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
First the Canonick Scripture is not Uniform and perpetual Why for certainly once there was no Canonick Scripture but the Books of Moses and after the holy Ghost added the Book of the Psalmes and the Prophets and after the Nativity and Ascension of our Lord to Heaven the Apostles did write Canonick Scripture I hope this is but a poor Argument to infer that there is no Vniform and unalterable Platform of Divinity in the Old and New Testament and yet the Argument is as concludent the one way as it is the other 3. We do not so contend for an Vniform and unalterable Platform of Church-Government in the Word as it was not free to the Lord and Law-giver to adde and alter at his pleasure only we hold it so Vniform and unalterable that this Platform is not shaped like a coat to the Moon or alterable at the will of men without expresse warrant of the Lords Word and to rise and fall with the climate and the elevation of Nationall customes and therefore the Argument is nothing concludent and judge what can be made of these words of the learned Mr. Prynne The Government and Officers of all Churches not being De facto one and the same in all particulars in the very Primitive times as well as since it can never be proved to be of Divine right and the self same in all succeeding Ages without the least variation â—inee it was not so in the Apostles dayes For this is all one as to say the Canonick Scripture was not one and the same in the Apostles and Prophets times but admitted of divers additions Ergo now in our daies Canonick Scripture is not one and the same but may also suffer the like additions 2. Because God himself added to Canonick Scripture and to the Government of the Church in the Apostles dayes Ergo men may without Warrant from God adde in our dayes to Canonick Scripture and to the Government and Officers of the Church 3. The Government and Officers in the Apostles time were not of Divine right but alterable by God Ergo Apostles Evangelists Pastors Teachers Workers of miracles were not of Divine right in the Apostles times but might have been altered by men without the expresse Warrant of God But will any wise man believe that Pauls Apostleship was alterable and might be changed by the Church Since he saith Gal. â— 1. Paul an Apostle not of men neither by men but by Iesus Christ and 1 Cor. 12. 28. When Paul saith And God hath set 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or instituted some in the Church first Apostles secondly Prophets thirdly Teachers after that miracles then gifts of healing c. and Eph. 4. 11. When Christ ascended on high he gave some Apostles some Prophets and some Evangelists and some to be Pastors and Teachers 12. For the perfecting of the Saints c. Can it enter into the head of any man to say some Churches had Apostles and Evangelists and Pastors and miracles and some not Ergo Apostles and Pastors are not by Divine right Ergo because they were not in all Churches therefore they were alterable at the will of men and a Surplice and Crosse in Baptisme hath as much of Divine institution as the calling of the Apostle or of a Pastor and truly to me it is bold Divinity to say that Pastors set over the flock by the holy Ghost Act. 20. 28. and whos 's due qualifications are so specified 1 Tim. 3. and Elders 1 Tim. 5. 17. and Teachers placed by God in the Church 1 Cor. 12 28. may be all turned out of the Church by men as having no Divine right to be there and that men may set up other alterable Officers in their place for by this reason the Apostles by that ordinary spirit that is now in Church-Rulers might without their Apostolick spirit or any immediate Warrant from Christ have altered the whole frame of Apostolick-Government and Church-Officers as the Church may upon motives from themselves not warranted from the word turne out Surplice Crosse and all such stuffe out of the Church Master Prynne The Apostles speech 1 Cor 12. 4 5 6. There are diversity of gifts but the same spirit there are diversity of operations but the same God compared with chap. 8. to 13. and c. 9. v. 19. to 24. I made my self a servant to all that I might gain all c. parallel'd with Act. 15. 1 2 5 6 10. to 32. and chap. 21. 18. to 30. The Churches of Judea did retain the use of Circumcision Purification and other Iewish Rites which the Gentiles by the Apostles resolution were not to observe and Act. 2. 22. The Apostles frequented the Iewish Temple and Synagogues conforming themselves to the Order and Discipline thereof and their own private Christian Assemblies all this will clear that all Churches had not one and the self same Church-Government Ans If diversity of Gifts as to be a speaker with Tongues a Prophet a Pastor will prove the Discipline to be alterable at the Churches will as are Surplice Crosse c. I shall think men may infer any thing they please out of the Scripture and that to be Apostles Pastâ—rs are as indifferent and variable as eating of meats 1 Cor. 8. and Pauls taking of wages at Corinth 1 Cor. 9. Which none can say for if the Church should now command us to abstain from such and such meats as the Apostle doth 1 Cor. 8. We should call that and do call it in the Romish Church a Doctrine of Devils 1 Tim. 4 1 2 3. All brought for this from Act. 15. Act. 21. tendeth to this the Lord himself for the then weaknesse of the Jews of meer indulgence appointed some things to be indifferent and abstained from in the case of scandall Therefore Circumcision Purification Sacrifices of Bullocks and sheep And all the Ceremonies of Moses his Law may be commanded by the Church so they have another signification then they had before and shadow out Christ who is already come But because God hath made some things indifferent shall it follow that the Pope yea or any Church on earth can create an indifferency in things they must then take from things their Morall goodnesse or conveniency with Gods Law and take from them their moral badnes disconveniency to Gods Law which to me is to change the nature of things and to abrogate and change Gods Laws it is true P. Martyr 1 Cor. 9. 19. saith Paul was made all things to all men Quoad Ceremonias res medias in that he Circumcised Timotheus The Law saith he was abrogated Vâ—rum id non adhuc Judaeis liquebat The Jews were to be spared for a time but only for a time and therefore when the Gospel was sufficiently promulgated Paul said Gal. 5. to be Circumcised was to lose Christ and he refused to be a servant to Peter in his sinful Iudaizing Gal. 2. And withstood him in the face Now certain it
Ahasureosh did to continue for an hundred and fourscore dayes Esther 1. 4. More might and ought to have been done by David and Solomon if it had been a morall ground to build a house to be a witnesse of Almightinesse 3. And God appointed sacrifices and Sacraments in both Testaments as Testimonies of the great Lord Iesus yet in base and obvious creatures we may not devise Symbols or witnessing Images of the Almightinesse of that God whom we serve at our pleasure 4. If our Lord love mercy better then Sacrifice especially under the New Testament when his worship must be more spirituall Then the Argument may be strongly retorted we are to bestow more on feeding the living Members of Christs body which yet is not secular vanity then on dead stones except Master Hooker can warrant us to serve God under the New Testament in precious stones and gold for which we can see no Warrant 5. All these Arguments are broadly used by Papists for Images and rich Churches Nor doth Hooker give us any Argument for this but what Papists gave before him Have ye not houses saith he to eat and drink in Ergo He teacheth a difference between house and house and what is fit for the dwelling place of God and what for mans habitation the one for common food the other for none but for heavenly food Ans That there was publick meeting places and Churches in Corinth now under Heathen Rulers 1 Cor. 6. is denyed by all both Protestant and Popish writers far lesse had they then any consecrated Churches and from the inconveniency of taking their Supper while some were full and drunk in the place where the Lords Supper was Celebrated whereas they ought to have Supped in their own houses to infer that the Church is a holier place then their own house I professe is Logick I do not understand it only concludes these two sort of houses are destinated from two sort of different uses sacred and prophane and no more Neither am I much moved at that Psal 74. which is said ver 8. They have burnt all the convening places or all the Congregations of God in the land Vatablus expoundeth it of the Temple Exusserunt totum Templum Dei terrenum Or all the question will be why the Synagogues are called Gods Synagogues as they called the Temple Ier. 7. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Temple of the Lord and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The house of the Lord Whither because every Synagogue was no lesse in its own kinde a house holy to the Lord then the Temple Certainly there is no rationall ground to say that Synagogues were Typicall that the people were to pray with their faces toward the Synagogue and to offer Sacrifices in the Synagogue But that a Synagogue is called the house of God from the use and end because it was ordained for the worship of God as that which God hath appointed for a speciall end and work in that the Lord assumeth the propriety thereof to himself so saith the Lord of Cyrus Isa 45. 1. Thus saith the Lord to his Anointed to Cyrus whose right hand I have holden yet was not Cyrus Typically or Religiously holy as the Temple of Ierusalem and c. 44. v. 28. He saith of Cyrus He is my shepherd and why He shall perform all my pleasure so Hos 2. 9. Therefore will I returne saith God and take away my corne in the time thereof and my wine in the season thereof and will recover my wool and my flax given to cover her nakednesse To say nothing that all the holy land was Gods land Hos 9. 3. They shall not dwell in the Lords land and consequently all the Synagogues were Gods houses and the enemy of whom the Church complaineth to God in that Psalme was thus bold as notwithstanding Canaan was Gods Heritage and proper Land in a speciall manner yet it was destroyed and burnt by the enemies even these houses that God was worshipped in not being spared But how God was so present in every Synagogue and that even when there were no actuall worship of God in it as he was in the Temple and that it was so holy a place as they were to put off there shooes who came into the Synagogue God shewing his own immediate presence in every synagogue as he did Exod. 3. 5. To Moses in the burning bush Exod. 5. 1. v. 12. Is a thing that hath no warrant in the word of God for if every synagogue had been thus holy 1. It should have been a house dedicated to God in a Religious way as was the Temple 2. God should dwell in every Synagogue then in every Church under the New Testament now as he said he would dwell in the Temple 3. Then must Heathens and the uncircumcised be forbidden to come into any Synagogue or any Church under the New Testament the contrary whereof was evident in scripture none were forbidden to enter in the Synagogues Paul 1 Cor. 14. 23 24. alloweth that Heathens come into the Churches or meetings where Christians are worshipping God 4. If either the Temple of Ierusulem was holy for the worship in it or for that it was a Type of our Materiall Temples under the New Testament then our Churches under the New Testament shall be more holy yea our private houses in which we may worship God shal be more holy as our worship is more spirituall then carnall Commandments of the Leviticall Law were and the body must be more holy then the shadow yea all the earth now from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same in regard of more spirituall worship even the Stables and Alehouses where we may offer the Incense of Prayer to God and offer the sacrifices of praises Mal. 1. 11. shall be alike holy as either our Churches or the Temple was of old CAP. I. Q. 1. Whether or not Humane Ceremonies in Gods Worship can consist with the perfection of Gods Word THese humane Ceremonies we cannot but reject upon these grounds Our first Argument is Every positive and Religious observance and Rite in Gods worship not warranted by Gods Word is unlawfull But humane Ceremonies are such Ergo The Proposition is sure the holy Spirit useth a Negative Argument Act. 15. 24. We gave no such Commandment Levit. 10. 1. Jer. 7. 30. and 19. 5 6. and 32. 35. 2 Sam. 7. 7. 1 Chron. 15. 13. The Lord Commanded not this Ergo It is not Lawfull Formalists Answer Every worship holden to be of Divine necessity and yet not Commanded by God is unlawfull but not every worship holden as free and not binding the Conscience requireth that God Command it Ans 1. Gods Consequence is from the want of a Lawfull efficient and Author you make him to reason from an Adjunct of the worship But all worship hath necessity and Divinity and a binding power only from the Author God For why is it Lawfull to Abraham to kill or
will was not determinatrix in this 5. The man jumbleth together godly discretion and will they be much different but for godlinesse in short sleeves and Crossing a finger in the Aire I understand it not nor can reason dream of any warrant for it but will as will that is mans lust made it Neither do Formalists go from Suarez and Bellarmine who call that will-worship which is devised only by a manâ— wit and is not conforme to the principles of Faith and wanteth all reason and the received use of the Church But we are disputing here against the Churches use as if it were not yet a received use But upon these grounds I go 1. Reason not binding and strongly concluding is no reason but meer will So Ceremonies have no reason If the reason binde they are essentiall worship 2. Authority is only ministeriall in ordering Gods worship and hath no place to invent new worship 3. Authority as Authority especially humane giveth no light nor no warrant of conscience to obey and therefore authority naked and void of scriptures-light is here bastard authority 11. In all this Formalists but give the Papists distinction of Divine and Apostolick Traditions for power of inventing Ceremonies to them is Apostolick but not infallible and Divine Suarez giveth the difference God saith he Is the Immediate Author of Divine Traditions and the Apostles only publishers But the Apostles are immediate Authors of Apostolick Traditions God in speciall manner guiding their will So Cajetan Sotus Bellar. So our Formalists Duname Hooker Sutluvius But I like better what Cyprian saith That no Tradition but what is in the word of God is to be received But this distinction is blasphemous and contrary to Scripture 1 Cor 14 57. The things that I write unto you even of decency and order as v. 29. 40. Are the Commandment of the Lord 2. Pet. 3. 2. Peter willeth them to be mindefull of the vvords which were spoken before by the holy Prophets and of the Commandments of us the Apostles of the Lord and Sâ—vioâ—â— Then the Apostles Commandments are equall with the Commandments of the Prophets But in the Old Testament there were not some Traditions Divine and some not every way Divine but Propheticall for the Prophets were the mouth of God as is clear 2 Pet. â— 19 20 21. Luk. 1. 70. Rom. 1. 2. So 1 Tim. 6. 13. I give thee charge in the sight of God 14. That thou keep this Commandment without spot unrebukable untill the appearing of the Lord Iesus Now the Commandment as Beza noteth Are all that he writ of discipline which Formalists say are for the most Apostolicke but not Divine Traditions 2. If Ceremonies seem good to the holy Ghost as they say they do from Act. 15. then they must seeme good to the Father and the Son as the Canon is Act. 15. But that Canon was proved from expresse Scripture as Peter proveth v. 7 8 9. and James v. 13 14 15 16. If they come from the Spirit inspiring the Apostles they cannot erre in such Traditions If from the spirit guided by the holy Ghost they come from Scripture 3. If these traditions come from no spirit led by light of Scripture we shall not know whether they be Lawfull or not for the Scripture is a Canonick rule of lawfull and unlawfull 4. If any Apostolick spirit be given to Authors of Ceremonies why not also in preaching and praying How then do many of them turn Arminians Papists Socinians 5. The Apostolick spirit leading institutors of Ceremonies doth either infuse light naturall supernaturall or Scripturall in devising Ceremonies and so Eatenus in so far they were essential worship or the Apostolick spirit doth lead them with no light at all which is brutish Enthusiasme or 3. Gods Apostolick spirit infuseth the generall equity and negative Lawfulnesse of these truths Surplice is an Apostolicall signe of Pastorall holinesse and Crossing a signe of Dedication of a childe to Christs service Now light for this we would exceedingly have If this light be immediatly infused then Surplice Crossing are as Divine as if God spake them for truths immediatly inspired lost no divinity because they come through sinfull men for Balaam his Prophesie of the star of Jacob was as Divine in regard of Authority as if God had spoken it but if these trash come from an inferiour spirit we desire to know what spirit speaketh without the word But some may object The preaching of the word is somewhat humane because it s not from the infallible spirit that dited the word Ergo Ceremonies may come from the holy Spirit though they be not as lawfull as Scripture Ans Let them be proved to be from the warrant that the word is preached and we yeeld to all 5. Apostolick Ceremonies but not Divine have Gods generall allowing will for the accepting of them Now Sampsons mother Judg. 13. 23. proveth well The Lord hath accepted our offering Ergo it is Lawfull and he will not kill us So God atcepted Abel and Noah their Sacrifices Ergo they were Lawfull and Divine worship So Hosea 8. 8. They sacrifice flesh for the sacrifices of my offerings and they eat it but the Lord accepteth them not Ergo offerings of flesh without offering of themselves as living sacrifices to God are now unlawfull If God accept of Ceremonies they must be Divine service if he accept them not they must be unlawfull They Answer He accepteth them as Arbitrary worship not as essentiall I Answer God might have accepted so Sampsons sacrifice and Noahs as arbitrary worship and yet not be gracious to them nor reward their sacrificing as good service contrary to the Texts alledged but I doubt much if the Lord be gracious to men and accept in Christ corner Caps Surplice Crossing humane holy dayes They object Our Circumstances of time place persons c. are no more warranted by the Scripture then Ceremonies are And God might in his wisdom â—aith Burges have calculated the order of times and places such climats and seasons but he hath left these as he hath left our Ceremonies to the Churches liberty Ans Time and place as I observed already being circumstances Physicall not Morall nor having any Religious influence to make the worship new and different in nature from that which is commanded in the Law though they be not expresly in the Word do not hinder but you may say Such an act of worship is according as it is written for as Praying Preaching hearing is according as it is written so is Praying and Preaching in this convenient place proved by that same Scripture As it is written but one and the same Scripture doth not warrant Order and Surplice 2. The question is not what Gods wisdom can do for he could setdown all the names of Preaching Pastors Doctors Deacons Elders in the Word but his wisdom thus should have made ten Bibles more then there be But
the Image to be God objective commemorative representative relative declarative significative Non essentialiter non per se non realiter 2. There is an honour or negative râ—verence due to any Image of God ordained by himself or to any mean of honouring God because it is such though it cannot be expressed in the act of Adoration but the question is if the honour of adoration either relative or absolute be due to the Image 3. The Jews intended to honour Jehovah in their Images what inferiour intention they had to honour the Image we are now to inquire 4. We bow our knee two wayes before a creature either before a creature as an object by accident as while we pray there of necessity must be before us some creature a wall a Table a Pulpit none of these are adored because they are before us by accident as having no Religious state The Image before the Iew and the Sacramentall elements before the kneeler cannot be thus present 2. The creature is before the kneeler of Religious purpose as a Religious object 5. The Creature is Religiously present before the kneeler two wayes 1. Active 2. Passive 1. In the meer and naked act of teaching and exciting the memory so that when that act is past I turne from the creature and adore the Creator So at the sight of the Sun or Moon being taught and instructed of the wisdom and power of God in creating such excellent creatures I am to turn from them and adore the Lord of these creatures Thus the creatures are kindely and per se objects in the act of teaching but not objects at all in the act of adoration 2. The creatures are objects passive when bodily bowing in a religious state is directed toward the creatures really and bodily present by a commandment of the Church or of purpose and so they are made objects of Adoration I. Conclusion The relative expression of God which is in the works of God is no formall ground of any Adoration of the creatures 1. Because Adoration upon this ground though the creatures the Hoast of Heaven be excellent is forbidden Deut. 4. 19. 2. Not only Images which cannot represent God and the Sacraments but all the creatures even Rats Mice Flyes Frogs Worms Iudas and wicked men yea and Devils are to be worshipped because all things having being are shadows and footsteps of God their cause first Author and last end Psal 19. 1. Psal 103. 22. Rom. 1. 19 20. Act. 17. 27 28 Prov. 16. 4. Rev. 4. 11. Rom. 11. 36 37 3. Because God is really and by the diffusion of his blessed essencâ— present in all creatures it followeth not that we should Adore them The Formalists upon this ground that Christ is really present in the Sacrament though the manner we know not think that Christ should be Adored in the Sacrament according to that Verbum audimus motum sentimus modum nescimus But if this be good Logick because we know not the way of the Spirit and how the bones grow in a woman with childe Eccles 11. v. 5. And God where he worketh is present by the immediation of essence and power though we know not the way of his presence we are to Adore the soul of man and the bones of a young childe in a womans belly though they should say that God-man Christ is in a more powerfull and efficacious manner present in the Sacrament then in the works of nature yet should it follow that God is to be worshipped in the works of nature also for Magis minus non variant speciem for then we could not conclude any thing but this Though there be not so reall a ground of Adoring Lice and Frogs as Adoring of the Sacrament Yet there is a ground seeing God is in the realliâ—y of his blessed essence present in all creatureâ— II. Conâ—lusion The Idolatrous Jews did not Adore the golden Calf as a creaâ—ure but as God by representation Exod. 32. 4. And when Aaron had made thereof a golden Calf they said These be thy Gods O Israel which brought thee up out of the Land of Aegypt 5. And when Aaron saw it he built an Altar before it and Aaron made Proclamation and said To morrow is a Feast to Iehovah Now that they believed not the golden Calf to be really and essentially Iehovah is more then evident 1. Because they believed not Moses to be essentially God but their guide and leader under God but this Calf they made to supply the want of Moses v. 1. The people gathered themselves together against Aaron and said unto him Vp make us gods which shall go before us For as for this Moses the man that brought us up out of the Land of Aegypt we know not what is become of him They made then the Calf only a visible God under Iehovah to lead them in Moses his place 2. There is no reason why they should have made Aaron rather the maker of the Calf then another but because he being the Lords Priest they thought by his holinesse the God head of Jehovah did slide into this Calf and so they held the Calf to be a thing different from Iehovah 3. They say to Aaron Make us gods Ergo they believed Iehovah to be before this made Calf 4. They saw the Calf melted before their eyes knew it was made of their ear-rings 5. They call it Iehovah yet they made it Iehovah and therefore they differenced betwixt the Calf Iehovah for they knew that Iehovah brought them out of Aegypt before the Calf was framed but the Calf was an Image of that Iehovah Bellar. and Gregor de Valent. say They worshipped not Iehovah but a vain Idol Else how is it said Psa 106. when they made this Calf that they forgot the Lord if they worshipped God in the Calf they were mindefull of God It is vain reasoning this the wife that taketh another Husband to bed with her Morally forgetteth her husband and to worship God in a memorative signe forbidden of God is a forgetting of God and a false God indeed 2. Those who acknowledge that the Heathen believe that some Godhead dwelt in Images and gave Responses and Answers out of them do thereby acknowledge that the Image it self had not the honour of giving Responses as God hath but that the inclosed Godhead gave these Responses and therefore the inclosed Godhead was that which they worshipped So Aquinas and Vasquez saith The Heathen acknowledged a Godhead to dwell in the Images And Bellarmine saith It is not improbable that the Iews believed that they worshipped the true God in an Idol Papists then may take to them Heathens Idolatry for Heathens worshipped God in Images and not Images as they are such and Abulensis and Cajetan in the Commentaries of the first Edition on Exodus said this same 3. Though the Iews believed the Calf to be essentially God yet it was God
image which by a common name is called the honour Worship and Adoration tendred to the image in a bodily manner and being done before the image tendeth to the honouring of the samplar but the outward action of Praising Praying Sacrificing is commonly called Praising Praying Sacrificing in relation to the Samplar to wit God and no way in relation to the image or to things without life neither are they by accident referred to the images only they be tendred to God before images Coram illis But I Answer This is but to beg the Question for we deny that from Adoring the image there resulteth any Adoring of God but a great dishonouring of his Name 2. Durandus Mirandula Hulcot deny that Adoring of God Coram imaginibus tanquam signis memorativis before the images as memorials of God should be an Adoring of the images And Suarez saith If images be only remembrances and memorials in the act of Adoration this taketh much honour from the images and is saith he An Adoring of the Samplar but not an Adoring of the image Though Vasquez expounding Gregories minde which superstitious man calleth them good books contradict Suarez in this yea and himself also for he saith The enemies of images he meaneth the Reformed Churches who use them only for memorials and books it is a lye that we use them as books will not bow their knee to them for then saith he they should Adore them and therefore saith Vasquez if Christ be not in very deed in his presence in the Sacrament present the knee-worship is tendred to bread and wine which is saith he Idolatry therefore either our Formalists are Transubstantiators or Idolaters or both by this learned Iesuites judgement and why by this same reason may we not say against Vasquez that the bodily offerings of prayers prayses and sacrifices to God before the Image as the Image is an honouring of the Image by prayer they say to the tree of the Crosse Auge piis justitiam reisque dona veniam Increase righteousnesse in us and give remission of sinnes O tree crosse to guilty sinners Names at Rome goe as men will but the honour it selfe is put upon the dumbe wood which is due to Christ O it is but a figure say they yea but say we prayers and praises in a bodily manner and vocally are tendred to the wood yet if the wife commit adultery with her husbands brother because he representeth her husband I thinke the matter should be washen with Inke and badly excused to say O the loving wife for strong love to her husband committeth figurative adultery and that bodily harlotry is referred to the brother of her husband by accident and to her husband kindly and per se for himselfe The same way if Formalists bow their knee to bread that such a holy mystery be not prophaned We know they cannot understand civill or countrey non-prophanation that they intend for kneeling and evill maners at the Lords table doe well consist together Now religious non-prophanation by knee-worship is adoring of these mysterious elements Ergo they make prayers and sing praises and offer sacrifices to the bread Let them see to this and answer to it if they can The sixt evasion of wit I find in Johannes de Lugo who saith 1. That the image and samplar making one and the same object by aggregation the inward affection besides externall knee-worship is given to both but to the Image relatively and for God or the samplar and not for proper divine excellencie in it and therefore the Councels saith he call it not adoration in spiritu but it is tendered to God absolutely 2. We give adoration of internall submission to God or the samplar as the debt of potestative justice but we doe not so worship the Image we have no civill or politick communication with the Image because it is not a reasonable creature and therefore the worship of the Image is as it were a materiall and livelesse action when we uncover our head to the Image by that action we would say or signifie nothing to the Image but to the samplar or to God onely 3. The inward submission that we tender to the Image is not that we submit to it as to a thing more excellent then we for that were a foolish lye yet saith he that the man might fulfill the cup of the iniquity of his Fathers we kisse not the Image in recto directly tendring honour to it but to God and the samplar before it 1. Because then I should adore my owne breast when I knocke upon it adoring the Eucharist 2. Because so I bow to the wall before me 3. If I have no honourable opinion of the Image I doe not adore it at all 4. By kneeling to the Image I have a will of submitting externally my affection to the Image I yeeld to it as a thing above me giving to it the higher place 4. The act of adoration is simply terminated upon the Image as a thing contra distinguished from the samplar though it be adored with the same action with which the samplar is adored Thus the â—eâ—uite Answ But here all men may see many contradictions and that he casteth downe all that formerly he hath said â—â— Images even as they represent God are dead things and lesse then a redeemed Saint Ergo I can give them no submission of externall honour 2. I signifie and say nothing of honour to the Image even as it respecteth God and representeth him because the dignity of representing God doth not elevate it to be a reasonable creature therefore I cannot honour it and it were a foolish lye to say that the Image as representing God were a reasonable creature 3. As it representeth God it cannot heare payers nor deliver in trouble as the Holy One of Israel can doe Ergo by the Holy Ghosts argument I cannot bow to a lye Esa 44. 17. and 46. 9. Hab. 2. 19. 20. it made not the heaven and the earth but by a figure because it representeth the maker of heaven and earth wherefore it should have but figurative honour at the best and that is no reall honour Jer. 10. 8 11 12 4. There is no debt of justice due to the dumb wood or element honour of externall submission is a debt of potestative justice due to a superiour the Images and Elements are not my superiour 1. They be meanes I the end 2. They bee void of life and reason which I have 3. They are not redeemed sanctified and to be glorified as I am Ioan. de Lugo answereth As I may love Peter for the goodnesse that is not in Peter but in another as I may love and desire good to Peter for the goodnesse that is in his father and not in himself and so pay the debt of affection to him for another so I may honour an Image for the debt of honour that I owe to the samplar represented by the
House when others went astray I take to be a prophecie of these Pastors under the New Testament to wit the Apostles of Iesus Christ and Pastors and teachers that Christ left in his Church for the edifying of his body Ephes 4. 11. 12. When these Scribes and Pharises did sit in Moses his chaire for a while Mat. 23. but onely as porters and inferiour Officers in Gods house yet they were to be heard while God should cut them off as he prophecied Zach. 11. 8. We cannot say as some doe that persons were deprived amongst the Iewes of Church communion in the holy things of God because of Ceremoniall not of Morall uncleannes but now under the new Testament only Morall uncleannes can exclude persons from the holy things of God and therefore to argue from ceremoniall uncleannes in the old to morall uncleannesse in the new is no good consequence I answer the Ceremoniall uncleannesse in the Old which did exclude from the holy things of God doth strongly conclude that morall uncleannesse under the New Testament doth exclude from the holy things of God if that exclusion of the Leaper out of the campe seven dayes and the touching of the dead though imprudently did typifie some other exclusion from the holy things of God as no question it did then the consequence must be strong 2. It is also false that morall uncleannesse did not exclude from the holy things of God under the Old Testament For 1. what was more ordinary then that sacrifices should be offered for sins of ignorance for trespasâ—es and while this was done the person was not admitted to partake of the holy things of God 2. Whence was the Lords frequent complaints of wearying his soule with sacrifices solemne assemblies feast dayes and new Moones when they were morally uncleane and their hands were full of blood and they had not put away the evill of their doings did not love judgement and justice Isaiah 10. 11 12 13 16 17 18 19. And when God complaineth so of them Ier. 7. 8. Will ye steale murther and commit adultery and sweare falsely and burne incense unto Baal and walke after other Gods whom ye know not 10. And come and stand before me in this house which is called by my Name Ergo Murtherers and adulterers were debarred from entring into the Congregation of the Lord and partaking of the holy things of God while they repented Let none say by prophecying or the keyes of knowledge in preaching the Word they were declared unworthy to enter into the Temple but that will not conclude that it was the Priests office by power of discipline to exclude them from coming unto the Sanctuary of God Ans But if the Porters were set at doores of the Lords house to hold out the uncleane and if the Lord charge the Priests with this crime that they Ezek. 44. 8. set keepers of the charge of the Lords house for themselves that is for their owne carnall ends and not for the honour of the Lord And that ver 7. They brought into the Sanctuary of the Lords house uncircumcised in heart that is such as were morally uncleane then had the Priests a power to debarre from the Sanctuary such as were morally uncleane and if the Priests are said to beare rule by their meanes Ier. 5. 31. Then the Priests did beare rule and governe though they abused their Power and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth to have dominion over any Psal 72. 8. Psal 110. 2. 1 Kin. 4. 24. Levit. 26. 17. And the Scripture gives a power of judging and governing to the Priests And 2 Chron. 30. 6 7. The Posts that Hezekiah and the Congregation of Israel sent through the Land commandeth a morall preparation to those that were to keepe the Lords Passeover to wit that they should turne againe unto the Lord God of Abraham and should not be like their Fathers nor like their Brethren that trespassed against the Lord God of their Fathers And ver 11. divers of Ashur and Manasseh and Zebulun humblid themselvs and came to Ierusalem to keepe the feast of the Passeover This proveth clearly that people under the Old Testament were no lesse to try and examine themselves by the King and Priests commandment carried to them by Postes before they should eate the Passeover then they are to try themselves before they eate and drinke at the Lords Supper onely the adversaries say the Priests by preaching were to debarre from the Passeover those who were morally unclean but not to debarre those who were morally uncleane so they were not typically and ceremonially unclean by any power of Discipline or by Porters set at the gates to keepe them out of the Sanctuary But I answer 1. How are the Priests Ezek. 22. 26. reproved for violating the Law of God and prophaning his holy things in that they put no difference between the holy and prophane the clean and the unclean Surely the Priests prophaned in the highest way the holy things of God in admitting into the Sanctuary those who were not onely ceremonially but morally uncleane as murtherers adulterers Who cryed the temple of the Lord Ier. 7. And they put no difference betweene the Holy and Prophane when they admitted to the holy things of God and into the Sanctuary the uncircumcised in heart for they doe more pollute the holy things of God who partake of them being morally uncleane and uncircumcised in heart then those who are onely uncircumcised in flesh Object But the Church under the New Testament can no other way but morally and by preaching as it would seeme onely debarre scandalous persons from the Seales and Prayers of the Church for should a scandalous person or an excommunicate person obtrude himselfe on the Lords Supper against the will and sentence of the Church the Church cannot use any bodily violence to hinder such prophane intrusion upon the holy things of God because the Churches weapons are not carnall but spirituall bodily violence can be no spirituall weapon that the Church as the Church can use so do the Remonstrant Arminians argue and some other for the congregationall way Ans This Argument is against all Church-censures but though the Church as the Church cannot hinder scandalous intruders upon the holy things of God by bodily violence it doth not follow Ergo The Church can keep the holy things pure no way but morally that is by preaching only for we can give a third way The rebukes admonitions and Excommunication or delivering to Satan are all transacted without any bodily and externnll violence Christs Kingdom resigneth all such carnall weapons to the Magistrate who is the only Governour of the Church of Christ as the Opponents say All Church Censures are by way of Declaration applied to such men by name and there co-action though penall is not by bodily violence but by acting upon the conscience of men and putting them to shame Hence 2. We argue if beside
holden out of the Sanctuary as the Lord saith Ezech. 44. 7 8 9. then those who were only uncircumcised in flesh Erastus Those that morally sinned were not debarred from the holie things because they were invited to come and offer sacrifice for their sins Ans And because they might not enter into the Temple while the Priests offered a sacrifice for them they were no lesse excluded from the holy things of God then an Excommunicated person is while the Church see him swallowed up of grief and do relaxe and forgive 2 Cor. 2. 6 7 8 9. Is this a good Argument The Excommunicate person is invited to come again that the Church may pardon then it will follow he was cast out Erastus Paul forbiddeth to eat with fornicators 1 Cor. 5. It shall never follow that they are worthie of holy convention that are worthy of a common Table and that they are unvvorthy of the Supper who are unworthie of a common Table they vvere debarred from a familiar Communion with the godlie 1. That they might be ashamed 2. Least they should infect them Paul saith be not mixed vvith them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but he saith not exclude them from the Lords Table and other holy things In the Sacrament I must try my self not others in my familiar Tabling with others I am to try them that I may gain them yea 2 Thes 3. Though we are to eschew familiar conversing with those that walk unorderly yet are we to keep communion in holy things with them and to admonish them as brethren Ans Erastus propounds an Argument of his own 1 Cor. 5. in place of ours we said never that they that are unworthy of the holy Supper are unworthy to be Tabled with in common familiarity as brethren though that be most true But we reason thus Those that are to be delivered to Satan and cast out as 1 Cor. 5. 5 13. of the Church and judged ver 12. and with whom we may not eat ver 11. These are not to be admitted to the Lords Supper which is the proper feast of the Church But such are all incestuous and scandalous persons and therefore Paul doth indeed command them to be excluded from the holy feast 2. To say the Church and her Officers must try themselves not others ere they come to the Lords Supper is to beg the question for ere they be admitted into the Sanctuary they are to be tried whither they be uncircumcised in heart and flesh or not Ezek. 44. 7 8 9. Ezek. 22. 26. As we have proved 3. Paul not only useth a passive verb be not mixed with them but 1 Cor. 5. 5. he useth four active words v. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. v. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 purge him out 3. v. 12. He willeth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to judge him 4. He saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 put away that evil one Hence I argue The men whom they convened together were to judge to deliver to Satan to purge out to put away 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of the midst of them ver 2. or from amongst them v. 13. This man they did Authoritatively either put from amongst them as they were Christians from their common Table or out of their fellowship as they were men to kill him Or 3. out of their Church-Communion that they should not keep the feast of the Lords Supper with them Let Erastus give a fourth now we cannot dream of the first two for 1. Would the Apostle command a Church-meeting to interdict a man of Tabling with them in common eating and drinking What needeth a Church-court for they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when they did this And what needed a judging Court for this for not to eat with him was no censure of the Church as Erastus saith 2. It is no Grammar nor can it bear sense that the Corinthians could say we Corinthians gathered together in the name and power of the Lord Iesus do cast out such a one out of the midst of us that is from our common-Table this would say they had all one common Table and that all the Church of Corinth met at this time to some Feast to cast him out of their love-Feasts a dream no man ever conceived 3. The Text speaketh of eating in their houses could they cast the man out of his own house and from his own Table they had no power so to do But ye will say they might forbid any brother to go into this mans house to his Table True but this was not to put the man out of the midst of them as Paul saith Nor fourthly was Pauls spirit and the name and power of the Lord Iesus required for eschewing of a common Table with this man Erastus saith Paul commanded this Rom. 16. 17. 2 Thes 3. 14 15. To all and every beleever at Rome and Thessalonica by themselves Nor 2. were they to kill him Never did a Church conveen to kill a man This is so insolent that Erastus must give precept for it or a practise beside the present case therefore here must be some Church out-casting 4. Though Paul will have us admonish a cast out man as a brother 2 Thes 3. It s private admonition that I owe to all men Lev. 19. 17. And that one woman is to performe to another Col. 3. 15. But not any of the holy things of the Sanctuary Erastus The Iews accused Paul of nothing but that they lied that he brought Greeks into the Temple The Law bad all the clean eat the Passeover and excepteth none for their wickednesse Christ admitted Iudas to the Passeover and said Drink ye all of this Paul reciteth a Catologue of wicked men in Corinth 1 Cor. 5. With whom we are not to have private dealing but he commandeth never to exclude any who are willing to come from the Lords Supper We are to trie our selves not one another nor is it a sin to eat at the Lords Table with wicked men Ans Belike it was a crime then to bring the Greeks into the Temple 2. It is a begging of the question to say all were admitted to the Passeover See how this is before answered 3. Christ admitted Iudas into the Passeover What then may Timothie lay hands suddenly on all he knows to be Iudases that they come in and lap the blood of souls contrary to 1 Tim. 3. Christ is above the Law and if his practise in this were the rule because Christ admitted Iudas whom he knew to be a Traitor and did eat ordinarily at Table with him and committed the flock to such a known wolfe We are also to eat with covetous extortioners which Paul forbiddeth 1 Cor. 5. 11. And we are to commit the flock of God to known Wolves where we have a precept on the contrary 2 Tim. 2. 2. Christ would rather teach that we are to admit to the seals all not ignorant and scandalous and not be too curious in striking up a
window in the conscience of others 4. Pauls practise at Corinth is but a negative ex particulari and not concludent The heathen came to hear the word at Corinth 1 Cor. 14. 23. And Paul doth no where command the Heathen should be excluded from the Sacraments Will Erastus then have them admitted 5. When Paul saith that unworthy Communicants were guilty of the Lords body and blood and required fidelity in the Stewards 1 Cor. 4. He taketh for confessed scandalous persons should not be admitted by the Church its true the sin of others who communicate unworthily is not the sin of another fellow-communicant who hath not authority to debar his fellow-communicant Erastus The Scripture debarred no Iews of old neither from sacrifices nor other sacraments but commandeth that all the male children Iews or Strangers that were not legally unclean nor from their homes should thrice a year appear before the Lord in Ierusalem for to partake of the holy things of God Ergo None were Excommunicated from the holy things of God for morall wickednesse Ans Erastus counteth this an Argument that cannot be Answered but it Answers it self to me And Erastus proposeth a Law that is Catholick to all the males yet he maketh it not Catholick himself but propoundeth a number of males that are excepted as he excepteth those that were legally unclean those that are from home and yet Deut. 16. 16. Exod. 23. 17. Exod. 34. 23. in the Letter of the Law there is no such exception as Erastus maketh I hope if he make an exception so may we according to the word of God Though we should give but not grant that there was no Excommunicaâ—ion amongst the Iews but only for Ceremoniall uncleannesse yet it proveth not there is no Excommunication in the Christian Church but the contrary for if for touching the dead by Gods Law men were separated from the holy things in that Church far more for Morall uncleannesse are men to be separated from the holy things of God under the New Testament for undeniably Ceremoniall separation signified and typed out Morall separation Col. 2. 21. 2. What ground Erastus hath to except those that were Ceremonially unclean and so as uncircumcised in flesh that they were not to appeare before the Lord let him shew the Letter of Scripture for it the same ground have we to shew that the uncircumcised in heart are not to appeare before the Lord Ezek. 44. 7 8 9. Ezek. 22. 26. Nor shall I thinke God would both command all the male without exception to compeare before him thrice a yeare whether they were Adulterers Theeves Murtherers Idolaters or not such but truly sanctified and holy and that he would expresly rebuke the Males that were Adulterers Theeves Murtherers Idolaters because they compeared for him in his House Ier. 7. 8 9 10. So then as he commandeth the the Males to compeare except they be legally uncleane or Lepers and would rebuke them if they should appeare before him being Ceremonially unclean and therefore in that case God would have them not to come So also if they should be Morally unclean he would have them not to come that is it is not their sin that they appeare before the Lord quoad substantiam actus but their obedience but it is their sinne that they appeare â—ali mâ—do in their unrepented guiltinesse yet is it the sinne of the Priests in not differencing betweene the cleane and the uncleane that they suffer them to come tali modo that as Swine they pollute the holy things of God to the Male it is their sinne that they come so and so guilty and that they come not it is their sinne but to the Priests it is their sinne that they admit the uncleane and cast Pearles to Dogs But as God would not rebuke unworthy Eaters at the Lords Table 1 Cor. 11. if they might eate unworthily by Gods Law so neither would he rebuke Theeves and Murtherers for appearing before him in his Temple if they ought not by Law not to appeare in that state No doubt saith Erastus pag. 106. there were many wicked persons in the time of Ioshua Iudges and the Kings in such a multitude yet they were bidden all to compeare before the Lord and none are excepted for their wickednesse and it is certaine God would not both bid them compeare and not compeare Ans All that sinned in Israel were bidden offer Sacrifice yet those who are wicked as Sodom are expresly debarred from Sacrifices except they were morally clean Esai 1. 13. Bring me no more vaine oblation incense is an abomination unto me 16 Wash you make you cleane So say I here God said expresly Ier. 7. 9 10. Except you be washed from your lying stealing come not before me to stand in my house to prophane my holy Name Ergo the Morally unclean are excommunicated from those holy things so all the wicked by the same reason were forbidden they remaining in their wickednes without Repentance to eate the Passeover yea to take the Name of God in their mouth Psal 50. 16 17. to Sacrifice Esai 66. 3. to touch the Altar of God except their hands were washed in innocency Psal 26. 6. And the Priests had the charge of the house of God to put difference betweene the cleane and the uncleane and the Priests are said to violate the holy things of God if the wicked as well as the Ceremonially unclean were not debarred Hag. 2. 11 12. Ezek. 22. 25 26. Ezek. 44. 7 8 9. and certainly the Males that were Leapers were expresly excepted and forbidden to come in the Congregation of Gods people as is before proved Erastus The Pharisees and Sadduces debarred none from the Sacraments for their wicked life Ans What will Erastus make the Pharisees practise our Rule they killed the Lord of Glory and then eat the Passeover with bloody hearts and hands Is such a Practise our Rule Erastus Iohn Baptist refused Baptisme to none willing to bee baptized and referred the inward Baptisme by the Spirit and fire to Iesus Christ Ans Iohn baptized those who confessed their sinnes and professed their Repentance and the like we crave of those that are admitted to the other Sacrament And the instance of Iohn or an Apostles baptizing cannot warrant the Baptizing of all Murtherers Idolatrous persons or the wickedst living as Erastus saith and the vildest on earth if they should but desire Baptisme and give no confession of their Faith nor profession of their Repentance Erastus Christ who rebuked many abuses and cast the buyers and sellers out of the Temple would have rebuked the pollution of the Sacraments also but that he never did and Christ said that Peter should forgive his offending Brother often in one day if he but say It repenteth me and he saith This transaction shall be ratified in heaven Will you be more cruell then God Do not we often lie to God in our Confession to God He meaneth well who desires to
but will it follow therefore the Pastor should not watch over him to try in another way in a Pastorall way by his walking profession and practicall knowledge whether he be in Christ or no. The contrary is Heb. 13. 17. They watch for the souls of the people as they that must give an accompt And they are so far to try that are Shepherds that they are obliged in a Pastorall way to know those of the flock that are diseased Ezech. 34. 4. Sick broken driven away and lost And to what end should they try themselves least they eat damnation to themselves Ergo the Stewards should try the stomacks that they eat not poyson If then the Lords Law bid men beware they be not tempted to Sorcery Sodomy Murthers and if every man ought to have personall watchfulnesse over his own conscience that he be not insnared to those sins and Achan was to try if his heart was ingaged to the wedge of Gold and to be wary to meddle with it but it doth not follow that Magistrates as Joshua should not try out Sorcerers Sodomites and other Achans to punish them Erastus 2 Cor. 13. is against this a person is to try himselfe Will it follow when he hath tryed himselfe that he cannot come to the Lords Supper except he seem meet to the Elders And this not our consequence let Erastus owne it we care not In a constitute Church he should else Erastus provides no way against a Pagan who hath heard the Word as he may doe 1 Cor. 14. 23. may without the Elders and Church sit downe at the Lords Supper for Erastus provides no stop for him but only his own pagan Conscience and so may one by that rule but trample on the Sacrament his owne Conscience is all his rule contrary to what he saith himselfe lib. 3. c. â— p. 207. Erastus 1 Cor. 11. Paul forbiddeth none to come to the Supper but upon supposition that they come as the manner is he biddeth them come worthily as all are bidden hear the Word though they â—e forbidden to he are it as if it were some prophane History nor doth the Lord command sinfull coming for no act commanded of God is evill Ans 1. Paul then forbiddeth not Pagans more to come to the Supper and Children then he forbiddeth them to heare the Word which is absurd he commandeth all to heare but he commandeth not all to come to the Supper but those onely that can discerne the Lords body for to heare the Word though I be not prepared is simply necessary if I would be saved and to sacrifice if I would be reconciled and to pray if I would obtaine any blessing though the manner of doing all these be commanded that I heare sacrifice and pray in faith But to come to the Supper is not commanded to all not to Pagans not to children not to the unregenerated but onely to the regenerated and to those who discerne the Lords body and for a child to come to the Lords Supper or an unrenewed man is forbidden not commanded and no ill act is commanded and it is a sinne that they come at all But Erastus will have it lawfull as it is to heare the Word then doth Christ command Turks and children to come to the Supper for he commandeth them to heare the Word and Peter bade Simon Magus pray Act. 8. 22. but he neither bids give the Supper to him nor bids he him receive it but by the contrary forbids pearles to be cast unto Swine Erastus Arg. 16. God will not have fewer Christians to be members of the Church now then of Iewes to be members of the Iewish Church But God would have all circumcised even the most flagitious that were punished by the Magistrate to be members of the Iewes Church Ergo God will have all the baptized to be Members of the Church Ans This will prove that all baptized even children should come to the Supper 2. I deny the Minor to wit that all the most wicked remained Members of the visible Iewish Church jure before God the wicked Iewes to God were as Sodom and Gomorrah Esa 1. 10. Yea he saith Amos 9. 7. Are ye not unto me as children of Ethiopians O children of Israel saith the Lord What they were de facto and not cast out was the fault of the Priests and that the Church does tollerate Iezabels Wolves Lions in the flock and admitteth them to holy things is their sin Erastus But Repentance was not alwaies commanded to those Iewes especially who were unclean by touching an unclean thing against their will and ignorantly and the purging of them depended on their owne will so they observed the Ceremonies of Moses Ans That is much for us if those who were uncleane against their will and cast out of the campe it being a trying Type that far more those that are wickedly scandalous are to be cast out of the Church Erastus The Church is a draw-â—et a field a marriage Supper there be good and ill in it and it was not the sinne of the inviters who are bidden invite all good and bad Mat. 22. But the man that came himselfe without the wedding garment he is cast into utter darkenesse Ergo The Officers are to invite all and forbid none Ans They are to invite all to all Ordinances and Seals even Dogs and Swine that is false They are to invite all to some Ordinances to heare the Law and Gospel preached but not the Seales that were to cast Pearles to Swine 2. The way of Erastus is that none are to be debarred nor to debarre themselves from the Seales more then from the Word The Lords forbidding Adam to touch the tree of Life and his casting of him out of Paradise and Cains being cast out from the presence of the Lord to me are rather Types presignifying Excommunication and that God will have wicked men debarred from holy things then patternes of Excommunications and so are they alledged by Beza and our Divines CHAP. VII Quest 3. Whether Erastus doth justly deny that Excommunication was typified in the Old Testament VVEe take types of uncleannesse in the Old Testament to be rightly expounded when the holy Ghost in the New-Testament doth expound them Now that Ceremoniall uncleannes did typifie Morall uncleannesse is cleare 2 Cor. 7. 17. Touch no uncleane thing and I will receive you 18. And I will be a Father unto you and yee shall be my Sonnes and Daughters saith the Lord Almighty This is a manifest Exposition of the Ceremoniall holinesse and cleannesse commanded in the booke of Leviticus for after the Lord hath given them a number of Lawes about eschewing of uncleane things he saith in generall Lev. 26. 3. If ye walke in my Statutes and keepe my Commandements and doe them 11. I will set my Tabernacle amongst you and I will be your God and ye shall be my people And it is a cleare allusion to Numb 19. 11. He that toucheth
as the eating of the Lords Supper no question but God invited the uncircumcised to repentance but forbiddeth them to eat the Passeover Beza said Sinners vvere indeed called to the sacrifices but such as professed repentance Erastus saith Then â—â—e agree for vve dispute only of those vvho acknovvledgeth their sins and promise amendment Ans We are not willing to hold up a needlesse controversie with Erastus but Erastus saith and his Arguments conclude in the Old Testament None for Morall uncleannesse and impenitency vvere debarred from the holy things of God Ergo We are to debarre none in the Nevv Testament yea 2. Paul did never command to debar any nor did Christ debar Judas nor the Pharisees debar the â—ewdest Publicans nor the Apostles Simon Magus from the Sacraments Ergo saith he we are to debar none at all now here Erastus clearly contradicteth himself and saith We dispute only of such as acknowledge their â—ins and promise amendment But let Erastus say Did Iudas acknowledge his â—in and promise amendment Did all the morally unclean in Corinth such as repented not of their uncleannesse and fornication and lasciviousnesse which they committed 2 Cor. 12. 21. acknowledge their sin and promise amendment and did those that were partakers of the Table of Devils acknowledge their sin and promise amendment And yet I brought the very words of Erastus in which he saith right down in a Catholick assertion without exception not any of those are to be debarred from the Sacraments Why The Sacraments saith he are Adminicula piâ—tatis et resipiscentiae are helps to godlinesse and repentance And I aske of Erastus doth the Lord invite none to repentance but those that do acknowledge their sin and promise amendment And will Erastus have helps of repentance denied to all those who acknowledge not their sins then let him give us Arguments in the Old or New Testament by which he can demonstrate that those who acknowledge not their sins and promise not amendment are debarred in the Old Testament from all the holy things of God and in the New from the Sacraments Let Erastus extricate himself if he can It is worthy consideration whether Erastus will have all those only that acknowledged their sins and repent admitted to the holy things of God in the Old Testament if not he must shew a difference why pearls might be cast to Swine and scorners rebuked and holy things prophaned by the uncircumcised prophane in the old Testament not in the New this he shall not shew if they were debarred who repented not how saith he in all his book that none were debarred from the holy things of God in the Old Testament for Morall uncleannesse Erastus But we impugne this which you say that God hath ordained Presbyters or Elders to be judges and examinators of that businesse But we say that God neither commanded in the Old or New Testament that Priests or any other should examine those who brought oblations for sin whether they did truly repent or dissemble only and ye say there be chosen Elders who should try this in the New Testament Ans 1. Elsewhere I have proved from Scripture that the Priests did try judicially those for whom they offered Sacrifice If the Leaper had not bidden so many dayes as the Law required if the Priests should offer for him he should be partiall in the Law and if the disease be not removed he cannot offer for him Matth. 8. 4. Lev. 14. 3 4 9 10 11 12 2. Observe good Reader How craftily Erastus passeth from one question to another All his Arguments hitherto both in his Thesis and in his Book conclude that no man in either Old or New Testament ever was or ought to be debarred from the holy things of God Because there is neither precept nor promise nor practise in Moses in the Prophets or Apostles for it 2. Because The Sacraments are helps of repentance 3. Because all are invited and commanded to come Now here Erastus flyeth to another Question Whether the unworthy should be debarred by Priests in the Old and by certain select and chosen Elders in the New Testament This is a far other Question for let him answer our Arguments by which we prove that pearls and the holy things of God ought to be denied to all Dogs Swine and prophane men whereas Erastus saith all those are invited to come and then we shall yoak with Erastus or any other by whom or by whose authority these pearls ought to be denied whether by the Church that is by the Elders of the Church and people consenting or by the civill Magistrate Now this latter question to Erastus is no question at all for if none ought to be debarred from the Sacraments at all but all must come promiscuously as their owne good or evill spirit inclineth them it is a vaine thing for Erastus to make any question at all by whom they ought to be debarred for it is all one as to aske the question by whom should those who are to be gradued Doctors of Physick be tryed and examined whether by the faculty and Colledge of of Physitians of the place or by none at all If you lay downe this ground that there neither is nor ought to be any graduated Doctors at all in the world the other of those who are to try those who are graduated is vaine if all be invited to a free banquet poor and rich leaper and clean it is a vain question whether be there some Masters of the house who should try who are worthy and to be admitted to the feast and who unworthy and to be debarred Erastus It is madnesse to say that Paul by forbidding private â—ating doth understand nothing but a debarring from the Sacraments for 1 Cor. 11. he debarreth none from the Sacrament Ans Neither Beza nor any of ours say that they are both one punishment but that where we are forbidden to eat with a scandalous brother it is presumed the Church doth cast him out of her society nor doth Paul 1 Cor. 11. invite all to come to the supper Beza said he to whom lesse is denied as that we eat not with him in our private houses to him more is denied to wit that he should not be admitted to the Lords supper Erastus saith that to whom lesse is denied to him more is denied is true in gifts but not in punishments and in things of the same kind but not in things divers and in things free not in things of which one is commanded by God and another thing not commanded it holdeth not in punishments he to whom the city is denied and who is banished his life is not denied to him he who is punished in his purse is not killed for that a father denieth to his son an unworthy thing yet he denieth not rayment to him Ans Erastus in this granteth he wrongeth Beza as if he had said to deny a private table and the
said Erastus cometh to finde some use for a Presbytery if the Magistrate be an heathen he cannot examine or debarre any from the seals Let Erastus answer if he be a Christian how can it be denied but if the Magistrate by his office is to steward the bread to one of the children not to another but he is a steward to cut and divide the word and seals both aright and how could Paul make it one of the properties of the Pastor 2. Tim. 2. to cut the word and by the same reason to distribute the seals aright if it depend upon another officer by his office to command him to divide it to this man whom he hath examined and findeth in his mind qualified and not to this man We judge the Elders of the New Testament do agree in this common and perpetuall morality that both are to put difference between clean and unclean holy and unholy though many things were unclean to the Iews that are not unclean to us and that the Church hath yet a power to bind and loose Mat. 16. 9. Erastus There was never a wiser common wealth in the world then that of the Iews Deut. 4 But in the Common vvealth of the Ievves there vvere never tvvo distinct judicatures concerning manners Ergo There should not be these tvvo different jurisdictions in the Christian common vvealth But all should be given to the civill Magistrate Ans Erastus is seldome happy in his Logick his Syâ—logismes are thin sowne all Gods laws are most wise but if this be a good Argument was not their Church their Religion their Ceremonies their judiciall Laws all wise and righteous Then the Christian Church should be conform yet to the Iewish we should have those same bloody sacrifices judiciall lawes Ceremonies that they had The Iudicatures and officers are positive things flowing from the positive will of God who doth appoint one jurisdiction for them most wise and another to Christians different from them and in its kinde most wise 2. We give two judicatures in the Church of the Iews concerning manners one civil acknowledged by Erastus another spirituall Ecclesiastick ordaining Ecclesiastick and Spirituall punishments upon the unclean Lev. 10. 10. As to be removed out of the campe and such like and Deut. 17. Thou shalt come to the priests the Levites and the Iudge that shall be in those daies according to the sentence vvhich they of that place vvhich the Lord shall chuse shall shevv thee and thou shalt observe to doe according to all that they informe thee ver 12. And the man that vvill doâ— presumptuously and vvill not hearken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Priest that standeth there to minister before the Lord thy God or unto the judge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 even that man shall die and thou shalt put avvdy evill from Israel There is here an evident disjunction that clearly holdeth forth that both the Priests and the civill judge judged in matters of manners and that he that presumptuously despised the sentence of either was to die a judicature of the Priests is evidently here and a judicature of the civill judge Erastus cannot deny and that the Priest judged in subordination to the civill judge is refuted by the words which saith the Priest was immediatly subordinate to God not to the Magstistrate He that will not heare the Priest that standeth to minister before the Lord thy God shall die Ergo He is the Minister of the Lord and God called and separated Aaron and his sonnes to stand before the Lord and to minister and he did call the Levites the Magistrate called them not to office Erastus Beza saith that Moses Ioshua David Salomon did not execute the office of the Priests and therefore the charge of the Priests and of the civill Magistrates were different offices and charges but I said before the Lord chose Aaron and his sonnes to be Priests they were not so distinct charges but they did agree to one and the same person for Moses to omit the rest did execute the office of Aaron Levit. 8. But after that it was not lawfull for any to doe the office both of King and Priest and therefore Saul and Vzziah were justly corrected of God for it But what is this It proveth not that the Priests had publike judicatures to punish wickednes of manners Ans Certainly if Erastus deny the charge of the Priest and the King to be different offices because once Moses did offer Sacrifice and so was Melchisedeck both a King and a Priest Heb. 7. he must say that Moses offered Sacrifices Levit. 8. not as a Priest Sure I am Moses was a Prophet and a Prince and Ruler but no Priest But Moses by Erastus his way must as a civill Magistrate have offered Sacrifices and not as a Priest or priviledged person by a speciall and an extraordinary commandement of God for to deny the two offices of Priest and King to be different offices because one man discharged some Acts proper to both Offices as Moses both did beare the Sword of God as a Prince and did also discharge some Acts proper to the Priest as Erastus saith he did Leviticus 8. is a poore and naughty Argument undeniable it is that Melchisedeck was both King and Priest but even then to be a King and to be a Priest were two distinct offices in nature and essence because Melchisedech did not take away the life of a Murtherer as a Priest but as King of Salem Heb. 7. 1. Nor did Abraham pay tithes to Melchisedech as to a King but as to a Priest Tithes in Moses Law as tithes were never due to any but to the Priests and therefore even in Melchisedeck the Kingly and Priestly office were formally distinct Ordinances of God just as David as a King and judge took away the head of the man who brought Sauls head to him and not as a Prophet he did this so as a Prophet he penned the Psalmes not as a King If one and the same man be both a Musitian and a painter he doth paint excellently as a painter not at a Musitian and he singeth excellently not as a Painter but as a Musitian and though one and the same man doe acts proper to both that may prove that Musick and the art of painting are one subjectively onely that they may both agree to one and the same man but not that they are not two faculties and gifts of God different in spece and nature 2. Though Erastus confesse that it was unlawfull that Vzzias and Saul should sacrifice yet he will have the Kings office and the Ministers office under the New Testament not so different for he said expresly Who knoweth not now when Aarons Priesthood is removed but we are all equally Priests Saul and Vzziah sinned when they were bold to sacrifice and burne incense but the Magistrate doth not therefore sin who exerciseth the charge of the Ministery if he might for
Word and Sacraments if then the Magistrate by his office may preach and dispense the Sacraments who made him a judge and a Ruler Will this satiâ—fie mens conscience The Magistrate as the Magistrate may play the Minister but the Minister may not play the Magistrate Now as Erastus saith the Minister in holy things is his servant called by him may not the Minister be called by him to the Bench also Erastus Eli and Samuel were both Priests and Iudges and so to Erastus they are not inconsistent 2. Ministers ought not to usurpe the civill sword Ergo they have no power of governing by the sword of the Spirit it followeth not the contrary is evident 1 Thes 5. 12. 1. Tim. 5. 17. 1 Cor. 12. 28. Rom. 12. 7 8. Erastus Peter Martyr saith Com. 1 Sam. 8. Those that live wickedly may be corrected by the Magistrate But Papists give one civill Ecclesiastick power to the Pope and another to the Magistrate whereas the civill Magistrate is sufficient enough Ans Pet. Martyr 1 Cor. 5. expresly asserteth Excommunication and acknowledgeth a Presbyterie of Pastors and Seniors or Elders Peter Martyr condemneth the use of both swords in the Pope and saith it is sufficient that the Magistrate have the Sword Erastus Christ saith my Kingdom is not of this world that is it is not pollitick externall visible for Christ reigneth in the world but his Government is invisible and spirituall in the Word and the Spirit Ans Christ denieth only that his Kingdome is of this World in regard it is not holden up by the civill sword of men or Magistrates as Erastus doth dreame who maketh the Magistrate with his club to be the onely Catholick and principall Ruler in all Christs courts which Christ refuteth when he saith If my Kingdome were of this world mine owne would fight for me Now Erastus will have no weapon but the Magistrates sword to hold out and cast out all offenders out of Christs Kingdom but it is false that Christs Kingdom is not politicall externall and visible this is to deny that Christ hath a visible Church Sure exhorting rebuking censuring withdrawing from the scandalous excommunication are visible externally and in a politick spirituall way exercised by Christ in his Ambassadors for externall and spirituall are not opposed nor are politicall and spirituall opposed as Erastus dreameth and therefore this is a non sequitur of Erastus His Kingdom is not of this world Ergo it is not externall Erastus When Pompeius invaded and possessed Iudea and Gabinius having overcome Alexander had changed the state of Iudea the Pharisees did reigne wholly at Ierusalem The Kingly power was removed and Aristocracy set up Ioseph bel Iud. l. 1. c. 6. Ioseph antiq l. 14. c. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Synedrie for the most part had its owne authority vnder Hyrcanus and under Archilaus it was more fully restored as is cleer by the Evangelists and Iosephus Claudius in the tenth year after Christs death setteth forth an Edict 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ioseph Ant. lib. 19. Titus Vespasianus promised the same thing to them Ans Will then Erastus have Christ Mat. 18. to restore the power of the Sanedrim in gaining a lost brother that is to cite him before the Roman Iudges But 1. the Romans made high Priests from yeere to yeere did Christ acknowledge the Sanedrim to be a restored Iudicature in this 2. Say that the Sanedrim in sacris in in the holy things of God had its full power the Romans not impeding them hath any man a face to deny but Pharisees corrupted both Law Gospell Sanedrim and all and doth Christ establish their most corrupt government especially when they set themselves against the Messiah Cesar or Pompeius could give the Sanedrim no more then it had before they were subdued but before they were subdued the Sanedrim was changed and corrupted 3. This is to beg the question to say they kept the power of the Sword For 1. We utterly deny that by Gods Law they ever had any such power and forsooth because the High-Priests servant smote our Saviour on the face and they scourged and imprisoned the Apostles What then therefore the Sanedrim had the Law of God for it and Aaron and his sonnes might beat scourge imprison and kill as they killed Steven without Law or warrant except the Law that they had from the Roman Emperours for which cause I judge their Sanedrim was then a mixed Judicature surely this is a vaine consequence 4. It is like enough Claudius and Tiberius both gave them liberty of their own Religion Ceremonies and customes at their pleasure and that is much for us the adversary so do reason from a corrupt unjust and wicked practice to infer a Law Erastus I have solidly proved there were not two distinct jurisdictions but that the Magistrate Governed all I deny not that the Magistrate took counsell at those that were skilled in the Law And I have proved that the Sanedrim in Christs time when he spake these words had the power of the sword in things pertaining to Religion Ans Let another man praise thee solidity of the probation to most of Protestant Divines is plain emptinesse 2. That the Magistrate took advice of Divines and learned men skilled in the Law is not like the first pattern of Moses David Solomon who as Magistrates saith Erastus did rule all in the Church gave the Law to Aaron his sons directed and commanded the Prophets from the Lord as nearest to him what they should do what Laws they should teach the people Shew us one precept practise or promise in the word where Moses David Solomon asked Counsell at Aaron the Priests Gad Nathan or the Prophets saying O sons of Aaron O Prophets advise us Magistrates what Laws we should command you touching your office your holy garments your washing your beasts clean and unclean your lâ—per your putting men out of the Camp touching the forme dimensions structure materials of the Arke Tabernacle Temple c. that we may know what to command you from the Lord for we are nearer to the Lord and have a more eminent place as Church-Officers then you who are but our Vicars Deputies and servants to be directed by us Now 1. Moses received all Laws immediatly from God and never consulted with any man either Aaron Priest or Prophet David and Solomon had the forme of the Temple given to them by the Lord in writing and advised with none at all therefore received from God and delivered to the Church what they received of the Lord. 2. What warrant the Magistrates should advise with Ministers what they should command-Ministers to preach and do in their Ministery if by vertue of their Office they command Ministers 3. So like as Christ referreth men to the Civill sword on their bodies to gain their souls which is the scope of Christ Matth. 18. CHAP. XVII Quest 13. Whether Erastus can make good that the
Ambrose did no more then a faithfull Pastor and Amariah and the 80. valiant Priests did in not suffering the holy things of God to be polluted Lipsius no religious man saith l. 2. c. 24. de Constantia quo facto nihil magis impium omnis veâ—us impietas habuit Beza Bucer P. Martyr Melancton Calvin Anto. Waleus Gomaras commend Ambrose And truly to kill seven thousand Citizens of Thessalonica of which the most part were innocent deserved more then Excommunication if more could be inflicted by the Church See Ambrose Epist 5. 28 29. Erastus had no reason to compare so laudable a fact to the proud fact of an abominable Pope trampling on the Emperours neck and abusing the word of God Psal 91. to defend his devilish pride CHAP. XX. Quest 16. A vindication of other Arguments for Excommunication as from sacrificing offering of gifts c. with bloody hands Erastus Esay 1. c. 52. c. 66. Ier. 6. 7. Ezech. 23. and 33. Psa 50. are alledged for Excommunication to which I answer 1. The Lord doth not condemne sacrificing for he commanded it but the abuse thereof as he that commendeth modesty to one that eateth undecently doeth condemne unmannerly eating but commandeth not abstinence from eating so Christ Mat. 6. removeth not fasting and praying but the abuse of them When the Hebrews propound two just and right things of which they approve the one and deny the other there is only a comparison understood as Hos 6. I will have mercy and not sacrifice that is rather mercy then sacrifice Prov. 8. Receive my instruction and not silver that is receive rather my instruction then silver so this is no good consequence God hateth the sacrifice of the wicked Ergo Presbyters are to be chosen who should hinder wicked men to sacrifice it followeth not for then this should be as good a consequence God hateth the prayers of the wicked Ergo Presbyters are to be chosen who should hinder men to call upon God to praise God to rest on the Sabbath to give almes except these Presbyters judge them worthy Ans In the following books Erastus refuteth some Treatises of Authors without names the books I cannot have and if he doe them right in repeating their minde faithfully I know not but I know in many things and in this very argument Erastus fancied arguments on Beza which he would reject as none of his 1. Sacrificing seemeth to be a confirming ordinance as eating the Passeover and the Communion of the Lords bodie and blood and as there was some examination of the persons for whom sacrifices were offered required in the Priests as I said before from Mat. 8. 4. Levit. 14. 3 4. 9 10 11 12. So there is Morall cleannesse required in all that are to partake of the Sacraments that presupposeth conversion and I grant the first and native consequence of these is that it was the sin and hypocrisie of the persons themselves who sacrificed first and principally But that it was not the sins of the Priests who admitted those that were no better then Sodom and Gomorrah Esa 1. 10. and had hands full of blood ver 15. is now the question I conceive that it is a taxing of the Priests and Church Rulers that is Esa 1. 10. no lesse then of civill judges and the people yea that he rather taxeth the Priests called Rulers v. 10. and that that is not as Socinians say a new commandement of Christ but an old Mat. 5. 23. Therefore if thou bring thy gift unto the Altar and there remembrest that thy brother hath ought against thee What if the Priest should know that he had killed an innocent man and beside the guilt of innocent blood that the sad hearted widow and the weeping Orphanes had any blood to charge him withall was the Priest either to offer or sacrifice for him while he were reconciled to the widdow and fatherlesse Christ addeth v. 24. Leave there thy gift before the Altar and goe thy way first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be reconciled to thy Brother and then come and offer thy gift I offer it to the consideration of the Reader if as the offerer of the gift was to leave his offering knowing himself to be under blood and to have offended his brother he was to leave his offering at the Altar so if the Priest who offered the same should also know that the same day he had offered his childe to Molech or the Devill if the Priest in this case should offer for him and if the Priest should not eat this mans sin and communicate with the bloody impenitent man in offering with him and for him the sacrifice of fools if he should not leave offering for him till he went and was reconciled with his brother for the Priest by office was to forbid such a bloodie man to offer Ergo he could not by office also offer for him Here an order prescribed that is morall perpetuall and common both to the ordinances of the Old and New Testament for Christ doth here expound the Law which was corrupted by the Pharisees 2. He doth not set down a rule concerning the Ceremoniall Law which was shortly to be abrogated but sure he hath an eye to the worship of the New Testament What if he that is come to the Table to eat and drinke with Christ and both his owne conscience and the Elders remember the widdow orphane have a just accusation against this man of late yesterday he killed their husband and father should either this man eat and drinke at this time with Iesus Christ or should the Elders give these holy things to him I thinke noâ— And to come to the argument it is true Isa 1. sacrificing is not condemned but sacrificing by such Princes of Sodom and tali modo by men of bloodie hands Ergo they were not to abstaine from sacrificing but at that time and in that condition nor doe we forbid either coming to or debarring from the Lords Table by the Elders but onely haec vice and onely while 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 first he be reconciled to his brethren and testifie that he repenteth we never heighten Excommunication to such an extremity as it doth totally unchurch the man and exclude him from the Seals simpliciter and absolutely but according to Christs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and his order and therefore the Elders are to exclude for a time just as this God will have mercy and not sacrifice that is rather mercy first mercy and first faith and repentance then sacrifice that is then afterward externall worship afterward receiving of the Passeover the Lords Supper and offering of gifts at the Altar And secondarily even in the second place in regard of time he will have all these externalls whence the man is to debarre himselfe and by the same reason the Elders as the 80. Priests did to a King 2 Chron. 26. are to debarre the man while he repent And 2. This also I will have mercy
and not Sacrifice or I will have mercy rather then Sacrifice doth imply that both mercy and Sacrifice are lawfull and acceptable to God in their owne order and way But where saith God I will have sacrificing rather then sacrificing with bloody hands so as both sacrificing and sacrificing with bloody hands shall be lawfull and acceptable to God in their owne order for Sacrificing with bloodie hands was never lawfull never acceptable to God in any order Nor said God ever he would chuse the coming of those to his Sanctuary who the same day they came in had slaughtered their sonnes to Molech God alwaies hated it and never chose it if at the same time both mercy and sacrifice cannot be as David starving cannot both abstaine from eating shew-bread as the Law in its letter required and shew mercie to his life and the life of his followers and eate yea he is to eate and the Priests knowing his case doe give him the Shewbread to eat forbid abstinence as they would forbid selfe-murthering and selfstarving so here where at one time eating at the Lords Table and reconciliation with the widow and fatherlesse cannot be co-existent together at one time and place an exigence of divine providence forbidding both the bloodie man is to debarre himselfe from the Lords Supper it being as sacrificing and lesse necessary if we speake comparatively and the Elders are not to give those holy things to the bloodie man while 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 first he be reconciled to the widow and Orphane which now comparing the one with the other is mercy whereas eating and drinking at the Lords Supper is but Sacrifice but it should be as sacrificing with bloodie hands which God condemneth and forbiddeth and the Priests and Elders knowing it to be such a sinne ought to forbid and to hinder it Hence as this I will have mercy and not sacrifice hath this sense I will have you to omit Sacrifice when it cannot be done without neglect of mercie vvhich is more acceptable to me then all Sacrifices so I vvill have reconciliation to the offended widdow and Orphanes and not coming to the Lords Supper vvithout the former for the former is more acceptable to me and should be to you and the Elders in your practice then the latter and therefore the comparison of eating and eating undecently halteth for eating undecently before another which would procure deadly sicknesse to your brother ought to be forbidden by the Ruler it being known to be so and ought to be abstained from hic nunc as a sinne and a hurting of your brothers health and yet the Ruler cannot forbid totall abstinence from meat to him that eateth undecently as the Elders cannot command totall abstinence from the Sacraments 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alwayes and in all cases 2. We draw no conclusion of erecting a Presbytery from those places but those two we draw Ergo 1. It is a sin to the people themselves to sacrifice with bloodie hands because God condemneth such a manner of sacrificing 2. Ergo they are to be debarred by some who hath the charge of the holy things of God but from the Antecedent we neither inferre Ergo Presbyters nor Ergo the people nor Ergo the Prince should debarre them 3. Calling on God is not to be forbidden nor giving of almes because they are abused but the manner of the abusing those ordinances are forbidden by God and may be hindred by the Church and forbidden under the pain of Excommunication The Church cannot forbid men of totall abstinence from the Lords Supper but they can command him that is not reconciled to his brother and visibly under the guilt of blood to leave the Table as Christ Mat. 5. 23. commandeth the unreconciled man to leave his gift at the Altar and goe first be reconciled with his brother and then at the next occasion come to the Lords Supper so the Church of the Iewes could not forbid the Pharisees to pray but they could passe such an act as is Act. 15. 22. We forbid Pharisees or any other to bring their private prayers to the Markets and streets and when they are to give almes we forbid them with sound of Trumpet to make proclamation to all men that they are the onely holy and charitable men in the earth Nor doe we thinke that the Church can debarre men from the Sacraments for inward and and invisible unworthinesse but onely for visible and professed uncleannesse and Levit. 9. 13. it is clear the man that is uncleane is forbidden to keepe the Passeover Will Erastus say O he is not forbidden to eate the Passeover but onely he is forbidden to eat it tali modo being unclean and therefore it is not the Priests sinne if he should give the Passeover to the uncleane man and forbid him to eate tali modo in his uncleannesse see Erastus himselfe against this lib. 1. c. 3. page 103. 104. where he confesseth that the unclean are debarred and yet uncleannes in the eaters of the Passeover was an abuse onely and made not eating of the Passeover unlawfull in it self So the Lord complaineth Ezek. 23. 38. Moreover this they have done unto me they have defiled my Sanctuary in the same day and have prophaned my Sabbaths 39. For when they had slaine their children to their Idols then they came 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same very day into my Sanctuary to prophane it and loe this they have done in the midst of my house Will Erastus now say It was Ceremoniall uncleannes not Morall to kill their seed to Molech and that Morall uncleannesse and bloodie murthering of their seed in the same day when a person is to come to the Lords supper known to be such a Murtherer to the Elders who have power to judge the scandalous and to cast him out 1 Cor. 5. did not sinne if they should be instrumentall to lead Murtherers into the Temple and say to them Take yee eate yee this is the body of the Lord that is broken for you Erastus answereth The Prophet Ezek. 23. accuseth not the Priests or Elders that they debarred not those Murtherers from the Temple and Sacraments if there had been any precept for this some footstep should have appeared in Gods rebuking of them Ans The Lord doth not particularly reprove the Priests by name in every place in which he reproveth the people But expresly for this same very sinne the Lord reproveth the Priests Ezek. 44. 7. Let it suffice you that ye have brought into my sanctuary strangers uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh to be in my sanctuary to pollute it 8 And ye have not kept the charge of my holy things but ye have set keepers of my charge in my sanctuary for your selves 24. And in controversie they shall stand in judgement he had spoken of their teaching the people to discerne between the clean and the unclean v. 23. and they shall judge it according to
my judgements and they shall keep my Laws and my Statutes in all mine assemblies and hallow my Sabbaths so 2 Chron. 23. 19. And Iehojada set the porters at the Gates of the house of the Lord that none which was uncleane in any thing should enter in And shall we concelve that porters that is Levites would hold out those that were only ceremonially unclean and receive in murtherers who had killed there Children to Molech that same day there was not to enter in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the unclean in any matter the text is generall excludes idolaters and murthers and such as should refuse to enter in Covenant with the Lord of which the Text speaketh As for Erastus his consequence which he unjustly imputeth to us to wit Israel sinned in coming to the Lords temple to prophane it in the very day that they slew their Children to Molech Ergo there ought to have been Priests and now there must be Presbyters and selected overseers in a Church judicature to debarre murtherers and the like scandalous persons from the Sacraments 1. This is not our consequence But this we say if the Priests knew that same day that they came to the Temple they slew their Children to Molech the Priests should have debarred them from coming to the Temple and from eating the Passeover as their office and duty was by the Law of God Num. 9. v. 6 7. Num. 19. 11 12. Lev. 22. 6. The soul that hath touched any such unclean shal be unclean till even and shall not eat of the holy things unlesse he wash his flesh with water 7. and when the Sun is downe he shal be clean and shall afterward eat of the holy things because it is his food Now it was the Priests office Lev. 10. 10. that he put a difference between holy and unholy and between clean and unclean so if Eli knew that his sonnes made themselves vile before the people and committed furnication with the women at the doore of the Tabernacle of the Congregation Ergo Eli should as a judge have restrained them 1 Sam. 3. 13. But from this antecedent we draw not this consequence Elies sonnes do publikely make themselves vile Ergo there ought to be such an Ordinance as a judge with Civill power to punish them and Ergo there ought to have been no King to punish them but a judge like unto Eli and Samuel this consequence followeth not from this antecedent but only hoc posito that Eli hath the sword and be the Civill judge Ergo he ought to punish from scandals in the Church and prophaning the holy things of God we inferre not Ergo there must be such a judicature erected as if the antecedent were the cause of the consequent But this only followeth Ergo supposing there be a Church and Presbytery invested with this power they ought not to admit murtherers or any unclean persons to come and partake of the Sacraments and so defile the holy things of God as for the place Ezek. 33. I undertake not from thence to conclude debarring of any from the holy things of God by the Priests what may follow by consequent is another thing Erastus Whereas it is said Deut. 23. the Lord would not have the price of a whore offered to him Ergo far lesse would he have a whore admitted to the sacrifice it followeth not but a penitent or a whore professing repentance may be admitted to the sacrifices 2. He forbiddeth only the price of a whore to be offered to him as a vow or a thing vowed it may be that agree not to all sacrifices For God forbiddeth a living creature that is unperfect in a vow But Lev. 22. he forbiddeth not such imperfect living creatures to be offered to him in a free will sacrifice so God forbiddeth honey to be offered in an offering by fire but not in all other oblations But will not the Lord have a whore to offer to God that which is lawfully purchased or which is her patrimony or may not a whore offer her first borne to the Lord or circumcise him We find not that forbidden From things to persons we cannot argue we may not offer a lame beast to God Ergo doth the Lord so abhor a lame man that he may not come to the Temple God alloweth not tares amongst the wheat yet he will not have the externall Ministers to pluck up the tares while harvest Ans If the hire received for a whores selling of her body to uncleannesse must not be applyed to the service of God farre more cannot a whore as a whore be admitted to partake of the holy things of God for the price or money is called abomination to God Deut. 23. for the whore not the whore for the money and so we may well argue from the things to the persons 2. It is false that God forbiddeth the price of a whore onely in vows and not in sacrifices he forbiddeth it because as Moses saith Deut. 23. 18. it is an abomination to the Lord and as Erastus saith it is money unjustly purchased Yea Davids practise teacheth that what we bestow on sacrifices as well as in vows it must be our own proper goods and not so much as gifted to us 2 Sam. 24. 24. Neither will I offer burnt offerings unto the Lord my God of that which cost me nothing farre lesse would he offer the price of a whore in sacrifices and the Divines of England say on the place hereby is forbidden that any gaine of evill things should be applied to the service of God Mich. 7. 1. Vatablus saith the like 2. For the Lords forbidding to offer in a vow Bullock or Lambe or any thing that is superfluous or lacking in his parts and permitting it in a free-will offering by a free will offering is meant that which is given to the Priest for food of a free gift but otherwise what is offered to the Lord in a vow or a free will offering must be perfect for the blind broken maimed having a wenne scurvy or scab can in no sort be offered to the Lord Lev. 22. 20 21 22 23. There is no word of the Lord in the free will gift that Erastus speaketh of but only the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is liberall free from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to give freely to God or man 3. A whore repenting or professing repentance was not debarred from sacrifices but that is without the bounds of the question an heathen could say Quem penitet facti is pene innocens est Senec. in Traged We debarre none that professe repentance from the seals of the Covenant 4. When a whore as a whore did offer her first borne being a bastard in the Temple I conceive neither she nor her childe were accepted Deut. 23. 2. Abastard shall not enter into the Congregation of the Lord if the childe was born of Married Parents the woman repenting the question now must be far altered 5. For a lame
office in either Church or state for so a Christian Magistrate as a Christian Magistrate should be Ens per aggregationem a thing composed of Magistracy and Christianity as a Christian Physician a Christian Painter and then the question should be whether judgeth he as a Magistrate or as a Christian as we may aske whether a Christian painter painteth as a painter or as a Christian not as a Christian for then all Christians should be Painters and a result of both should neither be a Magistrate nor a Christian but middle between both which fighteth with reason and sense Some say The power of the Magistrate in a Christian Magistrate who knoweth the doctrine of the Gospell and hath help of the counsell and light of godly Pastors and Teachers is perfecter then in Heathen Magistrates and therefore this power as not Christian or heathenish governs men as men but as Christian it governeth them as Christian mâ—n But the learned and worthy professor Jac. Triglandius saith this is said without probation for saith he men as Christians are members of the Church and so are not governed but in an Ecclesiasticall way and where hath the Lord commanded the Christian Magistrate to governe the sheep of Christ as the sheep of Christ Then say I 1. The magistrate must governe the Church as the Church and so rule over the conscience of men in relation to eternall happinesse by promising to them temporall rewards and by compelling them by the sword to be carried toward eternall beatitude for to rule the Church as the Church is to direct and lead them by spirituall means Word Sacraments and Discipline to heaven which the magistrate as a magistrate cannot do by the sword and what he doth as a Christian that he must do in a spirituall way not with a secular arm and power as magistrate and the two powers of a magistrate and of a Christian cannot coalescere grow together in one office which is made up of both as of two parts being in nature and spece different no more then of a Horse and a Lyon you can make a third living creature It is true by Grace and Christianity the power of the magistrate is perfected and an excellent lustre added to it but not one degree of Magistraticall power is added to it by which the magistrate doth rule men as Christians and as a Church For as the office of a magistrate doth not promote the man one step nearer to saving Grace so Christianity maketh not the Heathen magistrate more a magistrate nor giveth him a new sword over the Church as the Church which he had not before nor doth it take any magistraticall power from him no more then a heathen Husband Master Physician being converted to Christ is more a husband more a master or Physician then he was before The former power is only spiritualized and graciously facilitated in its acts but not one whit augmented in its entitative degrees of power over the wife the souldiers the servants the sick Triglandius excellently The Christian magistrate converted is sanctified but he acqâ—ireth no new right over the Church So meat is sanctified by the Word and Prayer but it is not more meat nor doth more nourish because sanctified 7. Distinct The exercise of the Ministeriall power in dispensing Word Sacraments Discipline falleth under a fourfold consideration which because it cleareth a necessary point I desire may be carefully observed by the Reader 1. The simple exercise of that power is considered sine modo without any qualification good or evil Orthodox or Heterodox as the Christian Magistrate procureth by his care that there should be a Ministery to dispense Word Sacraments and Disciplinâ— 2. The second Consideration of this exercise is The exercise of power soundly and painfully in the fear of the Lord the Magistrate exhorting them thereunto for conscience 3. The third Consideration is the exercise of the same in a corrupt and wicked way and manner either negligently or wickedly or for evil ends 4. The fourth Consideration is the free and peaceable exercise of this power without bodily violence Hence I intreat the Reader to carry along in his â—ye 1. The simple exercise of the Ministeriall power 2. The just and godly sound and laudable exercise 3. The wicked and corrupt exercise or the abuse thereof 4. The peaceable exercise Hence our 1. Assertion The Magistrate as the Magistrate is to procure that there be Preachers and Church-officers to dispense Word Sacraments and Discipline For 1. his end is That people under him may lead a quiet and a peaceable life in godlinesse and honesty 1 Tim. 2. 2. And the Magistrate attaineth his end as a Magistrate if there be simple exercise of Religion in the quiet and peaceable way that may consist with the subjects indempnity and immunity from rapine injuries and violence 2. The difference between the Magistrates and other callings is that the Magistrate was to take care of old That there were Levites who bare the Ark and Priests who should burn incense before the Lord and Sacrifice and yet it was unlawfull for the Magistrate to bear the Ark on his own shoulders or in his own person to burn incense or sacrifice so the Physicians hinder that diseases rage amongst the subjects and the Magistrates do also hinder that they should rage But the Physians hinder them by curing diseases and the Magistrate hinders them not by curing diseases for then he should as a Magistrate also be a Physician but by procuring that there should be Physicians in the Common-wealth The Magistrate hindreth ignorance and losing Ships by Tempests not by professing and teaching Sciences and Arts in Academies in his own person nor by steering Ships and guiding them himself to their Ports for so a magistrate as a magistrate should be a Schoolmâ—ster a professor of Arts and Sciences in the Universities and a Pilot or Shipmaster which were a confounding of all callings but by procuring that there should be Universities and Professors of Arts and Sciences and by providing honorable stipends and wages for them and procuring that in the Common-wealth there should be Sailers who are skilled in Shipping and so doth the magistrate by his office take care that the Word Sacraments and Discipline be dispensed 3. But the magistrate as the magistrate doth noâ— command sincere hearty zealous and affectionate dispensing of Word Sacraments aâ—d Discipline But only the dispensing of those without the qualification of the spirituall or sincere exercise of the power Because 1. The Magistrate cannot command that as a magistrate which he cannot judge of whether the thing commanded be consonant to his command or not But the magistrate as the magistrate cannot judge of the spirituallity sincerity zealousnesse affectionatenesse of that obedience which the Church yieldeth to his command for if the Pastors dispense word and Sacraments and binde and loose by the keys following the rules of the word the magistrate
appealed to Cesar if he had been a Christian in the controversie touching circumcision he should have determined who were perverters of souls who not and should have said by his office as Emperour It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to me 3. We have not any practise or precept or promise in the Old or New Testament for any such appeal except they say all hard questions belonging to the Priests office were to come before Moses as a civill Magistrate and not as the great Prophet to whom God revealed his minde 4. If so then all Church controversies in doctrine and discipline should be ultimately resolved into the will of the Magistrate speaking according to the word and faith in most points should come by hearing a Magistrate determining against Arrius that Christ is God consubstantiall with the Father and all binding and loosing in Earth as in heaven should be from the Magistrate as the Magistrate he should forgive and retaine sins and Christ should have given the keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven to the Magistrate as the Magistrate certainly we should have the doctrine of the Church of Christ and the building and edifying thereof most obscure in the New Testament in which there is not one word of such a supream and chiefe officer as the Magistrate 5. The Parliament colledge of civill judges as they are civill Magistrates should be the Church assemblies and determine all doctrines debarre the ignorant and Hereticks and Apostates from the Sacraments and totally cast them out of the Church and excommunicate them I see not but then the Parliament as the Parliament is the Church and the two Kingdomes Ioh. 18. 36. must be confounded and no difference at all made between the civill state and the Church because the Magistrate as the Magistrate is made by the adversaries the chiefe officer over the Church the Ecclesiasticall head the mixt Governour halfe civill whole Ecclesiasticall in whose power all Pastors Elders preach dispense Sacraments make Church-canons as his Ministers and Servants Christ when any brother trespasseth against a Christian brother saith Tell the Church never Tell the christian Magistrate But truly it is a great mistake in the learned Mr. Pryn to call them Anti-Monarchicall Anti-Parliamentary and Novators who deny that the Parliament hath any Nomothetick power in Church-canons Nor hath hee in any measure answered the Arguments of those Learned and godly Divines Mr. Iohn Goodwin and Mr. Hen Burton he is pleased to cite the practise of many Parliaments of England who laudably impatient of the Popes yoke have made Church-canons when the man of sin sate upon the neck of the Christian church but these numerous citations of Parliaments and Councels in time of Popery conclude nothing against us who grant when the Church is not her selfe the christian Magistrate may extraordinarily reform and take from the man of sin his usurped power but in a constituted Church the case must be otherwise and 1. Whereas he proveth Emperors and Kings to have a power to convocate Councels It hath not strength against us all our Divines teach so But how 1. an accumulative civill power so Iewel Alley Bilson Whitaker Willet White Roger he might have cited more but no privative no Ecclesiasticall power so as Synods may not lawfully conveen without the command of the civill Magistrate our Divines say many Synods and Church meetings were in the Apostolique Church without the consent and against the will of the civill Magistrate our Divines oppose the Pope who claimeth the only accumulative civill privative and Ecclesiastick power to convocate Synods and that no Synods are lawfull without the consent and mandate of the holinesse of such a Beast 2. Master Prinne saith The Magistrate hath power to direct for time and place and to limit for matter and manner the proceedings liberty and freedome of all Church Assemblies But 1. he asserteth this in the most from corrupt practises 2. He proveth Laymen should have hand as well in Synods as Clergymen the one having interest in the faith as well as the other Ans Then must all the people be members of Synods for all have alike interest of Faith but this proveth not interest of defining which is the question in dispensing Word and Sacraments they have interest of trying all things as well as Pastors but it followeth not Ergo they may dispense Word and Sacraments no lesse yea more principally then Pastors as Erastus saith the Magistrate more principally determineth Synodicall constitutions Hence this is easily answered we may appeal in Church businesse to him as to the supream judge who may punish the erring Church and Pastors but the Magistrate may in Church businesse do this For answer 1. I retort it the Magistrate in making civill Lawes that must in their moralitie be determined by the Word of God may appeal to Pastors whose lips by office should preserve knowledge Ergo the Magistrate in making civill Lawes may appeal to the Pastor which is absurd 2. If men in Church-constitutions may appeal to the Magistrate as to one who may in his person determine Synodically in Assemblies above all the Pastors 1. Because Magistrates may punish the Pastors erring and oppressing in Synods 2. Because the Magistrate and all laymen have interest in the faith as well as Pastors then may people in hearing the Word and receiving the Sacraments and in all Pastorall rebukings and threatnings in believing of all Gospel promises and threatnings and fundamentall truths appeal from Pastors to Magistrates as Magistrates and Magistrates as such may determine all fundamentall truths all conscionall promises and rebukes and that is formally they may preach for he that can distinguish these hath a good engine Because Magistrates may punish hereticall preaching and superstitions and idolatrous abusing of the Sacraments by preachers and Magistrates and all Laymen have interest of Faith in Word Doctrine and Sacraments as in Discipline yea the Magistrate may punish the Priest that offered strange fire to the Lord offered bastard incense and the people had their interest of saith in sacrifices offered for their own sins but can it follow therefore the Magistrate might sacrifice and burne incense in his own person as Mr. Pryn will have him to make Church-laws in his own person Other Arguments of Mr. Pryns are light as that there were brethren and Lay-men that had hand in the Councell at Hierusalem Acts 15. Ans This is nothing for Magistrates as Magistrates but all Christians as Christians so must have hand in Synods which I grant in so far as concerneth their faith and practise that they try all things and try the Spirits whether they be of God or not but will it follow Ergo Magistrates as Magistrates are those only who govern the Church and make all Ecclesiasticall constitutions as having in them all power of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction and deriving it to Bishops and Pastors at the second hand as Mr. Pryn saith in the same booke Obj.
a Turk and a Christian doe both worship Dagon it is the same Idolatrie though â—urcisme and Christianisme be different religions Though kneeling to an Image the similitude of God and that same kneeling to Jehovah represented in that similitude Es 40. v. 8. make one formall object the Image the materiall Jehovah the formall object yet is it idolatrie 4. Our circumstances of time and place cannot properly be called indifferent for they may be considered two wayes 1 Physically 2 Religiously Physically The Commandement injoyning a thing injoyneth also time and place convenient he that saith thâ— shalt not kill in that same very Commandement said Cain thou shalt not kill Abel in this place of the field at this time so to believe and to believe in this time and place falleth both under one and the same Commandement And it is true the lawfulness of Worship may be marred by bad Circumstantiating of the worship If one shall pray when the Pastor doth preach But Circumstances must be convenient and so commanded and so not indifferent but Circumstances have no religious respect put on them by God and therefore in that state have no roome in Gods worship V. 1â— If any man see thee who hast knowledge sit at meat in the Idols Temple shall not the conscience of him that is weake â—e emboldened to eat these things that are offered to Idolls Hence a naked sight of that which is ordinarily exponed to be a Communion with an idoll as kneeling religiously to bread is must be a scandall 2. The supposed knowledge of one who saith an Idoll is nothing but directeth his worship to God when externall gestures are used in an idolatrous way doth not free the practise of such a worship from scandall V. 11. 12. 13. Scandalizing in eating things otherwise poore and cleane is a scandalizing of a weake brother against the price of Christs blood c. 1 Cor. 10. V. 16. 17. 18. Communion in Rites and Cerimonies oâ— a raise worship is a communion with the Idoll and Satan V. 22. Though you keep your heart to God ye provoke the Lord to jealousie V. 23. Rulers are not to seeke their owne in things indifferent V. 25. Things sacrificed to Idolâ— yet in no religious state are clean meates and may be eaten Surplice on a Noblemans porter is no Masse habit and so not scandalous 29. 30. In things indifferent I must abstaine from â—sing my libertie where I am in danger to be evill spoken of and that our liberty be called licentiousnesse Quest II. Whether or no the Ceremonies and things indifferent commanded by humane authority be objects scandalous and what rules are to be observed in eschewing scandalls FOrmalists object That Ceremonies be not noâ—ent agents in giving scandall but men doe unjustly take scandall whereas innocent Ceremonies give none But observe that a scandall is given two wayes 1 Physically 2. Morally Physically when the object hath an influence meerely physicall in raising Scandall in this meaning as there be no passion but it hath an action so there is no scandall taken but it is some way given The Pharisees are scandalized at Christs preaching The preached Word had some influence on their corruption to scandalize it but physicall not morall but sinfull and inordinate actions scandalize morally by contributing a morall influence culpably to the scandalizing of others Hence the question is wherein standeth this morall and culpable influence The objects in Generall from whence commeth scandall be foure 1. Things good 2. Things sinfull and evill 3. Things indifferent inordinatly or unseasonably done 4. Things that have appearance of evill A thing good of it selfe is not scandalous but there be two Goodthingâ— 1. Some simply necessary â—s to love God not to steale not to forsweare these be never scandalous 2. Some good duties positive of affirmative precepts as not necessarie hic nunc may be omitted to eschew scandall School men move a question If it be lawfull to omit workes commanded of God or of the law of nature to eschew the scandall of our brethren I answer a naturall commandement to eschew the scandalizing of my brother obliedgeth in some Circumstances but not simply for it obliedgeth not when there occurreth a Commandement naturall of greater obligation whether it be naturall or positive if I cannot decline the transgression of the law of God in the declining of scandalizing my brother Certainly the Commandement of not scandalizing doth not obliedge for I am more obliedged to have a care of my owne salvation then of my brothers and so to prevent my owne sinnes theâ—â— the sinning of my brother yet Coeteris paribus if all other things be alike as Becanus saith A naturall command such as is not to scandalize that is not to commit soule-murther doth oblige more then a positive Commandement as to heare the Word hic nunc I am obliedged hic nunc to omit hearing of the Word to keep my brother from killing himselfe and to preserve my brothers temporall life because the Lord will have mercie and not sacrifice Though I be not obliedged universally to omit the hearing of the Word and receiving of the Sacraments to eschew the scandall of my brother 2. Sinnes publickly committed are of their owne nature culpably scandalous 3. In things indifferent from whence ariseth a Scandall there be two things 1. The use of the thing it selfe 2. The use of it with the non-necessitie of existence in it As the causey stones are not scandalous if any fall on them nor the layer of the causey to be blamed therefore because causay stones be necessarie but if any lay an huge block in the way which hath no necessary use there he who doth so is the cause of the fall because he contributeth to the fall that which is the occasion and so the cause of the fall for every occasion is a certaine cause 2. Because he contributeth such an occasion as hath no morall necessitie of existence so the brazen Serpent having lost its vertue of curing and being adored as God is formally a scandalous object and the Prince suffering that to remaine when it is not necessarie and withall occasioneth the idolatrie of many doth culpably scandalize and so these who for sole will commandeth such things as the worship of God may want doe also scandalize They object Christ might have healed on another day then the Lords Ergo the non-morall necessitie maketh not the object formally scandalous nor doth the contributer thereof culpably scandalize Answ That Christ should cure on the Sabbath was morally necessary 1. If it were but from his owne will but mens will cannot make things necessary 2. It was necessarie to shew that the Sonne of man was Lord of the Sabbath 3. That the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath 4. To shew that workes of mercy are to be preserred to workes of Ceremonies and that God loveth mercie rather then Sacrifice When the dutie
indifferent Ceremonies when they doe scandalize 2. Our argument is made against the practise of Ceremonies before they be enacted in a lawfull Assemblie if they be murthering of the weak before Pearth-Assemblie the will of Prelates yea and all the authoritie of men or Angels cannot make the practise of them to be no murther for mens will cannot make that which is sinne and guiltinesse before God to be no sinne but due obedience to the fift Commandement though the Doctors expresly say this Duplyers pag. 71. Sect. 44. But we with good warrant â—oe averre that the precept which fobiddeth the resisting of the civill power and in generall the denying of obedience to the lawfull commandements of our Superiors is of greater obligation then the precept of not scandalizing Their first reason I put in forme to them thus That is of greater obligation which commandeth acts edificative to all then that which commandeth acts edificative to some only for the good of all is to be preferred to the good of some particular persons and we are to have a greater care of the salvation of all then of some But the precept of obedience to Superiours is universall and commandeth the act of edifying all to wit obedience to Superiours and an act to eschew the scandall of all to wit disobedience But the precept of eschewing the scandall of some doth but edifie some only and not all Ergo c. Ans 1. It is soon proved by your learning for the precept of Gods law to eschew scandall to you is no precept and so of no obligation when Superiours command to scandalize so you may prove that snow is whiter then the raven when as the raven is not white at all I answer 2. That precept is of greater obligation that commandeth acts edificative to all then that which commandeth acts edificative to some It is true 1. if it be a lawfull command of God but the â—ssumption applyed to your purpose is most false the command to obey Prelates when they command things indifferent the obedience whereof doth culpably occasion the murthering of him for whom Christ died is not a commandement edificative to all yea it is a Commandement of acts destructive to the soules of all This Argument would have some colour if it were not a vaine begging of the question for they lay downe as confessed that the practise of Ceremonies from whence many soules are ruined is obedience and obedience to the fift Commandement This is to be proven and constantly denyed by us because disobedience to the sixth Commandement and murthering of our brother cannot be obedience to the fift Commandement Duplyers pag. 72. n. 50. The fift Commandement commeth neerer to the nature of pietie and religion contained in the first Table and the honouring of parents as your owne Aâ—â—â—sius saith by prophane authours is called by the name of religion and pietie 2. It is the ground of obedience sayeth Pareus to be given to all the rest of the precepts of the second Table 1. Because all societies Oeconomicke civill and Ecclesiasticke doe consist and are conserved by the subjection of â—nferiours to superiours 2. Our superiours are set over us to the end we may doe our dutie to all others Hence saith your owne Amesius Crymes which directly procure the perturbation confusion and eversion of societies are more grievous then the violation of the singular precepts and Dyonisius Bishop of Alexandria writing to Novatus saith Martyrdome suffered for eschewing of schisme is more glorious then Martyrdome for eschewing Idolatrie Ans You said before matters of Policie are not matters of faith Amesius is a Protestant writer in matters of faith by grant of all it is like then you terme â—mesius our owne not yours because he wrote against Arminians and Papists and so that Arminians and Papists are yours and Protestant Divines ours 2. We grant the precedencie and dignitie to the fift Commandement above the rest but your Ceremonies that break the sixth Commandement shall find no roome in the fift Commandement Cause the fift Commandement speak thus if you can Notwithstanding that crossing kneeling surplice humane holy dayes occasion the soule murther of him for whom Christ died yet we the Prelates command the practise of the foresaid Ceremonies as good and expedient for edification for our Commandement maketh the murthering of our brethren to be obedience to the fift Commandement But if Prelates may command that which would be otherwise without or before the Commandement spirituall murthering and scandalizing of our brother they may command also that which would be otherwise without or before their command adulterie against the seventh and theft against the eighth and perjurie and lying against the ninth Commandement and concupiscence against the tenth for the fift Commandement hath the precedencie before the seventh eighth ninth and tenth Commandements no lesse then before the sixth which forbiddeth the killing of our brothers soule 3. What Amesius and Parens saith doe well prove the dignitie of the fift Commandement above all the Commandements of the second Table but this is not to our purpose but every commandement of the fifth Commandement yea every commandement of the first Table is not above every commandement of the second Table The love of God is more then the love of our neighbour and the love of God should and doth command obedience to all the ten Commandements Deut. 30. 6. 7 8. Deut. 10. 12. Yet every duty and commandement that the love of God requireth of us as to offer sacrifice is not for that a greater commandement then every commandement of the second Table yea the taking of a sheepe out of a ditch on the Lords day commanded in the sixth Commandement is more then sacrifices commanded in the second Commandement as our Saviour saith Math. 12. v. 11 12. and though the fift Commandement be laid upon us as the fountaine and cause yea to this end that we should keepe all the rest as Divines say well Yet it followeth not that every commandement of the fift Commandement as when my father commandeth me to preach in a linnen Ephod and to cast a Character with my thumbe in the aire as crossing is shall be of more obligation then this commandement of God Thou shalt not destroy his soule for whom Christ died 4. It is false that denying of obedience to Pearth-Assemblie commanding indifferent straws and feathers as kneele to consecrated Bread the Image of Christ crucified doth directly procure the perturbation and confusion of humane societies as the Doctors saith There is great difference betwixt subjection to superiours and obedience to superiours When private men as the three Children will not bow to Nebuchadnezzars Image there is no confusion brought in for that if they had risen against the King in armes as Papists doe in Ireland against our King that is confusion and subverteth directly humane scocieties but to suffer punishment by Superiours is subjection to superiours as is cleare 1 Pet. 2. 17.
so in a Physicall and naturall necessitie to save his owne temporall life that by all probabilitie was in great danger and these who being in no such necessitie did eat such meats scandalous and so distructive to the soules of weake ones and having varietie of other meats to keep them from sterving and so a meere necessitie of preserving the bodily life if we compare one affirmative command of God with another may remove that which may be supposed a soule necessitie And the reason is because in the doctrine of scandall which is more intricate and obscure then every Divine conceives God placeth acts of providentiall necessitie as emergent significations of his approving will which are so to us in place of a divine Commandement of Gods revealed will and these providentiall acts of necessitie doe no lesse oblige us to morall obedience then any of the expresse written Commandements of God I cleare it thus There is an expresse law It is sâ—â— and unlawfull for David or any man who is not one of the Lords Priests to eat shew-bread But God commeth in and putteth David in such a posture of divine providence that if he eat not shew-bread he shall be sinfully guiltie of violating a higher morall law of God who saith I will have mercie and not sacrifice Then David shall be cruell to his owne life and sinne against the sixt Commandement Thou shalt doe no murther If he eat not for not to eat when you are in a providentiall condition of sterving if you may have it is to kill your selfe and this providentiall condition doth no lesse oblige you to the Morall obedience of the sixt Command then if God in the letter of the Law should command you to eat This fact of David was not done by any extraordinarie impulsion of the Spirit but by a constant chanell that Providence ordinarily runneth in according to which I or any Professor must be obliged to preferre a worke of Mercie to Sacrifice that is by which we are to give obedience to the sixt Command which is not to kill even as without extraordinarie impulsion I may absent my selfe from hearing the Word when I find going to Church may indanger my life for non-obedience to affirmatives in a greater necessitie is ordinarie And therefore Christian prudence with which the Wisdome of God keeps house Prov. 8. 12. doth determine many things of scandall And prudence is a vertue commanded in the word of God for a wise man observes times and so will he observe all other circumstances yet there be rules here which standeth alwayes and they be these 1. Comparing a physicall and meerely naturall necessitie with a morall necessitie if we yeeld to the physicall necessitie and neglect the moral we sinne against God and may lay a stumbling blocke before others as to eat such meats where the losse is small and the necessitie of eating meerely physicall and the eating be a scandall to the weake we sinne and give scandall the case is cleare Rom. 14. for eating the case being indifferent as it was Rom. 14. is a meere physicall necessitie and not scandalizing a weake brother is a morall necessitie 2. Rule if we compare a greater morall necessitie with a lesse morall necessitie the lesse necessitie must yeeld to the greater a necessitie of mercie must yeeld to a necessitie of sacrificeing if David then should not have eaten the shew-bread in his providentiall necessitie of samine he should have been guiltie both of active scandalizing the soules of others in killing himselfe and should have killed himselfe and the lesse morall necessitie ceaseth and is no necessitie when a greater moral necessitie interveneth 3. Rule Where there is a physicall necessitie of the thing yet not extreame and a morall necessitie of abstinence we are to abstaine The Jewes had a physicall necessitie of the Babylonish Garments but not so extreame in point of perishing through cold as David had of Shew-bread in point of sterving for famine therefore Achan should have obeyed the morall necessitie of not touching the accursed thing and neglected the physicall necessitie which if it had amounted to the degrees of necessitie of mercie rather then obeying a Ceremoniall Command such as was Touch nâ—t the accursed spoyle Achâ—â— might without sinne or scandall to himselfe or others have medled with the spoyle 4. Rule That which is necessarie in speciè in the kind as to goe to Church and heare the Word to come to the house of God and Worship may be in individuo in a particular exigence of providence not morally necessarie but the contradicent thereof morally lawfull David doth lawfully forbeare to come to the Lords house if he knew Saul may kill him by the way â— The things which we are to forbeare only for necessitie of scandall and upon no other ground these I may doe in private if I know they cannot come to the notice of these who shall be scandalized upon the ground of lesse physicall necessitie as Rom. 14. beleevers for their necessitie ordinarie and for nourishment might eat fleshes in private though before a weak Jew they could nâ—â— because the sinne is not in the act of eating but wholly in the scandall and in the manner of the unseasonable doing of it But these things which are morally not necessarie because tâ—â—â—â—bstance of the fact is against a law we are to forbeare both in private because they are against a law and in publick before others for the scandall as Achan sinned in taking the Babilonish Garment though in private and his sinne should have been more scandalous if he had done it publickly Now these we are upon no ordinarie necessitie to doe but such as may incroach upon the hazard of the losse of life in which case an exigence of providence does stand for a Command of non-murthering had Saul and his Army been reduced to a danger of starving in a wildernesse and could have no food except they should kill and eat the Cattell of the Amâ—lâ—kites â— conceive The Lords preferring of Mercie before Sacrifice should warrant them to eat of the Amalakites Cattell yet would this providentiall necessitie be so limited as it may fall out that it stand not for a divine Command for it holdeth in affirmative commands only and 2. so positives as there must be yea there can be no sin eligible by such and such a case as Lot sinned in exposing his daughters to the lust of men to redeeme abstinence from Sodomie Hence it is cleare we may not doe a lesse nor counsell another to commit a lesse sinne to eschew a greater as the Jesuites wickedly teach So Tannerus so Turrianus and others who make a scandalum permissum a scandall that a Christian may hinder another to fall in and yet he permitteth him to fall in it But God hath a prerogative to permit sinfull scandals men have no such power when they are obliged to hinder it The divinite of