Proposition is made good Because 1. to walk according to the spirituall Policie of the Lords house must be a good work and so a Morall and Lawfull work and a due conversing in the spirituall Society of the Church according to the Rule of the Word 2. If this Morall walking be according to a Rule that may crook bow and varie according as Civill Customes of men and Cities alter and varie at mens pleasure It is a Morall walking no more according to the Rule of Scripture then the contradicâ—nt thereof is according to this Rule but falleth and riseth hath its ups and downs at the meer nod and pleasure of men who may change Customes and Manners every year twice if so it please them For what Scripture teacheth me a Civill Custome of a City as not to carry Armour in the night to take up the Names of all between sixteen years of age and sixty Or what Scripture teacheth me a Bishop may be above the Pastors of the Church or a Bishop may not be Surplice Crossing Bowing and Cringing to wooden Altars may be or may not be Deacons may be or may not be even as customes and guises of the Civill State appear as Meteors in the Aire and in the fourth part of a night disappear and vanish to nothing to say that the word teacheth the Church to abstain from blood is a part of the perfection of the Scripture and yet the Scripture teaches that abstinence from blood not as an eternall and unalterable Law for we are not now tied to abstain from blood therefore the Scripture may make the man of God perfect in some works that are alterable and changeable This I say is no Answer for saying that God should now make abstinence from blood and things strangled indifferent as he made them in that intervall of time Acts 15. When the Ceremonies were mortall but not deadly and unlawfull as is clear in that Paul Act. 16. 1 2 3. circumcised Timothy that Rite being then indifferent and yet he writeth in another case when the Gospel is now fully promulgated that to be circumcised maketh a man a debtor in conscience to keep the whole Law of Moses and so to abstaine from eating of blood and things strangled must be a falling from the Grace of Christ and an Apostacy from the Gospel Gal. 5 1 2 3. 4 5 6 7. The like I say of observing of dayes which Rom. 14. 5 6. were indifferent and in another case Gal. 4. 9 10. Col. 2. 16 17. Deadly unlawfull and not necessary so the matter Acts 15. which in the case of scandilizing the weak is abstinence from things indifferent say that they are indifferent bindeth as a perpetuall Law to the end of the world and bindeth us this same very day Rom. 14. 20. In the Morality of it as abstinence from murthering One for whom Christ died Rom. 14. 15. 1 Cor. 8. 12 13. 1 Cor. 10. 26 27 28. And upon the ground laid by Prelates which is most false and untrue to wit that many Positive things in Church-Government such as are Prelats deemed to be warranted by Apostolick though not by Divine right Ceremonies and Crossing kneeling to bread Altars Surplice Rochet corner-Cap yea and Circumcision a Passeover-Lambe and all the Jewish Ceremonies though with another spirit and intention then to shadow forth Christ to come in the flesh imagined to be indifferent and alterable things we hold that all these are to be abstained from as eating of blood and things strangled of old were if you say they are as indifferent as blood and some meats were in the case Act. 15. Rom. 14. 1 Cor. 8. 1 Cor. 10. It s a most false principle as we shall hear and therefore the Scripture if it make the man of God perfect to every good work as the Apostle saith it must teach us to abstain from all these as scandalous and must set down as perfect and particular directions for Church-Government as Paul doth Rom. 14. Set down a particular Platform how we shall eschew Murther for scandalizing our Brethren in the use of things indifferent is spirituall Murther Rom. 14. 15. 20. 2. Arg. That which is a lamp to the feet and a light to the path Psal 119. 105. And causeth us understand Equity Iudgement Righteousnesse and every good way Prov. 2. 9. And to walk safely so that our feet stumble not Prov. 3. 25. Prov. 4 11 12. Prov. 6. 23. That must be a lamp and light to our feet and walking in a Platform of Church-Discipline so as we shall not erre sin or stumble therein But if the light be so various doubtfull alterable as we may walk this way or the contrary way according to the Civill Laws alterable Customes and Manners of the people we shall not so be guided in our path as our feet shall not stumble the Church might then suffer Jezabell to Prophecie and these that hath the Doctrine of Balaam or not suffer them as the Civill Laws and alterable Customes of the people should require Now the Scriptures doth clearly insinuate that the Law and will of God revealed in the Word is a Rule of walking straightly and of declining sin and any stumbling in our way which deserveth a rebuke and a threatning such as Christ uttereth against the Church of Pergamos Rev. 2. 14 15 16. And of Thyatira v. 17 18. Now if these Churches had no certain Rule or Word of God from which they should deviate and erre in their path of Discipline but the Customes and alterable Civill Laws and Manners of men they were unjustly rebuked by Christ which to aver were Blasphemy Prelats say Some things in Church-Policie are Fundamentals not to be altered but there be other things alterable And of things of Policie of the former notion we have a certain Platform in Scripture but of the latter not any at all is necessary and the not suffering of false Teachers in the Church is of the former sort But I Answer some Scripture or reason ought to be given of this distinction If all be Morall and unalterable that are necessary to Salvation its good But to suppresse Jezabell and false teachers is not necessary Necessitate medii for then the Salvation of that Church were desperate and past remedy which should suffer false teachers surely then Pergamos and Thyatira were in a certain irremedâ—lâ—sse way of Eternall Damnation as are these who are void of all Faith and knowledge of Fundamentall Articles I conceive Prelats will hold their hand and not be so rash as to say this If these other things of Policie be necessary necessitate precepti in regard that Iesus Christ hath commanded them to be observed why then are some things alterable which Christ hath commanded to be observed some things unalterable Crosse Surplice which Prelats say have been in the Church these twelve hundred yeers are in themselves as positive have as small affinity with the Civil Laws Customes
of sincere obedience to lawfull authority as well as we conceited good probably included in the very obiect of the action he that doth that which in his private opinion he suspecteth to be evil because injoyned by lawfull authority doth not evil that good may come of it seeing the goodnesse of obedience is no consequent of the action but a motive precedent authority maketh actions indifferent to be good and necessary Ans He beggeth the question The goodnesse of sincere obedience to authority saith he may countervail the evil that we in our private choice fear to be in the action But first obedience to authority in things wanting Gods word whereof he speaketh now is not obedience but sinning because doing without faith 2. I take the Doctor at his word refusing obedience to mens will-worship or to practise even to the ruin of the weak things indifferent for fear of the greatest evil the offending of God by adding to his worship Rev. 22. 18 19. is obedience to God and not a privation the purpose I say of this obedience to God may countervail all evil that can be imagined in non-obedience to men and sure obedience to God though probably obedience is as good and better then obedience to men though probably obedience Jesuites and Formalists say Rulers are in possession to command Ergo We cannot thrust them out of possession where we are not perswaded that they command against reason saith Sanches So I say God is in just possession commanding us to venture upon no indifferent action where the conscience doubteth and shall we not no lesse contend for Gods just possession as time-servers do for mortall Rulers unjust possession in this 2. I prove that it were Lawfull then to sin against God A Iew is alike perswaded that Maries Son iâ— the true Messiah and that he is a deceiver Opinions about a man might seem indifferent to the Iews And it is all one saith Jackson as if the thing be indifferent Now the Pharisees in a Councell determine that Maries Son is a deceiver Then it is lawfull for the Jew upon purpose of sincere obedience to Pharisees who sit in Moses chair to believe that Maries son is a deceiver because the conceit of sincere obedience is an essentiall motive to transubstantiate unbelief into sincere obedience and the Iew may venture upon the faith that Maries Son is a deceiver and crucifie the Lord of glory being commanded thereunto by his Commanders because Gods providence favoureth more positive actions then privations 3. He saith He that obeyeth for the sole authority of Rulers doth not evil that good may come of it 1. Because the goodnesse of obedience countervaileth the evil of the actions But 1 The question is if it be obedience Ergo If it be no obedience it cannot countervail the evil 2. If it be the evil of sin with a doubting conscience to do what judges commandeth having no warrant of faith but the will and lust of men no purpose of good though it were to save all the world can counter-redeem the evil of sin against God 2. Because saith he such a one doth not evil that good may come of it Then he that stealeth moneys to give to the poor doth not evil that good may come of it by Dr. Jacksons reason Because the goodnesse of purposing to help the poor is not a consequent but a precedent motive of the action and so maketh it good We all know the intention of the end goeth in the intention before the action but not as an essentiall cause to make an evil action good or make an indifferent action necessary and honest A good intention doth make a good action good and better but that a good intention as Idolators are full of good intentions can never so season the means as this Doctor saith that it can make evil to be good Vasquez condemneth the Fathers of ignorance because they said Propositum bonum excusat malum opus so Cassianus said It was lawfull to lie for a good end and Chrysostoâ— and Ambrose said the same as Vasquez saith see Aquinas for this 3. It is the doctrine of the man of sin That Pope or Rulers sole and bare authority can make an action indifferent and so neither good nor evil to be indifferent and good as Bellarmine saith for God only by his institution createth morall goodnesse in actions mans will is no creatrix of goodnesse 4. Neither resolutions nor skill are to be credited or followed because private or publick because authority of man as such is no light nor warrant to the conscience to adventure upon moral actions and the Lord giveth light to private men to obey Psal 25. 8 9. 1 Cor. 2. 14 15. Ioh. 7. 17 â—8 Ioh. 7. 27. 2 Cor 3. 18. 2 Cor. 4. 4. As he doth to Rulers to Command So Sylvester Tartaretus so Rivetus Doctot Field I proceed to answer other Arguments As 1. We must not obey Not only for wrath but for conscience the violation of a speciall Law necessarily draweth with it the violation of the generall Law of the fift Commandment But the violation of the generall saith Learned Pareus hurteth the Conscience and the Magistrate punisheth not for generall Violation but for the Violation of this speciall Law Ergo this speciall Law obligeth in Conscience And it seemeth to carry reason Every just punishment presupposeth essentially a sin else it is not a just punishment but the Ruler doth justly punish the particular Transgression of an humane Law Ergo the Transgression of a particular Law of Rulers is sin The Proposition is confirmed by grave School-men Soto Sylvester and Ioan Eselius Who thinke that there cannot be a Law obliging to a punishment and not to a fault because punishment hath an intrinsecall relation to a sin nor can it be a just punishment that is not proportioned to a sin for the Law saith That cometh not under damage which cometh not under fault Ans Though the Violation of the generall Law hurteth the Conscience it being against the fifth Commandment it followeth not that the Violation of every particular Law even that that is meerly Positive hurteth the Conscience before God For then the carrying of Armour in the Night Suppose no Ruler on earth make a Law there anent should be a sin before God which no wise man can say 2. The other reason is more important and draweth with it that School-question agitated by Iurists also and Ganonists An ulla detur lox pure paenalis If there be a Law purely Penall without sin in it And if the Law of Rulers in things meerly Positive be meerly Penall and co-active and not formally obliging to sin But I Answer Rulers do justly punish the Transgression of a Positive Law not as particularly humane and Positive But as 1. It hath connexion with the Morall Reason of the Law 2. As the particular transgression is scandalous
and against order in which case the formall object of the just punishment inflicted by the Ruler is in very deed not the simple omission of the positive act of a particular humane Law but the violation of the morall goodnesse annexed to it and of the scandall given Now in this meaning the transgression of the positive humane Law is not kindely Per se of it self punishable but by accident and so it bindeth the conscience by accident And in this sense great Doctors as Ambrose Anselme Theodoret Chrysostom Navarra Felinus Taraquel say That humane Laws oblige the conscience But the most learned of the Canonists aver that not to obey civill Laws laying aside the evil of scandall is no mortall sin and so doth not involve the conscience in guiltinesse before God 2. They object To resist the Laws of the Magistrate is to resist himself and to resist himself is to resist the Ordinance of God Ans To resist the Laws positive and particular in connexion with the morall reason of the Law is to resist the Ruler true But so the question is not concluded against us for by accident in that sense humane Laws binde the conscience but to resist the particular Laws as particular Laws as particular positive Laws is not to resist the Ruler A Ruler as a Ruler doth never command a thing meerly indifferent as such but as good edificative profitable and except you resist the morality of the positive humane Law you resist not the Ruler yea nor yet is the Law resisted 3. The Iesuit Lod. Meratius objecteth Every true Law obligeth either to guiltinesse or to punishment but the civill and Canonick Laws are Laws properly so called But they do not ever oblige to punishment only Ergo They oblige to sin Ans It is denied that Laws civill or Canonicall as meerly particularly positive do oblige as Laws or that they are Laws they be only Laws according to the morality in them that can promove us to our last end eternall felicity It is also false that the Iesuit saith If thou wilt be saved keep the Commandments doth command the keeping of all Civill and Canonick Laws or that hence is concluded a Law obliging the conscience that is humane and positive as if a Lent Fast a Pilgrimage and not carrying Armour in the night were commanded by Christ as necessary to life eternall The same Meratius striveth to answer the Argument of Almain and Gerson which is this Who ever can oblige to sin mortall before God he can inflict eternall punishment but no mortall man can inflict eternall punishment 1. Saith he This Argument would prove sins against the Law of nature as homicide and adultery not to be deadly sins for by the Law of nature eternall punishment is not inflicted for sins against the Law of nature but by the positive will of God If any say God is the author of the Law of nature because he is the Creator of that humane nature in the which this law is written So if that be sufficient that the law of nature oblige under eternall punishment so also the civill and Ecclesiasticall lavv shall binde the conscience because he is the author of that power which maketh Civill and Ecclesiastick laws for there is no power but it is of God Ans 1. By the Law of nature sins against the Law of nature deserve eternall punishment and that essentially laying aside the positive will of God to whom I grant it is free to inflict punishment or not to inflict and this agreeth to all sin But to carry Armour in the night laying aside the case of scandall and the morality thereof that no murther follow thereupon deserveth neither temporall nor eternall punishment And if this Argument of the Iesuits hold good no mortall sin shall oblige to eternall punishment because Gods positive will is the nearest cause of actuall punishment eternall in all sins 2. God is not the Author of a propper noâ—othetick power in man for that is the question 2. He answereth Distinguishing the Proposition None can oblige to a mortall sin but he who can inflict the eternall punishment of a mortall sin It is true saith he of the punishment which wholly dependeth upon the will of the judge who made the Law but it is not true of that punishment which no way dependeth upon the will of the Iudge such as is eternall punishment excommunication dependeth upon the vvill of man and it obligeth to eternall punishment yet man cannot inflict that eternall punishment for a man may command an act the omission whereof or the commission whereof is of such moment that it serveth much for the good of a community and therefore he vvho of knowledge and vvillingly doth such an act doth sin against right reason and so against the eternall lavv of God Ans 1. The distinction of the Jesuit is but a begging of the question He vvho can oblige to mortall sin by his Lavv can also oblige to eternall punishment if eternall punishment depend vvholly on his free vvill as the Lavv doth What is that but the inflicting of eternal punishment belongeth to him who maketh a Law obliging to sin mortal so being the inflicting of eternall punishment belong to him But our Argument is he who hath dominion and authority to make a Law hath dominion and authority to inflict a punishment answerable to the transgression of that Law for it is one dominion and power to make the Law and to inflict the penalty of the Law Man cannot make the penalty of eternall wrath Ergo he cannot make a Law obliging to eternall wrath 2. Excommunication is not done by mans will but by the power of the keys for a mortall sin deserving excommunication and so eternall wrath If any Excommunicate upon his sole will as wicked Popes have done in that case the will of a man obligeth neither to punishment nor to eternall punishment it is but Brutum Fulmen and not to be feared 3. If any Commit an act that hurteth a whole Community and is forbidden by men in Authority he sinneth against the Law of God though men had never forbidden that Act And we deny not but humane Laws agreeing with the Law of Nature doth oblige the Conscience both to sin and eternall punishment but then they are not humane Laws but Divine Laws and in that case two guiltinesses Duo reatus are Committed one against the fifth Commandment in doing what Superiors according to Gods Word forbiddeth and there is another guiltinesse against the matter it self and a Divine Law which also should stand as a sin before God thought the Ruler had never forbidden it But if any carry Armour in the Night being forbidden by the Iudge for eschewing of night homicide if no homicide follow at all and the matter be not known and so not scandalous the carrier of Armour is involved in no guiltinesse before God CAP. III. Of the power of the
civill use in our ordinarie dwelling to wit to fence our bodies in religious in naturall in civill actions from injuries of heaven clouds and sin The adjuncts of the Church as Crucifixes Images Altars Ravels Masse-clothes and the like are properly Monuments and instruments of Idolatrie because these are not necessary as is the materiall house nor have they any common and physicall influence in the worship as the Temple hath yea all the necessitie or influence that they have in the worship is only religious and humane flowing from the will of men without either necessitie from our naturall Constitution of body or any word of Scripture and therefore they are to be removed upon this ground because they are unnecessarie snares to Idolatrie Object This particular Temple or house builded for Saint Peter S. Paul S. Cutbert is not necessarie for the worship of God because other houses of as convenient use and necessitie may be had for the worship of God and this particular house ought to be demolished as Jehu 2 King 10. 27. destroyed the house of Baal and made it a draught-house as the law saith expresly Deut. 7. 25. The graven Images of their Gods shall yee burne with fire thou shalt not desire the silver or gold that is on them nor take it unto thee lest thou be snared therein for it is an abomination unto the Lord thy God v. 26. Neither shalt thou bring an abomination unto thy house lest thou be a cursed thing like it but thou shalt utterly detest it and thou shalt utterly abhorre it for it is a cursed thing Or at least these Churches may be imployed for some other use then for the worship of God where they may bee snares Ans 1. We are carefully to distinguish betweene a law of Nature or a perpetuall binding Morall law which standeth for an eternall rule to us except the Law-giver himselfe by a supervenâ—ent positive law which serveth but for a time doe loose us from an obligation thereunto and a positive temporarie law God saith in an exoresse law of nature that obligeth us perpetually The sunne shall not be put to death for the sins of the father no Magistrate on earth can lawfully take away the life of the son for the sin of the father for this eternally obligeth Yet Saul was to destroy the sucking children of the Amalekites for the sinnes of their fathers but he had a positive temporarie command of God to warrant his fact 1 Sam. 15. 2. 3. none can inferre that we are from this law which was a particular exception from a Catholick perpetually obliging morall law that Magistrates are now to take away the lives of the sucking infants of Papists So this is perpetuall and morall and warranteth us for ever to use all the creatures of God for our use 1. Tim. 4. 4. Gen. 1. 27. 28. then we may lawfully use Gold Silver Houses all creatures for meats except some particular positive law or some providentiall emergent necessitie forbid us as the Ceremoniall lawes of the Jewes forbidding the eating of swines flesh and some other meats were no other thing but Divine positive exceptions from the law of nature and creation in the which God had created swines flesh and all these other forbidden meats for the use of Man and so by the same reason God hath ordained Church and houses to fence off us the injuries of Sunne and Aire in all our actions civill and religious except that by a peculiar Precept he forbid the use of the house of Baal to the Jewes to be a typicall teaching to us of Gods hating of Idols and Idolatrie but not of our demolishing and making uselesse all houses builded to the honour of Idols and Saints under the New Testament except wee had the like Commandement that the Jewes had These who oppose us in this can no more inhibite us by any law of God of the â—se of a creature granted to us by the law of the creation then they can interdyte us of the use of another creature nor are we more warranted to demolish Temples and materiall houses which have only a physicall and common use alike in all our actions Naturall civill and Ecclesiasticall or Religious then of eating swines flesh or of other meats forbidden in the Ceremâ—nial Law and to answer to the Argument this or that materiall house builded to the honour of Paul and Peter is every way as necessarie in the worship of God as a Temple builded of purpose for the worship of God though another house may conduce as much for the worshipping of God as this yea it hath the same very necessarie Use and Physicall conveniencie for the serving of God that any other house hath which was never builded for the honour of a Saint which I prove 1. because no creature of God that is usefull to us by the law of creation is capable of any morall contagion to makeâ— it unlawfull to us but from the meeâ— will of God as the Gold and Silver and Idol houses of the false Gods and Images of Canaan are inâ—â—â—secally and by the Law of creation as pure and morally clean as the Gold and Silver and Synagogues of the Jewes and had their Physicall and civill necessitie the one as the other had But from whence was it that the Jewes might make use of their owne Silver and Gold and houses and not of the houses or silver and gold of the heathen Gods and Idols Certainly this was from Gods meer positive will and command fobidding the Gold and houses of the Idols of Cannan and not forbidding the other the Adversaries can give no other reason therefore they must give us the same positive Commandement for not making use of the Gold and Silver and Temples of the Popish Idols and Saints under the New Testament that the Iewes had for refusing the Gold and Silver and demolishing the Temples of the heathenish Idols of Canaan And if they say Thâ—â— the very command that warranted the Iewes to abstaine from the use of the heatheâ—s Gold and Idol-temples doth warrant us to abstainâ— from the use of the Gold and Idol-temples of Papists It is answered we have no warrant from the Word but it shall warrant us as well to abstaine from swines flesh if it be replyed every creature of God eatable iâ— Good and may be received lawfully 1 Tim 4 6 Rom 14 14 I answer so all gold all silver all houses serving to â—â—ncâ— off the injuries of heaven and aire are good and fit for Mans use and now blessed in Christ under the New Testament except you say that it is not lawfull to make use of the Gold and Silver of a Papisâ—â— Image noâ— of crees of the Papists fields that bâ—aretâ—â—â— fruit for these also were discharged to the Iewes Deut 20. v. 19 20 and the reason why they â—ight not cut downe the tâ—â—â—â— thâ—â— beâ—â—â—â— fruit because these trees were mans life Deuter. 20 19 whereas tâ—â—â—â—
as the precept of believing in Christ and of repentance from dead works yet I hope it shall be a weak inference from thence to inser we may therefore alter and change any thing of the Sacrament for the same Christ who commanded us to believe in him said also Drink ye all of this and if we may not remove drinking from the last Supper because injoyned by Christ upon the authority of the Law-giver as signifying the spirituall drinking of Christs Blood how can any dare to adde Crossing to Baptisme which signifieth the dedication of the Baptized to Christs service But 1. Divine Ceremonials and positives which were to be changed have these notes and impressions of God which Surplice Crosse in Baptisme Corner-cap which by Analogie answereth to Moses his Ceremonies hath not and yet if they be of the New Testament and so of a more excellent spirits devising then the people of the Iews were capable of in regard of their Bondage under Carnall Precepts they ought to have them in a more excellent manner As 1. In regard of the manner of Revelation all the Laws and Ceremoniall Ordinances were revealed to Moses when he was forty dayes in the Mount with God and was in Heaven and above men Exod. 25. 40. Heb. 8. 5. The length measure and patern of the Temple was revealed to Ezechiel when he was in the spirit and saw the Visions of God Ezech. 40. 2 3. And a writing of the form of the Temple by Gods hand was delivered to David 1 Chro. 28. 19. Now if a more free and glorious spirit teach the Positives of policy under the New-Testament such as Surplice Crossing then Prelates must be in a higher mount with God then Moses was and in a deeper extasie of the visions of God then Ezechiel was in Ezec. 40. 1 2 3. When they are in the childe-birth pain of devising and bring forth such defaced and dirty whelpes as Surplice Crossing Altars c. 1. I should think it blasphemy so to think 2. In regard of the Doctrine revealed When I read the 40 41 42. Chapters of Ezekiel touching the forme of the Temple and the Antitipe Chapters the Revelation c. 21. c. 22. Yea and the very Ceremoniall Laws of Moses as the scape-goats going to the wildernesse with the sins of the people of God and all the rest of the Lawes that pointeth at Christ to be slain for us and the heavenly mysteries of the Gospel explained especially in the Epistle to the Hebrews when I read these I finde a strong smell of the ointments of a precious Redeemer the extream love of God to man the Majesty the divinity and efficacy of divine power in these as in other Scriptures But should our Prelats put in Print by the spirit of the new Testament some Epistles touching Ceremonies in Generall or of Surplice Corner-cap Crossing and their heavenly relation to the mysteries of the Gospel in particular I should not think men would dare to say a nobler spirit speaketh like God and heaven in these then in the other It is without all Warrant to expound Christian Liberty of a power of devising a mutable Church-Policy and lawes not warranted in Gods word seeing Christian Liberty expresly exempteth us altogether from obedience to mens Laws not warranted by Christs word Gal. 5. 1. Col. 2. 20 c. Let us hear what Hooker saith for his mutable Policie under the New Testament Christ is not lesse faithfull then Moses because Moses delivered to the Iewes some Lawes that were durable and Christ some Laws that are changeable otherwayes by this reason Christ shall be lesse faithfull then Moses for Moses erected in the wildernesse a Tabernacle which was moveable from place to place Solomon a stately Temple which was not moveablâ— Therefore Solomon was faithfuller then Moses which no man indued with reason will think Christ was faithfull and saith I have given to them the words that thou gavest me He concealed not any part of his Fathers will But did any part of that will require the immutability of Laws concerning Church-Policy Ans I answer as Christ did to the Jews in another case Ioh. 6. 32. Moses gave you not that bread from heaven but my Father giveth you that true bread So in this neither Moses nor Solomon erected either that Tabernacle or Temple as Law-givers but the Father of our Lord Iesus as the true Law-giver Now both were but meer servants and Heralds in all that they did for God shewed to Moses the pattern of the Tabernacle and to David and Solomon the forme of the Temple in all the pins rings chambers cubits length and breadth Exod. 24 40. 1 Chron. 28. 11 19. And the question is not if ever the Lord himself delivered mutable or immutable Laws either in Doctrine or Policy We grant he did and may deliver Laws changeable and to indure for a time only in both the old and new Testament Heb. 7. 18. Col. 2. 17. Act. 15. 28 29. But the question is if Moses as a man if Christ as a man only if the Church of Prelates yea or of Lawfull Officers can be faithfull if they deliver lawes to the Church which may be altered without the expresse will of God speaking in his word at the pleasure of men and which are positives of worship and Policy such as humane Prelates Surplice Crosse c. which varieth dieth and liveth falleth and riseth with the climate Nation civill-Government Lawes Manners and customes of People and this is all one as to move the question whither the Ambassadour as a man may alter the Articles of his Commission according to his own private lust without an expresse and evident Warrant of the Prince and State whose servant and Messenger he is in all that he doth and if he be a faithfull Ambassadour who doth his own will and not the will of those that sent him and if Christ be as faithfull as Moses if he had given Laws of policy under the New-Testament to be altered without an expresse and evident Warrant from the will of the Father at the pleasure and will of men This we deny and certainly say that Moses had erected a changeable Tabernacle at the will of man and Solomon a Temple unchangeable at the will and expresse Commandment of God then had Solomon been faithfuller then Moses our Arguments nerves do not consist in the immutability or the mutability of things themselves or of the Laws but on the immutability or mutability of things positive or Laws positive under this reduplication so as they be immutable or mutable at the pleasure and will of men without and beside the word of God such as Crosse and Surplice and such like Romish stuffe are pretended to be 2. Certain it is that Christ concealed not any part of his Fathers will Ioh. 17. 8. But delivered all and this place with the place Ioh. 15. 15. We urge against the traditions of Papists and say because Christ
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
Papists as Vasquez Becanus and others say that neither the Pope nor the Church can adde or devise a new Article of Faith Yet doth Horantius Loco Catholice l. 2. c. 11. fol. 129. teach That Christ hath not taught us all fully in the New Testament but that the holy spirit shall to the end of the world teach other new things as occasion shall require And this he bringeth as an Argument to prove that there must be unwritten Traditions not contained in Scripture even as the Formalists contend for unwritten Positives of Church-Policie 3. Morals of the Law of nature and the Morall Law do more respect occasions of Providence customes Laws and the manners of people they doing so nearly concerne our Morall practise then any Ceremonies of Moses his Law which did shadow out Christ to us and therefore this reason shall prove the just contrary of that for which its alledged for the Morall Law should be rather alterable at the Churches lust then Ceremonials for there be far more occurrences of Providence in regard of which the Laws Morall touching what is Sabbath breaking whether is leading an Ox to the water on the Sabbath a breach of the Sabbath the Jews held the affirmative Christ the negative touching obedience to Superiors Homicide Polygamie Incest Fornication Oppression Lying Equivocating Then there can be occasions to change the Law of sacrificing which clearly did adumbrat Christ who was to be offered as a sacrifice for the sins of the world yea all significant Symbolicall Ceremonies have their spirituall signification independent from all occasions of Providence and depending on the meer will of the Instituter Surplice or white linnen signifieth the Priests holinesse without any regard to time place or nationall customes for Christ might have made an immutable Law touching the Symbolicall and Religious signification and use of Saints-dayes white linnen Crossing and all the rest of humane Ceremonies which should stand to Christs second coming notwithstanding of any occurrences of Providence no lesse then he made an immutable Law touching the Sacramentall obsignation of water in Baptisme and of Bread and Wine in the Lords Supper if it had not been his will never to burden his Churches with such dumb and tooth-lesse mysteries as humane positives 4. The assumption is false for divers Ceremoniall Laws now altered were made without any regard to occasions of Providence and many Doctrinals that are unalterable were made with speciall regard to such occurrences 5. If positives of Policy be alterable because the occasions of such are alterable by God it shall follow that God who hath all revolutions of Providence in his hand must change these Positives and not the Authority of the Church and thus Doctrinals are alterable by God not by men which is now our question for Christ hath given a Commandment Take ye Eat ye Drink ye all of this Yet hath he not tyed us in the time of persecution to conveen in publick and Celebrate the Lords Supper but the Church doth not then change the Law nor liberate us from obedience to a Command given by God but God liberateth us himself Hooker But that which most of all maketh to the clearing of this point is that the Iews who had Laws so particularly determining and so fully instructing them in all affairs what to do were not withstanding continually inured with causes exorbitant and such as their Laws had not provided for and so for one thing which we have left to the order of the Church they had twenty which were undecided by the expresse word of God so that by this reason if we may devise one Law they may devise twenty Before the Fact of the sons of Shelomith there was no Law that did appoint any punishment for blasphemers nor what should be done to the man that gathered sticks on the Sabbath And by this means God instructed them in all things from heaven what to do Shall we against experience think that God must keep the same or a course by Analogy answering thereunto with us as with them Or should we not rather admire the various and harmonious dissimilitude of Gods wayes in guiding his Church from age to age Others would not only have the Church of the Iews a pattern to us but they would as learned Master Prynne with them saith take out of our hand the Apostolick Church that it should be no rule to us for saith he There was no Vniforme Church-government in the Apostles times at the first they had only Apostles and Brethren Acts 1. 13. no Elders or Deacons Their Churches increasing they ordained Dâ—acons Act. 6. And long after the Apostles ordained Elders in every Church after that widowes in some Churches not at all In the primitive times some Congregations had Apostles Acts 4. 11 12. 1 Cor. 12. 4. to 33. Evangelists Prophets workers of miracles Healers c. Other Churches at that time had none of these Officers or Members and all Churches have been deprived of them since those dayes Ans 1. What Hooker saith is that which Bellarmine Sanderus Horantius and all Popists say for their Traditions against the perfection of the word to wit that the word of God for 2373. years between Adam and Moses saith Horantius was not written so Turrianus Bellarmine and the reason is just nothing to say the Jews might devise twenty Laws where we may devise one because the Jews were continually inured with causes exorbitant such as their written Laws had not provided for This must be said which is in question and so is a begging of the controversie that the Iews of their own head and Moses without any speciall word from God or without any pattern shown in the mount might devise what Laws they pleased and might punish the blasphemer and the man that gathered stâ—cks on the Sabbath and determine without God the matter of the Daughters oâ— Zelophehad as the Formalists teach that the Church without any word of God or pattern from the word may devise humane Ceremonial Prelats Officers of Gods house shapen in a shop on earth in the Antichrists head and the Kings Court the Surplice the Crosse in Baptisme and the like Now we answer both them and Papists with one answer that it is true there was no written Scripture between Adam and Moses which was some thousands of years Yea nor a long time after till God wrote the Law on Mount Sinai But withall what God spake in visions dreams and apparitions to the Patriarchs was as binding and obliging a pattern interditing men then to adde the visions of their own brain to what he spake from heaven as the written word is to us so that the Iews might neither devise twenty Laws nor any one of their own head without expresse warrant of Gods immediate Tradition which was the same very will and truth of God which Moses committed to writing if then Formalists will assure us of that which Papists could never assure us we shall
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
should be according to the word of God and not beside the word of God If it be said they have Gods Commanding will in so far that he doth not forbid any thing not contrary to his own word but hath given the Church Authority to adde to his worship things not contrary to his word as they shall see they do promove godlinesse or may edifie the Church But then if the Church must see by the light of reason and naturall judgement aptitude in these to promove godlinesse they are Commanded by God who hath even stamped in them that aptitude to edifie and so are not beside Gods word 4. Our Divines condemne all the Traditions of the Church of Rome as Purgatory Prayer for the dead Imagery Adoring of Reliques all the Crossing Holy water Chrisme Oyl Babies Bells Beads c. Because God hath no where Commanded them and sins veniall and beside the Law and sins mortall and contrary to the Law we condemne because as what is capable of seeing and life and hearing and yet doth not see live nor hear that in good reason we call blinde dead and deaf all beside the word are capable of Morall goodnesse and yet not Morally good because not warranted by Gods word therefore they must be Morally evil III. Conclus Opinion of Sanctity holinesse and Divine necessity is not essentiall to false worship Formalists will have their Ceremonies innocent and Lawfull so they be not contrary to the word of God 2. So they be not instamped with an opinion that they binde the Conscience and are of Divine necessity holinesse and efficacy So Morton their Prelat for opinion of justice necessity efficacy and merit saith he make them Doctrinals and so unlawfull But this is but that which Papists say So Suarez saith That their unwritten Traditions are not added to the word of God as parts of the word of God but as things to be believed and observed by the Churches Commandment and these who did swear by Jehovah and Malcom Zeph. 1. esteemed Malcom and an oath by Malcom not so Religiously and so holy as an oath by Jehovah and Malcom and yet no doubt they ascribed some necessity to oaths by Malcom and Jehoram saying Am I Jehovah to kill and make alive who yet worshipped Ieroboams Calves esteemed the worshipping of these Calves lesse necessary and lesse holy and meritorious then the worshipping of the true Yehovah yet the Calves called their gods which brought them out of the Land of Aegypt had some necessity and opinion of holinesse For 1. Aaron in making a Calf and Proclaiming a Feast to the Calf committed false worship but Aaron placed not holinesse justice or merit in that worship Because Exod. 32. 22. for fear of the people who in a tumult gathered themselves together against him he committed that Idolatry Ergo necessity of Sanctity Merit and Divine obligation is not essentiall to false worship Ieroboam Committed Idolatry in saying These are thy Gods O Israel but he placed no efficacy or merit therein because 1 King 12. 27. He did it least the people going to Ierusalem should return to Rehoboam and kill him And the Philistims dis-worship in handling the Ark unreverently had no such opinion they doubting whither God or Fortune ruled the Ark 1 Sam. 6. 9. It were strange if these who say in their heart There is no God Ezech. 9. 9. Psal 94. 6. And so fail against inward worship due to God should think that the denying of God were service and meritorious service to God and that Peter denying Christ and Iudaizing Gal. 2. 12. for fear thought and believed he did meritorious service to Christ therein Pilate in condemning Christ Iudas in selling him the Souldiers in scourging him did dis-worship to their Creator the Lord of glory Shall we think that Pilate who for fear of the people did this believed he was performing necessary Divine and Meritorious worship to God 2. If opinion of necessity Divine of Merit and sanctity as touching the conscience were essentiall to false worship it were impossible for gain and glory to Commit Idolatry to preach lies in the Name of the Lord for a handfull of barley as Ezek. 13. 19. Mic. 3. 5. 1 Kin. 22. 6. 1 Tim. 4 1 2. Tit. 1. 11. For its a contradiction to Preach Arrianisme Turcisme Popery against the light of the minde only for gain and yet to think that in so doing they be performing meritorious service to God Yea they who devise will-worship know their own will to be the Lord-carver of that worship at least they may know it yet shall we think they hold themselves necessitated by a Religious obligation so to do Else it were impossible that men could believe the burning their Children were will-worship indifferent and Arbitrary to the worshippers which is open war against reason Now a worship cannot be false wanting that which is essentaill to false worship 3. False worship is false worship by order of nature before we have any opinion either that there is Religious necessity in it or meer indifferency Ergo Such an opinion is not of the essence of false worship 4. By that same reason opinion of unjustice or opinion of doing justice should be of the essence of unjustice Cains killing of his Brother should not be Man-slaughter except Cain placed some divine Sanctity in that wicked fact which is against all reason and the reason is alike in both Gods Commanding will and his forbidding will They Answer Gods will constituteth Lawfulnesse in essentiall worship and mans will in things arbitrary but this is to beg the question for when we ask what is essentiall worship they say it is that which God commandeth and what is accidental or arbitrary it is that which human authority commandeth this is just Gods wil is the essentiall cause of that worship whereof it is the essentiall cause mans will is the essentiall cause of that whereof it is the essentiall cause 5. All the materials of Jewish and Turkish worship might be appointed for right worship so we held them to be Arbitrary 6. God cannot forbid false worship but in that tenure that he commandeth true worship but whether we esteem it true or not holy or not he cōmandeth true worship Erg. c. IV. Conclusion It is a vain and unwarrantable distinction to divide worship in essentiall which hath Gods 1. Particular approving will to be the Warrant thereof and worship accidentall or Arbitrary which hath only Gods generall and permissive will and hath mans will for its father so Ceremonies say they In these hath Gods generall will according to their specification whether a Surplice be decent or not is from mans will therefore they are called worship reductively because in their particulars they have no Divine institution and they tend to the honouring of God not as worship but as adjuncts of worship so Morton so Burges Ans As Sacramentall worship is lawfull essentiall worship
resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God 4. Conclus Nothing in non-obeying unwarrantable Commandments must be done that redoundeth to the discredit of the Ruler or the hurting of his Majesty and honour 1 Pet. 2. 17. Honour the King Eccles 10. 20. Curse not the King For even when we deny subjection or obedience objective to that which they command yet owe we obedience officiall and all due respect and reverence to the person and eminent place of the Ruler as Act. 7. 2. Steven calleth them Men brethren and fathers Act. 7. 51. And yet stiffe-necked resisters of the holy Ghost 5. Conclus Humane Laws whither civill or Ecclesiastick in that particular positive matter which they have of Art Oeconomy policy and in Gods matters of meer humane coyne and stamp do not bindes the conscience at all per se kindely and of themselves 1. Nothing but what is either Gods expresse word or his word by consequence doth lay a band on the conscience of it self But not to eat flesh in Lâ—nt upon civill reasons Not to carry Armour in the night To wear Surplice and to Crosse infants in Baptisme are neither Gods word expresly nor by consequence The major is sure because the word is the perfect and adequate object of matters of Faith and morall practice which concerneth the conscience Psal 19. 7. 8. Psal 119. 9. Iohn 20. 31. Prov. 8. 9. 2. Because whatever thing layeth a band on the conscience the not doing of that would be a sin before God if the Ruler should never command it But the carrying Armour in the night the not wearing Surplice in Divine service should be no sin before God if the ruler should never command them as reason Scriptures and adversaries teach The Proposition I instruct from the diffinition of an obligation of conscience for to lay a band on the conscience is defined to lay a command on the soul which ye are obliged before God to do as you would eschew sin and obtain eternall salvation So the learned Pareus so Dr. Field so Gerson and so teach Gregorius de Valentia and Suarez 3. None can lay on a band of not doing under the hazard of sin but they that can remit sins for the power that looseth the same bindeth But mortall men cannot binde to sin nor loose men from sin but where God goeth before them in binding and loosing for they cannot bestow the grace of pardoning sin But he onely who hath the keys of David who openeth and no man shutteth and shutteth and no man openeth 4. Whoever can lay on bands of Laws to bring any under the debt of sin must lay on bands of obligation to eternall punishment but God only can do this Mat. 10. 28. The Proposition is clear because sin against God essentially includeth a relative obligation to eternall punishment 5. In matters of Gods worship this is clear The School-men as Aquinaâ— Suarez Ferrariensis Conradus teach us that there is a twofold good The first is an objective and primordiall goodnesse whereby things are agreeable to Gods Law if rulers finde not this in that good which they command they are not just and so not to be obeyed There is another goodnesse that cometh from the will of authority so only divine authority must make things good the will and authority of Rulers findeth objective goodnes in them and therefore enacteth Laws of things but because they enact Laws of things they do not therefore become good and Lawfull It is the will of the Creator of all beings which is the measure rule and cause of the goodnesse of things as Adams not eating of the tree of knowledge is good and gratefull obedience from Gods forbidding will and it should have been as gratefull obedience to eat of that tree if God had commanded so Men cannot make worlds nor can their will create goodnesse in acts indifferent nor can their forbidding will illegittimate or make evil any actions indifferent and therefore things must be morally good and so intrinsecally good without the creative influence of humane Authority and from God only are they apt to edifie and to oblige the conscience in the termes of goodnesse morall And this is strengthened by that which in reason cannot be denied to wit that it is essentiall to every human Law that layeth any obligation on the conscience that it be just nor is it to be called a Law except it be just and justice and equity humane Laws have from God the law of nature and his word not from the Authority and will of men therefore Iurists expound that What pleaseth the Prince hath the vigour of a Law of just things Also the School-men as Carduba Thomas Soto Medina Adrianus Navar Driedo Castro as I gather out of their writings give strong reasons why Rulers cannot lay an obligation on the conscience when the matter of the Law is light and naughty for this were to make a man a trangressor before God for a word a straw a toy which is unjust Because the just weight of the matter is the only just ground of the Laws obligation Ergo the will of the Lawgiver except he make a moat a mountaine cannot lay an obligation of necessity on man 2. It were a foolish law and so no law to oblige to eternall punishment and the offending of 2. God for a light thing for this were to place the way of salvation in that wherein the way consisteth not 3. Such a law were not for edification but for destruction of soules 4. This was the Pharises fault Mat. 23. to lay on intollerable burthens on mens soules 5. The law of God and nature freeth us in positive lawes from guilt in case of necessity as David did lawfully eat Shew-bread 6. A Civill law may not take away a mans life for a straw farre lesse can it bind to Gods wrath 7. Augustine saith they be unjust ballances to esteeme things great or small for our sole will Out of all which I conclude that no law as a Law doth oblige the Conscience but that which hath from the matter morall equity and not from the intention of the Law-giver as Cajetan Silvester Angelus and Corduba teach which intention must take a rule from the matter of the law and not give a rule Gerson No law saith he is a law to be called as necessary to salvation as all good lavves should be but that vvhich de jure Divino is according to Gods lavv yea vve are not saith Durandus to obey the Pope if he command a Monke to doe somthing vvhen he is not moved to command by the necessity the profit of the Church but by his ovvne free vvill and if this be knovven If the Pope faith he for his ovvne vvill and vvithout necessity and utility should seclude vvorkes of supererogation that command should tend to destruction and vve
a lege aeternâ as they depend on the eternall law Ergo they oblige in Conscience it followeth not They oblige in Conscience as their Major and Minor proposition in that which is morall can be proved out of Gods word but so in their morallity they are meerely divine and not humane and positive and so the argument concludeth not against us They oblige in Conscience as they depend upon the eternall law that is as they are deduced from the eternall Law of God in a Major proposition without probation of the assumption that we deny and it is in question now The people 1 Sam. 8. in rejecting Samuel from being their judge rejected God not because Samuel had a power of making lawes without the warrant of Gods word Neither Moses nor Jeremiah nor Ezekiel nor any Prophet were in that servants subordinate to God for they vvere onely to heare the vvord at Gods mouth 3. We could have no more at Bellarmines hand then Jackson saith For Bellarmine saith In a good sense Christ gave to Peter a power to make that which is sinne to be no sin and that which is no sinne to be sinne So Iackson the interposition of derived authority maketh that which would be murther other wayes to bee a good worke that is men may doe what God onely can doe If Isaac then at the commandement of Abraham his father offer his sonne Iacob to God in a bloody Sacrifice then Abrahams derived authority maketh that a lawfull sacrifice as to strike a Prophet of it selfe is a degree of murther but when a Prophet commandeth another to strike a Prophet it is lawfull But can any blasphemer say that this was humane derived authority without warrant of the word of the Lord such as are humane positive lawes and our humane ceremonies see the text 1 King 20. 35. And a certaine man of the sonnes of the Prophets said unto his neighbour in the word of the Lord smite me This was immediate divine and Propheticall authoritie and not humane Doth the Kings letter of Mart make robbing a Spaniard lawfull Court Parasites speake so he refuteth himselfe The Kings letter of Mart for wrongs done to the State maketh that which is Piracy lawfull then the Kings authority doth not here by a nomothetick power and a law laid upon the Conscience but the wrongs of Piracy by Spaine done to the State of England may make the robbing of Spaniards an act of lawfull warre and an act of justice flowing from the King as a lawfull Magistrate Now Iackson is speaking of mandates of Rulers in that place which have no warrant of the word of God Yea even Stapleton a Papist saith as Doctor Field also observeth That humane laws binde for the utility and neoessity of the matter and not from the will of the Lawgiver And so saith Gerson Almain Decius Mencha and our owne Iunius saith The plenitude of power of lawes is onely in the princpall agent not in the instrument Doctor Iackson saith unlimited and absolute faith or submission of conscience we owe not to rulers that is due to God but we owe to them conditionall assent and cautionary obedience if they speake from God suppose they fetch not an expresse commission from Scripture for if Pastors be then onely to be obeyed when they bring evident commission out of Scripture I were no more bound to beleeve obey my governours then they are bound to beleeve and obey in Bellarm. contr 3. lih 4. cap. 6. not 89. my Governours then ther are bound to believe and obey me for equals are oblieged to obey equalls when they bring a warrant from Gods word and so the povver of Rulers vvere not reall but titular and the same do th Sutluvius and Bellarmine say Answ We owe to equalls to Mahomet conditionall and cautionary faith and obedience thus I beleeve what Mahomet saith so he speake Gods word yea so Samaritans who worshipped they knew not what John 4. 26. gave saith to their Teachers in a blinde way so they speake according to Gods word 2. It followeth in no sort if Rulers are onely to be obeyed when they bring Gods Word that then they are no more to be obeyed then equalls Infetiours because there is a double obedience one of conscience and objective coming from the thing commanded And in respect of this the word hath no lesse authority and doth no lesse challenge obedience of Confcience and objective when my equall speaketh it in a private way yea when I writ it in my muse then when a Pastor speaketh it by publike authority for we teach against Papists that the word borroweth â—o authority from men nor is it with certainty of faith to be received as the Word of man but as indeed the Word of God as the Scripture saith 1. There is another obedience officiall which is also obedience of Conscience because the fifth Commandement injoyneth it Yet not obedience of Conscience coming from the particular commanded in humane Lawes as humane so I owe obedience of subjection and submission of affection of feare love honour respect by vertue of the fift Commandement to Rulers when they command according to Gods Word and this I owe not to equals or inferiours and so it followeth not that the power of Rulers and Synods is titular because they must warrant their mandates from the Word But it s alwayes this mans hap to be against sound truth But 3. That I owe no more objective subjection of conscience to this Thou shalt not murther Beleeve in Iesus Christ when Rulers and Pastors command them then when I read them in Gods word I prove 1. If this from a Ruler Thou shalt not murther challenge faith and subjection of Conscience of six degrees but as I read it my selfe or as my equall in a private way saith Thou shalt not murther it challenge saith and subjection of foure degrees onely then is it more obligatory of Conscience and so of more intrinsecall authority and so more the word of God when the Ruler commandeth it then when I read it or my equall speaketh it to me This were absurd for the speaker whether publike or private person addeth not any intrinsecall authority to the word for then the word should be more or lesse Gods word as the bearers were publike or private more or lesse worthy As Gods word spoken by Amos a Prophet should not be a word of such intrinfecall authority as spoken by Moses both a Prince and a Prophet 2. My faith of subjection of Conscience should be resolved as concerning the two degrees of obedience of faith to the word spoken by the Ruler on the sole authority of the Ruler and not on the authority of God the Author of his own word 4. I answer to Sutluvius That Christ in the externall policy of his owne house is a Lawgiver ordaining such and such officers himselfe Ezek. 4. 11. commanding order and decency
15. And to wait on them with all patience if God peradventure may give them repentance 7. The destruction of the flesh must be the destruction of the body But the bodies of the godly are saved no lesse then their spirits in the day of the Lord. 8. And for many of the former reasons by delivering to Satan cannot be meant a miraculous tormenting of the body by Sathan with the saving of the life Such as we read was the case of Iob for the delivering to Sathan is to cast out of the Church and declare such an offendor to be of the number of the wicked world of which Sathan is Prince Ioh. 12. 31. Ioh. 14. 30. and God 2 Cor. 4. 4. and that which we assert as the essentials of excommunication are 1. Here is a member of the Church one vvho is within 1 Cor. 5. 12. one who hath fallen in a foul scandall and had his fathers wife ver 1. who by the Church conveened in the name of our Lord Iesus with that spirit of the Apostle given to them by Christ v. 4. was delivered to Sathan that his soule may be saved for that is the genuine and intrinsecall end of Excommunication and to be purged out of the Church lest he should infect the Sheepe ver 7. and Christians were not to bear company with him nor to eate with him ver 9. 10 and he was judged to be cast out as a Heathen and Publican ver 12. 13. and that by a convened court having the name and authority of him who is King of the Church ver 4. and more wee doe not crave Obj. To deliver any to the power of Sathan is no mean of salvation Answ A morall delivering to the efficacy of error and a reprobate minde is not a mean of salvation nor is excommunication such a mean nor in the power of the Church but a medicinall depriving of an offender of the comfortable communion of the Saints and of the prayers of the Church and meanes of grace such is a means and mighty through God to humble CAP. V. Quest 1. Whether the word doth warrant discipline and censures even to the excluding of the scandalous from the Sacraments beside the Pastorall rebukes inflicted by one VVE are not to conceive that there was nothing Morall in the Lawes that God made to his people of Israel to debar the unclean from the society of Gods people and from communion with them in the holy things of God Numb 5. 1. And the Lord spake unto Moses saying 2. Command the children of Israel that they put out of the Campe every leaper and every one that hath an issue and whosoever is defiled by the dead Lev. 5. 2. If a soul touch any unclean thing whither it be a carcase of an unclean beast or the carcase of unclean cattell or the carcase of unclean creeping things and if it be hidden from him he also shall be unclean and guilty 6. And he shall bring his trespasse-offering unto the Lord for his sin which he hath sinned Lev. 7. 20. But the soul that eateth of the sacrifice of the peace offerings that pertaineth to the Lord having his uncleannesse upon him even that soul shall be cut off from the people 21. Moreover the soul that shall touch any unclean thing as the uncleannesse of man or any unclean beast or any abominable unclean thing and eat of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings which pertain unto the Lord even that soul shall be cut off from his people In the which observe that here the soul that shall touch any unclean thing is to be cut off but Num. 5. 2. He is only to be put out of the Campe now these were not killed that were put out of the Campe and therefore to be cut off from the people must be a morall cutting off by Excommunication not by death also the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth to make a Covenant to cut off either by death or any other way as by banishment by which a thing leaveth off to be in use though it be not destroyed as when a branch is cut off a tree 1 Sam. 31. 9. Yea we have Isa 50. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where is that Bill of cutting off or divorce Now this was not a Bill of killing the wife that was divorced but putting her from her husband as our Saviour saith It is not Lawfull to marry her that is divorced Matth. 19. 9. A killed and dead woman is not capable of marriage yet the word is Deut. 24 1. Ier. 3. 8. from that same Theame 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Hebrews have another more ordinary word to signifie death as Exod. 31. 14. He that doth any work on the Sabbath in dying he shall die And it is expounded he shall be cut off from the midst of the people 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but Lev. 7. the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is four times used without any such expression ver 20 21 25 27. To which may be added that when zealous Hezechiah did finde that the people were not prepared According to the purification of the Sanctuary though they had celebrated the Passeover the King did not only not kil them but prayed God might be mercifull to them and the Lord killed them not saith the spirit of God but healed them Exod. 12. 15. He that eateth unleavened bread that soul shall be cut off from Israel but it is expounded ver 19. That soul shall be cut off 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the Church of Israel Certainly he that is killed is cut off from both State and Church and from the company of all mortall men on earth Isa 38. 11. Then to be cut off from Israel is onely to be deprived of the comfortable society of the Church of Israel as the holy Ghost expoundeth it Also Lev. 4. If any commit any sin but of ignorance and so if he touch any unclean thing or eat unleavened bread forbidden of God he is excluded from the holy things of God while the Priest offer for him according to the Law Now if he was presently to be killed either by the Magistrate or in that act killed by Gods own immediate hand as Aarons sons were there was not a journey to be made to the place the Lord had chosen to sacrifice there which might have been three dayes journey from his house who was unclean yea when the man that gathered sticks was stoned and the false Prophet stoned Deut. 13. there was no sacrifices offered for any of them before they were killed and I hope there were no sacrifices in Moses his Law offered for the dead Hence learn we 1. That to cut off from the Congregation was not to kill but it was the Iewish Excommunication greater or lesse 2. That Moral sins under the Old Testament debarred men from the holy things of God while the Priests sacrificed for them and brought them in a capacity to receive the holy
but will it follow therefore the Pastor should not watch over him to try in another way in a Pastorall way by his walking profession and practicall knowledge whether he be in Christ or no. The contrary is Heb. 13. 17. They watch for the souls of the people as they that must give an accompt And they are so far to try that are Shepherds that they are obliged in a Pastorall way to know those of the flock that are diseased Ezech. 34. 4. Sick broken driven away and lost And to what end should they try themselves least they eat damnation to themselves Ergo the Stewards should try the stomacks that they eat not poyson If then the Lords Law bid men beware they be not tempted to Sorcery Sodomy Murthers and if every man ought to have personall watchfulnesse over his own conscience that he be not insnared to those sins and Achan was to try if his heart was ingaged to the wedge of Gold and to be wary to meddle with it but it doth not follow that Magistrates as Joshua should not try out Sorcerers Sodomites and other Achans to punish them Erastus 2 Cor. 13. is against this a person is to try himselfe Will it follow when he hath tryed himselfe that he cannot come to the Lords Supper except he seem meet to the Elders And this not our consequence let Erastus owne it we care not In a constitute Church he should else Erastus provides no way against a Pagan who hath heard the Word as he may doe 1 Cor. 14. 23. may without the Elders and Church sit downe at the Lords Supper for Erastus provides no stop for him but only his own pagan Conscience and so may one by that rule but trample on the Sacrament his owne Conscience is all his rule contrary to what he saith himselfe lib. 3. c. â— p. 207. Erastus 1 Cor. 11. Paul forbiddeth none to come to the Supper but upon supposition that they come as the manner is he biddeth them come worthily as all are bidden hear the Word though they â—e forbidden to he are it as if it were some prophane History nor doth the Lord command sinfull coming for no act commanded of God is evill Ans 1. Paul then forbiddeth not Pagans more to come to the Supper and Children then he forbiddeth them to heare the Word which is absurd he commandeth all to heare but he commandeth not all to come to the Supper but those onely that can discerne the Lords body for to heare the Word though I be not prepared is simply necessary if I would be saved and to sacrifice if I would be reconciled and to pray if I would obtaine any blessing though the manner of doing all these be commanded that I heare sacrifice and pray in faith But to come to the Supper is not commanded to all not to Pagans not to children not to the unregenerated but onely to the regenerated and to those who discerne the Lords body and for a child to come to the Lords Supper or an unrenewed man is forbidden not commanded and no ill act is commanded and it is a sinne that they come at all But Erastus will have it lawfull as it is to heare the Word then doth Christ command Turks and children to come to the Supper for he commandeth them to heare the Word and Peter bade Simon Magus pray Act. 8. 22. but he neither bids give the Supper to him nor bids he him receive it but by the contrary forbids pearles to be cast unto Swine Erastus Arg. 16. God will not have fewer Christians to be members of the Church now then of Iewes to be members of the Iewish Church But God would have all circumcised even the most flagitious that were punished by the Magistrate to be members of the Iewes Church Ergo God will have all the baptized to be Members of the Church Ans This will prove that all baptized even children should come to the Supper 2. I deny the Minor to wit that all the most wicked remained Members of the visible Iewish Church jure before God the wicked Iewes to God were as Sodom and Gomorrah Esa 1. 10. Yea he saith Amos 9. 7. Are ye not unto me as children of Ethiopians O children of Israel saith the Lord What they were de facto and not cast out was the fault of the Priests and that the Church does tollerate Iezabels Wolves Lions in the flock and admitteth them to holy things is their sin Erastus But Repentance was not alwaies commanded to those Iewes especially who were unclean by touching an unclean thing against their will and ignorantly and the purging of them depended on their owne will so they observed the Ceremonies of Moses Ans That is much for us if those who were uncleane against their will and cast out of the campe it being a trying Type that far more those that are wickedly scandalous are to be cast out of the Church Erastus The Church is a draw-â—et a field a marriage Supper there be good and ill in it and it was not the sinne of the inviters who are bidden invite all good and bad Mat. 22. But the man that came himselfe without the wedding garment he is cast into utter darkenesse Ergo The Officers are to invite all and forbid none Ans They are to invite all to all Ordinances and Seals even Dogs and Swine that is false They are to invite all to some Ordinances to heare the Law and Gospel preached but not the Seales that were to cast Pearles to Swine 2. The way of Erastus is that none are to be debarred nor to debarre themselves from the Seales more then from the Word The Lords forbidding Adam to touch the tree of Life and his casting of him out of Paradise and Cains being cast out from the presence of the Lord to me are rather Types presignifying Excommunication and that God will have wicked men debarred from holy things then patternes of Excommunications and so are they alledged by Beza and our Divines CHAP. VII Quest 3. Whether Erastus doth justly deny that Excommunication was typified in the Old Testament VVEe take types of uncleannesse in the Old Testament to be rightly expounded when the holy Ghost in the New-Testament doth expound them Now that Ceremoniall uncleannes did typifie Morall uncleannesse is cleare 2 Cor. 7. 17. Touch no uncleane thing and I will receive you 18. And I will be a Father unto you and yee shall be my Sonnes and Daughters saith the Lord Almighty This is a manifest Exposition of the Ceremoniall holinesse and cleannesse commanded in the booke of Leviticus for after the Lord hath given them a number of Lawes about eschewing of uncleane things he saith in generall Lev. 26. 3. If ye walke in my Statutes and keepe my Commandements and doe them 11. I will set my Tabernacle amongst you and I will be your God and ye shall be my people And it is a cleare allusion to Numb 19. 11. He that toucheth
Circumcision did typifie much naturall and originall heart corruption which cannot be punished by men or the Church but it followes not because Legall uncleannesse signifieth some other uncleannesse then that which is scandalous and censurable by the Church Ergo it signifieth not sinnes scandalous and censurable by the Church Erastus He that was legally unclean a long time or all his life as a Leper was not esteemed as no Iew or uncircumcised or a damned man he was to keepe the Sabbath yea none unclean were excluded from the Sacrament of the generall expiation in the 10. Moneth Lev. 16. and 23. Yea every soul under the pain of cutting off was to afflict his soule that day then the Lepers were not as Heathen and Publicans and condemned men yea the Magistrate could not punish a man for Leprosie Ans This is a poor argument because Ceremoniall Excommunication differeth from Christian Excommunication Ergo the former is not a type of the latter it followeth not Isaacs blood was never really shed Christ was really crucified Isaac was not mocked spitted on did not wear a crown of Thornes Iews and Gentiles crucified him not between two Theevs Ergo Isaac was no figure of Christ offered for our sins it followeth not 2. Nor are Lepers no Iews but in some respect they might no more come to the Temple 2. Nor amongst the people of God nor 3. Eate the Passeover then Heathens might doe and so are the Excommunicated with uâ— they are not exempted from faith repenting afflicting their soule for the sinnes of the Land nor are they eternally damned so they repent But Erastus hath no ground to say because the unclean were to afflict their soules and abstaine from servile worke in the day of atonement as our Excommunicants are not loosed from the duties of the ten Commandements wholly but from some publike Church duties but I see not how it followes Ergo The uncleane were to come to the holy convocation in the day of expiation and to observe the publike solemnities with Gods people One Law of God is not contradicent to another and the Leper and unclean were separated Ergo God could not tie them to be mingled with his people 3. The Leper was not punished by the Magistrate for he suffered onely for his Leprosie But it followeth not that the Magistrate should not punish a person obstinate to the Church Erastus When some uncleane persons were debarred from the Tabernacle and sacrifices many wickedmen were admitted Ergo. Moses both commanded men at the same time to come to the holy things and not to come Answ Moses bade the unclean come he bade all clean so they were not scandalously and openly wicked come and some came that were not bidden but rebuked for their coming as Ier. 7. 8. 9. Psal 50. 15. Here is no contradiction Erastus There be no figures of things present but of things to come morall uncleannesse was present at least there be no figures of things that incurre in the senses as theft and homicide Ans Circumcision the Lords Supper are signes and Symbols of things present as of Originall sinne our present union with Christ and communion of love amongst our selves Col. 2. 11. 1 Cor. 10. 16 17 18. 2. Scandals as they are spirituall wickednes incurre not in our senses yet other wayes they are visible 3. Christs dying was both tyipfied to Iohn the Apostle and Mary and his death incurred in their senses they saw him die So was Christ raised from the dead typified by Ionas in the belly of the Whale and with their eyes they saw him after he rose againe Erastus Houses cloaths trees stones were capable of legall uncleannes men onely of Morall Legall uncleannes is a qualitie wickednes morall is in actions Ans I am ashamed and wearied to put in Paper such childish things all this will not prove that Legall uncleannes is no type of Morall uncleannes Isaac was but a man Moses a man onely Ergo they cannot be Types of Christ who is more then a man Bread and Wine are some other thing then Christ then cannot these be symbols of Christ and our spirituall communion with him I see nothing here but a challenging of Gods wisedome who hath chosen leprosie bodily to figure out sinnes spirituall Leprosie Erastus will say not so Leprosie is in the category of quality and sinfull actions in the category of actions Erastus Legall uncleannes signifieth naturall corruption not scandals Ans Yea but Leprosie and other uncleannes legall was contagious and infectious and did relate to wicked actions that infect as a canker sin originall being common to all is not that contagious from one to many nor did the Lord ever command Separation for sinne Originall but for transgression of Ceremoniall Lawes he did Erastus The Ceremoniall uncleannes does typifie the justification and washing of a sinner in Christs blood because no unclean thing can enter in the New Ierusalem and so the Scripture Rev. 21. Esa 4â— Ioel 3. Acts 15. And it shadowes out no such thing as Excommunication out of the Church Ans All the arguments that Erastusmade to prove that legall separation and uncleannes proveth not Excommunication and Morall uncleannes will with the same force conclude that Legall uncleannes is not that which excludes men out of heaven As for instance to begin with the last Legall uncleannesse signifieth sinne originall not wicked actions therefore it signifieth not scandals then by this Legall uncleannes that caused legall separation is signified mens exclusion out of the high Jerusalem for onely sinne Originall not for actuall sins This type must be a lying type for actuall sins especially debaâ—res us out of the New Jerusalem Rev. 21. 8. c. 22. 15. 1 Cor. 6. 9. 2. Legall uncleannes and corruption of nature differ as much as legall uncleannes and actuall wickednesse But Erastus said the former cannot typifie the latter 1. Because Legall uncleannes is often involuntary 2. It is not universally forbidden 3. Many godly men may be legally unclean but actuall morall wickednesse is not so even so say I. 1. All naturall or originall uncleannes is voluntary in Adam 2. Is universally forbidden 3. It cannot consist with that holines which we must have or we cannot see God 3. By Erastus his fourth difference legall uncleannes was otherwise punished then naturall corruption for naturall corruption is punished with the first and second death Ephes 2. 2. Rom. 5. 15 16. the like may be said of all the rest 4. Numb 12. 14. Shame was unseparably annexed to Leprosie with contagion so leavening of others and shame is annexed to â—oul scandals and annexed to casting out of the Church 1 Cor. 5 6 7. 2 Thes 3. 14. Gal. 5. 9 10. But though a necessity of washing may be holden forth to us in Legall uncleannes ere we enter into Heaven yet not so directly as in legall separation for in it men scandalous are excluded out of the church least the uncleane
should infect the clean as is cleare as the light Num. 19. 22. Hag. 2. 13. Gal. 5. 9. 10. 1 Cor. 5. 6 7. but wicked men are not excluded out of the New Ierusalem in heaven for fear they should infect and defile any person in heaven 2. Separation from the Church is medicinall Num. 12. 14. that the party may be humbled and pardoned 2 Cor. 5 6 7. that the Spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord 1 Cor. 5. 5. and the man shamed for his further good 2 Thes 3. 14. But exclusion of men out of the New Jerusalem for their uncleannes Rev. 21. is not medicinall that they may be humbled but for their everlasting shame and destruction and therfore a separation from the Church by way of discipline is here intended not any exclusion out of heaven Erastus All Legall uncleannes is punished with exclusion but no man for corruption of nature is excluded out of the Church Ans We grant all and therefore legall uncleannes did hold forth actuall scandalousnesse not naturall corruption Erastus The actions of unclean men were punished by death Ergo Not by exclusion out of the Church Ans The Antecedent is not universally true Capitall faults as I said before were onely thus punished the consequence is null Erastus He that was legally unclean did defile all beside him even vessels places garments but Theeves adulterers doe not defile but these that consent to their wickednes nor did they defile the places The adulterous women brought to the Priest and temple did not defile the Priest or Temple Ioh. 8. Nor did Moses and others abstain from the worship the Manna c. because many wicked men did partake thereof nor were the vessels purified after wicked men touched them therefore it followeth not because God is more offended with the sacrifices of the wicked then of those that are onely legally uncleane that therefore wicked men are no lesse to be debarred from the holy things then those that are legally unclean Ans This is to dispute with God God made a law that he who being legally unclean should touch men or things legally unclean should pollute This Law God freely made as a positive statute who can tye God to make the like Law touching those that are morally uncleane no man now because God made no such Law it leaveth not off to be the sinne of the Priests that they brought the uncircumcised in heart to the Sanctuary as God complaineth Ezek. 44. 8 9. c. 22 26. And that the Church should hinder the wicked to pollute the holy things of God 2. The adulterous woman was brought to the Priest and Temple to be judged God had so commanded and therefore no wonder she polluted neither Priest nor Temple but had shee not polluted the Passeover Morally though I say not Ceremonially if she had eaten without Repentance and offering for her sinne I thinke she would Erastus Though God punish not pollution of holy things by debarring men from them it followeth not that he winketh at them for he punisheth them with death and more grievously Ans But by this that God punisheth the pollution of non-converting Ordinances with death we gather that the Church should also hinder the pollutions of them and punish Swine that trample on Pearles and not prostitute holy things to their lust Beza said those that were unclean had need of Sacrifices Ergo They were guilty of sinne Erastus saith that externall uncleannes was not sinne but because it put us in mind of our naturall corruption that had need to be purged in Christs blood Ans The breach of a Law is sin a Ceremoniall Law is a Law 2. It was punished often with cutting off from the Congregation but God did not cut off men from the Congregation for naturall corruption as Erastus granteth Erastus If legall uncleannes were sinne God would not have commanded it But God commanded or at least permitted the Priests and others to pollute themselves with the dead Levit. 21. Ezek. 44. Ans It is weakly argued for the father to kill the sonne then should be no sinne God commanded Abraham to offer up his son Isaac it is not properly a defiling nor a sinne when God Levit. 21. willeth the Priest to be neer those of his kin when they die it is Gods owne exception from the Law though to come neere to others when they are dead be sin Gods commanding and forbidding will is the formall cause and rule of obedience and sinne Erastus Where finde you that the Priests were to judge whether any had repented that so he might be admitted to the Temple Ans It is written Ezek. 44. 99. c. 22. 26. the Priests should not have admitted the uncircumcised in heart to the Sanctuary Ergo they should have tryed if they were such ere they admitted them Yea if in the very day of his oblation ere he offer the sinner must first restore what he hath unjustly taken away Lev. 6. 4 5 6. Ergo The Priest except he rule unjustly should judge whether he have first restored it in the principall and added the fift part more into it Levit 6. 5. As Ezra the Priest stood up and said unto them yee have transgressed and have taken strange wives now therefore make confession and separate your selfe from the people of the Land and from the strange wives Ezra c. 10. v. 11 12. And this they did ere they sacrificed Ergo the Priests judged of their repentance before they were admitted to Sacrifice and the washing of the hands in Innocency before the person compassed the Altar Psal 26. 6. must be tryed by the Priest if not the Priest offered to God the Sacrifice of fooles and did eate the sinnes of the people in offering for contumacious impenitents Erastus saith the putting away of their wives was a civill busines and belonged to the Magistrate Ans Ezra was a Priest and Shechaniah saith ver 5. Arise this matter belongs to thee and he is ordinarily called Ezra the Priest CHAP. 8. Quest 4. How Erastus acquitteth himselfe in proving that the place Mat. 18. maketh nothing for Excommunication ERastus The scope of the Lord is to teach how great an evill scandall is and how without offence scandals of vveake may be removed because vvhen vve referre an injury to the judge the vveak may be scandalized he speaketh not here of great injuries to be removed by Excommunication but of lesser and private ones betvveen brother and brother before we bring them before heathen judicatures proper to Heathens and Publicans Ans There is no scope of our Saviour to prevent heathen judicatures dreamed of in the Text nor a shadow thereof Vel per decimam tertiam consequentiam 2. He speakes not of small injuries onely 1. Christ must not be straitned in his words he speaks of scandals in generall ver 7. Woe to the vvorld because of offences they be not light that bringeth a woe upon the world
as Christ did forgive as man those that Crucified him though they did not repent 1 Pet. 2. 21 22 23. Luk. 24. 35 36 5. Erastus cannot deny but great injuries should be brought before the Magistrate and a little injury when an offender refuseth to obey the Christian Magistrate must be a great injury which maketh the man as a heathen and a publican What is before answered I shall not need to trouble the Reader withall to repeat Erastus The reason vvhy Christ speaketh here of the transaction of private iniuries is because he speaketh alvvaies in the singular numher if thy brother offend thee rebuke him betvveen him and thee alone take tvvo other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tell thou the Church Let him be to thee as a Publican he that is Excommunicated is not Excommunicated to one only but to all the Church Ans This shall make the whole ten Commandments Exod. 20 and the whole Gospel and the profession of it Rom. 10. 9. which are all spoken to one in the singular number often in the second person to command private vertues and forbid private sins only and not to be Laws obliging the Church in publick duties and to eschew publick sins Erastus Answereth Let him be to thee vvho art injured and to all that are injured as a Publican not to the vvhole Church for there be some lawes that agree privatly to the Magistrate and to none other some to Parents not to children to Masters not servants so neither is this precept to all Christians as the Decalogue is and such like but only to those that are privately hurt he saith not rebuke every brother thou meetest with but the brother that sins against thee Christ speaketh not in the third person nor to the Church for the Disciples were not the Synedrie or that Church Ans 1. It s most false that all the precepts of the Decalogue are all of them spoken to all and every man Honour thy Father and mother that begat thee is one of the Commandments and it is not spoken to those that are onely Parents themselves and have their naturall parents dead but doth it follow that that Command doth injoyne private obedience and forbid onely private not publick disobedience to naturall Parents So the sixth Command saith If thy brother fall in a Lyons den to the hazard of his life pull him out if thou cannot rescue him thy self alone take three with thee and assay it if thou cannot so rescue him tell it to twenty The man is not to rescue every brother here but onely the brother that is in danger to be devoured with the Lyon will any say the Law of the sixth Commandment is given here to one private man to help another in a private danger This rebuke thy brother is the Law of nature and it is under this Levit. 19. 17. Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart And if I rebuke him not for sinne any sinne and the most publick and so most offensive and scandalous to many I hate him nay I am not so much to rebuke him and gain his soul because the sin is an injury done to me as because it is done against the Majesty of God and destructive to the offenders soule and I must labour to gaine his soule 2. Erastus dreames that that is a private sin which is done to one man or one ranke of men to a Magistrate not a subject he is beguiled an offence and publick stumbling-block may be laid before one man and it is often a publick sin 3. The speaking of it in the second person is nothing for If thou beleeve thou art saved Rom. 10. 9. is as publike and universall as Iohn 3. 16. Whosoever beleeveth he is saved The second person in all precepts of Law and Gospel and this rebuke an offending brother is both is as broad as the third person and as large in extent except you say the verse Iohn 3. 16. comprehendeth some more beleevers that are saved then Rom. 10. 9. which is against sense 4. Christ ought not to have spoken to his Disciples as a Church because he is directing them as members and parts of a Church how to deale with an offender but if he heare not the Church that is the Christian Magistrate he should die saith Beza Erastus answereth But the Church or Iewish Synedrie had not power of life and death now they were under the Roman Empire Ans Christ here then sheweth not a way to remove Scandals because the Roman Emperors sword is not Christs Spirituall way 2 Cor. 10. The weapons of our warfare are not carnall but mighty through God Erastus By this same place I cannot prove there is such a thing as Excommunication what is said to one is said to the whole Church but it is said to one that he should forgive an offending brother seventy seven times in one day if he acknowledge his fault Ergo there can be no just cause vvhy the vvhole Church should not doe that vvhich every member is obliged to doe but your Presbyters vvill punish though any one should confesse his fault Ans There is a twofold forgiving one private in passing the private revenge of the fault and grudge against the person of the offender thus the whole argument is granted for Members and Church both are to pray Forgive us our sinnes as vve forgive them that sin against us I hope the Synedrie the Roman President the Magistrate thus are obliged to forgive those whose heads they justly take from them so Luke 17. We are to forgive our brother seventy seven times a day though he neither repent nor crave pardon but far more if he crave pardon But by this Argument the Christian Magistrate should use the sword against no bloody Parracide for he is thus to forgive him and much more if he say he repenteth 2. To forgive is to remit all punishment and so what is said to one Member of the Church is not said to the whole Church Private men have not power of Church-punishment to forgive it The Church hath a power limited by Christ that is to forgive and open heaven in so farre as they see Christ goe before and see the man penitent and therefore Erastus his consequence is short it followes not that the Church should no more excommunicate then one Member Erastus looks farre beside the booke in that he thinkes it is all one to forgive an injury and to remove a scandall in the way of Christ in labouring to gaine a brother I may forgive one that offendeth me and not labour at all to gaine his soul Erastus We cannot expound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against thee against the Church because he saith after tell the Church then the sense should be O Church tell the Church Ans It is not denyed by us but that the Scandall in the rise may be private but Erastus will have our Saviour to speake onely of private Scandals 2.
most at this time Ergo If the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inferre that a disobedient brother is most like these Heathen they must be greatest enemies to the Iewes and so remotest from Circumcision and all right to the holy things of God being the worst of the Heathen and so Erastus hath gained nothing but lost much by his poore Grammattication Yea if the offended brother should repute the offender as the worst of the Heathen he is to esteeme him who was once a Member of the Church in that he was obliged to heare the Church now as a Heathen and so no brother no Member of the Church and here Erastus must grant that one brother may un-church and Excommunicate any other for disobedience to the Church but the Church may not Erastus They are as absurd who say by Publicans here are understood wicked men for then by Heathen must be understood also the wickedest of the Heathen and not all the Heathen dwelling in Judea Ans I deny the consequence for by Publicans are meant men wicked and unpure by conversation and by Heathen men unclean by condition because without the Church and strangers to the Israel of God and without Christ and God in the world 2. We have proved what is meant by a Publican by evident Scriptures but that by a Publican is understood one who acknowledged no Magistrate but a Roman no Scripture no Greeke Author warranteth us to thinke it never man dreamed it but Erastus Erastus The Pharises hindred not Christ and his Apostles to come to the Temple Ans Christ was a born Jew and circumcised yea and what can the Practise of the Murtherers of Christ prove It is no Law But the Romans never sacrificed in the Temple but gave Liberty to the Iews to serve God according to his word and to hear Christ preach and that Christ kept the Ceremoniall Law and taught others even the cleansed Leapers so to do Matth. 8. is clear Erastus Private men do forgive sins Matth. 18. Luk. 17. Ergo to binde and loose is not a proper judiciall act of a Court Matth. 16. Christ speaketh not to Peter only but to all the faithfull who by teaching one another may bring one another to acknowledge their sin and if they do it they are pardoned if not their sins are bound in Heaven Ans To these the keys are given who retain and remit sins as Erastus saith But these be such as are sent of Christ as the Father sent his son Ioh. 20. 2. Either in this place there is given power to binde and loose by publick preaching the word or by some other place but this power to binde and loose by publick preaching is only given to Pastors and Teachers 1 Cor. 12. 29. Eph. 4. 11. 12. And Erastus granteth elsewhere that every private man by his office cannot preach nor administer the Sacraments and by no other place is this given to Pastors for I could elude all places with the like answer and say there is a publick Baptizing and Administration of the Supper by Ministers and sent Pastors only and a private also performed by private Christians yea by a woman and both are valid in Heaven and the binding and loosing of both ratified in Heaven 3. Christ spake this to the Disciples who before were sent to Preach and cast out Devils Matth. 10. and saith not Whom thou bindes on earth but in the plurall number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What things you binde on earth shall be bound in Heaven Erastus saith all this upon the fancy that binding and loosing of the Church and Peters private forgiving of his brother seven times a day must be all one which I do prove in another place to be different and amongst other reasons this is one because the Church pardoning hath a threefold order 1. between brother and brother 2. before two or three 3. Before the Church and the end of all is the gaining of the offending brother Matth. 18 15 16 17 18 19 20. But the private forgiving of a brother of which Peter speaketh Mat. 18. 21 22 23. and Luke 17 4 5. is of an inferiour nature for I know not if you can gain a brothers soule seven times a day if he but say It repenteth me Luke 17. 4. or seventy seven times Mat. 18. 22. These words It repenteth me said seventy times a day to the Church cannot satisfie to the gaining of a soule whereas to the private remitting of revenge it were enough We have the Text to warrant us that Christ spaâ—e to Stewards to whom the keyes are committed Erastus doth but wickedly assert he spoke to those who were as Christians in that act but the Text is cleare he speaketh of binding and loosing spiriâ—ually which is nothing to the holding off of a civill injurie which Erastus saith is the scope of our Saviour here and how hungry must that sense be That you deal with him as with an Heathen who acknowledgeth no Iudge but a Roman judge is a matter ratified in heaven 4. A private man is to forgive an injury even though the offender repent not Mat. 14. 15. Rom. 12. 19 20. Col. 3. 13. but that pardon cannot be ratified in heaven 5. See what we have said of binding and loosing before Erastus Though Christ should speake this onely to Ministers yet it followeth not that he speaketh this to other Presbyters Ans That dependeth on the proving that there be ruling Elders in the Church which I conceived have proved else where from Rom. 12. 8. 1 Cor. 12. 28. 1 Tim. 5. 17. I conceive when Christ spake this there was neither a formed Presbytery nor a formed Church Erastus Christ saith not if two or three Presbyters or two or three Ministers agree in one I will heare them but where two or three Christians agree Ans Nor doe we say that two or three can make an Excommunicating Church but Christ argueth a minore if the Lord heare two or three on earth farre more will he heare a Church and ratifie in heaven what they doe in binding and loosing offenders in Earth But how shall these words agree to the interpretation of Erastus for he expoundeth two or three and the whole Church to be but one Christian Magistrate can he be said to agree to himselfe Or can one or two or three meet together in Christs Name And what coherence is here Two or three conveeneth to pray that he that will not hear the Christian Magistrate may be dealt with as a Heathen man before the Roman judge how violent and farre off is this glosse and how unsuitable to the Text Erastus What other thing is it to a private brother to gain another to himselfe and to God then binding and loosing in Heaven Ans To bring him before the civill Magistrate either Christian or Heathen whose intrinsecall end by vertue of their office is not to gaine soules but to draw the blood of ill doers is farre
retorted 2. They were not to bee sorry at the mans repentance but to rejoyce yet were they to be sorry at the violent mean of cutting him off from Christs body as a father may be glad at the life and health of his childe and and yet be sorry that by no other mean his health can be procured but by cutting off a finger or a hand of his childe 3. They knew that miraculous killing as Erastus dreameth was also a saving ordinance the remaining in the Church or not remaining is all one because Paul chideth them as he dreameth that the man might be miraculously killed Erastus What need was there that the Corinthians with such diligence should intercede for the man if they knew when he repented he was to be received againe into the Church Now that they interceded for him is clear for Paul saith 2 Cor. 2. 10. To whom yee forgive any thing I forgive also Ans Because there is a great hazard in Excommunication of an higher degree of obduration and condemnation if the party be not gained 2. I see no ground for this conjecture that the Corinthians interceded for him at Pauls hand for if he ought to have been miraculously killed then whether he repented or repented not both Paul and the interceders sinned Paul in being broken they in requesting for a dispensation of a Law in which God would not dispense as he that would request to spare the life of a repenting Murtherer against Gods expresse Law should sinne and Paul should sinne in pardoning upon request where God would not pardon Erastus How excuseth Paul himselfe that he would try their obedience that c. 7. he would have their care for him made manifest if he had not commanded a greater thing then to debarre a wicked man from the Sacraments Ans This is but a shadow of a reason against the Word of God for to be cast out of Christs body and not acknowledged for an Israelite of God and that in heaven and earth and so to be debarred from the Seals is a higher thing then bodily killing as to be received as a Member againe and to be written amongst the living in Ierusalem is like the rising from the dead as may be gathered from Rom. 11. 15. and is farre more then deliverance from miraculous killing Erastus These words ye was made sorry according to God that ye might receive dammage of us in nothing cannot agree with the purpose they should have suffered no losse by obtaining pardon to a miserable man excluded from the Sacraments while he should repent but if he was to be killed they should have lost a brother and so suffered dammage Ans The hazard of losing his soule repentance not being so easie as Erastus imagineth had been a greater losse then the losse of a temporall life the soule being to be saved in the day of the Lord. Erastus Paul requireth his Spirit and the power of the Lord Iesus to this worke Ergo It was more then to debarre from the Sacraments Ans Erastus should prove Ergo It was more then to Excommunicate 2. Ergo It was rather more then bodily death His seventh reason I hope after to examine Erastus Paul saith he decreed to doe this and does not command the Church to doe it or that the Church alone should doe it We never read that Paul whether alive or dead did write to one or many to deliver any to Satan for the destruction of the flesh that was proper to the Apostles onely as the gift of healing was Act. 5. and c. 13. and he writeth he will come himselfe with the rod and he himself 1 Tim. 1. delivered Hymeneus and Alexander to Satan Ans This is much for us you never read that Paul did write to one or many and did chide them because they prayed not that he might worke this and this particular miracle or that without error he might write this or that Canonick Scripture and therefore because this delivering to Satan was commanded to the conveened together Church with his Apostolique spirit and warrant to deliver such a one to Satan and to judge him v. 12. And to purge him out and cast him out therefore am I perswaded it was no miracle proper to Paul onely 2. How prove you that Paul his alone without the Church Excommunicated Hymeneus Paul saith that Timothy received the gift of God by his laying on him hands 2 Tim. 1. 6. Ergo By the laying on of his hands onely and not of the whole Presbytery It followeth not the contrary is 1 Tim. 4. 14. 3. Delivering to Satan v. 5. is all one with purging out v. 7. as is cleare by the Illation I have decreed though absent to deliver such a one to Satan Hence his consequence v. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Purge out therefore 2. To deliver to Satan is either all one with judgeing those that are within v. 12. And so with judging this man and with putting of him out v. 13. or it is not all one if these be all one then hath the Church a hand in this delivering to Satan and so it is not a miraculous killing Erastus granteth the consequence if these be not all one this is two judgings of the man one of Pauls v. 5. by miraculous killing and another of Pauls and the Church v. 12. This latter must be some Church judgeing of those that are within the Church common to Paul and the Corinthians as the words cleare and which is opposed to Gods judging of those that are without and this is so like Excommunication that Erastus must make some other thing of it Now we cannot say that there was any miraculous judging of this man common to Paul as an Apostle and to the Corinthians the ordinary beleevers and Saints as Erastus yeeldeth 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to put away the man which is expresly commanded to the Church of Corinth v. 13. must be the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and putting away 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is v. 2. But that taking out of the midst of them is a miraculous killing of the man as Erastus saith now this cannot be for then the people must be joyned in the same work of miraculous killing with the Apostle Paul now both we and Erastus must disclaim this Ergo there must be some common Church casting out common to both Erastus To put away out of the midst of them is not to debar from the Sacraments but to kill if it were but to extrude the man out of the society of the faithfull what need was there of publick mourning and if he had been to be cast out amongst the heathen how could the spirit be saved as is said for without the Church there is no salvation Ans To put away out of the midst of them is to put the man out of the Congregation as the word Careh is expounded before and
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
did unworthily eat 1 Cor. 11. Ans There is no ground that God any way would have them to be killed that did eat unleavened bread and that we finde none for that cause ever killed is much for us for then God did not execute any such Law which as Erastus saith was broken by many It is like God never made any such Law 2. Because it is said he shall be cut off who eateth leavened bread it followeth not that therefore this was done immediately by God for it is said Lev. 18. 29. Whosoever doth any of these abominations even the soul that committeth them shall be cut off from amongst the people if that be killing it is known the Magistrate was to kill such as committed incest did lie with beasts But Vatablus expoundeth it of Excommunication thus Id est Deus non agnoscet illum tanquam Israelitam circumcisum and Vatablus understood the Hebrew Tongue better then Erastus who professeth he understandeth nothing of it 3. That which Erastus saith of Paul That God himself killed these at Corinth who did eat and drink unvvorthily may as well insinuate the Magistrate should kill with the sword all that communicateth unworthily which is absurd as it can prove that those that eat leavened bread were immediatly killed of God Erastus Those that eat leavened bread vvere debarred from the passeover But leavened bread signified scelera vvickednesse Ergo vvicked men should by us be debarred from the Sacraments 1. It is false that those that eat leavened bread vvere debarred from the passeover by Gods command These tvvo differ much he that eateth leavened bread shall be cut off and he that eateth leaven shall be debarred from the feast of the passeover even as these two the childe that clattereth in time of Sermon shall be whipt with rods and the childe that clattereth in time of Sermon shall be excluded from hearing Sermon when the Master forbiddeth to clatter in time of Sermon under a punishment he biddeth them not be absent from the Sermon so when God forbiddeth to eat leaven under a punishment be forbiddeth not to exclude the man from the passeover the Lord commandeth both to be done Ans 1. This is Erastus his Argument not the Argument of Beza for eating of leaven signifieth a scandalous and openly wicked man and if this be the Assumption it is true but the Syllogisme so formed shall conclude against Erastus 2. It is certain that God commandeth the Priests not to violate his holy things Ezech. 22. 26 Hag. 2. 11. 12. Ezech. 44. 8 9 10 11. Else how failed they in keeping the charge of the Lord in not differencing between the clean and the vnclean Now to eat the passeover with leavened bread is an expresse violation of the holy things of God Exod. 12. ver 8. You shall eat the flesh in that night rost with fire and vnleavened bread ver 11. And thus shall ye eat it ver 15. Seven dayes shall ye eat unleavened bread even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses 2. He that is unclean is forbidden to eat the passeover Lev. 9. 13. The clean only is to keep it And he that is clean and not on a journey and keepeth it not that man shall bear his sin Ergo the unclean are excepted and he who is sanctified according to the purification of the sanctuary only by the Law is to eat 2 Chro. 3â— 9. Therefore Hezechiah prayed that God would pardon them that were not so cleansed ver 18. To crave pardon presupposeth a sinne Num. 9. 3 4 5 6. But so it is That he that eateth unleavened bread in any of these seven dayes was unclean and to be cut off for his uncleannesse and transgressed this Ceremoniall Law Exod. 12. 8. 15. Levit. 9 13. Ergo he was not to be admitted to the holy things of God except the Priests and those who had the charge of the Passeover should know him to be purified Ezech. 22. 26. Hag. 2. 11 12. And we know it was the Priests part to pronounce any clean or unclean that the passeover was one of the chief of the holy things of God 3. Erastus his conjecture That he that did eat leavened bread was not to absent himself from the Passeover but to come tali modo according to the Law As the childe that clattereth in time of Sermon is not bidden be absent from the Sermon may prove as well that no unclean no heathen or uncircumcised are forbidden to eat the Passeover for no Law of God forbiddeth either to eat the Passeover except this that only the circumcised and the unclean were forbidden when the Lord in his Law putteth an expresse and a differencing or discriminative character on those that eat to wit that they be circumcised and clean who shall eat Ergo God in that putteth an evident inhibition on those that are uncircumcised heathen and unclean that they are not to eat as when God Commandeth every Male to be circumcised we infer then no Female were to be circumcised And by this means the uncircumcised Moabite the Philistine were not by the Priests and Porters debarred out of the Temple or from the Passeover so they would be circumcised and turn Jews Even as the childe is not excluded by a command of the Master from hearing Sermon only he is forbidden to clatter in time of Sermon But a Iew was both forbidden uncleannesse Ceremoniall by an expresse Law and by another Law he was forbidden to come to the Passeover and a heathen as heathen was both forbidden to eat and the Priests forbidden to admit him Erastus Though we should grant That those that eat leaven were debarred from the Passeover yet it shall not follow that those that live wickedly shall be debarred from the Lords Supper for the Feast of unleavened bread typified not the Supper of the Lord but the whole time of our life Otherwise saith he in his Thesis we may live wickedly all our dayes except when we come to the holy Supper as the Jews might eat unleavened bread at any time except on those dayes when the Lord forbade them Ans 1. We contend not that debarring of men from any one Ordinance was signified by putting away of the Leaven But that by putting of leaven from their houses and Table was typified as Paul here expoundeth it the putting of a wicked person out the midst of the Church 1 Cor. 5. 2. compared with ver 5 6 7. 13. If the Feast of unleavened bread typified all our life that we should be holy yet it had a speciall relation to our Purification when we did partake of the most holy Ordinances of God such as was the Passeover then and to us the Lords Supper Else Erastus might say God hath forbidden single Christians to live at all except they lived holily which is a vain conceit It is not lawfull to Erastus to put significations on types it his will and therefore that
Synedry was the Civill Magistrate Erastus When the Priest accused Jeremiah Chap. 26. of blasphemy he sate not amongst the Judges but stood as an accuser before the Magistrate So Beza Erastus replieth Your Synedry had no Civill jurisdiction because it is a dream 2. Should Pashut the Priest be both accuser and judge 3. In Ieremiahs time there was a Monarch in whose hand was all power in Christs time there was an Aristocracy the Government being in the hands of some chosen men Ans Certainly Ier. 26. 10. the Princes sate down in judgement but that the Priests sate with them we have not one word only the Priests accused him as worthy to die in the question of Law and so the people ver 8. Now the people undeniably cannot have been Iudges 2. Nor do we say the Priests were both judges Civill to condemn Ieremiah to die and accusers that doth not hinder but they in an Ecclesiasticall way were Iudges touching the question of Law whether he had spoken blasphemy or not and also Accusers before the Civill Iudges 3. It is to beg the question to say that all power even of Church-censuring was in the hand of the King 1. The King might exclude none of the Lepers out of the Camp the Priests only could by the Law of God do this and excluded Vzziah the King as a Leper out of the Congregation The King could not judge who were clean who unclean 2. That all power was in the hand of the Kings as if the Kings of Iâ—dah were by Gods Law absolute can never be proved but the contrary is evident Deut. 17. And that inferiour Iudges were essentially Iudges and the Lords immediate Deputies is clear by Scripture Deut. 1. 16. 2 Chron. 19. 5 6 7. Exod. 18. 21 c. Numb 11. â—6 17 18. Psal 82. 6 7. Rom. 13. 1 2. Erastus You ask how Caiaphas and the Priâ—sts had power against Iesus I ansvver 1. From God 2. From the Kings of Persia 3. From the permission of the Romans They apprehended him and bound him which was a part of Civill power nor was this some of the confusion under the Maccabees Hovv can this be proved Christ never rebuked it nor his Apostles the contrary is clear in Iosephus Ans A permissive power from God can prove no Law-power 2. Persians and Romans could not give to Priests and Levites the power of the sword to do what the Law of God had exempted them from doing they were not so much as numbred for the war but set apart for the service of Gods house Num. 1. 3. 45 c. they might in some extraordinary cases judge in civill businesse with the Civill Iudges in the same Iudicature but this was no standing Law 2. Erastus seeketh we would prove that the practise of bloody Pharisees was not against Law He knoweth it is his own Argument Affirmanti incumbit Probatio 3. Christ and the Apostles rebuked not particularly many other sins Pilate might have accused them for binding one of Cesars Subjects of whom he had said he found no fault in him 4. That Ioseph was a Priest or a Levite I reade not he was an Honourable Councellor some think of Pilates Councell 5. That they had any Law of God to apprehend Iesus or that Ioseph had any hand in either condemning or doing any thing in the Sanedrim but shewing his judgement as a Iudge in the question of Law what was blasphemy we must deny let Erastus prove it if so be Erastus make him either Priest or Levite Ioh. 18. 31. The Iews expresly deny the power that Erastus giveth them Pilate therefore said unto them take him and judge him according to your Law which was a salt mocking of them I knovv if you had povver you should not have brought him to me therefore if ye have povver use it The Ievvs therefore said unto him It is not lavvfull for us to put any man to death and the Evangelist addeth ver 32. That the saying of Iesus might be fulfilled which he spake signifying what death he should die that is God had taken power of life and death from the Iews in his admirable providence that Iesus might die a Roman death due for treason that is that he might be crucified Ergo the Iews had no power to put him to death It is weak and empty that Erastus saith They had not povver to put him to death for saying he vvas King because that was a civill crime But they had power to put him to death and to stone him for blasphemy for the Iews say universally without distinction of causes with two negations which in the Greek Language is a strong and universall negation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We have not power to kill any man Ergo the place will never prove that the Church men might not kill him because the Iews might kill no man you will say Hovv had they povver vvith svvords and staves to take the Kings free subject and binde him which yet they did I answer it was an usurped power for by Erastus his doctrine they had no more power to take him and binde him for Treason which was a civill crime then they had to kill him for Treason both was alike unlawfull by the Roman Lavv and Pilate being a man willing to please the people as the event of the businesse sheweth did not in a legall way challenge them for binding him but he durst not be answerable to his Prince Cesar if he had past by such a high point as their putting Christ to death But we desire any Law of God for practises especially of wicked men are no binding rule that Priests or Levites in the Old-Testament might either binde a Iew or put him to death and when Pilate did stand so much to put Christ to death they would have used their own power malice so necessitating them if they had had any and might well have said to Pilate It is lavvfull for us to put him to death for blasphemy but vve vvill not use our povver vve so love to be loyall to Caesar but they say the contrary We have no povver to put any man to death They say indeed that by their law he ought to die But that they had no power to put him to death for the Common people said that as may appear if we compare Ioh. 19. ver 5. with ver 12. with Matth. 27. 25. and with Act. 2. 36. Act. 3. 12. c. and yet Erastus will not say that the common people were Members of the Sanedrim or had power of life and death as the Civill Magistrate had Erastus Steven was stoned by the Sanedrim not by tumult for there vvere vvitnesses as the lavv required Act. 7. The vvitnesses vvho by the lavv vvere to cast the first stone at the man condemned vvere here therefore there vvas Lavv-povver to stone him though they did it unjustly Ans Beza meant that Steven was stoned by tumult that is without
Law of God so the seventy translate it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hieronym intrabunt in Ecclesiam Domini Vatablus in Not. erint de consortio populi Sancti The English Annotators cite for this Nehe. 13. 1 2. the Law is that the Moabite and the Ammonite should not enter into the Congregation of the Lord for ever It is said v. 3. They separated from Israel all the mixed multitude so that cleare it is to enter into the Congregation is to become a Member of the Church then to be separated from the Congregation must be to be cast out of the Church and deprived of the holy things of God as heathens and strangers were according to that Levit. 22. 10. There shall no stranger eate of the holy thing What is this but Excommunication call it with another name we care not it is really to be separated from the Church 7. It is admirable to me to heare Erastus say It cannot be that God who is no accepter of of persons will not receive into his Kingdome a Bastard an Ammonite a Moabite Is not this to reason against the Law of God and the wisedome of God Deut. 23. 1. 2 3. who saith that he will not receive such into his Church which is his Kingdome and a company of Kings and Priests unto God which he hath freely loved Exod. 19. 5 6. Psal 149. 1. Deut. 7. 7. Deut. 26. 16 17 18. as â—oâ— the rejecting of men from his heavenly Kingdome according to Gods decree of eternall Reprobation I deny Excommunication to be any such rejection of men it being onely a casting them out from the visible Church and the speciall Church priviledges that their Spirits may be saved in the day of the Lord and what can be more contrary to the Word then that Erastus should say God declared not that it was his will that Moabites Ammonites should not be circumcised anâ— admitted to the Sacraments Why then did hee not chuse Moabites and Ammonites for his people and make a covenant with them and give Circumcision a Seale of the Covenant as he dealt with the Iewes if he mean God will not exclude Moabites and Ammonites from the Sacraments so they repent and turne to him but now Erastus fights with his owneshaddow Who denieth but Iewes and Gentiles so they call on him are welcome to all the holy things of God and not to be cast out of either Church or Synagogue 8. To say to cast out of the Synagogue is a meeker word then to Excommunicate is but to beg the question Yea but saith Erastus it is lesse and a milder thing then to destroy and pro deplorato habere to esteeme a person lost we say Excommunication is not to destroy or to give for lost but though it be the most violent yet it is a saving remedy that the man may be ashamed humbled and his Spirit saved 9. We reason not from the fact of Pharisees if they cast any out of the Synagogue for a just cause they ought also by Gods Law to debarre them from Temple and Sacraments and therefore if they did not debarre it was their sinne not our Rule CHAP. XXI Quest 17. Divers other Arguments vindicated as from Communion with the Church subjection of Magistrates and Ministers The Ceremonially unclean from Matth. 18. Tell the Church Erastus Christ hath given a power to his Church to loose Ergo also to binde The Church admitteth Believers into Communion Ergo they cast out the impenitent Erastus Answereth Such a power as they have to Ioose and to admit such and no other have they to binde and to cast out but it follovveth not Ergo it is a povver to debar from the Sacraments and to Excommunicate it is à Genere and Speciem affirmativè Ans Erastus is mistaken and formeth the Argument as he pleaseth The Church pardoneth as a Church and receiveth into her body believers to participate of Church-priviledges and Sacraments in a Church Communion Ergo the Church hath power to binde and cast out from this same Church-Communion those that leaveneth the whole lump as a City may admit a stranger to all the City priviledges Ergo the same City may for offences against the City cast out and deprive of City priviledges offenders is this a Genere ad speciem affirmativè If the Church have a power to cast out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from amongst them a Member we shall not contend for the name of Excommunication Erastus The Ministers have none by whom in their office they can be corrected But saith Erastus If every soul be subject to the higher powers how are Ministers excepted if Ministers correct Ministers they play to others hands spare thou the nails and I shall spare the teeth Ans The Author doth not except Ministers from civill subjection to Magistrates But only he saith In Ecclesiasticall censures the Magistrate is not to judge the Ministers because a Ministery being an Ecclesiasticall office as such it is not liable to the civill power only the Ministers as they erre and sin in their persons are liable to civill punishment but not to Ecclesiasticall to be inflicted by the Magistrate 2. Through the corruption of mens nature every one may wink at anothers faults It is true But consider if this slow from the nature of Gods Ordinance to wit that the Citizen obey the Laws of the City whereof he is a member This is an Argument against any Senate Parliament Counsell of State or War or Aristocracy on earth if of an hundreth Lords of the States Generall one or ten play the Traytor to the State who shall take order with them Their Collegues and fellow-Senators Partiall judging falls out here through mens corruption spare thou the nails and I le spare the teeth and from Erastus his way if you Argue from mens corruption the same will follow May not the Magistrate say to the Minister Honour me before the people and Preach not against the sins of King and Court and I will oversee and wink at thy Pluralities non-residencies soul-murthers And may not the Minister say to the Magistrate Let me be above all Civill Laws and be Lord Prelat and sit on the necks of my Brethren and defraud oppresse and I shall be silent and preach nothing against the idolatry oppressions Sodomy uncleannesse of Magistrate and court Erastus The Ceremonially unclean were excluded from the Sacraments Ergo far more the Morally unclean But how saith he doth this follow You Excommunicate none but the obstinate for those that were Ceremonially unclean against their will were excluded from the holy things Ergo far more he that is Morally unclean is to be debarred though he be not obstinate How could Paul Excommunicate the incestuous man 1 Cor. 5. he was never admonished or Peter Excommunicate Annanias as you say Ans All Types or comparisons hold only in that for which the spirit of God doth bring them Now the Ceremonially unclean were debarred from
the Magistrate under the New Testament because they were killed in the Old Then are we to stone the men that gathereth sticks on the Lords day the childe that is stubborn to his Parents the Virgins daughters of Ministers that committeth fornication are to be put to death Why but then the whole judiciall Law of God shall oblige us Christians as Carolosladius and others teach I humbly concieve that the putting of some to death in the Old Testament as it was a punishment to them so was it a mysterious teaching of us how God hated such and such sins and mysteries of that kinde are gone with other shadows But we read not saith Erastus where Christ hath changed those Laws in the New Testament It is true Christ hath not said in particular I abolish the debarring of the leper seven dayes and he that is thus and thus unclean shall be separated till the evening nor hath he said particularly of every carnall Ordinance and judiciall Law it is abolished But we conceive the whole bulk of the judiciall Law as judiciall and as it concerned the Republick of the Iews only is abolished though the morall equity of all those be not abolished also some punishments were meetly Symbolicall to teach the detestation of such a vice as the boaring with an Aâ—le the ear of him that loved his Master and desired still to serve him and the making of him his perpetuall servant I should think the punishing with death the man that gathered sticks on the Sabbath was such and in all these the punishing of a sin against the Morall Law by the Magistrate is Morall and perpetuall but the punishing of every sin against the Morall Law tali modo so and so with death with spitting on the face I much doubt if these punishments in particular and in their positive determination to the people of the Iews be morall and perpetuall As he that would marry a captive woman of another Religion is to cause her first pare her nailes and wash her self and give her a moneth or lesse time to lament the death of her Parents which was a Iudiciall not a Ceremoniall Law that this should be perpetuall because Christ in particular hath not abolished it to me seems most unjust for as Paul saith He that is Circumcised becomes debter to the whole Law sure to all the Ceremonies of Moses his Law So I Argue à pari from the like He that will keep one judciciall Law because judiciall and given by Moses becometh debter to keep the whole judiciall Law under pain of Gods eternall wrath We do not teach that men are to be Excommunicated for whatever scandalous sins deserve death at the hand of the Magistrate whether they openly repent or not if any give evident signification of their repentance for murther they are not to be Excommunicated for the end of Excommunication being once obtained which is the visible and known repentance and saving of the offenders soul the mean is not to be used which is Excommunication But if any commit murther whether he repent or repent not the Lord hath made no exception of regenerate or not regenerate of men repenting or not repenting he should die by the sword of the Magistrate Gen. 9. 9. It is true some are to be Excommunicated for the very atrocity of the sin it being parricide but that is because he giveth no positive signes of repentance to the Church which is contumacy added to his parricide Erastus would prove That God would not have men dedebarred from the Sacraments because they commit haynous sins to be punished with death by the Judge 1. Facinora saepe sunt occulta such crimes are often unknown to the world Ans That which is denied is not concluded a fault in Logick for only scandals as scandals to the Church and so known to the Church are to be censured with Excommunication Erastus He thus would prove the same often these crimes cannot be punished as David durst not punish the murther of Ioab 2 Sam. 3. Often for other causes they are neglected by the Magistrate as David neglected to punish the incest and murther of Absolon but shall we think such were not to come to the Temple and Sacraments so Psal 14. David saith There was not one that doth good those were not all punished by the Magistrate yet were they not removed from the Sacraments Ans Let Erastus argue here and we shall see his logick Those that commit parricides sorceries and do trample the holy things of God under feet whom yet the Magistrate dare not punish because of their power and greatnesse those are not to be debarred from the Sacraments But there be many scandalous persons in the Church such as Ioab whom the Magistrate dare not punish for their greatnesse Ergo Ans The Major is manifestly false and a begging of the question For Erastus saith pag. 207. He thinketh such ought not to be admitted to the Sacraments who will trample on the Sacraments and prophane them For though the Magistrate dare not punish them which is his sinfull neglect if they be dogs and swine as often they are and bloody men such as Ioab they ought not yea they never were by any Law of God admitted to the Temple and Sacraments what they did de facto or the Priests permitted is not the question It was Davids sinne that he took not away the head of bloody Ioab when he killed Abner and Amasa 2. How doth Erastus prove that David neglected to punish the incest of Absolon his sinfull neglect in not punishing his murther I yield for Absolon was never in Davids power to punish after he committed that incest possibly he neglected to punish his owne Concubines that is but a conjecture It is as like Absolon forced the Concubines to that incest as any other thing 3. For that Psal 14. There is none that doth good it is spoken of the naturall corruption of all mankind who therefore cannot be justified by the works of the Law as Paul expoundeth it Rom. 3. 9 10 11 19 20 21. and not of scandals punishable by the Magistrates and where this corruption did break out in bloods within the Church it ought to have been punished both by the Magistrate and Church so it is an argument yet a facto ad jus and a great inconsequence 4. I aske for what cause doth the Spirit of God rebuke killing of the Children to Molech and coming that same day to the Temple Because it was a sinne and particularly a prophaning of the Sanctuary which was one speciall holy thing to God Ezek. 23. 38 39. Ier. 7. 8 9 10 11. It was no sin to come to the Temple Sure it was commanded of God in his Law as Erastus yieldeth What was the sin then to come with their hands full of blood and of the unnaturall blood of their owne Children was the sinne and yet if they had repented to come after they had killed their Children was
the Sacraments Heathen remaiing Heathen they should prostitute holy things to Dogs and be guilty of an Heathen mans eating of his owne damnation Hence this Assertion of Mr. Prynne must be a great mistake That Ministers may as well refuse to preach the Word to such unexcommunicated grosse impenitent scandalous Christians whom they would suspend from the Sacrament for feare of partaking with them in their sinne as to administer the Sacrament to them because saith he unprofitable hearing is as damning a sinne as unworthie receiving of the Sacrament 1. Because there is and may be discovered to bee in the congregation persons as unworthy as Heathen such as Simon Magus yea latent Iudasses Parricides who are in the visible Church while God discover their hypocrisie but we may lawfully preach the Word to men as uncapable of the Word as Heathen and as unworthie as Christ and the Apostles did who did not contravene that Cast not Pearles to Swine yet we cannot give the Sacraments to men knowne to be as scandalous uncapable and unworthy as Heathen but we must prostitute holy things to Dogs and partake of their sinne for this is non causa pro causa that Mr. Prynne bringeth to say we may as well refuse to preach the Gospell to scandalous impenitents as to administer the Sacrament without partaking of the sinnes of either because unprofitable hearing is as damning a sinne as unworthy receiving the Supper This Because is no cause it is true they are both damnable sinnes but how proveth he that Preachers partake equally of both I can shew him a clear difference which demonstrateth the weaknesse of this connexion 1. Vnprofitable hearing of the Gospell in a Heathen is as damning a sin as hypocriticall receiving of the Sacrament is a sinne they are not equalia peccata but sure they are â—què peccata but I may preach the Gospel to a Heathen and not partake of his sinne of unprofitable hearing for I may be commanded to preach to a Heathen remaining a Heathen as Paul preached to Felix to the scoffing Athenians to the persecuting Iews and giving obedience to the command of God freeth me from partaking of his unprofitable hearing But I cannot administer the Lords Supper to an Heathen remaining a Heathen without sharing in his sin and suppose a Heathen remaining a Heathen would croud in to the Lords Table as of old many Heathen fained themselves to be Iewes desiring to serve the time 1 Sam. 14. 21. yet I should partake of the Heathens unworthy receiving if knowing him to be a Heathen serving the time and crouding in amongst the people of God I should administer the Lords Supper because I have no command of God to administer the Lords Supper to a Heathen man nor could Paul administer the Sacrament to the scoffing Athenians or to Felix without taking part with them in their prophaning of the Lords Table 2. The necessity of preaching the Word it being simply necessary to the first conversion of a sinner putteth Pastors in a case that they may and ought to preach the Gospell to Heathen and to thousands knowne to be unconverted without any participation of their unprofitable hearing and the non-necessity of the Lords Supper or the Seale of the Covenant and the nourishing of their souls to life eternall who visibly and to the knowledge of those who are dispensers of the Sacrament prophane and abominably wicked putteth those same dispensers in a condition of being compartners with them in the prophaning of the holy things of God if they dispence the bread to those that are knowingly dead in sinnes so the Gospell may be taught in Catechisme to Children Deut. 6. 6 7. 2 Tim. 3. 15. Exod. 12. 26 27. Gen. 18. 19. Prov. 22. 6. because there is a necessity they be saved by hearing Rom. 10. 14. 1 Cor. 1. 23. but there is no necessity but a command on the contrary that the Lords Supper be dispensed to no children nor to any that cannot examine themselves and they may be saved without the Sacrament but not ordinarily without the Word nor were it enough to forwarne Apostates and persecutors and Hypocriticall heathen and children that if they eate unworthily they eate their owne damnation as Mr. Pryn saith and yet reach the Sacrament to those for the dispensers then should â—ast Pearls to some Dogs and Swine contrary to Mat. 5. 6. and they should be free of the guilt in polluting of holy things if they should give them a watch-word say they were about to prophane the holy things of God before they committed such wickednesse Nor doe we as Mr. Pryn saith nor know we or the Scriptures any such distinction as sealing externally to the senses of any receiving the Lords Supper lawfully divided sinfully it may be divided but there is no Law for sinne no print no authority of men for it from the internall sealing nor heard we ever of two sorts of conversion one externall from Paganisme to the externall profession of the faith wrought extraordinarily by Miracles without the Word and ordinarily by Baptisme in Infants and another internall from formall profession to an inward imbracing of Christ and his merits 1. Because the Stewards and Ambassadors of Christ may notdare to play with the Sacraments as children doe with nuts to seal to mens senses and fancies Christ and spirituall nourishment in him and part in his body broken and blood shed in those who visibly have nothing of faith to their discerning and of the life of Christ but onely senses and fancie such as all visibly and notoriously scandalous walking after the flesh all Herericks Apostates knowne and unwashen Hypocrites have and no more 2. All heathen and unbaptized have senses and are capable of externall washing and externall and Sacramentall eating as well as others are but are they capable of the Seals because they have bodies to be washed and teeth and stomacke to eat Sacramentally And have Ministers warrant enough to dispense the Sacraments to all that have senses But they must be within the visible Church also ere they be capable of Sacraments Mr. Pryn will say but I aske by what warrant Mr. Pryn alledgeth that the Supper of the Lord is a converting ordinance as well as the Word and that Pastors may without sinne dispense the Sacraments to those to whom they preach the Word but they may preach the Word to Heathen remaining Heathen Ergo may they dispense the Lords Supper to Heathen remaining Heathen What more absurd yet remaining Heathen they are as capable of Mr. Pryn his sense-sealing and sense-converting Sacraments as any sound beleever 3. A sealing to the senses cannot be divided from the inward sealing by the Spirit neither in the intention of God for the externall sealing without the internall is Hypocrisie and God cannot intend Hypocrisie nor can this division be in regard of the nature of the Sacrament for it doth seal to us our spirituall nourishment in Christ except we
1 Cor. 5. 12. Ergo their being Members of the Church is not enough to admit them to the Lords Supper except they be to the Church otherwise qualified and fitted for it And this doth clearly evidence That the word of the Kingdom may ought to be Preached to many within the Church that they may be converted to whom the Supper is not to be dispensed that they may be cōverted which is enough for our point to exclude promiscuous admission of all to the Supper and to prove some other qualification must be requisite in those that come to the Supper before the Ministers without violation of the holy things of God and being guilty of not distributing aright can administer the Supper to them and this is another visible qualification then is requisite in those that hear the word For Erastus and Mr. Prynne require That all that come to the Supper be rightly instructed 2. That they promise amendment of life But they cannot say none are to be admitted to hear the word while they be qualified thus you exclude the ignorant from the Sacrament do you exclude the ignorant from hearing the word Farther I desire to be resolved why Erastus and his require any qualification at all in the one more then in the other according to their way For suppose persons Baptized be only negatively blamelesse and not visibly scandalous yet Erastus and Mr. Prynne cannot deny the Supper to such Suppose they know not whether they be as ignorant of God as Indians and suppose they promise no amendment and do positively professe no repentance at all 1. Ministers can deny no converting Ordinances to persons because ignorant for if the Supper of the Lord be a converting Ordinance it shall convert men from their ignorance and an Indian ignorant of Christ ought to be Baptized to the end that Baptisme may convert him from his ignorance Now I think our Brethren cannot say this and therefore they must yield that Ministers dare not admit all within the Church to the Seals except they would be guilty of their sin in eating to themselves damnation and yet they dare not debar the ignorant within the Church from hearing the word and so are no way compartners with them in the sin of unprofitable hearing 2. Mr. Prynne may here see some ignorants debarred from the Lords Supper yet I hope he would not be so rigid as to Excommunicate all ignorants because ignorant the most rigid Novatians would condemne that and here is sole suspension without Excommunication which Mr. Prynne saith is not to be found in all the word of God I wondred much when I read those words of the learned and reverend Master Prynne That God who bestoweth no Ordinances on men in vaine must intend in instituting the Supper that visible morall unregenerate Christians may be converted thereby as well as reall Saints be confirmed to which I reply 1. Neither word nor Sacraments nor any thing on the part of the Almighty can be intended in vaine though the end of the Ordinance be not obtained I should have expected some such divinity from the pen of Arminians and Socinians who make God to intend the salvation of all and every one in both the promises of the Gospel precepts and Sacraments and yet he falleth from this end so you may read in Arminius Anti-Perkins pag. 60. that God is disappointed in his end in both Law and Gospel and God shooting beside his mark misseth the salvation of many say the Remonstrants at the Synod of Dort pag. 216. and in their confession c. 7. sect 3. and because Socinus thought it hard thus to take from God wise intentions he did no lesse then blasphemously deprive him of his omniscience So Socians contra puccium c. 10. and in prelectionib Theolog. c. 11. made all things that are contingently to come uncertaine to God But if you speak of intentio operis non operantis that the Supper in its nature is ordained this may rather be your meaning that morall men like Cicero and Seneca and Iudas and the like for all are alike in regard of the nature of the ordinances and of that which is the genuine intention not of God but of this Sacrament then you speak not of the supper as divided from the word but as the word going before the Sacrament hath converted the man and the Sacrament following doth adde to and confirme in grace So Sir you depart from the question for we grant that the Sermon going before in the same day of the celebration of the Supper may and doth convert and thus if an Indian heare a Sermon to which the celebration of the Supper is annexed if he be converted by that Sermon as you teach the heart in those is only knowne to God the Church is not to judge he may forthwith ere he be baptised come at the same time to the Lords supper which were much precipitation little speed and so the word formally converteth not the Sacrament But if you mean that the Sacrament formally as the Sacrament is of its nature a mean of converting a morall Seneca you mistake the nature of the seal very farre God never intended that food as food should give life to the dead the Supper as the Supper is spirituall food and presupposeth the eater hath life and how gate he life but by the word of God 2. Doth the Sacrament as the Sacrament humble or speak one word of the Law doth the Sacrament say any thing here but Christ died for thee O Seneca and there is a pledge of his love in dying for thee and the like it speaketh to Iudas as Master Prinne thinketh and can this convert a morall man never yet humbled for sinne But I have gone thus out of the way in this purpose I returne and desire pardon for this digression not I hope fruitlesse at this time If the Magistrate be the chiefe Church-officer how is it that the Church was without Christian Magistrates in the Apostles time then is there no exact paterne of a Christian Church what it should be de jure hath Christ in the New Testament not moulded the Church the second temple in all the dimensions of it as Moses David Solomon did by immediate inspiration shew us the measure of the first Tabernacle Sanctuary and Temple finally should Cesar suppose he had been a Christian have received imposition of hands from the Elders a◠his deputies the Ministers do and be over the Church in the Lord as King and receive accusations against Elders ordaine Elders in every Church put out and cast out the unworthy only for the iniquity of the time Ministers were forced to do these Erastus and his have not one word of Scripture for this or were the keys of the Kingdome of heaven given to Cesar and because Cesar was without the Church therefore Peter received them Matth. 16. while Cesar should be converted what Scripture have we for this for to rule the Church
in the second table Rom. 13. 3 4. Isai 49 23. and you said elsewhere that externall peace is too narrow an object for the Magistrate for the intrinsecall end of a Magistrate is also a supernaturall good and not only a peaceable but also a godly life 1 Tim. 2. 2. Ans It is true the Magistrate as the Magistrate doth care for the supernaturall good of subjects and the duties of Religion and the first table but how intrinsecally and as a magistrate that is that men worship God according to his word But 1. The magistrate as such hath nothing to do with the spirit nor can he command the sincerity of the worship his care is that there be a divine worship that is materially and externally right and consonant externally to the rules of the word and for this cause learned divines make the externall man the object of the magistrates office but not the externall man as doing the duties of the second table only but also as serving God in the duties of the first table for which cause I said Augustine meant the same when he said that Kings serve God as men and as Kings 2. Magistrates as magistrates are to extend their power for Christ that is that not only there be Iustice and Peace amongst men but also that there be Religion in the land yea that the Gospel be preached so all our Divines make the King to be custos â—t vindex utriusque tabule Yea I think he is a keeper and preserver of the Gospel also and is to command men to serve Christ and professe the Gospel and to punish the blaspheming of Iesus Christ and this is royall and magistraticall service that the King as King performeth to God and to Iesus Christ the mediator ex conditione operis in regard that good which he procureth as King materially and externally is consonant to the supernaturall Law of the Gospel but it is not magistraticall service to Christ ex intentione operantis Obj. 4. When it s required that the Magistrates be men fearing God hating coveteousnesse c. is not this an essentiall ingredient of an King as a King that he read in the book of the Law that he may feare God Deut. 17 Ans There is a twofold goodnesse here to be considered one of the magistrate as a magistrate another as a good and Christian magistrate The former is an officiall goodnesse or a magistraticall prudence justice and goodnesse this is required of all magistrates as such to judge the people so the acts of an heathen magistrate done according to common naturall equity by Nebuchadnezzar Pilate Cesar Felix Festus are to be acknowledged as acts of a Lawfull Magistrate valide and no lesse essentially Magistraticall then if performed by King David and of this goodnesse the Scriptures speak not as essentiall to a Magistrate as a Magistrate But there is another goodnesse required of Magistrates as they are Members of the Iewish Church and as they are Christians and of these the Scripture speaketh and so Magistrates not as Magistrates but as good and Christian are to be such as feare God hate covetousnesse respect not the face and favour of men so it s denied that the fear of God hating of covteousnesse are essentiall ingredients of Kings as Kings For Kings as Kings intend justice peace godlinesse materially considered both ex conditione operis and operantium But for justice and righteous judgement in a spirituall and an Evangelick way that belongeth not to the essence of a Magistrate nec ex conditione seu ex intentione operis nec ex conditione operantis The Holy Ghost requireth it of judges as they would approve themselves as truly Holy and Religious and would be accepted of God and in this sense Kings as Kings do not serve God nor the mediator Christ nor yet as men only they serve God and the mediator Christ as Christian Kings or as Christian men rather III. According to that third member of our seventh Distinction The unjust and evil exercise of the Ministeriall power is obnoxious to the magistrate as the magistrate thus in that he beareth the sword against all evil doers Ro. 13. 1. The magistrate as the magistrate doth only command well doing in order to praise and a good name or temporall reward amongst men Rom. 13. 3. Do that which is good and thou shalt have praise of the power 1 Tim. 5. 17. Matth. 10. 10. Nor can the magistrate as the magistrate promise or command the Elders to feed the Flock with the promise of the reward that Peter promiseth 1 Pet. 5. 4. to wit That when the chief shepheard shall appear they shall receive a Crown of glory that fadeth not away The magistrate as a Preacher if he be one as David and Solomon were both or as a godly religious Christian man may hold forth such a promise but not as a Magistrate and upon the same ground the Magistrate as the Magistrate cannot forbid careles unsound preaching and rigorous and tyrannicall ruling or rather domineering over the Flock under the pain of death eternall for he can but kill the body and hath but the carnall and temporall sword Rom. 13. 4. and so he can inhibite ill doing only in order to temporary punishment and though the duty of the former be spirituall and the sinne of the latter also yet the externall man is capable only of the Magistrates promises and threatnings as they respect evill or good temporary so that it is a wonder to me that M. Pryn or any learned man can say that magistrates can make Lawes to binde the conscience sure it is ill divinity 2. If there never had been sin there should have been no government but of Fathers and Husbands there should have been no magistraticall dominion not any magistraticall allurement to weldoing by temporall rewards not any terrifying from evill doing from fear of the sword death stripes or bands and God governed the Apostolick Church and they attained the Crowne and supernaturall end of life eternall without the accessory hire of a a temporary reward from the magistrate and the subsidy of his sword Ergo it is evident that the magistrate is neither an essentiall nor an integrall part of the visible Church as the visible Church injoying all the Ordinances of God Word Sacraments Discipline Censures Rebukes Admonition Excommunication Prayers Mutuall edification in as great perfection as is happily attainable in this life without yea against the will of the civill magistrate Though it be a great incouragement to have the King a Nurse-father yet hath not Christ counted it simply necessary to his visible Church injoying all the Ordinances of God to the full 3. If the magistrate do only command the teachers and Pastors to preach and determine synodically in order to a temporall reward and forbid them to abuse their ministeriall power in order to temporary punishment by the temporary sword then surely the Pastors and Teachers are
not subjected to them in conscience after any Ecclesiasticall way for the power of commanding in magistrates as magistrates must be commensurable to the power of punishing the transgressors of the command if the one be in order to a temporary good the other cannot but be in order to an eternall ill if ministers command in the name of Christ in order to an eternall reward they cannot threaten the transgressors in order to a temporary punishment but it must be in order to an eternall punishment so that it is most clear that the magistrate though he be in some sense a little God and invested with the authority and Majesty of God in that he commandeth and threatneth upon proposall of temporary reward and temporary good the very same duties that God injoyneth and forbiddeth the same evills of sinne that God forbiddeth yet he holdeth not these out to the soul and conscience of the subjects as the Ambassador of Iesus Christ upon condition of eternall life if they obey and of eternall death if they disobey but he holdeth out to the external man these that are materially divine commandements divine inhibitions but in another consideration but formally only they are the mandates of the Magistrates in order to temporary reward and temporary punishment Then the Ministers as Ministers in preaching and Synods forbid adultery incest murther but they propose them to those that are within the visible Church And that 1. to their consciences 2. Under the paine of eternall wrath 3. As the Ambassadors of Christ craving spirituall subjection of conscience and divine faith to those charges But Magistrates as Magistrates hold forth in their Law-abstinence from those same sinnes of adultery incest murther But 1. Not to the consciences of their subjects but to the outer man as Members of the common-wealth 2. Not under the paine of eternall wrath and condemnation before the judge of quick and dead Magistrates as Magistrates have neither calling office place nor power to threaten or inflict eternall punishment if Magistrates do perswade the equity of abstinence from adultery incest murther in their Statutes or Acts of Parliament from the word of God from the sixth and seventh command of the Decalogue from the judgement and eternall punishment that followeth these sinnes they so perswade not as Magistrates but as Divines and as godly and Christian men yet my sense is not that the Magistrate can Lawfully command obedience in matters of Religion not understood or knowne by the subjects that were to exact blind obedience but my meaning is that the Magistrate as the Magistrate holdeth not forth his commandements to teach and informe the conscience as Pastors do but he presupposeth that his mandates are knowne to be agreeable to the word of God and proposeth them to the subjects to be obeyed 3. Magistrates as Magistrates hold forth in their Law abstinence from these sinnes not as the Ambassadors of Christ craving subjection of coâ—science and divine faith to those charges but only externall obedience for though Ministers as Ministers crave faith and subjection of conscience to all commandements and inhibitions as in Christs stead 2 Co. 5. 19 20. yet the Magistrate as the Magistrate doth not crave either faith or subjection of conscience nor is he in Christs stead to lay divine bands on the conscience to submit the soul and conscience to beleeve and abstaine he is the depâ—â—y of God as the God of Order and as the Creator and founder and another of humane societies and of Peace to exact externall obedience and to lay bands on your hands not to shed innoceat blood and on your body not to defile it with adultery or incest nor to violate the châ—stâ—â—y of your brother hence it is evident that the adversaries are far our who would have Ministers who do hold forth commands that layeth hold on the conscience and craveth faith and soul-submission under the paine of eternall wrath to do and act as the deputies and Vicars of those who have nothing to do with the conscience and have neither office nor authority to crave soul submission or to threaten or inflict any punishment but such as is circumâ—cribed within the limits of time and which the body of clay is capable of yea when the Magistrate punisheth spirituall sinnes heresie idolatry he punisheth them only with temporary punishment Obj. 5. When a Minister speaketh that which is treason against the Prince in the Pulpit by way of Doctrine the Church only doth take on them to judge him and censure him and he will not answer the civill judge for his Doctrine but decline him and appeal to a Synod and yet if another man in private speak these same words of treason he is judged by the civill judge and can give no deâ—linature against this civill judicature this must be unequall dealing except the civill judge may by his office judge whether the Minister spoke treason or not Ans It cannot be denied but that which is spoken by way of Doctrine by an Ambassador speaking the word in publick and that which is spoken in private although the â—ame words are very different for a private man in private to slander the Prince may be treason he hath no place nor calling to speak of the Prince but a Pastor hath a calling as the watchman of the Lord of hosts to rebuke Herod for incest and in a constitute Church the Church is to try whether Iohn Baptist preached treason or not 2. If it be a slander of the Prince and treason indeed the Prophet who preached it is first subject to the Prophets who are to condemne and censure him and then the magistrate is to inflict bodily punishment on him for it but the Church should labour to gaine the slanderers soule before the civill judge take away his life IV. Assert The Magistrate de jure is obliged not only to permit but also to procure the free exercise of the ministery in dispensing Word Sacraments and Discipline and owe his accumulative power to convene Synods to adde his sanction to the lawfull and necessary constitutions and ordination of worthy and to the Deposition of unworthy officers in the Church 1. Because he is a Nurse-father in the Church Isa 49 23. 2. And by office as a Publike father to procure the good of the soules of the subjects in his coactive way that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godlines and honesty 1 Tim. 2. 2. 3. He is not onely to permit but also positively to procure all peace in the exercise of all lawfull and profitable trades and Arts Ergo farre more that glory may dwell in the Land and that the Peace thereof may be as a River Isa 48. 18. by the presence of Christ walking in the midst of the Golden Candlesticks V. Assertion When the Magistrate commandeth painfull and sound administration in preaching and governing with provision of the praysing and rewarding of well doing he doth not subordinate
them but in publick places and at all occasions and dayly in the Temple and in every house they câ—â—sed not to teach and preach Iesus Christ Act. 6. 2 4. 4. 1. 20. 5. 20 21. The Magistrate being Antichristian forbiddeth not preaching of saving truths because of the place be it private or publick but he forbiddeth them because they are saving and if Iesus Christ have called a man to preach in publick in the house tops the Magistrate hath no power from God to silence him in publick more then in private the Magistrate forbiddeth that any teach false Doctrine not for the place but because it is injurious and hurtfull to humane societies that men should be principled in a false Religion and cannot but disturbe the publick peace IX Asser The Christian magistrate must here come under a threefold consideration 1. As the Object of that high office is meerly and purely civill and positive relating only to a civill end of Peace as in importing or exporting of goods of wooll waxe moneys for the good of the common-wealth the crying up or crying downe of the value of coyned Gold or Silver the making of Lawes meerly civill as not to carry Armor in the night in such a City So in Warre Commanders Captains and Colonels are Magistrates to order the Battle lay stratagems the way of besieging Townes of fortifying Castles of issuing out mandates for the Navy The Parliaments power in disposing of Fouling Fishing Hunting Eating of Flesh or not eating at such a time all these as the Word of God doth not particularly warrant the one side more then the other are meerly civill and positive It is sure the Magistrate hath a supremacy and an independency above the Church or Ministers of the Gospel in all these and as these prescinde from all Morality of the first and second Table I hold that neither the power nor person of the Magistrate is subordinate to the Church and Church-assemblies and Ministers of the Gospel should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and exceed the limits and bounds of their calling if they should meddle with these as the Church should exceed their bounds if they should make Canons touching the way of sayling painting tilling the earth according to such and such principles of Art for these are without the sphere of the Churches activity in this consideration that learned and grave Divine Doctor Andrew Rivetus in Decalo in c. 5. saith well pag. 204. That as we beleeve a man well skilled in his owne Art so that his judgement is a supream rule so the supream authority of the Magistrate to us in things positive is a rule for indeed it cannot be denied but there be Arcana Imperiâ— secrets of State that are not to be communicated to Pastors or to any in which the Rulers have a supremacy The Magistrate falleth under a second consideration as he giveth out Lawes just or unjust and executeth judgement in the morning or suffereth the eyes of the poore the widdow and Orphane to faile for went of justice and in these he is not subject to the Church and Pastors so but only as if he sinne in making Lawes the Pastors may humbly supplicate that he would recall those unjust Lawes and judge over againe righteous judgement and this exhorting of the Pastors is a subjecting of the Magistrate to the Pastors quoad actus imperatos so have Generall assemblies in the Church of Scotland humbly supplicated the King and Parliament to retreat Laws made against the liberties of the Church in savour of Antichristian Prelates and Ceremonies but quoad actus elicitos The Church and Pastors themselves cannot usurpe the throne and give out civill Lawes that are righteous and judge righteously for the poor in the place of King Parliament and Iudges for in this also the judges are supream and independent and subject only to God the Creator as his Vicars and Deputies in Gods universall Kingdome of power called universale regnum potentiae by Divines they are Gods and the shields of the world and here only as they erre not as they iudge are they subject to rebukes and threatnings and admonitions of the Church and Ministers of the Gospel Even as the Magistrate may command the Pastors to preach and dispense the Sacraments aright but the Magistrate himselfe can neither preach nor dispense the Sacraments so the Schoolmen say that the actions of the understanding depend on the will quoad excercitium the will may set the mind to think on this or that truth but not quoad specificationem The will it selfe can neither assent nor dissent from a truth nor can the will command the mind to assent to a known untruth or dissent from a known truth the mind or understanding naturally doth both and this distinction holdeth in acts of the civill power and in acts meerly Ecclesiasticall The third consideration of the Christian Magistrate is as he is a man and a member of a Christian Church who hath a soul to be saved and in this he is to submit to Pastors as those that watch for his soul Heb. 13. 17. as others who have souls to be saved X. Ass Hence I am not affraid to assert a reciprocation of subordinations between the Church and the Magistrate and a sort of collaterality and independent supremacy in their own kind common to both for every soul Pastors and others are subject to the Magistrate as the higher power in all civill things Rom. 13. 1 2 3 4. Tit. 3 1. 1 Pet. 2. 13 14. Mat. 22. 21. and all members of the common-wealth being members of the Church in soul-matters are subject to the Church and Pastors in their authoritative dispensing of Word Sacraments and Church censures Nor are any Magistrates or other who have souls excepted Heb. 13. 17. Mat. 16. 19. Mat. 18. â—8 Joh. 20. 21. Act. 15. 20 21 22 23. Mat. 10. 4â— 41 42. So Protestant writers who have written on this subject Teach As the learned Walens judicious Trig. that most learned Divine And. Rivetus the grave and learned professors of Leyden Zipperus Calv. Petr. Cabel Javiâ—â— reverend and pious M. Iohn Cotton judicious P. Mar. D. Pareus all the Protestant confessions The Augustine confession distinctly of Helvetia The confession of Sweden the Saxon. The English confession and that of Scotland all our Divines while Erastus Vtenbogard Hu. Grotius Vedelius Bullinger Gualthâ—rus going before them yet not every way theirs did teach the contrary The Arminians in Holland did thus flatter the Magistrate for their owne politick ends and some Court Divines made the King of England Head of the Church in the place of the Pope which P. Mar. excused and expounded benignly some say it is against reason that there should be two supream collaterall powers and especially in a mutuall subordination But can we deny this reciprocation of subordinations it is evident in many things if the King be in an extream feaver one of his own subjects a
the Vicars and deputies of the mediatory Kingdom I prove the assumption These Magistrates amongst the Americans and other Heathen who never by any rumour heard of Iesus Christ are essentially and formally Magistrates But neither are they obliged to command that the Gospel be preached nor their people they are over obliged to believe and obey Christ as mediatour because only those to whom Christ and the Gospel commeth can be guilty of not receiving Christ the mediator and of not promoting the mediatory Kingdome Such Magistrates are obliged only with their sword to glorifie God the creator and to punish sins against the Law of Nature nor are they guilty for not punishing the not receiving of the Gospel or for sins against the mediator of whom they never heard for this is invincible and insuperable ignorance and can make no man guilty who never heard nor could hear of the Gospel according to that Ioh. 15. 22. If I had not come and spoken to them they should not have had sin but now they have no cloak for their sin Rom. 2. 12. For as many as have sinned without Law shall also perish without Law and as many as have sinned in the Law shall be judged by the Law Ergo they that never heard of the Gospel or the mediator cannot perish nor be judged for refusing the Gospel and it were strange if Magistrates were invincibly ignorant of their office which is to set up the mediator Christ and his Church and visible Kingdom if yet they never heard nor ever could hear of the Word of the Kingdom for then to do and performe the duties of their office should not only morally but invincibly and physically be impossible and so they should not be obliged to do the duties of their office Obj. 1. When the Heathen Magistrate is converted to the faith and becometh a Christian Magistrate he is obliged by his office as a Magistrate to command his people to honour and receive the Lord Jesus and the Ministery of reconciliation and to punish such as blasphemeth the mediator Iesus Christ such as Arrians Antitrinitarians and others Ergo that officiall obligation lay on him before as a Magistrate for you say that the heathen Magistrate turning Christian acquireth no new Magistraticall power by turning Christian which he had not before while he was a heathen Magistrate onely Christianity maketh him use the officiall power of a Magistrate which he had before while he was a heathen ignorant of Christ now for the honour of the mediator Christ and the promoting of his mediatory Kingdome Ans 1. The Antecedent is denied for when the heathen Magistrate is converted to the Christian faith he is not obliged by his office as a Magistrate to command his people whom we suppose now to be hearers of the Gospel and possibly converted also to believe and prosesse Christ nor is he obliged as a Magistrate to promote the mediatory Kingdome of Christ as his mediatory and spirituall Kingdom he or his sword have nothing to do with spirits or consciences as they are such nor with the subjects of a spirituall Kingdom nor can he punish blasphemers of Christ as such nay nor can he punish such as sin against God the creator as they sin against God the Creator by vertue of his office of a Magistrate for so formally he commandeth obedience to Christ mediator or to God creator and punisheth sins and blasphemies against the mediator or against God the creator only as such obedience and such blasphemies may promote the externall safety prosperity and peace of the civill society whereof he is head or may dissolve the sinnues and nerves of that society What he doth to uphold that society which is a part of Christs redeemed Kingdome â—e doth it as a Magistrate in a far other Notion then the Pastors and reachers who by office as spirituall watchmen are to promote Christs mediatory Kingdom as such a spirituall incorporation professing union with Christ the head of the body the Church Obj. 2. But yet it will follow that the heathen Magistrate remaining heathen is invincibly ignorant of his office for in so far as he remaineth a heathen he cannot promote the mediatory Kingdom of Christ in any Notion nay not so much as it is a mean conducing to the externall safety and peace of that civill society whereof he iâ— head Ergo he must while he remaineth an heathen and never by rumor heareth of the Gospel be by office a promoter of Christs Kingdom and by office a punisher with the sword of all such as blasphem the mediator Christ though through his owne sinfull ignorance he cannot put forth in acts or exercise the very officiall and Magistraticall power which he hath by office and actu primo while he remaineth an heathen Magistrate Ans 1. It followeth not that the heathen Magistrate being ignorant while he remaineth in that state of some acts which would conduce to the peace and externall safety of the State if the state were Christian that he is invincibly ignorant of his office to be unable to exercise some acts of an office not consistent with an heathenish state can never argue invincible ignorance of the office 2. The consequence is nought that because he is ignorant of some acts and cannot exercise them that therefore the heathen Magistrate remaining heathen is by office and actu primo an officer and vicegerent of Christs mediatory Kingdom for at no time and in no state hath the Magistrates sword any influence in the mediatory Kingdome at all but in so far as the sword may procure externall peace to the society of that Kingdome as they are a civill body which peace he might by office procure by other means then by commanding the Gospel to be preached or by punishing such as blaspheme Christ for though the materiall object of the Magistrates sword be the spirituall Kingdom of Christ yet the formall object is the naturall and civill peace of this Kingdome as a civill society for to promote spirituall means and to punish spirituall sins such as heresie and blaspheming of Christ do often conduce very much for civill peace 3. It is false that the heathen Magistrate is unable to exercise his magistraticall power for the mediator Christ through his owne sinfull ignorance his not knowing Christ of whom he never heard is not any sin at all nor is he obliged to know or believe in him of whom he never heard Rom. 10. 14. Arg. 3. Every Magistrate is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an humane Ordinance 1 Pet. 2. 13. and is appointed by God the creator and by a rationall Nature yea saith Mr. Coleman God and Nature made Magistrates he must mean God the Creator and Nature but I hope God as creator and Nature made not the Magistrate the head of the Church the Vicar of the Mediator Christ this must have its rise from a higher fountain then Nature Ecclesiasticall Offices tend to a supernaturall end Magistracy
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
a Turk and a Christian doe both worship Dagon it is the same Idolatrie though â—urcisme and Christianisme be different religions Though kneeling to an Image the similitude of God and that same kneeling to Jehovah represented in that similitude Es 40. v. 8. make one formall object the Image the materiall Jehovah the formall object yet is it idolatrie 4. Our circumstances of time and place cannot properly be called indifferent for they may be considered two wayes 1 Physically 2 Religiously Physically The Commandement injoyning a thing injoyneth also time and place convenient he that saith thâ— shalt not kill in that same very Commandement said Cain thou shalt not kill Abel in this place of the field at this time so to believe and to believe in this time and place falleth both under one and the same Commandement And it is true the lawfulness of Worship may be marred by bad Circumstantiating of the worship If one shall pray when the Pastor doth preach But Circumstances must be convenient and so commanded and so not indifferent but Circumstances have no religious respect put on them by God and therefore in that state have no roome in Gods worship V. 1â— If any man see thee who hast knowledge sit at meat in the Idols Temple shall not the conscience of him that is weake â—e emboldened to eat these things that are offered to Idolls Hence a naked sight of that which is ordinarily exponed to be a Communion with an idoll as kneeling religiously to bread is must be a scandall 2. The supposed knowledge of one who saith an Idoll is nothing but directeth his worship to God when externall gestures are used in an idolatrous way doth not free the practise of such a worship from scandall V. 11. 12. 13. Scandalizing in eating things otherwise poore and cleane is a scandalizing of a weake brother against the price of Christs blood c. 1 Cor. 10. V. 16. 17. 18. Communion in Rites and Cerimonies oâ— a raise worship is a communion with the Idoll and Satan V. 22. Though you keep your heart to God ye provoke the Lord to jealousie V. 23. Rulers are not to seeke their owne in things indifferent V. 25. Things sacrificed to Idolâ— yet in no religious state are clean meates and may be eaten Surplice on a Noblemans porter is no Masse habit and so not scandalous 29. 30. In things indifferent I must abstaine from â—sing my libertie where I am in danger to be evill spoken of and that our liberty be called licentiousnesse Quest II. Whether or no the Ceremonies and things indifferent commanded by humane authority be objects scandalous and what rules are to be observed in eschewing scandalls FOrmalists object That Ceremonies be not noâ—ent agents in giving scandall but men doe unjustly take scandall whereas innocent Ceremonies give none But observe that a scandall is given two wayes 1 Physically 2. Morally Physically when the object hath an influence meerely physicall in raising Scandall in this meaning as there be no passion but it hath an action so there is no scandall taken but it is some way given The Pharisees are scandalized at Christs preaching The preached Word had some influence on their corruption to scandalize it but physicall not morall but sinfull and inordinate actions scandalize morally by contributing a morall influence culpably to the scandalizing of others Hence the question is wherein standeth this morall and culpable influence The objects in Generall from whence commeth scandall be foure 1. Things good 2. Things sinfull and evill 3. Things indifferent inordinatly or unseasonably done 4. Things that have appearance of evill A thing good of it selfe is not scandalous but there be two Goodthingâ— 1. Some simply necessary â—s to love God not to steale not to forsweare these be never scandalous 2. Some good duties positive of affirmative precepts as not necessarie hic nunc may be omitted to eschew scandall School men move a question If it be lawfull to omit workes commanded of God or of the law of nature to eschew the scandall of our brethren I answer a naturall commandement to eschew the scandalizing of my brother obliedgeth in some Circumstances but not simply for it obliedgeth not when there occurreth a Commandement naturall of greater obligation whether it be naturall or positive if I cannot decline the transgression of the law of God in the declining of scandalizing my brother Certainly the Commandement of not scandalizing doth not obliedge for I am more obliedged to have a care of my owne salvation then of my brothers and so to prevent my owne sinnes theâ—â— the sinning of my brother yet Coeteris paribus if all other things be alike as Becanus saith A naturall command such as is not to scandalize that is not to commit soule-murther doth oblige more then a positive Commandement as to heare the Word hic nunc I am obliedged hic nunc to omit hearing of the Word to keep my brother from killing himselfe and to preserve my brothers temporall life because the Lord will have mercie and not sacrifice Though I be not obliedged universally to omit the hearing of the Word and receiving of the Sacraments to eschew the scandall of my brother 2. Sinnes publickly committed are of their owne nature culpably scandalous 3. In things indifferent from whence ariseth a Scandall there be two things 1. The use of the thing it selfe 2. The use of it with the non-necessitie of existence in it As the causey stones are not scandalous if any fall on them nor the layer of the causey to be blamed therefore because causay stones be necessarie but if any lay an huge block in the way which hath no necessary use there he who doth so is the cause of the fall because he contributeth to the fall that which is the occasion and so the cause of the fall for every occasion is a certaine cause 2. Because he contributeth such an occasion as hath no morall necessitie of existence so the brazen Serpent having lost its vertue of curing and being adored as God is formally a scandalous object and the Prince suffering that to remaine when it is not necessarie and withall occasioneth the idolatrie of many doth culpably scandalize and so these who for sole will commandeth such things as the worship of God may want doe also scandalize They object Christ might have healed on another day then the Lords Ergo the non-morall necessitie maketh not the object formally scandalous nor doth the contributer thereof culpably scandalize Answ That Christ should cure on the Sabbath was morally necessary 1. If it were but from his owne will but mens will cannot make things necessary 2. It was necessarie to shew that the Sonne of man was Lord of the Sabbath 3. That the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath 4. To shew that workes of mercy are to be preserred to workes of Ceremonies and that God loveth mercie rather then Sacrifice When the dutie
an Artificer to make swords though he know some shall abuse them to murthering the innocent is no scandalous work I take not on me to prescribe rules for eschewing scandall in all occurrences of providence The godly learned can see more then I can doe in this matter where love should be warie to lay a straw in the way of any weake traveller Quest III. Whether or no we may deny obedience to the lawes of our Superiours for feare of Scandall causleslie taken THis is not my question but a question of the Doctors of Aberdeen yet it conduceth for the times and because one of the learnedest of these Doctors did agitate the question of scandall with me in private before the writing of that book I desire libertie to vindicate my selfe by discussing two chapters of this purpose And first the question seemeth to me many wayes vaine 1. They aske about denyall of obedience which is not proved but presumed to be obedience 2. They presume that the Masters the Lord Prelates of Pearth faction are our Superiours by no law of God or our Church was ever any superioritie conferred upon them 3. They say for scandall causlesly taken if they meane that there be no just reason indeed why any should take scandall they say nothing against us for we thinke to take scandall is to sinne if they know any just reason or cause of sinne except Satan and mens free-will we shall be taught of them If they meane scandalously taken that is not culpably given by the practisers of Ceremonies this is a Chimera and to us no question for we are not to denie obedience to lawfull lawes for eschewing Scandall when obeyers doe give no cause culpably of Scandall they would have formed the question to our reverend and learned Brethren if they had dealt plainly Whether or no we may desist from practising Coremonies which setting aside the law of Superiours are indifferent when from the practising of them ariseth the ruine of many soules for whom Christ died In things necessarie commanded and forbidden of God we cannot deny obedience but the matter of the lawes is silenced in the question to deceive the reader Duplyers IF the Scandall arising from the Articles of Pearth come ex conditione operis from the very enormitie in these Articles then are we to forbeare these â—rticles ever and not onely while they be tryed in a lawfull Assembly for such are either sinne or have a manifest show of sinne But if the scandall arise not from the Articles themselves but from malice or weaknesse we deny that we are totally to abstaine from obedience to lawfull Superiours for eschewing Scandall causlesly taken and we marvell from whence ye have learned this strange and harsh doctrine Answ 1. Your enumeration is weake for we know no Scandall justly taken but proceeding from both these weaknesse or wickedness of nature is the neerest cause of all Scandall taken because it is the cause of all sinne and to be scandalized is sinne Also it is here taken from the enormitie of the deed in that practising of things indifferent if a scandall taken either weakly or maliciously thence arise there is enormitie in the deed yet totall abstinence is not hence concluded because cessante ratione scandali when the ground of the Scandall is removed there is no enormitie in the fact 2. You define to us or rather divine that then there is an irregularitie in the fact that justly scandalizâ—th when either the fact is a sinne or then hath a manifest shew of sinne And we wonder where you learned this strange Divinitie for 1 Cor. 10. 27. To eat meat at a Feast that you are invited unto is neither sinne because v. 23. 25. it is lawfull The earth is the Lords nor is it such as hath a manifest shew of sinne as all having sense knoweth One of your prime Doctors defined to me these onely have manifest appearance of sinne Quae plâ—rumque fiunt malo fine which for the most part are done for an evill â—nd such as is to lye in bed with another mans wife to kneele before an Idoll The formâ—r in the exposition of all is done for adulterie the latter for Idolatrie I am sure to eat meats at an Infidels feast is not of that nature which is done ordinarily for an evill end it is ordinarily done to refresh nature and to solâ—â—e it which hath no manifest shew of sinne and yet if there be a weake one beside who saith that meat is offered to Idols in that case to eat is to scandalize 32. and is against the glory of God v. 31. 3. You aske from whom we learned this strange doctrine to deny obedience to the lawes of Superiours for scandall causlesly taken And we answer we learned it from the Apostle Paul who saith 1 Cor. 8. 13. If meat offend my weake brother I will eat no flesh I will abstaine totally and absolutely while the world standeth This abstinence for the date of the worlds standing God be thanked is longer then the time to a lawfull Generall Assembly was at that time yet the Apostle proveth Rom. 14. That to eat or not to eat was at that time as indifferent as to practise or not practise Ceremonies also who ever offended at Pauls eating of fleshes were offended out of weakness v. 7. and it was in that sense scandall causlesly taken Duplyers pag. 59. n. 34. The Author of the popish English Ceremonies saith that both Cajetan and Bannes affirm that we should abstain a spiritualibus non necessariis from spirituall duties not necessarie to salvation when Scandall ariseth from the doing of them but none of the Schoolemen euer taught to abstaine totally and altogether from any spirituall dutie for eschewing the scandall of either weake or wicked Answer What the author of the English Popish Ceremonies saith in that subject all your learning shall never be able to Answer for our brethren required but abstinece from these Ceremonies till they be tryed in a lawfull Generall Assemblie for they never were yet tryed in a lawfull Assemblie till the late Assemblie at Glasgow anno 1638. 2. That Author argueth a Majore and we desire an Answer if we may abstaine from spirituall duties commanded by the most high Superiour the Lord our God hic nunc in case of Scandall Ergo farre more are we to abstaine from practising of dead Ceremonies voyd of all spirit of life in the case of scandall yea and universally and totally we are to abstaine because the Superiours have no power to make lawes in materia scandalosa when that which they command is scandalous and in the very matter soule-murther Duplyers Thomas and his followers say Bona spiritualia non necessaria sunt dimittenda propter scandalum in ijs quae sunt sub consiliâ— non vero sub praecepto We may omit spirituall duties for eschewing scandall which fall under counsell but not under commandement Answer We conceive you not to
your selfe I am not to reprove a scorner because of the scandall he shall but trample as a sow upon any word of reproofe yet the scandall were causleâ—ly taken if we should doe so The good word of God should furnish no just cause to him yet am I not taking from God his due and your bare word that this is disobedience to Superiours not to practise Pearth Ceremonies is not enough to us 2. Your probation is weak That children and wife keep company with the Excommunicate father is a commandement of the law of nature and Gods necessary law and to deny this to an husband and father is such a sinne as the eschewing of a scandall can never legitimate but I hope kneeling to Bread and Crossing and Surplice commanded in our Canons and Service-book are at the best commanded by a positive law and not commanded in the law of nature and so very unlike to naturall duties that wife and children owe to father and husband 3. I retort this Argument We may not wrong men in that which is their due Ergo We may not wrong God in his due but it is his due Murther not him for whom Christ died practise not Ceremonies before the weake who shall be scandalized thereat Duplyers 5. arg n. 40. What if the thing be commanded by the Civill Magistrate under paine of death and by Ecclesiasticall authoritie under paine of Excommunication shall we for feare of scandall causlesly taken which may be removed by information or for the scandall of the malitious abstaine from a thing lawfull and expedient injoyned by authoritie and incurre these grievous punishments of death temporall and spirituall We believe your selves who speake most of scandall would be loath to take such a yoake upon you Answer The first part of this Argument is Logick from a sore skinne That which we are bidden doe under paine of death that we must doe the just logick of the King of Babylon to prove it is lawfull to worship the Kings golden Image Dan. 3. 15. I have scarce heard Papists for shame presse to conclude the equity and lawfulnesse of a Law from the penaltie of a law Suffering as your Jesuits and Arminians teach you falleth not under Free-will and is not culpably evill nor is Excommunication except you be Papists death of the soule when the cause of Excommunication is not just and deserveth no censure but it may be some of you think Mr. Sibbald I know doth it that Navarrus and their Gregorie said true that unjust Excommunication is valid and to be feared but if this argument as I see not head nor feet in it be founded upon the lawfulnesse and expediencie of Ceremonies commanded then not to practise them at all So first they be lawfull 2 Expedient 3 Commanded by lawfull authority is sinne and all sinne is a death of the soule and then you may put your Argument from grievous punishments of body and soule in your pocket for it is of no use here for whether punishment Civill or Ecclesiastick follow upon disobedience to Superiours it is sinne 3. That none of us would die or be Excommunicated for eschewing Scandall is no good argument though many have suffered as hard as death banishment and proscription of all and Excommunication also But the truth is you might have said Shall we incurre for scandall the losse of our stâ—pends and one faire before the wind qualification for a Bishoprick Duplyers 6. arg pag. 64. n. 41. Sixtly The denying of obedienâ—e to the lawfull commandements of our Superiours is forbidden in the â—iâ—â— commandement and consequently it is sinne shall we then for a scandall causlesly taken deny obedience to our Superiours and so incurre the guiltiness of sinne Ye commonly answer to this that the negative part of the fift Commandement wâ—â—ch forbiddeth the resisting of the power Rom. 13 2. is to be understood with the exception of the case of any scandall taken by others For â—â— we say say â—â— that any may or will take offence at the â—â—ing of that which is commanded by our Superiours we are not holden to oby them 42. But first we aâ—ke what â—arr and ye have â—o say that the negative part of the fift Commandement â—â— to be understood wâ—â—â— the exception of the case of Scandall more then other negative precepts in the second Table Answer â— To fill the field an Argument already answered is brought again to make the figure of fiâ— up The refusall of the Ceremonies till they be tryed in lawfull Assembly is not forbidden in the fift Commandement prove that and take it with you 2. You bring an Answer as commonly given â—â— us that is neither ours commonly nor rarely but it is good build a strawâ—astle and you may soone cost a fire-ball at it and blow it up We never taught that the negative part of the fifâ— Commandement is to be understood with the exception of the case of any scandall taken by others For this includeth all scandalls both passive and active Who of ours ever dreamed such a thing if Superiours command what God commandeth before them doe we teach that because others take scandall at that Command therefore we are not holden to obey that is scandall taken not given We teach no such thing Rulers command to honour father and mother if any take offence at this commandement and obedience to either the affirmative or negative part of it we are not to esteeme that scandall the weight of a feather the Commandement obliedgeth But this we teach if when the matter of the Commandement of Rulers is indifferent as you plead Ceremonies to be if from obeying of these any weake or wicked be scandalized then the Rulers doe command spirituall murther and then their commandement is no commandement noâ— is it the fift Commandement It is just like this You shall not refuse obedience to your Rulers commanding you to rubbe your beards when you come to the Church or to draw a crosse line with your thumbe in the aire above a baptized infants forehead though many soules by obedience to these Commandements be induced to love Poperie many be made sad thinking zealous Rulers love popish toyes better then the simplicitie of the Gospell Now such is the Commandements of Pearth-articles and these suffer no exceptions for we judge them no Commandements at all and if any such be injoyned upon pretence of any other of the nine Commandements we hold them to be impious commandements and no obedience to be given to them at all So if according to the sixt Commandement and the seven and eight Rulers command to run Carts amongst a multitude of young Children whence killing of some might fall out If they should command a young man and a faire virgine to chamber together and command Paul in the case he was at Corinth to take stipend though it should hinder the progresse of the Gospell as 1 Cor. 9. 23. all these were to command culpable scandalls and were unlawfull as
the Canons of Pearth faction 3. You say the negative part of the fift Commandement forbidding the resisting of the power Rom. 13. 2. by us is to be understood with exception of the case of scandall taken whereby you insinuate that not to obey the acts of Pearth Assembly is a resisting of the power of Rulers Rom. 13. 2. It is ignorantly spoken to resist every law of the Rulers is not to resist his power when the lawes are such as commandeth scandall yea by your own doctrine it is lawfull to flie when a Ruler unjusty commandeth persueth his subjects pag. 3. n. 19. And to â—â—ie I am sure is to refuse subjection to the Lawes of the Ruler from whose tribunall we â—liâ— yeâ— and to flie so is to resist his lawes but I hope it is not to resist the power for to resist the power bringeth damnation and guiltinesss before God Rom. 13. 2. But to flie from his legall Citations is to resist his lawes but doth not I hope bring damnation before God and sinne upon the conscience as you grant Duplyers n. 43. Men are ready to stumble and to be scandalized at our refusing obedience to the lawfull Commandements of our Superiours for they will take occasion by our cariage to doe that unto which by nature they be most inclined to wit to vilipend Lawes and Authoritie Answer If any stumble at our non-obedience to Pearth Articles and thence be induced to vilipend Lawes and Authoritie it is a scandall meerely taken no wayes given as is cleare because they stumble at our obedience to God in that we refuse to kill one for whom Christ died 2. It is no wayes true that men are naturally inclined to vilipend Laws in a matter indifferent as you hold Ceremonies to be from whence ariseth Scandall yea we are by nature much bent to extoll and love-lawes commanding soul-murther and all lawes inductive to Poperie which is but a masse of carnall propositions of heterodox Divinitie every way sutable to our flesh The third exception is answered already the fourth is to be discussed in the following Chapter Quest IIII. Whether the Precept of obedience to Superiours or the precept of eschewing scandall be more obligatorie Dupliers pag. 65. n. 43. LAst of all when a man is peremptâ—rily urged by his Superiours to obey their lawfull Commandements and in the meane time feareth that if he doe the thing commanded by them some through weaknesse shall be scandalized by his carriage in this case he is not onely in difficultie and strait betwixt the Commandement of men and the Commandement of God who forbiddeth us to doe that whereby our weake brother may be offended But also he seemeth to be in a strait betwixt two Commandements of God to wit the precept that forbiddeth us to doe that whereby our weake brother may be scandalized and the other which forbiddeth the resisting of Authoritie Answer 1. The question of purpose is perversly set do â—ne for they should say whether the precept of obedience to Superiours in a straw lifting in things indifferent and meerely positive and not necessarie to salvation be more obligatorie then the precept of God in the law of nature in a matter necessarie to salvation as a Commandement of God forbidding soul-murther and scandalizing him for whom Christ died Or thus Whether am I obliedged rather to obey God forbidding me to murther my brother or to obey man commanding me to kneele towards Bread and Wine and to crosse the aire with my thumbe upon the face of a baptized infant 2. The question seemeth to make a collision of Commandements as if God could command things contradictorie and certainly if the not obeying of Pearth Articles be a scandall given as you say it is I shall undertake to prove that the practice of these Ceremonies is a Scandall given and so it is not a seeming strait as you say but a reall strait by your doctrine There be cases wherein whether Rulers command things or command the contrary a passive scandall doth arise but because a passive Scandall is the sinne of the scandall taker and not of Rulers giving the Church is not to regard it as Matth 11. 18 19. The Jewes are scandalized at Christs eating and drinking and are scandalized at John the Baptists not eating and drinking But neither Christ nor John doe culpably give scandall But there can be no such exigence of providence wherein non-practising of your commanded Ceremonies is a given scandall and the practising of them is also a given scandall Because as Bannes and our owne Amâ—sius saith There is not such a perplexitiâ— 1. God should have brought a man then in some cases under an absolute necessitie by way of contradiction to sinne and murther his brother whether he doe such a thing or not doe it 2. Twentie Jewes are scandalized Rom. 14. Because Paul eateth such and such meats which they conceive are forbidden by Gods law And twentie Christians are scandalized because Paul eateth not such and such meats then we suppose and it s very casuall for seeing to be scandalized ariseth from the knowledge or ignorance of the minde and divers men may have contrary opinions about one thing Some thinke it unlawfull for Paul to eat some thinke it unlawfull not to eat Hence upon the use of a thing indifferent twentie are scandalized and upon the non-using of that same indifferent thing twentie are also scandalized What shall Paul doe in this strait I answer he taketh Rom. 14. 1 Cor. 8. the negative I will not eat flesh if meat offend my brother Then the twentie that are scandalized by the non-practice of the thing indifferent doe take scandall onely whereas Paul giveth no scandall actively Also the othet twentie who are scandalized by Paul his practice of the thing indifferent are justly scandalized it is both a scandall taken and active and a scandall given and passive Some object but if either of the sides be indifferent to wit either to use a thing indifferent or not to use it If ten take offence at the use of it and ten take offence at the non-use of it there is a necessitie of scandalizing either of the sides for the twentie weake Christians are scandalized at Pauls abstinence from such meats conceiving that he Judaizeth whereas the Profession of his Christian libertie in eating would edifie them and not scandalize them Answer The use of a thing indifferent is not Gods lawfull mean of edification God hath appointed his Word Workes the holy and blamelesse profession of his children to edifie and not the using of actions indifferent yea actions indifferent as they are such and separated from necessitie and morall reason are not lawfull and so the cessation from that action is lawfull and necessarie and if the use scandalize non-using of things indifferent is not indifferent but necessarie as non-scandalizing and negative precepts alwayes binding abstinence with Paul is necessarie It is vaine that Paybodie saith that
Peter was Gal. 2. in danger of a double scandall for saith he he was in danger to scandalize the Gentiles in refusing their companie as if they had been no brethren which was the greater scandall and in danger to scandalize the Jewes in eating with the Gentiles which was a lesse sinne and lesse scandall But I answer Paul did not then justly rebuke his Judaizing Galat. 2. which doth gratifie Barronius Bellarmine and Papists who will have Peter an Apostle who could not erre 2. It should follow that Paul rebuked Peter because that of two evills of sinne he choosed to commit the lesser sinne Whereas of two evills of sinne neither is to be chosen One might then lawfully commit fornication to be free of adulterie and so fornication should be lawfull which is absurd And Paul should call Gal. 2. 14. it upright walking according to the truth of the Gospell to choose a lesse sin 3. Peter by eating with the Gentiles should not have scandalized the Jewes but edified them in showing the Christian libertie they had in Christ as is cleare v. 5. To whom we gave no subjection no not for an houre by practising Jewish Ceremonies that the truth of the Gospell might continue with you Duplyers pag. 66. It is certaine we are freed from one of these precepts for Gods precepts are not repugnanâ— one to another Ye commonly say the precept of obedience to humane authoritie must give place to the precept of eschewing Scandall though it be causlesly taken because the command of a Superiour cannot make that fact to be free of scandall which otherwise would be scandalous But it is certaine that laying aside the case of scandall to denie obedience to the ordinance of our Superiours injoyning and peremptorily requiring of us things lawfull and expedient is really the sinne of disobedience Ye will say that the scandall of weake brethren may make that fact or omission not to be disobedience which otherwise would be disobedience because we ought not for the Commandement of man doe that whereby our weake brother may be offended and so the precept of obedience bindeth not when offence of a weake brother may be feared On the contrary we say that the lawfull commandement of Superiours may make that scandall of our weake brethren not to be imputed unto us which otherwise would bee imputed unto us as a matter of our guiltinesse No scandall â—f weake brethren causlesly taken can make that fact not to be the sinne of disobedience which otherwayes that iâ— extra casum scandali if it were not in the case of scandall would bee the sinne of disobedience Answer 1. This is right downe worke But 1. I Answer Both the precepts are not obligatorie you say true We commonly say saith the Doctors that the precept of obedience to humane authoritie must give place to the precept of eschewing scandall although it be causlesly taken We say not that Commonly nor at all if by Scandall causlesly taken you mean scandall passive onely taken and not given for we are not to regard such scandalls But here the scandall is given in that we must practise base Ceremonies indifferent knots of straws for mens pleasure though from thence many soules for whom Christ died be destroyed 2. It is good reason that the precept of obedience to humane authoritie in things which you call indifferent and might well be sent away to Rome were it not the Lord Prelates pleasure to command them for their owne carnall ends should yeild and be gone and lose all obligatorie power because it is but a positive precept and 2. affirmative that obliedgeth not ad semper as Crossâ— kneele weare Surplice And 3. In a thing indifferent and that this Divine Commandement of God scandalize not kill not one redeemed by Christ should stand in force 1. Because it is a naturall precept 2. It is negative and obliedgeth eternally 3. It is of a necessarie matter because no man-slayer hath life eternall 1 Jh. 3. 15. But our Doctors will have the Commandements positive of men to stand and the Commandements of God which are expresly of the law of nature to fall before their Dagon and to lose all obligatorie power whereas Gods owne positive law yeildeth and loseth obligatorie power when Gods naturall Commandement of mercy commeth in competition with it as is cleare as the noon-day in David famishing who eat the Shew-bread which by a positive law was not lawfull to any save the Priests onely to eat yet must mans law stand and Gods law of nature fall at the pleasure of these Doctors 3. Wee say justly you erre in saying it is reall disobedience to deny obedience to the ordinance of Superiours when the matter of their law is indifferent and when it is scandalous and obedience cannot be given to it but by sâ—aying him for whom Christ died yea to give obedience to Superiours in that case is reall murthering of soules and reall disobedience to God Yea and if there be murthering of a weake brother in the fact it cannot come under the compasse of the matter of an humane law and the Scandall maketh it no obedience to men but disobedience to God 4. You retort bravely but Popishly the argument back upon us But we bring our argument from the law of Nature Thou shalt not murther nor scandalize and we bring it not so much against the obedience to the Commandement of Superiours as against the law and Commandement of Superiours and this Argument is against the Ceremonies as if they had not been commanded and as they were before the Assembly of Pearth and therefore the consideration of a lawfull Commandement to take away the scandall is not to any purpose And so 5. I may invite Papists Jesuites and all the Patrons of the Pope to thanke you and kisse your pen for these words we say that the lawfull Commandement of Superiours of Prelates commanding things indifferent may make that scandall of our weake brethren not to be imputed unto us which otherwise would be imputed unto us as a matter of our guiltiness What ever my brethren may be imputed to you otherwise before the law of Pearth Assemblie was made as the matter of your guiltiness was your sinne for nothing can be imputed to Men or Angels as guiltiness but fin But if the Commandements of Prelates may make that not to be imputed to you which otherwise and before or without that law of Superiours would have been imputed as the matter of your guiltinesse then the law of Superiours and Prelates may make that which without that law would have been sinne to be no sinne at all I know no more said by Bellarmine of the Universall Prelate of the world but that he can make sin to be no sinne and no sinne to be sinne And that the Pope cannot command vertue as vice and vice as vertue for if he should doe so the Church should be obliged to believe vertue to be vice and vice
to be vertue But much good doe it you Masters of Arts. Yet Bellarmine in his recognitions saith not so much of his great Pope-Prelate as you say of your little Prelates for he will not give the foresaid power to the Pope but in doubtsome acts and in acts of positive lawes about fasting you give to Prelates more to wit that their commanding will may make sinnes forbidden in the law of nature to be not imputed as the matter of our guiltinesse and to be no sinnes We cannot want dispensations and indulgences at home ere it be long if happily we pay well for them Yet Bernard will not have the Popes commandement to make that which is simply evill to be lawfull The Popes pleasure make not things good saith Tolet yea a subject saith Alphonsus dâ—â—â—astro may without sinne contemne the law of his Superiour judging it to be evill and contrary to reason But I reason thus It is the incommunicable power of the Supreame Law giver to make the killing of Isaac which otherwayes would have been imputed to Abraham as a matter of guiltinesse and crueltie to be no sinne Ergo Prelates have not power to make an act of soul murther to be no sinne to scandalize a weake brother is to destroy him for whom Christ died Rom. 14. v. 15. 1 Cor. 8. v. 11. yea and by the same law Rulers may make an act of Adulterie an act of Chastitie an act of lying an act of truth speaking 2. If Rulers even the Apostle Paul be tyed by the law of Nature to Charitie to their brethren as Rom. 14. 15. Not to stay him for whom Christ died not to seâ—ke their owne things but the good of their brethren 1 Cor. 10. 24. Not to eat things sacrificed to idols before the weake v. 29. To doe all for the glory of God v. 32. Then is it sinne in the Ruler himselfe to scandalize the weake Ergo Rulers cannot command to others that as obedience which they cannot doe themselves without prodigious disobedience to God What Paul forbiddeth in Canonical Scripture as murther that he cannot command in Church Canons as obedience Canonicall to Superiours 3. Prelates shall have immediate Dominion over our consciences to bind us to obedience by doing acts that otherwise should be imputed to â—s as the matter of our guiltinesse and because the same power that bindeth the conscience may also loose so they may dispense with all the ten Commandements and coyne to us a new Decalogue and a new Gospell They may legitimate murthers paricides and illegitimate Godlinesse and rightâ—â—â—snesse and sobriâ—tiâ— by this Divinitie 4. That must be false It is better to obey God nor man Act. 5. but to abstaine from scandalizing a weake brother is an act of obedience to the sixt Commandement Ergo the contrary cannot be done at the command of Prelates 6. Gods positive lawes yeildeth Thou shalt not kill to wit to the law of nature David may eat shew bread when he is famishing Ergo the Prelates law farre more must yeild to the sixt Commandement thou shalt not scandalizâ— nor kill the soule of him for whom Christ died 7. Rulers must all be infallible law-makers 8. Rulers might command bodilie murther and it should not be murther they may command to digge pitts in the way of Travellers To marry with Infidelâ— to send abroad a goaring Ox to give knives to little children They object A Master a father may command a servant and a son to do that which if the servant or son refuse to do their disobedience scandalizeth And again a Master a Father may command the contrary and if they disobey they scandalizâ— culpably Erg. The commanding will of a Master and a Father and farre more of publick Rulers may make that to be active scandall which is no active scandall A Carpenter may command his servant to remove a tree from the East end of his house to the West end and againe he may for his sole will to try his servants obedience command him to remove it againe to the East end of his house Answer 1. The Master Father Carpenter command either these things as artificiall agents from reason of art and then the question is not touched for in scandalls men are considered as morall agents or they command them as morall agents and that either for their sole will and pleasure and so they be idle and unreasonable actions and cannot be lawfull commandements and so are they scandalous both to Commanders and obeyers but they may well command upon just reasons that which if servants and sonnes obey not they give Scandall and they may command the contrary of that same at another time when now contrary reasons maketh it lawfull and expedient and if servants and sonnes obey not the contrary they also give Scandall but here the change is not from the will and authoritie of the Commanders but from the things themselves which are changed so that which is an active scandall at some time the contrary of it may be an active scandall at another time as in the ease Rom. 14. To eat meats before the weake which they conceive to be forbidden by Gods law is to slay him for whom Christ died and an active scandall because then the Ceremonies were mortall and indifferent nothing essentially constituteth an active and a given scandall but these two 1. That it may be left undone as the author of the course of conformitie saith well out of Hieronimus Without hurting of the truth of a sound life and a sound faith and righteousnesse 2. If upon the practice of a thing indifferent and not necessarie any of the foresaid three wayes we see some shall be scandalized though they take scandall upon an unjust ground it is an active scandall as to eat such meats before the weake Rom. 14. is in another time and case as Galat. 2. when the Ceremonies are now deadly and upon just reasons not necessarie the practising I say of the same is an active scandall and so if any be scandalized at the eating Rom. 14. it is scandall both taken and also culpably given and if any be scandalized at the not eating as the case is Galat. 2. That is only a passive scandall and so not given because the times of the expyring of the dutie of Ceremonies and the full promulgation of the Gospell varieth the case now and the sole will of Rulers maketh not the change So if any offer Incence to the Brazen Serpent so long as it hath vertue as Gods ordinance to cure the stinged persons he is scandalized by a passive scandall onely for Gods institution maketh it now the necessary ordinance of God And the Magistrates suffering of the Brazen Serpent to remaine now is no active scandall and the passive scandall is onely taken away by information and the sound exponing of the right use of a necessary ordinance of God But after that the Brazen Serpent loseth its vertue and
is not now an ordinance of God necessarie if any burne Incense to it these who are by authoritie obliedged to remove it and doth not remove it they doe morally and culpably scandalize Hence we see it is foolish and vaine that some say such as Hooker D. Forbes D. Sanderson and Lyndesay pretended Bishop of Edinburge and Mr. Paybodie That as Rome and Corinth the Church had not past her determination upon eating and not eating nor made any Church lawes upon these things indifferent and therefore to eat or not to eat were matters of every private mans choise But it is not the like case with our Ceremonies for they remaine no longer indifferent but are necessarie to us after that the Church hath now made a commanding law upon them and so the scandall that ariseth from our dutie of obedience to lawfull authoritie is taken and not given I answer it is most false that eating and not eating in case of scandall was under no law in the Church of Rome and Co rinth For these most indifferent acts in their use and cloathed with their Circumstances when where and before what persons were under the unalterable law of nature as destroy not him with thy meat for whom Christ died a law which as the course of conformitie saith well cannot be dispenced with by no power but Gods And Paul proveth by stronger arguments to eat in the case of Scandall was not indifferent but simply evill Then all the Prelates Canons on earth can afford as Rom. 14. by eight Arguments as we have seen that it fighteth against Charitie v. 15. Now walkest thou not charitably 2. It is a destroying of him for whom Christ died and so murther 3. Contrary to Christs love who died for that weake brother 4. It maketh Religion and Christian Libertie to be evill spoken of v. 6. c. It is a sham then to say that eating or not eating was indifferent because free from any ty of a Church Canon seeing eating before a weake brother is under the ty of unanswerable Arguments taken from the law of nature and Gods Canons written in the heart forbidding under the pain of Goa's anathema and curse heavier then the Church anathema that we should for meat destroy him for whom Christ died and so are the Canon-makers and Lords of Ceremonies under a curse if they for crossing kneeling surplice destroy him for whom Christ died or command him to be destroyed by the practice of Ceremonies 3. If this be a good reason the Church of Rome and Corinth might have made such Ceremonies as these Notwithstanding the eating of meates which some suppose to be forbidden by Gods law be a killing of him for whom Christ died and against Charity and a reproaching of our Christian liberâ—ie yet it seemed good to the holy Ghost and to us the Prelates of Rome and Corinth to command eating of such meats before weake ones for whom Christ died But certainly Paul would never have commandâ—d in a Canon that which he writeth in Canonicall Scripture to be a murthering of him for whom Christ died and that which he would not practise himself to the worlds end so long as it standeth in the case of indifferencie as he saith of eating of fleshes conceived by some weake ones to be against Gods law 1 Cor. 8. v. last The Pope himselfe would nor dare in conscience to practise any of his owne Canons even though they were yet not Canonically commanded or forbidden Paul would not dare to put a law upon the Romans or Corinthians to eat or not to eat meats before the weake but commandeth not eating in the case of scandall 4. Idolatrie is ever idolatrie saith the course of conformitie and so scandall being sinne it cannot cease to be sinne because superiours commandeth it 5. Though Apostolick authoritie being meerly divine should command that which is in it self murther and was â—urther before it be Canonically commanded which I think also is a false hypothesis yet it shall never follow that humane authoritie or Ecclesiastick authoritie can command scandall which is spirituall murther For if Ecclesiastick authoritie may command murther they may command idolatrie for active scandalizing is as essentially murthering of one for whom Christ died as to worship an idoll is essentially idolatrie Therefore Master Sydserfe pretended Bishop of Gallâ—way being straited with this argument sayd Though humane authoritie cannot invert the nature of things or make spirituall murther to be no murther yet they can by a Church Canon put the mindes of people in such a change as now they are not in the hazard to be justly scandalized for a scandall sayd the Prelate is ens rationis no reall thing but a fiction of reason the nature of it being in the apprehension of the ignorant and blind who are scandalized and a law may remove this ignorance when it giveth light and sheweth the expediencie of things indifferent To which I answered you may call idolatrie if you please and all sinnes fictions of reason but not only doth scandall given proceed from ignorance and blindnesse of the apprehension of the partie scandalized but also from the unseasonable practising of a thing which is no wayes necessarie in the worship of God The course of confirmitie saith well He that denieth that there is any scandall is like one who could not see the wood for the trees the walking of Diogenes is meetest for a Zeno who against all reason denyeth that there is any motion We may hence judge what to say of D. Forbes his Answer to the place 1 Cor. 9. Who saith that Paul was under no Ecclesiasticall law not to take wages and therefore in not taking wages he was not a contemner of Ecclesiasticall authoritie but we are under a Church law to practise the Ceremonies and yet we refuse them I answer If then the Church of Corinth had commanded Paul in their Canons to take stipend for preaching he was obliedged to take stipend yet he proveth that it was not lawfull for him as the case of scandall then stood to take wages v. 18. he should abuse his power in the Gospell and v. 19. 20 21. he should not have becommed all things to all men to save some and these things had been sinfully scandalous if as the case was then Paul for a penny of wages which he might have wanted having no familie to provide for should have layd a stumling block before many And the Doctor â—aith No humane power can compell a man to doe that which he cannot doe except inevitably he give scandall The Doctor addeth The Apostle teacheth not that to take stipend was unlawfull or of it selfe scandalous yea he taught it was lawfull and that they should not be scandalized thereat because Christ hath ordained that he who serveth at the altar should live upon the Altar but you teach that the Ceremonies are unlawfull I Answer 1. In this argument of Scandall we
Honour the King 18. Servanâ—s be subject to your Masters with all feare not only to the good and gentle but also to the froward 19. For this is thanke-worthy this subjection if a man for conscience reward God enaure griefe suffering wrongfully 5. What Dionysius said of the ill of schisme is for us for schisme is against love to our brethren and a renting Christs body 1 Cor. 1. 13. and a greater evill then non-obedience to Prelates when they command indifferent Ceremonies occasioning the râ—â—ne of him for whom Christ died To say nothing that the Doctors of Aberdeen are the Schismaticks who have now separated from the Church of Scotland and our Nationall covenant with God Duplyers pag. 37. n. 51. Thirdly these offices or duties which we owe to others by way of Justice are more strictly obligatorie then these which we owe to them only by way of charitie But we owe the dutie of obedience to our Superiours by way of justice and therefore it is more obligatorie then the duty of eschewing scandall causlesly taken which is a duty only of charity 1. The major is a maxime not only of Scholasticks and of Popish casuists but also of our Divines So Amesius The major is cleare for the duty of obedience which wee owe to the publicke Lawes of the Church and Kingdome is Justitia legalis a generall legall Justice and as it is in subjects it is a vertue inclining them to the obedience of all lawes made for the benefit of the Common-wealth as Aristotle saith 2. It is debitum obedientiae the debt of obedience which we owe to our Superiours grounded upon the proper right which our Superiours have to exact this right of us so that they may accuse us of injurie and censure us if we performe it not Debitum justitiae fundatur in proprio jure alterius and also it is debitum morale a debt of dutie unto which we are tyed by morall honestie in Gods commandement There is a great difference betwixt these two debts As for example a man oweth moneys to the poore by a morall debt but to his creditours he oweth them by a legall debt or debt of justice and therefore he is more strictly obleiged to pay his creditour then to give almes Such like by morall honestie and Gods precept also a man oweth to his neighbour a pious carefulnesse to imped sinne in him by admonition instruction good example and by omission even of things lawfull when he seeth that his neighbour in respect of his weaknesse will be scandalized by them But his neighbour hath not such a right to exact these duties of him neither can he have action against him for not performing of them as our lawfull Superiours have for our due obedience Ans 1. Here be the white shifts of Mr. Sanderson Paybodie Downham who place Loyaltie above Charitie We owe to our brother love but to the Ruler say they love and justice 1. Why doe they not extend Loyaltie to its utmost even loyaltie to the King of kings whose royall law saith Thou shale not scandalize Thou shalt not murther they draw in loyaltie to Rulers who shall die as men and to their commandement of things indifferent which God hath not commanded 2. It is true these duties which we owe to others by way of justice are more obligatorie then these which we owe only by way of charitie caeteris paribus When duties of the law of Nature and morall Law are compared together then indeed the duties which we owe both by the tye of Justice and Charitie are more obligatorie then the duties that we owe only by the tye of Charitie As for example My father is in danger before my eyes to be drowned in one deepe water and before my eyes also my neighbour and friend is in danger of the like kind the two tyes and bands of Justice and Charitie both by the fifth and sixth Commandements are more obligatorie hic nunc and doe more strictly obliege that I run to succour and preserve the life of my father then the life of my neighbour for the obligation to my neighbour is only charitie by the obligation of the sixth Commandement which obligation ceaseth hic nunc at this time when my fathers life is in hazard and thus farre the Doctors argument goeth for strong as Schoolemen Casuists and Divines teach But it is not to a purpose for the Doctors For all offices and duties generally and universally of what ever kind which we owe by way of Justice are not more obligatorie then duties which we owe only by way of Charitie as when duties of a positive commandement of God enjoyned by our Superiours and duties which we owe by charitie only are compared together then the Doctors major Proposition is not cleare of it selfe as they dreame nor doe Casuists or Amesius or Divines say with them but truth and all our Divines say against them Let us suppose that the King and Convocation and Assembly of Priests and Prophets of Israel make a Canon according to Gods Word That no manner of man presume to eat shew-bread save the Priests only All men owe obedience to this both because it is Gods expresse Law and by the band of Justice the Elders and Assembly of the Ancients have forbidden it But if our Doctors argument stand strong David at the point and hazard of famishing for hunger sinned in eating shew-bread yet Christ acquiteth him of all sinne and saith Math. 12. 5. he and his followers are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 blamelesse Now Davia was under a dutie by mercy and love to his owne life and he lives of his followers to eat shew-bread and he was under the band of Justice by the law of the Ancients of Israel and Gods law not to eat Therefore in some cases when our Superiours commandements are only positive Lawes they are not more obligatorie then duties of Charitie only commanded in the law of nature I cleare it further thus I see my neighbour in danger before my eyes of drowning and my father commandeth me to goe and labour or sowe his farme in that time while I am to preserve the life of my neighbour in present danger to lose his life in a great water By the Doctors maxime I am under the higher obligatorie tye of Justice to obey my father who commandeth a thing both lawfull and necessarie by vertue of the higher Commandement to wit the first of the second Table then I am obliged by the sixth Commandement and of charitie only to give present succour and help to my dying neighbour so I must let my neighbour die in the waters to give a dutie of justice to my father of farre lesse necessitie I would not commit my conscience to such Casuists as are the Doctors of Aberdeen But if the Doctors would see with some new light of reason it is cleare that not only the tye of Justice maketh the precept more obligatorie but also the weightinesse of
names and most superstitious and cannot be used in a religious state I grant we may not term our Jehovah Jupiter or Baal nor Christ Mercurius though he be the word of Gods mind to us for God teacheth us other words and language in his Word The truth is that learned noble Lord said well and judiciously all the indifferencie in the world lyeth in our understandings and the darkenesse thereof but there is none in the things themselves or actions which are still either unlawfull or necessarie And this is most true in actions morall and humane The Church putteth indifferencie on nothing there a necessitie in respect of our darknesse many be scandalized at things which seeme not necessarie to them yet are they in re in themselves necessarie But conformists object That the very will of the Church Act. 15. made things indifferent before the act now to become necessarie if then the Church may take away indifferencie she may give also But I answer The antecedent is most false Junius Calvin Beza Bullinger Brentius Pomeranus Marloret and the text clearly saith by the law of Nature these were scandalous So Origen thinketh to eat blâ—oà was scandalous And Strabo saith the heathen in their sacrifice dranke blood Yea saith Tertullian the heathen dranke mens blood and Augustine saith they forbade these for a time in the case of scandall that the ancient Synogogue might be buried with honour Yea Ireneus Tertullian and Cyprian will have these drawne to a spirituall sense that they should abstaine from Idolatrie shedding of blood and fornication And the Jesuit Lorinus saith this was a positive Law which without the case of scandall doeth not strictly abolish Cajetanus Fornication by Gods law was forbidden the other things in the Canon were forbidden to gratifie the Jews Philippus Gamethaeus a Sorbenist saith they were forbidden to nourish concord betwixt Jew and Gentile for the infirmitie of the Jewes 2. That the will of the Councell made them not necessarie whereas before the act they were indifferent is cleare 1. It had then been needlesse to discusse the matter by Scripture 2. To alledge the holy Ghost as author of the Synod It seemed good to the Holy Ghost c. if the bare will of men had made them necessâ—rie But saith Paybodie Any good thing may become an occasion of evill by accident and through our fault the Word condemneth not occasions of ill by accident but such only as are occasions of evill and in themselves evill things indifferent are not in themselves evill Ans All occasions whether ill in themselves or indifferent are occasions of sinne by accident and through our fault who abuse them but all occasions because occasions and not because evill are forbidden when as they are not necessarie and this is Gods argument to prove that the Jewes are not to marry with the Canaanites for saith the law they will turne away your heart after their Gods to send abroad a goaring oxe to seeke his food hath no sinne in it save only it may occasion the killing of men and the building of houses without battlements and the going by the doore of the whoore or comming neere her house are not of themselves ill but only forbidden under this reduplication because they are occasions of ill sinnes as sinnes are forbidden and as occasions of sinnes they are also new sinnes having a distinct illegalitie and guiltinesse in them from this that they occasion sinne and Gods law as all Divines reach forbiddeth sinne and all occasions of sinne Drunkennesse is both forbidden as intemperancie and also as an occasion of lust and of speaking perverse things as is evident Pro. 23. 33. For then the spirit of Gods argument were null to disswade from drunkennesse as he doth in these woâ—ds Thine eye shall behold strange women and thine heart shall utter perverse things Now we can shew that many wayes Ceremonies occasion sinne as 1. they trimme and decore a Church for harlot lovers from Rome forbidden Jer. 2. 33. Suarez Franciscus de sancta clara Gretserus and other Papists for these werein love with the Church of England 2. They occasion dissention in Gods house and are contrary to peace Ps 34. 14. Heb. 12. 19. Rom. 12. 18. and so to be rejected 3. They beare false witnesse of Poperie which we disclaime 4. They are against the spirituall worshiping of God and lead us backe to the carnall commandements and beggerly rudiments of the law from the Gospell against the word of God Joh 4. 24. Gal. 4 9 10. Heb. 7. 16. Heb. 9. 8. 9. Gal. 3. 25. 26. Gal. 4. 1. 2. Coll. 2. 20. They are torches in day light and vaine and uselesse 5. They bring us under bondage to men contrary to the Apostle Col. 2. 20. and to the ordinances of men and under the power of things 1 Cor. 6. 12. 6. They are against our Christian libertie They answer especially Paybodie and D. Forbes that Christian libertie is not restrained by doing or not doing a thing indifferent for so there should be no lawes made at all by the Church concerning things indifferent but Christian libertie not hurt if 1. the Ceremonies be free to the conscience and not made necessarie 2. If they be not made necessarie to salvation 3. If they be holden alterable by mans authoritie Ans The question is perverted for we question not if the use of things indifferent lay a bond on Christian libertie but if the will of authoritie can make a law of things indifferent when there is no intrinsecall necessitie in the things themselves when necessitie of edification layeth on a tye Christian libertie is not indeed restrained for God then layeth on a bond 2. Externall eating of meats and observing of dayes is a part of the libertie wherewith Christ hath made us free Coll. 2. 21. Eat not touch not taste not men eat not meat with their minde or conscience but with the teeth of their body and to such externall eating men are dead with Christ as touching externall observation thereof and Paul Gal. 2. 19. as dead to the Law living to God and crucified with Christ is freed from such Judaizing as Peter fell into but that Judaizing did not bind Peters conscience neither was it repute of him as necessarie to salvation as he had taught Act. 10. And the false Apostles pressed Circumcision not as tying the conscience or as necessarie for salvation but Gal. 6. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. only that they may not suffer affliction for the crosse of Christ and yet to be circumcised externally without necessitie of conscience before God crossed directly the libertie wherewith Christ had made them free Gal. 5. 1. and 1 Cor. 9. Have we not power to lead about a wife and sister aswell as others Yet if the Prelates at Corinth should have made an act forbidding Church-men to marry though they had esteemed not
and such meats before a weake Iew for feare to scandalize him for whom Christ died But this later is untrue for by the law of nature and a perpetuall law Paul would never for meat offend his brother the law of naturall Charitie will dictate this to us without any positive mandate we are not for a mâ—â—thfull of meat the losse whereof is so small to put the soule of our brother to so incomparable a hazard as to be losed Ans These meats Rom. 14. and 1 Cor. 8. 10. were then indifferent but they are not so now when the Gospell is fully promulgate for we may not now to abstaine from Meats forbidden in the Ceremonial law for feare to offend a weake Iew for our abstinence should harden them in their â—â—beliefe that Christ is not yet come in the flesh To make Temples and houses dedicated to Saintâ— as indifferent now as meats were then and the argument were concludent But to demolish Churches and remove their physicall use now were as Iudaicall as to forbeare to eat Swines flesh We are not to deprive our selves of the physicall use of 〈…〉 of this or this meat as thinking we are bound by any law of God to forbeare the use thereof and especially we are not to doe it as conceiving we are under the tye of a law given to the Iewes whereas we are under no such tye or law at all But the disusing of Temples dedicated to Saints that the Adversaries plead for Deut. 7. is a totall renouncing of all use of them the places they alledge from the Ceremoniall law doth conclude it for the Temples silver and gold of the Idols of Canâ—an were altogether uselesse to Israel It was Achan's sinne that he tooke the Babilonish garment and the wedge of Gold for any use civill or religious though he should have bestowed these for any religious use or the reliefe of the poore and indigent yea though it was scandalous to none he having taken these privately and by theft yet the very taking of them was a curse to him and the whole Camp of Israel for the totall abandoning of all use whatsoever of these houses Gold and Silver which in themselves and by the law of Creation were physicall and in regard of that naturall use they had from their Creator to supply our necessitie can have its rise from no other totall and compleat cause but from the sole positive will of God discharging his people of the whole use of these creatures at all as if they had never been created for the use of man whether their use should be scandalous to others or not scandalous But by the law of nature which I grant saith Thou shalt not scandalize nor murther the soule of him for whom Christ hath died The Romans Rom. 14. and the Corinthians 1 Cor. 8 were forbidden the eating of fleshes forbidden in Moses law But with these two restrictions 1. they were forbidden not all eating of these meats in private but only in the presence of a weak Iew and for the conscience of others in the case of scandal 1 Cor 10 28 29. 2 They were not by the law of nature that inhibites scandall forbidden the totall use of these meats in any case so as they should make these meats utterly uselesse to themselves or to any others As the Iewes were forbidden to make use of the Canaanitish Idols Gold and money And of the Cattell of the Amalekites either secretly or openly either in the case of scandall given to others or not given And Achan payed deare for his Babilonish garment and his wedge of Gold though he tooke it by theft Ob. 2. But the reason of the law is the soule of the law Now the reason of the Law Deut. 7. 25. why God forbade his people to take the Gold or Silver of the graven image is lâ—st thou be ensnared therein But this reason holdeth under the Now Testament and is moral and perpetuall The very matâ—riall house dedicated to Saints and Idolâ— by Papists is a snare to our soules if we shall worship God in them or if we shall name the Church from Cutbert Giles or the like except we would say as Papists doe that we are not now under the New Testament so much â—â—clined to Idolatrie as the people of the Iewes were of old Ans The halfe-reason or incompleat morall ground of the law is not the soule of the law But you must take in all the reasons the words of the text are these Thou shalt not desire the silver and gold that is on them nor take it to thee lest thou be insnared therein for it is an abomination unto the Lord thy God v. 26. Neither shalt thou bring an abomination into thine house lest thou be a cursed thing like it Now what made that Gold an abomination to the Lord more then all the gold of the earth it is of it selfe the good and usefull creature of God no lesse then all the gold of the earth nothing made it an abomination to God but if we look to the originall cause there was a positive free command of God forbidding Israel to covet or use that Gold The Canaanites themselves by the law of nature might lawfully have melted that same very Gold and made use of it without sinne 2. It is not a good reason Such a law had a morâ—ll and perpetuall reason Ergo the law it selfe is perpetuall and morall It followeth only Ergo the moralitie of that law is perpetuall For all the Ceremoniall laws had a morall and perpetuall reason As the shadows had a moral substantiall ground in Christ the bodie of all shadowes but it doth not follow therefore the shadows and Ceremoniall law in the letter must bee perpetuall Very often in the booke of Leviticus there is no reason given of the Ceremoniall laws But be ye holy I am the Lord that sanctifies you This is a morall and perpetuall reason that endureth to the end of the world yet it is no due consequence therefore all these shadowes and Ceremonies shall indure to the end of the world The reason is because it is the sole positive will of God that maketh a temporarie concatenation between not eating blood and not being cruell and between sacrificing and being holy and yet not being cruel is perpetuall not eating blood temporarie 3 If things indifferent as the eating of flesh before a weak Jew Rom. 14. be a snare to my owne soule and to the soules of others I am to abstaine from these and the like But that I must abstaine from the totall use of any creature that God has made usefull for the life of man by the law of creation as Israel was to abstaine from the cattell of the Amalakites and to stamp in powder and make altogether uselesse the Gold and Silver of the heathen Idol-Gods is altogether unlawfull and a very Judaizing and it s to make as Paul saith Jesus Christ of no effect Object
3. But at least we are to abstaine for scandalls sake from worshipping the true God in these Temples and houses abused to idolatrie lest we lay a stumbling block before others even as the Romans and Corinthians were to abstaine from meats before such weake Jews as conceived these meats to be unlawfull seeing the losse of such meats and abstâ—nence for a time was nothing comparable to the losse of one soule for whom Christ died so the losing of the use of a materiall house in a religious use so it be imployed to some civill use and be not totally lost is nothing comparable to the scanâ—alizing and iâ—snâ—ring of the soules both of Jewes and weake Christians which will certainly follow if we use Temples dedicated to Saints in Gods worship Ans It is true the losse of the use of a materiall Temple is nothing comparable to active scandall which is the destroying of any soule But the refusing to worship God in these materiall Temples because abused to Idolatrie were not only a disusing of the creature without any warrant from God but an open Judaizing and an active scandall both to Jewes and Christians though we should imploy the houses to civill use for any externall conformitie with the Iewes when the thing is not indifferent in religious acts such as is the disusing of the Churches is Iudaising for should we now use Circumcision and the Passeover with an open printed and professed intention to signifie Christ already come in the flesh and should make an open declaration against the Iewish intention in these ordinances we should no lesse Iudaize then Peter who Gal. 2. did only practise an externall conformitie with the Iewes with no Iewish intention sure he was perswaded that Christ was already come in the flesh yet was he justly rebuked by Paul for Iudaizing For the losse of an house in a materiall or physicall use of it I grant it is not comparable to the losse of a Son But the losing of it on a religious ground is another thing When the religious losse of the house is not indifferent as was the Abstinence from some meats indifferent then but sinfully scandalous before a weak brother Ob. 4. But if the worshipping of the true God in these materiall temples be no lesse an ensnaring of us in popish Idolatrie then the using of the Gold and Silver of the Canaanites Idols then we are to disuse all worshipping of God in these houses as well as they were But the former is true for we may be no lesse insnared with materiall houses then they Ans I deny the major Proposition for the eating of blood the taking of both the young bird and the damme in the nest was an insnaring of the Iewes to crueltie through their abuse of the creatures the use whereof God had made both lawfull and necessarie to them in the Creation The blood was the life of the beast and the Lord requireth in us mercie to our beasts life whereas the tender mercies of the wicked are cruell Prov. 12. 10. yet is it not lawfull for us to devise any way we please to keepe us from being snared in crueltie for then upon the same ground it were unlawfull for us to eat blood contrary to the expresse word of God Rom. 14 14. 1 Cor. 10. 25. 26. 1 Tim. 4 3. 4. God by a positive and Ceremoniall Command hedged in the people of the Iewes from being insnared in Idolatrie and by some Ceremonies taught them to detest all Idolatrie but it doth not follow that we Christians are to inure our hearts from being insnared with Idols and to a detestation of Idolatrie by these same Ceremonies that they were commanded for then we were obliged to stampe the Golden and Silver idols to dustand powder and to cast the powder into the river as Moses did the Golden Calse Deut. 9. 21. and behoved to drinke of that water Exod. 32. 20. 1 Chro. 15. 16. 2 King 18. 4. so it followeth no wayes though the physicall use of a materiall Temple should insnare us to Idolatrie that we are therefore to disuse that house except we had the same Ceremoniall command to warrant us that the Jewes had and by this argument you may bring us backe to observe all the Ceremonies of Moses his law Because all these Ceremonies were appointed in the wisdome of God either to keepe us from being insnared in some sinne and to raise in our heart a detestation thereof or to teach us somewhat of Christ of whom we be naturally ignorant and forgetfull Ob. 5. But at your first reformation of the Church of Scotland your Reformers such as M. Knox and others demolished most of the fairest Churches in that Land and for no other reason but because they had been nests of popish idolatrie Ans That Churches in so farre as their use extendeth farther then to the commodious propulsation of injuries of Sunne and Aiâ—e be demolished we can well allow for these that were demolished by our Reformers of blessed memorie nor so spacious and inconvenient for hearing the word of God and celebration of the Sacraments being ordained for Masses Idols for blind superstition that the very length breadth height beauty and glory of them might redound to the glory of Saints and Idols that it was reason they should be demolished in so farre as they conduced nothing for the physicall and necessarie end for which Churches are ordained under the New Testament And thus farre we allow of the breaking of Images Crosses Crucifixes and all Monuments of Idolatâ—ie so as the matter of all these whether Timber Marble stones Mettall of Gold Silver Brasse or the like to be imployed for the necessarie use of mans life but that all their superstitious forme and religious use be utterly abolished As for the abolishing of Bels abused in time of Poperie because they have a necessarie and Physicall use to give warning for the seasonable conveneing of the people of God to the publick worship I see no ground for it from Deut. 7. or other places but we must be necessitate to stampe to powder the very Mettall of Bels and to render them not only uselesse in Churches but any other way tending to the good of mans lâ—â—e Object But Num. 31. 21 22. rayment and skins and vessels of wood taken from Midian though taken as spoyle were purified and the Gold and silver brasse yron c. were purified by fire and not made uselesse so the Churches dedicated to Mary Peter and to Angels and Sains are not to be made uselesse they may be imployed for the poore to dwell in but they can have no religious use in the worship of God except we would heale the wounds of the daughter of Babel Ans I deny not but Churches dedicated to Saints and in regard of their vaine and ostentive spaciousnesse unprofitable for hearing the Word may be imployed to civill uses for ordinarie dwelling But I see no ground how this can be
so in a Physicall and naturall necessitie to save his owne temporall life that by all probabilitie was in great danger and these who being in no such necessitie did eat such meats scandalous and so distructive to the soules of weake ones and having varietie of other meats to keep them from sterving and so a meere necessitie of preserving the bodily life if we compare one affirmative command of God with another may remove that which may be supposed a soule necessitie And the reason is because in the doctrine of scandall which is more intricate and obscure then every Divine conceives God placeth acts of providentiall necessitie as emergent significations of his approving will which are so to us in place of a divine Commandement of Gods revealed will and these providentiall acts of necessitie doe no lesse oblige us to morall obedience then any of the expresse written Commandements of God I cleare it thus There is an expresse law It is sâ—â— and unlawfull for David or any man who is not one of the Lords Priests to eat shew-bread But God commeth in and putteth David in such a posture of divine providence that if he eat not shew-bread he shall be sinfully guiltie of violating a higher morall law of God who saith I will have mercie and not sacrifice Then David shall be cruell to his owne life and sinne against the sixt Commandement Thou shalt doe no murther If he eat not for not to eat when you are in a providentiall condition of sterving if you may have it is to kill your selfe and this providentiall condition doth no lesse oblige you to the Morall obedience of the sixt Command then if God in the letter of the Law should command you to eat This fact of David was not done by any extraordinarie impulsion of the Spirit but by a constant chanell that Providence ordinarily runneth in according to which I or any Professor must be obliged to preferre a worke of Mercie to Sacrifice that is by which we are to give obedience to the sixt Command which is not to kill even as without extraordinarie impulsion I may absent my selfe from hearing the Word when I find going to Church may indanger my life for non-obedience to affirmatives in a greater necessitie is ordinarie And therefore Christian prudence with which the Wisdome of God keeps house Prov. 8. 12. doth determine many things of scandall And prudence is a vertue commanded in the word of God for a wise man observes times and so will he observe all other circumstances yet there be rules here which standeth alwayes and they be these 1. Comparing a physicall and meerely naturall necessitie with a morall necessitie if we yeeld to the physicall necessitie and neglect the moral we sinne against God and may lay a stumbling blocke before others as to eat such meats where the losse is small and the necessitie of eating meerely physicall and the eating be a scandall to the weake we sinne and give scandall the case is cleare Rom. 14. for eating the case being indifferent as it was Rom. 14. is a meere physicall necessitie and not scandalizing a weake brother is a morall necessitie 2. Rule if we compare a greater morall necessitie with a lesse morall necessitie the lesse necessitie must yeeld to the greater a necessitie of mercie must yeeld to a necessitie of sacrificeing if David then should not have eaten the shew-bread in his providentiall necessitie of samine he should have been guiltie both of active scandalizing the soules of others in killing himselfe and should have killed himselfe and the lesse morall necessitie ceaseth and is no necessitie when a greater moral necessitie interveneth 3. Rule Where there is a physicall necessitie of the thing yet not extreame and a morall necessitie of abstinence we are to abstaine The Jewes had a physicall necessitie of the Babylonish Garments but not so extreame in point of perishing through cold as David had of Shew-bread in point of sterving for famine therefore Achan should have obeyed the morall necessitie of not touching the accursed thing and neglected the physicall necessitie which if it had amounted to the degrees of necessitie of mercie rather then obeying a Ceremoniall Command such as was Touch nâ—t the accursed spoyle Achâ—â— might without sinne or scandall to himselfe or others have medled with the spoyle 4. Rule That which is necessarie in speciè in the kind as to goe to Church and heare the Word to come to the house of God and Worship may be in individuo in a particular exigence of providence not morally necessarie but the contradicent thereof morally lawfull David doth lawfully forbeare to come to the Lords house if he knew Saul may kill him by the way â— The things which we are to forbeare only for necessitie of scandall and upon no other ground these I may doe in private if I know they cannot come to the notice of these who shall be scandalized upon the ground of lesse physicall necessitie as Rom. 14. beleevers for their necessitie ordinarie and for nourishment might eat fleshes in private though before a weak Jew they could nâ—â— because the sinne is not in the act of eating but wholly in the scandall and in the manner of the unseasonable doing of it But these things which are morally not necessarie because tâ—â—â—â—bstance of the fact is against a law we are to forbeare both in private because they are against a law and in publick before others for the scandall as Achan sinned in taking the Babilonish Garment though in private and his sinne should have been more scandalous if he had done it publickly Now these we are upon no ordinarie necessitie to doe but such as may incroach upon the hazard of the losse of life in which case an exigence of providence does stand for a Command of non-murthering had Saul and his Army been reduced to a danger of starving in a wildernesse and could have no food except they should kill and eat the Cattell of the Amâ—lâ—kites â— conceive The Lords preferring of Mercie before Sacrifice should warrant them to eat of the Amalakites Cattell yet would this providentiall necessitie be so limited as it may fall out that it stand not for a divine Command for it holdeth in affirmative commands only and 2. so positives as there must be yea there can be no sin eligible by such and such a case as Lot sinned in exposing his daughters to the lust of men to redeeme abstinence from Sodomie Hence it is cleare we may not doe a lesse nor counsell another to commit a lesse sinne to eschew a greater as the Jesuites wickedly teach So Tannerus so Turrianus and others who make a scandalum permissum a scandall that a Christian may hinder another to fall in and yet he permitteth him to fall in it But God hath a prerogative to permit sinfull scandals men have no such power when they are obliged to hinder it The divinite of
others seemeth better to me who deny that the least veniall should be committed to eschew a greater sinne 6. Rule There is a principle obligation a lesse principle a least principle Hence these three degrees issue from love 1. God 2. Our selves 3. Our Neighbour The love of God is most principle and is the measure of the love of our selves the love of our selfe is lesse principall then the love of God and so the obligation lesse I am to make away life and all things yea eternall glory as devided from holinesse and as it includeth only happinesse rather ere I sinne against God The obligation to care for my owne salvation is more principall then my obligation to care for the salvation of my Brother for the love of my selfe is the measure and rule of the love of my Neighbour Now because the obligation of caring for the soule of my brother is only secondarie in compare of the obligation of caring for my owne salvation I am not to sinne my selfe or sinfully to omit any thing that is commanded me in a positive precept to prevent the sinne of my brother Yet hence it doth not follow that a positive Precept is more excellent then the law of Nature which is Thou shalt not murther nor scandalize him for whom Christ died Because though to care for the soule of my brother be of the law of nature simpliciter yet is a secondarie obligation and may cease and yeeld to a stronger obligation that tyeth me more principally to care for my owne soule for though the Command be positive yet knowingly to sinne by a sinfull omission is no lesse a destroying of my owne soule and so of the law of nature in a higher obligation then the other is 7. The Jesuits and Popish Doctors as they are of a large conscience in many things so in the doctrine of scandall to extoll obedience to men so high as we may doe things in themselves not necessarie yea that hath no necessitie but from the will of Commanders And Formalists in this conspire with them even though from this doe flow the ruine of many soules and though the sinfull scandalizing and ruine of these soules flow from sinfull corruption of either ignorance or frailtie or wilfulnesse or malice yet the scandall ceaseth not to flow kindly from the pretended obedience to an unlawfull command for the thing commanded having no Necessitie but the will of man is unlawfull and it is no good reason to say Men are scandalized through their owne ignorance and Malice Ergo the scandall is taken and not given for these who were enemies to the Truth and were so scandalized at Davids murthering of Uriah and Adulterie 2 Sam. 12. 14. as they were by him occasioned to blaspheme Certaine their actuall scandall was from their owne corruption But what Ergo it was not also from Davids murther and adulterie and ergo it was a scandall only taken by the enemies not given by David Surely it solloweth not You may hence judge of the Rule of Lodo Caspensis a Capucean These saith he that doe a worke of it selfe indifferent for a weightie cause and use their owne right â—tutaâ—tur suo jure are excused from mortall sinne as these who lett a house to Whores and publick Usurers that are not strangers though they may commodiously lett it to others they doe not cooperate with sinne because the house it but a place and extrinsecall and remote to the sinne So Christians taken by Turkes for danger of their life which is a weighty necessitie may furnish instruments necessarie for warre against Christians because they doe a worke indifferent of it selfe for a just cause so may a servant convey his Master to a Whore yea and make the Bed for a Concubine and open the doore and if his Master be to climbe in at a window to a whore he may lift up his foot or reach him a ladder Why the servant saith he useth his owne right in doing a worke of it selfe indifferent Uâ—itur suo jure faciens opus exse indifferens modo non placeat ei peccatum A. But sure all out jus and right that men have over their houses and that Captives and servants have to their Masters and Lords is jus limitatum a right ruled limited bounded by the word of God nor is the worke they performe morally indifferent physically it is and Captive Christians if for danger of their life they may prepare necessary instruments of warre against Christians they may kill Christians also for what power the conquering Lords have over Captives to command them to prepare fire and sword against the innocent witnesses of Jesus Christ because they are such the same jus right have they to command to kill the innocent But for no cause the most weighty can we choose either to shed innocent blood or to co-operate with the shedding of it nor to co-operate with the works of darknes for it is shamefull that a servant may lawfully co-operate with and thrust his master in at a window to goe to a whore the jus or dominion of Masters to command and the right of servants to obey is only in the Lord. Yea to kill a man is Physically indifferent for that is physically yea morally without relation to any law indifferent which is capable of lawfulnesse or unlawfulnesse according as it shall bee commanded of or forbidden by God But for a man to kill his son is of it selfe such certaine if God command a Judge to kill his son it is lawfull for the father to kill his son if the Lord forbid Abraham to kill his son it is unlawfull for Abraham to kill his son And therefore Caspensis hath no more reason to use the Instance of captives preparing warre against innocent Christians and of a servant thrusting his Master in at doore or window to a whore then of captives killing the innocent or of servants breaking a house and taking away the goods of a man in the night or of servants committing whoredome at the command of their Conquerors or Lords the one kinde of action in it selfe is as indifferent and susceptible of morall lawfulnesse and unlawfulnesse as the other And if the Master doe co-operate to commit harlotrie in climbing in at a window to a whore and to robbing in digging thorow an innocent mans house in the night to kill the Master of the house and to steale his goods then the servant that co-operateth in these same physicall actions and also diggeth thorow the innocent mans house and kills himselfe is the harlot and the robber by cooperation and participation no lesse then the Master The naked relation of a captive and of a servant cannot make the captive and servant innocent and guiltlesse co-operators for then to sinne at the command of any Conqueror and Master because I am in the condition of a captive and servant were lawfull though God forbid and inhibite me to doe what I doe by the