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
glory on every Assembly on Mount Zion for we are witnesses of Your Honours Travels for both that glory may dwell in our Land Your Honours at all respective observance in the Lord S. R. To the Ingenuous and Equitable Reader IT lieth obvious to any ordinary underderstanding worthy Reader that as alwayes we see a little portion of God so now the Lord our God in his acting on Kingdoms and Churches maketh Darknesse his Pavilion to finde out the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Demonstrative Causes and true Principles of such bloody conclusions and horrible vastations as the Soveraign Majesty of Heaven and Earth hath made in Germany Bohemiah and the Palatinate as if they were greater sinners then we are and why the windows of Divine Justice have been opened to send down such a deluge of blood on Ireland and why in Scotland the Pestilence hath destroyed in the City and the Sword of the Lord not a few in the fields their Lovers and Friends standing aloof from their calamities is from the Lord who is wonderful in Counsel but to finde reasons to quiet the understanding is not an easie scrutiny matters are rolled on invisible wheels It is enough to us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no Men no Angels can hunt out the tracings of Divine Providence Nor can we set a day of Law nor erect a Court to implead this Lord who is not holden in Law to answer for any of his matters It were our wisdom to acknowledge that the actions of our Lord ad extrà are so twisted and interwoven thred over thred that we can see but little of the walls and out-works of his unsearchable counsels sure Divine Providence hath now many irons in one fire and with one touch of his finger he stirtâ—â—h all the wheels in Heaven and Earth I speak this if happily this little piece may cast it self in the eye of the Noble and Celebrious Judges and Senators who now sit at the â—eâ—m for I hope they consider it is but a short and sorry Line or rather a poor Circle Job 1. 21. Gen. 3. 19. between the Womb and the Grave between Dust and Dust and that they then act most like themselves Psal 82. 6. I have said ye are Gods when they remember they are sinful men and when they reckon it for gain that the King of Ages gives them a Diurnal of 24 hours to build the House of the Lord to cause the heart of a Widow Church though her Husband live for evermore to sing for joy and are eyes to the blinde and legs to the lame and withall do minde that when the Spirit is within half a Cubit or the sixth part of a Span to Eternity and Death cannot adjouâ—n for six hours to repent or do any more service to Christ in the body the welcom and testimony of God shall be incomparably above the Hosanna's of men Undeniable it is that we destroy again what we have builded if we behead the Pope and divest him of his Vicarious Supremacy and soader the Man of Sins head in the Ecclesiastical Government to the shoulders of any Man or Society of men on Earth It is not an enriching spoyl to pluck a Rose or Flower from the Crown of the Prince of the Kings of the Earth Diamonds and Rubiâ—s picked out of the Royal Diadem of Jesus Christ addeth but a poor and sorry Lustre to Earthly Supremacy it is Baldnesse in steaâ— of Beauty An Arbitrary power in any whether in Prince or â— relats is intolerable Now to cast ouâ— Domination in one and to take it in in another is not to put away the Evil of our doings but to Barter and Exchange one sin with another and mockingly to expiate the Obligation of one Arrear to God by contracting new Debt Again how glorious is it that Shields of the Earth lay all their Royalty and Power level with the dust before him that sitteth on the Throne and to make their Highnesse but a Scaffold to heighten the Throne of the Son of God Yea if Domination by the Sword be the Magistrates Birth-right as the Word of Truth teacheth us Luke 22. 25 26. Psal 82. 1 6. Rom. 13. 4. and the Sword can never draw blood of the Conscience It is evident that the Lord Jesus alloweth not Carnal weapons to be used within the walls of his Spiritual Kingdom and if Power be an enchanting Witch and like strong Drink which is dolosus luctator a cosening Wrestler we are to be the more cautelous and circumspect that it incroach not upon Jesus Christ for fear that we provoke the eyes of his glory and cause Jerusalem to be plowed and Zion become heaps and many houses great and fair desolate Let the Appeal be to the Spirit that speaketh to the Churches in the Word The Golden Reed can measure every Cubit of the Temple as well the outer Porch as the Holy of Holiest and all the dimensions the length and bredth of the City which is named 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Lord is there If the Scripture be no Rule of Church Government but the Magistrates Sword be upon the shoulders of Christ as the prime Magistrate we come too near to the Jewish Earthly and Temporary Mesâ—iah And if Excommunication and Censures and that Ministerial Governing which was undeniably in the Apostolick Church be Fictions we are in the dark I confesse we know not whether the Vessels of the House should be of Gold and Silver or if they should be but Earthen Pitchers It is said That all this is but a Plea for a Dominion of an higher Nature even over the Consciences of men by Censures But why a Dominion Because a power of Censures Surely if they were not Spiritual Censures and such as hath influence on the Conscience we should yield a Domination were the businesse But this power of Censuring Spiritually is as strong as Authoritative in Dispensing Rebukes Threats Gospel-charges and Commands in the Word Preached as in Censures The power is Ministerial only in the Word not Lordly and why should it be deemed a Dominion and an Arbitrary power in the one and not in the other If the will of the Magistrate may carve out any Government that seems good to him and the Word of God in this plea be laid aside as perfect in Doctrine but imperfect and uselesse in Government we fall from the Cause But if the Word of God stand as a Rule in matters of Church-Government then the Question is only on whose shoulders the Ark should be carried and by whose Ministery doth Jesus the Lord and King of the House punish if I may use this word Scandalous men And whether doth the Head of the Church Christ in laying Judgement to the Line and Righteousnesse to the Plummet use the Magistrates Sword for a Spiritual and Supernatural end of the Service and Ministery of his Church or doth he send Pastors and Teachers as his Ambassadors for this end But if you were not
was not to follow his own spirit but was to follow the patterne that God shewed him in the Mount then far lesse hath Christ the Apostle and high Priest of our Profession giving us a Platforme of the Church and Government of the New-Testament variable shaped according to the alterable laws customes manners of divers nations for as Moses though a Prophet was not to make one pin of the Tabernacle but according to the samplar patern that God did shew him so Christ manifested to his Disciples all that he had heard and seen of the Father Ioh. 15. But it is not to be supposed that the Father shew to Christ an alterable tabernacle in the new Testament that men might alter chop and change at their pleasure as the customes of Nations are changed If God thought Religion should run a hazard if the greatest of Prophets except Christ might have leave to mold and shape all the Leviticall Service and Ceremonies for as the judicious and Learned Interpreter Mr. David Dickson saith all the Leviticall Service is comprehended under the name of the Tabernacle Exod. 25. 40. according as he pleased far more should all be corrupted if erring men far inferior to Moses Prelats and Pastors should have leave to draw the Lineaments of the New Testament Tabernacle Church Service Officers Censures and all the Positives of Policie according to no patern shown by Christ but only the Fashions alterable Laws Customes forms of nations Now all the pins of the Tabernacle were but shadows and Types of Morall and Heavenly things Heb. 8. 5. Heb. 10. 1. Heb. 9. 9. And they were to be changed and done away by Christ Col. 2. 17. Heb. 7. 12. 2 Cor. 3. 11. Yet could neither be devised by Moses nor altered by any mortall man Church or Priests how can we imagine that men may now devise and set up an alterable and changeable New Testament-frame of Prelats Altars Religious dayes Surplice Crossing or any the like toyes And though David was a Prophet and a man according to Gods heart yet in the externals of the Temple nothing was left to his spirit he might neither in the least jot adde or omit 1 Chron. 28. 11. Then David gave to Solomon his Son the patern of the Porch and of the houses thereof and of the Treasuries thereof and of the upper Chambers thereof and of the inner Parlors thereof of the place of the Mercy-Seat Here be many particulars But whence had David all these From the patern according to which Crosse Surplice Altars and humane Prelats are shapen Alas no therefore it is added v. 12. And he shewed the patern of all that he had by the spirit of the courts of the house of the Lord and of all the chambers round about v. 19. All this said David the Lord made me understand in writing by his hand upon me even all the works of this patern I see no reason to deny that the form of the Temple was written by the hand of God as the Ten Commandments were written in two Tables of stone by him the Text seemeth to say no lesse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pagni and Ar. Mont. render it Omnia in Scriptura de manu domini super me intellegere fecit So Jerome Omnia venerunt Scripta manu domini ad me Vatablus in notis Omnia ista dominus Scripsit manu suâ— et digito â—uâ— ut me familiarius doâ—eret We shall not contend with Tostatus who saith It might have been written by Angels though we go not from the letter of the Text we have from this Papist Tostatus all we desire for he saith We must say that it was not by Davids own thought that he builded all for David durst not build a Temple to the Lord of his own heart because he knew not if that would please God but by Divine Revelation And therefore the old Translation is corrupt in this as in many things which rendreth v. 12. Thus Dedit David Salamoni descriptionem pâ—rtiâ—us c. Nec non et omnium que cogitaverat As if Davids thought had been his guide for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the spirit by Tostatus Corneli a Lapide Lyra is meant not Davids spirit but the spirit of Revelation from the Lord and Lyra saith on v. 12. Per hoc designatur quod deus pater dedit homini Christo notitiam omnium agendorum in ecclesiâ And Pet. Martyr our own Doctor saith on 1 King 8. It cannot be told how unpleasant the institution of new worship is to God And there should be nothing in Baptisme but the Word and the Elements any thing added as Crossing Oyl Salt came from the Prelats Lavater in 1. Par. c. 28. ver 14. condemneth all additions even though Solomon should have added them Ezech. 43. 11. Thou Son of man shew the house to the house of Israel 12. And if they be ashamed of all that they have done shew them the form of the house and the fashion thereof and goings out thereof and the comings in thereof and all the forms thereof and all the Ordinances thereof and all the forms thereof all the Laws thereof And write it in their sight that they may keep the whole form thereof all the Ordinances thereof and do them Now it is most considerable that the Form Fabrick and Structure of the Temple Ezech. c. 40. In the visions of God is shewn to the Prophet by a man by Christ the great Angel of the Covenant who with a measuring reed of six cubits measured the Temple and in these chapters c. 40 41 42. Christ sheweth to Ezekiel all the patern and form which evidently typifieth the Church of the New Testament the Bride the Lambs Wife in the Kingdom of Grace and glorified in Heaven revealed by the Angel to John Rev. 21. 9 10 11. It may be thought that the Porches Chambers length and bredth of them East West South and North the Laws about the Priests their linnen garments Sacrifices washing and the like are of lesse concernment then the Doctrine of Christs nature person offices of Faith Repentance Iudgement Heaven c. And therefore being not so necessary nor so weighty there was no necessity that all the like Positive externals of Church-Policie written to a rude and carnall people should be written to us who are now more spirituall and upon whom the day-spring from above doth shine the shadows now being past and who have greater liberty then they had who were as children under Tutors Ans 1. I do not deny but all Ceremonials are of lesse weight then the Morals but the question is if they be of lesse Divine authority so as we may devise of our own Spirit such Ceremonials and may alter omit or remove these or any new Ceremonials in the Sacraments under the New Testament for New Testament Ceremonials as to take Bread Eat and drink are not so necessary nor so weighty to us under the New-Testament
spake nothing from his Father either in his own person or his Apostles in the New-Testament or in the old by Moses and the Prophets of invocation of Saints Purgatory Worshipping of Images and Reliques and the rest of their unwritten Traditions these being positives of worship and more then unseparable and connaturall attendants such as are common Time Place Person Name Country Habite Gesture are therefore unlawfull because Christ neither heard them of the Father nor spake them to the Apostles and just the like say we of Surplice Crosse c. That they are no part of the will of God which the Father revealed to Christ and these same Texts Papists use to prove that the Scriptures are not perfect because they speak nothing of the Traditions of the Church so Bellarmine Because the Counsell of Trent Andradius Stapleton and all the rest and they prove as well if Crosse and Surplice and humane Offices as Prelates stand good and lawfull that yet the Scriptures are unperfect 3. We say that the whole will of God revealed by the Father to Christ and by Christ to the Prophets and Apostles requireth the immutability of all Laws of Church-Policy in this sence that men should not dare to make and unmake erect command alter and injoyne positive Laws of doctrine or policy at their pleasure Hooker ibid. p. 113. There is more reason to say that God hath a lesse care of the Church under the New-Testament then under the Old then a Philosopher had to say because God hath provided better for beasts that are born with hornes skins hair and garments by nature then man who is born without these that therefore nature is a carefull mother to beasts and a hard-hearted Step-dame to man for Gods affection consisteth not in these for even herein shineth his wisdom that though the wayes of his providence be many yet the end which he bringeth all at the length unto is one and the self same yea it should follow that because God hath not prescribed Rites and Laws of civill Policy to us as to the Iews that he hath lesse love to us and lesse care of our Temporall estate in the world then of theirs Ans 1. It s true indeed God should have lesse care of man who is born naked then of beasts born with hair in lieu of garments if God had not given reason to man according to which by nature he may provide garments for himself and the comparison should go aptly on four feet God should have lesse love and should declare lesse love to some of mankinde if he gave some naturall reason to devise a Bible and a Religion of their own that they might walk to heaven in the light of a fire of their own kindling without the Scriptures of God which is a false supposition and if he had denied reason to another part of mankinde surely all would say God had so far forth been more carefull of the salvation of the former as he should have willed their salvation and loved those in a higher measure to whom he gave reason on these termes and should have been lesse carefull of the salvation of those to whom he denied reason as he he had no more created such capable of salvation and of his love for the saving of them then brute beasts are and this answer layeth down a ground that naturall reason is sufficient without the light of Scripture to guide us in all these things of policy that are alterable then say I God did take a great deal of needlesse and superfluous pains in setting down so many particular Laws of Ceremonies and Civill Policy for the Iews if with the help of reason they might have steerd their course to Christ and salvation by the help of the star light of reason as a man though born naked may by help of reason make shift for garments to infants which beasts void of reason cannot do for thus the comparison must run and it shall be indeed a cavilling at Gods wisdom as Papists do calling the Scriptures inky Divinity 2. The word of God maketh it a great love of God and a work of Free grace that the great things of Gods Law are written to Ephraim Hos 8. 12. And their sin the greater that they should dare to multiply Altars v. 11. without warrant of Gods word as Formalists multiplied Altars Saints-dayes Surplices c. And it is an act of singular love that God gave his judgements Word and Statutes even of Ceremonies and policy to Israel and Iacob and did not so to every Nation Psal 149. 19 20. Ezek. 20. 11 12 13. This was Israels excellency above all Nations on earth Deut. 4. 6. Deut. 20. 33. Rom. 3. 1 2. Rom. 9. 4. that God gave them particular Lawes Iudgements Statutes not only in Morals but also in Ceremonials and Policy yet Hooker dare say We may not measure the affection of God towards us by such differences 3. It shall not hence follow God hath a greater love to the Iews then to us because he gave them Laws concerning civill policy which he gave not to us Except the Lord had given us power to make civill Laws which laid Morall obligation on our consciences even in civill things which morality He expressed in particular Laws written to them and not to us as Formalists teach for then he hath left us in Moralls to the darknesse of naturall reason in which condition we could not but erre and sin and make that morally good and obligatory of conscience which is morally evil for reason knoweth not what is positive Morally good except the light of Gods Word teach us and in Morals such as judiciall Laws were to the Jews the Lord should have been more carefull in his particular directing of them then of us and more tender to have them preserved from the sin of will-worship then us which cannot consist with the Dispensation of lesse light greater obscurity in regard of types and shadows toward them and of the Day-light of the Gospel and the arising of the Day-star and the filling of the earth with knowledge of the Lord toward us under the New Testament But the comparison must go upon this supposition that the Lord purposed to make Politick Laws in their Positives Morall and Obligatory of the Conscience of the Jews and the Civill Laws of the Gentiles under the New Testament in their Positives such as is not to carry Armour in the night and the like not to be Morall nor Obligatory of the Conscience But as touching that which is Morall in all Civill Laws the Lord is as carefull of our Temporall state as of theirs in condescending to particularize all Morals to us as well as to them Hooker That Christ did not mean to set down particular Positive Laws for all things in such sort as Moses did the very different manner of delivering the Laws of Moses and the Laws of Christ doth plainly shew Moses had Commandement to
perfect though it teach us not any thing of tradionals in speciall yet in generall it doth hold forth the traditions of the church So Tostat Abulens in Deut. 4. v. 2. ad lit saith Hic commendatur lex ex perfectione quia perfecto nec addi potest nec auferri debet Here the Law of God is commended saith he from its perfection and that is perfect to which nothing can be added and from which nothing should be taken Yea so far forth is the scripture perfect in the Articles of Faith that Castro in summa c. 8. Canus locor Theolog. l. 2. c. 7. and l. 4. c. 4. and Tannerus tom 3. in 22. disp 1. de fide Q. 1. dub 7. saith We are not now to wait for any new revelation of any verity unknown to the Apostles Et nihil novi definiri ab ecclesia Apostolis incognitum and all verities now revealed were implicitely believed by the Apostles and contained in Vniversall generall precepts as that the Saints are to be worshipped that Canonicall Books containeth the word of God the Bishops of Rome are the true successors of Peter and Catholick pastors c. and he saith Quod ecclesia non posset novum fidei articulum condere communiter etiam docent Scholastici in 3. dis 25. he subscribeth to that truth of Vincentius Lyrinensis c. 17. In ecclesia nulla nova Dogmata procudi sed pretiosam divini Dogmatis Gemmam exsculpi fideliter cooptari adornari sapienter ut intelligatur illustrius quod antea obscurius credebatur No new points of saith or manners are forged in the Church but the precious pearl of divine truth is in it polished faithfully applied and wisely illustrated that they may be more clearly understood which before was more obscurely beleeved so that to say the perfection of scripture consisteth not in particularizing all the small positives of policy is no more then Papists say of the perfection of the scripture in their traditions 2. Moses speaketh both of the Morall and Ceremoniall Law called by the names of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Statutes rights and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Judgements and Laws whatsoever extolled by David Psal 119. As his delight his joy his heritage his songs in the house of his pilgrimages and of both he saith that there is life in keeping them Now the Ceremonies of Moses had an exceeding great excellency in looking to Christ and being shadows of good things to come Heb. 10. 1. And our Ceremonies have the same aspect upon Christ Why but the day of the commemoration of Christs Death Nativity Ascension Dedication to Christ by a Crosse in the Aire should have the same influence and impression on our hearts if they be lawfull that the like Ceremonies and Laws had upon Davids spirit Christ being the object and soul of both 2. Of these Ceremonies and Laws Moses faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 6. for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the Nations Why but these same Ceremonies looking with a broader and fuller face on Christ already come if Christ have put any life of lawfulnesse in them then their dim shadows of old should also be our wisdom in the hearing of Pagans who know not God 3. It is a wonder to me that the learned Master Prynne should say that the place Deut. 4. speaketh nothing of Church-Government and Ceremonies but only of Doctrines of Canonicall Books For that is as much as to say the place speaketh nothing of Divine Ceremonies but only of divine Ceremonies for what a number of Divine Ceremonies and Laws are in the Law of Moses which were given by the Lord himself as is clear by the words ver 1. Now therefore hearken O Israel unto the Statutes and judgements that I teach you that ye may live and v. 5. Behold I have taught you Statutes and judgments which the Lord my God commanded me v. 8. And what nation is there so great that hath statutes and judgements so Righteous as all this Law which I set before you this day Now of all this Law the Lord saith v. 2. Ye shall not adde unto the Word which I commanded you Neither shall ey diminish The Learned and Reverend Mr Prynne must restrict this word of the Law which can admit of no addition to some speciall Law either the Morall only or the judiciall and Ceremoniall only not to the former for then additions to the Decalogue only should be forbidden this never man taught Stapleton indeed Relect. Prin. fid Doctrin cont 4. Q. 1. Art 3. restricteth it to the Ceremoniall Law only but Moses maketh it a Law as large v. 2. as the word which God Commandeth And as saith he v. 5. the statutes and the judgements which the Lord Commanded me v. 8. All this Law Deut. 31. 9. This written Law delivered to the Priests and kept in the Ark the Law that all Israel heard read v. 11. Of which it is said v. 24. When Moses had made an end of writing of the words of this Law in a Book untill they were finished Now this was the whole five Books of Moses And were there nothing of Church-Government in Moses Law What shall we then say of the High Priest his calling Office habit of the Priests Levites their charge calling attire of the Law of the Leaper his healing his extrusion out of the Camp of the Law of those that were defiled with the dead of their qualification who were to be Circumcised who were to eat the Passeover or who not who were to enter into the house of God and Congregation who not not a few of these touching Church-Government are included in the Law that God Commanded Israel as their wisdom 4. That there were many additions made to the service of God in the Temple not mentioned by Moses is nothing to purpose except it be proved that these additions were made by the Church without any word of God the conâ—rary whereof is evident for the Temple and whole patern thereof was delivered in writing by the Lord to David 1 Chron. 28. 11. 19. If Formalists will have no Laws made but by Moses as the only Law-giver they have as good reason to say That Moses was the only Canonick writer and none but he which is absurd Or 2. That Moses by his own spirit was a Law-giver and had active influence in excogitating the Law We conceive that Protestants are to own this Doctrine which Tostatus imputes to us as Hereticks Com. in Loc. Q. 2. Quasi Moses nudus minister relator verborum dti esset non legem conderet As if Moses were a meer servant and a naked reporter of the Lords Law and words and not a Law-maker For in the making of Laws and Divine institutions we judge that all the Canonick writers were meer patients as the people are for God is the Commander and Moses the person Commanded and a meer servant Deut. 4. 5. Mal. 4. 4. Heb. 3.
3 4 5. And Moses and all Canonick writers were only to receive the word at Gods mouth and to hear it Ezek. 3. 8. As meer servants and in this the Church of Prophets and of Apostles and the Church that now is were alike I know no Authority of the one above the other Indeed in writing and relating to the Church the will of God and the Scriptures Canonick writers are agents inspired with the Holy spirit immediately breathing on them in Prophecying and in writing Scripture But the Proclaimer of a Law as such hath no influence in making the Law Let it be also remembred that as Papists say two things to the place so do Formalists 1. That it is not against Ceremonies 2. That the Church is limited in making Ceremonies beside the Word that they may not make them too numerous and burdensome This I make good in the words of a famous Iesuit who citeth the words of a Learned Papist approving them Lorinus Coment in Loc. Refellit idem Oleaster Hereticos hinc inserentes institui non posse Ceremonias ac ritus novos circa cultum dei Quam vis ipse optat moderationem in preceptis ac censuris ut facilius suavius possint servari To whom I oppose that golden sentence of a man endued with the spirit of God above any Papist Calvin Com. in Deut. 4. v. 2. Insignis locus quo apertè damnatur quicquid hominum ingenio excogitari potest Ibid. Quoniam preposter â lasciviâ rapitur totus ferè mundus ad cultus fictitios qui tamen precise une verbo damnantur ubi deus ita jubet suos acquiescere positae legi ne justiores esse appetant quam illic docentur All Worship is precisely condemned here or any thing devised about the Worship by the wit of men I would here meet with a Grand exception of Mr. Hooker Eccles Polic. 3. Book pag. 111. Their distinction of matters of substance and of circumstance though true will not serve for be they great things or be they small if God have Commanded them in the Gospel and if his Commanding them in the Gospel do make them unchangeable there is no reason that we should change the one more then the other if the authority of the maker do prove their unchangeablenesse which God hath made then must all Laws which he hath made be necessarily for ever permanent though they be but of circumstances only and not of Substance Ans 1. Our distinction of matters of substance and circumstance rightly taken will serve the turn But the mistake is in that 1. Many things are but circumstances of worship such as are Positives and Religious significant Ceremonies to Formalists that are not so to us for to wear a surplice in sacrificing to Jupiter were to make the Act of wearing that Religious habit an act of Religious honouring of Jupiter but to wear Surplice and to sacrifice in that habit to Iupiter at eight of clock in the morning rather then at ten in this place Physicall rather then this is no worshipping of Iupiter but a meer Physicall circumstance neither up nor down to the worship and time and place Physicall are neither worship nor Religious means of worship 2. Time and Place Name Country Form Figure Habit or Garments to hold off injuries of Sun and Heaven as such â—re never commanded never forbidden of God and therefore the change of these circumstances can be no change of a Commandment of God We never advanced circumstances as such to the orbe and spheare of Morals Formalists do so advance their Ceremonies and therefore if God command Surplice though by the intervening authority of his Church such cannot be altered except God command to alter the Religious signification of white linnen but we know not where God hath commanded the alteration of any Ceremonies except that the Lords coming in the flesh as a thing to come must alter all Ceremonies which shadow forth Christ to come when the body Christ is come already Let us know such a ground for alteration of corner Cap Altar Surplice except to drive such Oxen out of the Temple 3. We hold that the Lords commanding such a thing in the Gospel is a reason why it should be necessarily permanent for ever except the Lord hath commanded it should be for a time only as he commanded Moses's Ceremonies and so Gods Authority of commanding a thing to be unchangeably in his worship is a reason why it should be unchangeably in his worship and his commanding any thing to be for a time only and alterably in his worship is a reason why it should be for a time only alterably in his worship so to us Gods Commandment is a reason why his own Ceremonies and Sacraments of the New Testament should be in the Church because the Law-giver hath in scripture commanded them to be and the reason why Hookers surplice and crossing should not be is because he hath commanded no such thing Now the reasons of alteration of any Laws in the Gospel is from God never from the Church as 1. If God immediately inspire Moses to make a tabernacle and thereafter inspire David and Solomon to make the Temple in the place of the tabernacle and give them no Commandment for a tabernacle its evident that God hath altered and removed the Tabernacle and that the alteration is not from David nor Solomon 2. If God command types and Ceremonies to be in his Church till the body Christ come Col. 2. 17. then when Christ is come and his coming sufficiently published to the world then are his own Ceremonies altered and removed but not by the discretion of Peter and Paul or the Church but by God himself 3. When God commandeth such Offices to be in his house which dependeth immediately upon his own immediate will of giving gifts essentially required to these Offices then these offices are so long in his Church as God is pleased by his immediate will to give these gifts and when God denyeth these gifts essentially requisite sure it is his immediate wil hath altered and removed the office not the will of the Church so the Lord hath alterd and removed these Offices and gifts of Apostles who could speak with tongues and seal their doctrine with Miracles Evangelists Prophets extraordinarily inspired gifts of healing c. 4. Some things are not matters of worship at all but of goods as the community of goods love-Feasts matters of civill conversation these are only in their morality as touching distribution to the necessities of the Saints and brotherly kindenesse unalterable and no otherwise Now for these things that are smaller or weightier we hold they are not in their weightinesse or smallnesse of importance to be considered but as the Authority of God hath imprinted a necessity on them so are they obligatory to us I am obliged to receive this as scripture that Paul left his cloak at Troas no lesse then this Christ came
intend to kill his Son Why is not eating the forbidden fruit Lawfull Only because God Commandeth and if God forbid Abraham to kill his Son and Command Adam to eat it is Lawfull 2. If this be good observe all the Ceremoniall Law so you lay not Divine necessity upon the observance thereof offer Sacrifices to God under the New Testament and you cannot fail in the worship against the Institutor So slaying of the Children to Molech so you count it free and changeable shall not fail against Gods Commandments of the first Table I Command it not They Answer To kill Children is Man slaughter but I Reply God doth noâ— Ier. 7. Reason against Offering the seed to Molech as it was murther and forbidden in the sixth Commandment but as false worship and forbidden in the second Commandment Else he proveth not that it was unlawfull worship against piety but that it was an act of cruelty Yea so it be thought free and bind not the Conscience it may be Lawfull worship and is not condemned by this God Commanded it not Ergo It is not Lawfull I Commanded not saith Morton and D. Burges that is I discommanded or forbade Ans So saith the Iesuit Valentia but so Circumcising of women boyling of the Paschall Lambe another Ark then Moses made should not be unlawfull for these are not expresly discommanded But Gods Commanding to Circumcise the Male-childe to Roast the Paschall Lambe to make this Ark and his silence of Circumcision of women and boyling the Passeover and silence of another Ark is a Command 2. The Text Jer. 7. Is wronged I Commanded not neither came it in my heart to Command this Abomination That is I never purposed it as worship else they knew to kill their Children except to God as Abraham was Commanded was unlawfull as Isa 63. 4. The day of Vengeance is in mine heart 2 King 10. 30. 1 King 8. 18. Gen 27. 41. To be in ones heart is to purpose a thing 3. Valentia saith Exod. 18. 20. I Commanded not the false Prophet to speak But how By not sending or calling him Else God did not say by a Positive Commandment to every false Prophet Prophecy not but because God bâ—de him not Prophecy he was to know God forbade him Else to speak Arbitrary Doctrines and Prophesies not tying the Conscience were no false Prophecying They Object 1 King 8. 17. It was well that it was in Davids heart to build a house to God and yet David had no warrant in Gods Word for to build an house to God So Morton Burges Ans David had a twofold will and purpose to build Gods house 1. Conditionall It was revealed to David that God would have an house built therefore David might conditionally purpose to build it so it was Gods will he should be the man This wanteth not Gods word We may desire what ever may promove Gods glory conditionally As that Petition teacheth Thy Kingdom come This was recommended of God and approved 2 Kin. 8. 17. 2. A resolute will upon Nathans mistake the blinde leading the blinde this was not Commanded though the desire of the end was good that is that a house should be built Morton 16. It was Lawfull upon common equity considering Gods mercy to him in subduing his enemies and that he dwelt in Cedars whereas God wanted an house but he could not actually perform it without Gods word So Burges Ans 1. The consequence without Gods word is as good to conclude that David might actually build Gods house as to will and purpose to build it Because the word is a perfect rule to our thoughts and purposes no lesse then to our actions if to build without Gods Word was unlawfull Ergo to purpose this without Gods Word was unlawfull A purpose of sin as of Adultery is sin a purpose of will worship is will-worship and sin 2. A man of blood is as unfit to purpose to be a type of a peaceable Saviour as to be a type of a Saviour 3. If God reprove Samuels light for judging according to the eye 1 Sam. 16. 7. Far more he rebuketh his purpose to Anoint a man without his word Who giveth Kingdoms to whom he pleaseth Yet Samuel had a good intention and Gods word in generall that one of Iesse's Sons should be King 4. Iâ— that good purpose had remained with David deliberately to build the Lords house after the Lord had said Solomon not David must build the house it would have been sinfull yet the reasons upon common equity and a generall warrant that God would have an house had been as good as before if Mortons consequence be once good it s ever good 5. By this without the warrant of the Word we may purpose to glorifie God The Baptist without Gods warrant may purpose a New Sacrament Cajaphas may purpose that he shall be the man who shall dye for the people I may purpose to glorifie God by a thousand new means of worshipping Papists have good intentions in all they do 6. A purpose of heart is an inward substantiall worship warranted by Gods Word Psal 19. 14. Psal 50. 21. Psal 74. 11. Ier. 4. 14. Gen. 8. 2. Eccles 2 3. Isa 55. 7. Ergo The word is not a rule in substantiall and Morall Duties heart-purposes cannot be indifferent heart-ceremonies 7. David needed not aske counsell at Gods mouth and word for an indifferent heart-purpose grounded upon sufficient warrant of common equity whether he should act it or noâ— that which warranteth the good purpose warranteth the enacting of the good purpose 8. Who knoweth if God rewardeth additions to the word with a sure house and all indifferent Ceremonies All additions to Gods Word are unlawfull Deut. 4 â— Deut. 12. 32. Prov. 30. 6. Rev. 22. 18. Ioh. 20. 31. Luk. 16. 29 30. 2 Tim 3 17. Psalme 19. 7 8. So Basilius Hieron Cyprian Chrysostome Procopius Turtullian All the Fathers all Protestant Divines opposing Traditions put their seal and Pen to the plenitude of Scripture But humane Rites are Additions to Gods word Morton and Burges say God forbiddeth in the foresaid places additions of any thing as Divine and a part of Gods Word or additions contrary to Gods Word and corrupting the sense thereof but not additions perfecting and â—â—â—plaining his Word aâ— Commentaries and Annotations of the text So do Papists Answer Duvallius a Sorbonist He forbiddeth other new Sacrifices as of the Gentiles who offered their Sons and Daughters So Valentia Vasquez Bellarmine Suarez Cajetan They are not added which the Church addeth they are from the spirit of God So Bannes but all these do elude not expound the Texts 1. Because if the Iewish Princes had Commanded Arbitrary and conditionall Arâ—s Sacrifices places of worship so they addâ— not heathenish and wicked as the Gentiles Sacrificing their Children they had noâ— failed by this answer yet
these Traditions by an Argument taken from the want of a lawfull Author while he calleth them Precepts of men opposed to the Commandments of God and while he saith v. 13. That every plant not rooted by his heavenly Father shall be rooted out Yea and Christ expresly proveth their worship vain because they taught the fear and worship of God by the precepts of men and not by the word of God and Ceremonies are the precepts of men 3. Mar. 7. 10 11 12. He alledgeth their corrupt and false exposition of the fifth Commandment in saying It is a gift whereby Parents may benefit which Children offer to God though they help not their Parents in their poverty necessity so you free them from obedience to the fifth Commandment of God by setting up your false glosse saith Christ which is a human tradition Then to Christ this is a good argument your corrupting of the fift Cōmandment with your false glosses is a rejecting of Gods 5. Commandment why because it is a doctrine of men and one of the Pharisees Traditions For whether they placed operative sanctity in preferring mens Commandment to Gods or not none can deny but Christ reasoneth against these evils because they were mens Traditions otherway Formalists shall be forced to say that if the Pharisees have esteemed them Arbitrary and of no operative sanctity mens Commandments had not been vain worship Christs Argument from Isa 29. should prove nothing for false glosses and corrupting the fifth Commandment is not vain worship because it is a doctrine of men for Doctrines of men as only coming from men and esteemed Arbitrary are not vain saith Formalists yea except they be contrary in the matter to Gods Law and proffered or equalized in the opinion of sanctity to Gods Law they are not a whit vain because they come from men or are doctrines of men 4. Christ defendeth his Disciples practice in abstaining from externall not-washing Ergo he esteemed the externall washing unlawfull But if the Disciples abstinence was because of the impiety of washing and the opinion of sanctity put upon washing otherwayes Lawfull he should have defended his Disciples in a thing unlawfull for to disobey the Elders and Church-guides who sate in Moses's chair and were to he obeyed Matth. 23. 2 3. in an externall indifferent act of washing not contrary to the washings commanded in Moses Law and so negatively conforme to Gods Law is Lawfull as Formalists and Papists both teach but Christ defended his Disciples in their non-obedience externall for they were not challenged for denying the opinion of operative holinesse to these Ceremonies Christ who commanded obedience to sitters in Moses his chair in all things Lawfull would have obeyed himself and cleared his Disciples in so far as they ought to obey or not to obey 5. Vasquez sayes These Traditions were unlawfull because they were invented Sola voluntate hominum absque ratione by the sole will of men without reason But so are Popish Ceremonies for if they can be proved by the word of God and the light of nature they are essentiall parts of Gods word and not accidentall nor left to the Churches will 2. It is good then the Iesuit confesseth the Church from sole will and so the Pope and Prelat can make no Laws but either Scripture or natures light must warrant them and sole will cannot rule them 3. They had as good reason in generall from Moses his writings and the Law-washings as Pope and Prelats have for their Traditions But saith Vasquez Christ complaineth of these traditions because they held them to be Summam Religionis the marrow of Religion and took no care of Gods Law Ans That will no more prove them to be vain worship and that the Disciples were to be justified in their non-conformity to these Church washings then that Gods Disciples and sound believers under the Old Testament should abstain from keeping Gods Sabbaths his new-Moons and from offering Sacrifices because the people placed all holinesse in these of old and neglected works of mercy and justice Isa 1. 11 c. Jer. 7. 4 5 6. But say Formalists Christ condemneth them because the Pharisees thought eating with unwashen hands defiled the conscience and meat defiled the soul when the eaters did not wash as the elders commanded Whereas Christ saith It is not that which goeth in at the mouth which defileth the man but the wickednesse that cometh out at the heart Ans It is true and I think Pharisees believed meat eaten contrary to the Elders Traditions defiled the conscience as is clear Mat. 15. 16 17 18. And that also Christ condemneth as a Doctrine of men and of ignorant men and so doth non-conformity to your Ceremonies pollute the conscience as a breach of the fifth and second Command as you say QUEST IV. Whether humane Ceremonies can consist with Order Decency and the sincerity of our profession of true Religion CEremonies fight with Order and Decency 1. These Rites pretended by Gods command to adde order and decency to Gods worship and yet deface his worship and addeth none thereunto be unlawfull But humane Ceremonies be such Ergo That they pretend Order is proved D. Burges saith They have no place in all the New-Testament save only 1 Cor. 14. 26. Let all things be done in order and decency a place as a Estius citeth Magnified by Papists for all their Ceremonies The Major is undeniable I prove the Assumption 1. Because Magick-like Rites honoured with Gods name as Christian-Masse Christs-Masse an Adored Tree called Gods board when there is no use for a Table a Crossing honoured with dedication to Christs service is like Gods name used by sorcerers in Charming Spelling Divining where vertue is ascribed to signes characters and words which have no such vertue from God or nature and this Valentia justly calleth Superstition So the Iews called the Calfe Jehovah Papists call a creature of their making Agnus Dei a stile due to Christ only Joh. 1. 29. 2. All creatures are means of glorifying God Rev. 4. 11. Prov. 16. 4. Rom. 11. 36. And may be invited to praise God as Psal 148. Now it were strange bleating to say O Crossing Surplice Praise ye the Lord when things ordained by mans sole will and so idle and sinfull are made means to glorifie God with as good reason dancing in the Church and blowing feathers in the Aire which have by nature or reason no aptitude for these ends may be decent means of glorifying God 2. Order and decency supernaturall in the Church is in the Word Cant. 6. 4. Clear as the Sun terrible as an Army with Banners Nothing wanting Gods institution can reach a supernaturall end as our Ceremonies are 2. But also Ceremonies relatively sacred in Religious state must be more then civilly decent as also right order produceth supernaturall joy Gal. 2. 5. Civill order cannot do this Or 3. Ceremonies adde naturall order but this is not in colour
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
expoundneth them so as I take he draweth them from 1. This materiall wine 2. From Sacramentall tabling 3. From this old fruit of the Wine 4. From fellowship here in the Kingdome of Grace to 1. New wine in heaven 2. To heavenly tabling 3. To new and everlasting wine 4. In the Fathers Kingdome Neither am I much moved with what Paybodie saith that our Saviour led the woman of Samaria from Iacobs well to thirst for the water of life yet is not for that Iacobs well made a type by divine institution I answer this would have some colour if Christ did speake of common wine as he did speake of Iacobs Well as of common water But all the three Evangelists speake of Sacramentall wine consecrated by word and prayer else Christs calling bread his body should not prove that bread were a signe of his body by divine institution but onely we were to make that spirituall use of bread and wine that we make of ordinary bread and wine at our houses Formalists then must say that Christ speaketh of wine here as common not as Sacramentall which is absurd when Christ is expounding the Elements in their spirituall signification Luke 5. 22 21. But behold the hand of him that betrayeth me is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with me on the table Mat. 26. 23. Marke 14. 20. If he had been kneeling or standing gestures unpossible for them then he could not have his hand leaning on the table and if he had not beene sitting table-wise in a table-fellowship with Christ then could not our Saviour have conveniently convinced the ingratitude of Iudas as he doth Now if Christ aime not to make Iudas his fault the greater because Iudas and he sate at one table together and that as an holy and Sacramentall table he had in this no more argued Iudas of ingratitude then any of the rest of the house who communicated not with Christ because Christ and they did eate one materiall and ordinary bread together And in this Achitophel was a type of Iudas as David of Christ and that not onely in this that Achitophel did eate bread with David and so had a civill fellowship but that they went together to Gods house in company together Psal 55. 14. So had Christ and Iudas fellowship together at that same Sacramentall table And as tabling together signifieth civil fellowship so must fellow-tabling at one sacred Feast signifie Spirituall fellowship together 6. Giving and not granting that fellow-sitting together were onely a common honour not a misticall honour by divine Institution yet since to sit at a table with a Ruler is an honour 1 Sam. 20. 5. 2 Sam. 9. 13. Esther 7. 7. Prov. 23. 1. Mat. 8. 11. Luk◠16. 23. Luke 22. 30. And the Lords Disciples are admitted to sit with him as is cleare in that he sate down with the twelv◠and he sate Luke 24. 30. at meat with them and tooke bread and blessed it No power on earth should dare to deprive the people of God of this honour for this honour was bestowed on the Lords Apostles as communicants not as Apostles and the want of Christs bodily presence diminisheth nothing of the honour seeing he is really but in a spirituall manner present as the Lord of the feast with us as he was with them Paybodie saith When Christ sate at table in the Passeover even then he schooled them from looking at honour in materiall or outvvard sitting vvhile as Luke 22. 26. he would stand himselfe as a servant and vvash his Disciples feet Ansvv His non-sitting and washing their feet being a morall not a Sacramentall teaching them humility doth no more schoole them from not looking to sit then his non-eating and non-drinking while he stood servant-like doth schoole them from not looking to the honour of eating and drinking Sacramentally Christ teacheth lessons of humility not to learne us not to seek the spirituall honour of communion with Christ that were to teach us to be proud and this man is that bold to insinuate that it was a spece of pride for the Disciples to sit at table with Christ and for Iohn to leane on his bosome Mr. Paybodie thinketh to crush this argument Because the serving of God the Father and giving him glory must be incompatible with a table-fellowship with his Sonne The disputer saith he reasoneth thus Kneeling importeth an inferiority therefore it is contrary to the person of co-heirs which person we act by table-sitting but do you saith he dream of a co-heirship whereby you stand not in an inferiority to Christ then when you take on you the person of co-heirs by sitting at Table it were not lawfull either to esteem or in a short ejaculation to call Christ your Lord and Superiour yea so faith must have no working at the Sacrament for Faith importeth an inferiority and dependance We respect Christ in his banquet as a King inviting us to eat with him yea I may kneel and call God my Father and in so doing I actuate the person of a co-heire Ans But in this the disputer and we mean no other thing then that kneeling which is a note of submission and never used in banquets cannot formally expresse as an apt signe the dignity of fellow-table-ship with Christ 2. Poor Logitian it followeth not in sitting at table which is the expressing signe of the honour of table-fellowship we may not call Christ Lord. David sitting at Table with his Prince Saul might well term him my Lord the King but if David should be put to his knees at Table and inhibited to eat at the Table at which his Prince did eat no wise man will say that Saul had honoured David with fellow-Tabling with him For the Act of kneeling and non-eating were no expressing signes of fellow-Tabling but by the contrary of no fellow-Tabling the Disputer hath no minde to make us every way equall with Christ so as there can be a case wherein it is not Lawfull to esteem or call Christ our Lord King and Superiour this is Paybodies consequence but take away Table-sitting an honour put upon us by Christ in this Sacrament Luk. 22. 27. and substitute kneeling for it then you take away Gods expressing signe of Table-Fellowship in that gesture for while the world standeth kneeling shall never be a signe of Table-fellowship sitting at Table is a signe as the Scriptures clear but sitting taketh never away our inferiority to Christ you may worship and actuate the person of a co-heir but not worship in an expressing visible signe of co-heirship and then kneel Farther he reasoneth with us as if Table-sitting inferred an equality betwixt us and that Lord who is the head of men and Angels we reason for an honour of fellowship not equality David set at King Saul's Table is not made equall with Saul but in Table-sitting he doth partake of Table-honour to feast with his Prince If Christ should have sitten and caused his Disciples rise and wash his
sendeth his Apostles and Pastors to the end of the world as is clear if we compare Matth. 18. 18. and Matth. 16. 19. with Ioh. 20. 20 21 22. 23. Mar. 16. ver 15 20. Matth. 28. 18 19 20. Luk. 24. 45 46 47 48. 5. It is against the course of the Text that we should restrain this to private pardoning of light injuries between brother and brother 1. Becase Christ labours to decline this that one shall be both his brothers judge to put him in the condition of an Heathen and Publican and binde his brothers sins in Heaven and Earth and also that he should be his party and accuser Now Christ will have the private brother do no more personally but admonish his brother and gain him 2. If that prevail not then he is to admonish him before two or three witnesses See here the brother is not both party and judge but witnesses have place 3. If that prevail not the businesse is to ascend higher even to the Church which undoubtedly is an Organicall body 1 Cor. 12. 28. Rom. 8. 6 7 c. Act. 20. 28 29 30. Whereas two or three private Christians are not a Church but an homogeneal body Now who would believe that Christ is to bring down the businesse which is so high as before the Church to the lowest step again to a private binding and loosing to one brother who both as judge and party judgeth his brother yea and may do this though there were no Chuâ—ch on earth What power hath the Church above the offended brother or the offender if the one may binde the other under guiltinesse in earth and heaven 2. Erastus will have light and private offences only spoken of here Now Christ speaketh of offences that God taketh notice of in Heaven and earth 3. Christs way is a wise and meek way that that which one cannot do and the offence that two three four cannot remove the Church shall remove but Erastus maketh one private man to remove it and to Excommunicate and binde in heaven and earth I might cite Tertullian Cyprian Augustine Chrysostom The ophylact Hyeronimus and all modern interpreters both Popish and Orthodox for this interpretation not any of them dreaming of the insolent opinion of Erastus who misapplieth Augustine and Theophylact for his own way as Beza cleareth CAP. IV. Quest 1. That the place 1 Corinthians 5. doth evince that Excommunication is an Ordinance of God THE Argument for Excommunication may be thus framed from 1 Cor. 5. If Paul command that the incestuous man should be delivered to Satan ver 5. purged out of the Church least as leaven he should corrupt the Church ver 6 7. That they should iudge him ver 12. And put him avvay from amongst them ver 13. So as they vvere not to eat vvith him ver 9. 10. Then is there a divine command for Excommunication for the Commandments of the Apostles are the Commandments of the Lord 1 Cor. 14. 37. 2 Pet. 3. 2. But the former is true Ergo so is the latter There is no ground or shadow of reason to expound this expelling of the incestuous man by the preaching of the word without any Church-censures for all that is required in Excommunication is here 1. This putting out was not done by one single Pastor as putting out by the preaching of the word is done but by a company and Church ver 4. In the name of the Lord Iesus vvhen ye are gathered together and my spirit 2. Paul should have written to any one Pastor to cast him out by preaching but here he writeth to a Church 3. He forbiddeth company or eating with such like men v. 10. Now this is more then rebuking by preaching 4. This is a judging of the incestuous man and a casting of him out of their society which is another thing then preaching the word Erastus and others expound the giving to Satan of a delivering of the man to Satan to be miraculously killed as were Ananias and Saphira Act. 5. 5. And because at this time there was no Christian Magistrate to use the sword against the man therefore he writeth to the Church that they by their prayers would obtain of God that Satan might take him out of the midst of them Ans This insolent interpretation wanteth all warrant of the word For 1. To deliver to Satan hath no Scripture to make this sense of it to pray that Satan would destroy the man 2. It wanteth an example in the old or new Testament that the whole Church are fellow-Agents and joynt causes in the bodily destruction of any or in working of miracles such as was the killing of Ananias and Saphira The Apostles wrought miracles and that by their Faith and Prayers and Christ and the Prophets but that the Believers who should have mourned for this scandall 1. Who were puffed up 2. Who were in danger to be leavened with the mans sin and had their consent in Excommunication should joyn in a miraculous delivering to Satan is an unparalleld practise in the word 3. To deliver to Satan cannot be expounded here but as 1 Tim. 1. 20. Where Paul saith he had delivered Hymenaeus and Alexander to Satan now that was not to kill them but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they might receive instruction and be disciplined by this medicinall Church-revenge not to blaspheme I know of no instructing of these who are dead if there be two deliverings to Satan let Erastus and his expound it to us 4. The Apostle expresly saith he wrote to them not to keep company with such men nor with Fornicators covetous men Drunkards Extortioners Idolators Now Erastus his minde must be that the Apostles and Churches of Corinth Philippi Thessalonica grievouâ—ly sinned against God in that they did not miraculously kill all the Drunkards the covetous persons the fornicators whereas they are commauded to admonish them as brethren 2 Thess 3 14 15. and to pray for them if they sin not against the holy Ghost 1 Ioh. 5. 16. 1 Tim. 2. 3. 5. Paul rebuketh this as a morall fault amongst the Corinthians such as is not to mourn for this mans fault and to keep him as leaven in the midst of them and not to cast him out Whereas in all the Scripture you finde none ever rebuked because they put not forth in Acts an extraordinary and miraculous power to work miracles working of miracles came upon persons called thereunto by extraordinary rapts and were in men not as habits under the power of free-will but as immediate Acts of God even as fire-flaughts are in the Aire So I conceive while I be better informed 6. And shall it not follow that now when the Churches have Christian Magistrates it is the will of our meek saviour that they kill with the sword all the Drunkards Fornicators and all that walketh unorderly which should make the Church of Christ a Butcher-house whereas we are to admonish all such as brethren 2 Thess 3.
the Gospel to them if they were amongst us except that such as are to communicate according to the will of Christ are Christians members of the Church who doth try and examine themselves and Jews and Turks though dwelling and born amongst us are not such yet Erastus would that such should never be admitted to the Lords Supper though they should desire it Officers also have a command not to dispense some parts of the word to all as we are not to rebuke open Scorners Should any of our Church turn Iew and blaspheme Christ and pertinaciously after conviction persist in his Apostacy might not Erastus aske by what command of Christ will ye not Preach the Gospel to such an one Christ made no exception but said Preach to all Nations why do you make Exceptions might we not answer Christ hath given a power of dispensing the Gospel to all yet hath he excepted some because it s against the will of Christ that such can obey the Gospel We are bidden pray for all yet are there some that we are not to pray for because they sin unto death so is the case here in some kinde 7. It is for our instruction that the Priests were rebuked for that they admitted into the Sanctuary the uncircumcised in flesh and heart that they put no difference betweene the cleane and the uncleane and prophaned the holy things of God Ezek. 44. 9. Ezek. 22. 26. Hag. 2. 11 12 13. And this was a shadow of things to come as was observed before teaching us that farre lesse should the Pastors of the New Testament suffer the holy things of God to be prophaned 8. We read that Iohn Baptist and the Apostles baptized none but such as confessed their sinnes and professed â—aith in Iesus Christ it would then appeare to be the will of Christ that every one should not be admitted to the Lords Supper though some say the Apostles baptized single persons not in Church communion so that Pastors administer the Sacraments by reason of the power of order as they are Pastors not by power of jurisdiction as having warrant from any Church in regard Churches at the beginning had the Word and Sacraments before they had any Church Government yet I conceive the Lords Supper is a Seale of a Church-communion 1 Cor. 10. 16. 17. and the like I say of Baptisme typed by Noahs Arke 1 Pet. 3. 19 20 c. and though the Apostles partly by priviledge partly through necessitie the parts existing before the whole were necessitated first to baptize and then to plant Churches yet the Churches being once constitute these are Church priviledges to be dispensed both by the power of order and the power of jurisdiction CHAP. VI. Quest 2. Some speciall Reasons of Thomas Erastus against Excommunication examined THomas Erastus a Physitian who medled not much with Divinity save in this in which he was unsound in his reply to Beza laboureth to make Excommunication a dreame and nothing but a device of Pastors affecting domination 1. Object Onely Petâ—r killed Ananias onely Paul excommunicated Alexander and Hymeneus onely Paul said he would come to the Corinthians with the rod and for a long time onely Bishops excommunicated Presbyters gave advise onely Ergo This power is not in the Church Ans The consequence is naught Christ said only to his Disciples in person Go teach and Baptize Is it a good consequence therefore that none hath power to teach and Baptize but only the Apostles Only Paul exhorted the Corinthians to mourn for the incestuouâ— mans fall therefore no Pastors have power to exhort in the like kinde 2. We grant the Apostles did many things out of their Apostolick power which in a constitute Church the Church onely may doe as Paul his alone disputed against Circumcision of the Gentiles Act. 15. 2. What Ergo Paul in a Synod and a Synod hath not power to dispute and determine the same the contrary is evident Act. 15. 12 22 23. 3. It is false that the Authority and rod with which Paul said he would come to the Coriuthians 2 Cor. 10. 8. was proper only to Paul an Apostle the same he giveth to Timothy and to all the Elders 3. If Bishops exercised the same power for many ages Erastus must shew us Bishops who could kill miraculously such as Ananias and Elimas and work miracles now beside that Erastus must with his new opinion hold up a new creature called a Prelate unknown to the Apostles or Ierome and the Fathers he must parallel Bishops for working of miracles to Paul and the Apostles Obj. 2. The Apostles declared many to be excluded out of the kingdom of heaven and so bound in heaven whom they did not excommunicate from the Sacraments so also do the Ministers daily and yet Christ in his word commanded not those to be debarred from the Lords Supper Ans It is very true the Apostles and Pastors of Christ that now are denounce eternall wrath and that authoritatively against those that are invisibly to men heart-hypocrites who yet before the Church who know not the heart go for Saints and are neither excluded from Sacraments nor so much as rebuked But it is a vain collection that therefore externally scandalous are not to be debarred from the Supper and Excommunicated The Prophets 1 Cor. 14. did preach that Heathens remaining Heathens were excluded out of the Kingdom of God yet Heathens cannot be Excommunicated and yet I hope Erastus dare not deny but Christ hath forbidden that Heathen remaining Heathen be admitted to the Sacraments Though I dare provoke any Erastian and attest them by their new Doctrine to shew me a warrant from Christs Testament why the Church should refuse the Seals to a Turke they will say A Turk is not willing to receive and therefore the Seals may be denied to him and yet cannot be denied to a member of the Church though scandalous if he desire it and professe repentance But I answer Though a Turk be unwilling to receive the Seals What if he should be willing and require to be Baptized yet remaining ignorant of Christ and the Gospel we should not Baptize him Now by the Doctrine of Erastus we have no more re warrant to deny the seals to him then to deny them to Judas we desire a Scripture from the adversary which will not conclude with equall strength of reason against the giving of the seals to any scandalous member of the Church it is true a Turk ignorant of Christ though he should desire the seals is uncapable and he is unwilling vertually in regard he as yet refuseth the knowledge of the Gospel and so is the scandalous professor no lesse uncapable though we may grant degrees of incapacity for he is vertually unwilling to receive Christ in regard he is unwilling to part with his idol-sins 2. Though a Turk should be unwilling as its like enough he will be yet we desire a Scripture why we cannot make offer of
with the Church it followeth not that the binding of the Church is not a Church-binding as the binding of the two private men is also a binding but no publick no Church-binding 4. How shall Christs words keep either sense or Logick with the exposition of Erastus If he will not hear the Christian Magistrate complain to the Heathen Magistrate and again I say if the Lord hear two praying on earth far more will he ratifie in Heaven what a prophane Heathen Magistrate doth on earth against a Christian offender judge what sense is in this glosse Erastus hath no reason to divide these words ver 19. Again I say if two agree c. from ver 17. 18. Because they are meant of the Magistrate saith Erastus against all sense and joyne them to the words of the. 15. and 16. verses for there is no mention of binding and loosing by prayer ver 15 16. But only of rebuking and here Erastus shall be as far from keeping his proportion of rebuking and praying as he saith we do keep proportion between Church-sentencing and praying To Theophylact Chrisostom and Augustine Beza answered well and Erastus cannot reply 6. If there be binding and loosing between brother and brother in the first and second Admonition before the cause be brought to the Church what need is there of binding the man as a Heathen before the Heathen Magistrate And what need of the Heathen Magistrates prayer to binde in Heaven Was there ever such Divinity dreamed of in the world Erastus These words Tell the Church prove only that the Church hath the same povver to rebuke the injurious man that a private man hath this then is poor reason The Church hath power to rebuke an offender Ergo it hath power to Excommunicate him Ans All know that Christ ascendeth in these three steps 2. Erastus granteth the cause is not brought to the Church but by two or three witnesses which is a judiciall power as in the Law of Moses and in all Laws is evident if he hear not a brother he is not to be esteemed as a Heathen and a Publican but if he hear not the Church he is to be reputed so 3. We reason never from power of rebuking to the power of Excommunication but thus The Church hath power to rebuke an offender and if he will not hear the Church then is the man to thee that is to all men as a Heathen and a Publican Ergo The Church hath power to Excommunicate Erastus Christ speaketh of the Church that then was How could he bid them go to a Church that was not in the world they having heard nothing of the constitution of iâ— did he bid them erect a new frame of Government not in the world Ans He could as well direct them to remove scandals for time to come as he could after his Resurrection say Mat. 28. 19 20. Go teach and baptize all Nations which commandment they were not presently to follow but Act. 1. 4. to stay at Jerusalem and not To teach all Nations while the Holy Ghost should come I ask of Erastus how Christ could lay a Ministery on his Disciples which was not in the world What directions doth Christ Mat. 24. and Luk. 21. give to his Church and Disciples that they had not occasion to obey many years after is how they should behave themselves when they should be called before Kings and Rulers 2. Nor were the Apostles who were already in the room of Priests and Prophets to Teach and Baptize he after being to institute the other Sacrament to wonder at a new forme already half instituted and which differed not in nature from the former Government save that the Ceremonies were to be abolâ—shed Erastus Only Matthew mentioneth this pretended new institution not Luke not Mark the Disciples understood him well they aske no questions of him as of a thing unknown only Peter asked how often he should forgive his brother Ans This wil prove nothing Iohn hath much which we believe with equall certainty of Faith as we do any Divine institutions shall therefore Erastus call the turning of water into wine the raising of Lazarus The healing of the man born blinde and of him that lay at the Pool of Bethesda Christs heavenly Sermons Ioâ— cap. 14. 15 16. his prayer cap. 17 which the other Evangelists mention not Fiâ—menâ—a hominum mens fancies as he calleth Excommunication 2. Did the Disciples understand well the dream that Erastus hath on the place and took they it as granted that to tell the Church is to tell the civill Magistrate And that not to hear the Church is civill Rebellion and to be as a Heathen is to be impleaded before Cesar or his Deputies only This is a wonder to me Matthew setteth up this way an institution of all Church-Government which no Evangelist no word in the Old or New Testament establisheth Erastus Christ would not draw his disciples who were otherwise most observant of the Law from the Synedry then in use to a new Court where witnesses are led before a multitude and sentences judicially set up it had been much against the Authority of the civil Magistrate and a scandall to the Pharisees and the people had no power in Christs time to choose their own Magistrate therefore he must mean the Jewish Synedry If by the Church we understand the multitude we must understand such a multitude as hath power to choose such a Senate but there was no such Church in the Jews at this time Ans That the Church here is the multitude of Believers men women and children is not easily believed by us 2. And we are as far from the dream of a meer civill Synedry which to me is no suitable mean of gaining a soul to Christ which is our Saviours intention in the Text. 3. Erastus setteth up a christian Magistrate to intercept causes and persons to examine rebuke lead witnesses against a Iew before ever Cesar their only King of the Iews or his Deputies hear any such thing this is as far against the only supream Magistrate and as scandalous to the Pharisees as any thing else could be 4. Had not Iohn Baptist and Christs disciples drawn many of the Iews and Profylites to a new Sacrament of Baptisme and to the Lamb of God now in his flesh present amongst them this was a more new Law then any Ordinance of Excommunication was especially since this Church was not to be in its full constitution till after the Lords Ascension Erastus It is known this anedrim delivered Christ bound unto Pilate condemned Steven commanded the Apostles to be scourâ—eâ— and put in Prison Tertullins saith of Paul before Felix we would have judged him according to our Law Paul said Act. 23. to Ananiâ—s thou sittest to judge me according to the Law Act. 26. Pâ—ul confesseth before Agrippa and Festus that he obtained power from the high Priests to hale to prison and beat the Christians and
retorted 2. They were not to bee sorry at the mans repentance but to rejoyce yet were they to be sorry at the violent mean of cutting him off from Christs body as a father may be glad at the life and health of his childe and and yet be sorry that by no other mean his health can be procured but by cutting off a finger or a hand of his childe 3. They knew that miraculous killing as Erastus dreameth was also a saving ordinance the remaining in the Church or not remaining is all one because Paul chideth them as he dreameth that the man might be miraculously killed Erastus What need was there that the Corinthians with such diligence should intercede for the man if they knew when he repented he was to be received againe into the Church Now that they interceded for him is clear for Paul saith 2 Cor. 2. 10. To whom yee forgive any thing I forgive also Ans Because there is a great hazard in Excommunication of an higher degree of obduration and condemnation if the party be not gained 2. I see no ground for this conjecture that the Corinthians interceded for him at Pauls hand for if he ought to have been miraculously killed then whether he repented or repented not both Paul and the interceders sinned Paul in being broken they in requesting for a dispensation of a Law in which God would not dispense as he that would request to spare the life of a repenting Murtherer against Gods expresse Law should sinne and Paul should sinne in pardoning upon request where God would not pardon Erastus How excuseth Paul himselfe that he would try their obedience that c. 7. he would have their care for him made manifest if he had not commanded a greater thing then to debarre a wicked man from the Sacraments Ans This is but a shadow of a reason against the Word of God for to be cast out of Christs body and not acknowledged for an Israelite of God and that in heaven and earth and so to be debarred from the Seals is a higher thing then bodily killing as to be received as a Member againe and to be written amongst the living in Ierusalem is like the rising from the dead as may be gathered from Rom. 11. 15. and is farre more then deliverance from miraculous killing Erastus These words ye was made sorry according to God that ye might receive dammage of us in nothing cannot agree with the purpose they should have suffered no losse by obtaining pardon to a miserable man excluded from the Sacraments while he should repent but if he was to be killed they should have lost a brother and so suffered dammage Ans The hazard of losing his soule repentance not being so easie as Erastus imagineth had been a greater losse then the losse of a temporall life the soule being to be saved in the day of the Lord. Erastus Paul requireth his Spirit and the power of the Lord Iesus to this worke Ergo It was more then to debarre from the Sacraments Ans Erastus should prove Ergo It was more then to Excommunicate 2. Ergo It was rather more then bodily death His seventh reason I hope after to examine Erastus Paul saith he decreed to doe this and does not command the Church to doe it or that the Church alone should doe it We never read that Paul whether alive or dead did write to one or many to deliver any to Satan for the destruction of the flesh that was proper to the Apostles onely as the gift of healing was Act. 5. and c. 13. and he writeth he will come himselfe with the rod and he himself 1 Tim. 1. delivered Hymeneus and Alexander to Satan Ans This is much for us you never read that Paul did write to one or many and did chide them because they prayed not that he might worke this and this particular miracle or that without error he might write this or that Canonick Scripture and therefore because this delivering to Satan was commanded to the conveened together Church with his Apostolique spirit and warrant to deliver such a one to Satan and to judge him v. 12. And to purge him out and cast him out therefore am I perswaded it was no miracle proper to Paul onely 2. How prove you that Paul his alone without the Church Excommunicated Hymeneus Paul saith that Timothy received the gift of God by his laying on him hands 2 Tim. 1. 6. Ergo By the laying on of his hands onely and not of the whole Presbytery It followeth not the contrary is 1 Tim. 4. 14. 3. Delivering to Satan v. 5. is all one with purging out v. 7. as is cleare by the Illation I have decreed though absent to deliver such a one to Satan Hence his consequence v. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Purge out therefore 2. To deliver to Satan is either all one with judgeing those that are within v. 12. And so with judging this man and with putting of him out v. 13. or it is not all one if these be all one then hath the Church a hand in this delivering to Satan and so it is not a miraculous killing Erastus granteth the consequence if these be not all one this is two judgings of the man one of Pauls v. 5. by miraculous killing and another of Pauls and the Church v. 12. This latter must be some Church judgeing of those that are within the Church common to Paul and the Corinthians as the words cleare and which is opposed to Gods judging of those that are without and this is so like Excommunication that Erastus must make some other thing of it Now we cannot say that there was any miraculous judging of this man common to Paul as an Apostle and to the Corinthians the ordinary beleevers and Saints as Erastus yeeldeth 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to put away the man which is expresly commanded to the Church of Corinth v. 13. must be the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and putting away 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is v. 2. But that taking out of the midst of them is a miraculous killing of the man as Erastus saith now this cannot be for then the people must be joyned in the same work of miraculous killing with the Apostle Paul now both we and Erastus must disclaim this Ergo there must be some common Church casting out common to both Erastus To put away out of the midst of them is not to debar from the Sacraments but to kill if it were but to extrude the man out of the society of the faithfull what need was there of publick mourning and if he had been to be cast out amongst the heathen how could the spirit be saved as is said for without the Church there is no salvation Ans To put away out of the midst of them is to put the man out of the Congregation as the word Careh is expounded before and
his late Critica Sacra on the Old Testament saith it signifieth to stay to cut off by death by banishment or any other way whereby a thing in use before afterward ceaseth Joel 1. 8. Amos 1. 5. Yea to cut off by divorce as I noted before and Exod. 12. 15. To cut off from Israel is expounded ver 19. to cut off from the Church of Israel Yea the Law forbiddeth that not only in the time of the Passeover they should not eat leaven but it should not be in their houses Now must they be killed if it was found in their houses beside their knowledge see Deut. 16. 3. Exod. 13. 7. What Erastus saith to the end of the Chapter is but repeated reasons before answered CHAP. X. Quest 6. Arguments for Excommunication from 1 Corinthians 5. vindicated REverend Beza said The world is the Kingdom of Satan and he that is delivered to Satan is cast out of Christs Kingdom to Satans Kingdom Erastus saith Is it not easier to heal them by remaining in the Church having the Magistrate to compell them to their duty then to cast them out of the Church The world is a kingdom of wickednesse and impiety may you not more easily reforme a wanton and lascivious virgin within the house then by casting her out of the house into a Bordel Will not slaves of Satan be more easily healed amongst the children of God then amongst wicked men Ans Whether to be delivered to Satan be to be put formally in his power that he may vex the spirit that the man may be humbled for sin or if it be to be given to Satan only consequenter and cast out of the Church that is Christs office-house of Grace to live as the world of which Satan is God and Prince 2 Cor. 4. 4. Joh. 12. 31. Ioh. 14. 30. It is not much to be disputed But this reason is against the wisdom of God who hath appointed that the shame grief and sorrow of being put out of Christs family should exceedingly humble the spirit of any in whom there is any thing of God And Erastus might as well say to Paul why dost thou command the Saints not to eat and drink with those that are called brethren and yet are fornicators covetous extortioners 1 Cor. 4. 11. and such as cause divisions and walk inordinately as Rom. 16. 17. 2 Thes 3. 14 15. and to withdraw from their company they must then converse only with the slaves of Satan and the wicked of the world when they are deprived of the society of the godly and that is the way to loose them were it not better to command the just contrary that the godly should eat drink and converse with inordinate walkers for they may turn them from their evil way for will an unchaste virgin be made chaste by being cast out of her fathers house into a Bordel-house Will not slaves of Satan rather be healed amongst the children of God then amongst the wicked But Erastus seeth not that Gods aime in this separation is not only that the cast out man may be ashamed 2 Thes 3. 14 15. and so humbled and brought to repentance when he findeth he is deprived of the blessings of the Saints of their society Ordinances But also God hath a higher aime to the end the whole lump of Christs body be not leavened and infected with the contagion of one man 1 Cor. 4. 6 7. Gal. 5. 9. 10. Erastus The similitude of a rotten Member proveth nothing for 1. There be no such sinners desperately uncurable of whom there is no hope so long as they live except pertinacious Hereticks erring in the foundation of salvation and such as sin against the holy Ghost 2. It is not necessary that men using reason and free will be defiled and corrupted by other sinners as the whole Member is by the rotten Member for as a Tree cannot but be burnt by the fire that seaseth on it so neither can the Members continuated by touching escape corruption 3. None can be cast out of the Church into the world as it is the kingdom of Satan for if they keep the faith though they were amongst Turks they are not in the world that is in the Kingdom of Satan nor in the world 4. Paul would not have him cast out into the world that his soul may be saved for this were to make the weak dispair and make them hypocrites Ans This similitude is the holy Ghosts in the very sense we use it 2 Tim. 2. 17. Their word shall eat as a canker a Metaphor as Calvin Piscator Marlorate observe from a rotten member that corrupteth the whole body and to say because a man hath reason and so free-will that he will not be corrupted whereas the whole member by necessity of nature cannot but be corrupted by a rotten member is to speak not like a Divine but as Pelagius speaketh for except we use the remedy appointed of God to eschew the contagion of the wicked and eschew their company as we are commanded and as the godly have done and the wicked have not done and therefore have been infected with the way of other evil men Prov. 22. 24. Prov. 5 8 9. Psa 26. 4 5. Esa 2. 6 7. Psa 119. 63. Psa 139. 21 22. Rev. 18. 4. 2 Chro. 19. 2. though we should not actually be corrupted yet we sin and tempt the Lord in that we seek a temptation to our selves yea as all the reasons of Erastus are naturall and against the wisdom of God in his Ordinances so expresly this God forbiddeth his people to marry with the Canaanites or to make Covenants with them Exod. 34. 12 c. Because saith the Lord they will insnare thee and draw away thy heart after their Gods May not Erastus say But men have reason and free-will not to consent to the inticing counsels of the Canaanites though they be joyned in Covenant and marriage with them Preterea non est necesse sic alios a malis contaminari 3. It is good that Erastus granteth that pertinacious Hereticks because uncurable may infect others for so the word expresly saith what shall be done with them Erastus granteth they be rotten members Ergo either they must by Excommunication be separated from the body as we teach or the body must seperate from them if this latter be said all that Erastus inferreth against us shall fall against himself 1. We shall not need to be infected with the Heresie of such Vtimur ratione We have the Armour of reason and freewill against this rotten and rotting member saith Erastus 2. We shall expose Hereticks to the Kingdom of Satan and the world by which they shall be hardned in their pernicious Heresies Beside 3. We make them Hypocrites 4. I see no warrant Erastus hath to say That Hereticks erring in fundamentals are more contagious and rotten members then slaves of Satan failing against the second Table 5. He that is cast out of
Thes say Est not â— quâdam insignire et in aliquem animadvertere ut censores apud Romanos notare aliquem solebant they expound it the publike note of Excommunication Beza saith it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie and declare but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 notate veluti inustâ not â compungite So Calvin Marlorat And I wonder that Erastus can say with any that it is in our power to converse or not to converse with wicked men are we not discharged by Gods Spirit to converse with them As we are commanded to eat and drinke at the Lords Table and is it in our power morally to obey or disobey any Commandement of God Except Erastus will say with Papists that God doth here give counsels not commands Rom. 16. 17. 2 Thes 3. 14. 1 Cor. 5. 9 11. And whereas Erastus saith Paul will have us 2 Thes 3. 15. to admonish this man as a brother Ergo In holy things and in the Sacraments that are helpes of piety and Salvation we are not to â—ast him off It is true the cast out man is not to be reputed as an enemy but a brother Yet a sicke and diseased brother under the roughest Medicine of the Church to wit the rod of Excommunication that the Spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. But withdrawing of brotherly fellowship is not a meere civill unbrothering of him for if the brotherly fellowship of Christians must be spirituall religious and for the edifying of one anothers soules for exhorting one another to prevent hardning of heart for provoking one another to love and to good works to teach one another to comfort and support one another as we are expresly commanded by the Holy Ghost Heb. 3. 13. Heb. 10. 24. Col. 3. 16. 1 Thess 5. 11 14. Mal. 3. 16. Jer. 50. 5. Zach. 8. 22. Psal 42. 4. I wonder where Erastus learned this Divinity to say the denying of this edifying Communion to a scandalous brother while he be ashamed and repent Is to deny nothing that belongeth to his salvation Admonition is but one of twenty comfortable acts of Communion which we deny not to him least the man should despaire and we should cast off all care hope or intention to save his soul whereas the genuine and intrinsecall intention of avoiding him and casting him out of the Church is that he may be saved Lastly we deny not admonition and preaching of the word to the man thus cast out because they be converting Ordinances simply necessary to work the mans humiliation and repentance but the Lords Supper is a confirming Ordinance and denied to the excommunicated while he is in that condition upon that very reason that it is denied to Pagans and Heathens and though it be an help of piety it is no help either to a Pagan or an excommunicate man but damnation But it may be the excommunicate man hath faith I answer To us in the Court of the Church in which the Seals are dispensed he hath no more then a Heathen hath and therefore in confirming Ordinances he is looked on by the Church as an Heathen and if the reason of Erastus be good The Church is to deny no helps of godlinesse and salvation to him though we deny private food to his body because the Sacraments are necessary helps Then 1. I much doubt if the Church be to deny the necessary helps of godlinesse and salvation to a Pagan living amongst us Ergo shall we not deny the Sacraments to a Pagan 2. We are not to avoid his company and deny the edifying acts of Communion which I named before for these are necessary helps of salvation 3. It is not the mans sin by this reason That he eateth and drinketh unworthily for if it be not the Churches sin to give him the seals because the Seals are adminiclees and helps of piety and saving of the soul by the same reason it is not the mans sin to receive the Lords Supper for it must be equally an help of godlinesse and salvation to the Communicant receiving as to the Church giving Now Paul saith 1 Cor. 11. He that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh to himself judgement So Erastus teacheth us that it may be a sin to Swine publikely known to be such to receive pearles when it is no sin but the Churches duty to give these pearls to such known Swine which is most absurd and impious Erastus I said before that God doth not exclude sinners from the Sacraments but gather them in to them that they may be more and more invited to repentance and more easily raised up again for Sacraments and so many Ceremonies also were for this end ordained that they might draw men to the love and care of true piety and holynesse as Moses saith Deut. 14. Ans Erastus acknowledgeth this to be no new Argument therefore we may passe it it is the chief pillar of his opinion But I put it in forme thus to Erastus Those whom God inviteth to repentance those he will not exclude from the Sacraments But now under the Gospel he inviteth all even many Pagans and Heathen to repentance 1 Tim. 2. 4. God will have all even Heathen Magistrates to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth so Act. 17. 30. God now commandeth all men every where even the Idolators and blinde Philosophers at Athens who erected an Altar to the unknown God ver 23. and who jeered at the Doctrine of the Resurrection ver 32. even those God inviteth to repentance Ergo God excludeth not Pagans from the Sacraments but the conclusion is absurd and blasphemous therefore so must one of the premises be but the Assumption is Scripture Ergo The Major Proposition of Erastus must be blasphemous God inviteth scorners to repentance and rebukes are means of repentance Ergo we may rebuke scorners Gods spirit saith Rebuke not a scorner Prov. 9. 7 8. His Proposition then must be Those whom God inviteth to repentance those God excludeth not from any mean of piety and sanctity It is most false God inviteth Dogs and Swine to repentance and commandeth them to be holy and the pearls of the Gospel are means of repentance and holinesse Must we therefore Cast pearls to dogs and swine The contrary our Saviour injoyneth Matth. 7. 6. 2. Moses Deut. 14. 1. forbiddeth diverse Ceremonies and Sacraments of the Heathen by this Argument Ye are the children of the Lord your God and he saith expresly that the stranger may eat some unclean thing but the Lord saith to them You shall not do so for thou art an holy people to the Lord thy God Whence it is evident Moses saith poynt blank contrary to Erastus for Moses saith that Ceremonies and Sacraments are for this end to draw only the holy and sanctified people of God to a further love and study of true piety and sanctity was not the eating of the Passeover a mean of Repentance as well
Lords table were one and the same punishment Beza saith the one is a lesse the other a greater punishment 2. If it be true in gifts that he to whom lesse is given more is given then it holdeth here in our case because private fellowship with the Saints is a gift of God and if the Lords body given for us and to us in the Lords supper be not a greater gift it is nothing so then if a lesse gift be denied the Lords supper a greater gift is denied 2. It must hold in the private punishments inflicted for an higher punishments cause private communion with the Saints is denied because the man is cast out of the Church Ergo farre more are the highest priviledges of the Church denied as liberty is denied to a man because he is condemned to dye Ergo farre more is life denied to him a mans house is denied to him because he is banished Ergo farre more is his city and countrey denied to him But a man is not punished in his purse because he is condemned to dye it followeth noâ— Ergo he should rather dye because the one punishment is not relative to the other 3 Because not eating with a scandalous man is a spirituall punishment as I have proved therefore it is of that same kind with excommunication and therefore it holdeth here 4. Abstinence from the private fellowship of a scandalous brother is not free but commanded of God and so is debarring from the Lords supper not free but commanded Erastus when he forbiddeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no not to eat he forbiddeth 1. Neer communion of familiarity 2. Not to eat with them which is to forbid all signes of neer communion Ans It is clear he proveth they should cast him out because I wrote to you that you should not keep company with such v. 9. no more to eat with such Ergo farre lesse would he say should he be a leavening member in the lumpe and masse of Christs body Erastus I wrote unto you that ye should not keep company with such then Paul speaketh here of a thing concerning which he had spoken before though they understood him not it is like they sought Pauls judgement of their conversing with men But of delivering the man to Satan he had not spoken before as is clear in the Text. Ans This is a strong argument for us if Paul had never spoken nor written to them of the delivering of the man to Satan that is of the miraculous killing of him how could he in reason and conscience chide them because they prayed not that he might be miraculoâ—sly killed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is not possible they could mourn for not joyning in a businesse that Paul had never revealed to them to be Gods will Yea it is a strong argument to me that delivering to Satan was excommunication of which he had taught them before else their mourning had been unreasonble and which he pointed at to them as a limbe of excommunication to wit their not familier conversing with the scandalous Erastus And when he has showâ—n how they ought to flee the company of the scandalous he returneth to his former purpose commanding the wicked man to be killed This then he saith I commanded you to eschew the company of wicked brethren not of the heathen whom the Lord shall judge Ans 1. The Text can bear no such exposition for the reasons I have given before 2. The coherence is clear I wrote before that you should not keep company with wicked brethren therefore put out that wicked man from amongst you But by Erastus his glosse there is neither sense nor coherence in the words Erastus The end of refusing familiar conversing with the scandalous is that he may be ashamed and you say that same is the end of debarring from the supper then it must follow as private conversing can do the contrary to wit it can soment and nourish sinnes both in the brother we converse with and in us so the frequent use of the Lords supper should nourish vices in us vvhich vvere vvickednesse to think Ans This presumeth that to avoyd a scandalous brother and to debarre him from the Sacraments must be formally one which we teach not 2. Hence it followeth since they be divers formally they cannot have the same formall and intrinsecall ends 3. The frequent eating at the Lords table in a scandalous man doth dispose him more and more to sinne as frequently sinning inclineth more to sinne but this is by the frequent abusing of Gods ordinance and not from the nature of the Sacrament Erastus Paul forbiddeth not ill men of the company of good men but he admonisheth good men to flee ill men that they may be ashamed But vvhen you deuy the Sacraments to any you command not the Godly not to come to the supper with the wicked but you forbid the scandalous to come to the supper Ans There is no solidity in this conjecture it leaneth upon the perpetuall mâ—stake of Erastus in all this dispute as if we held That to be debabred from familiar fellowship with the Saints and from the Sacrament were one and the same thing Else I see no conclusion that Erastus doth or can infer against us 2. It is false that wicked men are not discharged the company of Saints for in so far as fellowship with the Saints is a spirituall mean of the gaining of their souls by Teaching Exhorting Edifying Comforting the wicked and scandalous being Dogs and Swine are forbidden to touch such a Pearl Yea God layeth a charge on wicked men while they remain in that case not to meddle with Confirming Ordinances with some Converting Ordinances they may as Psal 50. 16. But to the wicked God said What hast thou to do to declare my Statutes or that thou takest my Convenant in thy mouth 17. Seeing thou hatest Instruction and castest my Word behinde thee Here the wicked are forbidden to Teach or speak to the instructing of others which is a speciall act of Christian fellowship between Brother and Brother Col. 3. 16. Heb. 3. 13. Heb. 10. 24. 1 Thes 5. 11. 14. Because they hate to be Instructed of others And you know how Christ speaketh to the unworthy intruder of himself on the secrets and spirituall marrow and comforts of the Gospel Matth. 22. ver 12. Friend How camest thou here not having thy Wedding garment Ezra 4. 3. But Zerubbabel and Joshua and the rest of the chief of the Fathers came and said unto the Adversaries of Iudah and Benjamin You have nothing to do with us to build an house unto our God But we our selves together will build unto the Lord God of Israel Doth not God expresly forbid David to build an house to his name 1 Chron. 22. 8. 2 Chron. 6. 9. And we know it is a typicall discharge layed upon men of blood not to touch the holiest things of God but that men of Peace must meddle
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
the Lord v. 13. Now whereas Erastus putteth a note of ignorance on all that hath been versed in the Old Testament before him whereas he confesseth he understandeth not the Originall Language let the Reader judge what arrogance is here where ever there is mention saith he of judgement there is signified not religious causes but also other causes especially the cause of the widow and Orphane It bewrayeth great ignorance For 1. The matters of the Lord and the matters of the King are so evidently distinguished and opposed the one to the other by two divers presidents in the different judicatures the one Ecclesiasticall Amaziah the chiefe Priest in every word or matter of the Lord and the other Zebadiah the sonne of Ishmael the ruler of the house of Iudah for all the Kings matters that the very words of the Text say that of Erastus which he saith of others that he is not versed in the Scripture for then the causes of the Lord and the causes of the King in the Text by Erastus should be the same causes whereas the Spirit of God doth distinguish them most evidently 2. If the cause of the King were all one with the judgement of the Lord and the cause of the Lord yea if it were all one with all causes whatsoever either civill or Ecclesiasticall what reason was there they should be distinguished in the Text and that Amaziah should not be over the people in the Kings matters though he were the chiefe Priest and Zebadiah though a civill Iudge over all the matters of the Lord and causes Ecclesiasticall 3. The Kings matters are the causes of the widow and orphan and oppressed as is evident Ier. 22. 2. O King of Iudah v. 3. execute yee judgement and righteousnesse and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor and doe no wrong doe no violence to the stranger the fatherlesse nor the widdow so Esa 1. 10. 17. Prov. 31. 4 5. Iob 29. 12 13 c. Then the Text must beare that every matter of the King is the Iudgement of the Lord and the matter of the Lord and every matter and judgement of the Lord is also the matter of the King and to be judged by the King then must the King as well as the Priest judge between the clean and the unclean and give sentence who shall be put out of the Campe and not enter into the Congregation of the Lord no lesse then the Priests Let Erastus and all his see to this and then must the Priests also releeve the fatherlesse and widdow and put to death the oppressour 2. The different presidents in the judicatures maketh them different judicatures 3. It is denied that all causes whatsoever came before the Ecclesiasticall Synedry at Jerusalem Erastus doth say this but not prove it for the place 2 Chron. 19. doth clearly expound the place Deut. 17. for the causes of the brethren that dwell in the Cities between Blood and Blood between Law and Commandement Statutes and judgements are judged in the Ecclesiasticall Synedrim at Ierusalem not in a civill coactive way by the power of the sword 1. Because all causes are by a coactive power judged as the matters of the King the supream sword bearer 2 Chron. 19. 5. v. 13. Rom. 13 4. to eschew oppression and maintain justice Ier. 22. 2 3. But the causes here judged in this Synedrim are judged in another reduplication as the matters of the Lord differenced from the matters of the King 2 Chron. 19. 13. now if the Priests and Levites judged in the same judicature these same civill causes and the same way by the power of the sword as Magistrates as Erastus saith why is there in the Text 1. Two judicatures one v. 5. in all the fenced cities another at Ierusalem v. 8 2. What meaneth this that the Kings matters are judged in the civill judicature not by the Priests and Levites as Erastus saith for the Ruler of the house of Iudah was president in these and the matters of the Lord were judged by the Priests and Levites and Amariah the chiefe Priest was over them for then Amariah was as well over the Kings matters as the Ruler of the house of Iudah and the Ruler of the house of Iudah over the Lords matters as over the Kings for if Priests and Levites judged as the Deputies subordinate to the King and by the power of the sword the Kings matters are the Lords matters and the Lords matters the Kings matters and Amariah judgeth not as chiefe Priests as he doth burne incense but as an other judge this truly is to turne the Text upside downe 2. The causes judged in the Synedrim at Ierusalem are said to be judged as controversies when they returned to Ierusalem 2 Chr. 19. 8. and matters too hard between plea and plea between blood and blood between stroke and stroke Deut. 17. 8. and so doubts of Law and cases of conscience Now Mal. 2. 7. The Priests lips should preserve knowledge and they should seek the Law at his mouth for he is the messenger of the Lord of hostes and this way only the Priests and Levites judged not that they inflicted death on any but they resolved in an Ecclesiasticall way the consciences of the judges of the fenced Cities what was a breach of the Law of God Morall or Judiciall what not what deserved Church censures what not who were clean who unclean and all these are called the judgement of the Lord the matters of the Lord because they had so near relation to the soul and conscience as the conscience is under a divine Law 3. Erastus saith it is knowen that the Levites only were Magistrates in the Cities of refuge but I deny it Erastus should have made it knowen to us from some Scripture I finde no ground for it in Scripture Erastus It is true that Beza saith that the Magistrate hath a supream power to cause every man do his duty But how hath he that supream power if he be also subject to the Presbyters for your Presbyters do subject the Magistrate to them and compell him to obey them and punish them if they disobey Ans The Magistrate even King David leaveth not off to be supream because Nathan commandeth him in the Lord nor the King of Niniveh and his Nobles leave not off to command as Magistrates though Jonah by the word of the Lord bring them to lie in sackcloth and to Fast all the Kings are subject to the rebukes and threatnings of the Prophets Isa 1. 10. Jer. 22. 2 3. Ier. 1. 18. 2 Kin. 12. 8 9. 10 11 12. 1 Kin. 21. 21 22 23. Isa 30. 33. Hos 5. 1 2. and to their commandments in the Lord If Presbyters do command as Ministers of Christ the highest powers on earth if they have souls must submit their consciences to the Lords rebukings threatnings and Commandment in their mouth Court Sycophants say the contrary but we care not 2. But they punish the
and subjects are Christians but where the Magistrate is of a false Religion two different Governments are tollerable Ans 1. This argument destroâ—eth all Aristocracy Parliaments and Senates where many good men have equall power and so the Common-wealth may not have 70. Heads and Rulers of equall power which is against the Scripture which commandeth subjection to every Civill ordinance of man as lawfull Rom. 13. 1 2 3. Tit. 3. 1 2 3. 1 Pet. 2. 13 14. Deut. 1. 16. It maketh no Government lawfull but Popedome and Monarchy in both Church and state 2. It is to beg the question that there cannot be two supream powers both supream in their owne kinde for they are both supream in their owne sphere as Pastors dispense Sacraments and Word without subjection to the Magistrate as they are Pastors and Magistrates use the Sword without dependence on Pastors and yet is there mutuall and reciprocall subjection of each to other in divers considerations Pastors as subjects in a Civill relation are subject to the Magistrate as every soul on earth is and Magistrates as they have souls and stand in need to be led to heaven are under Pastors and Elders For if they hear not the Church and if they commit incest they are to be cast out of the Church Mat. 18. 1 Cor. 5. Rom. 16. 17. 1 Thes 3. 14. 15. If they walk inordinately we are to eschew their company if they despise the Ministers of Christ they despise him who sent them Math. 10. 40. Luk. 10. 16. God respecteth not the persons of Kings and we finding them not excepted if the preachers of the Gospel be to all beleevers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 over them in the Lord 1 Thess 5. 12. 1 Tim. 5. 17. call it authority or no Authority they have some oversight over the Christian Magistrate and here be two supreams two highest powers one Ecclesiasticall another Civill nor should any deny Moses to be above Aaron as the supream judge Aaron not having the power of the sword as Moses had and Aaron must be above Moses in sacrificing in burning incensâ— in judging between the clean and the unclean which Moses could not do 2. The excellency of the Civill power in regard of earthly honour and eminency in the fifth Commandment above the servants of God in the Ministry of Christs spirituall Kingdom which is not of this world we heartily acknowledge 3. That the King Preacheth and dispenseth the Sacraments by Pastors as by his servants is wilde Divinty Pastors then must have Magistraticall Authority and power of the sword committed to them as the Deputies and inferior judges of the Lords of the Gentiles which Christ forbade his Disciples Luk. 22. 25 26 27. For the servant must have some power committed to him from the principall cause in that wherein he is a servant 4. What reason is there that where the Magistrate is a Heathen two Governments and so two heads in one body should be for then there is and must be a Church-Government where the Magistrate is a Heathen and that in the hands of the Church if then the Magistrate turn Christian must he spoile the Church of what was her due before Erastus The Lord Jesus changed nothing in the New Testament of that most wise Government in the Iewish Church now there all Government was in the hands of Moses I say not that the Magistrate might sacrifice or do what was proper to the Priests but he did dispose and order what was to be done by the Priests Ans Yea but Erastus saith the Magistrate may dispense word and Sacraments in the New Testament if he had leisure Why might he not sacrifice in the Old Testament also 2. Pastors do by their Doctrine and Discipline order and regulate all callings in their Moralls of right and wrong of just and unjust yet is not the Pastor the only Governour in all externals 3. If Christ changed nothing of the Iewish Government we have all their exclusion of men out of the Campe their separating of the unclean and their politick and Ceremoniall Lawes which is unsound Divinity Erastus Moses Ruled all before there was a Priesthood instituted God Exod. 4. Numb 12. calleth Aaron to his office and maugurateth him by Moses nor doth he command him to exercise a peculiar judgement when he declareth his office to him and when Aaron dieth Moses substituteth Eleazar in his place Ioshua c. 3 4 teacheth the Priests what they should doe and commanded them to circumcise Israel so did Samuel David Solomon and in the time of the Maccabees it was so Ans Moses was once a Prophet and Iudge both Ergo so it may be now it followeth not except Moses as a Magistrate did reveale what was the Priesthood What Aaron and Eleazer his sonnes might doe by as good reason Moses David Solomon Ioshua as Magistrates wrote Canonick Scripture and prophecied Then may Magistrates as Magistrates build new Temples typicall to God give new Laws write Canonick Scripture as these men did by the Spirit of prophecy no doubt not as Magistrates for why but they might sacrifice as Magistrates and why should Moses rather have committed the Priesthood and the service of the Tabernacle due to him as a Magistrate so to Aaron and his sonnes as it should be unlawfull to him as a King and unlawfull to Vzziah to burn incense and to sacrifice and to doe the office of the Priest If the Magistrate as the Magistrate doe all that the Priests are to doe as Priests and that by a supream principle and radicall power in him he ought not to cast off that which is proper to him as a Magistrate to take that which is lesse proper he casteth the care and ruling of souls on the Priests and reserveth the lesser part to himself to rule the bodies of men with the Sword all these are sufficiently answered before Erastus The King of Persia Ezra 7. appointed Iudges to judge the people and teach them but there is no word of Excommunication or any Ecclesiastick punishment but of death imprisonment fines nor did Nehemiah punish the false Prophets with any other punishment Iosephus speaketh nothing of it nor Antiochus Ans I shew before that there is forâ—eiting and separation from the Congregation Ezra 10. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he shall be separated from the Church 2. If the King of Persia appointed men to judge and teach the people why should he deny any judicature at all 3. Where ever Iosephus speaketh of the judging of the Priests as he doth antiq l. 11. c. 7. ant l. 11. c. 8. l. 12. c. 9. he hinteth at this Erastus Christ dischargeth his Disciples to exercise dominion Christ would not condemne the adulterous woman nor judge between the brethren Luke 12. Paul calleth Ministers dispensators stewards Peter forbiddeth a dominion Ans Let Erastus be mindfull of this himselfe who yet saith that the Magistrate may both judge also if he have time dispence the
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
sinfully separate the one from the other and sin is no ordinance of God 4. What word of Christ hath Mr. Pryn for extraordinary conversion of men by Miracles without the Word He must conceive with Arminians and Socinians that many are converted that never heard of that precious name of Iesus without which there is no salvation Act. 4. 11. or of a faith in Christ as Moses Amyraldus dreameth without the knowledge of Christ and may write books de salute Ethnicorum for this externall conversion doth lead of its owne nature to internall conversion and salvation This may make us fancie somewhat of the salvation of Aristotle Seneca Cicero Aristides Scipio Regulus without the Law or Gospell this way of extraordinarily saving men by Miracles without the Gospell is the doctrine of Arminians and Socinians so say the Arminians at the Synod of Dort pag. 334 335. Those whom God hath deprived of the Gospell he hath not precisely rejected them from a communion of the benefits of the Gospell Adolphus Venator adver Dracenos p. 84. saith The heathen are saved without the Gospell if they â—â—n but pray Ens Entium miserere mei Socinus praelec Thelo c. 3. telleth us of an inspired word that saveth us called verbum interius You may please Schoolmen thus such as Granadus Contr. 8. de grat tract 6. disp 1. numb 43. did Ruiz de Predesti se 8. numb 7. Alexand. Alens 8. p. q. 69. memb 5. art 3. De bonis Philosophis sic credo c. Roa lib. 1. De Provident quest 7. n. 50. Vega lib. 13. in Trident. cap. 12. Enriquez Tom. 2. De ultimo fine c. 14. num 6. quod lib. 8. quest 5. Vasquez 1. par disp 97. and c. 5. Soto lib. 1. de nat grat c. 18. ad 2. Francis Sonnius in demonstrat Tract 12. de consiliis c. 8. Camerarius lib. 1. de grat c. 8. lib. 7. c. 8. who doe all of them send all the good Philosophers and white Morallists to heaven by Miracles inspirations extraordinary workes of providence and that without any rumour of Christ and the Gospell famous Papists to their owne shame yeeld that Divine faith cannot be produced by Miracles Andradius saith often they may be false Maldonatus saith That no necessary argument of faith can be drawn from Miracles Gregorius de Valen. saith Miracles give us no infallible certainty of Doctrine Bellarmine saith Miracles cannot convince the minde Durandus giveth a sure reason why miracles cannot produce faith Because saith he suppose it were known of it self that this miracle of the raising e. g. of Lazarus were true yet it is not known by it self that it testifieth that this is a true Doctrine which he preacheth who worketh the miracle Mr. Prynne then hath put the salvation of those who never heard the Gospel upon extraordinary Pillars when he bottometh them on miracles without the word which are extraordinary rotten Pillars 5. The Lords Supper of which we now dispute is not the mean of our first conversion from formall profession to inward embracing the Gospel For the word must go before and not simply the externall letter of the word but the word first believed and received by the efficacions working of the holy Ghost And so the word is indeed the first converting Ordinance and so the Lords Supper is given to one who already believes and the Sacrament concurreth as a mean to make good corroborate and increase the conversion which was before Mr. Prynne might have spared his pains in proving That the Lords Supper is a converting Ordinance because it applieth Christ â—o uâ— we grant it to be a converting and quickning and lively applicatory Ordinance But how He may know that what ever Ordinance addeth a new degree of Faith of conversion of saving application of Christ and the Promises must be a converting Ordinance But it is so converting that it is a confirming Ordinance and necessarily it presupposeth Faith and conversion already wrought by the word it is not a first-converting Ordinance such as is the word but as nourishing or accretion is a sort of vitall generation in the body of a growing childe so as Physicians make nutrition in children to be Aggeneration or Congeneration or a vitall generation with or in the body and it presupposeth the first generation by which life is given to the childe now nourishing doth not give life things void of life are not capable of nourishing therefore nourishing is the continuing of life and as it were prorogated and continued generation so here Sacramentall eating by faith is a spirituall feeding and nourishing of the soul on the crucified Lords body broken his blood shed it is not the act of our first conversion Regeneration is sealed in Baptisme and Christ given as sealing and confirming Regeneration but the Lords Supper is that which exhibiteth Christ to us as food and sealeth our spirituall growing and coalition in Christ I say not this as if the Church could give the Supper of the Lord to none but such as are inwardly and really Regenerated but to shew that the Church taketh such as are externally called to be internally called when they dispense this Supper to them that they are nearer Christ then those that hear the Gospel which Heathen may do ere they can be admitted to the Supper And this Erast every where and Mr. Pryn in terminis teach when they say That those that are recte instituti rightly instructed who earnestly desire the Lords Supper professe sincere Repentance and promise amendment are only to be admitted to the Sacrament and those only excluded who are convicted to be grosse and scandalous and obstinate offenders Whence it is clear they professe Repentance and to the Church they are converts who are to be admitted to the Supper before they come to the Lords Supper Now this must be done by the word Preached and received by faith in profession Ergo this Supper in the Church-way cannot be dreamt to be a mean of their first conversion far lesse in foro Dei in Gods court can men first receive the Lords Supper having never heard the word and then be converted in foro Dei really and inwardly by receiving the Lords Supper then might the Sacrament before and without the word be given if it be a converting Ordinance belonging to all to whom the word belongeth For Mr. Prynne saith It can be denyed to none within the visible Church And what reason if it be no lesse the first converting Ordinance but that it may be administred to those that never heard the word and are Members of the visible Church And by this Mr. Prynne cannot deny but the Lords Supper should be dispensed to infants and children who cannot try themselves nor yet discern the Lords Body Yea those that are convicted of obstinacy in scandalous sins are Members of the Church for how could they be judged convicted and sentenced if they be not within
not from the Magistaate their internal and external power of governing the Churches Josias Simlerus professor Tigurinus comment in Exod. 20. in Mand. 5. Magistratuum officium est tollere idola vi et armis concionaâ—orum vero ut errorâ—m ostendant Idololatriam damnent verbi gladiâ— jugulent et Magistratum sui officij admoneant in rebus exteruis tollendis ut Can. 15 Concil Carthagi 5. Lavater in Ezech. c. 44. Dominus dicit repellendâ—s a ministerio incircumcisos carne hoc est indulgentes libidinibus et incircumcisos corde hoc est imbutos pravis opinionibus collige quanta cura et diligentia requiratur a sacerdotibus conformiter enim custodibus Lavater in Ezech. 22. 26. reprehendit in sacerdotibus quod sancta sua violarint non enim tractarint quemadmodum ipse instituerat Nam in templo prostabant Idola sacrificia non legitime offerebantur an non hodie Sacramenta ab adulteris ebriosis et aleatoribus admistrantur Idem in Ezech. 23. 38. et quum immolassent filios idolis Si adultera de adulteri stratis surgens rectâ ad maritum suum veniat et amorem coniugalem simulet judicium est magnae impudentiae redeuntes a valle Hinnon et cultu daemonum tanquam re bene gesta cruentis manibus templum ingrediebantur citra conscientiam oraturi Ioan. Wolphius in Nehemiam ait c. 2. v. 20. aedificatores Ecclesiae nihil agere debere quam quod in mandatis divinitus datum sit Idem in Ezram c. 10. hoc enim exemplo V. T. discimus quae facto opus sit in N. T. nempe ut crebris synodis in vitam in doctrinam et mores in vocationem Ecclesiastorum inspiciatur Hence it is clear that Simler Lavater and Wolphius do clearly 1. Difference between the two powers of the Sword and Church 2. That the Priests in the Old and Ministers in the New Testament are not to prophane holy things 3. That by Assemblies and Synods Church-censures are to be dispensed Yea even Robert Burhillus de primatu Regio contra Becanum Iesuitam c. 10. sed neque in exteriore jurisdictione aut excommunicationis aut ordinationis potestatem regi facimus aut cultus divini novas formulas procudendi aut dispensandi adde quod nec â—â—s â—itribuimus leges suâ solius authoritate ferendi quae canonum Ecclesiasticorum vim obtinâ—ant The mind of D. Pareus and P. Martyr may be known by what is said and is cleared in that learned dissertation of Iac. Trig. Nor shall I need to burden the Reader with citations of Fathers Greek and Latine Doctors Councels with all our Protestant Divines Luther Calvin Beza Farel Marlorat Piscator Sibrandas Iunius Gomaras Trelcatius Bucanus c. which were easie to do if not needlesse and acknowledged by the Adversary I have also in answering Erastus I hope answered all that Mr. Prinne hath said either in his questions or vindication because most of all he hath I speak it not to diminish or detract from the learning of that reverend man â—â—r â—â—sse to irritate is fully to be seen in Erastus so that in answering Erastus I hope that ingenuous zealous and learned Divine will Acquiesce The Lord establish Ierusalem and make her a peaceable habitation FINIS AN INTRODVCTION To the Doctrine of Scandal Whether or no things indifferent can be commanded because indifferent WHat ever things are commanded under the tenor of things indifferent and yet are not indifferent are not lawful nor can be in reason commanded for so should they be of their nature both indifferent and not indifferent But humane Ceremonies are sush Ergo they are not lawful Indifferent things Basilius calleth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nazianz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Laertius and Gellius saith the same of them Things indifferent cannot be good but essentially neither good nor ill and if they be not good they cannot be apt to edifie and so fall not within the compasse of things which can be commanded by Rulers There is a twofold matter of a Church constitution the one remote the other nearer The remote matter of Church constitutions are things indifferent to wit mens actions and the circumstances thereof and so they are the matter of Gods Laws for all our actions Physically considered to know believe will love joy fear speak walk laugh c are indifferent in themselves but God in the Law of Natuâ—â— and his positivâ— Divâ—â—â— Law â—â—th 〈…〉 dâ—â—â—â—m â—â—â—d 〈…〉 i◠〈…〉 put â—is d 〈…〉 â—â—gal upon thâ—◠〈…〉 aâ— it is such can be the nearest matter of any Church-constitution No wise man would say that the Church might make a Law that all should cast stones in the water yet God might make a Law thereof For what actions hath no good nor lawfulnesse nor aptitude to edisie in themselves these thâ— will of man can never make good lawful and apt to edifie because onely God whose will is the prime rule of all goodnesse can create moral goodnes in actions not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge is only good because God hath so appointed in his Law and to eat of the fruit of that tree had been as lawful and just as not to â—aâ—â— if God had commanded eating thereof under â—râ—mises and threatnings 6. Hence â—â— followeth that all actions and circumstances of their nature indifferent must lose that indifferency and receive from God some goodnesse and aptnesse to edifie before they can be the reasonable and nearest matter of any Civil or Ecclesiastical constitution because what rulers can in Law and reason command that they must will as good and apt to edifie before they can bind others to will it But neither the will of a ruler nor the will of any other can lawfully will a thing indifferent as it is such for a thing indifferent as it is such is neither good nor evil and the object of the will is alwayes good 3. Rulers commandeth as Gods Ministers for our good Rom. 13. 4. Ergo the means and actions injoyned for the compassing of this end must be good for if the end be good the means as the means must be good Ergo they cannot be indifferent Things indifferent cannot be enacted as a Lâ—w except they were indifferent to all to both weak and wilful for remaining evil to some they are scandalous and cannot be commanded except rulers would command sinful actions The Apostles would make no Laws at all of things indifferent except in the case of scandal neither can our Ceremonies be indifferent 1. Because they are sacred mystical signes teaching us some duties to God 2. They are worship and means tending to the honour of God and being used for the honour of an Idol as they are used by us they should be the religious honour of an Idol 3. They are pretended to be means apt to edifie Ergo They are not in their use indifferent 4. The use of Ceremonies are Moral actions of man not warranted
an Artificer to make swords though he know some shall abuse them to murthering the innocent is no scandalous work I take not on me to prescribe rules for eschewing scandall in all occurrences of providence The godly learned can see more then I can doe in this matter where love should be warie to lay a straw in the way of any weake traveller Quest III. Whether or no we may deny obedience to the lawes of our Superiours for feare of Scandall causleslie taken THis is not my question but a question of the Doctors of Aberdeen yet it conduceth for the times and because one of the learnedest of these Doctors did agitate the question of scandall with me in private before the writing of that book I desire libertie to vindicate my selfe by discussing two chapters of this purpose And first the question seemeth to me many wayes vaine 1. They aske about denyall of obedience which is not proved but presumed to be obedience 2. They presume that the Masters the Lord Prelates of Pearth faction are our Superiours by no law of God or our Church was ever any superioritie conferred upon them 3. They say for scandall causlesly taken if they meane that there be no just reason indeed why any should take scandall they say nothing against us for we thinke to take scandall is to sinne if they know any just reason or cause of sinne except Satan and mens free-will we shall be taught of them If they meane scandalously taken that is not culpably given by the practisers of Ceremonies this is a Chimera and to us no question for we are not to denie obedience to lawfull lawes for eschewing Scandall when obeyers doe give no cause culpably of Scandall they would have formed the question to our reverend and learned Brethren if they had dealt plainly Whether or no we may desist from practising Coremonies which setting aside the law of Superiours are indifferent when from the practising of them ariseth the ruine of many soules for whom Christ died In things necessarie commanded and forbidden of God we cannot deny obedience but the matter of the lawes is silenced in the question to deceive the reader Duplyers IF the Scandall arising from the Articles of Pearth come ex conditione operis from the very enormitie in these Articles then are we to forbeare these â—rticles ever and not onely while they be tryed in a lawfull Assembly for such are either sinne or have a manifest show of sinne But if the scandall arise not from the Articles themselves but from malice or weaknesse we deny that we are totally to abstaine from obedience to lawfull Superiours for eschewing Scandall causlesly taken and we marvell from whence ye have learned this strange and harsh doctrine Answ 1. Your enumeration is weake for we know no Scandall justly taken but proceeding from both these weaknesse or wickedness of nature is the neerest cause of all Scandall taken because it is the cause of all sinne and to be scandalized is sinne Also it is here taken from the enormitie of the deed in that practising of things indifferent if a scandall taken either weakly or maliciously thence arise there is enormitie in the deed yet totall abstinence is not hence concluded because cessante ratione scandali when the ground of the Scandall is removed there is no enormitie in the fact 2. You define to us or rather divine that then there is an irregularitie in the fact that justly scandalizâ—th when either the fact is a sinne or then hath a manifest shew of sinne And we wonder where you learned this strange Divinitie for 1 Cor. 10. 27. To eat meat at a Feast that you are invited unto is neither sinne because v. 23. 25. it is lawfull The earth is the Lords nor is it such as hath a manifest shew of sinne as all having sense knoweth One of your prime Doctors defined to me these onely have manifest appearance of sinne Quae plâ—rumque fiunt malo fine which for the most part are done for an evill â—nd such as is to lye in bed with another mans wife to kneele before an Idoll The formâ—r in the exposition of all is done for adulterie the latter for Idolatrie I am sure to eat meats at an Infidels feast is not of that nature which is done ordinarily for an evill end it is ordinarily done to refresh nature and to solâ—â—e it which hath no manifest shew of sinne and yet if there be a weake one beside who saith that meat is offered to Idols in that case to eat is to scandalize 32. and is against the glory of God v. 31. 3. You aske from whom we learned this strange doctrine to deny obedience to the lawes of Superiours for scandall causlesly taken And we answer we learned it from the Apostle Paul who saith 1 Cor. 8. 13. If meat offend my weake brother I will eat no flesh I will abstaine totally and absolutely while the world standeth This abstinence for the date of the worlds standing God be thanked is longer then the time to a lawfull Generall Assembly was at that time yet the Apostle proveth Rom. 14. That to eat or not to eat was at that time as indifferent as to practise or not practise Ceremonies also who ever offended at Pauls eating of fleshes were offended out of weakness v. 7. and it was in that sense scandall causlesly taken Duplyers pag. 59. n. 34. The Author of the popish English Ceremonies saith that both Cajetan and Bannes affirm that we should abstain a spiritualibus non necessariis from spirituall duties not necessarie to salvation when Scandall ariseth from the doing of them but none of the Schoolemen euer taught to abstaine totally and altogether from any spirituall dutie for eschewing the scandall of either weake or wicked Answer What the author of the English Popish Ceremonies saith in that subject all your learning shall never be able to Answer for our brethren required but abstinece from these Ceremonies till they be tryed in a lawfull Generall Assemblie for they never were yet tryed in a lawfull Assemblie till the late Assemblie at Glasgow anno 1638. 2. That Author argueth a Majore and we desire an Answer if we may abstaine from spirituall duties commanded by the most high Superiour the Lord our God hic nunc in case of Scandall Ergo farre more are we to abstaine from practising of dead Ceremonies voyd of all spirit of life in the case of scandall yea and universally and totally we are to abstaine because the Superiours have no power to make lawes in materia scandalosa when that which they command is scandalous and in the very matter soule-murther Duplyers Thomas and his followers say Bona spiritualia non necessaria sunt dimittenda propter scandalum in ijs quae sunt sub consiliâ— non vero sub praecepto We may omit spirituall duties for eschewing scandall which fall under counsell but not under commandement Answer We conceive you not to
is not now an ordinance of God necessarie if any burne Incense to it these who are by authoritie obliedged to remove it and doth not remove it they doe morally and culpably scandalize Hence we see it is foolish and vaine that some say such as Hooker D. Forbes D. Sanderson and Lyndesay pretended Bishop of Edinburge and Mr. Paybodie That as Rome and Corinth the Church had not past her determination upon eating and not eating nor made any Church lawes upon these things indifferent and therefore to eat or not to eat were matters of every private mans choise But it is not the like case with our Ceremonies for they remaine no longer indifferent but are necessarie to us after that the Church hath now made a commanding law upon them and so the scandall that ariseth from our dutie of obedience to lawfull authoritie is taken and not given I answer it is most false that eating and not eating in case of scandall was under no law in the Church of Rome and Co rinth For these most indifferent acts in their use and cloathed with their Circumstances when where and before what persons were under the unalterable law of nature as destroy not him with thy meat for whom Christ died a law which as the course of conformitie saith well cannot be dispenced with by no power but Gods And Paul proveth by stronger arguments to eat in the case of Scandall was not indifferent but simply evill Then all the Prelates Canons on earth can afford as Rom. 14. by eight Arguments as we have seen that it fighteth against Charitie v. 15. Now walkest thou not charitably 2. It is a destroying of him for whom Christ died and so murther 3. Contrary to Christs love who died for that weake brother 4. It maketh Religion and Christian Libertie to be evill spoken of v. 6. c. It is a sham then to say that eating or not eating was indifferent because free from any ty of a Church Canon seeing eating before a weake brother is under the ty of unanswerable Arguments taken from the law of nature and Gods Canons written in the heart forbidding under the pain of Goa's anathema and curse heavier then the Church anathema that we should for meat destroy him for whom Christ died and so are the Canon-makers and Lords of Ceremonies under a curse if they for crossing kneeling surplice destroy him for whom Christ died or command him to be destroyed by the practice of Ceremonies 3. If this be a good reason the Church of Rome and Corinth might have made such Ceremonies as these Notwithstanding the eating of meates which some suppose to be forbidden by Gods law be a killing of him for whom Christ died and against Charity and a reproaching of our Christian liberâ—ie yet it seemed good to the holy Ghost and to us the Prelates of Rome and Corinth to command eating of such meats before weake ones for whom Christ died But certainly Paul would never have commandâ—d in a Canon that which he writeth in Canonicall Scripture to be a murthering of him for whom Christ died and that which he would not practise himself to the worlds end so long as it standeth in the case of indifferencie as he saith of eating of fleshes conceived by some weake ones to be against Gods law 1 Cor. 8. v. last The Pope himselfe would nor dare in conscience to practise any of his owne Canons even though they were yet not Canonically commanded or forbidden Paul would not dare to put a law upon the Romans or Corinthians to eat or not to eat meats before the weake but commandeth not eating in the case of scandall 4. Idolatrie is ever idolatrie saith the course of conformitie and so scandall being sinne it cannot cease to be sinne because superiours commandeth it 5. Though Apostolick authoritie being meerly divine should command that which is in it self murther and was â—urther before it be Canonically commanded which I think also is a false hypothesis yet it shall never follow that humane authoritie or Ecclesiastick authoritie can command scandall which is spirituall murther For if Ecclesiastick authoritie may command murther they may command idolatrie for active scandalizing is as essentially murthering of one for whom Christ died as to worship an idoll is essentially idolatrie Therefore Master Sydserfe pretended Bishop of Gallâ—way being straited with this argument sayd Though humane authoritie cannot invert the nature of things or make spirituall murther to be no murther yet they can by a Church Canon put the mindes of people in such a change as now they are not in the hazard to be justly scandalized for a scandall sayd the Prelate is ens rationis no reall thing but a fiction of reason the nature of it being in the apprehension of the ignorant and blind who are scandalized and a law may remove this ignorance when it giveth light and sheweth the expediencie of things indifferent To which I answered you may call idolatrie if you please and all sinnes fictions of reason but not only doth scandall given proceed from ignorance and blindnesse of the apprehension of the partie scandalized but also from the unseasonable practising of a thing which is no wayes necessarie in the worship of God The course of confirmitie saith well He that denieth that there is any scandall is like one who could not see the wood for the trees the walking of Diogenes is meetest for a Zeno who against all reason denyeth that there is any motion We may hence judge what to say of D. Forbes his Answer to the place 1 Cor. 9. Who saith that Paul was under no Ecclesiasticall law not to take wages and therefore in not taking wages he was not a contemner of Ecclesiasticall authoritie but we are under a Church law to practise the Ceremonies and yet we refuse them I answer If then the Church of Corinth had commanded Paul in their Canons to take stipend for preaching he was obliedged to take stipend yet he proveth that it was not lawfull for him as the case of scandall then stood to take wages v. 18. he should abuse his power in the Gospell and v. 19. 20 21. he should not have becommed all things to all men to save some and these things had been sinfully scandalous if as the case was then Paul for a penny of wages which he might have wanted having no familie to provide for should have layd a stumling block before many And the Doctor â—aith No humane power can compell a man to doe that which he cannot doe except inevitably he give scandall The Doctor addeth The Apostle teacheth not that to take stipend was unlawfull or of it selfe scandalous yea he taught it was lawfull and that they should not be scandalized thereat because Christ hath ordained that he who serveth at the altar should live upon the Altar but you teach that the Ceremonies are unlawfull I Answer 1. In this argument of Scandall we
give but doe not grant that they are not unlawfull but indifferent 2. Though to take wages be lawfull yet it followeth not that it is not in Pauls caâ—e at Corinth of it selfe scandalous for to eat all meates is lawfull Rom. 14. and 1 Cor. 10. 23. All things are lawfull v. 26. The earth is the Lords yet to eat before the weake was in it selfe scandalous Rom. 14. 15. 16. 17. 1 Cor. 10. 28. 29. 3. It is a most weake reason to prove that to take wages was not scandalous because forâ—ooth the Corinthians should not have been scandalized for to be scandalized is to sinne and there is no reason in sinning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If this be good adulterie and murther in David is not of it selfe scandalous for as no man hath reason to sinne so no man hath reason to be scandalized at Davids sinne Pauls taking wages at Corinth should have been a sinfull hindering of the Gospels progresse and therefore of it self sinfull and so of it selfe scandalous But I return to the Doctors Duplyers pag 67. 68. n. 46 47. As for that which yee say that when Scandall may be taken at the doing of the thing commanded then the thing commanded becommeth inexpedient and so ought not to be obeyed that yee be not more deceived with this errour we pray you marke that a thing commanded by our Superiours in Church or Policie mâ—y be two wayes inexpedient to wit either in respect of some particular Persons who thâ—ough weaknesse or maliâ—e doe stumble at it or else in respect of the body in generall because it is contrary to Order Decencie and Edification If the thing commanded be inexpedient the former way we may indeed in such a case for eschewing the Scandall of the weake forbeare the practice of the thing commanded Hic nunc in some particular places and times provyding alwayes we doe this without offence of our Superiours and without the scandall of others but we cannot totally forbeare practice for we are to looke more to the utilitie which the body of the Church may receive by the thing commanded and by our obedience to our Superiours then to some particular persons 47. But if the thing commanded be in our private judgement inexpedient the other way we ought not for that to deny Obedience to the lawes of the Church for when the inexpediencie of a thing is questionable and probable arguments may be brought pro and contra concerning the expediencie of it wee have sufficient warrant to practise it if the Church inact it as expedient Otherwayes your way is so dangerous that there shall never be peace nor unitie in the Church for men ordinarily are divided in judgement concerneing the expediencie of things Suppose a Synode consisting of one hundred Pastours threescore shall think this particular Ceremonie expedient for the good of the Church and in respect of pluralitie of voyces make an act to be concluded for the establishing of it shall the remnant fourty who are of the contrary judgement deny obedience to the acts of the Synode Answer 1. This distinction of inexpedient in the matter of indifferent Ceremonies is Popish and vaine for if the Ceremonie be indifferent and may be wanted in the worship of God as these Ceremonies be if one soule for whom Christ died shall be murthered thereby it is hoc ipso to be judged inexpedient and scandalous in it selfe and so cannot fall under the object of a Church Canon as 1 Cor. 8. 13. If meat make my brother to stumb'le he saith not the whole Church I will not eat Ergo he cannot command others to eat 1 Cor. 10. 28. But if any man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 say to you this is offered in sacrifice to Idols eat not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for his sake that shewed it Ergo if it seem expedient and so be scandalous to one let alone to a whole Church we are totally to forbeare it and Paul would while the world standeth 1 Cor. 8. 13. forbeare it 2. You will not have us to forbeare a thing indifferent that actively for the passive scandall I hope you regard not as a scandall doth scandalize but with a provision that we doe it without offence of Superiours and without the scandall of others But I aske Doctors what you meane by Offence of Superiours if you meane without displeasing and inciting our Superiours to anger 1. You ignorantly confound displeasing and Scandalizing When a Pastor rebuketh Superiours as Jeremiah Elias and John Baptist in the good old world did they did displease Superiours but not scandalize them yea they did edifie their Superiours while as they did offend them It is wicked Divinitie to mean that we are not to eschew the murthering of a weake brother for whom Christ died providing we offend not that is displease not our Superiours Will you to please men displease the God of heaven and commit spiritual homicide This is worse then Poperie But if you meane that wee are to forbeare the thing commanded for eschewing the scandall of the weake providing we doe it without the offence of Superiours that is without the active scandalizing of Superiours then 1. your distinction is vaine for if we scandalize culpably our superiours by our forbearance though it be inexpedient to all private persons we are not to forbeare because in no case can we breake the sixt Commandement and scandalize our Superiours 2. You shall be forced to giveâ— case wherein we are necessitated by Gods providence and that by way of contradiction whether we forbeare or forbeare not to murther either the soules of some weake ones or the soules of Superiours by our forbearance of the practice of things judged expedient by Superiours you make us to murther the soules of Superiours by the non-forbearance or you will have us to murther the soules of weake breathren if we practise This is a wronging of Providence and a Maâ—ichean tenent that we can be under such a necessitie of sinning Yea there must be two centraâ—y revealed wills in God commanding by forbearing the Ceremonies not to murther Superiours and commanding by not forbearing not to murther weak brethren and so God commandeth both to forbeare and also not to forbeare If you say the weake may be informed and then it is a passive scandall onely and practising is lawfull at the commandement of Superiours I answer 1. Then your distinction hath no use here 2. I answer Let the Superiours who have more knowledge be informed that to abstaine from a practice that may murther any one redeemed by Christ is Christs commandement Thou shalt doe no murther then it is but a passive scandall and not an active or culpably given scandall Ergo we are to forbeare the thing commanded for eschewing of the scandall hic nunc of the weake even though with the offence that is the passive scandall of Superiours and others which is contradictorie to the Doctours 3. If we may forbeare obedience to Gods
and such meats before a weake Iew for feare to scandalize him for whom Christ died But this later is untrue for by the law of nature and a perpetuall law Paul would never for meat offend his brother the law of naturall Charitie will dictate this to us without any positive mandate we are not for a mâ—â—thfull of meat the losse whereof is so small to put the soule of our brother to so incomparable a hazard as to be losed Ans These meats Rom. 14. and 1 Cor. 8. 10. were then indifferent but they are not so now when the Gospell is fully promulgate for we may not now to abstaine from Meats forbidden in the Ceremonial law for feare to offend a weake Iew for our abstinence should harden them in their â—â—beliefe that Christ is not yet come in the flesh To make Temples and houses dedicated to Saintâ— as indifferent now as meats were then and the argument were concludent But to demolish Churches and remove their physicall use now were as Iudaicall as to forbeare to eat Swines flesh We are not to deprive our selves of the physicall use of 〈…〉 of this or this meat as thinking we are bound by any law of God to forbeare the use thereof and especially we are not to doe it as conceiving we are under the tye of a law given to the Iewes whereas we are under no such tye or law at all But the disusing of Temples dedicated to Saints that the Adversaries plead for Deut. 7. is a totall renouncing of all use of them the places they alledge from the Ceremoniall law doth conclude it for the Temples silver and gold of the Idols of Canâ—an were altogether uselesse to Israel It was Achan's sinne that he tooke the Babilonish garment and the wedge of Gold for any use civill or religious though he should have bestowed these for any religious use or the reliefe of the poore and indigent yea though it was scandalous to none he having taken these privately and by theft yet the very taking of them was a curse to him and the whole Camp of Israel for the totall abandoning of all use whatsoever of these houses Gold and Silver which in themselves and by the law of Creation were physicall and in regard of that naturall use they had from their Creator to supply our necessitie can have its rise from no other totall and compleat cause but from the sole positive will of God discharging his people of the whole use of these creatures at all as if they had never been created for the use of man whether their use should be scandalous to others or not scandalous But by the law of nature which I grant saith Thou shalt not scandalize nor murther the soule of him for whom Christ hath died The Romans Rom. 14. and the Corinthians 1 Cor. 8 were forbidden the eating of fleshes forbidden in Moses law But with these two restrictions 1. they were forbidden not all eating of these meats in private but only in the presence of a weak Iew and for the conscience of others in the case of scandal 1 Cor 10 28 29. 2 They were not by the law of nature that inhibites scandall forbidden the totall use of these meats in any case so as they should make these meats utterly uselesse to themselves or to any others As the Iewes were forbidden to make use of the Canaanitish Idols Gold and money And of the Cattell of the Amalekites either secretly or openly either in the case of scandall given to others or not given And Achan payed deare for his Babilonish garment and his wedge of Gold though he tooke it by theft Ob. 2. But the reason of the law is the soule of the law Now the reason of the Law Deut. 7. 25. why God forbade his people to take the Gold or Silver of the graven image is lâ—st thou be ensnared therein But this reason holdeth under the Now Testament and is moral and perpetuall The very matâ—riall house dedicated to Saints and Idolâ— by Papists is a snare to our soules if we shall worship God in them or if we shall name the Church from Cutbert Giles or the like except we would say as Papists doe that we are not now under the New Testament so much â—â—clined to Idolatrie as the people of the Iewes were of old Ans The halfe-reason or incompleat morall ground of the law is not the soule of the law But you must take in all the reasons the words of the text are these Thou shalt not desire the silver and gold that is on them nor take it to thee lest thou be insnared therein for it is an abomination unto the Lord thy God v. 26. Neither shalt thou bring an abomination into thine house lest thou be a cursed thing like it Now what made that Gold an abomination to the Lord more then all the gold of the earth it is of it selfe the good and usefull creature of God no lesse then all the gold of the earth nothing made it an abomination to God but if we look to the originall cause there was a positive free command of God forbidding Israel to covet or use that Gold The Canaanites themselves by the law of nature might lawfully have melted that same very Gold and made use of it without sinne 2. It is not a good reason Such a law had a morâ—ll and perpetuall reason Ergo the law it selfe is perpetuall and morall It followeth only Ergo the moralitie of that law is perpetuall For all the Ceremoniall laws had a morall and perpetuall reason As the shadows had a moral substantiall ground in Christ the bodie of all shadowes but it doth not follow therefore the shadows and Ceremoniall law in the letter must bee perpetuall Very often in the booke of Leviticus there is no reason given of the Ceremoniall laws But be ye holy I am the Lord that sanctifies you This is a morall and perpetuall reason that endureth to the end of the world yet it is no due consequence therefore all these shadowes and Ceremonies shall indure to the end of the world The reason is because it is the sole positive will of God that maketh a temporarie concatenation between not eating blood and not being cruell and between sacrificing and being holy and yet not being cruel is perpetuall not eating blood temporarie 3 If things indifferent as the eating of flesh before a weak Jew Rom. 14. be a snare to my owne soule and to the soules of others I am to abstaine from these and the like But that I must abstaine from the totall use of any creature that God has made usefull for the life of man by the law of creation as Israel was to abstaine from the cattell of the Amalakites and to stamp in powder and make altogether uselesse the Gold and Silver of the heathen Idol-Gods is altogether unlawfull and a very Judaizing and it s to make as Paul saith Jesus Christ of no effect Object
others seemeth better to me who deny that the least veniall should be committed to eschew a greater sinne 6. Rule There is a principle obligation a lesse principle a least principle Hence these three degrees issue from love 1. God 2. Our selves 3. Our Neighbour The love of God is most principle and is the measure of the love of our selves the love of our selfe is lesse principall then the love of God and so the obligation lesse I am to make away life and all things yea eternall glory as devided from holinesse and as it includeth only happinesse rather ere I sinne against God The obligation to care for my owne salvation is more principall then my obligation to care for the salvation of my Brother for the love of my selfe is the measure and rule of the love of my Neighbour Now because the obligation of caring for the soule of my brother is only secondarie in compare of the obligation of caring for my owne salvation I am not to sinne my selfe or sinfully to omit any thing that is commanded me in a positive precept to prevent the sinne of my brother Yet hence it doth not follow that a positive Precept is more excellent then the law of Nature which is Thou shalt not murther nor scandalize him for whom Christ died Because though to care for the soule of my brother be of the law of nature simpliciter yet is a secondarie obligation and may cease and yeeld to a stronger obligation that tyeth me more principally to care for my owne soule for though the Command be positive yet knowingly to sinne by a sinfull omission is no lesse a destroying of my owne soule and so of the law of nature in a higher obligation then the other is 7. The Jesuits and Popish Doctors as they are of a large conscience in many things so in the doctrine of scandall to extoll obedience to men so high as we may doe things in themselves not necessarie yea that hath no necessitie but from the will of Commanders And Formalists in this conspire with them even though from this doe flow the ruine of many soules and though the sinfull scandalizing and ruine of these soules flow from sinfull corruption of either ignorance or frailtie or wilfulnesse or malice yet the scandall ceaseth not to flow kindly from the pretended obedience to an unlawfull command for the thing commanded having no Necessitie but the will of man is unlawfull and it is no good reason to say Men are scandalized through their owne ignorance and Malice Ergo the scandall is taken and not given for these who were enemies to the Truth and were so scandalized at Davids murthering of Uriah and Adulterie 2 Sam. 12. 14. as they were by him occasioned to blaspheme Certaine their actuall scandall was from their owne corruption But what Ergo it was not also from Davids murther and adulterie and ergo it was a scandall only taken by the enemies not given by David Surely it solloweth not You may hence judge of the Rule of Lodo Caspensis a Capucean These saith he that doe a worke of it selfe indifferent for a weightie cause and use their owne right â—tutaâ—tur suo jure are excused from mortall sinne as these who lett a house to Whores and publick Usurers that are not strangers though they may commodiously lett it to others they doe not cooperate with sinne because the house it but a place and extrinsecall and remote to the sinne So Christians taken by Turkes for danger of their life which is a weighty necessitie may furnish instruments necessarie for warre against Christians because they doe a worke indifferent of it selfe for a just cause so may a servant convey his Master to a Whore yea and make the Bed for a Concubine and open the doore and if his Master be to climbe in at a window to a whore he may lift up his foot or reach him a ladder Why the servant saith he useth his owne right in doing a worke of it selfe indifferent Uâ—itur suo jure faciens opus exse indifferens modo non placeat ei peccatum A. But sure all out jus and right that men have over their houses and that Captives and servants have to their Masters and Lords is jus limitatum a right ruled limited bounded by the word of God nor is the worke they performe morally indifferent physically it is and Captive Christians if for danger of their life they may prepare necessary instruments of warre against Christians they may kill Christians also for what power the conquering Lords have over Captives to command them to prepare fire and sword against the innocent witnesses of Jesus Christ because they are such the same jus right have they to command to kill the innocent But for no cause the most weighty can we choose either to shed innocent blood or to co-operate with the shedding of it nor to co-operate with the works of darknes for it is shamefull that a servant may lawfully co-operate with and thrust his master in at a window to goe to a whore the jus or dominion of Masters to command and the right of servants to obey is only in the Lord. Yea to kill a man is Physically indifferent for that is physically yea morally without relation to any law indifferent which is capable of lawfulnesse or unlawfulnesse according as it shall bee commanded of or forbidden by God But for a man to kill his son is of it selfe such certaine if God command a Judge to kill his son it is lawfull for the father to kill his son if the Lord forbid Abraham to kill his son it is unlawfull for Abraham to kill his son And therefore Caspensis hath no more reason to use the Instance of captives preparing warre against innocent Christians and of a servant thrusting his Master in at doore or window to a whore then of captives killing the innocent or of servants breaking a house and taking away the goods of a man in the night or of servants committing whoredome at the command of their Conquerors or Lords the one kinde of action in it selfe is as indifferent and susceptible of morall lawfulnesse and unlawfulnesse as the other And if the Master doe co-operate to commit harlotrie in climbing in at a window to a whore and to robbing in digging thorow an innocent mans house in the night to kill the Master of the house and to steale his goods then the servant that co-operateth in these same physicall actions and also diggeth thorow the innocent mans house and kills himselfe is the harlot and the robber by cooperation and participation no lesse then the Master The naked relation of a captive and of a servant cannot make the captive and servant innocent and guiltlesse co-operators for then to sinne at the command of any Conqueror and Master because I am in the condition of a captive and servant were lawfull though God forbid and inhibite me to doe what I doe by the
these rites was because the Egyptians and Canaanites used them But it is enough for our purpose that God useth this reason Yeâ— shall not doe so to the Lord your God Yee shall not doe after the doings of the Land of Egypt or of the Canaanites Deut. 12. 30. 31. See that then inquire not after their Gods saying how did these Nations serve their God even so will I doe likewise Levit. 18. 3. 4. This is enough to prove that it is a strong argument and Gods argument to prove that a worship that Heathen useth to their Gods though in it owne nature indifferent can not lawfully be given to the Lord it wanting all warrant in Gods word because heathens doe so to their Gods and it is cleare to me Deut. 12. 2. Yee shall utterly dâ—stroy all the places wherein the Nations which ye possesse served their Gods upon the high Mountaines and under every greene tree 3. And you shall breake downe their Altars and breake their Pillars and burne their Groves with fire and you shall hew downe the Graven Images of their Gods and destroy the Names of them out of this place 4. Yee shall not doe so to the Lord your God 5. But unto the place which the Lord your God shall choose out of all your Tribes to put his name there even unto his habitation shall yee seeke and thither shall you come There is nothing more indifferent then the place of worship yet doth the Lord in these words Yee shall not doe so to the Lord your God forbid to worship God in the place where the Canaanites worshipped their Idols And this proveth our point that Rites used by heathen indifferent in their owne nature as place stone-altars hils are not to be used as positives with a new signification as our Ceremonies have to the Lord our God because Heathens have done so to their Idol-Gods Wee know the Lord may have and hath other reasons in the depth of his unsearchable wisdome why he forbiddeth some things of their owne nature indifferent then because heathen and wicked men doe so as he forbade the eating of the tree of knowledge a thing in it selfe indifferent not for any such conformitie with wicked men And Hooker yeeldeth our argument to be concludent when he saith Notwithstanding some fault undoubtedly thire is in the very resemblance with idolaters Then notwithstanding all that Hooker saith on the contrarie our argument is good The rest of this subject is more fully and learnedly discussed by others and therefore no more of this Peace bee on the Israel of God and to the most high Dominion and Glorie Amen FINIS Isa 9. 6. Isa 35 1 2. Psal 97. 1. Vel lubentes vel vi attracti decreta Dei se quamur necesse est Ille crucem sceleris pretium tulit hic diadema Iuven. Saty. 10. Ier. 51. 35. Rev 17. 3. 5. Isa 62. 1 2 Iob 37. 23. Iob 33. 13. Mal. 1. 8. Christ hath not instituted a mutable Church Government Some things Morall some things naturall in Gods worship Circumstances either meerly morall or 2 meerly Physicall or 3. mixt Our Physic â—â— Circumstances are all easily known and numbred Circumstances and such and such circumstances The Scripture teacheth not meer circumstances but supposeth them Time and place of Ceremonies need not be proved 1. Argum. to prove that the Platform of Church-Government is not mutable at mens will Act. 15. The Scriptures way of teaching that indifferent things are alterable is it self unalterable 2 Argum. The Scripture shall not teach when we sin in Church Policie when not if the Platform be alterable at mens wiâ—â— There is no reason why some things Positive of Church-Policie are alterable some not 3. Argum. 3. Book Eccles Polic pag. 117 118. The place 1 Tim 6. 13. discussed Pauls cloak of lesse consequence then Positives of policie Bilson of perpetuall Gover. c. 3. Hooker of Eccles Polic l. 3. 4. Arg. Christ the Head of hiâ— Church iâ— the externall poliâ—y thereof A promise of Pardoning of sin made to the right use of the keys proveth discipline to be a part of the Gospel The will of Christ as King is the Rule of the Government of his house Hooker Eccles Policie l. 3. 123 124. Things of Policie because lesse weighty then the greater things of the Law are not therefore mutable at the pleasure of men Basil l. de Fide Order requireth not a Monarchical Prelate How the care and wisdom of Christ proveth that Christ hath left an unalterable platforme in his testament Mr. Prynne Truth triumphing over falsehood p 113. 114. Collat. Roinal cum Io. Hartio Sect. 2. p 40 Christ the only immediate King and head and Law-giver of his Church without any deputy heads or Vicars D. Roinald 16. d. 41. 5. Arg. As Moses and David were not to follow their own spirit far lesse is the will of the Church a rule to shape an unalterable Government Da. Dicksonus Expos Analyti in Epist aâ— heb c. â— v. 5. Pagâ—i Ariâ—â—ont Vatablus in notis Tostatus in 1 Chron 18. 19. 2. 7. Ista Scriptura tam poterat fieri per Angelos quam per deum Tostatus Q. 1. ibid. Cornel a Lapide com 1. Paralip 29. 19. Dâ—us ergo in tabula descripsittotam ideam Templi alioqui delincatio â— Davide vix intelligi potuisset Degrees de Templ Ded. p. 73. Lavater Ex â—o quod â—dificium et vasa secundum formam sibi ostensam facere debuit significatur in â—ultu dei non secundum humâ—nam ratioâ—â—m sed verbum dei agendum esse quo patefecit quomodo colivâ—lit Si Salomon suas imaginationes fuisset sequitus Templum aliâ form â construxisset vasa aliter fecisset et plura quam deus prescripserat Ceremonials of Moses his Law are of lesse weight then Morals but not of lesse divine authority Two notes of Divinity ought to be in the New Testament Ceremonials which were in Divine Ceremonies Eccles Policy book 3. pag. 122. How Moses doing all according to the pattern proveth an immutable platforme Gods care for us leadeth us to think he hath given us a better guide then naturall reason in all Positive Morals of Church-Policie Theologia Atramentaria Book of Eccles Policiâ— 3. pag. 113 114. The occasionall writing of things in Scripture no reason why they are alterable Papists pretend that things are not written in the word because of the various occurrences of Providence Horantius Loc. Com. lib. 2. c. 11. fol. 129. Quaecunque audiâ—t loquâ—tur que futura sunt annunciabit vobis quasi dicerâ—â— Quotiâ—s râ—i occasio fuerit revelabit vobis Quae â— re vestra esse viderit suggerit ac quoties revelare expedâ—eâ—it l. 2. c. 12. fol. 132. Sed quis non videâ—â— multa verbo esse tradita quae Ecclesiae solum memoriae mulius â—â—mirum Scriptis sunt mandata Hooker 3. Book pag. 114. 115. Horantius loc Catho Lib. 2. c. 12 fâ—l 131. Turrian to
Church to a supernaturall happinesse nor can the Church be governed by the light of nature or by the rules of morall Philosophie or civill prudence or humane lawes as Cities Common-wealths and Kingdomes are 4. It is a rule in Circumstantials of worship because some time some thing as the Lord day is both worship and a Circumstantiall of worship but not properly a Circumstance in all these the Church as the Church must â—â—ir by the Word of God 3. What ever is in Rome in physicall or natural circumstances is not by us judged Popisâ—â— But what ever religious observance Symbolicall signe new worship such as â—renging to Bread Altars humane Festivals Surplice and the like that are neither things of nature nor 2. things of prudence and civill policie nor 3. Miraculous things nor 4. Things of art and science nor 5. meere Circumstances and yet are added to the worship of God not necessarie in themselves not warranted by Precept practice or promise in the word of God we take to be devised by the wil of men and if by Papists so much the more unlawfull and may well be tearmed Popish as Popish is contradistinguished from that which is â—ound and warranted by the Word and that which is not thus agreeable to the Word is repugnant thereunto and either Popish or worse or heathenish Hooker The question is whether wee may follow Rome in orders Rites and Ceremonies wherein we doe not thinke them blamable or else ought to devise others and to have no conformitie with Rome no not so much as in these Ans We never dreamed of such a Question it is as if one should have formed such a question to debate with Moses Whither may we follow Egypt and Canaan in rounding the corners of our head and cutting our flesh for the deaâ— in sowing oâ—r land with mingled seeds c. or ought we to devise others the like and have no Conformitie with them no not so much as in these Now Moses gave never leave to Israel to devise either these or any other the like The Question supposeth two things for granted which are plainly false 1. That if we may refuse Popish Ceremonies as scandalous because Papists devised them that therefore the worship of God hath need of other Symbolical and religious signes of the like nature which we ought to devise But the worship of God neither needeth these nor any Phylactaries of that kind 2. It supposeth we doe not thinke the Rites of Rome blamable this is a begging of the question for both we blame them as positive religious Rites beside and so contrary to the Word and because Romish and so in a high degree scandalous Hooker When Reason evicteth that all such Ceremonies are not to be abolished they answer they doe only condemne Ceremonies unprofitable or Ceremonies in stead whereof as good or better may be devised so they cannot get out of the Bryars Ans 1. Who answereth so Hooker should have knowne that if the Testament of Christ warrant not Ceremonies they and all their kind are unprofitable and to be abolished whither they lay in the wombe of the mother of â—ornications or be bastards of any other Mother 2. Yea we condemne all such Ceremonies because unnecessarie as devised by the will or lust of men for all necessatie and usefulnesse of positive religious and teaching observances is from the will of God And when he saith we condemne only all unprofitable Ceremonies wee are not in the briars for he saith his owne Ceremonies are unprofitable briars for we condemne them as unprofitable Chartwright that godly and learned witnesse of Jesus Christ from whom Hooker would bring this answer saith Popish Ceremonies are not to be used to adorne the worship when as good or better may be established But he meaned never that as good positive Symbolicall rites without the word of God can be lawfully devised at all this should have been proven from Cartwrights words But saith he we retaine these because we judge them profitable yea so good that if we had either simply taken them cleane away or else removed them so as to place others in their stead wee had done worse But who authorized them to sit judges the burden of proving them inconvenient lyeth on them Ans 1. It is a proud Reply Wee retaine popish Ceremonies because we judge them profitable where as the question is not what the Prelates who must bee called the Church judge them to be but what they are for it is a farre other question who should sit Judges though we can prove Christ never made Prelates at all and so he never made them judges and whether the Ceremonies be profitable or not When Prelates say we retaine Popish Ceremonies because we judge them profitable it is to say We judge Popish Ceremonies to be profitable because we judge them profitable For we say to retaine them is to passe a law and a judgement that they are profitable But our argument is against their judgeing them to be profitable and against their retaining them Might not Pharisees say as much Wee retaine the precepts and traditions of men used by our fathers because we judge them profitable and who authorized Christ and his Disciples to judge the Church the burden of proving them inconvenient lyeth on the Disciples Christ said their Ceremonies were the doctrines of men and so unlawfull and the like argument bring wee against the Ceremonies and so they must be unprofitable 2. If the Church make or retaine lawes beside and without the Word they are under the burden of proving them to be profitable for they affirme and affirmanti incumbit probatio for they ought to give another reason of their lawes then we judge We affirme it is Gods prerogative to say that 3. If Prelates should doe worse to have cleane removed these or brought others in their place Then must the Prelaticall Church be better then the Apostolike Church for they neither had these nor any in their stead except they make us see that Peter and Paul dispensed the Word and Sacraments clothed either with lineing Rochets and crossing the aire with the Thumbe or then they adorned Word and Sacraments with other the like mysticall Rochets or some merry toyes like crossing the aire with the Thumbe and if not they did worse then our Prelats who raise bloody warrâ—s in three Kingdomes for such fooleries and for an office which of old for shame had no kinred nor house but mans law jus humanum by their owne grant But that saith Hooker wherein the Israelitâ—â— might not be like to the Egyptians and Canaanites was such as peradventure as had beene no whitlesse unlawfull although those Nations had never been I would know what one thing was in these nations and is here forbidden being indifferent in it selfe yet forbidden only because they used it Ans This is not our argument I am not to say the only reason why the Lord forbade