receive both the unwritten Traditions of the one and the unwritten Positive inventions of Crosse and Surplice devised by the other as 1. Make us sure as God himself immediatly spake to the Patriarchs and to Moses nothing but what after was committed to writing by Moses and the Prophets at Gods speciall Commandment as Papists say their unwritten Traditions are agreeable to the word and though beside Scripture yet not against it And the very will of God no lesse then the written word and let Formalists assure us that their positive additaments of Surplice and Crosse are the same which God commandeth in the Scriptures by the Prophets and Apostles and though beside yet not contrary to the vvord But I pray you what better is the distinction of beside the vvord not contrary to the vvord of God out of the mouth of Papists to maintain unvvritten Traditions which to them is the expresse word of God then out of the mouth of Formalists for their unwritten Positives which are worse then Popish Traditions in that they are not the expresse word of God by their own grant 2. Let the Formalist assure us that after this some Moses and Elias shall arise and write Scripture touching the Surplice and Crosse that they are the very minde of God as the Lord could assure the Church between Adam and Moses that all Divine truths which he had delivered by Tradition should in Gods due time be written in Scripture by Moses the Prophets and Apostles I think they shall here fail in their undertakings Hence the Argument standeth strong the Jevvs might devise nothing in doctrine Worship or Government nay neither the Patriarchs nor Moses nor the Prophets of their own head without Gods immediate Tradition or the written Scripture which are all one Ergo Neither can the Church except she would be wiser then God in the Scriptures 2. Hookers Various and Harmonious Dissimilicude of Gods gâ—iding his Châ—rch is his fancy This variety we admire as it is expressed Heâ— 1. 1. But Hooker would say for he hath reference to that place God at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the Fathers by the Prophets and now to us by hiâ— Son But test of all he hath revealed his Will by the Pope of Rome and his cursed Clergy that we should Worship Images pray to Saints and for the dead beleeve Purgatory c. and now by humane Prelates he hath shown his will to us touching Crossing Surplice Now Papists as Horantius Sanderus Malderus Bellarmine and others say Most of the points that are in Question between them and Protestants and particularly Church-Ceremonies are unwritten Traditions delivered by the Church beside the warrant of Scripture 3. We grant that there was no Uniform Church-Government in the Apostles time Deacons were not at the first Elders were not ordained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in every Church But this is nothing against a Platform of Vniform Government which cannot be altered in Gods Word For by this reason the Learned and Reverend Mr. Prynne because points of Government did grow by succession of time cannot infer therefore that Government which the immediately inspired Apostles did ordain in Scripture is alterable by men then because 1. Fundamentals of Faith and Salvation were not all delivered at first by God there is no Uniform no unalterable Platform of Doctrinals and Fundamentals set down in Scripture For first the Article of Christs death and incarnation was obscurely delivered to the Church in Paradise Sure the Article of Christs making his Grave with the wicked of his being put to death for out Transgressions though he himself was innocent his justifying of many by Faith were after delivered by Isaiah Chap. 53. And by succession â—f time many other Fundamentals as the Doctrine of the written Moral Law in the Moral Positives thereof were delivered to the Church But I hope from this successive Addition of Fundamentals no man can infer 1. There is no Uniform Platform of the doctrine of Faith set down in the Old Testament 2. None can hence infer because all points Fundamental were not delivered to the Church at first the refore the Church without any expresse warrant from God may alter the Platform of Fundamentals of Faith as they take on them to adde Surplice Crossing c. and many other Positives to the Government of Christ without any expresse warrant of the Word 3. Our Argument is close mistaken we argue not from the Patern of Government which was in the Apostles times at the laying of the first stone in that Church then the Apostolike Church had indeed no Officers but the Apostles and the seventy Disciples we reason not from one peece but from the whole frame as perfected by the Ministery of the Lords Apostles 2. We argue not from the Apostolike Church as it is such a Church for Apostles were necessary then as was community of goods miracles speaking with tongues c. but we draw an argument from the Apostolike Church as the first Christian Church and since the Law was to come from Zion and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem Isai 2. 3. And the Lord was to reign in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem before his Ancients gloriously Isai 24. 23. And the Lord was to reign over his people in Mount Zion from henceforth and for ever Micah 4. 2 7. And Christ for that gave a special command to his Disciples not to depart from Jerusalem but wait for the promise of the Father which they had heard from Christ therefore this Church of Jerusalem was to be a rule a patern and copy for the Government of the Visible Kingdom and Church of Christ in which Christ was to reign by his own Word and Law Miâ— 4. 2 7. And so the Spirit descended upon the Apostles in the framing and Governing of the first Church in so far as it was a Christian Church and they were to act all not of their own heads but as the Holy Ghost led them in all Truth in these things that are of perpetual necessity and in such as these the first Church is propounded as imitable Now we do not say in Apostles which had infallibility of writing Canonick Scripture in Miracles speaking with Tongues and such like that agreed to the Apostolike Church not as a Church but as such a determinate Church in relation to these times when the Gospel and Mystery of God now manifested in the flesh was new taught and never heard of before did require Miracles gift of Tongues that the Gospel might openly be preached to the Gentiles we do not I say urge the Apostâ—like Church and all the particulars for Government in it for a rule and patern to be imitated And if Master Prynne deny that there is an Uniform Government in the Apostles times because God himself added to them Deacons Elders which at first they had not removed Apostles miracles gifts of healing and tongues then say I
censeri debet Learned D. Roynald Answereth Apolog. Thes de sac Script pag. 211 212. and saith This very Law of Moses promiseth life Eternall to those that love the Lord vvith all their heart and that the Prophets added to the Writings of Moses no Article of Faith necessary to be believed but did expound and apply to the use of the Church in all the parts of piety and Religion that vvhich Moses had taught Lorinus followeth them in Deut. 4. 1. Christus inquit et Apostoli pentateucho plura adjecerunt immò in vetere Testamento Iosue Prophetae Reges Christ saith he and the Apostles added many things to the five Books of Moses yea in the Old Testament Ioshua the Prophets and the Kings David and Solomon did also adde to Moses But the truth is suppose any should arise after Moses not called of God to be a Canonick writer Prophet or Apostle and should take on him to write Canonick Scripture though his additions for matter were the same Orthodox and sound Doctrine of Faith and manners which are contained in the Law of Moses and the Prophets he should violate this Commandment of God Thou shalt not adde For Scripture containeth more then the sound matter of Faith it containeth a formall a heavenly form stile Majesty and expression of Language which for the form is sharper then a two edged sword piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit and of the joynts and marrow and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart Heb. 4. 12. If therefore the Prophets and Apostles had not had a Commandment of God to write Canonick Scripture which may be proved from many places of the Word they could not have added Canonick Scripture to the writings of Moses But the Answer of D. Roynald is sufficient and valid against Papists who hold that their Traditions are beside not contrary to the Scripture just as Formalists do who say the same for their unwritten Positives of Church-policy But our Divines Answer That traditions beside the Scripture are also traditions against the Scripture according to that Gal. 1. 8. But if we or an Angel from Heaven preach any other Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beside that which we have preached unto you Let him be accursed And Papists more ingenious then Formalists in this confesse That if that of the Apostles Gal. 1. 8. be not restricted to the written Word but applyed to the Word of God in its Latitude as it comprehendeth both the written word or Scripture and the unwritten word or Traditions then beside the word is all one with this contrary to the word which Formalists constantly deny For Lorinus the Jesuit saith Comment In Deut. 4. 2. Quo pacto Paulus Anathèma dicit Gal. 1. 8. Iis qui aliud Evangelizant preter id quod ipsi Evangelizaverit id est adversum et contrarium So doth Cornelius a Lapide and Estius expound the place Gal. 1. 8. And they say that Paul doth denounce a Curse against those that would bring in a new Religion and Judaism beside the Gospel But withall they teach that the Traditions of the Church are not contrary to Scripture but beside Scripture and that the Church which cannot eâ—re and is led in all truth can no more be accused of adding to the Scripture then the Prophets Apostles and Evangelists who wrote after Moses can be accused of adding to Moses his writings because the Prophets Apostles and Evangelists had the same very warrant to write Canonick Scripture that Moses had and so the Church hath the same warrant to adde Traditions to that which the Prophets Evangelists and Apostles did write which they had to adde to Moses And therefore the Councel of Trent saith S. 4. c. 1. That unwritten traditions coming either from the mouth of Christ or the ditement of the holy spirit are to be recieved and Religiously Reverenced with the like pious affection and Reverence that the holy Scriptures are received Pari pietatis affectu ac Reverentiâ And the truth is laying down this ground that the Scripture is unperfect and not an adequat rule of Faith and manners as Papists do then it must be inconsequent that because Traditions are beside the Scripture which is to to them but the half of the Word of God Yea it followeth not this Popish ground supposed that Traditions are therefore contrary to the Scripture because beside the Scripture no more then it followeth that the Sacraments of the New Testament Baptisme and the Supper of the Lord in all their positive Rites and Elements are not ordained and instituted in the Old Testament and in that sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beside the Old Testament that therefore they are against the Old Testament though we should imagine they had been added in the New Testament without all warrant of speciall direction from God by the sole will of men or because some Ceremonials commanded of God are not commanded in the Morall Law or Decalogue either expresly or by consequence and so these Ceremonials though instituted by the Lord be beside the Morall Law that therefore they are contrary to the Morall Law Yea to come nearer because the third Chapter of the Book of Genesis containing the Doctrine of mans fall and misery and Redemption by the promised seed is beside the first and second Chapters of the same Book it doth not follow that it is contrary or that Moses adding the third Chapter and all the rest of the five Books did therefore â—ail against this precept Thou shalt not adde to that which I command thee for certain it is that there are new Articles of Faith in the third chapter of Genesis which are neither in the first two Chapters expresly nor by just consequence but if the Church or any other of Jews or Gentiles should take upon them to adde the third Chapter of Genesis to the first and second except they had the same warrant of Divine inspiration that Moses had to adde it that addition had been contrary to the first two Chapters and beside also and a violation of the Commandment of not adding to the word so do Formalists and the Prelate Vsher in the place cited presuppose that the Scripture excludeth all Traditions of Papists because the Scripture is perfect in all things belonging to faith and manners but it excludeth not all Ceremonies which are left to the disposition of the Church and be not of Divine but of Positive and humane Right Hence it must infer the principle of Papists that the Scripture is not perfect in all Morals for it is a Morall of Decency and Religious signification that a childe be dedicated to the service of Christ by the sign of the crosse Now what can be said to thiâ— I know not but that the sufficiency and perfection of scripture doth no whit consist in holding forth Ceremonials but only in setting down doctrinals Why and Papists say the same that the scripture is
into the world to save sinners in regard of Canonicall authority stamped upon both R. Hooker with other Formalists Will have the lightnesse of matter to make the Law alterable Truly to eat of the Tree of knowledge of good and ill being put in the ballance with the love of God in it self is but a light thing yet the breach of that Law involved all the world in condemnation And what else is this but that which Papists say that there be two sort of things in scripture so saith Cornelius a Lapide Comem on 2 Tim. 3. 16. 1. The Law and the Prophets these God revealed and dyted to Moses and the Prophets but there are other things in Scripture as Histories and morall exhortations which Canonick writers learned either by hearing seeing reading or meditation there was no need these should be dyted by the inspiration of the holy Spirit for they know them themselves though they were assisted 2. Excited by the holy spirit to write Conceptum memoriam eorum quae sciebant non iis suggessit spiritus sanctus sed inspiravit ut hunc potius conceptum quam illum scriberent omnes eorum sententias conceptus ordinavit digessit direxit spiritus sanctus v. g. Vt hanc sententiam primò illam secundò aliam tertiò collocarent Yet Estius saith on the place The Scriptures are given by divine inspiration ita ut non solum sententiae sed verba singula verborum ordo ac tota dispositio fit a deo tanquam per seipsum loquente ac scribente So as not only the sentences but every word and the order and disposition of words is of or from God as if he were speaking and writing himself Now for the additions Canonicall that the Prophets and Apostles made to the writing of Moses I hope Papists and Formalists cannot with any forehead alledge them to prove that the Church may adde Traditions and alterable Positives of Church-Policy to the written word of God except upon the same ground they conclude That the Church now hath the same immediatly inspired spirit that the Prophets and Apostles had and that our Prelats saw the visions of God when they saw but the visiones aulae the visions of Court and that their calling was as Pauls was Gal. 1. 1. not of men neither by men but by Iesus Christ When as it is not by Divine right and was both of the King and by Court 2. Except they infer that the Church that now is may adde Canonicall and Scripturall additions to the Scripture for such additions the Prophets and Apostles added to the writings of Moses and 3. that that precept Thou shalt not adde c. was given to the Lord himself to binde up his hands that no Canonick Scripture should ever be but the only writings of Moses which is as some write the dream of Saduces whereas inhibition is given to the Church of God not to God himself for what the Prophets and Apostles added God himself added yea to me it is a doubt while I be better informed if the Lord did ever give any power of adding to his Scripture at all without his own immediate inspiration to either Prophet or Apostle or that God did never command Moses or Prophet or Apostle to write Canonick Scripture of their own head or that his Commandment to write Scripture was any other then an immediate inspiration which essentially did include every syllable and word that the Apostles and Prophets were to write For I do not coaceive that 1. God gave to Apostles and Prophets power to devise a Gospel and write it I suppose Angels or men could not have devised it yea that they could no more have devised the very Law of nature then they could create such a piece as a reasonable soul which to me is a rare and curious book on which essentially is written by the immediate finger of God that naturall Theology that we had in our first creation 2. I do not conceive that as Princes and Nobles do give the Contents or rude thoughts of a curious Epistle to a Forraign Prince to their Secretary and go to bed and sleep and leaves it to the wit and eloquence of the Secretary to put it in forme and stile and then signes it and seals it without any more ado so the Lord gave the rude draughts of Law and Gospel and all the pins of Tabernacle and Temple Church-officers and Government and left it to the wit and eloquence of Shepherds Heardsmen Fishers such as were the Prophets Moses David Amos and Peter and divers of the Apostles who were unlettered men to write words and stile as they pleased but that in writing every jot tittle or word of Scripture they were immediatly inspired as touching the matter words phrases expression order method majesty stile and all So I think they were but Organs the mouth pen and Amanuenses God as it were immediately dyting and leading their hand at the pen Deut 4. 5. Deut. 31. 24 25 26. Mal. 4. 4. 2 Pet. 1. 19. 20 21. 2 Tim. 3. 16. Gal. 1. 11 12. 1 Cor. 11. 23. so Luk. 1. 70. God borrowed the mouth of the Prophets As he spake by the mouth of his holy Prophets which hath been since the world began Now when we ask from Prelates what sort of additionall or accidentall worship touching Surplice Crosse and other Religious Positives of Church Policy it is that they are warranted to adde to the word and how they are distinguished from Scriptures Doctrinals They give us these Characters of it 1. God is the Author of Doctrinals and hath expressed them fully in scripture But the Church is the Author of their Accidentals and this is essentiall to it that it is not specified particularly in scripture as Bread and Wine Taking and Eating in the Lords Supper is for then it should be a Doctrinall point and not Accidentall 2. It is not in the particular a point of faith and manners as Doctrinals are But hear the very Language of Papists for Papists putteth this essentiall Character on their Tradition that it is not written but by word of mouth derived from the Apostles and so distinguished from the written word for if it were written in scripture it should not be a Tradition So the Jesuit Malderus in 22. tom de virtut de obj fidei Q. 1. Dub. 3. Pro Apostolica traditione habendum est quod eum non inveneatur in Divinis literis tamen Vniversa tenet ecclesia nec consiliis institutum sed semper retentum 2. That the Traditions are necessary and how far Papists do clear as I have before said for the Church may coin no Articles of faith these are all in Scripture For the Iews two Suppers and their additions to the passeover as Hooker saith and their fasting till the sixth hour every Feast day we reject as dreams because they are not warranted by any word of institution not to adde that
of policy because lesse weighty then the greater things of the Law are not therefore alterable at the will of men p. 19 20 Order requireth not a Monarchical pâ—elate p. 21 22 How the care wisdom of Christ hath left an immutable platform of Discipline p. 22 23 Christ the onely immediate King Head and Law-giver of his Church without any deputy heads or Vicars p. 24 25 SECT 3. 5. Argument p. 26 27 Moses and David might not alter or devise any thing in Worship or Government nor may the Church now p. 27 28 Two notes of Divinity ought to be in the New Testament Ceremonials as were in the Old p. 29 30 How Moses his doing all according to the patern proveth an immutable platform The Objections of Mr. Hooker and Mr. Pryn answered at length p. 30 31 32 33 34 c. Gods care to us leadeth us to think he hath given us a better guide theÌ„ natural Reason in all morals of Church-Discipline p. 33 34 The occasional writing of things in Scripture no reason why they are alterable p. 35 36 Papists pretend as Formalists do that things are not written in the Word because of the various occurrences of providence p. 36 37 That there was no uniform platform of Government written in the time of Moses and the Apostles is no Argument that there is none now p. 39 40 Fundamentals because successively delivered are not alterable p 41 42 The Church of Ierusalem as perfect in Doctrine and Discipline is our patern p. 42 43 The indifferency of some things in the Apostolick Church cannot infer that the Government is alterable p. 45 46 The Argument of Moses his doing all in the Tabernacle to the least pin according to special direction further considered p. 47. 50 The Ark of Noah proveth the same ib. Formalists acknowledge Additions to the Scripture contrary to Deut. 4. 2. 12. 32. the same way that Papists do p. 51 -56 c. Moses and Canonick Writers are not Law-givers under God but Organs of God in writing and meer reporters of the Law of God p. 62 63 Papists say that the Church is limited in the making of Ceremonies both in the matter and the number and so do Formalists p 62 63 64 Four wayes Positives are alterable but by God onely p. 64 All things never so small are alike unalterable if they be stamped with Gods authority speaking in the Scripture p. 64 65 By what authority Canonical Additions of the Prophets and Apostles were added to the Books of Moses p. 65 Canonick Writers how immediately led by God p 66 The Characters of Formalists Ceremonies Papists Traditions one and the same p. 67 What is it to be contained in Scripture and how far it maketh any thing lawful according to Hooker p. 68 The Fathers teach that all things are to be rejected that are not in Scripture p. 69 70 â—t derogateth nothing fâ—om the honour of God in Scripture that hee be consulted in the meanest things p. 70 How things are in Scripture p. 71 Some actions are supernaturally moral some naturally or civilly moral some mixt p. 72 Some habitual reference to Scripture is required in all our moral actions p 73 Works of Supererogation holden by Hooker p. 77 Whether our obedience be resolved in all Church policy in This saith the Lord in his Word or in This saith the Church p. 79 Two thingâ— in the external worship 1. Substantials 2. Accidentals or Circumstantials p. 80 SECT 5. The question who should be judge of things necessary or indifferent in Church-policy not to purpose in this question p. 81 82 c. SECT 6. What are Honour Praise Glory Reverence Veneration Devotion Religion Service Worship Love Adoration p. 82 83 84 85 Two acts of Religion imperated and elicite p. 83 Honouring of holy men is not worship p 84 The Religions object with the act of reverencing maketh adoration to be Religious but a civil object except the intention concuâ—s maketh not religious adoration of a civil object p. 85 86 What Worship is p. 86 87 Worship is an immediate honouring of God but some worship honoureth him more immediately some lesse p. 87 88 A twofold intention in worship p. 88 89 Vncovering the head is veneration not adoration p. 89 Consecration of Churches taken two wayes condemned p. 90 Master Hookers moral grounds of the holinesse of Temples under the N. T. answered p. 92 The place 1 Cor. 11. Have ye not houses to eat and drink in c. maketh nothing for hallowing of Churches p. 93 Nor the place Psa 74 8. p. 94 The Synagogue not Gods house as the Temple was ib. Question 1. The negative argument from Scripture valid p 95 Not to command is to forbid p. 96 How far Davids purpose to build the Temple was lawful p. 97 Of additions to the Word p. 98 Even perfecting additions of men are unlawful p. 99 Every moral action is to be warranted by the Word p. 102 What is man's in worship is not lawful p. 103 Not all actions in man as actions of meer nature of arts or trades of sciences but only moral actions are regulated by Scripture p 104 Helps of faith and the formal object of faith are different p 105 What certitude of saith is required in all our actions of our daily conversation p. 107 The Scripture a Warrant for the morality of our acts of the second Table p. 107 Many actions of the second Table are purely moral all actions of the first Table are purely moral p. 107 108 What ever is beside the Word of God in morals is contrary to it p. 109 The vanity of the perfection of Scriptures in Essentials not in Accidentals p. 110 Whatsoever is not of faith how true p. 110 111 Doubting condemneth p 113 Papists say the Scripture in general is perfect but not in particulars and so Form lists p 114 What is onely negative in Gods worship cannot be commanded ibid. Opinion of sanctity and divine necessity not essential to false-worship ibid. The distinction of worship essential and accidental of Gods general and particular will is to be rejected p. 118 119 The distinction of divine and apostolike traditions rejected p. 125 126 Circumstances not positive religious observances as ceremonies are p. 127 Ceremonies usurpe essential properties of divine Ordinances p. 128 129 130 We owe subjection of conscience collateral onely to Gods Ordinances p. 135 The spirit worketh not with Ceremonies p. 136 The place Matth. 15. concerning the traditions of the Elders discussed p 137 138 Ceremonies Magical p. 141 If the third command shall enjoyn decency in general then must it enjoyn this special decency Crosse and Surplice p. 141 142 Iewish and Popish Ceremonies are fruitlesse professions of unlawful worship p. 142 143 Whether the Ceremonies be Idolatry p 144 Of religious kneeling ibid. Four things in adoration ibid. Intention of worship not essential to worship p. 145 Religious bowing of its nature and not by mans arbitrary and free
spake nothing from his Father either in his own person or his Apostles in the New-Testament or in the old by Moses and the Prophets of invocation of Saints Purgatory Worshipping of Images and Reliques and the rest of their unwritten Traditions these being positives of worship and more then unseparable and connaturall attendants such as are common Time Place Person Name Country Habite Gesture are therefore unlawfull because Christ neither heard them of the Father nor spake them to the Apostles and just the like say we of Surplice Crosse c. That they are no part of the will of God which the Father revealed to Christ and these same Texts Papists use to prove that the Scriptures are not perfect because they speak nothing of the Traditions of the Church so Bellarmine Because the Counsell of Trent Andradius Stapleton and all the rest and they prove as well if Crosse and Surplice and humane Offices as Prelates stand good and lawfull that yet the Scriptures are unperfect 3. We say that the whole will of God revealed by the Father to Christ and by Christ to the Prophets and Apostles requireth the immutability of all Laws of Church-Policy in this sence that men should not dare to make and unmake erect command alter and injoyne positive Laws of doctrine or policy at their pleasure Hooker ibid. p. 113. There is more reason to say that God hath a lesse care of the Church under the New-Testament then under the Old then a Philosopher had to say because God hath provided better for beasts that are born with hornes skins hair and garments by nature then man who is born without these that therefore nature is a carefull mother to beasts and a hard-hearted Step-dame to man for Gods affection consisteth not in these for even herein shineth his wisdom that though the wayes of his providence be many yet the end which he bringeth all at the length unto is one and the self same yea it should follow that because God hath not prescribed Rites and Laws of civill Policy to us as to the Iews that he hath lesse love to us and lesse care of our Temporall estate in the world then of theirs Ans 1. It s true indeed God should have lesse care of man who is born naked then of beasts born with hair in lieu of garments if God had not given reason to man according to which by nature he may provide garments for himself and the comparison should go aptly on four feet God should have lesse love and should declare lesse love to some of mankinde if he gave some naturall reason to devise a Bible and a Religion of their own that they might walk to heaven in the light of a fire of their own kindling without the Scriptures of God which is a false supposition and if he had denied reason to another part of mankinde surely all would say God had so far forth been more carefull of the salvation of the former as he should have willed their salvation and loved those in a higher measure to whom he gave reason on these termes and should have been lesse carefull of the salvation of those to whom he denied reason as he he had no more created such capable of salvation and of his love for the saving of them then brute beasts are and this answer layeth down a ground that naturall reason is sufficient without the light of Scripture to guide us in all these things of policy that are alterable then say I God did take a great deal of needlesse and superfluous pains in setting down so many particular Laws of Ceremonies and Civill Policy for the Iews if with the help of reason they might have steerd their course to Christ and salvation by the help of the star light of reason as a man though born naked may by help of reason make shift for garments to infants which beasts void of reason cannot do for thus the comparison must run and it shall be indeed a cavilling at Gods wisdom as Papists do calling the Scriptures inky Divinity 2. The word of God maketh it a great love of God and a work of Free grace that the great things of Gods Law are written to Ephraim Hos 8. 12. And their sin the greater that they should dare to multiply Altars v. 11. without warrant of Gods word as Formalists multiplied Altars Saints-dayes Surplices c. And it is an act of singular love that God gave his judgements Word and Statutes even of Ceremonies and policy to Israel and Iacob and did not so to every Nation Psal 149. 19 20. Ezek. 20. 11 12 13. This was Israels excellency above all Nations on earth Deut. 4. 6. Deut. 20. 33. Rom. 3. 1 2. Rom. 9. 4. that God gave them particular Lawes Iudgements Statutes not only in Morals but also in Ceremonials and Policy yet Hooker dare say We may not measure the affection of God towards us by such differences 3. It shall not hence follow God hath a greater love to the Iews then to us because he gave them Laws concerning civill policy which he gave not to us Except the Lord had given us power to make civill Laws which laid Morall obligation on our consciences even in civill things which morality He expressed in particular Laws written to them and not to us as Formalists teach for then he hath left us in Moralls to the darknesse of naturall reason in which condition we could not but erre and sin and make that morally good and obligatory of conscience which is morally evil for reason knoweth not what is positive Morally good except the light of Gods Word teach us and in Morals such as judiciall Laws were to the Jews the Lord should have been more carefull in his particular directing of them then of us and more tender to have them preserved from the sin of will-worship then us which cannot consist with the Dispensation of lesse light greater obscurity in regard of types and shadows toward them and of the Day-light of the Gospel and the arising of the Day-star and the filling of the earth with knowledge of the Lord toward us under the New Testament But the comparison must go upon this supposition that the Lord purposed to make Politick Laws in their Positives Morall and Obligatory of the Conscience of the Jews and the Civill Laws of the Gentiles under the New Testament in their Positives such as is not to carry Armour in the night and the like not to be Morall nor Obligatory of the Conscience But as touching that which is Morall in all Civill Laws the Lord is as carefull of our Temporall state as of theirs in condescending to particularize all Morals to us as well as to them Hooker That Christ did not mean to set down particular Positive Laws for all things in such sort as Moses did the very different manner of delivering the Laws of Moses and the Laws of Christ doth plainly shew Moses had Commandement to
dicitur Scriptura sacra aliud est verbum dei non scriptum dicitur ecclesiae traditio There is one vvord of God vvritten called the holy Scripture And there is another vvord of God not vvritten and it is called the Tradition of the Church Now their Tradition is no more a part of the Scripture but another part of the word of God contradistinguished from Scripture then the body is a part of the soul or Scotland a part of England for both England and Scotland are collaterall parts of great Brittain the Scripture say they is the unperfect rule of Faith and not the compleat will of God as touching Faith or manners but Scripture and Tradition together are the perfect and totall rule so say Formalists that Scripture is the compleat and perfect rule of Faith and manners to regulate all our Morall acts But the other part of the distinction is that Scripture is not a compleat and full rule to regulate all our Morall Acts whatsoever whither of Faith or manners or Church-Policy as it is no rule to my conscience and practise to believe for orders cause and obedience to my Superiours and for decency that I am to wear a Religious significant linnen creature called a Surplice or not to wear it or that I am to excercise or not exercise that grave action of drawing my thumb Crosse the Air above the face of a Baptized Childe vvhile I baptize to betoken his dedication to Christs service And hitherto neither Traditions nor Positives of Church-Policy are added as necessary parts of written Scripture 2. Traditions are not added to the Scripture by Papists as coming from the immediatly inspiring spirit that dyted and wrote Scripture more then our Ceremoniall Positives of policy It s true Papists say they come from an infallible spirit But Formalists I hope refer not their unwritten Positives to so noble blood yet in this they agree that Traditions are not added by them as descending from the immediate inspiring spirit of written Scripture Therefore Cornelius a Lapide saith Non addetis ad verbum quod vobis loquor aliquid scilicet tanquam meum vel a me dictum aut jussum nulli enim homini licet prescripta aut precepta sua pro preceptis a deo a spiritu sancto immediatè inspirante dictatis aut pro Scripturis sacris addere It is not lavvfull for any man to adde to the vvord any thing of his ovvn as his ovvn or as spoken and commanded by himself For no man may broach his own injunctions and precepts as if they were the precepts taught by the immediate inspiring spirit speaking in the Scriptures Hence Papists teach that their Traditions flow from a little lower Spring then from the immediately inspiring Scripturall spirit So I make this good from famous Iesuites Cornelius a Lapide in Deut. 4. 1 2. saith Sed et ipsi judaei multa addiderunt legi ut coelaturas omnemque ornatum templi ut festum sortium sub Eester festum dati ignis festum Encaeniorum c. Hec enim non a deâ— sed a judaeis sancita et instituta sunt denique hec non sunt addita sed potius inclusa legi dei Quia Lex jubet obedire parentibus Magistratibuâ— pontificibus eorumque legibus The Jevvs saith he objecting the instances of Formalists added many things to the Lavv as the ingraving and adorning of the Temple the feast of Purim of Dedication c. And these traditions vvere not ordained and instituted by God Ergo not by the immediate inspiring spirit as is the Holy Scripture but by the Iews and they were not added to the Law but included in the Law because the Law biddeth obey Superiors and their Laws whence it is evident that these very Ceremoniall traditions of Papists for which Formalists contend are not added to the word as coming from God or the immediatly inspiring spirit that diteth scripture but from the Church without warrant of Scripture just as Popish traditions which we count unlawfull additions to the word And Tannerus the Iesuit saith Tom. 3. in 22. de fide spe et cha dis 1. de fide Q. 1. Dub. 8. That the assistance of the spirit that the Church hath in proposing unwritten traditions requireth no positive inspiration or speech made by God to the Church but it is enough that the Church have a very negativehelp of God only by which she is permitted not to erre His words are these Nam assistentia illa dei quà ecclesiae adest ne ejusmodo rebus fidei in traditionibus non scriptis proponendis erret por se non dicit nec requirit positivam inspirationem seâ— locuâ—â—onâ—m Divinam ipsi ecclesiae factam sed contenta est quovis auxilio dei etiam mere negativo quo fit ut ecclesia ijs in rebuus non sinatur errare Cum tamen nova revelatio utique novam inspirrtionem seu Locutionem dei aliquid positivè notificantem significet And the like saith Malderus in 22. de virtu Theolog. That though traditions come from an infallible spirit no lesse then Scripture yet traditions are the Word of God because they are heard and constantly believed But the Holy Scripture is the Word of God because written by the inspiration of the holy spirit Q. 2. Art 1. Dub. 4. pag. 83. And therefore he maketh two sorts of traditions some meerly Divine vvhich the Apostles received either immediately from the Holy Ghost or from the mouth of Christ as those touching the matter and form of the Sacraments Others saith he are properly Apostolick as those touching the Lent Fast instituted by the Apostles ib. tract de trad Q. Vnic Dub. 1. Traditiones inquit per apostolos traditae aliae sunt Divinâ— quas immediatè ipsi a spiritu sancto dictante vâ—l ex ore Christi acceperunt ut de materia et potissimum de formis sacramentorum aliae autem propriâ— dicuntur Apostolica ut de Iejunijo Quadragesimali quod Apostoli Iâ—stituerunt Hence it is evident if Papists cannot but be condemned of impious additions to the Scriptures by these places Deut. 4. Deut. 12. Formalists are equally deep in the same crime and the same is the answer of Malderus ibid. Dub. 2. vetat Apoc. 22. Ne quis audeat Divinam prophetiam depravare assuendo aliquid aut abradendo Turrianus tom de fide spe et cha de traditio disp 20. Dub. 2. pag. 255. Respondetur Joannem planè probibere corruptionem Libri illius non tamen prohibet ne alij Libri scribantur vel alia Dogmata tradantur Stapletonus Relect. Prin. fidei Doct. Contaver 4. q. 1 Art 3. Sed non prohibet vel legis interpretationem per sacerdotes faciendam imò hoc disertè prescribit Deut. 17. Vel aliquid aliud in fidem admittendum qúod lege scriptâ non contineatur Alioqui quicquid postea prophetâ— predicaverunt et Divinis Scripturis adjectum est contra hoc dei mandatum factum
the Church of the Jews never took on them to command the observation of these forgeries under the pain of Church-censures as Papists and prelats did their Crossing and their Surplice Hooker saith A Question it is whither containing in Scripture do import expresse setting down in plain terms or else comprehending in such sort that by reason we may thence conclude all things which are necessary to salvation The Faith of the Trinity the Co-eternity of the Son with the Father are not the former way in Scripture for the other let us not think that as long as the World doth indure the wit of man shall be able to sound to the bottom of that which may be concluded out of Scripture Traditions we do not reject because they are not in Scripture but because they are neither in Scripture nor can otherwise sufficiently by any reason be proved to be of God That which is of God and may be evidently proved to be so we deny not but it hath in its kinde although unwritten yet the self same force and authority with the Written Laws of God Such as are alterable Rites and Cystomes for being Apostolicall it is not the manner of delivering them to the Church but the Author from whom they proceed which gave them their force and credit Ans 1. The consequences of Scriptures are doublesse many and more then are known to us and the particulars of that Government that we contend for are in Scripture that is there should be no Government but what is either expresly in Scripture or may be made our by just consequence we believe if they cannot be proved from Scripture let them fall as mens hay and stubble But in the mean time these are two different questions Whither there be an immutable Platform of Discipline in the Word Or whither ours be the only Platform and no other If we carry the first Ceremonies must fall And certainly in all reason we are on the surest side If we cannot observe all that is written it is not like that God hath laid upon us unwritten burdens 2. Hooker doth not reject all the Popish Traditions as our Divines Reformed do because they are not warranted by the Word so that if the Images of God and Christ and the Worshipping of them and Purgatory and the Supremacy of the Pope can be proved to be of God though they be no more in Scripture then Crossing and Surplice then would he receive all these as Having the self same force and authority with the Written Laws Now we know no other weightier Argument to prove there 's no Purgatory but because the scripture speaketh of Heaven and Hell and is silent of Purgatory 2. That naturall reason can warrant a positive instituted Worship such as Surplice betokening Pastorall Holinesse without any Scripture is a great untruth for naturall reason may warrant new Sacraments as well as new Sacramentals 3. If Traditions have their force and credit from God not from the manner of delivering them that is from being contained in scripture or not contained in it then certainly they must be of the same Divine necessity with scripture For whither Christ Command that the Baereans believe in the Messiah by the Vocall Preaching of Paul or by the written scriptures of the Prophets and Apostles it is all one it is the same word and coming from Christ must be of the same Divine authority But this is to beg the question for that we are to believe no unwritten tradition because it is unwritten to have the self same force and authority with the Written Laws of God For Lorinus Cornelius a Lapide Com. in 4. Deuter. Estius Com. in 2. Thes 2. 15. Bellarmine Tannerus Malderus Becanus say Whither the Lord deliver his minde to us in his Written Scripture or by Tradition it is still the Word of God and hath authority from God But the truth is to us it is not the Word of God if it be not a part of the Counsel of God written in Moses or the Prophets and Apostles for though the Word have authority only from God not from the Church nor from men or the manner of delivering of it by word or writ yet we with the Fathers and Protestant Divines and evidence of scripture stand to that of Basilius Homil. 29. Advers câ—lâ—mnianâ—es S. Trinit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Believe what are written vvhat are not vvritten â—eek not after And so seek not after Surâ—lice Crossiâ—g and the like And that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Every word and so this That Crossing Surplice are Religious signes of spirituall duties and every thing or action must be made good by the Testimony of the heavenly inspired Scripture these things that are good and so Religiously decent and significant may be fully confirmed and these that are evil corfounded And to us for our Faith and practise if it be not Law and Testimony it is darknesse and not light And as Gregor Nyssen the Brother of Basyl saith Dialog de anim et Resurrect tom 2. ed. Grecolaâ— pag. 639. Edit Greâ— pag. 325. That only must be acknowledged for truth in which is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the seal of the Scriptures Testimony 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And how shall it be true to us iâ— Scripture say it not Or how shall it appear to us to be from God For Cyril Alexandrin saith What the holy Scripture saith not such as are your Positives of mens devising how shall we receive it and account it amongst things that are true And it is not that which Hereticks of old said for their Heresies to say â—s Hooker doth that any thing may be proved to be of God which is not written in Scripture For saith Hieronimus in Hag. c. 1. Sed alia quae absque authoritate testimoniis Scripturarum quasi Traditione Apostolica sponte reperiunt atque confingunt percutit Gladius dei The Scripture doth bar the door upon Hereticks saith Chrysostome And he is a Theef that taketh another unlawfull way then the Scripture And by what Argument can reason without Scripture prove that Crosse and Suplice are of God But by that same reason Papists without Scripture can and may prove their Traditions to be of God And if we admit reason and exclude Scripture it is as easie to prove their Traditions as our Positive additions to Worship And what Answers Papists give for their Traditions to â—lude the power of Scripture and evidence of Testimonies of fathers all these same are given by Prelats for their additions to say nothing that Hooker asserteth unwritten Traditions to be Gods Word and in the very stile of the Councel of Trent we are to acknowledge Traditions though unwritten yet to have the self same authority and force with the Written Laws of God And shal the Surplice and Crosse and such stuffe be of the self same force and authority with the Evangel according to Luke and John
But what wonder For Hooker holdeth that we have no other way to know the scripture to be the Word of God but by Tradition which Popish Assertion holden by him and Chillingworth to me is to make the Traditions of men the object of our Faith Hooker About things easie and manifest to all men by Common sense there needeth no higher Consultation because a man whose wisdom is for weighty affairs admired would take it in some disdain to have his Counsel solemnly asked about a toy so the meannesse of some things is such that to search the Scriptures of God for the ordering of them were to derogate from the Reverend Authority of the Scripture no lesse then they do by whom Scriptures are in ordinary talking very idely applied unto vain and Childish trifles Ans 1. It is a vain comparison to resemble God to an earthly wise man in this for a King of Kings such as Artaxerxes if he were building a stately Palace for his Honour and Magnificence would commit the drawing of it the frame the small pins rings bowles to the wisdom of a Master of work skilled in the Mathematicks and not trouble his own Princely head with every small pin but this is because he is a man and cometh short of the wisdom skill and learning of his servants 2. Because how his Honour and Magnificence be declared in every small pin of that Palace is a businesse that taketh not much up the thoughts of a stately Prince The contrary of both these are true in the Lord our God his wisdom is above the wisdom of Moses and Moses cannot frame a Tabernacle or a Temple for Gods Honour in the least pin or sâ—uffer with such wisdom as the only wise God can do 2. The Lord is more jealous and tender of his own Honour in the meanes and smallest way of Illustrating of it Yea in the smallest Pin then earthly Princes are for earthly Princes may Communicate with their inferiours the glory of curious works set forth as speaking monuments of their honour the Lord who will not give his glory to another never did communicate the glory of devising worship or the Religious means of worshipping and honouring his glorious Majesty to men 2. God hath thus â—ar condiscended in his wisdom to speak particularly in written Oracles of every Pin Ring tittle Officer of his house of every Signe Sacrament Sacramentall never so mean and small Ergo It is no derogation from the dignity of Scripture to have a mouth to aske counsell where God hath opened his mouth to give Counsell in written Oracles 3. There is nothing positive in Gods worship so small as that we may dare to take on us to devise it of our own head 4. Hooker contradicteth himself he said the Ceremonies have their authority from God and though unwritten have the self same force and authority with the written Laws of God pag. 44. Here he will have the unwritten positives so small and far inferiour to written Scripture that to aske for scripture to warrant such small toys is to derogate from the reverend Authority and Dignity of the Scripture so Ceremonies pag. 46. are but Toyes unworthy to be written with Scripture but p. 44. They have the self same force and authority with written Scripture Hooker It is unpossible to be proved that only the Schoole of Christ in his word is able to resolve us what is good and evil for what if it were true concerning things indifferent that unlesse the word of the Lord had determined of the free use of them there could have been no Lawfull use of them at all which notwithstanding is untrue because it is not the Scriptures setting down things indifferent but their not setting them down as necessary that doth make them to be indifferent Ans Then because the scripâ—ure hath not forbidden the killing of our children to God as a â—alse worship against the second Commandment but only as an act of Homicide against the sixth Commandment and hath not forbidden all the Jewish Ceremonies so they have a new signification to point forth Christ already come in the flesh these must all be indifferent For let Formalists give me a Scripture to prove that Circumcision killing of Children sacrificing of Beasts are any wayes forbidden in this notion but in that they are not commanded or set down in the word as not necessary 2. Such Divinity I have not read That only the Schoole of Christ is not able to resolve us what is good and evil I mean Morally good and evil For Hooker pag. 54. Book 2. saith The controversie would end in which we contend that all our actions are ruled by the word If 1. we would keep our selves vvithin the compasse of morall actions actions which have in them vice or vertue 2. If we vvould not exact at their hands for every action the knowledge of some place of Scripture out of vvhich vve must stand bound to deduce it Then it is like the School of Christ the word can and doth teach us what is a Morall action good or ill an action in vvhich there is vertue or vice and to me it is a wonder that the Old and New Testament which containeth an exact systeme and body of all Morals whither naturall or Civill or supernaturall should not be the only rule of all Morals Now I finde that Mr. Hooker saith two things to this 1. That Scripture doth regulate all our Morall actions but not scripture only for the Lavv of nature and the most concealed instincts of nature and other principles may vvarrant our actions We move saith he we sleep vve take the Cup at the hand of our friend a number of things vve often do only to satisfie some naturall desire vvithout present expresse and actuall reference to any Commandment of God unto his glory even these things are done vvhich vve naturally perform and not only that vvhich naturally and spiritually vve do for by every effect proceeding from the most concealed instincts of nature his povver is made manifest But it doth not therefore follovv that of necessity we shall sin unlesse vve expresly intend the glory of God in every such particular Ans I speak of these more distinctly hereafter here I answer that as there be some actions in man purely and spiritually but supernaturally morall as to believe in Christ for Remission of sins to love God in Christ These the Gospel doth regulate 2. There be some actions naturally morall in the substance of the act as many things commanded and forbidden in the Morall Law and these are to be regulated by the Law of nature and the Morall Law 3. There be some actions mixed as such actions in which nature or concealed instincts of nature are the chief principles yet in and about these actions as in their modification of time place and manner and measure there is a speciall morality in regard of which they are to be ruled by the word
will was not determinatrix in this 5. The man jumbleth together godly discretion and will they be much different but for godlinesse in short sleeves and Crossing a finger in the Aire I understand it not nor can reason dream of any warrant for it but will as will that is mans lust made it Neither do Formalists go from Suarez and Bellarmine who call that will-worship which is devised only by a manâ— wit and is not conforme to the principles of Faith and wanteth all reason and the received use of the Church But we are disputing here against the Churches use as if it were not yet a received use But upon these grounds I go 1. Reason not binding and strongly concluding is no reason but meer will So Ceremonies have no reason If the reason binde they are essentiall worship 2. Authority is only ministeriall in ordering Gods worship and hath no place to invent new worship 3. Authority as Authority especially humane giveth no light nor no warrant of conscience to obey and therefore authority naked and void of scriptures-light is here bastard authority 11. In all this Formalists but give the Papists distinction of Divine and Apostolick Traditions for power of inventing Ceremonies to them is Apostolick but not infallible and Divine Suarez giveth the difference God saith he Is the Immediate Author of Divine Traditions and the Apostles only publishers But the Apostles are immediate Authors of Apostolick Traditions God in speciall manner guiding their will So Cajetan Sotus Bellar. So our Formalists Duname Hooker Sutluvius But I like better what Cyprian saith That no Tradition but what is in the word of God is to be received But this distinction is blasphemous and contrary to Scripture 1 Cor 14 57. The things that I write unto you even of decency and order as v. 29. 40. Are the Commandment of the Lord 2. Pet. 3. 2. Peter willeth them to be mindefull of the vvords which were spoken before by the holy Prophets and of the Commandments of us the Apostles of the Lord and Sâ—vioâ—â— Then the Apostles Commandments are equall with the Commandments of the Prophets But in the Old Testament there were not some Traditions Divine and some not every way Divine but Propheticall for the Prophets were the mouth of God as is clear 2 Pet. â— 19 20 21. Luk. 1. 70. Rom. 1. 2. So 1 Tim. 6. 13. I give thee charge in the sight of God 14. That thou keep this Commandment without spot unrebukable untill the appearing of the Lord Iesus Now the Commandment as Beza noteth Are all that he writ of discipline which Formalists say are for the most Apostolicke but not Divine Traditions 2. If Ceremonies seem good to the holy Ghost as they say they do from Act. 15. then they must seeme good to the Father and the Son as the Canon is Act. 15. But that Canon was proved from expresse Scripture as Peter proveth v. 7 8 9. and James v. 13 14 15 16. If they come from the Spirit inspiring the Apostles they cannot erre in such Traditions If from the spirit guided by the holy Ghost they come from Scripture 3. If these traditions come from no spirit led by light of Scripture we shall not know whether they be Lawfull or not for the Scripture is a Canonick rule of lawfull and unlawfull 4. If any Apostolick spirit be given to Authors of Ceremonies why not also in preaching and praying How then do many of them turn Arminians Papists Socinians 5. The Apostolick spirit leading institutors of Ceremonies doth either infuse light naturall supernaturall or Scripturall in devising Ceremonies and so Eatenus in so far they were essential worship or the Apostolick spirit doth lead them with no light at all which is brutish Enthusiasme or 3. Gods Apostolick spirit infuseth the generall equity and negative Lawfulnesse of these truths Surplice is an Apostolicall signe of Pastorall holinesse and Crossing a signe of Dedication of a childe to Christs service Now light for this we would exceedingly have If this light be immediatly infused then Surplice Crossing are as Divine as if God spake them for truths immediatly inspired lost no divinity because they come through sinfull men for Balaam his Prophesie of the star of Jacob was as Divine in regard of Authority as if God had spoken it but if these trash come from an inferiour spirit we desire to know what spirit speaketh without the word But some may object The preaching of the word is somewhat humane because it s not from the infallible spirit that dited the word Ergo Ceremonies may come from the holy Spirit though they be not as lawfull as Scripture Ans Let them be proved to be from the warrant that the word is preached and we yeeld to all 5. Apostolick Ceremonies but not Divine have Gods generall allowing will for the accepting of them Now Sampsons mother Judg. 13. 23. proveth well The Lord hath accepted our offering Ergo it is Lawfull and he will not kill us So God atcepted Abel and Noah their Sacrifices Ergo they were Lawfull and Divine worship So Hosea 8. 8. They sacrifice flesh for the sacrifices of my offerings and they eat it but the Lord accepteth them not Ergo offerings of flesh without offering of themselves as living sacrifices to God are now unlawfull If God accept of Ceremonies they must be Divine service if he accept them not they must be unlawfull They Answer He accepteth them as Arbitrary worship not as essentiall I Answer God might have accepted so Sampsons sacrifice and Noahs as arbitrary worship and yet not be gracious to them nor reward their sacrificing as good service contrary to the Texts alledged but I doubt much if the Lord be gracious to men and accept in Christ corner Caps Surplice Crossing humane holy dayes They object Our Circumstances of time place persons c. are no more warranted by the Scripture then Ceremonies are And God might in his wisdom â—aith Burges have calculated the order of times and places such climats and seasons but he hath left these as he hath left our Ceremonies to the Churches liberty Ans Time and place as I observed already being circumstances Physicall not Morall nor having any Religious influence to make the worship new and different in nature from that which is commanded in the Law though they be not expresly in the Word do not hinder but you may say Such an act of worship is according as it is written for as Praying Preaching hearing is according as it is written so is Praying and Preaching in this convenient place proved by that same Scripture As it is written but one and the same Scripture doth not warrant Order and Surplice 2. The question is not what Gods wisdom can do for he could setdown all the names of Preaching Pastors Doctors Deacons Elders in the Word but his wisdom thus should have made ten Bibles more then there be But
Paul for fear of the iniquity of this Church or Sanedrim dealt with them as Heathen and appealed to Cesar Ans But by what Law of God did they this It is not denyed but the Iews Synedrim being two courts did inflict punishment But that Christ establisheth a civill Sanedrim as a mean Matth. 18. To gain the soul of a brother is now the question we utterly deny this and gave reasons before thereof to which I adde if any obeyed not the Church that is the Sanedrim as Erastus saith they might be stoned to death as Steven was Was this Christs milde way to cite them onely before the Romane Senate Were dead men capable of answering to any further Iudicatures 2. The last step of conveening Heathens and Publicans before the Romane Senate according to Christs order is not to be observed with them for even Heathens and Publicans are so far forth our brethren that 1. We are not when they offend us to suffer sin in them but to rebuke them as Christians Lev. 19. 18. For this is the Law of nature The Law of nature will teach us not to hate an Heathen in our heart 2. We are to labour to gain all even those that are without the Church 1 Cor. 9. 19 20 21 22. 1 Pet. 3. 1. And this is Christs way of gaining all to rebuke and admonish them Ergo it was never Christs meaning to deal with Heathens and Publicans so as at the first we are to drag them before the Heathen Magistrate that by his sword he may gain them or take away their life yea and Erastus granteth in Ecclesiasticall crimes that the Iews had power of life and death in the matter of Steven and of Paul if he had not appealed to Cesar to save his head Josephus de bel Judaic Lib. 5. Cap. 26. Antiquit. Lib. 14. Cap. 12. But in things politick Cesar took all power of life and death from them Hence only is Christs time the footsteps of the two distinct courts remained and the Priests not the civill Magistrate had the power of Church-discipline But all was now corrupt CHAP. IX Quest 5. The place 1 Cor. 5. for Excommunication vindicated from the Objections of Erastus Erastus Paul did nothing contrary to the Command of Christ But Christ excluded no man from the Passeover not Iudas Ergo Neither minded â—e to exclude the incestuous man he saith not 1 Cor. 5. Why debarred you him not from the Sacrament But why did you not obtain by your tears and prayers as Augustine expoundeth it that the man might be cut off by death Ans Christ would not take the part of a visible Church on him to teachus that none should be cast out of the Church for secret and latent crimes 2. Paul did nothing without the Command of Christ But Christ neither in the Old or New Testament commanded his Church to pray for the miraculous cutting off of a scandalous person give an instance in all Scripture except you make this one which is contraverted your instance Erastus Paul 2 Cor. 2. absolveth the man from all punishment and nameth onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rebuking Ergo He was not excluded from the Sacrament Ans Exclusion from the Sacrament is but one of the fruits of Excommunication not formally Excommunication yet he harpeth on this alway that to be excommunicated or to be delivered to Satan is but to be debarred from the Sacrament 2. The answer presupposeth he was Excommunicated we urge the place for a precept only of Excommunication if he repented to the satisfying of the Church there was no need of Excommunication 3. If the man 2 Cor. 2. was delivered from rebuke onely and if that was all his punishment Ergo he was not miraculously cut off for then he must have been miraculously cut off and raised from death to life againe unlesse miraculous cutting off had been no punishment But if he was not miraculously cut off because he prevented it then with what faith could the whole Church pray for the miraculous killing of a brother and not rather that he might repent and live 4. In all the Word of God the intrinsecall end of putting to death a Malefactor is to avenge Gods quarrell Rom. 13. 4. That all Israel may hear and feare and doe no more any such wickednes Deut. 13. 11. To put away the guilt of sinne off the Land Numb 34. 33 34. that the Lords anger may be turned away and a common plague on the Church stayed when justice is executed on the ill doer Psal 106. 28 29 30 31. And it concerneth the Church and Common-wealth more then the soule of the Malefactor and there is nothing of such an end here But the intrinsecall end here is that the mans Spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus and this delivering to Satan is in the Name and authority and by the power of the Lord Iesus 1 Cor. 5. 4. 5. Now the Sonne of man came to save soules not to destroy bodies and burne cities and though by the power of Christ Peter miraculously killed Ananias and Saphira and Paul stroke Elimas the Socererer blinde yet these being Miracles we heare not that this was done by any interveening act of the Church conveened or by their prayers to bring vengeance by a miracle on the ill doâ—r Peter and Paul doe both these not asking any consent or intervention of the peoples prayers but by immediate power in themselves from the Lord Jesus 2. If any such power were given to the Church by their Prayers to obtain from God a miraculous killing of all scandalous persons who infecteth the Church in case the civill Magistrate were an Heathen and an enemy to Christian Religion and refused to purge the Church Christ who provideth standing remedies for standing diseases must have left this miraculous power to all the christian Churches in the earth that are under Heathen Magistrates or some power by way of Analogie like to this to remove the scandalous person but we finde not any such power in the Churches under Heathen Magistrates except power of refusing to the offender the Communion and rejecting him as an Heathen and Publican that he may be ashamed and repent 3. The whole faithfull at Corinth men women and children and all the Saints for to those all iâ— this power given as Erastus saith must have had a word of promise if they ought to have prayed in faith as the Prophets and Apostles prayed in faith that they might work miracles that Paul was miraculously to kill the incestuous man But that all and every one who were puffed up and mourned not at this mans fall had any such word of promise I conceive not imaginable by the Scriptures for the Proposition I take it as undeniable if Paul rebuked the Corinthians all and every one because they prayed not and mourned not to God that Paul wrought not this miracle in killing the incestuous man they behoved to have
positive Commandements hic nunc for esehewing of Scandall farre more may we hic nunc not crosse not kneele hic nunc when crossing and kneeling murthereth one for whom Christ died even though it offend our Superiours Ergo this provision of the Doctors is vaine and Superiours are unjustly offended if our non-murthering of weake brethren offend them nor are we to care for the Doctors provision here 4. No utilitie can truly redound to the whole Church by practising of an indifferent thing which culpably occasioneth the murthering of a weake brother Except our Doctors meane that sinne may edifie the whole Church 5. They say if the things in our private judgement be inexpedient the second way that is to the Church the Church cannot Command them except the Church command against her conscience 6. If matters in their expediencie be questionable and probable on both sides the Churches determination should end the controversie saith the Doctors this is the Doctrine of the Jesuites Suarez Thomas Sanches and Gregor de valent as I shew before when a thing is probable and I be resolved in conscience against neither of the sides and feare the one side be murthering him for whom Christ died which is against Gods commandement and know that humane authoritie commandeth the contrary and am perswaded it is indifferent and a positive commandement of men if the Churches determination be here to sway my conscience to practise is to me blind obedience for humane authoritie as it is such giveth no light Ergo it cannot remove my doubting and beget faith and also the conscience is so much the bolder to venture on a sinne against God for feare of eschewing a sinne against men which is questionable and in a matter indifferent this is also the stout conscience of Bonaventura 2 sent dist 39. plus est standum praecepto Praelati quam conscientiae 7. Our Doctors say our way is against the peace of the Church But I answer their way is Popish and against the truth of God in commanding our consciences to rest upon the wicked will of men And their instance of a Synod of a hundred Pastors may be brought aswell to prove the Synode of Trent is to be obeyed as for the present purpose Duplyers pag. 69. Yee will say this argument is Popish and leadeth men to acquiesce without tryall upon the determination of the Church But we answer in matters of faith the truth whereof may be infallibly concluded out of the word of God we ought not without tryall to acquiesce unto the Doctors of the Church and in this respect we dissent from Papists who ascribe too much to the authoritie of Councells as if their decrees were infallible But in matters of Policie if we be certaine that in their owne nature they are indifferent and if the expediencie of them onely be called in question seeing no certaine conclusion concerning their expediencie can be infallibly drawn out of Gods word we are to acquiesce to the decrees of the Church 1. Because otherwise it is impossible to agree in one conclusion in matters of this kind 2. Disobedience shall prove more hurtfull then obedience Answer 1. This is a wide step to make all things in Scripture either matters of faith or matters indifferent That there were eight persons in Noahs Arke and that Sampson sâ—ew a thousand with the jaw bone of an asse are not matters of faith as matters of faith are contradistinguished from things indifferent many are saved who neither know nor believe many things of this historicall veritie in Scripture yet are they not matters indifferent But the Doctors are reconcilers with the Belgik Arminians who deny all the things contraverted betwixt Papists and us and betwixt us and Arminians and Anabaptists at least the most part of them to be fundamentall and that either side may be believed and holden without hazard of salvation and therefore we are to leane to the Churches determination in these without farther inquirie 2 They mean that in matters contraverted and in all things indifferent as whether in this or that fact we doe murther him for whom Christ died Wee are to give our faith and conscience over to the Church without further tryall 3. What if wee be not perswaded of the indifferencie of the things commanded but doubt whether they bee commanded or forbidden in the Word as is now the present case of Ceremonies to us for we cannot be perswaded of their indifferencie and the Doctors saith they are not matters of faith Ergo by their own doctrine their distinction is defective 4. Scripture is also perfect in resolving us what is scandall and murthering of our brother as what is Idolatrie and Blasphemie and therefore we are not to hang our faith here upon the Churches Canons without farther tryall as you say 5. That the Scripture is perfect in matters of faith but imperfect in matters of Policie that is in matters wherein we may kill him for whom Christ died is no better then the Papists distinction who teach us that the Scripture is perfect in the articles of faith not in traditions so Scotus saith True Theologie according to Divine revelation is onely of things in Scripture or which may be deduced out of Scripture And Suarez saith Things that belong to accidentarie rites are left to the Churches determination but the Scripture implicitly containeth all articles of feare faith And so saith Bannes and Duvallius 6. Your feare is vain that we shall have no order nor peace if Scripture be judge and not the authoritie of the Church in matters which you call indifferent for the Church giveth out Canons concerning things strangled blood which were matters indifferent and that from the word of God Act. 15. and that in great unitie and peace Gods word maketh unitie and not mens authoritie 7. Disobedience to Church Canons in case of given Scandall is neither disobedience nor hurteth at all It possibly offendeth men who will tyrannize over the Conscience and if any be induced thereby to sin it is a scandall taken not given Abstinence from murthering a weak brother is obedience to God and so no active Scandall In the 48 Section The Duplyers doe but redouble over again the arguments already brought and answered by me divers times to D Robert Barron in private while he was silenced and as I conceived satisfied Especially they say our disobedience to superiours in things lawfull and expedient is most scandalous to others and that because we by nature are most unwilling to be curbed and to have our libertie restrained Therefore Calvin saith God that he may allure us to obedience to â—â—â—â—riours called superiours Parents I answer 1. The Doctors are too hastie to call that obedience to Superiours which is in question We say it is disobedience to the â—ixt Commandement because it is a scandalizing of our brother Ergo it is not obedience to the fift Commandement to practise
de fide spe et Charit disp 20. duo 2. Bellâ—rm de Verb dei non script l. 4. c. 3. That there was no Vnifâ—rm Platform of Government in the time of Moses and the Apostles is no Argument that there is none now Horantius in loe Catholic l 2. c. 12. fol. 1 â—1 Sanderus de visib Monarch l. 1. c. 5. â— 13. Malderus in 22. de virtu Theolog q. 1. de Object fidei tract de trad q. unic dub 1. Fundamentals were by succession delivered to the church yet are they not alterable The church of Ierusalem as perfected in Doctrine and Discipline is our patern Acts 1. 4. Mr. Prynne Truth Triumphing c. p. 128. Mr. Prynne Truth Triumphing p. 128. The indifferency of some things in the Apostolick Church cannot infer that the Government is alterable Ibid. Ib. p. 129. Mr. Prynne Truth triuphing p. 130 131 132 133. The Argument of Moses his doing all to the least pin in the Tabernacle by speciall direction considered The Ark of Noah proveth the same Calvin Com. in Gen. 6. 22. Quare discamus per omnegenus impedimenta perrumpâ—re nec locum dare pravis cogitationibus quae sâ— Dei verbo opponunt hunc enim honorem haberi sibi flagitat Deus ut â—um siâ—amâ—â—s pronobis seperâ— P. Martyr in loc Nihil negligit fides omnia pro viribus exoquitur quaecunque scit deum vâ—lle Musculus Moses fidem obedientiam Noah comprehendit qua secundum verbum dei arcam construxit Vatablus Hebraismus pro quo fecit Noah prorsus ut ci preceperat deus Horantius in loc Catholic l. 2. c. 12. so 13â— Constatcom plura Dei spiritum post Christi ascensionem ecclesiam do euisse quorum etsi a Christo universalâ—m quandam in genere cognitionem habuissent fideles non tamen in specie aut certè in numero singulariter unde universa fidei nostrae mysteria que ad religionem spectarent intelligit Ceremonias Ecclesiae omnia literis conscripta esse non sine igno ratione affirmare potest Calvinus Mr. Prynne Truth Triumphing p. 134. Hooker 3. book Eccle. pol. p 93. Usher in his Answer to the Jesuits challenge of Traditions pag. 3â— 36. Formalists acknowledge additions to the word of God contraâ—y to Deut 4. 2. 12. 32. The same way that Papists do Moses and Canonick writers are not Law-givers under God but organs of God in writing meer reporters of the Law of God Papists say that the Chrch is limited in making Ceremonies both in matter and number and so do Forma lists Four wayes positives are alterable by God only All things though never so smal are a like unalterable if they be stamped with Gods authority speaking in the Scripture By what authority Canonicall additions of the Prophets and Apostles were added to the Books of Moses Canonick writers how immediatly led by God The Characters of Formalists Ceremonies Papists Traditions one and the same 1 Book eccles Pol. p. 42. Pag. 44. What is it to be contained in Scripture and how far it maketh any thing unlawfull according to Hooker The Fathers teach that all things in Worship are to be rejected that are noâ— in scripture Basil in Ethicis Reg 26. Cyril Alex. Glaphyro in Gâ—â—t l. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys hom 10. in Ioan. 59. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concilen Tridenti c. 1. Sess 4. Synodus traditiones â—ine scripto atque scripturam paripictat is affectu ac reverentia suscipit ac veneratur Ibib. p. 46. It derogateth nothing from the honour of God in Scripture that he be consulted in the meanest things Hooker l. 2. p. 60. How things are in Scripture Pag. 56. Some actions super naturally morall some morall naturally or civilly others are mixt Some habituall reference to Scripture is required in all our Morall actions Book â— Eccl. pol. p. 54. 2. Book p. 78. Works of Superogation holden by Hooker Tanner in 22. to 3. disp 5. de Relig. q. 2. Dub. 3. Aquinas 22. q. 25. Art 3. Quando dicitur adorationem imaginum non esse Scriptam adeoque non esse licitam in cultu dei respondetur Apostoli familiari spiritus instinctu quaedam ecclesiis tradiderunt servanda quae non reliquerunt in scriptis sed in observatione fidelium per successionem Colloquio Helvâ—tiorum ita Eckius Collat. 44. concl 4. Audet Hen. Linick disserit enim Cont. Luther Zwinglium dicere deum in nostris imaginibus Christianis nullam habere Complacentiam Quis â—oe ei retulit sacrae literae non contradicunt Whither our obedience in Church-policy be ultimately resolved in this saith the Lord or in this saith the church Two things in the externall worship 1. Substantials 2. Accidentals The question who should be judge of things necessary or indifferent is nothing to the present controversie 1. Honour 2. Praise 3. Glory 4. Reverence 5. Veneration 6. Devotion 7. Religion 8. Service 9. Worship 10. Love 11. Adoration what they are Two acts of Religion imperated or commanded and elicite Raphael to â— in 22. q. 81. Art 4. disp vnica Honoring of Holy men is not worship Obedience Adoration The Religious object with the act of reverencing maketh adoration to be Religious but a civill object except the intention concur maketh not Religious adoration of a civill object Martyr comment in 1 King c. 1. v. 16. What worship is Worship is an immediate honoring of God but some worship honâ—reth him more immediately some lesse A twofold intention in worship De la Tor. tom 2. in 22. q. 94. Art 2. Si quis interâ—ellarit idolum dicens expressis verbis Jupiter deus meus adjuva me quamvis conarctur fingere istam invocationem deâ—estans interius Jovem et omnes falsos dâ—os vere idolatra esset quia ab illis verbis in separabilis est significatio ex hibendi cultum Divinum idolo Vncovering of the head is Veneration not Adoration Corduba l. 1. q. 5. dub 6. Consecration of Churches taken two wayes Consecration of Churches condemned Durand Rati l. 1. c. 6. Eusebius l. 8. c. 8. 9 l. 10. c. 2 3. Hooker ecl pol. 5. book p 208. Mr. Hookers fancied Morall grounds of the holinesse of Churches under the New Testament answered The place 1 Cor 11. Have ye not houses c. Makethnothing for hallowing of Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nor the place Psal 74. 8. The Synague not Gods house as the Temple was Arg. 1. The negative Argument from Scripture valid a Morton defense of Cere gener q 1. Sect. 12. b Burges rejoynder p. 41. c Gregor de Valent. to 3 dis 6. q. 2. reâ— ad 2. obj Constat quandoquo dici non preceptum id quod adeo non est preceptum ut sit etiam contra preceptum Not to command is to forbid d Morton gener defe c. 1. Sect. 6 7. e Burges rejoynder c. 1. Sect. 7. p. 34. Of Davids purpose to build the Temple how far
scripta reâ—nuimus and August Lib. de pasto c. 11. Quicquid inde è scriptura Andieritis hoc nobis bene sapiat Quicquid extraest respuite nâ— erretis in nebulâ Now to say we may receive some truths of things Arbitrary or mutable crosseth Cyrill Allexand Glaphyre in Gen. l. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That which the holy Scripture hath not said by what means should we receive and account it amongst these things that be true Cyrill would deny all your Ceremonies to speak any thing but lies and so would I Yea to bring in any thing that is not written Basilius saith it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a demonstration of Pride and Origen in Levit. Hom. 5. Si quid autem superfuerit quod non Divina Scriptura decernat nullam aliam debere tertiam Scripturam ad autoritatem scientiae suscipi licet I think some third Scripture which is neither the old or the New-Testament must be sought to make good the Doctrines that dumbe humane Ceremonies teach us 2. That the blind lead the blinde is not safe but it is no Argument to prove that this is an immutable thing in policy that there should be Leaders and some that are led except you suppose the Prelates to be the seeing men and the Pastors and People to be blinde 3. I utterly deny this consequence The Clergy is a great multitude Ergo order necessarily requireth that by degrees they be distinguished in Prelates and Pastors for the Prelats are a multitude Ergo order requireth that one be Pope to command all the rest The Apostles were a multitude Ergo There was a necessiâ—y of a monarch-Monarch-Apostle the Prelaticall Government is Monarchicall doth order require in all multitude no Government but a Monarchy Nor do we finde any warrant that Apostles had jurisdiction over Pastors in the Scripture nor in any Ecclesiasticall Records but where Papacy was working Paul as if he had been to go out of this life and never to see the faces of the Elders of Ephesus Act. 20. 25. Left unto them as Elders all of equall degrees of power of jurisdiction the feeding and Governing of the Church of God Act. 20. 28 29 30. 4. The particulars of Policy as Surplice Crossing are no more circumstances of Worship then Aarons Ephod a vesture is a circumstance but a Religious vesture teaching us of Pastorall holinesse is worship not a Circumstance Men can place no Religion in Circumstances Hooker Eccle. Poli. l. 3. p. 125. It is in vain to argue from Christs office if there be an immutable Platforme in Scripture it is as if one should demand a Legacy by vertue of some written Testament wherein there being no such thing specified he pleadeth that there it must needs be and bringeth Arguments from love and good will which awayes the Testator bore him imagining that these or the like proofes will convict a Testament to have that in it which other men can no where by reading finde it s our part to admire what he hath done rather then to dispute what he in congruity of reason ought to do how unsearchable are his judgements Ans 1. It is very true a Platforme of discipline is questio facti A question of Fact rather then Law we hear nothing in this comparison but what Papists with equall strength of reason do bring for their unwritten Traditions for they say Protestants are to prove a fact and deed of Jesus Christ that he hath left in his written Testament a perfect and immutable Platforme of Doctrine and manners to which nothing can be added and this they prove from the care wisdom and love of Christ to his Church for he ought to reveale his will perfectly and compleatly in his Scripture otherwise he hath not the love care and wisdom of a Law-giver to his own people if he leave them in the mist and in the dark and write not down all things touching Faith and manners Now we can no where finde by reading Scripture any thing for the Baptizing of Infants or a remedy for women to be cured of Originall sin in the Old-Testament in lieu of circumcision we finde no warrant for the Feast of Dedication in the Law of Moses nor for the dayes of puring observed by the Iewes nor for Images invocation of Saints Prayer for the dead the perpetuall Virginity of the Virgin Mary and many such Doctrines which the Church believeth But we answer because these vain doctrines we except the Baptizing of Infants warranted by Scripture are not in Scripture they are the vaine and saplesse doctrines of men and will-worship But to presse the comparison If any should demand a Legacy by vertue of a Testament in which the Testator hath testified his good will wisdom care to his Brethren in such a manner that he had said I have left in my Testament to my Brethren my mind to instruct them for every good worke to lead them in all truth to teach them every good way to understand equity judgement and righteousnesse to cause them walke safely so that their feet shall not stumble and I have left them my word to be a Lamp and light to their feet in walking Then I would inferre from this Testament two things 1. That the love and care of our Testator Christ so revealed warranteth us to plead for light in Christs Testament how to walk in every good way and so how to walk in all the wayes of the orderly worship of God and of Governing of Gods house by Pastors Teachers Elders Deacons by their Lawfull calling qualifications duties by the Churches Courts in admonition excommunication by the use of the keys 2. Because the Testament is perfect to instruct in every good way particularly and in all duties of worship and this Testament forbiddeth all adding and diminishing and speaketh not one word of Crossing Cringing and bowing to Altars of wearing of Surplice Therefore these are not Gods Lawfull wayes and if I walk in them I can do nothing but fall and stumble 3. We do not here argue simply from the wise and congruous dealing of God what he ought to do nor from the love of Christ as a King and heâ—d simply but from the love care and wisdom of Christ as he is such a King and Head upon whose shoulder is the whole Government and upon whom are all the vessels of the house great and small 4. It is no lesse then blasphemy to ascribe the not particularizing of Ceremonies such as Crossing Surplice humane Feasts to the unsearchable Wisdom and wayes of God to which Paul Romanes 11. referreth the great deeps of Supernaturall Providence in Gods Election and Reprobation his calling of the Gentiles and rejecting of the Iewes and observe I pray this consequence the wayes of the Lord past finding out Ergo The Lord hath set down no Platforme of Church-Policy in his Sons Testament but hath left it to the wisdom of the Church to devise Crossing kneeling to Creatures
First the Canonick Scripture is not Uniform and perpetual Why for certainly once there was no Canonick Scripture but the Books of Moses and after the holy Ghost added the Book of the Psalmes and the Prophets and after the Nativity and Ascension of our Lord to Heaven the Apostles did write Canonick Scripture I hope this is but a poor Argument to infer that there is no Vniform and unalterable Platform of Divinity in the Old and New Testament and yet the Argument is as concludent the one way as it is the other 3. We do not so contend for an Vniform and unalterable Platform of Church-Government in the Word as it was not free to the Lord and Law-giver to adde and alter at his pleasure only we hold it so Vniform and unalterable that this Platform is not shaped like a coat to the Moon or alterable at the will of men without expresse warrant of the Lords Word and to rise and fall with the climate and the elevation of Nationall customes and therefore the Argument is nothing concludent and judge what can be made of these words of the learned Mr. Prynne The Government and Officers of all Churches not being De facto one and the same in all particulars in the very Primitive times as well as since it can never be proved to be of Divine right and the self same in all succeeding Ages without the least variation â—inee it was not so in the Apostles dayes For this is all one as to say the Canonick Scripture was not one and the same in the Apostles and Prophets times but admitted of divers additions Ergo now in our daies Canonick Scripture is not one and the same but may also suffer the like additions 2. Because God himself added to Canonick Scripture and to the Government of the Church in the Apostles dayes Ergo men may without Warrant from God adde in our dayes to Canonick Scripture and to the Government and Officers of the Church 3. The Government and Officers in the Apostles time were not of Divine right but alterable by God Ergo Apostles Evangelists Pastors Teachers Workers of miracles were not of Divine right in the Apostles times but might have been altered by men without the expresse Warrant of God But will any wise man believe that Pauls Apostleship was alterable and might be changed by the Church Since he saith Gal. â— 1. Paul an Apostle not of men neither by men but by Iesus Christ and 1 Cor. 12. 28. When Paul saith And God hath set 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or instituted some in the Church first Apostles secondly Prophets thirdly Teachers after that miracles then gifts of healing c. and Eph. 4. 11. When Christ ascended on high he gave some Apostles some Prophets and some Evangelists and some to be Pastors and Teachers 12. For the perfecting of the Saints c. Can it enter into the head of any man to say some Churches had Apostles and Evangelists and Pastors and miracles and some not Ergo Apostles and Pastors are not by Divine right Ergo because they were not in all Churches therefore they were alterable at the will of men and a Surplice and Crosse in Baptisme hath as much of Divine institution as the calling of the Apostle or of a Pastor and truly to me it is bold Divinity to say that Pastors set over the flock by the holy Ghost Act. 20. 28. and whos 's due qualifications are so specified 1 Tim. 3. and Elders 1 Tim. 5. 17. and Teachers placed by God in the Church 1 Cor. 12 28. may be all turned out of the Church by men as having no Divine right to be there and that men may set up other alterable Officers in their place for by this reason the Apostles by that ordinary spirit that is now in Church-Rulers might without their Apostolick spirit or any immediate Warrant from Christ have altered the whole frame of Apostolick-Government and Church-Officers as the Church may upon motives from themselves not warranted from the word turne out Surplice Crosse and all such stuffe out of the Church Master Prynne The Apostles speech 1 Cor 12. 4 5 6. There are diversity of gifts but the same spirit there are diversity of operations but the same God compared with chap. 8. to 13. and c. 9. v. 19. to 24. I made my self a servant to all that I might gain all c. parallel'd with Act. 15. 1 2 5 6 10. to 32. and chap. 21. 18. to 30. The Churches of Judea did retain the use of Circumcision Purification and other Iewish Rites which the Gentiles by the Apostles resolution were not to observe and Act. 2. 22. The Apostles frequented the Iewish Temple and Synagogues conforming themselves to the Order and Discipline thereof and their own private Christian Assemblies all this will clear that all Churches had not one and the self same Church-Government Ans If diversity of Gifts as to be a speaker with Tongues a Prophet a Pastor will prove the Discipline to be alterable at the Churches will as are Surplice Crosse c. I shall think men may infer any thing they please out of the Scripture and that to be Apostles Pastâ—rs are as indifferent and variable as eating of meats 1 Cor. 8. and Pauls taking of wages at Corinth 1 Cor. 9. Which none can say for if the Church should now command us to abstain from such and such meats as the Apostle doth 1 Cor. 8. We should call that and do call it in the Romish Church a Doctrine of Devils 1 Tim. 4 1 2 3. All brought for this from Act. 15. Act. 21. tendeth to this the Lord himself for the then weaknesse of the Jews of meer indulgence appointed some things to be indifferent and abstained from in the case of scandall Therefore Circumcision Purification Sacrifices of Bullocks and sheep And all the Ceremonies of Moses his Law may be commanded by the Church so they have another signification then they had before and shadow out Christ who is already come But because God hath made some things indifferent shall it follow that the Pope yea or any Church on earth can create an indifferency in things they must then take from things their Morall goodnesse or conveniency with Gods Law and take from them their moral badnes disconveniency to Gods Law which to me is to change the nature of things and to abrogate and change Gods Laws it is true P. Martyr 1 Cor. 9. 19. saith Paul was made all things to all men Quoad Ceremonias res medias in that he Circumcised Timotheus The Law saith he was abrogated Vâ—rum id non adhuc Judaeis liquebat The Jews were to be spared for a time but only for a time and therefore when the Gospel was sufficiently promulgated Paul said Gal. 5. to be Circumcised was to lose Christ and he refused to be a servant to Peter in his sinful Iudaizing Gal. 2. And withstood him in the face Now certain it
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
Church in creating Prelats Surplice and all the positives of Church-policy so did she And so saith Calvin on Genesis 6. 22. And P. Martyr and Musculus piously on this place and with them Vatablus Hence I judge all other things in this and the following Arguments Answer SECT IV. ANy Positives not warranted by some speciall word of God shall be additions to the word of God But these are expresly forbidden Deut. 4. 2. Deut. 12. 32. Prov. 30. 6. Rev. 22. 18 19. To this Formalists answer 1. They have a generall Commandment of God though not a speciall Ans So have all the unwritten Traditions of Papists hear the Church she is Magistra fidei so doth the Papist Horantius answer Calvin That the spirit of God hath given a generall and universall knowledge of mysteries of Faith and Ceremonies belonging to Religion but many particulars are to be received by tradition from the Church but of this hereafter 2. Master Prynne answereth that is a wresting These Texts saith he speak only of additions to books or doctrines of Canonical Scriptures then written not of Church-Government or Ceremonies yea God himself after the writing of Deutronomy caused many Canonicall books of the old and New Testament to be written Many additions were made to the service of God in the Temple not mentioned by Moses Another answer R. Hooker giveth teaching with Papists Bellarmine as in another place after I cite with Cajetane Tannerus and others That additions that corrupt the word are here forbidden not additions that expound and perfect the word True it is concerning the word of God whither it be by misconstruction of the sense or by falcification of the words wittingly to endeavor that any thing may seem Divine which is not or any thing not seem which is were plainly to abuse even to falcifie divine evidence To quote by-speeches in some Historicall narration as if they were written in some exact form of Law is to adde to the Law of God We must condemn if we condemn all adding the Jevvs dividing the supper in tvvo courses their lifting up of hands unvvashed to God in Prayer as Aristaeus saith Their Fasting every Festivall day till the sixth hour Though there be no expresse word for every thing in speciality yet there are general Commandments for all things say the Puritans observing general Rules of 1. Not scandalizing 2. Of decency 3. Of edification 4. Of doing all for Gods glory The Prelate Vsher in the question touching traditions We speak not of Rites Ceremonies vvhich are left to the disposition of the Church and be not of Divine but of Positive and Humane right But that traditions should be obtruded for Articles of Religion parts of Worship or parcels of Gods vvord beside the Scriptures and such Doctrines as are either in Scriptures expresly or by good inference we have reason to gainsay Here is a good will to make all Popish Traditions that are only beside not contrary to Scripture and in the Popish way all are only beside Scripture as Lawfull as our Ceremoniall additions so they be not urged as parts of Canonicall Scripture Well the places Deut. 4. 12. Prov. 30. Rev. 22. say our Masters of mutable Policy forbid only Scripturall or Canonicall additions not Ceremonial additions But I wonder who took on them to adde additionals Scripturall if Baals Priests should adde a worship of Iehovah and not equall it with Scripture nor obtrude it as a part of Moses's Books by this means they should not violate this precept Thou shalt not adde to the word c. 2. Additions explaining the Word or beside the Word as Crossing the bread in the Lords-Supper are Lawfull only additions corrupting or detracting from the word and everting the sense of it are here forbidden and in effect these are detractions from the word and so no additions at all by this distinction are forbidden but only detractions The word for all this wil not be mocked it saith Thou shalt not add Thou shalt not diminish But the truth is a Nation of Papists answer this very thing for their Traditions 1. Bishop Ans to the 2. part of Refor Catho of Trad. § 5. pag. 848. The words signifie no more but that we must not either by addition or substraction change or pervert Gods Commandments be they written or unwritten Else why were the Books of the Old Testament written aftervvard if God had forbidden any more to be written or taught beside that one Book of Deutronomy Shall we think that none of the Prophets that lived and wrote many Volumns after this had read these vvords or understood them not or did vvilfully transgresse them D. Abbot answereth What the Prophets vvrote serve to explain the Law they added no point of Doctrine to Moses Lavv for Exod. 24 4. Moses vvrote all the vvords of God Deut. 31. 9 10. Moses wrote this Lavv then he vvrote not a part of the Law and left another part unvvritten The Iesuit Tannerus answereth the same in terminis with the Formalists Colloquio Ratisbonensi foll 11. 13. D. Gretserus ad dicta Resp Prohiberi additionem quae repugnet verbo scripto non autem illam quae verbo scripto est consentanea cujusmodi sunt traditiones Post pentateuchum accesserunt libri josue Prophetarum c. Tamen nemo reprehendit quia illi libri fuerunt consentanei sacrae Scripturae Additions contrary say they to the vvord are forbidden not such as agree vvith the vvord such as are all the traditions of the Church for after Deutronomy vvere vvritten the Books of Ioshua and the Prophets so Cajetan Coment in Loc. Prohibemur ne â—ingamus contineri in lege quod in ea non continetur nec subtrahamus quod in ea continetur Gloss Interline Non prohibet veritatem veritati addere sed falsitatem omnino removet Lira Hic prohibetur additio deprâ—vans intellectum legis non autem additio declarns aut clucidans Tostatus in Loc. Q. 2. Ille pecat qui addit addit tanquam aliquid de textu vel necessarium sicut alia quâ— sunt in textu velut dictum a spiritu sancto hoc vocatur propriè addere Formalists as Dr. Morton say It is sin to adde to the vvord any thing as a part of the written vvord as if Ceremonies were a part of the vvritten Scripture and spoken by the immediate inspiring spirit that dyteth Canonick Scripture they come only aâ— Arbitrary and ambulatory adjuncts of Worship from the ordinary spirit of the Church and are not added as necessary parts of Scripture or as Doctrinals so Papists say their traditions are not additions to the written vvord nor necessary parts of the vvritten Scripture but inferiour to the Scripture 1. They say their Traditions are no part of the written word or Scripture for they divide the word of God in two parts as Bellarmine Turrian Tannerus Stapleton Becanus all of them say Aliud est verbum dei scriptum
perfect though it teach us not any thing of tradionals in speciall yet in generall it doth hold forth the traditions of the church So Tostat Abulens in Deut. 4. v. 2. ad lit saith Hic commendatur lex ex perfectione quia perfecto nec addi potest nec auferri debet Here the Law of God is commended saith he from its perfection and that is perfect to which nothing can be added and from which nothing should be taken Yea so far forth is the scripture perfect in the Articles of Faith that Castro in summa c. 8. Canus locor Theolog. l. 2. c. 7. and l. 4. c. 4. and Tannerus tom 3. in 22. disp 1. de fide Q. 1. dub 7. saith We are not now to wait for any new revelation of any verity unknown to the Apostles Et nihil novi definiri ab ecclesia Apostolis incognitum and all verities now revealed were implicitely believed by the Apostles and contained in Vniversall generall precepts as that the Saints are to be worshipped that Canonicall Books containeth the word of God the Bishops of Rome are the true successors of Peter and Catholick pastors c. and he saith Quod ecclesia non posset novum fidei articulum condere communiter etiam docent Scholastici in 3. dis 25. he subscribeth to that truth of Vincentius Lyrinensis c. 17. In ecclesia nulla nova Dogmata procudi sed pretiosam divini Dogmatis Gemmam exsculpi fideliter cooptari adornari sapienter ut intelligatur illustrius quod antea obscurius credebatur No new points of saith or manners are forged in the Church but the precious pearl of divine truth is in it polished faithfully applied and wisely illustrated that they may be more clearly understood which before was more obscurely beleeved so that to say the perfection of scripture consisteth not in particularizing all the small positives of policy is no more then Papists say of the perfection of the scripture in their traditions 2. Moses speaketh both of the Morall and Ceremoniall Law called by the names of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Statutes rights and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Judgements and Laws whatsoever extolled by David Psal 119. As his delight his joy his heritage his songs in the house of his pilgrimages and of both he saith that there is life in keeping them Now the Ceremonies of Moses had an exceeding great excellency in looking to Christ and being shadows of good things to come Heb. 10. 1. And our Ceremonies have the same aspect upon Christ Why but the day of the commemoration of Christs Death Nativity Ascension Dedication to Christ by a Crosse in the Aire should have the same influence and impression on our hearts if they be lawfull that the like Ceremonies and Laws had upon Davids spirit Christ being the object and soul of both 2. Of these Ceremonies and Laws Moses faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 6. for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the Nations Why but these same Ceremonies looking with a broader and fuller face on Christ already come if Christ have put any life of lawfulnesse in them then their dim shadows of old should also be our wisdom in the hearing of Pagans who know not God 3. It is a wonder to me that the learned Master Prynne should say that the place Deut. 4. speaketh nothing of Church-Government and Ceremonies but only of Doctrines of Canonicall Books For that is as much as to say the place speaketh nothing of Divine Ceremonies but only of divine Ceremonies for what a number of Divine Ceremonies and Laws are in the Law of Moses which were given by the Lord himself as is clear by the words ver 1. Now therefore hearken O Israel unto the Statutes and judgements that I teach you that ye may live and v. 5. Behold I have taught you Statutes and judgments which the Lord my God commanded me v. 8. And what nation is there so great that hath statutes and judgements so Righteous as all this Law which I set before you this day Now of all this Law the Lord saith v. 2. Ye shall not adde unto the Word which I commanded you Neither shall ey diminish The Learned and Reverend Mr Prynne must restrict this word of the Law which can admit of no addition to some speciall Law either the Morall only or the judiciall and Ceremoniall only not to the former for then additions to the Decalogue only should be forbidden this never man taught Stapleton indeed Relect. Prin. fid Doctrin cont 4. Q. 1. Art 3. restricteth it to the Ceremoniall Law only but Moses maketh it a Law as large v. 2. as the word which God Commandeth And as saith he v. 5. the statutes and the judgements which the Lord Commanded me v. 8. All this Law Deut. 31. 9. This written Law delivered to the Priests and kept in the Ark the Law that all Israel heard read v. 11. Of which it is said v. 24. When Moses had made an end of writing of the words of this Law in a Book untill they were finished Now this was the whole five Books of Moses And were there nothing of Church-Government in Moses Law What shall we then say of the High Priest his calling Office habit of the Priests Levites their charge calling attire of the Law of the Leaper his healing his extrusion out of the Camp of the Law of those that were defiled with the dead of their qualification who were to be Circumcised who were to eat the Passeover or who not who were to enter into the house of God and Congregation who not not a few of these touching Church-Government are included in the Law that God Commanded Israel as their wisdom 4. That there were many additions made to the service of God in the Temple not mentioned by Moses is nothing to purpose except it be proved that these additions were made by the Church without any word of God the conâ—rary whereof is evident for the Temple and whole patern thereof was delivered in writing by the Lord to David 1 Chron. 28. 11. 19. If Formalists will have no Laws made but by Moses as the only Law-giver they have as good reason to say That Moses was the only Canonick writer and none but he which is absurd Or 2. That Moses by his own spirit was a Law-giver and had active influence in excogitating the Law We conceive that Protestants are to own this Doctrine which Tostatus imputes to us as Hereticks Com. in Loc. Q. 2. Quasi Moses nudus minister relator verborum dti esset non legem conderet As if Moses were a meer servant and a naked reporter of the Lords Law and words and not a Law-maker For in the making of Laws and Divine institutions we judge that all the Canonick writers were meer patients as the people are for God is the Commander and Moses the person Commanded and a meer servant Deut. 4. 5. Mal. 4. 4. Heb. 3.
3 4 5. And Moses and all Canonick writers were only to receive the word at Gods mouth and to hear it Ezek. 3. 8. As meer servants and in this the Church of Prophets and of Apostles and the Church that now is were alike I know no Authority of the one above the other Indeed in writing and relating to the Church the will of God and the Scriptures Canonick writers are agents inspired with the Holy spirit immediately breathing on them in Prophecying and in writing Scripture But the Proclaimer of a Law as such hath no influence in making the Law Let it be also remembred that as Papists say two things to the place so do Formalists 1. That it is not against Ceremonies 2. That the Church is limited in making Ceremonies beside the Word that they may not make them too numerous and burdensome This I make good in the words of a famous Iesuit who citeth the words of a Learned Papist approving them Lorinus Coment in Loc. Refellit idem Oleaster Hereticos hinc inserentes institui non posse Ceremonias ac ritus novos circa cultum dei Quam vis ipse optat moderationem in preceptis ac censuris ut facilius suavius possint servari To whom I oppose that golden sentence of a man endued with the spirit of God above any Papist Calvin Com. in Deut. 4. v. 2. Insignis locus quo apertè damnatur quicquid hominum ingenio excogitari potest Ibid. Quoniam preposter â lasciviâ rapitur totus ferè mundus ad cultus fictitios qui tamen precise une verbo damnantur ubi deus ita jubet suos acquiescere positae legi ne justiores esse appetant quam illic docentur All Worship is precisely condemned here or any thing devised about the Worship by the wit of men I would here meet with a Grand exception of Mr. Hooker Eccles Polic. 3. Book pag. 111. Their distinction of matters of substance and of circumstance though true will not serve for be they great things or be they small if God have Commanded them in the Gospel and if his Commanding them in the Gospel do make them unchangeable there is no reason that we should change the one more then the other if the authority of the maker do prove their unchangeablenesse which God hath made then must all Laws which he hath made be necessarily for ever permanent though they be but of circumstances only and not of Substance Ans 1. Our distinction of matters of substance and circumstance rightly taken will serve the turn But the mistake is in that 1. Many things are but circumstances of worship such as are Positives and Religious significant Ceremonies to Formalists that are not so to us for to wear a surplice in sacrificing to Jupiter were to make the Act of wearing that Religious habit an act of Religious honouring of Jupiter but to wear Surplice and to sacrifice in that habit to Iupiter at eight of clock in the morning rather then at ten in this place Physicall rather then this is no worshipping of Iupiter but a meer Physicall circumstance neither up nor down to the worship and time and place Physicall are neither worship nor Religious means of worship 2. Time and Place Name Country Form Figure Habit or Garments to hold off injuries of Sun and Heaven as such â—re never commanded never forbidden of God and therefore the change of these circumstances can be no change of a Commandment of God We never advanced circumstances as such to the orbe and spheare of Morals Formalists do so advance their Ceremonies and therefore if God command Surplice though by the intervening authority of his Church such cannot be altered except God command to alter the Religious signification of white linnen but we know not where God hath commanded the alteration of any Ceremonies except that the Lords coming in the flesh as a thing to come must alter all Ceremonies which shadow forth Christ to come when the body Christ is come already Let us know such a ground for alteration of corner Cap Altar Surplice except to drive such Oxen out of the Temple 3. We hold that the Lords commanding such a thing in the Gospel is a reason why it should be necessarily permanent for ever except the Lord hath commanded it should be for a time only as he commanded Moses's Ceremonies and so Gods Authority of commanding a thing to be unchangeably in his worship is a reason why it should be unchangeably in his worship and his commanding any thing to be for a time only and alterably in his worship is a reason why it should be for a time only alterably in his worship so to us Gods Commandment is a reason why his own Ceremonies and Sacraments of the New Testament should be in the Church because the Law-giver hath in scripture commanded them to be and the reason why Hookers surplice and crossing should not be is because he hath commanded no such thing Now the reasons of alteration of any Laws in the Gospel is from God never from the Church as 1. If God immediately inspire Moses to make a tabernacle and thereafter inspire David and Solomon to make the Temple in the place of the tabernacle and give them no Commandment for a tabernacle its evident that God hath altered and removed the Tabernacle and that the alteration is not from David nor Solomon 2. If God command types and Ceremonies to be in his Church till the body Christ come Col. 2. 17. then when Christ is come and his coming sufficiently published to the world then are his own Ceremonies altered and removed but not by the discretion of Peter and Paul or the Church but by God himself 3. When God commandeth such Offices to be in his house which dependeth immediately upon his own immediate will of giving gifts essentially required to these Offices then these offices are so long in his Church as God is pleased by his immediate will to give these gifts and when God denyeth these gifts essentially requisite sure it is his immediate wil hath altered and removed the office not the will of the Church so the Lord hath alterd and removed these Offices and gifts of Apostles who could speak with tongues and seal their doctrine with Miracles Evangelists Prophets extraordinarily inspired gifts of healing c. 4. Some things are not matters of worship at all but of goods as the community of goods love-Feasts matters of civill conversation these are only in their morality as touching distribution to the necessities of the Saints and brotherly kindenesse unalterable and no otherwise Now for these things that are smaller or weightier we hold they are not in their weightinesse or smallnesse of importance to be considered but as the Authority of God hath imprinted a necessity on them so are they obligatory to us I am obliged to receive this as scripture that Paul left his cloak at Troas no lesse then this Christ came
such mixed actions as these that are mentioned by Hooker As to move sleep take the cup at the hand of a friend cannot be called simply morall for to move may be purely naturall as if a man against his will fall off a high place or off a horse to start in the sleep are so naturall that I know not any morality in them but sure I am for Nathaniel to come to Christ which was also done by a naturall motion is not a meer naturall action proceeding from the most concealed instincts of nature so to sleep hath somewhat naturall in it for beasts do sleep beasts do move I grant they cannot take a cup at the hand of a friend they cannot salute one another It is Hookers instance but fancy sometimes in men do these whereas conscience should do them What is naturall in moving and sleeping and what is common to men with beasts I grant Scripture doth not direct or regulate these acts of moving and sleeping we grant actions naturall and common to us with beasts need not the rule of the Word to regulate them But this I must say I speak it my Record is in Heaven not to offend any Formalists as such and as Prelaticall are irreligious and Profane One of them asked a godly man Will you have Scripture for giving your horse a peck of Oats and for breaking winde and easing or obeying nature And therefore they bring in these instances to make sport But I conceive sleeping moderately to inable you to the service of God as eating drinking that God may be glorified 1 Cor. 10. 31. are also in the measure manner of doing Morall so ruled by Scripture and Scripture only and not regulated by naturall instincts But what is all this to the purpose are Surplice Crossing Saints-dayes such actions as are common to us with beasts as moving and sleeping are Or is there no more need that the Prelate be regulated in wearing his corner-Cap his Surplice in Crossing then a beast is to be ruled by Scripture in moving in sleeping in eating grasse 2. Expresse and actuall reference and intention to every Commandment of God or to Gods glory in every particular action I do not urge a habituall reference and intention I conceive is holden forth to us in Scripture 1 Cor. 10. 31. 3. God by every effect proceeding from the most concealed instinct of nature is made manifest in his power What then the power of God is manifest in the Swallows building her nest Ergo neither the Swallow in building her nest nor the Prelate in Crossing an Infant in Baptisme to dedicate him to Christ have need of any expresse or actuall reference to any Commandment of God or Gods glory Truly it is a vain consequence in the latter part except Hooker make Surplice Crossing and all the mutable Frame of Church-Government to proceed from the most concealed instincts of nature which shall be nâ—w Divinity to both Protestants and Papists And I pray you what power of God is manifest in a Surplice I conceive it is a strong Argument against this mutable frame of Government that it is not in the power of men to devise what Positive signes they please without the word to manifest the power wisdom and other attributes of God For what other thing doth the two Books opened to us Psal 19. The Book of Creation and Providence and the Book of the Scripture but manifest God in his nature and works and mans misery and Redemption in Christ Now the Prelats and Papists devise a third blanke book of unwritten Traditions and mutable Ceremonials We see no Warrant for this book 4. Hooker maketh a man in many Morall Actions as in wearing a Surplice in many actions flowing from concealed instincts of nature as in moving sleeping like either the Philosophers Civilian or Morall Athiest or like a beast to act things or to do by the meer instinct of nature Whereas being created according to Gods Image especially he living in the visible Church he is to do all his actions deliberate even naturall and morall in Faith and with a Warrant from scripture to make good their Morality Psa 119. 9. Prov. 3. 23 24. 2 Cor. 5. 7. And truly Formalists give men in their Morals to live at random and to walk without taking heed to their wayes according to Gods word Hooker It sufficeth that our Morall actions be framed according to the Law of reason the generall axiomes rules and principles of which being so frequent in holy Scripture there is no let but in that regard oven out of Scripture such duties may be deduced by some kinde of consequence as by long circuit of deduction it may be that even all truth out of any truth may be concluded howbeit no man be bound in such sort to deduce all his actions out of Scripture as if either the place be to him unknown whereon they may be concluded or the reference to that place not presently considered of the action shall in that be condemned as unlawfull Ans 1. The Law of reason in Morals for of such we now speak is nothing but the Morall Law and will of God contained fully in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament and therefore is not to be divided from the Scriptures if a man be ruled in that he is ruled by Scripture for a great part of the Bible of the Decalogue is Printed in the reasonable soul of man As when he loveth his Parents obeyeth his superiors saveth his Neighbour in extream danger of death because he doth these according to the Law of Reason shall it follow that these actions which are expresly called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 2. 14. the things or duties of the Law are not warranted by expresse Scripture because they are done according to the Law of naturall reason I should think the contrary most true 2. Such duties saith he Morall duties I hope he must mean to God and our Neighbour may be deduced by some kinde of consequence out of Scripture But by what consequence Such as to Argue Quidlibet ex quolibet The Catechisme taught me long ago of duties to God and my Neighbour that they are taught in the ten Commandments Now if some Morall duties to God and man be taught in the ten Commandments and some not taught there 1. Who made this distinction of duties None surely but the Prelats and the Papists if the Scripture warrant some duties to God and our Neighbour and do not warrant some the Scripture must be unperfect 2. The warranting of actions that may be service to God or will-worship or homicide by no better ground then Surplice and Crosse can be warranted or by such a consequence as you may deduce all truth out of any truth is no warrant at all the Traditions of Papists may thus be warranted 3. Nor is the action to be condemned as unlawfull in it self because the agent cannot see by what consequence it is
observe Saints-dayes and believe Crossing and Surplice hath this Religious signification because the Church saith so then is our obedience of conscience finally resolved in the Testimony of men so speaking at their own discretion without any warrant of scripture 2. To believe and obey in any Religious Positives because it is the pleasure of men so to Command is to be servants of men and to make their will the formall reason of our obedience which is unlawfull If it be said that we are to believe and Practise many things in naturall necessity as to eat move sleep and many circumstantials of Church-Policy because the Law of naturall reason saith so and because there is an intrinsecall conveniency and an aptitude to edifie to decore and beautifie in an orderly and a decent way the service of God and not simply because the Church saith so nor yet because the Lord speaketh so in the Scripture and therefore all our obedience is not Ultimately and finally resolved into the Testimony of the Scripture I Answer That there be some things that the Law of Nature commandeth as to move eat sleepe and here with leave I distinguish Factum the common practise of men from the jus what men in conscience ought to do as concerning the former morall and naturall mens practise is all resolved in their own carnall will and lusts and so they eat move and sleep because nature and carnall will leadeth them thereinto not because God in the Law of nature which I humbly conceive to be a part of the first elements and principles of the Morall Law or Decalogue and so a part of Scripture doth so warrant us to do and therefore the moving eating drinking of naturall Moralists are materially lawfull and conforme to scripture for God by the Law of nature commandeth both Heathen men and pure Moralists within the visible Church to do naturall acts of this kinde because the Lord hath revealed that to be his will in the Book of nature But these Heathen do these acts because they are suitable to their Lusts and carnall will and not because God hath commanded them so to do in the Book of nature and this is their sin in the manner of doing though materially Et quod substantiam actus the action be good and the same is the sin of naturall men within the visible Church and a greater sin for God not only commandeth them in the Law of nature but also in Scripture to do all these naturall acts because God hath revealed his will in these naturall actions as they are morall to naturall men within the visible Church both in the Law of nature and in the scripture and De jure they ought to obey because God so commandeth in both and in regard all within the visible Church are obliged to all naturall actions in a spirituall way though their eating moving sleeping be lawfull materially Et quod substantiam actus yet because they do them without any the least habituall reference to God so commanding in natures Law and scripture they are in the manner of doing sinfull otherwise Formalists go on with Papists and Arminians to justifie the actions of the unregenerated as simply Lawfull and good though performed by them with no respect to God or his Commandment 2. As concerning actions of Church-Policy that cannot be warranted by the light of nature and yet have intrinsecall conveniency and aptitude to edifie and decently to Accomodate the worship of God I conceive these may be done but not because the Church so commandeth as if their commandment were the formall reason of our obedience but because partly the light of the Law of reason partly scripture doth warrant them but that Crosse and Surplice can be thus warranted is utterly denied Again I conceive that there be two sort of positives in the externals of Government or worship 1. Some Divine as that there be in the Publique Worship Prayers Praising Preaching Sacraments and these are substantials that there be such Officers Pastors Teachers Elders and Deacons that there be such censures as rebuking Excommunication and the like are morally Divine or Divinely Morall and when the Church formeth a Directory for worship and Government the Directory it self is in the Form not simply Divine And if it be said that neither the Church of the Jews nor the Church Apostolique had more a written Directory nor they had a written Leiturgy or book of Common Prayers or Publick Church-service I answer nor had either the Iewish or Apostolick Church any written Creed or systeme written of fundamentall Articles such as is that which is commonly called the Apostolick Creed but they had materially in the scripture the Apostolick Creed and the Directory they had also the same way for they practised all the Ordinances directed though they had no written Directory in a formall contexture or frame for Prayers Preaching Praising Sacraments and Censures never Church wanted in some one order or other though we cannot say that the Apostolick Church had this same very order and forme But a Leiturgy which is a commanded imposed stinted Form in such words and no other is another thing then a Directory as an unlawfull thing is different from a Lawfull 2. There be some things Positive humane as the Ordering of some parts or worship or Prayer the forme of words or phrases and some things of the Circumstantials of the Sacrament as what Cups Wood or Mettall in these the Directory layeth a tie upon no man nor can the Church in this make a Directory to be a Church Compulsory to strain men And this way the Directory is not ordered and commanded in the frame and contexture as was the Service-Book and the Pastor or people in these are not properly Morall Agents nor do we presse that scripture should regulate men in these But sure in Crossing in Surplice men must be Morall Agents no lesse then in eating and drinking at the Lords-Supper and therefore they ought to be as particularly regulated by Scripture in the one as in the other Quest But who shall be judge of these things which you say are Circumstantials only as time place c. and of these that Formalists say are adjuncts and Circumstances of worship though also they have a Symbolicall and Religious signification must not the Church judge what things are indifferent what necessary what are expedient what Lawfull Answer There is no such question imaginable but in the Synagogue of Antichrist For as concerning Norma judiâ—andi the Rule of judging without all exception the scripture ought to be the only rule and measure of all practicall truths how Formalists can make the Scripture the rule of judging of unwritten Ceremonies which have no warrant in Scripture more then Papists can admit scripture to regulate and warrant their unwritten Traditions I see not we yield that the Church is the Politick Ministeriall and visible judge of things necessary and expedient or of things not necessary
Moses the Prince is Commanded to make all according to the Patern in the Mount 2. God speaketh to all Israel and not to the Princes only Deut. 4. 1. Hearken O Israel he speaketh to these who are bidden to keep their soul diligently v. 6. 3. It is Bellarmines groundlesse charity to think private heads who were not Princes and Law-givers did not take on an hâ—iry Mantle to deceive Zach. 13. 4. And say Thus saith the Lord when God had not spoken to them Ier. 23. 16. 32. Yea and Private women added their own dreams to the word of God Ezech. 13. 17 18. 3. They say Traditions are from Gods Spirit But hath Gods Spirit lost all Majesty Divinity and power in speaking If the Popes Decretals the Councels the dirty Traditions wanting life Language and power be from Gods Spirit Formalists admit Traditions from an humane spirit and in this are shamed even by Papists who say God only â—an adde to his own Word whereas they say men and the worst of men Prelates may adde to Gods vvord 4. But that additions perfecting are forbidden is clear 1. Additions perfecting as Didoclavius saith argueth the word of imperfection and that Baptisme is not perfect without Crossing 2. It is Gods Prerogative to adde Canonick Scripture to the five books of Moses and the Nevv-Testament and the doctrine of the Sacraments which cannot be Syllogistically deduced out of the Old Testament Matth. 28. 19 20. Ioh. 21. 31. Heb. 3. 2. Rev. 1. 19. and these are perfecting and explaining additions therefore men may by as good reason adde Canonick Scripture to the Revelation as adde new Positive Doctrines like this The holy Surplice is a sacred signe of Pastorall Holinesse Crossing is a signe of dedicating the childe to Christs service for Papists â—ay even Vasquez That the Pope neither in a generall Councell nor out of it can ordain any nevv points of Faith vvhich are not contained in the principles or Articles revealed and may not be evidently concluded out of them Formalists answer It is not lavvfull to adde any thing as a part of divine worship but it is Lawfull to addâ— something as an indifferent Rite coming from Authority grounded upon common equity And this is the ansvver of the Jesuite Vasquez The Pope and Church cannot make an Article of Faith for that is believed by divine Faith to come from God only but as Law-givers they may give Laws that bindeth the conscience and yet are not altogether essentiall in worship If additions as divine parts of Gods worship say we be forbidden God then forbidding to adde such Traditions forbiddeth his own spirit to adde to Gods word for no man but God can adde additions Divine that is coming from God but God himself by good consequence the forbidding men to add additions as really coming from God should forbid men to be Gods for divine additions are essentially additions coming from God but if he forbid additions only of mens divising but obtruded to have the like efficacy and power over the conscience that Canonick Scripture hath then were it lawfull to adde killing of our children to Molech so it were counted not really to come from God with opinion of divine necessity and by this God should not forbid things to be added to his Word by either private or publick men but only he should forbid things to be added with such a quality as that they should by Divine Faith be received as coming from God and having the heavenly stamp of Canonick Scripture when as they are come only from the Pope and his bastard Bishops so all the fables of the Evangell of Nicodemus The materials of the Iewish and Turkish Religion might be received as lawfull additions so they do not contradict the Scripture as contrary to what is written but only beside what is written and with all so they be received as from the Church Also 3. Additions contrary to the word are diminutions to adde to the eight Command this addition The Church saith it is lawfull to steal were no addition to the ten Commandments but should destroy the eight Commandment and make nine Commandments only and the meaning of Gods precept Deut. 12. Thou shalt neither adde nor diminish should be Thou shalt neither diminish neither shalt thou diminish And so our Masters make Moses to forbid no additions at all 6. Commentaries and Expositions of the Word if sound shall be the word of God it self the true sense of a speech is the form and essence of a speech and so no additions thereunto but explanations except you make all sound Sermons Arbitrary Ceremonies and Traditions whereas Articles of Faith expounded are Sermons and so the Scripture it self materially taken is but a Tradition QUEST II. Whether Scripture be such a perfect rule of all our Morall Actions aâ— that the distinction of essentiall and necessary and of accidentall and Arbitrary worship cannot stand And if it forbid all worship not only contrary but also beside the word of God as false though it be not reputed as divine and necessary FOrmalists do acknowledge as Morton Burges Hooker and others teach us that Ceremonies which are meer Ceremonies indifferent in nature and opinion are not forbidden yea that in the generall they are commanded upon common equity and in particular according to their specification Surplice Crossing Knâ—eling before consecrated Images and representations of Christ are not forbidden and negatively Lawfull having Gods allowing if not his commanding will but only God forbiddeth such Ceremonies wherein men place opinion of divine necessity holinesse and efficacy in which case they become Doctrinall and essentiall and so mens inventions are not Arbitrary and accidentall worship But let these considerations be weighed 1. Distinct The Word of Go being given to man as a Morall Agent is a rule of all his Morall Actions but not of actions of Art Sciences Disciplines yea on of meer nature 2. Distinct Beside the Word in actions Morall and in Gods worship is all one with that which is contrary to the Word and what is not commanded is forbidden as not seeing in a creature capable of all the five senses is down right blindenesse 3. Lawfulnesse is essentiall to worship instituted of God but it is not essentiall to worship iâ— generall neither is opinion of sanctity efficacy or Divine necessity essentiall to worship but only to Divine worship and its opinion not actuall nor formall but fundamentall and materiall 4. Seeing the Apostles were no lesse immediatly inspired of God then the Prophets it is a vain thing to seek a knot in a rush and put a difference betwixt Apostolick Commandments or Traditions and divine Commandments as it is a vain and Scripturelesse curiosity to difference betwixt the Propheticall truths of Moses Samuel Isaiah Ieremiah Ezekiel c. And Divine Prophecies which is as if you would difference betwixt the fair writing of Titus the writer and the writing made by the pen of Titus
or betwixt Peters words and the words spoken by Peteâ—â— tongue mouth and lips for Prophets and Apostles were both Gods mouth 5. Worship essentiall and Worship Arbitrary vvhich Formalists inculcate or worship positively lavvfull or negatively lavvfull are to be acknowledged as worship Lawfull and Will-worship and vvorship Lawfull and unlawfull 6. What is vvarranted by naturall reason is vvarranted by Scripture for the Law of nature is but a part of Scripture 7. Actions are either purely morall or purely not morall or mixed of both The first hath vvarrant in Scripture the second none at all the third requireth not a vvarrant of Scripture every vvay concludent but only in so far as they be Morall 8. Matters of meer fact knovvn by sence and humane testimonie are to be considered according to their Physicall existence if they be done or not done if Titus did such a thing or not such are not in that notion to be proved by Scripture 2. They may be considered according to their essence and Morall quality of good and lawfull â—ad or unlawfull and so they are to be warranted by Scripture 9. There is a generall vvarrant in Scripture for Worship and morall actions tvvofold either vvhen the Major proposition is only in Scripture and the Assumption is the vvill of men or vvhen both the Proposition and Assumption are warranted by Scripture the former vvarrant I think not sufficient and therefore the latter is necessary to prove the thing lavvfull Hence our 1. conclusion Every worship and Positive observance of Religion and all Morall actions are to be made good by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according as it is vvritten though their individuall circumstances be not in the word 2. The offering for the Babe Iesus tvvo Turtle Doves and â—vvo Pigeons are according as it is vvritten in the Lavv and yet Ioseph and Mary the Priest the Offerer the day and hour when the male childe Iesus for whom are not in the Law Exod. 13. 1. Numbers 8. 26. In the second Table Amaziah his Fact of mercy in not killing the children for the Fathers sin is said to be 2 Kin. 24. 6. performed by the King 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As it is vvritten in the Book of the Law of Moses yet in that Law Deut 24. 6. There is not a word of Amaziah or the children whom he spared because these be Physicall and not Morall circumstances as concerning the essence of the Law of God Hence in the Categorie of all Lawfull Worship and Morall actions both Proposition and Assumption is made good by this As it is vvritten even to the lowest specifice degree of morality as all these 1. The Worship of God 2. Sacramentall worship under that 3. Under that participation of the Lords Supper 4. Under all the most speciall participation of the Lords Supper by Iohn Anna in such a Congregation such a day All these I say both in Proposition and Assumption are proved by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And can bid this according as it is written the like I may instance in all other Worship in all acts of Discipline in all Morall acts of justice and mercy in the second Table But come to the Prelats Kalendar They cry Order and decency is Commanded in Gods Worship And we hear Pauls cry not theirs but under this is 2. Orderly and decent Ceremonies of humane institution And here they have lost Pauls cry and the Scriptures as it is written 3. Under this be Symbolicall signes of Religious worship instituted by men according as it is written is to seek And 4. under all Thomas his Crossing of such an Infant is written on the back of the Prelats Bible or Service book but no where else So do Papists say What ever the Church teach that is Divine truth Under this cometh in invocations of Saints Purgatory and all other fatherlesse Traditions which though Papists should teach to be Arbitrary and indifferent yet would we never allow them room in Gods house seeing they cannot abide this touchstone according as it is written 2. Because Scripture condemneth in Gods Worship what ever is ours as will-worship Hence 2. All worship and new Positive means of worship devised by men are unlawfull but humane Ceremonies are such Ergo The Proposition is proved many wayes as 1. What is mans in Gods Worship and came from Lord-man is challenged as false vain and unlawfull because not from God as Idols according to their own understanding Hos 13. 2. So from Israel it was the workman made it Hos 8. 6. Hence Zanchius and Pareus infer all invented by men are false and vain and so are condemned Ier. 18. 12. The imaginations of their â—vil heart and Psal 106. 39. Their own devises their ovvn vvorks their ovvn inventions as Act. 7. 41. Figures vvhich yâ— made Act. 7. 43. Had they been figures of Gods making as the Cherubins and Oxen in the Temple as 1 King 7. They had been Lawfull dayes devised by Iâ—robâ—ams heart 1 King 12. 32 33. The light of your ovvâ—â—â—irâ— Isa 50. 11. A plant that the Heavenly Father planted not Ergo By man Math. 15. 14. 2. The Proposition is proved from the wisdom of Christ who is no lesse faithfull then Moses who followed his Copy that he saw in the Mount Exod. 40. 19. 21. 23. Exod. 25. 40. Heb. 8. 5. Heb. 3. 1 2. Ioh. 15. 15. Or Solomon 2 Chron. 29. 25. 1. Chron. 28. 11 12. Gal. 3. 15. Also I prove our Conclusion 3. thus If the word be a rule to direct a young mans vvay Psal 119. 9. A light to the Paths of men v. 105. If the Wisdom of God cause us to understand Equity Iudgement Righteousnesse and every good vvay Prov. 2. 9. And cause us vvalk safely so that our feet stumble not Prov. 3. 25. So that vvhen vve go our steps shall not be straightned and vvhen vve run our feet shall not stumble Prov. 4. 11 12. If wisdom lead us as a Lamp and and a Light Prov. 6. 23. Then all our actions Morall of first or second Table all the Worship and right means of the Worship must be ruled by this according as it is Written else in our actions we walk in darknesse we fall stumble go aside and are taught some good way and instructed about the use of some holy Crossing some Doctrine of Purgatory and Saint-worship without the light of the Word But this latter is absurd Ergo So is the former It is poor what Hooker saith against us If Wisdom of Scripture teach us every good path Prov. 2. 9. By Sccripture onely and by no other mean then there is no art and trade but Sripture should teach But Wisdom teacheth something by Scripture something by spirituall influence something by Worldy experience Thomas believed Christ vvas risen by sence because he savv him not by Scripture the Ievvs believed by Christs miracles Ans 1. Some actions in man are meerly naturall as to grow these
are not regulated by the word 2. Some agree to man as he liveth as to sleep eat drink and these are considered as animall actions Actiones animales and do not belong to our Question But as they are in man they be two wayes regulated by the word 1. According to the substance of the act the Law of nature and consequently the word of God Commandeth them If one should kill himself through totall abstinence from meat and sleep he should sin against the Law of nature 2. These actions according as they are to be moderated by reason are to be performed soberly and are in Gods word Commanded 3. Some actions agree to man as he is an Artificiall or Scientifick agent as to speak right Latine to make accurate demonstrations in Geometry and these are ruled by Art man in these as they be such is not a Morall Agent but an Artificiall Agent I say as they are such because while one speaketh Latine according to the Art of Disputer or Linacer he should not lie and all morality in these actions are to be ruled by Gods vvord and as actions of Art they are not every good path or every good Morall vvay that Solomon speaketh of Prov. 2. 9. and therefore it is a vain Argument against the perfection of Gods word 2. Hooker saith God teacheth us something by spirituall influence Ans If without the word by only influence spirituall as he taught the Prophets it was a vain instance for influence visions inspirations were of old in place of Scripture If Ceremonies as Crossing Surplice come this way from God they be as nobly born as the Old and New-Testament If God teach any thing now by influence spirituall without Scripture Hooker is an Enthusiast and an Anabaptist If experience and sense teach many things now which Scripture doth not teach and yet is worship or a Morall Action we desire to know these 3. The instance of Thomas learning that Christ is risen from the dead by sence and not by Scripture and of the Iews believing by miracles and not by Scripture might make a Iesuit blush for Christs Resurrection and the Doctrine of the Gospel confirmed by Miracles are not Arbitrary Rites beside Gods word but fundamentals of salvation Hence the man will have us believe God revealeth Articles of faith to us by other means then by his word Thomas was helped by his sense and some Iews to believe Christs Death and Resurrection by miracles But the formall Object of their Faith was the Lord speaking in his scriptures 2. Hooker Objecteth When many meats are set before me in the Table all are indifferent none unlawfull if I must be ruled by Scripture and eat in faith and not by natures light and common discretion I shall sin in eating one meat before another How many things saith Sanderson do Parents and Masters command their servants and sons Shall they disobey while they finde a warrant from Scripture Ans For eating in measure the Scripture doth regulate us for eating for Gods glory the scripture also doth regulate us and the action of eating according to the substance of the action is warranted by the Law of nature which is a part of the word the meer order in eating is not a Morall action and so without the lists of the question If the question be of the order of eating I think not that a Morall action 2. Eating of divers meats is a mixt action and so requireth not a warrant in the Morality every way if you eat such meats where there be variety to choose as you know doth ingender a Stone or a Cholick you sin against the sixth Commandment 3. Masters Parents Commanders of Armies may command Apprentices servants sons souldiers many Artificiall actions in Trades in War where both Commanders and obeyers are artificiall not morall Agents and so they touch not the question but what is morall in all actions of Art Oeconomy Sciences is ruled by the word except our Masters offend that Paul said Children should obey their Parents in the Lord That men are not both in commanding inferiours and obeying Superiours vexed with scruples cometh not from the insufficiency of Gods word but from this that mens consciences are all made of stoutnesse But if this be true Seth Enoch Noah Shem could not eat nor sleep saith Hooker but by revelation which was Scripture to them Answer Supernaturall Revelation was to these Fathers the rule of Gods worship and all their actions supernaturall and of all their actions morall in relation to the last end but for eating and drinking they being actions naturall they were to be regulated in these by naturall reason and the Law of nature which was apart then of the Divine Tradition that then ruled the Church while as yet the word was not written Hooker urgeth thus It will follow that Moses the Prophets and Apostles should not have used naturall Arguments to move people to do their dutie they should only have used this Argument As it is written else they taught them other grounds and warrants for their actions then Scripture Ans None can deny naturall Arguments to be a part of the word of God as is clear Rom. 1. 19. 1 Cor. 15. 36 37. 1 Cor. 11. 14. Yea Christ Mat. 7. 12. teacheth that this principle of nature whatsoever ye would men should do to you do ye so to them is the Law and the Prophets because it is a great part of the Law and the Prophets and therefore they say in effect As it vvritten in the Scripture when they say as it is written in mans heart by nature 2. Principles of nature are made scripture by the Pen-men of the holy Ghost and do binde as the Scripture 3. It will be long ere the Law of nature teach Crossing and kneeling to bread to be good Ceremonie They Object I could not then ride ten miles to solace my self with my friends except I had warrant from Scripture and seeing the Scripture is as perfect in acts of the second Table as in acts of the first I must have a reason of all the businesse betwixt man and man of all humane and municipall Laws but it is certain saith Sanderson faith as certain as Logick can make it is not required in these but onely Ethicall and Conjecturall faith whereby we know things to be Lawfull Negatively It s not required that we know them to be Positively conform to Gods Word Ans If you ride ten miles with your friend and do not advise with his word who sayes Redeem the time you must give account for idle actions if Christ say you must give an account for idle Words 2. Though there seem to be more Liberty in actions of the second Table then of the first because there be far moe Positive actions not meerly Morall which concerneth the second Table because of Oeconomy Policy Municipall and Civill Laws Arts Sciences Contracts amongst men that are not
deliberation be not extraordinary and such as cannot be recompenced by the goodnes which appeareth in the act of Obedience Doubting is no internall part or essentiall cause of sin vve sin not because vve doubt but because vvhile vve doubt vve prefer an evil or a lesse good before a good or a greater good So their sin vvas not doubting but they preferred not eating vvhich vvas a bodily losse onely to the evil feared vvhich vvas to be partakers of the Table of Devils and being Apostates from the Israel of God Ans Paul expresly saith doubting is sin and condemneth it ver 23. and requireth ver 5. Let every man be perswaded in his conscience v. 21. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that which he alloweth v. 23. Whatsoever more or lesse in Morall actions is not of Faith is sin 2. Internall perswasion Rom. 14. 14. Is an internall cause of obedience as v. 21. And therefore doubting being a sin that condemneth Rom. 14. 23. must be such a sinfull ingredient as maketh the action sinfull 3. We both sin because we doubt and also because we prefer a lesse good or an evil to a greater good 4. No feared evil though never so evil whether of sin or punishment if it follow not kindly but only by accident and through the corruption of our nature should or can make us do any thing doubtingly or sinfully for then we might do evil that good might come of it No good of obedience can warrant me to sin and disobey God nor should that be called obedience nor is it obedience to men which is disobedience to God 5. It is an untruth that non-eating was only a bodily losse for non-eating Physicall is a bodily losse but Paul urgeth non-eating morall to eschew the fall of one for whom Christ died 6. The Doctor saith Ibidem No power under the Heaven could make a Law over the Romans injoyning such meats because Gods law as they conceive condemned them Now how pleasant are right words I assume we conceive God hath denounced all the plagues written in his Book upon practisers of humane Ceremonies as upon adders to the word of God Rev. 22. 19. Yea Heresies to with that Christ is not the consubstantiall Son of God may seem probable to us shall the good of obedience in believing my Pastor whom God hath set over me hinder me to obey 7. Papists say also that Scripture is perfect in generall allowing that Ceremonies should be when Paul saith Let all things be done in order and decency 1 Cor. 14. But the Scripture giveth no particular warrant for these but onely the Churches determination So Scotus Suarez Bellarmine Vasquez Bannes and Duvallius The Scripture implicitely and generally containeth all the substantials necessary for salvation but not traditions in particular that is the Churches part just as Formalists say order and decency is commanded in the word but Crossing Surplice Humane dayes and such are left to the Prelates Kalender to fill up what his Lordship thinketh good So Hooker c Speech is necessary but it is not necessary that all speak one kinde of Language Government is necessary but the particulars Surplice Crossing c. Are left to the Church 2. What is negatively Lawfull here cannot be admitted If Rulers may Command one thing that is negatively Lawfull they may Command all things because what they Command under this formall reason as not against Scripture they should not adde nor devise new worship though they Command all of that kinde But the latter is absurd for so they might Command in Gods worship 1. The actions of sole imagination the lifting of a straw and all idle actions that cannot edifie 2. They might Command a new Ark to represent Christ incarnat as the Jews Ark did represent him to be incarnat a new Passeover to represent the Lambe already slain and all the materials of the Ceremoniall Law with reference to Christ already incarnat dead and risen again For all these are by Formalists Learning negatively Lawfull Shew us a Scripture where they are forbidden more then Surplice Crossing except because they be not Commanded If it be said They do not Command things negatively Lawfull as such but as they edifie and teach Well then 1. As they edifie and teach they are positively good and apt to edifie and so must be proved by the Word as Commanded and so not negatively Lawfull and not as beside but as Commanded in the Word 2. Yet it will follow that all these may be used in Faith that is out of a sure perswasion that they are not contrary to Gods Word and so Lawfull I might dance in a new linnen Ephod before a new Iewish Ark representing Christ already incarnat and that in the negative Faith of Mr. Sanderson Hooker and Jackson for this Ark is not against Scripture yet this Ark is not Commanded and so not forbidden 3. Idle actions that have no use or end might be Lawfully Commanded by this because they are not forbidden yet are such unlawfull Quia carent justâ necessitate et utilitate as Gregorius saith I prove the connexion because an action Morall such as to Sign with the Crosse performed by a Subject of Christs visible Kingdom for Gods glory and edification of the Church which yet is neither Commanded nor forbidden by God nor Commanded by natures light for none but those that are beside reason will say this nor light of Gods word or the habit of Religion hath no more reason then the making or forming a Syllogisme in Barbara which of it self cometh only from Art and as such hath no Morall use and by as good reason may the Church Command dancing before a new devised Ark yea such an action involveth a contradiction and is Morall and not Morall for of its own nature it tendeth to no edification for then it might be proved by good reason to be edificative and an action cannot be edificative from the will of men for Gods will not mens will giveth being to things 4. What is beside Scripture as a thing not repugnant thereunto wanteth that by which every thing is essentially Lawfull Ergo It is not Lawfull The Consequence is sure I prove the Antecedent Gods Commanding will doth essentially constitute a thing Lawfull Gods Commanding will only maketh eating and drinking bread and wine in the Lords Supper Lawfull and the Lords forbidding will should make it unlawfull and Gods forbidding to eat of the Fruit of the Tree of knowledge of good and evil maketh the non-eating obedience and the eating disobedience As the killing of Isaac by Abraham is Lawfull and that because God Commandeth it and the not killing of him again is Lawfull when God forbiddeth it But things negatively Lawfull and beside the word of God wanteth Gods Commanding will for God Commandeth not the materials of Jewish Ceremonies to represent Christ already come and such like for if he should Command them they
because what it teacheth is a lie for what it teacheth is Scripture Isa 52. 11. That these who beareth the Vessels of the Lord that is Pastors should be holy but it is a Doctrine of lies because it representeth Pastorall holinesse by humane institution without all warrant of the Word of God And when Paul calleth holidayes Elements Gal. 4. 6. He meaneth that they spell to us and teach us some truth as Estius saith That holidayes do teach us Articles of Faith To which meaning Paludanus Cajetan Vasquez say God may well be painted in such expressions as Scripture putteth on God as in the likenesse of a Dove as a man with hands eyes ears feet all which are given to God in Scripture 4. It is essentiall to the Word to set down the means of Gods worship which is the very scope of the second Commandment and therefore the Iews washings and Traditions are condemned because they be Doctrines of men appointed by men to be means of the fear or worship of God as Math. 15. 9. Mar. 7. 8. Isa 29. 13. Hence we owe subjection of Conscience to Ceremonies as to lawfull means of Worship 1. Stirring up our dull senses And 2. as lawfull signes representing in a Sacramentall signification holy things 3. As teaching signes 4. As means of Gods fear and worship Whereas God as Ainsworth observeth well in the second Commandment forbiddeth all images and representations 2. All shapes Exod. 20. 4. Temniah 3. Forms of figures Tabuith Deut. 4. 16. 5. Any type of shadow Tselem Ezek. 7. 20. 16 17. 6. Any pictured shape Maskith Levit. 26. 1. Any Statue Monument Pillar Mattesebah any Graven or Molten Portraict Hos 13. 2. 5. We are obliged to obey the Word Exod. 20. 7. Prov. 3. 20 21. Prov. 8. 13. Ier. 6. 16. Ier. 5. 7. 2. We owe to the Word belief Luk. 1. 20. Love Psal 119. 49. 81. Hope 3. And are to expect a reward therefore Psal 19. 11. Rev. 2. 7. 10. 27 28. Gal. 4. 11. Rom. 6. 23. Coloss 2. 18. Hebrew 11. 25. Psal 34. 9. Psalme 58. 11. Then if Decency be commanded and order in the third Commandment Ergo this and that orderly mean of Worship as Surplice But can we say I hope in the Surplice O how love I crossing and Capping can we believe in Ceremonies as means of Gods worship 6. The word is Gods mean to work supernaturall effects to convert the soul Psal 19. 7. To work Faith John 20. 3. To edifie Act. 20. 32. To save Rom. 1. 16. The obedience to Gods word bringeth Peace Psal 119. 165. Comfort v. 50. Gen. 49. 18. Isa 38. 3. But Ceremonies being apt to stir up the dull minde must be apt to remove Naturall dulnesse which is a supernaturall effect and so to bring Peace joy comfort Organs are now holden by the same right that they were in Moses-Law then they must stir up supernaturall joy There must be peace and comfort in practising them Hear how this soundeth This is my comfort O Lord in my affliction that thy Surplice Organs and holy-dayes have quickened my dull heart Now what comfort except comfort in the Scriptures Rom. 15. 4. Ceremonies be innocent of all Scriptures What joy a proper fruit of the Kingdom of heaven Rom. 14. 17. can be in saplesse Ceremonies yea observe 1. Who truly converred from Popery who inwardly humbled in soul doth not abhor Ceremonies by the instinct of the new birth 2. What slave of hell and prophane person call not for Ceremonies 3. Who hath peace in dying that Ceremonies were their joy 7. All Lawfull Ordinances may by prayer be recommended to God for a blessed successe as all the means of salvation Psal 119. 18. Matth. 26. 26. Act. 4. 29 30. 2. We may thank God for a blessed successe which they have by the working of the spirit of Grace 2 Cor. 2. 24. 1 Cor. 1. 4 5. 2 Thes 1. 2 3. Ephes 1. 3. 3. We are to have heat of zeal against prophaning of word Sacraments Prayer or other Ordinances of God But what faith in praying Lord work with Crossing Capping Surplice For where the word is not nor any promise there be no Faith Rom. 10. 14. What praising can there be for Ceremonies working upon the soul What zeal except void of knowledge and light of the word and so but wilde-fire Gal. 4. 17 18. Phil. 3. 6. 2 Sam. 21. 2. can there be though the Surplice be imployed to cleanse Cups and Crossing be scorned If the subject be nothing the accidents be lesse if Surplice be not commanded nor forbidden the reverent or irreverent usage thereof cannot be forbidden nor commanded true zeal is incensed only at sin and kindled toward Gods warranted service 8. I take it to be Gods appointment that the Spirit worketh by a supernaturall operation with his own Ordinances in the regenerated but we desire to know how the Spirit worketh with Ceremonies Formalists are forced by these grounds to maintain the Lawfulnesse of Images So 1. They be not adored 2. If they be reputed as indifferent memorative Objects and books to help the memory But 1. It shall be proved that at first Papists did give no adoration to Images nor doth Durandus Hulcot Pic. Mirandula acknowledge any adoration due to them but proper to God before the Images as objects 2. We may liken God and Christ to a stock so we count it indifferent to make or not to make such an image yet likening him to any thing is forbidden Isa 40. 18. Also we esteem it Idolatry interpretative to take Gods place in his word and to make any thing to be a mean of grace except Gods own Ordinances Against all these Formalists have diverse exceptions As 1. Our Ceremonies say they do not respect the honour of God immediatly and in themselves but by accident and as parts of Divine worship by reduction as it containeth all the adjuncts of worship Ans Such Logick was never heard of 1. If he mean a Surplice in the materials to wit Linnen and Crossing Physically considered as separated from their signification do not tend immediatly to the honour of God but as an adjunct he speaketh non-sense for so Bread Wine eating drinking Water in Baptisme do not immediatly respect the honour of God but only as they have a Morall consideration and stand under Divine institution But yet so the materiall of worship is not the adjunct thereof but the matter as the body of a living man is not one adjunct of a man If he mean that Ceremonies in a Morall not in a Physicall consideration do not immediatly respect the honour of God but reductively and by accident Let him show us if the Surplice doth not as immediatly and without the intervening mediation of any other thing signifie and stir up our mindes to the remembrance of Pastorall holinesse as eating all of one bread doth immediatly stir up our mindes to the remembrance of our Communion of love that
these Traditions by an Argument taken from the want of a lawfull Author while he calleth them Precepts of men opposed to the Commandments of God and while he saith v. 13. That every plant not rooted by his heavenly Father shall be rooted out Yea and Christ expresly proveth their worship vain because they taught the fear and worship of God by the precepts of men and not by the word of God and Ceremonies are the precepts of men 3. Mar. 7. 10 11 12. He alledgeth their corrupt and false exposition of the fifth Commandment in saying It is a gift whereby Parents may benefit which Children offer to God though they help not their Parents in their poverty necessity so you free them from obedience to the fifth Commandment of God by setting up your false glosse saith Christ which is a human tradition Then to Christ this is a good argument your corrupting of the fift Cōmandment with your false glosses is a rejecting of Gods 5. Commandment why because it is a doctrine of men and one of the Pharisees Traditions For whether they placed operative sanctity in preferring mens Commandment to Gods or not none can deny but Christ reasoneth against these evils because they were mens Traditions otherway Formalists shall be forced to say that if the Pharisees have esteemed them Arbitrary and of no operative sanctity mens Commandments had not been vain worship Christs Argument from Isa 29. should prove nothing for false glosses and corrupting the fifth Commandment is not vain worship because it is a doctrine of men for Doctrines of men as only coming from men and esteemed Arbitrary are not vain saith Formalists yea except they be contrary in the matter to Gods Law and proffered or equalized in the opinion of sanctity to Gods Law they are not a whit vain because they come from men or are doctrines of men 4. Christ defendeth his Disciples practice in abstaining from externall not-washing Ergo he esteemed the externall washing unlawfull But if the Disciples abstinence was because of the impiety of washing and the opinion of sanctity put upon washing otherwayes Lawfull he should have defended his Disciples in a thing unlawfull for to disobey the Elders and Church-guides who sate in Moses's chair and were to he obeyed Matth. 23. 2 3. in an externall indifferent act of washing not contrary to the washings commanded in Moses Law and so negatively conforme to Gods Law is Lawfull as Formalists and Papists both teach but Christ defended his Disciples in their non-obedience externall for they were not challenged for denying the opinion of operative holinesse to these Ceremonies Christ who commanded obedience to sitters in Moses his chair in all things Lawfull would have obeyed himself and cleared his Disciples in so far as they ought to obey or not to obey 5. Vasquez sayes These Traditions were unlawfull because they were invented Sola voluntate hominum absque ratione by the sole will of men without reason But so are Popish Ceremonies for if they can be proved by the word of God and the light of nature they are essentiall parts of Gods word and not accidentall nor left to the Churches will 2. It is good then the Iesuit confesseth the Church from sole will and so the Pope and Prelat can make no Laws but either Scripture or natures light must warrant them and sole will cannot rule them 3. They had as good reason in generall from Moses his writings and the Law-washings as Pope and Prelats have for their Traditions But saith Vasquez Christ complaineth of these traditions because they held them to be Summam Religionis the marrow of Religion and took no care of Gods Law Ans That will no more prove them to be vain worship and that the Disciples were to be justified in their non-conformity to these Church washings then that Gods Disciples and sound believers under the Old Testament should abstain from keeping Gods Sabbaths his new-Moons and from offering Sacrifices because the people placed all holinesse in these of old and neglected works of mercy and justice Isa 1. 11 c. Jer. 7. 4 5 6. But say Formalists Christ condemneth them because the Pharisees thought eating with unwashen hands defiled the conscience and meat defiled the soul when the eaters did not wash as the elders commanded Whereas Christ saith It is not that which goeth in at the mouth which defileth the man but the wickednesse that cometh out at the heart Ans It is true and I think Pharisees believed meat eaten contrary to the Elders Traditions defiled the conscience as is clear Mat. 15. 16 17 18. And that also Christ condemneth as a Doctrine of men and of ignorant men and so doth non-conformity to your Ceremonies pollute the conscience as a breach of the fifth and second Command as you say QUEST IV. Whether humane Ceremonies can consist with Order Decency and the sincerity of our profession of true Religion CEremonies fight with Order and Decency 1. These Rites pretended by Gods command to adde order and decency to Gods worship and yet deface his worship and addeth none thereunto be unlawfull But humane Ceremonies be such Ergo That they pretend Order is proved D. Burges saith They have no place in all the New-Testament save only 1 Cor. 14. 26. Let all things be done in order and decency a place as a Estius citeth Magnified by Papists for all their Ceremonies The Major is undeniable I prove the Assumption 1. Because Magick-like Rites honoured with Gods name as Christian-Masse Christs-Masse an Adored Tree called Gods board when there is no use for a Table a Crossing honoured with dedication to Christs service is like Gods name used by sorcerers in Charming Spelling Divining where vertue is ascribed to signes characters and words which have no such vertue from God or nature and this Valentia justly calleth Superstition So the Iews called the Calfe Jehovah Papists call a creature of their making Agnus Dei a stile due to Christ only Joh. 1. 29. 2. All creatures are means of glorifying God Rev. 4. 11. Prov. 16. 4. Rom. 11. 36. And may be invited to praise God as Psal 148. Now it were strange bleating to say O Crossing Surplice Praise ye the Lord when things ordained by mans sole will and so idle and sinfull are made means to glorifie God with as good reason dancing in the Church and blowing feathers in the Aire which have by nature or reason no aptitude for these ends may be decent means of glorifying God 2. Order and decency supernaturall in the Church is in the Word Cant. 6. 4. Clear as the Sun terrible as an Army with Banners Nothing wanting Gods institution can reach a supernaturall end as our Ceremonies are 2. But also Ceremonies relatively sacred in Religious state must be more then civilly decent as also right order produceth supernaturall joy Gal. 2. 5. Civill order cannot do this Or 3. Ceremonies adde naturall order but this is not in colour
as God that they intended to worship not the work of mens hands as such Papists believe that the Image is not God and yet give the highest worship that is to them 4. Bellarmine saith with us when he saith They saw a Calf in Aegypt and Adored it they believed Jehovah himself to be a Calf therefore they made the image of a Calf and Dedicated it to Jehovah But I Answer That Image so Dedicated they worshipped as Iehovah and called the very materiall Calf Iehovah and Dedicated it to the Honour of Iehovah therefore they believed the Lord Iehovah and the Calf Dedicated to his Honour which Calf also they worshipped to be two divers things as the Image and the thing signified are Relata and opposite Ergo they believed not that that Image which Aaron had made was Iehovah essentially therefore in setting up that Image they worshipped it not as a creature All the Prophets saith he proveth that the Idols are not gods because they speak not they neither see nor hear Isa 46. Psal 113. But say some Papists there was no question if they did see and hear by way of naked representation because they represented gods and men in shape who see and hear Ans first If all granted they were living things which did hear and see by representation the Prophets did well to prove they should not be trusted in nor feared as Images nor should that Godhead within them inclosed be feared because it cannot speak with the mouth nor see nor hear nor walk with their eyes eares and feet and so it was a vain thing to make it a representation of God who by serving these dead things did help them But the Prophets strongly prove these Images and the supposed Godheads in them were dumbe deafe blinde and dead and therefore neither sign nor supposed deity represented by the sign was to be Adored Also Isa 40. 18. To whom then will ye liken God Or what likenesse will ye compare unto him 19. The Workman melteth a graven Image and the Goldsmith spreadeth it over with gold c. Isa 46. 5 6. To whom will ye liken me and make me equall and compare me that we may be alike 9. I am God and there is none else I am God and there is none like me Then it is more then clear that they made a likenesse a comparison and a similitude betwixt the golden Image and Iehovah Ergo they believed not that the Image was essentially God for every thing like to another must be divers from that to which it is like they being relatives and opposites the one cannot be essentially the other and he proveth they are not God by representation Isa 46. They cannot move out of their places except they be born upon Asses or mens shoulders And this is the Holy Ghosts Argument I am God Ergo there is none like me by representation to be worshipped All assimilation or comparative likenesse made by man betwixt Iehovah and God is an Idolatrous assimilation yea the Lords Argument Isa 46. is this every thing made like unto me before which ye fall down to worship as a memorative Image of me must be a living thing at least that can move out of his place and answer your cry when ye pray and save you out of trouble ver 7. Isa 46. And yet it is but a likenesse of God ver 6. Now I Assume but the Papists Image and the Formalists Sacramentall elements before which they Religiously kneel cannot move out of their place nor answer the Prayers of those who bow to them nor save them out of trouble Ergo they cannot be Adored as Images with Religious bowing nor can they say the Images or Sacramentall elements can teach and represent God I Answer So did the Iewish Images represent God and yet God convinceth them of Idolatry Isa 40. 18. Isa 46. 6 7. Ier. 10. They were but Doctrines of Vanity and Lyes and Hab. 2 19. Woe be to him who saith to the Wood Awake and to the dumbe stone Arise it shall teach And though the Sacramentall elements be lawfull teaching and representing signes as being the Ordinances of Christ Jesus yet the office of teaching cannot elevate and extoll them to the state of Religious worship because though the elements be lawfull Images and in this they differ from Iewish and Popish Images yet that which is Adored must be such as can hear Prayers Isa 46. 7. though it be the Image of God But the Sacramentall elements are not such as can hear Prayer c. Also that the Adoring of Images is not forbidden by a Ceremoniall Law only is clear 1. By Gods Argument Isa 40. 18. To whom will ye liken me That is no created thing can represent God which is of mans devising for the elements of Gods institution do represent Christ and Isa 46. 9. I am God and there is none beside me Ergo no invention of man can represent me This Argument is taken from Gods nature and therefore is of perpetuall verity 2. The Apostle Paul in the New-Testament repeateth this same Argument Act. 17. to the heathen Athenians who were tyed by no Ceremoniall Law of God ver 29. We ought not to think that the God-head is like unto Gold You see these people are challenged of Idolatry who did but erect an Altar to the golden likenesse and Image of God and yet they did not worship that golden Image as such but they worshipped in and by the Image v. 23 24. The God preached by Paul who made the world Hear what Suarez Bellarmine and Papists say It is not Lawfull to represent God by a proper and formall similitude which representeth his essence but it is Lawfull to represent him by Images Analogically signifying such a forme or shape in the which he appeared in Scripture according to these metaphors and mysticall significations that are given to him in Gods word Ans 1. Why should not unwritten Traditions which to Papists are Gods word expresse to us Gods nature in Images no lesse then the written word 2. The Heathen did represent God by the Image of a man with eyes nose tongue ears head hands feet heart understanding all which are given to God in Scripture yet were they Idolaters in so doing because God saith Isa 46. 9. I am God and there is none like to me 3. If we may portraict God according to all metaphors given unto him in Scripture then ye may Portraict him in the shape of a Lyon a Leopard a Bear a Man full of wine a Theef stealing in the night an unjust Iudge a Gyant a man of War on horse-back c. All which were folly and we might worship a Lyon a Bear an unjust Iudge a theef stealing in the night a man mad with the spirit of jealousie 4. The Essence and specifick nature of nothing in Heaven and earth can be portraicted or painted no more then Gods essence all painted things are but such and such things
Barnabas Angels and Cornelius forbade men to worship them 9. It is a shame to adore a beast endowed with sense and life farre more to adore a dumbe and livelesse creature August ps 113. Chrysostome is against Images 1. Because the Law of God forbiddeth them 2. God must be honoured as he willeth himselfe 3. It is a depressing of soules to worship Images It commeth from Satan to take Gods glory from him it is mockerie that man should be the creator of God the Creator of all things Cyrillus Alexandrin who lived An. 415. saith We neither beleeve the martyrs to be gods nor doe we adore them Damascen a superstitious man much for Images acknowledgeth two things 1. That Images are but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unwritten traditions 2. He ackowledgeth that the brazen Serpent the Cherubims were made for signification not for imitation or adoration i Gregorius Magnus though he be alledged by Papists for adoration of Images Yet in his Epistle to Serenus Bishop of Massilia An. 600. he forbiddeth the adoration of Images and alloweth onely the Historicall use of them as is observed by Fran. White by Hospinian and Catol testum veritatis and this man being the first who brought Images into the Church hath this Caveat atque indica saith he to Sirenus quod non tibi ipsa visio historiae quae pictura teste pandebatur displicueri◠sed illa adoratio quae picturis fuerit in competenter exhibita si quis imagines facere voluerit minimè prohibe adorare vero imagines omnibus modis divita sed hoc solicitè admoneas ut ex visione rei gestae ardorem conjunctionis percipiant in adoratione solius Trinitatis prosternantur It is cleare that this man teacheth an adoration of Images though he make them onely bookes to the rude This same Gregorius will have the signe of the crosse adored because when the Devill came to a Iew sleeping in the night in the Temple of an Idoll the Iew being afraid signed himselfe with the Crosse and the Divell fled but when doth Iewes come in any Christian Churches or Idoll-Temples who abhorre the name of Christ and so hate both the Crosse and Christ and what can be proved from a fact of Sathan In the eighth age Beda Imaginum cultus adoratio the worshipping and adoring of Images is unlawfull 1. Because they have no office in the doctrine of the Gospell 2. We are forbidden to adore salute or worship them 3. The d Church is not taught to seeke the Lord by Images but by faith and good workes 4. The Apostolique Church did not worship God in Images 5. Images want documento antiquitatis antiquity example and the Scripture 6. We frustrate God of worship due to him 7. Peter Paul Angels forbad to worship them but God only We forbid the Church saith the civill Law to be obscured with Images Have the Image of God saith Ephrem in thy heart non colorum varietate in ligno not in Images and colours Who can make saith Damascen a representation of the invisible God Gretserus saith the Iewes would not admit of Ensignes and Trophies of the Romans for fear Images should be hidden under them So said Josephus before him Their own men say with us Hulcot who lived an 1346. saith Latreia divine worship belongeth to God onely the Image is not God neither the Crosse saith Ioan. Pic. Mirandula Concl. 3. nor the Image of Christ is to be adored adoratione Latreia eo modo quo ponit Thomas with divine worship the guise of Thomas Aquinas Peresius Ajala a Popish Bishop for adoration of Images saith he there is neither Scripture nor Church tradition nor consent of Fathers nor good reason to make it good For saith Gabriel Biel The image either considered in it self as it is mettall or stone or as it is a holy signe is a sensible Creature to which Latreia Divine honour should not be given and the Romish Decrees saith We commend you that you forbid images of Saints to be Worshipped The Doway Doctors say Idols have eyes and cannot see c. Now if they have Images of God and Christ which can see and hear and speak we exceedingly desire to know Alexander Allensis Durandus say That images in themselves and properly are not to be Worshipped Geo Cassander wisheth That they had continued in majorum suorum sententia in the minde of their forefathers and that the Superstition of people in Worshipping images had been suppressed The Councell convened by Constantius Capronimus condemneth Worshipping of Images or placing them in Churches 1. Because it is forbidden in the second Commandment 2. The Picturing of Christ is a dividing of the two Natures 3. It is against the Ancients Epiphanius Nazianzen Chrysostome Athanasius Amphylocius Theodorus Eusebius Pamphili The Councell of Nice is builded upon lies Adrian Bishiop of Rome writeth to the Councell of Nice That the Emperour Constantine being a Leaper and labouring to cure his Leprosie by shedding of innocent Babes blood Peter and Paul appeared to him by night in a Vision and bade him go to be Baptized by Sylvester and that he to be cured by Sylvesters Baptizing builded a Temple with the Images of Peter and Paul This is as true as the Image of Christ spake to Tho Aquinas at Naples Bene Scripsistti de me Thoma Why is not all Evangell that Aquinas hath written then For their own Platina saith The story of Constantines Leprosie is a fable and Socrates saith That Constantine was sick when he was 65. years and he maketh no mention of his leprosie so Hospinianus saith and our own Simson saith That Sylvester and Marcus his successor were both dead before Constantine was Baptized Genebradus a Papist saith down right that the Councell of Frankford condemned the second Nicene Councell But Bellarmine Suarez Sanderus ' Alanus deny that the Doctrine of the second Nicene Councell for Adoring images is Condemned by the Councell of Frankford they say it is onely expounded and that the right way of Adoring images is made manifest Yea saith Nauclerus Sabellicus and Blandus The Councell of Frankford reserveth due honour to images and saith nothing against the Councell of Nice But this is to deny daylight at Noon-day For Annonius is most clear in it and Abbot Vspergens the Book of Charles the Great saith the same The Synod of Frankford was convened An. 794. of purpose to condemne the second Synod of Nice called the seventh pretended and false Synod Aventinus saith expresly Scita Grecorum in Synodo Nicena decreta de imaginibus adorandis in concili◠francofurtensi rescissa abolita sunt and Vspergensis saith in this Synod it was decreed Vt septima universalis Synodus nec septima nec
things of God Leviticus 10. 10. The Priests were not to drink wine when they went into the Tabernacle That ye may saith the Lord put difference between holy and unholy and between unclean and clean Now Haggai expresly saith cap. 2. 11 12. That it was the Priests part to put this difference and so to admit to or exclude from the holy things of God Hence for this cause it is said as 2 Chron. 23. 19. Iehoiada appointed the officers of the Lords house so he set porters at the gates of the house of the Lord that none which are unclean in any thing might enter in so Ezra 9. 21 22. None did eat the Passeover but such as were pure and had separated themselves from the filthinesse of the Heathen of the land for this cause doth the Lord complain of the Priests Ezech. 22. 26. Her Priests have violated my law and have polluted my holy things they have put no difference between the holy and the prophane neither have they shewed the difference between the unclean and the clean Ezech. 44. 6. And thou shalt say to the Rebellious even to the house of Israel thus saith the Lord God O ye house of Israel let it suffice you of all your abominations 7. That ye have brought into my sanctuary strangers uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh to be in my sanctuary to pollute it even my house when ye offered my bread the fat and the blood and they have broken my Covenant because of all your abominations 8. And ye have not kept the charge of my holy things But ye have set keepers of my Charge in my Sanctuary for your selves 9. Thus saith the Lord God no stranger uncircumcised in heart nor uncircumcised in flesh shall enter into my sanctuary of any stranger that is among the children of Israel Here is a complaint that those that have the charge of the holy things should suffer the holy things to be polluted I grant it cannot bear this sense that none should be admitted to be Members of the Visible Church under the New Testament but such as are conceived to be regenerate except it can be proved that the Sanctuary was a type of the visible Church 2. That the Apostles constituted their Churches thus but we read not in all the New Testament of any admission of Church Members at all but only of baptizing of those who were willing to be baptized and from this resulted the capacity of a Church Relation in all Churches visible Nor 2. Do we finde any shadow in all the word of God of tryall of Church Members by way of electing and choosing of such and such as qualified by reason of a conceived regeneration in the persons chosen or of rejecting and refusing others as conceived to have no inward work of grace in them this I believe can never be made good out of the word of God 3. They must prove the Apostles admitted into the Sanctuary of the Visible Church Ananias Saphira Simon Magus and others uncircumcised in heart to pollute the holy things of God and that the Apostles erred and were deceived in the moulding of the first Apostolick Church in the world which was to be a rule and pattern to all Churches in the New Testament to all Ages I deny not but they might have erred according to the grounds of these who urge the comparison for a Church of visible Saints but that the Apostles De facto did erre in their Election and judgement in that wherein the holy Ghost holdeth them forth and their acts to be our rule and pattern I utterly deny I grant Act. 15. In that Synod they did Act as men and Elders not as Apostles but that it could fall out that they should uctually erre and obtrude false Doctrine instead of truth to the Churches in that Synod which is the first rule and pattern of Synods I shall not believe But there is this Morall and perpetuall truth in these Scriptures 1. That there are under the New Testament some over the people of God in the Lord some that watch for their souls and govern them as here there were Priests Levites that taught and governed the people 2. That the Rulers of the Churches alwayes are to have the charge of the holy things and to see that these holy things the Seals and Sacraments and word of promise be not polluted and that therefore they have power given them to debar such and such profane from the Seals and so are to discern between the clean and the unclean and this which the Prophet speaketh ver 9. is a prophecie never fulfilled after this in the persons of the people of God therefore it must have its spirituall truth fulfilled under the New Testament as is clear ver 11. Yet the Levites that are gone away far from me shall be Ministers in my Sanctuarie having charge at the gates of the House and Ministering to the House 14. And I will make them keepers of the charge of the House for all the service thereof and for all that shall be done therein Ver. 15. And the Priests and the Levites the sons of Zadok that kept the charge of my Sanctuary when the children of Israel went astray from me they shall enter into my Sanctuary and they shall come neer to my Table to minister unto me and to keep my charge 23. And they shall teach my people the difference betweene the holy and prophane and cause men to discerne between the uncleane and the cleane 24. And in controversie they shall stand in judgement and they shall judge it according to my judgement and they shall keepe my Lawes and my Statutes in all mine assemblies and they shall hallow my Sabbaths Now this Temple was another house then Solomons Temple as is evident out of the Text it having roomes dimensions structures so different that none can imagine them one house and these chapters containe the division of the Holy Land which after the captivity was never done for the ten Tribes never returned and this Temple is clearely a type of the new Ierusalem and agreeth to that City spoken of Revelation chapters 21. and 22. As may appeare especially by the foure last chapters of Ezekiel and in the last words of the last chapter And the name of the city from that day shall be The Lord is there And the Priests after the captivity as well as before brake the covenant of Levi Mal. 2. And therefore I see it not fulfilled except in the visible Church of the New Testament and in the Assemblies of Christian Churches Mat. 18. Act. 15. and the rest of the Church-assemblies under the New Testament As for the Lords personall raigne on earth it is acknowledged there shall be no Church policy in it no Word Sacraments Ordinances no Temple as they say from Rev. 21. 22. And with correction and submission the Priests and Levites that Ezek. 44. 15. are said to keep the charge of the Lords
a word of God for their warrant commanding them to pray O Lord give power to Paul to kill such an incestuous man miraculously For such Faith of miracles had Christ and all the Prophets and Apostles Joh. 11. 41. So did Sampson pray in faith Judg. 16. 28. and Elias 1 Kings 18. 36 37 38. and so did the Apostles pray Act. 4. 24 29 30. and with them the Church of believers for working of miracles in generall for the Apostles had a word of promise in the generall for working of miracles Mar. 16. 17 18. But that the Apostles had before hand revealed to them all the miracles they were to work I cannot believe by any Scripture But that it was revealed to them upon occasion only by an occasionall immediate Revelation Do this particular miracle Hic nunc And this I am confirmed to believe Because Elisha 2 Kin. 4. was mistaken in sending his servant with his staffe to raise the dead son of the Shunamite a Pastor with nothing but a club and naked words cannot give life to the dead ver 31. and therefore the working of a miracle in particular Hic nunc was not alwayes revealed to the most eminent Prophets such as Elisha was and so I beleeve as working of miracles on this and this man came not from an habit in the Prophets and Apostles far lesse from a habit subject to their free will but God reserved that liberty to himself to act his servants immediatly both to pray by the faith of this miracle Hic nunc and to work this miracle Hic nunc Now to the Assumption How can Erastus or any of his followers assure our conscience that God had given the Faith of miracles to all the sanctified in Christ Jesus at Corinth whom Paul so sharply rebuketh 1 Cor. 5. 1 2 3 4 5. That this being revealed to them by God and they having the faith that it was the will of Iesus Christ that Paul should kill or as some say deliver to Satan this incestuous man to be miracuously tormented in the body or flesh as Iob was that he might repent is it like Christ would reveal more of his will touching every particular miracle to be done by Paul to all and every secure one in the Church of Corinth that were puffed up and mourned not for this mans fall then he revealed to the Apostles themselves But I have proved that the Apostles and Prophets knew not nor had they the particular Faith of this and this miracle how then had all and every one of the Church of Corinth this Faith Now they behoved to have this light of Faith of this miracle revealed to them that this was Christs will that Paul should work a miracle for the destruction of the man else the Corinthians could no more be justly rebuked because they prayed not to God that Paul might work this miraculous destruction of the man which yet he never wrought as its clear 2. Cor. 2. he was not killed but repented and was pardoned then because they prayed not that he miraculously might cure the criple man at Lystra Act. 14. or that he might work any other miracle Now how was this revealed to all of the Church of Corinth that this was Christs will If it be said they were to pray conditionally that God would either by a miracle take him away or then in mercy give him repentance to prevent destruction 1. We have no surer ground for a conditionall and dis-junctive Faith of miracles in the Corinthians then for an absolute Faith 2. If it was the will of Christ that the man should by himself be miraculously killed why did not the Apostle immediatly by himself kill him Why It was the Apostles fault as well as the sin of the Corinthians that the man remained as a leaven to sowre and infect the Church yea it was more the Apostles fault then theirs for he had only the immediate power miraculously to purge the Church some may say as the Lord Iesus was hindred some time to work miracles because of the peoples unbelief Matth. 13. 58. So here Paul was hindred to work this miracle on the scandalous man because of their unbeliefe Ans Paul could not professe this for he had not assayed to work any miracle of this kinde as Christ had done Matth. 13. But only sheweth them of a report came to him of the fact and of their security and not mourning 2. Paul should then rather have rebuked their unbelief and not praying that God would miraculously destroy the man but this Paul doth not 3. Paul rebuketh them for not judging him not putting him out of the midst of them Must that be Pauls meaning pray to God that I may have grace and strength immediatly from God to kill him miraculously and to judge him Now they knew the Apostle miraculously thus judged those that are without as he stroke with blindnesse Elymas who was without the visible Church I conceive the whole Churches were to pray as the Apostles do with the Saints Act. 4. 29. 30. That miracles may be wrought both on those that are without and within But of this judging he saith ver 12. What have I to do to judge them also that are without Do not ye judge them that are within 4. It is directly contrary to Christs direction Matth. 18. Which is that by rebukes we gaine the offending brothers soul Now Erastus will have him gained to Christ by removing his soule from his body and by killing him Yea the Apostle writing of the censuring of those in Thessalonica who walked unorderly and obeyed not the Apostles Word which doth include such as breake out in Incest Adulteries Murthers is so farre from giving direction to kill them miraculously that he biddeth onely keep no Church company nor Christian fellowship with them but yet they are to be admonished as brethren Ergo they were not to be miraculously killed for then they should be capable of no admonition at all being killed And could there be worse men then was amongst the Phillipians Enemies of the crosse of Christ whose end is destruction whose God was their belly Yet there was no blood in the Apostles pen he chides not the Phillipians nor the Galathians who had amongst them men of the same mettall Gal. 5. 7 8 9 10. Ver. 19. 20 21. Nor the Timothies who would have to doe with farre worse men 2 Tim 3. 1 2 3 4 5. Nor Titus who had to doe with wicked Cretians Tit. 1. because they cryed not to God for Pauls bloodie sword of vengeance that these wicked men might be cut off by Satan nor doth the Apostle to the Hebrewes draw this Sword against those who sinned against the Holy Ghost c. 10. c. 6. Nor Iames against bloody warriours Murtherers Adulterers Oppressors c. 4. c. 5. Nor doth Peter and Iude use this sword or command the Churches to use such carnall weapons against the wickedest of men but recommended long-suffering
the Church though amongst the Turkes is in the world but not of the world If he keep the faith and if he do so he shall repent and come home to Christs visible Kingdom but because he keepeth the faith yet he is not a member of a visible Church except he professe it and repent for even the sound in faith if obstinate in Scandals may deserve Excommunication 6. There is nothing said against Excommunication in the two last Reasons but what striketh against Timothy his publike rebuking and threatning wrath against those that sin openly for they may through their owne corruption so farre abuse publike threatnings as they may be led on despaire and hypocrisie Now Erastus as we shall hear granteth those are to be rebuked openly who sin openly 7. We say not to deliver to Satan any man is to deliver him to the World but to cast him out of the Church that consequenter he may be left to the World but that he should sinne and be led away with the World is neither the intrinsecall end of Excommunication or of the Church but an event or end by accident the intrinsecall end is the Salvation of the man Beza saith that Paul speaketh of a spirituall punishment and not of a corporall Erastus saith When Peter killed Ananias corporally was not this corporall punishment When Paul gave some to Satan for the destruction of the flesh and God punisheth our sinnes with temporall death how shall you prove that God and the Apostles punisheth not sinnes with corporall or politicke punishment Ans The instance of Peters killing Ananias is in vain brought in It s but a begging os the question for it is not said Peter delivered Ananias to Satan that his Spirit might be saved Who revealed this secret to Erastus that Peter used the Ministery of Satan in killing Ananias We have as good reason to say Peter delivered Ananias to a good Angell to be killed as Erastus hath for his dreame 2. We deny not but God and the Apostles did punish sinne with corporall punishment but let him show without the bounds of the place in controversie for we must expound Scripture by Scripture where ever the Church conveened together in the Name of the Lord Jesus did judge and miraculously kill any member of the Church that the Spirit may be saved in the day of God Beza said This killing by the people would be ground of a great Calumnie to make many say Christians did usurpe the Sword of the Magistrate and that they were not subject to the Magistrate Erastus We give this power of miraculous killing onely to the Apostles Ans Yea But the calumny standeth so long as Erastus giveth to all the people the faith of Miracles to conveene and pray that Paul might miraculously kill those that offended the Church and its probable when the enemies objected to Christians all they could falsely they would not have omitted this that the very people by their prayers meet in one Church-jury to kill Cesars Subjects Beza said The Christian Magistrate should by this kill all the drunkards fornicators and the like with the Sword Erastus answereth 1. All faults deserve not killing but some other punishment of a lower degree 2. The Lord himselfe appointed that the Magistrate should compell men to doe their duty why then should Beza speake against God and call this a compelling of men to be Hipocrites Ans If other sins as drunkennesse fornication extortion doe infect the Church and be scandalous to the very Gentiles as the Apostle saith of incest 1 Cor. 5. 1. 6 7. Upon the same reason Paul should have rebuked them because they did not from the faith of Miracles pray that Paul might inflict some miraculous judgement by the Ministery of Satan though lesse then death for other sinnes But I pray you Paul had either a warrant from God to kill this man or he had none at all If he had a warrant why did he not that which is the part of a miraculous Magistrate without the prayers of the Corinthians Did Paul chide them because they prayed not to God that he might doe his duty if he had no warrant at all Why should he chide the Corinthians for that they prayed not that he might doe a duty which was not his duty For that is not Pauls duty for the doing whereof he hath no warrant from God if it was his duty onely conditionally 1. What warrant is there in Scripture to say Paul should have miraculously killed the incestuous person upon condition that the Corinthians had by the faith of Miracles prayed that he might worke that miraculous slaughter which because they did not Paul was either exonered of that as no duty or then Paul chided them because they prayed not to prevene Pauls sinfull neglect 2. How was this revealed to the Corinthians that they should pray that God by Paul as by his Magistrate might revenge this incest and not revenge their fronication coveteousnes extortion Idolatry especially seeing he saith that v. 9. He had written to them in another Epistle not to keâ—p company with such Whence I thinke it evident that Paul in another Epistle had ordained separation of Fornicators Coveteous persons and the like from amongst them and so censures for all scandalous persons And how shal we believe he would not teach them to cast out incestuous persons that are far more scandalous And if so he must have written in another Epistle of this miracle that they were to pray he might work Is it not evident by this that Erastus his way is full of Conjectures and groundlesse uncertainties 2. We deny not that the Magistrate may compell men to do their duty nor doth Beza deny that But that the Church hath or had any influence in the blood of an incestuous person and in working of miracles for the bodily destruction of any is most false and cannot be proved by this Text Nor do we think that the Church the weapons of whose warfare are carnall can compell any man by corporall punishment to duties by the Sword for so their Spirituall way which is terminated on the Conscience should lead men to Hypocrisie in profession of the truth for so reasoneth Erastus the Magistrate with the Sword rather punisheth sins committed in Gods Service then forceth to duties The fifth Argument of Beza is vindicated already Erastus We say not that Paul was to deliver the man to Satan that he may be saved but that Paul was to punish this high transgression with the Sword to the terror of others but only he set bounds to Satan that he should only kill his body but not meddle with his soul but because the man repented Paul hoped well of his soul that his soul should be saved in the day of Christ Ans 1. Here Erastus doth more fully reveal the vilenesse of his opinion for he granteth the intrinsecall end of this miraculous killing is not the Salvation of the mans
to the power civil that is of God If the Magistracy be an Ecclesiastical ordinance and a vicegerent power of the mediator as they say it is then to be subject to the Magistrate is to be subject to this Church power and to be subject to the Church 2. The punishing power of the Magistrate as such doth not bind and loose on Earth and open and shut Heaven for then hoc ipso because the Magistrate doth judge and punish evil doers the mans sin should be bound in Heaven now so the judging and punishing power should take hold of the conscience But it is certain the Magistrate as judge may take away the life of a Capital Delinquent when he knoweth the man repenteth and believeth and findeth mercy with God Ergo this magistratical power is not Ecclesiastical for if the man to the knowledge of all repent the Church hath no power to bind his sin on Earth nor will God bind his sin in Heaven but yet the Magistrate as a Magistrate is to punish Ergo this punishing power is no Ecelesiastical power nor any part of Church-government 3. The punitive power of the Magistrate hath influence on men as ill-doers whether they be within the Church or without the Church and worketh on men as Members of the Common wealth whether Christians or Heathens Indians or Americans But no punitive power of the Church is or can be extended to those that are without the Church but Pastors and the Church leaveth them to be judged of God 1 Cor. 5. 12. nor can they be cast out of the visible Church who were never within it 4. The punitive power of the Church as such floweth from Christ as Mediator Head and King of the Church because Christ as Head and Mediator hath appointed a shepheards staffe discipline or rebukes Church-censures and Excommunication for his sheep his redeemed ones family and people for whom he is Mediator his Scepter and Rod must be congruously and sutably proportioned to his Crown and spiritual Royal power But the punitive power of Magistrates floweth from God the Creator as the whole world is the family of God so for the preservation of humane society the Lord hath been pleased to appoint Magistrates and the punitive power of them by the sword to correct ill-doers for the peace good and safety of humane societies 5. All punitive Church-power is for edification 2 Cor. 10. 8. That the mans spirit may be savdd in the day of the Lord 1 Cor. 5. 5. that the party may be gained by private and publike Church rebukes Mat. 18. 15. If he hear thee thou hast gained thy Brother v. 18. If he neglect to hear the Church let him be to thee as an Heathen c. Ergo if he hear the Church his soul is gained 2 Thess 3. 14 15. 1 Tim. 1. 19. but the intrinsecal end of punishing an evil doer is not the gaining of his soul but a political civil satisfaction of justice for a wrong done to humane society that others may fear and do so no more the Magistrate in using his sword as a Magistrate looketh not to this as the intrinsecall end of the sword to convert a soul to augment the number of the subjects of Christs mediatory Kingdom nor doth he as a Magistrate proportion the measure of the stroke of the sword according to the repentance aud godly sorrow of the man who hath sinned but in justice his eye is not to pity or spare the blasphemer though as dear to him as a father and friend Deut. 13. 6 8 9. 10. Deut. 33. 9. whether he repent or not repent but the Church censure respecting intrinsecally the gaining of the soul is proportioned to the offenders sorrow for his sin that he be not swallowed with over much sorrow 2 Cor. 2. 7 8 9 10. 6. This punitive part of Church Government is neither in name nor in thing in Scripture Triglandius denieth that there is any Ecclesiastical co-active or compulsive power properly so called in the Church there is no violence used by Christ as King of his Church this shepheard carrieth the Lambs in his bosome Isai 40. 11. Hyeronimus said well The King or Magistrate ruleth over men that are unwilling he meaneth in punishing them but the Pastor doth it to men that are willing And renowned Salmasius citing this addeth that of the Apostle Peter to the Elders Feed the flock 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is not pena a proper punishment that the Church doth inflict nor doth the Scripture speak so nor is the thing it self punishment or any punitive power here indeed all co-active power of the Magistrate as the Magistrate and all punishment issuing from it is against the will of the punished and is inflicted with the dominion of the sword we know how the Adversarie side here with Papists who make all Church censures to be pennances inflicted upon penitents against their will Therefore saith Salmasius Of old censures were so voluntary that to deny them was a punishment and they were desired and sought as a Benefit as the ancient Canons of Councels and Canonick Epistles and writings of Fathers bear witnesse and this doth prove if Iesus Christ have a willing people Psal 110. and if rebukes and censures be to the Saints as medicine that will not break the head Psal 141. 5. no medicine is received unwillingly by wise men and no medicine is a punishment then the punitive power of the Magistrate hath no place in the Church as the Church 7. The Magistrate dispenseth no Ecclesiasticall censures as a Magistrate For 1. He rebuketh not as a Magistrate for rebukes as rebukes intrinsecally tend to the gaining of the soul so as to receive rebukes willingly is a Character of a child of God and to hate it a signe of a wicked man Ecclesi 7. 5. Prov. 28. 23. and 6. 23. and 1. 23. c. 13. 18. c. 15. 5. 10. 31. 32. Prov. 5. 12. and 10. 17. and 15. 10. and 9. 8. and 13. 1. so the sword cannot inflict this censure nor can the Magistrate cast out of the Synagogue or Church he can banish which is a locall casting out but not excommunicate if he be said to be an Ecclesiasticall person exercising punitive power in the Church because he judgeth and punisheth sins against the Church 1. This is nothing except he inflict spirituall punishment of rebuking and excommunication which he cannot do because he hath not to do with the conscience or the converting of a sinner 2. If he be a Church-governour because he punisheth sins against the Church but in so far as they disturb the Peace of the State then Pastors may be civil Governours and use the sword which Christ forbiddeth Luk. 22. 26 27. and 12. 13 14. because they inflict spirituall punishment such as publike rebukes on murtherers parricides but in a spirituall way to gain souls to Iesus Christ and they rebuke murthers thefts thought not as committed against the State and Peace of
action either Civil Natural or Supernatural yet marriage is not Morally or Theologically indifferent So as to marry or not marry is a matter of a mans free choice and of his own free will not obnoxious to any binding Law as is kneeling not-kneeling crossing not-crossing in the minde of our Adversaries 1. If it were morally indifferent to marry or not to marry Rulers might make Laws either commanding all to marry or none to marry or some to marry some not to marry which were no small tyranny and the very doctrine of Devils 2. The gift of Continency is to some a commandment of God that they marry not and burning is to some a commandment obliging them in conscience to marry else they sin therefore to marry or not to marry is necessary to all men or then unlawful and so not indifferent as our Divines teach against Papists their Supererogatorie Works The Lords calling of any to suffer for his Truth is instead of a command of God though the man might be saved though he suffer not for the Truth 3. If there be no necessitie in marrying but onely conditional in the manner oâ— marrying then all mankinde without sin might abstain from marrying which it most absurd 4. The place 1 Cor. 7. 39. saith not that a Widow is under no necessitie of marrying but onely under a necessity of well and spiritual marrying For the libertie that the Widow hath there is not that it is indifferent to her to marry or not to marry for since our Adversaries teach That Rulers may make Laws in things indifferent they might then make a Law that no Widows shall marry which were vile tyrannie But the libertie that the Widow hath to marry whom she will is opposed onely to a Law and Obligation Matrimonial that she was under while her Husband did live And the words clearly speaketh onely of thiâ— freedom not of Moral freedom of indifference from all Law of God necessitating her to marry The Wise is bound by the Law as long as her Husband liveth but if her Husband be dead she is at liberty to marry whom she will onely in the Lord. But there are no smal oddes betwixt libertie to marry this or that man because the Husband is dead of which libertie onely the Apostle speaketh and liberty and indifference without all restraint of Gods Law to marry at all or not to marry This latter libertie the Scripture speaketh not of onely the Doctor alleageth it Object Kneeling at the Sacrament howbeit antecedente and immediately it be necessary by Gods Law yet consequently and by the mediation of lawful Authority it is now necessary to us not by necessity of the thing it self but by necessity of obedience order and peace and so according to the practice it is for the time necessary by Gods Law and cannot be omitted without sin So Forbes Answ Necessitie of obeying the Church can make nothing necessary and good for the Church commandeth it because it is necessary and good and it hath not goodnesse necessitie and aptnesse to edifie from mens will and the Churches commandment 2. I ask if no kneeling now in Scotland laying aside the respect of Authority and Law be in it self undecent and unapt to edifie if not then the Church hath no more ground and reason for order and decency in our Ceremonies for what I say of one holdeth true in all then there is for the want of Ceremonies and if that be true the sole will and lust of Authority maketh our Ceremonies lawful What can Romish impudence give more to the Man of sin But if there be unorderlinesse and indecency in our Ceremonies then kneeling now must be sin even laying aside the respect of Humane Laws 3. It is strange Divinity That that which is no sin of it self cannot be omitted without sin for the sole will and pleasure of men Humane Authority then may make it sin not to rub our Beards not to claw our Heads when we come to the Church to hear Gods Word If Humane Authority can make an indifferent Act lawful and the omission of it sinful they may make all the indifferent Acts in the World lawful Acts they might then make piping leaping laughing Acts oâ— Divine Worship and might make a Decalogue of their own And if they may make an indifferent Act to be sin if it be omitted they may by as good reason make sinful Acts as Adulterie Incest Murther Robbery to be lawful Acts For if mans inhibiting will be the formal reason of sin then his commanding will must be the formal reason of obedience And so Rulers might command Murther Robbery Incest Blasphemy Object We may perform an individual act coming from deliberate will and that without sin and we may omit the same without sin Whether we practise these indifferent actions or omit them we should refer both practice and omission to Gods glory and these actions we call indifferent or free as indifferent and free is opposed to that which is morally necessary which are either necessary to be done or necessary to be omitted by necessity of a Divine Law Howbeit every action that is not of Faith be sin Rom. 14. 23. Yet the faith whereby I beleeve this action is necessary and must be done is not necessary to the eschewing of sin But if I do it that I do it in Faith and for Gods glory is necessary but the necessity of the goodnesse of the action doth not make the action necessary for it were to lay a yoak of continual doubting upon mens conscience if they should beleeve every individual act that they do to be necessary for whether should they turn them while they think of doing or not doing these actions that they know to be commanded by no Word of God That a Widow marry in the Lord if she marry is necessary but it is not necessary that she marry but it is indifferent to her to marry or not to marry Doctor Forbes Answ It is a contradiction that an action individual should be indifferent and so neither good nor evil and yet done in Faith and referred to Gods glory For the ground of doing which is Faith and the end which is Gods glory are individual properties necessarily concurring to the individuation of the Action Moral 2. An action individual that is meerly indifferent and so without sin may be performed without sin or omitted without sin cannot be an action of Faith referred to Gods glory For what may be done without sin and may not be done without sin is a will-action and wanteth all necessitie of reason and so is an idle and sinful action but a sinful action may be done in fancy but in Faith it cannot be done it may in the vain intention of the doer be referred to Gods glory In intentione erronea operantis but ex conditione operis according to the nature of the work it serveth not for Gods glory This way to cast stones in the water
according to the places cited by our godly Brethren of the contrary minde except the Churches were first purified in some Ceremonial way as God prescribeth that the spoyle of Midian be purified which our Brethren cannot say except we would make our selves debtors to the whole Law for so the law was Num. 31. and so Paul doth reject Circumcision Gal 5. 3. and if it be said the necessitie of the poore requireth that these Temples be not loosed but imployed for the poore as David in point of necessitie eat the Shew-bread I answer 1. The poore as the case was Rom. 14. might eat Swines flesh and so ruine him for whom Christ died which is absurd for their necessitie might require it But certaine it is Davids necessitie was layd on him by the sixt Commandement as an act of mercie in the point of starving and if any poore Iew were in the like case I conceive it should have been scandalizing to that Jew to eat Swines-flesh before another weake Iew. Providentiall necessitie may make that which is a sinfull scandalizing to bee obedience to the sixt Commandement but the will of Superiours can make no such providentiall change as the D of Aberdeene doe dreame But if the necessitie bee lesse then the Necessitie in point of sterving it could justifie the poore Iewes eating of meats conceived to be against the law of God as the case was Rom. 14. But that the Church or house dedicated to a Saint should have no physicall use in the worship of God to defend us from the injuries of Sunne and Heaven and yet have the same use in common for the poore to dwell in wanteth all shadow of reason for how can it be proven that the same physicall use in the worship is unlawfull and yet out of worship is lawfull except there intervene some Ceremoniall and religious purging of the house by fire or some other way which were Iudaical under the New Testament for the necessity of the poor is not like the necessity of Davids eating of Shew-bread It s certain that the necessity of disusing the creature in a Physical usage in the worship must have a warrant in Scripture as well as the using of the same in the same usage must have the like warrant Object 5. But Bels are more hurtful to the souls of Gods people who are scandalized by them then they are useful for the tymous and seasonable convening of the people and therefore they may well be abolished being lesse necessary and necessary onely ad melius esse for the better ordering of the Worship of God and not simply necessary for the being of the Worship Now as the Lord our God will have a lesser necessity to yeeld to any greater a bodily necessity to give place to a soul-necessity the soul being more excellent then the body as is clear in that God would have his people to dispence with the lesser losse of the spoyl of the Amalakites of their Idols gold and silver that the greater necessity may stand to wit their not being allured nor their teeth put a watering and their heart to a lusting after the Idols of Canaan so would he have us to abolish the Saints Temples the gold of Popish Images the Bels that are lesse necessary seeing the Sun may teach as well as the Bell for eschewing soul-dangers in laying stumbling blocks both before our own souls and others Answ 1. It is denyed that Bells which have a necessary use though onely for the better ordering of the worship of God are any active objects of scandal and the meer passive scandal taken at any thing not indifferent but physically necessary and so necessary that without it sinful inconvenients of either wearying in the service of God or sinful neglect should follow is no sinful scandal given but meerly taken 2. There be two necessities of things one natural and first in that regard another religious and in that regard secondary the former necessity doth alwayes stand except God remove it by some posteriour commandment It s necessary that Adam and Evah eat of all things that God created for eating God I grant may remove this necessity in some and command either Adam to fast for a time or not to eat of the tree of Knowledge So say I warning by Bells hath a physical necessity the use of the Temples in worshipping hath the like necessity so have Gold and Silver a necessity god onely either by a Commandment or by an exigence of providence that standeth to us as in the case of a scandal for a command can remove the physical necessity and inhibite Israel to use such and such Gold as have been in use in the Heathen Idols and may forbid to perform an act of obedience to an affirmative command in the case of scandal as he may forbid Paul to take wages for Preaching the Gospel though Paul have some natural necessity of taking wages But the Church without a higher warrant from God hath no power to restrain us in the necessary use that God hath given us Make Bells and Temples as indifferent and unnecessary as some meats were Rom. 14. and I shall yeeld the Argument 3. That the Lord our God will have a bodily necessity as the smaller to yeeld to a soul-necessity as the greater is a ground not so sure but it ought to have been proved except by a soul-necessity you mean a necessity of saving the soul and not sinning against God and oppose it to a meeâ— bodily necessity including no sin in it then I shall grant the Assertion That the one necessity iâ— greater then the other But otherwise Cateris paribus other things being alike I conceive it is contradicted by Iesus Christs saying Matth. 12. cited out of Hosea Chap. 6. I will have meâ—â—â— and not sacrifice And here we must determine the case of scandal to the soul from the exsuperance of necessity to the body and life The case falleth out David and his followers are at the point of starving for hunger it may be a question if the presenâ— necessity be so great there being no bread for them but the Shew-bread which by a Ceremonial Law of God onely the Priests should eat If any of the followers of David out of a groundlesse scrupulosity of conscience should have taken Pauls Argument Rom. 14. and said to David I will starve rather ere I eat this bread for a divine law forbidâ— me and if thou eat of it it shall be a scandal to â—â— and wilt thou for bread destroy him for whom Christ died The Apostle Paul would not for so smal a thing as to eat swines flesh before a weak Jew in the case Rom. 14. destroy the soul of one for whom Christ died by laying before him a stumbling block by his unseasonable and scandalous eating I think if Scripture cannot possibly be contrary to Scripture this doubt might easily be removed by answering the case was not alike with David in his hunger and