of the King And I observe this your Picture is almost all shadow and dark or negative In your first Paragraph and in the greater part of your second you say not what the Magistrate may do but what he may not do So you lay a Restraint upon him in stead of teaching what authoritie he hath Of him that was the first founder of a sect of the Academicks Arcesilas by name Lactantius wrote thus De falsa Sap. in the third book Constituit novam non philosophandi philosophiam He set up a new kinde of no kinde of Philophie and you have found out here a new kinde of no kinde of Church-government for the supreme Magistrate to busie himself about He must not do this nor he must not do that His ruling must be to see that none rule in impositions of forms or opinions and that is that every man may rule and do in religion what he will what is good in his own eyes which is Hemlock that will grow of it self in such times especially when there is no king in Israel He is to receive and to do nothing but as Gods commands approves You speak confusedly as you do also soon after when you say Otherwise then Gods word alloweth he may not suffer I am to tell you therefore that Gods word alloweth many things that are not commanded nor appointed by him in his word And this is sufficient to justifie them that there is nothing in Gods word against them or forbidding them Without Idolatrie Superstition or humane inventions For the two first of these we are agreed but for humane inventions I differ from you for your words carry with them a deniall of the Churches authority in framing and the Magistrates authority in confirming Canons and Constitutions Ecclesiastical And this your doctrine concerning humane inventions and impositions I take to be Superstition the true nature of which consisteth in taking away the indifferency of things indifferent whether it be in placing holiness and Gods worship in the practise of such things as are not enjoyned of God Or in abstaining from such things as 〈◊〉 displeasing to him which he hath no where prohibited He that forbiddeth in Gods service humane inventions that are neither impious nor imposed as parts of Gods worship maketh more negative precepts than God hath made As the Apostle saith of meats 1 Cor. 8. Neither if we eat are we the better neither if we eat not are we the worse The like may we say of Vestures and all things of an indifferent nature whether we use them or use them not we are neither the better nor the worse and to say we are the better or the worse is superstition But when you say He hath power to see that Gods worship be preached and practised purely and sincerely without idolatrie superstition or humane inventions you add not a word touching heresie and errour in belief is not the word of God a rule tam fidei quà m cultâ—ucirc s and is there not false doctrine as well as false worship It is true that purely and sincerely do comprehend very much but your addition following I take as a diminution you limit and restrain what you say to idolatrie superstition and humane inventions yea within a few lines you make it a part of his authoritie to pull down impositions of opinions You leave us unsatisfied neither do I think that you are able to give any good reason why the Prince should set himself against Idolatry more then against Heresie and why Christians may not have as much liberty in the practical worship of God as they may have in their opinions and belief there being a mutual and necessary connexion betwixt these two principal and integral parts of Religion And even while you speak against tolerating idolatrie and superstition your principles plead for them even for all sorts of idolatries For if men must cleave onely to what they understand and walk in what they are satisfyed in there is no idolater that will readily understand you or be satisfied with what you can say so as to be brought off from his idols and betake himself to the true God and his true worship False oaths or sinfull The Magistrate may give an oath if it be a false oath it is his fault that takes it not his that gives it For never yet was any man put to swear that such a thing or such an opinion is true and therefore he could not be put upon it to swear that which is false He that some years now past wrote a Discourse of conforming in Revolutions of Government pag. 54. complains of the dangerousness of those Assertory oaths which require us to swear that such or such a thing or opinion is true which may seem clearly so to the learned contrivers of those oaths but not so to others What you mean by false oaths I know not but I think this Authour aimed at the oath of Supremacie but he was very much mistaken in supposing that oath to be assertory of the Kings Supremacie If that be it that is sworn it is not a false oath but it is a very vain one to swear that which the Court knows already and is firmly perswaded of An oath is an end of doubt and controversie What is the doubt It is not whether the King be Supreme or no but whether the partie sworn beleevs it or no So that it is a kinde of Purgatory oath whereby the party clears himself from the suspicion of a Papist by denying a chief point of Poperie Additions of rests You may charge them with additions of rests who hold their festival days to be more holy than other days are and equal to the Lords day or Christian Sabbath and the observation of them to be a part of divine worship Thus the Papists do and thus the Papists say the Protestants do not and you may safely be so courteous as to beleeve them That cannot be said to be added to any thing that is not of the same nature with it as he that expoundeth the word of God doth not add to the word unless he maketh his exposition to be equal to the word and of the same authoritie with it The Hebrews by the ministery of Moses received of God their Canon-Law touching Government of the Church as well as they did their Civil-Law for Government of their State or Nation And we will suppose that the Christian Church which is left more at libertie is not now deprived of that authority and power which the Church of God in the time of the old Testament had in setting apart some days of rest either annual or occasional either of rejoycing or humiliation as do witness their feast of Purim and their feast of Dedication and their Fasting-days which were not of divine command and are mentioned Zechar. 7.5 8.19 Meerly for non-conformity to their wills Those who through want of age or of ought else know nothing of Episcopal Government in England
Government I know not what you would plead for your self unless it be Custome a custome that you have to confound and unkindly to mix and make up together things heterogeneous and quite different And because you seem to be better acquainted with the opinions of the Remonstrants than you are with their persons therefore let me tell you First that the Remonstrants were Presbyterians and lived under that Government and misliked it not Onely in the doctrine of these Churches they excepted against four points and doubted somewhat of the fifth And in the year 1622 they put forth their Confession or Declaration of their opinions in the chief heads of Religion and in the 21 chapter their words are Cùm Episcoporum Presbyteroâ—um omnium munus sit docere ac regere manifestum esse satìs videtur aliis in alios imperium nullo jure divino competere To teach and to govern belongeth to Bishops and to all Presbyters neither have they by divine right any power one over another Secondly Those Divines who went out of great Britain and were assistant in the National Synod where these doctrinal differences were examined were all of them Episcopal men and three of them were Bishops either then or afterward and when they were to give approbation to the Belgick confession they kept themselves onely to points dogmatical and would not examine those two articles the thirtieth and the one and thirtieth which concerned Ecclesiastical order as is inserted in the Acts Sess 144. and which is more than so and which is not inserted they did in the very next Session openly impeach the Presbyterian Government and Paritie of Ministers So far were they from being according to your medley Contra-Remonstrants and Presbyterians Sed cursum mutavit iniquum frugibus amnis Doctus iter melius So you would have it at least that now these terms should turn their wonted course and carrie quite another meaning than they did heretofore But because you are readie to take up any thing though it be never so nonsensical to use your own word that you imagine any way to make for you give me leave to tell you further First that there is no great heed to be taken to his complaint who misliketh the Presbyterians for that which they are to be commended for and for that in which the Episcopal part joyns with them wch is this That they desire and endeavour that Religion may be nationally established and some kinde of government and discipline Ecclesiastical settled And secondly They who are not content to commend their form of Government as good and as the best but further set it forth as Christs throne and spiritual kingdome are not matched but outgone by them who make it a point of Christian libertie and a part of Christs kingdome to have no Church-government at all And as it is no good Logick to oppose Presbyterian and Remonstrant so it is no great honestie to make the world beleeve it if they could that none but Presbyterians oppose Remonstrants Himself alledges a passage where I commend Authority for securing Religion against Blasphemie by civil sanction therefore he might see I am not the man he represents me I put a great difference betwixt Blasphemies and differences in opinion Some kinde of blasphemie I ever thought you were willing should be suppressed though it be contrary to your principles that it should That which I noted out of you in the place alledged was this That you who in one place do call the establishment of the Contra-Remonstrant or seeming orthodox opinion a bloudy sanction in another place would have the Magistrate make provision against them by enacting a law like that which was made against direct blasphemie and how do you then put a difference betwixt Blasphemies and Differences in opinion Sect. 3. To pleasure him a little with my thoughts about the Magistrates power in matters of Religion I shall say briefly 1. He may not exercise the authority of the Dragon spoken of Rev. 13. assume names of Blasphemy set up and inforce images of any other Object Authour or Medium of worship than God and Christ and the mediums ways and ordinances of his appointment nor back with his authority those that do compelling men to worship them swear to them blaspheme Gods name pollute Gods rest c. Nor may he oppress abuse persecute and destroy his subjects or suffer them to be persecuted and destroyed and especially upon such accounts 2. He is Custos utriusque tabulae keeper of both tables both as to his own practise and worship as to the Authour Object Ultimate end medium and way of it He is to receive and do nothing but as Gods commands approve and so as to the manner of his worship in spirit and truth his use and observation of Religious oaths observation of Gods Sabbath or rest carriage to his subjects c. And in respect of others He hath power to see that Gods worship be preached and practised purely and sincerely without idolatrie superstition or humane inventions mediums and impositions false oaths or sinfull breach of Sabbath or additions of rests otherwise than Gods word alloweth may he not suffer nor his subjects to oppress defraud or harm one another especially to oppress one anothers conscience no though they be Bishops he may not suffer them to binde upon his people their inventions and inflict penalties upon men meerly for non-conformity to their wills where they declare their consciences dis-satisfied but he may pull down all false objects and mediums of worship impositions of forms and ceremonies that offend and trouble tender consciences or impositions of opinions with penalties in such things where persons may be of different apprehensions and yet all fearers of God he may see that the Apostles practises in not imposing in things indifferent yea decreeing against the practise of such things as all could not practise without offence as Acts 15.28 29 30. is to be observed He may send forth his Princes to teach the truth as Jehoshaphat did with some Levites yea and preach it himself if thereto fitted c. You pleasured me a little but you pleasured the Sectaries a great deal more in carving thus or cramping rather the power of the Magistrate about Religion to serve your own purpose and your own partie as Praxiteles made the statue of Venus Cnidia by his own Phryne or like your friend Bellarmine with the fifteen marks that he gave of the Catholick Church which he thought might some way or other be fitted to his Romane Lady While you were limning the several parcels of the Magistrates power you took care to prevent all prejudice to your other opinions whatsoever they were or whatsoever they might be for the time to come in alea hominum as the fall of the Die may happen and still as you went along you were casting your eye upon that Saint which Salmasius speaks of and calleth Diva Independentia in the eleventh Chapter of his Defence
Cornelius and his houshold were ordained or not no bodie can tell Some will tell you that Peter himself baptized them neither is it said that Peter commanded any to baptize them but jussit haptizari he commanded them to be partakers of that Sacrament or if he commanded any man to baptize them you cannot tell but he to whom he gave that charge was ordained and have far more reason to think he was than to think he was not I think you may remember who it was that once brought an argument to your present purpose in behalf of persons unordained from the name Eucharist which signifyeth Giving of thanks What fault is it if some of Gods people administer a Thanksgiving and I do remember that a certain Authour that wrote against mixt Communions brought twenty arguments to prove the Lords Supper not to be a converting Ordinance and fetched one of them namely the eleventh from the name Eucharist The Euchharist saith he is an Ordinance of Thanksgiving and Consolation but unconverted persons are not to be called to thanks and joy but weeping and mourning So that from the word Eucharist which yet is not directly found in Scripture but assumed by the Church to note The Lords Supper while one maintaineth that He who is not a converted Christian may not be partaker of it another would maintain that He who is but a professed Christian and no more may be the minister of it Both which opinions are as unwarrantable as the reason taken from the Name is weak and groundless For in words and names we must not regard what their original is and their etymologie or whence they came but what they are brought to by use and custome if Eucharist doth signifie Thanksgiving in the Greek yet in the Church of God it is appropriate to the Lords Supper in common acception But secondly take the word in that sense whence it is taken to denote the Lords Supper and it doth not signifie Thanks-giving but Benediction or Blessing and as may easily appear by conferring the Evangelists To give thanks is to bless as when many sit down to meat at table we will suppose that all of them give thanks morally yet formally one doth give thanks or which is the same blesseth the table and when Justin Martyr Apolog. pag. 76. maketh mention of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of the Lords Supper it is plain that he took Eucharist for Consecration or Sacerdotal benediction and not for giving of thanks From the consecrating of the bread and wine or blessing of them which is but one act the whole service is called the Eucharist So that this word being rightly understood affordeth a solid argument against lay-mens administring the Lords Supper For to whom doth it belong to bless but to the Priests and the Ministers under both the old and new Testament Deut. 10.8 to this office he separated the Tribe of Levi to bless persons and things and in this also consisted chiefly the priesthood of Melchisedek before the law of Moses was given And this may well be supposed and is moreover recorded to have been the practice of Christ and his Apostles So to conclude this matter as the people would not eat untill Samuel came because he did bless the sacrifice 1. Sam. 9. I hope there are none but Anabaptists or who are the same with somewhat more learning and more errours Socinians that will presume to eat untill a publick authoritative minister doth according to peculiar dutie bless the Sacrament CHAP. X. Of the twofold Resurrectian FOr distempered or greensick appetites that long for unwholesome food you have in this chapter especially made provision A thousand years reign upon earth in all worldly felicitie before the day of judgement But you say though you speak besides the ordinary common rode yet von trust not besides the Scriptures nor the judgement of the ancient Orthodox They had need be Scriptures of clear evidence or proof that should be brought to call in question so many principles of Divinitie plainly delivered in holy writ quite contrary to this millenarian fancie that Christ should come from heaven and raise the Saints and reign with them a thousand years and after that space the wicked should rise and receive sentence at the day of judgement First The Scripture saith Act. 3.21 The heavens must contain Jesus Christ till the times of the restitution of all things and in our Creed we beleeve that Christ from thence that is from heaven shall come to judge the quick and dead But by this opinion he should continue on earth so many years and then judge the world Secondly The day of judgement is secret and unknown shall be hid from the world and come like a snare when men shall not think of it but by this opinion all men shall know certainly when it shall be namely at the term of a thousand years Thirdly It makes two Resurrections of the bodie one a great distance of time after the other We beleeve but one Resurrection of the just and unjust the Athanasian Creed at whose coming all men shall arise with their bodies they that have done good and they that have done evil The words are most clearly grounded upon what our Saviour saith Joh. 5.28 The hour is coming in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice and shall come forth they that have done good unto the Resurrection of life and they that have done evil unto the Resurrection of Damnation Dan. 12.2 Many or the multitude of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake some to everlasting life and some to shame and everlasting contempt And those that are christs and whom the Father hath given him he will raise up at the last day not at the first day of the Resurrection as you imagine Those that are Christs at his coming and the rest afterwards but beleevers shall be raised at the last day Joh. 6. four several times there it is so said namely 39 40 44 54 verses I will raise him up at the last day It is not the last day if a thousand years follow The trump of God at the sound of which the dead shall rise 1 Thess 4. is called the last trump 1 Cor. 15.52 last not because there were any the like before it but because there shall be none after it yea because there shall be nothing at all after it it shall be in the last hour when an end shall be put to all things in this world Fourthly Our Saviour saith Joh. 14.3 I will come again and receive you unto my self Christ shall come back to take his disciples with him not to abide with them upon earth but to place them in the mansions of his fathers house which he went to prepare for them Fifthly This opinion makes the kingdom of God to be of this world contrary to what our Saviour saith and to consist in meat and drink contrary to what the Apostle saith whereas the