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
supponit The Scripture saith not That the Worship of God must have a time a place when and where it s to be performed a person who is to perform it a habit or garments on the person that Worshippeth the Scripture teacheth none of these but supposeth that they are and must be because nature teacheth that without time place person habit gesture its unpossible that these or any humane actions can be and therefore Prelaticall Formalists do without all sense or reason require that we should prove by Scripture the lawfulnesse of time place person habit gesture in Gods Worship for these are presupposed in all actions Naturall Civill Religious Private Publike Lawfull unlawfull in acts of Arts Sciences of Morall conversing and all yea there is as good reason that they demand Scripture to prove he must be a living man who hath a reasonable soul and senses and is born of a woman who Preacheth and Administrateth Sacraments which is presupposed by nature When the Heretick willeth me to prove from Scripture that Christ is very man it is a vain thing he should demand of me beside to prove by Scripture that Christ is such a one also as can laugh weep admire sing sigh c. for these are presupposed to follow mans nature and if Scripture prove Christ to be a true man it presupposeth by natures light that he can laugh he can weep and that in some time some place in some habit in some gesture so he be a man for that is presupposed by the light of nature and known by the most Barbarous who never heard of Scripture and therefore there is no greater reason to put us to prove all the naturall and unseparable circumstances of Worship such as time and place without which it is impossible any action at all can be performed then that we should presse Prelats to prove by Scripture that Iames Vsher is born of English or Irish Parents for sense and nature can prove all these without Scripture But because their Ceremonies of Crossing bowing to Altars Festivall dayes Oyl Salt Spittle Masse clothes are nothing warrantable by natures light and must have Morall and Symbolicall influence in Worship as positive Religious observances having some spirituall signification and use except they be reasonlesse fancies we have just reason to demand a warrant and speciall Charter for all Morals and so for their Ceremonies in the Scripture and to call their c. humane Ceremonies and the like a blind For if Prelats can prove these Ceremonies to be from Christ and warranted by his Testament we shal yield that their natural circumstances of time when you should Bow to Altars and Crosse a Baptized Infant and where or in what place you should wear Surplice and that the person that useth Oyl Spittle Salt in Baptisme must do it in some habit and with some gesture either sitting standing lying or kneeling are all warrantable and lawfull from the light of nature for if Gods light of Scripture warrant wearing of a Surplice as it doth warrant Sacramentall eating and drinking the light of nature must warrant these concreated naturall and unseparable circumstances of time place person habit gesture used in both the former and the latter But because I said that circumstances of time and place have a threefold consideration Physicall Morall and Mixt and I have spoken onely of these circumstances in a Physicall or naturall consideration therefore in the other two considerations there being involved some Morall goodnesse and because there is no Morall goodnesse imaginable but it must have its essentiall form and being from a Law or word of God therefore all the former circumstances as they are clothed with either morall conveniency and expediency or with some Religious positive goodnesse must be warranted by the Word of God or the Rules of sinlesse and spirituall Prudence which cannot deviate from the word of God For circumstances clothed with Religious Positive goodnesse such as are the Sabbath day the holy of Holiest the Temple these are not meer circumstances but worship it self So a Religious habit as an Ephod or a Surplice is not a meer circumstance or a meer habit but a worship or such a part or limb of worship as must be warranted by the word of truth else it is nothing but a will-device and a forgery and so to be rejected And as touching things of Prudence they are things properly mixt as at what hour Sermon shall begin in such a Church at eight or nine or ten of the clock how the worship shall be ordered whether you should begin the Worship with a word of Prayer or a word of Praising or a word of Exhorting to stir up for the duty of the day is a matter of Prudence and because God hath not laid the band of a Precept on us to begin with either of the three therefore it would seem that though the things themselves be Morall and must be warranted by a Word of God yet the order is not Morall but Prudentiall and so cannot fall under a command of the Church for to me it is hard that men and the Church should lay on a tie or bond of a Precept where God hath laid on no such bond The Church in these mixt things where the Morality is not clear at farthest can but go on to directive advises as Paul doth 1 Cor. 7. 6. 12. Not to imposing of Laws nor to injunctions or Commandments under the pain of Church-censures for Christ must bind and ratifie in Heaven all Church-censures on earth and so the Church cannot command nor censure but as Christ himself would command or censure Now because the rest of the conclusion shall be farther cleared I prove that Christ hath so far forth set down a perfect Plat-form of Church-Government in the Scripture as he hath not given a liberty to Rulers Prelats or to the Church her self to set up a variable Plat-form sutable to their particular Civill Government Laws Manners and Customes 1 Arg. What ever maketh the man of God perfect thorowly furnished unto all good workes and is written for this end that any Timothy or Faithfull Pastor might know how he ought to behave himself in the House of God That must make the man of God perfect in this good work of holy walking as a perfect Governour or a perfect Church-member to be governed in all Morall acts of Discipline and godly behaviour according to the spirituall policie of the Lords house and so must hold forth a perfect Plat-form of Discipline which doth not varie ebbe and flow and alter according to the Civill Government Laws Manners and Customs of men But the Scriptures of God doth so instruct all Members of the visible Church both Governours and governed 2 Tim. 3. 16 17. 1 Tim. 3. 14 15. Ergo the Scripture must hold forth a perfect form of Discipline which doth not varie ebbe flow and alter according to the Civill Governments Laws Manners and Customes of men The
with the Church it followeth not that the binding of the Church is not a Church-binding as the binding of the two private men is also a binding but no publick no Church-binding 4. How shall Christs words keep either sense or Logick with the exposition of Erastus If he will not hear the Christian Magistrate complain to the Heathen Magistrate and again I say if the Lord hear two praying on earth far more will he ratifie in Heaven what a prophane Heathen Magistrate doth on earth against a Christian offender judge what sense is in this glosse Erastus hath no reason to divide these words ver 19. Again I say if two agree c. from ver 17. 18. Because they are meant of the Magistrate saith Erastus against all sense and joyne them to the words of the. 15. and 16. verses for there is no mention of binding and loosing by prayer ver 15 16. But only of rebuking and here Erastus shall be as far from keeping his proportion of rebuking and praying as he saith we do keep proportion between Church-sentencing and praying To Theophylact Chrisostom and Augustine Beza answered well and Erastus cannot reply 6. If there be binding and loosing between brother and brother in the first and second Admonition before the cause be brought to the Church what need is there of binding the man as a Heathen before the Heathen Magistrate And what need of the Heathen Magistrates prayer to binde in Heaven Was there ever such Divinity dreamed of in the world Erastus These words Tell the Church prove only that the Church hath the same povver to rebuke the injurious man that a private man hath this then is poor reason The Church hath power to rebuke an offender Ergo it hath power to Excommunicate him Ans All know that Christ ascendeth in these three steps 2. Erastus granteth the cause is not brought to the Church but by two or three witnesses which is a judiciall power as in the Law of Moses and in all Laws is evident if he hear not a brother he is not to be esteemed as a Heathen and a Publican but if he hear not the Church he is to be reputed so 3. We reason never from power of rebuking to the power of Excommunication but thus The Church hath power to rebuke an offender and if he will not hear the Church then is the man to thee that is to all men as a Heathen and a Publican Ergo The Church hath power to Excommunicate Erastus Christ speaketh of the Church that then was How could he bid them go to a Church that was not in the world they having heard nothing of the constitution of iâ— did he bid them erect a new frame of Government not in the world Ans He could as well direct them to remove scandals for time to come as he could after his Resurrection say Mat. 28. 19 20. Go teach and baptize all Nations which commandment they were not presently to follow but Act. 1. 4. to stay at Jerusalem and not To teach all Nations while the Holy Ghost should come I ask of Erastus how Christ could lay a Ministery on his Disciples which was not in the world What directions doth Christ Mat. 24. and Luk. 21. give to his Church and Disciples that they had not occasion to obey many years after is how they should behave themselves when they should be called before Kings and Rulers 2. Nor were the Apostles who were already in the room of Priests and Prophets to Teach and Baptize he after being to institute the other Sacrament to wonder at a new forme already half instituted and which differed not in nature from the former Government save that the Ceremonies were to be abolâ—shed Erastus Only Matthew mentioneth this pretended new institution not Luke not Mark the Disciples understood him well they aske no questions of him as of a thing unknown only Peter asked how often he should forgive his brother Ans This wil prove nothing Iohn hath much which we believe with equall certainty of Faith as we do any Divine institutions shall therefore Erastus call the turning of water into wine the raising of Lazarus The healing of the man born blinde and of him that lay at the Pool of Bethesda Christs heavenly Sermons Ioâ— cap. 14. 15 16. his prayer cap. 17 which the other Evangelists mention not Fiâ—menâ—a hominum mens fancies as he calleth Excommunication 2. Did the Disciples understand well the dream that Erastus hath on the place and took they it as granted that to tell the Church is to tell the civill Magistrate And that not to hear the Church is civill Rebellion and to be as a Heathen is to be impleaded before Cesar or his Deputies only This is a wonder to me Matthew setteth up this way an institution of all Church-Government which no Evangelist no word in the Old or New Testament establisheth Erastus Christ would not draw his disciples who were otherwise most observant of the Law from the Synedry then in use to a new Court where witnesses are led before a multitude and sentences judicially set up it had been much against the Authority of the civil Magistrate and a scandall to the Pharisees and the people had no power in Christs time to choose their own Magistrate therefore he must mean the Jewish Synedry If by the Church we understand the multitude we must understand such a multitude as hath power to choose such a Senate but there was no such Church in the Jews at this time Ans That the Church here is the multitude of Believers men women and children is not easily believed by us 2. And we are as far from the dream of a meer civill Synedry which to me is no suitable mean of gaining a soul to Christ which is our Saviours intention in the Text. 3. Erastus setteth up a christian Magistrate to intercept causes and persons to examine rebuke lead witnesses against a Iew before ever Cesar their only King of the Iews or his Deputies hear any such thing this is as far against the only supream Magistrate and as scandalous to the Pharisees as any thing else could be 4. Had not Iohn Baptist and Christs disciples drawn many of the Iews and Profylites to a new Sacrament of Baptisme and to the Lamb of God now in his flesh present amongst them this was a more new Law then any Ordinance of Excommunication was especially since this Church was not to be in its full constitution till after the Lords Ascension Erastus It is known this anedrim delivered Christ bound unto Pilate condemned Steven commanded the Apostles to be scourâ—eâ— and put in Prison Tertullins saith of Paul before Felix we would have judged him according to our Law Paul said Act. 23. to Ananiâ—s thou sittest to judge me according to the Law Act. 26. Pâ—ul confesseth before Agrippa and Festus that he obtained power from the high Priests to hale to prison and beat the Christians and
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
others seemeth better to me who deny that the least veniall should be committed to eschew a greater sinne 6. Rule There is a principle obligation a lesse principle a least principle Hence these three degrees issue from love 1. God 2. Our selves 3. Our Neighbour The love of God is most principle and is the measure of the love of our selves the love of our selfe is lesse principall then the love of God and so the obligation lesse I am to make away life and all things yea eternall glory as devided from holinesse and as it includeth only happinesse rather ere I sinne against God The obligation to care for my owne salvation is more principall then my obligation to care for the salvation of my Brother for the love of my selfe is the measure and rule of the love of my Neighbour Now because the obligation of caring for the soule of my brother is only secondarie in compare of the obligation of caring for my owne salvation I am not to sinne my selfe or sinfully to omit any thing that is commanded me in a positive precept to prevent the sinne of my brother Yet hence it doth not follow that a positive Precept is more excellent then the law of Nature which is Thou shalt not murther nor scandalize him for whom Christ died Because though to care for the soule of my brother be of the law of nature simpliciter yet is a secondarie obligation and may cease and yeeld to a stronger obligation that tyeth me more principally to care for my owne soule for though the Command be positive yet knowingly to sinne by a sinfull omission is no lesse a destroying of my owne soule and so of the law of nature in a higher obligation then the other is 7. The Jesuits and Popish Doctors as they are of a large conscience in many things so in the doctrine of scandall to extoll obedience to men so high as we may doe things in themselves not necessarie yea that hath no necessitie but from the will of Commanders And Formalists in this conspire with them even though from this doe flow the ruine of many soules and though the sinfull scandalizing and ruine of these soules flow from sinfull corruption of either ignorance or frailtie or wilfulnesse or malice yet the scandall ceaseth not to flow kindly from the pretended obedience to an unlawfull command for the thing commanded having no Necessitie but the will of man is unlawfull and it is no good reason to say Men are scandalized through their owne ignorance and Malice Ergo the scandall is taken and not given for these who were enemies to the Truth and were so scandalized at Davids murthering of Uriah and Adulterie 2 Sam. 12. 14. as they were by him occasioned to blaspheme Certaine their actuall scandall was from their owne corruption But what Ergo it was not also from Davids murther and adulterie and ergo it was a scandall only taken by the enemies not given by David Surely it solloweth not You may hence judge of the Rule of Lodo Caspensis a Capucean These saith he that doe a worke of it selfe indifferent for a weightie cause and use their owne right â—tutaâ—tur suo jure are excused from mortall sinne as these who lett a house to Whores and publick Usurers that are not strangers though they may commodiously lett it to others they doe not cooperate with sinne because the house it but a place and extrinsecall and remote to the sinne So Christians taken by Turkes for danger of their life which is a weighty necessitie may furnish instruments necessarie for warre against Christians because they doe a worke indifferent of it selfe for a just cause so may a servant convey his Master to a Whore yea and make the Bed for a Concubine and open the doore and if his Master be to climbe in at a window to a whore he may lift up his foot or reach him a ladder Why the servant saith he useth his owne right in doing a worke of it selfe indifferent Uâ—itur suo jure faciens opus exse indifferens modo non placeat ei peccatum A. But sure all out jus and right that men have over their houses and that Captives and servants have to their Masters and Lords is jus limitatum a right ruled limited bounded by the word of God nor is the worke they performe morally indifferent physically it is and Captive Christians if for danger of their life they may prepare necessary instruments of warre against Christians they may kill Christians also for what power the conquering Lords have over Captives to command them to prepare fire and sword against the innocent witnesses of Jesus Christ because they are such the same jus right have they to command to kill the innocent But for no cause the most weighty can we choose either to shed innocent blood or to co-operate with the shedding of it nor to co-operate with the works of darknes for it is shamefull that a servant may lawfully co-operate with and thrust his master in at a window to goe to a whore the jus or dominion of Masters to command and the right of servants to obey is only in the Lord. Yea to kill a man is Physically indifferent for that is physically yea morally without relation to any law indifferent which is capable of lawfulnesse or unlawfulnesse according as it shall bee commanded of or forbidden by God But for a man to kill his son is of it selfe such certaine if God command a Judge to kill his son it is lawfull for the father to kill his son if the Lord forbid Abraham to kill his son it is unlawfull for Abraham to kill his son And therefore Caspensis hath no more reason to use the Instance of captives preparing warre against innocent Christians and of a servant thrusting his Master in at doore or window to a whore then of captives killing the innocent or of servants breaking a house and taking away the goods of a man in the night or of servants committing whoredome at the command of their Conquerors or Lords the one kinde of action in it selfe is as indifferent and susceptible of morall lawfulnesse and unlawfulnesse as the other And if the Master doe co-operate to commit harlotrie in climbing in at a window to a whore and to robbing in digging thorow an innocent mans house in the night to kill the Master of the house and to steale his goods then the servant that co-operateth in these same physicall actions and also diggeth thorow the innocent mans house and kills himselfe is the harlot and the robber by cooperation and participation no lesse then the Master The naked relation of a captive and of a servant cannot make the captive and servant innocent and guiltlesse co-operators for then to sinne at the command of any Conqueror and Master because I am in the condition of a captive and servant were lawfull though God forbid and inhibite me to doe what I doe by the
THE DIVINE RIGHT OF Church-Government AND Excommunication OR A peaceable DISPUTE for the perfection of the holy Scripture in point of Ceremonies and Church-Government IN WHICH The removal of the Service-book is justifi'd The six Books of Tho Erastus against Excommunication are briefly examin'd with a Vindication of that eminent Divine Theod Beza against the Aspersions of Erastus The Arguments of Mr. William Pryn Rich Hooker Dr. Morton Dr. Jackson Dr. John Forbes and The Doctors of Aberdeen Touching Will-worship Ceremonies Imagery Idolatry Things Indifferent An Ambulatory Government The due and just Power of the Magistrate in matters of Religion and The Arguments of Mr. Pryn in so far as they side with Erastus are modestly discussed To which is added A brief Tractate of SCANDAL with an Answer to the new Doctrine of the Doctors of Aberdeen touching Scandal By SAMUEL RUTHERFURD Professor of Divinity in the University of St. Andrews in Scotland Not by might nor by power but by my Spirit saith the Lord of hosts Zach. 4. 6. Veritas claudi ligari potest vinci non potest Hieronymus comment ad Ierem. in Prefati ad Eusebium Occultari ad tempus potest veritas vinci non potest florere potest ad tempus iniquitas per manere non potest Augustinus ad Psal 61. Published by AUTHORITY London Printed by JOHN FIELD for Christopher Meredith at the Crane in Pauls Church yard MDCXLVI TO The Right Honorable and Noble Lord The EARL of LOVDEN Chancellor of Scotland AND Chancellor of the University of St. Andrews Grace Mercy and Peace RIGHT HONORABLE AS Jesus Christ the wonderful the Counsellor the mighty God driveth on his great State-design in the whole Earth and now in these Kingdoms to to save an afflicted people to dye his Garments in the blood of his Enemies and to build the Tabernacle of God amongst men and cause the wildernes blossome as a Rose that the glory of Lebanon and the excellency of Carmel and Sharon may in a spiritual manner be given to Zion So he still acteth in his own sphere of Righteousnes and all inferior wheels in their revolutions move toward his most eminent end for the Courtiers and Royal Attendants of his Throne are Righteousnes and Judgement And he desireth that the motions and wayes of his people may be concentrick to his own heart and move in the same Orb with himself we must either walk or be drawn to the end of Jesus Christ his end cannot come down and comply with our policy When men go with one head and two faces and two hearts Providence can beguil them we are then safe and do sail at the Haven of the Sea when we walk with God and our way draweth a straight line to the heart of Jesus Christ These two Kingdoms have before them an end the Covenant to be a people to God this we did Swear with our Hands lifted up to the most High the stones of the field shall witnes against us and the Sword of the Lord avenge the quarrel of his Covenant if we dally with the Lord as if the Vow of God that the Lord may be one and his Name one in both Kingdoms had been on us when we were low only and our Oath had a date only till the Year 1645. and then our Vow must exspire as did the Law of shaddows when the Body Jesus Christ came As successe is a poor and waxy Kalender for Religion so the low condition of our Kingdom I hope shall not move us to forsake the Lords cause or to blame God because good causes have sometimes sad events for beside that Heathens said that God cannot erre because Marius ex culpâ gloriam reportavit Marius was made glorious by ill-doing and one hath a Crosse another a Kings Crown for a reward of wickednesse we know that God however it be is good to Israel If that which was intended for Vnion shall by mens wickednesse turn to a sad Division between the Kingdoms I shall believe that the truly Godly of either Kingdoms can scarce be capable of such bloody intentions as shall leave a Legacy of perpetuated blood to the Posterity and sure though for the present guiltinesse strength prevail yet habent Deum ultorem men on Earth cannot long be strong against Vengeance from Heaven As successe doth inebriate so extremity of a low condition is a wicked Counsellor and evil Iealousie as Hell thinketh alwayes evil All whose bowels are moved for the Desolation Graves multiplied Widows and Orphans of both Kingdoms will not dare Judgement from the Almighty being a terrour to them to adde affliction to the people of God already afflicted Blessed shall they be of the Lord who mediate for preventing of National ruptures and for the continuance of the Brotherly Covenant Christ Jesus is a uniting Saviour one God one Faith one Lord Jesus one Religion should be and I beseech the God of Peace they may be Chains of Gold to tie these tipo Nations and Churches together in uno tertio that they may be concentered and united in one Lord Jesus O that that precious Dew of Hermon that showers of Love and Peace may lie all the night upon the Branches of the two Olive Trees that the warmnesse heat and influence of one Sun of Righteousnesse with healing in his wings may make the Lilly amongst the Thorns the Rose of Sharon that is planted by the Lord the Spouse of Jesus Christ in both Kingdoms to spred its Root and cast its Smell as green and flourishing to all the Nations round about The Kingdom of God is Peace The Lord is about a great work in Britain why should Divisions that proceed from the lusts of men and the enemies of the Lord retard the wheels of the Chariot of Christ Let us not water the Lilly with blood again The Sons of Babel have shed our blood in great abundance for the which doth the Church of God in the three Kingdoms stand and Pray and Prophecy in sackcloth The violence done to me and to my flesh be upon Babylon shall the Inhabitants of Zion say And my blood upon the Woman arrayed in Purple and Scarlet the Mother of Harlots and Abominations of the Earth shall Ierusalem say Happy we if we could for the second Temple builded and the Lord repairing the old waste places and the Gentiles beholding the Righteousnesse of the Elder Sister the Church of the Jews and both as a Crown of Glory in the hand of the Lord and as a Royal Diadem in the hand of our God I shall not need I hope either of an Apology for Intituling this Piece such as it is others can and I hope will adde riper Animadversions to Erastus to Your Honours Name or of a word of incitement that Your Lordship co-operate with Your serious Endeavours for a right understanding between both Kingdoms and for the carrying on the work of the right arm of the Lord the Lords creating of
glory on every Assembly on Mount Zion for we are witnesses of Your Honours Travels for both that glory may dwell in our Land Your Honours at all respective observance in the Lord S. R. To the Ingenuous and Equitable Reader IT lieth obvious to any ordinary underderstanding worthy Reader that as alwayes we see a little portion of God so now the Lord our God in his acting on Kingdoms and Churches maketh Darknesse his Pavilion to finde out the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Demonstrative Causes and true Principles of such bloody conclusions and horrible vastations as the Soveraign Majesty of Heaven and Earth hath made in Germany Bohemiah and the Palatinate as if they were greater sinners then we are and why the windows of Divine Justice have been opened to send down such a deluge of blood on Ireland and why in Scotland the Pestilence hath destroyed in the City and the Sword of the Lord not a few in the fields their Lovers and Friends standing aloof from their calamities is from the Lord who is wonderful in Counsel but to finde reasons to quiet the understanding is not an easie scrutiny matters are rolled on invisible wheels It is enough to us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no Men no Angels can hunt out the tracings of Divine Providence Nor can we set a day of Law nor erect a Court to implead this Lord who is not holden in Law to answer for any of his matters It were our wisdom to acknowledge that the actions of our Lord ad extrà are so twisted and interwoven thred over thred that we can see but little of the walls and out-works of his unsearchable counsels sure Divine Providence hath now many irons in one fire and with one touch of his finger he stirtâ—â—h all the wheels in Heaven and Earth I speak this if happily this little piece may cast it self in the eye of the Noble and Celebrious Judges and Senators who now sit at the â—eâ—m for I hope they consider it is but a short and sorry Line or rather a poor Circle Job 1. 21. Gen. 3. 19. between the Womb and the Grave between Dust and Dust and that they then act most like themselves Psal 82. 6. I have said ye are Gods when they remember they are sinful men and when they reckon it for gain that the King of Ages gives them a Diurnal of 24 hours to build the House of the Lord to cause the heart of a Widow Church though her Husband live for evermore to sing for joy and are eyes to the blinde and legs to the lame and withall do minde that when the Spirit is within half a Cubit or the sixth part of a Span to Eternity and Death cannot adjouâ—n for six hours to repent or do any more service to Christ in the body the welcom and testimony of God shall be incomparably above the Hosanna's of men Undeniable it is that we destroy again what we have builded if we behead the Pope and divest him of his Vicarious Supremacy and soader the Man of Sins head in the Ecclesiastical Government to the shoulders of any Man or Society of men on Earth It is not an enriching spoyl to pluck a Rose or Flower from the Crown of the Prince of the Kings of the Earth Diamonds and Rubiâ—s picked out of the Royal Diadem of Jesus Christ addeth but a poor and sorry Lustre to Earthly Supremacy it is Baldnesse in steaâ— of Beauty An Arbitrary power in any whether in Prince or â— relats is intolerable Now to cast ouâ— Domination in one and to take it in in another is not to put away the Evil of our doings but to Barter and Exchange one sin with another and mockingly to expiate the Obligation of one Arrear to God by contracting new Debt Again how glorious is it that Shields of the Earth lay all their Royalty and Power level with the dust before him that sitteth on the Throne and to make their Highnesse but a Scaffold to heighten the Throne of the Son of God Yea if Domination by the Sword be the Magistrates Birth-right as the Word of Truth teacheth us Luke 22. 25 26. Psal 82. 1 6. Rom. 13. 4. and the Sword can never draw blood of the Conscience It is evident that the Lord Jesus alloweth not Carnal weapons to be used within the walls of his Spiritual Kingdom and if Power be an enchanting Witch and like strong Drink which is dolosus luctator a cosening Wrestler we are to be the more cautelous and circumspect that it incroach not upon Jesus Christ for fear that we provoke the eyes of his glory and cause Jerusalem to be plowed and Zion become heaps and many houses great and fair desolate Let the Appeal be to the Spirit that speaketh to the Churches in the Word The Golden Reed can measure every Cubit of the Temple as well the outer Porch as the Holy of Holiest and all the dimensions the length and bredth of the City which is named 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Lord is there If the Scripture be no Rule of Church Government but the Magistrates Sword be upon the shoulders of Christ as the prime Magistrate we come too near to the Jewish Earthly and Temporary Mesâ—iah And if Excommunication and Censures and that Ministerial Governing which was undeniably in the Apostolick Church be Fictions we are in the dark I confesse we know not whether the Vessels of the House should be of Gold and Silver or if they should be but Earthen Pitchers It is said That all this is but a Plea for a Dominion of an higher Nature even over the Consciences of men by Censures But why a Dominion Because a power of Censures Surely if they were not Spiritual Censures and such as hath influence on the Conscience we should yield a Domination were the businesse But this power of Censuring Spiritually is as strong as Authoritative in Dispensing Rebukes Threats Gospel-charges and Commands in the Word Preached as in Censures The power is Ministerial only in the Word not Lordly and why should it be deemed a Dominion and an Arbitrary power in the one and not in the other If the will of the Magistrate may carve out any Government that seems good to him and the Word of God in this plea be laid aside as perfect in Doctrine but imperfect and uselesse in Government we fall from the Cause But if the Word of God stand as a Rule in matters of Church-Government then the Question is only on whose shoulders the Ark should be carried and by whose Ministery doth Jesus the Lord and King of the House punish if I may use this word Scandalous men And whether doth the Head of the Church Christ in laying Judgement to the Line and Righteousnesse to the Plummet use the Magistrates Sword for a Spiritual and Supernatural end of the Service and Ministery of his Church or doth he send Pastors and Teachers as his Ambassadors for this end But if you were not
Manners of Nations except they mean sinfull Customes as Sacramentall eating and drinking And the like may be said of all the alterable Ceremonies sometimes in use in England and now in force amongst Papists 3. Arg. That Commandement which Timothy is â—o keep without spot unrebukeable untill the appearing of our Lord Iesus Christ 1 Tim. 6. 13. is no alterable command that falleth and riseth with the Customes Civill Laws and Manners of men But Paul commandeth under that every Positive Law of Church-Discipline to be thus kept of which he speaketh in these Epistles to Timothy Mr. Hooker denyeth the assumption For Paul saith he restraineth the words to one speciall Commandment amongst many and therefore it is not said keep the Ordinances Laws Constitutions which thou hast received but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that great Commandment which doth principally concern thee and thy calling that Commandment that Christ did so often inculcate unto Peter Feed my sheep and that Act. 20. Attend to your selves and all the flock c. And that 2 Tim. 4. 1. I charge thee in the sight of God c. Preach the word and teach the Gospel without mixture c. And these words till the appearance of Christ doth not import the time wherein it should be kept but rather the time whereunto the finall reward for keeping it was reserved according to that henceforth is laid up for me a crown of Righteousnesse It doth not import perpetuall observation of the Apostles Commandment for it bindeth not to the Precept of choosing of Widows as the Adversaries grant We do not deny but certain things were Commanded to be though Positive yet perpetuall in the Church Ans 1. If Paul restrain this to one speciall Commandment sure it is so generall and comprehensive a Commandment of feeding the Flock as taketh in all the speciall Positive Commandments belonging to feeding by both Word and Discipline which is enough for the perpetuity of all Positive precepts of Discipline and Policie even till Christs appearance to judge the world and I wonder that Hooker expoundeth this by 2. Tim. 4. 1. As if Paul did mean the precept of Preaching only and that soundly and without mixture and yet passe by the Parallel place 1 Tim. 5 21. Aâ—lmostin the same stile of Language in which place he speaketh of many speciall Positive precepts and Rules of Policie as of poor widows the Almes to be given to them the not rebuking of an Elder the office of Elders Governing and of Elders labouring in the Word and Doctrine the not receiving an accusation against an Elder but under two or three Witnesses the publike rebuking of those who offend publikely the not admitting to the Ministry raw and green souldiers not tryed and many other particulars of Policie of all which he saith gravely v. 21. I charge thee before God and the Lord Iesus Christ and the Elect Angels that thou observe these things c. Certainly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these things was not one Commandment but all the precepts of Faith and of Church-Government spoken of in this Epistle and truly â— shall think that Paul who particularâ—zâ—th that Timothy should not drink water but a little wine because of his infirmity and of bringing with him the cloak that he left at Troas and the parchments 2 Tim. 4 doth far more specâ—fiâ— all the positives of policie and writ how all the Timothies and Pastors are to behave themselves in the Church of God If Ceremonies and all these alterable trifles had not been excluded out of the Platforme for a Religious Masse-Surplice is of far more consequence then Pauls old cloak and yet Paul spake of the one in Canonick-Scripture never of the other and Oyle Spittle Salt Crosse in Baptisme being positive significant Rites and having continued in the Church so many hundred years should far rather have been specified in Scripture then Timothies drinking of water yea and if all the alterable positive things of Policy as Crosse Surplice be commanded as necessary in the generall though not in this or that particular as Hooker and other Formalists do teach then sure the meaning must be I give to thee O Timothy charge in the sight of God who quickeneth all things and before Christ Jesus c. That thou keep this Commandment of Crossing Surplice bowing to Altars of corner-Cap or of the equivalent of these without spot irrebukeable to the appearance of Jesus Christ for the precept of feeding the Flock must include all these and though Ceremonies in particular be alterable and not commanded in Hythothesie yet that in generall there should be such positive Ceremonies is necessary and the Apostle say they commandeth them 1 Cor. 14. 40. Yea as Dunam saith humane Holy-dayes are commanded in the fourth Commandment and Burges saith all the Ceremonies are commanded in the third Commandment and Formalists who denyed the Prelate to be of Divine institution made a Ceremony of him and made him a decent and orderly thing which as the Poet said to me is like the act of death that brought Great Alexander to whom the whole world was not sufficient in small bounds in the Grave under two foot of earth and this maketh the great Pope the Catholick Bishop of the earth a little Ceremony But this little Ceremony hath these many hundred years infested the whole earth 2. If this precept be not a perpetuall binding precept till Christs second appearance but only rewarded with life eternall at Christs appearance yet shall it follow that all things included in the precept of feeding the flock and so all the Surplice Crossing Will-worship or their equivalent without which feeding cannot be in a decent and orderly way as they say from 1 Cor. 14. 40. must be rewarded with life eternall let Formalists wait at the day of judgement for a reward of a Garment of glory for wearing a linning Surplice my faith cannot reach it 3. For the choosing of Widovves that are poor to take care of the poor and sicke in Hospitals we think it just as necessary now as then though no wayes if there be none sick and poor in the Church But that Widows were Church-Officers ordained as were Deacons Act. 6. 6. we never thought and therefore we do not see that the wanting of such Widows is the want of a Positive institution of Church-Policy for other positive things of policy that should be of perpetuall use and not all of the same kinde and of equall necessity I see no reason which I speak for Apostles which were necessary then and not now But if from thence Formalists infer that many positive things of policy are alterable I can infer with equall strength of reason that then Pastors and Teachers are alterable by the Church for if the one have a Divine institution to warrant it Eph. 4. 11 12 13. so hath the other and if Prelates may come themselves into the Church without any warrant but this that Apostles are
alterable and may put out Pastors and Teachers because God hath put out Apostles we have a new world of alterable Church-Policy 5. Reverent Beza referreth the Commandment to the Platforme of Discipline So Ambrose in Loc. and Chrysostome Homil. 18. so Diodat This Commandment which is ver 11 12. Or generally all other Commandments which are contained in this Epistle Popish Writers confesse the same though to the disadvantage of their Cause who maintain unwritten Church-Policy and Ceremonies So Lyra and Nicol. Gorran Mandatum quod Deus ego mandavimus the Commandment of the Lord and of me his Apostle Corneâ—a lapide Quicquid tibi O Episcope hac Epistolâ prescripsi demandavi hoc serva Salmeron alii per mandatum intelligunt Quecunque mandavi spectantia ad munus boni Episcopi SECT II. THE Adversaries amongst these things of Church-Policy do reckon such things as concerne the outward man and externals only and therefore Bilson Hooker and the rest as Cameron and others will have Christs kingdom altogether Spirituall Mysticall and invisible and Christ to them is not a King to binde the externall man nor doth he as King take care of the externall government of his own house that belongeth say they as other externall things to the Civill Magistrate who with advise and counsell of the Church Bishops and their unhallowed Members may make Lawes in all externals for the Government of the Church and all these externals though Positive are alterable yea and added to the word though not as additions corrupting but as perfecting and adorning the word of God and his worship In opposition to this our fourth Argument shall be he who is the only Head Lord and King of his Church must governe the politick externall body his Church perfectly by Laws of his own spirituall policy and that more perfectly then any earthly Monarch or State doth their subjects or any Commanders or any Lord or Master of Family doth their Army Souldiers and members of their Family But Christ is the head and only head of the Church for by what title Christ is before all things he in whom all things consist and is the beginning the first borne fram the dead and hath the preheminence in all things and he is onely soâ—ely and absolutely all these by the same title he is the Head and so the onely Head of the Body the Church Col. 1. 17 18. And he is the head of his Politick body and so a head in all externals as well as of mysticall and invâ—sible body for if his Church be an externall Politicall body and ruled by Organs Eyes Watchmen Rulers Feeders and such as externally guideth the flock as it is Eph. 4 11 12 13 14 15 16. 1 Cor. 12. 28. Matth. 16 17 18. A society to which Christ hath given the keys of his House and so externall power in a visible Politick Court on earth to binde and loose to take in and put out to open and shut the doors of his visible Politick house then this Politick body must have a head in externall policy and this head in externals must as a head governe by Laws all the members in their externall society for a body without a head is a monster and a Politick body without a head Politick and one that ruleth Politically is a Monster And Christ is the King yea the only King of his own Kingdom either as this Kingdom is mysticall and invisible or as it is Politick externall and visible on earth as these Scriptures proveth 1. Mat. 28. 18. Iesus â—aith unto me is all power given in Heaven and in earth I hope this power is only given to Christ not to Pope or earthly Prince It is the name above all names Phil. 2. 9. King of Kings Rev. 17. 14. And upon this Kingly power Christ doth an exâ—ernall Act of Royall power and giveth not only an inward but also a Politicall externall power to his disciples ver â—9 Go Teach and Baptize all Nations Is this only inward and heart-â—eaching and inward Baptizing by the spirit I think not God hath reserved that to himself only Isa 54. 13. Ioh. 6 44. 45. Joh. 1. 33. and Ioh. 20 21. 22. Upon this that the Father sent Christ and so set him his King upon his holy hill of Zion Psa 2. 6. Christ performeth an externall Politick mission and sendeth his disciples with power in a Politick externall way to remit and retain sins in an externall way for there is clearly two remittings and retainings of sins in the Text None can say of the Church it s my Church but he who is King of the Church and Christ saith Matth 16. 18. that it is his Church and upon this it is his Kingdom and the keyes are his keys and they are keys of a Kingdom visible and Politick on earth as is evident ver 19. I will give unto thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt binde on earth in an externall Politicall court of Church Rulers as it is differenced from an internal and mysticall binding in Heaven shall be bound in Heaven c. For it is clear that there is an internall binding in Heaven and a Politicall and externall binding on earth and both are done by the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven But Christ can have or give no Politicall or exâ—ernall keys of an externall and Politicall King but as he is a King Yea and Excommunication doth not only binde the inward man in Heaven but also the externall man on earth excluding him from the Society of the Church as a Heathen and a Publican and purging him out from the externall communion of the Church as if he were now no brother Matth. 18. â—7 18. 1 Cor. 5. 7. 10 11 12. Now this externall separating and judging of an offender by the Church is done by the keys of the Kingdom Ergo by Christ as a King ruling the externall man Politically and so by the key of the house of David which is laid upon Christs shoulder Isa 22. 22. And by a Royall Act of him upon whose shoulder is the Government Is 9 6. Who sitteth upon the throne of David to order the kingdom to establish it with judgement justice For the Church doth bind and loose in the externall Court either by a Commission from him who as head of the Church and who as King gave to her the Keys of the Kingdom or by a generall Arbitrary power given to the Magistrate and Church to do in these things as they please so they do nothing contrary to the Word though not according to the Word as they are to do in Doctrinals if the former be said then must the externall Government be upon the shoulder of Christ as King which is that which we teach If the latter be said then might the Magistrate Church appoint such an Ordinance as excommunication and so they may by their Artitrary power make a Gospel Promise of
ratifying an Ordinance in heaven and of pardoning sins in heaven for he that can make the ordinance can make also the Gospel-Promise and he that can by an Arbitrary power make one Promise or part of the Gospel may make all And if either Magistrate or Church can appoint such an Ordinance as hath a Promise of bâ—nding loosing made good in heaven they may also take away such Ordinances and Gospel Promises for it is the same power to make and adde to unmake and destroy Ordinances Hence also I argue for the Immutabiliâ—y of a Scripturall Platform that the Church cannot alter at her will thus That must be of Divine institution which is an essentiall part of the Gospel but the Platform of Church-Government in the word is such and so must be no lesse Immutable then the Gospel I make good the major Proposition thus That which essentially includeth a Promise of the New Testament that must be a part of the Gospel which consisteth especially of Promises Heb. 8. 6. 2 Cor. 7. 1. Gal. 3. 17. Gal. 4. 23 24. But there 's a Promise of forgiving sins in Heaven made to the Church using the Keys aright and of Christs presence in the excercise of the Keys as walking amongst the golden Candlesticks Matth. 18. 18 19. 20. Math. 16. 18 19. Iob. 20. 23. Rev. 2. 1. Now if any shall object this Argument proveth only that which is not denyed to wit that some part of Discipline only is of Divine institution which is not denyed for a power of binding and loosing of remitting and retaining sins is of Divine institution But hence it is not concluded that the whole Platform and all the limbs joynts bones and toes are of Divine institution they being matters of smaller concernment I Answer As from a part of the Doctrine of the Law and Gospel that is of Divine institution for Example that I keep observe and do the Law that I believe and repent which are things of Divine institution I infer that the whole Platform of Law and Gospel is of Divine institution and the particulars of Obedience and Faith are not Arbitrary to the Church just so in Discipline I say the like there is no more reason for one part written by God then for another Farther if the Church be a visible Politick Kingdom as it is Mat. 13. v. 45 46 47 48. Matth. 16. 19. Matth. 8. 12. And if the Word be the Word Scepter and Law of the Kingdom as it is Matth. 6. 10. Matth. 13. 11. Luk. 4. 43. Matth. 4. 23. Mark 13. 8. Luk. 21. 10. 14. Luk. 8. 10. Yea the Sword and Royall power of the King Rev. 1. 16. Rev. 19. 15. By which he Ruleth and Raigneth in his Church Isa 11. v. 4. Psal 110. 2. Heb. 1. 8 9. Psal 45. 3 4. 5 6 7. Isa 61. 1 2. 2 Cor. 10. 4 5 6. 1 Pet. 2. 4 5 6 7. And if by this Word the King Raigneth bindeth looseth and conquereth souls and subdueth his Enemies Matth. 18. 18 19 20. Matth. 16. 19. Rev. 6. 2. Then certainly Christ must Raign Politically and externally in his Church and walk in the midst of the golden Candlesticks Rev. 2. 1. And if Christ Ascending to Heaven as a Victorious King Leading Captivity Captive gave gifts to men and appointed an externall policie for the gathering of his Saints by the Ministery of certain officers of his Kingdom as it is Psal 68. 18. Even that the Lord God might dwell amongst them Eph. 4. 11 12 13 14 15 16. Then he must Raign in the externall Policie of Pastors Teachers Elders by Word Sacraments and Discipline Now the King himself the Lord who Raigneth in this externall Policie must be the only Law-giver Iam. 4. 12. Isa 33. v. 22. There can be no Rabbies or Doctors on earth who as little Kings can make Laws under him Mat. 23. v. 8 9 10. Yea not Apostles who can teach how the Worship should externally be ordered but what they receive of the King of the Church 1 Cor. 11. 23. Act. 15. v. 13 14 15 16 17 18. How the house should be Governed Heb. 3. 1 2. 4 5. Yea nothing more reasonable then that Whatsoever is commanded by the God of Heaven should be done in and for the house of the God of Heaven under the pain of his Wrath Ezr. 7. 23. 1. That there should be Officers in a Kingdom and Laws to Govern the Subjects beside the will of the Prince or Judges of the Land or that the Members of a Family or Souldiers in an Army should be Governed by any Rule Custome or Law beside or without the will of the Master of the House and of the Generall Commanders is all one as if Subjects Families and Souldiers should be Ruled and Governed by their own will and wisdome and not by their King Iudges Masters and Commanders for the question is upon this undeniable supposition that Christ is the only Head and King of his Church and so the Head and King of Prelats if they be of the body and of the Rulers Guides and Pastors of the Church which are to be Governed and Ruled by certain Laws no lesse then the people whither or no this Representative Church of Rulers being Subjects and Members of the Head and King of the Church are to be Ruled by the wisdome Laws and Commandments of this King the Lord Jesus or if they have granted to them a vast Arbitrary power to Govern both themselves and the people by adding Positive Mandats of Arbitrary Commanders such as Prelats are in the minde of those who think they have no patent of any Divine right and of Surplice Crossing kneeling for reverence to wood to bread and wine The matter cannot be helped by saying that Christ is the Mysticall Invisible King some doubt if he be the only King of the Church which is too grosse to be resuted of the Church in things spirituall and in regard of the inward operation of the Spirit but he is not a Politicall and visible Head in regard of externall Policie this distinction must hold also in regard of the people who as Christians and believers are rather under Christ as a Mysticall and invisible Head then the Rulers who are not as Rulers but only in so far as they are believers Mysticall Members of the Head Christ for Christ exerciseth no Mysticall and Internall operations of saving Grace upon Rulers as Rulers but upon Rulers as believers then he cannot be the Mysticall and invisible King of Rulers as Rulers to give them as a King an Arbitrary power to be little Kings under him to Govern as they please and the truth is Christ is a Politicall Head and King of his Church not properly a visible Head 2 Cor. 5. 16. Except that he is a visible Head in this sense in that he Raigneth and Ruleth even in the externall visible Policie of his Church through all the Catholick visible Church in his Officers Lawfull Synods
Ordinances giving them Laws in all Positive externals which place the Beast the King of the Bottomlesse Pit the Pope usurpeth But I would gladly be informed of Formalists how the King is the Head and Vicegerent of Christ over the Church if Christs Kingdom be only spirituall Mysticall Internall not Politicall not externall for sure the King as King exerciseth no internall and Mysticall operations upon the consciences of men under Jesus Christ his power is only Politicall and Civilly Politicall about or without the Church not properly within the Church Surely if Rulers be Subjects and Members under Christ the Head and King I shall believe that Christ must in all Positive things of externall Policie give to them Particular Laws in the Scripture and Rule them and that they being Members not the Head must as particularly be Ruled in all externals Positive by the will and Law of the Head Christ and that they are not Kings Heads and Law givers and Rulers to themselves And especially upon these considerations This King and Head must be particular in an immutable perpetuall and unalterable Platform of Church-Government 1. Salomon for wisdome in the order degrees number attire of his servants and Policie of his house to the admiration of the Queen of Sheba in this we conceive was a type of a greater then Salomon 2. The Positives of the policie of Christs house must be congruous to a supernaturall end the edification of souls and that Symbolicall Rites of mens devising speak supernaturall duties that Christ hath already spoken in the Scripture as that Crossing spell out Dedication to Christs Service Surplice pastorall holinesse which both are Gospel truths 1. Pet. 1. 18. 1 Pet. 2. 24. Isa 52. 11. Is as supernaturall a mean for edification as that bread and wine signifie Christs body and blood therefore the one more then the other ought not to be left to humane reason but must be expresly set down in Scripture 3. All these must lay a tie upon the conscience but if they have their rise from the vain will of Prelats and men they can never bind my conscience for how can they bind my conscience as the Scripture bindeth them on me and yet Rulers as Rulers in the name of Christ the King cannot presse them upon me Formalists give divers Replies to this As 1. Hooker You are constrained to say that of many things of Church-Policie some are of great weight some of lesse that what hath been urged of immutability of Laws it extendeth in truth no farther then only to Laws wherein things of greater moment are prescribed as Pastors Lay-Elders Deacons Synods Widows else come to particulars and shew if all yours be perpetuall and our particulars unlawfull Ans 1. Things of greater and lesse weight we acknowledge in Church-Policie and in Doctrinals too but in this sense only 1. That they be things Positive 2. They be both things that are unchangeable by any except by God himself and oblige us Necessitate precepti by the necessity of a Divine Commandment as Matth. 23. 23. To pay tythe of Mint Annise and Cummin is a lesse matter then the weightier duties of the Law Iudgement Mercy and Faith But there is nothing so small in either Doctrinals or Policie so as men may alter omit and leave off these smallest Positive things that God hath commanded for Christ saith Paying of tythe of Mint ought not to be omitted though the Church of Pharisees should neglect it and command some other petty small things in place thereof If therefore Prelats should obliterate the Office of Ruling Elders which Christ the Lord instituted in his Church and put themselves in as Governours in their Room they may put out Pastors and Sacraments and take in for them Turkish Priests and Circumcision with a signification that Christ is already come in the flesh We urge the immutability of Christs Laws as well in the smallest as greatest things though the Commandments of Christ be greater or lesse in regard of the intrinsecall matter as to use water in Baptisme or to Baptise is lesse then to Preach Christ and believe in him 1 Cor. 1. 17. Yet they are both alike great in regard of the Authority of Christ the Commander Matth. 28. 18 19. And it s too great boldnesse to alter any Commandment of Christ for the smallnesse of the matter for it lieth upon our conscience not because it is a greater or a lesser thing and hath degrees of obligatory necessity lying in it for the matter but it tyeth us for the Authority of the Law-giver Now Gods Authority is the same when he saith You shall not Worship false Gods but me the only true God And when he saith You shall not adde of your own one ring or pin to the Ark Tabernacle Temple yea either to break or teach others to break one of the least of the Commandments of God maketh men the least in the Kingdom of God Matth. 5. 18. And to offend in one is to offend in all Iam. 2. 10. 2. That our things of Church-Policie are perpetuall we prove and that what we hold of this kinde we make good to be contained in the Scripture either expresly or by due consequence and so the Church and their Rulers act nothing in our way but as Subordinate to Christ as King and Head of the Church and Surplice humane Prelats Crossing we hold unlawfull in the house of God because they are not warranted by the King and Head Christs word and because the devisers and practisers of these do neither devise nor act in these as Subordinate to Jesus Christ as King Priest or Prophet by the grant of our Adversaries Hooker l. 3. Eccles Pol. pag. 124. The matters wherein Church-Policy are conversant are the publick Religious duties of the Church as administration of the Word Sacraments Prayers spirituall censures of the Church and the like to these the Church stand alwayes bound and where Policy is it cannot but appoint some to be leaders of others and some to be led If the blinde lead the blinde they both perish and where the Clergy is any great multitude order requireth that they be distinguished by degrees as Apostles and Pastors were in the Apostolick Church And number of specialities there are which make for the more convenient being of these principall parts of Policy Ans 1. If Christ as King have appointed word and Sacraments in generall and Censures he hath appointed the Word Sacraments and Censure in speciall to wit such a word such Sacraments Baptisme the Lords-Supper such Censures Excommunication admonition or then he hath left the Specialities of written and unwritten Word to the arbitriment of men and that there be Excommunication or no Excommunication and this Doctrinall and the like he hath left to mens devising to wit Crossing is a Dedication of the childe to Christ now Jerome Advers Helvid saith Vt hec que scripta sunt non negamus ita ea quae non sunt
as the precept of believing in Christ and of repentance from dead works yet I hope it shall be a weak inference from thence to inser we may therefore alter and change any thing of the Sacrament for the same Christ who commanded us to believe in him said also Drink ye all of this and if we may not remove drinking from the last Supper because injoyned by Christ upon the authority of the Law-giver as signifying the spirituall drinking of Christs Blood how can any dare to adde Crossing to Baptisme which signifieth the dedication of the Baptized to Christs service But 1. Divine Ceremonials and positives which were to be changed have these notes and impressions of God which Surplice Crosse in Baptisme Corner-cap which by Analogie answereth to Moses his Ceremonies hath not and yet if they be of the New Testament and so of a more excellent spirits devising then the people of the Iews were capable of in regard of their Bondage under Carnall Precepts they ought to have them in a more excellent manner As 1. In regard of the manner of Revelation all the Laws and Ceremoniall Ordinances were revealed to Moses when he was forty dayes in the Mount with God and was in Heaven and above men Exod. 25. 40. Heb. 8. 5. The length measure and patern of the Temple was revealed to Ezechiel when he was in the spirit and saw the Visions of God Ezech. 40. 2 3. And a writing of the form of the Temple by Gods hand was delivered to David 1 Chro. 28. 19. Now if a more free and glorious spirit teach the Positives of policy under the New-Testament such as Surplice Crossing then Prelates must be in a higher mount with God then Moses was and in a deeper extasie of the visions of God then Ezechiel was in Ezec. 40. 1 2 3. When they are in the childe-birth pain of devising and bring forth such defaced and dirty whelpes as Surplice Crossing Altars c. 1. I should think it blasphemy so to think 2. In regard of the Doctrine revealed When I read the 40 41 42. Chapters of Ezekiel touching the forme of the Temple and the Antitipe Chapters the Revelation c. 21. c. 22. Yea and the very Ceremoniall Laws of Moses as the scape-goats going to the wildernesse with the sins of the people of God and all the rest of the Lawes that pointeth at Christ to be slain for us and the heavenly mysteries of the Gospel explained especially in the Epistle to the Hebrews when I read these I finde a strong smell of the ointments of a precious Redeemer the extream love of God to man the Majesty the divinity and efficacy of divine power in these as in other Scriptures But should our Prelats put in Print by the spirit of the new Testament some Epistles touching Ceremonies in Generall or of Surplice Corner-cap Crossing and their heavenly relation to the mysteries of the Gospel in particular I should not think men would dare to say a nobler spirit speaketh like God and heaven in these then in the other It is without all Warrant to expound Christian Liberty of a power of devising a mutable Church-Policy and lawes not warranted in Gods word seeing Christian Liberty expresly exempteth us altogether from obedience to mens Laws not warranted by Christs word Gal. 5. 1. Col. 2. 20 c. Let us hear what Hooker saith for his mutable Policie under the New Testament Christ is not lesse faithfull then Moses because Moses delivered to the Iewes some Lawes that were durable and Christ some Laws that are changeable otherwayes by this reason Christ shall be lesse faithfull then Moses for Moses erected in the wildernesse a Tabernacle which was moveable from place to place Solomon a stately Temple which was not moveablâ— Therefore Solomon was faithfuller then Moses which no man indued with reason will think Christ was faithfull and saith I have given to them the words that thou gavest me He concealed not any part of his Fathers will But did any part of that will require the immutability of Laws concerning Church-Policy Ans I answer as Christ did to the Jews in another case Ioh. 6. 32. Moses gave you not that bread from heaven but my Father giveth you that true bread So in this neither Moses nor Solomon erected either that Tabernacle or Temple as Law-givers but the Father of our Lord Iesus as the true Law-giver Now both were but meer servants and Heralds in all that they did for God shewed to Moses the pattern of the Tabernacle and to David and Solomon the forme of the Temple in all the pins rings chambers cubits length and breadth Exod. 24 40. 1 Chron. 28. 11 19. And the question is not if ever the Lord himself delivered mutable or immutable Laws either in Doctrine or Policy We grant he did and may deliver Laws changeable and to indure for a time only in both the old and new Testament Heb. 7. 18. Col. 2. 17. Act. 15. 28 29. But the question is if Moses as a man if Christ as a man only if the Church of Prelates yea or of Lawfull Officers can be faithfull if they deliver lawes to the Church which may be altered without the expresse will of God speaking in his word at the pleasure of men and which are positives of worship and Policy such as humane Prelates Surplice Crosse c. which varieth dieth and liveth falleth and riseth with the climate Nation civill-Government Lawes Manners and customes of People and this is all one as to move the question whither the Ambassadour as a man may alter the Articles of his Commission according to his own private lust without an expresse and evident Warrant of the Prince and State whose servant and Messenger he is in all that he doth and if he be a faithfull Ambassadour who doth his own will and not the will of those that sent him and if Christ be as faithfull as Moses if he had given Laws of policy under the New-Testament to be altered without an expresse and evident Warrant from the will of the Father at the pleasure and will of men This we deny and certainly say that Moses had erected a changeable Tabernacle at the will of man and Solomon a Temple unchangeable at the will and expresse Commandment of God then had Solomon been faithfuller then Moses our Arguments nerves do not consist in the immutability or the mutability of things themselves or of the Laws but on the immutability or mutability of things positive or Laws positive under this reduplication so as they be immutable or mutable at the pleasure and will of men without and beside the word of God such as Crosse and Surplice and such like Romish stuffe are pretended to be 2. Certain it is that Christ concealed not any part of his Fathers will Ioh. 17. 8. But delivered all and this place with the place Ioh. 15. 15. We urge against the traditions of Papists and say because Christ
spake nothing from his Father either in his own person or his Apostles in the New-Testament or in the old by Moses and the Prophets of invocation of Saints Purgatory Worshipping of Images and Reliques and the rest of their unwritten Traditions these being positives of worship and more then unseparable and connaturall attendants such as are common Time Place Person Name Country Habite Gesture are therefore unlawfull because Christ neither heard them of the Father nor spake them to the Apostles and just the like say we of Surplice Crosse c. That they are no part of the will of God which the Father revealed to Christ and these same Texts Papists use to prove that the Scriptures are not perfect because they speak nothing of the Traditions of the Church so Bellarmine Because the Counsell of Trent Andradius Stapleton and all the rest and they prove as well if Crosse and Surplice and humane Offices as Prelates stand good and lawfull that yet the Scriptures are unperfect 3. We say that the whole will of God revealed by the Father to Christ and by Christ to the Prophets and Apostles requireth the immutability of all Laws of Church-Policy in this sence that men should not dare to make and unmake erect command alter and injoyne positive Laws of doctrine or policy at their pleasure Hooker ibid. p. 113. There is more reason to say that God hath a lesse care of the Church under the New-Testament then under the Old then a Philosopher had to say because God hath provided better for beasts that are born with hornes skins hair and garments by nature then man who is born without these that therefore nature is a carefull mother to beasts and a hard-hearted Step-dame to man for Gods affection consisteth not in these for even herein shineth his wisdom that though the wayes of his providence be many yet the end which he bringeth all at the length unto is one and the self same yea it should follow that because God hath not prescribed Rites and Laws of civill Policy to us as to the Iews that he hath lesse love to us and lesse care of our Temporall estate in the world then of theirs Ans 1. It s true indeed God should have lesse care of man who is born naked then of beasts born with hair in lieu of garments if God had not given reason to man according to which by nature he may provide garments for himself and the comparison should go aptly on four feet God should have lesse love and should declare lesse love to some of mankinde if he gave some naturall reason to devise a Bible and a Religion of their own that they might walk to heaven in the light of a fire of their own kindling without the Scriptures of God which is a false supposition and if he had denied reason to another part of mankinde surely all would say God had so far forth been more carefull of the salvation of the former as he should have willed their salvation and loved those in a higher measure to whom he gave reason on these termes and should have been lesse carefull of the salvation of those to whom he denied reason as he he had no more created such capable of salvation and of his love for the saving of them then brute beasts are and this answer layeth down a ground that naturall reason is sufficient without the light of Scripture to guide us in all these things of policy that are alterable then say I God did take a great deal of needlesse and superfluous pains in setting down so many particular Laws of Ceremonies and Civill Policy for the Iews if with the help of reason they might have steerd their course to Christ and salvation by the help of the star light of reason as a man though born naked may by help of reason make shift for garments to infants which beasts void of reason cannot do for thus the comparison must run and it shall be indeed a cavilling at Gods wisdom as Papists do calling the Scriptures inky Divinity 2. The word of God maketh it a great love of God and a work of Free grace that the great things of Gods Law are written to Ephraim Hos 8. 12. And their sin the greater that they should dare to multiply Altars v. 11. without warrant of Gods word as Formalists multiplied Altars Saints-dayes Surplices c. And it is an act of singular love that God gave his judgements Word and Statutes even of Ceremonies and policy to Israel and Iacob and did not so to every Nation Psal 149. 19 20. Ezek. 20. 11 12 13. This was Israels excellency above all Nations on earth Deut. 4. 6. Deut. 20. 33. Rom. 3. 1 2. Rom. 9. 4. that God gave them particular Lawes Iudgements Statutes not only in Morals but also in Ceremonials and Policy yet Hooker dare say We may not measure the affection of God towards us by such differences 3. It shall not hence follow God hath a greater love to the Iews then to us because he gave them Laws concerning civill policy which he gave not to us Except the Lord had given us power to make civill Laws which laid Morall obligation on our consciences even in civill things which morality He expressed in particular Laws written to them and not to us as Formalists teach for then he hath left us in Moralls to the darknesse of naturall reason in which condition we could not but erre and sin and make that morally good and obligatory of conscience which is morally evil for reason knoweth not what is positive Morally good except the light of Gods Word teach us and in Morals such as judiciall Laws were to the Jews the Lord should have been more carefull in his particular directing of them then of us and more tender to have them preserved from the sin of will-worship then us which cannot consist with the Dispensation of lesse light greater obscurity in regard of types and shadows toward them and of the Day-light of the Gospel and the arising of the Day-star and the filling of the earth with knowledge of the Lord toward us under the New Testament But the comparison must go upon this supposition that the Lord purposed to make Politick Laws in their Positives Morall and Obligatory of the Conscience of the Jews and the Civill Laws of the Gentiles under the New Testament in their Positives such as is not to carry Armour in the night and the like not to be Morall nor Obligatory of the Conscience But as touching that which is Morall in all Civill Laws the Lord is as carefull of our Temporall state as of theirs in condescending to particularize all Morals to us as well as to them Hooker That Christ did not mean to set down particular Positive Laws for all things in such sort as Moses did the very different manner of delivering the Laws of Moses and the Laws of Christ doth plainly shew Moses had Commandement to
Papists as Vasquez Becanus and others say that neither the Pope nor the Church can adde or devise a new Article of Faith Yet doth Horantius Loco Catholice l. 2. c. 11. fol. 129. teach That Christ hath not taught us all fully in the New Testament but that the holy spirit shall to the end of the world teach other new things as occasion shall require And this he bringeth as an Argument to prove that there must be unwritten Traditions not contained in Scripture even as the Formalists contend for unwritten Positives of Church-Policie 3. Morals of the Law of nature and the Morall Law do more respect occasions of Providence customes Laws and the manners of people they doing so nearly concerne our Morall practise then any Ceremonies of Moses his Law which did shadow out Christ to us and therefore this reason shall prove the just contrary of that for which its alledged for the Morall Law should be rather alterable at the Churches lust then Ceremonials for there be far more occurrences of Providence in regard of which the Laws Morall touching what is Sabbath breaking whether is leading an Ox to the water on the Sabbath a breach of the Sabbath the Jews held the affirmative Christ the negative touching obedience to Superiors Homicide Polygamie Incest Fornication Oppression Lying Equivocating Then there can be occasions to change the Law of sacrificing which clearly did adumbrat Christ who was to be offered as a sacrifice for the sins of the world yea all significant Symbolicall Ceremonies have their spirituall signification independent from all occasions of Providence and depending on the meer will of the Instituter Surplice or white linnen signifieth the Priests holinesse without any regard to time place or nationall customes for Christ might have made an immutable Law touching the Symbolicall and Religious signification and use of Saints-dayes white linnen Crossing and all the rest of humane Ceremonies which should stand to Christs second coming notwithstanding of any occurrences of Providence no lesse then he made an immutable Law touching the Sacramentall obsignation of water in Baptisme and of Bread and Wine in the Lords Supper if it had not been his will never to burden his Churches with such dumb and tooth-lesse mysteries as humane positives 4. The assumption is false for divers Ceremoniall Laws now altered were made without any regard to occasions of Providence and many Doctrinals that are unalterable were made with speciall regard to such occurrences 5. If positives of Policy be alterable because the occasions of such are alterable by God it shall follow that God who hath all revolutions of Providence in his hand must change these Positives and not the Authority of the Church and thus Doctrinals are alterable by God not by men which is now our question for Christ hath given a Commandment Take ye Eat ye Drink ye all of this Yet hath he not tyed us in the time of persecution to conveen in publick and Celebrate the Lords Supper but the Church doth not then change the Law nor liberate us from obedience to a Command given by God but God liberateth us himself Hooker But that which most of all maketh to the clearing of this point is that the Iews who had Laws so particularly determining and so fully instructing them in all affairs what to do were not withstanding continually inured with causes exorbitant and such as their Laws had not provided for and so for one thing which we have left to the order of the Church they had twenty which were undecided by the expresse word of God so that by this reason if we may devise one Law they may devise twenty Before the Fact of the sons of Shelomith there was no Law that did appoint any punishment for blasphemers nor what should be done to the man that gathered sticks on the Sabbath And by this means God instructed them in all things from heaven what to do Shall we against experience think that God must keep the same or a course by Analogy answering thereunto with us as with them Or should we not rather admire the various and harmonious dissimilitude of Gods wayes in guiding his Church from age to age Others would not only have the Church of the Iews a pattern to us but they would as learned Master Prynne with them saith take out of our hand the Apostolick Church that it should be no rule to us for saith he There was no Vniforme Church-government in the Apostles times at the first they had only Apostles and Brethren Acts 1. 13. no Elders or Deacons Their Churches increasing they ordained Dâ—acons Act. 6. And long after the Apostles ordained Elders in every Church after that widowes in some Churches not at all In the primitive times some Congregations had Apostles Acts 4. 11 12. 1 Cor. 12. 4. to 33. Evangelists Prophets workers of miracles Healers c. Other Churches at that time had none of these Officers or Members and all Churches have been deprived of them since those dayes Ans 1. What Hooker saith is that which Bellarmine Sanderus Horantius and all Popists say for their Traditions against the perfection of the word to wit that the word of God for 2373. years between Adam and Moses saith Horantius was not written so Turrianus Bellarmine and the reason is just nothing to say the Jews might devise twenty Laws where we may devise one because the Jews were continually inured with causes exorbitant such as their written Laws had not provided for This must be said which is in question and so is a begging of the controversie that the Iews of their own head and Moses without any speciall word from God or without any pattern shown in the mount might devise what Laws they pleased and might punish the blasphemer and the man that gathered stâ—cks on the Sabbath and determine without God the matter of the Daughters oâ— Zelophehad as the Formalists teach that the Church without any word of God or pattern from the word may devise humane Ceremonial Prelats Officers of Gods house shapen in a shop on earth in the Antichrists head and the Kings Court the Surplice the Crosse in Baptisme and the like Now we answer both them and Papists with one answer that it is true there was no written Scripture between Adam and Moses which was some thousands of years Yea nor a long time after till God wrote the Law on Mount Sinai But withall what God spake in visions dreams and apparitions to the Patriarchs was as binding and obliging a pattern interditing men then to adde the visions of their own brain to what he spake from heaven as the written word is to us so that the Iews might neither devise twenty Laws nor any one of their own head without expresse warrant of Gods immediate Tradition which was the same very will and truth of God which Moses committed to writing if then Formalists will assure us of that which Papists could never assure us we shall
receive both the unwritten Traditions of the one and the unwritten Positive inventions of Crosse and Surplice devised by the other as 1. Make us sure as God himself immediatly spake to the Patriarchs and to Moses nothing but what after was committed to writing by Moses and the Prophets at Gods speciall Commandment as Papists say their unwritten Traditions are agreeable to the word and though beside Scripture yet not against it And the very will of God no lesse then the written word and let Formalists assure us that their positive additaments of Surplice and Crosse are the same which God commandeth in the Scriptures by the Prophets and Apostles and though beside yet not contrary to the vvord But I pray you what better is the distinction of beside the vvord not contrary to the vvord of God out of the mouth of Papists to maintain unvvritten Traditions which to them is the expresse word of God then out of the mouth of Formalists for their unwritten Positives which are worse then Popish Traditions in that they are not the expresse word of God by their own grant 2. Let the Formalist assure us that after this some Moses and Elias shall arise and write Scripture touching the Surplice and Crosse that they are the very minde of God as the Lord could assure the Church between Adam and Moses that all Divine truths which he had delivered by Tradition should in Gods due time be written in Scripture by Moses the Prophets and Apostles I think they shall here fail in their undertakings Hence the Argument standeth strong the Jevvs might devise nothing in doctrine Worship or Government nay neither the Patriarchs nor Moses nor the Prophets of their own head without Gods immediate Tradition or the written Scripture which are all one Ergo Neither can the Church except she would be wiser then God in the Scriptures 2. Hookers Various and Harmonious Dissimilicude of Gods gâ—iding his Châ—rch is his fancy This variety we admire as it is expressed Heâ— 1. 1. But Hooker would say for he hath reference to that place God at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the Fathers by the Prophets and now to us by hiâ— Son But test of all he hath revealed his Will by the Pope of Rome and his cursed Clergy that we should Worship Images pray to Saints and for the dead beleeve Purgatory c. and now by humane Prelates he hath shown his will to us touching Crossing Surplice Now Papists as Horantius Sanderus Malderus Bellarmine and others say Most of the points that are in Question between them and Protestants and particularly Church-Ceremonies are unwritten Traditions delivered by the Church beside the warrant of Scripture 3. We grant that there was no Uniform Church-Government in the Apostles time Deacons were not at the first Elders were not ordained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in every Church But this is nothing against a Platform of Vniform Government which cannot be altered in Gods Word For by this reason the Learned and Reverend Mr. Prynne because points of Government did grow by succession of time cannot infer therefore that Government which the immediately inspired Apostles did ordain in Scripture is alterable by men then because 1. Fundamentals of Faith and Salvation were not all delivered at first by God there is no Uniform no unalterable Platform of Doctrinals and Fundamentals set down in Scripture For first the Article of Christs death and incarnation was obscurely delivered to the Church in Paradise Sure the Article of Christs making his Grave with the wicked of his being put to death for out Transgressions though he himself was innocent his justifying of many by Faith were after delivered by Isaiah Chap. 53. And by succession â—f time many other Fundamentals as the Doctrine of the written Moral Law in the Moral Positives thereof were delivered to the Church But I hope from this successive Addition of Fundamentals no man can infer 1. There is no Uniform Platform of the doctrine of Faith set down in the Old Testament 2. None can hence infer because all points Fundamental were not delivered to the Church at first the refore the Church without any expresse warrant from God may alter the Platform of Fundamentals of Faith as they take on them to adde Surplice Crossing c. and many other Positives to the Government of Christ without any expresse warrant of the Word 3. Our Argument is close mistaken we argue not from the Patern of Government which was in the Apostles times at the laying of the first stone in that Church then the Apostolike Church had indeed no Officers but the Apostles and the seventy Disciples we reason not from one peece but from the whole frame as perfected by the Ministery of the Lords Apostles 2. We argue not from the Apostolike Church as it is such a Church for Apostles were necessary then as was community of goods miracles speaking with tongues c. but we draw an argument from the Apostolike Church as the first Christian Church and since the Law was to come from Zion and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem Isai 2. 3. And the Lord was to reign in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem before his Ancients gloriously Isai 24. 23. And the Lord was to reign over his people in Mount Zion from henceforth and for ever Micah 4. 2 7. And Christ for that gave a special command to his Disciples not to depart from Jerusalem but wait for the promise of the Father which they had heard from Christ therefore this Church of Jerusalem was to be a rule a patern and copy for the Government of the Visible Kingdom and Church of Christ in which Christ was to reign by his own Word and Law Miâ— 4. 2 7. And so the Spirit descended upon the Apostles in the framing and Governing of the first Church in so far as it was a Christian Church and they were to act all not of their own heads but as the Holy Ghost led them in all Truth in these things that are of perpetual necessity and in such as these the first Church is propounded as imitable Now we do not say in Apostles which had infallibility of writing Canonick Scripture in Miracles speaking with Tongues and such like that agreed to the Apostolike Church not as a Church but as such a determinate Church in relation to these times when the Gospel and Mystery of God now manifested in the flesh was new taught and never heard of before did require Miracles gift of Tongues that the Gospel might openly be preached to the Gentiles we do not I say urge the Apostâ—like Church and all the particulars for Government in it for a rule and patern to be imitated And if Master Prynne deny that there is an Uniform Government in the Apostles times because God himself added to them Deacons Elders which at first they had not removed Apostles miracles gifts of healing and tongues then say I
First the Canonick Scripture is not Uniform and perpetual Why for certainly once there was no Canonick Scripture but the Books of Moses and after the holy Ghost added the Book of the Psalmes and the Prophets and after the Nativity and Ascension of our Lord to Heaven the Apostles did write Canonick Scripture I hope this is but a poor Argument to infer that there is no Vniform and unalterable Platform of Divinity in the Old and New Testament and yet the Argument is as concludent the one way as it is the other 3. We do not so contend for an Vniform and unalterable Platform of Church-Government in the Word as it was not free to the Lord and Law-giver to adde and alter at his pleasure only we hold it so Vniform and unalterable that this Platform is not shaped like a coat to the Moon or alterable at the will of men without expresse warrant of the Lords Word and to rise and fall with the climate and the elevation of Nationall customes and therefore the Argument is nothing concludent and judge what can be made of these words of the learned Mr. Prynne The Government and Officers of all Churches not being De facto one and the same in all particulars in the very Primitive times as well as since it can never be proved to be of Divine right and the self same in all succeeding Ages without the least variation â—inee it was not so in the Apostles dayes For this is all one as to say the Canonick Scripture was not one and the same in the Apostles and Prophets times but admitted of divers additions Ergo now in our daies Canonick Scripture is not one and the same but may also suffer the like additions 2. Because God himself added to Canonick Scripture and to the Government of the Church in the Apostles dayes Ergo men may without Warrant from God adde in our dayes to Canonick Scripture and to the Government and Officers of the Church 3. The Government and Officers in the Apostles time were not of Divine right but alterable by God Ergo Apostles Evangelists Pastors Teachers Workers of miracles were not of Divine right in the Apostles times but might have been altered by men without the expresse Warrant of God But will any wise man believe that Pauls Apostleship was alterable and might be changed by the Church Since he saith Gal. â— 1. Paul an Apostle not of men neither by men but by Iesus Christ and 1 Cor. 12. 28. When Paul saith And God hath set 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or instituted some in the Church first Apostles secondly Prophets thirdly Teachers after that miracles then gifts of healing c. and Eph. 4. 11. When Christ ascended on high he gave some Apostles some Prophets and some Evangelists and some to be Pastors and Teachers 12. For the perfecting of the Saints c. Can it enter into the head of any man to say some Churches had Apostles and Evangelists and Pastors and miracles and some not Ergo Apostles and Pastors are not by Divine right Ergo because they were not in all Churches therefore they were alterable at the will of men and a Surplice and Crosse in Baptisme hath as much of Divine institution as the calling of the Apostle or of a Pastor and truly to me it is bold Divinity to say that Pastors set over the flock by the holy Ghost Act. 20. 28. and whos 's due qualifications are so specified 1 Tim. 3. and Elders 1 Tim. 5. 17. and Teachers placed by God in the Church 1 Cor. 12 28. may be all turned out of the Church by men as having no Divine right to be there and that men may set up other alterable Officers in their place for by this reason the Apostles by that ordinary spirit that is now in Church-Rulers might without their Apostolick spirit or any immediate Warrant from Christ have altered the whole frame of Apostolick-Government and Church-Officers as the Church may upon motives from themselves not warranted from the word turne out Surplice Crosse and all such stuffe out of the Church Master Prynne The Apostles speech 1 Cor 12. 4 5 6. There are diversity of gifts but the same spirit there are diversity of operations but the same God compared with chap. 8. to 13. and c. 9. v. 19. to 24. I made my self a servant to all that I might gain all c. parallel'd with Act. 15. 1 2 5 6 10. to 32. and chap. 21. 18. to 30. The Churches of Judea did retain the use of Circumcision Purification and other Iewish Rites which the Gentiles by the Apostles resolution were not to observe and Act. 2. 22. The Apostles frequented the Iewish Temple and Synagogues conforming themselves to the Order and Discipline thereof and their own private Christian Assemblies all this will clear that all Churches had not one and the self same Church-Government Ans If diversity of Gifts as to be a speaker with Tongues a Prophet a Pastor will prove the Discipline to be alterable at the Churches will as are Surplice Crosse c. I shall think men may infer any thing they please out of the Scripture and that to be Apostles Pastâ—rs are as indifferent and variable as eating of meats 1 Cor. 8. and Pauls taking of wages at Corinth 1 Cor. 9. Which none can say for if the Church should now command us to abstain from such and such meats as the Apostle doth 1 Cor. 8. We should call that and do call it in the Romish Church a Doctrine of Devils 1 Tim. 4 1 2 3. All brought for this from Act. 15. Act. 21. tendeth to this the Lord himself for the then weaknesse of the Jews of meer indulgence appointed some things to be indifferent and abstained from in the case of scandall Therefore Circumcision Purification Sacrifices of Bullocks and sheep And all the Ceremonies of Moses his Law may be commanded by the Church so they have another signification then they had before and shadow out Christ who is already come But because God hath made some things indifferent shall it follow that the Pope yea or any Church on earth can create an indifferency in things they must then take from things their Morall goodnesse or conveniency with Gods Law and take from them their moral badnes disconveniency to Gods Law which to me is to change the nature of things and to abrogate and change Gods Laws it is true P. Martyr 1 Cor. 9. 19. saith Paul was made all things to all men Quoad Ceremonias res medias in that he Circumcised Timotheus The Law saith he was abrogated Vâ—rum id non adhuc Judaeis liquebat The Jews were to be spared for a time but only for a time and therefore when the Gospel was sufficiently promulgated Paul said Gal. 5. to be Circumcised was to lose Christ and he refused to be a servant to Peter in his sinful Iudaizing Gal. 2. And withstood him in the face Now certain it
of the Church and is indeed a teaching sign and so should not be counted a Positive of Church-Policy 2. Most false it is that the Tabernacle and Temple were nothing but a meeting place of the people for Worship as our Churches or Chappels are 1. Because it is to Argue the Holy Ghost of want of wisdom to spend so much Canonick Scripture in setting down things idely not tending at all to edification and teaching us nothing of God and in specifying the Form Height Length Bredth Curtains Candlesticks Sockets Rings of naturall places that contained their bodies for what should it edifie us if God should describe so particularly all the Churches and meeting places of the people under the New Testament Now certain it is Whatsoever things were written afore time were written for our Learning Rom. 15. 4. 2. Many things in the Tabernacle as Candles in day light Rings Sockets Shew-bread belonged nothing to a naturall place as our Chappels or Meeting houses do 3. Expresly the Scripture maketh them more then places to wit Holy Religious and Typicall signes of Divine institution as the Tahernacle was a Type Heb. 8. 2. 5. Heb. 9. 1 2. c. Heb. 10. 1 2 3. And the Temple a Type of Christs body Ioh. 2. 19. Ioh. 1. 14 15. And all these were Types and shadows of Heavenly things Heb. chap. 8 9 10. Gal. 4. 1. 2. c. Col. 2. 16. 17. Which our Churches and Chappels are not being only places common to sacred and Civill actions 2. God therefore can no more in expresse words set down the form matter dimensions of Christian Churches and Chappels then of the Synagogues of the Iews which had no Morall use for edification and instruction 3. Yea because the Tabernacle and Temple and their implements were teaching shadows of good things to come and our Churches and Chappels are not so nor have they any Morall or Religious use or influence on our spirits as the Tabernacle and Temple had therefore the Lord who is expresse in all Morals which of their own nature do teach and edifie he behoved to name Bezaliel and Aholiah and the form and colour of the Priests garments which also are Typicall and could not name our Elders or the colour or form of their Garments 4. All these weak retortions suppose that the Tabernacle and Temple were types of our meeting houses for Worship which is a meer conjecture they were no more types of our Chappels then of the Iewish Synagogues we may not expound types at will but as the Holy Ghost expoundeth them to us in the New Testament And this is a conjecturall Exposition and a dream to make Bezaliel and Aholiah types of Embroyderers and Tradesmen 5. We know the Tabernacle and Temple were corporall things made with hands and that they are things different from the spirituall things that they signifie as the sign and the thing signified as therefore the Lord is expresse in the elements and Rites of the Supper of the Lord because all of them Bread Wine taking eating breaking pouring out the Wine drinking are teaching and edifying signes and our Lord never left it to the wisdom of men to devise signes to teach themselves so in like manner should the Lord expresly specifie all the teaching and signifying signes in the Old Testament and as Moses might devise none of his own but was tyed to follow the patern which the Lord himself shewed to him in the Mount So are we now under the New Testament tyed to the patern of that same will revealed in the Word and it is laid on us Not to be wise above that which was written and it is of perpetuall equity The supream Law-giver never left it to the wisdom of Angels or Men or Prophet Apostle or Church to serve and Worship God as they thought good But he himself particularly prescribed the way signes and means And because God hath not been pleased in the New Testament to specifie types of Christ incarnate and come in the flesh already therefore are we obliged in Conscience to believe and practise no more either in Doctrinals or teaching types or Positives of Church-Policy then our Patern in the Mount the Scripture hath warranted to us to be the will of God and in this and this only standeth the force of the present Argument unanswered by paterns of unwritten Traditions and not in these loose consequences that we under the New Testament should have these types and Policy that the Church of the Iews had which is the Doctrine of Papists and Formalists following them not ours for they prove their Pope and Prelat from the Iewish High Priest their Surplice from the linnen Ephod of Jewish Priests their Humane Holidayes from the Iewish dayes their kneeling to bread from their bowing toward the Ark. 6. It is not true that the Tabernacle and Temple were meer corporall things no more then bread and wine in their spirituall relation are meer corporall things The Lords end use and intent in the Tabernacle and Temple was that they should be to the people Images and shadows of heavenly and spirituall things Heb. 8. 5. Heb. 10. 1. 7. That all the things of the Tabernacle were delivered to Moses as a King and not as a Prophet and writer of Canonick Scripture Heb. 3. 5. Heb. 8. Luk. 24. 44. 27. Luk. 16. 31. is an untruth except Formalists make the King so the head of the Church in prescribing Laws for the Policy thereof as they make him a Canonick writer as were David Moses Solomon from whose example they would prove the King to be the head of the Church But I judge Moses saw the patern in the Mount and God face to face as a Prophet whose words are Scripture to us Deut. 34. 10. And there arose not a Prophet since in Israel like unto Moses whom the Lord knevv face to face And as a Prophet not as a King his face did shine Exod. 34 27 28 29. And he was commanded as a Prophet to write the Law not as a King Numb 12. 6. 7. Moses is made the most eminent Prophet that was in the Old Testament And why Because God spake to other Prophets by Dreams and Visions But he spake the Law and written Scripture to Moses mouth to mouth This should not be a comparison between Prophet and Prophet but between Prophet and King by this learning 8. We judge Noahs Ark doth prove the same it being a speciall type of the Church 1 Pet. 3. 20 21. And he built it by Faith Heb. 11. 7. And so by a Word of God and at Gods speciall direction in all the length bredth formes of it and not of his own head Gen. 6. 14 15 c. And is commended by the spirit of God for so doing Gen. 6. 22. Thus did Noah according to all that God commanded him so did he And Formalists should deserve the like Testimony if it could be said of them And as the Lord commanded the
censeri debet Learned D. Roynald Answereth Apolog. Thes de sac Script pag. 211 212. and saith This very Law of Moses promiseth life Eternall to those that love the Lord vvith all their heart and that the Prophets added to the Writings of Moses no Article of Faith necessary to be believed but did expound and apply to the use of the Church in all the parts of piety and Religion that vvhich Moses had taught Lorinus followeth them in Deut. 4. 1. Christus inquit et Apostoli pentateucho plura adjecerunt immò in vetere Testamento Iosue Prophetae Reges Christ saith he and the Apostles added many things to the five Books of Moses yea in the Old Testament Ioshua the Prophets and the Kings David and Solomon did also adde to Moses But the truth is suppose any should arise after Moses not called of God to be a Canonick writer Prophet or Apostle and should take on him to write Canonick Scripture though his additions for matter were the same Orthodox and sound Doctrine of Faith and manners which are contained in the Law of Moses and the Prophets he should violate this Commandment of God Thou shalt not adde For Scripture containeth more then the sound matter of Faith it containeth a formall a heavenly form stile Majesty and expression of Language which for the form is sharper then a two edged sword piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit and of the joynts and marrow and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart Heb. 4. 12. If therefore the Prophets and Apostles had not had a Commandment of God to write Canonick Scripture which may be proved from many places of the Word they could not have added Canonick Scripture to the writings of Moses But the Answer of D. Roynald is sufficient and valid against Papists who hold that their Traditions are beside not contrary to the Scripture just as Formalists do who say the same for their unwritten Positives of Church-policy But our Divines Answer That traditions beside the Scripture are also traditions against the Scripture according to that Gal. 1. 8. But if we or an Angel from Heaven preach any other Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beside that which we have preached unto you Let him be accursed And Papists more ingenious then Formalists in this confesse That if that of the Apostles Gal. 1. 8. be not restricted to the written Word but applyed to the Word of God in its Latitude as it comprehendeth both the written word or Scripture and the unwritten word or Traditions then beside the word is all one with this contrary to the word which Formalists constantly deny For Lorinus the Jesuit saith Comment In Deut. 4. 2. Quo pacto Paulus Anathèma dicit Gal. 1. 8. Iis qui aliud Evangelizant preter id quod ipsi Evangelizaverit id est adversum et contrarium So doth Cornelius a Lapide and Estius expound the place Gal. 1. 8. And they say that Paul doth denounce a Curse against those that would bring in a new Religion and Judaism beside the Gospel But withall they teach that the Traditions of the Church are not contrary to Scripture but beside Scripture and that the Church which cannot eâ—re and is led in all truth can no more be accused of adding to the Scripture then the Prophets Apostles and Evangelists who wrote after Moses can be accused of adding to Moses his writings because the Prophets Apostles and Evangelists had the same very warrant to write Canonick Scripture that Moses had and so the Church hath the same warrant to adde Traditions to that which the Prophets Evangelists and Apostles did write which they had to adde to Moses And therefore the Councel of Trent saith S. 4. c. 1. That unwritten traditions coming either from the mouth of Christ or the ditement of the holy spirit are to be recieved and Religiously Reverenced with the like pious affection and Reverence that the holy Scriptures are received Pari pietatis affectu ac Reverentiâ And the truth is laying down this ground that the Scripture is unperfect and not an adequat rule of Faith and manners as Papists do then it must be inconsequent that because Traditions are beside the Scripture which is to to them but the half of the Word of God Yea it followeth not this Popish ground supposed that Traditions are therefore contrary to the Scripture because beside the Scripture no more then it followeth that the Sacraments of the New Testament Baptisme and the Supper of the Lord in all their positive Rites and Elements are not ordained and instituted in the Old Testament and in that sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beside the Old Testament that therefore they are against the Old Testament though we should imagine they had been added in the New Testament without all warrant of speciall direction from God by the sole will of men or because some Ceremonials commanded of God are not commanded in the Morall Law or Decalogue either expresly or by consequence and so these Ceremonials though instituted by the Lord be beside the Morall Law that therefore they are contrary to the Morall Law Yea to come nearer because the third Chapter of the Book of Genesis containing the Doctrine of mans fall and misery and Redemption by the promised seed is beside the first and second Chapters of the same Book it doth not follow that it is contrary or that Moses adding the third Chapter and all the rest of the five Books did therefore â—ail against this precept Thou shalt not adde to that which I command thee for certain it is that there are new Articles of Faith in the third chapter of Genesis which are neither in the first two Chapters expresly nor by just consequence but if the Church or any other of Jews or Gentiles should take upon them to adde the third Chapter of Genesis to the first and second except they had the same warrant of Divine inspiration that Moses had to adde it that addition had been contrary to the first two Chapters and beside also and a violation of the Commandment of not adding to the word so do Formalists and the Prelate Vsher in the place cited presuppose that the Scripture excludeth all Traditions of Papists because the Scripture is perfect in all things belonging to faith and manners but it excludeth not all Ceremonies which are left to the disposition of the Church and be not of Divine but of Positive and humane Right Hence it must infer the principle of Papists that the Scripture is not perfect in all Morals for it is a Morall of Decency and Religious signification that a childe be dedicated to the service of Christ by the sign of the crosse Now what can be said to thiâ— I know not but that the sufficiency and perfection of scripture doth no whit consist in holding forth Ceremonials but only in setting down doctrinals Why and Papists say the same that the scripture is
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.
into the world to save sinners in regard of Canonicall authority stamped upon both R. Hooker with other Formalists Will have the lightnesse of matter to make the Law alterable Truly to eat of the Tree of knowledge of good and ill being put in the ballance with the love of God in it self is but a light thing yet the breach of that Law involved all the world in condemnation And what else is this but that which Papists say that there be two sort of things in scripture so saith Cornelius a Lapide Comem on 2 Tim. 3. 16. 1. The Law and the Prophets these God revealed and dyted to Moses and the Prophets but there are other things in Scripture as Histories and morall exhortations which Canonick writers learned either by hearing seeing reading or meditation there was no need these should be dyted by the inspiration of the holy Spirit for they know them themselves though they were assisted 2. Excited by the holy spirit to write Conceptum memoriam eorum quae sciebant non iis suggessit spiritus sanctus sed inspiravit ut hunc potius conceptum quam illum scriberent omnes eorum sententias conceptus ordinavit digessit direxit spiritus sanctus v. g. Vt hanc sententiam primò illam secundò aliam tertiò collocarent Yet Estius saith on the place The Scriptures are given by divine inspiration ita ut non solum sententiae sed verba singula verborum ordo ac tota dispositio fit a deo tanquam per seipsum loquente ac scribente So as not only the sentences but every word and the order and disposition of words is of or from God as if he were speaking and writing himself Now for the additions Canonicall that the Prophets and Apostles made to the writing of Moses I hope Papists and Formalists cannot with any forehead alledge them to prove that the Church may adde Traditions and alterable Positives of Church-Policy to the written word of God except upon the same ground they conclude That the Church now hath the same immediatly inspired spirit that the Prophets and Apostles had and that our Prelats saw the visions of God when they saw but the visiones aulae the visions of Court and that their calling was as Pauls was Gal. 1. 1. not of men neither by men but by Iesus Christ When as it is not by Divine right and was both of the King and by Court 2. Except they infer that the Church that now is may adde Canonicall and Scripturall additions to the Scripture for such additions the Prophets and Apostles added to the writings of Moses and 3. that that precept Thou shalt not adde c. was given to the Lord himself to binde up his hands that no Canonick Scripture should ever be but the only writings of Moses which is as some write the dream of Saduces whereas inhibition is given to the Church of God not to God himself for what the Prophets and Apostles added God himself added yea to me it is a doubt while I be better informed if the Lord did ever give any power of adding to his Scripture at all without his own immediate inspiration to either Prophet or Apostle or that God did never command Moses or Prophet or Apostle to write Canonick Scripture of their own head or that his Commandment to write Scripture was any other then an immediate inspiration which essentially did include every syllable and word that the Apostles and Prophets were to write For I do not coaceive that 1. God gave to Apostles and Prophets power to devise a Gospel and write it I suppose Angels or men could not have devised it yea that they could no more have devised the very Law of nature then they could create such a piece as a reasonable soul which to me is a rare and curious book on which essentially is written by the immediate finger of God that naturall Theology that we had in our first creation 2. I do not conceive that as Princes and Nobles do give the Contents or rude thoughts of a curious Epistle to a Forraign Prince to their Secretary and go to bed and sleep and leaves it to the wit and eloquence of the Secretary to put it in forme and stile and then signes it and seals it without any more ado so the Lord gave the rude draughts of Law and Gospel and all the pins of Tabernacle and Temple Church-officers and Government and left it to the wit and eloquence of Shepherds Heardsmen Fishers such as were the Prophets Moses David Amos and Peter and divers of the Apostles who were unlettered men to write words and stile as they pleased but that in writing every jot tittle or word of Scripture they were immediatly inspired as touching the matter words phrases expression order method majesty stile and all So I think they were but Organs the mouth pen and Amanuenses God as it were immediately dyting and leading their hand at the pen Deut 4. 5. Deut. 31. 24 25 26. Mal. 4. 4. 2 Pet. 1. 19. 20 21. 2 Tim. 3. 16. Gal. 1. 11 12. 1 Cor. 11. 23. so Luk. 1. 70. God borrowed the mouth of the Prophets As he spake by the mouth of his holy Prophets which hath been since the world began Now when we ask from Prelates what sort of additionall or accidentall worship touching Surplice Crosse and other Religious Positives of Church Policy it is that they are warranted to adde to the word and how they are distinguished from Scriptures Doctrinals They give us these Characters of it 1. God is the Author of Doctrinals and hath expressed them fully in scripture But the Church is the Author of their Accidentals and this is essentiall to it that it is not specified particularly in scripture as Bread and Wine Taking and Eating in the Lords Supper is for then it should be a Doctrinall point and not Accidentall 2. It is not in the particular a point of faith and manners as Doctrinals are But hear the very Language of Papists for Papists putteth this essentiall Character on their Tradition that it is not written but by word of mouth derived from the Apostles and so distinguished from the written word for if it were written in scripture it should not be a Tradition So the Jesuit Malderus in 22. tom de virtut de obj fidei Q. 1. Dub. 3. Pro Apostolica traditione habendum est quod eum non inveneatur in Divinis literis tamen Vniversa tenet ecclesia nec consiliis institutum sed semper retentum 2. That the Traditions are necessary and how far Papists do clear as I have before said for the Church may coin no Articles of faith these are all in Scripture For the Iews two Suppers and their additions to the passeover as Hooker saith and their fasting till the sixth hour every Feast day we reject as dreams because they are not warranted by any word of institution not to adde that
observe Saints-dayes and believe Crossing and Surplice hath this Religious signification because the Church saith so then is our obedience of conscience finally resolved in the Testimony of men so speaking at their own discretion without any warrant of scripture 2. To believe and obey in any Religious Positives because it is the pleasure of men so to Command is to be servants of men and to make their will the formall reason of our obedience which is unlawfull If it be said that we are to believe and Practise many things in naturall necessity as to eat move sleep and many circumstantials of Church-Policy because the Law of naturall reason saith so and because there is an intrinsecall conveniency and an aptitude to edifie to decore and beautifie in an orderly and a decent way the service of God and not simply because the Church saith so nor yet because the Lord speaketh so in the Scripture and therefore all our obedience is not Ultimately and finally resolved into the Testimony of the Scripture I Answer That there be some things that the Law of Nature commandeth as to move eat sleepe and here with leave I distinguish Factum the common practise of men from the jus what men in conscience ought to do as concerning the former morall and naturall mens practise is all resolved in their own carnall will and lusts and so they eat move and sleep because nature and carnall will leadeth them thereinto not because God in the Law of nature which I humbly conceive to be a part of the first elements and principles of the Morall Law or Decalogue and so a part of Scripture doth so warrant us to do and therefore the moving eating drinking of naturall Moralists are materially lawfull and conforme to scripture for God by the Law of nature commandeth both Heathen men and pure Moralists within the visible Church to do naturall acts of this kinde because the Lord hath revealed that to be his will in the Book of nature But these Heathen do these acts because they are suitable to their Lusts and carnall will and not because God hath commanded them so to do in the Book of nature and this is their sin in the manner of doing though materially Et quod substantiam actus the action be good and the same is the sin of naturall men within the visible Church and a greater sin for God not only commandeth them in the Law of nature but also in Scripture to do all these naturall acts because God hath revealed his will in these naturall actions as they are morall to naturall men within the visible Church both in the Law of nature and in the scripture and De jure they ought to obey because God so commandeth in both and in regard all within the visible Church are obliged to all naturall actions in a spirituall way though their eating moving sleeping be lawfull materially Et quod substantiam actus yet because they do them without any the least habituall reference to God so commanding in natures Law and scripture they are in the manner of doing sinfull otherwise Formalists go on with Papists and Arminians to justifie the actions of the unregenerated as simply Lawfull and good though performed by them with no respect to God or his Commandment 2. As concerning actions of Church-Policy that cannot be warranted by the light of nature and yet have intrinsecall conveniency and aptitude to edifie and decently to Accomodate the worship of God I conceive these may be done but not because the Church so commandeth as if their commandment were the formall reason of our obedience but because partly the light of the Law of reason partly scripture doth warrant them but that Crosse and Surplice can be thus warranted is utterly denied Again I conceive that there be two sort of positives in the externals of Government or worship 1. Some Divine as that there be in the Publique Worship Prayers Praising Preaching Sacraments and these are substantials that there be such Officers Pastors Teachers Elders and Deacons that there be such censures as rebuking Excommunication and the like are morally Divine or Divinely Morall and when the Church formeth a Directory for worship and Government the Directory it self is in the Form not simply Divine And if it be said that neither the Church of the Jews nor the Church Apostolique had more a written Directory nor they had a written Leiturgy or book of Common Prayers or Publick Church-service I answer nor had either the Iewish or Apostolick Church any written Creed or systeme written of fundamentall Articles such as is that which is commonly called the Apostolick Creed but they had materially in the scripture the Apostolick Creed and the Directory they had also the same way for they practised all the Ordinances directed though they had no written Directory in a formall contexture or frame for Prayers Preaching Praising Sacraments and Censures never Church wanted in some one order or other though we cannot say that the Apostolick Church had this same very order and forme But a Leiturgy which is a commanded imposed stinted Form in such words and no other is another thing then a Directory as an unlawfull thing is different from a Lawfull 2. There be some things Positive humane as the Ordering of some parts or worship or Prayer the forme of words or phrases and some things of the Circumstantials of the Sacrament as what Cups Wood or Mettall in these the Directory layeth a tie upon no man nor can the Church in this make a Directory to be a Church Compulsory to strain men And this way the Directory is not ordered and commanded in the frame and contexture as was the Service-Book and the Pastor or people in these are not properly Morall Agents nor do we presse that scripture should regulate men in these But sure in Crossing in Surplice men must be Morall Agents no lesse then in eating and drinking at the Lords-Supper and therefore they ought to be as particularly regulated by Scripture in the one as in the other Quest But who shall be judge of these things which you say are Circumstantials only as time place c. and of these that Formalists say are adjuncts and Circumstances of worship though also they have a Symbolicall and Religious signification must not the Church judge what things are indifferent what necessary what are expedient what Lawfull Answer There is no such question imaginable but in the Synagogue of Antichrist For as concerning Norma judiâ—andi the Rule of judging without all exception the scripture ought to be the only rule and measure of all practicall truths how Formalists can make the Scripture the rule of judging of unwritten Ceremonies which have no warrant in Scripture more then Papists can admit scripture to regulate and warrant their unwritten Traditions I see not we yield that the Church is the Politick Ministeriall and visible judge of things necessary and expedient or of things not necessary
meer Physicall or naturall means to â—ence off the injuries of sun and Heaven we do not think that the Lord in all or any place of the Old or New Testament setteth down any Laws concerning garments simply as they do fence off cold or heat that belongeth to Art only he speaketh of garments as contrary to gravity as signes of vanity and lightnesse Isa 3. 16 c. Zepha 1. 8. 1 Pet. 3. 3 4. And of garments as Religious observances of which sort was the attire and garments of the Priests and High-Priests in their service in which consideration the Religious times holy places and Mosaicall garments were Divine Worship by which God was immediatly honored but not adjuncts only or actions but Religious things or performances 3. It is such a performance as from thence honour doth immediatly redound to God but that this may be the clearer I conceive that there is a twofold immediate honouring of God in the worship of God 1. An honouring of God lesse immediate as hearing of the word is an immediate honouring of God because honour floweth immediatly from God both Ex conditione operis and Ex conditione operantis from the nature of the work and intention of the worker yet it is a lesse immediate honouring of God in regard that I may also hear the word even from the condition of the work and so from the intrinsecall end of the worker that I may learn to know God and believe for thus far I am led to honour God immediatly in hearing the word that action of its own nature conveying honour to God there interveeneth also a medium amidst between me and honouring of God to wit the Preacher or the Bible to which no externall adoration is due There is another more immediate worship to wit praising of God from which by an immediate result God is honoured and in worship especially strictly immediate God is immediatly honoured both in the intention of the work and the intrinsecall end of it and the intention of the worker though no other thing be done and others be not edified either in knowledge increase of Faith or any other wayes And in this duties of the second Table of mercy and justice differ from worship in that such acts of love and mercy as to give almes to save the life of my brother or of his beast are not acts of worshipping God their intrinsecall end and the nature of the work being to do good to the creature principally Ex naturâ conditione operis though God also thereby be honoured yet in a more secundary consideration For I praying to God do immediately from the nature of the action honour God though no good should either redound to my self or to the creature thereby it is true God by acts of love and mercy to our neighbour is honoured two wayes 1. In that men seeing our good works do thence take occasion to glorifie our Heavenly â—ather whose truth teacheth us by the grace of God to do these works but the intrinsecall and proper use of these is to do good to our selves as in works of sobriety and to our neighbour as in works of righteous dealing but not immediatly and iâ— the first and primary consideration to honour God as in works of Piety holinesse and worship the honouring of God by secondary resultance doth issue also from these duties of righteousnesse but not as from the acts of praying praising Sacramentall eating drinking 2. The doer of these acts of mercy may and is to intend the honouring of God There is a twofold intention in worship one formall and properly Religious and is expounded Morall Ex naturâ rei to be Religious it being such an intention as can have no other state in worship but a Religious State as if the three Children should bow at the Commmandment of the King of Babylon though intending to worship the true God Here should be an intrinsecall intention Ex naturâ conditione operis to worship and that from two grounds conjoyned together 1. Here is bowing down 2. Bowing down to a Religious Object commanded by a Prince and so cometh under the Morall notion of the command of a Judge When the object of bowing down is Religious the signication that we give divine honour to God by kneeling is as inseparable saith Raphael de la Torres from kneeling or bowing down as a bearing testimony by word that God is true and knoweth all secrets and will be avenged on perjury is inseparable from vocall swearing by the name of God or as any man should be an Idolater who in expresse words should say to an Idol O my God Jupiter help me though that Adoration were fained and he who so prayeth should in his heart abhor and detest Jupiter and all false Gods But there is another intention not Religious if a Childe reade a Chapter of the Bible that he may learn to read and spell that is an action of Art not of Worship because the object of the Childes reading is not Scripture as Scripture but only the Printed Characters as they are Signa rerum ut rerum non ut rerum sacrarum signes of things not of holy things and here the object not being Religious the intrinsecall operation cannot raise up any Religious intention of the Childe Upon this ground it is easie to determine whether or no an intention of Worship be essentiall to Worship or not the former intention which is intrinsecall and Intentio operis may be essentiall it resulting from the object but the latter intention of the worker is so far extraneous to Worship as whether it be or be not the nature of Worship is not impaired nor violated Hence Adoration is worship But every worship is not Adoration Uncovering the head seemeth to be little older then Pauls Epistles to the Corinthians The Learned Salmasius thinketh it but a Nationall sign of honour no wayes universally received But certainly it is not Adoration Though therefore we receive the Supper of the Lord uncovered no man can conclude from thence Adoration of the Elements as we do from kneeling conclude the same as we shall here for all bodily worship or expression of our affection to the means of graces though these means be but creatures is not Adoration properly either of God or of these means it is Lawfull to tremble at the word and for Josiah to weep before the Book of the Law read and for the Martyrs to kisse the Stake as the Instrument by which they glorified God in dying for the truth all these being Objectam quo and means by the which they conveyed their worship to the true God and naturall and Lawfull expressions of their affection to God For uncovering the head it is a sort of Veneration or Reverence not Adoration and Paul insinuateth so much when he saith 1 Cor. 11. 4. Every man praying and prophecying having his head covered dishonoureth his head But it is not his meaning
in the first Table yet the Morallity of the second Table is as expresly in Gods Word as the Worship of the first Table 1. Because what is justice and mercy and love toward man in the second Table doth no more depend upon mans sole will but upon Gods Morall Law the Law of nature then it dependeth upon mans will or human wisdom how God should be worshipped according to the first Table For Gods will in his Word is called by our Divines a perfect Canon and rule of Faith and also of Manners And as the grace of God T it 2. teacheth us what is Piety so also what is Righteousnesse and Sobriety 2. Because as Gods Word condemneth will-worship which is come of no Nobler blood then mans will so condemneth it idle words and idle actions which are but will-works and will-words and deeds of will-justice and will-mercy and a will-conscience in the second Table putteth no lesse a rub upon the wisdom of the Lord the Law giver then a will conscience in the first Table But Formalists say If mans will and authority cannot appoint Crossing Holy humane-dayes Surplice and such the decent expressions and incitements of Devotion in the kinde of Arbitrary Mutable and Ambulatory Worship but they must be therein guilty of adding to the Doctrine of Piety and Religion in the first Table by that same reason they cannot make humane Civill and Positive Laws in War and Peace to be means of conserving justice and mercy tovvard humane societies in the kinde of duties of Righteousnesse and sobriety tovvards our selves and Neighbours but they must be guilty of adding to the Doctrine of the second Table I Answer 1. The case is not alike we cannot be Agents in the performing of any worship to God nor can we use any Religious means for honouring God which belong to the first Table But in these we are Morall Agents doing with speciall reference to conscience and to true happinesse and the glory of God as the ends both of the work and workers and therefore in these we are precisely ruled by the wisdom of God who hath in his word set down what Worship and what means of exciting Devotion and decoring of his Worship pleaseth him and hath not left men to Lord-will or Lord-wit but in many actions that belong to humane societies we are not Morall Agents but often Agents by Art as in Military discipline Trades usefull for mans life Oeconomy and Policy in Kingdoms and Cities in Sciences as Logick Physick Mathematicks in these Finis operis the end of the work is operation according to the principles of Arts and Policy and we are not in them Morall Agents and so not to be regulated by Gods Word For the Scripture giveth not to us precepts of Grammar of War of Trades and Arts teaching us to speak right Latine to make accurat demonstrations nor is the end of the work here a thing that pitcheth upon that tender and excellentest peece in us our Conscience and our Morall duties to God and men but to make such humane Laws just and suitable with sobriety and justice is not left to Lord-will but right reason the principles of a naturall Conscience which are parts to us of Scripture and the Word of God it self hath determined whether to carry Armour in the night in such a case Whether to eat flesh in such a season of the year when the eating thereof hurteth the Common-Wealth and the like belong to works of justice and mercy or no Now it is no marvel that in things belonging to our naturall life peace societies policy where the end of the work is naturall or civill and belongeth not as such to the Conscience and Salvation of the soul that there men be Artificers or Agents according to Art Oeconomy Policy whereas the end of the work Finis operis in the Worship of God is Morall and a matter of an higher nature and so the means and manner of Worship here are determined by Gods Word But when actions of Arts Sciences Trades Oeconomy Policy and Laws positive are elevated above themselves Ad finem operantium to the end that Agents are to look unto as they be Morall Agents Gods Word is as perfect a rule for acts of good manners in the second Table as in the first For example that I speak good Latine I am to see to Disputers Precepts but that I lie not and speak not Scandals or Blasphemies while I speak Latine there I am to look to Gods Law given by Moses That a Tradesman make works according to Art he is to advise with Art but that he sell not his work at too dear a price he is to advise with the eight Commandment and when all these acts of Art are referred to Conscience Salvation and the glory of God as they ought to be Respectus finis operantis in respect of the Morall intention of the doer all their Morallity is squared by Gods-Word Hence there be no actions of Worshipping God but they be purely Morall Et respectu finis operis Et respectu finis operantiis but many actions belonging to the second Table are either purely not Morall as actions of meer Art or they be mixed and Respectu finis operis in respect of the end of the work they are not Morall nor to be squared by the Word at all and in respect of the Morall intention of the doer they be Morall and so mixed actions and partly ruled by the Word and partly ruled by Art or Policy according to our seventh distinction II. Conclusion In actions or Religious means of Worship and actions Morall whatever is beside the Word of God is against the Word of God I say in Religious means for there be means of Worship or Circumstances Physicall not Morall not Religious as whether the Pulpit be of stone or of timber the Bell of this or this Mettall the house of Worship stand thus or thus in Situation Our Formalists will have it in the power of rulers to Command in the matter of Worship that which is beside the Word of God and so is negatively Lawfull though it be not Positively conform to Gods Word nor Commanded or warranted by practice which I grant is a witty way of Romes devising to make entry for Religious humane Ceremonies But 1. Whatever is not of Faith and a sure perswasion that what I do pleaseth God is sin Rom. 14. 14. 23. And therefore neither can be Commanded by Rulers nor practiced by inferiours But things besides Scripture and negatively Lawfull are things not of Faith Ergo The Assumption I Prove 1. I doubt if Lord-will be the Lord-carver of what pleaseth God 2. If it may stand with the wisdom of Christ the Law-giver for no Ceremonies maketh Christ a perfect Law-giver 3. In things doubtsome abstinence is the surest side Ergo Rulers ought not to command them 4. Samuel David even wicked Saul abstained in things doubtsome while the Oracle of
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
a lege aeternâ as they depend on the eternall law Ergo they oblige in Conscience it followeth not They oblige in Conscience as their Major and Minor proposition in that which is morall can be proved out of Gods word but so in their morallity they are meerely divine and not humane and positive and so the argument concludeth not against us They oblige in Conscience as they depend upon the eternall law that is as they are deduced from the eternall Law of God in a Major proposition without probation of the assumption that we deny and it is in question now The people 1 Sam. 8. in rejecting Samuel from being their judge rejected God not because Samuel had a power of making lawes without the warrant of Gods word Neither Moses nor Jeremiah nor Ezekiel nor any Prophet were in that servants subordinate to God for they vvere onely to heare the vvord at Gods mouth 3. We could have no more at Bellarmines hand then Jackson saith For Bellarmine saith In a good sense Christ gave to Peter a power to make that which is sinne to be no sin and that which is no sinne to be sinne So Iackson the interposition of derived authority maketh that which would be murther other wayes to bee a good worke that is men may doe what God onely can doe If Isaac then at the commandement of Abraham his father offer his sonne Iacob to God in a bloody Sacrifice then Abrahams derived authority maketh that a lawfull sacrifice as to strike a Prophet of it selfe is a degree of murther but when a Prophet commandeth another to strike a Prophet it is lawfull But can any blasphemer say that this was humane derived authority without warrant of the word of the Lord such as are humane positive lawes and our humane ceremonies see the text 1 King 20. 35. And a certaine man of the sonnes of the Prophets said unto his neighbour in the word of the Lord smite me This was immediate divine and Propheticall authoritie and not humane Doth the Kings letter of Mart make robbing a Spaniard lawfull Court Parasites speake so he refuteth himselfe The Kings letter of Mart for wrongs done to the State maketh that which is Piracy lawfull then the Kings authority doth not here by a nomothetick power and a law laid upon the Conscience but the wrongs of Piracy by Spaine done to the State of England may make the robbing of Spaniards an act of lawfull warre and an act of justice flowing from the King as a lawfull Magistrate Now Iackson is speaking of mandates of Rulers in that place which have no warrant of the word of God Yea even Stapleton a Papist saith as Doctor Field also observeth That humane laws binde for the utility and neoessity of the matter and not from the will of the Lawgiver And so saith Gerson Almain Decius Mencha and our owne Iunius saith The plenitude of power of lawes is onely in the princpall agent not in the instrument Doctor Iackson saith unlimited and absolute faith or submission of conscience we owe not to rulers that is due to God but we owe to them conditionall assent and cautionary obedience if they speake from God suppose they fetch not an expresse commission from Scripture for if Pastors be then onely to be obeyed when they bring evident commission out of Scripture I were no more bound to beleeve obey my governours then they are bound to beleeve and obey in Bellarm. contr 3. lih 4. cap. 6. not 89. my Governours then ther are bound to believe and obey me for equals are oblieged to obey equalls when they bring a warrant from Gods word and so the povver of Rulers vvere not reall but titular and the same do th Sutluvius and Bellarmine say Answ We owe to equalls to Mahomet conditionall and cautionary faith and obedience thus I beleeve what Mahomet saith so he speake Gods word yea so Samaritans who worshipped they knew not what John 4. 26. gave saith to their Teachers in a blinde way so they speake according to Gods word 2. It followeth in no sort if Rulers are onely to be obeyed when they bring Gods Word that then they are no more to be obeyed then equalls Infetiours because there is a double obedience one of conscience and objective coming from the thing commanded And in respect of this the word hath no lesse authority and doth no lesse challenge obedience of Confcience and objective when my equall speaketh it in a private way yea when I writ it in my muse then when a Pastor speaketh it by publike authority for we teach against Papists that the word borroweth â—o authority from men nor is it with certainty of faith to be received as the Word of man but as indeed the Word of God as the Scripture saith 1. There is another obedience officiall which is also obedience of Conscience because the fifth Commandement injoyneth it Yet not obedience of Conscience coming from the particular commanded in humane Lawes as humane so I owe obedience of subjection and submission of affection of feare love honour respect by vertue of the fift Commandement to Rulers when they command according to Gods Word and this I owe not to equals or inferiours and so it followeth not that the power of Rulers and Synods is titular because they must warrant their mandates from the Word But it s alwayes this mans hap to be against sound truth But 3. That I owe no more objective subjection of conscience to this Thou shalt not murther Beleeve in Iesus Christ when Rulers and Pastors command them then when I read them in Gods word I prove 1. If this from a Ruler Thou shalt not murther challenge faith and subjection of Conscience of six degrees but as I read it my selfe or as my equall in a private way saith Thou shalt not murther it challenge saith and subjection of foure degrees onely then is it more obligatory of Conscience and so of more intrinsecall authority and so more the word of God when the Ruler commandeth it then when I read it or my equall speaketh it to me This were absurd for the speaker whether publike or private person addeth not any intrinsecall authority to the word for then the word should be more or lesse Gods word as the bearers were publike or private more or lesse worthy As Gods word spoken by Amos a Prophet should not be a word of such intrinfecall authority as spoken by Moses both a Prince and a Prophet 2. My faith of subjection of Conscience should be resolved as concerning the two degrees of obedience of faith to the word spoken by the Ruler on the sole authority of the Ruler and not on the authority of God the Author of his own word 4. I answer to Sutluvius That Christ in the externall policy of his owne house is a Lawgiver ordaining such and such officers himselfe Ezek. 4. 11. commanding order and decency
that Christ should direct the Jews who were to be dispersed through all the earth to go up to Jerusalem for judgement seeing Ierusalem was to be laid equall with the ground and the Iews their state Church policy and the Scepter now removed from Iudah let wise men judge 11. The complaining to an Heathen Magistrate or the punishing of an offender by the sword by no Scripture is such a binding on earth by the power of the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven as this is expounded Matth. 16. 19. And such a binding as is ratified in Heaven and that by the joynt Prayers of two or three on earth as is here spoken ver 18 19 20. A Heathen Magistrates Sentence though never so just should not be valued except it were confirmed by the Prayers of the Church as the Sentence of Excommunication must be 12. The Iewish Saenedrim was now to take an end and expire with all the Iewish policy it is not to be imagined that Iesus Christ would appoint a perishing remedy for a perâ—etuall and ever-enduring disease now offences and scandals between brother and brother were to be in the world to the end ver 15. If thy brother offend c. And Christ saith Offences must be and the remedy here is morall and perpetuall as 1. That Christ shall have a Church visible on earth against which the gates of Hell shall not prevail 2. That we first deal to gain our brother in private ere to his greater shame he be brought in publick before the Church 3. The Lords ratifying in Heaven what his servants shall binde and loose on earth 4. The agreeing of two to pray together the convâ—ening of two or three in the name of Christ with a promise of the presence of Christ all these are Morall and perpetuall The Lord never did the like of this before or after 13. In all the New-Testament we do not read that Christ who was the end of the Law and the body now come in the flesh to abolish all Ceremonials and temporary Laws of the Iewish Church and policy as Iewish did institute any old-Testament Law such as the Sanedrim was for offending brethren if it be said that this was but the right expounding of an old divine Law now almost buried through the corruption of men then must Erastus shew that this was an old Law of divine institution that the Iews were to keep this threefold order in gaining an offending brother and that this is now abolished and that the power of the Magistrate in Church-businesse by this place is not established to the end of the world both which are contrary to the Principles of Erastus not to say that there is not in this whole Chapter or Luk. 17. where the same purpose is handled any shadow of reason to assert that Christ is restoring any Ceremoniall or Iudiciall Law to its genuine and sound meaning and sense but by the contrary Christ speaketh of the Morall and perpetuall Doctrine of scandall and how we are to deal with an offending brother to gain him to repentance either by our selves or the Church and to forgive private injuries even to seventy seven times Lastly since Publicans and Romans converted to the Christian saith from Paganisme even at this time were Brethren who might both give and take scandals it shall follow that Christ commandeth Gentiles to submit to the Jewish Magistrates this was against Christian liberty and to take from Cesar those things that are Cesars which is unjust But saith Erastus Publicans were not in Iuda excluded from sacrifices Luâ— 18. A Pharisee and a Publican went up to the Temple to pray Christ himself did eat with Publicans and sinners therefore this phrase Let him be unto thee as an Heathen and a Publican cannot expresse this Let him be excommunicated except you say that all heathen and Publicans were so served by Christ and the Iews as if they had been excommunicated Ans 1. Publicans that were by Nation Heathens were excluded from sacrifices and the Temple jure by Gods Law but not de facto because the Iews being under bondage to the Romane Emperour and spoiled of their Liberties and Laws might not put their Laws in execution against Heathen and Publicans it is sufficient to us saith Beza that Publicans were execrable and hatefull to the Iews and say I that Heathen and Publicans remaining such are without the Church and not to be reputed as brethren but enemies to the true Church of God and this is that which to us is Excommunication I do not doubt but Publicans went to the Temple to pray but that is but to Argue A facto ad jus not the right way A jure ad factum Publicans ought not to have done so 2. Christ the Supream Lawgiver who is above the Law did often dispense with sacrifice and positive Laws for a work of mercy and if he touched the dead and touched the skin of the Leaper and suffered his disciples to pluck the ears of Corne on the Sabbath day what marvell then he did eat with Publicans and sinners contrary to the Letter of a positive Law Knowing his own whom the Father had given to him from eternity were to be brought in to himself by his familiar conversing with them why should not the Physitian converse with the sick the shepheard with the lost sheep the Redeemer with his ransomed ones But this is no warrant that therefore the cleansed Leaper should not shevv himself to the Priest or that an obstinate offender should not be reputed as a Heathen and not admitted into the Sanctuary 3. That simple Publicans or Heathen remaining such should sacrifice I never read sacrifices were offered for Iobs friends who were not within the visible Church But 1. by Gods own speciall and immediate command as we read Iob 42. 7 8. A positive Law for it which yet was requisite for ordinary worship of that kinde we read not 2. I think Iobs friends cannot in knowledge Religion Profession be esteemed meer Heathens and therefore as God tied not himself to a positive and standing Law here so neither was Christ being the same God equall with the Father so restrained from not familiar conversing with Heathen and Publicans but he might leap over a Ceremony to save a lost soul Object 6. But the adversaries say Christ here useth words proper to the Iewish Synedry and the Old-Testament as witnesses Ecclesia or congregation Heathen Publican and these are not New Testament words nor was there such a thing as a New Testament Church on earth at this time and Christ having not yet ascended to Heaven nor sent down the holy spirit cannot be thought to hold forth the power and jurisdiction of a thing yet destitute of all being such as was the Christian Church nor can he here speak of Christs spirituall Kingdom Ans 1. Christ did well to use these words Witnesses Church Congregation Heathen Publican as well known to his hearers and these
things of God Leviticus 10. 10. The Priests were not to drink wine when they went into the Tabernacle That ye may saith the Lord put difference between holy and unholy and between unclean and clean Now Haggai expresly saith cap. 2. 11 12. That it was the Priests part to put this difference and so to admit to or exclude from the holy things of God Hence for this cause it is said as 2 Chron. 23. 19. Iehoiada appointed the officers of the Lords house so he set porters at the gates of the house of the Lord that none which are unclean in any thing might enter in so Ezra 9. 21 22. None did eat the Passeover but such as were pure and had separated themselves from the filthinesse of the Heathen of the land for this cause doth the Lord complain of the Priests Ezech. 22. 26. Her Priests have violated my law and have polluted my holy things they have put no difference between the holy and the prophane neither have they shewed the difference between the unclean and the clean Ezech. 44. 6. And thou shalt say to the Rebellious even to the house of Israel thus saith the Lord God O ye house of Israel let it suffice you of all your abominations 7. That ye have brought into my sanctuary strangers uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh to be in my sanctuary to pollute it even my house when ye offered my bread the fat and the blood and they have broken my Covenant because of all your abominations 8. And ye have not kept the charge of my holy things But ye have set keepers of my Charge in my Sanctuary for your selves 9. Thus saith the Lord God no stranger uncircumcised in heart nor uncircumcised in flesh shall enter into my sanctuary of any stranger that is among the children of Israel Here is a complaint that those that have the charge of the holy things should suffer the holy things to be polluted I grant it cannot bear this sense that none should be admitted to be Members of the Visible Church under the New Testament but such as are conceived to be regenerate except it can be proved that the Sanctuary was a type of the visible Church 2. That the Apostles constituted their Churches thus but we read not in all the New Testament of any admission of Church Members at all but only of baptizing of those who were willing to be baptized and from this resulted the capacity of a Church Relation in all Churches visible Nor 2. Do we finde any shadow in all the word of God of tryall of Church Members by way of electing and choosing of such and such as qualified by reason of a conceived regeneration in the persons chosen or of rejecting and refusing others as conceived to have no inward work of grace in them this I believe can never be made good out of the word of God 3. They must prove the Apostles admitted into the Sanctuary of the Visible Church Ananias Saphira Simon Magus and others uncircumcised in heart to pollute the holy things of God and that the Apostles erred and were deceived in the moulding of the first Apostolick Church in the world which was to be a rule and pattern to all Churches in the New Testament to all Ages I deny not but they might have erred according to the grounds of these who urge the comparison for a Church of visible Saints but that the Apostles De facto did erre in their Election and judgement in that wherein the holy Ghost holdeth them forth and their acts to be our rule and pattern I utterly deny I grant Act. 15. In that Synod they did Act as men and Elders not as Apostles but that it could fall out that they should uctually erre and obtrude false Doctrine instead of truth to the Churches in that Synod which is the first rule and pattern of Synods I shall not believe But there is this Morall and perpetuall truth in these Scriptures 1. That there are under the New Testament some over the people of God in the Lord some that watch for their souls and govern them as here there were Priests Levites that taught and governed the people 2. That the Rulers of the Churches alwayes are to have the charge of the holy things and to see that these holy things the Seals and Sacraments and word of promise be not polluted and that therefore they have power given them to debar such and such profane from the Seals and so are to discern between the clean and the unclean and this which the Prophet speaketh ver 9. is a prophecie never fulfilled after this in the persons of the people of God therefore it must have its spirituall truth fulfilled under the New Testament as is clear ver 11. Yet the Levites that are gone away far from me shall be Ministers in my Sanctuarie having charge at the gates of the House and Ministering to the House 14. And I will make them keepers of the charge of the House for all the service thereof and for all that shall be done therein Ver. 15. And the Priests and the Levites the sons of Zadok that kept the charge of my Sanctuary when the children of Israel went astray from me they shall enter into my Sanctuary and they shall come neer to my Table to minister unto me and to keep my charge 23. And they shall teach my people the difference betweene the holy and prophane and cause men to discerne between the uncleane and the cleane 24. And in controversie they shall stand in judgement and they shall judge it according to my judgement and they shall keepe my Lawes and my Statutes in all mine assemblies and they shall hallow my Sabbaths Now this Temple was another house then Solomons Temple as is evident out of the Text it having roomes dimensions structures so different that none can imagine them one house and these chapters containe the division of the Holy Land which after the captivity was never done for the ten Tribes never returned and this Temple is clearely a type of the new Ierusalem and agreeth to that City spoken of Revelation chapters 21. and 22. As may appeare especially by the foure last chapters of Ezekiel and in the last words of the last chapter And the name of the city from that day shall be The Lord is there And the Priests after the captivity as well as before brake the covenant of Levi Mal. 2. And therefore I see it not fulfilled except in the visible Church of the New Testament and in the Assemblies of Christian Churches Mat. 18. Act. 15. and the rest of the Church-assemblies under the New Testament As for the Lords personall raigne on earth it is acknowledged there shall be no Church policy in it no Word Sacraments Ordinances no Temple as they say from Rev. 21. 22. And with correction and submission the Priests and Levites that Ezek. 44. 15. are said to keep the charge of the Lords
window in the conscience of others 4. Pauls practise at Corinth is but a negative ex particulari and not concludent The heathen came to hear the word at Corinth 1 Cor. 14. 23. And Paul doth no where command the Heathen should be excluded from the Sacraments Will Erastus then have them admitted 5. When Paul saith that unworthy Communicants were guilty of the Lords body and blood and required fidelity in the Stewards 1 Cor. 4. He taketh for confessed scandalous persons should not be admitted by the Church its true the sin of others who communicate unworthily is not the sin of another fellow-communicant who hath not authority to debar his fellow-communicant Erastus The Scripture debarred no Iews of old neither from sacrifices nor other sacraments but commandeth that all the male children Iews or Strangers that were not legally unclean nor from their homes should thrice a year appear before the Lord in Ierusalem for to partake of the holy things of God Ergo None were Excommunicated from the holy things of God for morall wickednesse Ans Erastus counteth this an Argument that cannot be Answered but it Answers it self to me And Erastus proposeth a Law that is Catholick to all the males yet he maketh it not Catholick himself but propoundeth a number of males that are excepted as he excepteth those that were legally unclean those that are from home and yet Deut. 16. 16. Exod. 23. 17. Exod. 34. 23. in the Letter of the Law there is no such exception as Erastus maketh I hope if he make an exception so may we according to the word of God Though we should give but not grant that there was no Excommunicaâ—ion amongst the Iews but only for Ceremoniall uncleannesse yet it proveth not there is no Excommunication in the Christian Church but the contrary for if for touching the dead by Gods Law men were separated from the holy things in that Church far more for Morall uncleannesse are men to be separated from the holy things of God under the New Testament for undeniably Ceremoniall separation signified and typed out Morall separation Col. 2. 21. 2. What ground Erastus hath to except those that were Ceremonially unclean and so as uncircumcised in flesh that they were not to appeare before the Lord let him shew the Letter of Scripture for it the same ground have we to shew that the uncircumcised in heart are not to appeare before the Lord Ezek. 44. 7 8 9. Ezek. 22. 26. Nor shall I thinke God would both command all the male without exception to compeare before him thrice a yeare whether they were Adulterers Theeves Murtherers Idolaters or not such but truly sanctified and holy and that he would expresly rebuke the Males that were Adulterers Theeves Murtherers Idolaters because they compeared for him in his House Ier. 7. 8 9 10. So then as he commandeth the the Males to compeare except they be legally uncleane or Lepers and would rebuke them if they should appeare before him being Ceremonially unclean and therefore in that case God would have them not to come So also if they should be Morally unclean he would have them not to come that is it is not their sin that they appeare before the Lord quoad substantiam actus but their obedience but it is their sinne that they appeare â—ali mâ—do in their unrepented guiltinesse yet is it the sinne of the Priests in not differencing betweene the cleane and the uncleane that they suffer them to come tali modo that as Swine they pollute the holy things of God to the Male it is their sinne that they come so and so guilty and that they come not it is their sinne but to the Priests it is their sinne that they admit the uncleane and cast Pearles to Dogs But as God would not rebuke unworthy Eaters at the Lords Table 1 Cor. 11. if they might eate unworthily by Gods Law so neither would he rebuke Theeves and Murtherers for appearing before him in his Temple if they ought not by Law not to appeare in that state No doubt saith Erastus pag. 106. there were many wicked persons in the time of Ioshua Iudges and the Kings in such a multitude yet they were bidden all to compeare before the Lord and none are excepted for their wickednesse and it is certaine God would not both bid them compeare and not compeare Ans All that sinned in Israel were bidden offer Sacrifice yet those who are wicked as Sodom are expresly debarred from Sacrifices except they were morally clean Esai 1. 13. Bring me no more vaine oblation incense is an abomination unto me 16 Wash you make you cleane So say I here God said expresly Ier. 7. 9 10. Except you be washed from your lying stealing come not before me to stand in my house to prophane my holy Name Ergo the Morally unclean are excommunicated from those holy things so all the wicked by the same reason were forbidden they remaining in their wickednes without Repentance to eate the Passeover yea to take the Name of God in their mouth Psal 50. 16 17. to Sacrifice Esai 66. 3. to touch the Altar of God except their hands were washed in innocency Psal 26. 6. And the Priests had the charge of the house of God to put difference betweene the cleane and the uncleane and the Priests are said to violate the holy things of God if the wicked as well as the Ceremonially unclean were not debarred Hag. 2. 11 12. Ezek. 22. 25 26. Ezek. 44. 7 8 9. and certainly the Males that were Leapers were expresly excepted and forbidden to come in the Congregation of Gods people as is before proved Erastus The Pharisees and Sadduces debarred none from the Sacraments for their wicked life Ans What will Erastus make the Pharisees practise our Rule they killed the Lord of Glory and then eat the Passeover with bloody hearts and hands Is such a Practise our Rule Erastus Iohn Baptist refused Baptisme to none willing to bee baptized and referred the inward Baptisme by the Spirit and fire to Iesus Christ Ans Iohn baptized those who confessed their sinnes and professed their Repentance and the like we crave of those that are admitted to the other Sacrament And the instance of Iohn or an Apostles baptizing cannot warrant the Baptizing of all Murtherers Idolatrous persons or the wickedst living as Erastus saith and the vildest on earth if they should but desire Baptisme and give no confession of their Faith nor profession of their Repentance Erastus Christ who rebuked many abuses and cast the buyers and sellers out of the Temple would have rebuked the pollution of the Sacraments also but that he never did and Christ said that Peter should forgive his offending Brother often in one day if he but say It repenteth me and he saith This transaction shall be ratified in heaven Will you be more cruell then God Do not we often lie to God in our Confession to God He meaneth well who desires to
but will it follow therefore the Pastor should not watch over him to try in another way in a Pastorall way by his walking profession and practicall knowledge whether he be in Christ or no. The contrary is Heb. 13. 17. They watch for the souls of the people as they that must give an accompt And they are so far to try that are Shepherds that they are obliged in a Pastorall way to know those of the flock that are diseased Ezech. 34. 4. Sick broken driven away and lost And to what end should they try themselves least they eat damnation to themselves Ergo the Stewards should try the stomacks that they eat not poyson If then the Lords Law bid men beware they be not tempted to Sorcery Sodomy Murthers and if every man ought to have personall watchfulnesse over his own conscience that he be not insnared to those sins and Achan was to try if his heart was ingaged to the wedge of Gold and to be wary to meddle with it but it doth not follow that Magistrates as Joshua should not try out Sorcerers Sodomites and other Achans to punish them Erastus 2 Cor. 13. is against this a person is to try himselfe Will it follow when he hath tryed himselfe that he cannot come to the Lords Supper except he seem meet to the Elders And this not our consequence let Erastus owne it we care not In a constitute Church he should else Erastus provides no way against a Pagan who hath heard the Word as he may doe 1 Cor. 14. 23. may without the Elders and Church sit downe at the Lords Supper for Erastus provides no stop for him but only his own pagan Conscience and so may one by that rule but trample on the Sacrament his owne Conscience is all his rule contrary to what he saith himselfe lib. 3. c. â— p. 207. Erastus 1 Cor. 11. Paul forbiddeth none to come to the Supper but upon supposition that they come as the manner is he biddeth them come worthily as all are bidden hear the Word though they â—e forbidden to he are it as if it were some prophane History nor doth the Lord command sinfull coming for no act commanded of God is evill Ans 1. Paul then forbiddeth not Pagans more to come to the Supper and Children then he forbiddeth them to heare the Word which is absurd he commandeth all to heare but he commandeth not all to come to the Supper but those onely that can discerne the Lords body for to heare the Word though I be not prepared is simply necessary if I would be saved and to sacrifice if I would be reconciled and to pray if I would obtaine any blessing though the manner of doing all these be commanded that I heare sacrifice and pray in faith But to come to the Supper is not commanded to all not to Pagans not to children not to the unregenerated but onely to the regenerated and to those who discerne the Lords body and for a child to come to the Lords Supper or an unrenewed man is forbidden not commanded and no ill act is commanded and it is a sinne that they come at all But Erastus will have it lawfull as it is to heare the Word then doth Christ command Turks and children to come to the Supper for he commandeth them to heare the Word and Peter bade Simon Magus pray Act. 8. 22. but he neither bids give the Supper to him nor bids he him receive it but by the contrary forbids pearles to be cast unto Swine Erastus Arg. 16. God will not have fewer Christians to be members of the Church now then of Iewes to be members of the Iewish Church But God would have all circumcised even the most flagitious that were punished by the Magistrate to be members of the Iewes Church Ergo God will have all the baptized to be Members of the Church Ans This will prove that all baptized even children should come to the Supper 2. I deny the Minor to wit that all the most wicked remained Members of the visible Iewish Church jure before God the wicked Iewes to God were as Sodom and Gomorrah Esa 1. 10. Yea he saith Amos 9. 7. Are ye not unto me as children of Ethiopians O children of Israel saith the Lord What they were de facto and not cast out was the fault of the Priests and that the Church does tollerate Iezabels Wolves Lions in the flock and admitteth them to holy things is their sin Erastus But Repentance was not alwaies commanded to those Iewes especially who were unclean by touching an unclean thing against their will and ignorantly and the purging of them depended on their owne will so they observed the Ceremonies of Moses Ans That is much for us if those who were uncleane against their will and cast out of the campe it being a trying Type that far more those that are wickedly scandalous are to be cast out of the Church Erastus The Church is a draw-â—et a field a marriage Supper there be good and ill in it and it was not the sinne of the inviters who are bidden invite all good and bad Mat. 22. But the man that came himselfe without the wedding garment he is cast into utter darkenesse Ergo The Officers are to invite all and forbid none Ans They are to invite all to all Ordinances and Seals even Dogs and Swine that is false They are to invite all to some Ordinances to heare the Law and Gospel preached but not the Seales that were to cast Pearles to Swine 2. The way of Erastus is that none are to be debarred nor to debarre themselves from the Seales more then from the Word The Lords forbidding Adam to touch the tree of Life and his casting of him out of Paradise and Cains being cast out from the presence of the Lord to me are rather Types presignifying Excommunication and that God will have wicked men debarred from holy things then patternes of Excommunications and so are they alledged by Beza and our Divines CHAP. VII Quest 3. Whether Erastus doth justly deny that Excommunication was typified in the Old Testament VVEe take types of uncleannesse in the Old Testament to be rightly expounded when the holy Ghost in the New-Testament doth expound them Now that Ceremoniall uncleannes did typifie Morall uncleannesse is cleare 2 Cor. 7. 17. Touch no uncleane thing and I will receive you 18. And I will be a Father unto you and yee shall be my Sonnes and Daughters saith the Lord Almighty This is a manifest Exposition of the Ceremoniall holinesse and cleannesse commanded in the booke of Leviticus for after the Lord hath given them a number of Lawes about eschewing of uncleane things he saith in generall Lev. 26. 3. If ye walke in my Statutes and keepe my Commandements and doe them 11. I will set my Tabernacle amongst you and I will be your God and ye shall be my people And it is a cleare allusion to Numb 19. 11. He that toucheth
Circumcision did typifie much naturall and originall heart corruption which cannot be punished by men or the Church but it followes not because Legall uncleannesse signifieth some other uncleannesse then that which is scandalous and censurable by the Church Ergo it signifieth not sinnes scandalous and censurable by the Church Erastus He that was legally unclean a long time or all his life as a Leper was not esteemed as no Iew or uncircumcised or a damned man he was to keepe the Sabbath yea none unclean were excluded from the Sacrament of the generall expiation in the 10. Moneth Lev. 16. and 23. Yea every soul under the pain of cutting off was to afflict his soule that day then the Lepers were not as Heathen and Publicans and condemned men yea the Magistrate could not punish a man for Leprosie Ans This is a poor argument because Ceremoniall Excommunication differeth from Christian Excommunication Ergo the former is not a type of the latter it followeth not Isaacs blood was never really shed Christ was really crucified Isaac was not mocked spitted on did not wear a crown of Thornes Iews and Gentiles crucified him not between two Theevs Ergo Isaac was no figure of Christ offered for our sins it followeth not 2. Nor are Lepers no Iews but in some respect they might no more come to the Temple 2. Nor amongst the people of God nor 3. Eate the Passeover then Heathens might doe and so are the Excommunicated with uâ— they are not exempted from faith repenting afflicting their soule for the sinnes of the Land nor are they eternally damned so they repent But Erastus hath no ground to say because the unclean were to afflict their soules and abstaine from servile worke in the day of atonement as our Excommunicants are not loosed from the duties of the ten Commandements wholly but from some publike Church duties but I see not how it followes Ergo The uncleane were to come to the holy convocation in the day of expiation and to observe the publike solemnities with Gods people One Law of God is not contradicent to another and the Leper and unclean were separated Ergo God could not tie them to be mingled with his people 3. The Leper was not punished by the Magistrate for he suffered onely for his Leprosie But it followeth not that the Magistrate should not punish a person obstinate to the Church Erastus When some uncleane persons were debarred from the Tabernacle and sacrifices many wickedmen were admitted Ergo. Moses both commanded men at the same time to come to the holy things and not to come Answ Moses bade the unclean come he bade all clean so they were not scandalously and openly wicked come and some came that were not bidden but rebuked for their coming as Ier. 7. 8. 9. Psal 50. 15. Here is no contradiction Erastus There be no figures of things present but of things to come morall uncleannesse was present at least there be no figures of things that incurre in the senses as theft and homicide Ans Circumcision the Lords Supper are signes and Symbols of things present as of Originall sinne our present union with Christ and communion of love amongst our selves Col. 2. 11. 1 Cor. 10. 16 17 18. 2. Scandals as they are spirituall wickednes incurre not in our senses yet other wayes they are visible 3. Christs dying was both tyipfied to Iohn the Apostle and Mary and his death incurred in their senses they saw him die So was Christ raised from the dead typified by Ionas in the belly of the Whale and with their eyes they saw him after he rose againe Erastus Houses cloaths trees stones were capable of legall uncleannes men onely of Morall Legall uncleannes is a qualitie wickednes morall is in actions Ans I am ashamed and wearied to put in Paper such childish things all this will not prove that Legall uncleannes is no type of Morall uncleannes Isaac was but a man Moses a man onely Ergo they cannot be Types of Christ who is more then a man Bread and Wine are some other thing then Christ then cannot these be symbols of Christ and our spirituall communion with him I see nothing here but a challenging of Gods wisedome who hath chosen leprosie bodily to figure out sinnes spirituall Leprosie Erastus will say not so Leprosie is in the category of quality and sinfull actions in the category of actions Erastus Legall uncleannes signifieth naturall corruption not scandals Ans Yea but Leprosie and other uncleannes legall was contagious and infectious and did relate to wicked actions that infect as a canker sin originall being common to all is not that contagious from one to many nor did the Lord ever command Separation for sinne Originall but for transgression of Ceremoniall Lawes he did Erastus The Ceremoniall uncleannes does typifie the justification and washing of a sinner in Christs blood because no unclean thing can enter in the New Ierusalem and so the Scripture Rev. 21. Esa 4â— Ioel 3. Acts 15. And it shadowes out no such thing as Excommunication out of the Church Ans All the arguments that Erastusmade to prove that legall separation and uncleannes proveth not Excommunication and Morall uncleannes will with the same force conclude that Legall uncleannes is not that which excludes men out of heaven As for instance to begin with the last Legall uncleannesse signifieth sinne originall not wicked actions therefore it signifieth not scandals then by this Legall uncleannes that caused legall separation is signified mens exclusion out of the high Jerusalem for onely sinne Originall not for actuall sins This type must be a lying type for actuall sins especially debaâ—res us out of the New Jerusalem Rev. 21. 8. c. 22. 15. 1 Cor. 6. 9. 2. Legall uncleannes and corruption of nature differ as much as legall uncleannes and actuall wickednesse But Erastus said the former cannot typifie the latter 1. Because Legall uncleannes is often involuntary 2. It is not universally forbidden 3. Many godly men may be legally unclean but actuall morall wickednesse is not so even so say I. 1. All naturall or originall uncleannes is voluntary in Adam 2. Is universally forbidden 3. It cannot consist with that holines which we must have or we cannot see God 3. By Erastus his fourth difference legall uncleannes was otherwise punished then naturall corruption for naturall corruption is punished with the first and second death Ephes 2. 2. Rom. 5. 15 16. the like may be said of all the rest 4. Numb 12. 14. Shame was unseparably annexed to Leprosie with contagion so leavening of others and shame is annexed to â—oul scandals and annexed to casting out of the Church 1 Cor. 5 6 7. 2 Thes 3. 14. Gal. 5. 9 10. But though a necessity of washing may be holden forth to us in Legall uncleannes ere we enter into Heaven yet not so directly as in legall separation for in it men scandalous are excluded out of the church least the uncleane
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
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
his businesse performe both doth Paul make exceptions of Magistrates and Potentates when he saith 1 Cor. 14. You may all prophecie Hence he must grant that the civill Magistrate now may both preach baptize and administer the Supper of the Lord and therfore not only hath the Church no Senate nor Ecclesiasticall court to punish faults and scandals with Ecclesiastick censures but there is no Presbytery of Elders to give their judgement in matters of doctrine for the Magistrates and all Christians may as well prophecy by ◠Cor. 14. as Ministers saith he yea the faculty of preaching is no more proper to the Ministers of the Church then to the Magistrates of the city Now by this nothing is proper to the Magistrate as the Magistrate but to the Magistrate as a Christian and to all Christians But Erastus contendeth that the government of the Church and punishing of Scandals which we say belongeth to those that are over the people of God in the Lord and to Church Rulers doth belong to the Magistrate as the Magistrate and virtute officii by vertue of his office so that if any Iew or Turke or any ignorant or extreamely scandalous should attempt to intrude himselfe upon the Seals the Magistrate as the Magistrate and virtute officii is to examine and judge if he be unworthy to debar him or as he findeth him worthy admit him to the Seals Now any seeth that it is but a deceiving of the Reader to say that one man may discharge both the place of the Magistrate and the Minister of God as Moses did and Ioshua David For let Erastus and his followers shew us roundly and down-right whether or no prophecying debarring the unworthy from the Seals and all acts of Church government not proper to the Magistrate as the Magistrate and virtute officii And if so as indeed Erastus teacheth it is bu◠a poore shift to say that one and the same man may both exercise the part of a Magistrate and of a Minister Erastus Beza for ever shall not prove that there was a Church judicature that had power to punish scandalous men Iehoshaphat 2 Chron. 19. ordained judges in all the fenced cities and admonished them of their duty 2. And did the same at Ierusalem 3. And ordained judges of Levites and Priests and heads of families for the judgement of the Lord and for every cause and Amaziah the High Priest was chiefe in the causes of the Lord and Zebadiah in the Kings causes This Synedrie at Ierusalem was the politick Magistrate they judged of stroaks servitude deaths But your Synedrie judgeth not between blood and blood it judgeth not of every cause as Deut. 17. Those that are not well versed in Scripture are to note two things 1. That the cause of the Lord where mention is made of judicatures is not onely a cause of Religion but any cause proposed in judgement especially the causes of the widdow the Orphan oppressed which the Lord saith he will avenge 2. The Levites Priests were no lesse civil judges then others it is known that onely the Levits were Magistrats in the cities of refuge there was need of men exercised in the Law of God that the judges might judge righteously Ans If you take punishing for inflicting Church-censure as we here take it then all the places that sayes the Priests pronounced the Leper clean or unclean to put out of the campe or take in to judge of the adulterous woman of the restitution made by those for whom they offered Sacrifices to judge between the clean and unclean to hold out of the Sanctuary the unclean the uncircumcised in heart and flesh Levit. 13. 3 4 c. and 20 22. and 21. 26 and 30. 44. and 31. 50. Ezek. 22. 26. and 44. 8 9 10. Num. 3. 6 and 5. 18 19. Deut 17. 12. say the Priests had power to punish for transgressing of Gods Lawes and where the Prophets complaine of the Priests mis-government and unjustice it is presupposed they were to govern justly according to the Law Ier. 5. 31. 2 King 12. 4. Ier. 26. 7 8 11. Hag. 2. 11 12. Ezek. 44. 8 9 10. 2. For the place 2 Chron. 19. it is evident that Iehoshaphat doth reforme both Church and State and brought the corrupted Iudicatures to that which they should be by Law and v. 5 6 7. He set judges in the fenced cities of Iudah Here is the civill judicature And v. 8. Moreover in Ierusalem did Iehoshaphat set of the Levits and of the Priests and of the chiefo of the fathers of Israel for the judgement of the Lord and for controversies when they returned to Ierusalem Now that this second is a Church judicature I am confirmed 1. Because Iehoshaphat appointed civill judges in all the fenced cities of Iudah Ergo Also in Ierusalem the prime fenced city Now this civill judicature was not tyed to a place but was in every city even all the fenced cities but the Synedrie of Priests Levites and Elders was onely at Ierusalem in the place that the Lord should chuse Deut. 17. 8. Hence a judicature tyed to no city but which is in every fenced city 2 Chron. 19. 5. Deut. 17. 8. and a judicature tyed to Ierusalem the place that the Lord did choose Deut. 17. 8. 2 Chron. 19. 8. must be two distinct judicatures but such were these 2. There is a moreover put to the Iudicature at Ierusalem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and also in Ierusalem did Iehoshaphat set of the Levites c. This could not have been said if this had not been a judicature different from the former for if Iehoshaphat appointed Iudges in all the fenced cities Ergo He appointed them first at Ierusalem the Mother city and fountaine of justice now then he should say the same thing needlesly and with a moreover if this judicature at Ierusalem were not a judicature Ecclesiasticke and different from the judicature civill that he appointed at Ierusalem as one of the prime fenced cities which was common with the civill judicatures in other fenced cities 3. The persons in the judicatures are different for v. 5. the members of the court 2 Chro. 19. 5 6 7 are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 judges these could not be Churchmen for of these he speaketh v. 8. they are expresly distinguished from the Levites Priests and Elders v. 8. who are all Church-men for the fathers of the people were no other thing then our governing Elders and these were members of the other court v. 8. 4. The objects of these judicatures are very different The Spirit of God saith of the one ver 5. That they judge for the Lord ver 13. for all the Kings matters this must be all civill causes in which the King and inferiour judges under the King doe judge but the object of the other is higher The Priests and Levites are appointed by Iehoshaphat for the judgement of the Lord ver 8. And in every matter of
the Lord v. 13. Now whereas Erastus putteth a note of ignorance on all that hath been versed in the Old Testament before him whereas he confesseth he understandeth not the Originall Language let the Reader judge what arrogance is here where ever there is mention saith he of judgement there is signified not religious causes but also other causes especially the cause of the widow and Orphane It bewrayeth great ignorance For 1. The matters of the Lord and the matters of the King are so evidently distinguished and opposed the one to the other by two divers presidents in the different judicatures the one Ecclesiasticall Amaziah the chiefe Priest in every word or matter of the Lord and the other Zebadiah the sonne of Ishmael the ruler of the house of Iudah for all the Kings matters that the very words of the Text say that of Erastus which he saith of others that he is not versed in the Scripture for then the causes of the Lord and the causes of the King in the Text by Erastus should be the same causes whereas the Spirit of God doth distinguish them most evidently 2. If the cause of the King were all one with the judgement of the Lord and the cause of the Lord yea if it were all one with all causes whatsoever either civill or Ecclesiasticall what reason was there they should be distinguished in the Text and that Amaziah should not be over the people in the Kings matters though he were the chiefe Priest and Zebadiah though a civill Iudge over all the matters of the Lord and causes Ecclesiasticall 3. The Kings matters are the causes of the widow and orphan and oppressed as is evident Ier. 22. 2. O King of Iudah v. 3. execute yee judgement and righteousnesse and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor and doe no wrong doe no violence to the stranger the fatherlesse nor the widdow so Esa 1. 10. 17. Prov. 31. 4 5. Iob 29. 12 13 c. Then the Text must beare that every matter of the King is the Iudgement of the Lord and the matter of the Lord and every matter and judgement of the Lord is also the matter of the King and to be judged by the King then must the King as well as the Priest judge between the clean and the unclean and give sentence who shall be put out of the Campe and not enter into the Congregation of the Lord no lesse then the Priests Let Erastus and all his see to this and then must the Priests also releeve the fatherlesse and widdow and put to death the oppressour 2. The different presidents in the judicatures maketh them different judicatures 3. It is denied that all causes whatsoever came before the Ecclesiasticall Synedry at Jerusalem Erastus doth say this but not prove it for the place 2 Chron. 19. doth clearly expound the place Deut. 17. for the causes of the brethren that dwell in the Cities between Blood and Blood between Law and Commandement Statutes and judgements are judged in the Ecclesiasticall Synedrim at Ierusalem not in a civill coactive way by the power of the sword 1. Because all causes are by a coactive power judged as the matters of the King the supream sword bearer 2 Chron. 19. 5. v. 13. Rom. 13 4. to eschew oppression and maintain justice Ier. 22. 2 3. But the causes here judged in this Synedrim are judged in another reduplication as the matters of the Lord differenced from the matters of the King 2 Chron. 19. 13. now if the Priests and Levites judged in the same judicature these same civill causes and the same way by the power of the sword as Magistrates as Erastus saith why is there in the Text 1. Two judicatures one v. 5. in all the fenced cities another at Ierusalem v. 8 2. What meaneth this that the Kings matters are judged in the civill judicature not by the Priests and Levites as Erastus saith for the Ruler of the house of Iudah was president in these and the matters of the Lord were judged by the Priests and Levites and Amariah the chiefe Priest was over them for then Amariah was as well over the Kings matters as the Ruler of the house of Iudah and the Ruler of the house of Iudah over the Lords matters as over the Kings for if Priests and Levites judged as the Deputies subordinate to the King and by the power of the sword the Kings matters are the Lords matters and the Lords matters the Kings matters and Amariah judgeth not as chiefe Priests as he doth burne incense but as an other judge this truly is to turne the Text upside downe 2. The causes judged in the Synedrim at Ierusalem are said to be judged as controversies when they returned to Ierusalem 2 Chr. 19. 8. and matters too hard between plea and plea between blood and blood between stroke and stroke Deut. 17. 8. and so doubts of Law and cases of conscience Now Mal. 2. 7. The Priests lips should preserve knowledge and they should seek the Law at his mouth for he is the messenger of the Lord of hostes and this way only the Priests and Levites judged not that they inflicted death on any but they resolved in an Ecclesiasticall way the consciences of the judges of the fenced Cities what was a breach of the Law of God Morall or Judiciall what not what deserved Church censures what not who were clean who unclean and all these are called the judgement of the Lord the matters of the Lord because they had so near relation to the soul and conscience as the conscience is under a divine Law 3. Erastus saith it is knowen that the Levites only were Magistrates in the Cities of refuge but I deny it Erastus should have made it knowen to us from some Scripture I finde no ground for it in Scripture Erastus It is true that Beza saith that the Magistrate hath a supream power to cause every man do his duty But how hath he that supream power if he be also subject to the Presbyters for your Presbyters do subject the Magistrate to them and compell him to obey them and punish them if they disobey Ans The Magistrate even King David leaveth not off to be supream because Nathan commandeth him in the Lord nor the King of Niniveh and his Nobles leave not off to command as Magistrates though Jonah by the word of the Lord bring them to lie in sackcloth and to Fast all the Kings are subject to the rebukes and threatnings of the Prophets Isa 1. 10. Jer. 22. 2 3. Ier. 1. 18. 2 Kin. 12. 8 9. 10 11 12. 1 Kin. 21. 21 22 23. Isa 30. 33. Hos 5. 1 2. and to their commandments in the Lord If Presbyters do command as Ministers of Christ the highest powers on earth if they have souls must submit their consciences to the Lords rebukings threatnings and Commandment in their mouth Court Sycophants say the contrary but we care not 2. But they punish the
The Assumption is false Deut. 17 saith the contrary 3. Though we could not shew a place for the formall institution of an Ordinance yet if we show the thing instituted it is sufficient 4. Erastus much doubteth himselfe if Moses his government was altogether civill especially before the Lord separated Aaron his sons and the Tribe of Levi to teach and governe the people in an Ecclesiasticall way for Erastus said before that Moses prescribed Lawes to Aaron sacrificed and did that which was proper to the Priests though after that God forbad the Kings to usurpe the Priests office and punished Saul and Vzziah for so doing though I never read that Saul usurped the Priests office you may take it upon the word of Erastus and we all know that Moses was a Prophet of God Deut. 18. 18. I will raise them up a Prophet from amongst their brethren like unto thee Deut. 34. 10. And there arose not a Prophet in Israel since like unto Moses whom the Lord knew face to face Heb. 3. 5. Moses verily was faithfull in all his house as a servant Now those that will say Moses his government of the Church was all civill and politicall as a civill judge and King and that he acted not in the governement of the Church as in writing and delivering Laws and in doing many things yea in commanding the will of God as a Prophet to Aaron to his sons and the whole tribe of Levi to me speakes non-sense Erastus That judicature to the which the inferiours appealed as to the supreame is politick Ans It is denied they appealed to it as the supreme Ecclesiastick in point of Law and Conscience Ergo It was not politique all the rest are answered before yea Iehoshaphat 2 Chron. 19. putteth this as a thing peculiar to the Priests v. 12. What cause soever shall come before you of your brethren between blood and blood between Law and Commandement Statutes and Judgements ye shall even warne them that they trespasse not against the Lord that is as Erastus yeeldeth ye shall teach them what is just and agreeable to and what is unjust and repugnant to the Law of God Civill judges lips were not to preserve knowledge as the lips of the Priests Mal. 2. 7. and Deut. 17. 11. According to the sentence of the Law that they shall teach thee and according to the judgement that they shall tell thou shalt doe Hence it is clear that this judicature in civill things was a teaching a telling a declaring and resolving judicature and that in blood they resolved of causes of blood of stroakes but judged not persons nor bloody men nor violent persons Erastus Moses and Iehoshaphat speake of one and the same judicature Moses doth not give teaching and commanding divisibly to some but joyntly to all the Synedrie Though the Priests were more skilled in the Law for Moses commandeth to teach the sense of the Law by judgeing as he saith himselfe Exod. 18. 16. I judge between one and another and I doe make them know the statutes of God and his lawes Moses putteth them all joyntly together they shall tell thee thou shalt doe what they shevv thee according to the Lavv that they shall teach thee shalt thou doe not declining to the right-hand or to the left-hand Ans 1. That Iehoshaphat speaketh of the same judicature that Moses speaketh of is clear 2 Chron. 19. 8 9. 10. The very words of Moses Deut. 17. 8. are the same both the same judges and the same causes compared with v. 5 6 7. But Iehoshaphat maketh two judicatures as I have proved and Iehoshaphat reformed according to Moses his Lavv as Erastus granteth 2. I cannot be induced to beleeve that the judges here teached by judging it is spoken contrary to Theology The end of teaching is to informe the conscience and Teachers as Teachers watch for the soule and the end of civill and politick judging is a quiet and peaceable life 1 Tim. 2. 2. the vveapons of teachers are not carnall but spirituall 2 Cor. 10. 4 5. the weapons of civill Iudges are carnall for the civill Iudge beareth not the svvord in vaine Rom. 13. 4. then these same civill judges did not both teach and judge at once they taught not as civill judges but as Priests they judged not as Priests but as civill Iudges and therefore there is no ground to say that Moses ascribeth these same acts to civill judges and Priests and Levites as if they made one Synedry for in both Texts not one word of teaching which is proper to the Priests Mal. 2. 7. Ier. 2. 8. Hos 4. 6. is ascribed to the civill Iudge and not one word of judging and condemning to death which is proper to the civill Iudge Num. 35. 24. Deut. 22. 18 19 Deut. 17. 2. 3 4 c. and 21. 19 20. 1 King 21. 11. 2 Sam. 14. 15. 1 Kings 2. 28 c. Rom. 13. 4. Luke 12. 13. 14. c. is ascribed to the Priests and Levites but the Priest or the judge are set downe by way of disjunction Deut. 17. 12. which could not be if they made one and the same judicature and therefore Iehoshaphat 2 Chron. 19. clearely distinguisheth them in two judicatures one v. 5 6 7. Another v. 8 9 10. having two sundry presidents and two sundry objects to treat about to wit the matters of Iehovah and the matters of the King 3. The place cited Exod. 18. 16. confirmeth much our opinion for Moses as a Iudge saith vvhen they have a matter they come unto me and I judge between one another This he spake as a civill Iudge and when he saith And I make them knovv the statutes of God and his lavves This he spake as a prophet for Moses was both a Iudge and a Prophet Now if all civill Iudges be such mixt persons as to teach the Stautes and Laws of God they doe this either as civill judges or as Prophets then there was reason why Malachie should have said the civill judges lips should preserve knowledge and they should seeke the Law at his mouth for if a civill judge as a Iudge teach the people and watch for their souls what marvell then he beare the sword to preserve their bodies as a Prophet and not as a Iudge and if he beare the sword as a Prophet and Teacher all Teachers must beare the sword which is against reason and Scripture and what reason is there if Moses teach as a civill judge but he may as properly be obliged in conscience to teach and so he should sin if he imploy not his talent that way as he is obliged to exercise the sword as a judge and by the contrary a Prophet as a Prophet should be obliged in conscience as kindly and per se to exercise the Sword as to preach the Gospel for nothing agreeth more kindly to the subiect then that which agreeth to it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under that reduplication as it is
such Now this is against sense and reason and confoundeth all callings on earth but if Erastus grant that Moses judgeth as a civill judge and teacheth the people the Law of God as a prophet then to make this Sanedrim a mixt company both to judge civilly and to teach as spirituall men by office must all the Priests and Levites in this Sanedrim be both Priests and Levites and also civill Iudges And all the civill Iudges must be both civill judges and also Priests and Levites which is expresly against the Text that speakes Deut. 17. of the Priest or the Iudge as two distinct offices and so God must have chosen the Iudge no lesse then the Priest to minister before him So it is false that teaching and judging are copulatively ascribed to these same persons and to the same judicature as Erastus saith Erastus He saith Deut. 17. he shall die who standeth not to the sentence of the Priest or judge by way of disjunction in regard of divers times for the Princes or Iudges were not alwayes the same for often onely the Priests governed and for the same reason he saith not Deut. 17. ascend to Ierusalem but to the place which the Lord thy God shall chuse for the Arke was not alwayes in one place or city So Deut. 19. when he speaketh of the false witnesse he saith and they shall stand before the Lord that is before the Priests and Iudges that shall be at that time Who vvould thinke that there are here distinct and divers Iudicatures Ans It is a conjecture of Erastus that Moses speaketh Deut. 17. of the Priest or the Iudge by way of disjunction because of divers times not of divers and distinct Tribunals for all Moses his time and Ioshua's time and for the most part there were both Iudges and Priests and we had rather beleeve the Spirit of God then Erastus for 2 Chron. 19. under Iehoshaphat at one and the same time there were both civill Iudges and Priests and Levites and these two Judicatures had two different sorts of causes and two different Presidents if then at one and the same time the man was to be put to death who did not stand to the sentence of the Priest though he should stand to the sentence of the civill judge and so if hee was to be put to death who should stand to the sentence of the Priests and give an outside of obedience to the Ceremoniall Law if he should not stand to the sentence of the civill Judge then were there at the same time these two sentences in these two judicatures but the former is true by the expresse Law of God Ergo so is the latter when God saith Goe up to the place that the Lord shall chuse he meaneth Ierusalem and one determinate place at once and if Moses had said Goe up to the place that the Lord shall chuse or to some other place that the Lord shall not chuse then could I inferre well that at one and the same time they might have gone to either places or to both places having two sorts of causes as there be ever two sorts of causes in the Church some Civill some Ecclesiasticall 3. Erastus should have shewen a time when onely the Priest as the Priest did governe and there neither was a civill Iudge nor was that Priest who governed the civill judge If Erastus shew not this he sheweth nothing for his owne cause which is to make one confused Judicature of civill and Ecclesiasticall Iudges and causes which the Scripture doth carefully distinguish 4. In the place Deut. 19. nothing is said against us but that onely the civill Iudge put to death the false Witnesse which is much for us that though the false witnesse was to stand before the Priests and incurre an Ecclesiastick censure yet the Priest as Priest had no hand in putting him to death Erastus Sometime the Priest vvas president in this Sanedrim as Eli and Samuel vvithout a judge therefore vvhen it is said the chiefe Priest vvas â—ver them in all the matters of the Lord and Zebadiah in the Kings matters they made not tvvo different Iudicatures and the high Priest and Zebadiah vvere both over the same Iudicature Iosephus excellently versed in the Ievvish lavvs saith antiq lib. 9. c. 1. they vvere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fellovves or companions then they vvere not in divers Senats The Levites vvere equally servants to both though it may be the Priests were more diligently to goe about the canses of God and the Iudges the causes of the King Ans Were Eli and Samuel presidents in the Sanedrim without a Iudge that is as much as to say Eli and Samuel who undoubtedly by the Testimony of the Spirit of God were civill Iudges of Israel 1 Sam. 4 18. and 7. 15. and 8. 1. 7. were Judges without Iudges I conceive Eli was both a Priest and a Judge and Samuel both a Prophet and a Iudge whether Samuel was a Priest or not let Erastus determine Samuel was of the Tribe of Ephraim not a Priest though he sacrificed by an extraordinary Priviledge nor was Moses a Priest 2. I see no reason to say Eli was a Priest without a Iudge more then to say he was a Iudge without a Priest for he was both But this may shew the Reader that Erastus alwayes confoundeth the office of the Priest and the Civill judge so as he maketh them not only subjectively one which God himself did in the person of Eli but also one formally for as I shew before Erastus must say Eli sacrificed as a Iudge and he condemned ill doers to die exercised the sword as a Priest Samuel prophesied as a Magistrate Samuel did judge Israel as a Prophet for the Magistrate as the Magistrate to Erastus doth both the part of a Iudge of a Priest and Prophet of old and now of a Pastor and Teacher 3. It is enough to us that Amariah and Zebadiah were over diverse causes in divers Courts and differenced 2 Chro. 19. in that the one was for the kings matters the other for Gods matters Erast saith right down they were both for these same matters But the one was to care more for the Kings matters the other more for Gods matters so Erastus is forced to make a difference But he maketh it in the comparative degree and the spirit of God maketh the difference in the positive degree But 1. Erastus saith without the Text Amariah was to care for the matters of the King but more for the matters of God The Text saith no such thing but the contrary he saith Zebadiah the Civill Magistrate was to care for the matters of God but more for the matters of the King 4. This is against Erastus his his way which is that the Magistrate hath a supreame principall and only care of Church-Government and the Priests and Levites and Pastors and Teachers only as the servants of the Magistrates A sub
any Law-power except usurped when the Iews were now riper for destruction and had taken on them the blood of the Lord of glory and so growing more daring and insolent against the Roman povver to their own just desolation that came on them under Vespasian That they used witnesses will not prove they had Law to stone Steven for Timothy had no power of life and death over Elders one brother hath no power of life and death over another as Erastus will grant yet with both there is use of witnesses 1 Tim. 5. 19. Matth. 18. 16. This I hope concludeth but weakly any lawfull civill power so all this is from a naked practise of those that alvvayes resisted the holy Ghost And the like I say of Paul who saith Act. 26. 10. of himself Many of the Saints did I shut up in prison having received authority from the high Priests 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 suppose it were true that Saul had Law and Authority from the high Priests to imprison the Saints and to murther the Saints no high Priest can make over a Law-power to another which he hath not himself now certain this Law-power of the Pharisees and High Priests by Gods Law is the question Let us see Law or institution where the High Priests for of these only the Text speaketh did imprison and put to death either blasphemer or false Prophet or if by Moses his Law which must be a rule to all the High Priests in the time of persecuting Saul it was either Law or practise that the High Priest had power to imprison or scourge or put to death any man and this was most proper to the King and the Civill judge and the Elders and Iudges in every City 2 Sam. 1. 14. 15 16. 1 Kin. 2. 9. 2. 6 7. Isa 1. 23. Ier. 22. 1 c. Ier. 22. 27. Numb 35. 12. 24. Deut. 22. 18. 7. 5. 19. 12. 13. ver 18 19 20 21. 21. 19. 1 Kin. 21. 11. Hos 6. 8. Zeph. 3. 1 2 3. Rom. 13. 4. We know undoubtedly the King the Civill Iudge had power of all bodily punishments as of scourging death stoning strangling crucifying hanging But shew meany Vestigium or the least consequence where the Priests or High Priests had such power or did execute such power in any one man it is true Deut. 17. the Priests might determine in Law what was blasphemy and so what deserved the punishment of blasphemy which is death But so the written Law of God the very letter of it could in many cases clearly resolve the Civill judge even though there had been no controversie about the fact whether it was condemned in the Law of God or not we know Samuel not being judge but Saul being King supream Magistrate not executing judgement on the Amalekites he killed Agag certainly all Divines even Popish not excepted say Saul the Civil Magistrate ought to have killed Agag that Samuel not by vertue of his place as a prophet or as a Priest or a Member of the Sanedrim as Erastus would say but excited by an extraordinary motion of Gods spirit killed him as Phineas the son of Aaron slew Num. 25. Zimri and Cosbi 7 8. And Elijah slew Baals Priests 1 Kin. 18. 40. 2 Kin. 1. 10. If Phineas by office and Elias by office killed those ill doers as Erastus would dream The Prophets and Priests by their office were Civill Iudges and had power to put to death evil doers Now Erastus denyeth and with good reason that the Lords disciples should bear civill dominion over men as the Lords of the Gentiles Luk. 22. 24 25 26. and that Christ though both a Prophet and a Priest could not take on him to be a Iudge and a Ruler Luk. 12. yet here Erastus will have the High Priest by a Law-power to imprison and put to death 2. Erastus may with as good reason say that the high Priests had a Law-power by Gods institution to punish and to compell Christians to blaspheme God and to persecute them to strange Cities and to murther the Saints that believed in the Lord Iesus for he went to Damascus for this effect Act. 26. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with povver and Commission from the chief Priests This was not a Law-power in generall to punish such as the Law of Moses discerned to be blasphemers but a limited particular Commission to murther the Saints who should hear and obey the Prophet like unto Moses whom the Lord should raise up Deut. 18. What Law had the High Priests for this Had they not a Law on the contrary Deut. 18. Erastus Paul confesseth ingenuously before the Roman Judges that he persecuted the Saints and that he had authority and power from the Priests and Elders so to do Act. 22. 26. and we read not that the Priests or Paul were censured for these things as having done any thing against the Laws or will of the Romans Act. 5. They send their Officer the Captain of the Temple they imprison the Apostles they convene a Councell give out a sentence and agitate the killing of the Apostles amongst them while Gamaliel impede them Ans It is true the Romans heard that the Sanedrim exercised Civill jurisdiction and inflicted bodily punishment But for false Doctrine the Romans I conceive took as little care as Gallio did of any of Gods matters and whether the Sanedrim kept the rule of the Lords first institution Deut. 17. yea they looked not much whether the Priests might put to death false Prophets or if the Civill judges only might do it and Erastus said before that the Romans gave the Iews liberty of all their own laws and customes in matters of Religion 2. What care would the Romans take whether the Iews killed and oppressed Iews for questions of their owne Religion so they remained loyall and true to Cesar 3. We know Herod Felix Festus Agrippa being willing to pleasure the Iews did oversee many breaches of Law in them especially in matters of the Gospel Act. 12. 3. and 24. 27. and 16. 36 37 38 39 40. Ioh. 19. 15 16 17. 4. How doth he prove that the Romans did not take this for a breach of their Lawes Because they accuse not the Sanedrim for this surely it followeth not We read not that the Romans challenged them for a manifest breach of Law when they scourged and cast in prison Paul and Silas who were Romans and had not condemned them Act. 16. 38 39. 5. We deny not a lawfull judicature of the Sanedrim Act. 5. But that they had any Law of God to scourge and imprison and put to death the Apostles is the question we say they neither had Gods law nor durst be answerable to the Romans Laws for that fact and so this is a fact brought to prove a Law Erastus If this was insolencie in the Jevvs which rose from the confusion of the two jurisdictions hovv say some of yours none can be
in way of Preaching or in way of censure is a part of the Gospel But Pastors are to Preach the Gospel to all to great and small who stand in need of Reconciliation 2 Cor. 5. 20 Act. 9. 15. He is a chosen vessel to me to bear my name before Gentiles and Kings and the Children of Israel Erastus It is false that the Sword of the Magistrate is not sufficient to coerce sins Psal 101. Kings have put to death those that seek not God It is nothing that you say the Priest judged those same sins in a spirituall manner that the Magistrate judged politically for it is false that the Priests judged in a Judicature separated from the Civill Judges as your Presbytery sitteth See Levit. cap. 4. 5. 6. God seemeth to have given no Laws of punishing offenders by themselves as with us least we should imagine two distinct Judicatures Ans We deny not but the Sword is sufficient to punish offenders in its own kinde in order to the peace of the Common-wealth to remove evil to cause others fear to pacifie Gods wrath as the Scriptures speak so David and good Kings purged the city of God but Erastus cannot deny but God ordained spirituall means of rebukings putting out of the Camp eschewing the company of offenders that they may be ashamed and those spirituall means have a spirituall influence on the soul to remove offences to gain the offenders Matth. 18. 15. Psal 110 2. Isa 11. 4. Psal 141. 5. 2 Thess 3. 14 15. 2. The word maketh the Priests separated from Civill Iudges Zach. 3. 7. The Angel of the Lord protested unto Ioshua the high Priest if thou wilt walk in my wayes and keep my charge then thou shalt also judge my house and thou shalt keep my courts The Civill Magistrate judged not the house of God the way that the High Priest did The Divines that noteth on the place say The chief part in Ecclesiasticall affairs was upon the High Priest Deu◠17. 12. 2 Chron. 19. 11. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is given to the Priest is to judge to give out sentence in judgement the very word that is given to King Iosiah He judged the cause of the poor and needy and Ier. 5. 28. They judge not the cause the cause of the fatherlesse and Ier. 21. 12. O house of David execute judgement in the morning and the sons of Aaron the Priests 1 Chron. 24. 5. are made some of them Governors of the sanctuary and Governors of the house of God It is the word that signifies Princes 2 Kin. 9. 5. A word to thee O Prince 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Sam. 22. 2. 1 Chro. 11. 6. Ier. 17. 25 Num. 23. 3. 10. All the princes of Moab Isa 30. 4. Isa 10. 8. Are not my princes Kings and Lev. 4. 5 6. chapters judiciall acts are given to the Priest that are proper to him as Priest which none do but he nor have the Civill ludges any part in it more then they can offer sacrifices which none do but the priests for he was to judge of the quality of the sins and might not offer any sacrifice for every sin nor dip his finger in the blood of the bullock seven times for every sin this spirituall judicature was the Priests And neither Moses the Prince nor any Civill Iudge on earth could share with the Priests in judging this all the world will say the judge may use the sword against the Murtherer and Elders or Pastors have not to do with the sword at all and the Pastors are to convince rebuke and work upon the conscience of the Murtherer to gain him to repentance and no civill judge as a civill judge hath to share with him in this here be distinct punishments one corporall and civill another spirituall why then must they not flow from two distinct Iurisdictions or if it displease any man that we call Church-censures with the name of punishment we can forbear the name for rebukes suspension from the Sacraments Excommunication because they are intrinsecally and of their own nature such as tend not to the hurt but to the gaining and saving of the souls of the persons censured they are unproperly punishments as the power and court they come from is unproperly a rod a Iudicature a Court and those that inflict the censures improperly Iudges yet can it not be denied to be spirituall Government and that there is a spirituall sword the word of God and a spirituall coaction flowing from Heralds or servants in the name of the King of Kings and Head of the Church who reigneth in his own Ordinances and Ministers Erastus The priests bade Uzziah not burn incense because it was their part only to sacrifice But vvhere is it vvritten that the King vvas condemned by the sentence of the Priests Ans The Priests were a Colledge of Elders who not only judicially condemned the Kings fact as against the Lavv of God but 2 Chron. 26. Azariah and eighty priests vvith him vvithstood him and resisted him yea they gave out sentence against him ver 18. It pertaineth not unto thee Vzziah to burn incense to the Lord but to the Priests the sons of Aaron that are consecrated to burn incense go out of the sanctuary for thou hast trespassed they give out the sentence of the Law of God Numb 16. 40 Nor might any come in to the Holy place but the Priests and Levites Num. 18. 6 7. here is a sentence judiciall by the voyces of 80. Priests in an externall court given out against the supream Magistrate for they gave not out this sentence as private men but as Priests judging according to the Law and in this the King was subject to Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction Erastus It is a vaine thing to say they Excommunicate not the Magistrate as the Magistrate none but Kata-baptists and such as deny Magistracy to be an Ordinance of God can say that Every man might excuse rebellion so and say I persecute not the Magistrate as he is a Magistrate but as he is a tyrant But I say you may not reproach the Magistrate Exod. 22. farre lesse may you punish him How can I obey him whose whole life and actions I may by Power and coaction limit The Magistrate so is but a servant to the Presbytery Ans Erastus scorneth this distinction to say the Magistrate not as a Magistrate but as a scandalous man is Excommunicated Yet we can make him receive the distinction whether he will or not For Erastus saith that Pastors may rebuke convince and threaten the Magistrate Good man may Pastors threaten and rebuke the Magistrate as the Magistrate or may they only threaten and rebuke him as an offending man Erastus dare not say the first for so he were a grosse Kata-baptist for then Pastors were to rebuke the very office and to condemne it if he say the latter as he doth in expresse words then he acknowledgeth that Pastors may bind
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
their office Preach the Word and dispense the Sacraments which is against the word Heb. 5. 7. Mat. 9. 38. 10. 5. 28. 19 20. Joh. 21. 20 21. Rom. 10. 14 15. 3. Where doth Erastus reade in the New Testament that Kings may not write Canonick Scripture as King David did and build a Typicall Temple to the Lord as Solomon did and give out Laws of Divine institution as Moses did Kings in the Old Testament did these and he can finde the contrary no where written 4. If the Church as the Church cannot chuse a Senate of Elders to Govern themselves without wronging the Magistrate how did the Apostolick Church without so much as asking advice of the Civill Magistrate set up a new Gospel new Sacraments new officers a new Government Did the Lord Iesus and the Gospel teach them to spoil Cesar Christ had said the contrary Give unto Cesar those things that are Cesars 5. To subject Magistrates to Excommunication is no more to subject them to externall dominion then to subject them as Erastus doth to rebukes warnings and threatnings for the former hath no more of coaction of dominion or of coercive power then the latter yea if to subject Kings to the rebukes of the Ministers of Christ be nothing but to subject them to internall and spirituall dominion no more is suspension from the Sacraments and Excommunication any thing but internall and spirituall dominion In this sense that neither of these two are bodily dominions no more then rebuking of Kings 2. Yet both these work upon the conscience in a spirituall way for the humiliation of the King and putting him to shame and fear 2 Thes 3. 14 15. that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord as rebukes do work 1 Tim. 5. 20. Gal. 2. 11. 1 Cor. 5. 6. Iude ver 23. Yea to say to a King He shall be buried with the buriall of an Asse as Ieremiah did cap. 22. And to call the Rulers Princes of Sodome Isa 1. 10. And King Herod a Fox and Rulers and Princes Dogs Psal 22. ver 16. and Bulls and Lyons ver 12. 13. and Wolves ravening for the prey Ezek. 22. 27. putteth no lesse shame upon Magistrates before men and so externall dominion on them and over them then Excommunication and debarring from the Seals of the Covenant doth Now Erastus subjecteth Magistrates to rebukings threatnings and reprehensions no lesse then we do Well Erastus will have one single Minister to exercise externall dominion over the Magistrates because this is manifest out of the Word but because he would flatter Princes as much as he can he denies that a Colledge of Elders may rebuke the Magistrate or convene him before them though he were the most flagitious Prince that lived and yet one man may summon him before the Tribunall of Christ and charge him to come to hear a Sermon and rebuke him in the face of the Congregation and denounce the Iudgements of God against him openly Is not this the Lord arming one single man against the Magistrate to put shame and confusion on him for his sins And if many Pastors convened should do this This were to arm the subjects against the Magistrate and to take the power from him that God hath given to him as Erastus talketh CHAP. XXII Quest 18. Of exclusion from the Sacrament of profession of repententance the judiciall Law bindeth not Christians The sword not a mean of conversion Of Idolaters and Apostates in the judgement of Erastus IN this Chapter Erastus disputeth against a Treatise written in the German Tongue in which he acknowledgeth there is more learning and truth then in the other writtings All the opinions that Erastus ascribeth to this Author justly or unjustly I know not but Erastus his faith may be justly suspected I cannot defend Erastus Touching those to be admitted to the Sacrament we speak alwayes de illis solis c. of those only who rightly understand the Doctrine of the Gospel and do approve and imbrace the same and who desire with others to use the Sacraments aright in regard of the externals of which only the Church can judge for the heart is rightly knowne to God only so the Author and we agree Ans The agreement is but poore by your owne relation But 1. Let Erastus answer what if the Christian Magistrate as Achab be a dog and sell himselfe to do wickedly What if he understand not the Doctrine of the Gospel Magistrates as Magistrates by vertue of the throne or place are not priviledged to be Orthodox and holy Let one Iulian once a Christian yet turning a sow an enemy to the Gospel be witnesse if we descend to the Iustices and to Master Constables it may be we finde even of those dogs and swine in their conversation though their place be a power lawfull and ordained of God We thinke saith Erastus the custome of the Church should be observed What by the custome of the Church onely by no precept or command of Christ should the holy things of God the pearls of the Gospel be denied to dogs and swine contrary to Christs command Mat. 7 2. Erastus must exclude the Magistrate out of the lists of his disputation in six books and say If the Christian Magistrate be ignorant and scandalous and yet desire to use the Sacraments right and professe he will learne to know God and to beleeve soundly and walke holily Yet the Sacraments are not to be denied to him Tell Erastus in sincerity who should debarre the Magistrate For in all your six books you by these words de illis solis c. professe that you plead not that he should be admitted to the Sacraments who shall exclude him not he himselfe for his credites sake he shall desire to come to the Sacraments as many for gaine and loaves follow Christ Ioh. 6. will they not follow him also to be seen of men as the Pharisees prayed in the streets 2. Let Erastus say when our Saviour said Give not holy things to dogs Did he mean to accept the persons of Kings and Iudges and professe though Kings and Iudges be dogs and swine yet deny not holy things to them 3. Hath Christ appointed no way in the New Testament as he did in the Old to debarre unclean men from our Passeover Or shall there be no Government no charge in the Ministers of the New Testament to keep the holy things of God from pollution If Master Iustice be an incestnous man a drunkard a dog shall he not be cast out of the midst of the Church Vzziah though a King yet for bodily leprosie was separated from the people of God and men of high places though doggs and swine shall be admitted to all the holy things of God under the New Testament 2. Erastus will have all admitted who desire to use the Sacraments right As touching all externalls of which onely the Church doth judge But 1. Where did we assert that the
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
the Sacraments Heathen remaiing Heathen they should prostitute holy things to Dogs and be guilty of an Heathen mans eating of his owne damnation Hence this Assertion of Mr. Prynne must be a great mistake That Ministers may as well refuse to preach the Word to such unexcommunicated grosse impenitent scandalous Christians whom they would suspend from the Sacrament for feare of partaking with them in their sinne as to administer the Sacrament to them because saith he unprofitable hearing is as damning a sinne as unworthie receiving of the Sacrament 1. Because there is and may be discovered to bee in the congregation persons as unworthy as Heathen such as Simon Magus yea latent Iudasses Parricides who are in the visible Church while God discover their hypocrisie but we may lawfully preach the Word to men as uncapable of the Word as Heathen and as unworthie as Christ and the Apostles did who did not contravene that Cast not Pearles to Swine yet we cannot give the Sacraments to men knowne to be as scandalous uncapable and unworthy as Heathen but we must prostitute holy things to Dogs and partake of their sinne for this is non causa pro causa that Mr. Prynne bringeth to say we may as well refuse to preach the Gospell to scandalous impenitents as to administer the Sacrament without partaking of the sinnes of either because unprofitable hearing is as damning a sinne as unworthy receiving the Supper This Because is no cause it is true they are both damnable sinnes but how proveth he that Preachers partake equally of both I can shew him a clear difference which demonstrateth the weaknesse of this connexion 1. Vnprofitable hearing of the Gospell in a Heathen is as damning a sin as hypocriticall receiving of the Sacrament is a sinne they are not equalia peccata but sure they are â—què peccata but I may preach the Gospel to a Heathen and not partake of his sinne of unprofitable hearing for I may be commanded to preach to a Heathen remaining a Heathen as Paul preached to Felix to the scoffing Athenians to the persecuting Iews and giving obedience to the command of God freeth me from partaking of his unprofitable hearing But I cannot administer the Lords Supper to an Heathen remaining a Heathen without sharing in his sin and suppose a Heathen remaining a Heathen would croud in to the Lords Table as of old many Heathen fained themselves to be Iewes desiring to serve the time 1 Sam. 14. 21. yet I should partake of the Heathens unworthy receiving if knowing him to be a Heathen serving the time and crouding in amongst the people of God I should administer the Lords Supper because I have no command of God to administer the Lords Supper to a Heathen man nor could Paul administer the Sacrament to the scoffing Athenians or to Felix without taking part with them in their prophaning of the Lords Table 2. The necessity of preaching the Word it being simply necessary to the first conversion of a sinner putteth Pastors in a case that they may and ought to preach the Gospell to Heathen and to thousands knowne to be unconverted without any participation of their unprofitable hearing and the non-necessity of the Lords Supper or the Seale of the Covenant and the nourishing of their souls to life eternall who visibly and to the knowledge of those who are dispensers of the Sacrament prophane and abominably wicked putteth those same dispensers in a condition of being compartners with them in the prophaning of the holy things of God if they dispence the bread to those that are knowingly dead in sinnes so the Gospell may be taught in Catechisme to Children Deut. 6. 6 7. 2 Tim. 3. 15. Exod. 12. 26 27. Gen. 18. 19. Prov. 22. 6. because there is a necessity they be saved by hearing Rom. 10. 14. 1 Cor. 1. 23. but there is no necessity but a command on the contrary that the Lords Supper be dispensed to no children nor to any that cannot examine themselves and they may be saved without the Sacrament but not ordinarily without the Word nor were it enough to forwarne Apostates and persecutors and Hypocriticall heathen and children that if they eate unworthily they eate their owne damnation as Mr. Pryn saith and yet reach the Sacrament to those for the dispensers then should â—ast Pearls to some Dogs and Swine contrary to Mat. 5. 6. and they should be free of the guilt in polluting of holy things if they should give them a watch-word say they were about to prophane the holy things of God before they committed such wickednesse Nor doe we as Mr. Pryn saith nor know we or the Scriptures any such distinction as sealing externally to the senses of any receiving the Lords Supper lawfully divided sinfully it may be divided but there is no Law for sinne no print no authority of men for it from the internall sealing nor heard we ever of two sorts of conversion one externall from Paganisme to the externall profession of the faith wrought extraordinarily by Miracles without the Word and ordinarily by Baptisme in Infants and another internall from formall profession to an inward imbracing of Christ and his merits 1. Because the Stewards and Ambassadors of Christ may notdare to play with the Sacraments as children doe with nuts to seal to mens senses and fancies Christ and spirituall nourishment in him and part in his body broken and blood shed in those who visibly have nothing of faith to their discerning and of the life of Christ but onely senses and fancie such as all visibly and notoriously scandalous walking after the flesh all Herericks Apostates knowne and unwashen Hypocrites have and no more 2. All heathen and unbaptized have senses and are capable of externall washing and externall and Sacramentall eating as well as others are but are they capable of the Seals because they have bodies to be washed and teeth and stomacke to eat Sacramentally And have Ministers warrant enough to dispense the Sacraments to all that have senses But they must be within the visible Church also ere they be capable of Sacraments Mr. Pryn will say but I aske by what warrant Mr. Pryn alledgeth that the Supper of the Lord is a converting ordinance as well as the Word and that Pastors may without sinne dispense the Sacraments to those to whom they preach the Word but they may preach the Word to Heathen remaining Heathen Ergo may they dispense the Lords Supper to Heathen remaining Heathen What more absurd yet remaining Heathen they are as capable of Mr. Pryn his sense-sealing and sense-converting Sacraments as any sound beleever 3. A sealing to the senses cannot be divided from the inward sealing by the Spirit neither in the intention of God for the externall sealing without the internall is Hypocrisie and God cannot intend Hypocrisie nor can this division be in regard of the nature of the Sacrament for it doth seal to us our spirituall nourishment in Christ except we
1 2 3. ver 8 9 10. cap. 3. 8 9 10. Coming behinde in no gift 1 Cor. 1. 7. In Covenant with God casting out the incestuous 1 Cor. 5. Separated from Idols 2 Cor. 6. 16 17 18. Espoused to one husband Christ 2 Cor. 11. 2. Established in the faith and increasing in number daily Act. 16. 5. Yea the Churches had rest throughout all Judea and Galile and Samaria and were edified walking in the â—ear of the Lord and in the comforts of the holy Ghost and were multiplied Act. 9. 31. Now if the Christian Magistrate be their only Head and chief Feeder and all Elders but his servants Edifying à sub Magistratu from and under the Magistrate How were they edified and the compleat house of God the house wanting a head and the Church of the living God without the chief feeder and shepheard the Magistrate when all this time the Lord set spirituall Pastors and watchmen over them It is true it might be some defect that they wanted a Christian Magistrate who was their Nurse-father and keeper and avenger of both Tables of the Law But this defect was 1. A defect of the Church as men who may be injured and do violence one to another as men if they want one who beareth the sword to be avenged on evil doers But it is no defect of the Church as the Church 2. There might be some defect in the Church as a Church in this regard that without the Magistrate his accumulative power the edification of the Church extrinsecally might be slower Church Laws lesse vigorous extrinsecally without the sword and evil doers might infest the Church more but there should be no privation or intrinsecall defect or want in the Church either of an officer or integrall part of the Church because they wanted the Magistrate 3. When the first three hundreth year the Churches wanted Christian Magistrates afterward Constantinus convocated the Councell of Nice against Arrius yet professing that he was Episcopus without After him the Empire being divided into three Constantinus Constantius and Constans the second adhered to Arrius oppressed the godly Constans and Constantinus lived not long Though Jovianus Theodosius elder yonger Gratianus Martianus were favourers of the Church yet most of the Northern Kings were persecuters In the sixth hundreth year they began to be obstinate favourers of Heresie In the West Antichristianisme in the East Mahumetisme rose for the most part the Church wanted godly Magistrates and alway hath wanted Whatever power or means of life Christ hath given to his Church or pastors for the edifying of their soules either in Doctrine or Discipline by these is the holy Ghost efficacious on the hearts and conscience of the people of God as immediatly given by Iesus Christ without the mediation or intervention of any other means But Christ hath given power and means of life to preach the word to admonish rebuke Excommunicate to the Church and Pastors by which the holy Ghost worketh efficaciously on the hearts of the people of God which God hath given immediatly to the Church and Pastors especially in the Apostolick Church when there were no Magistrates and the holy Ghost is no wayes efficacious in the hearts of the children of God by the Laws Statutes and sword of the Magistrate Ergo God hath given to his Church and Pastors not to the Magistrate power and means of life in which the holy Ghost is effectuall and that immediatly and not to the Magistrate Or thus Whoever is the supream officer and head of the Church having under him all Church-officers as his servants by such God is effectuall in the consciences of men But Pastors Teachers Elders are such and no wayes the Magistrate Ergo The Proposition is thus made good by the word of reconciliation and the rod of the Lords power in the hands of men The holy Ghost worketh efficaciously in men Now the question will only be to whom this word of reconciliation is committed and the rod of God the Scripture saith to the Ministers never to the Magistrate 2 Cor. 5. 18. And hath committed to us the word of Reconciliation ver 20. Now then we are Ambassadors for Christ 2 Cor. 10. 8. Though I should boast somewhat more of our Authority which the Lord hath given us for edification 2 Cor. 2. 13. If I come again I will not spare 1 Cor. 4. 21. What will ye Shall I come unto you with a rod or in love 1 Tim. 5. 17. Act. 20. 28. 29. 30. 1 Cor. 5. 12. Do not you judge them that are within Matth. 16. 19 18. 18. Ioh. 20. 21 22. This word is no where committed to the Magistaate nor is the holy Ghost efficacious by the Laws and sword of the Magistrate to convert souls we know not Magistrates to be Ministers by whom we believe but Ministers only 1 Cor. 3. ver 5. Nor is the sword a kindely and intrinsecall mean of conversion This Argument may be further confirmed by all the notable differences that the Scripture holdeth forth to be between the Magistrate and the Ministers and Church As 1. The Church judgeth only those that are within the Church 1 Cor. 5. 11 12. The heathen Magistrate may â—udge both those that are within and without the Church and every soul is under his power Rom. 13. 1 2 3. Tit. 3. 1 2. 1 Tim. 2. 1 2 3. 1 Pet. 2. 13 14 15. Matth. 22. 21. And by these same Scriptures the Christian Magistrate being a lawfull Magistrate having under him both believers and heathen may and ought to judge both Ergo the Magistrate as the Magistrate cannot judge those that are within by the word as the Church doth but only in some common coactive way by the sword to compell them to do their duty 3. The Magistrates Kingdom is of this world and he may fight with his sword to defend his own subjects and his subjects may fight for him But the Church and Kingdom of Christ are not of this world nor can the Church as the Church and the Ministers thereof fight or use the sword as is clear Joh. 18. 36. Rom. 13. 4. The Magistrate beareth not the Sword in vain but he beareth the sword in vain over the consciences of men or to judge those that are within for the Church judgeth those that are within with no such weapon as the bloody Sword There is neither sword nor dagger nor any weapon of War required in the Church of Ephesus their censuring of grievous Wolves or false Teachers Act. 20. 28 c. Nor in the Apostles and Elders determining truth against perverters of souls Act. 15. 21 22 c. and 16. 4. Nor in the Church of Thyatira their not suffering Jezabell to teach Rev. 2. 20. Nor in Pergamus their not suffering those that held the Doctrine of Balaam Rev. 2. 14. Erastus l. 4. c. 6. p. 285. saith The Church can kill no man with the Sword There was no sword ever
as Saylors subjects these reduplications be consening and deceiving notions painters as painters are regulated by Art subject to be judged by painters but as men they are subjects so are Ministers as men subject to Cesar as Ministers they are the servants of Christ not subjects Ob. As Ministers they are either Magistrates or subjects but Ministers as Ministers are not Magistrates He that is not with Christ is against him M. Coleman in his Brotherly examination p. 21. saith He that doth not manage his office under Christ and for Christ must manage it under the Devil and for the Devil if therefore the Christian Magistrate do not manage his office under and for Christ he must manage it under or for the Devil which were blasphemous Ans I deny the Major proposition Ministers as Ministers are neither Magistrates nor subjects but formally the separated servants of Christ set a part for the work of gathering the Saints Now to be subjects is to be judged by the Magistrate in those things in which they are subjects that is in all Civill businesse they are and false teaching discerned by the Church to be false teaching or in case the Church corrupt themselves then are Ministers obnoxions to bodily punishment to be inflicted by the Magistrate But this is properly to be a subject of the Magistrate to be lyable to the civill cognizance trying and bodily punishment inflicted by the Magistrate and to be a subject and a member of the other Kingdome is to be subject to the Ecclesiasticall cognizance tryall and censure of the Church as a matter that concerneth the soul hence the former concerneth the body and outward man the latter the inner man and the soul 2. The former concerneth peace with men and edification to be procured by a mean extrinsecall to edification to wit by the sword the latter concerneth peace with God by a spirituall sword the Word of God 3. The former is carnall and of the Kingdome of this world the latter spirituall and of Christs other Kingdome that is not of this world Ioh. 18. 36. 4. The former worketh by coaction and bodily violence the latter by removing unwillingnesse and making a rebellious soul obedient 5. The former is an act of justice not terminated on repentance or the mans turning to God as an end for whether this end be obtained or no the Magistrate is to use the sword the other is terminated on repentance as its end He that is not with Christ is against Christ and with the Devil It s true in all professors of the Gospel as professors no man but he must be either on the one side or on the other either for or with Christ or against him But it is not true with every reduplication thus Ministers as Ministers are subjects of or to the King and to obey him in the Lord and so with Christ hath this sense Ministers essentially and formally are subjects of or to the King to obey him in the Lord so as Ministers do lose the essence and formality of the office of the Ministery if they be not the Kings subjects and with Christ this is most false for Iudas should not be a Minister of Christ then in that he was not subject to the Law of Cesar that is that the servant and disciple should be for and under his master and Lord it only followeth Ergo Iudas was not a godly Minister but under the Devil not under Christ Magistrates do neither essentially as Magistrates cleave to Christ nor â—ight against Christ but as holy men they cleave to Christ as sinfull men they fight against Christ 2. Master Coleman knoweth that we speak of the office of a Magistrate as a Magistrate not under the accidents of Christian or heathenish there was no reason he should apply his Argument to the Parliament except to make us odious as if we did not as much honour or pray for the Parliament and King as himselfe But it concludeth equally against all Magistrates and let him see it in a heathen Magistrate as a Magistrate for a heathen Magistrate as a Magistrate doth either manage his office under Christ and for Christ or under the Devil and for the Devil This I and Master Coleman also shall deny for a heathen Magistrate as a Magistrate doth not manage his office under or for Christ as mediator because he is utterly ignorant of Christ for he hath no more but what God as creator and nature gave him saith Master Coleman pag. 20. and the other horne of the Argument is as weak for this The heathen Magistrate as such manageth his office under or for the Devil is blasphemous for so Magistracy and the office should be intrinsecally unlawfull and for the Devil But it is intrinsecally the Ordinance of God Rom. 13. and apply this to God as creator it shall appear of force The Magistrate as the Magistrate doth either manage his office under and for God creator or under and for the Devil The former part is true because God creator and nature made the office of Magistracy apply it to a heathenish husband Father Master Musitian Painter under these reduplications and it shall make the relation of Husband Devilish or this proposition a Husband a Father as a Father and a Husband manage their office under and for Christ the mediator or under or for the Devil is most false and blasphemous the former part is false for there should have been and was Father and Husband which did manage the duties of these relations for God creator not for Christ mediator though Christ had never taken on our nature never been mediator never been King and Priest of his redeemed Church The latter part is blasphemous for then Adam had managed the part of Husband and Father under the Devil and for the Devil even before he fell in sinne and in the state of Innocency 3. Mr. Colemans meaning is that the Magistrate as the Magistrate and by office is under Christ mediator as his supream and immediate vicegerent as mediator now in this sense Christs saying he that is not against us is with us shall not prove the truth of the proposition which must be this and is most false to wit that The Magistrate as the Magistrate by office is either under Christ mediator as the supream and immediate vicegerent of him as mediator or he is by office under the Devil This we deny for one might argue thus of the Apostle Paul who was either as an Apostle for Christ or against Christ Paul as an Apostle is either under Christ the mediator and his supream and immediate vicegerent having power of both Swords or he is under the Devil The proposition is most false for Paul is neither of them so say we here the Magistrate doth neither manage his office as a Magistrate under Christ mediator as his Vicar and a little head of the Church nor yet doth the Magistrate manage his office under or for the
King was to use the sword in defence of the Law and punishing Idolaters for 1. the King is neither commanded to teach Priests and people out of the booke of the Law Nor 2. rebuked for his neglect in this both these we may read of the Priests every where in the Prophets Deut. 33. 10. Mal. 2. 7. Lev. 10. 10 11. Ier. 2. 8. and 6. 13 14. Hos 4. 6 7 8. Deut. 17. 11 12. yea the booke of the Law is put in the keeping of the Priests and Levites Deut. 31. 25. And Moses commanded the Levites which bare the Arke of the Covenant of the Lord saying 26. Take this book of the Law and put it in the side of the Arke of the Covenant of the Lord your God Now if the Priests had been onely the Kings servants immediately subordinate to the King and mediately onely to Iesus Christ the Arke all the holy things the booke of the covenant the burning of incense before the Lord had been principally and first injoyned to the King Ezra the Priest read the book of the Law not Nehemiah nor was it ever commanded that the King should read it in the hearing of the people and give the sense of it as the Priests were to doe by their office Hilkiah 2 Kin. 22. found the booke of the Law that was lost and Shaphan the Scribe read it before the King that they might see their Apostacie and Iosiah might accordingly reforme 2 King 22 9 10. Object 11. Isai 49. Kings shall be thy Nurse-fathers Ergo Kings were Fathers and heads of the Church Ans This text is brought for the Popes Supremacy but it is Isai 60. 10. Their Kings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall serve thee this is no dominion And the breasts of Kings which the Church is to suck is not the sincere milk of the Word which the King preacheth by himself or others but the externall strength dignity that the King shall adde by his Authority to the Church but the Tutor cannot â—ob the Pupil of the Law and priviledges of the inheritance 2. The Prince is not a father spirituall of the second birth of the Church as Paul was 1 Cor. 4. 15. Object 12. He for whom we are to pray that under him we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godlinesse and honesty and procureth the good of the Church as the Church to him as the supream Officer and Shepherd is the Church as the Church subject but the Magistrate is such 1 Tim. 2. 1 2. Ergo. Ans The Major is false and the Assumption untrue also and all that the conclusion can bring forth is that the Prince hath 1. An externall coactive care by way of dominion to procure the removall of Wolves from the fold 2. To procure the good of the Church in order to a naturall and civill good 3. To procure good to the Church as the Church in a coactive way by the sword in punishing Idolators 2. The Church as the Church is not subordinate to the Prince but as Subjects of the common wealth because he by a coactive power may procure the good of the Church as the Church for indirectly and by the sword the Magistrate defending godlines and procuring the good of souls doth not prove that his dominion and sword extendeth to their soules or that he watcheth for their soules as Heb. 13. 17. Obj. 13. The Kings of Israel and Iudah have reformed Religion Ans I cannot trouble the Reader to adde here what I have answered elsewhere but let the Reader see Triglandius Ant. Walens Gabel Iavius in the cited places they have in the defection of the Priests which is extraordinary Reformed Religion 2. They did many things as Prophets not as Magistrates 3. They have done much in Religion quoad actus imperatos non elicitos by their civill power commanding Priests to doe their dutie Object 14. It s true in severall respects he that is a Governour may be a subject but in one and the same spirituall respect to judge and to be judged to sit on the Bench and stand at the barre of Christ Iesus is as impossible as to reconcile the East and the VVest together so The Bloodie Tenent I demand if the Church be a Delinquent who shall judge It is answered the magistrate Again if the magistrate be a delinquent I ask who shall judge it It is answered The Church Whence I observe which is in most cases of the world monstrous that one person to wit the Church or the Magistrate shall be at one time the delinquent at the Barre and the judge upon the Bench for the Church must judge when the magistrate offends and yet the magistrate must judge when the Church offends whether she contemâ—â— civill authority in the Second Table for thus dealing with him or whether she hath broken the rules of the first table of which say they God hath made him a keeper and preserver what blood what tumults hath been and must be spilt upon these grounds Ib. so the Church calleth one of her members to office and ordaineth him an officer The Magistrate opposeth him as an unworthy officer and according to his conscience suppresseth him upon this the Church complaineth of the Magistrates violation of her priviledges and that he is turned persecutor and not prevailing with admonition She excommunicateth the Magistrate The Magistrate again not induring such violation of ordinances he cutteth off with the sword such prophaners of ordinances Ans All this is but wind devised against the Magistrates punishing of Idolaters and I shew the same followeth upon the Magistrates or Church erring the one in abusing civill authority or the other in prophaning ordinances or preaching the word for instance The Iudges of a land or of Ierusalem make grievous and bloody decrees against the poor the widdows and the Orphane A faithfull Isaiah a zealous preacher by authority from the Lord judgeth and condemneth according to his conscience these judges and cryeth out as Isai 10. 1 in the name of the Lord before all the Congregation Woe be to you who decree unrighteous decrees and write in the Bench grievousnesse to turne aside the needy from judgement and to take away right from the poore Now the Magistrate that decreed those decrees judgeth in his conscience they are righteous decrees and he according to his conscience noâ— induring that Isaiah or any preacher should thus abuse and prophane so holy an Ordinance of prophecying and preaching as to preach lies in the name of the Lord he proceedeth in his civill court and cuâ—teth off with the sword such false Prophets because they â—lander the Lords annoynted and preach lies of him is not here a reciprocation of judging in the same cause What will the Author say to this O saith he the Magistrate ought not to use his sword against those Prophets for they preach according to their conscience the truth of God But say that Shimei were a Prophet and
fail in their judging the Magistrate is to command the Church to judge it over againe but the Magistrate cannot judge it himself as there is a complaint made to the Magistrate that the Pâ—inter hath not drawn the image exactly according to the samplar the Magistrate judgeth not of the Art of the Painter nor can the Magistrate as the Magistrate draw the image himselfe But the Magistrate may judge of the Painters breach of promise who did â—action to draw it exactly according to the samplar and hath not kept faith to the man who payeth him wages and therefore the Magistrate may either punish his morall error his breach of promise not his error of Art the faculty or company of Painters must judge of of that or then command the Painter to paint the same image again according as the Painter convenanted But it may be objected You then make the Magistrate to meddle no more with matters of faith and preaching truth or falsehood and giving out Ecclesiasticall rules in Church government as Act. 15. then he meddleth with painting according to the principles of Art now painting according to Art belongeth not at all to the conscience of the Magistrate but sound preaching right ruling in Gods house belongeth in a far nearer relation to the conscience of the godly Magistrate I Answer As touching the formall judging Ecclesiastâ—cally and as concerning this that the Magistrate should say it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to me or his dispensing of Word and Sacraments or his burning incense before the Lord it no more belongeth to him as a Magistrate to do these in his owne person formally because God hath not called him to act these then it belongeth to him to paint an Image to sew shooes to siâ— at the helme of a Ship and stir and guide her to such a Port as is clearer Heb. 5. 4. 1 Cor. 7. 17. 21. Rom. 10. 14. 1 Tim. 5. 17. and 3. 1 2 3. Act. 13. 23. and 20. 28 29 30. Heb. 13. 17. 2 Chro. 26. 18 19 20 21. But in another consideration as sound or unsound dispensing of Word and Sacraments as right or unjust ruling in the house of God may more or lesse hurt or benefit the souls of men which he is to care for indirectly in ordine ad penas vel premia civilia et corporalia it belongeth more to the Magistrate to take care of the Church of Religion of preaching and governing Gods house then any painting or Arts in the earth Again the Church proceeding in these things that are against common iustice in all judicatures no lesse then in the Church as to condemn the party never heard or not convinced either by confession or under two sufficient witnesses or to do manifest unjustice in the manner of proceeding leaveth a clear place to the wronged party by the Law of nature if not to appeal yet to flee and have re-course to the Christian Magistrate who is Parâ—ns Patrie the father of the Common wealth 6. The question may either be of any really wronged by the Church whether he may appeal to the Magistrate or whether he who either beleeveth or thinketh or falsly lyeth and saith that he was wronged may appeal to the Magistrate 7. An Appeal is different from a Declinature a Declinature is properly a refusing to be judged because the judge is incompetent and the businesse belongeth not to him those who follow Erastus and deny all power of censures to the Church doe decline but not appeal from the Church thinking the Church hath no power at all to judge or censure the scandalous An Appeal is properly from the same inferiour judicature to a superiour judge in eadem serie in the same kind and it is either proper or unproper Proper it is when a particular Church doth appeal to a Synod of many Churches in the same place Unproper when either a wronged person hath recourse to one or many Pastors of Authority as Chrysostome Flavianus Athanasius appealed to the Bishop of Rome that he would request the Church to proceed orderly Or 2. The godly Magistrate would command that the Church would unpartially proceed to right an oppressed man as Cabeljavius saith Or 3. When there is no Synods to be had then as Triglandius saith well from Beza the Christian Magistrate may provide â—it meanes of releeving the oppressed 8. This would ever be remembred that in case of the Churches erring in judgement which must be thought of as a sort of extraordinary case the godly Magistrate may do more then what ordinarily he can doe and so may the Church when the Magistrate oppresseth in judgement as great Iunius saith 9. We grant when any complaineth to the Magistrate that they are oppressed in judgement by the Church that the Church is obliged to give an account of their doings but that from common charitie to remove the scandall and that they owe to all Christians as may be evidently collected from 1 Pet. 4. 15. but this will not prove a subordination to common Christians as to Iudges nor yet to the Magistrate 2. The Magistrate when his judging is deemed scandalous is to give an account to the preachers of the Gospel who watch for his soul as King Saul gave an account to Samuel with a false Apologie I grant that he had obeyed the Commandement of the Lord but if Saul had been faultlesse in sparing â—gag and the cattell yet was he obliged to give an account to Samuel But that will not prove that King Saul was subordinate to Samuel to be judged of him because Prophets are but servants and Ministers to declare Gods will yet is it all the subordination that we require in this according to that And the people beleeved the Lord and Moses Now all the Arguments before alledged to prove that Pastors as Pastors are not subordinate in their pastorall acts to the civill Magistrate do also prove that there is no appeal from the Church in an Ecclesiasticall businesse to the civill Magistrate For 1. If two Painters contend touching any controversie in the mysterie of their Art they cannot appeal to the King as Iudge the King then should formally be a painter and which is absurd not by accident but as a King and so here if the King were the judge to whose determination we might appeale from the Church in a Church controversie sure the King as King should be a Church Officer if the Priests in controversie touching burning incense or offering strange fire to God should appeal to the decision of the King as the King sure the King in that as King should be an eminent High Priest and right of burning incense to the Lord should belong to him in as farre as the Kings lips in that controversie should preserve knowledge and they should seek the Law from his mouth which is proper to the Priests Mal. 2. 7. Ezek. 22 26. and 44. 23 24. Deut. 17. 11. 2. The Church of Antioch should have
appealed to Cesar if he had been a Christian in the controversie touching circumcision he should have determined who were perverters of souls who not and should have said by his office as Emperour It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to me 3. We have not any practise or precept or promise in the Old or New Testament for any such appeal except they say all hard questions belonging to the Priests office were to come before Moses as a civill Magistrate and not as the great Prophet to whom God revealed his minde 4. If so then all Church controversies in doctrine and discipline should be ultimately resolved into the will of the Magistrate speaking according to the word and faith in most points should come by hearing a Magistrate determining against Arrius that Christ is God consubstantiall with the Father and all binding and loosing in Earth as in heaven should be from the Magistrate as the Magistrate he should forgive and retaine sins and Christ should have given the keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven to the Magistrate as the Magistrate certainly we should have the doctrine of the Church of Christ and the building and edifying thereof most obscure in the New Testament in which there is not one word of such a supream and chiefe officer as the Magistrate 5. The Parliament colledge of civill judges as they are civill Magistrates should be the Church assemblies and determine all doctrines debarre the ignorant and Hereticks and Apostates from the Sacraments and totally cast them out of the Church and excommunicate them I see not but then the Parliament as the Parliament is the Church and the two Kingdomes Ioh. 18. 36. must be confounded and no difference at all made between the civill state and the Church because the Magistrate as the Magistrate is made by the adversaries the chiefe officer over the Church the Ecclesiasticall head the mixt Governour halfe civill whole Ecclesiasticall in whose power all Pastors Elders preach dispense Sacraments make Church-canons as his Ministers and Servants Christ when any brother trespasseth against a Christian brother saith Tell the Church never Tell the christian Magistrate But truly it is a great mistake in the learned Mr. Pryn to call them Anti-Monarchicall Anti-Parliamentary and Novators who deny that the Parliament hath any Nomothetick power in Church-canons Nor hath hee in any measure answered the Arguments of those Learned and godly Divines Mr. Iohn Goodwin and Mr. Hen Burton he is pleased to cite the practise of many Parliaments of England who laudably impatient of the Popes yoke have made Church-canons when the man of sin sate upon the neck of the Christian church but these numerous citations of Parliaments and Councels in time of Popery conclude nothing against us who grant when the Church is not her selfe the christian Magistrate may extraordinarily reform and take from the man of sin his usurped power but in a constituted Church the case must be otherwise and 1. Whereas he proveth Emperors and Kings to have a power to convocate Councels It hath not strength against us all our Divines teach so But how 1. an accumulative civill power so Iewel Alley Bilson Whitaker Willet White Roger he might have cited more but no privative no Ecclesiasticall power so as Synods may not lawfully conveen without the command of the civill Magistrate our Divines say many Synods and Church meetings were in the Apostolique Church without the consent and against the will of the civill Magistrate our Divines oppose the Pope who claimeth the only accumulative civill privative and Ecclesiastick power to convocate Synods and that no Synods are lawfull without the consent and mandate of the holinesse of such a Beast 2. Master Prinne saith The Magistrate hath power to direct for time and place and to limit for matter and manner the proceedings liberty and freedome of all Church Assemblies But 1. he asserteth this in the most from corrupt practises 2. He proveth Laymen should have hand as well in Synods as Clergymen the one having interest in the faith as well as the other Ans Then must all the people be members of Synods for all have alike interest of Faith but this proveth not interest of defining which is the question in dispensing Word and Sacraments they have interest of trying all things as well as Pastors but it followeth not Ergo they may dispense Word and Sacraments no lesse yea more principally then Pastors as Erastus saith the Magistrate more principally determineth Synodicall constitutions Hence this is easily answered we may appeal in Church businesse to him as to the supream judge who may punish the erring Church and Pastors but the Magistrate may in Church businesse do this For answer 1. I retort it the Magistrate in making civill Lawes that must in their moralitie be determined by the Word of God may appeal to Pastors whose lips by office should preserve knowledge Ergo the Magistrate in making civill Lawes may appeal to the Pastor which is absurd 2. If men in Church-constitutions may appeal to the Magistrate as to one who may in his person determine Synodically in Assemblies above all the Pastors 1. Because Magistrates may punish the Pastors erring and oppressing in Synods 2. Because the Magistrate and all laymen have interest in the faith as well as Pastors then may people in hearing the Word and receiving the Sacraments and in all Pastorall rebukings and threatnings in believing of all Gospel promises and threatnings and fundamentall truths appeal from Pastors to Magistrates as Magistrates and Magistrates as such may determine all fundamentall truths all conscionall promises and rebukes and that is formally they may preach for he that can distinguish these hath a good engine Because Magistrates may punish hereticall preaching and superstitions and idolatrous abusing of the Sacraments by preachers and Magistrates and all Laymen have interest of Faith in Word Doctrine and Sacraments as in Discipline yea the Magistrate may punish the Priest that offered strange fire to the Lord offered bastard incense and the people had their interest of saith in sacrifices offered for their own sins but can it follow therefore the Magistrate might sacrifice and burne incense in his own person as Mr. Pryn will have him to make church-Church-laws in his own person Other Arguments of Mr. Pryns are light as that there were brethren and Lay-men that had hand in the Councell at Hierusalem Acts 15. Ans This is nothing for Magistrates as Magistrates but all Christians as Christians so must have hand in Synods which I grant in so far as concerneth their faith and practise that they try all things and try the Spirits whether they be of God or not but will it follow Ergo Magistrates as Magistrates are those only who govern the Church and make all Ecclesiasticall constitutions as having in them all power of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction and deriving it to Bishops and Pastors at the second hand as Mr. Pryn saith in the same booke Obj.
when he contributes his power to those things that materially conduce to a supernaturall end though he doe not contribute any thing that formally conduceth to such an end 2. So you may say a Christian Husband as a Husband a godly Physitian as a Physitian a Printer who printeth the Bible do nothing serviceable to Christ as Christ and in promoting Christs Mediatory Kingdom when the one begetteth children that being borne in the visible Church are made heires of the Kingdome of Christ and the other when by his Art and skill he preserveth the life of a godly and zealous Preacher The third when by his Art he publisheth in print the Testament of Christ the Physitian doth somewhat as a Physitian that is serviceable to Christ as Mediator yet I hope it is no Ecclesiasticall businesse to restore to health a godly Minister nor to beget a child who is made an heir of Grace nor to print the Bible so a Philosopher as a Philosopher doth convince one that worshippeth bread that the man leaveth his error and this is materially service to Christ and a promoting of Christs Mediatory Kingdom but neither Husband Physitian Printer or Philosopher are in these acts the Vicars and Deputies of Iesus Christ as the Magistrate is holden to be by the Adversary Nor 2. do they as Ecclesiasticall persons formally advance the kingdom of Christ as do the preachers of the Gospel far lesse more principally do they advance Christs Kingdom as the Magistrate is supposed to do Nor 3. hath their thus promoting of Christs Kingdom any influence upon the conscience as the Magistrate must have if he forbid sin as sin now the Magistrate as such doth nothing to promote formally the mediatory Kingdome of Christ for he may doe and doth all hee doth as a Magistrate yea suppose he were a Turk set over Christians as their Magistrate granting that Christ was a true Prophet yet may he as a Magistrate punish those who shall teach that Christ was a false Prophet and an impostor and though his Magistraticall acts be serviceable to Christ materially yet not formally 1. Because this Magistrate denieth Christ to be the Saviour of the world and yet as a Magistrate he justly punisheth the man that blasphemoâ—sly calleth Christ a deceiver and an impostor 2. Because as a Magistrate he believeth him not to be God and so ex intentione operantis he punisheth him not for a wrong done to Christ as Christ and as the Saviour of mankind but as a wrong done to the common wealth and as a disturber of the peace thereof Hence these Propositions touching the Magistrates relation to the Mediator Christ and his Church Propos 1. The Magistrate as a Magistrate is not the Vicar nor Deputie of Iesus Christ as Mediator 1. Because this is the heart and soul of Popery that the Papists teach that Christ as Mediator hath left a temporall an earthly and visible Monarch as his Vicar on earth Now that learned and singular ornament of the Protestant Churches Andreas Rivetus hath well said Christ hath instituted neither Kings nor Princes in the Church as his successors nor any Vicars with a domination but onely Ministers and Servants who are to discharge their Embassage in the Name of the onely Prince Christ for an Embassage cannot institute other Ambassadors either Kings or Princes but onely Ministers who do serve not reigne in the Kingdom of Christ he himselfe onely reignes the Servants of this great King promote the Kingdom of their Prince nor do they ever usurpe the royall power Yea all the arguments of Protestants that are brought to prove that the Pope a Bishop and a Church man because he is a Bishop and a Steward in the Church and in Christs spirituall Kingdom that is not of this world cannot be an earthly Prince and Monarch having power either directly or indirectly in ordine ad spiritualia to dispose of Kingdomes and crownes and enthrone and dethrone Kings doe also prove that the King cannot be head of the Church nor the Magistrate an Officer of the Church Doe not Protestant Divines condemn that blasphemous speech of Cardinall Bertrandus that Christ who was a temporall Lord on earth should not seem a discreet and wise Prince if he had not left a Temporall Vicar behinde him in the Church and that of Armacanus to be false that Christ by birth was the true King of Iudea and so a Temporary Prince hence say they there should be a temporary Prince and an earthly Monarch the successor of Christ as King and Mediator This Becanus the Iesuite maketh a speciall ground of the Popes Headship of the Church and for this Suarez disputeth yea the Iesuite Aegid Conninck saith It is the common and received opiâ—â—â—n of all the Romish Doctors that Christ as man hath a true Kingly power and a direct dominion over all the Kingdomes of the world to give them lawes and to exercise all Kingly power over them though de facto he abstained from it and is not upon this pillar builded the Popes Supremacy and that which Augustinus de Ancona saith Idem esse dominium dei Papâ— it is the same dominion which God and the Pope hath because it is the same jurisdiction of the Ambassador and of the Lord who sent him I deny not but many Papists give to Christ an indirect Kingly power and to the Pope they give the same indirect power in ordine ad spiritualia as Vasquez and Pet. Waldingus and others but this we say if Iesus Christ forbid a preacher of the Gospell remaining a preacher to be a civill Magistrate or temporall Lord as he doth both by precept and and practise Luke 22. 24 25 26. and 12. 13 14. Ioh. 18 36. and 6 15. then upon the same ground he must forbid the civill Magistrate to be a Church Governour as if God should forbid a Physitian to be a Painter because the two callings cannot lawfully consist in the person of one man he should also forbid a Painter to be a Physitian then the Arguments against a Monarchy and Magistraticall power in the Bishop of Rome must fight against any Ecclesiasticall power in a Magistrate if then the Pastors doe as Pastors rebuke exhort excommunicate and censure as directly subordinate to the Magistrate then Pastors as Pastors discharge their office as inferiour and under Magistrates and so they partake in so farre of a temporall dominion being direct instruments under Temporall Lords and if the Magistrate as the Magistrate doe command them to dispense Word and Sacraments and discipline and make and unmake Pastors and regulate and limit them and make Lawes to them then the Magistrate as the Magistrate doth partake of an Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction and both are forbidden by Christ in the places cited 2. If the Magistrate be the onely supream Church Governour under Christ the government of the Church must be a visible Monarchy and the Magistrate must have both the Swords Temporall and
action either Civil Natural or Supernatural yet marriage is not Morally or Theologically indifferent So as to marry or not marry is a matter of a mans free choice and of his own free will not obnoxious to any binding Law as is kneeling not-kneeling crossing not-crossing in the minde of our Adversaries 1. If it were morally indifferent to marry or not to marry Rulers might make Laws either commanding all to marry or none to marry or some to marry some not to marry which were no small tyranny and the very doctrine of Devils 2. The gift of Continency is to some a commandment of God that they marry not and burning is to some a commandment obliging them in conscience to marry else they sin therefore to marry or not to marry is necessary to all men or then unlawful and so not indifferent as our Divines teach against Papists their Supererogatorie Works The Lords calling of any to suffer for his Truth is instead of a command of God though the man might be saved though he suffer not for the Truth 3. If there be no necessitie in marrying but onely conditional in the manner oâ— marrying then all mankinde without sin might abstain from marrying which it most absurd 4. The place 1 Cor. 7. 39. saith not that a Widow is under no necessitie of marrying but onely under a necessity of well and spiritual marrying For the libertie that the Widow hath there is not that it is indifferent to her to marry or not to marry for since our Adversaries teach That Rulers may make Laws in things indifferent they might then make a Law that no Widows shall marry which were vile tyrannie But the libertie that the Widow hath to marry whom she will is opposed onely to a Law and Obligation Matrimonial that she was under while her Husband did live And the words clearly speaketh onely of thiâ— freedom not of Moral freedom of indifference from all Law of God necessitating her to marry The Wise is bound by the Law as long as her Husband liveth but if her Husband be dead she is at liberty to marry whom she will onely in the Lord. But there are no smal oddes betwixt libertie to marry this or that man because the Husband is dead of which libertie onely the Apostle speaketh and liberty and indifference without all restraint of Gods Law to marry at all or not to marry This latter libertie the Scripture speaketh not of onely the Doctor alleageth it Object Kneeling at the Sacrament howbeit antecedente and immediately it be necessary by Gods Law yet consequently and by the mediation of lawful Authority it is now necessary to us not by necessity of the thing it self but by necessity of obedience order and peace and so according to the practice it is for the time necessary by Gods Law and cannot be omitted without sin So Forbes Answ Necessitie of obeying the Church can make nothing necessary and good for the Church commandeth it because it is necessary and good and it hath not goodnesse necessitie and aptnesse to edifie from mens will and the Churches commandment 2. I ask if no kneeling now in Scotland laying aside the respect of Authority and Law be in it self undecent and unapt to edifie if not then the Church hath no more ground and reason for order and decency in our Ceremonies for what I say of one holdeth true in all then there is for the want of Ceremonies and if that be true the sole will and lust of Authority maketh our Ceremonies lawful What can Romish impudence give more to the Man of sin But if there be unorderlinesse and indecency in our Ceremonies then kneeling now must be sin even laying aside the respect of Humane Laws 3. It is strange Divinity That that which is no sin of it self cannot be omitted without sin for the sole will and pleasure of men Humane Authority then may make it sin not to rub our Beards not to claw our Heads when we come to the Church to hear Gods Word If Humane Authority can make an indifferent Act lawful and the omission of it sinful they may make all the indifferent Acts in the World lawful Acts they might then make piping leaping laughing Acts oâ— Divine Worship and might make a Decalogue of their own And if they may make an indifferent Act to be sin if it be omitted they may by as good reason make sinful Acts as Adulterie Incest Murther Robbery to be lawful Acts For if mans inhibiting will be the formal reason of sin then his commanding will must be the formal reason of obedience And so Rulers might command Murther Robbery Incest Blasphemy Object We may perform an individual act coming from deliberate will and that without sin and we may omit the same without sin Whether we practise these indifferent actions or omit them we should refer both practice and omission to Gods glory and these actions we call indifferent or free as indifferent and free is opposed to that which is morally necessary which are either necessary to be done or necessary to be omitted by necessity of a Divine Law Howbeit every action that is not of Faith be sin Rom. 14. 23. Yet the faith whereby I beleeve this action is necessary and must be done is not necessary to the eschewing of sin But if I do it that I do it in Faith and for Gods glory is necessary but the necessity of the goodnesse of the action doth not make the action necessary for it were to lay a yoak of continual doubting upon mens conscience if they should beleeve every individual act that they do to be necessary for whether should they turn them while they think of doing or not doing these actions that they know to be commanded by no Word of God That a Widow marry in the Lord if she marry is necessary but it is not necessary that she marry but it is indifferent to her to marry or not to marry Doctor Forbes Answ It is a contradiction that an action individual should be indifferent and so neither good nor evil and yet done in Faith and referred to Gods glory For the ground of doing which is Faith and the end which is Gods glory are individual properties necessarily concurring to the individuation of the Action Moral 2. An action individual that is meerly indifferent and so without sin may be performed without sin or omitted without sin cannot be an action of Faith referred to Gods glory For what may be done without sin and may not be done without sin is a will-action and wanteth all necessitie of reason and so is an idle and sinful action but a sinful action may be done in fancy but in Faith it cannot be done it may in the vain intention of the doer be referred to Gods glory In intentione erronea operantis but ex conditione operis according to the nature of the work it serveth not for Gods glory This way to cast stones in the water
should be of Faith and referred to Gods glory But shall I beleeve I am doing in Faith and glorifying God when I am casting stones in the water and I have as good reason not to cast at all If one wilaction that may be done and may not be done may be of Faith and referred to Gods glory then may they all be of Faith and referred to Gods glory This is a laughter rather then Divinitie 3. I cannot beleeve that an action that hath as good reason to be omitted as to be done can be acceptable to God because I have no ground for my Faith for my Faith here leaneth neither on Scripture nor on Reason but there is no reason why the action should rather be nor not be because it is indifferent yea crossing and kneeling of themselves shall be of Faith because I beleeve them to be of Faith But it is a vain thing to say that Faith maketh its object 4. There are no actions in the World but they have all their Moral necessitie from their intrinsecal goodnesse For from whence is it necessary to love God but from the intrinsecal goodnesse that the love of God hath from Gods command For there is no necessitie an action to be at all yea it is idle and superfluous if there be no goodnesse in it at all If then crossing and kneeling laying aside the respect of Humane Laws commanding them have no necessitie Moral from any Commandment of God why they should be at all their necessitie must be all from mans will this is tyranny in Rulers for their sole pleasure to command under the heaviest pain things that have no necessitie at all but their will 5. Neither is it any yoak to mens conscience to square all their Moral Action by Gods Word and so to see according as it is Written before they vanture upon any Action Moral It is libertie to keep Gods way accuratel Object In general no particular action is necessary the goodnesse whereof that is commended and rewarded of God may â—s well be had by the omission of that action or by an other action as by the doing of it but such an action in the individual use is true and indifferent but iâ— the goodnesse necessary cannot be had at all without that particular action then the action in the individual use is necessary although according to its nature it be possibly indifferent So to us now to kneel at the Supper is necessary that we may obtain the necessary good of due Obedience and decent Vniformity and eschue the contempt of Anthority Schism and Confusion Forbâ— Answ 1. By goodnesse here the Doctor meaneth Concomitant and general goodnesse which maketh not the action necessary to be done and so it hath no goodnesse intrinsecal but is an idle action and yet it may be done or not done without sin and when it is done it is done upon no other motive but the meer will and pleasure of the doer We have hereby the Doctors learning Such an idle action done in Faith and done for Gods glory 2. All our Ceremonies in their use crossing kneeling wearing of Surplice have no intrinsecal goodnesse no internal moral equity of Order Decency and aptnesse to Edifie wherefore it is necessary they should be done the doing of them in Faith and for Gods glory may be obtained as well by noâ—â—-kneeling none-crossing none-Surplice This is no small dash to the credit of Pearth Assembly for they saw no goodnesse in the Articles but that which as well might have been obtained without them Hence except the goodnesse of pleasing King James they had no more reason for the Ceremonies then to make an Act that all Ministers shall go to the Foot-Ball the third day of May. 3. Then the meer pleasure of the King hath made kneeling necessary and good obedience to the fifth Commandment mens will as will so is the onely formal reason of obedience to the ten Commandments or disobedience 4. Then we may of Faith and for Gods glory refuse the Ceremonies if it be the Kings Will and in that point the fifth Commandment standeth or falleth at the nod of the Kings Will. Such Mercenary Divinitie becometh not the lovers of Reformation Object There is a twofold maline in actions One thar layeth a moral impediment on the act so that it cannot be performed without sin So to eschue the malice that is in adultery we must eschue the act of adultery this malice polluteth the act and should binder the act There is another malice that polluteth the act but doth not morally hinder the act As when one feedeth the poor for vain-glory vain glory polluteth the act but hindereth it not Vain-glory should be laid aside and the poor fed If one kneel at the Supper thinking it not lawful to kneel before Creatures his kneeling is evil but the evil in it doth onely pollute the act and make it finful but doth not morally hinder kneeling because contumacioâ—s ignorance pride and contempt of Authority should be laid aside Men should be docil and see the law fulnesse of it and obey the Church Forbs Answ In things indifferent the very malice adhering to the practice of them howbeit it adhere not inseparably to them maketh the practice damnable For eating Rom. 14. before a weak Brother whose weaknesse might have been removed if he would be docil and know that their is no creature now unclean is murther Rom. 14. 14. Therefore suppose all the Kings and General Assemblies on Earth should command one to eat in that case before the weak Brother they were to be disobeyed and so the Doctor freeth us that we cannot kneel at the Lords Supper 2. Rulers may not make laws of things having no necessitie of Goodnesse Decency and aptnesse to Edifie and onely good because they will when they see of necessitie these laws shall inevitably ruine many souls for that is to have more regard to their own will then to the salvation of peoples souls whereas even Christ pleased not himself 3. Many weak are uncapable of all Reasons or Arguments that can free our kneeling of Idolatry Ergo They should abstain and not kneel with a doubting conscience better not eat as eat with a doubting conscience Rom. 14 23. 4. Pride and contempt are onely seen to God Prelates have no place to punish heart-acts they are to prove by two Witnesses the Malice and Pride and Contempt of Authoritie but this is invisible to mens eies refusal of obedience to Canons touching indifferent things the necessitie whereof as the Doctor must say cometh onely from mans will cannot be contempt The neglect of a command of God is indeed a virtual contempt of the Majestie Authoritie Power and Justice of God because a command of God hath Essentially Equitie and Justice in it from Gods commanding Will But a command of a thing indifferent that may as well without sin be left undone as done as our Doctor saith of our Ceremonies can never
an Artificer to make swords though he know some shall abuse them to murthering the innocent is no scandalous work I take not on me to prescribe rules for eschewing scandall in all occurrences of providence The godly learned can see more then I can doe in this matter where love should be warie to lay a straw in the way of any weake traveller Quest III. Whether or no we may deny obedience to the lawes of our Superiours for feare of Scandall causleslie taken THis is not my question but a question of the Doctors of Aberdeen yet it conduceth for the times and because one of the learnedest of these Doctors did agitate the question of scandall with me in private before the writing of that book I desire libertie to vindicate my selfe by discussing two chapters of this purpose And first the question seemeth to me many wayes vaine 1. They aske about denyall of obedience which is not proved but presumed to be obedience 2. They presume that the Masters the Lord Prelates of Pearth faction are our Superiours by no law of God or our Church was ever any superioritie conferred upon them 3. They say for scandall causlesly taken if they meane that there be no just reason indeed why any should take scandall they say nothing against us for we thinke to take scandall is to sinne if they know any just reason or cause of sinne except Satan and mens free-will we shall be taught of them If they meane scandalously taken that is not culpably given by the practisers of Ceremonies this is a Chimera and to us no question for we are not to denie obedience to lawfull lawes for eschewing Scandall when obeyers doe give no cause culpably of Scandall they would have formed the question to our reverend and learned Brethren if they had dealt plainly Whether or no we may desist from practising Coremonies which setting aside the law of Superiours are indifferent when from the practising of them ariseth the ruine of many soules for whom Christ died In things necessarie commanded and forbidden of God we cannot deny obedience but the matter of the lawes is silenced in the question to deceive the reader Duplyers IF the Scandall arising from the Articles of Pearth come ex conditione operis from the very enormitie in these Articles then are we to forbeare these â—rticles ever and not onely while they be tryed in a lawfull Assembly for such are either sinne or have a manifest show of sinne But if the scandall arise not from the Articles themselves but from malice or weaknesse we deny that we are totally to abstaine from obedience to lawfull Superiours for eschewing Scandall causlesly taken and we marvell from whence ye have learned this strange and harsh doctrine Answ 1. Your enumeration is weake for we know no Scandall justly taken but proceeding from both these weaknesse or wickedness of nature is the neerest cause of all Scandall taken because it is the cause of all sinne and to be scandalized is sinne Also it is here taken from the enormitie of the deed in that practising of things indifferent if a scandall taken either weakly or maliciously thence arise there is enormitie in the deed yet totall abstinence is not hence concluded because cessante ratione scandali when the ground of the Scandall is removed there is no enormitie in the fact 2. You define to us or rather divine that then there is an irregularitie in the fact that justly scandalizâ—th when either the fact is a sinne or then hath a manifest shew of sinne And we wonder where you learned this strange Divinitie for 1 Cor. 10. 27. To eat meat at a Feast that you are invited unto is neither sinne because v. 23. 25. it is lawfull The earth is the Lords nor is it such as hath a manifest shew of sinne as all having sense knoweth One of your prime Doctors defined to me these onely have manifest appearance of sinne Quae plâ—rumque fiunt malo fine which for the most part are done for an evill â—nd such as is to lye in bed with another mans wife to kneele before an Idoll The formâ—r in the exposition of all is done for adulterie the latter for Idolatrie I am sure to eat meats at an Infidels feast is not of that nature which is done ordinarily for an evill end it is ordinarily done to refresh nature and to solâ—â—e it which hath no manifest shew of sinne and yet if there be a weake one beside who saith that meat is offered to Idols in that case to eat is to scandalize 32. and is against the glory of God v. 31. 3. You aske from whom we learned this strange doctrine to deny obedience to the lawes of Superiours for scandall causlesly taken And we answer we learned it from the Apostle Paul who saith 1 Cor. 8. 13. If meat offend my weake brother I will eat no flesh I will abstaine totally and absolutely while the world standeth This abstinence for the date of the worlds standing God be thanked is longer then the time to a lawfull Generall Assembly was at that time yet the Apostle proveth Rom. 14. That to eat or not to eat was at that time as indifferent as to practise or not practise Ceremonies also who ever offended at Pauls eating of fleshes were offended out of weakness v. 7. and it was in that sense scandall causlesly taken Duplyers pag. 59. n. 34. The Author of the popish English Ceremonies saith that both Cajetan and Bannes affirm that we should abstain a spiritualibus non necessariis from spirituall duties not necessarie to salvation when Scandall ariseth from the doing of them but none of the Schoolemen euer taught to abstaine totally and altogether from any spirituall dutie for eschewing the scandall of either weake or wicked Answer What the author of the English Popish Ceremonies saith in that subject all your learning shall never be able to Answer for our brethren required but abstinece from these Ceremonies till they be tryed in a lawfull Generall Assemblie for they never were yet tryed in a lawfull Assemblie till the late Assemblie at Glasgow anno 1638. 2. That Author argueth a Majore and we desire an Answer if we may abstaine from spirituall duties commanded by the most high Superiour the Lord our God hic nunc in case of Scandall Ergo farre more are we to abstaine from practising of dead Ceremonies voyd of all spirit of life in the case of scandall yea and universally and totally we are to abstaine because the Superiours have no power to make lawes in materia scandalosa when that which they command is scandalous and in the very matter soule-murther Duplyers Thomas and his followers say Bona spiritualia non necessaria sunt dimittenda propter scandalum in ijs quae sunt sub consiliâ— non vero sub praecepto We may omit spirituall duties for eschewing scandall which fall under counsell but not under commandement Answer We conceive you not to
the thing commanded Yea and if the positive Commandements of the Lord our God who of Justice and kingly soveraigntie hath right to aske obedience of us above all earthly Superiours doe yeeld and cede as lesse obligatorie then commandements of love only that are commanded in the law of nature What doe our Doctors clatter and fable to us of a right of Justice that mortall Rulers have to command in things indifferent from which the destruction of soules doth arise for these commandements of Rulers kneele religiously before bread the vicegerent image of Christ crucified keepe humane holy-dayes Crosse the aire with your thumb above a baptized infants face at best are but positive Commandements not warranted by Gods word But shall they be more obligatorie by a supposed band of Justice that Prelates have over us to command such toy's then this divine law of God and Nature Rom. 14. For indifferent dayes meats surplice destroy not him for whom Christ died All the Casuistes and Schoolemen Navarra Sylvester Sanchez Raphael de la Torre Meratius Duvallius Thomas Scotus Bonaventura Suarez Vasquez Grego de Valentia Albertus Richardus Biel Corduba Angelus Adrianus Alphonsus Becanus yea and all the hoast of our Divines cry with Scripture that Mercie and the precepts of Love and of the Law of nature are more obligatorie then Sacrifice burnt offerings and Gods owne positive lawes yea and that positive lawes lose their obligatorie power and cease to be lawes when the lawes of nature and necessarie duties of mercie and love as not to murther our brother not to scandalize standeth in their way I might wearie the reader here with citations and bewilder my selfe also but it is a point of Divinitie denyed by none at all 3. What we owe of Justice to our Superiours is indeed both a morall debt of obedience and a debt of justice and law which Rulers may seeke by their place and ex jure as Aristotle saith but this right is limited Rulers have no right to seeke absolute obedience but only in the Lord not against charitie And though the place of Rulers be authoritative yet their commanding power as touching the matter of what they injoyne is only Ministeriall and they cannot but in Gods place exact that which is Gods due and seeing God himselfe if he should immediatly in his owne person command he would not urge a positive commandement farre lesse the commandement of light and vaine Ceremonies against and beyond the precept of love not to destroy a soule for whom Christ died Ergo Superiours under God who borrow all their right from God cannot have a higher right then God hath 4. The comparison of a man who oweth moneys to a Creditor and oweth moneys to the poore is close off the way for he is obliged to pay the Creditour first but the case here is farre otherwise The debt of practising indifferent feathers and straws such as kneeling crossing wearing Surplice is neither like the debt owine to the poore nor to the creditour For natures law and Gods word 1 Cor. 10. 18 19. maketh the non-practise non-murthering obedience to God when the practise of indifferent things is a soule-stumbling to the weake and the practising is but at its best obedience to a positive Law and ought to stoope and goe off the way and disappeare when natures Law Murther not doth come in its way When the Doctors put Loyaltie above Charitie they suppose obedience to commandements commanding scandalizing of soules to be loyaltie to Superiours which is questioned it being treason to the Soveraigne of heaven and earth to destroy his Image it is taken as loyalty by our Doctors but not proven to be loyaltie and so a vaine question here whether Loyaltie be above Charitie or not But I dismisse the Doctors till another occasion Other things as Popish tenents in their booke are a thousand times answered by us Quest V. Whether or not in every indifferent thing are we to eschew the scandall of all even of the malicious IT is knowne that many take offence at tolling of Bells at a Ministers gowne while hee preacheth at the naming of the dayes of the weeke after the Heathen style from the seven Planets as Sunday the day of the Sunne Moonday the day of the Moon c. It is true Bells are abused by Papists while as they be consecrated baptized used to chase away devils But these be scandals taken and not given for we read not of scandals culpable in Gods word but there be some apparent morall reason in them 2. The object scandalizing hath no necessitie why it should be Now there is a necessitte of Bells to give warning to convocate the people to Gods worship and they are of meere civill use and have no morall influence in the worship for the same tolling of bells is and may be used to convocate the people to a Baâ—oncourt to heare a declamation to convocate Souldiers there is no apparent morall reason why the tolling of a Bell should scandalize and the toller of the Bell for warning of the bodily and personall convocation of the people is not a morall agent properly the action of tolling remaineth within the sphere of an actiâ—n physicalâ— in lineà Physicâ non in lineâ morali aut religiâ—sâ aut Theologiâ—â for so here I must contradistinguish a Physicaâ—l action from a Religious action 2. The tolling of bels have a necessitie of expediencie I mean necessity in specie in the kind though not in in lividuo in the particular and no particular can be more fit and convenient people must have some publ que signe for the dyat of meeting else the worship would be wearisome to those who met long before the time and it would be scandalous and inconvenient to others to meet after the publick worship is begun If any say tolling of Bells is not necessarie sounding of Trumpets beating of Drummes may be civill signes of convocating people touling of bells being so fouly abused by Papists to superstition and so being not necessarie ought to be removed But I answer beating of Drummes wanteth the necessitie of conveniencie as in raynie weather it could not be nor can they give warning so conveniently blowing of Trumpets might seeme as Jewish Joel cap. 2. v. 15. as tolling of Bells seemeth Popish and the degrees of necessitie of conveniencie should sway the Chuâ—ches determination in these cases and this exsuperancie of necessitie of conveniencie is in all things though we cannot see it alwayes 2. The instamped civill gravitie in a Gowne maketh it necessary with the necessitie of expediencie being in it selfe a grave habit fit for an Oratour who is to perswade 3. The names of dayes to signifie civill times and things out of a religious state is necessary now and the Holy Ghost doth use for civill signification such termes as Mars-street to signifie civill and meerely historically such a place And the Ship whose signe is Castor Pollux yet these were heathen
that beare no fruit were to be cut down as not so necessarie for mans life Now this reason is morall and perpetuall and so are houses to sence off the injuries of the clouds a Manslife except they bee forbidden by a positive law of God and so necessarie as without the â—se of houses no worshipping of God can be ordinarily And therefore in the second place as we use Gold Silver Tamples and materiall houses though abused to Idolatrie because the Lord hath created them for our use his law of Creation warranting us to use them so can we not refraine from the use of them though abused by Papists except wee have a speciall positive law to warrant us to refraine from the use of these necessarie creatures of God so usefull for the life of man For according to the grounds of these against whom we now dispute the Garments of silke or cloth of Gold that hath covered Popish Images the Gold and Silver of the Popish Images though melted and dissolved into innocent mettall the Materiall Temples builded to the honour of Saints are to be cast away and utterly abolished as unlawfull to be used in any sort for the Jewes according to the Law Deut. 7. 19. 20. might make no use of the gold or silver of the Heathen-Image and Achan brought a curse on himselfe for the simple taking for his use the wedge of Gold and the Babilonâ—sh Garment Now we have no law in the New Testament to abandon the use of the creatures for as Cornelius was not to count that meat uncleane which God â—ad clâ—nsed Act. 10. 15. So neither are we to count Silver and Gold and houses uselesse which God in the Creation made Good and usefull for our life and therefore no morall contagion can adhere so to these creatures as we are utterly to disuse them as creatures cursed because they were abused except it can be proved that the abuse of them hath deprived us of the necessarie use that they have by the law of Creation for certaine it is as the killing of the sucking infants of the Amalakites was typicall and tyeth not us to kill the young children of Papists so was the disusing or not using of Gold Silver and Houses abused to Idolatrie typicall And before I come to the second Conclusion An house for the worship of God is amongst the things that are necessarie by way of dis-junction in speciè not in individuo that is a house is necessarie in its Physicall use to fence off our bodies the injuries of Sunne Aire and heaven but not this house for another house may serve the turne as conveniently But some object Then this or this house Dedicated superstitiously to the religious honour of a Saint ought to be removed out of the worship of God 1 because by your owne confession Thâ—â— individual house so abused is not necessarie God may will be worshipped without this house though it never had been in rerum naturâ 2. From the worshipping of God in so Superstitious a place many truly godly are so scandalized that for worshipping God in such Superstitious and Idolatrous places they have Separated from your Church conceiving that in so doing you heale the wounds of the Beast It is true it may be their weaknesse yea but be it so that it were their wickedness that they are scandalized yet by your doctrine in things not necessarie you are not to doe any thing by which either the weake or the wicked may be scandalized as is cleare in the eating of meats Rom. 14. Ans This argument may 1. be retorted against these who hold with us the same doctrine of Scandal for without eating of Swines flesh my life may be preserved and a malitious Iew may be and necessarily is highly scandalized that I who possibly am a Iew converted to the Christian faith doe eat Swines flesh before him for he conceiveth me to be an Apostate from Moses his law therefore I should abstaine from eating Swines flesh before a Iew who out of Malice is scandalized by my doing a thing not necessarie hic nunc But the conclusion is absurd nor doe I think that many truly godly of the Strictest Separation doe stumble at our Churches out of wickednesse Many truly Godly and Sincere refuse to come to our Churches whereas many scandalous well lustered hypocrites who knoweth nothing of the power of godlinesse but are sitten downe in the Scorners Chaire are admitted to the Lords Supper and as the former cannot be excused so I pray God that the latter draw not downe the wrath of God upon both Kingdomes 2. Things not necessarie which actively produce scandall must not be only indifferent Physically in their naturall use as This or this house but they must be indifferent both Physically and Morally for the Meats spoken of Rom. 14. at that time were both wayes indifferent 1. They were not necessary but indifferent Physically in an ordinarie providence both then and now for ordinarily my life may be preserved and suffer little losse by not eating Swines flesh or such meats in case of extreame necessitie of sterving if any could have no other meat they might eat then as the case was Rom. 14. because Mercie is better then Sacriâ—â—â— at alltimes 2. These things Rom. 14. were indifferent Theologically or Morally in their owne nature 1. v. 3. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth for God hath received him 2. Because v. 17. The kingdome of God is not meat and drink Sure in Moses his time to abstaine from such meats and eat such as the Lambe of the Passeover the Manna to drinke of the water of the Rock was worship and so some part of the kingdome of heaven but it is not so now saith Paul 3 Paul clearly maketh them Morally indifferent 1 Cor. 8. 8 But meat commendeth us not to God for neither if we eat are wee better morally and before God neither if we eat not a e we Morally theworse Now this Temple or House Physically is indifferent and not necessarie for the worship of God for men may be defended from the injuries of Sunne and aire Though this house had never been in rerum naturâ But this Temple or house though dedicated to a Saint is not Morally indifferent but Morally necessarie so as if you remove it from the worship because abused to Idolatrie and give it in no use in the defending of our bodies from the injuries of the Wind Raine and Sunne you Iudaize and doe actively scandalize the Iewes and harden them in their Apostasie and so this house though abused to Idolatrie is not indifferent Morally as the meats Rom. 14. But the using of it is necessarie and an asserting of our Christian libertie as to eat blood and things strangled and Swines flesh even before a Iew so to use all houses for a physicall end to defend our bodies from heat
so in a Physicall and naturall necessitie to save his owne temporall life that by all probabilitie was in great danger and these who being in no such necessitie did eat such meats scandalous and so distructive to the soules of weake ones and having varietie of other meats to keep them from sterving and so a meere necessitie of preserving the bodily life if we compare one affirmative command of God with another may remove that which may be supposed a soule necessitie And the reason is because in the doctrine of scandall which is more intricate and obscure then every Divine conceives God placeth acts of providentiall necessitie as emergent significations of his approving will which are so to us in place of a divine Commandement of Gods revealed will and these providentiall acts of necessitie doe no lesse oblige us to morall obedience then any of the expresse written Commandements of God I cleare it thus There is an expresse law It is sâ—â— and unlawfull for David or any man who is not one of the Lords Priests to eat shew-bread But God commeth in and putteth David in such a posture of divine providence that if he eat not shew-bread he shall be sinfully guiltie of violating a higher morall law of God who saith I will have mercie and not sacrifice Then David shall be cruell to his owne life and sinne against the sixt Commandement Thou shalt doe no murther If he eat not for not to eat when you are in a providentiall condition of sterving if you may have it is to kill your selfe and this providentiall condition doth no lesse oblige you to the Morall obedience of the sixt Command then if God in the letter of the Law should command you to eat This fact of David was not done by any extraordinarie impulsion of the Spirit but by a constant chanell that Providence ordinarily runneth in according to which I or any Professor must be obliged to preferre a worke of Mercie to Sacrifice that is by which we are to give obedience to the sixt Command which is not to kill even as without extraordinarie impulsion I may absent my selfe from hearing the Word when I find going to Church may indanger my life for non-obedience to affirmatives in a greater necessitie is ordinarie And therefore Christian prudence with which the Wisdome of God keeps house Prov. 8. 12. doth determine many things of scandall And prudence is a vertue commanded in the word of God for a wise man observes times and so will he observe all other circumstances yet there be rules here which standeth alwayes and they be these 1. Comparing a physicall and meerely naturall necessitie with a morall necessitie if we yeeld to the physicall necessitie and neglect the moral we sinne against God and may lay a stumbling blocke before others as to eat such meats where the losse is small and the necessitie of eating meerely physicall and the eating be a scandall to the weake we sinne and give scandall the case is cleare Rom. 14. for eating the case being indifferent as it was Rom. 14. is a meere physicall necessitie and not scandalizing a weake brother is a morall necessitie 2. Rule if we compare a greater morall necessitie with a lesse morall necessitie the lesse necessitie must yeeld to the greater a necessitie of mercie must yeeld to a necessitie of sacrificeing if David then should not have eaten the shew-bread in his providentiall necessitie of samine he should have been guiltie both of active scandalizing the soules of others in killing himselfe and should have killed himselfe and the lesse morall necessitie ceaseth and is no necessitie when a greater moral necessitie interveneth 3. Rule Where there is a physicall necessitie of the thing yet not extreame and a morall necessitie of abstinence we are to abstaine The Jewes had a physicall necessitie of the Babylonish Garments but not so extreame in point of perishing through cold as David had of Shew-bread in point of sterving for famine therefore Achan should have obeyed the morall necessitie of not touching the accursed thing and neglected the physicall necessitie which if it had amounted to the degrees of necessitie of mercie rather then obeying a Ceremoniall Command such as was Touch nâ—t the accursed spoyle Achâ—â— might without sinne or scandall to himselfe or others have medled with the spoyle 4. Rule That which is necessarie in speciè in the kind as to goe to Church and heare the Word to come to the house of God and Worship may be in individuo in a particular exigence of providence not morally necessarie but the contradicent thereof morally lawfull David doth lawfully forbeare to come to the Lords house if he knew Saul may kill him by the way â— The things which we are to forbeare only for necessitie of scandall and upon no other ground these I may doe in private if I know they cannot come to the notice of these who shall be scandalized upon the ground of lesse physicall necessitie as Rom. 14. beleevers for their necessitie ordinarie and for nourishment might eat fleshes in private though before a weak Jew they could nâ—â— because the sinne is not in the act of eating but wholly in the scandall and in the manner of the unseasonable doing of it But these things which are morally not necessarie because tâ—â—â—â—bstance of the fact is against a law we are to forbeare both in private because they are against a law and in publick before others for the scandall as Achan sinned in taking the Babilonish Garment though in private and his sinne should have been more scandalous if he had done it publickly Now these we are upon no ordinarie necessitie to doe but such as may incroach upon the hazard of the losse of life in which case an exigence of providence does stand for a Command of non-murthering had Saul and his Army been reduced to a danger of starving in a wildernesse and could have no food except they should kill and eat the Cattell of the Amâ—lâ—kites â— conceive The Lords preferring of Mercie before Sacrifice should warrant them to eat of the Amalakites Cattell yet would this providentiall necessitie be so limited as it may fall out that it stand not for a divine Command for it holdeth in affirmative commands only and 2. so positives as there must be yea there can be no sin eligible by such and such a case as Lot sinned in exposing his daughters to the lust of men to redeeme abstinence from Sodomie Hence it is cleare we may not doe a lesse nor counsell another to commit a lesse sinne to eschew a greater as the Jesuites wickedly teach So Tannerus so Turrianus and others who make a scandalum permissum a scandall that a Christian may hinder another to fall in and yet he permitteth him to fall in it But God hath a prerogative to permit sinfull scandals men have no such power when they are obliged to hinder it The divinite of
speciè and in individuo The like Papists say for adoring of Images that Hooker here saith for Surplice and the like Scandals So doth the Jesuit Tannerus say in 22. to 3 dis 5. de religione q. â— dub 3. Quando dicitur Adorationem imaginum non esse licitam qui non est scripta Respo inquit apostolâ— familiari Spiritus instinctu quadam Ecclesiis tradiderâ—nt Servanda que non reliquerunt in scriptis inter hujusmodi Traditiones est Imaginum Christi adoratio Quest VII Whether or no to use the indifferent Customes of heathen and Papists in the worship of God be scandalous WE are altogether of this mind that a materiall Similitude between the truee Church and the false is not scandalous Because Rome holdeth that there is one God it followeth not therefore it is unlawfull for us to hold there is one God 2. There is a formall Similitude as because the heathen kill their children to Molech ergo the Children of Israel should not doe so to the Lord their God M. Hooker granteth there should be a dis-similitude betweene the true Church and Heathens in this and the Similitude say they is unlawfull But 3. the Adversaries draw us to a third dis-similitude betweene the true Church and the Popish and heathenish Church and this is a mixt Similitude that we should use indifferent Râ—tes and Customes in Gods worship as Crossing new devised dayes Surplice c. which are used by Papists and Heathens This say our Adversaries is not an unlawfull Similitude yea with edification and profit say they we may thus farre conforme with them 2. This conformitie doth gaine them not Scandalize them say they But we hold that this conformitie is unlawfull and a dissimilitude commanded 1. It is expresly said Levit. 18. 3. I am the Lord your God after the doings of the Land of Egypt wherein â—eâ— dwelt shall yee not doe And after the doings of the Land of Canaan whither I bring you shall ye not doe Neither shall yee walks in their ordinances 4. Ye shall doe my judgements and keep minâ— ordinances to walke therein I am the Lord your God Hence if God bee a God in a peculiar manner in covenant with his Church then may not his Church take a rule of worship and walking from other prophane Churches and people such as Egypt Canaan and whorish Rome There is an Instance given in things of their owne nature indifferent Levit. 19. with the same Argument 27. Ye shall not round the corners of your heads neither shalt thoâ— marre the corners of thy Beard 28. Yee shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead I am the Lord. Certaine a greater scandall cannot be then that those who are in Covenant with God should borrow significant Ceremonies of sorrowing for the dead Levit. 19. 19. Yee shall keepe my Statutes Thou shalt not let thy cattell gender with divers kinde Thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed Neither shall a garment mingled of linnen and wooll come upon thee Hence there is a cleare opposition made betweene Gods statutes Yee shall heepe my statutes and the statutes of Canaan The Canâ—â—â—â—tes might weare Garments of linnen and wooll and and â—owe mingled seed But Deut. 2â— 9. Thou the Israel of God shall not sowe thy Vineyard with divers seeds Why leâ—t the fruit of the seed which thou hast sowen and the fruit of thy viâ—â—yard be defiled The seed of the Nations was not defiled though they did sowe mingled seed Ergo the Lord putteth some peculiar Character on his people by this to distinguish them from other Nations by giving these lawes to them which did not oblige other Natioâ—â— 3. Wee make the Papists and the Heathen that have used white Garments in the worship of God and crossing in the Sacraments and the like to be our fathers where as wee are to disclaime them and not to harden them so as Israel did Egypt who said Yee cannot serve your God except in our golden Calves by Gods argument Levit. 19 Israel and Canaan Protestants and Idolatrous Papists have one God they have the same externall statutes 4. What â—veâ— is a professed way of being infected and snaâ—ed with the false religion of those who are at our doores as Egypt and Canaan was to Israel and Papists to us must be scandalous conformitie with them and this argument is cleare Levit. 18. 3. Yee shall not doe after the doings of the Land of Egypt wherein yeâ— dwell nor after the doings of the Land of Canaan whither I bring you Ergo the danger is the greater that we dwell beside Idolaters and the publick practising of their rites the more scandalous 5. Wee sadden the spirits of the Godly and lay a stumbling-block before the blind and weak in that wee build Jeriche again and with our tongue we lick and heale the wound of the daughter of Babel where as with our teeth we should byte it 6. Learned and godly Cartwright the Author of the booke of Discipline Amesius and others have cited Councels as Concil Braca 73. decreed That Christians should not deck their houses with Bay leaves and greene boughs that they should not keepe the first day of the moneth because the Pagans did so And another Councell Concil African c. 27. forbade Christians to Celebrate Feastâ— on the Birth day of the Martyrs because Pagans did so Tertullian would not have Christians to sit after they had prayed because Pagans did so 7. The mark and Character of the Beast is an externall discriminating note of its owne nature indifferent Yet to receive it is a matter of Plagueâ— and wrath from God Rev. 13. 15 1â— To these they reply 1. Those same Ceremonâ—es because the saâ—â—â— which the heathen used were not forbidden the Jewes But thâ—se things saith M. Hooker are not indifferent being used as signes of immederate and hopelesse lamentation for the dead and in effect it is that which Paul saith 1 Thess 4. â—3 Sorrow not as they doe which have no hope as Deut. 14. 1. Yee are the children of the Lord your God yeâ— shall not cut your selves nor make you baldnesse betweenâ— your eyes for the dead nor iâ—â—â— hence proven saith Hooker That God did frame his people of set purpose unto any utter dis-siâ—â—ilitude with either Egyptians or other Nations Ans 1. Ceremonies may be either the same 1. in number or 2. materially or 3. formally and Theologically The first identitie and samenes is most proper And whereas Morton and M. Burges would insinuate that God forbade these same Ceremonies in number it needeth no refutation God never forbade things physically and by way of contradiction unpossible The same murthering of our brother forbidden to Cain the same in number is forbidden in number and individually to no mortall man except the Jewes had had the same heads haire beards browes that the Canaanites had the same I meane in number this were to make the lawes
of God a matter of laughter to men 2. Where as Hooker would have God to forbid not the same Ceremonies Materially or an utter dis-similitude but the same Ceremonies of the Heathen with the signification which the Heathen did put on them contrary to Scripture as upon the cutting of their flesh they did impose this signification that they should sorrow for the dead as those that have no hope 1 Thess 3. we see then 1. all the Ceremonies of the Heathen as the cutting of the flesh the killing of their Children to Molech So they be formallized and charactered with a signification according to the word of God shall be lawfull Put then Scripturall and lawfull significations either of faith in Christ already incarnate or of Christian conversation as of moderate mourning for the dead such as was in Abraham who mourned for Sarahs death and in our Lord Jesus who wept for the death of Lazarus And so the Sacrificing of Bullocks Sheep Rams yea Circâ—â—cising and Sacrificing of children to Molech shall not be condemned as a complyance and Symbolizing with the Jewes and Idolaters Nor can any say that shedding of blood to God and killing of men must be now forbidden I answered before shedding of blood with this Scripturall and lawfull signification and as an indifferent means of the worshiping of God is no other way forbidden in the first 7. blâ— then because it is not commanded in Scripture But this is no forbiding at all of worship or of new positive meanes of worship So you 1. make it not a part of the word of God and necessarie worship 2. So it be materially indifferent and be instamped with a lawfull and Scripturall signification as we suppose it to be 3. Nor doth the Word any where condemne killing of men as a worship except that iâ— commandeth it not as a worship which we say as it is a breach of the sixt Commandement it is forbidden as man-flaughter but not as unlawfull worship But then how will Morton and Burges justifie Circumcision which they say is lawfull yet so it have not a Jewish intention nor any necessitie or efficacie imposed on it it is a degree of murther and why may not upon the same ground cutting the flesh for the dead launcing of the body with knives the Popish selfescourging be lawfull Now the text signifieth no allowance at all of the rounding of the corners of the head and the cutting of the body and how shall Hooker prove that only heathenish and Pagan-rounding of the haire and cutting of the flesh as they betoken mourning in a hopelesse manner for the dead were forbidden 1 Thess 3. divers of the Pagans amongst whom is Phocillides and many others taught the resurrection of the dead They might then sow their land with divers seeds cut their flesh for the dead yea and observe times be dismayed at the signes of the heaven as the heathen And what ever the Pagans did in their worship they might doe so to the Lord their God and doe all the judgements ordinances and lawes of Egypt Canaan Turkie of Rome materially even to the falling downe before Bread sacrisicing of Beasts cutting of the haire c. 3. What Hooker meaneth by a dis-similitude with the heathen of set purpose is easily knowne Only in things wicked and unlawfull saith he or Idolatrous or against the law of God we are to be dislike to the heathen because it is said Yee shall doe my judgements for he expresly denyeth that there was any danger of infection by reason of nearnesse to the Egyptians and Canaanites in these indifferent things or that they were forbidden because the Pagans used them they were unlawfull though the Pagans bad ever used them Ans Tannerus the Jesuite saith tom 3. in 22. disp 9. de fide spe q. 6. dub 9. abstinendum est ab omni speciè male prâ—pter scandalum ratio quia scandalum tali casâ— oritur ex vi actionis ipsius non aliter fâ—râ— quam si mala esset then though the Nations heathenish rites were not ill yet being not necessarie to the Jewes and having appearance of ill in that they are Characters of the worship of strange Gods scandall must refâ—â—e from the using heathenish Ceremonies vi actionis from the nature of the using of them as if they were intrinâ—ecally ill 2. If it were no more but this they were so much the worse and more scandalous that beside that they are intrinsâ—cally evill yet they are the Statutes of Egypt and Canâ—aâ— and not the Statutes of the Lord. So either these words must bee idly set downe amongst whom yee dwels and to which the Lord bringeth you Or they must adde a degree of wickednesse to the sinnes that they were the sinnes of Egypt and of Canaan and so they are forbidden both as sinnes and also for the bare Similitude as the words imply for God will not only have them to walke in right judgements but also in his righteous judgements because â—aith hee I am the Lord and ye shall not doe after such and such a way because such are the doings and wayes of Egypt and Canaan Ergo Though all were intrinsecally evill that are forbidden of this kinde they partake also of a farther degree of morall evill in that Egypt Canaan and Idolatroâ—s Papiâ—â—â— doe these same things to their Idols Hooker addeth Wee must be unlike to Rome not only in Doctrine but in Ceremonies and Governâ—â—â—â— and especially Government not commanded in the Word for all is Papish though lawfull and agreeable to the word of God whatsoever Rome hâ—â— received without commandement of Gods word Ans Theâ—e is not required properly a conformitie in us with Rome in doctrinals as if Rome were our Rule nor is the word of God properly conforme to the Protestant religion but the Protestant religion must be conforme to the Word Whâ—â—nesse is not properly like to Snow or Milke but Milke or Snow are like to whitenesse Nor have we properly a 〈…〉 with Papists in doctrine they are not our patterne nor wee theirs 2. We do not plead for a Government in all things to be commanded in the Word but to be warranted by the Word either according to command or promise or morall practise foâ— the Scripture is our Rule but 1. not in miraculous things 2. Not in things temporarie as Communitie of Goods 3. Not in things Literally exponed as to cut off our hands and feet 4. Not in things of Art and Science as to speake Latine to demonstrate conclusions of Astronomie 5. It is not properly our Rule in Circumstances which are but naturall conveniences of time place and person and such like But it is our Rule 1. in fundamentalls of salvation 2. In all morals of both first and second table 3. In all institutions and wee conceive the Government of the Church to be a proper institution to wit it is a supernaturall ordinance or helpe above nature to guide the