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
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
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
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
fail in their judging the Magistrate is to command the Church to judge it over againe but the Magistrate cannot judge it himself as there is a complaint made to the Magistrate that the Pâ—inter hath not drawn the image exactly according to the samplar the Magistrate judgeth not of the Art of the Painter nor can the Magistrate as the Magistrate draw the image himselfe But the Magistrate may judge of the Painters breach of promise who did â—action to draw it exactly according to the samplar and hath not kept faith to the man who payeth him wages and therefore the Magistrate may either punish his morall error his breach of promise not his error of Art the faculty or company of Painters must judge of of that or then command the Painter to paint the same image again according as the Painter convenanted But it may be objected You then make the Magistrate to meddle no more with matters of faith and preaching truth or falsehood and giving out Ecclesiasticall rules in Church government as Act. 15. then he meddleth with painting according to the principles of Art now painting according to Art belongeth not at all to the conscience of the Magistrate but sound preaching right ruling in Gods house belongeth in a far nearer relation to the conscience of the godly Magistrate I Answer As touching the formall judging Ecclesiastâ—cally and as concerning this that the Magistrate should say it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to me or his dispensing of Word and Sacraments or his burning incense before the Lord it no more belongeth to him as a Magistrate to do these in his owne person formally because God hath not called him to act these then it belongeth to him to paint an Image to sew shooes to siâ— at the helme of a Ship and stir and guide her to such a Port as is clearer Heb. 5. 4. 1 Cor. 7. 17. 21. Rom. 10. 14. 1 Tim. 5. 17. and 3. 1 2 3. Act. 13. 23. and 20. 28 29 30. Heb. 13. 17. 2 Chro. 26. 18 19 20 21. But in another consideration as sound or unsound dispensing of Word and Sacraments as right or unjust ruling in the house of God may more or lesse hurt or benefit the souls of men which he is to care for indirectly in ordine ad penas vel premia civilia et corporalia it belongeth more to the Magistrate to take care of the Church of Religion of preaching and governing Gods house then any painting or Arts in the earth Again the Church proceeding in these things that are against common iustice in all judicatures no lesse then in the Church as to condemn the party never heard or not convinced either by confession or under two sufficient witnesses or to do manifest unjustice in the manner of proceeding leaveth a clear place to the wronged party by the Law of nature if not to appeal yet to flee and have re-course to the Christian Magistrate who is Parâ—ns Patrie the father of the Common wealth 6. The question may either be of any really wronged by the Church whether he may appeal to the Magistrate or whether he who either beleeveth or thinketh or falsly lyeth and saith that he was wronged may appeal to the Magistrate 7. An Appeal is different from a Declinature a Declinature is properly a refusing to be judged because the judge is incompetent and the businesse belongeth not to him those who follow Erastus and deny all power of censures to the Church doe decline but not appeal from the Church thinking the Church hath no power at all to judge or censure the scandalous An Appeal is properly from the same inferiour judicature to a superiour judge in eadem serie in the same kind and it is either proper or unproper Proper it is when a particular Church doth appeal to a Synod of many Churches in the same place Unproper when either a wronged person hath recourse to one or many Pastors of Authority as Chrysostome Flavianus Athanasius appealed to the Bishop of Rome that he would request the Church to proceed orderly Or 2. The godly Magistrate would command that the Church would unpartially proceed to right an oppressed man as Cabeljavius saith Or 3. When there is no Synods to be had then as Triglandius saith well from Beza the Christian Magistrate may provide â—it meanes of releeving the oppressed 8. This would ever be remembred that in case of the Churches erring in judgement which must be thought of as a sort of extraordinary case the godly Magistrate may do more then what ordinarily he can doe and so may the Church when the Magistrate oppresseth in judgement as great Iunius saith 9. We grant when any complaineth to the Magistrate that they are oppressed in judgement by the Church that the Church is obliged to give an account of their doings but that from common charitie to remove the scandall and that they owe to all Christians as may be evidently collected from 1 Pet. 4. 15. but this will not prove a subordination to common Christians as to Iudges nor yet to the Magistrate 2. The Magistrate when his judging is deemed scandalous is to give an account to the preachers of the Gospel who watch for his soul as King Saul gave an account to Samuel with a false Apologie I grant that he had obeyed the Commandement of the Lord but if Saul had been faultlesse in sparing â—gag and the cattell yet was he obliged to give an account to Samuel But that will not prove that King Saul was subordinate to Samuel to be judged of him because Prophets are but servants and Ministers to declare Gods will yet is it all the subordination that we require in this according to that And the people beleeved the Lord and Moses Now all the Arguments before alledged to prove that Pastors as Pastors are not subordinate in their pastorall acts to the civill Magistrate do also prove that there is no appeal from the Church in an Ecclesiasticall businesse to the civill Magistrate For 1. If two Painters contend touching any controversie in the mysterie of their Art they cannot appeal to the King as Iudge the King then should formally be a painter and which is absurd not by accident but as a King and so here if the King were the judge to whose determination we might appeale from the Church in a Church controversie sure the King as King should be a Church Officer if the Priests in controversie touching burning incense or offering strange fire to God should appeal to the decision of the King as the King sure the King in that as King should be an eminent High Priest and right of burning incense to the Lord should belong to him in as farre as the Kings lips in that controversie should preserve knowledge and they should seek the Law from his mouth which is proper to the Priests Mal. 2. 7. Ezek. 22 26. and 44. 23 24. Deut. 17. 11. 2. The Church of Antioch should have
Surplice or some such like But since we have a pattern of perfectly formed Churches in the Apostles times who had power even In actu excercitâ— of Discipline and Church-worship and the Apostles mention things of an inferiour nature How is it that we have no hint of Crossing Kneeling Surplice corner Cap nor any such like unto these And yet they were as necessary for decency then 1 Cor. 5. Col. 2. 5. 1 Cor. 11. 20. c. Rev. 2. 1. 2 14 18 20 21. 1 Cor. 14. 40. as now Others of great learning reply that Christ is not the only immediate Head King Law-giver and Governour of the Church for that is quite contrary to Gods Ordinance in establishing Kings Magistrates higher powers nurse-Fathers Pastors Doctors Elders for by this there should be no Kings Parliaments Synods no power of jurisdiction in them to make Lawes to suppresse and punish all manner of Idolatry Superstition Heresies But I answer that Christ is the only immediate Head King Law-giver and Governour of his Church as upon his shoulder only is the Government Isa 9. 6. And the key of the house of David Isa 22. 22. And by what right he is the head of all things and set above all principalities and power and might and dominion and every name that is named not only in this vvorld but also in that vvhich is tâ— come He is the head of the Catholick Church which is his body Eph. 1. 21 22 23. And he is such a head even in externals in giving Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors and Teachers who for the vvork of the ministery perfecteth the Saints in vvhom the vvhole body of the Church is fitly joyned together and compacted by that which every joynt supplieth according to the effectuall vvorking in the measure of every part maketh increase of the body to the edifying of it self in love Ephes 4. 11 12 13 14 15 16. Now these places maketh Christ the only immediate head in externals and internall operation of that body which is the fulnesse of Christ Let any of the Formalists if Christ be not the only immediate Head Shew us of King or Bishop who is the Mediate Ministeriall inferior Head of the Catholick Church even in externall Government For Iohn Hart in his conference with D. Roinald saith Christ is the only principall imperiall and invisible Head but the Pope saith he is the visible and Ministeriall Head So do all Papists say but our Protestant Divines Answer That it is a repugnancy that a Subject or a Member of the King and Head should be in any sense both a Subject and a King a part or Member and a Head and Roynald saith This name to be Head of the Church is the Royall Prerogative of Jesus Christ Yea the head in externals must be with the Catholick body as Christ hath promised to be with his Church to the end of the world neither King nor Pope can in the externall Government be with the particular Churches to the end It is true the King may be with his Church by his Laws and power yea but so may the Pope be if all Pastors on earth be but his Deputies and if Pastors be but the Kings Deputies and sent by the King so is the King the Head of the Church but then the Catholick Church hath as many heads as there be lawfull Kings on earth But we desire to know what mediate acts of Law-giving which is essentiall to Kings and Parliaments in civill things doth agree to Kings Parliaments and Synods Christ hath not made Pastors under-Kings to create any Laws morally obliging the conscience to obedience in the Court of God which God hath not made to their hand if the King and Synods only declare and propound by a power of jurisdiction that which God in the Law of nature or the written word hath commanded they are not the Law-makers nor creators of that morality in the Law which layeth bonds on the conscience yea they have no Organicall nor inferiour influence in creating that morality God only by an immediate act as the only immediate King made the morality and if King Parliaments and Synods be under Kings and under Law-givers they must have an under-action and a Ministeriall subservient active influence under Christ in creating as second causes that which is the formall reason and essence of all Lawes binding the conscience and that is the morality that obligeth the soul to eternal wrath though King Parliament Pastors or Synods should never command such a Morall thing Now to propound or declare that Gods will is to be done in such an act or Synodicall Directory or Canon and to command it to be observed under Civill and Ecclesiasticall paine is not to make a Law it is indeed to act authoritatively under Christ as King but it maketh them neither Kings nor Law-givers no more then Heralds are little Kings or inferiour Law-givers and Parliaments because in the name and Authority of King and Parliament they Promulgate the Lawes of King and Parliament the Heralds are meer servants and do indeed represent King and Parliament and therefore to wrong them in the promulgation of Lawes is to wrong King and Parliament but the Heralds had no action no hand at all in making the Laws they may be made when all the Heralds are sleeping and so by no propriety of speech can Heralds be called mediat Kings under-Law-givers just so here as touching the morality of all humane Laws whether Civill or Ecclesiasticall God himself immediatly yea from Eternity by an Act of his free-pleasure made that without advice of men or Angels for who instructed him neither Moses nor Prophet nor Apostle yea all here are Meri precones only Heralds yet are not all these Heralds who declare the morality of Lawes equals may declare them charitative By way of charity to equals but these only are to be obeyed as Heralds of Laws whom God hath placed in Authority as Kings Parliaments Synods the Church Masters Fathers Captains And it followeth no wayes that we disclaime the Authority of all these because we will not inthrone them in the chaire of the Supreame and only Lawgiver and head of the Church they are not under-Law-givers and little Kings to create Laws the morality of which bindeth the conscience for this God only can do Ergo there be no Parliaments no Kings no Rulers that have Authority over men it is a most unjust consequence for all our Divines against Papists deny that humane Laws as humane do binde the conscience but they deny not but assert the power of jurisdiction in Kings Parliaments Synods Pastors SECT III. IF Iesus Christ be as Faithfull as Moses and above him as the Lord of the house above the servant Heb. 3. 1 2 3 4. Then as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the Tabernacle for saith he See thou make all things according to the patternâ— shewed unto thee in the mount Heb. 8. 5. And
as the precept of believing in Christ and of repentance from dead works yet I hope it shall be a weak inference from thence to inser we may therefore alter and change any thing of the Sacrament for the same Christ who commanded us to believe in him said also Drink ye all of this and if we may not remove drinking from the last Supper because injoyned by Christ upon the authority of the Law-giver as signifying the spirituall drinking of Christs Blood how can any dare to adde Crossing to Baptisme which signifieth the dedication of the Baptized to Christs service But 1. Divine Ceremonials and positives which were to be changed have these notes and impressions of God which Surplice Crosse in Baptisme Corner-cap which by Analogie answereth to Moses his Ceremonies hath not and yet if they be of the New Testament and so of a more excellent spirits devising then the people of the Iews were capable of in regard of their Bondage under Carnall Precepts they ought to have them in a more excellent manner As 1. In regard of the manner of Revelation all the Laws and Ceremoniall Ordinances were revealed to Moses when he was forty dayes in the Mount with God and was in Heaven and above men Exod. 25. 40. Heb. 8. 5. The length measure and patern of the Temple was revealed to Ezechiel when he was in the spirit and saw the Visions of God Ezech. 40. 2 3. And a writing of the form of the Temple by Gods hand was delivered to David 1 Chro. 28. 19. Now if a more free and glorious spirit teach the Positives of policy under the New-Testament such as Surplice Crossing then Prelates must be in a higher mount with God then Moses was and in a deeper extasie of the visions of God then Ezechiel was in Ezec. 40. 1 2 3. When they are in the childe-birth pain of devising and bring forth such defaced and dirty whelpes as Surplice Crossing Altars c. 1. I should think it blasphemy so to think 2. In regard of the Doctrine revealed When I read the 40 41 42. Chapters of Ezekiel touching the forme of the Temple and the Antitipe Chapters the Revelation c. 21. c. 22. Yea and the very Ceremoniall Laws of Moses as the scape-goats going to the wildernesse with the sins of the people of God and all the rest of the Lawes that pointeth at Christ to be slain for us and the heavenly mysteries of the Gospel explained especially in the Epistle to the Hebrews when I read these I finde a strong smell of the ointments of a precious Redeemer the extream love of God to man the Majesty the divinity and efficacy of divine power in these as in other Scriptures But should our Prelats put in Print by the spirit of the new Testament some Epistles touching Ceremonies in Generall or of Surplice Corner-cap Crossing and their heavenly relation to the mysteries of the Gospel in particular I should not think men would dare to say a nobler spirit speaketh like God and heaven in these then in the other It is without all Warrant to expound Christian Liberty of a power of devising a mutable Church-Policy and lawes not warranted in Gods word seeing Christian Liberty expresly exempteth us altogether from obedience to mens Laws not warranted by Christs word Gal. 5. 1. Col. 2. 20 c. Let us hear what Hooker saith for his mutable Policie under the New Testament Christ is not lesse faithfull then Moses because Moses delivered to the Iewes some Lawes that were durable and Christ some Laws that are changeable otherwayes by this reason Christ shall be lesse faithfull then Moses for Moses erected in the wildernesse a Tabernacle which was moveable from place to place Solomon a stately Temple which was not moveablâ— Therefore Solomon was faithfuller then Moses which no man indued with reason will think Christ was faithfull and saith I have given to them the words that thou gavest me He concealed not any part of his Fathers will But did any part of that will require the immutability of Laws concerning Church-Policy Ans I answer as Christ did to the Jews in another case Ioh. 6. 32. Moses gave you not that bread from heaven but my Father giveth you that true bread So in this neither Moses nor Solomon erected either that Tabernacle or Temple as Law-givers but the Father of our Lord Iesus as the true Law-giver Now both were but meer servants and Heralds in all that they did for God shewed to Moses the pattern of the Tabernacle and to David and Solomon the forme of the Temple in all the pins rings chambers cubits length and breadth Exod. 24 40. 1 Chron. 28. 11 19. And the question is not if ever the Lord himself delivered mutable or immutable Laws either in Doctrine or Policy We grant he did and may deliver Laws changeable and to indure for a time only in both the old and new Testament Heb. 7. 18. Col. 2. 17. Act. 15. 28 29. But the question is if Moses as a man if Christ as a man only if the Church of Prelates yea or of Lawfull Officers can be faithfull if they deliver lawes to the Church which may be altered without the expresse will of God speaking in his word at the pleasure of men and which are positives of worship and Policy such as humane Prelates Surplice Crosse c. which varieth dieth and liveth falleth and riseth with the climate Nation civill-Government Lawes Manners and customes of People and this is all one as to move the question whither the Ambassadour as a man may alter the Articles of his Commission according to his own private lust without an expresse and evident Warrant of the Prince and State whose servant and Messenger he is in all that he doth and if he be a faithfull Ambassadour who doth his own will and not the will of those that sent him and if Christ be as faithfull as Moses if he had given Laws of policy under the New-Testament to be altered without an expresse and evident Warrant from the will of the Father at the pleasure and will of men This we deny and certainly say that Moses had erected a changeable Tabernacle at the will of man and Solomon a Temple unchangeable at the will and expresse Commandment of God then had Solomon been faithfuller then Moses our Arguments nerves do not consist in the immutability or the mutability of things themselves or of the Laws but on the immutability or mutability of things positive or Laws positive under this reduplication so as they be immutable or mutable at the pleasure and will of men without and beside the word of God such as Crosse and Surplice and such like Romish stuffe are pretended to be 2. Certain it is that Christ concealed not any part of his Fathers will Ioh. 17. 8. But delivered all and this place with the place Ioh. 15. 15. We urge against the traditions of Papists and say because Christ
spake nothing from his Father either in his own person or his Apostles in the New-Testament or in the old by Moses and the Prophets of invocation of Saints Purgatory Worshipping of Images and Reliques and the rest of their unwritten Traditions these being positives of worship and more then unseparable and connaturall attendants such as are common Time Place Person Name Country Habite Gesture are therefore unlawfull because Christ neither heard them of the Father nor spake them to the Apostles and just the like say we of Surplice Crosse c. That they are no part of the will of God which the Father revealed to Christ and these same Texts Papists use to prove that the Scriptures are not perfect because they speak nothing of the Traditions of the Church so Bellarmine Because the Counsell of Trent Andradius Stapleton and all the rest and they prove as well if Crosse and Surplice and humane Offices as Prelates stand good and lawfull that yet the Scriptures are unperfect 3. We say that the whole will of God revealed by the Father to Christ and by Christ to the Prophets and Apostles requireth the immutability of all Laws of Church-Policy in this sence that men should not dare to make and unmake erect command alter and injoyne positive Laws of doctrine or policy at their pleasure Hooker ibid. p. 113. There is more reason to say that God hath a lesse care of the Church under the New-Testament then under the Old then a Philosopher had to say because God hath provided better for beasts that are born with hornes skins hair and garments by nature then man who is born without these that therefore nature is a carefull mother to beasts and a hard-hearted Step-dame to man for Gods affection consisteth not in these for even herein shineth his wisdom that though the wayes of his providence be many yet the end which he bringeth all at the length unto is one and the self same yea it should follow that because God hath not prescribed Rites and Laws of civill Policy to us as to the Iews that he hath lesse love to us and lesse care of our Temporall estate in the world then of theirs Ans 1. It s true indeed God should have lesse care of man who is born naked then of beasts born with hair in lieu of garments if God had not given reason to man according to which by nature he may provide garments for himself and the comparison should go aptly on four feet God should have lesse love and should declare lesse love to some of mankinde if he gave some naturall reason to devise a Bible and a Religion of their own that they might walk to heaven in the light of a fire of their own kindling without the Scriptures of God which is a false supposition and if he had denied reason to another part of mankinde surely all would say God had so far forth been more carefull of the salvation of the former as he should have willed their salvation and loved those in a higher measure to whom he gave reason on these termes and should have been lesse carefull of the salvation of those to whom he denied reason as he he had no more created such capable of salvation and of his love for the saving of them then brute beasts are and this answer layeth down a ground that naturall reason is sufficient without the light of Scripture to guide us in all these things of policy that are alterable then say I God did take a great deal of needlesse and superfluous pains in setting down so many particular Laws of Ceremonies and Civill Policy for the Iews if with the help of reason they might have steerd their course to Christ and salvation by the help of the star light of reason as a man though born naked may by help of reason make shift for garments to infants which beasts void of reason cannot do for thus the comparison must run and it shall be indeed a cavilling at Gods wisdom as Papists do calling the Scriptures inky Divinity 2. The word of God maketh it a great love of God and a work of Free grace that the great things of Gods Law are written to Ephraim Hos 8. 12. And their sin the greater that they should dare to multiply Altars v. 11. without warrant of Gods word as Formalists multiplied Altars Saints-dayes Surplices c. And it is an act of singular love that God gave his judgements Word and Statutes even of Ceremonies and policy to Israel and Iacob and did not so to every Nation Psal 149. 19 20. Ezek. 20. 11 12 13. This was Israels excellency above all Nations on earth Deut. 4. 6. Deut. 20. 33. Rom. 3. 1 2. Rom. 9. 4. that God gave them particular Lawes Iudgements Statutes not only in Morals but also in Ceremonials and Policy yet Hooker dare say We may not measure the affection of God towards us by such differences 3. It shall not hence follow God hath a greater love to the Iews then to us because he gave them Laws concerning civill policy which he gave not to us Except the Lord had given us power to make civill Laws which laid Morall obligation on our consciences even in civill things which morality He expressed in particular Laws written to them and not to us as Formalists teach for then he hath left us in Moralls to the darknesse of naturall reason in which condition we could not but erre and sin and make that morally good and obligatory of conscience which is morally evil for reason knoweth not what is positive Morally good except the light of Gods Word teach us and in Morals such as judiciall Laws were to the Jews the Lord should have been more carefull in his particular directing of them then of us and more tender to have them preserved from the sin of will-worship then us which cannot consist with the Dispensation of lesse light greater obscurity in regard of types and shadows toward them and of the Day-light of the Gospel and the arising of the Day-star and the filling of the earth with knowledge of the Lord toward us under the New Testament But the comparison must go upon this supposition that the Lord purposed to make Politick Laws in their Positives Morall and Obligatory of the Conscience of the Jews and the Civill Laws of the Gentiles under the New Testament in their Positives such as is not to carry Armour in the night and the like not to be Morall nor Obligatory of the Conscience But as touching that which is Morall in all Civill Laws the Lord is as carefull of our Temporall state as of theirs in condescending to particularize all Morals to us as well as to them Hooker That Christ did not mean to set down particular Positive Laws for all things in such sort as Moses did the very different manner of delivering the Laws of Moses and the Laws of Christ doth plainly shew Moses had Commandement to
receive both the unwritten Traditions of the one and the unwritten Positive inventions of Crosse and Surplice devised by the other as 1. Make us sure as God himself immediatly spake to the Patriarchs and to Moses nothing but what after was committed to writing by Moses and the Prophets at Gods speciall Commandment as Papists say their unwritten Traditions are agreeable to the word and though beside Scripture yet not against it And the very will of God no lesse then the written word and let Formalists assure us that their positive additaments of Surplice and Crosse are the same which God commandeth in the Scriptures by the Prophets and Apostles and though beside yet not contrary to the vvord But I pray you what better is the distinction of beside the vvord not contrary to the vvord of God out of the mouth of Papists to maintain unvvritten Traditions which to them is the expresse word of God then out of the mouth of Formalists for their unwritten Positives which are worse then Popish Traditions in that they are not the expresse word of God by their own grant 2. Let the Formalist assure us that after this some Moses and Elias shall arise and write Scripture touching the Surplice and Crosse that they are the very minde of God as the Lord could assure the Church between Adam and Moses that all Divine truths which he had delivered by Tradition should in Gods due time be written in Scripture by Moses the Prophets and Apostles I think they shall here fail in their undertakings Hence the Argument standeth strong the Jevvs might devise nothing in doctrine Worship or Government nay neither the Patriarchs nor Moses nor the Prophets of their own head without Gods immediate Tradition or the written Scripture which are all one Ergo Neither can the Church except she would be wiser then God in the Scriptures 2. Hookers Various and Harmonious Dissimilicude of Gods gâ—iding his Châ—rch is his fancy This variety we admire as it is expressed Heâ— 1. 1. But Hooker would say for he hath reference to that place God at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the Fathers by the Prophets and now to us by hiâ— Son But test of all he hath revealed his Will by the Pope of Rome and his cursed Clergy that we should Worship Images pray to Saints and for the dead beleeve Purgatory c. and now by humane Prelates he hath shown his will to us touching Crossing Surplice Now Papists as Horantius Sanderus Malderus Bellarmine and others say Most of the points that are in Question between them and Protestants and particularly Church-Ceremonies are unwritten Traditions delivered by the Church beside the warrant of Scripture 3. We grant that there was no Uniform Church-Government in the Apostles time Deacons were not at the first Elders were not ordained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in every Church But this is nothing against a Platform of Vniform Government which cannot be altered in Gods Word For by this reason the Learned and Reverend Mr. Prynne because points of Government did grow by succession of time cannot infer therefore that Government which the immediately inspired Apostles did ordain in Scripture is alterable by men then because 1. Fundamentals of Faith and Salvation were not all delivered at first by God there is no Uniform no unalterable Platform of Doctrinals and Fundamentals set down in Scripture For first the Article of Christs death and incarnation was obscurely delivered to the Church in Paradise Sure the Article of Christs making his Grave with the wicked of his being put to death for out Transgressions though he himself was innocent his justifying of many by Faith were after delivered by Isaiah Chap. 53. And by succession â—f time many other Fundamentals as the Doctrine of the written Moral Law in the Moral Positives thereof were delivered to the Church But I hope from this successive Addition of Fundamentals no man can infer 1. There is no Uniform Platform of the doctrine of Faith set down in the Old Testament 2. None can hence infer because all points Fundamental were not delivered to the Church at first the refore the Church without any expresse warrant from God may alter the Platform of Fundamentals of Faith as they take on them to adde Surplice Crossing c. and many other Positives to the Government of Christ without any expresse warrant of the Word 3. Our Argument is close mistaken we argue not from the Patern of Government which was in the Apostles times at the laying of the first stone in that Church then the Apostolike Church had indeed no Officers but the Apostles and the seventy Disciples we reason not from one peece but from the whole frame as perfected by the Ministery of the Lords Apostles 2. We argue not from the Apostolike Church as it is such a Church for Apostles were necessary then as was community of goods miracles speaking with tongues c. but we draw an argument from the Apostolike Church as the first Christian Church and since the Law was to come from Zion and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem Isai 2. 3. And the Lord was to reign in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem before his Ancients gloriously Isai 24. 23. And the Lord was to reign over his people in Mount Zion from henceforth and for ever Micah 4. 2 7. And Christ for that gave a special command to his Disciples not to depart from Jerusalem but wait for the promise of the Father which they had heard from Christ therefore this Church of Jerusalem was to be a rule a patern and copy for the Government of the Visible Kingdom and Church of Christ in which Christ was to reign by his own Word and Law Miâ— 4. 2 7. And so the Spirit descended upon the Apostles in the framing and Governing of the first Church in so far as it was a Christian Church and they were to act all not of their own heads but as the Holy Ghost led them in all Truth in these things that are of perpetual necessity and in such as these the first Church is propounded as imitable Now we do not say in Apostles which had infallibility of writing Canonick Scripture in Miracles speaking with Tongues and such like that agreed to the Apostolike Church not as a Church but as such a determinate Church in relation to these times when the Gospel and Mystery of God now manifested in the flesh was new taught and never heard of before did require Miracles gift of Tongues that the Gospel might openly be preached to the Gentiles we do not I say urge the Apostâ—like Church and all the particulars for Government in it for a rule and patern to be imitated And if Master Prynne deny that there is an Uniform Government in the Apostles times because God himself added to them Deacons Elders which at first they had not removed Apostles miracles gifts of healing and tongues then say I
First the Canonick Scripture is not Uniform and perpetual Why for certainly once there was no Canonick Scripture but the Books of Moses and after the holy Ghost added the Book of the Psalmes and the Prophets and after the Nativity and Ascension of our Lord to Heaven the Apostles did write Canonick Scripture I hope this is but a poor Argument to infer that there is no Vniform and unalterable Platform of Divinity in the Old and New Testament and yet the Argument is as concludent the one way as it is the other 3. We do not so contend for an Vniform and unalterable Platform of Church-Government in the Word as it was not free to the Lord and Law-giver to adde and alter at his pleasure only we hold it so Vniform and unalterable that this Platform is not shaped like a coat to the Moon or alterable at the will of men without expresse warrant of the Lords Word and to rise and fall with the climate and the elevation of Nationall customes and therefore the Argument is nothing concludent and judge what can be made of these words of the learned Mr. Prynne The Government and Officers of all Churches not being De facto one and the same in all particulars in the very Primitive times as well as since it can never be proved to be of Divine right and the self same in all succeeding Ages without the least variation â—inee it was not so in the Apostles dayes For this is all one as to say the Canonick Scripture was not one and the same in the Apostles and Prophets times but admitted of divers additions Ergo now in our daies Canonick Scripture is not one and the same but may also suffer the like additions 2. Because God himself added to Canonick Scripture and to the Government of the Church in the Apostles dayes Ergo men may without Warrant from God adde in our dayes to Canonick Scripture and to the Government and Officers of the Church 3. The Government and Officers in the Apostles time were not of Divine right but alterable by God Ergo Apostles Evangelists Pastors Teachers Workers of miracles were not of Divine right in the Apostles times but might have been altered by men without the expresse Warrant of God But will any wise man believe that Pauls Apostleship was alterable and might be changed by the Church Since he saith Gal. â— 1. Paul an Apostle not of men neither by men but by Iesus Christ and 1 Cor. 12. 28. When Paul saith And God hath set 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or instituted some in the Church first Apostles secondly Prophets thirdly Teachers after that miracles then gifts of healing c. and Eph. 4. 11. When Christ ascended on high he gave some Apostles some Prophets and some Evangelists and some to be Pastors and Teachers 12. For the perfecting of the Saints c. Can it enter into the head of any man to say some Churches had Apostles and Evangelists and Pastors and miracles and some not Ergo Apostles and Pastors are not by Divine right Ergo because they were not in all Churches therefore they were alterable at the will of men and a Surplice and Crosse in Baptisme hath as much of Divine institution as the calling of the Apostle or of a Pastor and truly to me it is bold Divinity to say that Pastors set over the flock by the holy Ghost Act. 20. 28. and whos 's due qualifications are so specified 1 Tim. 3. and Elders 1 Tim. 5. 17. and Teachers placed by God in the Church 1 Cor. 12 28. may be all turned out of the Church by men as having no Divine right to be there and that men may set up other alterable Officers in their place for by this reason the Apostles by that ordinary spirit that is now in Church-Rulers might without their Apostolick spirit or any immediate Warrant from Christ have altered the whole frame of Apostolick-Government and Church-Officers as the Church may upon motives from themselves not warranted from the word turne out Surplice Crosse and all such stuffe out of the Church Master Prynne The Apostles speech 1 Cor 12. 4 5 6. There are diversity of gifts but the same spirit there are diversity of operations but the same God compared with chap. 8. to 13. and c. 9. v. 19. to 24. I made my self a servant to all that I might gain all c. parallel'd with Act. 15. 1 2 5 6 10. to 32. and chap. 21. 18. to 30. The Churches of Judea did retain the use of Circumcision Purification and other Iewish Rites which the Gentiles by the Apostles resolution were not to observe and Act. 2. 22. The Apostles frequented the Iewish Temple and Synagogues conforming themselves to the Order and Discipline thereof and their own private Christian Assemblies all this will clear that all Churches had not one and the self same Church-Government Ans If diversity of Gifts as to be a speaker with Tongues a Prophet a Pastor will prove the Discipline to be alterable at the Churches will as are Surplice Crosse c. I shall think men may infer any thing they please out of the Scripture and that to be Apostles Pastâ—rs are as indifferent and variable as eating of meats 1 Cor. 8. and Pauls taking of wages at Corinth 1 Cor. 9. Which none can say for if the Church should now command us to abstain from such and such meats as the Apostle doth 1 Cor. 8. We should call that and do call it in the Romish Church a Doctrine of Devils 1 Tim. 4 1 2 3. All brought for this from Act. 15. Act. 21. tendeth to this the Lord himself for the then weaknesse of the Jews of meer indulgence appointed some things to be indifferent and abstained from in the case of scandall Therefore Circumcision Purification Sacrifices of Bullocks and sheep And all the Ceremonies of Moses his Law may be commanded by the Church so they have another signification then they had before and shadow out Christ who is already come But because God hath made some things indifferent shall it follow that the Pope yea or any Church on earth can create an indifferency in things they must then take from things their Morall goodnesse or conveniency with Gods Law and take from them their moral badnes disconveniency to Gods Law which to me is to change the nature of things and to abrogate and change Gods Laws it is true P. Martyr 1 Cor. 9. 19. saith Paul was made all things to all men Quoad Ceremonias res medias in that he Circumcised Timotheus The Law saith he was abrogated Vâ—rum id non adhuc Judaeis liquebat The Jews were to be spared for a time but only for a time and therefore when the Gospel was sufficiently promulgated Paul said Gal. 5. to be Circumcised was to lose Christ and he refused to be a servant to Peter in his sinful Iudaizing Gal. 2. And withstood him in the face Now certain it
is Peter knew Christ was come in the flesh and that his Iudaizing did not lay bands on his conscience he preached the contrary Act. 11. And if Peter did Iudaize as Formalists observe Ceremonies and the Galathians were circumcised the same way for they knew Circumcision had no Typicall Relation to Christ to come they believed he was already come then without cause Paul Gal. 2. and 5. did rebuke and argue either Peter or the Galathians of sinfull Iudaizing which to say were to speak against the Gospel But certainly the Vniformity and immutability of all these Ceremonies was that then when the Gospel was sufficiently Proclaimed to all to be under the Law of Ceremonies in any sort was damnable and so is it now And as the Apostles and Church then set up no Ceremonies no Surplice no Crossing because they had no word of Christ to warrant them neither can we do the like now and they complyed for a time with the Iewish Ceremonies being yet indifferent but not but by warrant of the commandment and resolution of the Apostles and the like are we obliged unto now had we a Warrant of the like indifferency of Prelates Surplice Crosse and that we were obliged to use them to gain the weak in regard 1. They were once obligatory Ordinances of God 2. And if the day light of the Gospel were not yet sufficiently risen to shine upon those who are not wilfully ignorant and had not yet acknowledged the Gospel to be Gods word we should also be obliged to Ceremonies yea we durst not yield to any Law to lay them aside as many Formalists who hold them lawfull have done Mr. Prynne From the Creation till Moses there was no one Vniversall set Form of Church-Government to be observed in all the world Nor one Form of Discipline under the Tabernacle another under the Temple Ans All this concludeth not what is in question it s but the Popish Argument This is to be concluded that Enoch Seth Noah Abraham the Patriarchs and Moses did set up a Church-Government of such timber as Humane Prelates Crosse Surplice without any expresse Warrant from Gods mouth and which they might alter by their own spirit for this Argument is God might alter Ergo The Church now may alter without a warrant from God And shall we believe that the Patriarchs and Moses by their own spirit without any Commandment of God might at their pleasure set up and put down Prophets Circumcision Tabernacle Temple Laws for Sacrifices Priests Levites Arke putting the Leaper in or putting him out of the Campe cutting any soul off from the Congregation of the Lord as our men will cry up and down Ceremonies and put on them the weight of a Talent or a Feather without any word of God The Scripture cryeth the contrary so often saying And the Lord spake unto Moses saying speak thou unto the children of Israel Could Formalists say that and Christ spake unto the Prelats and the Church and said Command the Pastor to crosse the Infant and appoint unto your selves a Prelate over the Pastors I should gladly agree to the mutable frame of humane Government Mr. Prynne There are but for the most part generall rules prescribed to us for the very ordering and regulating of our thoughts words actions lives apparell Children servants families calling c. in the Word Ergo there be but generall rules for Discipline and Church-Government which admit variety the former do more immediately concern every man the other more remotely Ans If the Word of God do not more particularly regulate our thoughts as Psal 10. 4. Psal 5. 9. Isa 55. 7. Ier. 4. 14. Act. 8. 22. And our words and actions by which we must be judged Isa 3. 8. Ier. 8. 6. Mal. 3. 13. Ier. 9. 3. Matth. 12. 36 37. Rev. 22. 12. Rev. 20. 13. 2 Cor. 5. 10. Prov. 5. 21. 1 Sam. 2 3. Psal 119. 9. Prov. 3. 23 24. Then the Scripture doth warrant Surplice and Crossing and kneeling to Creatures and humane Prelats which are changeable and alterable circumstances and adjuncts of Worship that may be and may not be and things indifferent it shall follow that for the most part it is indifferent to do evil or well sin or not sin in thought word and actions and we have no warrant in Scripture for eschewing sin or not eschewing it in the most of our actions I confesse there is little need to walk 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 accurately Eph. 5. 15. And to cleanse our wayes Psal 119. 9. according to the Word If words thoughts and actions may go at random as if they were variable and indifferent Ceremonies God throweth not men in hells torments to be eternally miserable for circumstances 2. For the acts of our calling if they be Morall they are regulated as particularly by the word as to believe love and fear God or the creature if artificiall they are not of our consideration 3. That Morall acts of decent usage of the Ordinances do not immediately concern men is admirable to me Mr. Prynne To the Argument of Moses his doing all according to the patern shown in the Mount It is Answered 1. The Tabernacle wa◠no part of the Church of the Israelites but only the place of meeting for Worship answerable to our Churches and Chappels and so was the Temple But I pray you God prescribed the height length bredth form of Tabernacles Ark Altar of every Pin Ergo Hath Christ as punctually prescribed to all Christians and Nations in expresse words the form matter dimensions of all Christian Churches Temples Chappels Tables Challices Pulpits Pews not varying in one pin 2. God named the men Bezaliel and Aholiah who should make the Tabernacle and all the implements thereof 3. God expressed the frame fashion colours of the holy Garments of Aaron and his sons shall it follow Ergo only the Artificers whom God nameth immediately and none but Embroyderers Goldsmiths Carpenters c. Not Pastors and Elders are to build up the spirituall Churches of Christ Ergo The form matter and colour of Ministers and Elders garments are particularly set down in the New Testament 4. The Tabernacle and Temple were corporall things made by mens hands not spirituall buildings of mens spirits 5. All these of the patern were delivered to Moses the Temporall Magistrate not to Aaron the Priest Ergo the Church under the Gospel is not a spirituall building whose maker and builder is God and all is to be ordered by the Civill Magistrate and Lay-Artificers not by Pastors I wonder also you alledge not Noahs Ark And all in the New Testament are not so particularly set down as in the Old Ans The Tabernacle was no part of the Church but being a Type and the implements of it to the least pin particularly expressed by God to Moses far more must we have from God an expresse for every Ceremony not to retort this also that a Corner-Cap or a Surplice is no part
of the Church and is indeed a teaching sign and so should not be counted a Positive of Church-Policy 2. Most false it is that the Tabernacle and Temple were nothing but a meeting place of the people for Worship as our Churches or Chappels are 1. Because it is to Argue the Holy Ghost of want of wisdom to spend so much Canonick Scripture in setting down things idely not tending at all to edification and teaching us nothing of God and in specifying the Form Height Length Bredth Curtains Candlesticks Sockets Rings of naturall places that contained their bodies for what should it edifie us if God should describe so particularly all the Churches and meeting places of the people under the New Testament Now certain it is Whatsoever things were written afore time were written for our Learning Rom. 15. 4. 2. Many things in the Tabernacle as Candles in day light Rings Sockets Shew-bread belonged nothing to a naturall place as our Chappels or Meeting houses do 3. Expresly the Scripture maketh them more then places to wit Holy Religious and Typicall signes of Divine institution as the Tahernacle was a Type Heb. 8. 2. 5. Heb. 9. 1 2. c. Heb. 10. 1 2 3. And the Temple a Type of Christs body Ioh. 2. 19. Ioh. 1. 14 15. And all these were Types and shadows of Heavenly things Heb. chap. 8 9 10. Gal. 4. 1. 2. c. Col. 2. 16. 17. Which our Churches and Chappels are not being only places common to sacred and Civill actions 2. God therefore can no more in expresse words set down the form matter dimensions of Christian Churches and Chappels then of the Synagogues of the Iews which had no Morall use for edification and instruction 3. Yea because the Tabernacle and Temple and their implements were teaching shadows of good things to come and our Churches and Chappels are not so nor have they any Morall or Religious use or influence on our spirits as the Tabernacle and Temple had therefore the Lord who is expresse in all Morals which of their own nature do teach and edifie he behoved to name Bezaliel and Aholiah and the form and colour of the Priests garments which also are Typicall and could not name our Elders or the colour or form of their Garments 4. All these weak retortions suppose that the Tabernacle and Temple were types of our meeting houses for Worship which is a meer conjecture they were no more types of our Chappels then of the Iewish Synagogues we may not expound types at will but as the Holy Ghost expoundeth them to us in the New Testament And this is a conjecturall Exposition and a dream to make Bezaliel and Aholiah types of Embroyderers and Tradesmen 5. We know the Tabernacle and Temple were corporall things made with hands and that they are things different from the spirituall things that they signifie as the sign and the thing signified as therefore the Lord is expresse in the elements and Rites of the Supper of the Lord because all of them Bread Wine taking eating breaking pouring out the Wine drinking are teaching and edifying signes and our Lord never left it to the wisdom of men to devise signes to teach themselves so in like manner should the Lord expresly specifie all the teaching and signifying signes in the Old Testament and as Moses might devise none of his own but was tyed to follow the patern which the Lord himself shewed to him in the Mount So are we now under the New Testament tyed to the patern of that same will revealed in the Word and it is laid on us Not to be wise above that which was written and it is of perpetuall equity The supream Law-giver never left it to the wisdom of Angels or Men or Prophet Apostle or Church to serve and Worship God as they thought good But he himself particularly prescribed the way signes and means And because God hath not been pleased in the New Testament to specifie types of Christ incarnate and come in the flesh already therefore are we obliged in Conscience to believe and practise no more either in Doctrinals or teaching types or Positives of Church-Policy then our Patern in the Mount the Scripture hath warranted to us to be the will of God and in this and this only standeth the force of the present Argument unanswered by paterns of unwritten Traditions and not in these loose consequences that we under the New Testament should have these types and Policy that the Church of the Iews had which is the Doctrine of Papists and Formalists following them not ours for they prove their Pope and Prelat from the Iewish High Priest their Surplice from the linnen Ephod of Jewish Priests their Humane Holidayes from the Iewish dayes their kneeling to bread from their bowing toward the Ark. 6. It is not true that the Tabernacle and Temple were meer corporall things no more then bread and wine in their spirituall relation are meer corporall things The Lords end use and intent in the Tabernacle and Temple was that they should be to the people Images and shadows of heavenly and spirituall things Heb. 8. 5. Heb. 10. 1. 7. That all the things of the Tabernacle were delivered to Moses as a King and not as a Prophet and writer of Canonick Scripture Heb. 3. 5. Heb. 8. Luk. 24. 44. 27. Luk. 16. 31. is an untruth except Formalists make the King so the head of the Church in prescribing Laws for the Policy thereof as they make him a Canonick writer as were David Moses Solomon from whose example they would prove the King to be the head of the Church But I judge Moses saw the patern in the Mount and God face to face as a Prophet whose words are Scripture to us Deut. 34. 10. And there arose not a Prophet since in Israel like unto Moses whom the Lord knevv face to face And as a Prophet not as a King his face did shine Exod. 34 27 28 29. And he was commanded as a Prophet to write the Law not as a King Numb 12. 6. 7. Moses is made the most eminent Prophet that was in the Old Testament And why Because God spake to other Prophets by Dreams and Visions But he spake the Law and written Scripture to Moses mouth to mouth This should not be a comparison between Prophet and Prophet but between Prophet and King by this learning 8. We judge Noahs Ark doth prove the same it being a speciall type of the Church 1 Pet. 3. 20 21. And he built it by Faith Heb. 11. 7. And so by a Word of God and at Gods speciall direction in all the length bredth formes of it and not of his own head Gen. 6. 14 15 c. And is commended by the spirit of God for so doing Gen. 6. 22. Thus did Noah according to all that God commanded him so did he And Formalists should deserve the like Testimony if it could be said of them And as the Lord commanded the
censeri debet Learned D. Roynald Answereth Apolog. Thes de sac Script pag. 211 212. and saith This very Law of Moses promiseth life Eternall to those that love the Lord vvith all their heart and that the Prophets added to the Writings of Moses no Article of Faith necessary to be believed but did expound and apply to the use of the Church in all the parts of piety and Religion that vvhich Moses had taught Lorinus followeth them in Deut. 4. 1. Christus inquit et Apostoli pentateucho plura adjecerunt immò in vetere Testamento Iosue Prophetae Reges Christ saith he and the Apostles added many things to the five Books of Moses yea in the Old Testament Ioshua the Prophets and the Kings David and Solomon did also adde to Moses But the truth is suppose any should arise after Moses not called of God to be a Canonick writer Prophet or Apostle and should take on him to write Canonick Scripture though his additions for matter were the same Orthodox and sound Doctrine of Faith and manners which are contained in the Law of Moses and the Prophets he should violate this Commandment of God Thou shalt not adde For Scripture containeth more then the sound matter of Faith it containeth a formall a heavenly form stile Majesty and expression of Language which for the form is sharper then a two edged sword piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit and of the joynts and marrow and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart Heb. 4. 12. If therefore the Prophets and Apostles had not had a Commandment of God to write Canonick Scripture which may be proved from many places of the Word they could not have added Canonick Scripture to the writings of Moses But the Answer of D. Roynald is sufficient and valid against Papists who hold that their Traditions are beside not contrary to the Scripture just as Formalists do who say the same for their unwritten Positives of Church-policy But our Divines Answer That traditions beside the Scripture are also traditions against the Scripture according to that Gal. 1. 8. But if we or an Angel from Heaven preach any other Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beside that which we have preached unto you Let him be accursed And Papists more ingenious then Formalists in this confesse That if that of the Apostles Gal. 1. 8. be not restricted to the written Word but applyed to the Word of God in its Latitude as it comprehendeth both the written word or Scripture and the unwritten word or Traditions then beside the word is all one with this contrary to the word which Formalists constantly deny For Lorinus the Jesuit saith Comment In Deut. 4. 2. Quo pacto Paulus Anathèma dicit Gal. 1. 8. Iis qui aliud Evangelizant preter id quod ipsi Evangelizaverit id est adversum et contrarium So doth Cornelius a Lapide and Estius expound the place Gal. 1. 8. And they say that Paul doth denounce a Curse against those that would bring in a new Religion and Judaism beside the Gospel But withall they teach that the Traditions of the Church are not contrary to Scripture but beside Scripture and that the Church which cannot eâ—re and is led in all truth can no more be accused of adding to the Scripture then the Prophets Apostles and Evangelists who wrote after Moses can be accused of adding to Moses his writings because the Prophets Apostles and Evangelists had the same very warrant to write Canonick Scripture that Moses had and so the Church hath the same warrant to adde Traditions to that which the Prophets Evangelists and Apostles did write which they had to adde to Moses And therefore the Councel of Trent saith S. 4. c. 1. That unwritten traditions coming either from the mouth of Christ or the ditement of the holy spirit are to be recieved and Religiously Reverenced with the like pious affection and Reverence that the holy Scriptures are received Pari pietatis affectu ac Reverentiâ And the truth is laying down this ground that the Scripture is unperfect and not an adequat rule of Faith and manners as Papists do then it must be inconsequent that because Traditions are beside the Scripture which is to to them but the half of the Word of God Yea it followeth not this Popish ground supposed that Traditions are therefore contrary to the Scripture because beside the Scripture no more then it followeth that the Sacraments of the New Testament Baptisme and the Supper of the Lord in all their positive Rites and Elements are not ordained and instituted in the Old Testament and in that sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beside the Old Testament that therefore they are against the Old Testament though we should imagine they had been added in the New Testament without all warrant of speciall direction from God by the sole will of men or because some Ceremonials commanded of God are not commanded in the Morall Law or Decalogue either expresly or by consequence and so these Ceremonials though instituted by the Lord be beside the Morall Law that therefore they are contrary to the Morall Law Yea to come nearer because the third Chapter of the Book of Genesis containing the Doctrine of mans fall and misery and Redemption by the promised seed is beside the first and second Chapters of the same Book it doth not follow that it is contrary or that Moses adding the third Chapter and all the rest of the five Books did therefore â—ail against this precept Thou shalt not adde to that which I command thee for certain it is that there are new Articles of Faith in the third chapter of Genesis which are neither in the first two Chapters expresly nor by just consequence but if the Church or any other of Jews or Gentiles should take upon them to adde the third Chapter of Genesis to the first and second except they had the same warrant of Divine inspiration that Moses had to adde it that addition had been contrary to the first two Chapters and beside also and a violation of the Commandment of not adding to the word so do Formalists and the Prelate Vsher in the place cited presuppose that the Scripture excludeth all Traditions of Papists because the Scripture is perfect in all things belonging to faith and manners but it excludeth not all Ceremonies which are left to the disposition of the Church and be not of Divine but of Positive and humane Right Hence it must infer the principle of Papists that the Scripture is not perfect in all Morals for it is a Morall of Decency and Religious signification that a childe be dedicated to the service of Christ by the sign of the crosse Now what can be said to thiâ— I know not but that the sufficiency and perfection of scripture doth no whit consist in holding forth Ceremonials but only in setting down doctrinals Why and Papists say the same that the scripture is
perfect though it teach us not any thing of tradionals in speciall yet in generall it doth hold forth the traditions of the church So Tostat Abulens in Deut. 4. v. 2. ad lit saith Hic commendatur lex ex perfectione quia perfecto nec addi potest nec auferri debet Here the Law of God is commended saith he from its perfection and that is perfect to which nothing can be added and from which nothing should be taken Yea so far forth is the scripture perfect in the Articles of Faith that Castro in summa c. 8. Canus locor Theolog. l. 2. c. 7. and l. 4. c. 4. and Tannerus tom 3. in 22. disp 1. de fide Q. 1. dub 7. saith We are not now to wait for any new revelation of any verity unknown to the Apostles Et nihil novi definiri ab ecclesia Apostolis incognitum and all verities now revealed were implicitely believed by the Apostles and contained in Vniversall generall precepts as that the Saints are to be worshipped that Canonicall Books containeth the word of God the Bishops of Rome are the true successors of Peter and Catholick pastors c. and he saith Quod ecclesia non posset novum fidei articulum condere communiter etiam docent Scholastici in 3. dis 25. he subscribeth to that truth of Vincentius Lyrinensis c. 17. In ecclesia nulla nova Dogmata procudi sed pretiosam divini Dogmatis Gemmam exsculpi fideliter cooptari adornari sapienter ut intelligatur illustrius quod antea obscurius credebatur No new points of saith or manners are forged in the Church but the precious pearl of divine truth is in it polished faithfully applied and wisely illustrated that they may be more clearly understood which before was more obscurely beleeved so that to say the perfection of scripture consisteth not in particularizing all the small positives of policy is no more then Papists say of the perfection of the scripture in their traditions 2. Moses speaketh both of the Morall and Ceremoniall Law called by the names of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Statutes rights and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Judgements and Laws whatsoever extolled by David Psal 119. As his delight his joy his heritage his songs in the house of his pilgrimages and of both he saith that there is life in keeping them Now the Ceremonies of Moses had an exceeding great excellency in looking to Christ and being shadows of good things to come Heb. 10. 1. And our Ceremonies have the same aspect upon Christ Why but the day of the commemoration of Christs Death Nativity Ascension Dedication to Christ by a Crosse in the Aire should have the same influence and impression on our hearts if they be lawfull that the like Ceremonies and Laws had upon Davids spirit Christ being the object and soul of both 2. Of these Ceremonies and Laws Moses faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 6. for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the Nations Why but these same Ceremonies looking with a broader and fuller face on Christ already come if Christ have put any life of lawfulnesse in them then their dim shadows of old should also be our wisdom in the hearing of Pagans who know not God 3. It is a wonder to me that the learned Master Prynne should say that the place Deut. 4. speaketh nothing of Church-Government and Ceremonies but only of Doctrines of Canonicall Books For that is as much as to say the place speaketh nothing of Divine Ceremonies but only of divine Ceremonies for what a number of Divine Ceremonies and Laws are in the Law of Moses which were given by the Lord himself as is clear by the words ver 1. Now therefore hearken O Israel unto the Statutes and judgements that I teach you that ye may live and v. 5. Behold I have taught you Statutes and judgments which the Lord my God commanded me v. 8. And what nation is there so great that hath statutes and judgements so Righteous as all this Law which I set before you this day Now of all this Law the Lord saith v. 2. Ye shall not adde unto the Word which I commanded you Neither shall ey diminish The Learned and Reverend Mr Prynne must restrict this word of the Law which can admit of no addition to some speciall Law either the Morall only or the judiciall and Ceremoniall only not to the former for then additions to the Decalogue only should be forbidden this never man taught Stapleton indeed Relect. Prin. fid Doctrin cont 4. Q. 1. Art 3. restricteth it to the Ceremoniall Law only but Moses maketh it a Law as large v. 2. as the word which God Commandeth And as saith he v. 5. the statutes and the judgements which the Lord Commanded me v. 8. All this Law Deut. 31. 9. This written Law delivered to the Priests and kept in the Ark the Law that all Israel heard read v. 11. Of which it is said v. 24. When Moses had made an end of writing of the words of this Law in a Book untill they were finished Now this was the whole five Books of Moses And were there nothing of Church-Government in Moses Law What shall we then say of the High Priest his calling Office habit of the Priests Levites their charge calling attire of the Law of the Leaper his healing his extrusion out of the Camp of the Law of those that were defiled with the dead of their qualification who were to be Circumcised who were to eat the Passeover or who not who were to enter into the house of God and Congregation who not not a few of these touching Church-Government are included in the Law that God Commanded Israel as their wisdom 4. That there were many additions made to the service of God in the Temple not mentioned by Moses is nothing to purpose except it be proved that these additions were made by the Church without any word of God the conâ—rary whereof is evident for the Temple and whole patern thereof was delivered in writing by the Lord to David 1 Chron. 28. 11. 19. If Formalists will have no Laws made but by Moses as the only Law-giver they have as good reason to say That Moses was the only Canonick writer and none but he which is absurd Or 2. That Moses by his own spirit was a Law-giver and had active influence in excogitating the Law We conceive that Protestants are to own this Doctrine which Tostatus imputes to us as Hereticks Com. in Loc. Q. 2. Quasi Moses nudus minister relator verborum dti esset non legem conderet As if Moses were a meer servant and a naked reporter of the Lords Law and words and not a Law-maker For in the making of Laws and Divine institutions we judge that all the Canonick writers were meer patients as the people are for God is the Commander and Moses the person Commanded and a meer servant Deut. 4. 5. Mal. 4. 4. Heb. 3.
3 4 5. And Moses and all Canonick writers were only to receive the word at Gods mouth and to hear it Ezek. 3. 8. As meer servants and in this the Church of Prophets and of Apostles and the Church that now is were alike I know no Authority of the one above the other Indeed in writing and relating to the Church the will of God and the Scriptures Canonick writers are agents inspired with the Holy spirit immediately breathing on them in Prophecying and in writing Scripture But the Proclaimer of a Law as such hath no influence in making the Law Let it be also remembred that as Papists say two things to the place so do Formalists 1. That it is not against Ceremonies 2. That the Church is limited in making Ceremonies beside the Word that they may not make them too numerous and burdensome This I make good in the words of a famous Iesuit who citeth the words of a Learned Papist approving them Lorinus Coment in Loc. Refellit idem Oleaster Hereticos hinc inserentes institui non posse Ceremonias ac ritus novos circa cultum dei Quam vis ipse optat moderationem in preceptis ac censuris ut facilius suavius possint servari To whom I oppose that golden sentence of a man endued with the spirit of God above any Papist Calvin Com. in Deut. 4. v. 2. Insignis locus quo apertè damnatur quicquid hominum ingenio excogitari potest Ibid. Quoniam preposter â lasciviâ rapitur totus ferè mundus ad cultus fictitios qui tamen precise une verbo damnantur ubi deus ita jubet suos acquiescere positae legi ne justiores esse appetant quam illic docentur All Worship is precisely condemned here or any thing devised about the Worship by the wit of men I would here meet with a Grand exception of Mr. Hooker Eccles Polic. 3. Book pag. 111. Their distinction of matters of substance and of circumstance though true will not serve for be they great things or be they small if God have Commanded them in the Gospel and if his Commanding them in the Gospel do make them unchangeable there is no reason that we should change the one more then the other if the authority of the maker do prove their unchangeablenesse which God hath made then must all Laws which he hath made be necessarily for ever permanent though they be but of circumstances only and not of Substance Ans 1. Our distinction of matters of substance and circumstance rightly taken will serve the turn But the mistake is in that 1. Many things are but circumstances of worship such as are Positives and Religious significant Ceremonies to Formalists that are not so to us for to wear a surplice in sacrificing to Jupiter were to make the Act of wearing that Religious habit an act of Religious honouring of Jupiter but to wear Surplice and to sacrifice in that habit to Iupiter at eight of clock in the morning rather then at ten in this place Physicall rather then this is no worshipping of Iupiter but a meer Physicall circumstance neither up nor down to the worship and time and place Physicall are neither worship nor Religious means of worship 2. Time and Place Name Country Form Figure Habit or Garments to hold off injuries of Sun and Heaven as such â—re never commanded never forbidden of God and therefore the change of these circumstances can be no change of a Commandment of God We never advanced circumstances as such to the orbe and spheare of Morals Formalists do so advance their Ceremonies and therefore if God command Surplice though by the intervening authority of his Church such cannot be altered except God command to alter the Religious signification of white linnen but we know not where God hath commanded the alteration of any Ceremonies except that the Lords coming in the flesh as a thing to come must alter all Ceremonies which shadow forth Christ to come when the body Christ is come already Let us know such a ground for alteration of corner Cap Altar Surplice except to drive such Oxen out of the Temple 3. We hold that the Lords commanding such a thing in the Gospel is a reason why it should be necessarily permanent for ever except the Lord hath commanded it should be for a time only as he commanded Moses's Ceremonies and so Gods Authority of commanding a thing to be unchangeably in his worship is a reason why it should be unchangeably in his worship and his commanding any thing to be for a time only and alterably in his worship is a reason why it should be for a time only alterably in his worship so to us Gods Commandment is a reason why his own Ceremonies and Sacraments of the New Testament should be in the Church because the Law-giver hath in scripture commanded them to be and the reason why Hookers surplice and crossing should not be is because he hath commanded no such thing Now the reasons of alteration of any Laws in the Gospel is from God never from the Church as 1. If God immediately inspire Moses to make a tabernacle and thereafter inspire David and Solomon to make the Temple in the place of the tabernacle and give them no Commandment for a tabernacle its evident that God hath altered and removed the Tabernacle and that the alteration is not from David nor Solomon 2. If God command types and Ceremonies to be in his Church till the body Christ come Col. 2. 17. then when Christ is come and his coming sufficiently published to the world then are his own Ceremonies altered and removed but not by the discretion of Peter and Paul or the Church but by God himself 3. When God commandeth such Offices to be in his house which dependeth immediately upon his own immediate will of giving gifts essentially required to these Offices then these offices are so long in his Church as God is pleased by his immediate will to give these gifts and when God denyeth these gifts essentially requisite sure it is his immediate wil hath altered and removed the office not the will of the Church so the Lord hath alterd and removed these Offices and gifts of Apostles who could speak with tongues and seal their doctrine with Miracles Evangelists Prophets extraordinarily inspired gifts of healing c. 4. Some things are not matters of worship at all but of goods as the community of goods love-Feasts matters of civill conversation these are only in their morality as touching distribution to the necessities of the Saints and brotherly kindenesse unalterable and no otherwise Now for these things that are smaller or weightier we hold they are not in their weightinesse or smallnesse of importance to be considered but as the Authority of God hath imprinted a necessity on them so are they obligatory to us I am obliged to receive this as scripture that Paul left his cloak at Troas no lesse then this Christ came
into the world to save sinners in regard of Canonicall authority stamped upon both R. Hooker with other Formalists Will have the lightnesse of matter to make the Law alterable Truly to eat of the Tree of knowledge of good and ill being put in the ballance with the love of God in it self is but a light thing yet the breach of that Law involved all the world in condemnation And what else is this but that which Papists say that there be two sort of things in scripture so saith Cornelius a Lapide Comem on 2 Tim. 3. 16. 1. The Law and the Prophets these God revealed and dyted to Moses and the Prophets but there are other things in Scripture as Histories and morall exhortations which Canonick writers learned either by hearing seeing reading or meditation there was no need these should be dyted by the inspiration of the holy Spirit for they know them themselves though they were assisted 2. Excited by the holy spirit to write Conceptum memoriam eorum quae sciebant non iis suggessit spiritus sanctus sed inspiravit ut hunc potius conceptum quam illum scriberent omnes eorum sententias conceptus ordinavit digessit direxit spiritus sanctus v. g. Vt hanc sententiam primò illam secundò aliam tertiò collocarent Yet Estius saith on the place The Scriptures are given by divine inspiration ita ut non solum sententiae sed verba singula verborum ordo ac tota dispositio fit a deo tanquam per seipsum loquente ac scribente So as not only the sentences but every word and the order and disposition of words is of or from God as if he were speaking and writing himself Now for the additions Canonicall that the Prophets and Apostles made to the writing of Moses I hope Papists and Formalists cannot with any forehead alledge them to prove that the Church may adde Traditions and alterable Positives of Church-Policy to the written word of God except upon the same ground they conclude That the Church now hath the same immediatly inspired spirit that the Prophets and Apostles had and that our Prelats saw the visions of God when they saw but the visiones aulae the visions of Court and that their calling was as Pauls was Gal. 1. 1. not of men neither by men but by Iesus Christ When as it is not by Divine right and was both of the King and by Court 2. Except they infer that the Church that now is may adde Canonicall and Scripturall additions to the Scripture for such additions the Prophets and Apostles added to the writings of Moses and 3. that that precept Thou shalt not adde c. was given to the Lord himself to binde up his hands that no Canonick Scripture should ever be but the only writings of Moses which is as some write the dream of Saduces whereas inhibition is given to the Church of God not to God himself for what the Prophets and Apostles added God himself added yea to me it is a doubt while I be better informed if the Lord did ever give any power of adding to his Scripture at all without his own immediate inspiration to either Prophet or Apostle or that God did never command Moses or Prophet or Apostle to write Canonick Scripture of their own head or that his Commandment to write Scripture was any other then an immediate inspiration which essentially did include every syllable and word that the Apostles and Prophets were to write For I do not coaceive that 1. God gave to Apostles and Prophets power to devise a Gospel and write it I suppose Angels or men could not have devised it yea that they could no more have devised the very Law of nature then they could create such a piece as a reasonable soul which to me is a rare and curious book on which essentially is written by the immediate finger of God that naturall Theology that we had in our first creation 2. I do not conceive that as Princes and Nobles do give the Contents or rude thoughts of a curious Epistle to a Forraign Prince to their Secretary and go to bed and sleep and leaves it to the wit and eloquence of the Secretary to put it in forme and stile and then signes it and seals it without any more ado so the Lord gave the rude draughts of Law and Gospel and all the pins of Tabernacle and Temple Church-officers and Government and left it to the wit and eloquence of Shepherds Heardsmen Fishers such as were the Prophets Moses David Amos and Peter and divers of the Apostles who were unlettered men to write words and stile as they pleased but that in writing every jot tittle or word of Scripture they were immediatly inspired as touching the matter words phrases expression order method majesty stile and all So I think they were but Organs the mouth pen and Amanuenses God as it were immediately dyting and leading their hand at the pen Deut 4. 5. Deut. 31. 24 25 26. Mal. 4. 4. 2 Pet. 1. 19. 20 21. 2 Tim. 3. 16. Gal. 1. 11 12. 1 Cor. 11. 23. so Luk. 1. 70. God borrowed the mouth of the Prophets As he spake by the mouth of his holy Prophets which hath been since the world began Now when we ask from Prelates what sort of additionall or accidentall worship touching Surplice Crosse and other Religious Positives of Church Policy it is that they are warranted to adde to the word and how they are distinguished from Scriptures Doctrinals They give us these Characters of it 1. God is the Author of Doctrinals and hath expressed them fully in scripture But the Church is the Author of their Accidentals and this is essentiall to it that it is not specified particularly in scripture as Bread and Wine Taking and Eating in the Lords Supper is for then it should be a Doctrinall point and not Accidentall 2. It is not in the particular a point of faith and manners as Doctrinals are But hear the very Language of Papists for Papists putteth this essentiall Character on their Tradition that it is not written but by word of mouth derived from the Apostles and so distinguished from the written word for if it were written in scripture it should not be a Tradition So the Jesuit Malderus in 22. tom de virtut de obj fidei Q. 1. Dub. 3. Pro Apostolica traditione habendum est quod eum non inveneatur in Divinis literis tamen Vniversa tenet ecclesia nec consiliis institutum sed semper retentum 2. That the Traditions are necessary and how far Papists do clear as I have before said for the Church may coin no Articles of faith these are all in Scripture For the Iews two Suppers and their additions to the passeover as Hooker saith and their fasting till the sixth hour every Feast day we reject as dreams because they are not warranted by any word of institution not to adde that
the Church of the Jews never took on them to command the observation of these forgeries under the pain of Church-censures as Papists and prelats did their Crossing and their Surplice Hooker saith A Question it is whither containing in Scripture do import expresse setting down in plain terms or else comprehending in such sort that by reason we may thence conclude all things which are necessary to salvation The Faith of the Trinity the Co-eternity of the Son with the Father are not the former way in Scripture for the other let us not think that as long as the World doth indure the wit of man shall be able to sound to the bottom of that which may be concluded out of Scripture Traditions we do not reject because they are not in Scripture but because they are neither in Scripture nor can otherwise sufficiently by any reason be proved to be of God That which is of God and may be evidently proved to be so we deny not but it hath in its kinde although unwritten yet the self same force and authority with the Written Laws of God Such as are alterable Rites and Cystomes for being Apostolicall it is not the manner of delivering them to the Church but the Author from whom they proceed which gave them their force and credit Ans 1. The consequences of Scriptures are doublesse many and more then are known to us and the particulars of that Government that we contend for are in Scripture that is there should be no Government but what is either expresly in Scripture or may be made our by just consequence we believe if they cannot be proved from Scripture let them fall as mens hay and stubble But in the mean time these are two different questions Whither there be an immutable Platform of Discipline in the Word Or whither ours be the only Platform and no other If we carry the first Ceremonies must fall And certainly in all reason we are on the surest side If we cannot observe all that is written it is not like that God hath laid upon us unwritten burdens 2. Hooker doth not reject all the Popish Traditions as our Divines Reformed do because they are not warranted by the Word so that if the Images of God and Christ and the Worshipping of them and Purgatory and the Supremacy of the Pope can be proved to be of God though they be no more in Scripture then Crossing and Surplice then would he receive all these as Having the self same force and authority with the Written Laws Now we know no other weightier Argument to prove there 's no Purgatory but because the scripture speaketh of Heaven and Hell and is silent of Purgatory 2. That naturall reason can warrant a positive instituted Worship such as Surplice betokening Pastorall Holinesse without any Scripture is a great untruth for naturall reason may warrant new Sacraments as well as new Sacramentals 3. If Traditions have their force and credit from God not from the manner of delivering them that is from being contained in scripture or not contained in it then certainly they must be of the same Divine necessity with scripture For whither Christ Command that the Baereans believe in the Messiah by the Vocall Preaching of Paul or by the written scriptures of the Prophets and Apostles it is all one it is the same word and coming from Christ must be of the same Divine authority But this is to beg the question for that we are to believe no unwritten tradition because it is unwritten to have the self same force and authority with the Written Laws of God For Lorinus Cornelius a Lapide Com. in 4. Deuter. Estius Com. in 2. Thes 2. 15. Bellarmine Tannerus Malderus Becanus say Whither the Lord deliver his minde to us in his Written Scripture or by Tradition it is still the Word of God and hath authority from God But the truth is to us it is not the Word of God if it be not a part of the Counsel of God written in Moses or the Prophets and Apostles for though the Word have authority only from God not from the Church nor from men or the manner of delivering of it by word or writ yet we with the Fathers and Protestant Divines and evidence of scripture stand to that of Basilius Homil. 29. Advers câ—lâ—mnianâ—es S. Trinit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Believe what are written vvhat are not vvritten â—eek not after And so seek not after Surâ—lice Crossiâ—g and the like And that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Every word and so this That Crossing Surplice are Religious signes of spirituall duties and every thing or action must be made good by the Testimony of the heavenly inspired Scripture these things that are good and so Religiously decent and significant may be fully confirmed and these that are evil corfounded And to us for our Faith and practise if it be not Law and Testimony it is darknesse and not light And as Gregor Nyssen the Brother of Basyl saith Dialog de anim et Resurrect tom 2. ed. Grecolaâ— pag. 639. Edit Greâ— pag. 325. That only must be acknowledged for truth in which is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the seal of the Scriptures Testimony 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And how shall it be true to us iâ— Scripture say it not Or how shall it appear to us to be from God For Cyril Alexandrin saith What the holy Scripture saith not such as are your Positives of mens devising how shall we receive it and account it amongst things that are true And it is not that which Hereticks of old said for their Heresies to say â—s Hooker doth that any thing may be proved to be of God which is not written in Scripture For saith Hieronimus in Hag. c. 1. Sed alia quae absque authoritate testimoniis Scripturarum quasi Traditione Apostolica sponte reperiunt atque confingunt percutit Gladius dei The Scripture doth bar the door upon Hereticks saith Chrysostome And he is a Theef that taketh another unlawfull way then the Scripture And by what Argument can reason without Scripture prove that Crosse and Suplice are of God But by that same reason Papists without Scripture can and may prove their Traditions to be of God And if we admit reason and exclude Scripture it is as easie to prove their Traditions as our Positive additions to Worship And what Answers Papists give for their Traditions to â—lude the power of Scripture and evidence of Testimonies of fathers all these same are given by Prelats for their additions to say nothing that Hooker asserteth unwritten Traditions to be Gods Word and in the very stile of the Councel of Trent we are to acknowledge Traditions though unwritten yet to have the self same authority and force with the Written Laws of God And shal the Surplice and Crosse and such stuffe be of the self same force and authority with the Evangel according to Luke and John
But what wonder For Hooker holdeth that we have no other way to know the scripture to be the Word of God but by Tradition which Popish Assertion holden by him and Chillingworth to me is to make the Traditions of men the object of our Faith Hooker About things easie and manifest to all men by Common sense there needeth no higher Consultation because a man whose wisdom is for weighty affairs admired would take it in some disdain to have his Counsel solemnly asked about a toy so the meannesse of some things is such that to search the Scriptures of God for the ordering of them were to derogate from the Reverend Authority of the Scripture no lesse then they do by whom Scriptures are in ordinary talking very idely applied unto vain and Childish trifles Ans 1. It is a vain comparison to resemble God to an earthly wise man in this for a King of Kings such as Artaxerxes if he were building a stately Palace for his Honour and Magnificence would commit the drawing of it the frame the small pins rings bowles to the wisdom of a Master of work skilled in the Mathematicks and not trouble his own Princely head with every small pin but this is because he is a man and cometh short of the wisdom skill and learning of his servants 2. Because how his Honour and Magnificence be declared in every small pin of that Palace is a businesse that taketh not much up the thoughts of a stately Prince The contrary of both these are true in the Lord our God his wisdom is above the wisdom of Moses and Moses cannot frame a Tabernacle or a Temple for Gods Honour in the least pin or sâ—uffer with such wisdom as the only wise God can do 2. The Lord is more jealous and tender of his own Honour in the meanes and smallest way of Illustrating of it Yea in the smallest Pin then earthly Princes are for earthly Princes may Communicate with their inferiours the glory of curious works set forth as speaking monuments of their honour the Lord who will not give his glory to another never did communicate the glory of devising worship or the Religious means of worshipping and honouring his glorious Majesty to men 2. God hath thus â—ar condiscended in his wisdom to speak particularly in written Oracles of every Pin Ring tittle Officer of his house of every Signe Sacrament Sacramentall never so mean and small Ergo It is no derogation from the dignity of Scripture to have a mouth to aske counsell where God hath opened his mouth to give Counsell in written Oracles 3. There is nothing positive in Gods worship so small as that we may dare to take on us to devise it of our own head 4. Hooker contradicteth himself he said the Ceremonies have their authority from God and though unwritten have the self same force and authority with the written Laws of God pag. 44. Here he will have the unwritten positives so small and far inferiour to written Scripture that to aske for scripture to warrant such small toys is to derogate from the reverend Authority and Dignity of the Scripture so Ceremonies pag. 46. are but Toyes unworthy to be written with Scripture but p. 44. They have the self same force and authority with written Scripture Hooker It is unpossible to be proved that only the Schoole of Christ in his word is able to resolve us what is good and evil for what if it were true concerning things indifferent that unlesse the word of the Lord had determined of the free use of them there could have been no Lawfull use of them at all which notwithstanding is untrue because it is not the Scriptures setting down things indifferent but their not setting them down as necessary that doth make them to be indifferent Ans Then because the scripâ—ure hath not forbidden the killing of our children to God as a â—alse worship against the second Commandment but only as an act of Homicide against the sixth Commandment and hath not forbidden all the Jewish Ceremonies so they have a new signification to point forth Christ already come in the flesh these must all be indifferent For let Formalists give me a Scripture to prove that Circumcision killing of Children sacrificing of Beasts are any wayes forbidden in this notion but in that they are not commanded or set down in the word as not necessary 2. Such Divinity I have not read That only the Schoole of Christ is not able to resolve us what is good and evil I mean Morally good and evil For Hooker pag. 54. Book 2. saith The controversie would end in which we contend that all our actions are ruled by the word If 1. we would keep our selves vvithin the compasse of morall actions actions which have in them vice or vertue 2. If we vvould not exact at their hands for every action the knowledge of some place of Scripture out of vvhich vve must stand bound to deduce it Then it is like the School of Christ the word can and doth teach us what is a Morall action good or ill an action in vvhich there is vertue or vice and to me it is a wonder that the Old and New Testament which containeth an exact systeme and body of all Morals whither naturall or Civill or supernaturall should not be the only rule of all Morals Now I finde that Mr. Hooker saith two things to this 1. That Scripture doth regulate all our Morall actions but not scripture only for the Lavv of nature and the most concealed instincts of nature and other principles may vvarrant our actions We move saith he we sleep vve take the Cup at the hand of our friend a number of things vve often do only to satisfie some naturall desire vvithout present expresse and actuall reference to any Commandment of God unto his glory even these things are done vvhich vve naturally perform and not only that vvhich naturally and spiritually vve do for by every effect proceeding from the most concealed instincts of nature his povver is made manifest But it doth not therefore follovv that of necessity we shall sin unlesse vve expresly intend the glory of God in every such particular Ans I speak of these more distinctly hereafter here I answer that as there be some actions in man purely and spiritually but supernaturally morall as to believe in Christ for Remission of sins to love God in Christ These the Gospel doth regulate 2. There be some actions naturally morall in the substance of the act as many things commanded and forbidden in the Morall Law and these are to be regulated by the Law of nature and the Morall Law 3. There be some actions mixed as such actions in which nature or concealed instincts of nature are the chief principles yet in and about these actions as in their modification of time place and manner and measure there is a speciall morality in regard of which they are to be ruled by the word
warranted by Scripture it followeth only to him that so doth it is unlawfull Rom. 14. 14. In that he doth Bonum non benè a thing lawfull not lawfully 4. It is unpossible to deduce all truth out of any truth For then because the Sun riseth to day it should follow Ergo Crosse and Surplice are Lawfull I might as well deduce the contrary Ergo they are unlawfull Hooker Some things are good in so mean a degree of goodnesse that men are only not disproved nor disallowed of God for them as Eph. 5. 20. No man hateth his own flesh Matth. 5. 46. If ye do good unto them that do so to you the very Publicans themselves do as much They are worse then Infidels that provide not for their own 1. Tim. 5. 8. The light of nature alone maketh these actions in the sight of God allowable 2. Some things are required to salvation by way of direct immediate and proper necessity finall so that without performance of them we cannot in ordinary course be saved In these our chiefest direction is from Scipture for nature is no sufficient director what we should do to attain life Eternall 3. Some things although not so required of necessity that to leave them undone excludeth from salvation are yet of so great dignity and acceptation with God that most ample reward is laid up in Heaven for them as Matth. 10. A Cup of cold Water shall not go unrewarded And the first Christians sold their possessions and 1 Thess 2. 7. 9. Paul would not be burdensome to the Thessalonians Hence nothing can be evil that God approveth and he approveth much more then he doth Command and the precepts of the law of Nature may be otherwise known then by the Scripture then the bare mandat of Scripture is not the only rule of all good and evil in the actions of Morall men Ans 1. The Popery in this Author in disputing for a Platform of Government that is up and down and changeable at the will of men made me first out of love with their way for his first classe of things allowable by the light of Nature without Scripture is far wide for Eph. 5. 20. That a man love his own flesh is Commanded in the sixth Commandment and the contrary forbidden otherwise for a man to kill himself which is self-hatred should not be forbidden in Scripture the very light of nature alone will forbid ungratitude in Publicans and condemn a man that provideth not for his own But that this light of nature excludeth Scripture and the Doctrine of Faith is an untruth for Hooker leaveth out the words that are in the Text and most against his cause He that provideth not for his own is worse then an Infidel and hath denied the Faith Ergo the Doctrine of Faith commandeth a man to provide for his own What Morall goodnesse nature teacheth that same doth the Morall Law teach so the one excludeth not the other 2. It is false that Scripture only as conâ—adistinguished from the Law of Nature doth direct us to Heaven for both concurreth in a speciall manner nor is the one exclusive of the other 3. For his third classe it s expresly the Popish Works of supererogation of which Hooker and Papists both give two Characters 1. That they are not Commanded 2. That they merit a greater degree of glory Both are false To give a Cup of cold water to a needy Disciple is commanded in Scripture Isa 57. 9 10. Matth. 25. 41 42. And the contrary punished with everlasting fire in Hell For Paul not to be burdensome to the Thessalonians and not to take stipend or wages for Preaching is commanded for considering the condition that Paul was in was 1 Thess 2. 6. To seek glory of men was a thing forbidden in Scripture and so the contrary cannot be a thing not commanded and not to be gentle v. 7. As the servant of God ought to be even to the enemies of the truth 1 Tim. 2. 24. Not to be affectionately desirous to impart soul Gospel and all to those to whom he Preached as it is v. 8. is a sin forbidden and for the merit of increase of glory it is a dream Hence I draw an Argument against this mutable form of Government The changeable Positives of this Government such as Crossing Surplice and the like are none of these three enumerated by Hooker 1. They are not warranted by the Law of nature for then all Nations should know by the light of nature that God is decently worshipped in Crosse and linnen Surplice which is against experience 2. That these Positives are not necessary to salvation with a proper finall necessity as I take is granted by all 3. I think Crosse and Surplice cannot deserve a greater measure of glory for Formalists deny either merit or efficacy to their Positives The Jesuit Tannerus confirmeth all which is said by Hooker as did Aquinas before him And Eâ—kiâ—s in his conference with Luther and Oecolampadius who say for imagery and their Traditions that it is sufficient that the Church say such a thing is truth and to be done and the scripture doth not gain-say it SECT V. Morall Obedience resolved ultimately in Scripture FOR farther light in this point it is a Question What is the formall object of our obedience in all our our Morall actions that is Whether is the Faith practicall of our obedience the obedience itself in all the externals of Church Government resolved in this ultimately and finally This and this we do and this point of Government we believe and practise because the Lord hath so appointed it in an immutable Platform of Government in Scripture or because the Church hath so appointed or because there is an intrinsecall conveniency in the thing it self which is discernable by the light of nature Ans This Question is near of blood to the Controversie between Papists and us concerning the formall object of our faith that is Whither are we to believe the scripture to be the Word of God because so saith the Church or upon this objective ground because the Lord so speaketh in his own Word Now we hold that scripture it self furnisheth light and faith of it self from it self and that the Church doth but hold forth the light as I see the light of the Candle because of the light itself not because of the Candlestick Hence in this same very Question the Iews were not to believe that the smallest pin of the Tabernacle or that any officer High-Priest Priest or Levite were necessary nor were they to obey in the smallest Ceremoniall observance because Moses and the Priests or Church at their godly discretion without Gods own speciall warrant said so But because so the Lord spake to Moses so the Lord gave in writing to David and Solomon 1 Chron. 28. 11. 19. And so must it be in the Church of the New Testament in all the Positives of Government otherwise if we
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
and the sword Paul commanded that the Corinthians might obtain by their prayers that the incestuous man might be put from amongst them that is that he might be killed if he command not that the man be killed but cast out of the Church only he should say as much as if one should bid preserve the chastity of a Virgin by casting her out of the society of chaste matrons into a bordell-house and Paul biddeth not the Corinthians deliver the man to Sathan but only that they would convene that he might as present in Spirit deliver him to Sathan and that they would deliver him to Sathan and put him out of the midst of them by prayers and mourning for in my corrected Thesis I said that this put away evill out of the midst of you Deut. 13. was in sillabs Deut. 17. 19 21. 22 â—er c. 24. once and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in them all Answ 1. That the Church wanted the sword is no wonder the Church as the Church hath no such carnall weapons as the Sword and that Peter in killing Ananias and Saphira and Paul in striking Elymas with blindnesse did supply the place of a Christian Magistrate which the Church then wanted so as it was the Christian Magistrate his place if there had been any to strike Ananias and Saphyra with sudden death I doe not beleeve upon Erastus his word because I finde Nadab and Abihu killed immediately by the Lord from heaven with fire Lev. 10. 1. and at that time when there was Moses and ordinary Magistrates to have killed them and God immediately caused the earth to open her mouth and swallow up quick Corâ—h and his company and yet there was a Magistrate to doe justice on them for their â—reasonable conspiracie and I see not how this may not warrant Ministers when either heathen or Tyrannous Magistrates refuse to use the sword to fall to as Pastors and in an extraordinary manner use the sword against murtherers in the visible Church It is true Peters miraculous killing of Ananias may possibly hold forth the duty analogically of punishing ill doers in a Magistrate where he is a Christian member of the Church But it is a conjecture without Scripture that here Paul doth call the Corinthians in to come and be co-actors with him by their prayers in a particular miracle which was never wrought for Erastus granteth he was never killed 1. Paul reprehendeth their not mourning v. 2. And you are puffed up and have not rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mourned This was an ordinary Christian not a miraculous duty which they should have performed as a Church though he should not have written to them Let Erastus cleare how Paul chideth them for want of an habituall Faith of Miracles and of a sorrow proportioned thereunto 2. That Gal. 5. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would God they were cut off that trouble you if this was in Pauls power by a miracle to cut off the false Apostles how could Paul wish to doe a Miracle and did it not 2. If he wished these should be cut off by the Galathians then as Beza de Presbyt page 82. saith It was in the Galathians power so to doe and why should not they have prayed miraculously for the destruction of such 3. In all the word to deliver to Satan is never to kill by Satan as Beza saith and Erastus can answer nothing to it 4. That Paul here tooke the Magistrates Sword because the Magistrate was a Heathen 5. That the Church when a Magistrate doth not his duty is to pray that God would by some miraculous and immediate providence supply the Magistrates place 6. That Paul doth rebuke the Corinthians not for the omission of an ordinary duty and the want of an ordinary faith but because of the want of extraordinary sorrow and of the faith of Miracles in old and young and women who could pray for the miraculous killing of this man all these look beside the Text for ver 2. he saith such a hainous sin is committed and ye are puffed up 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 blowen up and have not rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mourned this is the defect of an ordinary grace and hardnesse and security that Paul rebuketh in them as the first word signifieth 1 Cor. 8. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 knowledge puffeth up 1 Cor. 13. 4. Love 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not blown up 1 Cor. 4. 6. 1 Cor. 4. 18. Col. 2. 18. and the other word signifieth ordinary sorrow Mat. 5. 4 Blessed are they that mourn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luk. 6. 25. 2 Cor. 12. 21. Iam. 4. 9. Mat. 9. 15. There is not one word of praying by the faith of miracles in the Text for such a faith is required to such a prayer that God would miraculously destroy the man or that Paul rebuked them for not praying in this miraculous faith it is the way of Erastus to obtrude Expositions on the Scripture so unknown and violent as they are darker and harder to be beleeved then the Text. 5. The Apostle commandeth them to put out the man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to kill him What killing is this to pray to God that Paul miraculously may put him out and kill him give us any word of God that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Old or New Testament signifieth any such thing there is not one word of Prayer in the Text 6. They were to conveen not simply as Christians to pray but with the vertue of his spirit as present in minde but absent in body this must put some more in them then a mourning spirit for the want of which he rebuked them it is as much as he and they together were to joyn in putting out the man and judging him as he speaketh ver 12. 7. Nor is this all one as to put a woman out of the company of chaste Matrons to the bordel house to keep her chastity no more then the wisdom of God in Paul doth Rom. 16. 17. 2 Thess 3. 14. 15. put unordinate walkers out of the society of those who walk according to the truth of the Gospel that they may preserve their sound walking especially when exclusion from the godly causeth shame and so humiliation and this reason is against Gods wisdom as much as against us 8. That to put away evil 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deut. 17. and 19. and 21. and 22. is to kill is not denied and that in divers places but not to pray that evil may be miraculously put away as Erastus saith But we are to see whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Hebrew of which Language Erastus professeth his ignorance signifie that alwayes The contrary I have already shown the learned Pagnine and Mercer say the contrary that it signifieth to cur devide or strike a Covenant Gen. 15. 18. Deut. 19. 5. Jer. 34. 8. Esa 55. 3. and Master Leigh in
Thes say Est not â— quâdam insignire et in aliquem animadvertere ut censores apud Romanos notare aliquem solebant they expound it the publike note of Excommunication Beza saith it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie and declare but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 notate veluti inustâ not â compungite So Calvin Marlorat And I wonder that Erastus can say with any that it is in our power to converse or not to converse with wicked men are we not discharged by Gods Spirit to converse with them As we are commanded to eat and drinke at the Lords Table and is it in our power morally to obey or disobey any Commandement of God Except Erastus will say with Papists that God doth here give counsels not commands Rom. 16. 17. 2 Thes 3. 14. 1 Cor. 5. 9 11. And whereas Erastus saith Paul will have us 2 Thes 3. 15. to admonish this man as a brother Ergo In holy things and in the Sacraments that are helpes of piety and Salvation we are not to â—ast him off It is true the cast out man is not to be reputed as an enemy but a brother Yet a sicke and diseased brother under the roughest Medicine of the Church to wit the rod of Excommunication that the Spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. But withdrawing of brotherly fellowship is not a meere civill unbrothering of him for if the brotherly fellowship of Christians must be spirituall religious and for the edifying of one anothers soules for exhorting one another to prevent hardning of heart for provoking one another to love and to good works to teach one another to comfort and support one another as we are expresly commanded by the Holy Ghost Heb. 3. 13. Heb. 10. 24. Col. 3. 16. 1 Thess 5. 11 14. Mal. 3. 16. Jer. 50. 5. Zach. 8. 22. Psal 42. 4. I wonder where Erastus learned this Divinity to say the denying of this edifying Communion to a scandalous brother while he be ashamed and repent Is to deny nothing that belongeth to his salvation Admonition is but one of twenty comfortable acts of Communion which we deny not to him least the man should despaire and we should cast off all care hope or intention to save his soul whereas the genuine and intrinsecall intention of avoiding him and casting him out of the Church is that he may be saved Lastly we deny not admonition and preaching of the word to the man thus cast out because they be converting Ordinances simply necessary to work the mans humiliation and repentance but the Lords Supper is a confirming Ordinance and denied to the excommunicated while he is in that condition upon that very reason that it is denied to Pagans and Heathens and though it be an help of piety it is no help either to a Pagan or an excommunicate man but damnation But it may be the excommunicate man hath faith I answer To us in the Court of the Church in which the Seals are dispensed he hath no more then a Heathen hath and therefore in confirming Ordinances he is looked on by the Church as an Heathen and if the reason of Erastus be good The Church is to deny no helps of godlinesse and salvation to him though we deny private food to his body because the Sacraments are necessary helps Then 1. I much doubt if the Church be to deny the necessary helps of godlinesse and salvation to a Pagan living amongst us Ergo shall we not deny the Sacraments to a Pagan 2. We are not to avoid his company and deny the edifying acts of Communion which I named before for these are necessary helps of salvation 3. It is not the mans sin by this reason That he eateth and drinketh unworthily for if it be not the Churches sin to give him the seals because the Seals are adminiclees and helps of piety and saving of the soul by the same reason it is not the mans sin to receive the Lords Supper for it must be equally an help of godlinesse and salvation to the Communicant receiving as to the Church giving Now Paul saith 1 Cor. 11. He that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh to himself judgement So Erastus teacheth us that it may be a sin to Swine publikely known to be such to receive pearles when it is no sin but the Churches duty to give these pearls to such known Swine which is most absurd and impious Erastus I said before that God doth not exclude sinners from the Sacraments but gather them in to them that they may be more and more invited to repentance and more easily raised up again for Sacraments and so many Ceremonies also were for this end ordained that they might draw men to the love and care of true piety and holynesse as Moses saith Deut. 14. Ans Erastus acknowledgeth this to be no new Argument therefore we may passe it it is the chief pillar of his opinion But I put it in forme thus to Erastus Those whom God inviteth to repentance those he will not exclude from the Sacraments But now under the Gospel he inviteth all even many Pagans and Heathen to repentance 1 Tim. 2. 4. God will have all even Heathen Magistrates to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth so Act. 17. 30. God now commandeth all men every where even the Idolators and blinde Philosophers at Athens who erected an Altar to the unknown God ver 23. and who jeered at the Doctrine of the Resurrection ver 32. even those God inviteth to repentance Ergo God excludeth not Pagans from the Sacraments but the conclusion is absurd and blasphemous therefore so must one of the premises be but the Assumption is Scripture Ergo The Major Proposition of Erastus must be blasphemous God inviteth scorners to repentance and rebukes are means of repentance Ergo we may rebuke scorners Gods spirit saith Rebuke not a scorner Prov. 9. 7 8. His Proposition then must be Those whom God inviteth to repentance those God excludeth not from any mean of piety and sanctity It is most false God inviteth Dogs and Swine to repentance and commandeth them to be holy and the pearls of the Gospel are means of repentance and holinesse Must we therefore Cast pearls to dogs and swine The contrary our Saviour injoyneth Matth. 7. 6. 2. Moses Deut. 14. 1. forbiddeth diverse Ceremonies and Sacraments of the Heathen by this Argument Ye are the children of the Lord your God and he saith expresly that the stranger may eat some unclean thing but the Lord saith to them You shall not do so for thou art an holy people to the Lord thy God Whence it is evident Moses saith poynt blank contrary to Erastus for Moses saith that Ceremonies and Sacraments are for this end to draw only the holy and sanctified people of God to a further love and study of true piety and sanctity was not the eating of the Passeover a mean of Repentance as well
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
to Satan though I be absent in body what then would he have done he would all the Church being gathered together not some Presbyters only by his own spirit and the power of the Lord Iesus granted to him deliver the man to Satan that he might strike fear and terror on others and that the man might bear the just punishment of his wickednesse Ans Paul chideth them that they were puffed up and mourned not that the man might be put out of the midst of them Then whereas it might be said we want the presence of the Apostle Paul and his privity to the businesse To this Paul saith ver 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For me saith he I have as if I were present in body when you are Convened together c. Iudged to deliver such a one to Satan Now that this Decree was the judiciall Decree and sentence of Paul as a miraculous Magistrate giving sentence judicially when Paul himself was absent and had not convinced the man nor spoken with him I do not believe 1. Because though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may signifie such a sentence of a man when the guilty is before him yet the word doth not necessitate us to this Exposition Luk. 19. 22. Out of thy own mouth will I judge thee for it doth as often signifie a simple act of the minde and the opinion of any not sitting in judgement as Act. 13. 46. Ye judge your selves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unworthy of life Eternall 1 Cor. 2. 2. I determined 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to know nothing but Christ Luk. 7. 43. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Christ to Simon the Pharisee who was not on the bench Thou hast judged rightly Tit. 3. 12. I have determined there to winter 1 Cor. 10. 15. Iudge ye what I say Act. 27. 1. When it was determined to sail into Italy 2. We do not read that Apostle Prophet or Iudge gave out a sentence of death against any the person condemned not being present nor heard the Lord himself did it not to Adam nor to Sodom he came down to see he examined Adam Moses did not so condemn the man that gathered sticks on the Sabbath day Joshua convinced Achan the Prophet convinced Gehazi ere he smote him with Leprosie Peter convinced Aâ—anias and Saphira to their faces ere he killed them so did Paul convince Elimas the sorcerer in his face so did Christ in his miraculous purging of the Temple convince them that His Fathers house should be a house of Prayer Now Paul here giveth a judiciall sentence of death on a man he never spake of being at Philippi whence he wrote and the delinquent at Corinth if we beleeve Erastus 3. Erastus judgeth that Paul knew this man to be penitent and how knew Paul this It must be a miraculous knowledge by which Paul at Philippi looked upon the mans heart at Corinth one of the greatest miracles that ever Paul wrought for Paul had the knowledge of the mans sinne only by report v. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is reported between Pauls writing the first verse of that Chapter and his writing the third verse there must interveene a miraculous discovery of the incestuous mans heart Paul being at Philippi and the man at Corinth and Paul knowing the man to be penitent and because of his penitency as Erastus saith Paul did not kill him Yet Paul so farre absent must have given out a miraculous sentence as a miraculous Magistrate I saith he by revelation as having the sword of God now in my hand have judged and given out sentence that this man shall be miraculously killed by Satan before your eyes that all may feare and do so no more and yet I know him to be penitent and that he shall not be killed by Satan a monstrous and irrationall sentence if it be said that by report Paul had knowledge of his sinne and by report also he had knowledge of his repentence and that his spirit would be saved in the day of the Lord and that this knowledge came not to Paul by any immediate revelation I answer Yet the sentence must stand by Erastus his mind touching 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have judged and condemned him as a miraculous Magistrate to dye upon a report though I never heard him and I know he shall not dye for this sault for can it be said that Paul retracted a sentence which he gave out as the deputy of God and he even then when he wrote the sentence knâ—w there was so much repentance in the man as he would for it be moved not to kill him 4. There is no ground in the Text why Paul should be said to seek the naked presence of the whole people to do such a miracle before them he being himselfe absent for there is more then a naked presence of the Corinthians as only witnesses that they might be affraid do so no more for they were present as instructed with the spirit of Paul and the power of the Lord Jesus Christ to deliver such a one to Satan as the words bear v. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For to be conveened in the name of Christ being spoken Mat. 18. v. 20. of a Church meeting or in reference thereunto in the same phrase and to be conveened with the power and spirit of Paul and of the Lord Iesus cannot agree to Paul nor can it be said I Paul absent in body and present in spirit in the name of the Lord Jesus and with my spirit and the power of the Lord Jesus have decreed to deliver such a one to Satan For 1. the Grammer of the words cannot beare that for being conveened in the name of the Lord with my spirit are constructed together in the Text. 2. It is no sence nor any Scripture phrase I present in spirit and with my spirit have decreed to deliver such a one to Satan 3. It is evident that Paul would as it were absent recompence his bodily absence with the presence of the spirit and road of Church censure which the Lord had communicated to them 5. Erastus needeth not object that there was a conveening of the Church not of some Elders for as there is no word of the word Elders in the Text so is there no word of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Text and so the debate will be what is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether Elders or people or both but though every one in their owne place were understood yet the words beare a juridicall convention being conveened in the name of the Lord Jesus and with my spirit and the power of the Lord Jesus Erastus The questions why Paul did not command to excommunicate the false Apostles in Galathia Or why he did not miraculousty kill them are both urgent But the latter is most urgent for the power of miraculous afflicting men was given to few men and to Apostles But it is a wonder if excommunication was ever
he instituted a Presbytery in place of the Magistrate Ans This consequence is so strong though the consequent be not ours to prove a Synedrie that Erastus shall never be able to refute it for that the Priests might teach the people they were to judge and governe the people and wâ—re to judge between the holy and prophane not onely that the Priests might informe the pâ—oples minds but that the Priests and Levites might 2 Chron. 9. 8 9 10. Deut. 17. 8 9 give judgement between blood and blood between plea and plea between stroake and stroake being matters of controversie and hard to be judged by the inferiour judges these concerned not the instruction of the people as matters of opinion as Erastus imagineth but they concerned the governing of the people in justice that v. 12. the man that will doe presumptuously or will not hearken unto the Priest or the judge shall die the death Was not this to governe the people and to judge them Certainly Erastus in the same Chapter saith so to wit that there was one common Synedrim of civill judges Priests and Levites at Jerusalem that the Priests and Levites were Iudges in capitall matters and gave out the sentence of death de capite sanguine and he proveth page 270. 271. that the Priests were civill judges and did give sâ—â—tences of blood of life and dâ—ath Ergo the Priests did not discerne between the clean and the unclean between blood and blood onely that they might teach the people but that they might regulate their owne practise in judgement and govern the people yea that the Priests might pronounce some unclean and to be put out of the Campe so many dayes that they might debar out of the Sanctuary the unclâ—an the uncircumcised the strangers and Lev. 10. the end of judging and governing is expresly set down v. 10. and so a judicature and the other end v. 11. that they may teach the children of Israel all the Statutes which the Lord hath spoken by the hand of Moses 2. From the Elders preaching the Word and dispensing the Sacraments simply we inferre no judicature at all farre lesse a politick judicature which we doe not ascribe to the Priests for Iohn Baptist both preached the Word and baptized and yet was no judge nor did he erect any Church judicature but from the power of the keyes given to the Church and exercised by the Church Mat. 16. 19. Mat. 18. 15 16 c. 1 Cor. 5. 1 2 3. c. Revel 2. 1 2 3 c. we inferre a Church judicature we never placed a Presbytery in place of the Magistrate for it is no more the Magistrates place then to sacrifice is the place of the Magistrate Erastus J wonder that you seeke your Presbytery in Moses Law all yours say the Synedrie Christ speaketh of did rise after the captivity at least when the sword was taken from the Iewes They say David and Solomon did punish vices they approve August 39. quest in Deut. that Excommunication doth now what putting to death did of Old and deny any Excommunication to have beene in the Church of the New Testament Ans Erastus declares himselfe to be a childe not versed in Protestant Divines for we except Musculus Gualther Bullinger some except Aretius all our Protestant Divines goe the way Beza goeth 2. Let him produce any of ours who say that the Synedry that Christ speaketh of was Iewish and ours say that Christ alludeth to the Iewish Synedrie But all few excepted that Christ Mat. 18. speaketh of the Christian Church to be erected 3. The Kings of Israel punished scandals but that is not enough did they governe the Church pronounce who were clean or unclean or middle with the charge of Ecclesiastick Government committed to Aaron and his sonnes 4. We say with Augustine that some that were killed of old are to be Excommunicated now Augustine speaketh not of all and what is that against us Erastus Not any but your self Beza say that Moses speaketh of thâ—se same persons things and office Levit. 10. and Deut. 17. in Levit. 10. he speaketh onely of the Priesthood and Deut. 17. of the Iudges or Magistrats Ans Beza expoundeth the one place by the other but he saith not these persons things and office are in both places 2. Erastus onely contradicteth Beza and saith Moses speaketh of the Magistrates Deut. 17. But he is refuted by the Spirit of God 2 Chron. 19. 8 9. who repeating the very words of Deut. 17. saith the Iudges here were Priests Levites and heads of Families whom all men deny to be Magistrates Erastus You say Deut. 17. mention is made of blood of the cause of Pleas not because the Synedrie judged of the fact but because they answered the true sense of the Law I say whether they answered of the fact or of the Law they sentenced judicially of life and death so that there was no provocation from them to the civill judicature for he was put to death who would not stand to their sentence but you deny that any politick causes or matters of blood or death belongs to your Presbytery Ans 1. Beza said well the fact and the putting of the man to death which is the assumption and conclusion belonged to the civill judge not to the Priests But the questio juris the question of Law belonged to the Ecclesiasticall judicature of Priests Levites and Elders and it is evident that it was a case of conscience concerning a matter or an admirable cause that cannot be determined by the judges in the city they not being so well versed in the Law as the Priests whose lips should preserve knowledge Mal. 2. 7. Therefore it is not a fact that may be cleared by Witnesses there is not such difficulty in facts except in adultery or secret Murthers the word commeth from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to admire or to be separated from sense and reason Lament 1. 9. Gen. 18. 14. Is there any thing hard to or â—id from Jehovah 2. They are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 causes or matters of contention Vatablus causa insolita difficilior Our translation hath it matters of controversie 3. It is said thou shalt come and inquire or diligently search out 4. The Priests and Levites shall shew thee the sentence of judgement so it is evident that the Priests and Levites did not so much judge as declare and resolve the law-part of which the inferiour judges did doubt for the difficulty of the question as Saul came to Samuel the Seer to aske concerning his fathers asses and it is true bloods and stroakes came under the cognizance of the Priests but as bloods comes before Lawyers and those that are expert in the civill Law in the Parliament of England and Scotland the Lawyers as Iudges put no man to death the King could say fall upon such an evill doer and kill him and the judges and Princes might put to death But
The Assumption is false Deut. 17 saith the contrary 3. Though we could not shew a place for the formall institution of an Ordinance yet if we show the thing instituted it is sufficient 4. Erastus much doubteth himselfe if Moses his government was altogether civill especially before the Lord separated Aaron his sons and the Tribe of Levi to teach and governe the people in an Ecclesiasticall way for Erastus said before that Moses prescribed Lawes to Aaron sacrificed and did that which was proper to the Priests though after that God forbad the Kings to usurpe the Priests office and punished Saul and Vzziah for so doing though I never read that Saul usurped the Priests office you may take it upon the word of Erastus and we all know that Moses was a Prophet of God Deut. 18. 18. I will raise them up a Prophet from amongst their brethren like unto thee Deut. 34. 10. And there arose not a Prophet in Israel since like unto Moses whom the Lord knew face to face Heb. 3. 5. Moses verily was faithfull in all his house as a servant Now those that will say Moses his government of the Church was all civill and politicall as a civill judge and King and that he acted not in the governement of the Church as in writing and delivering Laws and in doing many things yea in commanding the will of God as a Prophet to Aaron to his sons and the whole tribe of Levi to me speakes non-sense Erastus That judicature to the which the inferiours appealed as to the supreame is politick Ans It is denied they appealed to it as the supreme Ecclesiastick in point of Law and Conscience Ergo It was not politique all the rest are answered before yea Iehoshaphat 2 Chron. 19. putteth this as a thing peculiar to the Priests v. 12. What cause soever shall come before you of your brethren between blood and blood between Law and Commandement Statutes and Judgements ye shall even warne them that they trespasse not against the Lord that is as Erastus yeeldeth ye shall teach them what is just and agreeable to and what is unjust and repugnant to the Law of God Civill judges lips were not to preserve knowledge as the lips of the Priests Mal. 2. 7. and Deut. 17. 11. According to the sentence of the Law that they shall teach thee and according to the judgement that they shall tell thou shalt doe Hence it is clear that this judicature in civill things was a teaching a telling a declaring and resolving judicature and that in blood they resolved of causes of blood of stroakes but judged not persons nor bloody men nor violent persons Erastus Moses and Iehoshaphat speake of one and the same judicature Moses doth not give teaching and commanding divisibly to some but joyntly to all the Synedrie Though the Priests were more skilled in the Law for Moses commandeth to teach the sense of the Law by judgeing as he saith himselfe Exod. 18. 16. I judge between one and another and I doe make them know the statutes of God and his lawes Moses putteth them all joyntly together they shall tell thee thou shalt doe what they shevv thee according to the Lavv that they shall teach thee shalt thou doe not declining to the right-hand or to the left-hand Ans 1. That Iehoshaphat speaketh of the same judicature that Moses speaketh of is clear 2 Chron. 19. 8 9. 10. The very words of Moses Deut. 17. 8. are the same both the same judges and the same causes compared with v. 5 6 7. But Iehoshaphat maketh two judicatures as I have proved and Iehoshaphat reformed according to Moses his Lavv as Erastus granteth 2. I cannot be induced to beleeve that the judges here teached by judging it is spoken contrary to Theology The end of teaching is to informe the conscience and Teachers as Teachers watch for the soule and the end of civill and politick judging is a quiet and peaceable life 1 Tim. 2. 2. the vveapons of teachers are not carnall but spirituall 2 Cor. 10. 4 5. the weapons of civill Iudges are carnall for the civill Iudge beareth not the svvord in vaine Rom. 13. 4. then these same civill judges did not both teach and judge at once they taught not as civill judges but as Priests they judged not as Priests but as civill Iudges and therefore there is no ground to say that Moses ascribeth these same acts to civill judges and Priests and Levites as if they made one Synedry for in both Texts not one word of teaching which is proper to the Priests Mal. 2. 7. Ier. 2. 8. Hos 4. 6. is ascribed to the civill Iudge and not one word of judging and condemning to death which is proper to the civill Iudge Num. 35. 24. Deut. 22. 18 19 Deut. 17. 2. 3 4 c. and 21. 19 20. 1 King 21. 11. 2 Sam. 14. 15. 1 Kings 2. 28 c. Rom. 13. 4. Luke 12. 13. 14. c. is ascribed to the Priests and Levites but the Priest or the judge are set downe by way of disjunction Deut. 17. 12. which could not be if they made one and the same judicature and therefore Iehoshaphat 2 Chron. 19. clearely distinguisheth them in two judicatures one v. 5 6 7. Another v. 8 9 10. having two sundry presidents and two sundry objects to treat about to wit the matters of Iehovah and the matters of the King 3. The place cited Exod. 18. 16. confirmeth much our opinion for Moses as a Iudge saith vvhen they have a matter they come unto me and I judge between one another This he spake as a civill Iudge and when he saith And I make them knovv the statutes of God and his lavves This he spake as a prophet for Moses was both a Iudge and a Prophet Now if all civill Iudges be such mixt persons as to teach the Stautes and Laws of God they doe this either as civill judges or as Prophets then there was reason why Malachie should have said the civill judges lips should preserve knowledge and they should seeke the Law at his mouth for if a civill judge as a Iudge teach the people and watch for their souls what marvell then he beare the sword to preserve their bodies as a Prophet and not as a Iudge and if he beare the sword as a Prophet and Teacher all Teachers must beare the sword which is against reason and Scripture and what reason is there if Moses teach as a civill judge but he may as properly be obliged in conscience to teach and so he should sin if he imploy not his talent that way as he is obliged to exercise the sword as a judge and by the contrary a Prophet as a Prophet should be obliged in conscience as kindly and per se to exercise the Sword as to preach the Gospel for nothing agreeth more kindly to the subiect then that which agreeth to it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under that reduplication as it is
such Now this is against sense and reason and confoundeth all callings on earth but if Erastus grant that Moses judgeth as a civill judge and teacheth the people the Law of God as a prophet then to make this Sanedrim a mixt company both to judge civilly and to teach as spirituall men by office must all the Priests and Levites in this Sanedrim be both Priests and Levites and also civill Iudges And all the civill Iudges must be both civill judges and also Priests and Levites which is expresly against the Text that speakes Deut. 17. of the Priest or the Iudge as two distinct offices and so God must have chosen the Iudge no lesse then the Priest to minister before him So it is false that teaching and judging are copulatively ascribed to these same persons and to the same judicature as Erastus saith Erastus He saith Deut. 17. he shall die who standeth not to the sentence of the Priest or judge by way of disjunction in regard of divers times for the Princes or Iudges were not alwayes the same for often onely the Priests governed and for the same reason he saith not Deut. 17. ascend to Ierusalem but to the place which the Lord thy God shall chuse for the Arke was not alwayes in one place or city So Deut. 19. when he speaketh of the false witnesse he saith and they shall stand before the Lord that is before the Priests and Iudges that shall be at that time Who vvould thinke that there are here distinct and divers Iudicatures Ans It is a conjecture of Erastus that Moses speaketh Deut. 17. of the Priest or the Iudge by way of disjunction because of divers times not of divers and distinct Tribunals for all Moses his time and Ioshua's time and for the most part there were both Iudges and Priests and we had rather beleeve the Spirit of God then Erastus for 2 Chron. 19. under Iehoshaphat at one and the same time there were both civill Iudges and Priests and Levites and these two Judicatures had two different sorts of causes and two different Presidents if then at one and the same time the man was to be put to death who did not stand to the sentence of the Priest though he should stand to the sentence of the civill judge and so if hee was to be put to death who should stand to the sentence of the Priests and give an outside of obedience to the Ceremoniall Law if he should not stand to the sentence of the civill Judge then were there at the same time these two sentences in these two judicatures but the former is true by the expresse Law of God Ergo so is the latter when God saith Goe up to the place that the Lord shall chuse he meaneth Ierusalem and one determinate place at once and if Moses had said Goe up to the place that the Lord shall chuse or to some other place that the Lord shall not chuse then could I inferre well that at one and the same time they might have gone to either places or to both places having two sorts of causes as there be ever two sorts of causes in the Church some Civill some Ecclesiasticall 3. Erastus should have shewen a time when onely the Priest as the Priest did governe and there neither was a civill Iudge nor was that Priest who governed the civill judge If Erastus shew not this he sheweth nothing for his owne cause which is to make one confused Judicature of civill and Ecclesiasticall Iudges and causes which the Scripture doth carefully distinguish 4. In the place Deut. 19. nothing is said against us but that onely the civill Iudge put to death the false Witnesse which is much for us that though the false witnesse was to stand before the Priests and incurre an Ecclesiastick censure yet the Priest as Priest had no hand in putting him to death Erastus Sometime the Priest vvas president in this Sanedrim as Eli and Samuel vvithout a judge therefore vvhen it is said the chiefe Priest vvas â—ver them in all the matters of the Lord and Zebadiah in the Kings matters they made not tvvo different Iudicatures and the high Priest and Zebadiah vvere both over the same Iudicature Iosephus excellently versed in the Ievvish lavvs saith antiq lib. 9. c. 1. they vvere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fellovves or companions then they vvere not in divers Senats The Levites vvere equally servants to both though it may be the Priests were more diligently to goe about the canses of God and the Iudges the causes of the King Ans Were Eli and Samuel presidents in the Sanedrim without a Iudge that is as much as to say Eli and Samuel who undoubtedly by the Testimony of the Spirit of God were civill Iudges of Israel 1 Sam. 4 18. and 7. 15. and 8. 1. 7. were Judges without Iudges I conceive Eli was both a Priest and a Judge and Samuel both a Prophet and a Iudge whether Samuel was a Priest or not let Erastus determine Samuel was of the Tribe of Ephraim not a Priest though he sacrificed by an extraordinary Priviledge nor was Moses a Priest 2. I see no reason to say Eli was a Priest without a Iudge more then to say he was a Iudge without a Priest for he was both But this may shew the Reader that Erastus alwayes confoundeth the office of the Priest and the Civill judge so as he maketh them not only subjectively one which God himself did in the person of Eli but also one formally for as I shew before Erastus must say Eli sacrificed as a Iudge and he condemned ill doers to die exercised the sword as a Priest Samuel prophesied as a Magistrate Samuel did judge Israel as a Prophet for the Magistrate as the Magistrate to Erastus doth both the part of a Iudge of a Priest and Prophet of old and now of a Pastor and Teacher 3. It is enough to us that Amariah and Zebadiah were over diverse causes in divers Courts and differenced 2 Chro. 19. in that the one was for the kings matters the other for Gods matters Erast saith right down they were both for these same matters But the one was to care more for the Kings matters the other more for Gods matters so Erastus is forced to make a difference But he maketh it in the comparative degree and the spirit of God maketh the difference in the positive degree But 1. Erastus saith without the Text Amariah was to care for the matters of the King but more for the matters of God The Text saith no such thing but the contrary he saith Zebadiah the Civill Magistrate was to care for the matters of God but more for the matters of the King 4. This is against Erastus his his way which is that the Magistrate hath a supreame principall and only care of Church-Government and the Priests and Levites and Pastors and Teachers only as the servants of the Magistrates A sub
and subjects are Christians but where the Magistrate is of a false Religion two different Governments are tollerable Ans 1. This argument destroâ—eth all Aristocracy Parliaments and Senates where many good men have equall power and so the Common-wealth may not have 70. Heads and Rulers of equall power which is against the Scripture which commandeth subjection to every Civill ordinance of man as lawfull Rom. 13. 1 2 3. Tit. 3. 1 2 3. 1 Pet. 2. 13 14. Deut. 1. 16. It maketh no Government lawfull but Popedome and Monarchy in both Church and state 2. It is to beg the question that there cannot be two supream powers both supream in their owne kinde for they are both supream in their owne sphere as Pastors dispense Sacraments and Word without subjection to the Magistrate as they are Pastors and Magistrates use the Sword without dependence on Pastors and yet is there mutuall and reciprocall subjection of each to other in divers considerations Pastors as subjects in a Civill relation are subject to the Magistrate as every soul on earth is and Magistrates as they have souls and stand in need to be led to heaven are under Pastors and Elders For if they hear not the Church and if they commit incest they are to be cast out of the Church Mat. 18. 1 Cor. 5. Rom. 16. 17. 1 Thes 3. 14. 15. If they walk inordinately we are to eschew their company if they despise the Ministers of Christ they despise him who sent them Math. 10. 40. Luk. 10. 16. God respecteth not the persons of Kings and we finding them not excepted if the preachers of the Gospel be to all beleevers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 over them in the Lord 1 Thess 5. 12. 1 Tim. 5. 17. call it authority or no Authority they have some oversight over the Christian Magistrate and here be two supreams two highest powers one Ecclesiasticall another Civill nor should any deny Moses to be above Aaron as the supream judge Aaron not having the power of the sword as Moses had and Aaron must be above Moses in sacrificing in burning incensâ— in judging between the clean and the unclean which Moses could not do 2. The excellency of the Civill power in regard of earthly honour and eminency in the fifth Commandment above the servants of God in the Ministry of Christs spirituall Kingdom which is not of this world we heartily acknowledge 3. That the King Preacheth and dispenseth the Sacraments by Pastors as by his servants is wilde Divinty Pastors then must have Magistraticall Authority and power of the sword committed to them as the Deputies and inferior judges of the Lords of the Gentiles which Christ forbade his Disciples Luk. 22. 25 26 27. For the servant must have some power committed to him from the principall cause in that wherein he is a servant 4. What reason is there that where the Magistrate is a Heathen two Governments and so two heads in one body should be for then there is and must be a Church-Government where the Magistrate is a Heathen and that in the hands of the Church if then the Magistrate turn Christian must he spoile the Church of what was her due before Erastus The Lord Jesus changed nothing in the New Testament of that most wise Government in the Iewish Church now there all Government was in the hands of Moses I say not that the Magistrate might sacrifice or do what was proper to the Priests but he did dispose and order what was to be done by the Priests Ans Yea but Erastus saith the Magistrate may dispense word and Sacraments in the New Testament if he had leisure Why might he not sacrifice in the Old Testament also 2. Pastors do by their Doctrine and Discipline order and regulate all callings in their Moralls of right and wrong of just and unjust yet is not the Pastor the only Governour in all externals 3. If Christ changed nothing of the Iewish Government we have all their exclusion of men out of the Campe their separating of the unclean and their politick and Ceremoniall Lawes which is unsound Divinity Erastus Moses Ruled all before there was a Priesthood instituted God Exod. 4. Numb 12. calleth Aaron to his office and maugurateth him by Moses nor doth he command him to exercise a peculiar judgement when he declareth his office to him and when Aaron dieth Moses substituteth Eleazar in his place Ioshua c. 3 4 teacheth the Priests what they should doe and commanded them to circumcise Israel so did Samuel David Solomon and in the time of the Maccabees it was so Ans Moses was once a Prophet and Iudge both Ergo so it may be now it followeth not except Moses as a Magistrate did reveale what was the Priesthood What Aaron and Eleazer his sonnes might doe by as good reason Moses David Solomon Ioshua as Magistrates wrote Canonick Scripture and prophecied Then may Magistrates as Magistrates build new Temples typicall to God give new Laws write Canonick Scripture as these men did by the Spirit of prophecy no doubt not as Magistrates for why but they might sacrifice as Magistrates and why should Moses rather have committed the Priesthood and the service of the Tabernacle due to him as a Magistrate so to Aaron and his sonnes as it should be unlawfull to him as a King and unlawfull to Vzziah to burn incense and to sacrifice and to doe the office of the Priest If the Magistrate as the Magistrate doe all that the Priests are to doe as Priests and that by a supream principle and radicall power in him he ought not to cast off that which is proper to him as a Magistrate to take that which is lesse proper he casteth the care and ruling of souls on the Priests and reserveth the lesser part to himself to rule the bodies of men with the Sword all these are sufficiently answered before Erastus The King of Persia Ezra 7. appointed Iudges to judge the people and teach them but there is no word of Excommunication or any Ecclesiastick punishment but of death imprisonment fines nor did Nehemiah punish the false Prophets with any other punishment Iosephus speaketh nothing of it nor Antiochus Ans I shew before that there is forâ—eiting and separation from the Congregation Ezra 10. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he shall be separated from the Church 2. If the King of Persia appointed men to judge and teach the people why should he deny any judicature at all 3. Where ever Iosephus speaketh of the judging of the Priests as he doth antiq l. 11. c. 7. ant l. 11. c. 8. l. 12. c. 9. he hinteth at this Erastus Christ dischargeth his Disciples to exercise dominion Christ would not condemne the adulterous woman nor judge between the brethren Luke 12. Paul calleth Ministers dispensators stewards Peter forbiddeth a dominion Ans Let Erastus be mindfull of this himselfe who yet saith that the Magistrate may both judge also if he have time dispence the
any Law-power except usurped when the Iews were now riper for destruction and had taken on them the blood of the Lord of glory and so growing more daring and insolent against the Roman povver to their own just desolation that came on them under Vespasian That they used witnesses will not prove they had Law to stone Steven for Timothy had no power of life and death over Elders one brother hath no power of life and death over another as Erastus will grant yet with both there is use of witnesses 1 Tim. 5. 19. Matth. 18. 16. This I hope concludeth but weakly any lawfull civill power so all this is from a naked practise of those that alvvayes resisted the holy Ghost And the like I say of Paul who saith Act. 26. 10. of himself Many of the Saints did I shut up in prison having received authority from the high Priests 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 suppose it were true that Saul had Law and Authority from the high Priests to imprison the Saints and to murther the Saints no high Priest can make over a Law-power to another which he hath not himself now certain this Law-power of the Pharisees and High Priests by Gods Law is the question Let us see Law or institution where the High Priests for of these only the Text speaketh did imprison and put to death either blasphemer or false Prophet or if by Moses his Law which must be a rule to all the High Priests in the time of persecuting Saul it was either Law or practise that the High Priest had power to imprison or scourge or put to death any man and this was most proper to the King and the Civill judge and the Elders and Iudges in every City 2 Sam. 1. 14. 15 16. 1 Kin. 2. 9. 2. 6 7. Isa 1. 23. Ier. 22. 1 c. Ier. 22. 27. Numb 35. 12. 24. Deut. 22. 18. 7. 5. 19. 12. 13. ver 18 19 20 21. 21. 19. 1 Kin. 21. 11. Hos 6. 8. Zeph. 3. 1 2 3. Rom. 13. 4. We know undoubtedly the King the Civill Iudge had power of all bodily punishments as of scourging death stoning strangling crucifying hanging But shew meany Vestigium or the least consequence where the Priests or High Priests had such power or did execute such power in any one man it is true Deut. 17. the Priests might determine in Law what was blasphemy and so what deserved the punishment of blasphemy which is death But so the written Law of God the very letter of it could in many cases clearly resolve the Civill judge even though there had been no controversie about the fact whether it was condemned in the Law of God or not we know Samuel not being judge but Saul being King supream Magistrate not executing judgement on the Amalekites he killed Agag certainly all Divines even Popish not excepted say Saul the Civil Magistrate ought to have killed Agag that Samuel not by vertue of his place as a prophet or as a Priest or a Member of the Sanedrim as Erastus would say but excited by an extraordinary motion of Gods spirit killed him as Phineas the son of Aaron slew Num. 25. Zimri and Cosbi 7 8. And Elijah slew Baals Priests 1 Kin. 18. 40. 2 Kin. 1. 10. If Phineas by office and Elias by office killed those ill doers as Erastus would dream The Prophets and Priests by their office were Civill Iudges and had power to put to death evil doers Now Erastus denyeth and with good reason that the Lords disciples should bear civill dominion over men as the Lords of the Gentiles Luk. 22. 24 25 26. and that Christ though both a Prophet and a Priest could not take on him to be a Iudge and a Ruler Luk. 12. yet here Erastus will have the High Priest by a Law-power to imprison and put to death 2. Erastus may with as good reason say that the high Priests had a Law-power by Gods institution to punish and to compell Christians to blaspheme God and to persecute them to strange Cities and to murther the Saints that believed in the Lord Iesus for he went to Damascus for this effect Act. 26. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with povver and Commission from the chief Priests This was not a Law-power in generall to punish such as the Law of Moses discerned to be blasphemers but a limited particular Commission to murther the Saints who should hear and obey the Prophet like unto Moses whom the Lord should raise up Deut. 18. What Law had the High Priests for this Had they not a Law on the contrary Deut. 18. Erastus Paul confesseth ingenuously before the Roman Judges that he persecuted the Saints and that he had authority and power from the Priests and Elders so to do Act. 22. 26. and we read not that the Priests or Paul were censured for these things as having done any thing against the Laws or will of the Romans Act. 5. They send their Officer the Captain of the Temple they imprison the Apostles they convene a Councell give out a sentence and agitate the killing of the Apostles amongst them while Gamaliel impede them Ans It is true the Romans heard that the Sanedrim exercised Civill jurisdiction and inflicted bodily punishment But for false Doctrine the Romans I conceive took as little care as Gallio did of any of Gods matters and whether the Sanedrim kept the rule of the Lords first institution Deut. 17. yea they looked not much whether the Priests might put to death false Prophets or if the Civill judges only might do it and Erastus said before that the Romans gave the Iews liberty of all their own laws and customes in matters of Religion 2. What care would the Romans take whether the Iews killed and oppressed Iews for questions of their owne Religion so they remained loyall and true to Cesar 3. We know Herod Felix Festus Agrippa being willing to pleasure the Iews did oversee many breaches of Law in them especially in matters of the Gospel Act. 12. 3. and 24. 27. and 16. 36 37 38 39 40. Ioh. 19. 15 16 17. 4. How doth he prove that the Romans did not take this for a breach of their Lawes Because they accuse not the Sanedrim for this surely it followeth not We read not that the Romans challenged them for a manifest breach of Law when they scourged and cast in prison Paul and Silas who were Romans and had not condemned them Act. 16. 38 39. 5. We deny not a lawfull judicature of the Sanedrim Act. 5. But that they had any Law of God to scourge and imprison and put to death the Apostles is the question we say they neither had Gods law nor durst be answerable to the Romans Laws for that fact and so this is a fact brought to prove a Law Erastus If this was insolencie in the Jevvs which rose from the confusion of the two jurisdictions hovv say some of yours none can be
their office Preach the Word and dispense the Sacraments which is against the word Heb. 5. 7. Mat. 9. 38. 10. 5. 28. 19 20. Joh. 21. 20 21. Rom. 10. 14 15. 3. Where doth Erastus reade in the New Testament that Kings may not write Canonick Scripture as King David did and build a Typicall Temple to the Lord as Solomon did and give out Laws of Divine institution as Moses did Kings in the Old Testament did these and he can finde the contrary no where written 4. If the Church as the Church cannot chuse a Senate of Elders to Govern themselves without wronging the Magistrate how did the Apostolick Church without so much as asking advice of the Civill Magistrate set up a new Gospel new Sacraments new officers a new Government Did the Lord Iesus and the Gospel teach them to spoil Cesar Christ had said the contrary Give unto Cesar those things that are Cesars 5. To subject Magistrates to Excommunication is no more to subject them to externall dominion then to subject them as Erastus doth to rebukes warnings and threatnings for the former hath no more of coaction of dominion or of coercive power then the latter yea if to subject Kings to the rebukes of the Ministers of Christ be nothing but to subject them to internall and spirituall dominion no more is suspension from the Sacraments and Excommunication any thing but internall and spirituall dominion In this sense that neither of these two are bodily dominions no more then rebuking of Kings 2. Yet both these work upon the conscience in a spirituall way for the humiliation of the King and putting him to shame and fear 2 Thes 3. 14 15. that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord as rebukes do work 1 Tim. 5. 20. Gal. 2. 11. 1 Cor. 5. 6. Iude ver 23. Yea to say to a King He shall be buried with the buriall of an Asse as Ieremiah did cap. 22. And to call the Rulers Princes of Sodome Isa 1. 10. And King Herod a Fox and Rulers and Princes Dogs Psal 22. ver 16. and Bulls and Lyons ver 12. 13. and Wolves ravening for the prey Ezek. 22. 27. putteth no lesse shame upon Magistrates before men and so externall dominion on them and over them then Excommunication and debarring from the Seals of the Covenant doth Now Erastus subjecteth Magistrates to rebukings threatnings and reprehensions no lesse then we do Well Erastus will have one single Minister to exercise externall dominion over the Magistrates because this is manifest out of the Word but because he would flatter Princes as much as he can he denies that a Colledge of Elders may rebuke the Magistrate or convene him before them though he were the most flagitious Prince that lived and yet one man may summon him before the Tribunall of Christ and charge him to come to hear a Sermon and rebuke him in the face of the Congregation and denounce the Iudgements of God against him openly Is not this the Lord arming one single man against the Magistrate to put shame and confusion on him for his sins And if many Pastors convened should do this This were to arm the subjects against the Magistrate and to take the power from him that God hath given to him as Erastus talketh CHAP. XXII Quest 18. Of exclusion from the Sacrament of profession of repententance the judiciall Law bindeth not Christians The sword not a mean of conversion Of Idolaters and Apostates in the judgement of Erastus IN this Chapter Erastus disputeth against a Treatise written in the German Tongue in which he acknowledgeth there is more learning and truth then in the other writtings All the opinions that Erastus ascribeth to this Author justly or unjustly I know not but Erastus his faith may be justly suspected I cannot defend Erastus Touching those to be admitted to the Sacrament we speak alwayes de illis solis c. of those only who rightly understand the Doctrine of the Gospel and do approve and imbrace the same and who desire with others to use the Sacraments aright in regard of the externals of which only the Church can judge for the heart is rightly knowne to God only so the Author and we agree Ans The agreement is but poore by your owne relation But 1. Let Erastus answer what if the Christian Magistrate as Achab be a dog and sell himselfe to do wickedly What if he understand not the Doctrine of the Gospel Magistrates as Magistrates by vertue of the throne or place are not priviledged to be Orthodox and holy Let one Iulian once a Christian yet turning a sow an enemy to the Gospel be witnesse if we descend to the Iustices and to Master Constables it may be we finde even of those dogs and swine in their conversation though their place be a power lawfull and ordained of God We thinke saith Erastus the custome of the Church should be observed What by the custome of the Church onely by no precept or command of Christ should the holy things of God the pearls of the Gospel be denied to dogs and swine contrary to Christs command Mat. 7 2. Erastus must exclude the Magistrate out of the lists of his disputation in six books and say If the Christian Magistrate be ignorant and scandalous and yet desire to use the Sacraments right and professe he will learne to know God and to beleeve soundly and walke holily Yet the Sacraments are not to be denied to him Tell Erastus in sincerity who should debarre the Magistrate For in all your six books you by these words de illis solis c. professe that you plead not that he should be admitted to the Sacraments who shall exclude him not he himselfe for his credites sake he shall desire to come to the Sacraments as many for gaine and loaves follow Christ Ioh. 6. will they not follow him also to be seen of men as the Pharisees prayed in the streets 2. Let Erastus say when our Saviour said Give not holy things to dogs Did he mean to accept the persons of Kings and Iudges and professe though Kings and Iudges be dogs and swine yet deny not holy things to them 3. Hath Christ appointed no way in the New Testament as he did in the Old to debarre unclean men from our Passeover Or shall there be no Government no charge in the Ministers of the New Testament to keep the holy things of God from pollution If Master Iustice be an incestnous man a drunkard a dog shall he not be cast out of the midst of the Church Vzziah though a King yet for bodily leprosie was separated from the people of God and men of high places though doggs and swine shall be admitted to all the holy things of God under the New Testament 2. Erastus will have all admitted who desire to use the Sacraments right As touching all externalls of which onely the Church doth judge But 1. Where did we assert that the
29. Deut. 10. 8 18. Numb 1. 50. and 3. 9 12 41. and 8. 10. Psal 122. 5. In Jerusalem there were set thrones of judgement the thrones of the house of David Mat. 22. 21. Christ commanded to give to Cesar the things that are Cesars and he in his own person refused to usurpe Cesars place Luke 12. 14. Man who made me a Iudge and interdicted his Apostles thereof Luke 22 24 25 26. and yet appointed for them a Judicature of another kinde Mat. 18. 15. Mat. 16. 19. Ioh. 20. 21. 1 Tim. 5. 17. Heb. 13. 17. 1 Cor. 5. and if any should deny that the Civill Magistrate had another Court in which he judged the Scriptures will refute him 3. It is evident that Iehoshaphat did not institute but restore those two courts 2 Chron. 19. 11. And behold Amariah the chiefe Priest is over you in all matters of the Lord and Zebadiah the son of Ishmael the ruler of the house of Iudah for all the Kings matters never any Erastian could satisfie either themselves or others to shew us what were those two courts so distinguished by their two sundry Rulers Amariah and Zebadiah the one a Priest the other a Magistrate 2. By the different formall objects the matters of the Lord the matters of the King and confounded they must be if the King and Ruler be a judge in the matters of God except God make him both a civill judge and a Prophet as were Moses and Samuel which yet were differenced when the God of order established his Church in Canaan The Church convenes for a Church businesse Iosh 18. 1. to set up the Tabernacle but for a civill businesse to make war the State conveneth Iosh 22. 12. 15. 16. Iudg. 21. 12. and Ier. 26. 8. there is the Church judicature discerning that Ieremiah was a false Teacher and they first judge the cause and v. 16. The Civill Iudicature discerneth the contrary and under Zorababel Ezra and Nehemiah they indured different judicatures Iesus Christ was arraigned before Caiphas the High Priest for pretended blasphemie before Pilate the civill judge for treason but Caiphas was to determine onely by Law in questione juris whether it was blasphemie which Christ had spoken but he had no power by Gods Law to lead Witnesses or condemn Christ Nor is it true that the Priests had their government onely about Ceremonialls for they were to judge of Morall uncleannes also which even then debarred men from the holy things of God as is cleare Hag. 2. 12. Ezek. 44. 9. 10 23 24. and if any say that the Magistrate amongst the Iewes did judge of Ecclesiasticall things and reformed Religion We answer extraordinarily the Magistrate might prophecie and did prophecy as did Samuel David Solomon Why do not Erastians bring those examples to prove that Kings Provasts Iustices may now preach the Word and administer the Sacraments which yet is unlawfull to them by grant of Adversaries for the examples of the Kings amongst the Iewes is as strong for preaching as for governing and because Prophets did judge the people of old yet no Protestant Divine will say that now Pastors may also usurpe the civill Sword Now least any should object the case is not alike in the Jewish and Christian Church surely the King of the Church hath no lesse separated such men as Paul and Barnabas for the Ministery now then at that time Rom. 1. 1 2. Act. 2. And sent labourers to his vineyard Luk. 10. 2. Matth. 20. 2. 9. 37 38. And Ambassadors to Preach in his Name 2 Cor. 5. 20. Ministers of Christ and Stewarts of the mysteries of God 1 Cor. 4. 1. Men sent of God whose feet are pleasant for their good News as were the Prophets of old who were not only gifted to preach but instructed with Divine Authority as is clear Rom. 10. 14. 15. Isa 52. 7. 40. 9. Nahum 1. 15. Yea and men that feeds the flock not only by Preaching but also Govern the Church so that they must take heed that Ravening Wolves creep not into the Church who shall not spare the flock Act. 20. 28. 29. Men who must be obeyed because they watch for our soules Heb. 13. 17. And can govern the Church as well as they are apt to teach 1 Tim. 3. 5. 2. Men that labour amongst us and are over us in the Lord 1 Thes 5. 12. And men who are to call to the work other faithfull men that are able to teach others 2 Tim. 2. 2. Such as are separated from the affairs of this life such as Magistrates are not 1 Cor. 6. 3. such as Rule well 1 Tim. 5. 17. and are not to receive accusations but under witnesses and are to lay hands suddenly on no man not to call them to the holy Ministery till they be sufficiently tryed 1 Tim. 5. 19 20 22. all which import teaching and governing Now if all these directions be given to Timothy and other Pastors till the end of the world then must all these directions be principally written to the Magistrate as the Magistrate and these Epistles to Timothy agree principally to the Christian Magistrate and to Pastors and Doctors at the by as they be delegates and substitutes of the Magistrates and that by office the Emperour of Rome was to lay hands suddenly on no man and commit the Gospel to faithfull men who could teach others and was not to receive an accusation against an Elder and certainly if the Magistrate call to office those that are over us in the Lord and if those who watch for our soules especially be but the curates and delegates of the King and Parliament then the King and Parliament behoved in a more eminent manner to watch for our souls for directions and commandments of God in this kinde are more principally given to the Master Lord and chief Governour of the house of God if the Magistrate be such then to the servants delegates But where is there any such directions given to the Emperour King or Christian Magistrate by any shadow of ground in the Word It is not much to say The Magistrate was an heathen an enemy at this time and therefore those could not be written to him For 1. No force can strain these two Epistles to Timothy and the other to Titus which contain a form of Church-policy to any Christian Magistrate for then the qualification of the King if he be the supream Governour of the Church should far rather have been expressed then the qualification of a Bishop and a Deacon which is no where hinted at 2. All these directions notwithstanding this do and must actu primo agree to the Magâ—strate for his office who is chief governour what he should be is described in the Word 3. When Christ ascended on high he gave as a fruit of his ascension sufficient means for his intended end The perfecting of the Saints the gathering of his Body the Church and the edifying thereof even