15. And to wait on them with all patience if God peradventure may give them repentance 7. The destruction of the flesh must be the destruction of the body But the bodies of the godly are saved no lesse then their spirits in the day of the Lord. 8. And for many of the former reasons by delivering to Satan cannot be meant a miraculous tormenting of the body by Sathan with the saving of the life Such as we read was the case of Iob for the delivering to Sathan is to cast out of the Church and declare such an offendor to be of the number of the wicked world of which Sathan is Prince Ioh. 12. 31. Ioh. 14. 30. and God 2 Cor. 4. 4. and that which we assert as the essentials of excommunication are 1. Here is a member of the Church one vvho is within 1 Cor. 5. 12. one who hath fallen in a foul scandall and had his fathers wife ver 1. who by the Church conveened in the name of our Lord Iesus with that spirit of the Apostle given to them by Christ v. 4. was delivered to Sathan that his soule may be saved for that is the genuine and intrinsecall end of Excommunication and to be purged out of the Church lest he should infect the Sheepe ver 7. and Christians were not to bear company with him nor to eate with him ver 9. 10 and he was judged to be cast out as a Heathen and Publican ver 12. 13. and that by a convened court having the name and authority of him who is King of the Church ver 4. and more wee doe not crave Obj. To deliver any to the power of Sathan is no mean of salvation Answ A morall delivering to the efficacy of error and a reprobate minde is not a mean of salvation nor is excommunication such a mean nor in the power of the Church but a medicinall depriving of an offender of the comfortable communion of the Saints and of the prayers of the Church and meanes of grace such is a means and mighty through God to humble CAP. V. Quest 1. Whether the word doth warrant discipline and censures even to the excluding of the scandalous from the Sacraments beside the Pastorall rebukes inflicted by one VVE are not to conceive that there was nothing Morall in the Lawes that God made to his people of Israel to debar the unclean from the society of Gods people and from communion with them in the holy things of God Numb 5. 1. And the Lord spake unto Moses saying 2. Command the children of Israel that they put out of the Campe every leaper and every one that hath an issue and whosoever is defiled by the dead Lev. 5. 2. If a soul touch any unclean thing whither it be a carcase of an unclean beast or the carcase of unclean cattell or the carcase of unclean creeping things and if it be hidden from him he also shall be unclean and guilty 6. And he shall bring his trespasse-offering unto the Lord for his sin which he hath sinned Lev. 7. 20. But the soul that eateth of the sacrifice of the peace offerings that pertaineth to the Lord having his uncleannesse upon him even that soul shall be cut off from the people 21. Moreover the soul that shall touch any unclean thing as the uncleannesse of man or any unclean beast or any abominable unclean thing and eat of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings which pertain unto the Lord even that soul shall be cut off from his people In the which observe that here the soul that shall touch any unclean thing is to be cut off but Num. 5. 2. He is only to be put out of the Campe now these were not killed that were put out of the Campe and therefore to be cut off from the people must be a morall cutting off by Excommunication not by death also the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth to make a Covenant to cut off either by death or any other way as by banishment by which a thing leaveth off to be in use though it be not destroyed as when a branch is cut off a tree 1 Sam. 31. 9. Yea we have Isa 50. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where is that Bill of cutting off or divorce Now this was not a Bill of killing the wife that was divorced but putting her from her husband as our Saviour saith It is not Lawfull to marry her that is divorced Matth. 19. 9. A killed and dead woman is not capable of marriage yet the word is Deut. 24 1. Ier. 3. 8. from that same Theame 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Hebrews have another more ordinary word to signifie death as Exod. 31. 14. He that doth any work on the Sabbath in dying he shall die And it is expounded he shall be cut off from the midst of the people 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but Lev. 7. the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is four times used without any such expression ver 20 21 25 27. To which may be added that when zealous Hezechiah did finde that the people were not prepared According to the purification of the Sanctuary though they had celebrated the Passeover the King did not only not kil them but prayed God might be mercifull to them and the Lord killed them not saith the spirit of God but healed them Exod. 12. 15. He that eateth unleavened bread that soul shall be cut off from Israel but it is expounded ver 19. That soul shall be cut off 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the Church of Israel Certainly he that is killed is cut off from both State and Church and from the company of all mortall men on earth Isa 38. 11. Then to be cut off from Israel is onely to be deprived of the comfortable society of the Church of Israel as the holy Ghost expoundeth it Also Lev. 4. If any commit any sin but of ignorance and so if he touch any unclean thing or eat unleavened bread forbidden of God he is excluded from the holy things of God while the Priest offer for him according to the Law Now if he was presently to be killed either by the Magistrate or in that act killed by Gods own immediate hand as Aarons sons were there was not a journey to be made to the place the Lord had chosen to sacrifice there which might have been three dayes journey from his house who was unclean yea when the man that gathered sticks was stoned and the false Prophet stoned Deut. 13. there was no sacrifices offered for any of them before they were killed and I hope there were no sacrifices in Moses his Law offered for the dead Hence learn we 1. That to cut off from the Congregation was not to kill but it was the Iewish Excommunication greater or lesse 2. That Moral sins under the Old Testament debarred men from the holy things of God while the Priests sacrificed for them and brought them in a capacity to receive the holy
or betwixt Peters words and the words spoken by Peteâ—â— tongue mouth and lips for Prophets and Apostles were both Gods mouth 5. Worship essentiall and Worship Arbitrary vvhich Formalists inculcate or worship positively lavvfull or negatively lavvfull are to be acknowledged as worship Lawfull and Will-worship and vvorship Lawfull and unlawfull 6. What is vvarranted by naturall reason is vvarranted by Scripture for the Law of nature is but a part of Scripture 7. Actions are either purely morall or purely not morall or mixed of both The first hath vvarrant in Scripture the second none at all the third requireth not a vvarrant of Scripture every vvay concludent but only in so far as they be Morall 8. Matters of meer fact knovvn by sence and humane testimonie are to be considered according to their Physicall existence if they be done or not done if Titus did such a thing or not such are not in that notion to be proved by Scripture 2. They may be considered according to their essence and Morall quality of good and lawfull â—ad or unlawfull and so they are to be warranted by Scripture 9. There is a generall vvarrant in Scripture for Worship and morall actions tvvofold either vvhen the Major proposition is only in Scripture and the Assumption is the vvill of men or vvhen both the Proposition and Assumption are warranted by Scripture the former vvarrant I think not sufficient and therefore the latter is necessary to prove the thing lavvfull Hence our 1. conclusion Every worship and Positive observance of Religion and all Morall actions are to be made good by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according as it is vvritten though their individuall circumstances be not in the word 2. The offering for the Babe Iesus tvvo Turtle Doves and â—vvo Pigeons are according as it is vvritten in the Lavv and yet Ioseph and Mary the Priest the Offerer the day and hour when the male childe Iesus for whom are not in the Law Exod. 13. 1. Numbers 8. 26. In the second Table Amaziah his Fact of mercy in not killing the children for the Fathers sin is said to be 2 Kin. 24. 6. performed by the King 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As it is vvritten in the Book of the Law of Moses yet in that Law Deut 24. 6. There is not a word of Amaziah or the children whom he spared because these be Physicall and not Morall circumstances as concerning the essence of the Law of God Hence in the Categorie of all Lawfull Worship and Morall actions both Proposition and Assumption is made good by this As it is vvritten even to the lowest specifice degree of morality as all these 1. The Worship of God 2. Sacramentall worship under that 3. Under that participation of the Lords Supper 4. Under all the most speciall participation of the Lords Supper by Iohn Anna in such a Congregation such a day All these I say both in Proposition and Assumption are proved by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And can bid this according as it is written the like I may instance in all other Worship in all acts of Discipline in all Morall acts of justice and mercy in the second Table But come to the Prelats Kalendar They cry Order and decency is Commanded in Gods Worship And we hear Pauls cry not theirs but under this is 2. Orderly and decent Ceremonies of humane institution And here they have lost Pauls cry and the Scriptures as it is written 3. Under this be Symbolicall signes of Religious worship instituted by men according as it is written is to seek And 4. under all Thomas his Crossing of such an Infant is written on the back of the Prelats Bible or Service book but no where else So do Papists say What ever the Church teach that is Divine truth Under this cometh in invocations of Saints Purgatory and all other fatherlesse Traditions which though Papists should teach to be Arbitrary and indifferent yet would we never allow them room in Gods house seeing they cannot abide this touchstone according as it is written 2. Because Scripture condemneth in Gods Worship what ever is ours as will-worship Hence 2. All worship and new Positive means of worship devised by men are unlawfull but humane Ceremonies are such Ergo The Proposition is proved many wayes as 1. What is mans in Gods Worship and came from Lord-man is challenged as false vain and unlawfull because not from God as Idols according to their own understanding Hos 13. 2. So from Israel it was the workman made it Hos 8. 6. Hence Zanchius and Pareus infer all invented by men are false and vain and so are condemned Ier. 18. 12. The imaginations of their â—vil heart and Psal 106. 39. Their own devises their ovvn vvorks their ovvn inventions as Act. 7. 41. Figures vvhich yâ— made Act. 7. 43. Had they been figures of Gods making as the Cherubins and Oxen in the Temple as 1 King 7. They had been Lawfull dayes devised by Iâ—robâ—ams heart 1 King 12. 32 33. The light of your ovvâ—â—â—irâ— Isa 50. 11. A plant that the Heavenly Father planted not Ergo By man Math. 15. 14. 2. The Proposition is proved from the wisdom of Christ who is no lesse faithfull then Moses who followed his Copy that he saw in the Mount Exod. 40. 19. 21. 23. Exod. 25. 40. Heb. 8. 5. Heb. 3. 1 2. Ioh. 15. 15. Or Solomon 2 Chron. 29. 25. 1. Chron. 28. 11 12. Gal. 3. 15. Also I prove our Conclusion 3. thus If the word be a rule to direct a young mans vvay Psal 119. 9. A light to the Paths of men v. 105. If the Wisdom of God cause us to understand Equity Iudgement Righteousnesse and every good vvay Prov. 2. 9. And cause us vvalk safely so that our feet stumble not Prov. 3. 25. So that vvhen vve go our steps shall not be straightned and vvhen vve run our feet shall not stumble Prov. 4. 11 12. If wisdom lead us as a Lamp and and a Light Prov. 6. 23. Then all our actions Morall of first or second Table all the Worship and right means of the Worship must be ruled by this according as it is Written else in our actions we walk in darknesse we fall stumble go aside and are taught some good way and instructed about the use of some holy Crossing some Doctrine of Purgatory and Saint-worship without the light of the Word But this latter is absurd Ergo So is the former It is poor what Hooker saith against us If Wisdom of Scripture teach us every good path Prov. 2. 9. By Sccripture onely and by no other mean then there is no art and trade but Sripture should teach But Wisdom teacheth something by Scripture something by spirituall influence something by Worldy experience Thomas believed Christ vvas risen by sence because he savv him not by Scripture the Ievvs believed by Christs miracles Ans 1. Some actions in man are meerly naturall as to grow these
perfect though it teach us not any thing of tradionals in speciall yet in generall it doth hold forth the traditions of the church So Tostat Abulens in Deut. 4. v. 2. ad lit saith Hic commendatur lex ex perfectione quia perfecto nec addi potest nec auferri debet Here the Law of God is commended saith he from its perfection and that is perfect to which nothing can be added and from which nothing should be taken Yea so far forth is the scripture perfect in the Articles of Faith that Castro in summa c. 8. Canus locor Theolog. l. 2. c. 7. and l. 4. c. 4. and Tannerus tom 3. in 22. disp 1. de fide Q. 1. dub 7. saith We are not now to wait for any new revelation of any verity unknown to the Apostles Et nihil novi definiri ab ecclesia Apostolis incognitum and all verities now revealed were implicitely believed by the Apostles and contained in Vniversall generall precepts as that the Saints are to be worshipped that Canonicall Books containeth the word of God the Bishops of Rome are the true successors of Peter and Catholick pastors c. and he saith Quod ecclesia non posset novum fidei articulum condere communiter etiam docent Scholastici in 3. dis 25. he subscribeth to that truth of Vincentius Lyrinensis c. 17. In ecclesia nulla nova Dogmata procudi sed pretiosam divini Dogmatis Gemmam exsculpi fideliter cooptari adornari sapienter ut intelligatur illustrius quod antea obscurius credebatur No new points of saith or manners are forged in the Church but the precious pearl of divine truth is in it polished faithfully applied and wisely illustrated that they may be more clearly understood which before was more obscurely beleeved so that to say the perfection of scripture consisteth not in particularizing all the small positives of policy is no more then Papists say of the perfection of the scripture in their traditions 2. Moses speaketh both of the Morall and Ceremoniall Law called by the names of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Statutes rights and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Judgements and Laws whatsoever extolled by David Psal 119. As his delight his joy his heritage his songs in the house of his pilgrimages and of both he saith that there is life in keeping them Now the Ceremonies of Moses had an exceeding great excellency in looking to Christ and being shadows of good things to come Heb. 10. 1. And our Ceremonies have the same aspect upon Christ Why but the day of the commemoration of Christs Death Nativity Ascension Dedication to Christ by a Crosse in the Aire should have the same influence and impression on our hearts if they be lawfull that the like Ceremonies and Laws had upon Davids spirit Christ being the object and soul of both 2. Of these Ceremonies and Laws Moses faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 6. for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the Nations Why but these same Ceremonies looking with a broader and fuller face on Christ already come if Christ have put any life of lawfulnesse in them then their dim shadows of old should also be our wisdom in the hearing of Pagans who know not God 3. It is a wonder to me that the learned Master Prynne should say that the place Deut. 4. speaketh nothing of Church-Government and Ceremonies but only of Doctrines of Canonicall Books For that is as much as to say the place speaketh nothing of Divine Ceremonies but only of divine Ceremonies for what a number of Divine Ceremonies and Laws are in the Law of Moses which were given by the Lord himself as is clear by the words ver 1. Now therefore hearken O Israel unto the Statutes and judgements that I teach you that ye may live and v. 5. Behold I have taught you Statutes and judgments which the Lord my God commanded me v. 8. And what nation is there so great that hath statutes and judgements so Righteous as all this Law which I set before you this day Now of all this Law the Lord saith v. 2. Ye shall not adde unto the Word which I commanded you Neither shall ey diminish The Learned and Reverend Mr Prynne must restrict this word of the Law which can admit of no addition to some speciall Law either the Morall only or the judiciall and Ceremoniall only not to the former for then additions to the Decalogue only should be forbidden this never man taught Stapleton indeed Relect. Prin. fid Doctrin cont 4. Q. 1. Art 3. restricteth it to the Ceremoniall Law only but Moses maketh it a Law as large v. 2. as the word which God Commandeth And as saith he v. 5. the statutes and the judgements which the Lord Commanded me v. 8. All this Law Deut. 31. 9. This written Law delivered to the Priests and kept in the Ark the Law that all Israel heard read v. 11. Of which it is said v. 24. When Moses had made an end of writing of the words of this Law in a Book untill they were finished Now this was the whole five Books of Moses And were there nothing of Church-Government in Moses Law What shall we then say of the High Priest his calling Office habit of the Priests Levites their charge calling attire of the Law of the Leaper his healing his extrusion out of the Camp of the Law of those that were defiled with the dead of their qualification who were to be Circumcised who were to eat the Passeover or who not who were to enter into the house of God and Congregation who not not a few of these touching Church-Government are included in the Law that God Commanded Israel as their wisdom 4. That there were many additions made to the service of God in the Temple not mentioned by Moses is nothing to purpose except it be proved that these additions were made by the Church without any word of God the conâ—rary whereof is evident for the Temple and whole patern thereof was delivered in writing by the Lord to David 1 Chron. 28. 11. 19. If Formalists will have no Laws made but by Moses as the only Law-giver they have as good reason to say That Moses was the only Canonick writer and none but he which is absurd Or 2. That Moses by his own spirit was a Law-giver and had active influence in excogitating the Law We conceive that Protestants are to own this Doctrine which Tostatus imputes to us as Hereticks Com. in Loc. Q. 2. Quasi Moses nudus minister relator verborum dti esset non legem conderet As if Moses were a meer servant and a naked reporter of the Lords Law and words and not a Law-maker For in the making of Laws and Divine institutions we judge that all the Canonick writers were meer patients as the people are for God is the Commander and Moses the person Commanded and a meer servant Deut. 4. 5. Mal. 4. 4. Heb. 3.
of adoring God Obedience is founded not formally upon Gods excellency properly so called but upon his jurisdiction and Authority to Command Adoration is the subjection or prostration of soul or body to God in the due recognition and acknowledgement of his absolute supremacy There is no need that Vasquez should deny that there is any internall Adoration for that Adoration is only an externall and bodily Worship of God can hardly be defended for there may be and is Adoration in the blessed Angels as may be gathered from Isa 6. 1 2 3. Hâ—b 1. 6. And it is hard to say that the glorified spirits loosed out of the body and received by Christ Act. 7. 59. Psal 73. 27. Into Paradice Luk. 23. 43. And so with him Philip. 1. 23. And Praying under the Altar Rev. 6. 9 10. And falling down before the Lamb and acknowledging that he hath Redeemed them Rev. 5. 8 9 10. do not Adore God and his Son Christ because they have nor bodies and knees to bow to him and yet they Adore him Phil. 2. 9 10. in a way suitable to their spirituall estate It is an untruth that Rapha de la Torres in 22. q. 84. Art 2. disp 2. n. 1. saith That Protestants detest all externall Worship now under the New Testament as contrary to Grace and Adoration of God in spirit and truth For things subordinate are not contrary we should deny the necessity of Baptisme and the Lords Supper and of vocall praying and praising under the New Testament which are in their externals externall worship I grant internall Adoration is more hardly known But 't is enough for us to say as externall Adoration is an act by which we offer our bodies to God and subject the utter man to him in sign of service and reverence to so supream a Lord so there is a heart-prostration and inward bowing of the soul answerable thereunto As the profession whither actuall or habituall in a locall and bodily approach or in verball titles of Honour in which we Honour great personages by bowing to them in prostration and kneeling is an act in its state Civill not Religious we intending I presse not the necessity of a â—ormall or actuall intention only to conciliate Honour to them suitable to their place and dignity so a profession whither actuall or habituall in a Religious bodily approach to God either by prayer or prostration or inâ—lination of the body tending to the Honour of God is a Religious act Now bodily prostration of it self is a thing in its nature indifferent and according as is the object so is it either Artificiall as if one should stoop down to drive a wedge in an image or civill if one bow to Honour the King or Religious when God and Divine things are the object thereof But with this difference the intention of the minde added to externall prostration to a creature reasonable may make that prostration idolatrous and more then civill honour Thus bowing to Haman Honoured by Ahasuerus who hath power to confer honours if people bow to him as to God is more then civill honour And Cornelius his bowing to Peter Act. 10. as to more then a man is Idolatrous and not civill honour and the Carpenters bowing to an Image as to a piece of Timber formed by Art is only Artificiall bowing and if any stumble at a stone before an Image and so fall before it it is a casuall and naturall fall whereas a falling down with intention to Adore had been Religious Adoring But when the object of bodily prostration or kneeling is God or any Religious representation of God whither it be the elements of bread and wine which are Lawfull Images of Christ or devised pictures or portraicts of God or Christ because these objects are not capable of artificiall naturall or civill prostration if therefore they be terminating objects of bodily kneeling or prostration these Religious objects to wit God and Religious things must so specifie these bodily acts as that they must make them Religious not civill acts though there be no intention to bow to God for bowing to God hath from the object that it is a Religious bowing though you intend not to direct that bowing to God as bowing to Jupiters Portraict is a Religious Worshipping of that Portraict though you intend not to worship the Portraict for the act and Religious object together maketh the act of prostration or kneeling to be essentially Religious though there be no intention to bow to these indeed the intention to bow to God maketh kneeling to God to be more Morally good laudable and acceptable before God then if therewere no such intention but the want of the intention maketh it not to be no Religious worship nor can it make it to be civill worship Hence let this be observed that intention of bowing can or may change that bowing which otherwayes were but civill if there were no such intention of over-esteeming the creature into a Religious bowing but neither our over or under-intention can change a Religious kneeling to God or to an Image into a civill kneeling because civill or naturall bowing to creatures is more under the power of an humane and voluntary institution of men then Religious bowing which hath from God without any act of mans free will its compleat nature When we kneel to Kings we signifie by that gesture that we submit our selves to higher powers not simply saith P. Martyr but in so far as they Command not things against the Word of the Lord. When we Adore God we Adore him as the Supream Majesty being ready to obey him in what he shall Command without any exception the Adoration of men signifieth a submission limited if it go above bounds it is the sinfull intention of the Adorer who may change the civil Adoration into Religious and may ascend But the Aderation of God cannot so descend as it can turn into Civill Adoration only keeping the same object it had before Worship is an action or performance or thing by which we tender our immediate honour to God from the nature of the thing it self 1. I call it an action because the passion of dying or suffering is not formally worship but only dying comparatively rather then denying of Christ or dying so and so qualified dying with Patience and Faith may be called a worship 2. I call it not an action only but a performance or thing because an office as the Priesthood the Ministery is a worship and yet not an action Sometime Time it self as the Sabbath Day is a Worship yet it is not an action So the Lord calleth it His Holy Day and undenyably the lewish dayes the High Priests garment and many things of that kinde were Divine or Religious performances things or adjuncts of Divine Worship but so as they are not meerly adjuncts of Worship but also worship for the High Priests Ephod was not only a civil ornament nor was it a
will was not determinatrix in this 5. The man jumbleth together godly discretion and will they be much different but for godlinesse in short sleeves and Crossing a finger in the Aire I understand it not nor can reason dream of any warrant for it but will as will that is mans lust made it Neither do Formalists go from Suarez and Bellarmine who call that will-worship which is devised only by a manâ— wit and is not conforme to the principles of Faith and wanteth all reason and the received use of the Church But we are disputing here against the Churches use as if it were not yet a received use But upon these grounds I go 1. Reason not binding and strongly concluding is no reason but meer will So Ceremonies have no reason If the reason binde they are essentiall worship 2. Authority is only ministeriall in ordering Gods worship and hath no place to invent new worship 3. Authority as Authority especially humane giveth no light nor no warrant of conscience to obey and therefore authority naked and void of scriptures-light is here bastard authority 11. In all this Formalists but give the Papists distinction of Divine and Apostolick Traditions for power of inventing Ceremonies to them is Apostolick but not infallible and Divine Suarez giveth the difference God saith he Is the Immediate Author of Divine Traditions and the Apostles only publishers But the Apostles are immediate Authors of Apostolick Traditions God in speciall manner guiding their will So Cajetan Sotus Bellar. So our Formalists Duname Hooker Sutluvius But I like better what Cyprian saith That no Tradition but what is in the word of God is to be received But this distinction is blasphemous and contrary to Scripture 1 Cor 14 57. The things that I write unto you even of decency and order as v. 29. 40. Are the Commandment of the Lord 2. Pet. 3. 2. Peter willeth them to be mindefull of the vvords which were spoken before by the holy Prophets and of the Commandments of us the Apostles of the Lord and Sâ—vioâ—â— Then the Apostles Commandments are equall with the Commandments of the Prophets But in the Old Testament there were not some Traditions Divine and some not every way Divine but Propheticall for the Prophets were the mouth of God as is clear 2 Pet. â— 19 20 21. Luk. 1. 70. Rom. 1. 2. So 1 Tim. 6. 13. I give thee charge in the sight of God 14. That thou keep this Commandment without spot unrebukable untill the appearing of the Lord Iesus Now the Commandment as Beza noteth Are all that he writ of discipline which Formalists say are for the most Apostolicke but not Divine Traditions 2. If Ceremonies seem good to the holy Ghost as they say they do from Act. 15. then they must seeme good to the Father and the Son as the Canon is Act. 15. But that Canon was proved from expresse Scripture as Peter proveth v. 7 8 9. and James v. 13 14 15 16. If they come from the Spirit inspiring the Apostles they cannot erre in such Traditions If from the spirit guided by the holy Ghost they come from Scripture 3. If these traditions come from no spirit led by light of Scripture we shall not know whether they be Lawfull or not for the Scripture is a Canonick rule of lawfull and unlawfull 4. If any Apostolick spirit be given to Authors of Ceremonies why not also in preaching and praying How then do many of them turn Arminians Papists Socinians 5. The Apostolick spirit leading institutors of Ceremonies doth either infuse light naturall supernaturall or Scripturall in devising Ceremonies and so Eatenus in so far they were essential worship or the Apostolick spirit doth lead them with no light at all which is brutish Enthusiasme or 3. Gods Apostolick spirit infuseth the generall equity and negative Lawfulnesse of these truths Surplice is an Apostolicall signe of Pastorall holinesse and Crossing a signe of Dedication of a childe to Christs service Now light for this we would exceedingly have If this light be immediatly infused then Surplice Crossing are as Divine as if God spake them for truths immediatly inspired lost no divinity because they come through sinfull men for Balaam his Prophesie of the star of Jacob was as Divine in regard of Authority as if God had spoken it but if these trash come from an inferiour spirit we desire to know what spirit speaketh without the word But some may object The preaching of the word is somewhat humane because it s not from the infallible spirit that dited the word Ergo Ceremonies may come from the holy Spirit though they be not as lawfull as Scripture Ans Let them be proved to be from the warrant that the word is preached and we yeeld to all 5. Apostolick Ceremonies but not Divine have Gods generall allowing will for the accepting of them Now Sampsons mother Judg. 13. 23. proveth well The Lord hath accepted our offering Ergo it is Lawfull and he will not kill us So God atcepted Abel and Noah their Sacrifices Ergo they were Lawfull and Divine worship So Hosea 8. 8. They sacrifice flesh for the sacrifices of my offerings and they eat it but the Lord accepteth them not Ergo offerings of flesh without offering of themselves as living sacrifices to God are now unlawfull If God accept of Ceremonies they must be Divine service if he accept them not they must be unlawfull They Answer He accepteth them as Arbitrary worship not as essentiall I Answer God might have accepted so Sampsons sacrifice and Noahs as arbitrary worship and yet not be gracious to them nor reward their sacrificing as good service contrary to the Texts alledged but I doubt much if the Lord be gracious to men and accept in Christ corner Caps Surplice Crossing humane holy dayes They object Our Circumstances of time place persons c. are no more warranted by the Scripture then Ceremonies are And God might in his wisdom â—aith Burges have calculated the order of times and places such climats and seasons but he hath left these as he hath left our Ceremonies to the Churches liberty Ans Time and place as I observed already being circumstances Physicall not Morall nor having any Religious influence to make the worship new and different in nature from that which is commanded in the Law though they be not expresly in the Word do not hinder but you may say Such an act of worship is according as it is written for as Praying Preaching hearing is according as it is written so is Praying and Preaching in this convenient place proved by that same Scripture As it is written but one and the same Scripture doth not warrant Order and Surplice 2. The question is not what Gods wisdom can do for he could setdown all the names of Preaching Pastors Doctors Deacons Elders in the Word but his wisdom thus should have made ten Bibles more then there be But
because what it teacheth is a lie for what it teacheth is Scripture Isa 52. 11. That these who beareth the Vessels of the Lord that is Pastors should be holy but it is a Doctrine of lies because it representeth Pastorall holinesse by humane institution without all warrant of the Word of God And when Paul calleth holidayes Elements Gal. 4. 6. He meaneth that they spell to us and teach us some truth as Estius saith That holidayes do teach us Articles of Faith To which meaning Paludanus Cajetan Vasquez say God may well be painted in such expressions as Scripture putteth on God as in the likenesse of a Dove as a man with hands eyes ears feet all which are given to God in Scripture 4. It is essentiall to the Word to set down the means of Gods worship which is the very scope of the second Commandment and therefore the Iews washings and Traditions are condemned because they be Doctrines of men appointed by men to be means of the fear or worship of God as Math. 15. 9. Mar. 7. 8. Isa 29. 13. Hence we owe subjection of Conscience to Ceremonies as to lawfull means of Worship 1. Stirring up our dull senses And 2. as lawfull signes representing in a Sacramentall signification holy things 3. As teaching signes 4. As means of Gods fear and worship Whereas God as Ainsworth observeth well in the second Commandment forbiddeth all images and representations 2. All shapes Exod. 20. 4. Temniah 3. Forms of figures Tabuith Deut. 4. 16. 5. Any type of shadow Tselem Ezek. 7. 20. 16 17. 6. Any pictured shape Maskith Levit. 26. 1. Any Statue Monument Pillar Mattesebah any Graven or Molten Portraict Hos 13. 2. 5. We are obliged to obey the Word Exod. 20. 7. Prov. 3. 20 21. Prov. 8. 13. Ier. 6. 16. Ier. 5. 7. 2. We owe to the Word belief Luk. 1. 20. Love Psal 119. 49. 81. Hope 3. And are to expect a reward therefore Psal 19. 11. Rev. 2. 7. 10. 27 28. Gal. 4. 11. Rom. 6. 23. Coloss 2. 18. Hebrew 11. 25. Psal 34. 9. Psalme 58. 11. Then if Decency be commanded and order in the third Commandment Ergo this and that orderly mean of Worship as Surplice But can we say I hope in the Surplice O how love I crossing and Capping can we believe in Ceremonies as means of Gods worship 6. The word is Gods mean to work supernaturall effects to convert the soul Psal 19. 7. To work Faith John 20. 3. To edifie Act. 20. 32. To save Rom. 1. 16. The obedience to Gods word bringeth Peace Psal 119. 165. Comfort v. 50. Gen. 49. 18. Isa 38. 3. But Ceremonies being apt to stir up the dull minde must be apt to remove Naturall dulnesse which is a supernaturall effect and so to bring Peace joy comfort Organs are now holden by the same right that they were in Moses-Law then they must stir up supernaturall joy There must be peace and comfort in practising them Hear how this soundeth This is my comfort O Lord in my affliction that thy Surplice Organs and holy-holy-dayes have quickened my dull heart Now what comfort except comfort in the Scriptures Rom. 15. 4. Ceremonies be innocent of all Scriptures What joy a proper fruit of the Kingdom of heaven Rom. 14. 17. can be in saplesse Ceremonies yea observe 1. Who truly converred from Popery who inwardly humbled in soul doth not abhor Ceremonies by the instinct of the new birth 2. What slave of hell and prophane person call not for Ceremonies 3. Who hath peace in dying that Ceremonies were their joy 7. All Lawfull Ordinances may by prayer be recommended to God for a blessed successe as all the means of salvation Psal 119. 18. Matth. 26. 26. Act. 4. 29 30. 2. We may thank God for a blessed successe which they have by the working of the spirit of Grace 2 Cor. 2. 24. 1 Cor. 1. 4 5. 2 Thes 1. 2 3. Ephes 1. 3. 3. We are to have heat of zeal against prophaning of word Sacraments Prayer or other Ordinances of God But what faith in praying Lord work with Crossing Capping Surplice For where the word is not nor any promise there be no Faith Rom. 10. 14. What praising can there be for Ceremonies working upon the soul What zeal except void of knowledge and light of the word and so but wilde-fire Gal. 4. 17 18. Phil. 3. 6. 2 Sam. 21. 2. can there be though the Surplice be imployed to cleanse Cups and Crossing be scorned If the subject be nothing the accidents be lesse if Surplice be not commanded nor forbidden the reverent or irreverent usage thereof cannot be forbidden nor commanded true zeal is incensed only at sin and kindled toward Gods warranted service 8. I take it to be Gods appointment that the Spirit worketh by a supernaturall operation with his own Ordinances in the regenerated but we desire to know how the Spirit worketh with Ceremonies Formalists are forced by these grounds to maintain the Lawfulnesse of Images So 1. They be not adored 2. If they be reputed as indifferent memorative Objects and books to help the memory But 1. It shall be proved that at first Papists did give no adoration to Images nor doth Durandus Hulcot Pic. Mirandula acknowledge any adoration due to them but proper to God before the Images as objects 2. We may liken God and Christ to a stock so we count it indifferent to make or not to make such an image yet likening him to any thing is forbidden Isa 40. 18. Also we esteem it Idolatry interpretative to take Gods place in his word and to make any thing to be a mean of grace except Gods own Ordinances Against all these Formalists have diverse exceptions As 1. Our Ceremonies say they do not respect the honour of God immediatly and in themselves but by accident and as parts of Divine worship by reduction as it containeth all the adjuncts of worship Ans Such Logick was never heard of 1. If he mean a Surplice in the materials to wit Linnen and Crossing Physically considered as separated from their signification do not tend immediatly to the honour of God but as an adjunct he speaketh non-sense for so Bread Wine eating drinking Water in Baptisme do not immediatly respect the honour of God but only as they have a Morall consideration and stand under Divine institution But yet so the materiall of worship is not the adjunct thereof but the matter as the body of a living man is not one adjunct of a man If he mean that Ceremonies in a Morall not in a Physicall consideration do not immediatly respect the honour of God but reductively and by accident Let him show us if the Surplice doth not as immediatly and without the intervening mediation of any other thing signifie and stir up our mindes to the remembrance of Pastorall holinesse as eating all of one bread doth immediatly stir up our mindes to the remembrance of our Communion of love that
the Image to be God objective commemorative representative relative declarative significative Non essentialiter non per se non realiter 2. There is an honour or negative râ—verence due to any Image of God ordained by himself or to any mean of honouring God because it is such though it cannot be expressed in the act of Adoration but the question is if the honour of adoration either relative or absolute be due to the Image 3. The Jews intended to honour Jehovah in their Images what inferiour intention they had to honour the Image we are now to inquire 4. We bow our knee two wayes before a creature either before a creature as an object by accident as while we pray there of necessity must be before us some creature a wall a Table a Pulpit none of these are adored because they are before us by accident as having no Religious state The Image before the Iew and the Sacramentall elements before the kneeler cannot be thus present 2. The creature is before the kneeler of Religious purpose as a Religious object 5. The Creature is Religiously present before the kneeler two wayes 1. Active 2. Passive 1. In the meer and naked act of teaching and exciting the memory so that when that act is past I turne from the creature and adore the Creator So at the sight of the Sun or Moon being taught and instructed of the wisdom and power of God in creating such excellent creatures I am to turn from them and adore the Lord of these creatures Thus the creatures are kindely and per se objects in the act of teaching but not objects at all in the act of adoration 2. The creatures are objects passive when bodily bowing in a religious state is directed toward the creatures really and bodily present by a commandment of the Church or of purpose and so they are made objects of Adoration I. Conclusion The relative expression of God which is in the works of God is no formall ground of any Adoration of the creatures 1. Because Adoration upon this ground though the creatures the Hoast of Heaven be excellent is forbidden Deut. 4. 19. 2. Not only Images which cannot represent God and the Sacraments but all the creatures even Rats Mice Flyes Frogs Worms Iudas and wicked men yea and Devils are to be worshipped because all things having being are shadows and footsteps of God their cause first Author and last end Psal 19. 1. Psal 103. 22. Rom. 1. 19 20. Act. 17. 27 28 Prov. 16. 4. Rev. 4. 11. Rom. 11. 36 37 3. Because God is really and by the diffusion of his blessed essencâ— present in all creatures it followeth not that we should Adore them The Formalists upon this ground that Christ is really present in the Sacrament though the manner we know not think that Christ should be Adored in the Sacrament according to that Verbum audimus motum sentimus modum nescimus But if this be good Logick because we know not the way of the Spirit and how the bones grow in a woman with childe Eccles 11. v. 5. And God where he worketh is present by the immediation of essence and power though we know not the way of his presence we are to Adore the soul of man and the bones of a young childe in a womans belly though they should say that God-man Christ is in a more powerfull and efficacious manner present in the Sacrament then in the works of nature yet should it follow that God is to be worshipped in the works of nature also for Magis minus non variant speciem for then we could not conclude any thing but this Though there be not so reall a ground of Adoring Lice and Frogs as Adoring of the Sacrament Yet there is a ground seeing God is in the realliâ—y of his blessed essence present in all creatureâ— II. Conâ—lusion The Idolatrous Jews did not Adore the golden Calf as a creaâ—ure but as God by representation Exod. 32. 4. And when Aaron had made thereof a golden Calf they said These be thy Gods O Israel which brought thee up out of the Land of Aegypt 5. And when Aaron saw it he built an Altar before it and Aaron made Proclamation and said To morrow is a Feast to Iehovah Now that they believed not the golden Calf to be really and essentially Iehovah is more then evident 1. Because they believed not Moses to be essentially God but their guide and leader under God but this Calf they made to supply the want of Moses v. 1. The people gathered themselves together against Aaron and said unto him Vp make us gods which shall go before us For as for this Moses the man that brought us up out of the Land of Aegypt we know not what is become of him They made then the Calf only a visible God under Iehovah to lead them in Moses his place 2. There is no reason why they should have made Aaron rather the maker of the Calf then another but because he being the Lords Priest they thought by his holinesse the God head of Jehovah did slide into this Calf and so they held the Calf to be a thing different from Iehovah 3. They say to Aaron Make us gods Ergo they believed Iehovah to be before this made Calf 4. They saw the Calf melted before their eyes knew it was made of their ear-rings 5. They call it Iehovah yet they made it Iehovah and therefore they differenced betwixt the Calf Iehovah for they knew that Iehovah brought them out of Aegypt before the Calf was framed but the Calf was an Image of that Iehovah Bellar. and Gregor de Valent. say They worshipped not Iehovah but a vain Idol Else how is it said Psa 106. when they made this Calf that they forgot the Lord if they worshipped God in the Calf they were mindefull of God It is vain reasoning this the wife that taketh another Husband to bed with her Morally forgetteth her husband and to worship God in a memorative signe forbidden of God is a forgetting of God and a false God indeed 2. Those who acknowledge that the Heathen believe that some Godhead dwelt in Images and gave Responses and Answers out of them do thereby acknowledge that the Image it self had not the honour of giving Responses as God hath but that the inclosed Godhead gave these Responses and therefore the inclosed Godhead was that which they worshipped So Aquinas and Vasquez saith The Heathen acknowledged a Godhead to dwell in the Images And Bellarmine saith It is not improbable that the Iews believed that they worshipped the true God in an Idol Papists then may take to them Heathens Idolatry for Heathens worshipped God in Images and not Images as they are such and Abulensis and Cajetan in the Commentaries of the first Edition on Exodus said this same 3. Though the Iews believed the Calf to be essentially God yet it was God
by externall proportion and shape and it is unreasonable to say that Portraicts and Pictures of God Physically impossible to the Art of Craftsmen are forbidden only whereas the Lords word setteth down to us no precepts for Art as for painting Musick speaking right Latine whereas the Lord forbiddeth universally Gods pictures in any thing in heaven on earth or under the earth Deut. 4. 15. Take ye therefore good heed to your selves for ye saw no manner of Image on the day that the Lord spake to you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire Gregor de Valent. saith We give not divine honour to the creature as to God or to Christ for that honour pertaineth to God or Christ which conciliateth to him reverence due to God only and that opinion of divine honour is conciliated to God or Christ Coram in imaginibus before and in or through the Image Ans The people of God had not that opinion every way of Egypt and their horses that they had of God and yet when they Isa 31. give that to Egypt and horses which is due to God to wit their Faith and confidence that they could save in the time of trouble therefore interpretatively they made Gods of them otherwayes they knew literally that Pharaohs horses were flesh and not spirit but Morally and spiritually they knew them not to be no Gods to save them It is no more absurd that the Prophets say The Idol hath eyes and see not and that it is not God though by sense they knew it not to be God but by representation they trusting in the Idol as in God then it was for Isaiah to say The horses of Egypt are flesh and not spirit A wife if she give her body to a stranger though not with that opinion of love and respect which is only due to her husband is yet an harlot and the people who sware by Iehovah and by Malcome who worship Iehovah and Ieroboams Calves and those who worship the Image of an Ash-Tree representing Iehovah Isa 40. 18. Isa 46. 6 7. did not give honour to Malcom to the Calves to the Images Sicut Iehovae as to God See Roinalds Answer But saith he we cannot worship God but we must conceive some Image of God in our minde are we therefore Idolaters because in these Images we worship God and Valent. saith and so doth the Formalist Lindsey say That God may be adored before the Sacramentall elements as Images Ans We are not forbidden to adore God in the inward conception of minde Deut. 4. Ye saw no manner of similitude but not yea thought no manner of thoughts of God 2. The internall image of God in the minde is the objective conception of God as conceived in the minde there is no hazard of Idolatry there for that Image is not adorable at all because then it must be conceived by a new different Image and that new different Image must be cognoscible by another new Image and so in infinitum The externall Image is both made an active object to represent God and when we religiously bow to it it is made an object passive that is adored with God Lastly If the Iews and heathen had adored their Images as they were such creatures consecrated and as essentially Gods the Lord would not have rebuked them for making an Ash Tree the similitude of a God as he doth Isa 40. 18. Isa 44. 9 c. And all that I said in the former question proveth the same So that though Divine honour in the Act of kneeling before the elements be intended to Christ yet because the elements are there as actuall signes and Vicegerent Images of Christ if we kneel to Christ Religiously through them we give them divine honour though we should intend to honour Christ Iesus only SECT III. Whether Papists and Formalists give that divine honour that is proper only to God and his son Iesus Christ to Images and the elements of Bread and Wine I. Con. TO adore Images is to give worship to God before Images or in or through the Images without any Faith of a Godhead or divine power in the Image according to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome I prove this out of their Councels The Councell of Trent saith Due honour and veneration is due to the Images not because it is believed that there is any Divinity and vertue in them for the which they should be worshipped but because the honour given to them is referred to the samplar which they represent that by these Images vvhich vve kisse and before vvhich vve uncover our head and bow dovvn vve may adore Christ and the Saints which these Images resembleth Hence 1. the Image doth but as a memorative object excite the affection to give honour to God in and through the Images but 2. Let these words be examined the Councell denyeth any divinity to be in Images but if they mean no divinity really to be in Images so they say nothing against us for we do not ascribe to Papists that they teach there is a reall God-head in the Image but that all that is really in it is Wood Gold or Mettall and so did the Gentiles believe their Images to be teaching books Hab. 29. Ier. 10 8. Deut. 4. 19. Isa 40. 18. 46. 6 7. Act. 17. 29. and gold and silver but say they What needed the Prophets to prove that gold and silver could not see nor hear nor deliver in time of trouble reason would here convince them to be ten times blinde who believed any such thing Ans The Prophets do well to do so Nor that the Heathen believed there was any Godhead in them formally but because they ascribed actions to these images that were due to living creatures and made them to be such as did see hear move deliver So Isaiah proveth Egypts horses not to be God but flesh yet they did not believe there was a Godhead in the horses but Consequenter by good consequence when they laid that hope on the horse that they were to lay upon God he had need to say the horse vvas flesh and not God So when men give to these things bowing of the body and say unto a stock Thou art my Father God may prove the stock is not a living man and hath no sences to convince them the more that they can far lesse be Gods Vicar for a Vicar or Deputy creature representing the living God should be such as can do what God doth else we should put on it the honour due to God But if the Councell mean They have no divinity in them but by way of representation because they be Vicaria dei signa signes resembling the Creator God Now if this be denyed the images must be naked memorials before which people do adore God as Mirandula Durandus and others said and yet latter Papists say more of their own Images But I would have it remembred that there be two sorts
House when others went astray I take to be a prophecie of these Pastors under the New Testament to wit the Apostles of Iesus Christ and Pastors and teachers that Christ left in his Church for the edifying of his body Ephes 4. 11. 12. When these Scribes and Pharises did sit in Moses his chaire for a while Mat. 23. but onely as porters and inferiour Officers in Gods house yet they were to be heard while God should cut them off as he prophecied Zach. 11. 8. We cannot say as some doe that persons were deprived amongst the Iewes of Church communion in the holy things of God because of Ceremoniall not of Morall uncleannes but now under the new Testament only Morall uncleannes can exclude persons from the holy things of God and therefore to argue from ceremoniall uncleannes in the old to morall uncleannesse in the new is no good consequence I answer the Ceremoniall uncleannesse in the Old which did exclude from the holy things of God doth strongly conclude that morall uncleannesse under the New Testament doth exclude from the holy things of God if that exclusion of the Leaper out of the campe seven dayes and the touching of the dead though imprudently did typifie some other exclusion from the holy things of God as no question it did then the consequence must be strong 2. It is also false that morall uncleannesse did not exclude from the holy things of God under the Old Testament For 1. what was more ordinary then that sacrifices should be offered for sins of ignorance for trespasâ—es and while this was done the person was not admitted to partake of the holy things of God 2. Whence was the Lords frequent complaints of wearying his soule with sacrifices solemne assemblies feast dayes and new Moones when they were morally uncleane and their hands were full of blood and they had not put away the evill of their doings did not love judgement and justice Isaiah 10. 11 12 13 16 17 18 19. And when God complaineth so of them Ier. 7. 8. Will ye steale murther and commit adultery and sweare falsely and burne incense unto Baal and walke after other Gods whom ye know not 10. And come and stand before me in this house which is called by my Name Ergo Murtherers and adulterers were debarred from entring into the Congregation of the Lord and partaking of the holy things of God while they repented Let none say by prophecying or the keyes of knowledge in preaching the Word they were declared unworthy to enter into the Temple but that will not conclude that it was the Priests office by power of discipline to exclude them from coming unto the Sanctuary of God Ans But if the Porters were set at doores of the Lords house to hold out the uncleane and if the Lord charge the Priests with this crime that they Ezek. 44. 8. set keepers of the charge of the Lords house for themselves that is for their owne carnall ends and not for the honour of the Lord And that ver 7. They brought into the Sanctuary of the Lords house uncircumcised in heart that is such as were morally uncleane then had the Priests a power to debarre from the Sanctuary such as were morally uncleane and if the Priests are said to beare rule by their meanes Ier. 5. 31. Then the Priests did beare rule and governe though they abused their Power and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth to have dominion over any Psal 72. 8. Psal 110. 2. 1 Kin. 4. 24. Levit. 26. 17. And the Scripture gives a power of judging and governing to the Priests And 2 Chron. 30. 6 7. The Posts that Hezekiah and the Congregation of Israel sent through the Land commandeth a morall preparation to those that were to keepe the Lords Passeover to wit that they should turne againe unto the Lord God of Abraham and should not be like their Fathers nor like their Brethren that trespassed against the Lord God of their Fathers And ver 11. divers of Ashur and Manasseh and Zebulun humblid themselvs and came to Ierusalem to keepe the feast of the Passeover This proveth clearly that people under the Old Testament were no lesse to try and examine themselves by the King and Priests commandment carried to them by Postes before they should eate the Passeover then they are to try themselves before they eate and drinke at the Lords Supper onely the adversaries say the Priests by preaching were to debarre from the Passeover those who were morally unclean but not to debarre those who were morally uncleane so they were not typically and ceremonially unclean by any power of Discipline or by Porters set at the gates to keepe them out of the Sanctuary But I answer 1. How are the Priests Ezek. 22. 26. reproved for violating the Law of God and prophaning his holy things in that they put no difference between the holy and prophane the clean and the unclean Surely the Priests prophaned in the highest way the holy things of God in admitting into the Sanctuary those who were not onely ceremonially but morally uncleane as murtherers adulterers Who cryed the temple of the Lord Ier. 7. And they put no difference betweene the Holy and Prophane when they admitted to the holy things of God and into the Sanctuary the uncircumcised in heart for they doe more pollute the holy things of God who partake of them being morally uncleane and uncircumcised in heart then those who are onely uncircumcised in flesh Object But the Church under the New Testament can no other way but morally and by preaching as it would seeme onely debarre scandalous persons from the Seales and Prayers of the Church for should a scandalous person or an excommunicate person obtrude himselfe on the Lords Supper against the will and sentence of the Church the Church cannot use any bodily violence to hinder such prophane intrusion upon the holy things of God because the Churches weapons are not carnall but spirituall bodily violence can be no spirituall weapon that the Church as the Church can use so do the Remonstrant Arminians argue and some other for the congregationall way Ans This Argument is against all Church-censures but though the Church as the Church cannot hinder scandalous intruders upon the holy things of God by bodily violence it doth not follow Ergo The Church can keep the holy things pure no way but morally that is by preaching only for we can give a third way The rebukes admonitions and Excommunication or delivering to Satan are all transacted without any bodily and externnll violence Christs Kingdom resigneth all such carnall weapons to the Magistrate who is the only Governour of the Church of Christ as the Opponents say All Church Censures are by way of Declaration applied to such men by name and there co-action though penall is not by bodily violence but by acting upon the conscience of men and putting them to shame Hence 2. We argue if beside
rebuking the rod of Church-discipline to reject Hereticks after admonitions Hence I argue negatively in all the Scripture never did the Lord command that they should pray to God and mourne that he would inflict bodily vengeance and death or yet sicknesse on any scandalous professor nor is there promise precept or practise in any Scripture of this Church censure 5. Erastus doth thinke a court of the Church that hath power to lead Witnesses judge and censure offenders an extream wronging of the Magistrate and an incroaching on his Liberties but here is a more bloody Court for if the whole faithfull are to pray for bodily death by the Ministery of the Devill upon one of their own brethren because he hath lyen with his fathers wife or fallen in Adultery or Murther as David did Surely they must pray in faith and upon certaine knowledge that he is guilty the Law of God and Nature must then have warranted the whole Saints Women and Children to meet in a grand Jurie and Inquest either to have the fact proved by Witnesses or to heare his owne confession else how could they pray in faith if it was not sure to their conscience that the man had done this deed Here is a Jury of men and women I am sure unknowne to the Apostolique Church 2. A greater abridging of the Magistrates power then we teach The Church shall take away the life of a Subject never aske the Magistrates leave 6. It is against Christs minde Mat. 18. â—s Erastus expoundeth it that Christians should go any further against an offending brother then implead him before an Heathen though he adde injurie to injurie But this waâ— maketh the Holy Ghost sharply to rebuke all the Saints when they are offâ—â—ded before the barre of Heaven by crying miraculous bloodâ—e vengeance upon the Offender 7. It is evident this man repenâ—ed and that the Corinthians confirmed their love to him and did forgive him 2 Cor. 2. 7. 10. Ergo He was not miraculously killed But we never read where it was Gods will and Law that an â—ll doers life should be spared though he should repent because his taking away is for example that others may feare 2. That evill and as it is here leaven may be taken away if then it had been bodily death I see not how Paul and the Corinthians could have dispensed with it 8. Erastus doth not nor can he confirme his unknown Exposition by any parallel Scripture of the Old and New Testament which I objected to him in his Exposition of Matth. 18. Let the Reader therefore observe how weak Erastus is in arguing against pregnant Scriptures for Excommunication Erastus You must prove that to mourn because the man is not taken away is all one as to mourn that he is not debarred from the Sacraments by the Ministers and Elders Ans That is denyed to be debarred from the Sacraments is but a consequent of Excommunication 2. It is a putting of the man from amongst them not by death that we have refuted not from eating and drinking with him onely that I improved before Ergo it must be a Church ouâ—-casting Erastus Paul might deliver the man to Satan though he did Repent as the Magistrate did punish Malefactors whether they Repented or noâ— An. Ergo he repen ed and was pardoned by the Corinthians 2 Cor. 2. 10. after he had been killed which is absurd Erastus If to deliver to Satan were nothing but to debar the man from the Sacraments ever while he should repent Why should Paul with a great deal of pains and many words have excused himself to the Corinthians 2 Cor. 2. and cap. 7. and as it were deprecate the offending of them for they should know that this manner of coercing and punishing was and ought to be exercised in the Church if it was but a saving remedy and invitation to repentance Why were they sad They should rather have rejoyced as the Angels of Heaven doth at the Conversion of a sinner then Paul must have intended another thing Ans This is a meer conjecture as Erastus granteth most he saith against the place is for he saith Aliam conjecturam etiam addidi such a violent remedy of repentance as is the cutting off of a member from Christs body being the most dreadfull sentence of the King of the Church nearest to the last sentence was to Paul and ought to be a matter of sorrow to all the Servants of God as the foretelling of sad Iudgements moved Christ to tears Matth. 23. 37 Luke 19. 41 42. And moved Ieremiah to sorrow cap. 9. 1. And yet Christ was glad at the home-coming of sinners Luke 15. 6 7 c. These two are not contrary as Erastus dreameth but subordinate to wit That Christ should inflict the extreamest vengeance of Excommunication which also being blessed of God is a saving though a violent remedy of repentance and To rejoyce at the blessed fruit of Excommunication which is the mans repentance And the Apostle 2 Cor. 7. professeth his sorrow That he made them sad ver 8. and also rejoyceth at their gracious disposition who were made sorry He is far from excusing himself as if he had done any thing in weaknesse this were enough and it is an Argument of our Protestant Divines to prove that the Books of the Macabees are not Dited by the Holy Ghost as Canonick Scripture is because the Author 2 Macab 15. 38. excuseth himself in that History as if he might have erred which no Pen-man of holy Scripture can do And Erastus layeth the like blame on Paul as if he had repented that he made them sorry by chiding them for not praying for a miraculous killing of a Brother This is enough to make the Epistles of Paul to be suspected as not Canonick Scripture yea Paul saith the contrary 2 Cor. 7. 9. Now I reioyce not that yee were made sorry but that yee sorrowed to repentance for yee were made sorry after a godly manner that ye might receive dammage by us in nothing and 2 Cor. 2. 8 9. he exhorteth them to rejoycing at the mans Repentance and to confirme their love to him which demonstrates that he was now a living man and not miraculously killed and commendeth their obedience v. 9. in sorrowing as he did chide them that they sorrowed not 1 Cor. 5. 2. So that Paul is so farre from accusing himselfe for making them sad that by the contrary he commends himselfe for that and rejoyceth thereat And if the matter had been Excommunication while the man should repent saith Erastus they knowing this ought to be in the Church they should rather have reioyced then bin sorry And I answer if the matter had been a miraculous killing of him that his Spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord should they not reioyce at his saving in the day of the Lord whether this saving be wrought by bodily killing or by Excommunication And so this conjecture may well be
22. A broken heart dryeth the bones And therefore it is to be observed that â—rastily Erastus insisteth most on those points and syllables of a Text whereon all Divines Ancient and Modern do place least strength for Excommunication I might therefore passe all Erastus his force against Excommunication in these and he shall be not a whit nearer his point 2. But I shall follow him when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the flesh and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the spirit are put together I see no reason that the one should signifie the body the other the soul I know the contrary to be Rom. 8. 1. Those that walketh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after the inordinate affections and lusts of the flesh are opposed to those that walk 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after the spirit and Gal. 5. 17. the flesh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lusteth against the spirit and the spirit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against the flesh Joh. 3. 6. That which is born of the flesh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is flesh it is not that which is born of the body as body and that which is born 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the spirit is spirit so Rom. 8. 9. 13 14. Erastus should have shewed us such places wherein 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the flesh and the spirit signifieth the body and the soul when the matter of salvation is spoken of as here That the spirit may be saved ver 5. then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the flesh is for the most part if not alwayes taken in an evil part for the corruption of mans nature Erastus How could they desire the Apostle not to deliver him to Satan that he might as Beza expoundeth it destroy his flesh that is bring him to repentance How could Paul assent to such a Petition How could the Apostle write that he did forgive him Did Paul by forgiving him permit him not to mortifie and destroy his flesh and sinfull lusts Ans Let Erastus answer How could the Corinthians beseech Paul not to kill him that his soul may be saved in the day of the Lord How could Paul grant such a Petition as that the man should not be saved in the day of the Lord How could Paul by pardoning the man permit that he should not be saved in the day of the Lord for the saving of the mans soul is no lesse a fruit of this delivering to Satan then is the destroying of the lusts of the flesh 2. They might well desire that upon the mans repentance Paul would take a milder way and course to effectuate these two desirable ends the mortification of his lust and the saving of his soul then the last and most dreadfull remedy which is the censure of Excommunication 3. The destruction of the lusts of the flesh is a Scripturall remedy for saving of the soul in the day of Christ at is clear Rom. 7. 7 8 9 10. Gal. 5. 24 25. But whether miraculous killing be such a mean ordained of God is the question and ought to be proved by some word of God beside this place in controversie Erastus These words that the soul may be saved in the day of the Lord do hold forth that the miserable man was presently to die Ans That they hold forth no such thing is evidently proved for how were they to cast him out and judge him And how was Paul to pardon him and they and Paul to confirme their love 2. When Peter saith 1 Pet. 1. 7. That your faith may be found unto praise honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ were all these presently Because Paul and the faithfull Philippians were waiting for their Saviours second coming who should change their vilde bodies were they to die presently When Paul prayeth that Onesiphorus may finde mercy in that day 2 Tim. 1. 18. I pray you will it follow that Onesiphorus was presently to die Erastus The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rebuke doth not signifie rejecting from the Sacraments 1. Rejecting from the Sacraments is never put for punishment in Scripture 2. It is but a rebuke inflicted by many and Paul 2 Cor. 2. absolveth him from this as a sufficient punishment a rebuke is no punishment Ans 1. To be debarred from the society of the faithfull as Hagar was as Cain was as David was Cast out of the Lords inheritance by Saul yea to be rebuked Ezech. 3. 25 26. are evils but they are not evils of sin Ergo He speaks not like a Divine who will not have them punishments if to injoy the Sanctuary Church holy things of God and the society of the Saints be a rich blessing of God as the Scripture saith it is Psal 42. 4. Psal 27. 4. Psal 84. 10. Psal 110. 3. Psal 63. 1 2 3. Cant. 1. 7. 8. Cant. 2. 16. 17. Cant. 5. 1. Cant. 6. 1 2 3. Rev. 2 1. and to deny this be a symtome of prophanity then to be separated from these as a Heathen must be to the children of God the greatest evil of punishment and matter of sorrow on earth it smelleth not of piety to deny this Erastus If the man was only rebuked How was he to be delivered to Satan to be tormented and killed Some Ancients answer he was but delivered to Satan to be afflicted in his body with sicknesse and at length delivered by Paul others say more congruously to the minde of Paul that Paul purposed not by himself to deliver the man to Satan but to do it with the Church congregated together and when the Church saw him swallowed up with griefe they deferred while they tryed Pauls minde and obtained pardon to him and in the means time threatned him if he should not repent and obtained at length that Paul should pardon him Ans Many learned Divines hold the former yet so as they conclude Excommunication out of this Chapter of this I say no more But Erastus hath a way of his own To which I say 1. There is no Scripture but this controverted one to warrant that the Apostles who had the gift of Miracles 1. Suspended the working of Miracles either on the prayers or free consent of the whole multitude of beleevers 2. That the execution of a miraculous work was committed to Deputies and substitutes under Paul who had it in their power miraculously to kill him or in their free will and Christian compassion to suspend the miracle and not kill 3. That the Apostles in acts of miraculous justice sought advise of any or might be broken by requests to desist from miracles as they saw the party repent or not repent or friends intercede or not intercede 4. So many circumstances of the Text laying a command on the Church of Corinth to put him out and judge him and yet the matter remaine a miracle These to me are riddles if God had told us such a History I could have beleeved it but to gather these by uncertaine conjectures without any
the Church though amongst the Turkes is in the world but not of the world If he keep the faith and if he do so he shall repent and come home to Christs visible Kingdom but because he keepeth the faith yet he is not a member of a visible Church except he professe it and repent for even the sound in faith if obstinate in Scandals may deserve Excommunication 6. There is nothing said against Excommunication in the two last Reasons but what striketh against Timothy his publike rebuking and threatning wrath against those that sin openly for they may through their owne corruption so farre abuse publike threatnings as they may be led on despaire and hypocrisie Now Erastus as we shall hear granteth those are to be rebuked openly who sin openly 7. We say not to deliver to Satan any man is to deliver him to the World but to cast him out of the Church that consequenter he may be left to the World but that he should sinne and be led away with the World is neither the intrinsecall end of Excommunication or of the Church but an event or end by accident the intrinsecall end is the Salvation of the man Beza saith that Paul speaketh of a spirituall punishment and not of a corporall Erastus saith When Peter killed Ananias corporally was not this corporall punishment When Paul gave some to Satan for the destruction of the flesh and God punisheth our sinnes with temporall death how shall you prove that God and the Apostles punisheth not sinnes with corporall or politicke punishment Ans The instance of Peters killing Ananias is in vain brought in It s but a begging os the question for it is not said Peter delivered Ananias to Satan that his Spirit might be saved Who revealed this secret to Erastus that Peter used the Ministery of Satan in killing Ananias We have as good reason to say Peter delivered Ananias to a good Angell to be killed as Erastus hath for his dreame 2. We deny not but God and the Apostles did punish sinne with corporall punishment but let him show without the bounds of the place in controversie for we must expound Scripture by Scripture where ever the Church conveened together in the Name of the Lord Jesus did judge and miraculously kill any member of the Church that the Spirit may be saved in the day of God Beza said This killing by the people would be ground of a great Calumnie to make many say Christians did usurpe the Sword of the Magistrate and that they were not subject to the Magistrate Erastus We give this power of miraculous killing onely to the Apostles Ans Yea But the calumny standeth so long as Erastus giveth to all the people the faith of Miracles to conveene and pray that Paul might miraculously kill those that offended the Church and its probable when the enemies objected to Christians all they could falsely they would not have omitted this that the very people by their prayers meet in one Church-jury to kill Cesars Subjects Beza said The Christian Magistrate should by this kill all the drunkards fornicators and the like with the Sword Erastus answereth 1. All faults deserve not killing but some other punishment of a lower degree 2. The Lord himselfe appointed that the Magistrate should compell men to doe their duty why then should Beza speake against God and call this a compelling of men to be Hipocrites Ans If other sins as drunkennesse fornication extortion doe infect the Church and be scandalous to the very Gentiles as the Apostle saith of incest 1 Cor. 5. 1. 6 7. Upon the same reason Paul should have rebuked them because they did not from the faith of Miracles pray that Paul might inflict some miraculous judgement by the Ministery of Satan though lesse then death for other sinnes But I pray you Paul had either a warrant from God to kill this man or he had none at all If he had a warrant why did he not that which is the part of a miraculous Magistrate without the prayers of the Corinthians Did Paul chide them because they prayed not to God that he might doe his duty if he had no warrant at all Why should he chide the Corinthians for that they prayed not that he might doe a duty which was not his duty For that is not Pauls duty for the doing whereof he hath no warrant from God if it was his duty onely conditionally 1. What warrant is there in Scripture to say Paul should have miraculously killed the incestuous person upon condition that the Corinthians had by the faith of Miracles prayed that he might worke that miraculous slaughter which because they did not Paul was either exonered of that as no duty or then Paul chided them because they prayed not to prevene Pauls sinfull neglect 2. How was this revealed to the Corinthians that they should pray that God by Paul as by his Magistrate might revenge this incest and not revenge their fronication coveteousnes extortion Idolatry especially seeing he saith that v. 9. He had written to them in another Epistle not to keâ—p company with such Whence I thinke it evident that Paul in another Epistle had ordained separation of Fornicators Coveteous persons and the like from amongst them and so censures for all scandalous persons And how shal we believe he would not teach them to cast out incestuous persons that are far more scandalous And if so he must have written in another Epistle of this miracle that they were to pray he might work Is it not evident by this that Erastus his way is full of Conjectures and groundlesse uncertainties 2. We deny not that the Magistrate may compell men to do their duty nor doth Beza deny that But that the Church hath or had any influence in the blood of an incestuous person and in working of miracles for the bodily destruction of any is most false and cannot be proved by this Text Nor do we think that the Church the weapons of whose warfare are carnall can compell any man by corporall punishment to duties by the Sword for so their Spirituall way which is terminated on the Conscience should lead men to Hypocrisie in profession of the truth for so reasoneth Erastus the Magistrate with the Sword rather punisheth sins committed in Gods Service then forceth to duties The fifth Argument of Beza is vindicated already Erastus We say not that Paul was to deliver the man to Satan that he may be saved but that Paul was to punish this high transgression with the Sword to the terror of others but only he set bounds to Satan that he should only kill his body but not meddle with his soul but because the man repented Paul hoped well of his soul that his soul should be saved in the day of Christ Ans 1. Here Erastus doth more fully reveal the vilenesse of his opinion for he granteth the intrinsecall end of this miraculous killing is not the Salvation of the mans
did unworthily eat 1 Cor. 11. Ans There is no ground that God any way would have them to be killed that did eat unleavened bread and that we finde none for that cause ever killed is much for us for then God did not execute any such Law which as Erastus saith was broken by many It is like God never made any such Law 2. Because it is said he shall be cut off who eateth leavened bread it followeth not that therefore this was done immediately by God for it is said Lev. 18. 29. Whosoever doth any of these abominations even the soul that committeth them shall be cut off from amongst the people if that be killing it is known the Magistrate was to kill such as committed incest did lie with beasts But Vatablus expoundeth it of Excommunication thus Id est Deus non agnoscet illum tanquam Israelitam circumcisum and Vatablus understood the Hebrew Tongue better then Erastus who professeth he understandeth nothing of it 3. That which Erastus saith of Paul That God himself killed these at Corinth who did eat and drink unvvorthily may as well insinuate the Magistrate should kill with the sword all that communicateth unworthily which is absurd as it can prove that those that eat leavened bread were immediatly killed of God Erastus Those that eat leavened bread vvere debarred from the passeover But leavened bread signified scelera vvickednesse Ergo vvicked men should by us be debarred from the Sacraments 1. It is false that those that eat leavened bread vvere debarred from the passeover by Gods command These tvvo differ much he that eateth leavened bread shall be cut off and he that eateth leaven shall be debarred from the feast of the passeover even as these two the childe that clattereth in time of Sermon shall be whipt with rods and the childe that clattereth in time of Sermon shall be excluded from hearing Sermon when the Master forbiddeth to clatter in time of Sermon under a punishment he biddeth them not be absent from the Sermon so when God forbiddeth to eat leaven under a punishment be forbiddeth not to exclude the man from the passeover the Lord commandeth both to be done Ans 1. This is Erastus his Argument not the Argument of Beza for eating of leaven signifieth a scandalous and openly wicked man and if this be the Assumption it is true but the Syllogisme so formed shall conclude against Erastus 2. It is certain that God commandeth the Priests not to violate his holy things Ezech. 22. 26 Hag. 2. 11. 12. Ezech. 44. 8 9 10 11. Else how failed they in keeping the charge of the Lord in not differencing between the clean and the vnclean Now to eat the passeover with leavened bread is an expresse violation of the holy things of God Exod. 12. ver 8. You shall eat the flesh in that night rost with fire and vnleavened bread ver 11. And thus shall ye eat it ver 15. Seven dayes shall ye eat unleavened bread even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses 2. He that is unclean is forbidden to eat the passeover Lev. 9. 13. The clean only is to keep it And he that is clean and not on a journey and keepeth it not that man shall bear his sin Ergo the unclean are excepted and he who is sanctified according to the purification of the sanctuary only by the Law is to eat 2 Chro. 3â— 9. Therefore Hezechiah prayed that God would pardon them that were not so cleansed ver 18. To crave pardon presupposeth a sinne Num. 9. 3 4 5 6. But so it is That he that eateth unleavened bread in any of these seven dayes was unclean and to be cut off for his uncleannesse and transgressed this Ceremoniall Law Exod. 12. 8. 15. Levit. 9 13. Ergo he was not to be admitted to the holy things of God except the Priests and those who had the charge of the Passeover should know him to be purified Ezech. 22. 26. Hag. 2. 11 12. And we know it was the Priests part to pronounce any clean or unclean that the passeover was one of the chief of the holy things of God 3. Erastus his conjecture That he that did eat leavened bread was not to absent himself from the Passeover but to come tali modo according to the Law As the childe that clattereth in time of Sermon is not bidden be absent from the Sermon may prove as well that no unclean no heathen or uncircumcised are forbidden to eat the Passeover for no Law of God forbiddeth either to eat the Passeover except this that only the circumcised and the unclean were forbidden when the Lord in his Law putteth an expresse and a differencing or discriminative character on those that eat to wit that they be circumcised and clean who shall eat Ergo God in that putteth an evident inhibition on those that are uncircumcised heathen and unclean that they are not to eat as when God Commandeth every Male to be circumcised we infer then no Female were to be circumcised And by this means the uncircumcised Moabite the Philistine were not by the Priests and Porters debarred out of the Temple or from the Passeover so they would be circumcised and turn Jews Even as the childe is not excluded by a command of the Master from hearing Sermon only he is forbidden to clatter in time of Sermon But a Iew was both forbidden uncleannesse Ceremoniall by an expresse Law and by another Law he was forbidden to come to the Passeover and a heathen as heathen was both forbidden to eat and the Priests forbidden to admit him Erastus Though we should grant That those that eat leaven were debarred from the Passeover yet it shall not follow that those that live wickedly shall be debarred from the Lords Supper for the Feast of unleavened bread typified not the Supper of the Lord but the whole time of our life Otherwise saith he in his Thesis we may live wickedly all our dayes except when we come to the holy Supper as the Jews might eat unleavened bread at any time except on those dayes when the Lord forbade them Ans 1. We contend not that debarring of men from any one Ordinance was signified by putting away of the Leaven But that by putting of leaven from their houses and Table was typified as Paul here expoundeth it the putting of a wicked person out the midst of the Church 1 Cor. 5. 2. compared with ver 5 6 7. 13. If the Feast of unleavened bread typified all our life that we should be holy yet it had a speciall relation to our Purification when we did partake of the most holy Ordinances of God such as was the Passeover then and to us the Lords Supper Else Erastus might say God hath forbidden single Christians to live at all except they lived holily which is a vain conceit It is not lawfull to Erastus to put significations on types it his will and therefore that
that Feast pointed out holinesse all our life is utterly denyed for eating of leavened bread except in these dayes forbidden was not a sin nor any Ceremoniall type at all no more then our common bread and wine are signes of Christs body and blood 2. Paul compareth the Feast to the lump of the Visible Church so as the leaven was to be removed out of all houses of Israel because it did Ceremonially infect corrupt and leaven them and so was to be purged so did the inâ—â—stuons man leaven the Visible Church of Corinth and was to be purged out Nor do I contend that the Lords Supper here is meant though I know no solemn Spirituall Feast that the visible Church now hath but the Supper of the Lord But rather I understand Church-Communion in the dainâ—ies of the Gospel which are set forth to us under the similitude of a Feast Matth. 22. Luke 14. 16 17 18 c. Prov. 9. 2 3 4 5. Cant. 5. 1. Erastus The leaven of the Passeover does not so signifie impurity of life that Excommunication can be hence gathered therefore the Apostle alludeth to that place that or the like way as the Jews did Celebrate their Passeover without leaven so it becometh us to Celebrate our Passeover without the leaven of malice and wickednesse Leaven simply may either signifie good or evil as Matth. 13. and 16. and Potuit it might signifie our naturall corruption For God not only forbiddeth to eat leaven but to have it in the house and leaven signifieth 〈…〉 sse so to be punished as yeâ— say even by death Ans The Leaven of the Passeover signified so impurity as we are to put out the person that leaveneth the Church out of the Church as they were to put leaven out of the house and not only simply not to eat it so are we not only not to eat and drink with a scandalous man but he is to be reputed no member of the Church but a leavening and contagious man and therefore Paul doth not here as Erastus dreameth show what way every one in his own personall practise and duty as a single Christian is to do that he may save his own soul and therefore every one was to celebrate a Christian Passeover in his own soul laying aside the leaven of malice Though I grant That Paul ver 8. doth infer and draw a conclusion of a personall purging out of the leaven of malice and hypocrisie out of every mans heart But Paul doth expresly command the Corinthians as a convened Church to put out from amongst them another man for the saving of that other mans soul And what they should do in a Church society toward the man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Who hath done this to wit down right they should Iudge him Cast him out purge him out as a leavening peece And the world cannot give any other meaning of the words then that as the Iews were to put all leaven from amongst them when they were to celebrate their Passeover So the Corinthians were to exercise the like work upon this incestuous man and to put him out from amongst them as one delivered to Satan as a lump of sowre leaven and we seek no more for Excommunication 2. Leaven signifieth Matth. 13. good the Kingdom of God is compared to leaven But here it is corruption of contagious scandall in this incestuous man and such leaven as is to be cast out and purged away Now I hope we must not purge out and cast away the Kingdom of heaven and Matth. 16. 6. The leaven of the corrupt and false Doctrine of Pharisees and Sadduces that corrupteth the hearts of men is meant and of this leaven we are to beware But why doth Erastus strive to bring the reader in a good opinion of leaven which Paul would have us to detest I know not a reason but because the place is so evident for the casting out of an incestuous man from amongst the Corinthians lest he should infect the flock and that by the Church convened together in the name and power of Christ that his soul may be saved and this is the very excommunication that we assert 3. This leaven saith he may signifie naturall corruption Now Erastus putteth us to a may be but a may be will not do it For the Text saith not I hope by Erastus his confession that the poor man must be delivered to Satan that is miraculously killed for naturall concupiscence All the world thus are delivered to Satan as being heirs of wrath for sin Originall at least in demerit 2. The man was not judged purged out and cast out as leaven that sowred the Church for naturall corruption 3. Paul offendeth not with them that they were puffed and mourned not for the mans Originall sin but for his actuall wickednesse because he had gone in to his fathers wife an Abomination that the Gentiles are ashamed to name Erastus Then the man must be killed as he that eat leavened bread was killed and though the punishments of Moses Law as such must not be brought in the Christian Church yet if God subject men to the Magistrates Sword men cannot free them from it though there may be degrees of punishment Ans We denyed that those that eat leavened bread with the Passeover were killed but onely excommunicated and cut off from the congregation God never subjected any to the sword for that cause 2. We deny that therefore by proportion the incestuous man should be killed by what consequence will Erastus prove that those that gathered sticks on the Lords day those that are stubborn to Father or Mother those who commit fornication now in the Israel of God under the New Testament must be stened to death by the Magistrate or miraculously killed by the Apostles it must be by the same consequence that Erastus reasoneth here But did God kill immediatly any offenders at all for originall sin some one more nor other as Erastus dreameth this man was killed 3. What warrant hath Erastus that the Devill killeth any one of the visible Church now under the New Testament and any of the children of God whose spirit are saved in the day of the Lord proferat tabulas Erastus saith it neither Prophet nor Apostle in the Old or New Testament ever said it Erastus said an Anagogicall sense is not concludent Ans Where the Holy Ghost giveth the sense it is false saith Beza 2. Why doth then Erastus conclude miraculous killing from the Types of the Old Testament Erastus Where I pray you doth Paul say that the punishment of eating leavened bread did typifie your Excommunication Ans The word Excommunication may be by the Church used as the Word Sacrament Trinity But the thing is not ours but an ordinance of Iesus Christ 2. Paul saith in this very place as Israel were to put away leaven in their Passeover so is the convened Church of Corinth in the name and power of Christ to put out judge and purge
out a corrupting and leavening incestuous man and this is all we seeke for Excommunication Erastus I never finde the name of the Passeover in the New Testament put for the Supper of the Lord. Ans We are not in such need of that interpretation as to put the name of the one for the other But let Erastus shew where he readeth that the thing to wit that the one Sacrament succeeded to the other and Beza may thence inferre his point if God would have no man to eat the Passeover with leavened bread and if eating of leavened bread and bread it selfe was to be put out of all the houses of Israel thereby signifying that incestuous and scandalous persons are to be cast out of the Church and so from the Sacraments let Erastus see what Beza hath said amisse here Erastus God would have the Iewes to eate the Passeover without leavened bread that they might remember of their wonderfull deliverance out of the hard bondage of Egypt and of the deliverance of their first borne Ans Reverend Beza saith thesetwo were by-past benefits remembred in that Sacrament But we have the Holy Ghost expounding that â—he putting away of leavened bread did typifie the purging out of the incestuous men and other scandalous persons out of the Church which is our point otherwise let Erastus shew us what is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole Masse and lumpe for it signifieth either one single man Or 2. The Masse and body of the visible Church of which the incestuous man was a Member or some third thing which Erastus and his followers must teach us Now the whole lumpe can neither signifie the incestuous man nor any other single member of the Church Not the incestuous man 1. He was not the whole lumpe in danger to be leavened for he was the leven then he was not the lump in danger to be leavened for the one is the agent infecting the other the patient infected The whole lumpe was the thing out of which the leaven was to be removed the terminus à quo the incestuous man was to be purged out therefore the leaven cannot signifie wickednesse in abstracto as Erastus saith but the wicked man in concreto for the leaven must signifie that which is cast out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of the midst of them v. 2. Now this was not incest but the man that had his fathers wife and had done that deed 2. Again the leaven was the person to be delivered to Satan that had a soul to be saved in the day of the Lord Iesus But wickednesse in abstracto is not delivered to Satan nor hath it a Spirit to be saved in the day of the Lord. 3. The leaven is such a one as is to be judged as is within the Church v. 12. and is called a brother with whom we are not to eat v. 11. now this cannot be said of wickednesse in abstracto But neither can the whole lumpe be one single man 1. One single man needed not the solemn conveening of the Church in the Name and power of the Lord Jesus for his personall purging for his personall purging is not a Church-act but an act of a mans daily conversation and Christian walking 2. The purging out and the casting out is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 2 out of the midst of them then there was a society to be purged Ergo not a single man onely Much more I said before which cannot but mist Erastus or any his followers except they expound this whole lump to be the body of the visible Church of Corinth 2. So Gal. 5. 9. he addeth v. 10. he that troubleth you the lump in danger to be leavened shall bear his judgement v. 12. I would they were cut off that trouble you Then the whole Churches of Galatia were the troubled lumpe so it must be here if this truth be so convincing out of the Text let any Erastian extricate himself if he can deny but here is a Church-lump a Church of Rulers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gathered together in the Name and power of the Lord Iesus that purgeth out of it selfe leaven not wickednesse in abstracto as I have demonstrated but a wicked man named a brother lest he leaven the whole Church to the end his Spirit may be saved Iudge reader if this be not name nature and thing of that which Erastians deny to wit of Excommunication I humbly provoke them to make good sense of the 1 Cor. 5. and shew me what is the wicked man 2. The casting out of the midst of you 3. The saving of his Spirit 4. The convened together court instructed with the Name and authority and power of Christ and if this be not a Church power efficacion and authoritative being steeled with the power of the Head of the Church 5. What is the leaven 6. What is the act of leavening 7. What is the whole lumpe 8. What is the purging out putting out and judging of the man 3. We know Erastus denieth any Church Government at all but some acts of punitive justice in the Magistrate But the Churches praying consenting that a scandalous person shall be delivered to Satan or some other waies punished by the Christian Magistrate are acts of Church government so proper to the Church as the Magistrate as the Magistrate cannot exercise such Acts. Erastus Paul-delivered Hymeneus and Alexander the same way to Satan by miraculous killing of him and whereas it is said that they may learne not to blaspheme Judges speake so when they kill Murtherers and Theeves that he shall teach them to doe so no more by taking the head from them Ans That word of a judge killing a man for Murther Sirra I le teach you other manners then to kill can no waies be ascribed to Paul who doth not scoffe so at taking away mens lives Paul who wished to be separated from Christ for the contumacious Iewes and would not kill any by Satan since his rod and power was for edification 2 Cor. 10. 8. and that the Spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord 1 Cor. 5. 5. he speaketh more gravely and lesse imperiously and without boasting and jeering in a matter of Salvation 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they may be instructed or disciplined not to blaspheme cannot be simply that they may blaspheme no more because killed by the Devill For 1. let Erastus in the Old or New Testament produce a parallel place for that Exposition where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be instructed is ascribed to the dead but this is a common fault in all Erastus his expositions of Scripture that they want all ground in Scripture as let me put upon all the followers of Erastus to give a parallel to this Exposition of Mat. 18. Let him bee to thee that is to thee onely when Christ speaketh of a generall Rule of all that scandalizeth 2. Let him be as a
to Satan though I be absent in body what then would he have done he would all the Church being gathered together not some Presbyters only by his own spirit and the power of the Lord Iesus granted to him deliver the man to Satan that he might strike fear and terror on others and that the man might bear the just punishment of his wickednesse Ans Paul chideth them that they were puffed up and mourned not that the man might be put out of the midst of them Then whereas it might be said we want the presence of the Apostle Paul and his privity to the businesse To this Paul saith ver 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For me saith he I have as if I were present in body when you are Convened together c. Iudged to deliver such a one to Satan Now that this Decree was the judiciall Decree and sentence of Paul as a miraculous Magistrate giving sentence judicially when Paul himself was absent and had not convinced the man nor spoken with him I do not believe 1. Because though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may signifie such a sentence of a man when the guilty is before him yet the word doth not necessitate us to this Exposition Luk. 19. 22. Out of thy own mouth will I judge thee for it doth as often signifie a simple act of the minde and the opinion of any not sitting in judgement as Act. 13. 46. Ye judge your selves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unworthy of life Eternall 1 Cor. 2. 2. I determined 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to know nothing but Christ Luk. 7. 43. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Christ to Simon the Pharisee who was not on the bench Thou hast judged rightly Tit. 3. 12. I have determined there to winter 1 Cor. 10. 15. Iudge ye what I say Act. 27. 1. When it was determined to sail into Italy 2. We do not read that Apostle Prophet or Iudge gave out a sentence of death against any the person condemned not being present nor heard the Lord himself did it not to Adam nor to Sodom he came down to see he examined Adam Moses did not so condemn the man that gathered sticks on the Sabbath day Joshua convinced Achan the Prophet convinced Gehazi ere he smote him with Leprosie Peter convinced Aâ—anias and Saphira to their faces ere he killed them so did Paul convince Elimas the sorcerer in his face so did Christ in his miraculous purging of the Temple convince them that His Fathers house should be a house of Prayer Now Paul here giveth a judiciall sentence of death on a man he never spake of being at Philippi whence he wrote and the delinquent at Corinth if we beleeve Erastus 3. Erastus judgeth that Paul knew this man to be penitent and how knew Paul this It must be a miraculous knowledge by which Paul at Philippi looked upon the mans heart at Corinth one of the greatest miracles that ever Paul wrought for Paul had the knowledge of the mans sinne only by report v. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is reported between Pauls writing the first verse of that Chapter and his writing the third verse there must interveene a miraculous discovery of the incestuous mans heart Paul being at Philippi and the man at Corinth and Paul knowing the man to be penitent and because of his penitency as Erastus saith Paul did not kill him Yet Paul so farre absent must have given out a miraculous sentence as a miraculous Magistrate I saith he by revelation as having the sword of God now in my hand have judged and given out sentence that this man shall be miraculously killed by Satan before your eyes that all may feare and do so no more and yet I know him to be penitent and that he shall not be killed by Satan a monstrous and irrationall sentence if it be said that by report Paul had knowledge of his sinne and by report also he had knowledge of his repentence and that his spirit would be saved in the day of the Lord and that this knowledge came not to Paul by any immediate revelation I answer Yet the sentence must stand by Erastus his mind touching 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have judged and condemned him as a miraculous Magistrate to dye upon a report though I never heard him and I know he shall not dye for this sault for can it be said that Paul retracted a sentence which he gave out as the deputy of God and he even then when he wrote the sentence knâ—w there was so much repentance in the man as he would for it be moved not to kill him 4. There is no ground in the Text why Paul should be said to seek the naked presence of the whole people to do such a miracle before them he being himselfe absent for there is more then a naked presence of the Corinthians as only witnesses that they might be affraid do so no more for they were present as instructed with the spirit of Paul and the power of the Lord Jesus Christ to deliver such a one to Satan as the words bear v. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For to be conveened in the name of Christ being spoken Mat. 18. v. 20. of a Church meeting or in reference thereunto in the same phrase and to be conveened with the power and spirit of Paul and of the Lord Iesus cannot agree to Paul nor can it be said I Paul absent in body and present in spirit in the name of the Lord Jesus and with my spirit and the power of the Lord Jesus have decreed to deliver such a one to Satan For 1. the Grammer of the words cannot beare that for being conveened in the name of the Lord with my spirit are constructed together in the Text. 2. It is no sence nor any Scripture phrase I present in spirit and with my spirit have decreed to deliver such a one to Satan 3. It is evident that Paul would as it were absent recompence his bodily absence with the presence of the spirit and road of Church censure which the Lord had communicated to them 5. Erastus needeth not object that there was a conveening of the Church not of some Elders for as there is no word of the word Elders in the Text so is there no word of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Text and so the debate will be what is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether Elders or people or both but though every one in their owne place were understood yet the words beare a juridicall convention being conveened in the name of the Lord Jesus and with my spirit and the power of the Lord Jesus Erastus The questions why Paul did not command to excommunicate the false Apostles in Galathia Or why he did not miraculousty kill them are both urgent But the latter is most urgent for the power of miraculous afflicting men was given to few men and to Apostles But it is a wonder if excommunication was ever
said Erastus cometh to finde some use for a Presbytery if the Magistrate be an heathen he cannot examine or debarre any from the seals Let Erastus answer if he be a Christian how can it be denied but if the Magistrate by his office is to steward the bread to one of the children not to another but he is a steward to cut and divide the word and seals both aright and how could Paul make it one of the properties of the Pastor 2. Tim. 2. to cut the word and by the same reason to distribute the seals aright if it depend upon another officer by his office to command him to divide it to this man whom he hath examined and findeth in his mind qualified and not to this man We judge the Elders of the New Testament do agree in this common and perpetuall morality that both are to put difference between clean and unclean holy and unholy though many things were unclean to the Iews that are not unclean to us and that the Church hath yet a power to bind and loose Mat. 16. 9. Erastus There was never a wiser common wealth in the world then that of the Iews Deut. 4 But in the Common vvealth of the Ievves there vvere never tvvo distinct judicatures concerning manners Ergo There should not be these tvvo different jurisdictions in the Christian common vvealth But all should be given to the civill Magistrate Ans Erastus is seldome happy in his Logick his Syâ—logismes are thin sowne all Gods laws are most wise but if this be a good Argument was not their Church their Religion their Ceremonies their judiciall Laws all wise and righteous Then the Christian Church should be conform yet to the Iewish we should have those same bloody sacrifices judiciall lawes Ceremonies that they had The Iudicatures and officers are positive things flowing from the positive will of God who doth appoint one jurisdiction for them most wise and another to Christians different from them and in its kinde most wise 2. We give two judicatures in the Church of the Iews concerning manners one civil acknowledged by Erastus another spirituall Ecclesiastick ordaining Ecclesiastick and Spirituall punishments upon the unclean Lev. 10. 10. As to be removed out of the campe and such like and Deut. 17. Thou shalt come to the priests the Levites and the Iudge that shall be in those daies according to the sentence vvhich they of that place vvhich the Lord shall chuse shall shevv thee and thou shalt observe to doe according to all that they informe thee ver 12. And the man that vvill doâ— presumptuously and vvill not hearken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Priest that standeth there to minister before the Lord thy God or unto the judge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 even that man shall die and thou shalt put avvdy evill from Israel There is here an evident disjunction that clearly holdeth forth that both the Priests and the civill judge judged in matters of manners and that he that presumptuously despised the sentence of either was to die a judicature of the Priests is evidently here and a judicature of the civill judge Erastus cannot deny and that the Priest judged in subordination to the civill judge is refuted by the words which saith the Priest was immediatly subordinate to God not to the Magstistrate He that will not heare the Priest that standeth to minister before the Lord thy God shall die Ergo He is the Minister of the Lord and God called and separated Aaron and his sonnes to stand before the Lord and to minister and he did call the Levites the Magistrate called them not to office Erastus Beza saith that Moses Ioshua David Salomon did not execute the office of the Priests and therefore the charge of the Priests and of the civill Magistrates were different offices and charges but I said before the Lord chose Aaron and his sonnes to be Priests they were not so distinct charges but they did agree to one and the same person for Moses to omit the rest did execute the office of Aaron Levit. 8. But after that it was not lawfull for any to doe the office both of King and Priest and therefore Saul and Vzziah were justly corrected of God for it But what is this It proveth not that the Priests had publike judicatures to punish wickednes of manners Ans Certainly if Erastus deny the charge of the Priest and the King to be different offices because once Moses did offer Sacrifice and so was Melchisedeck both a King and a Priest Heb. 7. he must say that Moses offered Sacrifices Levit. 8. not as a Priest Sure I am Moses was a Prophet and a Prince and Ruler but no Priest But Moses by Erastus his way must as a civill Magistrate have offered Sacrifices and not as a Priest or priviledged person by a speciall and an extraordinary commandement of God for to deny the two offices of Priest and King to be different offices because one man discharged some Acts proper to both Offices as Moses both did beare the Sword of God as a Prince and did also discharge some Acts proper to the Priest as Erastus saith he did Leviticus 8. is a poore and naughty Argument undeniable it is that Melchisedeck was both King and Priest but even then to be a King and to be a Priest were two distinct offices in nature and essence because Melchisedech did not take away the life of a Murtherer as a Priest but as King of Salem Heb. 7. 1. Nor did Abraham pay tithes to Melchisedech as to a King but as to a Priest Tithes in Moses Law as tithes were never due to any but to the Priests and therefore even in Melchisedeck the Kingly and Priestly office were formally distinct Ordinances of God just as David as a King and judge took away the head of the man who brought Sauls head to him and not as a Prophet he did this so as a Prophet he penned the Psalmes not as a King If one and the same man be both a Musitian and a painter he doth paint excellently as a painter not at a Musitian and he singeth excellently not as a Painter but as a Musitian and though one and the same man doe acts proper to both that may prove that Musick and the art of painting are one subjectively onely that they may both agree to one and the same man but not that they are not two faculties and gifts of God different in spece and nature 2. Though Erastus confesse that it was unlawfull that Vzzias and Saul should sacrifice yet he will have the Kings office and the Ministers office under the New Testament not so different for he said expresly Who knoweth not now when Aarons Priesthood is removed but we are all equally Priests Saul and Vzziah sinned when they were bold to sacrifice and burne incense but the Magistrate doth not therefore sin who exerciseth the charge of the Ministery if he might for
Magistratibus as Vtenbogard speaketh from and under the Magistrate as the Vicars Deputies and Ambassadors of the Magistrate yea that Magistrates teach the people by the Pastors as by their Vicars then Zebadiah should more diligently care for the matters of God then Amariah as the Lord and Master should more care his own businesse then his servant should do 3. More or lesse doth not vary the nature of things then must the Magistrate Sacrifice Teach judge between the clean and the unclean minister before the Lord as the sons of Aaron and the sons of Levi but lesse diligently But what calling hath he to any of these Acts at all Hath the Lord chosen the Tribe of Iudah or the Tribe of Levi to minister before him And by the same reason the Priests Levites should do these same things but more diligently And again Amariah is to use the sword and to condemne ill doers to death But lesse diligently these be pleasant dreams 5. The Priest and Judges are companions as Moses and Aaron Ergo the one is not Master and the other servant and Deputy â—â— Erastus dreameth and they are the rather of that in divers Senats 6. But how proveth Erastus That the Levites were common Servants both to Priests and Judges For though it were so this will never subject the Priests to the Civill Iudge nor confound these two Iudicatures David 1 Chron. 26. divided the Levites and set them in their courses for service Ergo They were King Davids servants as King it followeth not except Erastus prove David did not this as a Prophet and that the Lord did not choose the Tribe of Levi. But David did it as a King and so all Magistrates may appoint offices in the House of God and call men to the Ministry by vertue of the Magistrates place But David 1 Chro. 24. distributed the Priests as well as the Levites Ergo the Priests are servants to the King as well as the Levites But the Levites are expresly 1. Chron. 26. given by office to wait on the sons of Aaron for the service of the house of the Lord for the purifying the holy things for the shew bread for the fine flour for meat offerings and for the unleavened Cakes and that which is baked in the pan and for that which is fryed and for all manner of measures and size to praise the Lord at morning and night to offer all burnt sacrifices to the Lord c. In all which no man can say they were servants to the King For then the King sacrificed by them as by his servants no Divinity is more contrary to Scripture It is true 1 Chron. 26. 30. some of the Hebronites were Officers in all the businesse of the Lord and the service of the King But that is because ver 26. they had the oversight of the spoile that the King dedicated to the house of the Lord for the building of the Temple and that is called the Kings businesse Erastus Jehoshaphat 2 Chron. 19. did not depart from Moses his Law But we read not that there were two distinct Iurisdictions commanded and instituted by God Ans If this be a good Argument all that David and Solomon did for and in the building of the Temple in the structure forme length breadth Cedars gold Altars c. of the Temple shall be without Warrant Solomon and David departed not from Moses But Moses spake nothing of the Temple and a thousand things of Divine institution in the Temple But this is our Argument Jehoshaphat did erect no new Iudicatures but restore those that had their Warrant from Moses his Law But so it is that Iehoshaphat reinstituteth two distinct Iudicatures Ergo The Lord by Moses at the beginning did institute these two distinct Iudicatures Erastus We are not anxiously to inquire what be the matters of God it is all one with what he said before ye judge not for men but for the Lord. The Rabbines the judgement of Capitall causes is the judgement of souls the scripture nameth all judgements most frequently the judgements of the Lord Deut. 1. Ye shall not fear men for the judgement is the Lords Exod. 18. The people come to me to inquire of God that is to seek judgement Therefore are the Judges Exod. 22. Psal 82. called Gods The matter of God is any cause expressed in the Law of God and proposed to the Judges to be judged and the Kings matter is that which properly belongeth to the King Ans Erastus his anxiety to inquire is little because he cannot Answer 1. The matter of the Lord cannot be all one with this Ye judge not for men but for the Lord For the matter of the King or a point of Treason to be judged is to be judged not for men but for the Lord. But the Text differenceth between the matters of Lord and the matters of the King 2. In the former 2 Chron. 19. 5. he speaketh of civill businesse but the matters of the Lord are such as concern the Law of God and the true sense and meaning thereof to be proposed to the conscience and 3. That is a common thing to all causes that in the manner of Iudging Iudges are to look that they do as men in the place of God so then as God if he were judging would do no iniquity nor respect persons nor take gifts as he saith ver 7. So neither should men do iniquity or respect persons in judgement and so is it taken Deut. 1. 17. Now this clearly is the manner of righteous judgement and Modus judicandi but the matter of Iehovah is Res judicata the thing to be judged which may be unjustly Iudged and this matter of Iehovah is not common to all causes but is contradistinguished in the Text from the matters of the King which in the manner of judging is no lesse to be judged according to the judgement of the Lord then the matters of Jehovah 4. The Chalde Paraphrast Vt inquir at instructionem Vatab. Vt consulat deum This is a false interpretation That to inquire of God is to seek judgement from God For it is to ask the Lords minde in doubtsome cases and this they asked from Moses as he was a Prophet not as he was a civill Iudge except Erastus will have the Magistrate of old to give responses and to have been Oracles by vertue of their Office which is a clear untruth Saul David Solomon Joshua though Kings did not give responsals and answers when they did go to War or were in doubtsome perplexities But did ask Counsell at the Priest and Oracle of God and the Ark 1 Sam. 15. 37. Iosh 9. 14. Iudg. 20. 27. 1 Sam. 30. 8. and 23. 2. 4. And by this the Magistrate as the Magistrate should resolve all doubts of conscience now to perplexed consciences under the New-Testament 5. The Iudges are called Gods because they are under-Deputies in the room and place of the great God not because every judgement of
Word and Sacraments if then the Magistrate by his office may preach and dispense the Sacraments who made him a judge and a Ruler Will this satiâ—fie mens conscience The Magistrate as the Magistrate may play the Minister but the Minister may not play the Magistrate Now as Erastus saith the Minister in holy things is his servant called by him may not the Minister be called by him to the Bench also Erastus Eli and Samuel were both Priests and Iudges and so to Erastus they are not inconsistent 2. Ministers ought not to usurpe the civill sword Ergo they have no power of governing by the sword of the Spirit it followeth not the contrary is evident 1 Thes 5. 12. 1. Tim. 5. 17. 1 Cor. 12. 28. Rom. 12. 7 8. Erastus Peter Martyr saith Com. 1 Sam. 8. Those that live wickedly may be corrected by the Magistrate But Papists give one civill Ecclesiastick power to the Pope and another to the Magistrate whereas the civill Magistrate is sufficient enough Ans Pet. Martyr 1 Cor. 5. expresly asserteth Excommunication and acknowledgeth a Presbyterie of Pastors and Seniors or Elders Peter Martyr condemneth the use of both swords in the Pope and saith it is sufficient that the Magistrate have the Sword Erastus Christ saith my Kingdom is not of this world that is it is not pollitick externall visible for Christ reigneth in the world but his Government is invisible and spirituall in the Word and the Spirit Ans Christ denieth only that his Kingdome is of this World in regard it is not holden up by the civill sword of men or Magistrates as Erastus doth dreame who maketh the Magistrate with his club to be the onely Catholick and principall Ruler in all Christs courts which Christ refuteth when he saith If my Kingdome were of this world mine owne would fight for me Now Erastus will have no weapon but the Magistrates sword to hold out and cast out all offenders out of Christs Kingdom but it is false that Christs Kingdom is not politicall externall and visible this is to deny that Christ hath a visible Church Sure exhorting rebuking censuring withdrawing from the scandalous excommunication are visible externally and in a politick spirituall way exercised by Christ in his Ambassadors for externall and spirituall are not opposed nor are politicall and spirituall opposed as Erastus dreameth and therefore this is a non sequitur of Erastus His Kingdom is not of this world Ergo it is not externall Erastus When Pompeius invaded and possessed Iudea and Gabinius having overcome Alexander had changed the state of Iudea the Pharisees did reigne wholly at Ierusalem The Kingly power was removed and Aristocracy set up Ioseph bel Iud. l. 1. c. 6. Ioseph antiq l. 14. c. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Synedrie for the most part had its owne authority vnder Hyrcanus and under Archilaus it was more fully restored as is cleer by the Evangelists and Iosephus Claudius in the tenth year after Christs death setteth forth an Edict 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ioseph Ant. lib. 19. Titus Vespasianus promised the same thing to them Ans Will then Erastus have Christ Mat. 18. to restore the power of the Sanedrim in gaining a lost brother that is to cite him before the Roman Iudges But 1. the Romans made high Priests from yeere to yeere did Christ acknowledge the Sanedrim to be a restored Iudicature in this 2. Say that the Sanedrim in sacris in in the holy things of God had its full power the Romans not impeding them hath any man a face to deny but Pharisees corrupted both Law Gospell Sanedrim and all and doth Christ establish their most corrupt government especially when they set themselves against the Messiah Cesar or Pompeius could give the Sanedrim no more then it had before they were subdued but before they were subdued the Sanedrim was changed and corrupted 3. This is to beg the question to say they kept the power of the Sword For 1. We utterly deny that by Gods Law they ever had any such power and forsooth because the High-Priests servant smote our Saviour on the face and they scourged and imprisoned the Apostles What then therefore the Sanedrim had the Law of God for it and Aaron and his sonnes might beat scourge imprison and kill as they killed Steven without Law or warrant except the Law that they had from the Roman Emperours for which cause I judge their Sanedrim was then a mixed Judicature surely this is a vaine consequence 4. It is like enough Claudius and Tiberius both gave them liberty of their own Religion Ceremonies and customes at their pleasure and that is much for us the adversary so do reason from a corrupt unjust and wicked practice to infer a Law Erastus I have solidly proved there were not two distinct jurisdictions but that the Magistrate Governed all I deny not that the Magistrate took counsell at those that were skilled in the Law And I have proved that the Sanedrim in Christs time when he spake these words had the power of the sword in things pertaining to Religion Ans Let another man praise thee solidity of the probation to most of Protestant Divines is plain emptinesse 2. That the Magistrate took advice of Divines and learned men skilled in the Law is not like the first pattern of Moses David Solomon who as Magistrates saith Erastus did rule all in the Church gave the Law to Aaron his sons directed and commanded the Prophets from the Lord as nearest to him what they should do what Laws they should teach the people Shew us one precept practise or promise in the word where Moses David Solomon asked Counsell at Aaron the Priests Gad Nathan or the Prophets saying O sons of Aaron O Prophets advise us Magistrates what Laws we should command you touching your office your holy garments your washing your beasts clean and unclean your lâ—per your putting men out of the Camp touching the forme dimensions structure materials of the Arke Tabernacle Temple c. that we may know what to command you from the Lord for we are nearer to the Lord and have a more eminent place as Church-Officers then you who are but our Vicars Deputies and servants to be directed by us Now 1. Moses received all Laws immediatly from God and never consulted with any man either Aaron Priest or Prophet David and Solomon had the forme of the Temple given to them by the Lord in writing and advised with none at all therefore received from God and delivered to the Church what they received of the Lord. 2. What warrant the Magistrates should advise with Ministers what they should command-Ministers to preach and do in their Ministery if by vertue of their Office they command Ministers 3. So like as Christ referreth men to the Civill sword on their bodies to gain their souls which is the scope of Christ Matth. 18. CHAP. XVII Quest 13. Whether Erastus can make good that the
and not Sacrifice or I will have mercy rather then Sacrifice doth imply that both mercy and Sacrifice are lawfull and acceptable to God in their owne order and way But where saith God I will have sacrificing rather then sacrificing with bloody hands so as both sacrificing and sacrificing with bloody hands shall be lawfull and acceptable to God in their owne order for Sacrificing with bloodie hands was never lawfull never acceptable to God in any order Nor said God ever he would chuse the coming of those to his Sanctuary who the same day they came in had slaughtered their sonnes to Molech God alwaies hated it and never chose it if at the same time both mercy and sacrifice cannot be as David starving cannot both abstaine from eating shew-bread as the Law in its letter required and shew mercie to his life and the life of his followers and eate yea he is to eate and the Priests knowing his case doe give him the Shewbread to eat forbid abstinence as they would forbid selfe-murthering and selfstarving so here where at one time eating at the Lords Table and reconciliation with the widow and fatherlesse cannot be co-existent together at one time and place an exigence of divine providence forbidding both the bloodie man is to debarre himselfe from the Lords Supper it being as sacrificing and lesse necessary if we speake comparatively and the Elders are not to give those holy things to the bloodie man while 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 first he be reconciled to the widow and Orphane which now comparing the one with the other is mercy whereas eating and drinking at the Lords Supper is but Sacrifice but it should be as sacrificing with bloodie hands which God condemneth and forbiddeth and the Priests and Elders knowing it to be such a sinne ought to forbid and to hinder it Hence as this I will have mercy and not sacrifice hath this sense I will have you to omit Sacrifice when it cannot be done without neglect of mercie vvhich is more acceptable to me then all Sacrifices so I vvill have reconciliation to the offended widdow and Orphanes and not coming to the Lords Supper vvithout the former for the former is more acceptable to me and should be to you and the Elders in your practice then the latter and therefore the comparison of eating and eating undecently halteth for eating undecently before another which would procure deadly sicknesse to your brother ought to be forbidden by the Ruler it being known to be so and ought to be abstained from hic nunc as a sinne and a hurting of your brothers health and yet the Ruler cannot forbid totall abstinence from meat to him that eateth undecently as the Elders cannot command totall abstinence from the Sacraments 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alwayes and in all cases 2. We draw no conclusion of erecting a Presbytery from those places but those two we draw Ergo 1. It is a sin to the people themselves to sacrifice with bloodie hands because God condemneth such a manner of sacrificing 2. Ergo they are to be debarred by some who hath the charge of the holy things of God but from the Antecedent we neither inferre Ergo Presbyters nor Ergo the people nor Ergo the Prince should debarre them 3. Calling on God is not to be forbidden nor giving of almes because they are abused but the manner of the abusing those ordinances are forbidden by God and may be hindred by the Church and forbidden under the pain of Excommunication The Church cannot forbid men of totall abstinence from the Lords Supper but they can command him that is not reconciled to his brother and visibly under the guilt of blood to leave the Table as Christ Mat. 5. 23. commandeth the unreconciled man to leave his gift at the Altar and goe first be reconciled with his brother and then at the next occasion come to the Lords Supper so the Church of the Iewes could not forbid the Pharisees to pray but they could passe such an act as is Act. 15. 22. We forbid Pharisees or any other to bring their private prayers to the Markets and streets and when they are to give almes we forbid them with sound of Trumpet to make proclamation to all men that they are the onely holy and charitable men in the earth Nor doe we thinke that the Church can debarre men from the Sacraments for inward and and invisible unworthinesse but onely for visible and professed uncleannesse and Levit. 9. 13. it is clear the man that is uncleane is forbidden to keepe the Passeover Will Erastus say O he is not forbidden to eate the Passeover but onely he is forbidden to eat it tali modo being unclean and therefore it is not the Priests sinne if he should give the Passeover to the uncleane man and forbid him to eate tali modo in his uncleannesse see Erastus himselfe against this lib. 1. c. 3. page 103. 104. where he confesseth that the unclean are debarred and yet uncleannes in the eaters of the Passeover was an abuse onely and made not eating of the Passeover unlawfull in it self So the Lord complaineth Ezek. 23. 38. Moreover this they have done unto me they have defiled my Sanctuary in the same day and have prophaned my Sabbaths 39. For when they had slaine their children to their Idols then they came 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same very day into my Sanctuary to prophane it and loe this they have done in the midst of my house Will Erastus now say It was Ceremoniall uncleannes not Morall to kill their seed to Molech and that Morall uncleannesse and bloodie murthering of their seed in the same day when a person is to come to the Lords supper known to be such a Murtherer to the Elders who have power to judge the scandalous and to cast him out 1 Cor. 5. did not sinne if they should be instrumentall to lead Murtherers into the Temple and say to them Take yee eate yee this is the body of the Lord that is broken for you Erastus answereth The Prophet Ezek. 23. accuseth not the Priests or Elders that they debarred not those Murtherers from the Temple and Sacraments if there had been any precept for this some footstep should have appeared in Gods rebuking of them Ans The Lord doth not particularly reprove the Priests by name in every place in which he reproveth the people But expresly for this same very sinne the Lord reproveth the Priests Ezek. 44. 7. Let it suffice you that ye have brought into my sanctuary strangers uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh to be in my sanctuary to pollute it 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 24. And in controversie they shall stand in judgement he had spoken of their teaching the people to discerne between the clean and the unclean v. 23. and they shall judge it according to
my judgements and they shall keep my Laws and my Statutes in all mine assemblies and hallow my Sabbaths so 2 Chron. 23. 19. And Iehojada set the porters at the Gates of the house of the Lord that none which was uncleane in any thing should enter in And shall we concelve that porters that is Levites would hold out those that were only ceremonially unclean and receive in murtherers who had killed there Children to Molech that same day there was not to enter in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the unclean in any matter the text is generall excludes idolaters and murthers and such as should refuse to enter in Covenant with the Lord of which the Text speaketh As for Erastus his consequence which he unjustly imputeth to us to wit Israel sinned in coming to the Lords temple to prophane it in the very day that they slew their Children to Molech Ergo there ought to have been Priests and now there must be Presbyters and selected overseers in a Church judicature to debarre murtherers and the like scandalous persons from the Sacraments 1. This is not our consequence But this we say if the Priests knew that same day that they came to the Temple they slew their Children to Molech the Priests should have debarred them from coming to the Temple and from eating the Passeover as their office and duty was by the Law of God Num. 9. v. 6 7. Num. 19. 11 12. Lev. 22. 6. The soul that hath touched any such unclean shal be unclean till even and shall not eat of the holy things unlesse he wash his flesh with water 7. and when the Sun is downe he shal be clean and shall afterward eat of the holy things because it is his food Now it was the Priests office Lev. 10. 10. that he put a difference between holy and unholy and between clean and unclean so if Eli knew that his sonnes made themselves vile before the people and committed furnication with the women at the doore of the Tabernacle of the Congregation Ergo Eli should as a judge have restrained them 1 Sam. 3. 13. But from this antecedent we draw not this consequence Elies sonnes do publikely make themselves vile Ergo there ought to be such an Ordinance as a judge with Civill power to punish them and Ergo there ought to have been no King to punish them but a judge like unto Eli and Samuel this consequence followeth not from this antecedent but only hoc posito that Eli hath the sword and be the Civill judge Ergo he ought to punish from scandals in the Church and prophaning the holy things of God we inferre not Ergo there must be such a judicature erected as if the antecedent were the cause of the consequent But this only followeth Ergo supposing there be a Church and Presbytery invested with this power they ought not to admit murtherers or any unclean persons to come and partake of the Sacraments and so defile the holy things of God as for the place Ezek. 33. I undertake not from thence to conclude debarring of any from the holy things of God by the Priests what may follow by consequent is another thing Erastus Whereas it is said Deut. 23. the Lord would not have the price of a whore offered to him Ergo far lesse would he have a whore admitted to the sacrifice it followeth not but a penitent or a whore professing repentance may be admitted to the sacrifices 2. He forbiddeth only the price of a whore to be offered to him as a vow or a thing vowed it may be that agree not to all sacrifices For God forbiddeth a living creature that is unperfect in a vow But Lev. 22. he forbiddeth not such imperfect living creatures to be offered to him in a free will sacrifice so God forbiddeth honey to be offered in an offering by fire but not in all other oblations But will not the Lord have a whore to offer to God that which is lawfully purchased or which is her patrimony or may not a whore offer her first borne to the Lord or circumcise him We find not that forbidden From things to persons we cannot argue we may not offer a lame beast to God Ergo doth the Lord so abhor a lame man that he may not come to the Temple God alloweth not tares amongst the wheat yet he will not have the externall Ministers to pluck up the tares while harvest Ans If the hire received for a whores selling of her body to uncleannesse must not be applyed to the service of God farre more cannot a whore as a whore be admitted to partake of the holy things of God for the price or money is called abomination to God Deut. 23. for the whore not the whore for the money and so we may well argue from the things to the persons 2. It is false that God forbiddeth the price of a whore onely in vows and not in sacrifices he forbiddeth it because as Moses saith Deut. 23. 18. it is an abomination to the Lord and as Erastus saith it is money unjustly purchased Yea Davids practise teacheth that what we bestow on sacrifices as well as in vows it must be our own proper goods and not so much as gifted to us 2 Sam. 24. 24. Neither will I offer burnt offerings unto the Lord my God of that which cost me nothing farre lesse would he offer the price of a whore in sacrifices and the Divines of England say on the place hereby is forbidden that any gaine of evill things should be applied to the service of God Mich. 7. 1. Vatablus saith the like 2. For the Lords forbidding to offer in a vow Bullock or Lambe or any thing that is superfluous or lacking in his parts and permitting it in a free-will offering by a free will offering is meant that which is given to the Priest for food of a free gift but otherwise what is offered to the Lord in a vow or a free will offering must be perfect for the blind broken maimed having a wenne scurvy or scab can in no sort be offered to the Lord Lev. 22. 20 21 22 23. There is no word of the Lord in the free will gift that Erastus speaketh of but only the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is liberall free from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to give freely to God or man 3. A whore repenting or professing repentance was not debarred from sacrifices but that is without the bounds of the question an heathen could say Quem penitet facti is pene innocens est Senec. in Traged We debarre none that professe repentance from the seals of the Covenant 4. When a whore as a whore did offer her first borne being a bastard in the Temple I conceive neither she nor her childe were accepted Deut. 23. 2. Abastard shall not enter into the Congregation of the Lord if the childe was born of Married Parents the woman repenting the question now must be far altered 5. For a lame
man to be a Priest we can say something but that all the lame in Israel were debarred from the Temple and the holy things of God we dare not say and a difference of things and men we acknowledge but that is nothing to weaken the argument 6. How proveth Erastus the tares are not to be plucked up by men Mat. 13. will bear no such thing ill men are to be cast out of the Church before the day of judgement both by the Magistrate and miraculously by the Apostles and by Excommunication say we Mat. 18. 1 Cor. 5. Erastus He that possesseth the price of the whore is not to be debarred out of the Temple though the money could not be offered to God The Pharisees would not have the price of blood cast in the treasure of the Temple yet they cast not Judas out of the Temple which these patrons of Ceremonies would have done if there had been any Law for it Ans This is to beg the question the whore who sold her body for a price was unclean and more unclean then the innocent money and so in that case excluded from the holy things of God 2. They admitted doves oxen and money changers into the Temple and prophaned it and why should they cast Judas out of the Temple will their practises prove any thing they used all divine ceremonies and Lawes of God to their owne carnall ends Erastus Heathens vvere not admitted into the Temple But a scandalous man is a heathen Ezech. 16. Your Father was an Ammorite also if thou be a transgressour of the Law thy circumcision is become uncircumcision Rom. 2. he is vvorse then an Infidell 1 Tim. 5. Erastus ansvvereth but if vve look to Gods estimation vvicked brethren are vvorse then pagans But if vve consider the externall face of the Church there be many things in vvicked men that agreeth not to heathen vvicked circumcised men might go in to the Temple Gentiles might not so the assumption is most false 2. A circumcised man and a Baptisedman can never turn non-circumcised or non baptised Ans I say nothing to the cursing and blessing Deut. 27. Nor do I owne that Argument it is not ours 2. Those which are so our argument runneth as Heathens and Publicans as Pagans Ammorites whereas they were sometimes Brethren and Members of the Church are not to be admitted to the Sacraments nor to be acknowledged as members of the Church more then Heathen Ammorites Pagans are to be be admitted to the Sacraments and Members of the Church But wicked men amongst the Iewes and amongst us Christians who will not hear the Church and are fornicators idolaters railers drunkards and extortioners and walke inordinately and cause divisions contrary to the Gospell of our Lord Iesus are to be esteemed as Heathens Pagans Amorites and worse then Infidels therefore such amongst the Iewes were not admitted to the Temple and holy things of God and amongst us not to be admitted to the Sacraments nor to be acknowledged as members of the Church Erastus answereth not to this Argument either Major or Assumption but propoundeth an Argument of a namelesse Author as he knoweth best to answer and remove himself 2. Many things saith he agree to Pagans and Turks which agree not to scandalous Christians True scandalous Christians are not Amorites and Pagans simpliciter they differ in profession the one being baptized not the other and once being baptized they can never be unbaptized but that is not our Argument but they agree in this that they are no more really Christians being fornicators railers drunkards extortioners c. then Pagans but have the onely name and title of such and are to be esteemed so by us and are to us quoad hoc in regard of Church priviledges as heathens and publicans and so the Lord of old termed his Apostate people Sodom and Gomorrah Esa 1. 10. and as the children of the Ethiopians and Philistines Amos 9. 7. and as uncleane and uncapable in a Church way of the Passeover and now of the Lords Supper to us as Ethiopians Sodomites of old and this day Turks and Pagans are to us 3. That the wicked that were circumcised might go into the Temple amongst the Iews de facto they might but de jure by Law they might not Ier. 7. 9. Ezek. 23. 39. Esa 66. 3. no more then by Law they might prophane the holy Name of God or kill a man or sacrifice a dog to God or offer swines blood or blesse an Idoll The argument from sanctifying the Sabbath I passe it hath no sense nor reason as Erastus propoundeth it Erastus Christ Mat. 5. commandeth him who is to offer a gift to leave his gift at the Altar and first to be reconciled to his brother Ergo he will have us not to use the Sacraments while we be first reconciled to our Brother But so saith Erastus we should not pray to God nor seeke forgivenesse of sinnes while we first forgive those that have wronged us Christ doth not here speake of the externall governing of his Church but of the perfection of a Christian man else wee could doe nothing that is good and just and we were all to be Excommunicated he saith not if the Presbyters shall command leave thy gift but if thou shalt call to minde thy selfe he speaketh not of a prohibition of others discharging an instituted vvorship but of that which a mans owne minde doth enjoyne him you may as easily prove the Papists Masse from this as Excommunication Ans Surely this is to me convincing if I be discharged by the Holy Ghost to meddle with the holy things of God or offering a gift to God at his Altar while I first be reconciled to my brother then those who have by office power to steward those holy things in wisedome and fidelity putting a difference betweene the precious and the vile knowing that I am at wrath wiâ—h my brother and having convinced me before two or three Witnesses that I have highly trespassed against my brother are to deny to Steward or dispense any such holy thing to me while I be first reconciled to my brother and the like I say of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper 2. To Erastus his Argument I answer it is not alike here as in praying for praying is so absolutely necessary that it obligeth by a command of God even a Simon Magus to pray while he is in the gall of bitternesse that the thoughts of his heart may be forgiveâ— Act. 8. 22. But Erastus as if he had set himselfe to contradict Christ would insinuate as much as Christ were not to be obeyed for his Exposition holdeth forth this sense When thou bringest thy gift unto the Altar and remembrest that thy brother hath ought against thee leave not thy gift depart not goe not about to be reconciled to thy Brother but first offer thy gift But Simon Magus though he should remember that he was in the gall of bitternesse
perfect in the one as in the other 5. The great error is here that Erastus being sleeping when he wrote thinketh that to eat and drinke unworthily to offer a gift at the Altar the offerer being unreconciled to his brother is an action internall and known to God and that can no more be known to man then the thoughts of the heart A palpable untruth is not worshipping of Baalim murthering stealing whoring killing the Children to Molâ—ch and coming to stand in the Temple of the Lord which are called a prophaning of Gods holy name Ier. 7. 9 10 11. Ezek. 23. 38 39. are not these actions visible externall and as feazable to be judged by man as murther may be judged by a Magistrate Yea by this let a Pagan come to the table of the Lord we are not to hinder him why it is an internall action knowne citra errorem to God only and we cannot then judge whither he have examined himself or not if he be not against us here he is with us saith Erastus Quod deus facere jussit ab eo revocari aut retrahi nullus ab hominibus debet si modo externe sic fiat ut precepit deus Yea so the Magistrate cannot hinder either Pagan or the open enemy and persecutor who will trample upon the Sacrament from the Sacraments the contrary whereof Erastus said pag. 207. hunc ego minime admittendum censeo and let Erastus give us Scripture either expresse or by consequence where a Pagan or a persecutor may be impeded by Church or Magistrate from externall receiving of the seals except that we are not to give pearls to swine But was it not as hard to judge whether Saul persecuting the Church out of blind zeal was a swine or a dogge as to judge whether he that killeth his sonne to Molech out of blind devotion and cometh the same day to the Temple of the Lord doth prophane the Name of the Lord 6. If we must do nothing in externalls without the expresse commandement of God nor may we without Gods command either expresse or a necessary consequence admit dogs and swine to the Lords table 7. Paul indeed rejoyced that Christ was preached though out of envy Phil. 1. but by men called and gifted of God to preach and therefore ought not to be forbidden to preach while the Church for their scandalous life do cast them out say they are called Ministers once the Church is not to cast them out for this or that particular sinne if they be not contumatious and Paul saith he Rejoyceth that Christ was preached but he saith not he rejoyced that they preached Christ tali modo out of contention thinking to add affliction to his bonds Yet God forbiddeth the externall act of preaching in those that hateth to be reformed Psal 50. 16 17. and forbiddeth the Church to lay hands on or to call to the Ministery wicked men that hateth to be reformed or to keep them in the Ministery and this hindreth not but Paul might rejoyce at the consequent of their Ministery to wit at the preaching of the Gospel so long as they remained in the Ministery as we may rejoyce in that Christ was crucified for sinners and not allow that Herod and Pilate did with wicked hands crucifie the Lord of Glory nor yet are we to rejoyce in their sinne But all this hindreth not but he that is at wrath with his brother and knowne to be so by the Priests should be hindred to offer his gift while he be reconciled to him 8. We are not to hinder acts of externall worship as praying praising preaching nor can the Church forbid them except where God by his Commandement require that we do them wiâ—h a speciall visible qualification and order As first be reconciled to your brother first examine your selfe and then ofâ—er your gift and come and eat and drinke at the Lords table and in Negatives Come to my Temple but come not that very day you killed your sonnes to Molech while ye repent and be humbled for that sinne Erastus The godly Kings compelled the people to observe the rites ordained of God at least externally and 2 Chron. 15. killed those that sought not the Lord then they sinne who punish sinnes by debarring men from the Sacrament for beside that they forbid a thing commanded of God and as it falleth under mens judgement that is as it is externall and good so they cast their sickle in another mans field because the correcting of sinnes in so farre as they are externall belongeth to the Magistrate and in so farre as they come from a depraved will they belong to God onely Ans Here is one palpable error that all externall scandals are punished either by the Magistrate as the Magistrate so he must be understood else he saith nothing or by God onely contrary to 1 Cor. 5. 11. Rom. 16. 17. 2 Thes 3. 14 15. For we give a third they are punished by the Church but only in a Ministeriall way It is false that the godly Kings could compell the unclean Jewes though circumcised to come to the Temple or the murtherers of their Children that same day to come with bloody hands to the Temple Yet the very locall and personall presence of a Iew in the Temple and the very posture of his body in looking with his face toward the Temple while he prayed was an externall lawfull Ordinance of God They could not then lawfully compell the Iews to these rites except with such and such previous qualifications they could not compell the Priests unwashed and having drunk wine to go to the Sanctuary 2 Chro. 15. It is not said they were to be put to death that should omit any Ceremony though every Religious observance be a seeking of God but they that would not seek God by entring in Covenant to renounce idols and serve the Lord or should prove apostates from the sworne Covenant were to be put to death 3. If that be a punishment we contend for things not for names which is a privation of good inflicted for a sinne then let Erastus sâ—e if the Priests punish not who debarred men from the holy things of God by Erastus his grant for Ceremoniall omissions against a Law of God And if the Priests should not suffer an unreconciled man to offer gifts and if the Church should deny pearls to apostates if this be not punishment and if the Magistrate be to cast out or inflict Ecclesiasticall censures shall he not punish in so doing Erastus To be cast out of the Synogogue is not to be Excommunicated For the Synagogue signified sometime all Iudea sometime a particular Congregation or the place of meeting or the sermon By no Law could a circumcised Iew be cast out of all Iudea and sent to the Gentitles or be compelled to say they were not Iews Yea they were killed who denyed Iudaisme 2 Maccabees so the cast out of the Synagogue were not debarred from the Temple
Church judgeth of internalls and that they may debarre men from the Sacraments for only heart-unbeleefe knowne to God only This must lye on Erastus as a calumnie while he make it good from our writings and Doctrine that we thus teach exclude those that are visibly scandalous and prophane and we are satisfied 2. He that brings his offering to the Altar and hath done a knowne offence to his brother for it is a sinfull and visible scandall which scandalizeth one brother He useth not the holy things of God right even as touching externals He that comes to the Lords supper desiring and asking the ordinance of righteousnesse as Isaiah speaketh and promiseth amendment and yet is openly ignorant and not sound in the faith he useth not aright the Sacraments even in externals of which only the Church judgeth rightly as he that in the same day commeth to the temple to worship now the very personall presence of a Iew in the Temple which was a Type of Iesus Christ was a worship and a holy thing of God whereas our presence in the place of meeting for worship is no such thing when he hath killed his sonne to Moloch prophaned the Temple and the name of God even in externals for the Priests of old who were to put differences between the clean and the unclean no more were to judge the inward thoughts and heart-dispositions of men knowne to God only then we can now judge them in the New Testament 1 Chro. 29. 17. 1 King 8. 39. 1 Chro. 28. 9. Prov. 15. 11. Hence that is an ignorant speach of Erastus Quistatuit malus esse non prodibit in ecclesiae faciem ut se poenuere prioris vite testetur ac meliorem promittat That man shall never come before the face of the Church to testifie that he repenteth of his former wicked life and promise amendment who purposeth to be wicked Will not men purpose not to be reconciled to their brethren and suffer many suns to go downe in their wrath and malice who come and bring their offring to the Altar why did then Christ forbid offring at the Altar without being reconciled to an offended brother Mat. 5. might not the offending brother offer his gift and were not the Priests to except his offring He could say all that Erastus requireth I acknowledge I have offended my brother I promise to crave him pardon and I desire to offer according to the Law Then the Priest was obliged to beleeve he dealt sincerely and lay his gift upon the Altar though he should not obey the command of Christ and go and leave his gift at the Altar and not offer while he were first reconciled to his brother and the like I say of one that hath killed his brother and cometh with hot blood to the Table of the Lord and goeth not to the Widdow and Orphanes whose Husband and Father he had killed to be reconciled Surely the man that should thus offer should not come to offer nor to eat at the Lords table rightly even in regard of externals which the Church may judge for he should omit this externall Be first reconciled to the Widdow and then offer and eat as Christ commanded 3. It is against Scripture and experience that a man that hath a purpose to kill his Father and in the highest point of treason to invade King Davids throne as Absolon did to say he will not professe to pay his vows at Hebron And might not Judas by his very eating the Passeover professe he beleeved in the Lambe of God that taketh away the sins of the world and that he would serve Christ and yet purpose in his heart to sell his Master Christ for 30 peeces of silver They seeme to be little acquainted with the mysterie of the hypocrisie naturally in men who put in print such a position The Author against whom Erastus writeth saith We have reason to rejoyce if we finde any such who will not professe faith and repentance though they be Hypocrites and therefore there is need of Excommunication and his meaning is that there is need of Excommunication alwayes and therefore there will be many who professe Repentance in words whose life and conversation belie their Repentance and Erastus cannot deny this if he know what it is â—o have a forme of godlinesse and deny the power which forme many have who are to be debarred from the Sacraments and to be Excommunicated in regard they are lovers of their owne selves covetous boasters proud blasphemers disobedient to parents unthankefull without naturall affection truce breakers false accusers incontinent fierce despisers of those that are good traitors headie high minded c. 2 Tim. 3. 1 2 c. and such they are in the eies of men otherwise Paul would not forbid to withdraw from such Erastus The Author I thinke would yeeld that the Sacraments should not be denyed to those who seeke them and desire to use them aright and are not excommunicated for the writeth that the deniall of the Sacraments is onely a Testimony of excommunication So when we give not a Testimony of a thing for example of learning to any to whom the thing it selfe to wit learning doth not agree we cannot deny the Sacraments to those who are not Excommunicated for hee should not be blotted with a Testimony of a banished man who is not declared to be banished Ans 1. The Author I thinke would never yeeld but the Sacraments ought to be denied to those who aske for them and desire to use them aright if they be otherwise Truce-breakers false accusers incontinent traitors for those have and may have a forme of godlines and aske the Sacraments and desire to use them aright I meane they may say they desire to use them aright for of their inward desire God onely can judge who knoweth the heart yet the Author cannot he will not say that such are to be admitted to the Lords Supper all thaâ— Erastus goeth on iâ— That the Church is obliged to beleeve that those doe repent and use the Sacraments aright who say in word of mouth they doe so and therefore are to be admitted to the Sacraments though they come but an houre before out of the Bordell house and have hands and sword hot and smoking with innocent blood Now Dogs and Swine Câ—in Iudas known to be scandalous may give faire words and cry Lord Lord and professe all this as is cleare Isa 58. 2. Mat. 7. 21 22. Rom. 16. 18 Mat. 23. 13 14 23 c. 2. Exclusion from the Sacraments is a Testimony of Excommunication but not testimonium proprium quarto modo for some that are not excommunicated are to be debarred from the Sacraments as the thing it selfe will force us to acknowledge should any come with his sword hot in blood from killing his father and Pastor to the Lords Table I hope the Church knowing this would not admit him to the Sacrament and yet he is not yet excommunicated
the Magistrate under the New Testament because they were killed in the Old Then are we to stone the men that gathereth sticks on the Lords day the childe that is stubborn to his Parents the Virgins daughters of Ministers that committeth fornication are to be put to death Why but then the whole judiciall Law of God shall oblige us Christians as Carolosladius and others teach I humbly concieve that the putting of some to death in the Old Testament as it was a punishment to them so was it a mysterious teaching of us how God hated such and such sins and mysteries of that kinde are gone with other shadows But we read not saith Erastus where Christ hath changed those Laws in the New Testament It is true Christ hath not said in particular I abolish the debarring of the leper seven dayes and he that is thus and thus unclean shall be separated till the evening nor hath he said particularly of every carnall Ordinance and judiciall Law it is abolished But we conceive the whole bulk of the judiciall Law as judiciall and as it concerned the Republick of the Iews only is abolished though the morall equity of all those be not abolished also some punishments were meetly Symbolicall to teach the detestation of such a vice as the boaring with an Aâ—le the ear of him that loved his Master and desired still to serve him and the making of him his perpetuall servant I should think the punishing with death the man that gathered sticks on the Sabbath was such and in all these the punishing of a sin against the Morall Law by the Magistrate is Morall and perpetuall but the punishing of every sin against the Morall Law tali modo so and so with death with spitting on the face I much doubt if these punishments in particular and in their positive determination to the people of the Iews be morall and perpetuall As he that would marry a captive woman of another Religion is to cause her first pare her nailes and wash her self and give her a moneth or lesse time to lament the death of her Parents which was a Iudiciall not a Ceremoniall Law that this should be perpetuall because Christ in particular hath not abolished it to me seems most unjust for as Paul saith He that is Circumcised becomes debter to the whole Law sure to all the Ceremonies of Moses his Law So I Argue à pari from the like He that will keep one judciciall Law because judiciall and given by Moses becometh debter to keep the whole judiciall Law under pain of Gods eternall wrath We do not teach that men are to be Excommunicated for whatever scandalous sins deserve death at the hand of the Magistrate whether they openly repent or not if any give evident signification of their repentance for murther they are not to be Excommunicated for the end of Excommunication being once obtained which is the visible and known repentance and saving of the offenders soul the mean is not to be used which is Excommunication But if any commit murther whether he repent or repent not the Lord hath made no exception of regenerate or not regenerate of men repenting or not repenting he should die by the sword of the Magistrate Gen. 9. 9. It is true some are to be Excommunicated for the very atrocity of the sin it being parricide but that is because he giveth no positive signes of repentance to the Church which is contumacy added to his parricide Erastus would prove That God would not have men dedebarred from the Sacraments because they commit haynous sins to be punished with death by the Judge 1. Facinora saepe sunt occulta such crimes are often unknown to the world Ans That which is denied is not concluded a fault in Logick for only scandals as scandals to the Church and so known to the Church are to be censured with Excommunication Erastus He thus would prove the same often these crimes cannot be punished as David durst not punish the murther of Ioab 2 Sam. 3. Often for other causes they are neglected by the Magistrate as David neglected to punish the incest and murther of Absolon but shall we think such were not to come to the Temple and Sacraments so Psal 14. David saith There was not one that doth good those were not all punished by the Magistrate yet were they not removed from the Sacraments Ans Let Erastus argue here and we shall see his logick Those that commit parricides sorceries and do trample the holy things of God under feet whom yet the Magistrate dare not punish because of their power and greatnesse those are not to be debarred from the Sacraments But there be many scandalous persons in the Church such as Ioab whom the Magistrate dare not punish for their greatnesse Ergo Ans The Major is manifestly false and a begging of the question For Erastus saith pag. 207. He thinketh such ought not to be admitted to the Sacraments who will trample on the Sacraments and prophane them For though the Magistrate dare not punish them which is his sinfull neglect if they be dogs and swine as often they are and bloody men such as Ioab they ought not yea they never were by any Law of God admitted to the Temple and Sacraments what they did de facto or the Priests permitted is not the question It was Davids sinne that he took not away the head of bloody Ioab when he killed Abner and Amasa 2. How doth Erastus prove that David neglected to punish the incest of Absolon his sinfull neglect in not punishing his murther I yield for Absolon was never in Davids power to punish after he committed that incest possibly he neglected to punish his owne Concubines that is but a conjecture It is as like Absolon forced the Concubines to that incest as any other thing 3. For that Psal 14. There is none that doth good it is spoken of the naturall corruption of all mankind who therefore cannot be justified by the works of the Law as Paul expoundeth it Rom. 3. 9 10 11 19 20 21. and not of scandals punishable by the Magistrates and where this corruption did break out in bloods within the Church it ought to have been punished both by the Magistrate and Church so it is an argument yet a facto ad jus and a great inconsequence 4. I aske for what cause doth the Spirit of God rebuke killing of the Children to Molech and coming that same day to the Temple Because it was a sinne and particularly a prophaning of the Sanctuary which was one speciall holy thing to God Ezek. 23. 38 39. Ier. 7. 8 9 10 11. It was no sin to come to the Temple Sure it was commanded of God in his Law as Erastus yieldeth What was the sin then to come with their hands full of blood and of the unnaturall blood of their owne Children was the sinne and yet if they had repented to come after they had killed their Children was
and God inviteth them to repentance and the staying in the Church And the Sacraments are to Erastus means of repentance and this casting out must be to save them for no power is given of God to the Magistrate or Church for destruction but for edification Now to put them out of the Church that they may be saved is as Erastus conceiteth to cast a lascivious Virgin out of the company of chaste Matrâ—ns to the end she may preserve her chastity I speak here all in the language of Erastus who useth all those against casting any out of the Church by Presbyters but they stand with equall strength against his casting out of idolaters and apostates out of the Church and so do the rest of his Arguments Therefore this conclusion of Erastus is a granting us the whole cause after in six books he hath pleaded none should be Excommunicated he falleth on Bellarmines Tutissimum igitur c. when he had written six books against justification by faith Lastly why should idolaters apostates and obstinately wicked men be excluded from the dispute of Excommunication and suspension from the Sacraments for he knoweth that Beza and Protestant Divines do make these the speciall though not the whole subject of the dispute Now Erastus concluding his six books doth hereby professe he hath never faithfully stated the question when he excludes those from the subjectum questionis who especially heareth not the Church and ought to be Excommunicated Thus have I given an account as I could of the wit of Erastus against the freedome of the Kingdome of the Lord Iesus CHAP. XXIII Of the power of the Christian Magistrate in Ecclesiasticall Discipline QUEST XIX Whether or no the Christian Magistrate be so above the Church in matters of Religion Doctrine and Discipline that the Church and her Guides Pastors and Teachers do all they do in these as subordinate to the Magistrate as his servants and by his Authority Or is the spirituall power of the Church immediately subject to Iesus Christ only VVEE know that Erastus who is Refuted by Beza Vtenbogard whom Ant Walens Learnedly Refuteth Maccovius opposed by the Universities and Divines of Holland Vedelius Answered by Gu. Apolonius and others and the Belgick Arminians in their Petition to the States and Hu. Grotins against Sibrandus Lubert Divers Episcopall Writers in England do hold That the Guides of the Church do all in their Ministery by the Authority of the Christian Magistrate I believe the contrary And 1. We exclude not the Magistrate who is a keeper of both Tables of the Law from a care of matters of Religion 2. We deny not to him a power to examine Heresies and false Doctrine 1. In order to bodily punishment with the sword 2. With a judgement not Antecedent but Subsequent to the judgement of the Church where the Church is constituted 3. With such a judgement as concerneth his practise lest he should in a blinde way and upon trust execute his office in punishing Hereticks whether they be sentenced by the Church according unto or contrary to the word of God as Papists dream 3. We deny not but the Prince may command the Pastor to Preach and the Synod and Presbytery to use the keys of Christs Kingdom according to the Rules of the Word But this is but a Civill subjection though the object be spirituall But the Question is not 1. Whether the Christian Magistrate have a care of both Tables of the Law 2. Whether he as a blinde servant is to execute the will of the Church in punishing such as they discern to be Hereticks we pray the Lord to give him eyes and wisdom in his Administration 3. Nor thirdly Whether he may use his coercive power against false Teachers that belongs to the controversie concerning Liberty of Conscience 4. The Question is not Whether the Magistrate have any power of jurisdiction in the Court of Conscience they grant that belongeth to the Preaching of the Word But the Question is touching the power in the externall Court of Censures 5. The Question is not Whether the power of exercising Discipline be from the Magistrate I mean in a free and peacable manner with freedome from violence of men we grant that power and by proportion also that exercise of Discipline is from him But whether the intrinsecall power be not immediately from Christ given to the Church this we teach as the power of saying peacably from danger of Pirats and Robbers is from the King but the Art of Navigation is not from the King But the Question is whether the Magistrate by vertue of his office as a Magistrate hath Supream power to Govern the Church and immediatly as a little Monarch under Christ above Pastors Teachers and the Church of God to Iudge and determine what is true Doctrine what Heresie to censure and remove from Church-Communion the Seals and Church-offices all scandalous persons and that if Pastors or Doctors or the Church Teach or dispense censures they do it not with any immediate subjection to Christ but in the Name and Authority of the Magistrate having power from the Magistrate as his servants and delegates To this we answer negatively denying any such power to the Magistrate and doe hold that the Church and Christs courts and Assemblies of Pastors Doctors and Elders hath this power onely and immediately from Iesus Christ without subordination in their office to King Parliament or any Magistrate on earth by these Arguments 1. Because in the Old Testament the Lord distinguished two courts Deut. 17. 8. If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgement 10. Thou shalt come unto the Priests the Levites and unto the Iudge that shall be in those dayes and inquire and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgement And thou shalt doe according to the sentence which they of that place which the Lord shall chuse shall shew thee c. There be here two Courts clearly one court of Priests and Levites that were Iudges another of the Iudge Now the King by vertue of his Kingly office might not usurpe the Priests office 1. Vzziah was smitten with Leprosie for so doing 2. It is evident in Moses his writing that Aaron and his sonnes the Priests and Levites were separated for the service of the Tabernacle to teach the people to carry the Arke to sacrifice to judge the Leper and to judge between the clean and the unclean to put out of the campe out of the congregation the unclean and to admit the clean Lev. 1. 7 9 12 c. and 5. 8. and 7. 7. and 13. 3 4 c. 23. Numb 5. 8. c. and 18. 4 5. 2 Chron. 29. 11. You hath the Lord chosen to stand before him 1 Sam. 21. 1 2. Lev. 21. 1. Iosh 3. 8. 1 Kin. 8. 3. 1 Chron. 8. 9. 2 Chron. 5. 7. and 7. 6. and 8. 14. Zeph. 3. 4. Hag. 2. 11 12. Mal. 2. 7 Deut. 10 9. and 21. 5. Num. 1.
corrupt Heterodox and all the Pastors have corrupted their wayes 5. Civill punishing of Church-men when they are Hereticall and scandalous we heartily yield to Magistrates But that Magistrates as such should Excommunicate and admit such to the Sacrament and reject other such and rebuke or that the Magistrate as the Magistrate did of old judge between the clean and the unclean cast out from the congregation and camp and receive in and so governe the Church is altogether unwarranttable Now the adversaries as Erastus grant that Idolaters Apostates and extreamly prophane men are to be cast out of the Christian society and not to be suffered there and also that Dogs and Swine and Apostates persecutâ—rs are neither to be admitted to hear the Word nor partake of the Sacraments So also Mr. Pryn if Magistrates must cast them out of the Church by vertue of their office and judge as Magistrates who are prophane and who truly feare God and who are dogs and Apostates who not surely then Magistrates as Magistrates must discerne between the cleane and the uncleane as Priest of old and must separate the precious from the vile as the Prophets did of old and so were the mouth of God and must stand before the Lord leâ— 15. 19. Then must Magistrates as Magistrates be Pastors called in the Pulpit as well as in the Throne and the Bench and that by vertue of their calling which neither Erastus nor the reverend Mr. Pryn will owne Now if the Elders of the Church with the consent of the people must cast such out of the Church and from communion in the holy things of God here is in expresse termes the very Ecclesiasticall Excommunication which Mr. Pryn denieth to be an Ordinance of God and yet it must be commanded by Iesus Christ in these words Mat. 7. 6. Give not holy things unto dogs and therefore keep not in Church communion the prophane and by the way Mr. Pryn to me yeeldeth the cause and granteth that Excommunication and suspension from the Sacraments doe both fall under this precept of Christ Mat. 7. That which falleth under a command of Christ to me is a Divine Ordinance 2. He saith also reasoning against are suspension from the Sacraments Obstinate scandalous sinners make no conscience at all of receiving the Sacrament and voluntarily suspend themselves there-from in case they be freely admitted to other Ordinances it being onely the totall Exclusion from the Church and all Christian society not any bare suspension from the Sacrament which worketh both shame and remorse in excommunicate persons as Paul resolveth 1 Thes 3. 14. 1 Cor. 5. 13. compared with 1 Cor. 1. to v. 10. 3. This is in terminis excommunication proved from divers places of Scripture for it is a totall Exclusion from the Church and all Christian society working shame and remorse as Paul resolveth We seeke no more Pauls resolution to us is a Divine right Those words of that Learned and Reverend man have give me leave by the way to say for I hope worthier then I am do answer fully all he hath said in this subject all that we crave For 1. obstinate men will voluntarily suspend themselves from the Sacrament Ergo the Church should not suspend them onely but also Excommunicate them I grant all if they be obstinate they are to be not only suspended but also excommunicated Ergo they are not solie and onely to be suspended Pro hac vice for this time it followeth no waies all that this Reverend Lawyer saith against sole suspension from the Sacrament of an obstinate offender is nothing against us if he be obstinate he is not onely to be suspended from the Sacrament but also if he goe on in refusing to heare the admonitions of brethren and of the Church he is to be excommunicated Ergo he is not first hac vice to be suspended from a confirming Ordinance given to those onely who are supposed to have the life of faith and can onely eat and drinke spiritually and by faith the body and blood of Christ It followeth not I thinke Mr. Pryn would not have Hereticks and Apostates suddenly and at the first totally as he saith excluded from the Church and all Christian society sure we owe some gentlenes and patience even to them If God peradventure may give them Repentance to scape out of the snare of the Devil 2 Tim. 2. 24. 25 26. yet if an Heretick and Apostate that same day that the Lords Supper were to be celebrated should deny the Resurrection and Iesus Christ to be God blessed for ever and not equall with the Father nor consubstantiall with him and withall should that same day have offered his childe to Molech and yet professe his desire to come to the Lords Supper professing he had tryed and examined himselfe and his desire to come to eate and drinke with Iesus Christ the great Prophet of his Church Would not Mr. Prynne thinke he should not be admitted to the Lords Supper and yet that he should not totally be excluded from the Church and all communion from the Church and holy things of God I should think if he cannot be presently excommunicated yet he should not be admitted to the Sacrament for sure he cannot but be in a doggish and swinish disposition in one degree or other And my reason is he is as Erastus saith non rectè institutus not rightly instructed but heterodoxe and so cannot try and examine himselfe while he be better principled in the faith so a suspension for a time from the Lords supper and ex natura rei without totall exclusion from the Church and all Christian society were as necessary whether the Magistrate or Church suspend I dispute not now as a degree of punishment or a preventing of eating of damnation is necessary hiâ— nunc O but saith Master Prinne Christ knew that Iudas was worse than an heretick and yet he denied not to admit him to the Supper Ergo though we knew such a one the Sacrament being a converting Ordinance it followeth not that we should debarre him from the Sacrament Ans Whether Iudas did eat the Supper of the Lord or not I think nothing of the matter only Master Prinne hath duram provinciam and a very hard task to prove it from Scripture If I were to examine his book I should deny his consequences from the Evangelists for not any of them can prove that Iudas did communicate at the last Supper But 1. Christs example in this being an act of Christ as God permitting the greatest hypocrisie on earth is no rule to the Church to give the Lords Supper to Iuddasses First Iudas was visibly and infallibly to Christ a man who deserved to be totally excluded out of the Church and all Christian societie and to Christ a knowne traitor a Devill an hypocrite Ergo as Christ did not exclude him out of the Church neither should the Saints now exclude from their society nor should the Christian
Christ mediator for he denieth expresly Ioh. 18. 36. that he hath such a Kingdom as Mediator or that he was instructed with the sword as Mediator Luk. 12. 13. Now as God and Creator of the world Christ could not deny but he had a Kingdom worldly and that he hath a regnum potentiae an universall Kingdom of power as Lord of Hoasts to dispose of all the Kingdoms of the world and to rule amongst the children of men and to rule over the children of men and to give them to whomsoever he will Dan. 4. 25. 8. 18. â—er 27. v. 6 7 8 9. Psal 24. 1. Psal 50. v. 12. Nor is this Kingdom and Power given to Christ nor is he made Prince and a King as God but as Mediator to give repentance to the House of Israel and forgivenesse of sins Act. 5. 31. I grant it is said Phil. 2. 9. God hath highly exalted Christ and given him a name above every name that at the name of Iesus every knee should bow of things in heaven and of things in earth and things under the earth What doth not this say the adversaries comprehend a royall power given to Christ and hath not Christ from this power to substitute Magistrates in his place as his vicars under him and as little mediators I answer it doth in no sort follow for that is a spirituall power as is clear Rom. 14. v. 9. For to this end Christ both died and rose and revived that he might be Lord both of dead and living v. 11. For it is written as I live saith the Lord every knee shall bow to me and every tongue shall confesse God So it is clearly expounded of Christs exalting at the right hand of God Act. 5. 31. for spirituall and supernaturall ends I grant as Mediator and King he breaketh his enemies Devils and men Psal 2. 9. With a rod of yron and dasheth them in pieces like a potters vessel and maketh his enemies his footstool Psal 110. 1. But that is no carnall power such as earthly Kings useth it is a spirituall power for the reason is given ver 2. The Lord shall send the rod of thy strength out of Sion By which v. 5. as a great Anti-royalist He strikes through Kings in the day of his wrath Now Christ as Mediator sendeth not out Kings and Princes to conquer souls to him with their sword Renowned Salmasius saith When Christ sent his Apostles first to preach the Gospel and to lay the foundation of the Christian Church did he send out with them lictors pursevants men of war with a bundell of rods and with axes to compell men to come in to his Kingdome Commanded he to smite them with swords and axes who would not receive the Gospel No yea he would not have them to take with them a staffe a scrip or shoes But though Christ subdue all his enemies Devils and wicked men it shall never follow that Christ is for that King and head of Devils and wicked men For Christ is as Mediator King and Head or mediatory King and Head of those that are the subjects and redeemed conquest of this King and of those who are members of the body of which he is Head now this body is his Church only Col. 1. 18. He is the Head of the Body the Church Eph. 1. 22 23. And gave him to be Head over all things to the Church Which is his Body the fulnesse of him that filleth all The Body of Christ to be edified Ephesi 4 12. Till we all all that body of the Saints to be perfected v. 11. come in the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect man unto the measure of the stature of the fulnesse of Christ v. 16. from whom the whole Body fitly joyned together and compacted by that which every joynt supplieth according to the effectuall working in the measure of every part maketh increase of the Body unto the edifying of it selfe in love Now never Divine can say that Devils and wicked men who shall bow to Iesus are the subjects of this Kingdom of Christ who have right to the fruits of the Kingdom Righteousnesse and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost Rom. 14. 17. far lesse that they are of the Body that is Christs Body Christs fulnesse Christs Body to be perfected edified to Come in the unity of faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God into a perfect man c. Arg. 6. These Megistrates that are the mediatory vicars deputies and heads of the Head Iesus Christ and his Kingdom these are of his Body and subjects under the King and Mediator Christ the chiefe Head and King For it is not to be presumed that Christ will appoint these to be heads and vicars of his Body and little Kings over his Kingdom as he is Mediator who are not members of his Church nor subjects of his mediatory Kingdom But Magistrates as Magistrates are not members of his Church nor subjects of his mediatory Kingdom no more then Husbands as Husbands Fathers as Fathers are members and their should have been Husbands and Fathers though the Lord Iesus never had been Mediator advocate and Priest of a redeemed Church Obj. But are Pastors and teachers and Elders as such members of the Christian Church Ans If eyes and ears be members of the body and watchmen members of the city then are they ex officio by their office members of the Church But if the Magistrate as a Magistrate be a member of the Church then all Magistrates Heathen and Turkish are members of the Christian Church ex officio by vertue of their office Arg. 7. That opinion is not to be holden which layeth ground that Christ Mediator is a temporary King hath under him Magistrates even heathenish who have nothing to do with a Mediator to bear a temporall sword for a supernaturall and spirituall end as Christâ— under heires he himselfe being the first heir of all such and so maketh heathens within the verge of the mediatory Kingdom as if Christ were as Mediator a King to Heathen and all and every one of mankind who must have Magistrates and so maketh the Kingdome of men as men and the Kingdom of Grace commensurable and of alike latitude and extension and maketh nature and grace of equall comprehension But such is the former opinion the proposition cannot be denied except by Arminians Socinians Papists who do maintain an universall redemption a grace universall a Catholick Kingdom of Grace comprehensive of all and every man of Pharoah Evil merodach Belshazer all the Kings of Romans Persians Assyrians Chaldeans and of Turk India and such as worship the Sunne and Moon the Devil and the work of mens hands The assumption is granted by Master Coleman who saith Christ is the rightfull King of the whole earth he meaneth Christ as Mediator to whom the Father hath given a Kingdom Obj. Doth not Christ as King make all
the civil Magistrate may lawfully dispence the Word and Sacraments 4. They never condemned the Discipline of Geneva Erastus doth 5. They acknowledge there was in the apostolick Church an Ecclesiastical Senate or Presbytery Erastus saith this is a devise wanting Scripture 6. They denied Excommunication to be exercised by all the Church as a devise of the Anabaptists Bullinger saith 1 Cor. 5. a dilectis ad hoc hominibus Erastus saith it must be exercised by the whole Church if there be any such thing 7. Bullinger and Gualther think that Discipline is necessary in the Church Erastus refuseth any such thing 2. Bullinger and Gualther do think that the Lords Supper which is an action of publike thanksgiving and communion should not be turned into a punishment which is a Use that Christ and his Apostles hath not taught us But this is easily answered 1. The pearls and holy things of the Gospel are not turned into another Vse then Christ hath ordained because they are denied to dogs and swine as a punishment of their swinish disposition and if these pearls were given to swine should they not be turned to another Use then is ordained by Christ Is not the union of members in a Church-body a sweet bound is this communion translated to a bastard end unknown to Christ and the Apostles because the incestuous man is cast out of that Communion This is as who would say the Table of the House is a symbol of a sweet Communion of all the children of the House Ergo the Table is turned from its native Use and is abused if a flagitious and wicked son be turned out at the doors and removed from the Table I think the contrary is true the Lords Table ordained for children is converted into an Use not known to Christ and his Apostles when the Table is prepared for dogs and swine and this argument is against Christ Mat. 7. as much as against us 2. By this the excommunicated cast out of the House is not debarred from the Table of the House What sense is here the offender is cast out from amongst the children of the Lords family and yet is admitted to the Table of the family 3. These great Divines teach that in the dayes of Christ and the Apostles there was such an ordinance as excommunication and that the Church who worketh not miracles for any thing that we read and received a precept from the Holy Ghost for Excommunication as a moral and perpetual mean to remove scandals to humble and shame an obstinate offender to preserve the Church from contagion and to edifie all as is clear Mat. 18. 15 16 17 18 19. 1 Cor. 5. 1 2 3 4 5 6. 2 Thes 3. 14 15. Rom. 16. 17. 2 Cor. 10. 8. that the Church I say or men must be wiser then Christ and remove this mean of edification and substitute the sword of the Magistrate that hath no activity or intrinsecal influence for such a supernatural end as edification this cannot but be a condemning of the lawgiver Christs wisdom Whereas Mr. Prinne and others say that by the preaching of the Word not by Church-discipline men are converted to Christ as witnesse the many thousands of godly people in England where there have been no government but prelatical I answer 1. This is to dispute against the wisdom of Christ who ascribeth to private rebukes and Church censures the gaining of souls the saving of the spirit repentance and humiliation Mat. 18. 15 16. 1 Cor. 5. 5 6. 2 Cor. 2. 6 7 8 9. 2 Thes 3. 14 15. Rom. 16. 17. 2 Cor. 10. 8. because preaching is more effectual Ergo is the Discipline not effectual 2. Consider if thousands more would not have been converted if Christs Government had been set up for which Mr. Cartwright Mr. Vdal Mr. Dearing and the godliest did supplicate the Parliament 3. Consider if there hath not been in Scotland as many thousands comparing the numbers rightly when the Church was terrible as an Army with Banners 4. Consider how the Tigurine Churches and others for want of the hedge have been scandalously wicked 5. The Magistrate by punishing drunkennesse or fornication or extortion for he cannot take away the life for these doth not keep the lump of the whole Church from being leavened and infected with the contagion of such The Church by removing and casting out such an one must do that and the personal separating from such as walk inordinately cannot be an act of the Magistrate and yet cannot but be a perpetual and moral mean or ordinance that the Church is to use not only when they have not a Christian Magistrate but perpetually for we are to withdraw from those that walk inordinately and are not to be corrupted with having intire fellowship with wicked men whether the Church have a Christian Magistrate or no I am to gain my brother by rebuking and by telling the Church and to esteem one that heareth not the Church as an Heathen or a Publican that I may gain him Whether there be a Christian or an Heathen Magistrate in the Church except it can be proved that the Magistrate as the Magistrate is to gain souls to God Yea Musculus Bullinger and Gualther have alike reason to say there is no need that we rebuke privately a trespasing brother and that we forgive him seven times a day when the Church hath a Christian Magistrate as they can say there is no need of Excommunication for if the sword can supply the room of one spiritual ordinance of God why not of another also and the text will bear us out as well to say we are not to eschew the company of a scandalous brother for shaming of him and for the danger of being leavened by him because the Magistrates sword may supply the want of that mean of edifying as well as it may supply the want of Excommunication Yea they may say there is no need of publike rebukes by the Word the sword may supply these also The Helvetian Conâ—ession is approved by the Tygurine Pastors by the Divines of Berne Basil Geneva Deus ad colligendam vel constituendam sibi Ecclesiam eamque gubernandam et conservandam semper usus est Ministris Ministrorum virga institutio functio vetustissima ipsius Dei est non nova non hominum est ordinatiâ— cumque omninò oporteat esse in Ecclesia disciplinam et apud veteres quondam usitata fuerit excommunicatio fuerint que judicia Ecclesiastica in populo Dei in quibus per viros prudentes et pios ipsisimum presbyterium exercebatur disciplina Ministorum quoque fuerit ad edificationem disciplinam moderari c. Magistratus officium praecipuâ—m est pacem et tranquillitatem publicam procurare et conservare Gallica Confessio the 29. Credimus veram Ecclesiam gubernari debere eâ politiâ sive disciplinâ quam D. N. I. C. sanciviâ— ita ut viz. in ea sâ—nt pastores presbyteri sive
have equitie or goodnesse from Humane Authoritie and I never contemn Humane Authoritiâ— except I contemn the just Laws made by Humane Authoritie Object Of things alike lawful and convenient for example sitting at the Lords Table or not sitting we are bound to the one rather then to the other for lawful Authorities command for conveniency and goodnesse in external circunistances standeth not in such an indivisible point but there may be circumstances good better and best a gesture a day a habit may be so good and convenient as another gesture another day another habit are as good and convenient in which case either no habit no day no gesture at all shall be in Gods Worship which were impossible else of two Circumstances both of three degrees of goodnesse one shall be chosen by the sole Will of Authority and so people must follow one order rather then another as good for the sole Will of Authority without any prevalent reason in the thing commanded Answ 1. In such a case as that where two Circumstances both of three degrees of goodnesse occurreth Rulers can reasonably tie people to neither but leave it alternatively to their liberty for why should liberty be restrained where necessity of order and deceney doth not necessitate the Rulers will 2. In such a case the Rulers will as will should not be the formal cause why one is enacted rather then another but the Rulers will led by a reason from conveniency and so there were a prevalent reason for the one rather then the other 3. I deny that such a Metaphysical case of two things every way of alike conveniency can fall out as the matter of a grave and weighty Church-constitution For natures Light rules of Prudence Prety Charity and Sobriety shall ever finde out and discover an exsuperancy of goodnesse and conveniency of one above another 4. Granting there be three degrees of goodnesse and conveniency in fitting and two degrees of goodnesse and conveniency in kneeling in this case the object necessitateth the Rulers will to command fitting and refuse kneeling 1. Because good being the formal object of a reasonable Will in both Rulers and people that which partaketh more of the nature of Good is first to be chosen Ergo The Rulers will is determinated and morally necessitated to a circumstance of three degrees before a circumstance of two degrees and we obey for the goodnesse of the thing commanded and not for the will of the Rulers 2. If people obey and so embrace a Circumstance of two degrees and refuse a convenient circumstance of three degrees they either make this choice for the goodnesse and conveniency of the Circumstance or for the meer Will of Authority the former cannot be said because of two Goods known to be so the one of three degrees and the other of two degrees the Will cannot reasonably choose the lesse good because a lesse good known as a lesse good is evil and the Will cannot reasonably choose known evil A lesse good is a good with a defect and so morally evil if then Rulers cannot choose evil they cannot reasonably command others to choose it if the latter be said the choice of people is reasonlesse and their conscience resteth upon the meer Will of Authority which is slavish obedience How are we then bidden try all things Object In matters plainly determined by Scripture Rulers are to follow the Word of God but in matters circumstantial or indifferent where Scripture saith neither for the one side nor for the other what Rulers thinketh good is to be followed there being no evil nor impiety in that which they command Answ 1. This is to make Rulers in matters of Salvation lyable to the Scriptures of God but in matters which men call indifferent to make them Popes and to hang our consciences upon their sleeve which is most absurd 1. Because Paul in matters most indifferent of dayes and meats would not have the Romans to hang upon his judgement but will rule both their practice and his own by the Law of nature Murther not Scandalize not 2. What Rulers thinketh good is not a rule for Constitutions and for peoples obedience in matters circumstantial but the rule of Rulers here in making Laws and of people in obeying Laws is goodnesse it self Order Decency aptitude to Edifie in things that they command for it were strange if in matters that they call of salvation not thoughts but the Word of God should rule and square Canon-makers but in matters indifferent their thoughts should be a Law 3. Scripture and the Law of nature and right reason which is a deduction from Scripture is able sufficiently in all Canous and Constitutions to regulate both Rulers and people and to determine what is conventent in Circumstances and the Lord here is an infallible Judge speaking in his Word as he is in all matters which they call Fundamental yea the Scripture shall be imperfect in the duties of the second Table if it do not determine what is active scandal or soul murther as it doth determine what is Idolatry what is lawful Worship A Dispute touching Scandall and Christian libertie Quest I. Concerning Scandall Whether or not Ceremonies and the use of things not necessarie in Gods worship when they Scandalize be unlawfull I Doe the more willingly enter this Dispute and with reverence to the more learned shall examine the Doctrine of the late Doctors of Aberdene in their Duplyes Because I occasioned their thoughts touching Scandall by a private dispute of the nature of Scandall which I undertooke while I was confined in Aberdene with one of the chief Doctors Our 10 Argument Ceremonies and things not necessarie in Gods worship fail against Charitie by the grievous cryme of Scandall The practice of things indifferent and not necessarie is then unlawfull when from thence ariseth the scandall or occasion of the ruine of ouâ— Brother But from the practice of Ceremonies and things not necessarie ariseth Scandall and occasion of the ruine of our brother Ergo the practice of such is unlawfull Observe our Argument leaneth on a ground given but not granted that the Ceremonies be indifferent though to us they be evill I prove the Proposition 1 Rom. 14. 14. I know and am perswaded by the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean of it selfe but to him that esteemeth anything unclean to him it is unclean V. 15. But if thy brother be grieved weakened in his Christian race Now walkest thou uncharitably destory not him with thy meat for whom Christ died 20. For meat destroy not the worke of God Then for crossing kneeling holy dayes destroy not him for whom Christ died 1 Cor. 8. 9. 1 Cor. 10. 28. So the brazen Serpent must be removed when it is a scandalous object of Idolatrie Ezra 8. 22. Ezra for feare of Scandall will not seeke a band of men of the King lest the King should believe the hand of God would not bee with his people
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
indifferent Ceremonies when they doe scandalize 2. Our argument is made against the practise of Ceremonies before they be enacted in a lawfull Assemblie if they be murthering of the weak before Pearth-Assemblie the will of Prelates yea and all the authoritie of men or Angels cannot make the practise of them to be no murther for mens will cannot make that which is sinne and guiltinesse before God to be no sinne but due obedience to the fift Commandement though the Doctors expresly say this Duplyers pag. 71. Sect. 44. But we with good warrant â—oe averre that the precept which fobiddeth the resisting of the civill power and in generall the denying of obedience to the lawfull commandements of our Superiors is of greater obligation then the precept of not scandalizing Their first reason I put in forme to them thus That is of greater obligation which commandeth acts edificative to all then that which commandeth acts edificative to some only for the good of all is to be preferred to the good of some particular persons and we are to have a greater care of the salvation of all then of some But the precept of obedience to Superiours is universall and commandeth the act of edifying all to wit obedience to Superiours and an act to eschew the scandall of all to wit disobedience But the precept of eschewing the scandall of some doth but edifie some only and not all Ergo c. Ans 1. It is soon proved by your learning for the precept of Gods law to eschew scandall to you is no precept and so of no obligation when Superiours command to scandalize so you may prove that snow is whiter then the raven when as the raven is not white at all I answer 2. That precept is of greater obligation that commandeth acts edificative to all then that which commandeth acts edificative to some It is true 1. if it be a lawfull command of God but the â—ssumption applyed to your purpose is most false the command to obey Prelates when they command things indifferent the obedience whereof doth culpably occasion the murthering of him for whom Christ died is not a commandement edificative to all yea it is a Commandement of acts destructive to the soules of all This Argument would have some colour if it were not a vaine begging of the question for they lay downe as confessed that the practise of Ceremonies from whence many soules are ruined is obedience and obedience to the fift Commandement This is to be proven and constantly denyed by us because disobedience to the sixth Commandement and murthering of our brother cannot be obedience to the fift Commandement Duplyers pag. 72. n. 50. The fift Commandement commeth neerer to the nature of pietie and religion contained in the first Table and the honouring of parents as your owne Aâ—â—â—sius saith by prophane authours is called by the name of religion and pietie 2. It is the ground of obedience sayeth Pareus to be given to all the rest of the precepts of the second Table 1. Because all societies Oeconomicke civill and Ecclesiasticke doe consist and are conserved by the subjection of â—nferiours to superiours 2. Our superiours are set over us to the end we may doe our dutie to all others Hence saith your owne Amesius Crymes which directly procure the perturbation confusion and eversion of societies are more grievous then the violation of the singular precepts and Dyonisius Bishop of Alexandria writing to Novatus saith Martyrdome suffered for eschewing of schisme is more glorious then Martyrdome for eschewing Idolatrie Ans You said before matters of Policie are not matters of faith Amesius is a Protestant writer in matters of faith by grant of all it is like then you terme â—mesius our owne not yours because he wrote against Arminians and Papists and so that Arminians and Papists are yours and Protestant Divines ours 2. We grant the precedencie and dignitie to the fift Commandement above the rest but your Ceremonies that break the sixth Commandement shall find no roome in the fift Commandement Cause the fift Commandement speak thus if you can Notwithstanding that crossing kneeling surplice humane holy dayes occasion the soule murther of him for whom Christ died yet we the Prelates command the practise of the foresaid Ceremonies as good and expedient for edification for our Commandement maketh the murthering of our brethren to be obedience to the fift Commandement But if Prelates may command that which would be otherwise without or before the Commandement spirituall murthering and scandalizing of our brother they may command also that which would be otherwise without or before their command adulterie against the seventh and theft against the eighth and perjurie and lying against the ninth Commandement and concupiscence against the tenth for the fift Commandement hath the precedencie before the seventh eighth ninth and tenth Commandements no lesse then before the sixth which forbiddeth the killing of our brothers soule 3. What Amesius and Parens saith doe well prove the dignitie of the fift Commandement above all the Commandements of the second Table but this is not to our purpose but every commandement of the fifth Commandement yea every commandement of the first Table is not above every commandement of the second Table The love of God is more then the love of our neighbour and the love of God should and doth command obedience to all the ten Commandements Deut. 30. 6. 7 8. Deut. 10. 12. Yet every duty and commandement that the love of God requireth of us as to offer sacrifice is not for that a greater commandement then every commandement of the second Table yea the taking of a sheepe out of a ditch on the Lords day commanded in the sixth Commandement is more then sacrifices commanded in the second Commandement as our Saviour saith Math. 12. v. 11 12. and though the fift Commandement be laid upon us as the fountaine and cause yea to this end that we should keepe all the rest as Divines say well Yet it followeth not that every commandement of the fift Commandement as when my father commandeth me to preach in a linnen Ephod and to cast a Character with my thumbe in the aire as crossing is shall be of more obligation then this commandement of God Thou shalt not destroy his soule for whom Christ died 4. It is false that denying of obedience to Pearth-Assemblie commanding indifferent straws and feathers as kneele to consecrated Bread the Image of Christ crucified doth directly procure the perturbation and confusion of humane societies as the Doctors saith There is great difference betwixt subjection to superiours and obedience to superiours When private men as the three Children will not bow to Nebuchadnezzars Image there is no confusion brought in for that if they had risen against the King in armes as Papists doe in Ireland against our King that is confusion and subverteth directly humane scocieties but to suffer punishment by Superiours is subjection to superiours as is cleare 1 Pet. 2. 17.
Church to a supernaturall happinesse nor can the Church be governed by the light of nature or by the rules of morall Philosophie or civill prudence or humane lawes as Cities Common-wealths and Kingdomes are 4. It is a rule in Circumstantials of worship because some time some thing as the Lord day is both worship and a Circumstantiall of worship but not properly a Circumstance in all these the Church as the Church must â—â—ir by the Word of God 3. What ever is in Rome in physicall or natural circumstances is not by us judged Popisâ—â— But what ever religious observance Symbolicall signe new worship such as â—renging to Bread Altars humane Festivals Surplice and the like that are neither things of nature nor 2. things of prudence and civill policie nor 3. Miraculous things nor 4. Things of art and science nor 5. meere Circumstances and yet are added to the worship of God not necessarie in themselves not warranted by Precept practice or promise in the word of God we take to be devised by the wil of men and if by Papists so much the more unlawfull and may well be tearmed Popish as Popish is contradistinguished from that which is â—ound and warranted by the Word and that which is not thus agreeable to the Word is repugnant thereunto and either Popish or worse or heathenish Hooker The question is whether wee may follow Rome in orders Rites and Ceremonies wherein we doe not thinke them blamable or else ought to devise others and to have no conformitie with Rome no not so much as in these Ans We never dreamed of such a Question it is as if one should have formed such a question to debate with Moses Whither may we follow Egypt and Canaan in rounding the corners of our head and cutting our flesh for the deaâ— in sowing oâ—r land with mingled seeds c. or ought we to devise others the like and have no Conformitie with them no not so much as in these Now Moses gave never leave to Israel to devise either these or any other the like The Question supposeth two things for granted which are plainly false 1. That if we may refuse Popish Ceremonies as scandalous because Papists devised them that therefore the worship of God hath need of other Symbolical and religious signes of the like nature which we ought to devise But the worship of God neither needeth these nor any Phylactaries of that kind 2. It supposeth we doe not thinke the Rites of Rome blamable this is a begging of the question for both we blame them as positive religious Rites beside and so contrary to the Word and because Romish and so in a high degree scandalous Hooker When Reason evicteth that all such Ceremonies are not to be abolished they answer they doe only condemne Ceremonies unprofitable or Ceremonies in stead whereof as good or better may be devised so they cannot get out of the Bryars Ans 1. Who answereth so Hooker should have knowne that if the Testament of Christ warrant not Ceremonies they and all their kind are unprofitable and to be abolished whither they lay in the wombe of the mother of â—ornications or be bastards of any other Mother 2. Yea we condemne all such Ceremonies because unnecessarie as devised by the will or lust of men for all necessatie and usefulnesse of positive religious and teaching observances is from the will of God And when he saith we condemne only all unprofitable Ceremonies wee are not in the briars for he saith his owne Ceremonies are unprofitable briars for we condemne them as unprofitable Chartwright that godly and learned witnesse of Jesus Christ from whom Hooker would bring this answer saith Popish Ceremonies are not to be used to adorne the worship when as good or better may be established But he meaned never that as good positive Symbolicall rites without the word of God can be lawfully devised at all this should have been proven from Cartwrights words But saith he we retaine these because we judge them profitable yea so good that if we had either simply taken them cleane away or else removed them so as to place others in their stead wee had done worse But who authorized them to sit judges the burden of proving them inconvenient lyeth on them Ans 1. It is a proud Reply Wee retaine popish Ceremonies because we judge them profitable where as the question is not what the Prelates who must bee called the Church judge them to be but what they are for it is a farre other question who should sit Judges though we can prove Christ never made Prelates at all and so he never made them judges and whether the Ceremonies be profitable or not When Prelates say we retaine Popish Ceremonies because we judge them profitable it is to say We judge Popish Ceremonies to be profitable because we judge them profitable For we say to retaine them is to passe a law and a judgement that they are profitable But our argument is against their judgeing them to be profitable and against their retaining them Might not Pharisees say as much Wee retaine the precepts and traditions of men used by our fathers because we judge them profitable and who authorized Christ and his Disciples to judge the Church the burden of proving them inconvenient lyeth on the Disciples Christ said their Ceremonies were the doctrines of men and so unlawfull and the like argument bring wee against the Ceremonies and so they must be unprofitable 2. If the Church make or retaine lawes beside and without the Word they are under the burden of proving them to be profitable for they affirme and affirmanti incumbit probatio for they ought to give another reason of their lawes then we judge We affirme it is Gods prerogative to say that 3. If Prelates should doe worse to have cleane removed these or brought others in their place Then must the Prelaticall Church be better then the Apostolike Church for they neither had these nor any in their stead except they make us see that Peter and Paul dispensed the Word and Sacraments clothed either with lineing Rochets and crossing the aire with the Thumbe or then they adorned Word and Sacraments with other the like mysticall Rochets or some merry toyes like crossing the aire with the Thumbe and if not they did worse then our Prelats who raise bloody warrâ—s in three Kingdomes for such fooleries and for an office which of old for shame had no kinred nor house but mans law jus humanum by their owne grant But that saith Hooker wherein the Israelitâ—â— might not be like to the Egyptians and Canaanites was such as peradventure as had beene no whitlesse unlawfull although those Nations had never been I would know what one thing was in these nations and is here forbidden being indifferent in it selfe yet forbidden only because they used it Ans This is not our argument I am not to say the only reason why the Lord forbade