a Turk and a Christian doe both worship Dagon it is the same Idolatrie though â—urcisme and Christianisme be different religions Though kneeling to an Image the similitude of God and that same kneeling to Jehovah represented in that similitude Es 40. v. 8. make one formall object the Image the materiall Jehovah the formall object yet is it idolatrie 4. Our circumstances of time and place cannot properly be called indifferent for they may be considered two wayes 1 Physically 2 Religiously Physically The Commandement injoyning a thing injoyneth also time and place convenient he that saith thâ— shalt not kill in that same very Commandement said Cain thou shalt not kill Abel in this place of the field at this time so to believe and to believe in this time and place falleth both under one and the same Commandement And it is true the lawfulness of Worship may be marred by bad Circumstantiating of the worship If one shall pray when the Pastor doth preach But Circumstances must be convenient and so commanded and so not indifferent but Circumstances have no religious respect put on them by God and therefore in that state have no roome in Gods worship V. 1â— If any man see thee who hast knowledge sit at meat in the Idols Temple shall not the conscience of him that is weake â—e emboldened to eat these things that are offered to Idolls Hence a naked sight of that which is ordinarily exponed to be a Communion with an idoll as kneeling religiously to bread is must be a scandall 2. The supposed knowledge of one who saith an Idoll is nothing but directeth his worship to God when externall gestures are used in an idolatrous way doth not free the practise of such a worship from scandall V. 11. 12. 13. Scandalizing in eating things otherwise poore and cleane is a scandalizing of a weake brother against the price of Christs blood c. 1 Cor. 10. V. 16. 17. 18. Communion in Rites and Cerimonies oâ— a raise worship is a communion with the Idoll and Satan V. 22. Though you keep your heart to God ye provoke the Lord to jealousie V. 23. Rulers are not to seeke their owne in things indifferent V. 25. Things sacrificed to Idolâ— yet in no religious state are clean meates and may be eaten Surplice on a Noblemans porter is no Masse habit and so not scandalous 29. 30. In things indifferent I must abstaine from â—sing my libertie where I am in danger to be evill spoken of and that our liberty be called licentiousnesse Quest II. Whether or no the Ceremonies and things indifferent commanded by humane authority be objects scandalous and what rules are to be observed in eschewing scandalls FOrmalists object That Ceremonies be not noâ—ent agents in giving scandall but men doe unjustly take scandall whereas innocent Ceremonies give none But observe that a scandall is given two wayes 1 Physically 2. Morally Physically when the object hath an influence meerely physicall in raising Scandall in this meaning as there be no passion but it hath an action so there is no scandall taken but it is some way given The Pharisees are scandalized at Christs preaching The preached Word had some influence on their corruption to scandalize it but physicall not morall but sinfull and inordinate actions scandalize morally by contributing a morall influence culpably to the scandalizing of others Hence the question is wherein standeth this morall and culpable influence The objects in Generall from whence commeth scandall be foure 1. Things good 2. Things sinfull and evill 3. Things indifferent inordinatly or unseasonably done 4. Things that have appearance of evill A thing good of it selfe is not scandalous but there be two Goodthingâ— 1. Some simply necessary â—s to love God not to steale not to forsweare these be never scandalous 2. Some good duties positive of affirmative precepts as not necessarie hic nunc may be omitted to eschew scandall School men move a question If it be lawfull to omit workes commanded of God or of the law of nature to eschew the scandall of our brethren I answer a naturall commandement to eschew the scandalizing of my brother obliedgeth in some Circumstances but not simply for it obliedgeth not when there occurreth a Commandement naturall of greater obligation whether it be naturall or positive if I cannot decline the transgression of the law of God in the declining of scandalizing my brother Certainly the Commandement of not scandalizing doth not obliedge for I am more obliedged to have a care of my owne salvation then of my brothers and so to prevent my owne sinnes theâ—â— the sinning of my brother yet Coeteris paribus if all other things be alike as Becanus saith A naturall command such as is not to scandalize that is not to commit soule-murther doth oblige more then a positive Commandement as to heare the Word hic nunc I am obliedged hic nunc to omit hearing of the Word to keep my brother from killing himselfe and to preserve my brothers temporall life because the Lord will have mercie and not sacrifice Though I be not obliedged universally to omit the hearing of the Word and receiving of the Sacraments to eschew the scandall of my brother 2. Sinnes publickly committed are of their owne nature culpably scandalous 3. In things indifferent from whence ariseth a Scandall there be two things 1. The use of the thing it selfe 2. The use of it with the non-necessitie of existence in it As the causey stones are not scandalous if any fall on them nor the layer of the causey to be blamed therefore because causay stones be necessarie but if any lay an huge block in the way which hath no necessary use there he who doth so is the cause of the fall because he contributeth to the fall that which is the occasion and so the cause of the fall for every occasion is a certaine cause 2. Because he contributeth such an occasion as hath no morall necessitie of existence so the brazen Serpent having lost its vertue of curing and being adored as God is formally a scandalous object and the Prince suffering that to remaine when it is not necessarie and withall occasioneth the idolatrie of many doth culpably scandalize and so these who for sole will commandeth such things as the worship of God may want doe also scandalize They object Christ might have healed on another day then the Lords Ergo the non-morall necessitie maketh not the object formally scandalous nor doth the contributer thereof culpably scandalize Answ That Christ should cure on the Sabbath was morally necessary 1. If it were but from his owne will but mens will cannot make things necessary 2. It was necessarie to shew that the Sonne of man was Lord of the Sabbath 3. That the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath 4. To shew that workes of mercy are to be preserred to workes of Ceremonies and that God loveth mercie rather then Sacrifice When the dutie
into the world to save sinners in regard of Canonicall authority stamped upon both R. Hooker with other Formalists Will have the lightnesse of matter to make the Law alterable Truly to eat of the Tree of knowledge of good and ill being put in the ballance with the love of God in it self is but a light thing yet the breach of that Law involved all the world in condemnation And what else is this but that which Papists say that there be two sort of things in scripture so saith Cornelius a Lapide Comem on 2 Tim. 3. 16. 1. The Law and the Prophets these God revealed and dyted to Moses and the Prophets but there are other things in Scripture as Histories and morall exhortations which Canonick writers learned either by hearing seeing reading or meditation there was no need these should be dyted by the inspiration of the holy Spirit for they know them themselves though they were assisted 2. Excited by the holy spirit to write Conceptum memoriam eorum quae sciebant non iis suggessit spiritus sanctus sed inspiravit ut hunc potius conceptum quam illum scriberent omnes eorum sententias conceptus ordinavit digessit direxit spiritus sanctus v. g. Vt hanc sententiam primò illam secundò aliam tertiò collocarent Yet Estius saith on the place The Scriptures are given by divine inspiration ita ut non solum sententiae sed verba singula verborum ordo ac tota dispositio fit a deo tanquam per seipsum loquente ac scribente So as not only the sentences but every word and the order and disposition of words is of or from God as if he were speaking and writing himself Now for the additions Canonicall that the Prophets and Apostles made to the writing of Moses I hope Papists and Formalists cannot with any forehead alledge them to prove that the Church may adde Traditions and alterable Positives of Church-Policy to the written word of God except upon the same ground they conclude That the Church now hath the same immediatly inspired spirit that the Prophets and Apostles had and that our Prelats saw the visions of God when they saw but the visiones aulae the visions of Court and that their calling was as Pauls was Gal. 1. 1. not of men neither by men but by Iesus Christ When as it is not by Divine right and was both of the King and by Court 2. Except they infer that the Church that now is may adde Canonicall and Scripturall additions to the Scripture for such additions the Prophets and Apostles added to the writings of Moses and 3. that that precept Thou shalt not adde c. was given to the Lord himself to binde up his hands that no Canonick Scripture should ever be but the only writings of Moses which is as some write the dream of Saduces whereas inhibition is given to the Church of God not to God himself for what the Prophets and Apostles added God himself added yea to me it is a doubt while I be better informed if the Lord did ever give any power of adding to his Scripture at all without his own immediate inspiration to either Prophet or Apostle or that God did never command Moses or Prophet or Apostle to write Canonick Scripture of their own head or that his Commandment to write Scripture was any other then an immediate inspiration which essentially did include every syllable and word that the Apostles and Prophets were to write For I do not coaceive that 1. God gave to Apostles and Prophets power to devise a Gospel and write it I suppose Angels or men could not have devised it yea that they could no more have devised the very Law of nature then they could create such a piece as a reasonable soul which to me is a rare and curious book on which essentially is written by the immediate finger of God that naturall Theology that we had in our first creation 2. I do not conceive that as Princes and Nobles do give the Contents or rude thoughts of a curious Epistle to a Forraign Prince to their Secretary and go to bed and sleep and leaves it to the wit and eloquence of the Secretary to put it in forme and stile and then signes it and seals it without any more ado so the Lord gave the rude draughts of Law and Gospel and all the pins of Tabernacle and Temple Church-officers and Government and left it to the wit and eloquence of Shepherds Heardsmen Fishers such as were the Prophets Moses David Amos and Peter and divers of the Apostles who were unlettered men to write words and stile as they pleased but that in writing every jot tittle or word of Scripture they were immediatly inspired as touching the matter words phrases expression order method majesty stile and all So I think they were but Organs the mouth pen and Amanuenses God as it were immediately dyting and leading their hand at the pen Deut 4. 5. Deut. 31. 24 25 26. Mal. 4. 4. 2 Pet. 1. 19. 20 21. 2 Tim. 3. 16. Gal. 1. 11 12. 1 Cor. 11. 23. so Luk. 1. 70. God borrowed the mouth of the Prophets As he spake by the mouth of his holy Prophets which hath been since the world began Now when we ask from Prelates what sort of additionall or accidentall worship touching Surplice Crosse and other Religious Positives of Church Policy it is that they are warranted to adde to the word and how they are distinguished from Scriptures Doctrinals They give us these Characters of it 1. God is the Author of Doctrinals and hath expressed them fully in scripture But the Church is the Author of their Accidentals and this is essentiall to it that it is not specified particularly in scripture as Bread and Wine Taking and Eating in the Lords Supper is for then it should be a Doctrinall point and not Accidentall 2. It is not in the particular a point of faith and manners as Doctrinals are But hear the very Language of Papists for Papists putteth this essentiall Character on their Tradition that it is not written but by word of mouth derived from the Apostles and so distinguished from the written word for if it were written in scripture it should not be a Tradition So the Jesuit Malderus in 22. tom de virtut de obj fidei Q. 1. Dub. 3. Pro Apostolica traditione habendum est quod eum non inveneatur in Divinis literis tamen Vniversa tenet ecclesia nec consiliis institutum sed semper retentum 2. That the Traditions are necessary and how far Papists do clear as I have before said for the Church may coin no Articles of faith these are all in Scripture For the Iews two Suppers and their additions to the passeover as Hooker saith and their fasting till the sixth hour every Feast day we reject as dreams because they are not warranted by any word of institution not to adde that
deliberation be not extraordinary and such as cannot be recompenced by the goodnes which appeareth in the act of Obedience Doubting is no internall part or essentiall cause of sin vve sin not because vve doubt but because vvhile vve doubt vve prefer an evil or a lesse good before a good or a greater good So their sin vvas not doubting but they preferred not eating vvhich vvas a bodily losse onely to the evil feared vvhich vvas to be partakers of the Table of Devils and being Apostates from the Israel of God Ans Paul expresly saith doubting is sin and condemneth it ver 23. and requireth ver 5. Let every man be perswaded in his conscience v. 21. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that which he alloweth v. 23. Whatsoever more or lesse in Morall actions is not of Faith is sin 2. Internall perswasion Rom. 14. 14. Is an internall cause of obedience as v. 21. And therefore doubting being a sin that condemneth Rom. 14. 23. must be such a sinfull ingredient as maketh the action sinfull 3. We both sin because we doubt and also because we prefer a lesse good or an evil to a greater good 4. No feared evil though never so evil whether of sin or punishment if it follow not kindly but only by accident and through the corruption of our nature should or can make us do any thing doubtingly or sinfully for then we might do evil that good might come of it No good of obedience can warrant me to sin and disobey God nor should that be called obedience nor is it obedience to men which is disobedience to God 5. It is an untruth that non-eating was only a bodily losse for non-eating Physicall is a bodily losse but Paul urgeth non-eating morall to eschew the fall of one for whom Christ died 6. The Doctor saith Ibidem No power under the Heaven could make a Law over the Romans injoyning such meats because Gods law as they conceive condemned them Now how pleasant are right words I assume we conceive God hath denounced all the plagues written in his Book upon practisers of humane Ceremonies as upon adders to the word of God Rev. 22. 19. Yea Heresies to with that Christ is not the consubstantiall Son of God may seem probable to us shall the good of obedience in believing my Pastor whom God hath set over me hinder me to obey 7. Papists say also that Scripture is perfect in generall allowing that Ceremonies should be when Paul saith Let all things be done in order and decency 1 Cor. 14. But the Scripture giveth no particular warrant for these but onely the Churches determination So Scotus Suarez Bellarmine Vasquez Bannes and Duvallius The Scripture implicitely and generally containeth all the substantials necessary for salvation but not traditions in particular that is the Churches part just as Formalists say order and decency is commanded in the word but Crossing Surplice Humane dayes and such are left to the Prelates Kalender to fill up what his Lordship thinketh good So Hooker c Speech is necessary but it is not necessary that all speak one kinde of Language Government is necessary but the particulars Surplice Crossing c. Are left to the Church 2. What is negatively Lawfull here cannot be admitted If Rulers may Command one thing that is negatively Lawfull they may Command all things because what they Command under this formall reason as not against Scripture they should not adde nor devise new worship though they Command all of that kinde But the latter is absurd for so they might Command in Gods worship 1. The actions of sole imagination the lifting of a straw and all idle actions that cannot edifie 2. They might Command a new Ark to represent Christ incarnat as the Jews Ark did represent him to be incarnat a new Passeover to represent the Lambe already slain and all the materials of the Ceremoniall Law with reference to Christ already incarnat dead and risen again For all these are by Formalists Learning negatively Lawfull Shew us a Scripture where they are forbidden more then Surplice Crossing except because they be not Commanded If it be said They do not Command things negatively Lawfull as such but as they edifie and teach Well then 1. As they edifie and teach they are positively good and apt to edifie and so must be proved by the Word as Commanded and so not negatively Lawfull and not as beside but as Commanded in the Word 2. Yet it will follow that all these may be used in Faith that is out of a sure perswasion that they are not contrary to Gods Word and so Lawfull I might dance in a new linnen Ephod before a new Iewish Ark representing Christ already incarnat and that in the negative Faith of Mr. Sanderson Hooker and Jackson for this Ark is not against Scripture yet this Ark is not Commanded and so not forbidden 3. Idle actions that have no use or end might be Lawfully Commanded by this because they are not forbidden yet are such unlawfull Quia carent justâ necessitate et utilitate as Gregorius saith I prove the connexion because an action Morall such as to Sign with the Crosse performed by a Subject of Christs visible Kingdom for Gods glory and edification of the Church which yet is neither Commanded nor forbidden by God nor Commanded by natures light for none but those that are beside reason will say this nor light of Gods word or the habit of Religion hath no more reason then the making or forming a Syllogisme in Barbara which of it self cometh only from Art and as such hath no Morall use and by as good reason may the Church Command dancing before a new devised Ark yea such an action involveth a contradiction and is Morall and not Morall for of its own nature it tendeth to no edification for then it might be proved by good reason to be edificative and an action cannot be edificative from the will of men for Gods will not mens will giveth being to things 4. What is beside Scripture as a thing not repugnant thereunto wanteth that by which every thing is essentially Lawfull Ergo It is not Lawfull The Consequence is sure I prove the Antecedent Gods Commanding will doth essentially constitute a thing Lawfull Gods Commanding will only maketh eating and drinking bread and wine in the Lords Supper Lawfull and the Lords forbidding will should make it unlawfull and Gods forbidding to eat of the Fruit of the Tree of knowledge of good and evil maketh the non-eating obedience and the eating disobedience As the killing of Isaac by Abraham is Lawfull and that because God Commandeth it and the not killing of him again is Lawfull when God forbiddeth it But things negatively Lawfull and beside the word of God wanteth Gods Commanding will for God Commandeth not the materials of Jewish Ceremonies to represent Christ already come and such like for if he should Command them they
resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God 4. Conclus Nothing in non-obeying unwarrantable Commandments must be done that redoundeth to the discredit of the Ruler or the hurting of his Majesty and honour 1 Pet. 2. 17. Honour the King Eccles 10. 20. Curse not the King For even when we deny subjection or obedience objective to that which they command yet owe we obedience officiall and all due respect and reverence to the person and eminent place of the Ruler as Act. 7. 2. Steven calleth them Men brethren and fathers Act. 7. 51. And yet stiffe-necked resisters of the holy Ghost 5. Conclus Humane Laws whither civill or Ecclesiastick in that particular positive matter which they have of Art Oeconomy policy and in Gods matters of meer humane coyne and stamp do not bindes the conscience at all per se kindely and of themselves 1. Nothing but what is either Gods expresse word or his word by consequence doth lay a band on the conscience of it self But not to eat flesh in Lâ—nt upon civill reasons Not to carry Armour in the night To wear Surplice and to Crosse infants in Baptisme are neither Gods word expresly nor by consequence The major is sure because the word is the perfect and adequate object of matters of Faith and morall practice which concerneth the conscience Psal 19. 7. 8. Psal 119. 9. Iohn 20. 31. Prov. 8. 9. 2. Because whatever thing layeth a band on the conscience the not doing of that would be a sin before God if the Ruler should never command it But the carrying Armour in the night the not wearing Surplice in Divine service should be no sin before God if the ruler should never command them as reason Scriptures and adversaries teach The Proposition I instruct from the diffinition of an obligation of conscience for to lay a band on the conscience is defined to lay a command on the soul which ye are obliged before God to do as you would eschew sin and obtain eternall salvation So the learned Pareus so Dr. Field so Gerson and so teach Gregorius de Valentia and Suarez 3. None can lay on a band of not doing under the hazard of sin but they that can remit sins for the power that looseth the same bindeth But mortall men cannot binde to sin nor loose men from sin but where God goeth before them in binding and loosing for they cannot bestow the grace of pardoning sin But he onely who hath the keys of David who openeth and no man shutteth and shutteth and no man openeth 4. Whoever can lay on bands of Laws to bring any under the debt of sin must lay on bands of obligation to eternall punishment but God only can do this Mat. 10. 28. The Proposition is clear because sin against God essentially includeth a relative obligation to eternall punishment 5. In matters of Gods worship this is clear The School-men as Aquinaâ— Suarez Ferrariensis Conradus teach us that there is a twofold good The first is an objective and primordiall goodnesse whereby things are agreeable to Gods Law if rulers finde not this in that good which they command they are not just and so not to be obeyed There is another goodnesse that cometh from the will of authority so only divine authority must make things good the will and authority of Rulers findeth objective goodnes in them and therefore enacteth Laws of things but because they enact Laws of things they do not therefore become good and Lawfull It is the will of the Creator of all beings which is the measure rule and cause of the goodnesse of things as Adams not eating of the tree of knowledge is good and gratefull obedience from Gods forbidding will and it should have been as gratefull obedience to eat of that tree if God had commanded so Men cannot make worlds nor can their will create goodnesse in acts indifferent nor can their forbidding will illegittimate or make evil any actions indifferent and therefore things must be morally good and so intrinsecally good without the creative influence of humane Authority and from God only are they apt to edifie and to oblige the conscience in the termes of goodnesse morall And this is strengthened by that which in reason cannot be denied to wit that it is essentiall to every human Law that layeth any obligation on the conscience that it be just nor is it to be called a Law except it be just and justice and equity humane Laws have from God the law of nature and his word not from the Authority and will of men therefore Iurists expound that What pleaseth the Prince hath the vigour of a Law of just things Also the School-men as Carduba Thomas Soto Medina Adrianus Navar Driedo Castro as I gather out of their writings give strong reasons why Rulers cannot lay an obligation on the conscience when the matter of the Law is light and naughty for this were to make a man a trangressor before God for a word a straw a toy which is unjust Because the just weight of the matter is the only just ground of the Laws obligation Ergo the will of the Lawgiver except he make a moat a mountaine cannot lay an obligation of necessity on man 2. It were a foolish law and so no law to oblige to eternall punishment and the offending of 2. God for a light thing for this were to place the way of salvation in that wherein the way consisteth not 3. Such a law were not for edification but for destruction of soules 4. This was the Pharises fault Mat. 23. to lay on intollerable burthens on mens soules 5. The law of God and nature freeth us in positive lawes from guilt in case of necessity as David did lawfully eat Shew-bread 6. A Civill law may not take away a mans life for a straw farre lesse can it bind to Gods wrath 7. Augustine saith they be unjust ballances to esteeme things great or small for our sole will Out of all which I conclude that no law as a Law doth oblige the Conscience but that which hath from the matter morall equity and not from the intention of the Law-giver as Cajetan Silvester Angelus and Corduba teach which intention must take a rule from the matter of the law and not give a rule Gerson No law saith he is a law to be called as necessary to salvation as all good lavves should be but that vvhich de jure Divino is according to Gods lavv yea vve are not saith Durandus to obey the Pope if he command a Monke to doe somthing vvhen he is not moved to command by the necessity the profit of the Church but by his ovvne free vvill and if this be knovven If the Pope faith he for his ovvne vvill and vvithout necessity and utility should seclude vvorkes of supererogation that command should tend to destruction and vve
his late Critica Sacra on the Old Testament saith it signifieth to stay to cut off by death by banishment or any other way whereby a thing in use before afterward ceaseth Joel 1. 8. Amos 1. 5. Yea to cut off by divorce as I noted before and Exod. 12. 15. To cut off from Israel is expounded ver 19. to cut off from the Church of Israel Yea the Law forbiddeth that not only in the time of the Passeover they should not eat leaven but it should not be in their houses Now must they be killed if it was found in their houses beside their knowledge see Deut. 16. 3. Exod. 13. 7. What Erastus saith to the end of the Chapter is but repeated reasons before answered CHAP. X. Quest 6. Arguments for Excommunication from 1 Corinthians 5. vindicated REverend Beza said The world is the Kingdom of Satan and he that is delivered to Satan is cast out of Christs Kingdom to Satans Kingdom Erastus saith Is it not easier to heal them by remaining in the Church having the Magistrate to compell them to their duty then to cast them out of the Church The world is a kingdom of wickednesse and impiety may you not more easily reforme a wanton and lascivious virgin within the house then by casting her out of the house into a Bordel Will not slaves of Satan be more easily healed amongst the children of God then amongst wicked men Ans Whether to be delivered to Satan be to be put formally in his power that he may vex the spirit that the man may be humbled for sin or if it be to be given to Satan only consequenter and cast out of the Church that is Christs office-house of Grace to live as the world of which Satan is God and Prince 2 Cor. 4. 4. Joh. 12. 31. Ioh. 14. 30. It is not much to be disputed But this reason is against the wisdom of God who hath appointed that the shame grief and sorrow of being put out of Christs family should exceedingly humble the spirit of any in whom there is any thing of God And Erastus might as well say to Paul why dost thou command the Saints not to eat and drink with those that are called brethren and yet are fornicators covetous extortioners 1 Cor. 4. 11. and such as cause divisions and walk inordinately as Rom. 16. 17. 2 Thes 3. 14 15. and to withdraw from their company they must then converse only with the slaves of Satan and the wicked of the world when they are deprived of the society of the godly and that is the way to loose them were it not better to command the just contrary that the godly should eat drink and converse with inordinate walkers for they may turn them from their evil way for will an unchaste virgin be made chaste by being cast out of her fathers house into a Bordel-house Will not slaves of Satan rather be healed amongst the children of God then amongst the wicked But Erastus seeth not that Gods aime in this separation is not only that the cast out man may be ashamed 2 Thes 3. 14 15. and so humbled and brought to repentance when he findeth he is deprived of the blessings of the Saints of their society Ordinances But also God hath a higher aime to the end the whole lump of Christs body be not leavened and infected with the contagion of one man 1 Cor. 4. 6 7. Gal. 5. 9. 10. Erastus The similitude of a rotten Member proveth nothing for 1. There be no such sinners desperately uncurable of whom there is no hope so long as they live except pertinacious Hereticks erring in the foundation of salvation and such as sin against the holy Ghost 2. It is not necessary that men using reason and free will be defiled and corrupted by other sinners as the whole Member is by the rotten Member for as a Tree cannot but be burnt by the fire that seaseth on it so neither can the Members continuated by touching escape corruption 3. None can be cast out of the Church into the world as it is the kingdom of Satan for if they keep the faith though they were amongst Turks they are not in the world that is in the Kingdom of Satan nor in the world 4. Paul would not have him cast out into the world that his soul may be saved for this were to make the weak dispair and make them hypocrites Ans This similitude is the holy Ghosts in the very sense we use it 2 Tim. 2. 17. Their word shall eat as a canker a Metaphor as Calvin Piscator Marlorate observe from a rotten member that corrupteth the whole body and to say because a man hath reason and so free-will that he will not be corrupted whereas the whole member by necessity of nature cannot but be corrupted by a rotten member is to speak not like a Divine but as Pelagius speaketh for except we use the remedy appointed of God to eschew the contagion of the wicked and eschew their company as we are commanded and as the godly have done and the wicked have not done and therefore have been infected with the way of other evil men Prov. 22. 24. Prov. 5 8 9. Psa 26. 4 5. Esa 2. 6 7. Psa 119. 63. Psa 139. 21 22. Rev. 18. 4. 2 Chro. 19. 2. though we should not actually be corrupted yet we sin and tempt the Lord in that we seek a temptation to our selves yea as all the reasons of Erastus are naturall and against the wisdom of God in his Ordinances so expresly this God forbiddeth his people to marry with the Canaanites or to make Covenants with them Exod. 34. 12 c. Because saith the Lord they will insnare thee and draw away thy heart after their Gods May not Erastus say But men have reason and free-will not to consent to the inticing counsels of the Canaanites though they be joyned in Covenant and marriage with them Preterea non est necesse sic alios a malis contaminari 3. It is good that Erastus granteth that pertinacious Hereticks because uncurable may infect others for so the word expresly saith what shall be done with them Erastus granteth they be rotten members Ergo either they must by Excommunication be separated from the body as we teach or the body must seperate from them if this latter be said all that Erastus inferreth against us shall fall against himself 1. We shall not need to be infected with the Heresie of such Vtimur ratione We have the Armour of reason and freewill against this rotten and rotting member saith Erastus 2. We shall expose Hereticks to the Kingdom of Satan and the world by which they shall be hardned in their pernicious Heresies Beside 3. We make them Hypocrites 4. I see no warrant Erastus hath to say That Hereticks erring in fundamentals are more contagious and rotten members then slaves of Satan failing against the second Table 5. He that is cast out of
not from the Magistaate their internal and external power of governing the Churches Josias Simlerus professor Tigurinus comment in Exod. 20. in Mand. 5. Magistratuum officium est tollere idola vi et armis concionaâ—orum vero ut errorâ—m ostendant Idololatriam damnent verbi gladiâ— jugulent et Magistratum sui officij admoneant in rebus exteruis tollendis ut Can. 15 Concil Carthagi 5. Lavater in Ezech. c. 44. Dominus dicit repellendâ—s a ministerio incircumcisos carne hoc est indulgentes libidinibus et incircumcisos corde hoc est imbutos pravis opinionibus collige quanta cura et diligentia requiratur a sacerdotibus conformiter enim custodibus Lavater in Ezech. 22. 26. reprehendit in sacerdotibus quod sancta sua violarint non enim tractarint quemadmodum ipse instituerat Nam in templo prostabant Idola sacrificia non legitime offerebantur an non hodie Sacramenta ab adulteris ebriosis et aleatoribus admistrantur Idem in Ezech. 23. 38. et quum immolassent filios idolis Si adultera de adulteri stratis surgens rectâ ad maritum suum veniat et amorem coniugalem simulet judicium est magnae impudentiae redeuntes a valle Hinnon et cultu daemonum tanquam re bene gesta cruentis manibus templum ingrediebantur citra conscientiam oraturi Ioan. Wolphius in Nehemiam ait c. 2. v. 20. aedificatores Ecclesiae nihil agere debere quam quod in mandatis divinitus datum sit Idem in Ezram c. 10. hoc enim exemplo V. T. discimus quae facto opus sit in N. T. nempe ut crebris synodis in vitam in doctrinam et mores in vocationem Ecclesiastorum inspiciatur Hence it is clear that Simler Lavater and Wolphius do clearly 1. Difference between the two powers of the Sword and Church 2. That the Priests in the Old and Ministers in the New Testament are not to prophane holy things 3. That by Assemblies and Synods Church-censures are to be dispensed Yea even Robert Burhillus de primatu Regio contra Becanum Iesuitam c. 10. sed neque in exteriore jurisdictione aut excommunicationis aut ordinationis potestatem regi facimus aut cultus divini novas formulas procudendi aut dispensandi adde quod nec â—â—s â—itribuimus leges suâ solius authoritate ferendi quae canonum Ecclesiasticorum vim obtinâ—ant The mind of D. Pareus and P. Martyr may be known by what is said and is cleared in that learned dissertation of Iac. Trig. Nor shall I need to burden the Reader with citations of Fathers Greek and Latine Doctors Councels with all our Protestant Divines Luther Calvin Beza Farel Marlorat Piscator Sibrandas Iunius Gomaras Trelcatius Bucanus c. which were easie to do if not needlesse and acknowledged by the Adversary I have also in answering Erastus I hope answered all that Mr. Prinne hath said either in his questions or vindication because most of all he hath I speak it not to diminish or detract from the learning of that reverend man â—â—r â—â—sse to irritate is fully to be seen in Erastus so that in answering Erastus I hope that ingenuous zealous and learned Divine will Acquiesce The Lord establish Ierusalem and make her a peaceable habitation FINIS AN INTRODVCTION To the Doctrine of Scandal Whether or no things indifferent can be commanded because indifferent WHat ever things are commanded under the tenor of things indifferent and yet are not indifferent are not lawful nor can be in reason commanded for so should they be of their nature both indifferent and not indifferent But humane Ceremonies are sush Ergo they are not lawful Indifferent things Basilius calleth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nazianz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Laertius and Gellius saith the same of them Things indifferent cannot be good but essentially neither good nor ill and if they be not good they cannot be apt to edifie and so fall not within the compasse of things which can be commanded by Rulers There is a twofold matter of a Church constitution the one remote the other nearer The remote matter of Church constitutions are things indifferent to wit mens actions and the circumstances thereof and so they are the matter of Gods Laws for all our actions Physically considered to know believe will love joy fear speak walk laugh c are indifferent in themselves but God in the Law of Natuâ—â— and his positivâ— Divâ—â—â— Law â—â—th 〈…〉 dâ—â—â—â—m â—â—â—d 〈…〉 i◠〈…〉 put â—is d 〈…〉 â—â—gal upon thâ—◠〈…〉 aâ— it is such can be the nearest matter of any Church-constitution No wise man would say that the Church might make a Law that all should cast stones in the water yet God might make a Law thereof For what actions hath no good nor lawfulnesse nor aptitude to edisie in themselves these thâ— will of man can never make good lawful and apt to edifie because onely God whose will is the prime rule of all goodnesse can create moral goodnes in actions not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge is only good because God hath so appointed in his Law and to eat of the fruit of that tree had been as lawful and just as not to â—aâ—â— if God had commanded eating thereof under â—râ—mises and threatnings 6. Hence â—â— followeth that all actions and circumstances of their nature indifferent must lose that indifferency and receive from God some goodnesse and aptnesse to edifie before they can be the reasonable and nearest matter of any Civil or Ecclesiastical constitution because what rulers can in Law and reason command that they must will as good and apt to edifie before they can bind others to will it But neither the will of a ruler nor the will of any other can lawfully will a thing indifferent as it is such for a thing indifferent as it is such is neither good nor evil and the object of the will is alwayes good 3. Rulers commandeth as Gods Ministers for our good Rom. 13. 4. Ergo the means and actions injoyned for the compassing of this end must be good for if the end be good the means as the means must be good Ergo they cannot be indifferent Things indifferent cannot be enacted as a Lâ—w except they were indifferent to all to both weak and wilful for remaining evil to some they are scandalous and cannot be commanded except rulers would command sinful actions The Apostles would make no Laws at all of things indifferent except in the case of scandal neither can our Ceremonies be indifferent 1. Because they are sacred mystical signes teaching us some duties to God 2. They are worship and means tending to the honour of God and being used for the honour of an Idol as they are used by us they should be the religious honour of an Idol 3. They are pretended to be means apt to edifie Ergo They are not in their use indifferent 4. The use of Ceremonies are Moral actions of man not warranted
to raise them Ergo if he be not to be judged as a contemner of Gods law in things indifferent farre lesse should he be judged by the Church law 4. Proposit Observers of dayes or non-observers of dayes should have certaintie of Faith in these indifferent things Ergo the light of the Word should lead Rulers and People here v. 5. in things indifferent 5. Proposit The observer of indifferent things as dayes in that case at Rome and the non-observers of dayes should not trouble one another because both are to observe and not observe indifferent things for Gods glory 1. Both gives thankes 2. Both liveth and dieth as Christs for Gods glorie 6. 7. 8. 9. Therefore Gods glorie is the end that ruleth the use of Ceremonies as they are indifferent Proposit 6. v. 10. 11. 12. a Christian should not condemne a Jew noâ— one brother another in things indifferent 1. Because we are brethren 2. Because it is Christs place to judge and condemne 3. Because every man must give an account for himself Ergo. Lawes of Rulers to condemne or punish are not to be made in such cases Proposit 7. v. 13. When the use of things indifferent is a stumbling block and scandall to our brethren they are against charitie and unlawfull Proposit 8. v. 14. there is a Prolepsis Meats clean or not clean may be eaten but all meats are clean and Paul is perswaded of that by Iesus Christ Ergo The Apostle answereth 1. by denying the major Proposition in two cases and setteth downe a distinction All things are clean in themselves but they become unclean in two cases 1. If one weake in the faith believe that the meat that he eateth is against the word of God the me at to him is unclean 2 If he eat before one that believeth it is forbidden in Gods Law to eat such meats his eating is a stumbling blocke to the weake But one might say It is a taken Scandall and not given for it is lawfull to eat thy brother deemeth it unlawfull out of ignorance of Christian libertie so say Formalists Ceremonies be indifferent if any offend at the use of them it is ascandall taken not given O but Paul forbiddeth to scandalize or to eat Hence the 9. Proposit The use of things indifferent as Ceremonies before any Law â—e made of them by confession of Formalists is indifferent and may be done and not done but if they scandalize Paul proveth by eight arguments they are unlawfull 1. If fighteth with Charitie that for meat so lâ—tle a thing for the knot of a straw a Ceremonie thou slay thy brother for whom Christ died v. 15. Where these reasons be 1. It is uncharitable walking 2. It is murther slay not him 3. It is contrary to Christs love who died for thy brother 4. It maketh Religion and Christian libertie to be evill spoken of v. 16. 5. From the nature of these things which are indifferent these in which the Kingdome of God consisteth not as Meats and Surplicâ— crossing kneeling c. when they scandalize ought to be omitted as being against righteousness and being sinnes of murther 2. Against Peace sinnes of contention 3. against joy of the Holy Ghost making sad and discouraging thy brother in his Christian â—ace and he that serveth God in peace and righteousnesse and joy is acceptable v. 18 6. The use of things indifferent in case of scandall conduce not to peace and edification v. 19. 7. It is a destroying of the worke of God v. 20. illustrated by a repeated prolepsis but the meat is clean â—ea but saith Paul it is evill and so morally unclean to him that eateth with offence v. 20. 8. Ab equo â—ono we are to doe good but to eat and drink with the scandalizing of our brother and to practise Ceremonies is not Good Proposit 10. The practising of things indifferent or Ceremonies for the very â—â—â—â—ing of the â—aith that we have Christian libertie to practise or noâ— practise in the case of scandall is not lawfull v. 22. set downe by a proâ—epsis Keep the faith of thy Christian libertie in case of scandall to thy selfe and to God Proposit 11. In the use of things indifferent we are to allow our selves that is to have the approbation of our Conscience that what we doe is lawfully v 22. Proposit 12. He that practiseth indifferent things with a doubting conscience and not in faith sinneth and is condemned v. 23. 1 Cor. 6 v 12 All things indifferent are lawfull in themselves but they are not expedient If we be brought under the power or band of them by law Ergo in the meanes of worship not onely must we see what is lawfull but also what is profitable and conducing to the end He reasoneth upon a given but not granted hypothesis that Fornication is indifferent as the Gentiles taught as we doe in the matter of Ceremonies 1 Cor. 7. v. 6. But this I speake by permission not of Commandement Ergo in things in which God hath granted us libertie to doe or not to doe permission hath place not obliedging necessitie or penall lawes 13 Proposit There cannot be commanding Lawes in things that are polltickly good or evill according to the individuall complexion temperature or gifts of singular men to marry or not to marry cannot be commanded for where God looseth no power on earth can bind v. 33. 1 Cor. 8. v. 7. Paul condemneth them in the use of their libertie Christian Howbeit there be not in every man this knowledge then that Rulers may make lawes in things indifferent without scandall they must remove ignorance 2. If there be but one person weake there is not in every man that knowledge in knowledge a Law obliedging all in things indifferent cannot be made V. 8. There is a definition of a thing indifferent It is a thing that commendeth us not to God which neither helpeth nor hindereth pietie nor maketh a man better or worse before God Then Ceremonies pretended to be for order decencie edification to stirre up the dull minde to spirituall duties cannot be things indifferent Hence observe 1. The materialls of worship as linnen cloathes habites gestures may be in their physicall consideration indifferent but as applyed by formulistes they cannot be indifferent for in their use kneeling appropriated to sacramentall bread linnen appropriated to the body of a Priest while he officiateth cannot be but religious or prophane 2. If God command gestures he commandeth this gesture hic nunc If in generall â—â—ealing be forbidden then for Achan to steale this Babylonish garment must be forbidden 3. It seemeth to have been after-noon with Henry Lesly of after cuppes when he saith if Papists and Protestants be two divers kindes of worshippers then their actions of worship must be indifferent as be their agents for actions are distinguished by their objects and ends Papists in kneeling worship their God of bread we in kneeling at the Sacrament worship the true God For when
of spirituall falls and warned to beware of them yet love and incline to Idolatrie and therefore to warne them to beware and yet set the powder neere the fire is but to scorne the craft and to mock men Yea in that they desire and require that the people beware of the Ceremonies and require that Pastours informe them of the danger they grant that Ceremonies are powder amongst the pitchers and yet they be innocent and indifferent creatures as if they would call them indifferent pitts indifferent whoores to allure beware of them indifferent pest-cloathes see that your inclination touch them not Yea then Ezechiah had given no scandall if he had commanded the brazen Serpent still to stand and had commanded the Priests to preach that the Serpent was not God and therefore warned the people of their Idolatrie in burning Incence to it onely let it stand as a memoriall of Gods power in curing the people who were stinged with Serpents in the Wildernesse So if the Israelites should give their sonnes and daughters to marry strange women of the Canaanites if they should ordaine the Priests to teach carefully their married children to beware that they were not drawne away by these idolatrous marriages to serve the Gods of the Canaanites they should not lay a stumbling-block before their sonnes and daughters Yea these who excell in light may be weake in grace and in hazard to be insnared by the idolatrie and superstition of Ceremonies 4. The law of nature provideth all possible and lawfull meanes for the removall of every thing that may rnine his soule for whom Christ died but not onely information of the danger of Ceremonies but also the removall of the pitts themselves to wit the Ceremonies are possible and lawfull meanes 5. 1. This were an idle Sabbath work to expound such theams as these Sacramentall bowing is an humble adoring of God not of bread and as it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save beleevers so it pleased Prelates by the foolishnes of holy dayes and Saints dayes to teach the people articles of faith and by the Surplice to teach pastorall innocencie and by confirmation to blesse children 2 Calvin and Luther teach that no word should be heard in the Church nisi purum Dei verbum but the pure word of God Surplice humane and Saints dayes crossing kneeling cannot be a text that Ministers can preach on and expound for they are commanded to speak Gods word Ezech. 7. To read Gods law and give the meaning and sense thereof Nehem. 8. 8. and to expone the Scriptures Luk. 24. 27. not to teach the meaning of wretched Ceremonies for in that they should not be the Pastours of Christ but speak with the mouth of Antichrist and Exod. 12. 26. 27. If the children ask the fathers what mean yee by this Passeover they were to answer It is the Sacrifice of the Lords Passeover So if they ask what meaneth your kneeling to Bread your Saints dayes your Surplice and Crossing you must answer they are the Ceremonies of the Lords Supper and Baptisme What uncouth bleating were this 6. Shall people saith D. Ammes be fedde with this East wind the vertue of Surplice when there be so little time to learne the maine things of the Gospell also some preach none some studie never Ceremonies some blush to speake of such toyes Yea and alas often saith Bannes the weake are not capable of distinctions it is hard to draw the wits of rude people along the untwisted threed of distinctions that the elements are objectum adorationis à quo significative and objectum adorationis relativae materiale non adorationis formale I conceive the Doctors of Aberdeen have adoe with their wits to understand them they must be taught of D. Mortounes essentiall and accidentall worship of Bellarmines additions perfecting and additions corrupting the word of God And whereas D. Forbes saith It is a shame for Ministers and teachers of others to pretend weaknes though the flock might be ignorant Answer Weakness is weakness of faith Rom. 14. 1. and weaknesse of grace not weakness in literall light And I thinke Ministers may pretend this upon too good grounds and weaknes of faith is often a great inclination to superstition 2. Though the Ministers refusing the Ceremonies should understand them as well as these who writ bookes for their defence yet it will not follow that they should practise them for their forbearance is for feare of scandalizing the weak Paul had perfect knowledge of his Christian libertie as any man yet he would not eat meats to the worlds end which should offend his brother The stronger should not scandalize the weak because they are stronger Duplyers pag. 63. n. 38. Thirdly if for Scandalls taken especially by the malicious we may disclaime the authority of a Law then we may ever disclaime the authoritie of all lawes of Church and State for there is nothing commanded by lawes but some either through weaknes or through malice may take offence at it Answer 1. For scandalls taken and also given by either weak or wilfull when the matter is indifferent and hath evident conformitie with Jewish and Popish rites and is not necessarie we may disclaim the authoritie of all such lawes true Ergo we may for scandall maliciously taken deny the authority of all lawes it followeth not Ex affirmatione spâ—ciei male colligitur negatio generis It is not for taken scandall but for given scandall that we disclaime the authoritie of these lawes 2. The Doctors will have us believe upon the sole light of their conscience n. 36. that they thinke the Ceremonies lawfull and expedient But for us they will not credit us in that but out of malice we are soandalized and not out of weaknesse Duplyers n. 39. 4. arg Fourthly We ought not for eschewing scandall causlesly taken to injure or offend any man by denying to him that which is due to him and therefore we ought not for eschewing scandall causlesly taken to offend and injure our Superiours The Antecedent is proved for if a man be excommâ—nicated shall his wife children and servants flie his company and so deny these duties which they owe to him for feare that others be scandalized and if we may not for scandall causlesly taken abstaine from these duties that we owe to private persons farre lesse may we abstaine from obedience which we owe to Superiours c. Answer Against the Law of disputing you lay downe a ground which is a principall part of the question that is practising these Ceremonies be obedience due to Superiours and none practising for a time an injuring of Superiours in their due though Gods affirmative precepts be omitted for a time as the not hearing the Word the not receiving the Sacraments in case of Scandall Gods due is not taken from him If you will be more zealous for the honour of Prelates and men then for the honour of God Answer the Argument
the Canons of Pearth faction 3. You say the negative part of the fift Commandement forbidding the resisting of the power Rom. 13. 2. by us is to be understood with exception of the case of scandall taken whereby you insinuate that not to obey the acts of Pearth Assembly is a resisting of the power of Rulers Rom. 13. 2. It is ignorantly spoken to resist every law of the Rulers is not to resist his power when the lawes are such as commandeth scandall yea by your own doctrine it is lawfull to flie when a Ruler unjusty commandeth persueth his subjects pag. 3. n. 19. And to â—â—ie I am sure is to refuse subjection to the Lawes of the Ruler from whose tribunall we â—liâ— yeâ— and to flie so is to resist his lawes but I hope it is not to resist the power for to resist the power bringeth damnation and guiltinesss before God Rom. 13. 2. But to flie from his legall Citations is to resist his lawes but doth not I hope bring damnation before God and sinne upon the conscience as you grant Duplyers n. 43. Men are ready to stumble and to be scandalized at our refusing obedience to the lawfull Commandements of our Superiours for they will take occasion by our cariage to doe that unto which by nature they be most inclined to wit to vilipend Lawes and Authoritie Answer If any stumble at our non-obedience to Pearth Articles and thence be induced to vilipend Lawes and Authoritie it is a scandall meerely taken no wayes given as is cleare because they stumble at our obedience to God in that we refuse to kill one for whom Christ died 2. It is no wayes true that men are naturally inclined to vilipend Laws in a matter indifferent as you hold Ceremonies to be from whence ariseth Scandall yea we are by nature much bent to extoll and love-lawes commanding soul-murther and all lawes inductive to Poperie which is but a masse of carnall propositions of heterodox Divinitie every way sutable to our flesh The third exception is answered already the fourth is to be discussed in the following Chapter Quest IIII. Whether the Precept of obedience to Superiours or the precept of eschewing scandall be more obligatorie Dupliers pag. 65. n. 43. LAst of all when a man is peremptâ—rily urged by his Superiours to obey their lawfull Commandements and in the meane time feareth that if he doe the thing commanded by them some through weaknesse shall be scandalized by his carriage in this case he is not onely in difficultie and strait betwixt the Commandement of men and the Commandement of God who forbiddeth us to doe that whereby our weake brother may be offended But also he seemeth to be in a strait betwixt two Commandements of God to wit the precept that forbiddeth us to doe that whereby our weake brother may be scandalized and the other which forbiddeth the resisting of Authoritie Answer 1. The question of purpose is perversly set do â—ne for they should say whether the precept of obedience to Superiours in a straw lifting in things indifferent and meerely positive and not necessarie to salvation be more obligatorie then the precept of God in the law of nature in a matter necessarie to salvation as a Commandement of God forbidding soul-murther and scandalizing him for whom Christ died Or thus Whether am I obliedged rather to obey God forbidding me to murther my brother or to obey man commanding me to kneele towards Bread and Wine and to crosse the aire with my thumbe upon the face of a baptized infant 2. The question seemeth to make a collision of Commandements as if God could command things contradictorie and certainly if the not obeying of Pearth Articles be a scandall given as you say it is I shall undertake to prove that the practice of these Ceremonies is a Scandall given and so it is not a seeming strait as you say but a reall strait by your doctrine There be cases wherein whether Rulers command things or command the contrary a passive scandall doth arise but because a passive Scandall is the sinne of the scandall taker and not of Rulers giving the Church is not to regard it as Matth 11. 18 19. The Jewes are scandalized at Christs eating and drinking and are scandalized at John the Baptists not eating and drinking But neither Christ nor John doe culpably give scandall But there can be no such exigence of providence wherein non-practising of your commanded Ceremonies is a given scandall and the practising of them is also a given scandall Because as Bannes and our owne Amâ—sius saith There is not such a perplexitiâ— 1. God should have brought a man then in some cases under an absolute necessitie by way of contradiction to sinne and murther his brother whether he doe such a thing or not doe it 2. Twentie Jewes are scandalized Rom. 14. Because Paul eateth such and such meats which they conceive are forbidden by Gods law And twentie Christians are scandalized because Paul eateth not such and such meats then we suppose and it s very casuall for seeing to be scandalized ariseth from the knowledge or ignorance of the minde and divers men may have contrary opinions about one thing Some thinke it unlawfull for Paul to eat some thinke it unlawfull not to eat Hence upon the use of a thing indifferent twentie are scandalized and upon the non-using of that same indifferent thing twentie are also scandalized What shall Paul doe in this strait I answer he taketh Rom. 14. 1 Cor. 8. the negative I will not eat flesh if meat offend my brother Then the twentie that are scandalized by the non-practice of the thing indifferent doe take scandall onely whereas Paul giveth no scandall actively Also the othet twentie who are scandalized by Paul his practice of the thing indifferent are justly scandalized it is both a scandall taken and active and a scandall given and passive Some object but if either of the sides be indifferent to wit either to use a thing indifferent or not to use it If ten take offence at the use of it and ten take offence at the non-use of it there is a necessitie of scandalizing either of the sides for the twentie weake Christians are scandalized at Pauls abstinence from such meats conceiving that he Judaizeth whereas the Profession of his Christian libertie in eating would edifie them and not scandalize them Answer The use of a thing indifferent is not Gods lawfull mean of edification God hath appointed his Word Workes the holy and blamelesse profession of his children to edifie and not the using of actions indifferent yea actions indifferent as they are such and separated from necessitie and morall reason are not lawfull and so the cessation from that action is lawfull and necessarie and if the use scandalize non-using of things indifferent is not indifferent but necessarie as non-scandalizing and negative precepts alwayes binding abstinence with Paul is necessarie It is vaine that Paybodie saith that
according to the places cited by our godly Brethren of the contrary minde except the Churches were first purified in some Ceremonial way as God prescribeth that the spoyle of Midian be purified which our Brethren cannot say except we would make our selves debtors to the whole Law for so the law was Num. 31. and so Paul doth reject Circumcision Gal 5. 3. and if it be said the necessitie of the poore requireth that these Temples be not loosed but imployed for the poore as David in point of necessitie eat the Shew-bread I answer 1. The poore as the case was Rom. 14. might eat Swines flesh and so ruine him for whom Christ died which is absurd for their necessitie might require it But certaine it is Davids necessitie was layd on him by the sixt Commandement as an act of mercie in the point of starving and if any poore Iew were in the like case I conceive it should have been scandalizing to that Jew to eat Swines-flesh before another weake Iew. Providentiall necessitie may make that which is a sinfull scandalizing to bee obedience to the sixt Commandement but the will of Superiours can make no such providentiall change as the D of Aberdeene doe dreame But if the necessitie bee lesse then the Necessitie in point of sterving it could justifie the poore Iewes eating of meats conceived to be against the law of God as the case was Rom. 14. But that the Church or house dedicated to a Saint should have no physicall use in the worship of God to defend us from the injuries of Sunne and Heaven and yet have the same use in common for the poore to dwell in wanteth all shadow of reason for how can it be proven that the same physicall use in the worship is unlawfull and yet out of worship is lawfull except there intervene some Ceremoniall and religious purging of the house by fire or some other way which were Iudaical under the New Testament for the necessity of the poor is not like the necessity of Davids eating of Shew-bread It s certain that the necessity of disusing the creature in a Physical usage in the worship must have a warrant in Scripture as well as the using of the same in the same usage must have the like warrant Object 5. But Bels are more hurtful to the souls of Gods people who are scandalized by them then they are useful for the tymous and seasonable convening of the people and therefore they may well be abolished being lesse necessary and necessary onely ad melius esse for the better ordering of the Worship of God and not simply necessary for the being of the Worship Now as the Lord our God will have a lesser necessity to yeeld to any greater a bodily necessity to give place to a soul-necessity the soul being more excellent then the body as is clear in that God would have his people to dispence with the lesser losse of the spoyl of the Amalakites of their Idols gold and silver that the greater necessity may stand to wit their not being allured nor their teeth put a watering and their heart to a lusting after the Idols of Canaan so would he have us to abolish the Saints Temples the gold of Popish Images the Bels that are lesse necessary seeing the Sun may teach as well as the Bell for eschewing soul-dangers in laying stumbling blocks both before our own souls and others Answ 1. It is denyed that Bells which have a necessary use though onely for the better ordering of the worship of God are any active objects of scandal and the meer passive scandal taken at any thing not indifferent but physically necessary and so necessary that without it sinful inconvenients of either wearying in the service of God or sinful neglect should follow is no sinful scandal given but meerly taken 2. There be two necessities of things one natural and first in that regard another religious and in that regard secondary the former necessity doth alwayes stand except God remove it by some posteriour commandment It s necessary that Adam and Evah eat of all things that God created for eating God I grant may remove this necessity in some and command either Adam to fast for a time or not to eat of the tree of Knowledge So say I warning by Bells hath a physical necessity the use of the Temples in worshipping hath the like necessity so have Gold and Silver a necessity god onely either by a Commandment or by an exigence of providence that standeth to us as in the case of a scandal for a command can remove the physical necessity and inhibite Israel to use such and such Gold as have been in use in the Heathen Idols and may forbid to perform an act of obedience to an affirmative command in the case of scandal as he may forbid Paul to take wages for Preaching the Gospel though Paul have some natural necessity of taking wages But the Church without a higher warrant from God hath no power to restrain us in the necessary use that God hath given us Make Bells and Temples as indifferent and unnecessary as some meats were Rom. 14. and I shall yeeld the Argument 3. That the Lord our God will have a bodily necessity as the smaller to yeeld to a soul-necessity as the greater is a ground not so sure but it ought to have been proved except by a soul-necessity you mean a necessity of saving the soul and not sinning against God and oppose it to a meeâ— bodily necessity including no sin in it then I shall grant the Assertion That the one necessity iâ— greater then the other But otherwise Cateris paribus other things being alike I conceive it is contradicted by Iesus Christs saying Matth. 12. cited out of Hosea Chap. 6. I will have meâ—â—â— and not sacrifice And here we must determine the case of scandal to the soul from the exsuperance of necessity to the body and life The case falleth out David and his followers are at the point of starving for hunger it may be a question if the presenâ— necessity be so great there being no bread for them but the Shew-bread which by a Ceremonial Law of God onely the Priests should eat If any of the followers of David out of a groundlesse scrupulosity of conscience should have taken Pauls Argument Rom. 14. and said to David I will starve rather ere I eat this bread for a divine law forbidâ— me and if thou eat of it it shall be a scandal to â—â— and wilt thou for bread destroy him for whom Christ died The Apostle Paul would not for so smal a thing as to eat swines flesh before a weak Jew in the case Rom. 14. destroy the soul of one for whom Christ died by laying before him a stumbling block by his unseasonable and scandalous eating I think if Scripture cannot possibly be contrary to Scripture this doubt might easily be removed by answering the case was not alike with David in his hunger and
in the Idoll-Temple to come to the Lords Table except they repent and try themselves Hence it must follow that if Christ have commanded his Stewards to dispense the word of promise and threatnings and comforts according to the temper of the flock so must they dispense the Seals and so by good consequence Paul said I will not have the Lord and Satan mingled nor a partaker of Satans Table admitted to the Lords Table 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Erastus his Arg. 13. 1 Cor. 10. God spared not idolaters and murmurers yet they eat we and they of the same spirituall meat and drinke the same spirituall drinke and so had the same Sacraments otherwise the Argument of the Apostle were nothing if ours and their Sacraments were not all one if then those that were idolators fornicators were admitted to their Sacraments then also to ouâ—â— under the New Testament Ans Beza answereth well to that Manna and the water ouf of the Rock as they had a spirituall Relation to Christ were holy things and types of Christ just as our Sacraments are signes of Christ already come in the flesh and so agreed in the kinde of holy signes with our Sacraments yet Manna and the water out of the Rock were also ordained to be bodily food for the famishing and thirsty people good or bad holy or unholy these two Manna and water out of the Rock were given by the Commandment of God and the Priests to the people both as Gods people in Covenant with God and to them as men starving in the wildernesse and dying for thirst for they had not plowing earing harvest bread vineyards wine fountains in the wildernesse and therefore no marvell then such holy things being also beside that they were holy things such as were necessary to keep them from starving and bodily death as the shewbread which was also a type of the word of life revealed to the Ministers of God was given to keep David and his men from starving No marvell I say then these bodily helps though in another higher signification they were Sacramentalls were by Gods command bestowed on many wicked men who often partake both of outward Ordinances and temporall deliverance from death and famishing because they are mixt with the people of God But Erastus if he would prove any thing against us should have proved that circumcision the Passeover and other holy things of God ordained for the visible Saints to shew forth our spirituall Communion with Christ and which were never ordained for necessiry helps to sustain the naturall life were to be administred to those that were openly prophane and wicked and therefore we deny this connexion Manna signified the very same thing to wit Christ our food of life which bread and wine signifies Ergo As Manna was given both as a holy signe to figure out Christ our life and to feed the bodies of openly holy or openly prophane to sustain their bodily life so also baptisme and the Lords Supper which serve for no bodily use should be administred to those that are openly prophane Erastus is put to a poor shift with this solid Answer of that Reverend Learned and holy Divine Theod. Bezâ— he saith Vis dicam quod sentio Tui ubique similises The sea and the cloud saith he were not necessary to feed the body It is true Erastus the Physician would think the cloud and pillar of fire can neither be Physick for the sick nor food for the whole yet Physitians say Manna is apt for both not is the dvided Red-Sea food or Physick But good man he knowes the cloud was their guide and convey by night and day through the wildernesse and appointed by God to convey the Leapers the unclean and all those who were Excommunicated from the holy things and the Idolators and openly wicked as well as the clean and the holy and he knew the sâ—me that the people had no food but Manna a holy signe that those who were unclean seven dayes and often many times longer were not to starve for hunger but must eat Manna though a holy yet their only necessary food then without which they could not live But I hope Erastus cannot prove while they were unclean or put out of the Camp or yet extreamly wicked that they might eat the Passeover which was a meer holy Sacrament not ordained for the feeding of the body as Manna and water out of the Rock were Erastus may know the dividing of the Sea was necessary to preserve the life of the most wicked and unclean God being pleased for his Churches cause to bestow Temporall deliverances on wicked men mingled with the godly from being drowned with the Egyptians and that God who will have mercy and not sacrifice may well by a positive Law appoint that holy and unholy clean and unclean shall have the use of such holy things as are not meerly holy but mixt being both means of Divine institution and also necessary Subsidies for mans life but it followeth not therefore holy things that are purely holy should be prostitute to holy and unholy the clean and unclean Erastus God in the Church of the Jews punished wicked men with bodily punishments not with Exclusion from the Sacraments and Paul threatneth death and sicknesse not Excommunication to those that did eat and drink unworthily Ans Then putting out of the Campe was no Exclusion from the holy things of God all the world not onely will cry shame on this Divinity But they will say Erastus his Logick is bad God punisheth some wicked men with death and the sword of the Magistrate and stoning Ergo he appointed no Ecclesiasticall debarring of the unclean from Circumcision 2. It is false that Paul threatneth death to unworthy Communicants only he saith God â—lew many of them for that sin and hence it follows well the Officers should hinder the scandalous to rush into such a sin as is the not discerning the Lords body which bringeth death and diseases on the actors What consequence is this God punisheth wicked men Ergo the Officers should not rebuke them for those sins nor the Magistrate or Church punish wicked men God punisheth â—â—ubborn Rebels to parents Ergo the judge should not stone them the contrary Logick is the arguing of the Spirit of God Erastus Every one is to try himself therefore there is no need of any other to try him for Paul speaketh of that which is proper to every mans conscience Ans It is an unlearned and vain consequence It is commanded that every one try if he be in the Faith or no for the peace of his conscience and this is so proper to a man himself and so personall that no man can try or know certainly whether be in the state of grace but he himself 2 Cor. 13. 5. Rev. 2. 17. None can joyn with him in this as none can joyn with a man to try if he have faith to discern the Lords body and eat worthily
but will it follow therefore the Pastor should not watch over him to try in another way in a Pastorall way by his walking profession and practicall knowledge whether he be in Christ or no. The contrary is Heb. 13. 17. They watch for the souls of the people as they that must give an accompt And they are so far to try that are Shepherds that they are obliged in a Pastorall way to know those of the flock that are diseased Ezech. 34. 4. Sick broken driven away and lost And to what end should they try themselves least they eat damnation to themselves Ergo the Stewards should try the stomacks that they eat not poyson If then the Lords Law bid men beware they be not tempted to Sorcery Sodomy Murthers and if every man ought to have personall watchfulnesse over his own conscience that he be not insnared to those sins and Achan was to try if his heart was ingaged to the wedge of Gold and to be wary to meddle with it but it doth not follow that Magistrates as Joshua should not try out Sorcerers Sodomites and other Achans to punish them Erastus 2 Cor. 13. is against this a person is to try himselfe Will it follow when he hath tryed himselfe that he cannot come to the Lords Supper except he seem meet to the Elders And this not our consequence let Erastus owne it we care not In a constitute Church he should else Erastus provides no way against a Pagan who hath heard the Word as he may doe 1 Cor. 14. 23. may without the Elders and Church sit downe at the Lords Supper for Erastus provides no stop for him but only his own pagan Conscience and so may one by that rule but trample on the Sacrament his owne Conscience is all his rule contrary to what he saith himselfe lib. 3. c. â— p. 207. Erastus 1 Cor. 11. Paul forbiddeth none to come to the Supper but upon supposition that they come as the manner is he biddeth them come worthily as all are bidden hear the Word though they â—e forbidden to he are it as if it were some prophane History nor doth the Lord command sinfull coming for no act commanded of God is evill Ans 1. Paul then forbiddeth not Pagans more to come to the Supper and Children then he forbiddeth them to heare the Word which is absurd he commandeth all to heare but he commandeth not all to come to the Supper but those onely that can discerne the Lords body for to heare the Word though I be not prepared is simply necessary if I would be saved and to sacrifice if I would be reconciled and to pray if I would obtaine any blessing though the manner of doing all these be commanded that I heare sacrifice and pray in faith But to come to the Supper is not commanded to all not to Pagans not to children not to the unregenerated but onely to the regenerated and to those who discerne the Lords body and for a child to come to the Lords Supper or an unrenewed man is forbidden not commanded and no ill act is commanded and it is a sinne that they come at all But Erastus will have it lawfull as it is to heare the Word then doth Christ command Turks and children to come to the Supper for he commandeth them to heare the Word and Peter bade Simon Magus pray Act. 8. 22. but he neither bids give the Supper to him nor bids he him receive it but by the contrary forbids pearles to be cast unto Swine Erastus Arg. 16. God will not have fewer Christians to be members of the Church now then of Iewes to be members of the Iewish Church But God would have all circumcised even the most flagitious that were punished by the Magistrate to be members of the Iewes Church Ergo God will have all the baptized to be Members of the Church Ans This will prove that all baptized even children should come to the Supper 2. I deny the Minor to wit that all the most wicked remained Members of the visible Iewish Church jure before God the wicked Iewes to God were as Sodom and Gomorrah Esa 1. 10. Yea he saith Amos 9. 7. Are ye not unto me as children of Ethiopians O children of Israel saith the Lord What they were de facto and not cast out was the fault of the Priests and that the Church does tollerate Iezabels Wolves Lions in the flock and admitteth them to holy things is their sin Erastus But Repentance was not alwaies commanded to those Iewes especially who were unclean by touching an unclean thing against their will and ignorantly and the purging of them depended on their owne will so they observed the Ceremonies of Moses Ans That is much for us if those who were uncleane against their will and cast out of the campe it being a trying Type that far more those that are wickedly scandalous are to be cast out of the Church Erastus The Church is a draw-â—et a field a marriage Supper there be good and ill in it and it was not the sinne of the inviters who are bidden invite all good and bad Mat. 22. But the man that came himselfe without the wedding garment he is cast into utter darkenesse Ergo The Officers are to invite all and forbid none Ans They are to invite all to all Ordinances and Seals even Dogs and Swine that is false They are to invite all to some Ordinances to heare the Law and Gospel preached but not the Seales that were to cast Pearles to Swine 2. The way of Erastus is that none are to be debarred nor to debarre themselves from the Seales more then from the Word The Lords forbidding Adam to touch the tree of Life and his casting of him out of Paradise and Cains being cast out from the presence of the Lord to me are rather Types presignifying Excommunication and that God will have wicked men debarred from holy things then patternes of Excommunications and so are they alledged by Beza and our Divines CHAP. VII Quest 3. Whether Erastus doth justly deny that Excommunication was typified in the Old Testament VVEe take types of uncleannesse in the Old Testament to be rightly expounded when the holy Ghost in the New-Testament doth expound them Now that Ceremoniall uncleannes did typifie Morall uncleannesse is cleare 2 Cor. 7. 17. Touch no uncleane thing and I will receive you 18. And I will be a Father unto you and yee shall be my Sonnes and Daughters saith the Lord Almighty This is a manifest Exposition of the Ceremoniall holinesse and cleannesse commanded in the booke of Leviticus for after the Lord hath given them a number of Lawes about eschewing of uncleane things he saith in generall Lev. 26. 3. If ye walke in my Statutes and keepe my Commandements and doe them 11. I will set my Tabernacle amongst you and I will be your God and ye shall be my people And it is a cleare allusion to Numb 19. 11. He that toucheth