from the doing thereof the ignorant and weake will commit great sinnes So Aquinas Bannes Sanches for affirmative precepts of the law of nature saith Bannes must sometime be omitted for the eschewing of scandall for they doe not obliedge but when and after such a manner as is convenient V. Rule To doe any good action or lawfull or indifferent when I probably foresee a scandall will follow is an active scandall for I preferre my owne will to my brothers salvation saith Antoninus and Navarret and therefore saith i Antoninus A virgin going abroad without just necessitie where her beautie shall be a snarâ— to young men or to goe out upon a necessary cause with a whorish attire is an active scandall her feet abideth not in her house saith Solomon And Navarr saith It is to sinne mortally and Silvester saith If the Popes commandement doe but smell of veniall sinne and if by giving audience thereunto it be presumed that the state of the Church shall be troubled or a scandall shall arise though the commandement goe out under the paine of Excommunication it is not to bee obeyed Vasques and Suarez say to sell gift or dispose of any things indifferent when we foresee they shall abuse them is to commit the sinne of active scandalizing Yea the forme of an Idol though he never adore it doth highly scandalize and Antoninus Silvester Corduba Metina the Jesuit Zanches teach That to contribute to that which we see shall induce any to sinne is to be guilty of scandalizing And the reasons be these 1. We are not to preferre our will to the salvation of our brother 2. Things lesse necessarie then our brothers salvation in that case become not necessarie and so fruitlesse and idle 3. Charitie inferferreth that we hinder so far as we can the ruine of our brothers soul Scandaell is spirituall homicide 4. To contribute any morall help and influence to our brothers fall and soul-ruine is to be accessarie to his sinne Hence Ceremonies and things not necessarie to salvation may be omitted altogether in their specialities when the practising of them doth scandalize and so though kneeling in Gods worship cannot well be universally omitted yet kneeling appropriate to such an act of worship may be omitted and ought to be omitted if it scandalize and Ceremonies which scandalize universally seeing they are not in their very kinde necessarie to salvation are to be abolished Yet I may adde one caution here To contribute helpe for the doing of that which of it selfe is necessarie which I know an other in respect of humane frailtie will abuse to sinne is no active scandall So to lay hands on a qualified Pastor is not sinne though I foresee through humane frailtie he will abuse his power in some things to sinne So for