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
come to the Supper Be not Iudges of mens Conscience Ans Christ Commanding not to cast Pearls to Swine and scourging out those that polluted that Temple that was a type of his body doth Argue clearly that the holy things of God should not be prophaned But that Christ rebuked all abuses in the worship of God in particular Erastus cannot say 2. It is one thing to forgive our brother by putting away private grudge and a church-pardoning in the name of Christ is another in the former sense we are to forgive our enemy though he repent not Mat. 6. 12. 14 15. Rom. 12. 19 20. Luk. 23. 34. But this forgivenesse Luk. 17. is not said to be ratified in heaven for God doth not alway forgive when we forgive God doth forgive when the sinner repenteth Erastus will have a lying confession ratified in Heaven 3. When the Church in Christs Name forgiveth not upon words and lies but upon Visible Testimonies of repentance they are no more Iudges of the heart then Isaiah when he said Except ye believe ye shall not be established and Paul when he said to the Jaylor Believe and thou shalt be saved for without more then lying words of mouth yea without true lively faith neither could the one be established nor the other saved Erastus When Paul dehorteth the Corinthians to eat things Sacrificed to Idols in the Idols Temple because they could not be partakers of the Table of the Lord and of the Table of Devils he bids them not forsake the Supper of the Lord but only not to go to the Feast of Idols because the Supper and these Tables of Devils are inconsistant therefore he saith I will not have you to have fellowship with Devils but he saith not I will not have you to come to the Supper of the Lord nor deth he bid them approve their repentance â—re they come to some I know not what Presbyters And in this place he speaketh of an externall Communion as the purpose and words prove because he speaketh of Israel according to the flesh 3. Because those that eat things Sacrificed to Idols were perswaded there was no difference between those meats and other meats Ans Erastus his Argument is this being reduced to form is if Paul say not 1 Cor. 10. I will not have you come to the Lords Supper but only I will not have you to have fellowship with the Devil in his Table then he will have none debarred by the Elders from the Lords Supper But the latter is true I deny the Proposition it is a connexion that one who taketh on him to refute such a precious and eminent divine as Theod. Beza may be ashamed of and yet his book from head to foot standeth most upon a negative Argument from some particular place of Scripture for he speaketh nothing of the power of Elders to keep the holy things of God pure What if he should say Moses in the first of Genesis saith not I will not have you not to come to the Lords Supper Ergo there is no authoritative debarring of men from the Lords Supper Such sandy consequences no learned Divines would ever dream of 2. Beza nor any of our Divines never dreamed that God in the Old or New Testament said Nolo vos ad mensam domini ad sacramenta venire which are the words of Erastus so his conclusion cometh not near the controversie Iews and Gentiles are invited and commanded to come to Christ and so to all the Ordinances and Sacraments but I hope this will not infer that all should come to the Sacraments hand over head and whether they be clean or unclean circumcised or Baptized or not circumcised not Baptized God commanded Aarons sons to serve in the sanctuary and appear before him in their charge What Ergo it is not Gods will that they come not to the Sanctuary and before him unwashed and with strange fire and without their holy garments this is the very consequence of Erastus Our question I conceive is whither all must be admitted promiscuously and whether even those that come immediatly from the Devils Table without any preparation known to the Church should be set at Christs elbow to eat the Lords body and blood Erastus saith Paul never said Nolo vos ad mensam domini venire then because two negatives make one affirmative Paul must say I will that all that are partakers of the table of the Devil come and be partakers of the Lords body But the conclusion is contradicent to Erastus himself who faith right down I judge that he vvho vvill but trample the Sacraments should not be admitted unto them and to Paul 1 Cor. 11. 27 c. 3. Erastus confoundeth two Questions one is whither all should be admitted to the Lords Supper Erastus saith every where in his book none are to be debarred another by whom are they to be admitted or debarred By the civill Magistrates saith Erastus by the Stewâ—rds and Officers of the house of God the rest of the Church consenting say we 4. The Argument will conclude that not onely the Church or Magistrate ought to admit those that have fellowship with the Devil to the Table of Christ but they ought to command them to come it being Christs will they should be admitted and that they themselves who are Communicants are obliged though keeping fellowship with the Devil to come and eat their own damnation for Paul saith by this reason in the place 1 Cor. 10. No more I will not have the partakers of the Devils table to come to the Lords table nor he saith I will not have the Elders to debar them if Erastus say they should try and examine themselves and come He flees from the controversie which is not whether the worthy but whether the scandalous and unworthy should come Erastus saith all should come 5. Whereas Erastus will have the Apostle to speak of the externall Communion of the Elements onely 1. It is false 2. Nothing to the purpose it is false 1. ver 16. It is called the Communion of the body and blood of Christ and that must be more then externall Communion 2. ver 17. We many are one body this is not an externall body only for it is the unity of the body of Christ signified by one bread 3. It is not externall only but internall and spiritual fellowship with Devils that is condemned ver 20. 21. Ergo It must be internall Communion with Christ in his death that is sealed and commanded 4. This is meer Socinianisme to have the Sacraments only memorative signes as is clear 2. It is not to a purpose for if the Church debar only from externall society from the Church and externall Seals this debarring being ratified in Heaven Matth. 18. It is sufficient for our conclusion 5. Paul his condemning of eating at the Idols Table as inconsistent with eating and drinking of the Lords body he must expresly forbid those who eateth
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
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
appointed yet is it not Morall that a Pastor be such or such a Country man so he be apt to teach and holy Crossing signifying the dedication of the Baptized Childe to the service of Christ must be Morall but what sort of River the â—â—ter of Baptisme be is meerly Physicall not Morall So there be two sort of things in Gods Worship things either meerly Morall or meerly Naturall And here also we consider things Circumstantiall as Time Place c. And circumstances are either meerly Physicall or 2. meerly Morall or 3. mixt partly Morall partly Physicall Circumstances meerly Physicall are such adjuncts of divine worship as are common and unseparable concomitants of both civil naturall and Religious or Sacred actions performed by men and as they are such contribute no Morall goodnesse or badnesse to the action or Agent in the performance thereof such as I take to be the seven individuall proprieties of every man Forma figura locus tempus strips patria nomen under Forme and figure The first two I comprehend such a proportion of body a man of a high stature or low a man beautifull or not beautifull to which I crave leave to reduce all externall Formes of habites as cloathes the head covered or not covered the situation of the body as as they are in themselves meer Physicall acts kneeling sitting standing the eyes cast down to the earth or lifted up the hands lifted up or not lifted up the knocking on the breast or not knocking motions of the soul that are naturall Time Place Family Country Name as such a person Thomas not Iohn the son of such a man not of such a man 1. All these are common concomitants of Civill Naturall and Religious actions for all actions performed by man of what kinde soever as naturall to eat sleep or civill to declaime an oration before the people or religious to preach or pray must be done by some persons Iohn or Thomas men of some Family in some time in some place for they are not actions eternall and so must be done in time and place so the Agents must have some habite some gesture in the doing of all these actions and they are unseparable Adjuncts of all these actions because neither actions naturall civill nor Religious can be performed but by some persons in some habite and gesture in some time in some place and lastly they are meere circumstantials and contribute no Morall goodnesse or badnesse to the actions as they are but common and unseparable circumstances for because he preacheth in time or in place simply the preaching is neither Morally good nor ill better or worse because Thomas prayeth in Gown or Cloak in this place rather then that place so it be not Locus ut sic of intention such a Religious place before the Image of Christ or the Father or the Virgin Mary the praying is neither the more or the lesse acceptable to God because of these common and unseparable adjuncts Hence there can be no such force in these circumstances as to make the actions indifferent Such as contend for the lawfulnesse of Ceremonies say our circumstances of time place and the like is nothing but a meerblinde for we cannot say they enumerate all these circumstances for habite gesture person are not meer circumstances and they mustcome in under the lap of this general c. or the like To which I answer that to my knowledge all these that are meer Physical circumstances are particularly enumerated such as are 1. Time 2. Place 3. Person or Agent 4 Name 5. Family 6. Condition as Country Family House 7. Habits or Garments 8. Gestures as sitting standing lifting of the eyes or hands knocking on the breast kneeling and there is no blinde in this enumeration for there be no other particulars that can be enumerated except this time of the day eight or ten of clock this place not any other this person not another and these are only considered here as circumstances not as such and such circumstances but the truth is the enumeration of Symbolicall Rites as Crosse Surplice and the like is really a blinde and is an enumeration with a wide belly and includeth species and not individuals only as Symbolicall Ceremonies such as are Crossing Bells Oyle Salt Spettle Milk turning to the East toward the people from the people toward the Altar with a high voice with a low voice and a thousand the like yea all the old Ceremonies of Moses with a new face all the toyes of the Masse of the Dedication of Churches which would fill a Volumne like the Rationale of Durandus 2. Some Circumstances are meerely Morall for as Divines distinguish Time and Place in Time as Time and as such a Religious Time the Lords Sabbath Tempus tempus ut sic and Place as Place or such a Religious place Locus locus ut sic So we may distinguish here between circumstances in common or in grosse and such and such circumstances As time is a common adjunct of Divine Worship But such a time to wit the Lords-day is both the time of Worship and Worship it self So there is place of Worship and there is such a Religious place The holy of holiest the Temple A habit is a meer accident of Worship the person John or Thomas is also an accident but if God command such an Ephod as Aaron and the Priests were to wear this is not a meer circumstance that the person who administreth the Lords-Supper be John or Thomas is a meer circumstance but that this person be a called Pastor not a private man is more then a circumstance And therefore these circumstances taken in common and their Universall nature are meerly Physicall circumstances but taken in their particular and determinate restrictions as such circumstances they may be meerly Morall circumstances such as are the common adjunct of the time of Worship the place and the Sabbath time and the Temple for Iewish Worship The former are circumstances meerly Physicall the latter meerly Morall I mean as they are restricted other wayes The Temple of Jerusalem served as our meeting places do to sence off the injuries of Heaven and Sun but that is as a place not as such a place 3. There be some mixt circumstances as these same Physicall circumstances clothed with their own seasonable conveniences so time for Worship and due and convenient time is required there may be some Scandalous and Superstitious time for Worship A habit in the Preacher is required and that a grave one a place is required for private Worship and a fit place such as is not the Market-street for private Praying the inconveniency of the circumstance may vitiate the Worship I did say that Christ Iesus hath set down in the Word a perfect Plat-form of Church-Government in all Morals I say in all Morals because the Word doth not teach us any thing of circumstances Physicall as Physicall Scriptura talia non ponit sed
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
Ahasureosh did to continue for an hundred and fourscore dayes Esther 1. 4. More might and ought to have been done by David and Solomon if it had been a morall ground to build a house to be a witnesse of Almightinesse 3. And God appointed sacrifices and Sacraments in both Testaments as Testimonies of the great Lord Iesus yet in base and obvious creatures we may not devise Symbols or witnessing Images of the Almightinesse of that God whom we serve at our pleasure 4. If our Lord love mercy better then Sacrifice especially under the New Testament when his worship must be more spirituall Then the Argument may be strongly retorted we are to bestow more on feeding the living Members of Christs body which yet is not secular vanity then on dead stones except Master Hooker can warrant us to serve God under the New Testament in precious stones and gold for which we can see no Warrant 5. All these Arguments are broadly used by Papists for Images and rich Churches Nor doth Hooker give us any Argument for this but what Papists gave before him Have ye not houses saith he to eat and drink in Ergo He teacheth a difference between house and house and what is fit for the dwelling place of God and what for mans habitation the one for common food the other for none but for heavenly food Ans That there was publick meeting places and Churches in Corinth now under Heathen Rulers 1 Cor. 6. is denyed by all both Protestant and Popish writers far lesse had they then any consecrated Churches and from the inconveniency of taking their Supper while some were full and drunk in the place where the Lords Supper was Celebrated whereas they ought to have Supped in their own houses to infer that the Church is a holier place then their own house I professe is Logick I do not understand it only concludes these two sort of houses are destinated from two sort of different uses sacred and prophane and no more Neither am I much moved at that Psal 74. which is said ver 8. They have burnt all the convening places or all the Congregations of God in the land Vatablus expoundeth it of the Temple Exusserunt totum Templum Dei terrenum Or all the question will be why the Synagogues are called Gods Synagogues as they called the Temple Ier. 7. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Temple of the Lord and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The house of the Lord Whither because every Synagogue was no lesse in its own kinde a house holy to the Lord then the Temple Certainly there is no rationall ground to say that Synagogues were Typicall that the people were to pray with their faces toward the Synagogue and to offer Sacrifices in the Synagogue But that a Synagogue is called the house of God from the use and end because it was ordained for the worship of God as that which God hath appointed for a speciall end and work in that the Lord assumeth the propriety thereof to himself so saith the Lord of Cyrus Isa 45. 1. Thus saith the Lord to his Anointed to Cyrus whose right hand I have holden yet was not Cyrus Typically or Religiously holy as the Temple of Ierusalem and c. 44. v. 28. He saith of Cyrus He is my shepherd and why He shall perform all my pleasure so Hos 2. 9. Therefore will I returne saith God and take away my corne in the time thereof and my wine in the season thereof and will recover my wool and my flax given to cover her nakednesse To say nothing that all the holy land was Gods land Hos 9. 3. They shall not dwell in the Lords land and consequently all the Synagogues were Gods houses and the enemy of whom the Church complaineth to God in that Psalme was thus bold as notwithstanding Canaan was Gods Heritage and proper Land in a speciall manner yet it was destroyed and burnt by the enemies even these houses that God was worshipped in not being spared But how God was so present in every Synagogue and that even when there were no actuall worship of God in it as he was in the Temple and that it was so holy a place as they were to put off there shooes who came into the Synagogue God shewing his own immediate presence in every synagogue as he did Exod. 3. 5. To Moses in the burning bush Exod. 5. 1. v. 12. Is a thing that hath no warrant in the word of God for if every synagogue had been thus holy 1. It should have been a house dedicated to God in a Religious way as was the Temple 2. God should dwell in every Synagogue then in every Church under the New Testament now as he said he would dwell in the Temple 3. Then must Heathens and the uncircumcised be forbidden to come into any Synagogue or any Church under the New Testament the contrary whereof was evident in scripture none were forbidden to enter in the Synagogues Paul 1 Cor. 14. 23 24. alloweth that Heathens come into the Churches or meetings where Christians are worshipping God 4. If either the Temple of Ierusulem was holy for the worship in it or for that it was a Type of our Materiall Temples under the New Testament then our Churches under the New Testament shall be more holy yea our private houses in which we may worship God shal be more holy as our worship is more spirituall then carnall Commandments of the Leviticall Law were and the body must be more holy then the shadow yea all the earth now from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same in regard of more spirituall worship even the Stables and Alehouses where we may offer the Incense of Prayer to God and offer the sacrifices of praises Mal. 1. 11. shall be alike holy as either our Churches or the Temple was of old CAP. I. Q. 1. Whether or not Humane Ceremonies in Gods Worship can consist with the perfection of Gods Word THese humane Ceremonies we cannot but reject upon these grounds Our first Argument is Every positive and Religious observance and Rite in Gods worship not warranted by Gods Word is unlawfull But humane Ceremonies are such Ergo The Proposition is sure the holy Spirit useth a Negative Argument Act. 15. 24. We gave no such Commandment Levit. 10. 1. Jer. 7. 30. and 19. 5 6. and 32. 35. 2 Sam. 7. 7. 1 Chron. 15. 13. The Lord Commanded not this Ergo It is not Lawfull Formalists Answer Every worship holden to be of Divine necessity and yet not Commanded by God is unlawfull but not every worship holden as free and not binding the Conscience requireth that God Command it Ans 1. Gods Consequence is from the want of a Lawfull efficient and Author you make him to reason from an Adjunct of the worship But all worship hath necessity and Divinity and a binding power only from the Author God For why is it Lawfull to Abraham to kill or
will was not determinatrix in this 5. The man jumbleth together godly discretion and will they be much different but for godlinesse in short sleeves and Crossing a finger in the Aire I understand it not nor can reason dream of any warrant for it but will as will that is mans lust made it Neither do Formalists go from Suarez and Bellarmine who call that will-worship which is devised only by a manâ— wit and is not conforme to the principles of Faith and wanteth all reason and the received use of the Church But we are disputing here against the Churches use as if it were not yet a received use But upon these grounds I go 1. Reason not binding and strongly concluding is no reason but meer will So Ceremonies have no reason If the reason binde they are essentiall worship 2. Authority is only ministeriall in ordering Gods worship and hath no place to invent new worship 3. Authority as Authority especially humane giveth no light nor no warrant of conscience to obey and therefore authority naked and void of scriptures-light is here bastard authority 11. In all this Formalists but give the Papists distinction of Divine and Apostolick Traditions for power of inventing Ceremonies to them is Apostolick but not infallible and Divine Suarez giveth the difference God saith he Is the Immediate Author of Divine Traditions and the Apostles only publishers But the Apostles are immediate Authors of Apostolick Traditions God in speciall manner guiding their will So Cajetan Sotus Bellar. So our Formalists Duname Hooker Sutluvius But I like better what Cyprian saith That no Tradition but what is in the word of God is to be received But this distinction is blasphemous and contrary to Scripture 1 Cor 14 57. The things that I write unto you even of decency and order as v. 29. 40. Are the Commandment of the Lord 2. Pet. 3. 2. Peter willeth them to be mindefull of the vvords which were spoken before by the holy Prophets and of the Commandments of us the Apostles of the Lord and Sâ—vioâ—â— Then the Apostles Commandments are equall with the Commandments of the Prophets But in the Old Testament there were not some Traditions Divine and some not every way Divine but Propheticall for the Prophets were the mouth of God as is clear 2 Pet. â— 19 20 21. Luk. 1. 70. Rom. 1. 2. So 1 Tim. 6. 13. I give thee charge in the sight of God 14. That thou keep this Commandment without spot unrebukable untill the appearing of the Lord Iesus Now the Commandment as Beza noteth Are all that he writ of discipline which Formalists say are for the most Apostolicke but not Divine Traditions 2. If Ceremonies seem good to the holy Ghost as they say they do from Act. 15. then they must seeme good to the Father and the Son as the Canon is Act. 15. But that Canon was proved from expresse Scripture as Peter proveth v. 7 8 9. and James v. 13 14 15 16. If they come from the Spirit inspiring the Apostles they cannot erre in such Traditions If from the spirit guided by the holy Ghost they come from Scripture 3. If these traditions come from no spirit led by light of Scripture we shall not know whether they be Lawfull or not for the Scripture is a Canonick rule of lawfull and unlawfull 4. If any Apostolick spirit be given to Authors of Ceremonies why not also in preaching and praying How then do many of them turn Arminians Papists Socinians 5. The Apostolick spirit leading institutors of Ceremonies doth either infuse light naturall supernaturall or Scripturall in devising Ceremonies and so Eatenus in so far they were essential worship or the Apostolick spirit doth lead them with no light at all which is brutish Enthusiasme or 3. Gods Apostolick spirit infuseth the generall equity and negative Lawfulnesse of these truths Surplice is an Apostolicall signe of Pastorall holinesse and Crossing a signe of Dedication of a childe to Christs service Now light for this we would exceedingly have If this light be immediatly infused then Surplice Crossing are as Divine as if God spake them for truths immediatly inspired lost no divinity because they come through sinfull men for Balaam his Prophesie of the star of Jacob was as Divine in regard of Authority as if God had spoken it but if these trash come from an inferiour spirit we desire to know what spirit speaketh without the word But some may object The preaching of the word is somewhat humane because it s not from the infallible spirit that dited the word Ergo Ceremonies may come from the holy Spirit though they be not as lawfull as Scripture Ans Let them be proved to be from the warrant that the word is preached and we yeeld to all 5. Apostolick Ceremonies but not Divine have Gods generall allowing will for the accepting of them Now Sampsons mother Judg. 13. 23. proveth well The Lord hath accepted our offering Ergo it is Lawfull and he will not kill us So God atcepted Abel and Noah their Sacrifices Ergo they were Lawfull and Divine worship So Hosea 8. 8. They sacrifice flesh for the sacrifices of my offerings and they eat it but the Lord accepteth them not Ergo offerings of flesh without offering of themselves as living sacrifices to God are now unlawfull If God accept of Ceremonies they must be Divine service if he accept them not they must be unlawfull They Answer He accepteth them as Arbitrary worship not as essentiall I Answer God might have accepted so Sampsons sacrifice and Noahs as arbitrary worship and yet not be gracious to them nor reward their sacrificing as good service contrary to the Texts alledged but I doubt much if the Lord be gracious to men and accept in Christ corner Caps Surplice Crossing humane holy dayes They object Our Circumstances of time place persons c. are no more warranted by the Scripture then Ceremonies are And God might in his wisdom â—aith Burges have calculated the order of times and places such climats and seasons but he hath left these as he hath left our Ceremonies to the Churches liberty Ans Time and place as I observed already being circumstances Physicall not Morall nor having any Religious influence to make the worship new and different in nature from that which is commanded in the Law though they be not expresly in the Word do not hinder but you may say Such an act of worship is according as it is written for as Praying Preaching hearing is according as it is written so is Praying and Preaching in this convenient place proved by that same Scripture As it is written but one and the same Scripture doth not warrant Order and Surplice 2. The question is not what Gods wisdom can do for he could setdown all the names of Preaching Pastors Doctors Deacons Elders in the Word but his wisdom thus should have made ten Bibles more then there be But
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
as God that they intended to worship not the work of mens hands as such Papists believe that the Image is not God and yet give the highest worship that is to them 4. Bellarmine saith with us when he saith They saw a Calf in Aegypt and Adored it they believed Jehovah himself to be a Calf therefore they made the image of a Calf and Dedicated it to Jehovah But I Answer That Image so Dedicated they worshipped as Iehovah and called the very materiall Calf Iehovah and Dedicated it to the Honour of Iehovah therefore they believed the Lord Iehovah and the Calf Dedicated to his Honour which Calf also they worshipped to be two divers things as the Image and the thing signified are Relata and opposite Ergo they believed not that that Image which Aaron had made was Iehovah essentially therefore in setting up that Image they worshipped it not as a creature All the Prophets saith he proveth that the Idols are not gods because they speak not they neither see nor hear Isa 46. Psal 113. But say some Papists there was no question if they did see and hear by way of naked representation because they represented gods and men in shape who see and hear Ans first If all granted they were living things which did hear and see by representation the Prophets did well to prove they should not be trusted in nor feared as Images nor should that Godhead within them inclosed be feared because it cannot speak with the mouth nor see nor hear nor walk with their eyes eares and feet and so it was a vain thing to make it a representation of God who by serving these dead things did help them But the Prophets strongly prove these Images and the supposed Godheads in them were dumbe deafe blinde and dead and therefore neither sign nor supposed deity represented by the sign was to be Adored Also Isa 40. 18. To whom then will ye liken God Or what likenesse will ye compare unto him 19. The Workman melteth a graven Image and the Goldsmith spreadeth it over with gold c. Isa 46. 5 6. To whom will ye liken me and make me equall and compare me that we may be alike 9. I am God and there is none else I am God and there is none like me Then it is more then clear that they made a likenesse a comparison and a similitude betwixt the golden Image and Iehovah Ergo they believed not that the Image was essentially God for every thing like to another must be divers from that to which it is like they being relatives and opposites the one cannot be essentially the other and he proveth they are not God by representation Isa 46. They cannot move out of their places except they be born upon Asses or mens shoulders And this is the Holy Ghosts Argument I am God Ergo there is none like me by representation to be worshipped All assimilation or comparative likenesse made by man betwixt Iehovah and God is an Idolatrous assimilation yea the Lords Argument Isa 46. is this every thing made like unto me before which ye fall down to worship as a memorative Image of me must be a living thing at least that can move out of his place and answer your cry when ye pray and save you out of trouble ver 7. Isa 46. And yet it is but a likenesse of God ver 6. Now I Assume but the Papists Image and the Formalists Sacramentall elements before which they Religiously kneel cannot move out of their place nor answer the Prayers of those who bow to them nor save them out of trouble Ergo they cannot be Adored as Images with Religious bowing nor can they say the Images or Sacramentall elements can teach and represent God I Answer So did the Iewish Images represent God and yet God convinceth them of Idolatry Isa 40. 18. Isa 46. 6 7. Ier. 10. They were but Doctrines of Vanity and Lyes and Hab. 2 19. Woe be to him who saith to the Wood Awake and to the dumbe stone Arise it shall teach And though the Sacramentall elements be lawfull teaching and representing signes as being the Ordinances of Christ Jesus yet the office of teaching cannot elevate and extoll them to the state of Religious worship because though the elements be lawfull Images and in this they differ from Iewish and Popish Images yet that which is Adored must be such as can hear Prayers Isa 46. 7. though it be the Image of God But the Sacramentall elements are not such as can hear Prayer c. Also that the Adoring of Images is not forbidden by a Ceremoniall Law only is clear 1. By Gods Argument Isa 40. 18. To whom will ye liken me That is no created thing can represent God which is of mans devising for the elements of Gods institution do represent Christ and Isa 46. 9. I am God and there is none beside me Ergo no invention of man can represent me This Argument is taken from Gods nature and therefore is of perpetuall verity 2. The Apostle Paul in the New-Testament repeateth this same Argument Act. 17. to the heathen Athenians who were tyed by no Ceremoniall Law of God ver 29. We ought not to think that the God-head is like unto Gold You see these people are challenged of Idolatry who did but erect an Altar to the golden likenesse and Image of God and yet they did not worship that golden Image as such but they worshipped in and by the Image v. 23 24. The God preached by Paul who made the world Hear what Suarez Bellarmine and Papists say It is not Lawfull to represent God by a proper and formall similitude which representeth his essence but it is Lawfull to represent him by Images Analogically signifying such a forme or shape in the which he appeared in Scripture according to these metaphors and mysticall significations that are given to him in Gods word Ans 1. Why should not unwritten Traditions which to Papists are Gods word expresse to us Gods nature in Images no lesse then the written word 2. The Heathen did represent God by the Image of a man with eyes nose tongue ears head hands feet heart understanding all which are given to God in Scripture yet were they Idolaters in so doing because God saith Isa 46. 9. I am God and there is none like to me 3. If we may portraict God according to all metaphors given unto him in Scripture then ye may Portraict him in the shape of a Lyon a Leopard a Bear a Man full of wine a Theef stealing in the night an unjust Iudge a Gyant a man of War on horse-back c. All which were folly and we might worship a Lyon a Bear an unjust Iudge a theef stealing in the night a man mad with the spirit of jealousie 4. The Essence and specifick nature of nothing in Heaven and earth can be portraicted or painted no more then Gods essence all painted things are but such and such things
have obeyed the King yet they professe disobedience Dan. 3. 18. We will not worship thy graven image 2. Neither think we the Athenians gave that same honour to the similitude Act. 17. 29. of God that they gave to the God that Paul Preached who made Heaven and earth v. 23 24. Yet in giving Worship externall to both they were Idolaters ver 29. Nor did the men of Lystra give the same heart-honour to the Deities of Iupiter and Mercury which they gave to the shapes of men yet are they Idolaters in that 3. Mr. Burges saith Israel 1 Chron. 29. 20. in one and the same act externall Worshipped God and the King because one and the same word expresseth honour both to God and the King But how shall we call that act Civill or Religious or mixt and did they transmit Latreia divine honour through the King to God he hath a Metaphysicall faith who beleeveth such dreames because one word is used to expresse both the worshipping of God and the King therefore it was one externall act of worshipping and differenced in the minde and intention of the worshippers the consequence is most weake 1 Sam. 12. 18. All the people greatly feared the Lord and Samuel Prov. 24. 21. My son feare the Lord and the King is it one manner of feare really that is both religious to God and to Samuel and to the Lord and the King because one word expresseth both I see not but one the same action of bowing may be made to God to Christ to the water in Baptisme to the Bible to the Sun and Moon and we might kneel and Adore a Toad a straw and Satan as they represent Gods wisdom and power and through that same externall knee-worship also Adore God What may we not then Religiously Adore all things and Creatures as they represent God the first being Presentemque refert quaelibet herba Deum A man may Adore himself his own hands his legs his Mothers Wombe that bare him c. As for Adoring of the Ark and foot-stool of God 1. Ioan. Gisenius a Lutheran saith The Iews had precept and promise to Worship God before the Ark we have no Command to tye externall Adoration to any place or Creature 2. Didoclavius saith It is lawfull to Adore God before the Ark and the Symboles of his immediate presence because God is there to receive his own Worship himself by an immediate indwelling presence For saith Mr. Weames He appeared in glory above the Ark betwixt the Cherubims and it was a type of Christ who dvvelt in our flesh but it is not lavvfull to Worship him before the Symboles of his grace 3. The Ark was a type in the act of teaching we grant but that it was in the act of Adoring God who was immediately present and a Symboll Vicegerent of God we reade not There is no need of mediate signes where God is immediately present and Adored as he was in the Ark they were to fixe both senses and thoughts immediately upon God 4. They were to worship not the Ark but the precept is incurvate vos scabello Worship tovvard the Ark. Arias Mont. turneth it Worship to the Ark The Greek Fathers of the second Nicen. Councel ignorant of the Hebrew Tongue would have the Lord Commanding to Adore his foot-stool whereas the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a note of the Dative case and often it signifieth motion to a thing or at a place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad dextram and doth not absolutely signifie the accusative case Musculus ad Scabellum he maketh it the Ark of the Testament Calvine the Temple Iunius maketh it well to signifie the measure of bowing bow to the foot-stool or ground or pavement of the Temple where the Lords feet are as he sate on the Cherubims 1 Chron. 28. 1. For there is no ground for Adoring the Ark but the words are to be read Exalt the Lord our God and bow your selves to wit to Iehovah who sheweth himself or dwelleth at his foot-stool that is betwixt the Cherubims 2 Sam. 6. 1. For the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at his foot-stool is not constructed with the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 incurvate vos Jesuits and Formalists devised that construction but it is to be constructed with the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is to be repeated from the former part of the verse Bow your selves to Jehovah who dwelleth in the Ark or in the Temple A familiar eleipsis to the Hebrews Psal 5. 8. I will bow my self to the Iehovah dwelling in the Temple of thy holinesse as we are taught Our Father which art in Heaven So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and it is a description of God from the place where he dwelt and exhibited his presence to his rude people 4. It is ignorance in Burges to prove God may be Adored in the elements because they are as excellent Symbols of Gods presence as the Ark for created excellency is no ground of Adoring the elements except it be a Godhead and uncreated excellency We condemne Pope Anastasius who directeth Reverend bowing at the hearing of the Gospel and not of the Epistles as if the Gospel were holier then the Epistles But if Adoration may be given to the elements because knee-worship signifieth according to humane institution and mans will and are taken from customes of men and so doth signifie lesse honour then is due to God Let me be resolved of this doubt words of Prayer signifie according to mens institution and their will no lesse then Religious gestures do and we may say to a stock Thou art my Father and it is in our will that Father signifie a representative Father not an infinite and Independent Father such as God only is And if the image in externall kneeling be Adored Per aliud or co-adored with the Samplar because it is one with the Samplar Why may we not pray to the image and fixe our faith and hope on the image and elements by co-adoration or in relative praying and trusting in them Yet the Fathers of Trent for shame deny that we should pray to images and put our trust in them yet do Formalists turn the enunciative words of Christ This is my body in an optative mood and a Prayer The body and blood of Christ they mean the elements in their hands preserve thee to eternall life And we are not ignorant that faith and hope are ascribed to the Crosse and this sung in the Church of Rome O crux ave spes unica Hoc passion is tempore Auge piâ—â— justitiam Reisque dona veniam A Learned Papist Raphael de la Torres saith plainly It is lawfull to pray to images so the inward devotion be directed to God But if the Iews in their Idolatrous worship acknoweledged the image to be but a representation of God and a Book Jer. 10. 8. They did no wrong who said Ier.
2. ver 27. to a stock Thou art my father and to a stone Thou hast brought me forth For condition maketh all if they speak by a figure for the Papists when they speak to the Crosse and call the Crosse their only hope the Crosse is not better born nor a stock it is but timber or dumbe wood Now how doth not the dumbe wood to which Prayers are made as if Christ himself were present partake of Prayers and Gods honour in an inferior and relative way For the wood standeth before him who prayeth to it as God by representation and as an actuall Vicegerent and tree-deputy of God and Christ it is no lesse worshipfull by mouth-worship by praying to it as to the passive object of Adoration as capable of knee-worship by bowing down to it and a distinction may save idolatry in the one as well as in the other And our Formalists bowing Religiously to bread do not Adore bread as our half Papists say and so may they pray to bread and not Adore bread for they are as well masters of Grammar to impose significations at their will upon words as they be Lords of gestures and Ceremonies to cause kneeling expresse Veneration to the images and to elements and not Divine Adoration Here two great Iesuites Suarez and Vasquez helpe the matter for Suarez saith There be some acts of worship as faith and prayer which precisely respect a reasonable and intelligent person therefore this prayer Haile crosse it is a figurative speech and a Metonymie continens pro re contenta and the speech is directed to him who was crucified and therefore a prayer saith this Idolater is considered ut petitio vel ut honor quidam either as a petition and so it is not directed but to God but as prayer is an honour expressed in such words and signes the image also is thought to be honoured by praying to it as the samplar to wit Christ is honoured soft words Answ 1. If praying and beleeving doe properly respect a reasonable creature so doth positive honouring which is esteemed by the law of nature praemium virtutis a reward of vertue now vertue morall to be a foundation of honour is as vainly given to a tree or a stocke as faith and prayer but to speak to any in prayer and make our requests known to them may be thought proper onely to a reasonable person who onely can understand our prayer and in reason answer our necessities which a stock cannot doe but secondly I answer a stock is by Analogie and as it is God representatively as capable of reason to answer and helpe us and pitty us in respect it can notably well represent the Majestie of God who can answer helpe and pitty as our Idolaters teach as it is capable of knee-worship and that honour which is given to God though in an higher degree for the formall reason why Images and elements are capable of knee-glory due to him who sweareth that all knees shall how to him is because they represent God and not because of themselves they have any divinity or Godhead in them Now the same formall reason holdeth here for the crosse stone tree or elements that are prayed unto in that religious state as they are the object of praying doe represent God therefore they are also capable of faith and prayer glory as of knee-worship or knee-glory 2. Faith hope and charity as Suarez saith in so farre as they are given to God for giving of honour to him as to the supream Lord they put on the nature of adoration and in that same place he defineth adoration to be the exhibition of honour due to any in the acknowlegement of excellency and submission and service due to him Now Suarez reprooveth Durandus and Pic. Mirandula because they denied that the Image was adored but would onely have honour given to God at the naked presence of the Image as a memorable signe but it is certaine as to trust in God and to pray to him is incommunicable to the creature so to adore any in acknowledgement of supreame excellencie is incommunicable to the creature therefore either the image is adored with the same knee-worship that is given to God and that improperly and by a figure as Durandus and Mirandula taught contrary to the mind of Suarez and idolatrous Iesuites and Fâ—rmalists or else prayers may be made to wood and stone as to God and that properly and without a figure as knee-worship is tendered to wood and stone by Iesuits doctrine propeâ—â—y and without a figure 3. Papists deny that sacrifices may be offered to Images yet they burne incense to images but that is not saith a Fransciscan Antonius Capellus a sacrifice for it is tendred to men to dead carions and to things that are blessed and requireth neither Altar nor Priest It is true they say so but burning incense to the brazen Serpent is condemned as Idolatry and Altar and Priest is not of the essence of a sacrifice but however as sacrificing is a recognition that we hold all we have of God and therefore we sacrifice creatures to him so any adoring of stocks is an acknowledgement that these stocks or stones are by way of representation that God of whom we hold all the creatures and doe not Papists for the honour of God make oblations to Ministers and burn incense to Saints and why may not prayers be offered to them also 4. It is a wild distinction where he faith that prayers as honour may be tendered to Images but not prayers as petitions whereas the very act of calling upon God in the day of trouble Psal 50. 15. is an honouring and glorifying God and praying to God is due to God as he is to be beleeved in and to be preached amongst men Rom. 10. 14. 15. And so is he worthy to be glorified as the subject of preaching then it is a vaine thing to difference betwixt petiâ—ioning to God and honouring God because in that I petition God in my necessities I submit to him as to God who can answer and heare prayers If therefore the Image and the wood be capable of the honour of praying it is also capable of the honour of petitioning so as we may as properly petition and supplicate the stocke as give to it the glory of prayers 5. If Formalists say in the third person the body Sacramentall of the Lord save thee they may upon the same ground say O thou Sacramentall body of the Lord save me for this is a prayer to God O that God would save his people no lesse then this O God save thy people the variation of persons in the Grammar maketh not the one to be a prayer and not the other Vasquez saith There is not alike reason why praises prayers and Sacrifices should be tendred to Idols knee-worship Adoration because from the affection of Adoring the samplar there is derived an externall note of submission to the
soul but the revenging of the wickednesse of the sin for the terror of others Which is 1. Contrary to the Text which saith He was to be delivered to Satan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the spirit may be saved This noteth that the intrinsecall end of this delivering to Satan was the Salvation of the mans soul But the Text saith nothing of Erastus his end that others may be terrified though that may be an end It is a wonder to me that since Erastus granteth the man repented even when Paul did in this Chapter chide with the Corinthians that they delivered him not to Satan For Erastus saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that hath done this deed not he that continueth pertinaciously in it saith he hence it is clear that he repented at this time How doth Paul chide them for not delivering a repenting man to the Devil that his Spirit may be saved if he repented his spirit was saved Ergo Paul was in the fault and chid them without reason if they say though he did repent yet for example to terrifie others he should have been killed 2 Cor. 2. saith He was not killed and Erastus saith it Ergo yet Paul failed and they also 3. It is against the intrinsecall end of that power which Erastus saith is miraculous For Paul saith the end of that power is for Edification not for Destruction 2 Cor. 10. 8. Now the intrinsecall end of bodily killing is peace and terror to others that they may be afraid to do so any more But the intrinsecall end and finis operis is not Edification but finis operantis onely for acts of Magistrates are not acts of the first Table which kindly and per se regardeth edification but acts of the second Table if their soules be saved who die for their enormous crimes by the hand of the Magistrate It is not from the violent death as if it were an intrinsecall mean and ordinance appointed of God for conversion But because God giveth to those who die that way repentance Yea it is no more a mean of saving of the soule then if they should die in their beds by some disease To the examples of Hymeneus and Alexander that they were not killed miraculously I answered before Erastus addeth no new reply to Beza CHAP. XI Quest 7. Of the leaven 1 Cor. 5. Erastus his sentence in his l. 3. c. 6. and â— c. 7. Examined Erastus I shall grant since Beza will have it so that Paul expoundeth the Ceremony of leaven in the celebration of the passeover and that he doth not only allude to it Paul compareth the feast of unleavened bread to the pilgrimage of our life in this world and leaven signifieth wickednesse Hence as the Iews all the time of the feast might eat no leavened bread so all our life are vve to leave and forsake the vvorld and journey toward our promised Canaan we are never to live wickedly What can hence be collected but as he that eat unleavened bread was to be killed so should every wicked man be killed He that eat leavened bread in these seven dayes was not commanded to be debarred from the Passeover And the Passeover was the beginning of this feast as faith in Christ was the beginning of our spirituall eating of Christ crucified for us and of our new Christian life Ans I hold that learned Beza hath well expounded the leaven here he compareth the scandals of wicked men to leaven the holinesse of the Saints to unleavened bread and the publick Congregation to the feast of the Passeover and Excommunication or putting away to the removing of the leaven for a scandalous man corrupteth the whole Church so the Jewes and Rabbines as Buxtorfius saith that the Rabbins call naturall concupiscence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rabbi Alexander said after his Prayer Lord It is known to thee that it is my will to do thy will But what retardeth me the leaven in the masse or lump and Buxtorfius citeth the same place 1 Cor. 5. 6. and Gal. 5. 9. And least we should think that he meant nothing but naturall concupiscense he saith in the Targum They take the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for wickednesse and folly he citeth Medraseh Koheleth cap. 7. ver 8. except R. Samuel had been long suffering The Persian that he taught had returned to folly or his old wickednesse Paul saith the same Purge out therefore the old leaven that ye may be a new lump He speaketh to the Church conveened 2. The comparison runneth so that the Corinthians were to purge out the old leaven of wickednesse and cast out the incestuous man that they might be a new lump and this if it must alwayes be done far more when they are to celebrate that feast that came in place of the passeover Nor is the Apostle only Teaching what they could not lawfully do all their life as they were single Christians but what was their duty as Christians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 conveened together in a Church way for Paul doth not command one single Christian to cast him out but he commandeth the Church gathered together in the name of the Lord Iesus with Pauls spirit and the power of our Lord Iesus Christ ver 4. 5. To purge out not the leaven of sin in themselves but the man ver 2. That he that hath done this deed may be put out and ver 7. Purge out the old leaven and that the Apostles precept is to cast out the man he saith it in expresse termes ver 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cast out that wicked man from amongst you and ver 12. They were to judge him as one that is within 2. Because without conveening together in their daily conversation they were to purge the leaven of mâ—lice out of their heart it were a ridiculous thing for Paul to command them to convene altogether to lead a godly life 3. There was no need that they should convene with Pauls spirit and in the name and power of our Lord Iesus Christ to lead a godly life and for a personall purging of every man his own soul from this leaven 4. They were to judge this man ver 12. Therefore this cannot be meant of a personall judging every one of themselves but of a Church-judging of an offender 5. If Erastus grant that Paul expoundeth the Ceremony of leaven and putting away leaven in the Passeover Let him see how he can apply this to killing of every single man that liveth wickedly We apply it to the casting out of the scandalous out of the Church as leaven was to be put out of the houses of all who were to eat the passeover Erastus I care not much whither the Lord himself immediatly or the Magistrate was to kill him who eat leavened bread at that time But I rather think that God killed him for we finde none killed for this cause 2. Because Paul writ of those who
of men 3. If God have not commanded either Elders or any other as Erastus saith to examine and judge who are fit for the Lords Supper who not Then seeing Erastus saith the prophane the ignorant the impenitently scandalous knowne to be such are to be debarred I aske of Erastus to whom Christ hath commanded the tryall of this who are ignorant and non rectè instituti Men cannot debarre themselves from the Sacraments in a judiciall way most of men conceiting well of themselves rush upon the ordinances of God not knowing that they doe evill Workers of iniquity who cry Lord Lord Adulterers Theeves Idolaters who dare come to the Temple of the Lord and cry The temple of the Lord The temple of the Lord are these Ier. 7. 9 10 11. will also fast and professe Repentance Esa 57. 3 4 5. even when their wickednes testifieth to their face against them in the eies of all Ier. 2. 1 c. Ier. 2. 34. Esa 1. 9. and they will desire â—o partake of the Lords Supper as is evident Esa 57. 2. Now there are none on earth neither Elders or any any others to debarre them Erastus saith Taceo jam quod Deus non praecepit vel Presbyteris vel aliis tale examen Let Erastus answer us in this and by what charity is Erastus obliged to beleeve all that seeketh the Lords supper do it in truth God has given to us mens works not their words of which hypocrites are liberall and shall we foment hypocrisie and mens eating their owne damnation under Erastus his pretence of incouraging and not suffocating seeming godly desires Lastly Erastus saith it doth not concern the Church that the man deferre to do that which Christ commands him to do this is to beg the question Doth Christ command a man to eat his owne damnation CHAP. XIII Quest 9. Other Arguments for Excommunication vindicated Erastus The Apostle writeth if any man love not the Lord Jesus let him be accursed Ergo Paul will have the Elders to sit and judge who truely repent who not that they may admit the one to the supper not the other if this be excommunication excommunication is grounded on a thousand places to love Christ is to kâ—ep his commandements Ioh. 13. and 15. then who ever saith those that keep not the commandements of Christ are cursed of God he shall this way excommunicate then Moses did often excommunicate But because the false Apostles did strive to make Paul contemptible therefore Paul saith God be judge which of us loveth Christ and let God destroy him who loves him not this is the true meaning Ans Erastus perverteth the sense of Beza his words for Beza has no such conclusion as to prove a formall excommunication by the Elders or Church judicature this is Erastus sained conclusion Beza inferreth from these words that there is here gravissimae excommunicationis species a kind of heavy excommunication materially to be eternally separated from Christ called the great excommunication And it was to be accursed while the Lord come and therefore this may prove there is a kind of lesser excommunication in the Church and Moses his cursing by way of preaching may well inserre that because there be Church censures therefore there is a Church cursing heavy and lesse heavy But Beza intendeth not to prove excommunication by the Church from this but only that Christs enemies are cursed though they be other wayes in the Church and this kinde of excommunication of shutting impenitent sinners out of heaven is in a thousand places of scripture and nothing can hence be concluded against Beza and the like excommunication is Gal. 1. And when Ioh. 2. Ep. forbiddeth to receive a faâ—â—e teacher into your house if he be a member of the Church he is to be farre lesse kept in Christs greater house the Church but is to be cast out Erastus When Paul saith Gal. 5. I would they were cut off who trouble you he saith not conveene the Elders and cast such men out of the Church or deliver them to Satan but he wisheth that they were cut off by God Ans 1. The place Gal. 5. 12. I wish they were cut off that trouble you is expounded by Piscator of cutting off from the visible Church Yea he saith conveene the Church when he saith v. 9. a little leaven leaveneth the whole lumpe that is a little false Doctrine infecteth the whole Church and v. 10. I am confident of you that ye will be no otherwise minded but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgement who ever he be then he hopeth well of the Galathians that they will be of one mind to judge and cast out the false teacher this is parallel to 1 Cor. 5. though Paul do not so right downe chide them for neglect of Church censures as he doth 1 Cor. 5. But saith Erastus if Paul wished them to be cut off that troubled them why did he not cut off those false teachers and deliver them to Satan Erastus answereth it was not Gods will so to do and the Apostles could not in every place and at every time kill miraculously but when it was profitable and necessary Ans Then Paul 1 Cor. 5. farre lesse could rebuke the Corinthians because they prayed not that the incestuous Corinthian might be miraculously killed by Paul for Paul had not power to kill him because it was not necessary nor profitable the man repented and was never killed 2. Iudge if it be probable that Paul would wish to work a miracle in killing false teachers when it was neither profitable necessary nor saâ—e for the Church to have them killed 3. Paul was confident the man who troubled them should beare his judgement Erastus saith it was not Gods will he should be miraculously killed Ergo it was not miraculous killing but some Church censure or then Erastus must find out another kind of judgement And why may some say doth not Paul write to Excommunicate him as he did the incestuous Corinthian Beza Answereth Paul would not 1 Cor. 5. take that Authority to himself but would do it by the suffrages of the Church So here he sheweth what he desireth but happily it was not expedient that they should be presently cut off So Beza Yea the words do well bear that Paul thought fit That they should bear their Iudgement who had troubled them and that that leaven should be purged out 2. Yea if this cutting off be miraculous it is clear Paul could not Communicate it to others for it was Pauls will that the incestuous Corinthian should be delivered to Satan by the suffrages of the Corinthians Nor do we read that the Apostles wished to cut off men miraculously but were not able to do it Erastus It is false That Paul willed the man to be delivered to Satan by the suffrages of the Corinthians For he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have already Concluded Ordained Decreed to deliver him
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
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
theirs is the judgement and very sentence of God and according to that the cause they judge is nothing but the cause of God for they are to judge the Kings matters no lesse then Gods matters 6. For what end Erastus speaketh of the Rabbines here I know not I think he knoweth not himself the man was ignorant of them and innocent of their language Erastus I am not against that the things of God be things belonging to the Worship of God and the matters of the Kings Civill businesse The Priest must especially take care that there be no error in Faith and Ceremonies and this belongeth also to the King as is clear Deut. 17. So Zebadiah is not excluded from Gods matters Nor Amariah from the Kings businesse Ans This interpretation is fully refuted Zebadiah is in the Text excluded from judging Ecclesiastically in the matters of God as a Priest Levite or Elder For if he must judge so he must either judge as a Priest or Levite which he was not or as a Civill Iudge if as a Civill Iudge then is he no lesse over the people in the matters of God then in the Kings matters Now the Text could not exclude him from these things which belongeth to his office and put him in another Sphere in the businesse of the King and put such a wide difference between the object of the two men as the Kings matters and the matters of the King of Kings The like I say of Amariah 2. The King Deut. 17. as King is to Iudge according to the Book of the Law that he may be a godly King and fear God and keep the words of the Law Ergo he is to teach the people no lesse then the Priest and to judge between the clean and unclean and that as King This no way followeth Erastus If you please by the matters of God to understand the causes of appeals and by the Kings matters other judgements I contend not And because the Priest was better accustomed with the Law of God then others therefore the High Priest was set over these yet so as Zebadiah was over the Kings businesse But I think the two first especially the first the best Exposition But 1 Chron. 26. These same persons are set over both the Kings and the Lords matters Ans Consider how dubious Erastus is in his three Expositions to elude the force of the place If it was the Magistrates place virtute officii by vertue of his office to command the Priests and to direct them as Erastus and Vtenbogard say in the internall and specifick acts of Sacrificing Iudging between the clean and the unclean teaching the people then the King and the Civill Iudge were by office to be more skilled in the Causes of God then the Priests because the Commander and the directer who may by his office exercise those same acts that he commandeth his servants yea and is by office to command him to do thus in these internall Acts and not thus he ought by his office to be more skilled in these then the servant I grant the King Commandeth the Painter all the morall equity requisite in Painting that he endamage not the Common-wealth by prosuse lavishing of Gold and in this it is presumed there is more Iustice and morall equity by office in the King Commanding then in the Painter Commanded But if the King should take on him to Command virtute officii that the Painter regulateth his actions of art thus and thus and direct and Command by his Royall office as King that the Painter draw the face of the Image with more pale and white and lesse red and incarnate colour in such a proportion according to art and not in such a proportion Then by office the King as King might paint Pourtraictâ— himself and behoved by office to be more skilled in Painting then the Painter Now Erastus presupposeth Whatever the Priests do as Priests in an Ecclesiasticall way he excepteth Sacrificing and burning incense but for a time that the King as King may do the same also so the King as King may teach give responses in matters of God and now under the new Testament Preach and dispense the Sacraments and judge as King whether Priests and Pastors do right or no and that not only in order to Civill but also to Ecclesiasticall punishments as deprivation from their offices and debarring from the Sacraments Hence it must follow that Zebediah should by office be better skilled in the matters of God then Amariah or any Priest and by office he should rather be over the matters of God then any Priest in the world 2. Now its clear that these same things to be over men in the matter of God and in the matters of the King 1 Chron. 26. proveth nothing except they be over these same matters by one and the same power of the Sword as Erastus saith Amariah the High Priest and Zebediah the Civill Iudge promiscuously were both of them without exclusion of either over the people in the matters of the Lord and in the matters of the King and in the same judicature by the same coactive power of the sword as Erastus saith Priests and Civill Iudges were in the same judicature by the same Civill power Iudges to give out joyntly in a judiciall way the sentence of a bloody death and to inflict a bloody death by the same power 3. It is Erastus his ignorance of the Originall Text to say these same words that are 2 Chron. 19. 11. are also 1 Chron 26. ver 30 32. for 2 Chron. 19. 11. it is said Amariah is over you in all the matters of the Lord Hence the matters of the Lord were the formall object of his judging But 1 Chron. 26. 30. the Hebronites were officers in the businesse of the Lord or to the businesse of the Lord and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the service of the King Levites might have been imployed in both Ecclesiasticall and Civill businesse in the Temple and in the overseeing of those spoiles that David in Wars had taken from the Enemies and Dedicated for building the House of the Lord which are called the Kings businesse and the construction ver 32. is varied where it is said The Hebronites mighty men of valour and so fit for war were made by King David Rulers over the Reuâ—eniâ—es Gadites and the half Tribe of Manasseh for every matter not in every matter pertaining to God The affixum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here and the affaires of the King These Levites seem to be imployed in the war and are called valiant men which must be some extraordinary case But otherwise when God commanded to number the Children of Israel for War Numb 1. 3. 45. The Levites were not numbred God did forbid Moses to number them because they were appointed for another service ver 48 49 50. Yet it seemeth in Davids time when there were exâ—raordinary warres that they were not exempted from
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
Ambrose did no more then a faithfull Pastor and Amariah and the 80. valiant Priests did in not suffering the holy things of God to be polluted Lipsius no religious man saith l. 2. c. 24. de Constantia quo facto nihil magis impium omnis veâ—us impietas habuit Beza Bucer P. Martyr Melancton Calvin Anto. Waleus Gomaras commend Ambrose And truly to kill seven thousand Citizens of Thessalonica of which the most part were innocent deserved more then Excommunication if more could be inflicted by the Church See Ambrose Epist 5. 28 29. Erastus had no reason to compare so laudable a fact to the proud fact of an abominable Pope trampling on the Emperours neck and abusing the word of God Psal 91. to defend his devilish pride CHAP. XX. Quest 16. A vindication of other Arguments for Excommunication as from sacrificing offering of gifts c. with bloody hands Erastus Esay 1. c. 52. c. 66. Ier. 6. 7. Ezech. 23. and 33. Psa 50. are alledged for Excommunication to which I answer 1. The Lord doth not condemne sacrificing for he commanded it but the abuse thereof as he that commendeth modesty to one that eateth undecently doeth condemne unmannerly eating but commandeth not abstinence from eating so Christ Mat. 6. removeth not fasting and praying but the abuse of them When the Hebrews propound two just and right things of which they approve the one and deny the other there is only a comparison understood as Hos 6. I will have mercy and not sacrifice that is rather mercy then sacrifice Prov. 8. Receive my instruction and not silver that is receive rather my instruction then silver so this is no good consequence God hateth the sacrifice of the wicked Ergo Presbyters are to be chosen who should hinder wicked men to sacrifice it followeth not for then this should be as good a consequence God hateth the prayers of the wicked Ergo Presbyters are to be chosen who should hinder men to call upon God to praise God to rest on the Sabbath to give almes except these Presbyters judge them worthy Ans In the following books Erastus refuteth some Treatises of Authors without names the books I cannot have and if he doe them right in repeating their minde faithfully I know not but I know in many things and in this very argument Erastus fancied arguments on Beza which he would reject as none of his 1. Sacrificing seemeth to be a confirming ordinance as eating the Passeover and the Communion of the Lords bodie and blood and as there was some examination of the persons for whom sacrifices were offered required in the Priests as I said before from Mat. 8. 4. Levit. 14. 3 4. 9 10 11 12. So there is Morall cleannesse required in all that are to partake of the Sacraments that presupposeth conversion and I grant the first and native consequence of these is that it was the sin and hypocrisie of the persons themselves who sacrificed first and principally But that it was not the sins of the Priests who admitted those that were no better then Sodom and Gomorrah Esa 1. 10. and had hands full of blood ver 15. is now the question I conceive that it is a taxing of the Priests and Church Rulers that is Esa 1. 10. no lesse then of civill judges and the people yea that he rather taxeth the Priests called Rulers v. 10. and that that is not as Socinians say a new commandement of Christ but an old Mat. 5. 23. Therefore if thou bring thy gift unto the Altar and there remembrest that thy brother hath ought against thee What if the Priest should know that he had killed an innocent man and beside the guilt of innocent blood that the sad hearted widow and the weeping Orphanes had any blood to charge him withall was the Priest either to offer or sacrifice for him while he were reconciled to the widdow and fatherlesse Christ addeth v. 24. Leave there thy gift before the Altar and goe thy way first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be reconciled to thy Brother and then come and offer thy gift I offer it to the consideration of the Reader if as the offerer of the gift was to leave his offering knowing himself to be under blood and to have offended his brother he was to leave his offering at the Altar so if the Priest who offered the same should also know that the same day he had offered his childe to Molech or the Devill if the Priest in this case should offer for him and if the Priest should not eat this mans sin and communicate with the bloody impenitent man in offering with him and for him the sacrifice of fools if he should not leave offering for him till he went and was reconciled with his brother for the Priest by office was to forbid such a bloodie man to offer Ergo he could not by office also offer for him Here an order prescribed that is morall perpetuall and common both to the ordinances of the Old and New Testament for Christ doth here expound the Law which was corrupted by the Pharisees 2. He doth not set down a rule concerning the Ceremoniall Law which was shortly to be abrogated but sure he hath an eye to the worship of the New Testament What if he that is come to the Table to eat and drinke with Christ and both his owne conscience and the Elders remember the widdow orphane have a just accusation against this man of late yesterday he killed their husband and father should either this man eat and drinke at this time with Iesus Christ or should the Elders give these holy things to him I thinke noâ— And to come to the argument it is true Isa 1. sacrificing is not condemned but sacrificing by such Princes of Sodom and tali modo by men of bloodie hands Ergo they were not to abstaine from sacrificing but at that time and in that condition nor doe we forbid either coming to or debarring from the Lords Table by the Elders but onely haec vice and onely while 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 first he be reconciled to his brethren and testifie that he repenteth we never heighten Excommunication to such an extremity as it doth totally unchurch the man and exclude him from the Seals simpliciter and absolutely but according to Christs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and his order and therefore the Elders are to exclude for a time just as this God will have mercy and not sacrifice that is rather mercy first mercy and first faith and repentance then sacrifice that is then afterward externall worship afterward receiving of the Passeover the Lords Supper and offering of gifts at the Altar And secondarily even in the second place in regard of time he will have all these externalls whence the man is to debarre himselfe and by the same reason the Elders as the 80. Priests did to a King 2 Chron. 26. are to debarre the man while he repent And 2. This also I will have mercy
and not Sacrifice or I will have mercy rather then Sacrifice doth imply that both mercy and Sacrifice are lawfull and acceptable to God in their owne order and way But where saith God I will have sacrificing rather then sacrificing with bloody hands so as both sacrificing and sacrificing with bloody hands shall be lawfull and acceptable to God in their owne order for Sacrificing with bloodie hands was never lawfull never acceptable to God in any order Nor said God ever he would chuse the coming of those to his Sanctuary who the same day they came in had slaughtered their sonnes to Molech God alwaies hated it and never chose it if at the same time both mercy and sacrifice cannot be as David starving cannot both abstaine from eating shew-bread as the Law in its letter required and shew mercie to his life and the life of his followers and eate yea he is to eate and the Priests knowing his case doe give him the Shewbread to eat forbid abstinence as they would forbid selfe-murthering and selfstarving so here where at one time eating at the Lords Table and reconciliation with the widow and fatherlesse cannot be co-existent together at one time and place an exigence of divine providence forbidding both the bloodie man is to debarre himselfe from the Lords Supper it being as sacrificing and lesse necessary if we speake comparatively and the Elders are not to give those holy things to the bloodie man while 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 first he be reconciled to the widow and Orphane which now comparing the one with the other is mercy whereas eating and drinking at the Lords Supper is but Sacrifice but it should be as sacrificing with bloodie hands which God condemneth and forbiddeth and the Priests and Elders knowing it to be such a sinne ought to forbid and to hinder it Hence as this I will have mercy and not sacrifice hath this sense I will have you to omit Sacrifice when it cannot be done without neglect of mercie vvhich is more acceptable to me then all Sacrifices so I vvill have reconciliation to the offended widdow and Orphanes and not coming to the Lords Supper vvithout the former for the former is more acceptable to me and should be to you and the Elders in your practice then the latter and therefore the comparison of eating and eating undecently halteth for eating undecently before another which would procure deadly sicknesse to your brother ought to be forbidden by the Ruler it being known to be so and ought to be abstained from hic nunc as a sinne and a hurting of your brothers health and yet the Ruler cannot forbid totall abstinence from meat to him that eateth undecently as the Elders cannot command totall abstinence from the Sacraments 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alwayes and in all cases 2. We draw no conclusion of erecting a Presbytery from those places but those two we draw Ergo 1. It is a sin to the people themselves to sacrifice with bloodie hands because God condemneth such a manner of sacrificing 2. Ergo they are to be debarred by some who hath the charge of the holy things of God but from the Antecedent we neither inferre Ergo Presbyters nor Ergo the people nor Ergo the Prince should debarre them 3. Calling on God is not to be forbidden nor giving of almes because they are abused but the manner of the abusing those ordinances are forbidden by God and may be hindred by the Church and forbidden under the pain of Excommunication The Church cannot forbid men of totall abstinence from the Lords Supper but they can command him that is not reconciled to his brother and visibly under the guilt of blood to leave the Table as Christ Mat. 5. 23. commandeth the unreconciled man to leave his gift at the Altar and goe first be reconciled with his brother and then at the next occasion come to the Lords Supper so the Church of the Iewes could not forbid the Pharisees to pray but they could passe such an act as is Act. 15. 22. We forbid Pharisees or any other to bring their private prayers to the Markets and streets and when they are to give almes we forbid them with sound of Trumpet to make proclamation to all men that they are the onely holy and charitable men in the earth Nor doe we thinke that the Church can debarre men from the Sacraments for inward and and invisible unworthinesse but onely for visible and professed uncleannesse and Levit. 9. 13. it is clear the man that is uncleane is forbidden to keepe the Passeover Will Erastus say O he is not forbidden to eate the Passeover but onely he is forbidden to eat it tali modo being unclean and therefore it is not the Priests sinne if he should give the Passeover to the uncleane man and forbid him to eate tali modo in his uncleannesse see Erastus himselfe against this lib. 1. c. 3. page 103. 104. where he confesseth that the unclean are debarred and yet uncleannes in the eaters of the Passeover was an abuse onely and made not eating of the Passeover unlawfull in it self So the Lord complaineth Ezek. 23. 38. Moreover this they have done unto me they have defiled my Sanctuary in the same day and have prophaned my Sabbaths 39. For when they had slaine their children to their Idols then they came 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same very day into my Sanctuary to prophane it and loe this they have done in the midst of my house Will Erastus now say It was Ceremoniall uncleannes not Morall to kill their seed to Molech and that Morall uncleannesse and bloodie murthering of their seed in the same day when a person is to come to the Lords supper known to be such a Murtherer to the Elders who have power to judge the scandalous and to cast him out 1 Cor. 5. did not sinne if they should be instrumentall to lead Murtherers into the Temple and say to them Take yee eate yee this is the body of the Lord that is broken for you Erastus answereth The Prophet Ezek. 23. accuseth not the Priests or Elders that they debarred not those Murtherers from the Temple and Sacraments if there had been any precept for this some footstep should have appeared in Gods rebuking of them Ans The Lord doth not particularly reprove the Priests by name in every place in which he reproveth the people But expresly for this same very sinne the Lord reproveth the Priests Ezek. 44. 7. Let it suffice you that ye have brought into my sanctuary strangers uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh to be in my sanctuary to pollute it 8 And ye have not kept the charge of my holy things but ye have set keepers of my charge in my sanctuary for your selves 24. And in controversie they shall stand in judgement he had spoken of their teaching the people to discerne between the clean and the unclean v. 23. and they shall judge it according to
my judgements and they shall keep my Laws and my Statutes in all mine assemblies and hallow my Sabbaths so 2 Chron. 23. 19. And Iehojada set the porters at the Gates of the house of the Lord that none which was uncleane in any thing should enter in And shall we concelve that porters that is Levites would hold out those that were only ceremonially unclean and receive in murtherers who had killed there Children to Molech that same day there was not to enter in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the unclean in any matter the text is generall excludes idolaters and murthers and such as should refuse to enter in Covenant with the Lord of which the Text speaketh As for Erastus his consequence which he unjustly imputeth to us to wit Israel sinned in coming to the Lords temple to prophane it in the very day that they slew their Children to Molech Ergo there ought to have been Priests and now there must be Presbyters and selected overseers in a Church judicature to debarre murtherers and the like scandalous persons from the Sacraments 1. This is not our consequence But this we say if the Priests knew that same day that they came to the Temple they slew their Children to Molech the Priests should have debarred them from coming to the Temple and from eating the Passeover as their office and duty was by the Law of God Num. 9. v. 6 7. Num. 19. 11 12. Lev. 22. 6. The soul that hath touched any such unclean shal be unclean till even and shall not eat of the holy things unlesse he wash his flesh with water 7. and when the Sun is downe he shal be clean and shall afterward eat of the holy things because it is his food Now it was the Priests office Lev. 10. 10. that he put a difference between holy and unholy and between clean and unclean so if Eli knew that his sonnes made themselves vile before the people and committed furnication with the women at the doore of the Tabernacle of the Congregation Ergo Eli should as a judge have restrained them 1 Sam. 3. 13. But from this antecedent we draw not this consequence Elies sonnes do publikely make themselves vile Ergo there ought to be such an Ordinance as a judge with Civill power to punish them and Ergo there ought to have been no King to punish them but a judge like unto Eli and Samuel this consequence followeth not from this antecedent but only hoc posito that Eli hath the sword and be the Civill judge Ergo he ought to punish from scandals in the Church and prophaning the holy things of God we inferre not Ergo there must be such a judicature erected as if the antecedent were the cause of the consequent But this only followeth Ergo supposing there be a Church and Presbytery invested with this power they ought not to admit murtherers or any unclean persons to come and partake of the Sacraments and so defile the holy things of God as for the place Ezek. 33. I undertake not from thence to conclude debarring of any from the holy things of God by the Priests what may follow by consequent is another thing Erastus Whereas it is said Deut. 23. the Lord would not have the price of a whore offered to him Ergo far lesse would he have a whore admitted to the sacrifice it followeth not but a penitent or a whore professing repentance may be admitted to the sacrifices 2. He forbiddeth only the price of a whore to be offered to him as a vow or a thing vowed it may be that agree not to all sacrifices For God forbiddeth a living creature that is unperfect in a vow But Lev. 22. he forbiddeth not such imperfect living creatures to be offered to him in a free will sacrifice so God forbiddeth honey to be offered in an offering by fire but not in all other oblations But will not the Lord have a whore to offer to God that which is lawfully purchased or which is her patrimony or may not a whore offer her first borne to the Lord or circumcise him We find not that forbidden From things to persons we cannot argue we may not offer a lame beast to God Ergo doth the Lord so abhor a lame man that he may not come to the Temple God alloweth not tares amongst the wheat yet he will not have the externall Ministers to pluck up the tares while harvest Ans If the hire received for a whores selling of her body to uncleannesse must not be applyed to the service of God farre more cannot a whore as a whore be admitted to partake of the holy things of God for the price or money is called abomination to God Deut. 23. for the whore not the whore for the money and so we may well argue from the things to the persons 2. It is false that God forbiddeth the price of a whore onely in vows and not in sacrifices he forbiddeth it because as Moses saith Deut. 23. 18. it is an abomination to the Lord and as Erastus saith it is money unjustly purchased Yea Davids practise teacheth that what we bestow on sacrifices as well as in vows it must be our own proper goods and not so much as gifted to us 2 Sam. 24. 24. Neither will I offer burnt offerings unto the Lord my God of that which cost me nothing farre lesse would he offer the price of a whore in sacrifices and the Divines of England say on the place hereby is forbidden that any gaine of evill things should be applied to the service of God Mich. 7. 1. Vatablus saith the like 2. For the Lords forbidding to offer in a vow Bullock or Lambe or any thing that is superfluous or lacking in his parts and permitting it in a free-will offering by a free will offering is meant that which is given to the Priest for food of a free gift but otherwise what is offered to the Lord in a vow or a free will offering must be perfect for the blind broken maimed having a wenne scurvy or scab can in no sort be offered to the Lord Lev. 22. 20 21 22 23. There is no word of the Lord in the free will gift that Erastus speaketh of but only the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is liberall free from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to give freely to God or man 3. A whore repenting or professing repentance was not debarred from sacrifices but that is without the bounds of the question an heathen could say Quem penitet facti is pene innocens est Senec. in Traged We debarre none that professe repentance from the seals of the Covenant 4. When a whore as a whore did offer her first borne being a bastard in the Temple I conceive neither she nor her childe were accepted Deut. 23. 2. Abastard shall not enter into the Congregation of the Lord if the childe was born of Married Parents the woman repenting the question now must be far altered 5. For a lame
saith he But the Magistrate himselfe is the apostate the heretick the idolater 2. He that may debarre from the seals may admit to the seals he that may do both Ex Officio is the formall dispenser of the seals by office that the Magistrate is not He that may put out or take in into the house by supream power is the Lord of the house He who by office may admit some to the Table and debarre other some is the Steward But the Magistrate is neither the lord of the Church nor the steward of the house by office We do not hold this consequence the Lord commanded ill doers to be killed Ergo He ordained in that same commandement that they be Excommunicated Nor do we say all those who were to be Excommunicated were to be killed as Erastus saith Nor that Excommunication in the New Testament succeedeth in place of killing in the Old Testament we see no light of Scripture going before us in these Erastus It is a wonder that you say that the godly Magistrate doth procure the externall Peace of the Common-wealth but not the salvation of the subjects that the Presbyters do only care for Ans The Sword is no intrinsecall mean of the saving of any mans soul It is true the godly Magistrate may procure a godly life but as a cause removens impedimentum removing idolatry heresie wolves and false teachers from the flock and commanding under the paine of the Sword that Pastors do their duty But Christ ascending on high gave Pastors and Teachers to gather a Church but not Magistrates armed with the Sword Erastus The Magistrates Sword is a most efficacious mean to bring men to the knowledge of God nothing more effectuall then affliction and the crosse when right teaching is joyned therewith examples teach us that in danger of death men have seriously turned to God who before could be moved by no exhortations But you say all die not in the Lord nor repent nor say I do they all die in the Lord who are taken away by diseases or are excommunicated yea Excommunication maketh many hypocrites Ans 1. Erastus here extolleth the Sword of the Magistrate as a more effectuall mean to salvation then exhortations or the Gospel But I read that Pastors are the Ministers by whom we beleeve and that they are workers with God and fellow-builders and Fathers to convert edifie to salvation and beget men over again to Christ 1 Cor. 3. 5 9. 1 Cor. 2. 4 15. Ambassadors of God 2 Cor. 5. 20. Friends of the Bridgroome 2 Cor. 11. 2. Ioh. 3. 29. Angels Rev. 2. 1. But I never read any such thing of the Magistrate and that the Gospel is the power of God to salvation Rom. 1. 16. The arme of the Lord Esay 53. 1. Sharper then a two edged sword lively and mighty in operation Heb. 4. 12. You never read any such thing of the Sword of the Magistrate the rest are before answered Erastus Some may be changed in a moment as the publican Luke 18. Zâ—cheus The repenting woman Luke 7. If therefore they professe repentance they are not to be debarred from the Lords supper Ans Put it in forme thus Those who may be changed and translated from darknesse to light in a moment and say that they repent are to be admitted to the Lords supper I assume But doggs and swine and doggish and furious persecutors who are to be debarred from the Sacraments As Erastus saith pag. 207. may be changed in a moment and say they repent Ergo those are to be admitted to the Sacraments who are not to be admitted to the Sacraments let Erastus prove the Major proposition 2. We finde no such sudden change in the Publican Zacheus or the repenting woman as Erastus seemeth to insinuate 3. Christ who knoweth the heart and can change men in a moment can at first welcome persons suddenly converted Ergo Must the stewards and dispensers of the mysteries upon a may be or a may not be reach the pearls of the Gospel to doggs and swine whom they see to be such It is a wide consequence He that bringeth his gift to the Alter may in a moment be changed Ergo He should not leave his gift at the Altar and go and first be reconciled to his brother He is presently without more adoe to offer his gift his heart is straighted in a moment if we beleeve Erastus But the rather of this that the man is in a moment changed He is to be debarred least his scandalous approaching to use the holy things of God make the work of conversion suspitious to others 4. This argument presupposeth that unvisible conversion giveth a man right in foro Ecclesiâ— in the Churches court to the seals of the Covenant and so there should be no need of externall profession at all which is absurd Erastus Shall not then idolaters and apostates be debarred as wâ— saith he deny an idolater and an apostate to be a Member of thâ— Church of Christ so we thinke the man that defendeth his wickednesse is not to be reckoned amongst the Members of the Church Anâ— as we think the former are to be banished out of the society of Christians so we think the latter are not to be suffered in that society Ans The Idolater that maketh defection and the apostate were once Members of the Church what hath made them now no Members Who should judge them and cast them out the Magistrate I answer there is no Christian Magistrate If the Church must do it here truly is all granted by Erastus that he hath disputed against in six books even this very Excommunication But if there be a Christian Magistrate what Scripture is there to warrant that he should cast out a Member out of Christs body Here is an Excommunication without precept promise or practise in the word we read that the Church of Corinth congregated together hath a command to judge and cast out a scandalous Member 1 Cor. 5. 4 5 11 12 13. out from amongst the midst of them Let Erastus say as much from the New Testament for his Magistraticall casting ouâ— 2. What reason is there by Erastus his way for casting out an idolater and a man that defendeth his owne wickednesse 1. May not God convert those suddenly as he did the thiefe on the crosse and Saul Ergo They should not be cast out 2. The Magistrate cannot more cut off those from being Members of Christs body then he can remove their faith and internall communion with Christ Now for this cause Erastus saith the Church cannot Excommunicate pag. 1. 2 Thess 3. and 4. 3. Christ and the Apostles did neither cast out Iudas nor Scribes Pharisees or Publicans out of the Church though they were worse then idolaters 4. No helps of salvation are to be denied even to idolaters and to men that defend their owne wickednesse but their remaining in the Church amongst the godly is a helpe of their salvation
Magistrate as Erastus and Master Prinne thinketh exclude Iudasses and knowne traitors and knowne Devills and knowne children of the Devil out of the Church this is to Erastus and Master Prinne both absurd 2. Christ did eat and drink with Iudas knowing him to be all these Ergo we may eat and drink with knowne traitors also the contrary is a truth 1 Cor. 5. 9 10. 11. 2 Thess 3 14 15 Rom. 16. 17. evident enough 3. Christ preached the Gospel to those that he knew sinned against the Holy Ghost to the Pharisees who persecuted Christ to death and others Math. 12. 31 32 33 34. Ioh. 15. 22 23 24 25. Ioh. 7. 28 29. Ioh. 12. 35 36 37 38. Ioh. 10. 31 32. Ioh. 11. 47 48. and this is by the exposition of Erastus l. 3. c. 3. pag. 307. 308. and Master Prinne his vindication pag. 38 39. To give holy things to dogs so Mr. Prinne saith that by doggs and swine are meant only such infidels and heathen who refuse to imbrace and beleeve the Gospel or harbour or entertain the preachers of it of which the text is principally intended as well as the Sacraments or of such open contemners persecutors of the Gospel and Ministers who runne upon and teare the preachers thereof trampling the pearls of the Gospel and the tenderers of them under their feet as the Text resolves in terminis Mat. 7. 6. Mat. 10 14 15. Luk. 9 5. Act. 13. 46. or open Apostates 2. Pet. 1. 2 21 22 c hence by this we may give the pearls of the Gospel to such dogs as the Pharisees for to them Christ tendred the pearle of the Gospel 4. Christ might have hindred being God equall with the Father the Pharisees and Iews to malice him Ergo he being above the Laws that he gives to us doth not in this example warrant us to cast the pearls of the Gospel to such as we know to be Iudasses Pharisees and malicious haters and heart-murtherers of Christ 2. There is not the like reason of preaching the word and dispensing the seals 1. Because the word is a converting ordinance out of question and preached to heathen and to the non-converted though they refuse to imbrace and beleeve the Gospel and refuse to entertaine the preachers of it as is clear Act. 19. 22 23 24 25. Tit. 1. 10 11 12 13. 2 Tim. 3. 25 26 27. The Texts that Master Prinne alledgeth that the Gospel should not be preached to heathen who refuse to imbrace and beleeve the Gospel to wit Mat. 10. 14 15. Luk. 9. 5. Act. 13. 46. are to no purpose for Mat. 10. Luk. 9. is but a Temporary Commandement given for a time that the Disciples should depart from those houses of Iudea there is nothing of the heathen But by the contrary the Apostles are forbidden to go to Samaritanes or Gentiles at all Mat. 10. 5 6. who would not receive the peace of God in the Gospel which precept the Apostles in the story of the Acts did not observe but preached the Gospel to many heathen who refused to imbrace and beleeve the Gospel As Act. 16. and 17. and 19. 2. The place Act. 13. 15. is meant of the blaspheming Iews to whom Paul preached long after they persecuted and stoned the Prophets and had killed the Lord of life Act 2. and 4. and 8. and 9. Mat. 23. 37 38. 3. Those places are to better colour of purpose brought by Arminians and Socinians to prove that the Gospel is preached to people for their good entertainment thereof and denied to others for their unworthinesse and because they will not welcome it So the Arminians in the conference at Hague pag. 87 88 89. God sendeth the Gospel not according to his absolute will sed ob alias causas in homine latentâ—s for secret causes in man Arminius against Perkins p. 199. The will of God in sending the Gospell hath causes in the will of man according to that habenti dabitur So Corvinus ad Wallachros p. 44. Socinus Comment in 1. Epist Ioh. c. 4. p. 307. saith the same and Mr. Pryn is pleased in the same sense to cite them I conceive imprudently for I beleeve that Reverend and learned man doth hate those impious Sects the Enemies of the grace of God but truly if this be a rule to Pastors to spread the Gospell that they are to offer and give the pearle of the preached Gospell to those that willingly receive it and harbour the preachers and presently to depart and preach no more the word of the Kingdom to those who refuse it as the places Mat. 10. 14. Luke 9. 5. carry that sense because they are Heathens who refuse to embrace and beleeve the Gospell and harbour the Preachers as the worthy Divine saith conceiving that to be a casting of Pearles to Dogs and Swine I see not how the Preachers spreaders of the Gospel to the Heathen are to beleeve that God out of meer grace the good pleasure of his will without respect to good or bad deserving sendeth the Gospel to some and denieth it to others 3. Though the Sacrament of the Supper be a converting Ordinance in this sense that it corroborateth faith and conversion where it was once and so applyeth the Promises to one who before beleeved yet it is not a converting ordinance that is to be administred to one dead in sins and trespasses as the word is for then at the first Sermon that ever is preached to a Heathen if he should say though for base worldly ends known to the Church that he desired to have the Sacraments we are obliged to beleeve that he sincerely desireth these Seals and instantly at the same sermon to baptise him administer the other Seal of the Lords Supper to him for how can we deny converting Ordinances to those who desire them say our adversaries 4. An ordinance that cannot be dispensed to a Heathen remaining a Heathen and to an unconverted man knowne to be an unconverted man is not an Ordinance that ought to be dispensed as the ordinance of the Word and as the first converting ordinance to so many as we may safely dispense the Word unto and if it be first a converting ordinance as the preaching of the Word is then it is to be dispensed to all those to whom we are to preach the Word But Erastus and Mr. Pryn grant we may preach the Word to Heathen remaining Heathen and if they deny it as they yeeld it the Apostles did preach the Gospel to the Heathen remaining Heathen but they never admitted nor can we admit to the Lords Supper Heathen remaining Heathen nor could the Iewes upon the same ground admit to the Passeover the uncircumcised now then the preaching of the Word to some cannot make the Church and preachers guilty of casting pearles to Swine and of partaking of their siâ— whose hearing is not mixed with faith and yet if the Church and Ministers should admit to
ordinary right to Ordinances Word Sacraments discipline but by the magistrate and all that the Churches did in the Apostles times or the first three hundred yeers after Christ being contrary to the magistrates will must be either seditious or then it was by no rule of the Gospell but by an extraordinary dispensation and we shall have no warrant for any dispensing of the Word and of Seals or Government from the Apostolique Church because all that must have beene beside the rule and extraordinary 6. From this pretended subordination as the supream magistrate may doe all that the inferiour magistrate may doe because the King is eminently all that the inferiour Magistrate is and something more so may he dispense the Word and Sacraments in regard that the King is by the same officiall power over the Church as the Church in sacris in all matters of Religion as in civill things and containeth in him in a high and eminent manner all that the Church and Pastors can doe as they are such and because the King hath the same power in all Arts and Trades then by his Royal power he might if he had time and leasure build houses because of his royall Eminency over all Trades he might sit at the helme of any ship and steer and rule it he might paint Images he might plow the ground because he hath the like Royall power over masons Sailors Painters Husband-men carpenters and the like as he hath over the common-wealth and the Church we must then say that God hath called the King to all these to be a minister a mason a Sailor a Painter and if he had leasure he hath Gods calling to be a Preacher a Sailor as to be a King yea and that as King he is all these Now the Apostle clearly distinguisheth between him who exhorteth and teacheth in the Church Rom. 12. and him who is the Minister of God and beareth not the sword in vaine Rom. 13. and clearly insinuateth a distinction of calling so that God never called one man to all callings as it is 1 Cor. 7. 17. But as God hath distributed to every man as the Lord hath called every one so let him walke ver 20. Let every one abide in the same calling wherein he was called And it is clear if the King be a Head in the body 1 Cor. 12. then he is not the feet though he have need of the feet for then the eye should be both eye and eare and hand and therefore the King cannot be all Pareus in Rom. 13. saith the King cannot doe some things ob defectum juris ex Dei limitatione He cannot preach Ans Ergo Preaching belongeth by Divine right to another and it s not subordinate to him jure Divino 2. Saith Pareus he wanteth law to use the wiâ—â— of another man as his owne Ans Then the right of Husband and Wife is not subordinate to the King so as he may use the right of a Husband because it is against the seventh Commandement nor can he invade the right of Pastors to dispense Word and Sacraments it being against the second Commandment he not being called thereunto 3. Other things saith he he cannot doe for want of skill as to teach in a Colledge and others he cannot doe because they are fordid as to sew shooes Ans If God have not called the Prince to these it is not onely sordid but unlawfull for him to thrust his sickle in another mans field for God must call to a lawfull calling else men use a lawful thing unlawfully so it is sordid and unlawfull for him to judge those and the like Erastus I know roundly granteth that the King or any Magistrate may lawfully dispence the Word and Sacraments nothing hindereth him but want of time which is a better Answer then others give who hold the same principles with Erastus and that the King hath the same Royall power in things civill and Ecclesiastick except the adversary flee to our distinction of power and persons and of things civill and sacred they shall never expede themselves But the King say they is not capable of 1. The power of Order he cannot be a Pastor or a Doctor 2. He cannot as King be capable of internall power of jurisdiction he cannot preach he cannot dispense the Sacraments but he is say they capable of externall power of jurisdiction to governe the Church excommunicate to debarre Apostates and Hereticks from the Sacraments to create Prelates Primates Metropolitans and such cattell to call and ordaine make and unmake Ministers to make all Canons and Ecclesiasticall Lawes and appoint religious Ceremonies as holy Surplice crossing oyle and spittle in Baptisme to create holy dayes to command men to kneel to bread and to order all the externall worship of God and beside the Word to order many little and smaller things in the borders of worship externall such as is some little Idolatry and Superstition And for ought I know by their way who hold there is no certaine forme of Government of Gods House in the Scripture some harmelesse and innocent golden Calves as lawfull as religious symbolicall Ceremonies This power is no more due to the Magistrate as the Magistrate then to dispense the Sacraments as I have said before Nor doe the Arminians much honour the Magistrate who walking in the steps of Erastus doe hold that the Magistrate having power of publique places Preachers are obliged not to preach in publike places if the Magistrate forbid them but they may preach in private places But 1. These same Arminians hold that Pastors are to preach whatever in their conscience seems to be the truth of God a principle of those who are for tolleration of all Religions though Iudaisme Turcisme a way I am perswaded most abominable and which the Lord of his Church will crush when he shal bring down other AntichristiaÌ„ untruths to the ground Now it seems to the conscience of Papists and many Hereticall teachers that they are obliged to preach Turcisme Iudaisme in the Temple and in publike that distinction is false vain as it is in very deed contrary to the truth of God to preach what they think the truth of God to preach it in publike or private or in any place is indifferent as touching the place 2. The Lord hath no more given to Magistrates power of places or actions religious in places then he hath given to them power of truths Ergo they must be obliged in conscience rejecting a â—â—iâ— and saplesse distinction to preach in publike places for as that juditioâ—s and learned professor Iac. Triglandius saith The place is accident all to the worship and changeth not the nature of it and truly as that learned professor saith it is a poor honour that they put on the Magistrate to limit all his power to places and stipends 3. The Apostles knew not this distinction for they not only preached truth the Scribes and Pharisees forbidding
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
according to the places cited by our godly Brethren of the contrary minde except the Churches were first purified in some Ceremonial way as God prescribeth that the spoyle of Midian be purified which our Brethren cannot say except we would make our selves debtors to the whole Law for so the law was Num. 31. and so Paul doth reject Circumcision Gal 5. 3. and if it be said the necessitie of the poore requireth that these Temples be not loosed but imployed for the poore as David in point of necessitie eat the Shew-bread I answer 1. The poore as the case was Rom. 14. might eat Swines flesh and so ruine him for whom Christ died which is absurd for their necessitie might require it But certaine it is Davids necessitie was layd on him by the sixt Commandement as an act of mercie in the point of starving and if any poore Iew were in the like case I conceive it should have been scandalizing to that Jew to eat Swines-flesh before another weake Iew. Providentiall necessitie may make that which is a sinfull scandalizing to bee obedience to the sixt Commandement but the will of Superiours can make no such providentiall change as the D of Aberdeene doe dreame But if the necessitie bee lesse then the Necessitie in point of sterving it could justifie the poore Iewes eating of meats conceived to be against the law of God as the case was Rom. 14. But that the Church or house dedicated to a Saint should have no physicall use in the worship of God to defend us from the injuries of Sunne and Heaven and yet have the same use in common for the poore to dwell in wanteth all shadow of reason for how can it be proven that the same physicall use in the worship is unlawfull and yet out of worship is lawfull except there intervene some Ceremoniall and religious purging of the house by fire or some other way which were Iudaical under the New Testament for the necessity of the poor is not like the necessity of Davids eating of Shew-bread It s certain that the necessity of disusing the creature in a Physical usage in the worship must have a warrant in Scripture as well as the using of the same in the same usage must have the like warrant Object 5. But Bels are more hurtful to the souls of Gods people who are scandalized by them then they are useful for the tymous and seasonable convening of the people and therefore they may well be abolished being lesse necessary and necessary onely ad melius esse for the better ordering of the Worship of God and not simply necessary for the being of the Worship Now as the Lord our God will have a lesser necessity to yeeld to any greater a bodily necessity to give place to a soul-necessity the soul being more excellent then the body as is clear in that God would have his people to dispence with the lesser losse of the spoyl of the Amalakites of their Idols gold and silver that the greater necessity may stand to wit their not being allured nor their teeth put a watering and their heart to a lusting after the Idols of Canaan so would he have us to abolish the Saints Temples the gold of Popish Images the Bels that are lesse necessary seeing the Sun may teach as well as the Bell for eschewing soul-dangers in laying stumbling blocks both before our own souls and others Answ 1. It is denyed that Bells which have a necessary use though onely for the better ordering of the worship of God are any active objects of scandal and the meer passive scandal taken at any thing not indifferent but physically necessary and so necessary that without it sinful inconvenients of either wearying in the service of God or sinful neglect should follow is no sinful scandal given but meerly taken 2. There be two necessities of things one natural and first in that regard another religious and in that regard secondary the former necessity doth alwayes stand except God remove it by some posteriour commandment It s necessary that Adam and Evah eat of all things that God created for eating God I grant may remove this necessity in some and command either Adam to fast for a time or not to eat of the tree of Knowledge So say I warning by Bells hath a physical necessity the use of the Temples in worshipping hath the like necessity so have Gold and Silver a necessity god onely either by a Commandment or by an exigence of providence that standeth to us as in the case of a scandal for a command can remove the physical necessity and inhibite Israel to use such and such Gold as have been in use in the Heathen Idols and may forbid to perform an act of obedience to an affirmative command in the case of scandal as he may forbid Paul to take wages for Preaching the Gospel though Paul have some natural necessity of taking wages But the Church without a higher warrant from God hath no power to restrain us in the necessary use that God hath given us Make Bells and Temples as indifferent and unnecessary as some meats were Rom. 14. and I shall yeeld the Argument 3. That the Lord our God will have a bodily necessity as the smaller to yeeld to a soul-necessity as the greater is a ground not so sure but it ought to have been proved except by a soul-necessity you mean a necessity of saving the soul and not sinning against God and oppose it to a meeâ— bodily necessity including no sin in it then I shall grant the Assertion That the one necessity iâ— greater then the other But otherwise Cateris paribus other things being alike I conceive it is contradicted by Iesus Christs saying Matth. 12. cited out of Hosea Chap. 6. I will have meâ—â—â— and not sacrifice And here we must determine the case of scandal to the soul from the exsuperance of necessity to the body and life The case falleth out David and his followers are at the point of starving for hunger it may be a question if the presenâ— necessity be so great there being no bread for them but the Shew-bread which by a Ceremonial Law of God onely the Priests should eat If any of the followers of David out of a groundlesse scrupulosity of conscience should have taken Pauls Argument Rom. 14. and said to David I will starve rather ere I eat this bread for a divine law forbidâ— me and if thou eat of it it shall be a scandal to â—â— and wilt thou for bread destroy him for whom Christ died The Apostle Paul would not for so smal a thing as to eat swines flesh before a weak Jew in the case Rom. 14. destroy the soul of one for whom Christ died by laying before him a stumbling block by his unseasonable and scandalous eating I think if Scripture cannot possibly be contrary to Scripture this doubt might easily be removed by answering the case was not alike with David in his hunger and
these rites was because the Egyptians and Canaanites used them But it is enough for our purpose that God useth this reason Yeâ— shall not doe so to the Lord your God Yee shall not doe after the doings of the Land of Egypt or of the Canaanites Deut. 12. 30. 31. See that then inquire not after their Gods saying how did these Nations serve their God even so will I doe likewise Levit. 18. 3. 4. This is enough to prove that it is a strong argument and Gods argument to prove that a worship that Heathen useth to their Gods though in it owne nature indifferent can not lawfully be given to the Lord it wanting all warrant in Gods word because heathens doe so to their Gods and it is cleare to me Deut. 12. 2. Yee shall utterly dâ—stroy all the places wherein the Nations which ye possesse served their Gods upon the high Mountaines and under every greene tree 3. And you shall breake downe their Altars and breake their Pillars and burne their Groves with fire and you shall hew downe the Graven Images of their Gods and destroy the Names of them out of this place 4. Yee shall not doe so to the Lord your God 5. But unto the place which the Lord your God shall choose out of all your Tribes to put his name there even unto his habitation shall yee seeke and thither shall you come There is nothing more indifferent then the place of worship yet doth the Lord in these words Yee shall not doe so to the Lord your God forbid to worship God in the place where the Canaanites worshipped their Idols And this proveth our point that Rites used by heathen indifferent in their owne nature as place stone-altars hils are not to be used as positives with a new signification as our Ceremonies have to the Lord our God because Heathens have done so to their Idol-Gods Wee know the Lord may have and hath other reasons in the depth of his unsearchable wisdome why he forbiddeth some things of their owne nature indifferent then because heathen and wicked men doe so as he forbade the eating of the tree of knowledge a thing in it selfe indifferent not for any such conformitie with wicked men And Hooker yeeldeth our argument to be concludent when he saith Notwithstanding some fault undoubtedly thire is in the very resemblance with idolaters Then notwithstanding all that Hooker saith on the contrarie our argument is good The rest of this subject is more fully and learnedly discussed by others and therefore no more of this Peace bee on the Israel of God and to the most high Dominion and Glorie Amen FINIS Isa 9. 6. Isa 35 1 2. Psal 97. 1. Vel lubentes vel vi attracti decreta Dei se quamur necesse est Ille crucem sceleris pretium tulit hic diadema Iuven. Saty. 10. Ier. 51. 35. Rev 17. 3. 5. Isa 62. 1 2 Iob 37. 23. Iob 33. 13. Mal. 1. 8. Christ hath not instituted a mutable Church Government Some things Morall some things naturall in Gods worship Circumstances either meerly morall or 2 meerly Physicall or 3. mixt Our Physic â—â— Circumstances are all easily known and numbred Circumstances and such and such circumstances The Scripture teacheth not meer circumstances but supposeth them Time and place of Ceremonies need not be proved 1. Argum. to prove that the Platform of Church-Government is not mutable at mens will Act. 15. The Scriptures way of teaching that indifferent things are alterable is it self unalterable 2 Argum. The Scripture shall not teach when we sin in Church Policie when not if the Platform be alterable at mens wiâ—â— There is no reason why some things Positive of Church-Policie are alterable some not 3. Argum. 3. Book Eccles Polic pag. 117 118. The place 1 Tim 6. 13. discussed Pauls cloak of lesse consequence then Positives of policie Bilson of perpetuall Gover. c. 3. Hooker of Eccles Polic l. 3. 4. Arg. Christ the Head of hiâ— Church iâ— the externall poliâ—y thereof A promise of Pardoning of sin made to the right use of the keys proveth discipline to be a part of the Gospel The will of Christ as King is the Rule of the Government of his house Hooker Eccles Policie l. 3. 123 124. Things of Policie because lesse weighty then the greater things of the Law are not therefore mutable at the pleasure of men Basil l. de Fide Order requireth not a Monarchical Prelate How the care and wisdom of Christ proveth that Christ hath left an unalterable platforme in his testament Mr. Prynne Truth triumphing over falsehood p 113. 114. Collat. Roinal cum Io. Hartio Sect. 2. p 40 Christ the only immediate King and head and Law-giver of his Church without any deputy heads or Vicars D. Roinald 16. d. 41. 5. Arg. As Moses and David were not to follow their own spirit far lesse is the will of the Church a rule to shape an unalterable Government Da. Dicksonus Expos Analyti in Epist aâ— heb c. â— v. 5. Pagâ—i Ariâ—â—ont Vatablus in notis Tostatus in 1 Chron 18. 19. 2. 7. Ista Scriptura tam poterat fieri per Angelos quam per deum Tostatus Q. 1. ibid. Cornel a Lapide com 1. Paralip 29. 19. Dâ—us ergo in tabula descripsittotam ideam Templi alioqui delincatio â— Davide vix intelligi potuisset Degrees de Templ Ded. p. 73. Lavater Ex â—o quod â—dificium et vasa secundum formam sibi ostensam facere debuit significatur in â—ultu dei non secundum humâ—nam ratioâ—â—m sed verbum dei agendum esse quo patefecit quomodo colivâ—lit Si Salomon suas imaginationes fuisset sequitus Templum aliâ form â construxisset vasa aliter fecisset et plura quam deus prescripserat Ceremonials of Moses his Law are of lesse weight then Morals but not of lesse divine authority Two notes of Divinity ought to be in the New Testament Ceremonials which were in Divine Ceremonies Eccles Policy book 3. pag. 122. How Moses doing all according to the pattern proveth an immutable platforme Gods care for us leadeth us to think he hath given us a better guide then naturall reason in all Positive Morals of Church-Policie Theologia Atramentaria Book of Eccles Policiâ— 3. pag. 113 114. The occasionall writing of things in Scripture no reason why they are alterable Papists pretend that things are not written in the word because of the various occurrences of Providence Horantius Loc. Com. lib. 2. c. 11. fol. 129. Quaecunque audiâ—t loquâ—tur que futura sunt annunciabit vobis quasi dicerâ—â— Quotiâ—s râ—i occasio fuerit revelabit vobis Quae â— re vestra esse viderit suggerit ac quoties revelare expedâ—eâ—it l. 2. c. 12. fol. 132. Sed quis non videâ—â— multa verbo esse tradita quae Ecclesiae solum memoriae mulius â—â—mirum Scriptis sunt mandata Hooker 3. Book pag. 114. 115. Horantius loc Catho Lib. 2. c. 12 fâ—l 131. Turrian to
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
Church in creating Prelats Surplice and all the positives of Church-policy so did she And so saith Calvin on Genesis 6. 22. And P. Martyr and Musculus piously on this place and with them Vatablus Hence I judge all other things in this and the following Arguments Answer SECT IV. ANy Positives not warranted by some speciall word of God shall be additions to the word of God But these are expresly forbidden Deut. 4. 2. Deut. 12. 32. Prov. 30. 6. Rev. 22. 18 19. To this Formalists answer 1. They have a generall Commandment of God though not a speciall Ans So have all the unwritten Traditions of Papists hear the Church she is Magistra fidei so doth the Papist Horantius answer Calvin That the spirit of God hath given a generall and universall knowledge of mysteries of Faith and Ceremonies belonging to Religion but many particulars are to be received by tradition from the Church but of this hereafter 2. Master Prynne answereth that is a wresting These Texts saith he speak only of additions to books or doctrines of Canonical Scriptures then written not of Church-Government or Ceremonies yea God himself after the writing of Deutronomy caused many Canonicall books of the old and New Testament to be written Many additions were made to the service of God in the Temple not mentioned by Moses Another answer R. Hooker giveth teaching with Papists Bellarmine as in another place after I cite with Cajetane Tannerus and others That additions that corrupt the word are here forbidden not additions that expound and perfect the word True it is concerning the word of God whither it be by misconstruction of the sense or by falcification of the words wittingly to endeavor that any thing may seem Divine which is not or any thing not seem which is were plainly to abuse even to falcifie divine evidence To quote by-speeches in some Historicall narration as if they were written in some exact form of Law is to adde to the Law of God We must condemn if we condemn all adding the Jevvs dividing the supper in tvvo courses their lifting up of hands unvvashed to God in Prayer as Aristaeus saith Their Fasting every Festivall day till the sixth hour Though there be no expresse word for every thing in speciality yet there are general Commandments for all things say the Puritans observing general Rules of 1. Not scandalizing 2. Of decency 3. Of edification 4. Of doing all for Gods glory The Prelate Vsher in the question touching traditions We speak not of Rites Ceremonies vvhich are left to the disposition of the Church and be not of Divine but of Positive and Humane right But that traditions should be obtruded for Articles of Religion parts of Worship or parcels of Gods vvord beside the Scriptures and such Doctrines as are either in Scriptures expresly or by good inference we have reason to gainsay Here is a good will to make all Popish Traditions that are only beside not contrary to Scripture and in the Popish way all are only beside Scripture as Lawfull as our Ceremoniall additions so they be not urged as parts of Canonicall Scripture Well the places Deut. 4. 12. Prov. 30. Rev. 22. say our Masters of mutable Policy forbid only Scripturall or Canonicall additions not Ceremonial additions But I wonder who took on them to adde additionals Scripturall if Baals Priests should adde a worship of Iehovah and not equall it with Scripture nor obtrude it as a part of Moses's Books by this means they should not violate this precept Thou shalt not adde to the word c. 2. Additions explaining the Word or beside the Word as Crossing the bread in the Lords-Supper are Lawfull only additions corrupting or detracting from the word and everting the sense of it are here forbidden and in effect these are detractions from the word and so no additions at all by this distinction are forbidden but only detractions The word for all this wil not be mocked it saith Thou shalt not add Thou shalt not diminish But the truth is a Nation of Papists answer this very thing for their Traditions 1. Bishop Ans to the 2. part of Refor Catho of Trad. § 5. pag. 848. The words signifie no more but that we must not either by addition or substraction change or pervert Gods Commandments be they written or unwritten Else why were the Books of the Old Testament written aftervvard if God had forbidden any more to be written or taught beside that one Book of Deutronomy Shall we think that none of the Prophets that lived and wrote many Volumns after this had read these vvords or understood them not or did vvilfully transgresse them D. Abbot answereth What the Prophets vvrote serve to explain the Law they added no point of Doctrine to Moses Lavv for Exod. 24 4. Moses vvrote all the vvords of God Deut. 31. 9 10. Moses wrote this Lavv then he vvrote not a part of the Law and left another part unvvritten The Iesuit Tannerus answereth the same in terminis with the Formalists Colloquio Ratisbonensi foll 11. 13. D. Gretserus ad dicta Resp Prohiberi additionem quae repugnet verbo scripto non autem illam quae verbo scripto est consentanea cujusmodi sunt traditiones Post pentateuchum accesserunt libri josue Prophetarum c. Tamen nemo reprehendit quia illi libri fuerunt consentanei sacrae Scripturae Additions contrary say they to the vvord are forbidden not such as agree vvith the vvord such as are all the traditions of the Church for after Deutronomy vvere vvritten the Books of Ioshua and the Prophets so Cajetan Coment in Loc. Prohibemur ne â—ingamus contineri in lege quod in ea non continetur nec subtrahamus quod in ea continetur Gloss Interline Non prohibet veritatem veritati addere sed falsitatem omnino removet Lira Hic prohibetur additio deprâ—vans intellectum legis non autem additio declarns aut clucidans Tostatus in Loc. Q. 2. Ille pecat qui addit addit tanquam aliquid de textu vel necessarium sicut alia quâ— sunt in textu velut dictum a spiritu sancto hoc vocatur propriè addere Formalists as Dr. Morton say It is sin to adde to the vvord any thing as a part of the written vvord as if Ceremonies were a part of the vvritten Scripture and spoken by the immediate inspiring spirit that dyteth Canonick Scripture they come only aâ— Arbitrary and ambulatory adjuncts of Worship from the ordinary spirit of the Church and are not added as necessary parts of Scripture or as Doctrinals so Papists say their traditions are not additions to the written vvord nor necessary parts of the vvritten Scripture but inferiour to the Scripture 1. They say their Traditions are no part of the written word or Scripture for they divide the word of God in two parts as Bellarmine Turrian Tannerus Stapleton Becanus all of them say Aliud est verbum dei scriptum