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
was not to follow his own spirit but was to follow the patterne that God shewed him in the Mount then far lesse hath Christ the Apostle and high Priest of our Profession giving us a Platforme of the Church and Government of the New-Testament variable shaped according to the alterable laws customes manners of divers nations for as Moses though a Prophet was not to make one pin of the Tabernacle but according to the samplar patern that God did shew him so Christ manifested to his Disciples all that he had heard and seen of the Father Ioh. 15. But it is not to be supposed that the Father shew to Christ an alterable tabernacle in the new Testament that men might alter chop and change at their pleasure as the customes of Nations are changed If God thought Religion should run a hazard if the greatest of Prophets except Christ might have leave to mold and shape all the Leviticall Service and Ceremonies for as the judicious and Learned Interpreter Mr. David Dickson saith all the Leviticall Service is comprehended under the name of the Tabernacle Exod. 25. 40. according as he pleased far more should all be corrupted if erring men far inferior to Moses Prelats and Pastors should have leave to draw the Lineaments of the New Testament Tabernacle Church Service Officers Censures and all the Positives of Policie according to no patern shown by Christ but only the Fashions alterable Laws Customes forms of nations Now all the pins of the Tabernacle were but shadows and Types of Morall and Heavenly things Heb. 8. 5. Heb. 10. 1. Heb. 9. 9. And they were to be changed and done away by Christ Col. 2. 17. Heb. 7. 12. 2 Cor. 3. 11. Yet could neither be devised by Moses nor altered by any mortall man Church or Priests how can we imagine that men may now devise and set up an alterable and changeable New Testament-frame of Prelats Altars Religious dayes Surplice Crossing or any the like toyes And though David was a Prophet and a man according to Gods heart yet in the externals of the Temple nothing was left to his spirit he might neither in the least jot adde or omit 1 Chron. 28. 11. Then David gave to Solomon his Son the patern of the Porch and of the houses thereof and of the Treasuries thereof and of the upper Chambers thereof and of the inner Parlors thereof of the place of the Mercy-Seat Here be many particulars But whence had David all these From the patern according to which Crosse Surplice Altars and humane Prelats are shapen Alas no therefore it is added v. 12. And he shewed the patern of all that he had by the spirit of the courts of the house of the Lord and of all the chambers round about v. 19. All this said David the Lord made me understand in writing by his hand upon me even all the works of this patern I see no reason to deny that the form of the Temple was written by the hand of God as the Ten Commandments were written in two Tables of stone by him the Text seemeth to say no lesse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pagni and Ar. Mont. render it Omnia in Scriptura de manu domini super me intellegere fecit So Jerome Omnia venerunt Scripta manu domini ad me Vatablus in notis Omnia ista dominus Scripsit manu suâ— et digito â—uâ— ut me familiarius doâ—eret We shall not contend with Tostatus who saith It might have been written by Angels though we go not from the letter of the Text we have from this Papist Tostatus all we desire for he saith We must say that it was not by Davids own thought that he builded all for David durst not build a Temple to the Lord of his own heart because he knew not if that would please God but by Divine Revelation And therefore the old Translation is corrupt in this as in many things which rendreth v. 12. Thus Dedit David Salamoni descriptionem pâ—rtiâ—us c. Nec non et omnium que cogitaverat As if Davids thought had been his guide for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the spirit by Tostatus Corneli a Lapide Lyra is meant not Davids spirit but the spirit of Revelation from the Lord and Lyra saith on v. 12. Per hoc designatur quod deus pater dedit homini Christo notitiam omnium agendorum in ecclesiâ And Pet. Martyr our own Doctor saith on 1 King 8. It cannot be told how unpleasant the institution of new worship is to God And there should be nothing in Baptisme but the Word and the Elements any thing added as Crossing Oyl Salt came from the Prelats Lavater in 1. Par. c. 28. ver 14. condemneth all additions even though Solomon should have added them Ezech. 43. 11. Thou Son of man shew the house to the house of Israel 12. And if they be ashamed of all that they have done shew them the form of the house and the fashion thereof and goings out thereof and the comings in thereof and all the forms thereof and all the Ordinances thereof and all the forms thereof all the Laws thereof And write it in their sight that they may keep the whole form thereof all the Ordinances thereof and do them Now it is most considerable that the Form Fabrick and Structure of the Temple Ezech. c. 40. In the visions of God is shewn to the Prophet by a man by Christ the great Angel of the Covenant who with a measuring reed of six cubits measured the Temple and in these chapters c. 40 41 42. Christ sheweth to Ezekiel all the patern and form which evidently typifieth the Church of the New Testament the Bride the Lambs Wife in the Kingdom of Grace and glorified in Heaven revealed by the Angel to John Rev. 21. 9 10 11. It may be thought that the Porches Chambers length and bredth of them East West South and North the Laws about the Priests their linnen garments Sacrifices washing and the like are of lesse concernment then the Doctrine of Christs nature person offices of Faith Repentance Iudgement Heaven c. And therefore being not so necessary nor so weighty there was no necessity that all the like Positive externals of Church-Policie written to a rude and carnall people should be written to us who are now more spirituall and upon whom the day-spring from above doth shine the shadows now being past and who have greater liberty then they had who were as children under Tutors Ans 1. I do not deny but all Ceremonials are of lesse weight then the Morals but the question is if they be of lesse Divine authority so as we may devise of our own Spirit such Ceremonials and may alter omit or remove these or any new Ceremonials in the Sacraments under the New Testament for New Testament Ceremonials as to take Bread Eat and drink are not so necessary nor so weighty to us under the New-Testament
of the Church and is indeed a teaching sign and so should not be counted a Positive of Church-Policy 2. Most false it is that the Tabernacle and Temple were nothing but a meeting place of the people for Worship as our Churches or Chappels are 1. Because it is to Argue the Holy Ghost of want of wisdom to spend so much Canonick Scripture in setting down things idely not tending at all to edification and teaching us nothing of God and in specifying the Form Height Length Bredth Curtains Candlesticks Sockets Rings of naturall places that contained their bodies for what should it edifie us if God should describe so particularly all the Churches and meeting places of the people under the New Testament Now certain it is Whatsoever things were written afore time were written for our Learning Rom. 15. 4. 2. Many things in the Tabernacle as Candles in day light Rings Sockets Shew-bread belonged nothing to a naturall place as our Chappels or Meeting houses do 3. Expresly the Scripture maketh them more then places to wit Holy Religious and Typicall signes of Divine institution as the Tahernacle was a Type Heb. 8. 2. 5. Heb. 9. 1 2. c. Heb. 10. 1 2 3. And the Temple a Type of Christs body Ioh. 2. 19. Ioh. 1. 14 15. And all these were Types and shadows of Heavenly things Heb. chap. 8 9 10. Gal. 4. 1. 2. c. Col. 2. 16. 17. Which our Churches and Chappels are not being only places common to sacred and Civill actions 2. God therefore can no more in expresse words set down the form matter dimensions of Christian Churches and Chappels then of the Synagogues of the Iews which had no Morall use for edification and instruction 3. Yea because the Tabernacle and Temple and their implements were teaching shadows of good things to come and our Churches and Chappels are not so nor have they any Morall or Religious use or influence on our spirits as the Tabernacle and Temple had therefore the Lord who is expresse in all Morals which of their own nature do teach and edifie he behoved to name Bezaliel and Aholiah and the form and colour of the Priests garments which also are Typicall and could not name our Elders or the colour or form of their Garments 4. All these weak retortions suppose that the Tabernacle and Temple were types of our meeting houses for Worship which is a meer conjecture they were no more types of our Chappels then of the Iewish Synagogues we may not expound types at will but as the Holy Ghost expoundeth them to us in the New Testament And this is a conjecturall Exposition and a dream to make Bezaliel and Aholiah types of Embroyderers and Tradesmen 5. We know the Tabernacle and Temple were corporall things made with hands and that they are things different from the spirituall things that they signifie as the sign and the thing signified as therefore the Lord is expresse in the elements and Rites of the Supper of the Lord because all of them Bread Wine taking eating breaking pouring out the Wine drinking are teaching and edifying signes and our Lord never left it to the wisdom of men to devise signes to teach themselves so in like manner should the Lord expresly specifie all the teaching and signifying signes in the Old Testament and as Moses might devise none of his own but was tyed to follow the patern which the Lord himself shewed to him in the Mount So are we now under the New Testament tyed to the patern of that same will revealed in the Word and it is laid on us Not to be wise above that which was written and it is of perpetuall equity The supream Law-giver never left it to the wisdom of Angels or Men or Prophet Apostle or Church to serve and Worship God as they thought good But he himself particularly prescribed the way signes and means And because God hath not been pleased in the New Testament to specifie types of Christ incarnate and come in the flesh already therefore are we obliged in Conscience to believe and practise no more either in Doctrinals or teaching types or Positives of Church-Policy then our Patern in the Mount the Scripture hath warranted to us to be the will of God and in this and this only standeth the force of the present Argument unanswered by paterns of unwritten Traditions and not in these loose consequences that we under the New Testament should have these types and Policy that the Church of the Iews had which is the Doctrine of Papists and Formalists following them not ours for they prove their Pope and Prelat from the Iewish High Priest their Surplice from the linnen Ephod of Jewish Priests their Humane Holidayes from the Iewish dayes their kneeling to bread from their bowing toward the Ark. 6. It is not true that the Tabernacle and Temple were meer corporall things no more then bread and wine in their spirituall relation are meer corporall things The Lords end use and intent in the Tabernacle and Temple was that they should be to the people Images and shadows of heavenly and spirituall things Heb. 8. 5. Heb. 10. 1. 7. That all the things of the Tabernacle were delivered to Moses as a King and not as a Prophet and writer of Canonick Scripture Heb. 3. 5. Heb. 8. Luk. 24. 44. 27. Luk. 16. 31. is an untruth except Formalists make the King so the head of the Church in prescribing Laws for the Policy thereof as they make him a Canonick writer as were David Moses Solomon from whose example they would prove the King to be the head of the Church But I judge Moses saw the patern in the Mount and God face to face as a Prophet whose words are Scripture to us Deut. 34. 10. And there arose not a Prophet since in Israel like unto Moses whom the Lord knevv face to face And as a Prophet not as a King his face did shine Exod. 34 27 28 29. And he was commanded as a Prophet to write the Law not as a King Numb 12. 6. 7. Moses is made the most eminent Prophet that was in the Old Testament And why Because God spake to other Prophets by Dreams and Visions But he spake the Law and written Scripture to Moses mouth to mouth This should not be a comparison between Prophet and Prophet but between Prophet and King by this learning 8. We judge Noahs Ark doth prove the same it being a speciall type of the Church 1 Pet. 3. 20 21. And he built it by Faith Heb. 11. 7. And so by a Word of God and at Gods speciall direction in all the length bredth formes of it and not of his own head Gen. 6. 14 15 c. And is commended by the spirit of God for so doing Gen. 6. 22. Thus did Noah according to all that God commanded him so did he And Formalists should deserve the like Testimony if it could be said of them And as the Lord commanded the
3 4 5. And Moses and all Canonick writers were only to receive the word at Gods mouth and to hear it Ezek. 3. 8. As meer servants and in this the Church of Prophets and of Apostles and the Church that now is were alike I know no Authority of the one above the other Indeed in writing and relating to the Church the will of God and the Scriptures Canonick writers are agents inspired with the Holy spirit immediately breathing on them in Prophecying and in writing Scripture But the Proclaimer of a Law as such hath no influence in making the Law Let it be also remembred that as Papists say two things to the place so do Formalists 1. That it is not against Ceremonies 2. That the Church is limited in making Ceremonies beside the Word that they may not make them too numerous and burdensome This I make good in the words of a famous Iesuit who citeth the words of a Learned Papist approving them Lorinus Coment in Loc. Refellit idem Oleaster Hereticos hinc inserentes institui non posse Ceremonias ac ritus novos circa cultum dei Quam vis ipse optat moderationem in preceptis ac censuris ut facilius suavius possint servari To whom I oppose that golden sentence of a man endued with the spirit of God above any Papist Calvin Com. in Deut. 4. v. 2. Insignis locus quo apertè damnatur quicquid hominum ingenio excogitari potest Ibid. Quoniam preposter â lasciviâ rapitur totus ferè mundus ad cultus fictitios qui tamen precise une verbo damnantur ubi deus ita jubet suos acquiescere positae legi ne justiores esse appetant quam illic docentur All Worship is precisely condemned here or any thing devised about the Worship by the wit of men I would here meet with a Grand exception of Mr. Hooker Eccles Polic. 3. Book pag. 111. Their distinction of matters of substance and of circumstance though true will not serve for be they great things or be they small if God have Commanded them in the Gospel and if his Commanding them in the Gospel do make them unchangeable there is no reason that we should change the one more then the other if the authority of the maker do prove their unchangeablenesse which God hath made then must all Laws which he hath made be necessarily for ever permanent though they be but of circumstances only and not of Substance Ans 1. Our distinction of matters of substance and circumstance rightly taken will serve the turn But the mistake is in that 1. Many things are but circumstances of worship such as are Positives and Religious significant Ceremonies to Formalists that are not so to us for to wear a surplice in sacrificing to Jupiter were to make the Act of wearing that Religious habit an act of Religious honouring of Jupiter but to wear Surplice and to sacrifice in that habit to Iupiter at eight of clock in the morning rather then at ten in this place Physicall rather then this is no worshipping of Iupiter but a meer Physicall circumstance neither up nor down to the worship and time and place Physicall are neither worship nor Religious means of worship 2. Time and Place Name Country Form Figure Habit or Garments to hold off injuries of Sun and Heaven as such â—re never commanded never forbidden of God and therefore the change of these circumstances can be no change of a Commandment of God We never advanced circumstances as such to the orbe and spheare of Morals Formalists do so advance their Ceremonies and therefore if God command Surplice though by the intervening authority of his Church such cannot be altered except God command to alter the Religious signification of white linnen but we know not where God hath commanded the alteration of any Ceremonies except that the Lords coming in the flesh as a thing to come must alter all Ceremonies which shadow forth Christ to come when the body Christ is come already Let us know such a ground for alteration of corner Cap Altar Surplice except to drive such Oxen out of the Temple 3. We hold that the Lords commanding such a thing in the Gospel is a reason why it should be necessarily permanent for ever except the Lord hath commanded it should be for a time only as he commanded Moses's Ceremonies and so Gods Authority of commanding a thing to be unchangeably in his worship is a reason why it should be unchangeably in his worship and his commanding any thing to be for a time only and alterably in his worship is a reason why it should be for a time only alterably in his worship so to us Gods Commandment is a reason why his own Ceremonies and Sacraments of the New Testament should be in the Church because the Law-giver hath in scripture commanded them to be and the reason why Hookers surplice and crossing should not be is because he hath commanded no such thing Now the reasons of alteration of any Laws in the Gospel is from God never from the Church as 1. If God immediately inspire Moses to make a tabernacle and thereafter inspire David and Solomon to make the Temple in the place of the tabernacle and give them no Commandment for a tabernacle its evident that God hath altered and removed the Tabernacle and that the alteration is not from David nor Solomon 2. If God command types and Ceremonies to be in his Church till the body Christ come Col. 2. 17. then when Christ is come and his coming sufficiently published to the world then are his own Ceremonies altered and removed but not by the discretion of Peter and Paul or the Church but by God himself 3. When God commandeth such Offices to be in his house which dependeth immediately upon his own immediate will of giving gifts essentially required to these Offices then these offices are so long in his Church as God is pleased by his immediate will to give these gifts and when God denyeth these gifts essentially requisite sure it is his immediate wil hath altered and removed the office not the will of the Church so the Lord hath alterd and removed these Offices and gifts of Apostles who could speak with tongues and seal their doctrine with Miracles Evangelists Prophets extraordinarily inspired gifts of healing c. 4. Some things are not matters of worship at all but of goods as the community of goods love-Feasts matters of civill conversation these are only in their morality as touching distribution to the necessities of the Saints and brotherly kindenesse unalterable and no otherwise Now for these things that are smaller or weightier we hold they are not in their weightinesse or smallnesse of importance to be considered but as the Authority of God hath imprinted a necessity on them so are they obligatory to us I am obliged to receive this as scripture that Paul left his cloak at Troas no lesse then this Christ came
of adoring God Obedience is founded not formally upon Gods excellency properly so called but upon his jurisdiction and Authority to Command Adoration is the subjection or prostration of soul or body to God in the due recognition and acknowledgement of his absolute supremacy There is no need that Vasquez should deny that there is any internall Adoration for that Adoration is only an externall and bodily Worship of God can hardly be defended for there may be and is Adoration in the blessed Angels as may be gathered from Isa 6. 1 2 3. Hâ—b 1. 6. And it is hard to say that the glorified spirits loosed out of the body and received by Christ Act. 7. 59. Psal 73. 27. Into Paradice Luk. 23. 43. And so with him Philip. 1. 23. And Praying under the Altar Rev. 6. 9 10. And falling down before the Lamb and acknowledging that he hath Redeemed them Rev. 5. 8 9 10. do not Adore God and his Son Christ because they have nor bodies and knees to bow to him and yet they Adore him Phil. 2. 9 10. in a way suitable to their spirituall estate It is an untruth that Rapha de la Torres in 22. q. 84. Art 2. disp 2. n. 1. saith That Protestants detest all externall Worship now under the New Testament as contrary to Grace and Adoration of God in spirit and truth For things subordinate are not contrary we should deny the necessity of Baptisme and the Lords Supper and of vocall praying and praising under the New Testament which are in their externals externall worship I grant internall Adoration is more hardly known But 't is enough for us to say as externall Adoration is an act by which we offer our bodies to God and subject the utter man to him in sign of service and reverence to so supream a Lord so there is a heart-prostration and inward bowing of the soul answerable thereunto As the profession whither actuall or habituall in a locall and bodily approach or in verball titles of Honour in which we Honour great personages by bowing to them in prostration and kneeling is an act in its state Civill not Religious we intending I presse not the necessity of a â—ormall or actuall intention only to conciliate Honour to them suitable to their place and dignity so a profession whither actuall or habituall in a Religious bodily approach to God either by prayer or prostration or inâ—lination of the body tending to the Honour of God is a Religious act Now bodily prostration of it self is a thing in its nature indifferent and according as is the object so is it either Artificiall as if one should stoop down to drive a wedge in an image or civill if one bow to Honour the King or Religious when God and Divine things are the object thereof But with this difference the intention of the minde added to externall prostration to a creature reasonable may make that prostration idolatrous and more then civill honour Thus bowing to Haman Honoured by Ahasuerus who hath power to confer honours if people bow to him as to God is more then civill honour And Cornelius his bowing to Peter Act. 10. as to more then a man is Idolatrous and not civill honour and the Carpenters bowing to an Image as to a piece of Timber formed by Art is only Artificiall bowing and if any stumble at a stone before an Image and so fall before it it is a casuall and naturall fall whereas a falling down with intention to Adore had been Religious Adoring But when the object of bodily prostration or kneeling is God or any Religious representation of God whither it be the elements of bread and wine which are Lawfull Images of Christ or devised pictures or portraicts of God or Christ because these objects are not capable of artificiall naturall or civill prostration if therefore they be terminating objects of bodily kneeling or prostration these Religious objects to wit God and Religious things must so specifie these bodily acts as that they must make them Religious not civill acts though there be no intention to bow to God for bowing to God hath from the object that it is a Religious bowing though you intend not to direct that bowing to God as bowing to Jupiters Portraict is a Religious Worshipping of that Portraict though you intend not to worship the Portraict for the act and Religious object together maketh the act of prostration or kneeling to be essentially Religious though there be no intention to bow to these indeed the intention to bow to God maketh kneeling to God to be more Morally good laudable and acceptable before God then if therewere no such intention but the want of the intention maketh it not to be no Religious worship nor can it make it to be civill worship Hence let this be observed that intention of bowing can or may change that bowing which otherwayes were but civill if there were no such intention of over-esteeming the creature into a Religious bowing but neither our over or under-intention can change a Religious kneeling to God or to an Image into a civill kneeling because civill or naturall bowing to creatures is more under the power of an humane and voluntary institution of men then Religious bowing which hath from God without any act of mans free will its compleat nature When we kneel to Kings we signifie by that gesture that we submit our selves to higher powers not simply saith P. Martyr but in so far as they Command not things against the Word of the Lord. When we Adore God we Adore him as the Supream Majesty being ready to obey him in what he shall Command without any exception the Adoration of men signifieth a submission limited if it go above bounds it is the sinfull intention of the Adorer who may change the civil Adoration into Religious and may ascend But the Aderation of God cannot so descend as it can turn into Civill Adoration only keeping the same object it had before Worship is an action or performance or thing by which we tender our immediate honour to God from the nature of the thing it self 1. I call it an action because the passion of dying or suffering is not formally worship but only dying comparatively rather then denying of Christ or dying so and so qualified dying with Patience and Faith may be called a worship 2. I call it not an action only but a performance or thing because an office as the Priesthood the Ministery is a worship and yet not an action Sometime Time it self as the Sabbath Day is a Worship yet it is not an action So the Lord calleth it His Holy Day and undenyably the lewish dayes the High Priests garment and many things of that kinde were Divine or Religious performances things or adjuncts of Divine Worship but so as they are not meerly adjuncts of Worship but also worship for the High Priests Ephod was not only a civil ornament nor was it a
God removed the doubts and answered him 5. Paul in eating or not eating which are things most indifferent requireth a certain perswasion of positive assurance Rom. 14. 14. I know and am perswaded by the Lord Iesus that there is nothing unclean of it self but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean it is unclean Master Sanderson saith In things substantiall of Gods Worship and in things to be done upon necessity of salvation what is not of Faith certainly assuring us it is conforme positively to Gods word it is sin so we abhor Popish Additions But in the actions of our life as the lifting of a straw and in Ceremoniall worship or accidentals it holdeth not saith Morton and Doctor Burges not in all particulars saith Paybodie for there should be no end saith Doct. Iackson of doubting for Papists might doubt to assist our King against Roman Catholicks Ans 1. Let Formalists explain themselves Doctrinals Substantials and essentiall worship is such as God hath commanded in the Proposition and in the Assumption and particularly in Gods word Accidentals are such as he hath commanded in generall but left particulars to mens will so they define like Mâ—sters of Arts. But this our Masters say in all that Christ hath particularly Commanded his Testament is perfect and so I believe what God hath set down he hath set down and so we have Scripture right down as perfect as the Fables of Esop Nasoes Metamorphosis what is in Esopes and Nasoes books is in their books and what they command you are with certainty of Faith to believe they command and what the Prophets and Apostles writ that they writ and that is essentiall worship what they writ not they writ not 2. Mr. Sandersons lifting up a straw is a straw for an instance actions of imagination are not Morall we give him leave to ruh his beard without Faith as he weareth white sheets above his garments in Divine service against Faith 3. To do in Faith is to know that in that I serve Christ and am accepted of God Rom. 14. 2. To do that which condemneth me not and maketh me happy in the doing thereof v. 21. 3. It is a Faith that I have before God in my conscience v. 2â— 4. It is a perswasion by the Lord Iesus that it is clean 5. It is such as I know is positively Lawfull by Scriptures expresse warrant 1 Cor. 10. 26. The earth is the Lords and the fulnesse thereof Ergo I have certainty of faith that it is positively conform to Scripture what I do but in things negatively Lawfull as lifting a straw wearing a Surplice I have no perswasion by the Lord Iesus that I serve Christ and am accepted of God in so doing and know not from Psa 24. 1. or from any other scripture that it is lawfull what I do 3. A generall warrant is either when the major Proposition only is sure by Scripture but you must take the Assumption upon the Formalists Merchant-word or where both Proposition and assumption can indure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according as it is written this latter wee imbrace with both our hands but Formalists deny it to us The first is their meaning This what is decent and not contrary to Gods Word that the Rulers may command But Surplice Crossing c. are decent and not contrary to Gods Word Ergo. So one Giles Widdows saith Man and Wife are one flesh Ergo the Ring in Marriage is good And Fine linnen is the Righteousnesse of the Saints Rev. 19. Ergo a Surplice is good And Matth. 16. Take up your crosse Ergo the Crossing in Baptisme is lawfull Enough of this But so the worship of the Devil is lawfull and Aarons golden Calf is lawfull for I can finde a major Proposition for them in Scripture of which you have a Faith both Negative and Positive as this Whatever God commandeth in his Word that is lawfull But God commandeth the Indians Devil vvorship in his Word Ergo c. I am not holden to give my Faith for the Assumption Yet it is as good as our Masters reasoning 4. Jackson is wide in his lawfull Negatives for to fight against Roman Catholicks at our Kings Command upon good grounds is not an indifferent thing Except to kill men and shed blood be indifferent and lawfull Negatively I thought to make War had been amongst the Substantials and Positively conform to Gods Word 5. The Fathers as Origen Ambrose Chrysostom Theophylact Oecumenius Theodoret Anselm and Ierome upon the place Rom. 14. 23. as Vasquez saith from this place Rom 14 23. that What any doth must be warranted by the light of the conscience as lawfull If Formalist stand to this they must give us some things against conscience and something beside conscience that is morally lawfull and therefore if conscience see not such a thing against Scripture though it have no warrant in Scripture yet it is lawfull and done in a certain perswasion of a well informed conscience but these who eat things thought to be unclean by Gods Law to the scandall of others who knew these meats were not against Piety and Gods Lavv nor yet that the eating of them was against charity while Paul delivered the Doctrine of Scandall yet their eating was unlawfull 6. Formalists say nothing here but what Papists said before them they say Men may go to War doubting of the lawfulnesse thereof and therefore Vasquez Angelus Corduba and Navarr will us While the doubt remaineth to choose the surest side as conscience ought to do And Vasquez saith Manente dubio c. To do so long as the doubt remaineth is to do against the judgement of conscience And Adrianus saith While they doubt and yet go to War they expose themselves to the danger of Man-slaughter and by not going to War they should onely sin by not obeying Suarez saith It is a speculative doubt vvhen Superiors commandeth it And Sylvester saith Such a doubt should be expelled at the commandment of Superiors And no marvell the command of Superiors to Papists is an Oracle and blinde obedience is good meriting therefore Gratian and the Iesuit Sanches saith Inferiors are not holden to examine the commandments of Superiors 5. Iackson saith This Whatsoever is not of Faith is Sin holdeth in omission of good as in commission of evil Ergo Your not practising indifferent Ceremonies is not of Faith and so Sin Ans He that obeyeth doubtingly is condemned and he that obeyeth not doubtingly is condemned But Master Doctor your enumeration is not sufficient and may strike against doubting to worship a Romish Idol at the command of Superiors for I shew you a third and its Pauls way Eat not obey not and abstain with perswasion of Faith that what you do is agreeable Positively to Gods Word Jackson saith They sin not by doubting if the fear of evil after mature
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
the Gospel to them if they were amongst us except that such as are to communicate according to the will of Christ are Christians members of the Church who doth try and examine themselves and Jews and Turks though dwelling and born amongst us are not such yet Erastus would that such should never be admitted to the Lords Supper though they should desire it Officers also have a command not to dispense some parts of the word to all as we are not to rebuke open Scorners Should any of our Church turn Iew and blaspheme Christ and pertinaciously after conviction persist in his Apostacy might not Erastus aske by what command of Christ will ye not Preach the Gospel to such an one Christ made no exception but said Preach to all Nations why do you make Exceptions might we not answer Christ hath given a power of dispensing the Gospel to all yet hath he excepted some because it s against the will of Christ that such can obey the Gospel We are bidden pray for all yet are there some that we are not to pray for because they sin unto death so is the case here in some kinde 7. It is for our instruction that the Priests were rebuked for that they admitted into the Sanctuary the uncircumcised in flesh and heart that they put no difference betweene the cleane and the uncleane and prophaned the holy things of God Ezek. 44. 9. Ezek. 22. 26. Hag. 2. 11 12 13. And this was a shadow of things to come as was observed before teaching us that farre lesse should the Pastors of the New Testament suffer the holy things of God to be prophaned 8. We read that Iohn Baptist and the Apostles baptized none but such as confessed their sinnes and professed â—aith in Iesus Christ it would then appeare to be the will of Christ that every one should not be admitted to the Lords Supper though some say the Apostles baptized single persons not in Church communion so that Pastors administer the Sacraments by reason of the power of order as they are Pastors not by power of jurisdiction as having warrant from any Church in regard Churches at the beginning had the Word and Sacraments before they had any Church Government yet I conceive the Lords Supper is a Seale of a Church-communion 1 Cor. 10. 16. 17. and the like I say of Baptisme typed by Noahs Arke 1 Pet. 3. 19 20 c. and though the Apostles partly by priviledge partly through necessitie the parts existing before the whole were necessitated first to baptize and then to plant Churches yet the Churches being once constitute these are Church priviledges to be dispensed both by the power of order and the power of jurisdiction CHAP. VI. Quest 2. Some speciall Reasons of Thomas Erastus against Excommunication examined THomas Erastus a Physitian who medled not much with Divinity save in this in which he was unsound in his reply to Beza laboureth to make Excommunication a dreame and nothing but a device of Pastors affecting domination 1. Object Onely Petâ—r killed Ananias onely Paul excommunicated Alexander and Hymeneus onely Paul said he would come to the Corinthians with the rod and for a long time onely Bishops excommunicated Presbyters gave advise onely Ergo This power is not in the Church Ans The consequence is naught Christ said only to his Disciples in person Go teach and Baptize Is it a good consequence therefore that none hath power to teach and Baptize but only the Apostles Only Paul exhorted the Corinthians to mourn for the incestuouâ— mans fall therefore no Pastors have power to exhort in the like kinde 2. We grant the Apostles did many things out of their Apostolick power which in a constitute Church the Church onely may doe as Paul his alone disputed against Circumcision of the Gentiles Act. 15. 2. What Ergo Paul in a Synod and a Synod hath not power to dispute and determine the same the contrary is evident Act. 15. 12 22 23. 3. It is false that the Authority and rod with which Paul said he would come to the Coriuthians 2 Cor. 10. 8. was proper only to Paul an Apostle the same he giveth to Timothy and to all the Elders 3. If Bishops exercised the same power for many ages Erastus must shew us Bishops who could kill miraculously such as Ananias and Elimas and work miracles now beside that Erastus must with his new opinion hold up a new creature called a Prelate unknown to the Apostles or Ierome and the Fathers he must parallel Bishops for working of miracles to Paul and the Apostles Obj. 2. The Apostles declared many to be excluded out of the kingdom of heaven and so bound in heaven whom they did not excommunicate from the Sacraments so also do the Ministers daily and yet Christ in his word commanded not those to be debarred from the Lords Supper Ans It is very true the Apostles and Pastors of Christ that now are denounce eternall wrath and that authoritatively against those that are invisibly to men heart-hypocrites who yet before the Church who know not the heart go for Saints and are neither excluded from Sacraments nor so much as rebuked But it is a vain collection that therefore externally scandalous are not to be debarred from the Supper and Excommunicated The Prophets 1 Cor. 14. did preach that Heathens remaining Heathens were excluded out of the Kingdom of God yet Heathens cannot be Excommunicated and yet I hope Erastus dare not deny but Christ hath forbidden that Heathen remaining Heathen be admitted to the Sacraments Though I dare provoke any Erastian and attest them by their new Doctrine to shew me a warrant from Christs Testament why the Church should refuse the Seals to a Turke they will say A Turk is not willing to receive and therefore the Seals may be denied to him and yet cannot be denied to a member of the Church though scandalous if he desire it and professe repentance But I answer Though a Turk be unwilling to receive the Seals What if he should be willing and require to be Baptized yet remaining ignorant of Christ and the Gospel we should not Baptize him Now by the Doctrine of Erastus we have no more re warrant to deny the seals to him then to deny them to Judas we desire a Scripture from the adversary which will not conclude with equall strength of reason against the giving of the seals to any scandalous member of the Church it is true a Turk ignorant of Christ though he should desire the seals is uncapable and he is unwilling vertually in regard he as yet refuseth the knowledge of the Gospel and so is the scandalous professor no lesse uncapable though we may grant degrees of incapacity for he is vertually unwilling to receive Christ in regard he is unwilling to part with his idol-sins 2. Though a Turk should be unwilling as its like enough he will be yet we desire a Scripture why we cannot make offer of
come to the Supper Be not Iudges of mens Conscience Ans Christ Commanding not to cast Pearls to Swine and scourging out those that polluted that Temple that was a type of his body doth Argue clearly that the holy things of God should not be prophaned But that Christ rebuked all abuses in the worship of God in particular Erastus cannot say 2. It is one thing to forgive our brother by putting away private grudge and a church-pardoning in the name of Christ is another in the former sense we are to forgive our enemy though he repent not Mat. 6. 12. 14 15. Rom. 12. 19 20. Luk. 23. 34. But this forgivenesse Luk. 17. is not said to be ratified in heaven for God doth not alway forgive when we forgive God doth forgive when the sinner repenteth Erastus will have a lying confession ratified in Heaven 3. When the Church in Christs Name forgiveth not upon words and lies but upon Visible Testimonies of repentance they are no more Iudges of the heart then Isaiah when he said Except ye believe ye shall not be established and Paul when he said to the Jaylor Believe and thou shalt be saved for without more then lying words of mouth yea without true lively faith neither could the one be established nor the other saved Erastus When Paul dehorteth the Corinthians to eat things Sacrificed to Idols in the Idols Temple because they could not be partakers of the Table of the Lord and of the Table of Devils he bids them not forsake the Supper of the Lord but only not to go to the Feast of Idols because the Supper and these Tables of Devils are inconsistant therefore he saith I will not have you to have fellowship with Devils but he saith not I will not have you to come to the Supper of the Lord nor deth he bid them approve their repentance â—re they come to some I know not what Presbyters And in this place he speaketh of an externall Communion as the purpose and words prove because he speaketh of Israel according to the flesh 3. Because those that eat things Sacrificed to Idols were perswaded there was no difference between those meats and other meats Ans Erastus his Argument is this being reduced to form is if Paul say not 1 Cor. 10. I will not have you come to the Lords Supper but only I will not have you to have fellowship with the Devil in his Table then he will have none debarred by the Elders from the Lords Supper But the latter is true I deny the Proposition it is a connexion that one who taketh on him to refute such a precious and eminent divine as Theod. Beza may be ashamed of and yet his book from head to foot standeth most upon a negative Argument from some particular place of Scripture for he speaketh nothing of the power of Elders to keep the holy things of God pure What if he should say Moses in the first of Genesis saith not I will not have you not to come to the Lords Supper Ergo there is no authoritative debarring of men from the Lords Supper Such sandy consequences no learned Divines would ever dream of 2. Beza nor any of our Divines never dreamed that God in the Old or New Testament said Nolo vos ad mensam domini ad sacramenta venire which are the words of Erastus so his conclusion cometh not near the controversie Iews and Gentiles are invited and commanded to come to Christ and so to all the Ordinances and Sacraments but I hope this will not infer that all should come to the Sacraments hand over head and whether they be clean or unclean circumcised or Baptized or not circumcised not Baptized God commanded Aarons sons to serve in the sanctuary and appear before him in their charge What Ergo it is not Gods will that they come not to the Sanctuary and before him unwashed and with strange fire and without their holy garments this is the very consequence of Erastus Our question I conceive is whither all must be admitted promiscuously and whether even those that come immediatly from the Devils Table without any preparation known to the Church should be set at Christs elbow to eat the Lords body and blood Erastus saith Paul never said Nolo vos ad mensam domini venire then because two negatives make one affirmative Paul must say I will that all that are partakers of the table of the Devil come and be partakers of the Lords body But the conclusion is contradicent to Erastus himself who faith right down I judge that he vvho vvill but trample the Sacraments should not be admitted unto them and to Paul 1 Cor. 11. 27 c. 3. Erastus confoundeth two Questions one is whither all should be admitted to the Lords Supper Erastus saith every where in his book none are to be debarred another by whom are they to be admitted or debarred By the civill Magistrates saith Erastus by the Stewâ—rds and Officers of the house of God the rest of the Church consenting say we 4. The Argument will conclude that not onely the Church or Magistrate ought to admit those that have fellowship with the Devil to the Table of Christ but they ought to command them to come it being Christs will they should be admitted and that they themselves who are Communicants are obliged though keeping fellowship with the Devil to come and eat their own damnation for Paul saith by this reason in the place 1 Cor. 10. No more I will not have the partakers of the Devils table to come to the Lords table nor he saith I will not have the Elders to debar them if Erastus say they should try and examine themselves and come He flees from the controversie which is not whether the worthy but whether the scandalous and unworthy should come Erastus saith all should come 5. Whereas Erastus will have the Apostle to speak of the externall Communion of the Elements onely 1. It is false 2. Nothing to the purpose it is false 1. ver 16. It is called the Communion of the body and blood of Christ and that must be more then externall Communion 2. ver 17. We many are one body this is not an externall body only for it is the unity of the body of Christ signified by one bread 3. It is not externall only but internall and spiritual fellowship with Devils that is condemned ver 20. 21. Ergo It must be internall Communion with Christ in his death that is sealed and commanded 4. This is meer Socinianisme to have the Sacraments only memorative signes as is clear 2. It is not to a purpose for if the Church debar only from externall society from the Church and externall Seals this debarring being ratified in Heaven Matth. 18. It is sufficient for our conclusion 5. Paul his condemning of eating at the Idols Table as inconsistent with eating and drinking of the Lords body he must expresly forbid those who eateth
with the Church it followeth not that the binding of the Church is not a Church-binding as the binding of the two private men is also a binding but no publick no Church-binding 4. How shall Christs words keep either sense or Logick with the exposition of Erastus If he will not hear the Christian Magistrate complain to the Heathen Magistrate and again I say if the Lord hear two praying on earth far more will he ratifie in Heaven what a prophane Heathen Magistrate doth on earth against a Christian offender judge what sense is in this glosse Erastus hath no reason to divide these words ver 19. Again I say if two agree c. from ver 17. 18. Because they are meant of the Magistrate saith Erastus against all sense and joyne them to the words of the. 15. and 16. verses for there is no mention of binding and loosing by prayer ver 15 16. But only of rebuking and here Erastus shall be as far from keeping his proportion of rebuking and praying as he saith we do keep proportion between Church-sentencing and praying To Theophylact Chrisostom and Augustine Beza answered well and Erastus cannot reply 6. If there be binding and loosing between brother and brother in the first and second Admonition before the cause be brought to the Church what need is there of binding the man as a Heathen before the Heathen Magistrate And what need of the Heathen Magistrates prayer to binde in Heaven Was there ever such Divinity dreamed of in the world Erastus These words Tell the Church prove only that the Church hath the same povver to rebuke the injurious man that a private man hath this then is poor reason The Church hath power to rebuke an offender Ergo it hath power to Excommunicate him Ans All know that Christ ascendeth in these three steps 2. Erastus granteth the cause is not brought to the Church but by two or three witnesses which is a judiciall power as in the Law of Moses and in all Laws is evident if he hear not a brother he is not to be esteemed as a Heathen and a Publican but if he hear not the Church he is to be reputed so 3. We reason never from power of rebuking to the power of Excommunication but thus The Church hath power to rebuke an offender and if he will not hear the Church then is the man to thee that is to all men as a Heathen and a Publican Ergo The Church hath power to Excommunicate Erastus Christ speaketh of the Church that then was How could he bid them go to a Church that was not in the world they having heard nothing of the constitution of iâ— did he bid them erect a new frame of Government not in the world Ans He could as well direct them to remove scandals for time to come as he could after his Resurrection say Mat. 28. 19 20. Go teach and baptize all Nations which commandment they were not presently to follow but Act. 1. 4. to stay at Jerusalem and not To teach all Nations while the Holy Ghost should come I ask of Erastus how Christ could lay a Ministery on his Disciples which was not in the world What directions doth Christ Mat. 24. and Luk. 21. give to his Church and Disciples that they had not occasion to obey many years after is how they should behave themselves when they should be called before Kings and Rulers 2. Nor were the Apostles who were already in the room of Priests and Prophets to Teach and Baptize he after being to institute the other Sacrament to wonder at a new forme already half instituted and which differed not in nature from the former Government save that the Ceremonies were to be abolâ—shed Erastus Only Matthew mentioneth this pretended new institution not Luke not Mark the Disciples understood him well they aske no questions of him as of a thing unknown only Peter asked how often he should forgive his brother Ans This wil prove nothing Iohn hath much which we believe with equall certainty of Faith as we do any Divine institutions shall therefore Erastus call the turning of water into wine the raising of Lazarus The healing of the man born blinde and of him that lay at the Pool of Bethesda Christs heavenly Sermons Ioâ— cap. 14. 15 16. his prayer cap. 17 which the other Evangelists mention not Fiâ—menâ—a hominum mens fancies as he calleth Excommunication 2. Did the Disciples understand well the dream that Erastus hath on the place and took they it as granted that to tell the Church is to tell the civill Magistrate And that not to hear the Church is civill Rebellion and to be as a Heathen is to be impleaded before Cesar or his Deputies only This is a wonder to me Matthew setteth up this way an institution of all Church-Government which no Evangelist no word in the Old or New Testament establisheth Erastus Christ would not draw his disciples who were otherwise most observant of the Law from the Synedry then in use to a new Court where witnesses are led before a multitude and sentences judicially set up it had been much against the Authority of the civil Magistrate and a scandall to the Pharisees and the people had no power in Christs time to choose their own Magistrate therefore he must mean the Jewish Synedry If by the Church we understand the multitude we must understand such a multitude as hath power to choose such a Senate but there was no such Church in the Jews at this time Ans That the Church here is the multitude of Believers men women and children is not easily believed by us 2. And we are as far from the dream of a meer civill Synedry which to me is no suitable mean of gaining a soul to Christ which is our Saviours intention in the Text. 3. Erastus setteth up a christian Magistrate to intercept causes and persons to examine rebuke lead witnesses against a Iew before ever Cesar their only King of the Iews or his Deputies hear any such thing this is as far against the only supream Magistrate and as scandalous to the Pharisees as any thing else could be 4. Had not Iohn Baptist and Christs disciples drawn many of the Iews and Profylites to a new Sacrament of Baptisme and to the Lamb of God now in his flesh present amongst them this was a more new Law then any Ordinance of Excommunication was especially since this Church was not to be in its full constitution till after the Lords Ascension Erastus It is known this anedrim delivered Christ bound unto Pilate condemned Steven commanded the Apostles to be scourâ—eâ— and put in Prison Tertullins saith of Paul before Felix we would have judged him according to our Law Paul said Act. 23. to Ananiâ—s thou sittest to judge me according to the Law Act. 26. Pâ—ul confesseth before Agrippa and Festus that he obtained power from the high Priests to hale to prison and beat the Christians and
soul but the revenging of the wickednesse of the sin for the terror of others Which is 1. Contrary to the Text which saith He was to be delivered to Satan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the spirit may be saved This noteth that the intrinsecall end of this delivering to Satan was the Salvation of the mans soul But the Text saith nothing of Erastus his end that others may be terrified though that may be an end It is a wonder to me that since Erastus granteth the man repented even when Paul did in this Chapter chide with the Corinthians that they delivered him not to Satan For Erastus saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that hath done this deed not he that continueth pertinaciously in it saith he hence it is clear that he repented at this time How doth Paul chide them for not delivering a repenting man to the Devil that his Spirit may be saved if he repented his spirit was saved Ergo Paul was in the fault and chid them without reason if they say though he did repent yet for example to terrifie others he should have been killed 2 Cor. 2. saith He was not killed and Erastus saith it Ergo yet Paul failed and they also 3. It is against the intrinsecall end of that power which Erastus saith is miraculous For Paul saith the end of that power is for Edification not for Destruction 2 Cor. 10. 8. Now the intrinsecall end of bodily killing is peace and terror to others that they may be afraid to do so any more But the intrinsecall end and finis operis is not Edification but finis operantis onely for acts of Magistrates are not acts of the first Table which kindly and per se regardeth edification but acts of the second Table if their soules be saved who die for their enormous crimes by the hand of the Magistrate It is not from the violent death as if it were an intrinsecall mean and ordinance appointed of God for conversion But because God giveth to those who die that way repentance Yea it is no more a mean of saving of the soule then if they should die in their beds by some disease To the examples of Hymeneus and Alexander that they were not killed miraculously I answered before Erastus addeth no new reply to Beza CHAP. XI Quest 7. Of the leaven 1 Cor. 5. Erastus his sentence in his l. 3. c. 6. and â— c. 7. Examined Erastus I shall grant since Beza will have it so that Paul expoundeth the Ceremony of leaven in the celebration of the passeover and that he doth not only allude to it Paul compareth the feast of unleavened bread to the pilgrimage of our life in this world and leaven signifieth wickednesse Hence as the Iews all the time of the feast might eat no leavened bread so all our life are vve to leave and forsake the vvorld and journey toward our promised Canaan we are never to live wickedly What can hence be collected but as he that eat unleavened bread was to be killed so should every wicked man be killed He that eat leavened bread in these seven dayes was not commanded to be debarred from the Passeover And the Passeover was the beginning of this feast as faith in Christ was the beginning of our spirituall eating of Christ crucified for us and of our new Christian life Ans I hold that learned Beza hath well expounded the leaven here he compareth the scandals of wicked men to leaven the holinesse of the Saints to unleavened bread and the publick Congregation to the feast of the Passeover and Excommunication or putting away to the removing of the leaven for a scandalous man corrupteth the whole Church so the Jewes and Rabbines as Buxtorfius saith that the Rabbins call naturall concupiscence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rabbi Alexander said after his Prayer Lord It is known to thee that it is my will to do thy will But what retardeth me the leaven in the masse or lump and Buxtorfius citeth the same place 1 Cor. 5. 6. and Gal. 5. 9. And least we should think that he meant nothing but naturall concupiscense he saith in the Targum They take the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for wickednesse and folly he citeth Medraseh Koheleth cap. 7. ver 8. except R. Samuel had been long suffering The Persian that he taught had returned to folly or his old wickednesse Paul saith the same Purge out therefore the old leaven that ye may be a new lump He speaketh to the Church conveened 2. The comparison runneth so that the Corinthians were to purge out the old leaven of wickednesse and cast out the incestuous man that they might be a new lump and this if it must alwayes be done far more when they are to celebrate that feast that came in place of the passeover Nor is the Apostle only Teaching what they could not lawfully do all their life as they were single Christians but what was their duty as Christians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 conveened together in a Church way for Paul doth not command one single Christian to cast him out but he commandeth the Church gathered together in the name of the Lord Iesus with Pauls spirit and the power of our Lord Iesus Christ ver 4. 5. To purge out not the leaven of sin in themselves but the man ver 2. That he that hath done this deed may be put out and ver 7. Purge out the old leaven and that the Apostles precept is to cast out the man he saith it in expresse termes ver 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cast out that wicked man from amongst you and ver 12. They were to judge him as one that is within 2. Because without conveening together in their daily conversation they were to purge the leaven of mâ—lice out of their heart it were a ridiculous thing for Paul to command them to convene altogether to lead a godly life 3. There was no need that they should convene with Pauls spirit and in the name and power of our Lord Iesus Christ to lead a godly life and for a personall purging of every man his own soul from this leaven 4. They were to judge this man ver 12. Therefore this cannot be meant of a personall judging every one of themselves but of a Church-judging of an offender 5. If Erastus grant that Paul expoundeth the Ceremony of leaven and putting away leaven in the Passeover Let him see how he can apply this to killing of every single man that liveth wickedly We apply it to the casting out of the scandalous out of the Church as leaven was to be put out of the houses of all who were to eat the passeover Erastus I care not much whither the Lord himself immediatly or the Magistrate was to kill him who eat leavened bread at that time But I rather think that God killed him for we finde none killed for this cause 2. Because Paul writ of those who
that Feast pointed out holinesse all our life is utterly denyed for eating of leavened bread except in these dayes forbidden was not a sin nor any Ceremoniall type at all no more then our common bread and wine are signes of Christs body and blood 2. Paul compareth the Feast to the lump of the Visible Church so as the leaven was to be removed out of all houses of Israel because it did Ceremonially infect corrupt and leaven them and so was to be purged so did the inâ—â—stuons man leaven the Visible Church of Corinth and was to be purged out Nor do I contend that the Lords Supper here is meant though I know no solemn Spirituall Feast that the visible Church now hath but the Supper of the Lord But rather I understand Church-Communion in the dainâ—ies of the Gospel which are set forth to us under the similitude of a Feast Matth. 22. Luke 14. 16 17 18 c. Prov. 9. 2 3 4 5. Cant. 5. 1. Erastus The leaven of the Passeover does not so signifie impurity of life that Excommunication can be hence gathered therefore the Apostle alludeth to that place that or the like way as the Jews did Celebrate their Passeover without leaven so it becometh us to Celebrate our Passeover without the leaven of malice and wickednesse Leaven simply may either signifie good or evil as Matth. 13. and 16. and Potuit it might signifie our naturall corruption For God not only forbiddeth to eat leaven but to have it in the house and leaven signifieth 〈…〉 sse so to be punished as yeâ— say even by death Ans The Leaven of the Passeover signified so impurity as we are to put out the person that leaveneth the Church out of the Church as they were to put leaven out of the house and not only simply not to eat it so are we not only not to eat and drink with a scandalous man but he is to be reputed no member of the Church but a leavening and contagious man and therefore Paul doth not here as Erastus dreameth show what way every one in his own personall practise and duty as a single Christian is to do that he may save his own soul and therefore every one was to celebrate a Christian Passeover in his own soul laying aside the leaven of malice Though I grant That Paul ver 8. doth infer and draw a conclusion of a personall purging out of the leaven of malice and hypocrisie out of every mans heart But Paul doth expresly command the Corinthians as a convened Church to put out from amongst them another man for the saving of that other mans soul And what they should do in a Church society toward the man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Who hath done this to wit down right they should Iudge him Cast him out purge him out as a leavening peece And the world cannot give any other meaning of the words then that as the Iews were to put all leaven from amongst them when they were to celebrate their Passeover So the Corinthians were to exercise the like work upon this incestuous man and to put him out from amongst them as one delivered to Satan as a lump of sowre leaven and we seek no more for Excommunication 2. Leaven signifieth Matth. 13. good the Kingdom of God is compared to leaven But here it is corruption of contagious scandall in this incestuous man and such leaven as is to be cast out and purged away Now I hope we must not purge out and cast away the Kingdom of heaven and Matth. 16. 6. The leaven of the corrupt and false Doctrine of Pharisees and Sadduces that corrupteth the hearts of men is meant and of this leaven we are to beware But why doth Erastus strive to bring the reader in a good opinion of leaven which Paul would have us to detest I know not a reason but because the place is so evident for the casting out of an incestuous man from amongst the Corinthians lest he should infect the flock and that by the Church convened together in the name and power of Christ that his soul may be saved and this is the very excommunication that we assert 3. This leaven saith he may signifie naturall corruption Now Erastus putteth us to a may be but a may be will not do it For the Text saith not I hope by Erastus his confession that the poor man must be delivered to Satan that is miraculously killed for naturall concupiscence All the world thus are delivered to Satan as being heirs of wrath for sin Originall at least in demerit 2. The man was not judged purged out and cast out as leaven that sowred the Church for naturall corruption 3. Paul offendeth not with them that they were puffed and mourned not for the mans Originall sin but for his actuall wickednesse because he had gone in to his fathers wife an Abomination that the Gentiles are ashamed to name Erastus Then the man must be killed as he that eat leavened bread was killed and though the punishments of Moses Law as such must not be brought in the Christian Church yet if God subject men to the Magistrates Sword men cannot free them from it though there may be degrees of punishment Ans We denyed that those that eat leavened bread with the Passeover were killed but onely excommunicated and cut off from the congregation God never subjected any to the sword for that cause 2. We deny that therefore by proportion the incestuous man should be killed by what consequence will Erastus prove that those that gathered sticks on the Lords day those that are stubborn to Father or Mother those who commit fornication now in the Israel of God under the New Testament must be stened to death by the Magistrate or miraculously killed by the Apostles it must be by the same consequence that Erastus reasoneth here But did God kill immediatly any offenders at all for originall sin some one more nor other as Erastus dreameth this man was killed 3. What warrant hath Erastus that the Devill killeth any one of the visible Church now under the New Testament and any of the children of God whose spirit are saved in the day of the Lord proferat tabulas Erastus saith it neither Prophet nor Apostle in the Old or New Testament ever said it Erastus said an Anagogicall sense is not concludent Ans Where the Holy Ghost giveth the sense it is false saith Beza 2. Why doth then Erastus conclude miraculous killing from the Types of the Old Testament Erastus Where I pray you doth Paul say that the punishment of eating leavened bread did typifie your Excommunication Ans The word Excommunication may be by the Church used as the Word Sacrament Trinity But the thing is not ours but an ordinance of Iesus Christ 2. Paul saith in this very place as Israel were to put away leaven in their Passeover so is the convened Church of Corinth in the name and power of Christ to put out judge and purge
Lords table were one and the same punishment Beza saith the one is a lesse the other a greater punishment 2. If it be true in gifts that he to whom lesse is given more is given then it holdeth here in our case because private fellowship with the Saints is a gift of God and if the Lords body given for us and to us in the Lords supper be not a greater gift it is nothing so then if a lesse gift be denied the Lords supper a greater gift is denied 2. It must hold in the private punishments inflicted for an higher punishments cause private communion with the Saints is denied because the man is cast out of the Church Ergo farre more are the highest priviledges of the Church denied as liberty is denied to a man because he is condemned to dye Ergo farre more is life denied to him a mans house is denied to him because he is banished Ergo farre more is his city and countrey denied to him But a man is not punished in his purse because he is condemned to dye it followeth noâ— Ergo he should rather dye because the one punishment is not relative to the other 3 Because not eating with a scandalous man is a spirituall punishment as I have proved therefore it is of that same kind with excommunication and therefore it holdeth here 4. Abstinence from the private fellowship of a scandalous brother is not free but commanded of God and so is debarring from the Lords supper not free but commanded Erastus when he forbiddeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no not to eat he forbiddeth 1. Neer communion of familiarity 2. Not to eat with them which is to forbid all signes of neer communion Ans It is clear he proveth they should cast him out because I wrote to you that you should not keep company with such v. 9. no more to eat with such Ergo farre lesse would he say should he be a leavening member in the lumpe and masse of Christs body Erastus I wrote unto you that ye should not keep company with such then Paul speaketh here of a thing concerning which he had spoken before though they understood him not it is like they sought Pauls judgement of their conversing with men But of delivering the man to Satan he had not spoken before as is clear in the Text. Ans This is a strong argument for us if Paul had never spoken nor written to them of the delivering of the man to Satan that is of the miraculous killing of him how could he in reason and conscience chide them because they prayed not that he might be miraculoâ—sly killed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is not possible they could mourn for not joyning in a businesse that Paul had never revealed to them to be Gods will Yea it is a strong argument to me that delivering to Satan was excommunication of which he had taught them before else their mourning had been unreasonble and which he pointed at to them as a limbe of excommunication to wit their not familier conversing with the scandalous Erastus And when he has showâ—n how they ought to flee the company of the scandalous he returneth to his former purpose commanding the wicked man to be killed This then he saith I commanded you to eschew the company of wicked brethren not of the heathen whom the Lord shall judge Ans 1. The Text can bear no such exposition for the reasons I have given before 2. The coherence is clear I wrote before that you should not keep company with wicked brethren therefore put out that wicked man from amongst you But by Erastus his glosse there is neither sense nor coherence in the words Erastus The end of refusing familiar conversing with the scandalous is that he may be ashamed and you say that same is the end of debarring from the supper then it must follow as private conversing can do the contrary to wit it can soment and nourish sinnes both in the brother we converse with and in us so the frequent use of the Lords supper should nourish vices in us vvhich vvere vvickednesse to think Ans This presumeth that to avoyd a scandalous brother and to debarre him from the Sacraments must be formally one which we teach not 2. Hence it followeth since they be divers formally they cannot have the same formall and intrinsecall ends 3. The frequent eating at the Lords table in a scandalous man doth dispose him more and more to sinne as frequently sinning inclineth more to sinne but this is by the frequent abusing of Gods ordinance and not from the nature of the Sacrament Erastus Paul forbiddeth not ill men of the company of good men but he admonisheth good men to flee ill men that they may be ashamed But vvhen you deuy the Sacraments to any you command not the Godly not to come to the supper with the wicked but you forbid the scandalous to come to the supper Ans There is no solidity in this conjecture it leaneth upon the perpetuall mâ—stake of Erastus in all this dispute as if we held That to be debabred from familiar fellowship with the Saints and from the Sacrament were one and the same thing Else I see no conclusion that Erastus doth or can infer against us 2. It is false that wicked men are not discharged the company of Saints for in so far as fellowship with the Saints is a spirituall mean of the gaining of their souls by Teaching Exhorting Edifying Comforting the wicked and scandalous being Dogs and Swine are forbidden to touch such a Pearl Yea God layeth a charge on wicked men while they remain in that case not to meddle with Confirming Ordinances with some Converting Ordinances they may as Psal 50. 16. But to the wicked God said What hast thou to do to declare my Statutes or that thou takest my Convenant in thy mouth 17. Seeing thou hatest Instruction and castest my Word behinde thee Here the wicked are forbidden to Teach or speak to the instructing of others which is a speciall act of Christian fellowship between Brother and Brother Col. 3. 16. Heb. 3. 13. Heb. 10. 24. 1 Thes 5. 11. 14. Because they hate to be Instructed of others And you know how Christ speaketh to the unworthy intruder of himself on the secrets and spirituall marrow and comforts of the Gospel Matth. 22. ver 12. Friend How camest thou here not having thy Wedding garment Ezra 4. 3. But Zerubbabel and Joshua and the rest of the chief of the Fathers came and said unto the Adversaries of Iudah and Benjamin You have nothing to do with us to build an house unto our God But we our selves together will build unto the Lord God of Israel Doth not God expresly forbid David to build an house to his name 1 Chron. 22. 8. 2 Chron. 6. 9. And we know it is a typicall discharge layed upon men of blood not to touch the holiest things of God but that men of Peace must meddle
with them Isa 1. 13. Bring no more vain Oblations c. All which holdeth forth that not only those who have the charge of the house of the Lord to see that no Swine and Dogs prophane the holy things of God but they are forbidden all private Ordinances and publike in so far as they can make no other use of them but to defile them Erastus saith They be wickedly forbidden to come to the Lords Supper who desire to Celebrate the memoriall of his death Beza Replieth well 1. What if he know not what he desireth who cometh 2. What if there be just suspition or clear evidence that he playeth the Hypocrite 3. What if it concern the whole Church that his desire be suspended Erastus The first cause is not to purpose because we speak of those that are well instructed 2. The second is bred in the brain of Beza I am compelled to think that he that publikely professeth he is grieved for his sins and that he purposeth to live a holy life in time to come that he thinketh as he speaketh if he remain not in that purpose I also remain not alwayes in my good purpose his desire is an Argument of Piety which should not be smothered and oppressed but excited and nourished And this opinion of Beza dependeth on the Iudgement of men neither hath the Lord committed the Examination of some to Elders And it is folly to say It concerns the Church to delay to do that which the Lord hath Commanded me to do Ans 1. Erastus professeth he standeth for their admission to the Lords Supper who are Recte instituti profitentur dolere se propter peccata sua who are instructed in the grounds of Christian Religion and repenteth of their sins or professeth it And he said before as I observed it If any shall be found who shall trample on the Sacraments Ego hunc minime admittendum censeo I judge such a man should not be admitted to the Sacraments Whence it is clear That Erastus professeth that the ignorant and the scandalous should be debarred from the Lords Supper But good Reader Observe that Erastus contradicteth himself in all his Arguments for he proveth that not any one Christian in the Visible Church ignorant or not ignorant who professe their Repentance or not professe it can be excluded from the Sacraments but that all are commanded by Christ to come But Erastus saith Scriptura illos de quibus nos loquimur nec à sacrificiis arcet nec à sacramentis aliis ullis Imò sub penâ capitis mandat ut universi mares c. The Scripture excludeth none from Sacrifices or any other Sacraments But commandeth that all the Male Children Jews and strangers who are not legally unclean and from home should compear at Ierusalem thrice a year before the Lord And pag. 104. In sacris literis non tantum non inveniri aliquos à sacramentis propter solam vitae turpitudinem ab actos esse sed contrarium potius probari And Iohn Baptist saith he Baptized all that came to him Pharisees and Sadduces whom he affirmeth to be a Generation of Vipers Ex quo intelligimus Whence we understand that Ministers are not to deny the Sacraments to those who seek them and the Iudgement is to be left to God Whether he who professeth Repentance dissemble or deal truly and sincerely Yea when Erastus saith That it is not in all the Scripture to be found Aliquos a Sacramentis propter solam vitae turpitudinem abactos esse That any were debarred from the Sacraments for only wickednesse of life but rather the contrary may be proved either ignorance of God opposed to due instruction and professed impenitency is no wickednesse of life which is most absurd or then in Scripture some must be debarred from the Sacraments for wickednesse of life only But Erastus saith plainly None in Scripture are debarred from the Sacraments for only wickednesse of life And so they are not debarred because they professe not Repentance And Erastus saith Christ said Drink ye all of this and Iudas was not excepted Christ went into the Temple with most wicked men the Pharisees and Sadduces were Baptized with the same Baptisme of Iohn vvith them Then Erastus will exclude none at all no not those whom Christ pronounced to sin against the Holy Ghost and the convincing light of their own minde Matth. 12. 31 32. Ioh. 9. 39 40 41. and 15. 24. and 7. 28. Yea pag. 117. He will have none excluded in Corinth not those that are impenitent and those that vvere partakers of the Table of Devils Pag. 116. When Christ commandeth all to eat and all to drink he excludeth none that professeth themselves to be Disciples But many professe no Repentance Who professe themselves Disciples See pag. 117 118. and the following pages 2. Erastus saith He is compelled to think That he that publikely professeth sorrovv for sin doth think as he speaketh But to whom shall he professe it To the Church Then hath the Church power to accept the confession of scandalous men ere they be admitted to the Lords Supper Erastus will stand at this for it is Government in the hands of the Church if he must confesse to the Civill Magistrate who made him a Steward of the Seals and Mysteries of the Gospel Nor is the Church to think as Erastus is compelled to think manifest Hypocrites and those that trample the Sacraments under their feet will make profession of sorrow for sin and Erastus thinketh such are not to be admitted Erastus saith they may change their purpose of Repentance and so may he doe himselfe Valeat totum granting all that is nothing to us for any Divinity we have proofe of in Erastus his booke I should humbly conceive when he speaketh so ignorantly of the worke of Repentance and preparations for the Lords Supper he hath been a man non rectè institutus not well instructed and so without the lists of the disputation by his owne word and so not to have beene himselfe to be admitted to the Sacraments 2. Nor is it in Beza his head onely that those who desire the Sacrament have true piety for Christ saith Wicked men are known by their works otherwise if tramplers of the Sacrament and the ignorant desire the Sacrament as ignorance is neighbour to arrogance and presumption let Erastus give us a rule in the Word by which they are to be debarred all his arguments will prove that they are to be admitted and if Erastus deny that the judgement of men either of Church or Magistrate is to be interposed in the excluding of those who are non rectè instituti not rightly instructed and doe not professe sorrovv for their sin he must speake against sense if he grant some must judge who are ignorant and openly impenitent then I say to Erastus what hee saith to Beza your opinion dependeth on the opinion and judgement
of men 3. If God have not commanded either Elders or any other as Erastus saith to examine and judge who are fit for the Lords Supper who not Then seeing Erastus saith the prophane the ignorant the impenitently scandalous knowne to be such are to be debarred I aske of Erastus to whom Christ hath commanded the tryall of this who are ignorant and non rectè instituti Men cannot debarre themselves from the Sacraments in a judiciall way most of men conceiting well of themselves rush upon the ordinances of God not knowing that they doe evill Workers of iniquity who cry Lord Lord Adulterers Theeves Idolaters who dare come to the Temple of the Lord and cry The temple of the Lord The temple of the Lord are these Ier. 7. 9 10 11. will also fast and professe Repentance Esa 57. 3 4 5. even when their wickednes testifieth to their face against them in the eies of all Ier. 2. 1 c. Ier. 2. 34. Esa 1. 9. and they will desire â—o partake of the Lords Supper as is evident Esa 57. 2. Now there are none on earth neither Elders or any any others to debarre them Erastus saith Taceo jam quod Deus non praecepit vel Presbyteris vel aliis tale examen Let Erastus answer us in this and by what charity is Erastus obliged to beleeve all that seeketh the Lords supper do it in truth God has given to us mens works not their words of which hypocrites are liberall and shall we foment hypocrisie and mens eating their owne damnation under Erastus his pretence of incouraging and not suffocating seeming godly desires Lastly Erastus saith it doth not concern the Church that the man deferre to do that which Christ commands him to do this is to beg the question Doth Christ command a man to eat his owne damnation CHAP. XIII Quest 9. Other Arguments for Excommunication vindicated Erastus The Apostle writeth if any man love not the Lord Jesus let him be accursed Ergo Paul will have the Elders to sit and judge who truely repent who not that they may admit the one to the supper not the other if this be excommunication excommunication is grounded on a thousand places to love Christ is to kâ—ep his commandements Ioh. 13. and 15. then who ever saith those that keep not the commandements of Christ are cursed of God he shall this way excommunicate then Moses did often excommunicate But because the false Apostles did strive to make Paul contemptible therefore Paul saith God be judge which of us loveth Christ and let God destroy him who loves him not this is the true meaning Ans Erastus perverteth the sense of Beza his words for Beza has no such conclusion as to prove a formall excommunication by the Elders or Church judicature this is Erastus sained conclusion Beza inferreth from these words that there is here gravissimae excommunicationis species a kind of heavy excommunication materially to be eternally separated from Christ called the great excommunication And it was to be accursed while the Lord come and therefore this may prove there is a kind of lesser excommunication in the Church and Moses his cursing by way of preaching may well inserre that because there be Church censures therefore there is a Church cursing heavy and lesse heavy But Beza intendeth not to prove excommunication by the Church from this but only that Christs enemies are cursed though they be other wayes in the Church and this kinde of excommunication of shutting impenitent sinners out of heaven is in a thousand places of scripture and nothing can hence be concluded against Beza and the like excommunication is Gal. 1. And when Ioh. 2. Ep. forbiddeth to receive a faâ—â—e teacher into your house if he be a member of the Church he is to be farre lesse kept in Christs greater house the Church but is to be cast out Erastus When Paul saith Gal. 5. I would they were cut off who trouble you he saith not conveene the Elders and cast such men out of the Church or deliver them to Satan but he wisheth that they were cut off by God Ans 1. The place Gal. 5. 12. I wish they were cut off that trouble you is expounded by Piscator of cutting off from the visible Church Yea he saith conveene the Church when he saith v. 9. a little leaven leaveneth the whole lumpe that is a little false Doctrine infecteth the whole Church and v. 10. I am confident of you that ye will be no otherwise minded but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgement who ever he be then he hopeth well of the Galathians that they will be of one mind to judge and cast out the false teacher this is parallel to 1 Cor. 5. though Paul do not so right downe chide them for neglect of Church censures as he doth 1 Cor. 5. But saith Erastus if Paul wished them to be cut off that troubled them why did he not cut off those false teachers and deliver them to Satan Erastus answereth it was not Gods will so to do and the Apostles could not in every place and at every time kill miraculously but when it was profitable and necessary Ans Then Paul 1 Cor. 5. farre lesse could rebuke the Corinthians because they prayed not that the incestuous Corinthian might be miraculously killed by Paul for Paul had not power to kill him because it was not necessary nor profitable the man repented and was never killed 2. Iudge if it be probable that Paul would wish to work a miracle in killing false teachers when it was neither profitable necessary nor saâ—e for the Church to have them killed 3. Paul was confident the man who troubled them should beare his judgement Erastus saith it was not Gods will he should be miraculously killed Ergo it was not miraculous killing but some Church censure or then Erastus must find out another kind of judgement And why may some say doth not Paul write to Excommunicate him as he did the incestuous Corinthian Beza Answereth Paul would not 1 Cor. 5. take that Authority to himself but would do it by the suffrages of the Church So here he sheweth what he desireth but happily it was not expedient that they should be presently cut off So Beza Yea the words do well bear that Paul thought fit That they should bear their Iudgement who had troubled them and that that leaven should be purged out 2. Yea if this cutting off be miraculous it is clear Paul could not Communicate it to others for it was Pauls will that the incestuous Corinthian should be delivered to Satan by the suffrages of the Corinthians Nor do we read that the Apostles wished to cut off men miraculously but were not able to do it Erastus It is false That Paul willed the man to be delivered to Satan by the suffrages of the Corinthians For he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have already Concluded Ordained Decreed to deliver him
to Satan though I be absent in body what then would he have done he would all the Church being gathered together not some Presbyters only by his own spirit and the power of the Lord Iesus granted to him deliver the man to Satan that he might strike fear and terror on others and that the man might bear the just punishment of his wickednesse Ans Paul chideth them that they were puffed up and mourned not that the man might be put out of the midst of them Then whereas it might be said we want the presence of the Apostle Paul and his privity to the businesse To this Paul saith ver 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For me saith he I have as if I were present in body when you are Convened together c. Iudged to deliver such a one to Satan Now that this Decree was the judiciall Decree and sentence of Paul as a miraculous Magistrate giving sentence judicially when Paul himself was absent and had not convinced the man nor spoken with him I do not believe 1. Because though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may signifie such a sentence of a man when the guilty is before him yet the word doth not necessitate us to this Exposition Luk. 19. 22. Out of thy own mouth will I judge thee for it doth as often signifie a simple act of the minde and the opinion of any not sitting in judgement as Act. 13. 46. Ye judge your selves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unworthy of life Eternall 1 Cor. 2. 2. I determined 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to know nothing but Christ Luk. 7. 43. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Christ to Simon the Pharisee who was not on the bench Thou hast judged rightly Tit. 3. 12. I have determined there to winter 1 Cor. 10. 15. Iudge ye what I say Act. 27. 1. When it was determined to sail into Italy 2. We do not read that Apostle Prophet or Iudge gave out a sentence of death against any the person condemned not being present nor heard the Lord himself did it not to Adam nor to Sodom he came down to see he examined Adam Moses did not so condemn the man that gathered sticks on the Sabbath day Joshua convinced Achan the Prophet convinced Gehazi ere he smote him with Leprosie Peter convinced Aâ—anias and Saphira to their faces ere he killed them so did Paul convince Elimas the sorcerer in his face so did Christ in his miraculous purging of the Temple convince them that His Fathers house should be a house of Prayer Now Paul here giveth a judiciall sentence of death on a man he never spake of being at Philippi whence he wrote and the delinquent at Corinth if we beleeve Erastus 3. Erastus judgeth that Paul knew this man to be penitent and how knew Paul this It must be a miraculous knowledge by which Paul at Philippi looked upon the mans heart at Corinth one of the greatest miracles that ever Paul wrought for Paul had the knowledge of the mans sinne only by report v. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is reported between Pauls writing the first verse of that Chapter and his writing the third verse there must interveene a miraculous discovery of the incestuous mans heart Paul being at Philippi and the man at Corinth and Paul knowing the man to be penitent and because of his penitency as Erastus saith Paul did not kill him Yet Paul so farre absent must have given out a miraculous sentence as a miraculous Magistrate I saith he by revelation as having the sword of God now in my hand have judged and given out sentence that this man shall be miraculously killed by Satan before your eyes that all may feare and do so no more and yet I know him to be penitent and that he shall not be killed by Satan a monstrous and irrationall sentence if it be said that by report Paul had knowledge of his sinne and by report also he had knowledge of his repentence and that his spirit would be saved in the day of the Lord and that this knowledge came not to Paul by any immediate revelation I answer Yet the sentence must stand by Erastus his mind touching 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have judged and condemned him as a miraculous Magistrate to dye upon a report though I never heard him and I know he shall not dye for this sault for can it be said that Paul retracted a sentence which he gave out as the deputy of God and he even then when he wrote the sentence knâ—w there was so much repentance in the man as he would for it be moved not to kill him 4. There is no ground in the Text why Paul should be said to seek the naked presence of the whole people to do such a miracle before them he being himselfe absent for there is more then a naked presence of the Corinthians as only witnesses that they might be affraid do so no more for they were present as instructed with the spirit of Paul and the power of the Lord Jesus Christ to deliver such a one to Satan as the words bear v. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For to be conveened in the name of Christ being spoken Mat. 18. v. 20. of a Church meeting or in reference thereunto in the same phrase and to be conveened with the power and spirit of Paul and of the Lord Iesus cannot agree to Paul nor can it be said I Paul absent in body and present in spirit in the name of the Lord Jesus and with my spirit and the power of the Lord Jesus have decreed to deliver such a one to Satan For 1. the Grammer of the words cannot beare that for being conveened in the name of the Lord with my spirit are constructed together in the Text. 2. It is no sence nor any Scripture phrase I present in spirit and with my spirit have decreed to deliver such a one to Satan 3. It is evident that Paul would as it were absent recompence his bodily absence with the presence of the spirit and road of Church censure which the Lord had communicated to them 5. Erastus needeth not object that there was a conveening of the Church not of some Elders for as there is no word of the word Elders in the Text so is there no word of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Text and so the debate will be what is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether Elders or people or both but though every one in their owne place were understood yet the words beare a juridicall convention being conveened in the name of the Lord Jesus and with my spirit and the power of the Lord Jesus Erastus The questions why Paul did not command to excommunicate the false Apostles in Galathia Or why he did not miraculousty kill them are both urgent But the latter is most urgent for the power of miraculous afflicting men was given to few men and to Apostles But it is a wonder if excommunication was ever
said Erastus cometh to finde some use for a Presbytery if the Magistrate be an heathen he cannot examine or debarre any from the seals Let Erastus answer if he be a Christian how can it be denied but if the Magistrate by his office is to steward the bread to one of the children not to another but he is a steward to cut and divide the word and seals both aright and how could Paul make it one of the properties of the Pastor 2. Tim. 2. to cut the word and by the same reason to distribute the seals aright if it depend upon another officer by his office to command him to divide it to this man whom he hath examined and findeth in his mind qualified and not to this man We judge the Elders of the New Testament do agree in this common and perpetuall morality that both are to put difference between clean and unclean holy and unholy though many things were unclean to the Iews that are not unclean to us and that the Church hath yet a power to bind and loose Mat. 16. 9. Erastus There was never a wiser common wealth in the world then that of the Iews Deut. 4 But in the Common vvealth of the Ievves there vvere never tvvo distinct judicatures concerning manners Ergo There should not be these tvvo different jurisdictions in the Christian common vvealth But all should be given to the civill Magistrate Ans Erastus is seldome happy in his Logick his Syâ—logismes are thin sowne all Gods laws are most wise but if this be a good Argument was not their Church their Religion their Ceremonies their judiciall Laws all wise and righteous Then the Christian Church should be conform yet to the Iewish we should have those same bloody sacrifices judiciall lawes Ceremonies that they had The Iudicatures and officers are positive things flowing from the positive will of God who doth appoint one jurisdiction for them most wise and another to Christians different from them and in its kinde most wise 2. We give two judicatures in the Church of the Iews concerning manners one civil acknowledged by Erastus another spirituall Ecclesiastick ordaining Ecclesiastick and Spirituall punishments upon the unclean Lev. 10. 10. As to be removed out of the campe and such like and Deut. 17. Thou shalt come to the priests the Levites and the Iudge that shall be in those daies according to the sentence vvhich they of that place vvhich the Lord shall chuse shall shevv thee and thou shalt observe to doe according to all that they informe thee ver 12. And the man that vvill doâ— presumptuously and vvill not hearken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Priest that standeth there to minister before the Lord thy God or unto the judge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 even that man shall die and thou shalt put avvdy evill from Israel There is here an evident disjunction that clearly holdeth forth that both the Priests and the civill judge judged in matters of manners and that he that presumptuously despised the sentence of either was to die a judicature of the Priests is evidently here and a judicature of the civill judge Erastus cannot deny and that the Priest judged in subordination to the civill judge is refuted by the words which saith the Priest was immediatly subordinate to God not to the Magstistrate He that will not heare the Priest that standeth to minister before the Lord thy God shall die Ergo He is the Minister of the Lord and God called and separated Aaron and his sonnes to stand before the Lord and to minister and he did call the Levites the Magistrate called them not to office Erastus Beza saith that Moses Ioshua David Salomon did not execute the office of the Priests and therefore the charge of the Priests and of the civill Magistrates were different offices and charges but I said before the Lord chose Aaron and his sonnes to be Priests they were not so distinct charges but they did agree to one and the same person for Moses to omit the rest did execute the office of Aaron Levit. 8. But after that it was not lawfull for any to doe the office both of King and Priest and therefore Saul and Vzziah were justly corrected of God for it But what is this It proveth not that the Priests had publike judicatures to punish wickednes of manners Ans Certainly if Erastus deny the charge of the Priest and the King to be different offices because once Moses did offer Sacrifice and so was Melchisedeck both a King and a Priest Heb. 7. he must say that Moses offered Sacrifices Levit. 8. not as a Priest Sure I am Moses was a Prophet and a Prince and Ruler but no Priest But Moses by Erastus his way must as a civill Magistrate have offered Sacrifices and not as a Priest or priviledged person by a speciall and an extraordinary commandement of God for to deny the two offices of Priest and King to be different offices because one man discharged some Acts proper to both Offices as Moses both did beare the Sword of God as a Prince and did also discharge some Acts proper to the Priest as Erastus saith he did Leviticus 8. is a poore and naughty Argument undeniable it is that Melchisedeck was both King and Priest but even then to be a King and to be a Priest were two distinct offices in nature and essence because Melchisedech did not take away the life of a Murtherer as a Priest but as King of Salem Heb. 7. 1. Nor did Abraham pay tithes to Melchisedech as to a King but as to a Priest Tithes in Moses Law as tithes were never due to any but to the Priests and therefore even in Melchisedeck the Kingly and Priestly office were formally distinct Ordinances of God just as David as a King and judge took away the head of the man who brought Sauls head to him and not as a Prophet he did this so as a Prophet he penned the Psalmes not as a King If one and the same man be both a Musitian and a painter he doth paint excellently as a painter not at a Musitian and he singeth excellently not as a Painter but as a Musitian and though one and the same man doe acts proper to both that may prove that Musick and the art of painting are one subjectively onely that they may both agree to one and the same man but not that they are not two faculties and gifts of God different in spece and nature 2. Though Erastus confesse that it was unlawfull that Vzzias and Saul should sacrifice yet he will have the Kings office and the Ministers office under the New Testament not so different for he said expresly Who knoweth not now when Aarons Priesthood is removed but we are all equally Priests Saul and Vzziah sinned when they were bold to sacrifice and burne incense but the Magistrate doth not therefore sin who exerciseth the charge of the Ministery if he might for
his businesse performe both doth Paul make exceptions of Magistrates and Potentates when he saith 1 Cor. 14. You may all prophecie Hence he must grant that the civill Magistrate now may both preach baptize and administer the Supper of the Lord and therfore not only hath the Church no Senate nor Ecclesiasticall court to punish faults and scandals with Ecclesiastick censures but there is no Presbytery of Elders to give their judgement in matters of doctrine for the Magistrates and all Christians may as well prophecy by ◠Cor. 14. as Ministers saith he yea the faculty of preaching is no more proper to the Ministers of the Church then to the Magistrates of the city Now by this nothing is proper to the Magistrate as the Magistrate but to the Magistrate as a Christian and to all Christians But Erastus contendeth that the government of the Church and punishing of Scandals which we say belongeth to those that are over the people of God in the Lord and to Church Rulers doth belong to the Magistrate as the Magistrate and virtute officii by vertue of his office so that if any Iew or Turke or any ignorant or extreamely scandalous should attempt to intrude himselfe upon the Seals the Magistrate as the Magistrate and virtute officii is to examine and judge if he be unworthy to debar him or as he findeth him worthy admit him to the Seals Now any seeth that it is but a deceiving of the Reader to say that one man may discharge both the place of the Magistrate and the Minister of God as Moses did and Ioshua David For let Erastus and his followers shew us roundly and down-right whether or no prophecying debarring the unworthy from the Seals and all acts of Church government not proper to the Magistrate as the Magistrate and virtute officii And if so as indeed Erastus teacheth it is bu◠a poore shift to say that one and the same man may both exercise the part of a Magistrate and of a Minister Erastus Beza for ever shall not prove that there was a Church judicature that had power to punish scandalous men Iehoshaphat 2 Chron. 19. ordained judges in all the fenced cities and admonished them of their duty 2. And did the same at Ierusalem 3. And ordained judges of Levites and Priests and heads of families for the judgement of the Lord and for every cause and Amaziah the High Priest was chiefe in the causes of the Lord and Zebadiah in the Kings causes This Synedrie at Ierusalem was the politick Magistrate they judged of stroaks servitude deaths But your Synedrie judgeth not between blood and blood it judgeth not of every cause as Deut. 17. Those that are not well versed in Scripture are to note two things 1. That the cause of the Lord where mention is made of judicatures is not onely a cause of Religion but any cause proposed in judgement especially the causes of the widdow the Orphan oppressed which the Lord saith he will avenge 2. The Levites Priests were no lesse civil judges then others it is known that onely the Levits were Magistrats in the cities of refuge there was need of men exercised in the Law of God that the judges might judge righteously Ans If you take punishing for inflicting Church-censure as we here take it then all the places that sayes the Priests pronounced the Leper clean or unclean to put out of the campe or take in to judge of the adulterous woman of the restitution made by those for whom they offered Sacrifices to judge between the clean and unclean to hold out of the Sanctuary the unclean the uncircumcised in heart and flesh Levit. 13. 3 4 c. and 20 22. and 21. 26 and 30. 44. and 31. 50. Ezek. 22. 26. and 44. 8 9 10. Num. 3. 6 and 5. 18 19. Deut 17. 12. say the Priests had power to punish for transgressing of Gods Lawes and where the Prophets complaine of the Priests mis-government and unjustice it is presupposed they were to govern justly according to the Law Ier. 5. 31. 2 King 12. 4. Ier. 26. 7 8 11. Hag. 2. 11 12. Ezek. 44. 8 9 10. 2. For the place 2 Chron. 19. it is evident that Iehoshaphat doth reforme both Church and State and brought the corrupted Iudicatures to that which they should be by Law and v. 5 6 7. He set judges in the fenced cities of Iudah Here is the civill judicature And v. 8. Moreover in Ierusalem did Iehoshaphat set of the Levits and of the Priests and of the chiefo of the fathers of Israel for the judgement of the Lord and for controversies when they returned to Ierusalem Now that this second is a Church judicature I am confirmed 1. Because Iehoshaphat appointed civill judges in all the fenced cities of Iudah Ergo Also in Ierusalem the prime fenced city Now this civill judicature was not tyed to a place but was in every city even all the fenced cities but the Synedrie of Priests Levites and Elders was onely at Ierusalem in the place that the Lord should chuse Deut. 17. 8. Hence a judicature tyed to no city but which is in every fenced city 2 Chron. 19. 5. Deut. 17. 8. and a judicature tyed to Ierusalem the place that the Lord did choose Deut. 17. 8. 2 Chron. 19. 8. must be two distinct judicatures but such were these 2. There is a moreover put to the Iudicature at Ierusalem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and also in Ierusalem did Iehoshaphat set of the Levites c. This could not have been said if this had not been a judicature different from the former for if Iehoshaphat appointed Iudges in all the fenced cities Ergo He appointed them first at Ierusalem the Mother city and fountaine of justice now then he should say the same thing needlesly and with a moreover if this judicature at Ierusalem were not a judicature Ecclesiasticke and different from the judicature civill that he appointed at Ierusalem as one of the prime fenced cities which was common with the civill judicatures in other fenced cities 3. The persons in the judicatures are different for v. 5. the members of the court 2 Chro. 19. 5 6 7 are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 judges these could not be Churchmen for of these he speaketh v. 8. they are expresly distinguished from the Levites Priests and Elders v. 8. who are all Church-men for the fathers of the people were no other thing then our governing Elders and these were members of the other court v. 8. 4. The objects of these judicatures are very different The Spirit of God saith of the one ver 5. That they judge for the Lord ver 13. for all the Kings matters this must be all civill causes in which the King and inferiour judges under the King doe judge but the object of the other is higher The Priests and Levites are appointed by Iehoshaphat for the judgement of the Lord ver 8. And in every matter of
the Lord v. 13. Now whereas Erastus putteth a note of ignorance on all that hath been versed in the Old Testament before him whereas he confesseth he understandeth not the Originall Language let the Reader judge what arrogance is here where ever there is mention saith he of judgement there is signified not religious causes but also other causes especially the cause of the widow and Orphane It bewrayeth great ignorance For 1. The matters of the Lord and the matters of the King are so evidently distinguished and opposed the one to the other by two divers presidents in the different judicatures the one Ecclesiasticall Amaziah the chiefe Priest in every word or matter of the Lord and the other Zebadiah the sonne of Ishmael the ruler of the house of Iudah for all the Kings matters that the very words of the Text say that of Erastus which he saith of others that he is not versed in the Scripture for then the causes of the Lord and the causes of the King in the Text by Erastus should be the same causes whereas the Spirit of God doth distinguish them most evidently 2. If the cause of the King were all one with the judgement of the Lord and the cause of the Lord yea if it were all one with all causes whatsoever either civill or Ecclesiasticall what reason was there they should be distinguished in the Text and that Amaziah should not be over the people in the Kings matters though he were the chiefe Priest and Zebadiah though a civill Iudge over all the matters of the Lord and causes Ecclesiasticall 3. The Kings matters are the causes of the widow and orphan and oppressed as is evident Ier. 22. 2. O King of Iudah v. 3. execute yee judgement and righteousnesse and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor and doe no wrong doe no violence to the stranger the fatherlesse nor the widdow so Esa 1. 10. 17. Prov. 31. 4 5. Iob 29. 12 13 c. Then the Text must beare that every matter of the King is the Iudgement of the Lord and the matter of the Lord and every matter and judgement of the Lord is also the matter of the King and to be judged by the King then must the King as well as the Priest judge between the clean and the unclean and give sentence who shall be put out of the Campe and not enter into the Congregation of the Lord no lesse then the Priests Let Erastus and all his see to this and then must the Priests also releeve the fatherlesse and widdow and put to death the oppressour 2. The different presidents in the judicatures maketh them different judicatures 3. It is denied that all causes whatsoever came before the Ecclesiasticall Synedry at Jerusalem Erastus doth say this but not prove it for the place 2 Chron. 19. doth clearly expound the place Deut. 17. for the causes of the brethren that dwell in the Cities between Blood and Blood between Law and Commandement Statutes and judgements are judged in the Ecclesiasticall Synedrim at Ierusalem not in a civill coactive way by the power of the sword 1. Because all causes are by a coactive power judged as the matters of the King the supream sword bearer 2 Chron. 19. 5. v. 13. Rom. 13 4. to eschew oppression and maintain justice Ier. 22. 2 3. But the causes here judged in this Synedrim are judged in another reduplication as the matters of the Lord differenced from the matters of the King 2 Chron. 19. 13. now if the Priests and Levites judged in the same judicature these same civill causes and the same way by the power of the sword as Magistrates as Erastus saith why is there in the Text 1. Two judicatures one v. 5. in all the fenced cities another at Ierusalem v. 8 2. What meaneth this that the Kings matters are judged in the civill judicature not by the Priests and Levites as Erastus saith for the Ruler of the house of Iudah was president in these and the matters of the Lord were judged by the Priests and Levites and Amariah the chiefe Priest was over them for then Amariah was as well over the Kings matters as the Ruler of the house of Iudah and the Ruler of the house of Iudah over the Lords matters as over the Kings for if Priests and Levites judged as the Deputies subordinate to the King and by the power of the sword the Kings matters are the Lords matters and the Lords matters the Kings matters and Amariah judgeth not as chiefe Priests as he doth burne incense but as an other judge this truly is to turne the Text upside downe 2. The causes judged in the Synedrim at Ierusalem are said to be judged as controversies when they returned to Ierusalem 2 Chr. 19. 8. and matters too hard between plea and plea between blood and blood between stroke and stroke Deut. 17. 8. and so doubts of Law and cases of conscience Now Mal. 2. 7. The Priests lips should preserve knowledge and they should seek the Law at his mouth for he is the messenger of the Lord of hostes and this way only the Priests and Levites judged not that they inflicted death on any but they resolved in an Ecclesiasticall way the consciences of the judges of the fenced Cities what was a breach of the Law of God Morall or Judiciall what not what deserved Church censures what not who were clean who unclean and all these are called the judgement of the Lord the matters of the Lord because they had so near relation to the soul and conscience as the conscience is under a divine Law 3. Erastus saith it is knowen that the Levites only were Magistrates in the Cities of refuge but I deny it Erastus should have made it knowen to us from some Scripture I finde no ground for it in Scripture Erastus It is true that Beza saith that the Magistrate hath a supream power to cause every man do his duty But how hath he that supream power if he be also subject to the Presbyters for your Presbyters do subject the Magistrate to them and compell him to obey them and punish them if they disobey Ans The Magistrate even King David leaveth not off to be supream because Nathan commandeth him in the Lord nor the King of Niniveh and his Nobles leave not off to command as Magistrates though Jonah by the word of the Lord bring them to lie in sackcloth and to Fast all the Kings are subject to the rebukes and threatnings of the Prophets Isa 1. 10. Jer. 22. 2 3. Ier. 1. 18. 2 Kin. 12. 8 9. 10 11 12. 1 Kin. 21. 21 22 23. Isa 30. 33. Hos 5. 1 2. and to their commandments in the Lord If Presbyters do command as Ministers of Christ the highest powers on earth if they have souls must submit their consciences to the Lords rebukings threatnings and Commandment in their mouth Court Sycophants say the contrary but we care not 2. But they punish the
The Assumption is false Deut. 17 saith the contrary 3. Though we could not shew a place for the formall institution of an Ordinance yet if we show the thing instituted it is sufficient 4. Erastus much doubteth himselfe if Moses his government was altogether civill especially before the Lord separated Aaron his sons and the Tribe of Levi to teach and governe the people in an Ecclesiasticall way for Erastus said before that Moses prescribed Lawes to Aaron sacrificed and did that which was proper to the Priests though after that God forbad the Kings to usurpe the Priests office and punished Saul and Vzziah for so doing though I never read that Saul usurped the Priests office you may take it upon the word of Erastus and we all know that Moses was a Prophet of God Deut. 18. 18. I will raise them up a Prophet from amongst their brethren like unto thee Deut. 34. 10. And there arose not a Prophet in Israel since like unto Moses whom the Lord knew face to face Heb. 3. 5. Moses verily was faithfull in all his house as a servant Now those that will say Moses his government of the Church was all civill and politicall as a civill judge and King and that he acted not in the governement of the Church as in writing and delivering Laws and in doing many things yea in commanding the will of God as a Prophet to Aaron to his sons and the whole tribe of Levi to me speakes non-sense Erastus That judicature to the which the inferiours appealed as to the supreame is politick Ans It is denied they appealed to it as the supreme Ecclesiastick in point of Law and Conscience Ergo It was not politique all the rest are answered before yea Iehoshaphat 2 Chron. 19. putteth this as a thing peculiar to the Priests v. 12. What cause soever shall come before you of your brethren between blood and blood between Law and Commandement Statutes and Judgements ye shall even warne them that they trespasse not against the Lord that is as Erastus yeeldeth ye shall teach them what is just and agreeable to and what is unjust and repugnant to the Law of God Civill judges lips were not to preserve knowledge as the lips of the Priests Mal. 2. 7. and Deut. 17. 11. According to the sentence of the Law that they shall teach thee and according to the judgement that they shall tell thou shalt doe Hence it is clear that this judicature in civill things was a teaching a telling a declaring and resolving judicature and that in blood they resolved of causes of blood of stroakes but judged not persons nor bloody men nor violent persons Erastus Moses and Iehoshaphat speake of one and the same judicature Moses doth not give teaching and commanding divisibly to some but joyntly to all the Synedrie Though the Priests were more skilled in the Law for Moses commandeth to teach the sense of the Law by judgeing as he saith himselfe Exod. 18. 16. I judge between one and another and I doe make them know the statutes of God and his lawes Moses putteth them all joyntly together they shall tell thee thou shalt doe what they shevv thee according to the Lavv that they shall teach thee shalt thou doe not declining to the right-hand or to the left-hand Ans 1. That Iehoshaphat speaketh of the same judicature that Moses speaketh of is clear 2 Chron. 19. 8 9. 10. The very words of Moses Deut. 17. 8. are the same both the same judges and the same causes compared with v. 5 6 7. But Iehoshaphat maketh two judicatures as I have proved and Iehoshaphat reformed according to Moses his Lavv as Erastus granteth 2. I cannot be induced to beleeve that the judges here teached by judging it is spoken contrary to Theology The end of teaching is to informe the conscience and Teachers as Teachers watch for the soule and the end of civill and politick judging is a quiet and peaceable life 1 Tim. 2. 2. the vveapons of teachers are not carnall but spirituall 2 Cor. 10. 4 5. the weapons of civill Iudges are carnall for the civill Iudge beareth not the svvord in vaine Rom. 13. 4. then these same civill judges did not both teach and judge at once they taught not as civill judges but as Priests they judged not as Priests but as civill Iudges and therefore there is no ground to say that Moses ascribeth these same acts to civill judges and Priests and Levites as if they made one Synedry for in both Texts not one word of teaching which is proper to the Priests Mal. 2. 7. Ier. 2. 8. Hos 4. 6. is ascribed to the civill Iudge and not one word of judging and condemning to death which is proper to the civill Iudge Num. 35. 24. Deut. 22. 18 19 Deut. 17. 2. 3 4 c. and 21. 19 20. 1 King 21. 11. 2 Sam. 14. 15. 1 Kings 2. 28 c. Rom. 13. 4. Luke 12. 13. 14. c. is ascribed to the Priests and Levites but the Priest or the judge are set downe by way of disjunction Deut. 17. 12. which could not be if they made one and the same judicature and therefore Iehoshaphat 2 Chron. 19. clearely distinguisheth them in two judicatures one v. 5 6 7. Another v. 8 9 10. having two sundry presidents and two sundry objects to treat about to wit the matters of Iehovah and the matters of the King 3. The place cited Exod. 18. 16. confirmeth much our opinion for Moses as a Iudge saith vvhen they have a matter they come unto me and I judge between one another This he spake as a civill Iudge and when he saith And I make them knovv the statutes of God and his lavves This he spake as a prophet for Moses was both a Iudge and a Prophet Now if all civill Iudges be such mixt persons as to teach the Stautes and Laws of God they doe this either as civill judges or as Prophets then there was reason why Malachie should have said the civill judges lips should preserve knowledge and they should seeke the Law at his mouth for if a civill judge as a Iudge teach the people and watch for their souls what marvell then he beare the sword to preserve their bodies as a Prophet and not as a Iudge and if he beare the sword as a Prophet and Teacher all Teachers must beare the sword which is against reason and Scripture and what reason is there if Moses teach as a civill judge but he may as properly be obliged in conscience to teach and so he should sin if he imploy not his talent that way as he is obliged to exercise the sword as a judge and by the contrary a Prophet as a Prophet should be obliged in conscience as kindly and per se to exercise the Sword as to preach the Gospel for nothing agreeth more kindly to the subiect then that which agreeth to it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under that reduplication as it is
Magistratibus as Vtenbogard speaketh from and under the Magistrate as the Vicars Deputies and Ambassadors of the Magistrate yea that Magistrates teach the people by the Pastors as by their Vicars then Zebadiah should more diligently care for the matters of God then Amariah as the Lord and Master should more care his own businesse then his servant should do 3. More or lesse doth not vary the nature of things then must the Magistrate Sacrifice Teach judge between the clean and the unclean minister before the Lord as the sons of Aaron and the sons of Levi but lesse diligently But what calling hath he to any of these Acts at all Hath the Lord chosen the Tribe of Iudah or the Tribe of Levi to minister before him And by the same reason the Priests Levites should do these same things but more diligently And again Amariah is to use the sword and to condemne ill doers to death But lesse diligently these be pleasant dreams 5. The Priest and Judges are companions as Moses and Aaron Ergo the one is not Master and the other servant and Deputy â—â— Erastus dreameth and they are the rather of that in divers Senats 6. But how proveth Erastus That the Levites were common Servants both to Priests and Judges For though it were so this will never subject the Priests to the Civill Iudge nor confound these two Iudicatures David 1 Chron. 26. divided the Levites and set them in their courses for service Ergo They were King Davids servants as King it followeth not except Erastus prove David did not this as a Prophet and that the Lord did not choose the Tribe of Levi. But David did it as a King and so all Magistrates may appoint offices in the House of God and call men to the Ministry by vertue of the Magistrates place But David 1 Chro. 24. distributed the Priests as well as the Levites Ergo the Priests are servants to the King as well as the Levites But the Levites are expresly 1. Chron. 26. given by office to wait on the sons of Aaron for the service of the house of the Lord for the purifying the holy things for the shew bread for the fine flour for meat offerings and for the unleavened Cakes and that which is baked in the pan and for that which is fryed and for all manner of measures and size to praise the Lord at morning and night to offer all burnt sacrifices to the Lord c. In all which no man can say they were servants to the King For then the King sacrificed by them as by his servants no Divinity is more contrary to Scripture It is true 1 Chron. 26. 30. some of the Hebronites were Officers in all the businesse of the Lord and the service of the King But that is because ver 26. they had the oversight of the spoile that the King dedicated to the house of the Lord for the building of the Temple and that is called the Kings businesse Erastus Jehoshaphat 2 Chron. 19. did not depart from Moses his Law But we read not that there were two distinct Iurisdictions commanded and instituted by God Ans If this be a good Argument all that David and Solomon did for and in the building of the Temple in the structure forme length breadth Cedars gold Altars c. of the Temple shall be without Warrant Solomon and David departed not from Moses But Moses spake nothing of the Temple and a thousand things of Divine institution in the Temple But this is our Argument Jehoshaphat did erect no new Iudicatures but restore those that had their Warrant from Moses his Law But so it is that Iehoshaphat reinstituteth two distinct Iudicatures Ergo The Lord by Moses at the beginning did institute these two distinct Iudicatures Erastus We are not anxiously to inquire what be the matters of God it is all one with what he said before ye judge not for men but for the Lord. The Rabbines the judgement of Capitall causes is the judgement of souls the scripture nameth all judgements most frequently the judgements of the Lord Deut. 1. Ye shall not fear men for the judgement is the Lords Exod. 18. The people come to me to inquire of God that is to seek judgement Therefore are the Judges Exod. 22. Psal 82. called Gods The matter of God is any cause expressed in the Law of God and proposed to the Judges to be judged and the Kings matter is that which properly belongeth to the King Ans Erastus his anxiety to inquire is little because he cannot Answer 1. The matter of the Lord cannot be all one with this Ye judge not for men but for the Lord For the matter of the King or a point of Treason to be judged is to be judged not for men but for the Lord. But the Text differenceth between the matters of Lord and the matters of the King 2. In the former 2 Chron. 19. 5. he speaketh of civill businesse but the matters of the Lord are such as concern the Law of God and the true sense and meaning thereof to be proposed to the conscience and 3. That is a common thing to all causes that in the manner of Iudging Iudges are to look that they do as men in the place of God so then as God if he were judging would do no iniquity nor respect persons nor take gifts as he saith ver 7. So neither should men do iniquity or respect persons in judgement and so is it taken Deut. 1. 17. Now this clearly is the manner of righteous judgement and Modus judicandi but the matter of Iehovah is Res judicata the thing to be judged which may be unjustly Iudged and this matter of Iehovah is not common to all causes but is contradistinguished in the Text from the matters of the King which in the manner of judging is no lesse to be judged according to the judgement of the Lord then the matters of Jehovah 4. The Chalde Paraphrast Vt inquir at instructionem Vatab. Vt consulat deum This is a false interpretation That to inquire of God is to seek judgement from God For it is to ask the Lords minde in doubtsome cases and this they asked from Moses as he was a Prophet not as he was a civill Iudge except Erastus will have the Magistrate of old to give responses and to have been Oracles by vertue of their Office which is a clear untruth Saul David Solomon Joshua though Kings did not give responsals and answers when they did go to War or were in doubtsome perplexities But did ask Counsell at the Priest and Oracle of God and the Ark 1 Sam. 15. 37. Iosh 9. 14. Iudg. 20. 27. 1 Sam. 30. 8. and 23. 2. 4. And by this the Magistrate as the Magistrate should resolve all doubts of conscience now to perplexed consciences under the New-Testament 5. The Iudges are called Gods because they are under-Deputies in the room and place of the great God not because every judgement of
Word and Sacraments if then the Magistrate by his office may preach and dispense the Sacraments who made him a judge and a Ruler Will this satiâ—fie mens conscience The Magistrate as the Magistrate may play the Minister but the Minister may not play the Magistrate Now as Erastus saith the Minister in holy things is his servant called by him may not the Minister be called by him to the Bench also Erastus Eli and Samuel were both Priests and Iudges and so to Erastus they are not inconsistent 2. Ministers ought not to usurpe the civill sword Ergo they have no power of governing by the sword of the Spirit it followeth not the contrary is evident 1 Thes 5. 12. 1. Tim. 5. 17. 1 Cor. 12. 28. Rom. 12. 7 8. Erastus Peter Martyr saith Com. 1 Sam. 8. Those that live wickedly may be corrected by the Magistrate But Papists give one civill Ecclesiastick power to the Pope and another to the Magistrate whereas the civill Magistrate is sufficient enough Ans Pet. Martyr 1 Cor. 5. expresly asserteth Excommunication and acknowledgeth a Presbyterie of Pastors and Seniors or Elders Peter Martyr condemneth the use of both swords in the Pope and saith it is sufficient that the Magistrate have the Sword Erastus Christ saith my Kingdom is not of this world that is it is not pollitick externall visible for Christ reigneth in the world but his Government is invisible and spirituall in the Word and the Spirit Ans Christ denieth only that his Kingdome is of this World in regard it is not holden up by the civill sword of men or Magistrates as Erastus doth dreame who maketh the Magistrate with his club to be the onely Catholick and principall Ruler in all Christs courts which Christ refuteth when he saith If my Kingdome were of this world mine owne would fight for me Now Erastus will have no weapon but the Magistrates sword to hold out and cast out all offenders out of Christs Kingdom but it is false that Christs Kingdom is not politicall externall and visible this is to deny that Christ hath a visible Church Sure exhorting rebuking censuring withdrawing from the scandalous excommunication are visible externally and in a politick spirituall way exercised by Christ in his Ambassadors for externall and spirituall are not opposed nor are politicall and spirituall opposed as Erastus dreameth and therefore this is a non sequitur of Erastus His Kingdom is not of this world Ergo it is not externall Erastus When Pompeius invaded and possessed Iudea and Gabinius having overcome Alexander had changed the state of Iudea the Pharisees did reigne wholly at Ierusalem The Kingly power was removed and Aristocracy set up Ioseph bel Iud. l. 1. c. 6. Ioseph antiq l. 14. c. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Synedrie for the most part had its owne authority vnder Hyrcanus and under Archilaus it was more fully restored as is cleer by the Evangelists and Iosephus Claudius in the tenth year after Christs death setteth forth an Edict 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ioseph Ant. lib. 19. Titus Vespasianus promised the same thing to them Ans Will then Erastus have Christ Mat. 18. to restore the power of the Sanedrim in gaining a lost brother that is to cite him before the Roman Iudges But 1. the Romans made high Priests from yeere to yeere did Christ acknowledge the Sanedrim to be a restored Iudicature in this 2. Say that the Sanedrim in sacris in in the holy things of God had its full power the Romans not impeding them hath any man a face to deny but Pharisees corrupted both Law Gospell Sanedrim and all and doth Christ establish their most corrupt government especially when they set themselves against the Messiah Cesar or Pompeius could give the Sanedrim no more then it had before they were subdued but before they were subdued the Sanedrim was changed and corrupted 3. This is to beg the question to say they kept the power of the Sword For 1. We utterly deny that by Gods Law they ever had any such power and forsooth because the High-Priests servant smote our Saviour on the face and they scourged and imprisoned the Apostles What then therefore the Sanedrim had the Law of God for it and Aaron and his sonnes might beat scourge imprison and kill as they killed Steven without Law or warrant except the Law that they had from the Roman Emperours for which cause I judge their Sanedrim was then a mixed Judicature surely this is a vaine consequence 4. It is like enough Claudius and Tiberius both gave them liberty of their own Religion Ceremonies and customes at their pleasure and that is much for us the adversary so do reason from a corrupt unjust and wicked practice to infer a Law Erastus I have solidly proved there were not two distinct jurisdictions but that the Magistrate Governed all I deny not that the Magistrate took counsell at those that were skilled in the Law And I have proved that the Sanedrim in Christs time when he spake these words had the power of the sword in things pertaining to Religion Ans Let another man praise thee solidity of the probation to most of Protestant Divines is plain emptinesse 2. That the Magistrate took advice of Divines and learned men skilled in the Law is not like the first pattern of Moses David Solomon who as Magistrates saith Erastus did rule all in the Church gave the Law to Aaron his sons directed and commanded the Prophets from the Lord as nearest to him what they should do what Laws they should teach the people Shew us one precept practise or promise in the word where Moses David Solomon asked Counsell at Aaron the Priests Gad Nathan or the Prophets saying O sons of Aaron O Prophets advise us Magistrates what Laws we should command you touching your office your holy garments your washing your beasts clean and unclean your lâ—per your putting men out of the Camp touching the forme dimensions structure materials of the Arke Tabernacle Temple c. that we may know what to command you from the Lord for we are nearer to the Lord and have a more eminent place as Church-Officers then you who are but our Vicars Deputies and servants to be directed by us Now 1. Moses received all Laws immediatly from God and never consulted with any man either Aaron Priest or Prophet David and Solomon had the forme of the Temple given to them by the Lord in writing and advised with none at all therefore received from God and delivered to the Church what they received of the Lord. 2. What warrant the Magistrates should advise with Ministers what they should command-Ministers to preach and do in their Ministery if by vertue of their Office they command Ministers 3. So like as Christ referreth men to the Civill sword on their bodies to gain their souls which is the scope of Christ Matth. 18. CHAP. XVII Quest 13. Whether Erastus can make good that the
coming to them mourning Ans Where saith Paul that he his alone did use the rod doth he not ascribe judging and casting out to the Corinthians 1 Cor. 5. 12. c and forgiving of the incestuous man 2 Cor. 2. to them Beza saith this power is necessary to purge the Church lest it be infected even to the end of the world and therefore must be left with the Church Erastus To be gathered in the Name of the Lord is not referred to the congregations meeting together but to Pauls act of delivering to Satan the Corinthians and Pauls Spirit instructed thus with the power of Christ might have delivered others to Satan as they did this man if the Apostle had not pardoned them but they had not Pauls spirit with them in their convention afterward because in no place he biddeth them be gathered together with his Spirit as he doth here Ans Paul doth construe the words v. 4. in the Name of Christ with the Participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ye being conveened and the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are separated from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have judged by the interposition of these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Erastus his grammar will be a little confused 2. What needed the Corinthians be gathered together with the Spirit of Paul and the power of the Lord Jesus to pray that the man might be miraculously killed for when they were not gathered together in a Church meeting but were all separatim in their own houses and closets they had power to judge the man that is to pray that he might be miraculously killed else Erastus cannot make Paul in any reasonable manner to rebuke them because they prayed not that he might be killed for Erastus must suppose the power of praying for this in faith was tyed to this publike convention of the Church and Erastus saith in no place he biddeth them be gathered together as here This Spirit of Paul and power of the Lord Jesus that was in them was not given to elevate them to any higher or more supernaturall acts of miraculous co-operating with Paul then their naked act of consenting that the man should be cut off and this act of consenting they could not want in their private praying at home that the man be miraculously killed and so this spirit of Paul and the power of the Lord Iesus shall be brought so low as I know not what to make of it Erastus If they had prayed that God would punish this enormous sinne whether God had heard them or not they had discharged their dutie Ans But it is evident he rebuketh them not onely for not mourning for the mans fall and not praying that he might be punished but for that they conveened not and did not judge and put away the man Ergo they had alwayes an ordinary power to judge and cast out scandalous persons and Paul rebuketh them for not improving this power then it was not any miraculous power not ordinarily in their hand as powers of that kinde are supposed to be Erastus saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be construed with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the meaning may be note such a one in an Epistle and write to me that I may censure him Ans This is throwne Grammar which the Greek doth not bear without violence for Paul saith If he obey not our doctrine written by Epistle marke such a one and he commandeth them to inflict a censure on him by eschewing his company CHAP. XIX Quest 15. Of the use of Excommunication toward the Magistrate especially Erastus How many thousands of men have been killed by occasion of Excommunication in Germany it hath subjected Kings and Scriptures and all to the Pope Ans All this may be said of the Gospell and of Christ that hee is appointed for the fall and ruine of many and that he came not to give Peace but the Sword 1 Pet. 2. 8. Luke 2. 34. Mat. 10. 34 35. But the cause is not in the Gospell or in Christ but in mens corrupt nature Excommunication is the Rod of the King out of Zion and we know how impatient men are of the yoke of Christ Excommunication abused by the Pope doth all this Erastus Excommunication cureth not wounded consciences but begetteth Hypocrites Ans So publike rebuking of those that sin publikely 1 Tim. 5. 20. being abused doth beget Hypocrites Esa 57. 1 2 3. Ezek. 31 32 33. 1 King 21. 27. 28 29. so doth the Rod the Word the giving of almes praying being abused to wicked ends make hypocrites Mat. 23. 14 25. Mat. 6. 1 2 3 4. Psal 78. v. 34 35 36. Hos 7. 14. Excommunication is innocent of all these Erastus I thinke it not amisse that the Magistrate chuse godly and prudent men and joyne to them godly Ministers who in place of the Magistrate may inquire in the life and manners of men and convene before them loose livers and rebuke them and if need be deferre them to the Magistrate But this is unjust that such a Senate be chosen by the Church which hath no power to chuse them 2. That they are not chosen in the Name of the Magistrate but against his will 3. That they subject the Magistrate to them Ans Erastus is willing there be a Presbytery 1. Of mixed men prudent men and godly Pastors 2. Chosen by the Magistrate 3. That they judge and rebuke Murtherers Extortioners Oppressors Thieves c. But 1. he should give us Scripture for this his new Presbytery He condemneth ours because it wanteth as he saith the Authority and the like of his Presbytery in the Old or New Testament you finde not 2. That Ministers should judge of bloods thefts treasons paricides for all these are loose livers and of goods and inheritances and give an account to the Civill Magistrate is all one as if the Ministers of the Gospel should be Iudges as the Lords of the Gentiles such as Pilate Foelix and the rest so they do it at the Command of the Supream Magistrate then the King may warrant Ministers to go against the Command and practise of Christ Luk. 22. 24 25 26. and 12 13 c. 2 Tim. 2. 4. For this is a Civill Judicature 3. Then the Ministers rebuking in the name of the Civill Magistrate may make him to Preach exhort in the name of the Civil Magistrate So Ministers are they to hear the word at the Magistrates mouth I thought Ministers had been the Ambassadors of an higher King Ezech. 2. 7 8. and 3. 3. Speak with my words to them Rom. 1. 1. 2 Cor. 5. 20. 4. If the Ministers rebuke as Ambassadors of Christ Those to whom they Preach the word of reconciliation those they are to rebuke with Authority and all hearers are subject to them Magistrates or others high or low This is clear by 2 Cor. 5. 19. 20 c. 2 Tim. 4. 1 2. For rebuking
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
perfect in the one as in the other 5. The great error is here that Erastus being sleeping when he wrote thinketh that to eat and drinke unworthily to offer a gift at the Altar the offerer being unreconciled to his brother is an action internall and known to God and that can no more be known to man then the thoughts of the heart A palpable untruth is not worshipping of Baalim murthering stealing whoring killing the Children to Molâ—ch and coming to stand in the Temple of the Lord which are called a prophaning of Gods holy name Ier. 7. 9 10 11. Ezek. 23. 38 39. are not these actions visible externall and as feazable to be judged by man as murther may be judged by a Magistrate Yea by this let a Pagan come to the table of the Lord we are not to hinder him why it is an internall action knowne citra errorem to God only and we cannot then judge whither he have examined himself or not if he be not against us here he is with us saith Erastus Quod deus facere jussit ab eo revocari aut retrahi nullus ab hominibus debet si modo externe sic fiat ut precepit deus Yea so the Magistrate cannot hinder either Pagan or the open enemy and persecutor who will trample upon the Sacrament from the Sacraments the contrary whereof Erastus said pag. 207. hunc ego minime admittendum censeo and let Erastus give us Scripture either expresse or by consequence where a Pagan or a persecutor may be impeded by Church or Magistrate from externall receiving of the seals except that we are not to give pearls to swine But was it not as hard to judge whether Saul persecuting the Church out of blind zeal was a swine or a dogge as to judge whether he that killeth his sonne to Molech out of blind devotion and cometh the same day to the Temple of the Lord doth prophane the Name of the Lord 6. If we must do nothing in externalls without the expresse commandement of God nor may we without Gods command either expresse or a necessary consequence admit dogs and swine to the Lords table 7. Paul indeed rejoyced that Christ was preached though out of envy Phil. 1. but by men called and gifted of God to preach and therefore ought not to be forbidden to preach while the Church for their scandalous life do cast them out say they are called Ministers once the Church is not to cast them out for this or that particular sinne if they be not contumatious and Paul saith he Rejoyceth that Christ was preached but he saith not he rejoyced that they preached Christ tali modo out of contention thinking to add affliction to his bonds Yet God forbiddeth the externall act of preaching in those that hateth to be reformed Psal 50. 16 17. and forbiddeth the Church to lay hands on or to call to the Ministery wicked men that hateth to be reformed or to keep them in the Ministery and this hindreth not but Paul might rejoyce at the consequent of their Ministery to wit at the preaching of the Gospel so long as they remained in the Ministery as we may rejoyce in that Christ was crucified for sinners and not allow that Herod and Pilate did with wicked hands crucifie the Lord of Glory nor yet are we to rejoyce in their sinne But all this hindreth not but he that is at wrath with his brother and knowne to be so by the Priests should be hindred to offer his gift while he be reconciled to him 8. We are not to hinder acts of externall worship as praying praising preaching nor can the Church forbid them except where God by his Commandement require that we do them wiâ—h a speciall visible qualification and order As first be reconciled to your brother first examine your selfe and then ofâ—er your gift and come and eat and drinke at the Lords table and in Negatives Come to my Temple but come not that very day you killed your sonnes to Molech while ye repent and be humbled for that sinne Erastus The godly Kings compelled the people to observe the rites ordained of God at least externally and 2 Chron. 15. killed those that sought not the Lord then they sinne who punish sinnes by debarring men from the Sacrament for beside that they forbid a thing commanded of God and as it falleth under mens judgement that is as it is externall and good so they cast their sickle in another mans field because the correcting of sinnes in so farre as they are externall belongeth to the Magistrate and in so farre as they come from a depraved will they belong to God onely Ans Here is one palpable error that all externall scandals are punished either by the Magistrate as the Magistrate so he must be understood else he saith nothing or by God onely contrary to 1 Cor. 5. 11. Rom. 16. 17. 2 Thes 3. 14 15. For we give a third they are punished by the Church but only in a Ministeriall way It is false that the godly Kings could compell the unclean Jewes though circumcised to come to the Temple or the murtherers of their Children that same day to come with bloody hands to the Temple Yet the very locall and personall presence of a Iew in the Temple and the very posture of his body in looking with his face toward the Temple while he prayed was an externall lawfull Ordinance of God They could not then lawfully compell the Iews to these rites except with such and such previous qualifications they could not compell the Priests unwashed and having drunk wine to go to the Sanctuary 2 Chro. 15. It is not said they were to be put to death that should omit any Ceremony though every Religious observance be a seeking of God but they that would not seek God by entring in Covenant to renounce idols and serve the Lord or should prove apostates from the sworne Covenant were to be put to death 3. If that be a punishment we contend for things not for names which is a privation of good inflicted for a sinne then let Erastus sâ—e if the Priests punish not who debarred men from the holy things of God by Erastus his grant for Ceremoniall omissions against a Law of God And if the Priests should not suffer an unreconciled man to offer gifts and if the Church should deny pearls to apostates if this be not punishment and if the Magistrate be to cast out or inflict Ecclesiasticall censures shall he not punish in so doing Erastus To be cast out of the Synogogue is not to be Excommunicated For the Synagogue signified sometime all Iudea sometime a particular Congregation or the place of meeting or the sermon By no Law could a circumcised Iew be cast out of all Iudea and sent to the Gentitles or be compelled to say they were not Iews Yea they were killed who denyed Iudaisme 2 Maccabees so the cast out of the Synagogue were not debarred from the Temple
Church judgeth of internalls and that they may debarre men from the Sacraments for only heart-unbeleefe knowne to God only This must lye on Erastus as a calumnie while he make it good from our writings and Doctrine that we thus teach exclude those that are visibly scandalous and prophane and we are satisfied 2. He that brings his offering to the Altar and hath done a knowne offence to his brother for it is a sinfull and visible scandall which scandalizeth one brother He useth not the holy things of God right even as touching externals He that comes to the Lords supper desiring and asking the ordinance of righteousnesse as Isaiah speaketh and promiseth amendment and yet is openly ignorant and not sound in the faith he useth not aright the Sacraments even in externals of which only the Church judgeth rightly as he that in the same day commeth to the temple to worship now the very personall presence of a Iew in the Temple which was a Type of Iesus Christ was a worship and a holy thing of God whereas our presence in the place of meeting for worship is no such thing when he hath killed his sonne to Moloch prophaned the Temple and the name of God even in externals for the Priests of old who were to put differences between the clean and the unclean no more were to judge the inward thoughts and heart-dispositions of men knowne to God only then we can now judge them in the New Testament 1 Chro. 29. 17. 1 King 8. 39. 1 Chro. 28. 9. Prov. 15. 11. Hence that is an ignorant speach of Erastus Quistatuit malus esse non prodibit in ecclesiae faciem ut se poenuere prioris vite testetur ac meliorem promittat That man shall never come before the face of the Church to testifie that he repenteth of his former wicked life and promise amendment who purposeth to be wicked Will not men purpose not to be reconciled to their brethren and suffer many suns to go downe in their wrath and malice who come and bring their offring to the Altar why did then Christ forbid offring at the Altar without being reconciled to an offended brother Mat. 5. might not the offending brother offer his gift and were not the Priests to except his offring He could say all that Erastus requireth I acknowledge I have offended my brother I promise to crave him pardon and I desire to offer according to the Law Then the Priest was obliged to beleeve he dealt sincerely and lay his gift upon the Altar though he should not obey the command of Christ and go and leave his gift at the Altar and not offer while he were first reconciled to his brother and the like I say of one that hath killed his brother and cometh with hot blood to the Table of the Lord and goeth not to the Widdow and Orphanes whose Husband and Father he had killed to be reconciled Surely the man that should thus offer should not come to offer nor to eat at the Lords table rightly even in regard of externals which the Church may judge for he should omit this externall Be first reconciled to the Widdow and then offer and eat as Christ commanded 3. It is against Scripture and experience that a man that hath a purpose to kill his Father and in the highest point of treason to invade King Davids throne as Absolon did to say he will not professe to pay his vows at Hebron And might not Judas by his very eating the Passeover professe he beleeved in the Lambe of God that taketh away the sins of the world and that he would serve Christ and yet purpose in his heart to sell his Master Christ for 30 peeces of silver They seeme to be little acquainted with the mysterie of the hypocrisie naturally in men who put in print such a position The Author against whom Erastus writeth saith We have reason to rejoyce if we finde any such who will not professe faith and repentance though they be Hypocrites and therefore there is need of Excommunication and his meaning is that there is need of Excommunication alwayes and therefore there will be many who professe Repentance in words whose life and conversation belie their Repentance and Erastus cannot deny this if he know what it is â—o have a forme of godlinesse and deny the power which forme many have who are to be debarred from the Sacraments and to be Excommunicated in regard they are lovers of their owne selves covetous boasters proud blasphemers disobedient to parents unthankefull without naturall affection truce breakers false accusers incontinent fierce despisers of those that are good traitors headie high minded c. 2 Tim. 3. 1 2 c. and such they are in the eies of men otherwise Paul would not forbid to withdraw from such Erastus The Author I thinke would yeeld that the Sacraments should not be denyed to those who seeke them and desire to use them aright and are not excommunicated for the writeth that the deniall of the Sacraments is onely a Testimony of excommunication So when we give not a Testimony of a thing for example of learning to any to whom the thing it selfe to wit learning doth not agree we cannot deny the Sacraments to those who are not Excommunicated for hee should not be blotted with a Testimony of a banished man who is not declared to be banished Ans 1. The Author I thinke would never yeeld but the Sacraments ought to be denied to those who aske for them and desire to use them aright if they be otherwise Truce-breakers false accusers incontinent traitors for those have and may have a forme of godlines and aske the Sacraments and desire to use them aright I meane they may say they desire to use them aright for of their inward desire God onely can judge who knoweth the heart yet the Author cannot he will not say that such are to be admitted to the Lords Supper all thaâ— Erastus goeth on iâ— That the Church is obliged to beleeve that those doe repent and use the Sacraments aright who say in word of mouth they doe so and therefore are to be admitted to the Sacraments though they come but an houre before out of the Bordell house and have hands and sword hot and smoking with innocent blood Now Dogs and Swine Câ—in Iudas known to be scandalous may give faire words and cry Lord Lord and professe all this as is cleare Isa 58. 2. Mat. 7. 21 22. Rom. 16. 18 Mat. 23. 13 14 23 c. 2. Exclusion from the Sacraments is a Testimony of Excommunication but not testimonium proprium quarto modo for some that are not excommunicated are to be debarred from the Sacraments as the thing it selfe will force us to acknowledge should any come with his sword hot in blood from killing his father and Pastor to the Lords Table I hope the Church knowing this would not admit him to the Sacrament and yet he is not yet excommunicated
no sinne nor any prophaning of the Sanctuary of God Then all their sinne was that being Morally unclean they came to the Sanctuary Ergo God forbade such bloody men to come to his Sanctuary because God forbiddeth all sinne in his perfect Law Ergo those that deserved to dye by the hand of the Magistrate for open murther deserved for that open murther to be debarred from the holy things of God what ever Erastus say on the contrary Erastus The adversaries contend that some are to be excommunicated who deserve not to dye as if any to a light injury adde contumacy But they should have a warrant for this for this is a contradiction Every one who is clean according to the Law should keep the Passeover and this some who is clean according to the Law to wit who liveth wickedly and scandalously and yet is Ceremonially clean should not keep the Passeover Ans We finde no distinction made by Christ Matth. 18 and therefore we make none He that offendeth his brother Christ maketh no exceptions of light or small offences if he cannot be gained by admonitions and be contumacious against the Church he is reputed as a heathen and a publican and this is our warrant 2. Let Erastus answer this contradiction according to his owne way Every one who is Ceremonially clean should come to the Temple Some who are Ceremonially clean to wit who the same day have slaine their sons to Molech should not come into the Temple The affirmative is holden as a truth by Erastus The negative is the word of the Lord Ezech. 23. 38 39. 3. It is no contradiction which Erastus proposeth For every one who is Ceremonially clean should not keep the Passeover except also he be Morally clean For he that discerneth not the Lords body should not eat and the Lambe was no lesse Sacramentally the Lords body then the Bread and Wine is his body so the former is false in rei veritate The latter to wit Every one Ceremonially cleane should not keepe the Passeover to Erastus is false Now of two propositions contradicent both cannot be false Erastus may know this is bad Logick Erastus The Prophets rebuked the abuse and prophaning of the Sacraments but they interdicted none circumcised of the use of the Sacraments they said the sacrifices of the wicked were no more welcome to God then if they offered things forbidden dogs and swines blood to God but they never say the Priests are to be accused for admitting such into the Sacraments They accuse and rebuke the Priests that they transgressed and taught not the people aright but never that they admitted such into the holy things of God The Prophets say alwayes those things are wicked before God but not in the face of the Church Ans If the Prophets rebuked the prophaning of the Sacraments then they also forbade prophane men to use the Sacraments could the Prophets rebuke any thing but sin Ergo they forbade the sinne which they rebuked Ergo they forbade the man that had murthered his sonne to Molech to come to the Sanctuary while he repented for they could not rebuke but what they forbad 2. If the bloody mans comming to the Sanctuary in that case was nothing more acceptable to God then the offering of a dog to God then as the offering of a dog to God was both forbidden to the people and to the Priest so was the people and Priest both accused for the bloody mans comming into the Temple the one should sin in comming the other in admitting him to come 3. The Priests are expresly accused for this Ezek. 22 25 26. and 44. 23 24. Hag. 2. 11 12 13. 4. Those were not onely sinnes in foro Dei before God for so when they were secret they were sinnes before God but when openly knowen as Jer. 7. 9 10 c. Ezek. 23. 38 39. they were the Priests sins The bloody are forbidden to come to the Sanctuary what then were not the Porters whose calling it was to hold out the uncleane to debar all whom the Lord forbade to come Certainly they excluded to their knowledge all whom God excluded else how had they the charge to keepe the doores of the Lords House and the Priests are not onely rebuked for not instructing the people but for erring in governing Ier. 5. 31. they are not Prophets but Priests and Governours both Ecclesiasticall and civill that the Prophet complaineth of who did rule with rigour cruelty over the people beside that they feed not the flocke but themselves Ezek. 34. 1 2 3 c. Ier. 23. 1 2 3 4. and 10. 21. and 22. 22. and 50. 6. Micah 2. 11. Hos 4. 18. Micah 7. 3. Erastus Though ill doers be not killed by the Magistrate yet it followeth not that God for any such cause deserving death would have them debarred à recto usu from the right use of holy things by some that are not Magistrates nor are manifest Idolaters Apostates and Hereticks though they be not put to death by the Magistrate to be debarred by these fancied or imaginary Presbyters Ans 1. Erastus taketh ever for confessed without any probation that it is rectus usus the right use of the holy things of God that men with bloodie hands use them which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a most false principle for he that killeth his children to Molech and that same day cometh into the Sanctuary of God is so farre from the right using of the holy things of God that the Lord saith expresly his comming in in that condition to the Sanctuary is saith the Lord the prophaning of my Sanctuary Ezek. 23. 39. is this rectus usus Ceremoniarum the right use of the holy things of God It is not 1. It is a forbidden use of holy things Isa 1. 13. Mat. 7. 6. Mat. 5. 23. 2. It is a rebuked use of holy things Ier. 7. 9 10 11. Isa 66. 3. 3. It is a prophaning of holy things Ezek. 23. 38 39. 4. It is such a use as bringeth damnation to the party that useth it 1 Cor. 11. 27 29. and it is all these quoad externa in externall things 2. Erastus could yeeld they be debarred but by the Magistrate not by Imaginary Presbyters But all his Arguments as I shew before doe prove they should be debarred à recto usu from the right use of holy things by no man no more then they should be debarred from giving of almes or reading the word this is Erastus his owne Argument I pray you may the Magistrate or any on earth by any authority inhibite a Malefactor or a Murtherer who ought to die by the Magistrate to read the Word to give almes to pray for mercy to God because he hath killed a man 3. If hereticks apostates open idolaters are to be debarred by whom shall they be debarred Erastus pag. 207. thinketh they ought not to be admitted to the Sacraments who shall debar them The Magistrate
Magistrate as Erastus and Master Prinne thinketh exclude Iudasses and knowne traitors and knowne Devills and knowne children of the Devil out of the Church this is to Erastus and Master Prinne both absurd 2. Christ did eat and drink with Iudas knowing him to be all these Ergo we may eat and drink with knowne traitors also the contrary is a truth 1 Cor. 5. 9 10. 11. 2 Thess 3 14 15 Rom. 16. 17. evident enough 3. Christ preached the Gospel to those that he knew sinned against the Holy Ghost to the Pharisees who persecuted Christ to death and others Math. 12. 31 32 33 34. Ioh. 15. 22 23 24 25. Ioh. 7. 28 29. Ioh. 12. 35 36 37 38. Ioh. 10. 31 32. Ioh. 11. 47 48. and this is by the exposition of Erastus l. 3. c. 3. pag. 307. 308. and Master Prinne his vindication pag. 38 39. To give holy things to dogs so Mr. Prinne saith that by doggs and swine are meant only such infidels and heathen who refuse to imbrace and beleeve the Gospel or harbour or entertain the preachers of it of which the text is principally intended as well as the Sacraments or of such open contemners persecutors of the Gospel and Ministers who runne upon and teare the preachers thereof trampling the pearls of the Gospel and the tenderers of them under their feet as the Text resolves in terminis Mat. 7. 6. Mat. 10 14 15. Luk. 9 5. Act. 13. 46. or open Apostates 2. Pet. 1. 2 21 22 c hence by this we may give the pearls of the Gospel to such dogs as the Pharisees for to them Christ tendred the pearle of the Gospel 4. Christ might have hindred being God equall with the Father the Pharisees and Iews to malice him Ergo he being above the Laws that he gives to us doth not in this example warrant us to cast the pearls of the Gospel to such as we know to be Iudasses Pharisees and malicious haters and heart-murtherers of Christ 2. There is not the like reason of preaching the word and dispensing the seals 1. Because the word is a converting ordinance out of question and preached to heathen and to the non-converted though they refuse to imbrace and beleeve the Gospel and refuse to entertaine the preachers of it as is clear Act. 19. 22 23 24 25. Tit. 1. 10 11 12 13. 2 Tim. 3. 25 26 27. The Texts that Master Prinne alledgeth that the Gospel should not be preached to heathen who refuse to imbrace and beleeve the Gospel to wit Mat. 10. 14 15. Luk. 9. 5. Act. 13. 46. are to no purpose for Mat. 10. Luk. 9. is but a Temporary Commandement given for a time that the Disciples should depart from those houses of Iudea there is nothing of the heathen But by the contrary the Apostles are forbidden to go to Samaritanes or Gentiles at all Mat. 10. 5 6. who would not receive the peace of God in the Gospel which precept the Apostles in the story of the Acts did not observe but preached the Gospel to many heathen who refused to imbrace and beleeve the Gospel As Act. 16. and 17. and 19. 2. The place Act. 13. 15. is meant of the blaspheming Iews to whom Paul preached long after they persecuted and stoned the Prophets and had killed the Lord of life Act 2. and 4. and 8. and 9. Mat. 23. 37 38. 3. Those places are to better colour of purpose brought by Arminians and Socinians to prove that the Gospel is preached to people for their good entertainment thereof and denied to others for their unworthinesse and because they will not welcome it So the Arminians in the conference at Hague pag. 87 88 89. God sendeth the Gospel not according to his absolute will sed ob alias causas in homine latentâ—s for secret causes in man Arminius against Perkins p. 199. The will of God in sending the Gospell hath causes in the will of man according to that habenti dabitur So Corvinus ad Wallachros p. 44. Socinus Comment in 1. Epist Ioh. c. 4. p. 307. saith the same and Mr. Pryn is pleased in the same sense to cite them I conceive imprudently for I beleeve that Reverend and learned man doth hate those impious Sects the Enemies of the grace of God but truly if this be a rule to Pastors to spread the Gospell that they are to offer and give the pearle of the preached Gospell to those that willingly receive it and harbour the preachers and presently to depart and preach no more the word of the Kingdom to those who refuse it as the places Mat. 10. 14. Luke 9. 5. carry that sense because they are Heathens who refuse to embrace and beleeve the Gospell and harbour the Preachers as the worthy Divine saith conceiving that to be a casting of Pearles to Dogs and Swine I see not how the Preachers spreaders of the Gospel to the Heathen are to beleeve that God out of meer grace the good pleasure of his will without respect to good or bad deserving sendeth the Gospel to some and denieth it to others 3. Though the Sacrament of the Supper be a converting Ordinance in this sense that it corroborateth faith and conversion where it was once and so applyeth the Promises to one who before beleeved yet it is not a converting ordinance that is to be administred to one dead in sins and trespasses as the word is for then at the first Sermon that ever is preached to a Heathen if he should say though for base worldly ends known to the Church that he desired to have the Sacraments we are obliged to beleeve that he sincerely desireth these Seals and instantly at the same sermon to baptise him administer the other Seal of the Lords Supper to him for how can we deny converting Ordinances to those who desire them say our adversaries 4. An ordinance that cannot be dispensed to a Heathen remaining a Heathen and to an unconverted man knowne to be an unconverted man is not an Ordinance that ought to be dispensed as the ordinance of the Word and as the first converting ordinance to so many as we may safely dispense the Word unto and if it be first a converting ordinance as the preaching of the Word is then it is to be dispensed to all those to whom we are to preach the Word But Erastus and Mr. Pryn grant we may preach the Word to Heathen remaining Heathen and if they deny it as they yeeld it the Apostles did preach the Gospel to the Heathen remaining Heathen but they never admitted nor can we admit to the Lords Supper Heathen remaining Heathen nor could the Iewes upon the same ground admit to the Passeover the uncircumcised now then the preaching of the Word to some cannot make the Church and preachers guilty of casting pearles to Swine and of partaking of their siâ— whose hearing is not mixed with faith and yet if the Church and Ministers should admit to
the Sacraments Heathen remaiing Heathen they should prostitute holy things to Dogs and be guilty of an Heathen mans eating of his owne damnation Hence this Assertion of Mr. Prynne must be a great mistake That Ministers may as well refuse to preach the Word to such unexcommunicated grosse impenitent scandalous Christians whom they would suspend from the Sacrament for feare of partaking with them in their sinne as to administer the Sacrament to them because saith he unprofitable hearing is as damning a sinne as unworthie receiving of the Sacrament 1. Because there is and may be discovered to bee in the congregation persons as unworthy as Heathen such as Simon Magus yea latent Iudasses Parricides who are in the visible Church while God discover their hypocrisie but we may lawfully preach the Word to men as uncapable of the Word as Heathen and as unworthie as Christ and the Apostles did who did not contravene that Cast not Pearles to Swine yet we cannot give the Sacraments to men knowne to be as scandalous uncapable and unworthy as Heathen but we must prostitute holy things to Dogs and partake of their sinne for this is non causa pro causa that Mr. Prynne bringeth to say we may as well refuse to preach the Gospell to scandalous impenitents as to administer the Sacrament without partaking of the sinnes of either because unprofitable hearing is as damning a sinne as unworthy receiving the Supper This Because is no cause it is true they are both damnable sinnes but how proveth he that Preachers partake equally of both I can shew him a clear difference which demonstrateth the weaknesse of this connexion 1. Vnprofitable hearing of the Gospell in a Heathen is as damning a sin as hypocriticall receiving of the Sacrament is a sinne they are not equalia peccata but sure they are â—què peccata but I may preach the Gospel to a Heathen and not partake of his sinne of unprofitable hearing for I may be commanded to preach to a Heathen remaining a Heathen as Paul preached to Felix to the scoffing Athenians to the persecuting Iews and giving obedience to the command of God freeth me from partaking of his unprofitable hearing But I cannot administer the Lords Supper to an Heathen remaining a Heathen without sharing in his sin and suppose a Heathen remaining a Heathen would croud in to the Lords Table as of old many Heathen fained themselves to be Iewes desiring to serve the time 1 Sam. 14. 21. yet I should partake of the Heathens unworthy receiving if knowing him to be a Heathen serving the time and crouding in amongst the people of God I should administer the Lords Supper because I have no command of God to administer the Lords Supper to a Heathen man nor could Paul administer the Sacrament to the scoffing Athenians or to Felix without taking part with them in their prophaning of the Lords Table 2. The necessity of preaching the Word it being simply necessary to the first conversion of a sinner putteth Pastors in a case that they may and ought to preach the Gospell to Heathen and to thousands knowne to be unconverted without any participation of their unprofitable hearing and the non-necessity of the Lords Supper or the Seale of the Covenant and the nourishing of their souls to life eternall who visibly and to the knowledge of those who are dispensers of the Sacrament prophane and abominably wicked putteth those same dispensers in a condition of being compartners with them in the prophaning of the holy things of God if they dispence the bread to those that are knowingly dead in sinnes so the Gospell may be taught in Catechisme to Children Deut. 6. 6 7. 2 Tim. 3. 15. Exod. 12. 26 27. Gen. 18. 19. Prov. 22. 6. because there is a necessity they be saved by hearing Rom. 10. 14. 1 Cor. 1. 23. but there is no necessity but a command on the contrary that the Lords Supper be dispensed to no children nor to any that cannot examine themselves and they may be saved without the Sacrament but not ordinarily without the Word nor were it enough to forwarne Apostates and persecutors and Hypocriticall heathen and children that if they eate unworthily they eate their owne damnation as Mr. Pryn saith and yet reach the Sacrament to those for the dispensers then should â—ast Pearls to some Dogs and Swine contrary to Mat. 5. 6. and they should be free of the guilt in polluting of holy things if they should give them a watch-word say they were about to prophane the holy things of God before they committed such wickednesse Nor doe we as Mr. Pryn saith nor know we or the Scriptures any such distinction as sealing externally to the senses of any receiving the Lords Supper lawfully divided sinfully it may be divided but there is no Law for sinne no print no authority of men for it from the internall sealing nor heard we ever of two sorts of conversion one externall from Paganisme to the externall profession of the faith wrought extraordinarily by Miracles without the Word and ordinarily by Baptisme in Infants and another internall from formall profession to an inward imbracing of Christ and his merits 1. Because the Stewards and Ambassadors of Christ may notdare to play with the Sacraments as children doe with nuts to seal to mens senses and fancies Christ and spirituall nourishment in him and part in his body broken and blood shed in those who visibly have nothing of faith to their discerning and of the life of Christ but onely senses and fancie such as all visibly and notoriously scandalous walking after the flesh all Herericks Apostates knowne and unwashen Hypocrites have and no more 2. All heathen and unbaptized have senses and are capable of externall washing and externall and Sacramentall eating as well as others are but are they capable of the Seals because they have bodies to be washed and teeth and stomacke to eat Sacramentally And have Ministers warrant enough to dispense the Sacraments to all that have senses But they must be within the visible Church also ere they be capable of Sacraments Mr. Pryn will say but I aske by what warrant Mr. Pryn alledgeth that the Supper of the Lord is a converting ordinance as well as the Word and that Pastors may without sinne dispense the Sacraments to those to whom they preach the Word but they may preach the Word to Heathen remaining Heathen Ergo may they dispense the Lords Supper to Heathen remaining Heathen What more absurd yet remaining Heathen they are as capable of Mr. Pryn his sense-sealing and sense-converting Sacraments as any sound beleever 3. A sealing to the senses cannot be divided from the inward sealing by the Spirit neither in the intention of God for the externall sealing without the internall is Hypocrisie and God cannot intend Hypocrisie nor can this division be in regard of the nature of the Sacrament for it doth seal to us our spirituall nourishment in Christ except we
sinfully separate the one from the other and sin is no ordinance of God 4. What word of Christ hath Mr. Pryn for extraordinary conversion of men by Miracles without the Word He must conceive with Arminians and Socinians that many are converted that never heard of that precious name of Iesus without which there is no salvation Act. 4. 11. or of a faith in Christ as Moses Amyraldus dreameth without the knowledge of Christ and may write books de salute Ethnicorum for this externall conversion doth lead of its owne nature to internall conversion and salvation This may make us fancie somewhat of the salvation of Aristotle Seneca Cicero Aristides Scipio Regulus without the Law or Gospell this way of extraordinarily saving men by Miracles without the Gospell is the doctrine of Arminians and Socinians so say the Arminians at the Synod of Dort pag. 334 335. Those whom God hath deprived of the Gospell he hath not precisely rejected them from a communion of the benefits of the Gospell Adolphus Venator adver Dracenos p. 84. saith The heathen are saved without the Gospell if they â—â—n but pray Ens Entium miserere mei Socinus praelec Thelo c. 3. telleth us of an inspired word that saveth us called verbum interius You may please Schoolmen thus such as Granadus Contr. 8. de grat tract 6. disp 1. numb 43. did Ruiz de Predesti se 8. numb 7. Alexand. Alens 8. p. q. 69. memb 5. art 3. De bonis Philosophis sic credo c. Roa lib. 1. De Provident quest 7. n. 50. Vega lib. 13. in Trident. cap. 12. Enriquez Tom. 2. De ultimo fine c. 14. num 6. quod lib. 8. quest 5. Vasquez 1. par disp 97. and c. 5. Soto lib. 1. de nat grat c. 18. ad 2. Francis Sonnius in demonstrat Tract 12. de consiliis c. 8. Camerarius lib. 1. de grat c. 8. lib. 7. c. 8. who doe all of them send all the good Philosophers and white Morallists to heaven by Miracles inspirations extraordinary workes of providence and that without any rumour of Christ and the Gospell famous Papists to their owne shame yeeld that Divine faith cannot be produced by Miracles Andradius saith often they may be false Maldonatus saith That no necessary argument of faith can be drawn from Miracles Gregorius de Valen. saith Miracles give us no infallible certainty of Doctrine Bellarmine saith Miracles cannot convince the minde Durandus giveth a sure reason why miracles cannot produce faith Because saith he suppose it were known of it self that this miracle of the raising e. g. of Lazarus were true yet it is not known by it self that it testifieth that this is a true Doctrine which he preacheth who worketh the miracle Mr. Prynne then hath put the salvation of those who never heard the Gospel upon extraordinary Pillars when he bottometh them on miracles without the word which are extraordinary rotten Pillars 5. The Lords Supper of which we now dispute is not the mean of our first conversion from formall profession to inward embracing the Gospel For the word must go before and not simply the externall letter of the word but the word first believed and received by the efficacions working of the holy Ghost And so the word is indeed the first converting Ordinance and so the Lords Supper is given to one who already believes and the Sacrament concurreth as a mean to make good corroborate and increase the conversion which was before Mr. Prynne might have spared his pains in proving That the Lords Supper is a converting Ordinance because it applieth Christ â—o uâ— we grant it to be a converting and quickning and lively applicatory Ordinance But how He may know that what ever Ordinance addeth a new degree of Faith of conversion of saving application of Christ and the Promises must be a converting Ordinance But it is so converting that it is a confirming Ordinance and necessarily it presupposeth Faith and conversion already wrought by the word it is not a first-converting Ordinance such as is the word but as nourishing or accretion is a sort of vitall generation in the body of a growing childe so as Physicians make nutrition in children to be Aggeneration or Congeneration or a vitall generation with or in the body and it presupposeth the first generation by which life is given to the childe now nourishing doth not give life things void of life are not capable of nourishing therefore nourishing is the continuing of life and as it were prorogated and continued generation so here Sacramentall eating by faith is a spirituall feeding and nourishing of the soul on the crucified Lords body broken his blood shed it is not the act of our first conversion Regeneration is sealed in Baptisme and Christ given as sealing and confirming Regeneration but the Lords Supper is that which exhibiteth Christ to us as food and sealeth our spirituall growing and coalition in Christ I say not this as if the Church could give the Supper of the Lord to none but such as are inwardly and really Regenerated but to shew that the Church taketh such as are externally called to be internally called when they dispense this Supper to them that they are nearer Christ then those that hear the Gospel which Heathen may do ere they can be admitted to the Supper And this Erast every where and Mr. Pryn in terminis teach when they say That those that are recte instituti rightly instructed who earnestly desire the Lords Supper professe sincere Repentance and promise amendment are only to be admitted to the Sacrament and those only excluded who are convicted to be grosse and scandalous and obstinate offenders Whence it is clear they professe Repentance and to the Church they are converts who are to be admitted to the Supper before they come to the Lords Supper Now this must be done by the word Preached and received by faith in profession Ergo this Supper in the Church-way cannot be dreamt to be a mean of their first conversion far lesse in foro Dei in Gods court can men first receive the Lords Supper having never heard the word and then be converted in foro Dei really and inwardly by receiving the Lords Supper then might the Sacrament before and without the word be given if it be a converting Ordinance belonging to all to whom the word belongeth For Mr. Prynne saith It can be denyed to none within the visible Church And what reason if it be no lesse the first converting Ordinance but that it may be administred to those that never heard the word and are Members of the visible Church And by this Mr. Prynne cannot deny but the Lords Supper should be dispensed to infants and children who cannot try themselves nor yet discern the Lords Body Yea those that are convicted of obstinacy in scandalous sins are Members of the Church for how could they be judged convicted and sentenced if they be not within
as Saylors subjects these reduplications be consening and deceiving notions painters as painters are regulated by Art subject to be judged by painters but as men they are subjects so are Ministers as men subject to Cesar as Ministers they are the servants of Christ not subjects Ob. As Ministers they are either Magistrates or subjects but Ministers as Ministers are not Magistrates He that is not with Christ is against him M. Coleman in his Brotherly examination p. 21. saith He that doth not manage his office under Christ and for Christ must manage it under the Devil and for the Devil if therefore the Christian Magistrate do not manage his office under and for Christ he must manage it under or for the Devil which were blasphemous Ans I deny the Major proposition Ministers as Ministers are neither Magistrates nor subjects but formally the separated servants of Christ set a part for the work of gathering the Saints Now to be subjects is to be judged by the Magistrate in those things in which they are subjects that is in all Civill businesse they are and false teaching discerned by the Church to be false teaching or in case the Church corrupt themselves then are Ministers obnoxions to bodily punishment to be inflicted by the Magistrate But this is properly to be a subject of the Magistrate to be lyable to the civill cognizance trying and bodily punishment inflicted by the Magistrate and to be a subject and a member of the other Kingdome is to be subject to the Ecclesiasticall cognizance tryall and censure of the Church as a matter that concerneth the soul hence the former concerneth the body and outward man the latter the inner man and the soul 2. The former concerneth peace with men and edification to be procured by a mean extrinsecall to edification to wit by the sword the latter concerneth peace with God by a spirituall sword the Word of God 3. The former is carnall and of the Kingdome of this world the latter spirituall and of Christs other Kingdome that is not of this world Ioh. 18. 36. 4. The former worketh by coaction and bodily violence the latter by removing unwillingnesse and making a rebellious soul obedient 5. The former is an act of justice not terminated on repentance or the mans turning to God as an end for whether this end be obtained or no the Magistrate is to use the sword the other is terminated on repentance as its end He that is not with Christ is against Christ and with the Devil It s true in all professors of the Gospel as professors no man but he must be either on the one side or on the other either for or with Christ or against him But it is not true with every reduplication thus Ministers as Ministers are subjects of or to the King and to obey him in the Lord and so with Christ hath this sense Ministers essentially and formally are subjects of or to the King to obey him in the Lord so as Ministers do lose the essence and formality of the office of the Ministery if they be not the Kings subjects and with Christ this is most false for Iudas should not be a Minister of Christ then in that he was not subject to the Law of Cesar that is that the servant and disciple should be for and under his master and Lord it only followeth Ergo Iudas was not a godly Minister but under the Devil not under Christ Magistrates do neither essentially as Magistrates cleave to Christ nor â—ight against Christ but as holy men they cleave to Christ as sinfull men they fight against Christ 2. Master Coleman knoweth that we speak of the office of a Magistrate as a Magistrate not under the accidents of Christian or heathenish there was no reason he should apply his Argument to the Parliament except to make us odious as if we did not as much honour or pray for the Parliament and King as himselfe But it concludeth equally against all Magistrates and let him see it in a heathen Magistrate as a Magistrate for a heathen Magistrate as a Magistrate doth either manage his office under Christ and for Christ or under the Devil and for the Devil This I and Master Coleman also shall deny for a heathen Magistrate as a Magistrate doth not manage his office under or for Christ as mediator because he is utterly ignorant of Christ for he hath no more but what God as creator and nature gave him saith Master Coleman pag. 20. and the other horne of the Argument is as weak for this The heathen Magistrate as such manageth his office under or for the Devil is blasphemous for so Magistracy and the office should be intrinsecally unlawfull and for the Devil But it is intrinsecally the Ordinance of God Rom. 13. and apply this to God as creator it shall appear of force The Magistrate as the Magistrate doth either manage his office under and for God creator or under and for the Devil The former part is true because God creator and nature made the office of Magistracy apply it to a heathenish husband Father Master Musitian Painter under these reduplications and it shall make the relation of Husband Devilish or this proposition a Husband a Father as a Father and a Husband manage their office under and for Christ the mediator or under or for the Devil is most false and blasphemous the former part is false for there should have been and was Father and Husband which did manage the duties of these relations for God creator not for Christ mediator though Christ had never taken on our nature never been mediator never been King and Priest of his redeemed Church The latter part is blasphemous for then Adam had managed the part of Husband and Father under the Devil and for the Devil even before he fell in sinne and in the state of Innocency 3. Mr. Colemans meaning is that the Magistrate as the Magistrate and by office is under Christ mediator as his supream and immediate vicegerent as mediator now in this sense Christs saying he that is not against us is with us shall not prove the truth of the proposition which must be this and is most false to wit that The Magistrate as the Magistrate by office is either under Christ mediator as the supream and immediate vicegerent of him as mediator or he is by office under the Devil This we deny for one might argue thus of the Apostle Paul who was either as an Apostle for Christ or against Christ Paul as an Apostle is either under Christ the mediator and his supream and immediate vicegerent having power of both Swords or he is under the Devil The proposition is most false for Paul is neither of them so say we here the Magistrate doth neither manage his office as a Magistrate under Christ mediator as his Vicar and a little head of the Church nor yet doth the Magistrate manage his office under or for the
and people which is the highest Papall Tyranny on earth Obj. 3. If the Magistrate be therefore subject to the Church not as a Magistrate but as he scandalously transgresseth the Law of God so that the Church may not rebuke and censure him as either a Magistrate or as a Magistrate doing his duty but onely as a Transgressor Then neither 1. one particular Pastor as a Pastor is subject to the Church yea no man in a lawfull calling or relation as such is subject to the Church for the Church cannot rebuke or censure a Husband as a Husband a father as a father a Painter as a Painter no more then the Church can censure a Magistrate as a Magistrate for then should the Church censure and condemn all these relations and callings as husband father painter Magistrate as intrinsecally unlawfull Nor can the Church censure and rebuke husband father painter musitian c. when they do right and doe but fulfill their relations and callings in doing the duties of husband father painter no more then the Church can censure and rebuke the Magistrate when he doth his dutie Ans 1. This is not the totall compleat and adequate cause why the Magistrate in spirituall things is subject to the Church but the halfe of the cause onely you must take in the other consideration he is in spiritualibus subject to the Church not only as he doth sin but 1. As he may sin scandalously 2. As he may be directed informed and swayed with precepts promises counsels threatnings toward a supernaturall end to eternall life take in all these three and we grant all The Magistrate and all in other relations and professions and callings are equally in spirituall things subject to the Church as the Ministers of Christ and in all other relations and callings as fathers husbands painters musitians are in civill things equally subject to the Magistrate according to the three former cases in a civill consideration Obj. 4. But then you must prove solidly from the word that the Magistrate is subject to the Church in spirituall things Ans It is enough if I prove that the Magistrate is subject to the Church to Pastors and Doctors in things belonging to his soule and as a man and a Christian in civill things are subject to him which to me is clear in the Word of God as 1. Because Timothy and all watchmen in their person are commanded to rebuke them that sin before all and that in the sight of God and the Lord Iesus and the elect Angels without preferring one before another or doing any thing by partialitie 1 Tim. 5. 20 21. 2 Tim. 4. 2. And if Levi must not know his father or his mother in the Lords cause Deut. 33. 9. and Ieremiah in rebuking not be dismayed of Kings Princes and Prophets Ier. 1. 17. neither must Ministers accept the persons of judges Christ rebuked his mother to whom otherwise he was subject Ioh. 2. 4. Luke 2. 51. 2. There is the practise of the Prophets Christ and the Apostles that they have rebuked Kings Rulers Magistrates Priests Prophets every page almost of the Old and New Testament saith this 3. God hath no whit exempted the Rulers from rebukes as they be men they can and do sin 4. Princes are the sheep of Christ and redeemed as a part of the flock for the which Christ gave the blood of God Ergo they are to be fed and watched over lest they also as grievous wolves prey upon the flock Acts 20. 28 29 30. then there must be some over them and those who should speake the word of the Lord to them and so the word of rebuke and who should watch for the souls of Magistrates as those who must give an account whom the Magistrates must obey as others in the same condition who have souls Heb. 13. 7 17. 1 Pet. 5. 1 2 3. 1 Thes 5. 12 13 14. 5. All the censures of the Church are for the good of soules that the Spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord 2 Thes 3. 14 15. 1 Tim. 1. 19 20. 1 Cor. 5. 5 6. and for edification 2 Cor. 10. 8. Iude v. 23. Ergo the souls of Magistrates should not be defrauded of this mean of edification 6. Pastors as Ministers Stewards Ambassadors Watchmen are intrusted with the word of reconciliation 1 Cor. 4. 1 2. and 1 Cor. 3. 5. and 4. 15. 2 Cor. 5. 19 20. 1 Tim. 3. 1. 2 Cor. 4 7. Ergo they must divide the Word aright to all within the family 2 Tim. 2. 15. and rebukes and censures are a part of the word of reconciliation no lesse then promises and they are to prophecy death and life as God in his word commandeth Ezek. 3. 17 18 19 20. and 13. 19. and 33. 7 8 9. 10. 7. The power of the Lord Jesus in censuring is extended to men as â—ll doers not as Magistrates or not Magistrates 1 Cor. 5. 2. Gal. 5. 10. the power of binding and loosing is extended to a trespassing brother who will not hear the Church Mat. 18. 15 16. and 16. 19 20. The Magistrate is a brother Deut. 17. 15. one of the Israel of God as Saul was of of the Tribe of Benjamin David of Iudah 8. The Church may judge such as are within the Church 1 Cor. 5. 12. but such is the Christian Magistrate 9. Correction is a priviledge of sons and Members of the family Heb. 12. 6 7. Rev. 3. 19. Ergo the Magistrate should not be deprived of that wherein all Christians share Gal. 2. 28. 10. Discipline is a part of Christs Kingly government if the government be on Christs shoulders as King as it is Mat. 28. 19 20. Ephes 4. 11 12. Esa 22. 22. and if the Gospel be the Word and Scepter of his Kingdome Mark 1. 14 15. and 4. 11. Matth. 21 43. Luke 4. 43. and 8. 1. Acts 1. 3. and 8. 12. and 20. 25. and 28. 31. Psal 45. 3. Rev. 1. 16. Then if Magistrates be the subjects of Christ as King of the Church they must be subject to those who preach the Kingdome carry the Scepter and rule under Christ as King 11. Upon the same ground if they decree grievous decrees Isa 10. 1. Micah 3. 1. and be wolves ravening the prey Ezek. 22. 27. let them have either Royall or Parliamentary power they are to be rebuked debarred from the holy things of God excommunicated and their sins bound in earth as in heaven Mat. 18 18. Mat. 16. 19. Nor should Courts or Parliaments or Thrones be cities of refuge to unjust and scandalous men 12. Upon the same ground Magistrates are not to be deprived of the good of private rebukes and admonitions except we hate the Magistrate in our heart and strive not to gain his soul Levit. 19. 17. Mat. 18. 15 16. Luk. 17. 3 4. Psal 141. 5. 13. Erastus himself granteth that Magistrates may be rebuked and when he granteth that Apostates and Idolaters are not
the civil Magistrate may lawfully dispence the Word and Sacraments 4. They never condemned the Discipline of Geneva Erastus doth 5. They acknowledge there was in the apostolick Church an Ecclesiastical Senate or Presbytery Erastus saith this is a devise wanting Scripture 6. They denied Excommunication to be exercised by all the Church as a devise of the Anabaptists Bullinger saith 1 Cor. 5. a dilectis ad hoc hominibus Erastus saith it must be exercised by the whole Church if there be any such thing 7. Bullinger and Gualther think that Discipline is necessary in the Church Erastus refuseth any such thing 2. Bullinger and Gualther do think that the Lords Supper which is an action of publike thanksgiving and communion should not be turned into a punishment which is a Use that Christ and his Apostles hath not taught us But this is easily answered 1. The pearls and holy things of the Gospel are not turned into another Vse then Christ hath ordained because they are denied to dogs and swine as a punishment of their swinish disposition and if these pearls were given to swine should they not be turned to another Use then is ordained by Christ Is not the union of members in a Church-body a sweet bound is this communion translated to a bastard end unknown to Christ and the Apostles because the incestuous man is cast out of that Communion This is as who would say the Table of the House is a symbol of a sweet Communion of all the children of the House Ergo the Table is turned from its native Use and is abused if a flagitious and wicked son be turned out at the doors and removed from the Table I think the contrary is true the Lords Table ordained for children is converted into an Use not known to Christ and his Apostles when the Table is prepared for dogs and swine and this argument is against Christ Mat. 7. as much as against us 2. By this the excommunicated cast out of the House is not debarred from the Table of the House What sense is here the offender is cast out from amongst the children of the Lords family and yet is admitted to the Table of the family 3. These great Divines teach that in the dayes of Christ and the Apostles there was such an ordinance as excommunication and that the Church who worketh not miracles for any thing that we read and received a precept from the Holy Ghost for Excommunication as a moral and perpetual mean to remove scandals to humble and shame an obstinate offender to preserve the Church from contagion and to edifie all as is clear Mat. 18. 15 16 17 18 19. 1 Cor. 5. 1 2 3 4 5 6. 2 Thes 3. 14 15. Rom. 16. 17. 2 Cor. 10. 8. that the Church I say or men must be wiser then Christ and remove this mean of edification and substitute the sword of the Magistrate that hath no activity or intrinsecal influence for such a supernatural end as edification this cannot but be a condemning of the lawgiver Christs wisdom Whereas Mr. Prinne and others say that by the preaching of the Word not by Church-discipline men are converted to Christ as witnesse the many thousands of godly people in England where there have been no government but prelatical I answer 1. This is to dispute against the wisdom of Christ who ascribeth to private rebukes and Church censures the gaining of souls the saving of the spirit repentance and humiliation Mat. 18. 15 16. 1 Cor. 5. 5 6. 2 Cor. 2. 6 7 8 9. 2 Thes 3. 14 15. Rom. 16. 17. 2 Cor. 10. 8. because preaching is more effectual Ergo is the Discipline not effectual 2. Consider if thousands more would not have been converted if Christs Government had been set up for which Mr. Cartwright Mr. Vdal Mr. Dearing and the godliest did supplicate the Parliament 3. Consider if there hath not been in Scotland as many thousands comparing the numbers rightly when the Church was terrible as an Army with Banners 4. Consider how the Tigurine Churches and others for want of the hedge have been scandalously wicked 5. The Magistrate by punishing drunkennesse or fornication or extortion for he cannot take away the life for these doth not keep the lump of the whole Church from being leavened and infected with the contagion of such The Church by removing and casting out such an one must do that and the personal separating from such as walk inordinately cannot be an act of the Magistrate and yet cannot but be a perpetual and moral mean or ordinance that the Church is to use not only when they have not a Christian Magistrate but perpetually for we are to withdraw from those that walk inordinately and are not to be corrupted with having intire fellowship with wicked men whether the Church have a Christian Magistrate or no I am to gain my brother by rebuking and by telling the Church and to esteem one that heareth not the Church as an Heathen or a Publican that I may gain him Whether there be a Christian or an Heathen Magistrate in the Church except it can be proved that the Magistrate as the Magistrate is to gain souls to God Yea Musculus Bullinger and Gualther have alike reason to say there is no need that we rebuke privately a trespasing brother and that we forgive him seven times a day when the Church hath a Christian Magistrate as they can say there is no need of Excommunication for if the sword can supply the room of one spiritual ordinance of God why not of another also and the text will bear us out as well to say we are not to eschew the company of a scandalous brother for shaming of him and for the danger of being leavened by him because the Magistrates sword may supply the want of that mean of edifying as well as it may supply the want of Excommunication Yea they may say there is no need of publike rebukes by the Word the sword may supply these also The Helvetian Conâ—ession is approved by the Tygurine Pastors by the Divines of Berne Basil Geneva Deus ad colligendam vel constituendam sibi Ecclesiam eamque gubernandam et conservandam semper usus est Ministris Ministrorum virga institutio functio vetustissima ipsius Dei est non nova non hominum est ordinatiâ— cumque omninò oporteat esse in Ecclesia disciplinam et apud veteres quondam usitata fuerit excommunicatio fuerint que judicia Ecclesiastica in populo Dei in quibus per viros prudentes et pios ipsisimum presbyterium exercebatur disciplina Ministorum quoque fuerit ad edificationem disciplinam moderari c. Magistratus officium praecipuâ—m est pacem et tranquillitatem publicam procurare et conservare Gallica Confessio the 29. Credimus veram Ecclesiam gubernari debere eâ politiâ sive disciplinâ quam D. N. I. C. sanciviâ— ita ut viz. in ea sâ—nt pastores presbyteri sive
an Artificer to make swords though he know some shall abuse them to murthering the innocent is no scandalous work I take not on me to prescribe rules for eschewing scandall in all occurrences of providence The godly learned can see more then I can doe in this matter where love should be warie to lay a straw in the way of any weake traveller Quest III. Whether or no we may deny obedience to the lawes of our Superiours for feare of Scandall causleslie taken THis is not my question but a question of the Doctors of Aberdeen yet it conduceth for the times and because one of the learnedest of these Doctors did agitate the question of scandall with me in private before the writing of that book I desire libertie to vindicate my selfe by discussing two chapters of this purpose And first the question seemeth to me many wayes vaine 1. They aske about denyall of obedience which is not proved but presumed to be obedience 2. They presume that the Masters the Lord Prelates of Pearth faction are our Superiours by no law of God or our Church was ever any superioritie conferred upon them 3. They say for scandall causlesly taken if they meane that there be no just reason indeed why any should take scandall they say nothing against us for we thinke to take scandall is to sinne if they know any just reason or cause of sinne except Satan and mens free-will we shall be taught of them If they meane scandalously taken that is not culpably given by the practisers of Ceremonies this is a Chimera and to us no question for we are not to denie obedience to lawfull lawes for eschewing Scandall when obeyers doe give no cause culpably of Scandall they would have formed the question to our reverend and learned Brethren if they had dealt plainly Whether or no we may desist from practising Coremonies which setting aside the law of Superiours are indifferent when from the practising of them ariseth the ruine of many soules for whom Christ died In things necessarie commanded and forbidden of God we cannot deny obedience but the matter of the lawes is silenced in the question to deceive the reader Duplyers IF the Scandall arising from the Articles of Pearth come ex conditione operis from the very enormitie in these Articles then are we to forbeare these â—rticles ever and not onely while they be tryed in a lawfull Assembly for such are either sinne or have a manifest show of sinne But if the scandall arise not from the Articles themselves but from malice or weaknesse we deny that we are totally to abstaine from obedience to lawfull Superiours for eschewing Scandall causlesly taken and we marvell from whence ye have learned this strange and harsh doctrine Answ 1. Your enumeration is weake for we know no Scandall justly taken but proceeding from both these weaknesse or wickedness of nature is the neerest cause of all Scandall taken because it is the cause of all sinne and to be scandalized is sinne Also it is here taken from the enormitie of the deed in that practising of things indifferent if a scandall taken either weakly or maliciously thence arise there is enormitie in the deed yet totall abstinence is not hence concluded because cessante ratione scandali when the ground of the Scandall is removed there is no enormitie in the fact 2. You define to us or rather divine that then there is an irregularitie in the fact that justly scandalizâ—th when either the fact is a sinne or then hath a manifest shew of sinne And we wonder where you learned this strange Divinitie for 1 Cor. 10. 27. To eat meat at a Feast that you are invited unto is neither sinne because v. 23. 25. it is lawfull The earth is the Lords nor is it such as hath a manifest shew of sinne as all having sense knoweth One of your prime Doctors defined to me these onely have manifest appearance of sinne Quae plâ—rumque fiunt malo fine which for the most part are done for an evill â—nd such as is to lye in bed with another mans wife to kneele before an Idoll The formâ—r in the exposition of all is done for adulterie the latter for Idolatrie I am sure to eat meats at an Infidels feast is not of that nature which is done ordinarily for an evill end it is ordinarily done to refresh nature and to solâ—â—e it which hath no manifest shew of sinne and yet if there be a weake one beside who saith that meat is offered to Idols in that case to eat is to scandalize 32. and is against the glory of God v. 31. 3. You aske from whom we learned this strange doctrine to deny obedience to the lawes of Superiours for scandall causlesly taken And we answer we learned it from the Apostle Paul who saith 1 Cor. 8. 13. If meat offend my weake brother I will eat no flesh I will abstaine totally and absolutely while the world standeth This abstinence for the date of the worlds standing God be thanked is longer then the time to a lawfull Generall Assembly was at that time yet the Apostle proveth Rom. 14. That to eat or not to eat was at that time as indifferent as to practise or not practise Ceremonies also who ever offended at Pauls eating of fleshes were offended out of weakness v. 7. and it was in that sense scandall causlesly taken Duplyers pag. 59. n. 34. The Author of the popish English Ceremonies saith that both Cajetan and Bannes affirm that we should abstain a spiritualibus non necessariis from spirituall duties not necessarie to salvation when Scandall ariseth from the doing of them but none of the Schoolemen euer taught to abstaine totally and altogether from any spirituall dutie for eschewing the scandall of either weake or wicked Answer What the author of the English Popish Ceremonies saith in that subject all your learning shall never be able to Answer for our brethren required but abstinece from these Ceremonies till they be tryed in a lawfull Generall Assemblie for they never were yet tryed in a lawfull Assemblie till the late Assemblie at Glasgow anno 1638. 2. That Author argueth a Majore and we desire an Answer if we may abstaine from spirituall duties commanded by the most high Superiour the Lord our God hic nunc in case of Scandall Ergo farre more are we to abstaine from practising of dead Ceremonies voyd of all spirit of life in the case of scandall yea and universally and totally we are to abstaine because the Superiours have no power to make lawes in materia scandalosa when that which they command is scandalous and in the very matter soule-murther Duplyers Thomas and his followers say Bona spiritualia non necessaria sunt dimittenda propter scandalum in ijs quae sunt sub consiliâ— non vero sub praecepto We may omit spirituall duties for eschewing scandall which fall under counsell but not under commandement Answer We conceive you not to
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
these rites was because the Egyptians and Canaanites used them But it is enough for our purpose that God useth this reason Yeâ— shall not doe so to the Lord your God Yee shall not doe after the doings of the Land of Egypt or of the Canaanites Deut. 12. 30. 31. See that then inquire not after their Gods saying how did these Nations serve their God even so will I doe likewise Levit. 18. 3. 4. This is enough to prove that it is a strong argument and Gods argument to prove that a worship that Heathen useth to their Gods though in it owne nature indifferent can not lawfully be given to the Lord it wanting all warrant in Gods word because heathens doe so to their Gods and it is cleare to me Deut. 12. 2. Yee shall utterly dâ—stroy all the places wherein the Nations which ye possesse served their Gods upon the high Mountaines and under every greene tree 3. And you shall breake downe their Altars and breake their Pillars and burne their Groves with fire and you shall hew downe the Graven Images of their Gods and destroy the Names of them out of this place 4. Yee shall not doe so to the Lord your God 5. But unto the place which the Lord your God shall choose out of all your Tribes to put his name there even unto his habitation shall yee seeke and thither shall you come There is nothing more indifferent then the place of worship yet doth the Lord in these words Yee shall not doe so to the Lord your God forbid to worship God in the place where the Canaanites worshipped their Idols And this proveth our point that Rites used by heathen indifferent in their owne nature as place stone-altars hils are not to be used as positives with a new signification as our Ceremonies have to the Lord our God because Heathens have done so to their Idol-Gods Wee know the Lord may have and hath other reasons in the depth of his unsearchable wisdome why he forbiddeth some things of their owne nature indifferent then because heathen and wicked men doe so as he forbade the eating of the tree of knowledge a thing in it selfe indifferent not for any such conformitie with wicked men And Hooker yeeldeth our argument to be concludent when he saith Notwithstanding some fault undoubtedly thire is in the very resemblance with idolaters Then notwithstanding all that Hooker saith on the contrarie our argument is good The rest of this subject is more fully and learnedly discussed by others and therefore no more of this Peace bee on the Israel of God and to the most high Dominion and Glorie Amen FINIS Isa 9. 6. Isa 35 1 2. Psal 97. 1. Vel lubentes vel vi attracti decreta Dei se quamur necesse est Ille crucem sceleris pretium tulit hic diadema Iuven. Saty. 10. Ier. 51. 35. Rev 17. 3. 5. Isa 62. 1 2 Iob 37. 23. Iob 33. 13. Mal. 1. 8. Christ hath not instituted a mutable Church Government Some things Morall some things naturall in Gods worship Circumstances either meerly morall or 2 meerly Physicall or 3. mixt Our Physic â—â— Circumstances are all easily known and numbred Circumstances and such and such circumstances The Scripture teacheth not meer circumstances but supposeth them Time and place of Ceremonies need not be proved 1. Argum. to prove that the Platform of Church-Government is not mutable at mens will Act. 15. The Scriptures way of teaching that indifferent things are alterable is it self unalterable 2 Argum. The Scripture shall not teach when we sin in Church Policie when not if the Platform be alterable at mens wiâ—â— There is no reason why some things Positive of Church-Policie are alterable some not 3. Argum. 3. Book Eccles Polic pag. 117 118. The place 1 Tim 6. 13. discussed Pauls cloak of lesse consequence then Positives of policie Bilson of perpetuall Gover. c. 3. Hooker of Eccles Polic l. 3. 4. Arg. Christ the Head of hiâ— Church iâ— the externall poliâ—y thereof A promise of Pardoning of sin made to the right use of the keys proveth discipline to be a part of the Gospel The will of Christ as King is the Rule of the Government of his house Hooker Eccles Policie l. 3. 123 124. Things of Policie because lesse weighty then the greater things of the Law are not therefore mutable at the pleasure of men Basil l. de Fide Order requireth not a Monarchical Prelate How the care and wisdom of Christ proveth that Christ hath left an unalterable platforme in his testament Mr. Prynne Truth triumphing over falsehood p 113. 114. Collat. Roinal cum Io. Hartio Sect. 2. p 40 Christ the only immediate King and head and Law-giver of his Church without any deputy heads or Vicars D. Roinald 16. d. 41. 5. Arg. As Moses and David were not to follow their own spirit far lesse is the will of the Church a rule to shape an unalterable Government Da. Dicksonus Expos Analyti in Epist aâ— heb c. â— v. 5. Pagâ—i Ariâ—â—ont Vatablus in notis Tostatus in 1 Chron 18. 19. 2. 7. Ista Scriptura tam poterat fieri per Angelos quam per deum Tostatus Q. 1. ibid. Cornel a Lapide com 1. Paralip 29. 19. Dâ—us ergo in tabula descripsittotam ideam Templi alioqui delincatio â— Davide vix intelligi potuisset Degrees de Templ Ded. p. 73. Lavater Ex â—o quod â—dificium et vasa secundum formam sibi ostensam facere debuit significatur in â—ultu dei non secundum humâ—nam ratioâ—â—m sed verbum dei agendum esse quo patefecit quomodo colivâ—lit Si Salomon suas imaginationes fuisset sequitus Templum aliâ form â construxisset vasa aliter fecisset et plura quam deus prescripserat Ceremonials of Moses his Law are of lesse weight then Morals but not of lesse divine authority Two notes of Divinity ought to be in the New Testament Ceremonials which were in Divine Ceremonies Eccles Policy book 3. pag. 122. How Moses doing all according to the pattern proveth an immutable platforme Gods care for us leadeth us to think he hath given us a better guide then naturall reason in all Positive Morals of Church-Policie Theologia Atramentaria Book of Eccles Policiâ— 3. pag. 113 114. The occasionall writing of things in Scripture no reason why they are alterable Papists pretend that things are not written in the word because of the various occurrences of Providence Horantius Loc. Com. lib. 2. c. 11. fol. 129. Quaecunque audiâ—t loquâ—tur que futura sunt annunciabit vobis quasi dicerâ—â— Quotiâ—s râ—i occasio fuerit revelabit vobis Quae â— re vestra esse viderit suggerit ac quoties revelare expedâ—eâ—it l. 2. c. 12. fol. 132. Sed quis non videâ—â— multa verbo esse tradita quae Ecclesiae solum memoriae mulius â—â—mirum Scriptis sunt mandata Hooker 3. Book pag. 114. 115. Horantius loc Catho Lib. 2. c. 12 fâ—l 131. Turrian to
should not delay to pray till he were first delivered from the gall of bitternesse and then pray Sure if Peter had said to Simon Magus First labour to be freed of the gall of bitternesse and to have thy thoughts pardoned and then pray that the thoughts of thy heart may be pardoned as Christ saith First bee reconciled to thy brother and then offer and as Paul saith First Let a man try and examine himselfe and so let him eate and drinke the reply of Erastus should have nerves 2. It is true Christ speaketh not of the externall government of the Church but it is as false that he speaketh of the internall acts of the minde but he speaketh of the right ordering of the externall acts of divine worship which are regulable though not quatenus as regulable by the Church and draweth an argument from the words by necessary consequence which consequence Erastus cannot elude 3. But how doth Erastus prove this consequence if our Exposition stand and if we were to doe nothing in offering gifts at the Altar except we bee first reconciled to our brother and if God approve nothing which we doe which deviates from this perfection we should doe nothing that is good and right and so all must be excommunicated 1. Is Christ here injoyning a work of perfection and of supererogation Is Erastus popish in this 2. As it is impossible not to offer gifts aright so is it not to eate and drinke worthily while first we be reconciled to our brother Erastus was so surfetred with charity as we heard before that if any but desire the Sacrament and professe repentance he thinketh he is obliged to beleeve he is fit for the Lords Supper and here if Christ require but that the partie be reconciled to his brother ere he offer his gift and come to the Sacrament this is too great strictnesse it should excommunicate us all and we shall so never doe any thing that is right and good 4. It is false that Christ speaketh here of internall acts onely and of that which our minde injoyneth for the Lord speaketh of three externall visible acts 1. Of offering a gift at the Altar 2. Of delaying and suspending of the offering 3. Of a previous visible reconciliation to an offended brother 5. He saith not if the Presbyters bid you saith he leave your offering true he saith not that in words but supposing this that the Presbyters know that the same very day that he bringeth his offering he had beene killing his owne sonne to Molech as Ezek. 23. 38. 39. Whether were the Presbyters to forbid him to come and offer while he should testifie his repentance and finding him impenitent whether should they not judge him both to be debarred from the holy things of God and to be cast out of the Church as 1 Cor. 5. Certaine this is Christs order Be first reconciled to thy Brother and then offer try thy selfe first and then eate and if the Church see this order neglected whether are they to suffer clean and unclean to come and eat and holy things to be prophaned Erastus He shall expede himselfe out of this doubt easily who can distinguish the internall governing of the Church which is proper to God onely who knoweth the thoughts and can judge them without error from the externall governing of the Church in qua falli infinitè omnes possumus in the which we may all infinitely erre and in which we can doe nothing nisi quod mandatum expessè nobis legimus except what vve read to be expresly commanded for here he vvho is not against us is vvith us Marke 9. and no man ought to forbid those which God hath commanded so they bee externally done all externall actions quoad nos to us are good vvhich are done according to the prescript of Gods Word though to God vvho judgeth the heart they be not good every vvay many to day the Pharisees of old many in Pauls time preach for gaine many are ambitious and some out of envy preach Christ never for bad them to teach nor Paul but rejoyced Phil. 1. that Christ was preached hovvever since no man can understand the internall actions or thoughts and without error judge them there is no punishment by mans Law for them onely God vvithout error judgeth and punisheth them Ans There be many untruths here 1. If this distinction of internall and externall governing of the Church remove most of the doubts here he that eates and drinkes unworthily which is an act of externall worship which may be regulated and ordered by the Church for the Church may not administer the Sacraments to Pagans without the Church is no sinne to the unworthy eater because God commanded that externall act expresly as Erastus saith and so it is a good action quoad nos even to the unworthy eater for he knoweth not his owne thoughts nor can he judge them without error especially being unregenerated 2. If Erastus himselfe acknowledge this his owne disâ—inction he must acknowledge an externall Church-government and who then are the Governours especially in the Apostolick-Church where heathen Magistrates are Pastors and Teachers no doubt what meaneth this then my Brother trespasseth against me and will not be gained I tell the Church Erastus saith I tell the Christian Magistrate but there is no Christian Magistrate then there was no externall Government in the Church the first hundreth nay nor three hundred yeers in the Church or then it must follow that the Apostles and Pastors were the deputies of heathen Magistrates Ergo the heathen Magistrates should with imposition of hands have been ordained the officers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in every Church And that they were not it was their owne fault for the principall officer must be more principally called to office by Christ and given by him as a gift when he ascended on high to edifie the body of the Church Eph. 4. 11. 3. Erastus will have men debarred from judging the inward actions because God only can judge them sine errore without error But so God only should judge all things internall and externall and there should be no Magistrates because men may erre in judging the externall actions of men and will not this gratifie the Papists who say in this Tell the Church that is the Pope who cannot erre Then the Synod cannot erre Protestants deny the consequence Synods may judge as Act. 15. and yet Synods may erre 4. Erastus will have us lyable to infinite errors in externall actions therefore saith he we should do nothing in externalls but what is expresly commanded but first may we not infinite falli infinitely erre in internall actions and thought and acts of beleeving are we more infallible in internall then in externall actions New Theologie and are we not as well tyed to what is expresly commanded in internall as in externall actions I think the word is as strict a rule and the Law of the Lord as