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
of adoring God Obedience is founded not formally upon Gods excellency properly so called but upon his jurisdiction and Authority to Command Adoration is the subjection or prostration of soul or body to God in the due recognition and acknowledgement of his absolute supremacy There is no need that Vasquez should deny that there is any internall Adoration for that Adoration is only an externall and bodily Worship of God can hardly be defended for there may be and is Adoration in the blessed Angels as may be gathered from Isa 6. 1 2 3. Hâ—b 1. 6. And it is hard to say that the glorified spirits loosed out of the body and received by Christ Act. 7. 59. Psal 73. 27. Into Paradice Luk. 23. 43. And so with him Philip. 1. 23. And Praying under the Altar Rev. 6. 9 10. And falling down before the Lamb and acknowledging that he hath Redeemed them Rev. 5. 8 9 10. do not Adore God and his Son Christ because they have nor bodies and knees to bow to him and yet they Adore him Phil. 2. 9 10. in a way suitable to their spirituall estate It is an untruth that Rapha de la Torres in 22. q. 84. Art 2. disp 2. n. 1. saith That Protestants detest all externall Worship now under the New Testament as contrary to Grace and Adoration of God in spirit and truth For things subordinate are not contrary we should deny the necessity of Baptisme and the Lords Supper and of vocall praying and praising under the New Testament which are in their externals externall worship I grant internall Adoration is more hardly known But 't is enough for us to say as externall Adoration is an act by which we offer our bodies to God and subject the utter man to him in sign of service and reverence to so supream a Lord so there is a heart-prostration and inward bowing of the soul answerable thereunto As the profession whither actuall or habituall in a locall and bodily approach or in verball titles of Honour in which we Honour great personages by bowing to them in prostration and kneeling is an act in its state Civill not Religious we intending I presse not the necessity of a â—ormall or actuall intention only to conciliate Honour to them suitable to their place and dignity so a profession whither actuall or habituall in a Religious bodily approach to God either by prayer or prostration or inâ—lination of the body tending to the Honour of God is a Religious act Now bodily prostration of it self is a thing in its nature indifferent and according as is the object so is it either Artificiall as if one should stoop down to drive a wedge in an image or civill if one bow to Honour the King or Religious when God and Divine things are the object thereof But with this difference the intention of the minde added to externall prostration to a creature reasonable may make that prostration idolatrous and more then civill honour Thus bowing to Haman Honoured by Ahasuerus who hath power to confer honours if people bow to him as to God is more then civill honour And Cornelius his bowing to Peter Act. 10. as to more then a man is Idolatrous and not civill honour and the Carpenters bowing to an Image as to a piece of Timber formed by Art is only Artificiall bowing and if any stumble at a stone before an Image and so fall before it it is a casuall and naturall fall whereas a falling down with intention to Adore had been Religious Adoring But when the object of bodily prostration or kneeling is God or any Religious representation of God whither it be the elements of bread and wine which are Lawfull Images of Christ or devised pictures or portraicts of God or Christ because these objects are not capable of artificiall naturall or civill prostration if therefore they be terminating objects of bodily kneeling or prostration these Religious objects to wit God and Religious things must so specifie these bodily acts as that they must make them Religious not civill acts though there be no intention to bow to God for bowing to God hath from the object that it is a Religious bowing though you intend not to direct that bowing to God as bowing to Jupiters Portraict is a Religious Worshipping of that Portraict though you intend not to worship the Portraict for the act and Religious object together maketh the act of prostration or kneeling to be essentially Religious though there be no intention to bow to these indeed the intention to bow to God maketh kneeling to God to be more Morally good laudable and acceptable before God then if therewere no such intention but the want of the intention maketh it not to be no Religious worship nor can it make it to be civill worship Hence let this be observed that intention of bowing can or may change that bowing which otherwayes were but civill if there were no such intention of over-esteeming the creature into a Religious bowing but neither our over or under-intention can change a Religious kneeling to God or to an Image into a civill kneeling because civill or naturall bowing to creatures is more under the power of an humane and voluntary institution of men then Religious bowing which hath from God without any act of mans free will its compleat nature When we kneel to Kings we signifie by that gesture that we submit our selves to higher powers not simply saith P. Martyr but in so far as they Command not things against the Word of the Lord. When we Adore God we Adore him as the Supream Majesty being ready to obey him in what he shall Command without any exception the Adoration of men signifieth a submission limited if it go above bounds it is the sinfull intention of the Adorer who may change the civil Adoration into Religious and may ascend But the Aderation of God cannot so descend as it can turn into Civill Adoration only keeping the same object it had before Worship is an action or performance or thing by which we tender our immediate honour to God from the nature of the thing it self 1. I call it an action because the passion of dying or suffering is not formally worship but only dying comparatively rather then denying of Christ or dying so and so qualified dying with Patience and Faith may be called a worship 2. I call it not an action only but a performance or thing because an office as the Priesthood the Ministery is a worship and yet not an action Sometime Time it self as the Sabbath Day is a Worship yet it is not an action So the Lord calleth it His Holy Day and undenyably the lewish dayes the High Priests garment and many things of that kinde were Divine or Religious performances things or adjuncts of Divine Worship but so as they are not meerly adjuncts of Worship but also worship for the High Priests Ephod was not only a civil ornament nor was it a
should not delay to pray till he were first delivered from the gall of bitternesse and then pray Sure if Peter had said to Simon Magus First labour to be freed of the gall of bitternesse and to have thy thoughts pardoned and then pray that the thoughts of thy heart may be pardoned as Christ saith First bee reconciled to thy brother and then offer and as Paul saith First Let a man try and examine himselfe and so let him eate and drinke the reply of Erastus should have nerves 2. It is true Christ speaketh not of the externall government of the Church but it is as false that he speaketh of the internall acts of the minde but he speaketh of the right ordering of the externall acts of divine worship which are regulable though not quatenus as regulable by the Church and draweth an argument from the words by necessary consequence which consequence Erastus cannot elude 3. But how doth Erastus prove this consequence if our Exposition stand and if we were to doe nothing in offering gifts at the Altar except we bee first reconciled to our brother and if God approve nothing which we doe which deviates from this perfection we should doe nothing that is good and right and so all must be excommunicated 1. Is Christ here injoyning a work of perfection and of supererogation Is Erastus popish in this 2. As it is impossible not to offer gifts aright so is it not to eate and drinke worthily while first we be reconciled to our brother Erastus was so surfetred with charity as we heard before that if any but desire the Sacrament and professe repentance he thinketh he is obliged to beleeve he is fit for the Lords Supper and here if Christ require but that the partie be reconciled to his brother ere he offer his gift and come to the Sacrament this is too great strictnesse it should excommunicate us all and we shall so never doe any thing that is right and good 4. It is false that Christ speaketh here of internall acts onely and of that which our minde injoyneth for the Lord speaketh of three externall visible acts 1. Of offering a gift at the Altar 2. Of delaying and suspending of the offering 3. Of a previous visible reconciliation to an offended brother 5. He saith not if the Presbyters bid you saith he leave your offering true he saith not that in words but supposing this that the Presbyters know that the same very day that he bringeth his offering he had beene killing his owne sonne to Molech as Ezek. 23. 38. 39. Whether were the Presbyters to forbid him to come and offer while he should testifie his repentance and finding him impenitent whether should they not judge him both to be debarred from the holy things of God and to be cast out of the Church as 1 Cor. 5. Certaine this is Christs order Be first reconciled to thy Brother and then offer try thy selfe first and then eate and if the Church see this order neglected whether are they to suffer clean and unclean to come and eat and holy things to be prophaned Erastus He shall expede himselfe out of this doubt easily who can distinguish the internall governing of the Church which is proper to God onely who knoweth the thoughts and can judge them without error from the externall governing of the Church in qua falli infinitè omnes possumus in the which we may all infinitely erre and in which we can doe nothing nisi quod mandatum expessè nobis legimus except what vve read to be expresly commanded for here he vvho is not against us is vvith us Marke 9. and no man ought to forbid those which God hath commanded so they bee externally done all externall actions quoad nos to us are good vvhich are done according to the prescript of Gods Word though to God vvho judgeth the heart they be not good every vvay many to day the Pharisees of old many in Pauls time preach for gaine many are ambitious and some out of envy preach Christ never for bad them to teach nor Paul but rejoyced Phil. 1. that Christ was preached hovvever since no man can understand the internall actions or thoughts and without error judge them there is no punishment by mans Law for them onely God vvithout error judgeth and punisheth them Ans There be many untruths here 1. If this distinction of internall and externall governing of the Church remove most of the doubts here he that eates and drinkes unworthily which is an act of externall worship which may be regulated and ordered by the Church for the Church may not administer the Sacraments to Pagans without the Church is no sinne to the unworthy eater because God commanded that externall act expresly as Erastus saith and so it is a good action quoad nos even to the unworthy eater for he knoweth not his owne thoughts nor can he judge them without error especially being unregenerated 2. If Erastus himselfe acknowledge this his owne disâ—inction he must acknowledge an externall Church-government and who then are the Governours especially in the Apostolick-Church where heathen Magistrates are Pastors and Teachers no doubt what meaneth this then my Brother trespasseth against me and will not be gained I tell the Church Erastus saith I tell the Christian Magistrate but there is no Christian Magistrate then there was no externall Government in the Church the first hundreth nay nor three hundred yeers in the Church or then it must follow that the Apostles and Pastors were the deputies of heathen Magistrates Ergo the heathen Magistrates should with imposition of hands have been ordained the officers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in every Church And that they were not it was their owne fault for the principall officer must be more principally called to office by Christ and given by him as a gift when he ascended on high to edifie the body of the Church Eph. 4. 11. 3. Erastus will have men debarred from judging the inward actions because God only can judge them sine errore without error But so God only should judge all things internall and externall and there should be no Magistrates because men may erre in judging the externall actions of men and will not this gratifie the Papists who say in this Tell the Church that is the Pope who cannot erre Then the Synod cannot erre Protestants deny the consequence Synods may judge as Act. 15. and yet Synods may erre 4. Erastus will have us lyable to infinite errors in externall actions therefore saith he we should do nothing in externalls but what is expresly commanded but first may we not infinite falli infinitely erre in internall actions and thought and acts of beleeving are we more infallible in internall then in externall actions New Theologie and are we not as well tyed to what is expresly commanded in internall as in externall actions I think the word is as strict a rule and the Law of the Lord as
Disputing your self and not Christ say some to make Preachers the Alpha and Omega of mens Consciences and the Circle which beginneth and endeth at it self you would be satisfied if Scandals be punished by the Magistrate Is not the Magistrate a Christian as you are Paul was glad that the Gospel was Preached he made no account by whom But I should be grieved that such a hard conclusion should be drawn out of such innocent Principles This were to extract Blood out of Milk a Domination out of a meer Ministery and I confesse Self is a great Sophist in Debates and that any man is inclinable to miscount himself and to think he may stand for an hundred when the product is scarce one if not a cypher I conceive nothing is here taught that may reach a blow to the Honour and Majesty of the Godly Magistrate The Magistrate is a Christian as well as the Preacher and in some sense so all the People were holy as were Moses Aaron and the Levites Uzziah who burned Incense was a Member of the Church of the Jews and Circumcised no lesse then the Sons of Aaron Yet I hope these stretched themselves beyond their line when they usurped what was due to the Priests and Levites It s another thing to punish evil doing with the Sword the Magistrate is to do this But there is a Spiritual removing of Scandals by the saving of the Spirit in the day of the Lord 1 Cor. 5. 5. Matth. 18. 15. 2 Cor. 10. 8. and a gaining of the Soul of an Offender This Spiritual removing of Scandals doth only bring Christ and the Gospel in request in the hearts of both such as are within and without the Church as Scandals raiseth up an evil report of Christ and the Truth Now the Sword can never this way remove Scandals and because Christ hath appointed Spiritual means and Spiritual Censures to restore the Lord Jesus to his Honour 2 Cor. 2. It is presumption with all submission I speak it for men to horse out and decourt such Censures Spiritual as the Apostles in the Spirit and Wisdom of Christ used as most sutable to that end and which the Lord commandeth in the second Command and to substitute in their room nothing but a Sword void of all activity on the Conscience I do also here plead for the perfection of the Word of God against Humane Ceremonies which are deservedly by the Honorable Houses of Parliament and Reverend Assembly laid aside Religion needeth not any such Ornaments except men would make the Worship of God when naked under shame and so under sin for Justice Married shame and sin once But as Roses Lillies the Sun and other glorious Creatures are most beautiful without Garments and not capable of shame so is the Worship of God I confesse Ceremonies were the Seas and Rivers that Prelats delighted to swim in and if their Element be dried up they have the lesse pleasure to live But if they would repent of their bloody Persecution that their Souls might be saved no matter Ceremonies as they have nothing of Christ in them so have they been injurious to Magistrates It is but a Ceremony that the Emperour kisse the sole of the Popes foot because there is indented on it a curious Crucifix And when Prelacy was yong and its beard not grown a Deacon was sent to Theodosius the Emperor by the Prelats to chide him because he presumed to sit in the Chancel a place too holy for Lay-men What I have here said against Erastus a friend too dear to worthy Bullinger and Rodolp Gualther often we love both the Friend and his Error I humbly submit to the Judgement of the Godly and Learned But I conceive I am unwilling that Error should lodge with me willingly and I professe I am afraid that wrath is gone out from the Lord against the Rulers if they shall after a Reformation obtained with the Lives Blood Tears and Prayers of so many of the Saints whereof a great number are asleep in the Lord rear up a building to the Lord so maimed and lame as Jesus Christ shall say Offer it now to your Governour will he be pleased with you or accept your persons But it is a Controversie say some whether the Government of the Church of the New-Testament belong to the Magistrate or to the Church to which I say 1. It was a Controversie created by men willing to please Princes with more power in the Courts of Christ then ever the Law-giver and Apostles gave them and that against the minde of glorious Lights the first Reformers and the whole Troops of Protestant Divines who Studied the Controversie against the usurped Monarchy of the Man of sin more exactly then one Physitian who in a cursory way diverted off his road of Medicine of which he wrote Learnedly and broke in on the By upon the deepest Polemicks of Divinity and reached a Riders blow unawares to his friends 2. In things doubtful Conscience hath refuge to the surest side Now it s granted by all and not controverted by any That in the Apostolick Church the Government of the Church of the New Testament was in the hands of Apostles Pastors Teachers and therefore Conscience would sway to that in which there can be no Error except on supposal of abuse and Christian Rulers would not do well to venture upon Eternity Wrath the Judgement to come confiding on the poor Plea of an Erastian Distinction to incroach upon the Prerogative Royal of Jesus Christ This very God of Peace build Zion and make her an Habitation of Peace Yours in Jesus Christ S. R. A Table of the CONTENTS of the Book Introduction SECT 1. CHrist hath not instituted a mutable Church-Government Page 1 2 Some things moral some things natural in Gods worship Ibid. Physical Circumstances are all easily known and numbred p. 2 Circumstances and such and such Circumstances p. 3 Time and place of Ceremonies need not be proved by Scripture as being supposed p. 4 5 1. Argument to prove that the platform of Ch. governmâ—is not mutable at mens wil p. 7 The Script way of teaching that indifferent things are alterable is it self unalterable p. 8 2. Argument p. 9 The Scripture shall not teach when we sin in Church-policy when not if the platform be alterable at mens will Ibid. There is no reason why some things positive are alterable in Ch. -policy some not p. 10 3. Argument ibid. The place 1 Tim. 6. 13. touching the unviolable coÌ„mand given to Timothy discussed p. 10 11 12 Pauls cloak of lesse consequence then Positions of policy p. 11 Widows p. 12 SECT 2. 4. Argument p. 13 Christ is the head of the Church even in the external policy thereof p. 13 14 A promise of pardon of sin made to the right use of the Keys proveth Discipline to be a part of the Gospel p. 15 16 The will of Christ as King is the rule of the Government of his house p. 17 18 Things
Ahasureosh did to continue for an hundred and fourscore dayes Esther 1. 4. More might and ought to have been done by David and Solomon if it had been a morall ground to build a house to be a witnesse of Almightinesse 3. And God appointed sacrifices and Sacraments in both Testaments as Testimonies of the great Lord Iesus yet in base and obvious creatures we may not devise Symbols or witnessing Images of the Almightinesse of that God whom we serve at our pleasure 4. If our Lord love mercy better then Sacrifice especially under the New Testament when his worship must be more spirituall Then the Argument may be strongly retorted we are to bestow more on feeding the living Members of Christs body which yet is not secular vanity then on dead stones except Master Hooker can warrant us to serve God under the New Testament in precious stones and gold for which we can see no Warrant 5. All these Arguments are broadly used by Papists for Images and rich Churches Nor doth Hooker give us any Argument for this but what Papists gave before him Have ye not houses saith he to eat and drink in Ergo He teacheth a difference between house and house and what is fit for the dwelling place of God and what for mans habitation the one for common food the other for none but for heavenly food Ans That there was publick meeting places and Churches in Corinth now under Heathen Rulers 1 Cor. 6. is denyed by all both Protestant and Popish writers far lesse had they then any consecrated Churches and from the inconveniency of taking their Supper while some were full and drunk in the place where the Lords Supper was Celebrated whereas they ought to have Supped in their own houses to infer that the Church is a holier place then their own house I professe is Logick I do not understand it only concludes these two sort of houses are destinated from two sort of different uses sacred and prophane and no more Neither am I much moved at that Psal 74. which is said ver 8. They have burnt all the convening places or all the Congregations of God in the land Vatablus expoundeth it of the Temple Exusserunt totum Templum Dei terrenum Or all the question will be why the Synagogues are called Gods Synagogues as they called the Temple Ier. 7. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Temple of the Lord and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The house of the Lord Whither because every Synagogue was no lesse in its own kinde a house holy to the Lord then the Temple Certainly there is no rationall ground to say that Synagogues were Typicall that the people were to pray with their faces toward the Synagogue and to offer Sacrifices in the Synagogue But that a Synagogue is called the house of God from the use and end because it was ordained for the worship of God as that which God hath appointed for a speciall end and work in that the Lord assumeth the propriety thereof to himself so saith the Lord of Cyrus Isa 45. 1. Thus saith the Lord to his Anointed to Cyrus whose right hand I have holden yet was not Cyrus Typically or Religiously holy as the Temple of Ierusalem and c. 44. v. 28. He saith of Cyrus He is my shepherd and why He shall perform all my pleasure so Hos 2. 9. Therefore will I returne saith God and take away my corne in the time thereof and my wine in the season thereof and will recover my wool and my flax given to cover her nakednesse To say nothing that all the holy land was Gods land Hos 9. 3. They shall not dwell in the Lords land and consequently all the Synagogues were Gods houses and the enemy of whom the Church complaineth to God in that Psalme was thus bold as notwithstanding Canaan was Gods Heritage and proper Land in a speciall manner yet it was destroyed and burnt by the enemies even these houses that God was worshipped in not being spared But how God was so present in every Synagogue and that even when there were no actuall worship of God in it as he was in the Temple and that it was so holy a place as they were to put off there shooes who came into the Synagogue God shewing his own immediate presence in every synagogue as he did Exod. 3. 5. To Moses in the burning bush Exod. 5. 1. v. 12. Is a thing that hath no warrant in the word of God for if every synagogue had been thus holy 1. It should have been a house dedicated to God in a Religious way as was the Temple 2. God should dwell in every Synagogue then in every Church under the New Testament now as he said he would dwell in the Temple 3. Then must Heathens and the uncircumcised be forbidden to come into any Synagogue or any Church under the New Testament the contrary whereof was evident in scripture none were forbidden to enter in the Synagogues Paul 1 Cor. 14. 23 24. alloweth that Heathens come into the Churches or meetings where Christians are worshipping God 4. If either the Temple of Ierusulem was holy for the worship in it or for that it was a Type of our Materiall Temples under the New Testament then our Churches under the New Testament shall be more holy yea our private houses in which we may worship God shal be more holy as our worship is more spirituall then carnall Commandments of the Leviticall Law were and the body must be more holy then the shadow yea all the earth now from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same in regard of more spirituall worship even the Stables and Alehouses where we may offer the Incense of Prayer to God and offer the sacrifices of praises Mal. 1. 11. shall be alike holy as either our Churches or the Temple was of old CAP. I. Q. 1. Whether or not Humane Ceremonies in Gods Worship can consist with the perfection of Gods Word THese humane Ceremonies we cannot but reject upon these grounds Our first Argument is Every positive and Religious observance and Rite in Gods worship not warranted by Gods Word is unlawfull But humane Ceremonies are such Ergo The Proposition is sure the holy Spirit useth a Negative Argument Act. 15. 24. We gave no such Commandment Levit. 10. 1. Jer. 7. 30. and 19. 5 6. and 32. 35. 2 Sam. 7. 7. 1 Chron. 15. 13. The Lord Commanded not this Ergo It is not Lawfull Formalists Answer Every worship holden to be of Divine necessity and yet not Commanded by God is unlawfull but not every worship holden as free and not binding the Conscience requireth that God Command it Ans 1. Gods Consequence is from the want of a Lawfull efficient and Author you make him to reason from an Adjunct of the worship But all worship hath necessity and Divinity and a binding power only from the Author God For why is it Lawfull to Abraham to kill or
will was not determinatrix in this 5. The man jumbleth together godly discretion and will they be much different but for godlinesse in short sleeves and Crossing a finger in the Aire I understand it not nor can reason dream of any warrant for it but will as will that is mans lust made it Neither do Formalists go from Suarez and Bellarmine who call that will-worship which is devised only by a manâ— wit and is not conforme to the principles of Faith and wanteth all reason and the received use of the Church But we are disputing here against the Churches use as if it were not yet a received use But upon these grounds I go 1. Reason not binding and strongly concluding is no reason but meer will So Ceremonies have no reason If the reason binde they are essentiall worship 2. Authority is only ministeriall in ordering Gods worship and hath no place to invent new worship 3. Authority as Authority especially humane giveth no light nor no warrant of conscience to obey and therefore authority naked and void of scriptures-light is here bastard authority 11. In all this Formalists but give the Papists distinction of Divine and Apostolick Traditions for power of inventing Ceremonies to them is Apostolick but not infallible and Divine Suarez giveth the difference God saith he Is the Immediate Author of Divine Traditions and the Apostles only publishers But the Apostles are immediate Authors of Apostolick Traditions God in speciall manner guiding their will So Cajetan Sotus Bellar. So our Formalists Duname Hooker Sutluvius But I like better what Cyprian saith That no Tradition but what is in the word of God is to be received But this distinction is blasphemous and contrary to Scripture 1 Cor 14 57. The things that I write unto you even of decency and order as v. 29. 40. Are the Commandment of the Lord 2. Pet. 3. 2. Peter willeth them to be mindefull of the vvords which were spoken before by the holy Prophets and of the Commandments of us the Apostles of the Lord and Sâ—vioâ—â— Then the Apostles Commandments are equall with the Commandments of the Prophets But in the Old Testament there were not some Traditions Divine and some not every way Divine but Propheticall for the Prophets were the mouth of God as is clear 2 Pet. â— 19 20 21. Luk. 1. 70. Rom. 1. 2. So 1 Tim. 6. 13. I give thee charge in the sight of God 14. That thou keep this Commandment without spot unrebukable untill the appearing of the Lord Iesus Now the Commandment as Beza noteth Are all that he writ of discipline which Formalists say are for the most Apostolicke but not Divine Traditions 2. If Ceremonies seem good to the holy Ghost as they say they do from Act. 15. then they must seeme good to the Father and the Son as the Canon is Act. 15. But that Canon was proved from expresse Scripture as Peter proveth v. 7 8 9. and James v. 13 14 15 16. If they come from the Spirit inspiring the Apostles they cannot erre in such Traditions If from the spirit guided by the holy Ghost they come from Scripture 3. If these traditions come from no spirit led by light of Scripture we shall not know whether they be Lawfull or not for the Scripture is a Canonick rule of lawfull and unlawfull 4. If any Apostolick spirit be given to Authors of Ceremonies why not also in preaching and praying How then do many of them turn Arminians Papists Socinians 5. The Apostolick spirit leading institutors of Ceremonies doth either infuse light naturall supernaturall or Scripturall in devising Ceremonies and so Eatenus in so far they were essential worship or the Apostolick spirit doth lead them with no light at all which is brutish Enthusiasme or 3. Gods Apostolick spirit infuseth the generall equity and negative Lawfulnesse of these truths Surplice is an Apostolicall signe of Pastorall holinesse and Crossing a signe of Dedication of a childe to Christs service Now light for this we would exceedingly have If this light be immediatly infused then Surplice Crossing are as Divine as if God spake them for truths immediatly inspired lost no divinity because they come through sinfull men for Balaam his Prophesie of the star of Jacob was as Divine in regard of Authority as if God had spoken it but if these trash come from an inferiour spirit we desire to know what spirit speaketh without the word But some may object The preaching of the word is somewhat humane because it s not from the infallible spirit that dited the word Ergo Ceremonies may come from the holy Spirit though they be not as lawfull as Scripture Ans Let them be proved to be from the warrant that the word is preached and we yeeld to all 5. Apostolick Ceremonies but not Divine have Gods generall allowing will for the accepting of them Now Sampsons mother Judg. 13. 23. proveth well The Lord hath accepted our offering Ergo it is Lawfull and he will not kill us So God atcepted Abel and Noah their Sacrifices Ergo they were Lawfull and Divine worship So Hosea 8. 8. They sacrifice flesh for the sacrifices of my offerings and they eat it but the Lord accepteth them not Ergo offerings of flesh without offering of themselves as living sacrifices to God are now unlawfull If God accept of Ceremonies they must be Divine service if he accept them not they must be unlawfull They Answer He accepteth them as Arbitrary worship not as essentiall I Answer God might have accepted so Sampsons sacrifice and Noahs as arbitrary worship and yet not be gracious to them nor reward their sacrificing as good service contrary to the Texts alledged but I doubt much if the Lord be gracious to men and accept in Christ corner Caps Surplice Crossing humane holy dayes They object Our Circumstances of time place persons c. are no more warranted by the Scripture then Ceremonies are And God might in his wisdom â—aith Burges have calculated the order of times and places such climats and seasons but he hath left these as he hath left our Ceremonies to the Churches liberty Ans Time and place as I observed already being circumstances Physicall not Morall nor having any Religious influence to make the worship new and different in nature from that which is commanded in the Law though they be not expresly in the Word do not hinder but you may say Such an act of worship is according as it is written for as Praying Preaching hearing is according as it is written so is Praying and Preaching in this convenient place proved by that same Scripture As it is written but one and the same Scripture doth not warrant Order and Surplice 2. The question is not what Gods wisdom can do for he could setdown all the names of Preaching Pastors Doctors Deacons Elders in the Word but his wisdom thus should have made ten Bibles more then there be But
the Image to be God objective commemorative representative relative declarative significative Non essentialiter non per se non realiter 2. There is an honour or negative râ—verence due to any Image of God ordained by himself or to any mean of honouring God because it is such though it cannot be expressed in the act of Adoration but the question is if the honour of adoration either relative or absolute be due to the Image 3. The Jews intended to honour Jehovah in their Images what inferiour intention they had to honour the Image we are now to inquire 4. We bow our knee two wayes before a creature either before a creature as an object by accident as while we pray there of necessity must be before us some creature a wall a Table a Pulpit none of these are adored because they are before us by accident as having no Religious state The Image before the Iew and the Sacramentall elements before the kneeler cannot be thus present 2. The creature is before the kneeler of Religious purpose as a Religious object 5. The Creature is Religiously present before the kneeler two wayes 1. Active 2. Passive 1. In the meer and naked act of teaching and exciting the memory so that when that act is past I turne from the creature and adore the Creator So at the sight of the Sun or Moon being taught and instructed of the wisdom and power of God in creating such excellent creatures I am to turn from them and adore the Lord of these creatures Thus the creatures are kindely and per se objects in the act of teaching but not objects at all in the act of adoration 2. The creatures are objects passive when bodily bowing in a religious state is directed toward the creatures really and bodily present by a commandment of the Church or of purpose and so they are made objects of Adoration I. Conclusion The relative expression of God which is in the works of God is no formall ground of any Adoration of the creatures 1. Because Adoration upon this ground though the creatures the Hoast of Heaven be excellent is forbidden Deut. 4. 19. 2. Not only Images which cannot represent God and the Sacraments but all the creatures even Rats Mice Flyes Frogs Worms Iudas and wicked men yea and Devils are to be worshipped because all things having being are shadows and footsteps of God their cause first Author and last end Psal 19. 1. Psal 103. 22. Rom. 1. 19 20. Act. 17. 27 28 Prov. 16. 4. Rev. 4. 11. Rom. 11. 36 37 3. Because God is really and by the diffusion of his blessed essencâ— present in all creatures it followeth not that we should Adore them The Formalists upon this ground that Christ is really present in the Sacrament though the manner we know not think that Christ should be Adored in the Sacrament according to that Verbum audimus motum sentimus modum nescimus But if this be good Logick because we know not the way of the Spirit and how the bones grow in a woman with childe Eccles 11. v. 5. And God where he worketh is present by the immediation of essence and power though we know not the way of his presence we are to Adore the soul of man and the bones of a young childe in a womans belly though they should say that God-man Christ is in a more powerfull and efficacious manner present in the Sacrament then in the works of nature yet should it follow that God is to be worshipped in the works of nature also for Magis minus non variant speciem for then we could not conclude any thing but this Though there be not so reall a ground of Adoring Lice and Frogs as Adoring of the Sacrament Yet there is a ground seeing God is in the realliâ—y of his blessed essence present in all creatureâ— II. Conâ—lusion The Idolatrous Jews did not Adore the golden Calf as a creaâ—ure but as God by representation Exod. 32. 4. And when Aaron had made thereof a golden Calf they said These be thy Gods O Israel which brought thee up out of the Land of Aegypt 5. And when Aaron saw it he built an Altar before it and Aaron made Proclamation and said To morrow is a Feast to Iehovah Now that they believed not the golden Calf to be really and essentially Iehovah is more then evident 1. Because they believed not Moses to be essentially God but their guide and leader under God but this Calf they made to supply the want of Moses v. 1. The people gathered themselves together against Aaron and said unto him Vp make us gods which shall go before us For as for this Moses the man that brought us up out of the Land of Aegypt we know not what is become of him They made then the Calf only a visible God under Iehovah to lead them in Moses his place 2. There is no reason why they should have made Aaron rather the maker of the Calf then another but because he being the Lords Priest they thought by his holinesse the God head of Jehovah did slide into this Calf and so they held the Calf to be a thing different from Iehovah 3. They say to Aaron Make us gods Ergo they believed Iehovah to be before this made Calf 4. They saw the Calf melted before their eyes knew it was made of their ear-rings 5. They call it Iehovah yet they made it Iehovah and therefore they differenced betwixt the Calf Iehovah for they knew that Iehovah brought them out of Aegypt before the Calf was framed but the Calf was an Image of that Iehovah Bellar. and Gregor de Valent. say They worshipped not Iehovah but a vain Idol Else how is it said Psa 106. when they made this Calf that they forgot the Lord if they worshipped God in the Calf they were mindefull of God It is vain reasoning this the wife that taketh another Husband to bed with her Morally forgetteth her husband and to worship God in a memorative signe forbidden of God is a forgetting of God and a false God indeed 2. Those who acknowledge that the Heathen believe that some Godhead dwelt in Images and gave Responses and Answers out of them do thereby acknowledge that the Image it self had not the honour of giving Responses as God hath but that the inclosed Godhead gave these Responses and therefore the inclosed Godhead was that which they worshipped So Aquinas and Vasquez saith The Heathen acknowledged a Godhead to dwell in the Images And Bellarmine saith It is not improbable that the Iews believed that they worshipped the true God in an Idol Papists then may take to them Heathens Idolatry for Heathens worshipped God in Images and not Images as they are such and Abulensis and Cajetan in the Commentaries of the first Edition on Exodus said this same 3. Though the Iews believed the Calf to be essentially God yet it was God
image which by a common name is called the honour Worship and Adoration tendred to the image in a bodily manner and being done before the image tendeth to the honouring of the samplar but the outward action of Praising Praying Sacrificing is commonly called Praising Praying Sacrificing in relation to the Samplar to wit God and no way in relation to the image or to things without life neither are they by accident referred to the images only they be tendred to God before images Coram illis But I Answer This is but to beg the Question for we deny that from Adoring the image there resulteth any Adoring of God but a great dishonouring of his Name 2. Durandus Mirandula Hulcot deny that Adoring of God Coram imaginibus tanquam signis memorativis before the images as memorials of God should be an Adoring of the images And Suarez saith If images be only remembrances and memorials in the act of Adoration this taketh much honour from the images and is saith he An Adoring of the Samplar but not an Adoring of the image Though Vasquez expounding Gregories minde which superstitious man calleth them good books contradict Suarez in this yea and himself also for he saith The enemies of images he meaneth the Reformed Churches who use them only for memorials and books it is a lye that we use them as books will not bow their knee to them for then saith he they should Adore them and therefore saith Vasquez if Christ be not in very deed in his presence in the Sacrament present the knee-worship is tendred to bread and wine which is saith he Idolatry therefore either our Formalists are Transubstantiators or Idolaters or both by this learned Iesuites judgement and why by this same reason may we not say against Vasquez that the bodily offerings of prayers prayses and sacrifices to God before the Image as the Image is an honouring of the Image by prayer they say to the tree of the Crosse Auge piis justitiam reisque dona veniam Increase righteousnesse in us and give remission of sinnes O tree crosse to guilty sinners Names at Rome goe as men will but the honour it selfe is put upon the dumbe wood which is due to Christ O it is but a figure say they yea but say we prayers and praises in a bodily manner and vocally are tendred to the wood yet if the wife commit adultery with her husbands brother because he representeth her husband I thinke the matter should be washen with Inke and badly excused to say O the loving wife for strong love to her husband committeth figurative adultery and that bodily harlotry is referred to the brother of her husband by accident and to her husband kindly and per se for himselfe The same way if Formalists bow their knee to bread that such a holy mystery be not prophaned We know they cannot understand civill or countrey non-prophanation that they intend for kneeling and evill maners at the Lords table doe well consist together Now religious non-prophanation by knee-worship is adoring of these mysterious elements Ergo they make prayers and sing praises and offer sacrifices to the bread Let them see to this and answer to it if they can The sixt evasion of wit I find in Johannes de Lugo who saith 1. That the image and samplar making one and the same object by aggregation the inward affection besides externall knee-worship is given to both but to the Image relatively and for God or the samplar and not for proper divine excellencie in it and therefore the Councels saith he call it not adoration in spiritu but it is tendered to God absolutely 2. We give adoration of internall submission to God or the samplar as the debt of potestative justice but we doe not so worship the Image we have no civill or politick communication with the Image because it is not a reasonable creature and therefore the worship of the Image is as it were a materiall and livelesse action when we uncover our head to the Image by that action we would say or signifie nothing to the Image but to the samplar or to God onely 3. The inward submission that we tender to the Image is not that we submit to it as to a thing more excellent then we for that were a foolish lye yet saith he that the man might fulfill the cup of the iniquity of his Fathers we kisse not the Image in recto directly tendring honour to it but to God and the samplar before it 1. Because then I should adore my owne breast when I knocke upon it adoring the Eucharist 2. Because so I bow to the wall before me 3. If I have no honourable opinion of the Image I doe not adore it at all 4. By kneeling to the Image I have a will of submitting externally my affection to the Image I yeeld to it as a thing above me giving to it the higher place 4. The act of adoration is simply terminated upon the Image as a thing contra distinguished from the samplar though it be adored with the same action with which the samplar is adored Thus the â—eâ—uite Answ But here all men may see many contradictions and that he casteth downe all that formerly he hath said â—â— Images even as they represent God are dead things and lesse then a redeemed Saint Ergo I can give them no submission of externall honour 2. I signifie and say nothing of honour to the Image even as it respecteth God and representeth him because the dignity of representing God doth not elevate it to be a reasonable creature therefore I cannot honour it and it were a foolish lye to say that the Image as representing God were a reasonable creature 3. As it representeth God it cannot heare payers nor deliver in trouble as the Holy One of Israel can doe Ergo by the Holy Ghosts argument I cannot bow to a lye Esa 44. 17. and 46. 9. Hab. 2. 19. 20. it made not the heaven and the earth but by a figure because it representeth the maker of heaven and earth wherefore it should have but figurative honour at the best and that is no reall honour Jer. 10. 8 11 12 4. There is no debt of justice due to the dumb wood or element honour of externall submission is a debt of potestative justice due to a superiour the Images and Elements are not my superiour 1. They be meanes I the end 2. They bee void of life and reason which I have 3. They are not redeemed sanctified and to be glorified as I am Ioan. de Lugo answereth As I may love Peter for the goodnesse that is not in Peter but in another as I may love and desire good to Peter for the goodnesse that is in his father and not in himself and so pay the debt of affection to him for another so I may honour an Image for the debt of honour that I owe to the samplar represented by the
things of God Leviticus 10. 10. The Priests were not to drink wine when they went into the Tabernacle That ye may saith the Lord put difference between holy and unholy and between unclean and clean Now Haggai expresly saith cap. 2. 11 12. That it was the Priests part to put this difference and so to admit to or exclude from the holy things of God Hence for this cause it is said as 2 Chron. 23. 19. Iehoiada appointed the officers of the Lords house so he set porters at the gates of the house of the Lord that none which are unclean in any thing might enter in so Ezra 9. 21 22. None did eat the Passeover but such as were pure and had separated themselves from the filthinesse of the Heathen of the land for this cause doth the Lord complain of the Priests Ezech. 22. 26. Her Priests have violated my law and have polluted my holy things they have put no difference between the holy and the prophane neither have they shewed the difference between the unclean and the clean Ezech. 44. 6. And thou shalt say to the Rebellious even to the house of Israel thus saith the Lord God O ye house of Israel let it suffice you of all your abominations 7. That ye have brought into my sanctuary strangers uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh to be in my sanctuary to pollute it even my house when ye offered my bread the fat and the blood and they have broken my Covenant because of all your abominations 8. And ye have not kept the charge of my holy things But ye have set keepers of my Charge in my Sanctuary for your selves 9. Thus saith the Lord God no stranger uncircumcised in heart nor uncircumcised in flesh shall enter into my sanctuary of any stranger that is among the children of Israel Here is a complaint that those that have the charge of the holy things should suffer the holy things to be polluted I grant it cannot bear this sense that none should be admitted to be Members of the Visible Church under the New Testament but such as are conceived to be regenerate except it can be proved that the Sanctuary was a type of the visible Church 2. That the Apostles constituted their Churches thus but we read not in all the New Testament of any admission of Church Members at all but only of baptizing of those who were willing to be baptized and from this resulted the capacity of a Church Relation in all Churches visible Nor 2. Do we finde any shadow in all the word of God of tryall of Church Members by way of electing and choosing of such and such as qualified by reason of a conceived regeneration in the persons chosen or of rejecting and refusing others as conceived to have no inward work of grace in them this I believe can never be made good out of the word of God 3. They must prove the Apostles admitted into the Sanctuary of the Visible Church Ananias Saphira Simon Magus and others uncircumcised in heart to pollute the holy things of God and that the Apostles erred and were deceived in the moulding of the first Apostolick Church in the world which was to be a rule and pattern to all Churches in the New Testament to all Ages I deny not but they might have erred according to the grounds of these who urge the comparison for a Church of visible Saints but that the Apostles De facto did erre in their Election and judgement in that wherein the holy Ghost holdeth them forth and their acts to be our rule and pattern I utterly deny I grant Act. 15. In that Synod they did Act as men and Elders not as Apostles but that it could fall out that they should uctually erre and obtrude false Doctrine instead of truth to the Churches in that Synod which is the first rule and pattern of Synods I shall not believe But there is this Morall and perpetuall truth in these Scriptures 1. That there are under the New Testament some over the people of God in the Lord some that watch for their souls and govern them as here there were Priests Levites that taught and governed the people 2. That the Rulers of the Churches alwayes are to have the charge of the holy things and to see that these holy things the Seals and Sacraments and word of promise be not polluted and that therefore they have power given them to debar such and such profane from the Seals and so are to discern between the clean and the unclean and this which the Prophet speaketh ver 9. is a prophecie never fulfilled after this in the persons of the people of God therefore it must have its spirituall truth fulfilled under the New Testament as is clear ver 11. Yet the Levites that are gone away far from me shall be Ministers in my Sanctuarie having charge at the gates of the House and Ministering to the House 14. And I will make them keepers of the charge of the House for all the service thereof and for all that shall be done therein Ver. 15. And the Priests and the Levites the sons of Zadok that kept the charge of my Sanctuary when the children of Israel went astray from me they shall enter into my Sanctuary and they shall come neer to my Table to minister unto me and to keep my charge 23. And they shall teach my people the difference betweene the holy and prophane and cause men to discerne between the uncleane and the cleane 24. And in controversie they shall stand in judgement and they shall judge it according to my judgement and they shall keepe my Lawes and my Statutes in all mine assemblies and they shall hallow my Sabbaths Now this Temple was another house then Solomons Temple as is evident out of the Text it having roomes dimensions structures so different that none can imagine them one house and these chapters containe the division of the Holy Land which after the captivity was never done for the ten Tribes never returned and this Temple is clearely a type of the new Ierusalem and agreeth to that City spoken of Revelation chapters 21. and 22. As may appeare especially by the foure last chapters of Ezekiel and in the last words of the last chapter And the name of the city from that day shall be The Lord is there And the Priests after the captivity as well as before brake the covenant of Levi Mal. 2. And therefore I see it not fulfilled except in the visible Church of the New Testament and in the Assemblies of Christian Churches Mat. 18. Act. 15. and the rest of the Church-assemblies under the New Testament As for the Lords personall raigne on earth it is acknowledged there shall be no Church policy in it no Word Sacraments Ordinances no Temple as they say from Rev. 21. 22. And with correction and submission the Priests and Levites that Ezek. 44. 15. are said to keep the charge of the Lords
holden out of the Sanctuary as the Lord saith Ezech. 44. 7 8 9. then those who were only uncircumcised in flesh Erastus Those that morally sinned were not debarred from the holie things because they were invited to come and offer sacrifice for their sins Ans And because they might not enter into the Temple while the Priests offered a sacrifice for them they were no lesse excluded from the holy things of God then an Excommunicated person is while the Church see him swallowed up of grief and do relaxe and forgive 2 Cor. 2. 6 7 8 9. Is this a good Argument The Excommunicate person is invited to come again that the Church may pardon then it will follow he was cast out Erastus Paul forbiddeth to eat with fornicators 1 Cor. 5. It shall never follow that they are worthie of holy convention that are worthy of a common Table and that they are unvvorthy of the Supper who are unworthie of a common Table they vvere debarred from a familiar Communion with the godlie 1. That they might be ashamed 2. Least they should infect them Paul saith be not mixed vvith them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but he saith not exclude them from the Lords Table and other holy things In the Sacrament I must try my self not others in my familiar Tabling with others I am to try them that I may gain them yea 2 Thes 3. Though we are to eschew familiar conversing with those that walk unorderly yet are we to keep communion in holy things with them and to admonish them as brethren Ans Erastus propounds an Argument of his own 1 Cor. 5. in place of ours we said never that they that are unworthy of the holy Supper are unworthy to be Tabled with in common familiarity as brethren though that be most true But we reason thus Those that are to be delivered to Satan and cast out as 1 Cor. 5. 5 13. of the Church and judged ver 12. and with whom we may not eat ver 11. These are not to be admitted to the Lords Supper which is the proper feast of the Church But such are all incestuous and scandalous persons and therefore Paul doth indeed command them to be excluded from the holy feast 2. To say the Church and her Officers must try themselves not others ere they come to the Lords Supper is to beg the question for ere they be admitted into the Sanctuary they are to be tried whither they be uncircumcised in heart and flesh or not Ezek. 44. 7 8 9. Ezek. 22. 26. As we have proved 3. Paul not only useth a passive verb be not mixed with them but 1 Cor. 5. 5. he useth four active words v. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. v. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 purge him out 3. v. 12. He willeth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to judge him 4. He saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 put away that evil one Hence I argue The men whom they convened together were to judge to deliver to Satan to purge out to put away 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of the midst of them ver 2. or from amongst them v. 13. This man they did Authoritatively either put from amongst them as they were Christians from their common Table or out of their fellowship as they were men to kill him Or 3. out of their Church-Communion that they should not keep the feast of the Lords Supper with them Let Erastus give a fourth now we cannot dream of the first two for 1. Would the Apostle command a Church-meeting to interdict a man of Tabling with them in common eating and drinking What needeth a Church-court for they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when they did this And what needed a judging Court for this for not to eat with him was no censure of the Church as Erastus saith 2. It is no Grammar nor can it bear sense that the Corinthians could say we Corinthians gathered together in the name and power of the Lord Iesus do cast out such a one out of the midst of us that is from our common-Table this would say they had all one common Table and that all the Church of Corinth met at this time to some Feast to cast him out of their love-Feasts a dream no man ever conceived 3. The Text speaketh of eating in their houses could they cast the man out of his own house and from his own Table they had no power so to do But ye will say they might forbid any brother to go into this mans house to his Table True but this was not to put the man out of the midst of them as Paul saith Nor fourthly was Pauls spirit and the name and power of the Lord Iesus required for eschewing of a common Table with this man Erastus saith Paul commanded this Rom. 16. 17. 2 Thes 3. 14 15. To all and every beleever at Rome and Thessalonica by themselves Nor 2. were they to kill him Never did a Church conveen to kill a man This is so insolent that Erastus must give precept for it or a practise beside the present case therefore here must be some Church out-casting 4. Though Paul will have us admonish a cast out man as a brother 2 Thes 3. It s private admonition that I owe to all men Lev. 19. 17. And that one woman is to performe to another Col. 3. 15. But not any of the holy things of the Sanctuary Erastus The Iews accused Paul of nothing but that they lied that he brought Greeks into the Temple The Law bad all the clean eat the Passeover and excepteth none for their wickednesse Christ admitted Iudas to the Passeover and said Drink ye all of this Paul reciteth a Catologue of wicked men in Corinth 1 Cor. 5. With whom we are not to have private dealing but he commandeth never to exclude any who are willing to come from the Lords Supper We are to trie our selves not one another nor is it a sin to eat at the Lords Table with wicked men Ans Belike it was a crime then to bring the Greeks into the Temple 2. It is a begging of the question to say all were admitted to the Passeover See how this is before answered 3. Christ admitted Iudas into the Passeover What then may Timothie lay hands suddenly on all he knows to be Iudases that they come in and lap the blood of souls contrary to 1 Tim. 3. Christ is above the Law and if his practise in this were the rule because Christ admitted Iudas whom he knew to be a Traitor and did eat ordinarily at Table with him and committed the flock to such a known wolfe We are also to eat with covetous extortioners which Paul forbiddeth 1 Cor. 5. 11. And we are to commit the flock of God to known Wolves where we have a precept on the contrary 2 Tim. 2. 2. Christ would rather teach that we are to admit to the seals all not ignorant and scandalous and not be too curious in striking up a
window in the conscience of others 4. Pauls practise at Corinth is but a negative ex particulari and not concludent The heathen came to hear the word at Corinth 1 Cor. 14. 23. And Paul doth no where command the Heathen should be excluded from the Sacraments Will Erastus then have them admitted 5. When Paul saith that unworthy Communicants were guilty of the Lords body and blood and required fidelity in the Stewards 1 Cor. 4. He taketh for confessed scandalous persons should not be admitted by the Church its true the sin of others who communicate unworthily is not the sin of another fellow-communicant who hath not authority to debar his fellow-communicant Erastus The Scripture debarred no Iews of old neither from sacrifices nor other sacraments but commandeth that all the male children Iews or Strangers that were not legally unclean nor from their homes should thrice a year appear before the Lord in Ierusalem for to partake of the holy things of God Ergo None were Excommunicated from the holy things of God for morall wickednesse Ans Erastus counteth this an Argument that cannot be Answered but it Answers it self to me And Erastus proposeth a Law that is Catholick to all the males yet he maketh it not Catholick himself but propoundeth a number of males that are excepted as he excepteth those that were legally unclean those that are from home and yet Deut. 16. 16. Exod. 23. 17. Exod. 34. 23. in the Letter of the Law there is no such exception as Erastus maketh I hope if he make an exception so may we according to the word of God Though we should give but not grant that there was no Excommunicaâ—ion amongst the Iews but only for Ceremoniall uncleannesse yet it proveth not there is no Excommunication in the Christian Church but the contrary for if for touching the dead by Gods Law men were separated from the holy things in that Church far more for Morall uncleannesse are men to be separated from the holy things of God under the New Testament for undeniably Ceremoniall separation signified and typed out Morall separation Col. 2. 21. 2. What ground Erastus hath to except those that were Ceremonially unclean and so as uncircumcised in flesh that they were not to appeare before the Lord let him shew the Letter of Scripture for it the same ground have we to shew that the uncircumcised in heart are not to appeare before the Lord Ezek. 44. 7 8 9. Ezek. 22. 26. Nor shall I thinke God would both command all the male without exception to compeare before him thrice a yeare whether they were Adulterers Theeves Murtherers Idolaters or not such but truly sanctified and holy and that he would expresly rebuke the Males that were Adulterers Theeves Murtherers Idolaters because they compeared for him in his House Ier. 7. 8 9 10. So then as he commandeth the the Males to compeare except they be legally uncleane or Lepers and would rebuke them if they should appeare before him being Ceremonially unclean and therefore in that case God would have them not to come So also if they should be Morally unclean he would have them not to come that is it is not their sin that they appeare before the Lord quoad substantiam actus but their obedience but it is their sinne that they appeare â—ali mâ—do in their unrepented guiltinesse yet is it the sinne of the Priests in not differencing betweene the cleane and the uncleane that they suffer them to come tali modo that as Swine they pollute the holy things of God to the Male it is their sinne that they come so and so guilty and that they come not it is their sinne but to the Priests it is their sinne that they admit the uncleane and cast Pearles to Dogs But as God would not rebuke unworthy Eaters at the Lords Table 1 Cor. 11. if they might eate unworthily by Gods Law so neither would he rebuke Theeves and Murtherers for appearing before him in his Temple if they ought not by Law not to appeare in that state No doubt saith Erastus pag. 106. there were many wicked persons in the time of Ioshua Iudges and the Kings in such a multitude yet they were bidden all to compeare before the Lord and none are excepted for their wickednesse and it is certaine God would not both bid them compeare and not compeare Ans All that sinned in Israel were bidden offer Sacrifice yet those who are wicked as Sodom are expresly debarred from Sacrifices except they were morally clean Esai 1. 13. Bring me no more vaine oblation incense is an abomination unto me 16 Wash you make you cleane So say I here God said expresly Ier. 7. 9 10. Except you be washed from your lying stealing come not before me to stand in my house to prophane my holy Name Ergo the Morally unclean are excommunicated from those holy things so all the wicked by the same reason were forbidden they remaining in their wickednes without Repentance to eate the Passeover yea to take the Name of God in their mouth Psal 50. 16 17. to Sacrifice Esai 66. 3. to touch the Altar of God except their hands were washed in innocency Psal 26. 6. And the Priests had the charge of the house of God to put difference betweene the cleane and the uncleane and the Priests are said to violate the holy things of God if the wicked as well as the Ceremonially unclean were not debarred Hag. 2. 11 12. Ezek. 22. 25 26. Ezek. 44. 7 8 9. and certainly the Males that were Leapers were expresly excepted and forbidden to come in the Congregation of Gods people as is before proved Erastus The Pharisees and Sadduces debarred none from the Sacraments for their wicked life Ans What will Erastus make the Pharisees practise our Rule they killed the Lord of Glory and then eat the Passeover with bloody hearts and hands Is such a Practise our Rule Erastus Iohn Baptist refused Baptisme to none willing to bee baptized and referred the inward Baptisme by the Spirit and fire to Iesus Christ Ans Iohn baptized those who confessed their sinnes and professed their Repentance and the like we crave of those that are admitted to the other Sacrament And the instance of Iohn or an Apostles baptizing cannot warrant the Baptizing of all Murtherers Idolatrous persons or the wickedst living as Erastus saith and the vildest on earth if they should but desire Baptisme and give no confession of their Faith nor profession of their Repentance Erastus Christ who rebuked many abuses and cast the buyers and sellers out of the Temple would have rebuked the pollution of the Sacraments also but that he never did and Christ said that Peter should forgive his offending Brother often in one day if he but say It repenteth me and he saith This transaction shall be ratified in heaven Will you be more cruell then God Do not we often lie to God in our Confession to God He meaneth well who desires to
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
Ambrose did no more then a faithfull Pastor and Amariah and the 80. valiant Priests did in not suffering the holy things of God to be polluted Lipsius no religious man saith l. 2. c. 24. de Constantia quo facto nihil magis impium omnis veâ—us impietas habuit Beza Bucer P. Martyr Melancton Calvin Anto. Waleus Gomaras commend Ambrose And truly to kill seven thousand Citizens of Thessalonica of which the most part were innocent deserved more then Excommunication if more could be inflicted by the Church See Ambrose Epist 5. 28 29. Erastus had no reason to compare so laudable a fact to the proud fact of an abominable Pope trampling on the Emperours neck and abusing the word of God Psal 91. to defend his devilish pride CHAP. XX. Quest 16. A vindication of other Arguments for Excommunication as from sacrificing offering of gifts c. with bloody hands Erastus Esay 1. c. 52. c. 66. Ier. 6. 7. Ezech. 23. and 33. Psa 50. are alledged for Excommunication to which I answer 1. The Lord doth not condemne sacrificing for he commanded it but the abuse thereof as he that commendeth modesty to one that eateth undecently doeth condemne unmannerly eating but commandeth not abstinence from eating so Christ Mat. 6. removeth not fasting and praying but the abuse of them When the Hebrews propound two just and right things of which they approve the one and deny the other there is only a comparison understood as Hos 6. I will have mercy and not sacrifice that is rather mercy then sacrifice Prov. 8. Receive my instruction and not silver that is receive rather my instruction then silver so this is no good consequence God hateth the sacrifice of the wicked Ergo Presbyters are to be chosen who should hinder wicked men to sacrifice it followeth not for then this should be as good a consequence God hateth the prayers of the wicked Ergo Presbyters are to be chosen who should hinder men to call upon God to praise God to rest on the Sabbath to give almes except these Presbyters judge them worthy Ans In the following books Erastus refuteth some Treatises of Authors without names the books I cannot have and if he doe them right in repeating their minde faithfully I know not but I know in many things and in this very argument Erastus fancied arguments on Beza which he would reject as none of his 1. Sacrificing seemeth to be a confirming ordinance as eating the Passeover and the Communion of the Lords bodie and blood and as there was some examination of the persons for whom sacrifices were offered required in the Priests as I said before from Mat. 8. 4. Levit. 14. 3 4. 9 10 11 12. So there is Morall cleannesse required in all that are to partake of the Sacraments that presupposeth conversion and I grant the first and native consequence of these is that it was the sin and hypocrisie of the persons themselves who sacrificed first and principally But that it was not the sins of the Priests who admitted those that were no better then Sodom and Gomorrah Esa 1. 10. and had hands full of blood ver 15. is now the question I conceive that it is a taxing of the Priests and Church Rulers that is Esa 1. 10. no lesse then of civill judges and the people yea that he rather taxeth the Priests called Rulers v. 10. and that that is not as Socinians say a new commandement of Christ but an old Mat. 5. 23. Therefore if thou bring thy gift unto the Altar and there remembrest that thy brother hath ought against thee What if the Priest should know that he had killed an innocent man and beside the guilt of innocent blood that the sad hearted widow and the weeping Orphanes had any blood to charge him withall was the Priest either to offer or sacrifice for him while he were reconciled to the widdow and fatherlesse Christ addeth v. 24. Leave there thy gift before the Altar and goe thy way first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be reconciled to thy Brother and then come and offer thy gift I offer it to the consideration of the Reader if as the offerer of the gift was to leave his offering knowing himself to be under blood and to have offended his brother he was to leave his offering at the Altar so if the Priest who offered the same should also know that the same day he had offered his childe to Molech or the Devill if the Priest in this case should offer for him and if the Priest should not eat this mans sin and communicate with the bloody impenitent man in offering with him and for him the sacrifice of fools if he should not leave offering for him till he went and was reconciled with his brother for the Priest by office was to forbid such a bloodie man to offer Ergo he could not by office also offer for him Here an order prescribed that is morall perpetuall and common both to the ordinances of the Old and New Testament for Christ doth here expound the Law which was corrupted by the Pharisees 2. He doth not set down a rule concerning the Ceremoniall Law which was shortly to be abrogated but sure he hath an eye to the worship of the New Testament What if he that is come to the Table to eat and drinke with Christ and both his owne conscience and the Elders remember the widdow orphane have a just accusation against this man of late yesterday he killed their husband and father should either this man eat and drinke at this time with Iesus Christ or should the Elders give these holy things to him I thinke noâ— And to come to the argument it is true Isa 1. sacrificing is not condemned but sacrificing by such Princes of Sodom and tali modo by men of bloodie hands Ergo they were not to abstaine from sacrificing but at that time and in that condition nor doe we forbid either coming to or debarring from the Lords Table by the Elders but onely haec vice and onely while 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 first he be reconciled to his brethren and testifie that he repenteth we never heighten Excommunication to such an extremity as it doth totally unchurch the man and exclude him from the Seals simpliciter and absolutely but according to Christs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and his order and therefore the Elders are to exclude for a time just as this God will have mercy and not sacrifice that is rather mercy first mercy and first faith and repentance then sacrifice that is then afterward externall worship afterward receiving of the Passeover the Lords Supper and offering of gifts at the Altar And secondarily even in the second place in regard of time he will have all these externalls whence the man is to debarre himselfe and by the same reason the Elders as the 80. Priests did to a King 2 Chron. 26. are to debarre the man while he repent And 2. This also I will have mercy
my judgements and they shall keep my Laws and my Statutes in all mine assemblies and hallow my Sabbaths so 2 Chron. 23. 19. And Iehojada set the porters at the Gates of the house of the Lord that none which was uncleane in any thing should enter in And shall we concelve that porters that is Levites would hold out those that were only ceremonially unclean and receive in murtherers who had killed there Children to Molech that same day there was not to enter in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the unclean in any matter the text is generall excludes idolaters and murthers and such as should refuse to enter in Covenant with the Lord of which the Text speaketh As for Erastus his consequence which he unjustly imputeth to us to wit Israel sinned in coming to the Lords temple to prophane it in the very day that they slew their Children to Molech Ergo there ought to have been Priests and now there must be Presbyters and selected overseers in a Church judicature to debarre murtherers and the like scandalous persons from the Sacraments 1. This is not our consequence But this we say if the Priests knew that same day that they came to the Temple they slew their Children to Molech the Priests should have debarred them from coming to the Temple and from eating the Passeover as their office and duty was by the Law of God Num. 9. v. 6 7. Num. 19. 11 12. Lev. 22. 6. The soul that hath touched any such unclean shal be unclean till even and shall not eat of the holy things unlesse he wash his flesh with water 7. and when the Sun is downe he shal be clean and shall afterward eat of the holy things because it is his food Now it was the Priests office Lev. 10. 10. that he put a difference between holy and unholy and between clean and unclean so if Eli knew that his sonnes made themselves vile before the people and committed furnication with the women at the doore of the Tabernacle of the Congregation Ergo Eli should as a judge have restrained them 1 Sam. 3. 13. But from this antecedent we draw not this consequence Elies sonnes do publikely make themselves vile Ergo there ought to be such an Ordinance as a judge with Civill power to punish them and Ergo there ought to have been no King to punish them but a judge like unto Eli and Samuel this consequence followeth not from this antecedent but only hoc posito that Eli hath the sword and be the Civill judge Ergo he ought to punish from scandals in the Church and prophaning the holy things of God we inferre not Ergo there must be such a judicature erected as if the antecedent were the cause of the consequent But this only followeth Ergo supposing there be a Church and Presbytery invested with this power they ought not to admit murtherers or any unclean persons to come and partake of the Sacraments and so defile the holy things of God as for the place Ezek. 33. I undertake not from thence to conclude debarring of any from the holy things of God by the Priests what may follow by consequent is another thing Erastus Whereas it is said Deut. 23. the Lord would not have the price of a whore offered to him Ergo far lesse would he have a whore admitted to the sacrifice it followeth not but a penitent or a whore professing repentance may be admitted to the sacrifices 2. He forbiddeth only the price of a whore to be offered to him as a vow or a thing vowed it may be that agree not to all sacrifices For God forbiddeth a living creature that is unperfect in a vow But Lev. 22. he forbiddeth not such imperfect living creatures to be offered to him in a free will sacrifice so God forbiddeth honey to be offered in an offering by fire but not in all other oblations But will not the Lord have a whore to offer to God that which is lawfully purchased or which is her patrimony or may not a whore offer her first borne to the Lord or circumcise him We find not that forbidden From things to persons we cannot argue we may not offer a lame beast to God Ergo doth the Lord so abhor a lame man that he may not come to the Temple God alloweth not tares amongst the wheat yet he will not have the externall Ministers to pluck up the tares while harvest Ans If the hire received for a whores selling of her body to uncleannesse must not be applyed to the service of God farre more cannot a whore as a whore be admitted to partake of the holy things of God for the price or money is called abomination to God Deut. 23. for the whore not the whore for the money and so we may well argue from the things to the persons 2. It is false that God forbiddeth the price of a whore onely in vows and not in sacrifices he forbiddeth it because as Moses saith Deut. 23. 18. it is an abomination to the Lord and as Erastus saith it is money unjustly purchased Yea Davids practise teacheth that what we bestow on sacrifices as well as in vows it must be our own proper goods and not so much as gifted to us 2 Sam. 24. 24. Neither will I offer burnt offerings unto the Lord my God of that which cost me nothing farre lesse would he offer the price of a whore in sacrifices and the Divines of England say on the place hereby is forbidden that any gaine of evill things should be applied to the service of God Mich. 7. 1. Vatablus saith the like 2. For the Lords forbidding to offer in a vow Bullock or Lambe or any thing that is superfluous or lacking in his parts and permitting it in a free-will offering by a free will offering is meant that which is given to the Priest for food of a free gift but otherwise what is offered to the Lord in a vow or a free will offering must be perfect for the blind broken maimed having a wenne scurvy or scab can in no sort be offered to the Lord Lev. 22. 20 21 22 23. There is no word of the Lord in the free will gift that Erastus speaketh of but only the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is liberall free from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to give freely to God or man 3. A whore repenting or professing repentance was not debarred from sacrifices but that is without the bounds of the question an heathen could say Quem penitet facti is pene innocens est Senec. in Traged We debarre none that professe repentance from the seals of the Covenant 4. When a whore as a whore did offer her first borne being a bastard in the Temple I conceive neither she nor her childe were accepted Deut. 23. 2. Abastard shall not enter into the Congregation of the Lord if the childe was born of Married Parents the woman repenting the question now must be far altered 5. For a lame
perfect in the one as in the other 5. The great error is here that Erastus being sleeping when he wrote thinketh that to eat and drinke unworthily to offer a gift at the Altar the offerer being unreconciled to his brother is an action internall and known to God and that can no more be known to man then the thoughts of the heart A palpable untruth is not worshipping of Baalim murthering stealing whoring killing the Children to Molâ—ch and coming to stand in the Temple of the Lord which are called a prophaning of Gods holy name Ier. 7. 9 10 11. Ezek. 23. 38 39. are not these actions visible externall and as feazable to be judged by man as murther may be judged by a Magistrate Yea by this let a Pagan come to the table of the Lord we are not to hinder him why it is an internall action knowne citra errorem to God only and we cannot then judge whither he have examined himself or not if he be not against us here he is with us saith Erastus Quod deus facere jussit ab eo revocari aut retrahi nullus ab hominibus debet si modo externe sic fiat ut precepit deus Yea so the Magistrate cannot hinder either Pagan or the open enemy and persecutor who will trample upon the Sacrament from the Sacraments the contrary whereof Erastus said pag. 207. hunc ego minime admittendum censeo and let Erastus give us Scripture either expresse or by consequence where a Pagan or a persecutor may be impeded by Church or Magistrate from externall receiving of the seals except that we are not to give pearls to swine But was it not as hard to judge whether Saul persecuting the Church out of blind zeal was a swine or a dogge as to judge whether he that killeth his sonne to Molech out of blind devotion and cometh the same day to the Temple of the Lord doth prophane the Name of the Lord 6. If we must do nothing in externalls without the expresse commandement of God nor may we without Gods command either expresse or a necessary consequence admit dogs and swine to the Lords table 7. Paul indeed rejoyced that Christ was preached though out of envy Phil. 1. but by men called and gifted of God to preach and therefore ought not to be forbidden to preach while the Church for their scandalous life do cast them out say they are called Ministers once the Church is not to cast them out for this or that particular sinne if they be not contumatious and Paul saith he Rejoyceth that Christ was preached but he saith not he rejoyced that they preached Christ tali modo out of contention thinking to add affliction to his bonds Yet God forbiddeth the externall act of preaching in those that hateth to be reformed Psal 50. 16 17. and forbiddeth the Church to lay hands on or to call to the Ministery wicked men that hateth to be reformed or to keep them in the Ministery and this hindreth not but Paul might rejoyce at the consequent of their Ministery to wit at the preaching of the Gospel so long as they remained in the Ministery as we may rejoyce in that Christ was crucified for sinners and not allow that Herod and Pilate did with wicked hands crucifie the Lord of Glory nor yet are we to rejoyce in their sinne But all this hindreth not but he that is at wrath with his brother and knowne to be so by the Priests should be hindred to offer his gift while he be reconciled to him 8. We are not to hinder acts of externall worship as praying praising preaching nor can the Church forbid them except where God by his Commandement require that we do them wiâ—h a speciall visible qualification and order As first be reconciled to your brother first examine your selfe and then ofâ—er your gift and come and eat and drinke at the Lords table and in Negatives Come to my Temple but come not that very day you killed your sonnes to Molech while ye repent and be humbled for that sinne Erastus The godly Kings compelled the people to observe the rites ordained of God at least externally and 2 Chron. 15. killed those that sought not the Lord then they sinne who punish sinnes by debarring men from the Sacrament for beside that they forbid a thing commanded of God and as it falleth under mens judgement that is as it is externall and good so they cast their sickle in another mans field because the correcting of sinnes in so farre as they are externall belongeth to the Magistrate and in so farre as they come from a depraved will they belong to God onely Ans Here is one palpable error that all externall scandals are punished either by the Magistrate as the Magistrate so he must be understood else he saith nothing or by God onely contrary to 1 Cor. 5. 11. Rom. 16. 17. 2 Thes 3. 14 15. For we give a third they are punished by the Church but only in a Ministeriall way It is false that the godly Kings could compell the unclean Jewes though circumcised to come to the Temple or the murtherers of their Children that same day to come with bloody hands to the Temple Yet the very locall and personall presence of a Iew in the Temple and the very posture of his body in looking with his face toward the Temple while he prayed was an externall lawfull Ordinance of God They could not then lawfully compell the Iews to these rites except with such and such previous qualifications they could not compell the Priests unwashed and having drunk wine to go to the Sanctuary 2 Chro. 15. It is not said they were to be put to death that should omit any Ceremony though every Religious observance be a seeking of God but they that would not seek God by entring in Covenant to renounce idols and serve the Lord or should prove apostates from the sworne Covenant were to be put to death 3. If that be a punishment we contend for things not for names which is a privation of good inflicted for a sinne then let Erastus sâ—e if the Priests punish not who debarred men from the holy things of God by Erastus his grant for Ceremoniall omissions against a Law of God And if the Priests should not suffer an unreconciled man to offer gifts and if the Church should deny pearls to apostates if this be not punishment and if the Magistrate be to cast out or inflict Ecclesiasticall censures shall he not punish in so doing Erastus To be cast out of the Synogogue is not to be Excommunicated For the Synagogue signified sometime all Iudea sometime a particular Congregation or the place of meeting or the sermon By no Law could a circumcised Iew be cast out of all Iudea and sent to the Gentitles or be compelled to say they were not Iews Yea they were killed who denyed Iudaisme 2 Maccabees so the cast out of the Synagogue were not debarred from the Temple
Church judgeth of internalls and that they may debarre men from the Sacraments for only heart-unbeleefe knowne to God only This must lye on Erastus as a calumnie while he make it good from our writings and Doctrine that we thus teach exclude those that are visibly scandalous and prophane and we are satisfied 2. He that brings his offering to the Altar and hath done a knowne offence to his brother for it is a sinfull and visible scandall which scandalizeth one brother He useth not the holy things of God right even as touching externals He that comes to the Lords supper desiring and asking the ordinance of righteousnesse as Isaiah speaketh and promiseth amendment and yet is openly ignorant and not sound in the faith he useth not aright the Sacraments even in externals of which only the Church judgeth rightly as he that in the same day commeth to the temple to worship now the very personall presence of a Iew in the Temple which was a Type of Iesus Christ was a worship and a holy thing of God whereas our presence in the place of meeting for worship is no such thing when he hath killed his sonne to Moloch prophaned the Temple and the name of God even in externals for the Priests of old who were to put differences between the clean and the unclean no more were to judge the inward thoughts and heart-dispositions of men knowne to God only then we can now judge them in the New Testament 1 Chro. 29. 17. 1 King 8. 39. 1 Chro. 28. 9. Prov. 15. 11. Hence that is an ignorant speach of Erastus Quistatuit malus esse non prodibit in ecclesiae faciem ut se poenuere prioris vite testetur ac meliorem promittat That man shall never come before the face of the Church to testifie that he repenteth of his former wicked life and promise amendment who purposeth to be wicked Will not men purpose not to be reconciled to their brethren and suffer many suns to go downe in their wrath and malice who come and bring their offring to the Altar why did then Christ forbid offring at the Altar without being reconciled to an offended brother Mat. 5. might not the offending brother offer his gift and were not the Priests to except his offring He could say all that Erastus requireth I acknowledge I have offended my brother I promise to crave him pardon and I desire to offer according to the Law Then the Priest was obliged to beleeve he dealt sincerely and lay his gift upon the Altar though he should not obey the command of Christ and go and leave his gift at the Altar and not offer while he were first reconciled to his brother and the like I say of one that hath killed his brother and cometh with hot blood to the Table of the Lord and goeth not to the Widdow and Orphanes whose Husband and Father he had killed to be reconciled Surely the man that should thus offer should not come to offer nor to eat at the Lords table rightly even in regard of externals which the Church may judge for he should omit this externall Be first reconciled to the Widdow and then offer and eat as Christ commanded 3. It is against Scripture and experience that a man that hath a purpose to kill his Father and in the highest point of treason to invade King Davids throne as Absolon did to say he will not professe to pay his vows at Hebron And might not Judas by his very eating the Passeover professe he beleeved in the Lambe of God that taketh away the sins of the world and that he would serve Christ and yet purpose in his heart to sell his Master Christ for 30 peeces of silver They seeme to be little acquainted with the mysterie of the hypocrisie naturally in men who put in print such a position The Author against whom Erastus writeth saith We have reason to rejoyce if we finde any such who will not professe faith and repentance though they be Hypocrites and therefore there is need of Excommunication and his meaning is that there is need of Excommunication alwayes and therefore there will be many who professe Repentance in words whose life and conversation belie their Repentance and Erastus cannot deny this if he know what it is â—o have a forme of godlinesse and deny the power which forme many have who are to be debarred from the Sacraments and to be Excommunicated in regard they are lovers of their owne selves covetous boasters proud blasphemers disobedient to parents unthankefull without naturall affection truce breakers false accusers incontinent fierce despisers of those that are good traitors headie high minded c. 2 Tim. 3. 1 2 c. and such they are in the eies of men otherwise Paul would not forbid to withdraw from such Erastus The Author I thinke would yeeld that the Sacraments should not be denyed to those who seeke them and desire to use them aright and are not excommunicated for the writeth that the deniall of the Sacraments is onely a Testimony of excommunication So when we give not a Testimony of a thing for example of learning to any to whom the thing it selfe to wit learning doth not agree we cannot deny the Sacraments to those who are not Excommunicated for hee should not be blotted with a Testimony of a banished man who is not declared to be banished Ans 1. The Author I thinke would never yeeld but the Sacraments ought to be denied to those who aske for them and desire to use them aright if they be otherwise Truce-breakers false accusers incontinent traitors for those have and may have a forme of godlines and aske the Sacraments and desire to use them aright I meane they may say they desire to use them aright for of their inward desire God onely can judge who knoweth the heart yet the Author cannot he will not say that such are to be admitted to the Lords Supper all thaâ— Erastus goeth on iâ— That the Church is obliged to beleeve that those doe repent and use the Sacraments aright who say in word of mouth they doe so and therefore are to be admitted to the Sacraments though they come but an houre before out of the Bordell house and have hands and sword hot and smoking with innocent blood Now Dogs and Swine Câ—in Iudas known to be scandalous may give faire words and cry Lord Lord and professe all this as is cleare Isa 58. 2. Mat. 7. 21 22. Rom. 16. 18 Mat. 23. 13 14 23 c. 2. Exclusion from the Sacraments is a Testimony of Excommunication but not testimonium proprium quarto modo for some that are not excommunicated are to be debarred from the Sacraments as the thing it selfe will force us to acknowledge should any come with his sword hot in blood from killing his father and Pastor to the Lords Table I hope the Church knowing this would not admit him to the Sacrament and yet he is not yet excommunicated
corrupt Heterodox and all the Pastors have corrupted their wayes 5. Civill punishing of Church-men when they are Hereticall and scandalous we heartily yield to Magistrates But that Magistrates as such should Excommunicate and admit such to the Sacrament and reject other such and rebuke or that the Magistrate as the Magistrate did of old judge between the clean and the unclean cast out from the congregation and camp and receive in and so governe the Church is altogether unwarranttable Now the adversaries as Erastus grant that Idolaters Apostates and extreamly prophane men are to be cast out of the Christian society and not to be suffered there and also that Dogs and Swine and Apostates persecutâ—rs are neither to be admitted to hear the Word nor partake of the Sacraments So also Mr. Pryn if Magistrates must cast them out of the Church by vertue of their office and judge as Magistrates who are prophane and who truly feare God and who are dogs and Apostates who not surely then Magistrates as Magistrates must discerne between the cleane and the uncleane as Priest of old and must separate the precious from the vile as the Prophets did of old and so were the mouth of God and must stand before the Lord leâ— 15. 19. Then must Magistrates as Magistrates be Pastors called in the Pulpit as well as in the Throne and the Bench and that by vertue of their calling which neither Erastus nor the reverend Mr. Pryn will owne Now if the Elders of the Church with the consent of the people must cast such out of the Church and from communion in the holy things of God here is in expresse termes the very Ecclesiasticall Excommunication which Mr. Pryn denieth to be an Ordinance of God and yet it must be commanded by Iesus Christ in these words Mat. 7. 6. Give not holy things unto dogs and therefore keep not in Church communion the prophane and by the way Mr. Pryn to me yeeldeth the cause and granteth that Excommunication and suspension from the Sacraments doe both fall under this precept of Christ Mat. 7. That which falleth under a command of Christ to me is a Divine Ordinance 2. He saith also reasoning against are suspension from the Sacraments Obstinate scandalous sinners make no conscience at all of receiving the Sacrament and voluntarily suspend themselves there-from in case they be freely admitted to other Ordinances it being onely the totall Exclusion from the Church and all Christian society not any bare suspension from the Sacrament which worketh both shame and remorse in excommunicate persons as Paul resolveth 1 Thes 3. 14. 1 Cor. 5. 13. compared with 1 Cor. 1. to v. 10. 3. This is in terminis excommunication proved from divers places of Scripture for it is a totall Exclusion from the Church and all Christian society working shame and remorse as Paul resolveth We seeke no more Pauls resolution to us is a Divine right Those words of that Learned and Reverend man have give me leave by the way to say for I hope worthier then I am do answer fully all he hath said in this subject all that we crave For 1. obstinate men will voluntarily suspend themselves from the Sacrament Ergo the Church should not suspend them onely but also Excommunicate them I grant all if they be obstinate they are to be not only suspended but also excommunicated Ergo they are not solie and onely to be suspended Pro hac vice for this time it followeth no waies all that this Reverend Lawyer saith against sole suspension from the Sacrament of an obstinate offender is nothing against us if he be obstinate he is not onely to be suspended from the Sacrament but also if he goe on in refusing to heare the admonitions of brethren and of the Church he is to be excommunicated Ergo he is not first hac vice to be suspended from a confirming Ordinance given to those onely who are supposed to have the life of faith and can onely eat and drinke spiritually and by faith the body and blood of Christ It followeth not I thinke Mr. Pryn would not have Hereticks and Apostates suddenly and at the first totally as he saith excluded from the Church and all Christian society sure we owe some gentlenes and patience even to them If God peradventure may give them Repentance to scape out of the snare of the Devil 2 Tim. 2. 24. 25 26. yet if an Heretick and Apostate that same day that the Lords Supper were to be celebrated should deny the Resurrection and Iesus Christ to be God blessed for ever and not equall with the Father nor consubstantiall with him and withall should that same day have offered his childe to Molech and yet professe his desire to come to the Lords Supper professing he had tryed and examined himselfe and his desire to come to eate and drinke with Iesus Christ the great Prophet of his Church Would not Mr. Prynne thinke he should not be admitted to the Lords Supper and yet that he should not totally be excluded from the Church and all communion from the Church and holy things of God I should think if he cannot be presently excommunicated yet he should not be admitted to the Sacrament for sure he cannot but be in a doggish and swinish disposition in one degree or other And my reason is he is as Erastus saith non rectè institutus not rightly instructed but heterodoxe and so cannot try and examine himselfe while he be better principled in the faith so a suspension for a time from the Lords supper and ex natura rei without totall exclusion from the Church and all Christian society were as necessary whether the Magistrate or Church suspend I dispute not now as a degree of punishment or a preventing of eating of damnation is necessary hiâ— nunc O but saith Master Prinne Christ knew that Iudas was worse than an heretick and yet he denied not to admit him to the Supper Ergo though we knew such a one the Sacrament being a converting Ordinance it followeth not that we should debarre him from the Sacrament Ans Whether Iudas did eat the Supper of the Lord or not I think nothing of the matter only Master Prinne hath duram provinciam and a very hard task to prove it from Scripture If I were to examine his book I should deny his consequences from the Evangelists for not any of them can prove that Iudas did communicate at the last Supper But 1. Christs example in this being an act of Christ as God permitting the greatest hypocrisie on earth is no rule to the Church to give the Lords Supper to Iuddasses First Iudas was visibly and infallibly to Christ a man who deserved to be totally excluded out of the Church and all Christian societie and to Christ a knowne traitor a Devill an hypocrite Ergo as Christ did not exclude him out of the Church neither should the Saints now exclude from their society nor should the Christian
appealed to Cesar if he had been a Christian in the controversie touching circumcision he should have determined who were perverters of souls who not and should have said by his office as Emperour It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to me 3. We have not any practise or precept or promise in the Old or New Testament for any such appeal except they say all hard questions belonging to the Priests office were to come before Moses as a civill Magistrate and not as the great Prophet to whom God revealed his minde 4. If so then all Church controversies in doctrine and discipline should be ultimately resolved into the will of the Magistrate speaking according to the word and faith in most points should come by hearing a Magistrate determining against Arrius that Christ is God consubstantiall with the Father and all binding and loosing in Earth as in heaven should be from the Magistrate as the Magistrate he should forgive and retaine sins and Christ should have given the keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven to the Magistrate as the Magistrate certainly we should have the doctrine of the Church of Christ and the building and edifying thereof most obscure in the New Testament in which there is not one word of such a supream and chiefe officer as the Magistrate 5. The Parliament colledge of civill judges as they are civill Magistrates should be the Church assemblies and determine all doctrines debarre the ignorant and Hereticks and Apostates from the Sacraments and totally cast them out of the Church and excommunicate them I see not but then the Parliament as the Parliament is the Church and the two Kingdomes Ioh. 18. 36. must be confounded and no difference at all made between the civill state and the Church because the Magistrate as the Magistrate is made by the adversaries the chiefe officer over the Church the Ecclesiasticall head the mixt Governour halfe civill whole Ecclesiasticall in whose power all Pastors Elders preach dispense Sacraments make Church-canons as his Ministers and Servants Christ when any brother trespasseth against a Christian brother saith Tell the Church never Tell the christian Magistrate But truly it is a great mistake in the learned Mr. Pryn to call them Anti-Monarchicall Anti-Parliamentary and Novators who deny that the Parliament hath any Nomothetick power in Church-canons Nor hath hee in any measure answered the Arguments of those Learned and godly Divines Mr. Iohn Goodwin and Mr. Hen Burton he is pleased to cite the practise of many Parliaments of England who laudably impatient of the Popes yoke have made Church-canons when the man of sin sate upon the neck of the Christian church but these numerous citations of Parliaments and Councels in time of Popery conclude nothing against us who grant when the Church is not her selfe the christian Magistrate may extraordinarily reform and take from the man of sin his usurped power but in a constituted Church the case must be otherwise and 1. Whereas he proveth Emperors and Kings to have a power to convocate Councels It hath not strength against us all our Divines teach so But how 1. an accumulative civill power so Iewel Alley Bilson Whitaker Willet White Roger he might have cited more but no privative no Ecclesiasticall power so as Synods may not lawfully conveen without the command of the civill Magistrate our Divines say many Synods and Church meetings were in the Apostolique Church without the consent and against the will of the civill Magistrate our Divines oppose the Pope who claimeth the only accumulative civill privative and Ecclesiastick power to convocate Synods and that no Synods are lawfull without the consent and mandate of the holinesse of such a Beast 2. Master Prinne saith The Magistrate hath power to direct for time and place and to limit for matter and manner the proceedings liberty and freedome of all Church Assemblies But 1. he asserteth this in the most from corrupt practises 2. He proveth Laymen should have hand as well in Synods as Clergymen the one having interest in the faith as well as the other Ans Then must all the people be members of Synods for all have alike interest of Faith but this proveth not interest of defining which is the question in dispensing Word and Sacraments they have interest of trying all things as well as Pastors but it followeth not Ergo they may dispense Word and Sacraments no lesse yea more principally then Pastors as Erastus saith the Magistrate more principally determineth Synodicall constitutions Hence this is easily answered we may appeal in Church businesse to him as to the supream judge who may punish the erring Church and Pastors but the Magistrate may in Church businesse do this For answer 1. I retort it the Magistrate in making civill Lawes that must in their moralitie be determined by the Word of God may appeal to Pastors whose lips by office should preserve knowledge Ergo the Magistrate in making civill Lawes may appeal to the Pastor which is absurd 2. If men in Church-constitutions may appeal to the Magistrate as to one who may in his person determine Synodically in Assemblies above all the Pastors 1. Because Magistrates may punish the Pastors erring and oppressing in Synods 2. Because the Magistrate and all laymen have interest in the faith as well as Pastors then may people in hearing the Word and receiving the Sacraments and in all Pastorall rebukings and threatnings in believing of all Gospel promises and threatnings and fundamentall truths appeal from Pastors to Magistrates as Magistrates and Magistrates as such may determine all fundamentall truths all conscionall promises and rebukes and that is formally they may preach for he that can distinguish these hath a good engine Because Magistrates may punish hereticall preaching and superstitions and idolatrous abusing of the Sacraments by preachers and Magistrates and all Laymen have interest of Faith in Word Doctrine and Sacraments as in Discipline yea the Magistrate may punish the Priest that offered strange fire to the Lord offered bastard incense and the people had their interest of saith in sacrifices offered for their own sins but can it follow therefore the Magistrate might sacrifice and burne incense in his own person as Mr. Pryn will have him to make Church-laws in his own person Other Arguments of Mr. Pryns are light as that there were brethren and Lay-men that had hand in the Councell at Hierusalem Acts 15. Ans This is nothing for Magistrates as Magistrates but all Christians as Christians so must have hand in Synods which I grant in so far as concerneth their faith and practise that they try all things and try the Spirits whether they be of God or not but will it follow Ergo Magistrates as Magistrates are those only who govern the Church and make all Ecclesiasticall constitutions as having in them all power of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction and deriving it to Bishops and Pastors at the second hand as Mr. Pryn saith in the same booke Obj.