expoundneth them so as I take he draweth them from 1. This materiall wine 2. From Sacramentall tabling 3. From this old fruit of the Wine 4. From fellowship here in the Kingdome of Grace to 1. New wine in heaven 2. To heavenly tabling 3. To new and everlasting wine 4. In the Fathers Kingdome Neither am I much moved with what Paybodie saith that our Saviour led the woman of Samaria from Iacobs well to thirst for the water of life yet is not for that Iacobs well made a type by divine institution I answer this would have some colour if Christ did speake of common wine as he did speake of Iacobs Well as of common water But all the three Evangelists speake of Sacramentall wine consecrated by word and prayer else Christs calling bread his body should not prove that bread were a signe of his body by divine institution but onely we were to make that spirituall use of bread and wine that we make of ordinary bread and wine at our houses Formalists then must say that Christ speaketh of wine here as common not as Sacramentall which is absurd when Christ is expounding the Elements in their spirituall signification Luke 5. 22 21. But behold the hand of him that betrayeth me is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with me on the table Mat. 26. 23. Marke 14. 20. If he had been kneeling or standing gestures unpossible for them then he could not have his hand leaning on the table and if he had not beene sitting table-wise in a table-fellowship with Christ then could not our Saviour have conveniently convinced the ingratitude of Iudas as he doth Now if Christ aime not to make Iudas his fault the greater because Iudas and he sate at one table together and that as an holy and Sacramentall table he had in this no more argued Iudas of ingratitude then any of the rest of the house who communicated not with Christ because Christ and they did eate one materiall and ordinary bread together And in this Achitophel was a type of Iudas as David of Christ and that not onely in this that Achitophel did eate bread with David and so had a civill fellowship but that they went together to Gods house in company together Psal 55. 14. So had Christ and Iudas fellowship together at that same Sacramentall table And as tabling together signifieth civil fellowship so must fellow-tabling at one sacred Feast signifie Spirituall fellowship together 6. Giving and not granting that fellow-sitting together were onely a common honour not a misticall honour by divine Institution yet since to sit at a table with a Ruler is an honour 1 Sam. 20. 5. 2 Sam. 9. 13. Esther 7. 7. Prov. 23. 1. Mat. 8. 11. Luk◠16. 23. Luke 22. 30. And the Lords Disciples are admitted to sit with him as is cleare in that he sate down with the twelv◠and he sate Luke 24. 30. at meat with them and tooke bread and blessed it No power on earth should dare to deprive the people of God of this honour for this honour was bestowed on the Lords Apostles as communicants not as Apostles and the want of Christs bodily presence diminisheth nothing of the honour seeing he is really but in a spirituall manner present as the Lord of the feast with us as he was with them Paybodie saith When Christ sate at table in the Passeover even then he schooled them from looking at honour in materiall or outvvard sitting vvhile as Luke 22. 26. he would stand himselfe as a servant and vvash his Disciples feet Ansvv His non-sitting and washing their feet being a morall not a Sacramentall teaching them humility doth no more schoole them from not looking to sit then his non-eating and non-drinking while he stood servant-like doth schoole them from not looking to the honour of eating and drinking Sacramentally Christ teacheth lessons of humility not to learne us not to seek the spirituall honour of communion with Christ that were to teach us to be proud and this man is that bold to insinuate that it was a spece of pride for the Disciples to sit at table with Christ and for Iohn to leane on his bosome Mr. Paybodie thinketh to crush this argument Because the serving of God the Father and giving him glory must be incompatible with a table-fellowship with his Sonne The disputer saith he reasoneth thus Kneeling importeth an inferiority therefore it is contrary to the person of co-heirs which person we act by table-sitting but do you saith he dream of a co-heirship whereby you stand not in an inferiority to Christ then when you take on you the person of co-heirs by sitting at Table it were not lawfull either to esteem or in a short ejaculation to call Christ your Lord and Superiour yea so faith must have no working at the Sacrament for Faith importeth an inferiority and dependance We respect Christ in his banquet as a King inviting us to eat with him yea I may kneel and call God my Father and in so doing I actuate the person of a co-heire Ans But in this the disputer and we mean no other thing then that kneeling which is a note of submission and never used in banquets cannot formally expresse as an apt signe the dignity of fellow-table-ship with Christ 2. Poor Logitian it followeth not in sitting at table which is the expressing signe of the honour of table-fellowship we may not call Christ Lord. David sitting at Table with his Prince Saul might well term him my Lord the King but if David should be put to his knees at Table and inhibited to eat at the Table at which his Prince did eat no wise man will say that Saul had honoured David with fellow-Tabling with him For the Act of kneeling and non-eating were no expressing signes of fellow-Tabling but by the contrary of no fellow-Tabling the Disputer hath no minde to make us every way equall with Christ so as there can be a case wherein it is not Lawfull to esteem or call Christ our Lord King and Superiour this is Paybodies consequence but take away Table-sitting an honour put upon us by Christ in this Sacrament Luk. 22. 27. and substitute kneeling for it then you take away Gods expressing signe of Table-Fellowship in that gesture for while the world standeth kneeling shall never be a signe of Table-fellowship sitting at Table is a signe as the Scriptures clear but sitting taketh never away our inferiority to Christ you may worship and actuate the person of a co-heir but not worship in an expressing visible signe of co-heirship and then kneel Farther he reasoneth with us as if Table-sitting inferred an equality betwixt us and that Lord who is the head of men and Angels we reason for an honour of fellowship not equality David set at King Saul's Table is not made equall with Saul but in Table-sitting he doth partake of Table-honour to feast with his Prince If Christ should have sitten and caused his Disciples rise and wash his
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
Magistratibus as Vtenbogard speaketh from and under the Magistrate as the Vicars Deputies and Ambassadors of the Magistrate yea that Magistrates teach the people by the Pastors as by their Vicars then Zebadiah should more diligently care for the matters of God then Amariah as the Lord and Master should more care his own businesse then his servant should do 3. More or lesse doth not vary the nature of things then must the Magistrate Sacrifice Teach judge between the clean and the unclean minister before the Lord as the sons of Aaron and the sons of Levi but lesse diligently But what calling hath he to any of these Acts at all Hath the Lord chosen the Tribe of Iudah or the Tribe of Levi to minister before him And by the same reason the Priests Levites should do these same things but more diligently And again Amariah is to use the sword and to condemne ill doers to death But lesse diligently these be pleasant dreams 5. The Priest and Judges are companions as Moses and Aaron Ergo the one is not Master and the other servant and Deputy â—â— Erastus dreameth and they are the rather of that in divers Senats 6. But how proveth Erastus That the Levites were common Servants both to Priests and Judges For though it were so this will never subject the Priests to the Civill Iudge nor confound these two Iudicatures David 1 Chron. 26. divided the Levites and set them in their courses for service Ergo They were King Davids servants as King it followeth not except Erastus prove David did not this as a Prophet and that the Lord did not choose the Tribe of Levi. But David did it as a King and so all Magistrates may appoint offices in the House of God and call men to the Ministry by vertue of the Magistrates place But David 1 Chro. 24. distributed the Priests as well as the Levites Ergo the Priests are servants to the King as well as the Levites But the Levites are expresly 1. Chron. 26. given by office to wait on the sons of Aaron for the service of the house of the Lord for the purifying the holy things for the shew bread for the fine flour for meat offerings and for the unleavened Cakes and that which is baked in the pan and for that which is fryed and for all manner of measures and size to praise the Lord at morning and night to offer all burnt sacrifices to the Lord c. In all which no man can say they were servants to the King For then the King sacrificed by them as by his servants no Divinity is more contrary to Scripture It is true 1 Chron. 26. 30. some of the Hebronites were Officers in all the businesse of the Lord and the service of the King But that is because ver 26. they had the oversight of the spoile that the King dedicated to the house of the Lord for the building of the Temple and that is called the Kings businesse Erastus Jehoshaphat 2 Chron. 19. did not depart from Moses his Law But we read not that there were two distinct Iurisdictions commanded and instituted by God Ans If this be a good Argument all that David and Solomon did for and in the building of the Temple in the structure forme length breadth Cedars gold Altars c. of the Temple shall be without Warrant Solomon and David departed not from Moses But Moses spake nothing of the Temple and a thousand things of Divine institution in the Temple But this is our Argument Jehoshaphat did erect no new Iudicatures but restore those that had their Warrant from Moses his Law But so it is that Iehoshaphat reinstituteth two distinct Iudicatures Ergo The Lord by Moses at the beginning did institute these two distinct Iudicatures Erastus We are not anxiously to inquire what be the matters of God it is all one with what he said before ye judge not for men but for the Lord. The Rabbines the judgement of Capitall causes is the judgement of souls the scripture nameth all judgements most frequently the judgements of the Lord Deut. 1. Ye shall not fear men for the judgement is the Lords Exod. 18. The people come to me to inquire of God that is to seek judgement Therefore are the Judges Exod. 22. Psal 82. called Gods The matter of God is any cause expressed in the Law of God and proposed to the Judges to be judged and the Kings matter is that which properly belongeth to the King Ans Erastus his anxiety to inquire is little because he cannot Answer 1. The matter of the Lord cannot be all one with this Ye judge not for men but for the Lord For the matter of the King or a point of Treason to be judged is to be judged not for men but for the Lord. But the Text differenceth between the matters of Lord and the matters of the King 2. In the former 2 Chron. 19. 5. he speaketh of civill businesse but the matters of the Lord are such as concern the Law of God and the true sense and meaning thereof to be proposed to the conscience and 3. That is a common thing to all causes that in the manner of Iudging Iudges are to look that they do as men in the place of God so then as God if he were judging would do no iniquity nor respect persons nor take gifts as he saith ver 7. So neither should men do iniquity or respect persons in judgement and so is it taken Deut. 1. 17. Now this clearly is the manner of righteous judgement and Modus judicandi but the matter of Iehovah is Res judicata the thing to be judged which may be unjustly Iudged and this matter of Iehovah is not common to all causes but is contradistinguished in the Text from the matters of the King which in the manner of judging is no lesse to be judged according to the judgement of the Lord then the matters of Jehovah 4. The Chalde Paraphrast Vt inquir at instructionem Vatab. Vt consulat deum This is a false interpretation That to inquire of God is to seek judgement from God For it is to ask the Lords minde in doubtsome cases and this they asked from Moses as he was a Prophet not as he was a civill Iudge except Erastus will have the Magistrate of old to give responses and to have been Oracles by vertue of their Office which is a clear untruth Saul David Solomon Joshua though Kings did not give responsals and answers when they did go to War or were in doubtsome perplexities But did ask Counsell at the Priest and Oracle of God and the Ark 1 Sam. 15. 37. Iosh 9. 14. Iudg. 20. 27. 1 Sam. 30. 8. and 23. 2. 4. And by this the Magistrate as the Magistrate should resolve all doubts of conscience now to perplexed consciences under the New-Testament 5. The Iudges are called Gods because they are under-Deputies in the room and place of the great God not because every judgement of
of 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
intend to kill his Son Why is not eating the forbidden fruit Lawfull Only because God Commandeth and if God forbid Abraham to kill his Son and Command Adam to eat it is Lawfull 2. If this be good observe all the Ceremoniall Law so you lay not Divine necessity upon the observance thereof offer Sacrifices to God under the New Testament and you cannot fail in the worship against the Institutor So slaying of the Children to Molech so you count it free and changeable shall not fail against Gods Commandments of the first Table I Command it not They Answer To kill Children is Man slaughter but I Reply God doth noâ— Ier. 7. Reason against Offering the seed to Molech as it was murther and forbidden in the sixth Commandment but as false worship and forbidden in the second Commandment Else he proveth not that it was unlawfull worship against piety but that it was an act of cruelty Yea so it be thought free and bind not the Conscience it may be Lawfull worship and is not condemned by this God Commanded it not Ergo It is not Lawfull I Commanded not saith Morton and D. Burges that is I discommanded or forbade Ans So saith the Iesuit Valentia but so Circumcising of women boyling of the Paschall Lambe another Ark then Moses made should not be unlawfull for these are not expresly discommanded But Gods Commanding to Circumcise the Male-childe to Roast the Paschall Lambe to make this Ark and his silence of Circumcision of women and boyling the Passeover and silence of another Ark is a Command 2. The Text Jer. 7. Is wronged I Commanded not neither came it in my heart to Command this Abomination That is I never purposed it as worship else they knew to kill their Children except to God as Abraham was Commanded was unlawfull as Isa 63. 4. The day of Vengeance is in mine heart 2 King 10. 30. 1 King 8. 18. Gen 27. 41. To be in ones heart is to purpose a thing 3. Valentia saith Exod. 18. 20. I Commanded not the false Prophet to speak But how By not sending or calling him Else God did not say by a Positive Commandment to every false Prophet Prophecy not but because God bâ—de him not Prophecy he was to know God forbade him Else to speak Arbitrary Doctrines and Prophesies not tying the Conscience were no false Prophecying They Object 1 King 8. 17. It was well that it was in Davids heart to build a house to God and yet David had no warrant in Gods Word for to build an house to God So Morton Burges Ans David had a twofold will and purpose to build Gods house 1. Conditionall It was revealed to David that God would have an house built therefore David might conditionally purpose to build it so it was Gods will he should be the man This wanteth not Gods word We may desire what ever may promove Gods glory conditionally As that Petition teacheth Thy Kingdom come This was recommended of God and approved 2 Kin. 8. 17. 2. A resolute will upon Nathans mistake the blinde leading the blinde this was not Commanded though the desire of the end was good that is that a house should be built Morton 16. It was Lawfull upon common equity considering Gods mercy to him in subduing his enemies and that he dwelt in Cedars whereas God wanted an house but he could not actually perform it without Gods word So Burges Ans 1. The consequence without Gods word is as good to conclude that David might actually build Gods house as to will and purpose to build it Because the word is a perfect rule to our thoughts and purposes no lesse then to our actions if to build without Gods Word was unlawfull Ergo to purpose this without Gods Word was unlawfull A purpose of sin as of Adultery is sin a purpose of will worship is will-worship and sin 2. A man of blood is as unfit to purpose to be a type of a peaceable Saviour as to be a type of a Saviour 3. If God reprove Samuels light for judging according to the eye 1 Sam. 16. 7. Far more he rebuketh his purpose to Anoint a man without his word Who giveth Kingdoms to whom he pleaseth Yet Samuel had a good intention and Gods word in generall that one of Iesse's Sons should be King 4. Iâ— that good purpose had remained with David deliberately to build the Lords house after the Lord had said Solomon not David must build the house it would have been sinfull yet the reasons upon common equity and a generall warrant that God would have an house had been as good as before if Mortons consequence be once good it s ever good 5. By this without the warrant of the Word we may purpose to glorifie God The Baptist without Gods warrant may purpose a New Sacrament Cajaphas may purpose that he shall be the man who shall dye for the people I may purpose to glorifie God by a thousand new means of worshipping Papists have good intentions in all they do 6. A purpose of heart is an inward substantiall worship warranted by Gods Word Psal 19. 14. Psal 50. 21. Psal 74. 11. Ier. 4. 14. Gen. 8. 2. Eccles 2 3. Isa 55. 7. Ergo The word is not a rule in substantiall and Morall Duties heart-purposes cannot be indifferent heart-ceremonies 7. David needed not aske counsell at Gods mouth and word for an indifferent heart-purpose grounded upon sufficient warrant of common equity whether he should act it or noâ— that which warranteth the good purpose warranteth the enacting of the good purpose 8. Who knoweth if God rewardeth additions to the word with a sure house and all indifferent Ceremonies All additions to Gods Word are unlawfull Deut. 4 â— Deut. 12. 32. Prov. 30. 6. Rev. 22. 18. Ioh. 20. 31. Luk. 16. 29 30. 2 Tim 3 17. Psalme 19. 7 8. So Basilius Hieron Cyprian Chrysostome Procopius Turtullian All the Fathers all Protestant Divines opposing Traditions put their seal and Pen to the plenitude of Scripture But humane Rites are Additions to Gods word Morton and Burges say God forbiddeth in the foresaid places additions of any thing as Divine and a part of Gods Word or additions contrary to Gods Word and corrupting the sense thereof but not additions perfecting and â—â—â—plaining his Word aâ— Commentaries and Annotations of the text So do Papists Answer Duvallius a Sorbonist He forbiddeth other new Sacrifices as of the Gentiles who offered their Sons and Daughters So Valentia Vasquez Bellarmine Suarez Cajetan They are not added which the Church addeth they are from the spirit of God So Bannes but all these do elude not expound the Texts 1. Because if the Iewish Princes had Commanded Arbitrary and conditionall Arâ—s Sacrifices places of worship so they addâ— not heathenish and wicked as the Gentiles Sacrificing their Children they had noâ— failed by this answer yet
22. A broken heart dryeth the bones And therefore it is to be observed that â—rastily Erastus insisteth most on those points and syllables of a Text whereon all Divines Ancient and Modern do place least strength for Excommunication I might therefore passe all Erastus his force against Excommunication in these and he shall be not a whit nearer his point 2. But I shall follow him when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the flesh and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the spirit are put together I see no reason that the one should signifie the body the other the soul I know the contrary to be Rom. 8. 1. Those that walketh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after the inordinate affections and lusts of the flesh are opposed to those that walk 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after the spirit and Gal. 5. 17. the flesh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lusteth against the spirit and the spirit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against the flesh Joh. 3. 6. That which is born of the flesh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is flesh it is not that which is born of the body as body and that which is born 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the spirit is spirit so Rom. 8. 9. 13 14. Erastus should have shewed us such places wherein 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the flesh and the spirit signifieth the body and the soul when the matter of salvation is spoken of as here That the spirit may be saved ver 5. then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the flesh is for the most part if not alwayes taken in an evil part for the corruption of mans nature Erastus How could they desire the Apostle not to deliver him to Satan that he might as Beza expoundeth it destroy his flesh that is bring him to repentance How could Paul assent to such a Petition How could the Apostle write that he did forgive him Did Paul by forgiving him permit him not to mortifie and destroy his flesh and sinfull lusts Ans Let Erastus answer How could the Corinthians beseech Paul not to kill him that his soul may be saved in the day of the Lord How could Paul grant such a Petition as that the man should not be saved in the day of the Lord How could Paul by pardoning the man permit that he should not be saved in the day of the Lord for the saving of the mans soul is no lesse a fruit of this delivering to Satan then is the destroying of the lusts of the flesh 2. They might well desire that upon the mans repentance Paul would take a milder way and course to effectuate these two desirable ends the mortification of his lust and the saving of his soul then the last and most dreadfull remedy which is the censure of Excommunication 3. The destruction of the lusts of the flesh is a Scripturall remedy for saving of the soul in the day of Christ at is clear Rom. 7. 7 8 9 10. Gal. 5. 24 25. But whether miraculous killing be such a mean ordained of God is the question and ought to be proved by some word of God beside this place in controversie Erastus These words that the soul may be saved in the day of the Lord do hold forth that the miserable man was presently to die Ans That they hold forth no such thing is evidently proved for how were they to cast him out and judge him And how was Paul to pardon him and they and Paul to confirme their love 2. When Peter saith 1 Pet. 1. 7. That your faith may be found unto praise honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ were all these presently Because Paul and the faithfull Philippians were waiting for their Saviours second coming who should change their vilde bodies were they to die presently When Paul prayeth that Onesiphorus may finde mercy in that day 2 Tim. 1. 18. I pray you will it follow that Onesiphorus was presently to die Erastus The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rebuke doth not signifie rejecting from the Sacraments 1. Rejecting from the Sacraments is never put for punishment in Scripture 2. It is but a rebuke inflicted by many and Paul 2 Cor. 2. absolveth him from this as a sufficient punishment a rebuke is no punishment Ans 1. To be debarred from the society of the faithfull as Hagar was as Cain was as David was Cast out of the Lords inheritance by Saul yea to be rebuked Ezech. 3. 25 26. are evils but they are not evils of sin Ergo He speaks not like a Divine who will not have them punishments if to injoy the Sanctuary Church holy things of God and the society of the Saints be a rich blessing of God as the Scripture saith it is Psal 42. 4. Psal 27. 4. Psal 84. 10. Psal 110. 3. Psal 63. 1 2 3. Cant. 1. 7. 8. Cant. 2. 16. 17. Cant. 5. 1. Cant. 6. 1 2 3. Rev. 2 1. and to deny this be a symtome of prophanity then to be separated from these as a Heathen must be to the children of God the greatest evil of punishment and matter of sorrow on earth it smelleth not of piety to deny this Erastus If the man was only rebuked How was he to be delivered to Satan to be tormented and killed Some Ancients answer he was but delivered to Satan to be afflicted in his body with sicknesse and at length delivered by Paul others say more congruously to the minde of Paul that Paul purposed not by himself to deliver the man to Satan but to do it with the Church congregated together and when the Church saw him swallowed up with griefe they deferred while they tryed Pauls minde and obtained pardon to him and in the means time threatned him if he should not repent and obtained at length that Paul should pardon him Ans Many learned Divines hold the former yet so as they conclude Excommunication out of this Chapter of this I say no more But Erastus hath a way of his own To which I say 1. There is no Scripture but this controverted one to warrant that the Apostles who had the gift of Miracles 1. Suspended the working of Miracles either on the prayers or free consent of the whole multitude of beleevers 2. That the execution of a miraculous work was committed to Deputies and substitutes under Paul who had it in their power miraculously to kill him or in their free will and Christian compassion to suspend the miracle and not kill 3. That the Apostles in acts of miraculous justice sought advise of any or might be broken by requests to desist from miracles as they saw the party repent or not repent or friends intercede or not intercede 4. So many circumstances of the Text laying a command on the Church of Corinth to put him out and judge him and yet the matter remaine a miracle These to me are riddles if God had told us such a History I could have beleeved it but to gather these by uncertaine conjectures without any
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
Christian Magistrate saith he if there be any Church Censure as we suppose there is this Objection should not have been made against us because of the Magistrates supremacy it doth conclude with equall strength that Pastors should use it against no man Now there be some swine that trample the Sacraments some not well instructed in the grounds of Christian Religion and Erastus said pag. 207. Such should not be admitted to the Lords Supper Now the Magistrate the King is such Let Erastians say the Pearles of the Seals of the Covenant are to be given to no swine except the swine be Magistrates and that which the Church bindeth on earth is bound in heaven except it be the Magistrate Erastus saith he may go to Hell by priviledge of his place and that whose sins the Elders of the Church retaineth are retained except it be the Kings sins and that we are to put shame upon scandalous persons and to refuse to eat with them Romanes 16. 17. 2 Thess 3. 14 15. 1 Cor. 5. 11. 2 Ioh. 10. Except they be Magistrates Sure God is no accepter of persons Erastus Whereas you say it is not lawfull for the Magistrate to preach and administer the Sacraments if he might because of his businesse be able to discharge both Offices it is not true God hath not forbidden it it was lawfull in the Old Testament for one man to discharge both why is it not lawfull now also the history of Eli and Samuel is known it is nothing that you say that the tribunall of Moses was distinguished from the tribunall of Aaron for God gave to Aaron no tribunall at all different from the tribunall of Moses he never did forbid the Priests to sit in the Civill judicature after the captivity the Priests judged the people Ezech. 44. Ans That it is lawfull for the Magistrate to preach and Administer the Sacraments 1. Destroyeth the Ordinance of Pastors and a sent and called Ministry under the New Testament against the Scriptures Heb 5. 4 No man taketh on him this honour to himself except he that is called of God as was Aaron So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high Priest c. â— 2. God often maketh an honour of a calling to the Ministery that he hath separated them to it Numb 16 9. Moses saith to Korah hear now â—e sons of Levi Seemeth it a small thing unto you that the God of Israel hath separated you from the congregation of Israel to bring you neer to himself to do the service of the tabernacle of the Lord Deut. 10. 8. At that time the Lord separated the tribe of Levi to bear the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord to stand before the Lord to minister unto him Numb 8 6. 7. 8. 9. But that same honour is put upon the Preachers of the Gospel Rom â— 1. Paul the servant of Iesus Christ called to be an Apostle separated unto the Gospell of God Act. 13. 2. The holy Ghost said Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them If it be an honour and no man though gifted as Christ was can take honour to himself No Magistrate can take on him to discharge the office of a Minister Object But when he is called to be a Magistrate he is called to be a Minister and so being called to the one he is called by the same calling to the other Ans If being called to be Magistrate he be also called to be a Minister then being called to be a Minister he is called to be a Magistrate and Hoc ipso that he is a Minister be may usurpe the sword and usurpe the Throne and the Bench But Christ being sent to be a Prophet and to preach the Gospel Esa 61. 1. Luk. 4. 20. 21. veâ— 43. refused to divide the inheritance and to be a a Iudge Luk. 12. 13 14. He would not take on him to be a judge except God had made him and called him to be a judge If any say the Magistrate being the supream place containeth eminently all inferior offices as to be a Minister a Lawyer a Physitian c. but the inferior does not containe the superior I Ans Then the Magistrate being called to be a Magistrate and King he is called to be a Priest to burn incense which the Lord condemned in his word in Vzzah then when Saul is called to be a King he is called to be an Astronomer Lawyer Physitian Sayler Tayler Now God giveth a spirit to be a King but no gifts to those offices Ergo No calling thereunto for no gifts argue no calling of God 2. If a man called to be a judge be also by that same calling by which he is made a judge made a Minister then it is all one to be called to be a judge and to be a Minister and so a Magistrate as a Magistrate doth preach and administrate the Sacraments then 1. All Magistrates should preach and administrate the Sacraments and Nero and heathen Magistrates are gifts actu primo given by Christ ascending on high for the edifying the body of the Church Ephe. 4. 11 12. Obj. It is not sinne to him to preach and administrate the Sacraments but then he cannot have time for both Ans If God lawfully call the Magistrate to preach the Gospel woe be to him if he preach not he should lay aside all other imployments and preach God never gave a talent and calling to any to preach but he ought to lay aside other things and imploy that talent to the honour of God otherwise he sinneth in digging his Lords talent in the earth whereas he is obliged to make five talent ten 2. If he preach as a Pastor not as a Magistrate then he hath another calling of God to be a Pastor and another to be a Magistrate and â—â—rtaine it is as a Magistrate he doth not preach because there be farre other qualifications required in a Magistrate as Deut. 1. 12. that he be wise and understanding and knowen and a man of truth hating coveteousnesse Exo. 18. 21. But there is farre other qualities required in a Bishop 1 Tim. 3. 1 2 3. Ergo it is one thing to be called to be a Minister and another to be called to be a Magistrate 3. In all the word Christ never commanded the Magistrate to preach and baptise this negative Argument Erastus useth often against us to prove that none ought to be excluded from the Sacraments because Priests Prophets Christ Apostles never excluded any But Christ commanded the Ministers to preach and baptise and gave them the Holy Ghost for that effect and sent them as the father sent him as having received all power from the father Math. 28. 18 19 20. Mark 16. 15 16. Ioh. 20. 20 21 22. and least we should think this charge was given to Apostles as Apostles he teacheth that it is given to all faithfull Pastors to the end of the world Math. 28. v. 20. Lo
theirs is the judgement and very sentence of God and according to that the cause they judge is nothing but the cause of God for they are to judge the Kings matters no lesse then Gods matters 6. For what end Erastus speaketh of the Rabbines here I know not I think he knoweth not himself the man was ignorant of them and innocent of their language Erastus I am not against that the things of God be things belonging to the Worship of God and the matters of the Kings Civill businesse The Priest must especially take care that there be no error in Faith and Ceremonies and this belongeth also to the King as is clear Deut. 17. So Zebadiah is not excluded from Gods matters Nor Amariah from the Kings businesse Ans This interpretation is fully refuted Zebadiah is in the Text excluded from judging Ecclesiastically in the matters of God as a Priest Levite or Elder For if he must judge so he must either judge as a Priest or Levite which he was not or as a Civill Iudge if as a Civill Iudge then is he no lesse over the people in the matters of God then in the Kings matters Now the Text could not exclude him from these things which belongeth to his office and put him in another Sphere in the businesse of the King and put such a wide difference between the object of the two men as the Kings matters and the matters of the King of Kings The like I say of Amariah 2. The King Deut. 17. as King is to Iudge according to the Book of the Law that he may be a godly King and fear God and keep the words of the Law Ergo he is to teach the people no lesse then the Priest and to judge between the clean and unclean and that as King This no way followeth Erastus If you please by the matters of God to understand the causes of appeals and by the Kings matters other judgements I contend not And because the Priest was better accustomed with the Law of God then others therefore the High Priest was set over these yet so as Zebadiah was over the Kings businesse But I think the two first especially the first the best Exposition But 1 Chron. 26. These same persons are set over both the Kings and the Lords matters Ans Consider how dubious Erastus is in his three Expositions to elude the force of the place If it was the Magistrates place virtute officii by vertue of his office to command the Priests and to direct them as Erastus and Vtenbogard say in the internall and specifick acts of Sacrificing Iudging between the clean and the unclean teaching the people then the King and the Civill Iudge were by office to be more skilled in the Causes of God then the Priests because the Commander and the directer who may by his office exercise those same acts that he commandeth his servants yea and is by office to command him to do thus in these internall Acts and not thus he ought by his office to be more skilled in these then the servant I grant the King Commandeth the Painter all the morall equity requisite in Painting that he endamage not the Common-wealth by prosuse lavishing of Gold and in this it is presumed there is more Iustice and morall equity by office in the King Commanding then in the Painter Commanded But if the King should take on him to Command virtute officii that the Painter regulateth his actions of art thus and thus and direct and Command by his Royall office as King that the Painter draw the face of the Image with more pale and white and lesse red and incarnate colour in such a proportion according to art and not in such a proportion Then by office the King as King might paint Pourtraictâ— himself and behoved by office to be more skilled in Painting then the Painter Now Erastus presupposeth Whatever the Priests do as Priests in an Ecclesiasticall way he excepteth Sacrificing and burning incense but for a time that the King as King may do the same also so the King as King may teach give responses in matters of God and now under the new Testament Preach and dispense the Sacraments and judge as King whether Priests and Pastors do right or no and that not only in order to Civill but also to Ecclesiasticall punishments as deprivation from their offices and debarring from the Sacraments Hence it must follow that Zebediah should by office be better skilled in the matters of God then Amariah or any Priest and by office he should rather be over the matters of God then any Priest in the world 2. Now its clear that these same things to be over men in the matter of God and in the matters of the King 1 Chron. 26. proveth nothing except they be over these same matters by one and the same power of the Sword as Erastus saith Amariah the High Priest and Zebediah the Civill Iudge promiscuously were both of them without exclusion of either over the people in the matters of the Lord and in the matters of the King and in the same judicature by the same coactive power of the sword as Erastus saith Priests and Civill Iudges were in the same judicature by the same Civill power Iudges to give out joyntly in a judiciall way the sentence of a bloody death and to inflict a bloody death by the same power 3. It is Erastus his ignorance of the Originall Text to say these same words that are 2 Chron. 19. 11. are also 1 Chron 26. ver 30 32. for 2 Chron. 19. 11. it is said Amariah is over you in all the matters of the Lord Hence the matters of the Lord were the formall object of his judging But 1 Chron. 26. 30. the Hebronites were officers in the businesse of the Lord or to the businesse of the Lord and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the service of the King Levites might have been imployed in both Ecclesiasticall and Civill businesse in the Temple and in the overseeing of those spoiles that David in Wars had taken from the Enemies and Dedicated for building the House of the Lord which are called the Kings businesse and the construction ver 32. is varied where it is said The Hebronites mighty men of valour and so fit for war were made by King David Rulers over the Reuâ—eniâ—es Gadites and the half Tribe of Manasseh for every matter not in every matter pertaining to God The affixum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here and the affaires of the King These Levites seem to be imployed in the war and are called valiant men which must be some extraordinary case But otherwise when God commanded to number the Children of Israel for War Numb 1. 3. 45. The Levites were not numbred God did forbid Moses to number them because they were appointed for another service ver 48 49 50. Yet it seemeth in Davids time when there were exâ—raordinary warres that they were not exempted from
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
their office Preach the Word and dispense the Sacraments which is against the word Heb. 5. 7. Mat. 9. 38. 10. 5. 28. 19 20. Joh. 21. 20 21. Rom. 10. 14 15. 3. Where doth Erastus reade in the New Testament that Kings may not write Canonick Scripture as King David did and build a Typicall Temple to the Lord as Solomon did and give out Laws of Divine institution as Moses did Kings in the Old Testament did these and he can finde the contrary no where written 4. If the Church as the Church cannot chuse a Senate of Elders to Govern themselves without wronging the Magistrate how did the Apostolick Church without so much as asking advice of the Civill Magistrate set up a new Gospel new Sacraments new officers a new Government Did the Lord Iesus and the Gospel teach them to spoil Cesar Christ had said the contrary Give unto Cesar those things that are Cesars 5. To subject Magistrates to Excommunication is no more to subject them to externall dominion then to subject them as Erastus doth to rebukes warnings and threatnings for the former hath no more of coaction of dominion or of coercive power then the latter yea if to subject Kings to the rebukes of the Ministers of Christ be nothing but to subject them to internall and spirituall dominion no more is suspension from the Sacraments and Excommunication any thing but internall and spirituall dominion In this sense that neither of these two are bodily dominions no more then rebuking of Kings 2. Yet both these work upon the conscience in a spirituall way for the humiliation of the King and putting him to shame and fear 2 Thes 3. 14 15. that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord as rebukes do work 1 Tim. 5. 20. Gal. 2. 11. 1 Cor. 5. 6. Iude ver 23. Yea to say to a King He shall be buried with the buriall of an Asse as Ieremiah did cap. 22. And to call the Rulers Princes of Sodome Isa 1. 10. And King Herod a Fox and Rulers and Princes Dogs Psal 22. ver 16. and Bulls and Lyons ver 12. 13. and Wolves ravening for the prey Ezek. 22. 27. putteth no lesse shame upon Magistrates before men and so externall dominion on them and over them then Excommunication and debarring from the Seals of the Covenant doth Now Erastus subjecteth Magistrates to rebukings threatnings and reprehensions no lesse then we do Well Erastus will have one single Minister to exercise externall dominion over the Magistrates because this is manifest out of the Word but because he would flatter Princes as much as he can he denies that a Colledge of Elders may rebuke the Magistrate or convene him before them though he were the most flagitious Prince that lived and yet one man may summon him before the Tribunall of Christ and charge him to come to hear a Sermon and rebuke him in the face of the Congregation and denounce the Iudgements of God against him openly Is not this the Lord arming one single man against the Magistrate to put shame and confusion on him for his sins And if many Pastors convened should do this This were to arm the subjects against the Magistrate and to take the power from him that God hath given to him as Erastus talketh CHAP. XXII Quest 18. Of exclusion from the Sacrament of profession of repententance the judiciall Law bindeth not Christians The sword not a mean of conversion Of Idolaters and Apostates in the judgement of Erastus IN this Chapter Erastus disputeth against a Treatise written in the German Tongue in which he acknowledgeth there is more learning and truth then in the other writtings All the opinions that Erastus ascribeth to this Author justly or unjustly I know not but Erastus his faith may be justly suspected I cannot defend Erastus Touching those to be admitted to the Sacrament we speak alwayes de illis solis c. of those only who rightly understand the Doctrine of the Gospel and do approve and imbrace the same and who desire with others to use the Sacraments aright in regard of the externals of which only the Church can judge for the heart is rightly knowne to God only so the Author and we agree Ans The agreement is but poore by your owne relation But 1. Let Erastus answer what if the Christian Magistrate as Achab be a dog and sell himselfe to do wickedly What if he understand not the Doctrine of the Gospel Magistrates as Magistrates by vertue of the throne or place are not priviledged to be Orthodox and holy Let one Iulian once a Christian yet turning a sow an enemy to the Gospel be witnesse if we descend to the Iustices and to Master Constables it may be we finde even of those dogs and swine in their conversation though their place be a power lawfull and ordained of God We thinke saith Erastus the custome of the Church should be observed What by the custome of the Church onely by no precept or command of Christ should the holy things of God the pearls of the Gospel be denied to dogs and swine contrary to Christs command Mat. 7 2. Erastus must exclude the Magistrate out of the lists of his disputation in six books and say If the Christian Magistrate be ignorant and scandalous and yet desire to use the Sacraments right and professe he will learne to know God and to beleeve soundly and walke holily Yet the Sacraments are not to be denied to him Tell Erastus in sincerity who should debarre the Magistrate For in all your six books you by these words de illis solis c. professe that you plead not that he should be admitted to the Sacraments who shall exclude him not he himselfe for his credites sake he shall desire to come to the Sacraments as many for gaine and loaves follow Christ Ioh. 6. will they not follow him also to be seen of men as the Pharisees prayed in the streets 2. Let Erastus say when our Saviour said Give not holy things to dogs Did he mean to accept the persons of Kings and Iudges and professe though Kings and Iudges be dogs and swine yet deny not holy things to them 3. Hath Christ appointed no way in the New Testament as he did in the Old to debarre unclean men from our Passeover Or shall there be no Government no charge in the Ministers of the New Testament to keep the holy things of God from pollution If Master Iustice be an incestnous man a drunkard a dog shall he not be cast out of the midst of the Church Vzziah though a King yet for bodily leprosie was separated from the people of God and men of high places though doggs and swine shall be admitted to all the holy things of God under the New Testament 2. Erastus will have all admitted who desire to use the Sacraments right As touching all externalls of which onely the Church doth judge But 1. Where did we assert that the
fail in their judging the Magistrate is to command the Church to judge it over againe but the Magistrate cannot judge it himself as there is a complaint made to the Magistrate that the Pâ—inter hath not drawn the image exactly according to the samplar the Magistrate judgeth not of the Art of the Painter nor can the Magistrate as the Magistrate draw the image himselfe But the Magistrate may judge of the Painters breach of promise who did â—action to draw it exactly according to the samplar and hath not kept faith to the man who payeth him wages and therefore the Magistrate may either punish his morall error his breach of promise not his error of Art the faculty or company of Painters must judge of of that or then command the Painter to paint the same image again according as the Painter convenanted But it may be objected You then make the Magistrate to meddle no more with matters of faith and preaching truth or falsehood and giving out Ecclesiasticall rules in Church government as Act. 15. then he meddleth with painting according to the principles of Art now painting according to Art belongeth not at all to the conscience of the Magistrate but sound preaching right ruling in Gods house belongeth in a far nearer relation to the conscience of the godly Magistrate I Answer As touching the formall judging Ecclesiastâ—cally and as concerning this that the Magistrate should say it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to me or his dispensing of Word and Sacraments or his burning incense before the Lord it no more belongeth to him as a Magistrate to do these in his owne person formally because God hath not called him to act these then it belongeth to him to paint an Image to sew shooes to siâ— at the helme of a Ship and stir and guide her to such a Port as is clearer Heb. 5. 4. 1 Cor. 7. 17. 21. Rom. 10. 14. 1 Tim. 5. 17. and 3. 1 2 3. Act. 13. 23. and 20. 28 29 30. Heb. 13. 17. 2 Chro. 26. 18 19 20 21. But in another consideration as sound or unsound dispensing of Word and Sacraments as right or unjust ruling in the house of God may more or lesse hurt or benefit the souls of men which he is to care for indirectly in ordine ad penas vel premia civilia et corporalia it belongeth more to the Magistrate to take care of the Church of Religion of preaching and governing Gods house then any painting or Arts in the earth Again the Church proceeding in these things that are against common iustice in all judicatures no lesse then in the Church as to condemn the party never heard or not convinced either by confession or under two sufficient witnesses or to do manifest unjustice in the manner of proceeding leaveth a clear place to the wronged party by the Law of nature if not to appeal yet to flee and have re-course to the Christian Magistrate who is Parâ—ns Patrie the father of the Common wealth 6. The question may either be of any really wronged by the Church whether he may appeal to the Magistrate or whether he who either beleeveth or thinketh or falsly lyeth and saith that he was wronged may appeal to the Magistrate 7. An Appeal is different from a Declinature a Declinature is properly a refusing to be judged because the judge is incompetent and the businesse belongeth not to him those who follow Erastus and deny all power of censures to the Church doe decline but not appeal from the Church thinking the Church hath no power at all to judge or censure the scandalous An Appeal is properly from the same inferiour judicature to a superiour judge in eadem serie in the same kind and it is either proper or unproper Proper it is when a particular Church doth appeal to a Synod of many Churches in the same place Unproper when either a wronged person hath recourse to one or many Pastors of Authority as Chrysostome Flavianus Athanasius appealed to the Bishop of Rome that he would request the Church to proceed orderly Or 2. The godly Magistrate would command that the Church would unpartially proceed to right an oppressed man as Cabeljavius saith Or 3. When there is no Synods to be had then as Triglandius saith well from Beza the Christian Magistrate may provide â—it meanes of releeving the oppressed 8. This would ever be remembred that in case of the Churches erring in judgement which must be thought of as a sort of extraordinary case the godly Magistrate may do more then what ordinarily he can doe and so may the Church when the Magistrate oppresseth in judgement as great Iunius saith 9. We grant when any complaineth to the Magistrate that they are oppressed in judgement by the Church that the Church is obliged to give an account of their doings but that from common charitie to remove the scandall and that they owe to all Christians as may be evidently collected from 1 Pet. 4. 15. but this will not prove a subordination to common Christians as to Iudges nor yet to the Magistrate 2. The Magistrate when his judging is deemed scandalous is to give an account to the preachers of the Gospel who watch for his soul as King Saul gave an account to Samuel with a false Apologie I grant that he had obeyed the Commandement of the Lord but if Saul had been faultlesse in sparing â—gag and the cattell yet was he obliged to give an account to Samuel But that will not prove that King Saul was subordinate to Samuel to be judged of him because Prophets are but servants and Ministers to declare Gods will yet is it all the subordination that we require in this according to that And the people beleeved the Lord and Moses Now all the Arguments before alledged to prove that Pastors as Pastors are not subordinate in their pastorall acts to the civill Magistrate do also prove that there is no appeal from the Church in an Ecclesiasticall businesse to the civill Magistrate For 1. If two Painters contend touching any controversie in the mysterie of their Art they cannot appeal to the King as Iudge the King then should formally be a painter and which is absurd not by accident but as a King and so here if the King were the judge to whose determination we might appeale from the Church in a Church controversie sure the King as King should be a Church Officer if the Priests in controversie touching burning incense or offering strange fire to God should appeal to the decision of the King as the King sure the King in that as King should be an eminent High Priest and right of burning incense to the Lord should belong to him in as farre as the Kings lips in that controversie should preserve knowledge and they should seek the Law from his mouth which is proper to the Priests Mal. 2. 7. Ezek. 22 26. and 44. 23 24. Deut. 17. 11. 2. The Church of Antioch should have
his enemies his footstool and subdue all things to himselfe Ergo his Kingdome is as large as all things Ans The Lord Iesus Christs power Kingly and his power mediatory which includeth a power as God for he is Mediator and a mediatory King according to both natures doth no way make him King of Devils of Hell of sin of the reprobate and damned no more then Davids power over Ammonites and Moabites makes him King and feeder of the Ammonites and Moabites Never Divine said that Christ was King of Devils and King of Hell though he subdue Devils and Hell and make them his footstool Col. 2. 15. But as hability and gifts was not sufficient to make Christ a Priest but he behooved to have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 authority and a lawfull calling Heb. 5. 4 5. so he behooved to be called set and established on the Holy-hill of Zion as a King of the Fathers making Psal 2. 5 6. Psal 89. 26 27 28 29. Luk. 1. 32 33. ver 68 69. 54 55. And therefore though as King and an eternall King he subdue all things even his enemies yet it followeth not he is King and Mediator and Head of his enemies Arg. 8. All those whom Christ maketh officers Legats and Ambassadors of his mediatory Kingdom they have either the word of the Kingdom committed to them as Pastors and Doctors and of old Apostles Evangelists Prophets that they may make work on the consciences of men to make them Kings and Priests unto God or they are by the word of admonition and rebuke to deal for the same end as governours and Elders 1 Cor. 12. 28. 1 Tim. 5. 17. for the officers of the Kingdome and sword or scepter of the Kingdome the Word of God Psal 45. 4. Rev. 19. 15. Heb. 4. 11. Rev. 1. 16. which are the means are congruously proportioned to the end the gathering of the Saints the perfecting of his body Eph. 2. 11 12. But never did Christ appoint the Magistrate with his sword and his temporary rewards and praise of well doing to have any action on the conscience of men or to co-operate for so high an end directly and kindly for sure the sword cannot reach that end except indirectly and by accident in some imperated acts He may procure that there be such means as word and seals and Church-officers and so be an intrinsecall mean to set up those which are the spirituall and truly intrinsecall means and this is all Object 1. Was not this the first step of papal tyranny that the Church-men would be exempted from the power of the Magistrate and sâ—t themselves up as supream collaterall Independent powers in all Ecclesiasticall affairs as the Magistrate was supream in all politick businesse Ans It is a calumnious consequence Pastors and Teachers will not be judged by the Magistrate in things meerly Ecclesisticall â—o stand to his Ecclesiasticall decision as if his lips ex officio should preserve knowledge Ergo Pastors and Doctors do exempt themselves from the Lawfull power of the Magistrate in his civill judging by the sword it is as if they would say Church-men refuse to submit to an usurped and unlawfull power of the Magistrate Ergo they refuse to submit to their lawfull power 2. They bring not one word to prove that this was the first step of papal tyranny now a supremacy and independency in doctrinals and civill things the adversaries deny not If King Ahab finde the Priests of Iehovah turn Priests of Baal and the Prophets prophesie lies we and the adversaries agree that King Ahab hath a supream independent power to judge and punish them with the sword and if King Ahab will take on him to burne incense to the Lord the Priests and Prophets of the Lord have an immediate supream independent power to rebuke King Ahab for usurping that which is independently and incommunicably proper to the Priests onely and they may refuse to bee judged by King Ahab when he would judge them for giving out this sentence It belongeth not to King Ahab or King Vzziah to burne incense to the Lord but to the Priests the sons of Aaron 2 Chron. 26. Will they say this supremacy of the Priests is a step to papall Tyranny 3. This is rather papall Tyranny it selfe that the Magistrate as head of the Church and as an Ecclesiasticall person may as a Magistrate governe in all externalls the Church as he pleaseth with a royall supream independent power and because the Magistrate may send others to rule for him 2 Chron. 19. 8 9. 1 Pet. 2. 13 14. Ergo he may commit this royall power to a creature called a Prelate as to his Deputie in his name to judge as Phocas gave first a supremacy to Boniface the third which no Bishop of Rome had before and judge if this be not the first step to Papall Tyranny They possibly may say The Magistrate can commit no Magistraticall power to any Churchman for Christ for bad them to take on them the civill domination of the Lords of Gentiles Luke 22. 26 27. Ans But this is an Ecclesiastick not a civill administration and if it be a lawfull Ecclesiasticall supremacy why may not the Magistrate who hath power to send Deputies to act in his name depute a lawfull Ecclesiasticall power to Ecclesiasticall persons Pastors and Doctors who in the mind of the adversaries are all but the Deputies of the Magistrate in all that they doe Obj. 2. But is it not Popery that the Magistrate shall be obliged as a Lictor to execute the decrees of the Church Ans I know not if the Lictor with blind obedience be to behead Iohn Baptist or if Doeg should kill the Lords Priests because King Saul commandeth him 2. This Argument concludeth that neither Magistrate nor people should beleeve Articles of faith because the Church and Pastors saith so but because Iehovah saith so nor is the Ruler to beleeve or execute what the Church decrees because they decree it but because he beleeveth it is the will of Christ what they give out in Name of Christ 3. Is it not Popery that the Pastors and Teachers should execute the lawes of the Magistrate both in dispensing Word Sacraments and Discipline for they may not as Pastors and Doctors judge whether the Ecclesiasticall decrees of the Magistrate be the will and minde of Jesus Christ or no. The Magistrate in doctrine and discipline is the onely supream judge here as in all causes civill as he exerciseth a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and a dominion in the on Luke 22. 27. so also in the other except the Adversaries shew us a difference Yea as Mr. Pryn with the Erastians say Because there is no certain form of the government of the Church in Scripture he hath an Arbitrary power as Magistrate to appoint any government in the Church not contrary to the Word any Officers Prelates and Cardinals any ceremonies as pleaseth him and may impose them on the consciences of Pastors
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
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
as the precept of believing in Christ and of repentance from dead works yet I hope it shall be a weak inference from thence to inser we may therefore alter and change any thing of the Sacrament for the same Christ who commanded us to believe in him said also Drink ye all of this and if we may not remove drinking from the last Supper because injoyned by Christ upon the authority of the Law-giver as signifying the spirituall drinking of Christs Blood how can any dare to adde Crossing to Baptisme which signifieth the dedication of the Baptized to Christs service But 1. Divine Ceremonials and positives which were to be changed have these notes and impressions of God which Surplice Crosse in Baptisme Corner-cap which by Analogie answereth to Moses his Ceremonies hath not and yet if they be of the New Testament and so of a more excellent spirits devising then the people of the Iews were capable of in regard of their Bondage under Carnall Precepts they ought to have them in a more excellent manner As 1. In regard of the manner of Revelation all the Laws and Ceremoniall Ordinances were revealed to Moses when he was forty dayes in the Mount with God and was in Heaven and above men Exod. 25. 40. Heb. 8. 5. The length measure and patern of the Temple was revealed to Ezechiel when he was in the spirit and saw the Visions of God Ezech. 40. 2 3. And a writing of the form of the Temple by Gods hand was delivered to David 1 Chro. 28. 19. Now if a more free and glorious spirit teach the Positives of policy under the New-Testament such as Surplice Crossing then Prelates must be in a higher mount with God then Moses was and in a deeper extasie of the visions of God then Ezechiel was in Ezec. 40. 1 2 3. When they are in the childe-birth pain of devising and bring forth such defaced and dirty whelpes as Surplice Crossing Altars c. 1. I should think it blasphemy so to think 2. In regard of the Doctrine revealed When I read the 40 41 42. Chapters of Ezekiel touching the forme of the Temple and the Antitipe Chapters the Revelation c. 21. c. 22. Yea and the very Ceremoniall Laws of Moses as the scape-goats going to the wildernesse with the sins of the people of God and all the rest of the Lawes that pointeth at Christ to be slain for us and the heavenly mysteries of the Gospel explained especially in the Epistle to the Hebrews when I read these I finde a strong smell of the ointments of a precious Redeemer the extream love of God to man the Majesty the divinity and efficacy of divine power in these as in other Scriptures But should our Prelats put in Print by the spirit of the new Testament some Epistles touching Ceremonies in Generall or of Surplice Corner-cap Crossing and their heavenly relation to the mysteries of the Gospel in particular I should not think men would dare to say a nobler spirit speaketh like God and heaven in these then in the other It is without all Warrant to expound Christian Liberty of a power of devising a mutable Church-Policy and lawes not warranted in Gods word seeing Christian Liberty expresly exempteth us altogether from obedience to mens Laws not warranted by Christs word Gal. 5. 1. Col. 2. 20 c. Let us hear what Hooker saith for his mutable Policie under the New Testament Christ is not lesse faithfull then Moses because Moses delivered to the Iewes some Lawes that were durable and Christ some Laws that are changeable otherwayes by this reason Christ shall be lesse faithfull then Moses for Moses erected in the wildernesse a Tabernacle which was moveable from place to place Solomon a stately Temple which was not moveablâ— Therefore Solomon was faithfuller then Moses which no man indued with reason will think Christ was faithfull and saith I have given to them the words that thou gavest me He concealed not any part of his Fathers will But did any part of that will require the immutability of Laws concerning Church-Policy Ans I answer as Christ did to the Jews in another case Ioh. 6. 32. Moses gave you not that bread from heaven but my Father giveth you that true bread So in this neither Moses nor Solomon erected either that Tabernacle or Temple as Law-givers but the Father of our Lord Iesus as the true Law-giver Now both were but meer servants and Heralds in all that they did for God shewed to Moses the pattern of the Tabernacle and to David and Solomon the forme of the Temple in all the pins rings chambers cubits length and breadth Exod. 24 40. 1 Chron. 28. 11 19. And the question is not if ever the Lord himself delivered mutable or immutable Laws either in Doctrine or Policy We grant he did and may deliver Laws changeable and to indure for a time only in both the old and new Testament Heb. 7. 18. Col. 2. 17. Act. 15. 28 29. But the question is if Moses as a man if Christ as a man only if the Church of Prelates yea or of Lawfull Officers can be faithfull if they deliver lawes to the Church which may be altered without the expresse will of God speaking in his word at the pleasure of men and which are positives of worship and Policy such as humane Prelates Surplice Crosse c. which varieth dieth and liveth falleth and riseth with the climate Nation civill-Government Lawes Manners and customes of People and this is all one as to move the question whither the Ambassadour as a man may alter the Articles of his Commission according to his own private lust without an expresse and evident Warrant of the Prince and State whose servant and Messenger he is in all that he doth and if he be a faithfull Ambassadour who doth his own will and not the will of those that sent him and if Christ be as faithfull as Moses if he had given Laws of policy under the New-Testament to be altered without an expresse and evident Warrant from the will of the Father at the pleasure and will of men This we deny and certainly say that Moses had erected a changeable Tabernacle at the will of man and Solomon a Temple unchangeable at the will and expresse Commandment of God then had Solomon been faithfuller then Moses our Arguments nerves do not consist in the immutability or the mutability of things themselves or of the Laws but on the immutability or mutability of things positive or Laws positive under this reduplication so as they be immutable or mutable at the pleasure and will of men without and beside the word of God such as Crosse and Surplice and such like Romish stuffe are pretended to be 2. Certain it is that Christ concealed not any part of his Fathers will Ioh. 17. 8. But delivered all and this place with the place Ioh. 15. 15. We urge against the traditions of Papists and say because Christ
Ahasureosh did to continue for an hundred and fourscore dayes Esther 1. 4. More might and ought to have been done by David and Solomon if it had been a morall ground to build a house to be a witnesse of Almightinesse 3. And God appointed sacrifices and Sacraments in both Testaments as Testimonies of the great Lord Iesus yet in base and obvious creatures we may not devise Symbols or witnessing Images of the Almightinesse of that God whom we serve at our pleasure 4. If our Lord love mercy better then Sacrifice especially under the New Testament when his worship must be more spirituall Then the Argument may be strongly retorted we are to bestow more on feeding the living Members of Christs body which yet is not secular vanity then on dead stones except Master Hooker can warrant us to serve God under the New Testament in precious stones and gold for which we can see no Warrant 5. All these Arguments are broadly used by Papists for Images and rich Churches Nor doth Hooker give us any Argument for this but what Papists gave before him Have ye not houses saith he to eat and drink in Ergo He teacheth a difference between house and house and what is fit for the dwelling place of God and what for mans habitation the one for common food the other for none but for heavenly food Ans That there was publick meeting places and Churches in Corinth now under Heathen Rulers 1 Cor. 6. is denyed by all both Protestant and Popish writers far lesse had they then any consecrated Churches and from the inconveniency of taking their Supper while some were full and drunk in the place where the Lords Supper was Celebrated whereas they ought to have Supped in their own houses to infer that the Church is a holier place then their own house I professe is Logick I do not understand it only concludes these two sort of houses are destinated from two sort of different uses sacred and prophane and no more Neither am I much moved at that Psal 74. which is said ver 8. They have burnt all the convening places or all the Congregations of God in the land Vatablus expoundeth it of the Temple Exusserunt totum Templum Dei terrenum Or all the question will be why the Synagogues are called Gods Synagogues as they called the Temple Ier. 7. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Temple of the Lord and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The house of the Lord Whither because every Synagogue was no lesse in its own kinde a house holy to the Lord then the Temple Certainly there is no rationall ground to say that Synagogues were Typicall that the people were to pray with their faces toward the Synagogue and to offer Sacrifices in the Synagogue But that a Synagogue is called the house of God from the use and end because it was ordained for the worship of God as that which God hath appointed for a speciall end and work in that the Lord assumeth the propriety thereof to himself so saith the Lord of Cyrus Isa 45. 1. Thus saith the Lord to his Anointed to Cyrus whose right hand I have holden yet was not Cyrus Typically or Religiously holy as the Temple of Ierusalem and c. 44. v. 28. He saith of Cyrus He is my shepherd and why He shall perform all my pleasure so Hos 2. 9. Therefore will I returne saith God and take away my corne in the time thereof and my wine in the season thereof and will recover my wool and my flax given to cover her nakednesse To say nothing that all the holy land was Gods land Hos 9. 3. They shall not dwell in the Lords land and consequently all the Synagogues were Gods houses and the enemy of whom the Church complaineth to God in that Psalme was thus bold as notwithstanding Canaan was Gods Heritage and proper Land in a speciall manner yet it was destroyed and burnt by the enemies even these houses that God was worshipped in not being spared But how God was so present in every Synagogue and that even when there were no actuall worship of God in it as he was in the Temple and that it was so holy a place as they were to put off there shooes who came into the Synagogue God shewing his own immediate presence in every synagogue as he did Exod. 3. 5. To Moses in the burning bush Exod. 5. 1. v. 12. Is a thing that hath no warrant in the word of God for if every synagogue had been thus holy 1. It should have been a house dedicated to God in a Religious way as was the Temple 2. God should dwell in every Synagogue then in every Church under the New Testament now as he said he would dwell in the Temple 3. Then must Heathens and the uncircumcised be forbidden to come into any Synagogue or any Church under the New Testament the contrary whereof was evident in scripture none were forbidden to enter in the Synagogues Paul 1 Cor. 14. 23 24. alloweth that Heathens come into the Churches or meetings where Christians are worshipping God 4. If either the Temple of Ierusulem was holy for the worship in it or for that it was a Type of our Materiall Temples under the New Testament then our Churches under the New Testament shall be more holy yea our private houses in which we may worship God shal be more holy as our worship is more spirituall then carnall Commandments of the Leviticall Law were and the body must be more holy then the shadow yea all the earth now from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same in regard of more spirituall worship even the Stables and Alehouses where we may offer the Incense of Prayer to God and offer the sacrifices of praises Mal. 1. 11. shall be alike holy as either our Churches or the Temple was of old CAP. I. Q. 1. Whether or not Humane Ceremonies in Gods Worship can consist with the perfection of Gods Word THese humane Ceremonies we cannot but reject upon these grounds Our first Argument is Every positive and Religious observance and Rite in Gods worship not warranted by Gods Word is unlawfull But humane Ceremonies are such Ergo The Proposition is sure the holy Spirit useth a Negative Argument Act. 15. 24. We gave no such Commandment Levit. 10. 1. Jer. 7. 30. and 19. 5 6. and 32. 35. 2 Sam. 7. 7. 1 Chron. 15. 13. The Lord Commanded not this Ergo It is not Lawfull Formalists Answer Every worship holden to be of Divine necessity and yet not Commanded by God is unlawfull but not every worship holden as free and not binding the Conscience requireth that God Command it Ans 1. Gods Consequence is from the want of a Lawfull efficient and Author you make him to reason from an Adjunct of the worship But all worship hath necessity and Divinity and a binding power only from the Author God For why is it Lawfull to Abraham to kill or
my judgements and they shall keep my Laws and my Statutes in all mine assemblies and hallow my Sabbaths so 2 Chron. 23. 19. And Iehojada set the porters at the Gates of the house of the Lord that none which was uncleane in any thing should enter in And shall we concelve that porters that is Levites would hold out those that were only ceremonially unclean and receive in murtherers who had killed there Children to Molech that same day there was not to enter in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the unclean in any matter the text is generall excludes idolaters and murthers and such as should refuse to enter in Covenant with the Lord of which the Text speaketh As for Erastus his consequence which he unjustly imputeth to us to wit Israel sinned in coming to the Lords temple to prophane it in the very day that they slew their Children to Molech Ergo there ought to have been Priests and now there must be Presbyters and selected overseers in a Church judicature to debarre murtherers and the like scandalous persons from the Sacraments 1. This is not our consequence But this we say if the Priests knew that same day that they came to the Temple they slew their Children to Molech the Priests should have debarred them from coming to the Temple and from eating the Passeover as their office and duty was by the Law of God Num. 9. v. 6 7. Num. 19. 11 12. Lev. 22. 6. The soul that hath touched any such unclean shal be unclean till even and shall not eat of the holy things unlesse he wash his flesh with water 7. and when the Sun is downe he shal be clean and shall afterward eat of the holy things because it is his food Now it was the Priests office Lev. 10. 10. that he put a difference between holy and unholy and between clean and unclean so if Eli knew that his sonnes made themselves vile before the people and committed furnication with the women at the doore of the Tabernacle of the Congregation Ergo Eli should as a judge have restrained them 1 Sam. 3. 13. But from this antecedent we draw not this consequence Elies sonnes do publikely make themselves vile Ergo there ought to be such an Ordinance as a judge with Civill power to punish them and Ergo there ought to have been no King to punish them but a judge like unto Eli and Samuel this consequence followeth not from this antecedent but only hoc posito that Eli hath the sword and be the Civill judge Ergo he ought to punish from scandals in the Church and prophaning the holy things of God we inferre not Ergo there must be such a judicature erected as if the antecedent were the cause of the consequent But this only followeth Ergo supposing there be a Church and Presbytery invested with this power they ought not to admit murtherers or any unclean persons to come and partake of the Sacraments and so defile the holy things of God as for the place Ezek. 33. I undertake not from thence to conclude debarring of any from the holy things of God by the Priests what may follow by consequent is another thing Erastus Whereas it is said Deut. 23. the Lord would not have the price of a whore offered to him Ergo far lesse would he have a whore admitted to the sacrifice it followeth not but a penitent or a whore professing repentance may be admitted to the sacrifices 2. He forbiddeth only the price of a whore to be offered to him as a vow or a thing vowed it may be that agree not to all sacrifices For God forbiddeth a living creature that is unperfect in a vow But Lev. 22. he forbiddeth not such imperfect living creatures to be offered to him in a free will sacrifice so God forbiddeth honey to be offered in an offering by fire but not in all other oblations But will not the Lord have a whore to offer to God that which is lawfully purchased or which is her patrimony or may not a whore offer her first borne to the Lord or circumcise him We find not that forbidden From things to persons we cannot argue we may not offer a lame beast to God Ergo doth the Lord so abhor a lame man that he may not come to the Temple God alloweth not tares amongst the wheat yet he will not have the externall Ministers to pluck up the tares while harvest Ans If the hire received for a whores selling of her body to uncleannesse must not be applyed to the service of God farre more cannot a whore as a whore be admitted to partake of the holy things of God for the price or money is called abomination to God Deut. 23. for the whore not the whore for the money and so we may well argue from the things to the persons 2. It is false that God forbiddeth the price of a whore onely in vows and not in sacrifices he forbiddeth it because as Moses saith Deut. 23. 18. it is an abomination to the Lord and as Erastus saith it is money unjustly purchased Yea Davids practise teacheth that what we bestow on sacrifices as well as in vows it must be our own proper goods and not so much as gifted to us 2 Sam. 24. 24. Neither will I offer burnt offerings unto the Lord my God of that which cost me nothing farre lesse would he offer the price of a whore in sacrifices and the Divines of England say on the place hereby is forbidden that any gaine of evill things should be applied to the service of God Mich. 7. 1. Vatablus saith the like 2. For the Lords forbidding to offer in a vow Bullock or Lambe or any thing that is superfluous or lacking in his parts and permitting it in a free-will offering by a free will offering is meant that which is given to the Priest for food of a free gift but otherwise what is offered to the Lord in a vow or a free will offering must be perfect for the blind broken maimed having a wenne scurvy or scab can in no sort be offered to the Lord Lev. 22. 20 21 22 23. There is no word of the Lord in the free will gift that Erastus speaketh of but only the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is liberall free from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to give freely to God or man 3. A whore repenting or professing repentance was not debarred from sacrifices but that is without the bounds of the question an heathen could say Quem penitet facti is pene innocens est Senec. in Traged We debarre none that professe repentance from the seals of the Covenant 4. When a whore as a whore did offer her first borne being a bastard in the Temple I conceive neither she nor her childe were accepted Deut. 23. 2. Abastard shall not enter into the Congregation of the Lord if the childe was born of Married Parents the woman repenting the question now must be far altered 5. For a lame
1 Cor. 5. 12. Ergo their being Members of the Church is not enough to admit them to the Lords Supper except they be to the Church otherwise qualified and fitted for it And this doth clearly evidence That the word of the Kingdom may ought to be Preached to many within the Church that they may be converted to whom the Supper is not to be dispensed that they may be cōverted which is enough for our point to exclude promiscuous admission of all to the Supper and to prove some other qualification must be requisite in those that come to the Supper before the Ministers without violation of the holy things of God and being guilty of not distributing aright can administer the Supper to them and this is another visible qualification then is requisite in those that hear the word For Erastus and Mr. Prynne require That all that come to the Supper be rightly instructed 2. That they promise amendment of life But they cannot say none are to be admitted to hear the word while they be qualified thus you exclude the ignorant from the Sacrament do you exclude the ignorant from hearing the word Farther I desire to be resolved why Erastus and his require any qualification at all in the one more then in the other according to their way For suppose persons Baptized be only negatively blamelesse and not visibly scandalous yet Erastus and Mr. Prynne cannot deny the Supper to such Suppose they know not whether they be as ignorant of God as Indians and suppose they promise no amendment and do positively professe no repentance at all 1. Ministers can deny no converting Ordinances to persons because ignorant for if the Supper of the Lord be a converting Ordinance it shall convert men from their ignorance and an Indian ignorant of Christ ought to be Baptized to the end that Baptisme may convert him from his ignorance Now I think our Brethren cannot say this and therefore they must yield that Ministers dare not admit all within the Church to the Seals except they would be guilty of their sin in eating to themselves damnation and yet they dare not debar the ignorant within the Church from hearing the word and so are no way compartners with them in the sin of unprofitable hearing 2. Mr. Prynne may here see some ignorants debarred from the Lords Supper yet I hope he would not be so rigid as to Excommunicate all ignorants because ignorant the most rigid Novatians would condemne that and here is sole suspension without Excommunication which Mr. Prynne saith is not to be found in all the word of God I wondred much when I read those words of the learned and reverend Master Prynne That God who bestoweth no Ordinances on men in vaine must intend in instituting the Supper that visible morall unregenerate Christians may be converted thereby as well as reall Saints be confirmed to which I reply 1. Neither word nor Sacraments nor any thing on the part of the Almighty can be intended in vaine though the end of the Ordinance be not obtained I should have expected some such divinity from the pen of Arminians and Socinians who make God to intend the salvation of all and every one in both the promises of the Gospel precepts and Sacraments and yet he falleth from this end so you may read in Arminius Anti-Perkins pag. 60. that God is disappointed in his end in both Law and Gospel and God shooting beside his mark misseth the salvation of many say the Remonstrants at the Synod of Dort pag. 216. and in their confession c. 7. sect 3. and because Socinus thought it hard thus to take from God wise intentions he did no lesse then blasphemously deprive him of his omniscience So Socians contra puccium c. 10. and in prelectionib Theolog. c. 11. made all things that are contingently to come uncertaine to God But if you speak of intentio operis non operantis that the Supper in its nature is ordained this may rather be your meaning that morall men like Cicero and Seneca and Iudas and the like for all are alike in regard of the nature of the ordinances and of that which is the genuine intention not of God but of this Sacrament then you speak not of the supper as divided from the word but as the word going before the Sacrament hath converted the man and the Sacrament following doth adde to and confirme in grace So Sir you depart from the question for we grant that the Sermon going before in the same day of the celebration of the Supper may and doth convert and thus if an Indian heare a Sermon to which the celebration of the Supper is annexed if he be converted by that Sermon as you teach the heart in those is only knowne to God the Church is not to judge he may forthwith ere he be baptised come at the same time to the Lords supper which were much precipitation little speed and so the word formally converteth not the Sacrament But if you mean that the Sacrament formally as the Sacrament is of its nature a mean of converting a morall Seneca you mistake the nature of the seal very farre God never intended that food as food should give life to the dead the Supper as the Supper is spirituall food and presupposeth the eater hath life and how gate he life but by the word of God 2. Doth the Sacrament as the Sacrament humble or speak one word of the Law doth the Sacrament say any thing here but Christ died for thee O Seneca and there is a pledge of his love in dying for thee and the like it speaketh to Iudas as Master Prinne thinketh and can this convert a morall man never yet humbled for sinne But I have gone thus out of the way in this purpose I returne and desire pardon for this digression not I hope fruitlesse at this time If the Magistrate be the chiefe Church-officer how is it that the Church was without Christian Magistrates in the Apostles time then is there no exact paterne of a Christian Church what it should be de jure hath Christ in the New Testament not moulded the Church the second temple in all the dimensions of it as Moses David Solomon did by immediate inspiration shew us the measure of the first Tabernacle Sanctuary and Temple finally should Cesar suppose he had been a Christian have received imposition of hands from the Elders a◠his deputies the Ministers do and be over the Church in the Lord as King and receive accusations against Elders ordaine Elders in every Church put out and cast out the unworthy only for the iniquity of the time Ministers were forced to do these Erastus and his have not one word of Scripture for this or were the keys of the Kingdome of heaven given to Cesar and because Cesar was without the Church therefore Peter received them Matth. 16. while Cesar should be converted what Scripture have we for this for to rule the Church
he calls David his Prince a bloody murtherer and saith this evill is come on him for rising up against Saul his Master The Magistrate may not punish him with the Sword for railing against the Lords anoynted 2. And if the Magistrate ought not to strike with the sword any Prophet for preaching according to his conscience for that is persecution to this Author how shall the Prophets judge and condemne the Magistrate for those same decrees which he hath given out according to his conscience for this is a persecution with the tongue Mat. 5. 11. Iob 19. 22. and it is one and the same spirituall cause saith this Author 3. The same very Author and the Parliament do reciprocally judge and condemne one another for the Parliament make warre against Papists for drawing the King on their side and causing him make warre against the Lambe and his followers that is against godly Protestants Now suppose Priests and Iesuits preach this to the Queen and other Papists and they according to their conscience make warre against the flock of Christ and the Parliament according to their conscience make warre against them this Author sitteth downe and judgeth and condemneth both sides as bloody persecutors for point of conscience Now though the Author in his Bench with his penne condemneth and judgeth both according to his conscience yet if the Papists or possibly the Parliament had this Author in their fingers might not they reciprocally judge and condemne him I think he cannot deny how justly they should reciprocally judge the Author I cannot say 3. This Author would have a contradiction such as is to make East and West both one that one and the same man both sit in the Bench and stand at the barre that the Church judge the Magistrate and the Magistrate judge the Church But I hope contradictions were no more under the Old Testament to be admitted nor under the New Now in the Old Testament the King might put to death the Prophet who should prophecy blasphemies and again the Prophet might judge the King by denouncing the judgement of the Lord against the King let the Author say how the King both did sit in the Bench and stand at the baâ—â—e in divers respects I think Aâ—hab might judge and punish Micaiah unjustly for prophecying that he should dye at Ramoth Gilead and Micaiah might in prophecy give out the sentence of death justly against him but here be two contrary sentences the like may fall out in Synodicall constitutions 2. To answer to his reasons 1. It followeth not that in one and the same spirituall respect one and the same person judgeth on the Bench and is judged at the Bar for the Churches judging is in a spirituall respect as the officer ordained may promote the building of Gods House the Magistrates suppressing him is no spirituall respect but as it disturbeth the peace of the State that so unworthy a person is an officer in Gods House and is hurtfull to the Church of God in their ediâ—icatioâ— which the Magistrate is to promote not in spirituall but in a civill coactive way by the power of the sword 3. That one judge on the Bench and the same stand at the Barre and be judged at divers and sundry times is not so impossible by farre as to reconcile East and West together Aâ—â—â—b may judge Naboath to be condemned and stoned for his vineyard to day and immediately after Elias the Prophet may arraigne him before the Barre and tribunall of God to be condemned and adjudged to dye in the portion of Iezreel where the dogs may lick his blood It is true Elias is not properly a judge but a declarer in a propheticall and authoritative way of the judgement of God but this is all the judiciall power which we ascribe to Church or Presbytery and Pastors they are meer Ministers or servants to declare the will and sentence of God When the Minister preacheth wrath against the King for his sins he judgeth the King in a Pastorall and Ministeriall way which is all we contend for in many officers united in a Church way and at that same time the King hath power after that to judge him for preaching treason for â—ound Doctrine if it be found to be treason by the Church and this reciprocation of judging we maintaine as consistent and necessary in Ministers of Gospel and Magistrates But such a distance betweene them as between East and West we see not The Author should have shewne it to us by his owne grounds The Church may excommunicate a Magistrate as a persecutor who cutteth off Idolaters for their conscience yet the godly Magistrate may judge and punish them with the sword for abusing the ordinance of Excommunication so as to excommunicate the godly Magistrate because he doth punish evill doing with the Sword Rom. 13. 4. 4. The Author infers that tumults and bloods do arise from these two But that will not prove these two to be inconsistent and contrâ—dictorious tumults and blood arise from preaching the Gospel what then Ergo the Gospel is a masse of contradictions â—â— followeth not The â—umulâ—s and blood have their rise from mens lusts who are impatient of the yoak of Christ not from these two powers to judge Ecclesiastically in the Church and to be judged civilly by the Magistrates The Author draweth his instance to the actuall judging of the same thing contradictory wayes for example the Church ordaineth one to be a preacher and this they do Ecclesiastically and the Magistrate actually condemneth the same man civilly as unworthy to be a preacher It is one thing to say that the Church hath power to judge righteously in an Ecclesiasticall way any matter and another that the Christian Magistrate hath power in a civill way to judge righteously the same matter and a â—ar other thing it is to say The Church hath a power Ecclesiastically to judge a matter righteously according to the word and the Magistrate hath power to judge the same matter civilly in a wrong and unjust way the former we say God hath given a power to the Church to ordaine Ecclesiastically Epaphroditus to be a preacher of the Gospel because these graces and gifts are in him that are requisite to be in a faithfull preacher and God hath also given a power to the Christian Magistrate to adde his civill sanction to the ordination and calling of the same Epaphroditus But we do not teach that God hath given to the Church a power to call Epaphroditus to the Ministery in an Ecclesiasticall way and that God hath given a power to the Christian Magistrate to anull this lawfull ordination of Epaphroditus Now the Author putteth such a supposition that Church and Magistrate have two lawfull powers toward contrary acts the one of them a power to give out a just sentence the other a power to give out an unjust sentence in one and the same cause which we teach not God gave to none either in Church
in the first Table yet the Morallity of the second Table is as expresly in Gods Word as the Worship of the first Table 1. Because what is justice and mercy and love toward man in the second Table doth no more depend upon mans sole will but upon Gods Morall Law the Law of nature then it dependeth upon mans will or human wisdom how God should be worshipped according to the first Table For Gods will in his Word is called by our Divines a perfect Canon and rule of Faith and also of Manners And as the grace of God T it 2. teacheth us what is Piety so also what is Righteousnesse and Sobriety 2. Because as Gods Word condemneth will-worship which is come of no Nobler blood then mans will so condemneth it idle words and idle actions which are but will-works and will-words and deeds of will-justice and will-mercy and a will-conscience in the second Table putteth no lesse a rub upon the wisdom of the Lord the Law giver then a will conscience in the first Table But Formalists say If mans will and authority cannot appoint Crossing Holy humane-dayes Surplice and such the decent expressions and incitements of Devotion in the kinde of Arbitrary Mutable and Ambulatory Worship but they must be therein guilty of adding to the Doctrine of Piety and Religion in the first Table by that same reason they cannot make humane Civill and Positive Laws in War and Peace to be means of conserving justice and mercy tovvard humane societies in the kinde of duties of Righteousnesse and sobriety tovvards our selves and Neighbours but they must be guilty of adding to the Doctrine of the second Table I Answer 1. The case is not alike we cannot be Agents in the performing of any worship to God nor can we use any Religious means for honouring God which belong to the first Table But in these we are Morall Agents doing with speciall reference to conscience and to true happinesse and the glory of God as the ends both of the work and workers and therefore in these we are precisely ruled by the wisdom of God who hath in his word set down what Worship and what means of exciting Devotion and decoring of his Worship pleaseth him and hath not left men to Lord-will or Lord-wit but in many actions that belong to humane societies we are not Morall Agents but often Agents by Art as in Military discipline Trades usefull for mans life Oeconomy and Policy in Kingdoms and Cities in Sciences as Logick Physick Mathematicks in these Finis operis the end of the work is operation according to the principles of Arts and Policy and we are not in them Morall Agents and so not to be regulated by Gods Word For the Scripture giveth not to us precepts of Grammar of War of Trades and Arts teaching us to speak right Latine to make accurat demonstrations nor is the end of the work here a thing that pitcheth upon that tender and excellentest peece in us our Conscience and our Morall duties to God and men but to make such humane Laws just and suitable with sobriety and justice is not left to Lord-will but right reason the principles of a naturall Conscience which are parts to us of Scripture and the Word of God it self hath determined whether to carry Armour in the night in such a case Whether to eat flesh in such a season of the year when the eating thereof hurteth the Common-Wealth and the like belong to works of justice and mercy or no Now it is no marvel that in things belonging to our naturall life peace societies policy where the end of the work is naturall or civill and belongeth not as such to the Conscience and Salvation of the soul that there men be Artificers or Agents according to Art Oeconomy Policy whereas the end of the work Finis operis in the Worship of God is Morall and a matter of an higher nature and so the means and manner of Worship here are determined by Gods Word But when actions of Arts Sciences Trades Oeconomy Policy and Laws positive are elevated above themselves Ad finem operantium to the end that Agents are to look unto as they be Morall Agents Gods Word is as perfect a rule for acts of good manners in the second Table as in the first For example that I speak good Latine I am to see to Disputers Precepts but that I lie not and speak not Scandals or Blasphemies while I speak Latine there I am to look to Gods Law given by Moses That a Tradesman make works according to Art he is to advise with Art but that he sell not his work at too dear a price he is to advise with the eight Commandment and when all these acts of Art are referred to Conscience Salvation and the glory of God as they ought to be Respectus finis operantis in respect of the Morall intention of the doer all their Morallity is squared by Gods-Word Hence there be no actions of Worshipping God but they be purely Morall Et respectu finis operis Et respectu finis operantiis but many actions belonging to the second Table are either purely not Morall as actions of meer Art or they be mixed and Respectu finis operis in respect of the end of the work they are not Morall nor to be squared by the Word at all and in respect of the Morall intention of the doer they be Morall and so mixed actions and partly ruled by the Word and partly ruled by Art or Policy according to our seventh distinction II. Conclusion In actions or Religious means of Worship and actions Morall whatever is beside the Word of God is against the Word of God I say in Religious means for there be means of Worship or Circumstances Physicall not Morall not Religious as whether the Pulpit be of stone or of timber the Bell of this or this Mettall the house of Worship stand thus or thus in Situation Our Formalists will have it in the power of rulers to Command in the matter of Worship that which is beside the Word of God and so is negatively Lawfull though it be not Positively conform to Gods Word nor Commanded or warranted by practice which I grant is a witty way of Romes devising to make entry for Religious humane Ceremonies But 1. Whatever is not of Faith and a sure perswasion that what I do pleaseth God is sin Rom. 14. 14. 23. And therefore neither can be Commanded by Rulers nor practiced by inferiours But things besides Scripture and negatively Lawfull are things not of Faith Ergo The Assumption I Prove 1. I doubt if Lord-will be the Lord-carver of what pleaseth God 2. If it may stand with the wisdom of Christ the Law-giver for no Ceremonies maketh Christ a perfect Law-giver 3. In things doubtsome abstinence is the surest side Ergo Rulers ought not to command them 4. Samuel David even wicked Saul abstained in things doubtsome while the Oracle of
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