meer Physicall or naturall means to â—ence off the injuries of sun and Heaven we do not think that the Lord in all or any place of the Old or New Testament setteth down any Laws concerning garments simply as they do fence off cold or heat that belongeth to Art only he speaketh of garments as contrary to gravity as signes of vanity and lightnesse Isa 3. 16 c. Zepha 1. 8. 1 Pet. 3. 3 4. And of garments as Religious observances of which sort was the attire and garments of the Priests and High-Priests in their service in which consideration the Religious times holy places and Mosaicall garments were Divine Worship by which God was immediatly honored but not adjuncts only or actions but Religious things or performances 3. It is such a performance as from thence honour doth immediatly redound to God but that this may be the clearer I conceive that there is a twofold immediate honouring of God in the worship of God 1. An honouring of God lesse immediate as hearing of the word is an immediate honouring of God because honour floweth immediatly from God both Ex conditione operis and Ex conditione operantis from the nature of the work and intention of the worker yet it is a lesse immediate honouring of God in regard that I may also hear the word even from the condition of the work and so from the intrinsecall end of the worker that I may learn to know God and believe for thus far I am led to honour God immediatly in hearing the word that action of its own nature conveying honour to God there interveeneth also a medium amidst between me and honouring of God to wit the Preacher or the Bible to which no externall adoration is due There is another more immediate worship to wit praising of God from which by an immediate result God is honoured and in worship especially strictly immediate God is immediatly honoured both in the intention of the work and the intrinsecall end of it and the intention of the worker though no other thing be done and others be not edified either in knowledge increase of Faith or any other wayes And in this duties of the second Table of mercy and justice differ from worship in that such acts of love and mercy as to give almes to save the life of my brother or of his beast are not acts of worshipping God their intrinsecall end and the nature of the work being to do good to the creature principally Ex naturâ conditione operis though God also thereby be honoured yet in a more secundary consideration For I praying to God do immediately from the nature of the action honour God though no good should either redound to my self or to the creature thereby it is true God by acts of love and mercy to our neighbour is honoured two wayes 1. In that men seeing our good works do thence take occasion to glorifie our Heavenly â—ather whose truth teacheth us by the grace of God to do these works but the intrinsecall and proper use of these is to do good to our selves as in works of sobriety and to our neighbour as in works of righteous dealing but not immediatly and iâ— the first and primary consideration to honour God as in works of Piety holinesse and worship the honouring of God by secondary resultance doth issue also from these duties of righteousnesse but not as from the acts of praying praising Sacramentall eating drinking 2. The doer of these acts of mercy may and is to intend the honouring of God There is a twofold intention in worship one formall and properly Religious and is expounded Morall Ex naturâ rei to be Religious it being such an intention as can have no other state in worship but a Religious State as if the three Children should bow at the Commmandment of the King of Babylon though intending to worship the true God Here should be an intrinsecall intention Ex naturâ conditione operis to worship and that from two grounds conjoyned together 1. Here is bowing down 2. Bowing down to a Religious Object commanded by a Prince and so cometh under the Morall notion of the command of a Judge When the object of bowing down is Religious the signication that we give divine honour to God by kneeling is as inseparable saith Raphael de la Torres from kneeling or bowing down as a bearing testimony by word that God is true and knoweth all secrets and will be avenged on perjury is inseparable from vocall swearing by the name of God or as any man should be an Idolater who in expresse words should say to an Idol O my God Jupiter help me though that Adoration were fained and he who so prayeth should in his heart abhor and detest Jupiter and all false Gods But there is another intention not Religious if a Childe reade a Chapter of the Bible that he may learn to read and spell that is an action of Art not of Worship because the object of the Childes reading is not Scripture as Scripture but only the Printed Characters as they are Signa rerum ut rerum non ut rerum sacrarum signes of things not of holy things and here the object not being Religious the intrinsecall operation cannot raise up any Religious intention of the Childe Upon this ground it is easie to determine whether or no an intention of Worship be essentiall to Worship or not the former intention which is intrinsecall and Intentio operis may be essentiall it resulting from the object but the latter intention of the worker is so far extraneous to Worship as whether it be or be not the nature of Worship is not impaired nor violated Hence Adoration is worship But every worship is not Adoration Uncovering the head seemeth to be little older then Pauls Epistles to the Corinthians The Learned Salmasius thinketh it but a Nationall sign of honour no wayes universally received But certainly it is not Adoration Though therefore we receive the Supper of the Lord uncovered no man can conclude from thence Adoration of the Elements as we do from kneeling conclude the same as we shall here for all bodily worship or expression of our affection to the means of graces though these means be but creatures is not Adoration properly either of God or of these means it is Lawfull to tremble at the word and for Josiah to weep before the Book of the Law read and for the Martyrs to kisse the Stake as the Instrument by which they glorified God in dying for the truth all these being Objectam quo and means by the which they conveyed their worship to the true God and naturall and Lawfull expressions of their affection to God For uncovering the head it is a sort of Veneration or Reverence not Adoration and Paul insinuateth so much when he saith 1 Cor. 11. 4. Every man praying and prophecying having his head covered dishonoureth his head But it is not his meaning
dicitur Scriptura sacra aliud est verbum dei non scriptum dicitur ecclesiae traditio There is one vvord of God vvritten called the holy Scripture And there is another vvord of God not vvritten and it is called the Tradition of the Church Now their Tradition is no more a part of the Scripture but another part of the word of God contradistinguished from Scripture then the body is a part of the soul or Scotland a part of England for both England and Scotland are collaterall parts of great Brittain the Scripture say they is the unperfect rule of Faith and not the compleat will of God as touching Faith or manners but Scripture and Tradition together are the perfect and totall rule so say Formalists that Scripture is the compleat and perfect rule of Faith and manners to regulate all our Morall acts But the other part of the distinction is that Scripture is not a compleat and full rule to regulate all our Morall Acts whatsoever whither of Faith or manners or Church-Policy as it is no rule to my conscience and practise to believe for orders cause and obedience to my Superiours and for decency that I am to wear a Religious significant linnen creature called a Surplice or not to wear it or that I am to excercise or not exercise that grave action of drawing my thumb Crosse the Air above the face of a Baptized Childe vvhile I baptize to betoken his dedication to Christs service And hitherto neither Traditions nor Positives of Church-Policy are added as necessary parts of written Scripture 2. Traditions are not added to the Scripture by Papists as coming from the immediatly inspiring spirit that dyted and wrote Scripture more then our Ceremoniall Positives of policy It s true Papists say they come from an infallible spirit But Formalists I hope refer not their unwritten Positives to so noble blood yet in this they agree that Traditions are not added by them as descending from the immediate inspiring spirit of written Scripture Therefore Cornelius a Lapide saith Non addetis ad verbum quod vobis loquor aliquid scilicet tanquam meum vel a me dictum aut jussum nulli enim homini licet prescripta aut precepta sua pro preceptis a deo a spiritu sancto immediatè inspirante dictatis aut pro Scripturis sacris addere It is not lavvfull for any man to adde to the vvord any thing of his ovvn as his ovvn or as spoken and commanded by himself For no man may broach his own injunctions and precepts as if they were the precepts taught by the immediate inspiring spirit speaking in the Scriptures Hence Papists teach that their Traditions flow from a little lower Spring then from the immediately inspiring Scripturall spirit So I make this good from famous Iesuites Cornelius a Lapide in Deut. 4. 1 2. saith Sed et ipsi judaei multa addiderunt legi ut coelaturas omnemque ornatum templi ut festum sortium sub Eester festum dati ignis festum Encaeniorum c. Hec enim non a deâ— sed a judaeis sancita et instituta sunt denique hec non sunt addita sed potius inclusa legi dei Quia Lex jubet obedire parentibus Magistratibuâ— pontificibus eorumque legibus The Jevvs saith he objecting the instances of Formalists added many things to the Lavv as the ingraving and adorning of the Temple the feast of Purim of Dedication c. And these traditions vvere not ordained and instituted by God Ergo not by the immediate inspiring spirit as is the Holy Scripture but by the Iews and they were not added to the Law but included in the Law because the Law biddeth obey Superiors and their Laws whence it is evident that these very Ceremoniall traditions of Papists for which Formalists contend are not added to the word as coming from God or the immediatly inspiring spirit that diteth scripture but from the Church without warrant of Scripture just as Popish traditions which we count unlawfull additions to the word And Tannerus the Iesuit saith Tom. 3. in 22. de fide spe et cha dis 1. de fide Q. 1. Dub. 8. That the assistance of the spirit that the Church hath in proposing unwritten traditions requireth no positive inspiration or speech made by God to the Church but it is enough that the Church have a very negativehelp of God only by which she is permitted not to erre His words are these Nam assistentia illa dei quà ecclesiae adest ne ejusmodo rebus fidei in traditionibus non scriptis proponendis erret por se non dicit nec requirit positivam inspirationem seâ— locuâ—â—onâ—m Divinam ipsi ecclesiae factam sed contenta est quovis auxilio dei etiam mere negativo quo fit ut ecclesia ijs in rebuus non sinatur errare Cum tamen nova revelatio utique novam inspirrtionem seu Locutionem dei aliquid positivè notificantem significet And the like saith Malderus in 22. de virtu Theolog. That though traditions come from an infallible spirit no lesse then Scripture yet traditions are the Word of God because they are heard and constantly believed But the Holy Scripture is the Word of God because written by the inspiration of the holy spirit Q. 2. Art 1. Dub. 4. pag. 83. And therefore he maketh two sorts of traditions some meerly Divine vvhich the Apostles received either immediately from the Holy Ghost or from the mouth of Christ as those touching the matter and form of the Sacraments Others saith he are properly Apostolick as those touching the Lent Fast instituted by the Apostles ib. tract de trad Q. Vnic Dub. 1. Traditiones inquit per apostolos traditae aliae sunt Divinâ— quas immediatè ipsi a spiritu sancto dictante vâ—l ex ore Christi acceperunt ut de materia et potissimum de formis sacramentorum aliae autem propriâ— dicuntur Apostolica ut de Iejunijo Quadragesimali quod Apostoli Iâ—stituerunt Hence it is evident if Papists cannot but be condemned of impious additions to the Scriptures by these places Deut. 4. Deut. 12. Formalists are equally deep in the same crime and the same is the answer of Malderus ibid. Dub. 2. vetat Apoc. 22. Ne quis audeat Divinam prophetiam depravare assuendo aliquid aut abradendo Turrianus tom de fide spe et cha de traditio disp 20. Dub. 2. pag. 255. Respondetur Joannem planè probibere corruptionem Libri illius non tamen prohibet ne alij Libri scribantur vel alia Dogmata tradantur Stapletonus Relect. Prin. fidei Doct. Contaver 4. q. 1 Art 3. Sed non prohibet vel legis interpretationem per sacerdotes faciendam imò hoc disertè prescribit Deut. 17. Vel aliquid aliud in fidem admittendum qúod lege scriptâ non contineatur Alioqui quicquid postea prophetâ— predicaverunt et Divinis Scripturis adjectum est contra hoc dei mandatum factum
we be all one body in Christ 1 Cor. 10. 16. 2. If he mean Ceremonies as such speciall materialls to wit Surplice c. as ordained of man who may ordain another Ceremony doth not immediatly respect the honour of God 1. This is to beg the question 2. A white garment upon a priest of Jupiter Sacrificing to that Idoll should immediatly respect the honour of Iupiter though the Priest might honour Iupiter with garments of white Roses or some other like device while he officiateth So bowing of the knee in prayer doth immediatly honour God though I may pray sitting or standing 3. It is a dream that the honour of the subject is given to the adjunct yea and properly is the adjunct and agreeth to the adjunct as Surplice hath the very Office and place of Gods word and Sacramentâ— to teach and signifie and yet they are but adjuncts if a mans Coat or his Hat or Shooes could discourse and reason as only the man can do in reason we should say the Coat is the man 2. They say God forbiddeth efficient and operative means of worship and grace in the second Commandment or means immediate which worketh by vertue in themselves or wrapped in them for so the word and Sacraments are means of grace and worship yea the Sacraments be exhibitive seals and therefore we owe to such means subjection of conscience immediatly both to the things instituted and particular means of admonition and to the duties admonished or called to our remembrance by them for they have vertue residing and inherent in them by divine institution to work upon us But God forbiddeth not in the second Commandment means that teach occasionally as Objectum a quo therefore we owe subjection of conscience to the things admonished but not to the particular means of admonition therefore we are tied in conscience to Ceremonies only collaterally and propter aliud they be only externall objects or occasions For whoever saith he expected that men should be stirred up by Ceremonies as by causes or any otherwayes but as by sensible objects as we are by the sight of the creatures or other memorials therefore saith he they are not means by the which grace is wrought by the power of God wrapped in them but resident in God himself that freely giveth the grace by the right use of them so D. Burges Ans All cometh to this Ceremonies taketh the place of Word and Sacraments but cannot fill the chaire and discharge the office so well as Gods Ordinances doth A Clown taketh on the Crown and usurpeth the Throne and cannot do Regall Acts with such grace of Royall Majesty as the Lawfull King what is he for that no usurping Traitor 2. He will not have Ceremonies to be causes of worship but occasions so do Papists say Images saith Vasquez do only set before us the History and effects of God Bellarmine Suarez as all know do say That Images cannot so represent Iehovah as he is in himself or described in his word nor can the Idoll or Image of God represent God as a cause but onely as an object externall and occasion and yet God forbiddeth it Isa 40. 18. Hab. 2. 19. 20. 2. Gods word to the reprobate is a sealed Book and is as if you would teach letters to a new weaned childe Isa 29. 11. c. 29. 9. It worketh by no inherent vertue wrapped in it self but though it be mighty yet is it mighty through God 2 Cor. 10. 4. Ioshuahs twelve stones the Phylacteries the Manna the Rainbow did only as Aquinas saith well worke upon the senses and memory The word it self doth but work morally or objectively and is not a cause having the power of God wrapped in it If Surplice work only as an occasion the Preachers Napkin the bands of women doth so excite the memory and the affection 3. All our Divines teach that the Sacraments are exhibitive seals but not of themselves or by any vertue inherent in them as Papists say but by the power of God which worketh by the right receiving of the Sacraments and the Sacraments Actu Primo and essentially are only signes which worketh objectively and occasionally as you say your unhallowed Ceremonies do 1. because they are Sacraments essentially whether they be received by Faith or not and they are exhibitive seals only to believers 2. Vnbelievers should not prophane the Sacraments by their unworthy receiving of them if they were not Sacraments to them only signifying and if they were exhibiting seals to them then should they receive them worthily which is against what we suppose 3. The Fathers as Justine Martyr Ireneus Epiphanius Chrysostom Ambrose prove that Circumcision in its nature except to believers did only signifie Grace 5. Here be a most vilde distinction That we owe subjection of conscience to the thing admonished but not to Surplice or to such means and particular admonishers but only collaterally But â— is the Church ordaining Ceremonies a collaterall Mistresse over the conscience who is the other collaterall judge here who but Christ 2. We owe this collaterall subjection of Conscience to the Image of the Trinity for though we owe not subjection of Conscience to the image as such an admonisher or such an exhorting object seeing the Word of God may also admonish us of God yet we owe subjection of conscience to the thing admonished to wit to the blessed trinity 3. Neither owe we subjection of conscience to the word as written with ink on paper nor to the sound of the word Preached yea nor do we owe subjection of Faith to the Word as the Word but only collaterall when we say I hope in the Word I believe the Word I rejoyce in the Word of God we take the Word for Objetum quo and God for Objectum quod for the word is not the formall object of any subjection of Conscience I owe to the Word not a subjection of Conscience collaterall or coequall with the subjection that I owe to God but only subordinate as to a mean and to the Word for God and because it is instituted by God but I owe subjection of Conscience to God solely independently and onely yea subjection of Conscience is not due to the Word for its manner of working and not due to the Ceremonies because they work not as the Word of God doth as no wonder they being but hay and stubble but subjection of Conscience is due to the Word because God is the Author of it and speaketh in it himself as is clear Ier. 13. 15. Amos 3. 8. Heb. 2. 3. Hear for the Lord hath spoken and it is to be received only and in Conscience yielded unto as it is the Word of God Isa 1. 2. 1 Thess 2. 13. Now because we cannot receive the Surplice Crossing Capping as the Surplice of God and as the Crossing of Christ therefore are we not to submit at all to the Doctrines which these
Magistrate as Erastus and Master Prinne thinketh exclude Iudasses and knowne traitors and knowne Devills and knowne children of the Devil out of the Church this is to Erastus and Master Prinne both absurd 2. Christ did eat and drink with Iudas knowing him to be all these Ergo we may eat and drink with knowne traitors also the contrary is a truth 1 Cor. 5. 9 10. 11. 2 Thess 3 14 15 Rom. 16. 17. evident enough 3. Christ preached the Gospel to those that he knew sinned against the Holy Ghost to the Pharisees who persecuted Christ to death and others Math. 12. 31 32 33 34. Ioh. 15. 22 23 24 25. Ioh. 7. 28 29. Ioh. 12. 35 36 37 38. Ioh. 10. 31 32. Ioh. 11. 47 48. and this is by the exposition of Erastus l. 3. c. 3. pag. 307. 308. and Master Prinne his vindication pag. 38 39. To give holy things to dogs so Mr. Prinne saith that by doggs and swine are meant only such infidels and heathen who refuse to imbrace and beleeve the Gospel or harbour or entertain the preachers of it of which the text is principally intended as well as the Sacraments or of such open contemners persecutors of the Gospel and Ministers who runne upon and teare the preachers thereof trampling the pearls of the Gospel and the tenderers of them under their feet as the Text resolves in terminis Mat. 7. 6. Mat. 10 14 15. Luk. 9 5. Act. 13. 46. or open Apostates 2. Pet. 1. 2 21 22 c hence by this we may give the pearls of the Gospel to such dogs as the Pharisees for to them Christ tendred the pearle of the Gospel 4. Christ might have hindred being God equall with the Father the Pharisees and Iews to malice him Ergo he being above the Laws that he gives to us doth not in this example warrant us to cast the pearls of the Gospel to such as we know to be Iudasses Pharisees and malicious haters and heart-murtherers of Christ 2. There is not the like reason of preaching the word and dispensing the seals 1. Because the word is a converting ordinance out of question and preached to heathen and to the non-converted though they refuse to imbrace and beleeve the Gospel and refuse to entertaine the preachers of it as is clear Act. 19. 22 23 24 25. Tit. 1. 10 11 12 13. 2 Tim. 3. 25 26 27. The Texts that Master Prinne alledgeth that the Gospel should not be preached to heathen who refuse to imbrace and beleeve the Gospel to wit Mat. 10. 14 15. Luk. 9. 5. Act. 13. 46. are to no purpose for Mat. 10. Luk. 9. is but a Temporary Commandement given for a time that the Disciples should depart from those houses of Iudea there is nothing of the heathen But by the contrary the Apostles are forbidden to go to Samaritanes or Gentiles at all Mat. 10. 5 6. who would not receive the peace of God in the Gospel which precept the Apostles in the story of the Acts did not observe but preached the Gospel to many heathen who refused to imbrace and beleeve the Gospel As Act. 16. and 17. and 19. 2. The place Act. 13. 15. is meant of the blaspheming Iews to whom Paul preached long after they persecuted and stoned the Prophets and had killed the Lord of life Act 2. and 4. and 8. and 9. Mat. 23. 37 38. 3. Those places are to better colour of purpose brought by Arminians and Socinians to prove that the Gospel is preached to people for their good entertainment thereof and denied to others for their unworthinesse and because they will not welcome it So the Arminians in the conference at Hague pag. 87 88 89. God sendeth the Gospel not according to his absolute will sed ob alias causas in homine latentâ—s for secret causes in man Arminius against Perkins p. 199. The will of God in sending the Gospell hath causes in the will of man according to that habenti dabitur So Corvinus ad Wallachros p. 44. Socinus Comment in 1. Epist Ioh. c. 4. p. 307. saith the same and Mr. Pryn is pleased in the same sense to cite them I conceive imprudently for I beleeve that Reverend and learned man doth hate those impious Sects the Enemies of the grace of God but truly if this be a rule to Pastors to spread the Gospell that they are to offer and give the pearle of the preached Gospell to those that willingly receive it and harbour the preachers and presently to depart and preach no more the word of the Kingdom to those who refuse it as the places Mat. 10. 14. Luke 9. 5. carry that sense because they are Heathens who refuse to embrace and beleeve the Gospell and harbour the Preachers as the worthy Divine saith conceiving that to be a casting of Pearles to Dogs and Swine I see not how the Preachers spreaders of the Gospel to the Heathen are to beleeve that God out of meer grace the good pleasure of his will without respect to good or bad deserving sendeth the Gospel to some and denieth it to others 3. Though the Sacrament of the Supper be a converting Ordinance in this sense that it corroborateth faith and conversion where it was once and so applyeth the Promises to one who before beleeved yet it is not a converting ordinance that is to be administred to one dead in sins and trespasses as the word is for then at the first Sermon that ever is preached to a Heathen if he should say though for base worldly ends known to the Church that he desired to have the Sacraments we are obliged to beleeve that he sincerely desireth these Seals and instantly at the same sermon to baptise him administer the other Seal of the Lords Supper to him for how can we deny converting Ordinances to those who desire them say our adversaries 4. An ordinance that cannot be dispensed to a Heathen remaining a Heathen and to an unconverted man knowne to be an unconverted man is not an Ordinance that ought to be dispensed as the ordinance of the Word and as the first converting ordinance to so many as we may safely dispense the Word unto and if it be first a converting ordinance as the preaching of the Word is then it is to be dispensed to all those to whom we are to preach the Word But Erastus and Mr. Pryn grant we may preach the Word to Heathen remaining Heathen and if they deny it as they yeeld it the Apostles did preach the Gospel to the Heathen remaining Heathen but they never admitted nor can we admit to the Lords Supper Heathen remaining Heathen nor could the Iewes upon the same ground admit to the Passeover the uncircumcised now then the preaching of the Word to some cannot make the Church and preachers guilty of casting pearles to Swine and of partaking of their siâ— whose hearing is not mixed with faith and yet if the Church and Ministers should admit to
to himselfe the Ministery in its exercise 1. Because this promise is accumulative and of a temporall reward for the Magistrate as the Magistrate cannot promise that which Peter promiseth that 1. 1 Pet. 5. 4. When the chiefe shepheard shall appeare they shall receive a crowne of glory that fadeth not away he may as a Christian promise that but for a temporall reward for men no man for being faithfull in the house of God hath that unseparably annexed to his labours by a literall promise in Scripture and therefore it is onely accumulative 2. Right and sound preaching and governing in Gods house cannot from this be said to bee subjected to the Magistrate as a Magistrate in regard that this is an accidentall hire and an externall and accessorie good which the Church as the Church and the most faithfull Prophets Apostles and Pastors have wanted and yet have attained the end of a Church as a Church visible nor is this a promise made to the Church as the Church or the Ministers thereof as such for the Apostolick church that was most poor had neither thing nor name nor promise but by the contrary the Kings and Rulers did conspire against the Kingdome of the son of God VI. Assertion Though the Magistrate may both threaten to inflict and actually inflict the ill of temporall punishment on Ministers if they be either idle or unsound in their administration yet thence can onely be concluded that the male administration of the ministerie is subjected to the Magistrate as such but not the Ministery it selfe or the exercise thereof 1. The male administration of any office is accidentall to the office 2. This subjecteth the erring person not the teaching Minister to the civill Magistrate Nor doth this make the Ministers in the exercise of their office properly subordinate to the Ministers but onely so farre as the spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets VII Assertion There is a twofold subordination of the exercise of Male administration of Ministers one civill another Ecclesiasticall These two differ so as the former must be subordinate to the Magistrate who is to inflict bodily punishment but the latter is onely subject to the Church The Judiciall determination according to the Word of God for the informing of the conscience and gaining to the truth the erring Ministers is proper to the Colledge of Ministers and in this if the colledge of Ministers erre they are also punishable and the Magistrate is to command them to judge and determine de novo over again The Magistrate in a constitute church is to determine civilly and sentence and civilly punish the Ministers that either are dumbe dogs and will not barke or that perverts the souls of people with false doctrine and where the Church is constituted it is presumed that the Priests whose lips should preserve knowledge have determined in an Ecclesiasticall way the very same which the Iudge civilly is to determine not because the Church hath so determined but because he judgeth in his conscience it to be according to the Word of God VIII Assertion The Ministers are in no sort the Ambassadors or servants of the Magistrate but of Iesus Christ and immediately in their ministeriall acts subordinate to the King of Kings 1. They declare the truth in the Name of Christ their master and Lord not in the name of the Magistrate as the Arminians make the steps of the subordination 1. The Word of God 2. The Magistrate carrying Gods sword 3. The Preachers of the Gospell for then the Preachers should hear the word of the Magistrate first and have the minde of Christ spoken and revealed to them immediately from the magistrate but mediately onely by the mediation of the Magistrate the minde of Christ 2. There should be in every Christian Kingdome where there is a King a civill Pope having directly both the Swords not with the distinction of Iesuites of dixectly and directly and as they say the Pope hath the temporall sword indirectly and in ordine ad spiritualia in order to spirituall things and and how many inferiour Magistrates so many civill Popes onely they shall not be infallible Arminians say that this collection is from envie Because we say they deny a headship and supremacy of power of Governement to your Pastors and Elders in all your Parishes which maketh the Church a Monster with many heads therefore you put this for envy upon the Magistrate who yet hath the word of God above him which the Pope hath not who setteth himself above the Word of God Ans 1. If we give a supremacy royall and princely to the Ministers which they call Archiâ—ectonica as the adversaries doe to the Magistrate multitudes of Popes behoved to be in the Church but we make them meer Heralds Trumpeters and Messengers to relate the will of God void of all royall power and having neither earthly majesty power nor Sword 2. It is not our Argument that in which they conceive we repose to wit that we thinke the adversaries resolve all ultimatè and last which concerneth the government of the Church in the will of the Magistrate as on an infallible rule we grant they teach that the Word of God is to rule the Magistrate in the matters of the first Table and justice and equity in the things of the second Table but they say this in words onely but the Magistrate as Magistrate may mould out of his high dominion what Church government he will and this by consequent resolveth all in the Magistrates will and that they teach that when the Magistrate doth command against the Word of God then it is better to obey God then men And 2. This we infer as an absurdity that they cannot shun that there is such a new officer a new Church head a creature most like a Pope in every Christian Kingdome brought in the Church who is above Bishops Pastors Doctors who by office must carry the minde of God to Pastor and people who hath the keyes of the House to make and unmake call and send recall and exantorate ministers as his Servants and Heralds 3. Looke what power the Magistrate as a Magistrate hath in civill affaires the same hath he in dispensing Word Sacraments admitting to or rejecting from the Sacraments calling of ministers excommunicating by this way and so by office he is no lesse essentially a Pastor to watch for the soule then he is a civill Judge 4. How doth this confound the two Kingdomes the Kingdome that is of this world and fighteth with the Sword and the Kingdome that is not of this world and fighteth not with the Sword if the magistrate as the magistrate and armed with the sword be the supream Head over both and as he beareth the Sword have a carnall dominion over the Church as the Church 5. If God have made the subordination of ministers as ministers and servants of the magistrate as a magistrate then the visible Church hath no
perfect though it teach us not any thing of tradionals in speciall yet in generall it doth hold forth the traditions of the church So Tostat Abulens in Deut. 4. v. 2. ad lit saith Hic commendatur lex ex perfectione quia perfecto nec addi potest nec auferri debet Here the Law of God is commended saith he from its perfection and that is perfect to which nothing can be added and from which nothing should be taken Yea so far forth is the scripture perfect in the Articles of Faith that Castro in summa c. 8. Canus locor Theolog. l. 2. c. 7. and l. 4. c. 4. and Tannerus tom 3. in 22. disp 1. de fide Q. 1. dub 7. saith We are not now to wait for any new revelation of any verity unknown to the Apostles Et nihil novi definiri ab ecclesia Apostolis incognitum and all verities now revealed were implicitely believed by the Apostles and contained in Vniversall generall precepts as that the Saints are to be worshipped that Canonicall Books containeth the word of God the Bishops of Rome are the true successors of Peter and Catholick pastors c. and he saith Quod ecclesia non posset novum fidei articulum condere communiter etiam docent Scholastici in 3. dis 25. he subscribeth to that truth of Vincentius Lyrinensis c. 17. In ecclesia nulla nova Dogmata procudi sed pretiosam divini Dogmatis Gemmam exsculpi fideliter cooptari adornari sapienter ut intelligatur illustrius quod antea obscurius credebatur No new points of saith or manners are forged in the Church but the precious pearl of divine truth is in it polished faithfully applied and wisely illustrated that they may be more clearly understood which before was more obscurely beleeved so that to say the perfection of scripture consisteth not in particularizing all the small positives of policy is no more then Papists say of the perfection of the scripture in their traditions 2. Moses speaketh both of the Morall and Ceremoniall Law called by the names of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Statutes rights and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Judgements and Laws whatsoever extolled by David Psal 119. As his delight his joy his heritage his songs in the house of his pilgrimages and of both he saith that there is life in keeping them Now the Ceremonies of Moses had an exceeding great excellency in looking to Christ and being shadows of good things to come Heb. 10. 1. And our Ceremonies have the same aspect upon Christ Why but the day of the commemoration of Christs Death Nativity Ascension Dedication to Christ by a Crosse in the Aire should have the same influence and impression on our hearts if they be lawfull that the like Ceremonies and Laws had upon Davids spirit Christ being the object and soul of both 2. Of these Ceremonies and Laws Moses faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 6. for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the Nations Why but these same Ceremonies looking with a broader and fuller face on Christ already come if Christ have put any life of lawfulnesse in them then their dim shadows of old should also be our wisdom in the hearing of Pagans who know not God 3. It is a wonder to me that the learned Master Prynne should say that the place Deut. 4. speaketh nothing of Church-Government and Ceremonies but only of Doctrines of Canonicall Books For that is as much as to say the place speaketh nothing of Divine Ceremonies but only of divine Ceremonies for what a number of Divine Ceremonies and Laws are in the Law of Moses which were given by the Lord himself as is clear by the words ver 1. Now therefore hearken O Israel unto the Statutes and judgements that I teach you that ye may live and v. 5. Behold I have taught you Statutes and judgments which the Lord my God commanded me v. 8. And what nation is there so great that hath statutes and judgements so Righteous as all this Law which I set before you this day Now of all this Law the Lord saith v. 2. Ye shall not adde unto the Word which I commanded you Neither shall ey diminish The Learned and Reverend Mr Prynne must restrict this word of the Law which can admit of no addition to some speciall Law either the Morall only or the judiciall and Ceremoniall only not to the former for then additions to the Decalogue only should be forbidden this never man taught Stapleton indeed Relect. Prin. fid Doctrin cont 4. Q. 1. Art 3. restricteth it to the Ceremoniall Law only but Moses maketh it a Law as large v. 2. as the word which God Commandeth And as saith he v. 5. the statutes and the judgements which the Lord Commanded me v. 8. All this Law Deut. 31. 9. This written Law delivered to the Priests and kept in the Ark the Law that all Israel heard read v. 11. Of which it is said v. 24. When Moses had made an end of writing of the words of this Law in a Book untill they were finished Now this was the whole five Books of Moses And were there nothing of Church-Government in Moses Law What shall we then say of the High Priest his calling Office habit of the Priests Levites their charge calling attire of the Law of the Leaper his healing his extrusion out of the Camp of the Law of those that were defiled with the dead of their qualification who were to be Circumcised who were to eat the Passeover or who not who were to enter into the house of God and Congregation who not not a few of these touching Church-Government are included in the Law that God Commanded Israel as their wisdom 4. That there were many additions made to the service of God in the Temple not mentioned by Moses is nothing to purpose except it be proved that these additions were made by the Church without any word of God the conâ—rary whereof is evident for the Temple and whole patern thereof was delivered in writing by the Lord to David 1 Chron. 28. 11. 19. If Formalists will have no Laws made but by Moses as the only Law-giver they have as good reason to say That Moses was the only Canonick writer and none but he which is absurd Or 2. That Moses by his own spirit was a Law-giver and had active influence in excogitating the Law We conceive that Protestants are to own this Doctrine which Tostatus imputes to us as Hereticks Com. in Loc. Q. 2. Quasi Moses nudus minister relator verborum dti esset non legem conderet As if Moses were a meer servant and a naked reporter of the Lords Law and words and not a Law-maker For in the making of Laws and Divine institutions we judge that all the Canonick writers were meer patients as the people are for God is the Commander and Moses the person Commanded and a meer servant Deut. 4. 5. Mal. 4. 4. Heb. 3.
the Church of the Jews never took on them to command the observation of these forgeries under the pain of Church-censures as Papists and prelats did their Crossing and their Surplice Hooker saith A Question it is whither containing in Scripture do import expresse setting down in plain terms or else comprehending in such sort that by reason we may thence conclude all things which are necessary to salvation The Faith of the Trinity the Co-eternity of the Son with the Father are not the former way in Scripture for the other let us not think that as long as the World doth indure the wit of man shall be able to sound to the bottom of that which may be concluded out of Scripture Traditions we do not reject because they are not in Scripture but because they are neither in Scripture nor can otherwise sufficiently by any reason be proved to be of God That which is of God and may be evidently proved to be so we deny not but it hath in its kinde although unwritten yet the self same force and authority with the Written Laws of God Such as are alterable Rites and Cystomes for being Apostolicall it is not the manner of delivering them to the Church but the Author from whom they proceed which gave them their force and credit Ans 1. The consequences of Scriptures are doublesse many and more then are known to us and the particulars of that Government that we contend for are in Scripture that is there should be no Government but what is either expresly in Scripture or may be made our by just consequence we believe if they cannot be proved from Scripture let them fall as mens hay and stubble But in the mean time these are two different questions Whither there be an immutable Platform of Discipline in the Word Or whither ours be the only Platform and no other If we carry the first Ceremonies must fall And certainly in all reason we are on the surest side If we cannot observe all that is written it is not like that God hath laid upon us unwritten burdens 2. Hooker doth not reject all the Popish Traditions as our Divines Reformed do because they are not warranted by the Word so that if the Images of God and Christ and the Worshipping of them and Purgatory and the Supremacy of the Pope can be proved to be of God though they be no more in Scripture then Crossing and Surplice then would he receive all these as Having the self same force and authority with the Written Laws Now we know no other weightier Argument to prove there 's no Purgatory but because the scripture speaketh of Heaven and Hell and is silent of Purgatory 2. That naturall reason can warrant a positive instituted Worship such as Surplice betokening Pastorall Holinesse without any Scripture is a great untruth for naturall reason may warrant new Sacraments as well as new Sacramentals 3. If Traditions have their force and credit from God not from the manner of delivering them that is from being contained in scripture or not contained in it then certainly they must be of the same Divine necessity with scripture For whither Christ Command that the Baereans believe in the Messiah by the Vocall Preaching of Paul or by the written scriptures of the Prophets and Apostles it is all one it is the same word and coming from Christ must be of the same Divine authority But this is to beg the question for that we are to believe no unwritten tradition because it is unwritten to have the self same force and authority with the Written Laws of God For Lorinus Cornelius a Lapide Com. in 4. Deuter. Estius Com. in 2. Thes 2. 15. Bellarmine Tannerus Malderus Becanus say Whither the Lord deliver his minde to us in his Written Scripture or by Tradition it is still the Word of God and hath authority from God But the truth is to us it is not the Word of God if it be not a part of the Counsel of God written in Moses or the Prophets and Apostles for though the Word have authority only from God not from the Church nor from men or the manner of delivering of it by word or writ yet we with the Fathers and Protestant Divines and evidence of scripture stand to that of Basilius Homil. 29. Advers câ—lâ—mnianâ—es S. Trinit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Believe what are written vvhat are not vvritten â—eek not after And so seek not after Surâ—lice Crossiâ—g and the like And that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Every word and so this That Crossing Surplice are Religious signes of spirituall duties and every thing or action must be made good by the Testimony of the heavenly inspired Scripture these things that are good and so Religiously decent and significant may be fully confirmed and these that are evil corfounded And to us for our Faith and practise if it be not Law and Testimony it is darknesse and not light And as Gregor Nyssen the Brother of Basyl saith Dialog de anim et Resurrect tom 2. ed. Grecolaâ— pag. 639. Edit Greâ— pag. 325. That only must be acknowledged for truth in which is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the seal of the Scriptures Testimony 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And how shall it be true to us iâ— Scripture say it not Or how shall it appear to us to be from God For Cyril Alexandrin saith What the holy Scripture saith not such as are your Positives of mens devising how shall we receive it and account it amongst things that are true And it is not that which Hereticks of old said for their Heresies to say â—s Hooker doth that any thing may be proved to be of God which is not written in Scripture For saith Hieronimus in Hag. c. 1. Sed alia quae absque authoritate testimoniis Scripturarum quasi Traditione Apostolica sponte reperiunt atque confingunt percutit Gladius dei The Scripture doth bar the door upon Hereticks saith Chrysostome And he is a Theef that taketh another unlawfull way then the Scripture And by what Argument can reason without Scripture prove that Crosse and Suplice are of God But by that same reason Papists without Scripture can and may prove their Traditions to be of God And if we admit reason and exclude Scripture it is as easie to prove their Traditions as our Positive additions to Worship And what Answers Papists give for their Traditions to â—lude the power of Scripture and evidence of Testimonies of fathers all these same are given by Prelats for their additions to say nothing that Hooker asserteth unwritten Traditions to be Gods Word and in the very stile of the Councel of Trent we are to acknowledge Traditions though unwritten yet to have the self same authority and force with the Written Laws of God And shal the Surplice and Crosse and such stuffe be of the self same force and authority with the Evangel according to Luke and John
warranted by Scripture it followeth only to him that so doth it is unlawfull Rom. 14. 14. In that he doth Bonum non benè a thing lawfull not lawfully 4. It is unpossible to deduce all truth out of any truth For then because the Sun riseth to day it should follow Ergo Crosse and Surplice are Lawfull I might as well deduce the contrary Ergo they are unlawfull Hooker Some things are good in so mean a degree of goodnesse that men are only not disproved nor disallowed of God for them as Eph. 5. 20. No man hateth his own flesh Matth. 5. 46. If ye do good unto them that do so to you the very Publicans themselves do as much They are worse then Infidels that provide not for their own 1. Tim. 5. 8. The light of nature alone maketh these actions in the sight of God allowable 2. Some things are required to salvation by way of direct immediate and proper necessity finall so that without performance of them we cannot in ordinary course be saved In these our chiefest direction is from Scipture for nature is no sufficient director what we should do to attain life Eternall 3. Some things although not so required of necessity that to leave them undone excludeth from salvation are yet of so great dignity and acceptation with God that most ample reward is laid up in Heaven for them as Matth. 10. A Cup of cold Water shall not go unrewarded And the first Christians sold their possessions and 1 Thess 2. 7. 9. Paul would not be burdensome to the Thessalonians Hence nothing can be evil that God approveth and he approveth much more then he doth Command and the precepts of the law of Nature may be otherwise known then by the Scripture then the bare mandat of Scripture is not the only rule of all good and evil in the actions of Morall men Ans 1. The Popery in this Author in disputing for a Platform of Government that is up and down and changeable at the will of men made me first out of love with their way for his first classe of things allowable by the light of Nature without Scripture is far wide for Eph. 5. 20. That a man love his own flesh is Commanded in the sixth Commandment and the contrary forbidden otherwise for a man to kill himself which is self-hatred should not be forbidden in Scripture the very light of nature alone will forbid ungratitude in Publicans and condemn a man that provideth not for his own But that this light of nature excludeth Scripture and the Doctrine of Faith is an untruth for Hooker leaveth out the words that are in the Text and most against his cause He that provideth not for his own is worse then an Infidel and hath denied the Faith Ergo the Doctrine of Faith commandeth a man to provide for his own What Morall goodnesse nature teacheth that same doth the Morall Law teach so the one excludeth not the other 2. It is false that Scripture only as conâ—adistinguished from the Law of Nature doth direct us to Heaven for both concurreth in a speciall manner nor is the one exclusive of the other 3. For his third classe it s expresly the Popish Works of supererogation of which Hooker and Papists both give two Characters 1. That they are not Commanded 2. That they merit a greater degree of glory Both are false To give a Cup of cold water to a needy Disciple is commanded in Scripture Isa 57. 9 10. Matth. 25. 41 42. And the contrary punished with everlasting fire in Hell For Paul not to be burdensome to the Thessalonians and not to take stipend or wages for Preaching is commanded for considering the condition that Paul was in was 1 Thess 2. 6. To seek glory of men was a thing forbidden in Scripture and so the contrary cannot be a thing not commanded and not to be gentle v. 7. As the servant of God ought to be even to the enemies of the truth 1 Tim. 2. 24. Not to be affectionately desirous to impart soul Gospel and all to those to whom he Preached as it is v. 8. is a sin forbidden and for the merit of increase of glory it is a dream Hence I draw an Argument against this mutable form of Government The changeable Positives of this Government such as Crossing Surplice and the like are none of these three enumerated by Hooker 1. They are not warranted by the Law of nature for then all Nations should know by the light of nature that God is decently worshipped in Crosse and linnen Surplice which is against experience 2. That these Positives are not necessary to salvation with a proper finall necessity as I take is granted by all 3. I think Crosse and Surplice cannot deserve a greater measure of glory for Formalists deny either merit or efficacy to their Positives The Jesuit Tannerus confirmeth all which is said by Hooker as did Aquinas before him And Eâ—kiâ—s in his conference with Luther and Oecolampadius who say for imagery and their Traditions that it is sufficient that the Church say such a thing is truth and to be done and the scripture doth not gain-say it SECT V. Morall Obedience resolved ultimately in Scripture FOR farther light in this point it is a Question What is the formall object of our obedience in all our our Morall actions that is Whether is the Faith practicall of our obedience the obedience itself in all the externals of Church Government resolved in this ultimately and finally This and this we do and this point of Government we believe and practise because the Lord hath so appointed it in an immutable Platform of Government in Scripture or because the Church hath so appointed or because there is an intrinsecall conveniency in the thing it self which is discernable by the light of nature Ans This Question is near of blood to the Controversie between Papists and us concerning the formall object of our faith that is Whither are we to believe the scripture to be the Word of God because so saith the Church or upon this objective ground because the Lord so speaketh in his own Word Now we hold that scripture it self furnisheth light and faith of it self from it self and that the Church doth but hold forth the light as I see the light of the Candle because of the light itself not because of the Candlestick Hence in this same very Question the Iews were not to believe that the smallest pin of the Tabernacle or that any officer High-Priest Priest or Levite were necessary nor were they to obey in the smallest Ceremoniall observance because Moses and the Priests or Church at their godly discretion without Gods own speciall warrant said so But because so the Lord spake to Moses so the Lord gave in writing to David and Solomon 1 Chron. 28. 11. 19. And so must it be in the Church of the New Testament in all the Positives of Government otherwise if we
or betwixt Peters words and the words spoken by Peteâ—â— tongue mouth and lips for Prophets and Apostles were both Gods mouth 5. Worship essentiall and Worship Arbitrary vvhich Formalists inculcate or worship positively lavvfull or negatively lavvfull are to be acknowledged as worship Lawfull and Will-worship and vvorship Lawfull and unlawfull 6. What is vvarranted by naturall reason is vvarranted by Scripture for the Law of nature is but a part of Scripture 7. Actions are either purely morall or purely not morall or mixed of both The first hath vvarrant in Scripture the second none at all the third requireth not a vvarrant of Scripture every vvay concludent but only in so far as they be Morall 8. Matters of meer fact knovvn by sence and humane testimonie are to be considered according to their Physicall existence if they be done or not done if Titus did such a thing or not such are not in that notion to be proved by Scripture 2. They may be considered according to their essence and Morall quality of good and lawfull â—ad or unlawfull and so they are to be warranted by Scripture 9. There is a generall vvarrant in Scripture for Worship and morall actions tvvofold either vvhen the Major proposition is only in Scripture and the Assumption is the vvill of men or vvhen both the Proposition and Assumption are warranted by Scripture the former vvarrant I think not sufficient and therefore the latter is necessary to prove the thing lavvfull Hence our 1. conclusion Every worship and Positive observance of Religion and all Morall actions are to be made good by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according as it is vvritten though their individuall circumstances be not in the word 2. The offering for the Babe Iesus tvvo Turtle Doves and â—vvo Pigeons are according as it is vvritten in the Lavv and yet Ioseph and Mary the Priest the Offerer the day and hour when the male childe Iesus for whom are not in the Law Exod. 13. 1. Numbers 8. 26. In the second Table Amaziah his Fact of mercy in not killing the children for the Fathers sin is said to be 2 Kin. 24. 6. performed by the King 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As it is vvritten in the Book of the Law of Moses yet in that Law Deut 24. 6. There is not a word of Amaziah or the children whom he spared because these be Physicall and not Morall circumstances as concerning the essence of the Law of God Hence in the Categorie of all Lawfull Worship and Morall actions both Proposition and Assumption is made good by this As it is vvritten even to the lowest specifice degree of morality as all these 1. The Worship of God 2. Sacramentall worship under that 3. Under that participation of the Lords Supper 4. Under all the most speciall participation of the Lords Supper by Iohn Anna in such a Congregation such a day All these I say both in Proposition and Assumption are proved by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And can bid this according as it is written the like I may instance in all other Worship in all acts of Discipline in all Morall acts of justice and mercy in the second Table But come to the Prelats Kalendar They cry Order and decency is Commanded in Gods Worship And we hear Pauls cry not theirs but under this is 2. Orderly and decent Ceremonies of humane institution And here they have lost Pauls cry and the Scriptures as it is written 3. Under this be Symbolicall signes of Religious worship instituted by men according as it is written is to seek And 4. under all Thomas his Crossing of such an Infant is written on the back of the Prelats Bible or Service book but no where else So do Papists say What ever the Church teach that is Divine truth Under this cometh in invocations of Saints Purgatory and all other fatherlesse Traditions which though Papists should teach to be Arbitrary and indifferent yet would we never allow them room in Gods house seeing they cannot abide this touchstone according as it is written 2. Because Scripture condemneth in Gods Worship what ever is ours as will-worship Hence 2. All worship and new Positive means of worship devised by men are unlawfull but humane Ceremonies are such Ergo The Proposition is proved many wayes as 1. What is mans in Gods Worship and came from Lord-man is challenged as false vain and unlawfull because not from God as Idols according to their own understanding Hos 13. 2. So from Israel it was the workman made it Hos 8. 6. Hence Zanchius and Pareus infer all invented by men are false and vain and so are condemned Ier. 18. 12. The imaginations of their â—vil heart and Psal 106. 39. Their own devises their ovvn vvorks their ovvn inventions as Act. 7. 41. Figures vvhich yâ— made Act. 7. 43. Had they been figures of Gods making as the Cherubins and Oxen in the Temple as 1 King 7. They had been Lawfull dayes devised by Iâ—robâ—ams heart 1 King 12. 32 33. The light of your ovvâ—â—â—irâ— Isa 50. 11. A plant that the Heavenly Father planted not Ergo By man Math. 15. 14. 2. The Proposition is proved from the wisdom of Christ who is no lesse faithfull then Moses who followed his Copy that he saw in the Mount Exod. 40. 19. 21. 23. Exod. 25. 40. Heb. 8. 5. Heb. 3. 1 2. Ioh. 15. 15. Or Solomon 2 Chron. 29. 25. 1. Chron. 28. 11 12. Gal. 3. 15. Also I prove our Conclusion 3. thus If the word be a rule to direct a young mans vvay Psal 119. 9. A light to the Paths of men v. 105. If the Wisdom of God cause us to understand Equity Iudgement Righteousnesse and every good vvay Prov. 2. 9. And cause us vvalk safely so that our feet stumble not Prov. 3. 25. So that vvhen vve go our steps shall not be straightned and vvhen vve run our feet shall not stumble Prov. 4. 11 12. If wisdom lead us as a Lamp and and a Light Prov. 6. 23. Then all our actions Morall of first or second Table all the Worship and right means of the Worship must be ruled by this according as it is Written else in our actions we walk in darknesse we fall stumble go aside and are taught some good way and instructed about the use of some holy Crossing some Doctrine of Purgatory and Saint-worship without the light of the Word But this latter is absurd Ergo So is the former It is poor what Hooker saith against us If Wisdom of Scripture teach us every good path Prov. 2. 9. By Sccripture onely and by no other mean then there is no art and trade but Sripture should teach But Wisdom teacheth something by Scripture something by spirituall influence something by Worldy experience Thomas believed Christ vvas risen by sence because he savv him not by Scripture the Ievvs believed by Christs miracles Ans 1. Some actions in man are meerly naturall as to grow these
are not regulated by the word 2. Some agree to man as he liveth as to sleep eat drink and these are considered as animall actions Actiones animales and do not belong to our Question But as they are in man they be two wayes regulated by the word 1. According to the substance of the act the Law of nature and consequently the word of God Commandeth them If one should kill himself through totall abstinence from meat and sleep he should sin against the Law of nature 2. These actions according as they are to be moderated by reason are to be performed soberly and are in Gods word Commanded 3. Some actions agree to man as he is an Artificiall or Scientifick agent as to speak right Latine to make accurate demonstrations in Geometry and these are ruled by Art man in these as they be such is not a Morall Agent but an Artificiall Agent I say as they are such because while one speaketh Latine according to the Art of Disputer or Linacer he should not lie and all morality in these actions are to be ruled by Gods vvord and as actions of Art they are not every good path or every good Morall vvay that Solomon speaketh of Prov. 2. 9. and therefore it is a vain Argument against the perfection of Gods word 2. Hooker saith God teacheth us something by spirituall influence Ans If without the word by only influence spirituall as he taught the Prophets it was a vain instance for influence visions inspirations were of old in place of Scripture If Ceremonies as Crossing Surplice come this way from God they be as nobly born as the Old and New-Testament If God teach any thing now by influence spirituall without Scripture Hooker is an Enthusiast and an Anabaptist If experience and sense teach many things now which Scripture doth not teach and yet is worship or a Morall Action we desire to know these 3. The instance of Thomas learning that Christ is risen from the dead by sence and not by Scripture and of the Iews believing by miracles and not by Scripture might make a Iesuit blush for Christs Resurrection and the Doctrine of the Gospel confirmed by Miracles are not Arbitrary Rites beside Gods word but fundamentals of salvation Hence the man will have us believe God revealeth Articles of faith to us by other means then by his word Thomas was helped by his sense and some Iews to believe Christs Death and Resurrection by miracles But the formall Object of their Faith was the Lord speaking in his scriptures 2. Hooker Objecteth When many meats are set before me in the Table all are indifferent none unlawfull if I must be ruled by Scripture and eat in faith and not by natures light and common discretion I shall sin in eating one meat before another How many things saith Sanderson do Parents and Masters command their servants and sons Shall they disobey while they finde a warrant from Scripture Ans For eating in measure the Scripture doth regulate us for eating for Gods glory the scripture also doth regulate us and the action of eating according to the substance of the action is warranted by the Law of nature which is a part of the word the meer order in eating is not a Morall action and so without the lists of the question If the question be of the order of eating I think not that a Morall action 2. Eating of divers meats is a mixt action and so requireth not a warrant in the Morality every way if you eat such meats where there be variety to choose as you know doth ingender a Stone or a Cholick you sin against the sixth Commandment 3. Masters Parents Commanders of Armies may command Apprentices servants sons souldiers many Artificiall actions in Trades in War where both Commanders and obeyers are artificiall not morall Agents and so they touch not the question but what is morall in all actions of Art Oeconomy Sciences is ruled by the word except our Masters offend that Paul said Children should obey their Parents in the Lord That men are not both in commanding inferiours and obeying Superiours vexed with scruples cometh not from the insufficiency of Gods word but from this that mens consciences are all made of stoutnesse But if this be true Seth Enoch Noah Shem could not eat nor sleep saith Hooker but by revelation which was Scripture to them Answer Supernaturall Revelation was to these Fathers the rule of Gods worship and all their actions supernaturall and of all their actions morall in relation to the last end but for eating and drinking they being actions naturall they were to be regulated in these by naturall reason and the Law of nature which was apart then of the Divine Tradition that then ruled the Church while as yet the word was not written Hooker urgeth thus It will follow that Moses the Prophets and Apostles should not have used naturall Arguments to move people to do their dutie they should only have used this Argument As it is written else they taught them other grounds and warrants for their actions then Scripture Ans None can deny naturall Arguments to be a part of the word of God as is clear Rom. 1. 19. 1 Cor. 15. 36 37. 1 Cor. 11. 14. Yea Christ Mat. 7. 12. teacheth that this principle of nature whatsoever ye would men should do to you do ye so to them is the Law and the Prophets because it is a great part of the Law and the Prophets and therefore they say in effect As it vvritten in the Scripture when they say as it is written in mans heart by nature 2. Principles of nature are made scripture by the Pen-men of the holy Ghost and do binde as the Scripture 3. It will be long ere the Law of nature teach Crossing and kneeling to bread to be good Ceremonie They Object I could not then ride ten miles to solace my self with my friends except I had warrant from Scripture and seeing the Scripture is as perfect in acts of the second Table as in acts of the first I must have a reason of all the businesse betwixt man and man of all humane and municipall Laws but it is certain saith Sanderson faith as certain as Logick can make it is not required in these but onely Ethicall and Conjecturall faith whereby we know things to be Lawfull Negatively It s not required that we know them to be Positively conform to Gods Word Ans If you ride ten miles with your friend and do not advise with his word who sayes Redeem the time you must give account for idle actions if Christ say you must give an account for idle Words 2. Though there seem to be more Liberty in actions of the second Table then of the first because there be far moe Positive actions not meerly Morall which concerneth the second Table because of Oeconomy Policy Municipall and Civill Laws Arts Sciences Contracts amongst men that are not
all our Ceremonies might have been Comprehended in one Chapter of the Revelation if God had thought good to Honour them with inserting them in the Canon 3. He hath determined these by natures light and prudence which dwelleth with that light revealed in the Word That a Bishop be thus qualified as 1 Tim. 3. is Morall and determined but that they call him John Thomas and be of such Parents Country stature of body is Physicall and in Christs wisdom is not determined nor could it be conveninetly Lastly that generall permissive will of God is good for all the Ceremonies of Rome taught by Papists As for ours as Suarez de Trip lic virt tract 1. disp 2. Sect. 6. n. 3. Dicendum fidem quoad substantiam credibilium semper fuisse eandem a principio generis humani And so faith Alensis 3. p. q. 69. Lombard 3. dist 25. and Durandus 3. dist 25. Bonaventura 16. Art 2. q. 1. Hugo de sancto victore de sacram â— 1. part 10. cap. 4. This they have from the Fathers Vincentius Lyrinensis coâ—t prop. voc nov cap. 37. Jreneus contr hereticos lib. 3. cap. 2. Hyerom in Psal 86. Aug. de civitate Dei lib. 11. cap. 3. lib. 14. cap. 7. Chrysost de Lazero homil 4. Cyprianus sermone de Baptismo Optatus Milevitanus contr parmeni de caelo l. 5. And I might cite many others who all affirm All truth Divine is in Scripture all not in Scripture is to be rejected So Suarez de leg tom 4. cap. 1. Haec enim praecepta Ecclesiastica pro universali Ecclesia tantum sunt quatuor qut quinque quae solum sunt determinationes quaedam juris Divini moraliter necessaria homini Reliqua omnia vel pertinent ad particulares status qui voluntarie suscipiuntur vel ad ordinem judicialâ—m Et idâ—m contra seotae Anglica Erro lib. 2. cap. 16. Dicimus authoritatem Dei in benedictione Campanarum non de esse saltem in radice origine quia ipse dedit authoritatem Pastoribus Ecclesiae ad regendam Ecclesiam disponenda eaequae ad accidentarios ritus Ecclesiae pertinent Bannes tom 3. in 22. q. 10. dub 2. Notandum quod neque Pontifex neque tota Ecclesia possunt novum articulum novum dogma quoad substantiam aut novum Sacramentum instituere Andr. Duvallius in 2. de legib q. 4. Art 2. Ceremoniae judicialia in vetere lege erant juris Divini in Nova lege sunt juris tantum Ecclesiastici And Valdensis de Doctrina fidei l. 2. cap. 22. Ecclesia non potest Novum articulum proponere So Alphas a Castro in summa lib. 1. cap. 8. And Canus loc lib. 2. cap. 7. Cameracensis 2. sentent q. 1. Art 1. Principia Theologia sunt ipsae sâ—cri Canonis veritates quoniam adipsa fit ultima resolutiâ— Theologici discursus ex iis primo singulae propositiones Theologiae deducuntur V. Conclus Matters of fact are not and need not be proved by Scripture 1. Because sense maketh them known to us 2. Their Morality is sufficiently known from Gods Word 3. In matters offact there may be invincible ignorance Christs Resurrection is not a matter of fact as Hugo Grotius saith but also a matter of Law as all the miracles and Histories in the Word and to be believed because God hath so spoken in the Word QUEST III. Whether Ceremonies have any Divinity in them ALL means of worship devised by men pretending holinesse by teaching exciting our dull affections to Devotion as if they were powerfull means of grace and did lay a band on the conscience when as yet they be no such thing and want all warrant from God and are contrary to devotion are unlawfull But humane Ceremonies be such Ergo The Proposition is certain I prove the Assumption by parts 1. Whatever holinesse be pretended to be in Ceremonies yet God onely sanctifieth people offices in his house as the sons of Aaron Altars Temples Vestures Sacrifices by his expresse institution as we are taught yet are Ceremonies holy their Author be the Apostles successours 2. Their end to honour God 3. Their matter is not civill or naturall 4. Their signification mysticall is Religious 2. They be means of teaching and stirring up the dull affections to the remembrance of duties by some notable and speciall signification whereby the beholders may be edified and since to stir up the minde as a memorative object be the word of Gods due property or the works of Providence and Creation would not a Prelat in his Epistle to his under-Pastors speak Peter-like as 2 Pet. 1. 13. I think it meet so long as I am in this Tabernacle to stir up your dull mindes by way of remembrance to your Christian duty by Crossing kneeling to Gods board and Altar and Surplice To be memorials were due to Phylacteries Commanded in the Law to minde heavenly duties Numb 15. 38 39. Deut. 22. 12. And the twelve stones set up by Gods speciall Commandment Ioshu 4. 2 3. to be a memoriall of their miraculous entry into the holy Land and Manna Commanded to be kept in the Ark as a sign of Gods feeding his people with Christ the bread of life Joh. 6. 48 49. 51. are Ordinances of God to call to remembrance duties and speciall mercies And Sacraments do signifie as tokens ordained of God Gen. 17. 11. Gen. 9. 13. Heb. 9. 8. The Holy Ghost thus signifying that the way to the holiest was not yet made manifest So Heb. 8. 5. Heb. 10. 1. And so must it be here said The holy Prelats thus signifying that Crossing should betoken the childes dedication to Christs service So Hooker Actions leave a more deep and strong impression then the word What blasphemy that Crossing and Surplice leave a deeper impression in the soul then Gods Word the power of God to salvation Rom. 1. 16. And mighty through God to cast down strong holds in the soul 2 Cor. 10. 4 I wonder if Crossing Capping kneeling to stocks can bring every thought Captive to the Obedience of Christ 3. It is essentiall to the word to teach and make wise the simple Psal 19. 7. Psal 119. 99. Prov. 6. 23. And Ceremonies are made Symbolicall and Religious teaching signes yet is the stock called a Doctrine of lies Jer. 10. 8. Habac. 2. 18. Though it teach and represent the same Iehovah that the Word teacheth Isa 40. 18. So it is not a living teacher because it representeth a false god or not the true God for the true Iehovah saith To whom will ye liken me But now the stock by mans institution took on it without a warrant from God to represent God Now if God had warranted the stock to be an image representing God as he warranteth the Temple the Ark Bread and Wine to be images and representations of the true God Iesus Christ the stock should be a Doctrine of truth and not of lies so Surplice is a Doctrine of lies not
because what it teacheth is a lie for what it teacheth is Scripture Isa 52. 11. That these who beareth the Vessels of the Lord that is Pastors should be holy but it is a Doctrine of lies because it representeth Pastorall holinesse by humane institution without all warrant of the Word of God And when Paul calleth holidayes Elements Gal. 4. 6. He meaneth that they spell to us and teach us some truth as Estius saith That holidayes do teach us Articles of Faith To which meaning Paludanus Cajetan Vasquez say God may well be painted in such expressions as Scripture putteth on God as in the likenesse of a Dove as a man with hands eyes ears feet all which are given to God in Scripture 4. It is essentiall to the Word to set down the means of Gods worship which is the very scope of the second Commandment and therefore the Iews washings and Traditions are condemned because they be Doctrines of men appointed by men to be means of the fear or worship of God as Math. 15. 9. Mar. 7. 8. Isa 29. 13. Hence we owe subjection of Conscience to Ceremonies as to lawfull means of Worship 1. Stirring up our dull senses And 2. as lawfull signes representing in a Sacramentall signification holy things 3. As teaching signes 4. As means of Gods fear and worship Whereas God as Ainsworth observeth well in the second Commandment forbiddeth all images and representations 2. All shapes Exod. 20. 4. Temniah 3. Forms of figures Tabuith Deut. 4. 16. 5. Any type of shadow Tselem Ezek. 7. 20. 16 17. 6. Any pictured shape Maskith Levit. 26. 1. Any Statue Monument Pillar Mattesebah any Graven or Molten Portraict Hos 13. 2. 5. We are obliged to obey the Word Exod. 20. 7. Prov. 3. 20 21. Prov. 8. 13. Ier. 6. 16. Ier. 5. 7. 2. We owe to the Word belief Luk. 1. 20. Love Psal 119. 49. 81. Hope 3. And are to expect a reward therefore Psal 19. 11. Rev. 2. 7. 10. 27 28. Gal. 4. 11. Rom. 6. 23. Coloss 2. 18. Hebrew 11. 25. Psal 34. 9. Psalme 58. 11. Then if Decency be commanded and order in the third Commandment Ergo this and that orderly mean of Worship as Surplice But can we say I hope in the Surplice O how love I crossing and Capping can we believe in Ceremonies as means of Gods worship 6. The word is Gods mean to work supernaturall effects to convert the soul Psal 19. 7. To work Faith John 20. 3. To edifie Act. 20. 32. To save Rom. 1. 16. The obedience to Gods word bringeth Peace Psal 119. 165. Comfort v. 50. Gen. 49. 18. Isa 38. 3. But Ceremonies being apt to stir up the dull minde must be apt to remove Naturall dulnesse which is a supernaturall effect and so to bring Peace joy comfort Organs are now holden by the same right that they were in Moses-Law then they must stir up supernaturall joy There must be peace and comfort in practising them Hear how this soundeth This is my comfort O Lord in my affliction that thy Surplice Organs and holy-dayes have quickened my dull heart Now what comfort except comfort in the Scriptures Rom. 15. 4. Ceremonies be innocent of all Scriptures What joy a proper fruit of the Kingdom of heaven Rom. 14. 17. can be in saplesse Ceremonies yea observe 1. Who truly converred from Popery who inwardly humbled in soul doth not abhor Ceremonies by the instinct of the new birth 2. What slave of hell and prophane person call not for Ceremonies 3. Who hath peace in dying that Ceremonies were their joy 7. All Lawfull Ordinances may by prayer be recommended to God for a blessed successe as all the means of salvation Psal 119. 18. Matth. 26. 26. Act. 4. 29 30. 2. We may thank God for a blessed successe which they have by the working of the spirit of Grace 2 Cor. 2. 24. 1 Cor. 1. 4 5. 2 Thes 1. 2 3. Ephes 1. 3. 3. We are to have heat of zeal against prophaning of word Sacraments Prayer or other Ordinances of God But what faith in praying Lord work with Crossing Capping Surplice For where the word is not nor any promise there be no Faith Rom. 10. 14. What praising can there be for Ceremonies working upon the soul What zeal except void of knowledge and light of the word and so but wilde-fire Gal. 4. 17 18. Phil. 3. 6. 2 Sam. 21. 2. can there be though the Surplice be imployed to cleanse Cups and Crossing be scorned If the subject be nothing the accidents be lesse if Surplice be not commanded nor forbidden the reverent or irreverent usage thereof cannot be forbidden nor commanded true zeal is incensed only at sin and kindled toward Gods warranted service 8. I take it to be Gods appointment that the Spirit worketh by a supernaturall operation with his own Ordinances in the regenerated but we desire to know how the Spirit worketh with Ceremonies Formalists are forced by these grounds to maintain the Lawfulnesse of Images So 1. They be not adored 2. If they be reputed as indifferent memorative Objects and books to help the memory But 1. It shall be proved that at first Papists did give no adoration to Images nor doth Durandus Hulcot Pic. Mirandula acknowledge any adoration due to them but proper to God before the Images as objects 2. We may liken God and Christ to a stock so we count it indifferent to make or not to make such an image yet likening him to any thing is forbidden Isa 40. 18. Also we esteem it Idolatry interpretative to take Gods place in his word and to make any thing to be a mean of grace except Gods own Ordinances Against all these Formalists have diverse exceptions As 1. Our Ceremonies say they do not respect the honour of God immediatly and in themselves but by accident and as parts of Divine worship by reduction as it containeth all the adjuncts of worship Ans Such Logick was never heard of 1. If he mean a Surplice in the materials to wit Linnen and Crossing Physically considered as separated from their signification do not tend immediatly to the honour of God but as an adjunct he speaketh non-sense for so Bread Wine eating drinking Water in Baptisme do not immediatly respect the honour of God but only as they have a Morall consideration and stand under Divine institution But yet so the materiall of worship is not the adjunct thereof but the matter as the body of a living man is not one adjunct of a man If he mean that Ceremonies in a Morall not in a Physicall consideration do not immediatly respect the honour of God but reductively and by accident Let him show us if the Surplice doth not as immediatly and without the intervening mediation of any other thing signifie and stir up our mindes to the remembrance of Pastorall holinesse as eating all of one bread doth immediatly stir up our mindes to the remembrance of our Communion of love that
have obeyed the King yet they professe disobedience Dan. 3. 18. We will not worship thy graven image 2. Neither think we the Athenians gave that same honour to the similitude Act. 17. 29. of God that they gave to the God that Paul Preached who made Heaven and earth v. 23 24. Yet in giving Worship externall to both they were Idolaters ver 29. Nor did the men of Lystra give the same heart-honour to the Deities of Iupiter and Mercury which they gave to the shapes of men yet are they Idolaters in that 3. Mr. Burges saith Israel 1 Chron. 29. 20. in one and the same act externall Worshipped God and the King because one and the same word expresseth honour both to God and the King But how shall we call that act Civill or Religious or mixt and did they transmit Latreia divine honour through the King to God he hath a Metaphysicall faith who beleeveth such dreames because one word is used to expresse both the worshipping of God and the King therefore it was one externall act of worshipping and differenced in the minde and intention of the worshippers the consequence is most weake 1 Sam. 12. 18. All the people greatly feared the Lord and Samuel Prov. 24. 21. My son feare the Lord and the King is it one manner of feare really that is both religious to God and to Samuel and to the Lord and the King because one word expresseth both I see not but one the same action of bowing may be made to God to Christ to the water in Baptisme to the Bible to the Sun and Moon and we might kneel and Adore a Toad a straw and Satan as they represent Gods wisdom and power and through that same externall knee-worship also Adore God What may we not then Religiously Adore all things and Creatures as they represent God the first being Presentemque refert quaelibet herba Deum A man may Adore himself his own hands his legs his Mothers Wombe that bare him c. As for Adoring of the Ark and foot-stool of God 1. Ioan. Gisenius a Lutheran saith The Iews had precept and promise to Worship God before the Ark we have no Command to tye externall Adoration to any place or Creature 2. Didoclavius saith It is lawfull to Adore God before the Ark and the Symboles of his immediate presence because God is there to receive his own Worship himself by an immediate indwelling presence For saith Mr. Weames He appeared in glory above the Ark betwixt the Cherubims and it was a type of Christ who dvvelt in our flesh but it is not lavvfull to Worship him before the Symboles of his grace 3. The Ark was a type in the act of teaching we grant but that it was in the act of Adoring God who was immediately present and a Symboll Vicegerent of God we reade not There is no need of mediate signes where God is immediately present and Adored as he was in the Ark they were to fixe both senses and thoughts immediately upon God 4. They were to worship not the Ark but the precept is incurvate vos scabello Worship tovvard the Ark. Arias Mont. turneth it Worship to the Ark The Greek Fathers of the second Nicen. Councel ignorant of the Hebrew Tongue would have the Lord Commanding to Adore his foot-stool whereas the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a note of the Dative case and often it signifieth motion to a thing or at a place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad dextram and doth not absolutely signifie the accusative case Musculus ad Scabellum he maketh it the Ark of the Testament Calvine the Temple Iunius maketh it well to signifie the measure of bowing bow to the foot-stool or ground or pavement of the Temple where the Lords feet are as he sate on the Cherubims 1 Chron. 28. 1. For there is no ground for Adoring the Ark but the words are to be read Exalt the Lord our God and bow your selves to wit to Iehovah who sheweth himself or dwelleth at his foot-stool that is betwixt the Cherubims 2 Sam. 6. 1. For the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at his foot-stool is not constructed with the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 incurvate vos Jesuits and Formalists devised that construction but it is to be constructed with the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is to be repeated from the former part of the verse Bow your selves to Jehovah who dwelleth in the Ark or in the Temple A familiar eleipsis to the Hebrews Psal 5. 8. I will bow my self to the Iehovah dwelling in the Temple of thy holinesse as we are taught Our Father which art in Heaven So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and it is a description of God from the place where he dwelt and exhibited his presence to his rude people 4. It is ignorance in Burges to prove God may be Adored in the elements because they are as excellent Symbols of Gods presence as the Ark for created excellency is no ground of Adoring the elements except it be a Godhead and uncreated excellency We condemne Pope Anastasius who directeth Reverend bowing at the hearing of the Gospel and not of the Epistles as if the Gospel were holier then the Epistles But if Adoration may be given to the elements because knee-worship signifieth according to humane institution and mans will and are taken from customes of men and so doth signifie lesse honour then is due to God Let me be resolved of this doubt words of Prayer signifie according to mens institution and their will no lesse then Religious gestures do and we may say to a stock Thou art my Father and it is in our will that Father signifie a representative Father not an infinite and Independent Father such as God only is And if the image in externall kneeling be Adored Per aliud or co-adored with the Samplar because it is one with the Samplar Why may we not pray to the image and fixe our faith and hope on the image and elements by co-adoration or in relative praying and trusting in them Yet the Fathers of Trent for shame deny that we should pray to images and put our trust in them yet do Formalists turn the enunciative words of Christ This is my body in an optative mood and a Prayer The body and blood of Christ they mean the elements in their hands preserve thee to eternall life And we are not ignorant that faith and hope are ascribed to the Crosse and this sung in the Church of Rome O crux ave spes unica Hoc passion is tempore Auge piâ—â— justitiam Reisque dona veniam A Learned Papist Raphael de la Torres saith plainly It is lawfull to pray to images so the inward devotion be directed to God But if the Iews in their Idolatrous worship acknoweledged the image to be but a representation of God and a Book Jer. 10. 8. They did no wrong who said Ier.
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
and setting downe a perfect discipline in the New Testament in all particulars that have influence religious morall mystically significant in Gods worship and there is reason that Synods and Pastors should rather promulgate Gods Lawes then the people 1. Because God hath given to them by office the key of knowledge 2. Because by office they are watch-men and so have authority of office to heare the Law at Gods mouth and in Synods to give Directories or Canons according to that word which people have not and that their Canons must be according to Gods Word is said in the word Nehemiah 10. 32. Also we â—â—ade ordinances for us 34. as it is written in the law of the Lord. Iackson saith Of things good in themselves and apprehended so by us without any scruple of evil every mans conselence htah sufficient authority to inioyn it only the alacrity of doing in what time or measure it is to be done or such circumstances cometh within the subiect of obedience to governours Answ Then because faith in Christ is evidently good by the Doctors learning the Pastor hath no more authority to command the people to beleeve in Christ then the people hath to command the same to him So in preaching all the necessary fundamentals of salvation the authority of Pastors is meerely titular There be then little necessitie of a publike Ministery as Socinians teach us 2. The alaâ—rity and manner and measure of beleeving and doing things evidently good is as particularly set downe in Gods Word as obliging the Conscience as the Mandates themselves God who commandeth us to love him and to beleeve in his Sonne hath not left that power to Prelates that createth wretched Ceremonies to command us to love God with all our heart or not and to serve God with alacrity or not or to beleeve in Christ with all the heart or with halfe a heart the sincerity measure and manner of the loving of God is no more the subject of obedience to rulers then the loving of God Rulers doe command both alike Pari authoritate except the man say that we obey Gods Law perfectly when we give obedience to it according to the substance of the acts though we obey not sincerely The Doctor giveth us Rules in obeying Rulers We are not to adventure on the action whereof we are perswaded there be much evil and no good in it Ans Then we cannot venture upon Ceremonies that bringeth adders to Gods word under all the Plagues written in Gods word 2. Gods word not mens perswasions of conscience except in this also he be an Arminian is the rule of mens actions The servants of Caiaphas may be perswaded there is no good but much evil in confessing Christ We are to lay aside the erroneous perswasion and obey if the action be good in itself Iackson Some actions apprehended as meerly evil may be undertaken with lesse danger then others which are apprehended partly as evil partly as good the action is evil as long as we fear the evil in it to be greater then the good we can hope for Ans To do any thing as apprehended evil of which sort are humane Ceremonies to us for any respect is to do with a doubting conscience and to sin Rom. 14. 23. 2 God 's word not probabilities should lead us in adventuring upon actions Iackson 3. If the measure of the good apprehended be as great as the evil feared in private choice we may adventure upon the action leaving the event to Gods providence which favoureth actions more then privations works rather then idlenesse and following of that which is good rather then abstinence from evil for vvhere this indifference of perswasion is authority may cast the ballance and sway the private choice so also Hooker Ans This is the Iesuit Suarez his doctrine and so saith the Iesuit of Corduba Sanches when the subject is in a doubt whether the thing commanded by the Superiour be lawfull or not he is obliged to obey and he is to be excused because of the command of the superiour 1. Because say they the Commanders condition is better and for a speculative doubt he is not to be spoiled of his power of commanding where reason saith he commandeth nothing against reason 2. Because the inferiour hath resigned his will to the superiour Deut. 17. 2. Paral. 19. Ergo In things doubtsome God commanded to stand to the determination of the Priest and it is a truth that the will of the Superiour doth not vary and change the nature of a thing in it self yet it varieth to the inferiours conscience Now indifference of perswasion is all one to Doctor Iackson with indifferency of the thing for so he dictates If one have indifferency of reasons of twelve degrees on both sides that Arianisme or Arminianisme is truth if authority determine both to be truth the weight of authority in indifferency of perswasion should cast the ballance and to believe this or not to believe it where Arguments are of twelve grains of light of truth on both sides it is to the doubting man as if the thing were indifferent so is the doubter to give up his soul conscience and faith to believe Arianisme to be truth not from light of conscience for equally as much light of conscience are in either side as is supposed but for the meer will of humane authority without Gods word Now though the matter here be indifferent in it self yet not so to the doubter for Ceremonies in our perswasion are not indifferent See here Ignatius Loyola say Give over your self to your Ruler Give the Prelate your faith to keep while ye be in eternity and at the last judgement he will restore the pawn And this is â—aith Gregory de Valent. to give your two eyes to your guide I had rather they stick in my own head To these Iesuits I oppose the minde of Vasquez and Salas who say in that case the subject should first lay aside his errour and then obey 2 God requireth a full perswasion by the Lord Iesus even in things indifferent Rom. 14. 14 22 23. But poor naked humane authority cannot ingender perswasion of faith and here is doubting 3. It is false That providence favoureth positive actions more then privations for Rom. 14. God loveth better abstinence from meats in themselves lawfull and clean as the Apostle proveth ver 14. Because nothing is unclean of it self then that the eater doubt if he be not transgressing the Law of God in eating though a great Apostle say there is no danger in eating And Jackson addeth of the same nature these The good of obedience is not a consequent only of the action but either an essentiall part or such a circumstance and motive precedent as bringeth a new essence for its concomitant whereby the evil which we out of private perswasions fear may be countervaled by the goodnesse that is in the purpose
things of God Leviticus 10. 10. The Priests were not to drink wine when they went into the Tabernacle That ye may saith the Lord put difference between holy and unholy and between unclean and clean Now Haggai expresly saith cap. 2. 11 12. That it was the Priests part to put this difference and so to admit to or exclude from the holy things of God Hence for this cause it is said as 2 Chron. 23. 19. Iehoiada appointed the officers of the Lords house so he set porters at the gates of the house of the Lord that none which are unclean in any thing might enter in so Ezra 9. 21 22. None did eat the Passeover but such as were pure and had separated themselves from the filthinesse of the Heathen of the land for this cause doth the Lord complain of the Priests Ezech. 22. 26. Her Priests have violated my law and have polluted my holy things they have put no difference between the holy and the prophane neither have they shewed the difference between the unclean and the clean Ezech. 44. 6. And thou shalt say to the Rebellious even to the house of Israel thus saith the Lord God O ye house of Israel let it suffice you of all your abominations 7. That ye have brought into my sanctuary strangers uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh to be in my sanctuary to pollute it even my house when ye offered my bread the fat and the blood and they have broken my Covenant because of all your abominations 8. And ye have not kept the charge of my holy things But ye have set keepers of my Charge in my Sanctuary for your selves 9. Thus saith the Lord God no stranger uncircumcised in heart nor uncircumcised in flesh shall enter into my sanctuary of any stranger that is among the children of Israel Here is a complaint that those that have the charge of the holy things should suffer the holy things to be polluted I grant it cannot bear this sense that none should be admitted to be Members of the Visible Church under the New Testament but such as are conceived to be regenerate except it can be proved that the Sanctuary was a type of the visible Church 2. That the Apostles constituted their Churches thus but we read not in all the New Testament of any admission of Church Members at all but only of baptizing of those who were willing to be baptized and from this resulted the capacity of a Church Relation in all Churches visible Nor 2. Do we finde any shadow in all the word of God of tryall of Church Members by way of electing and choosing of such and such as qualified by reason of a conceived regeneration in the persons chosen or of rejecting and refusing others as conceived to have no inward work of grace in them this I believe can never be made good out of the word of God 3. They must prove the Apostles admitted into the Sanctuary of the Visible Church Ananias Saphira Simon Magus and others uncircumcised in heart to pollute the holy things of God and that the Apostles erred and were deceived in the moulding of the first Apostolick Church in the world which was to be a rule and pattern to all Churches in the New Testament to all Ages I deny not but they might have erred according to the grounds of these who urge the comparison for a Church of visible Saints but that the Apostles De facto did erre in their Election and judgement in that wherein the holy Ghost holdeth them forth and their acts to be our rule and pattern I utterly deny I grant Act. 15. In that Synod they did Act as men and Elders not as Apostles but that it could fall out that they should uctually erre and obtrude false Doctrine instead of truth to the Churches in that Synod which is the first rule and pattern of Synods I shall not believe But there is this Morall and perpetuall truth in these Scriptures 1. That there are under the New Testament some over the people of God in the Lord some that watch for their souls and govern them as here there were Priests Levites that taught and governed the people 2. That the Rulers of the Churches alwayes are to have the charge of the holy things and to see that these holy things the Seals and Sacraments and word of promise be not polluted and that therefore they have power given them to debar such and such profane from the Seals and so are to discern between the clean and the unclean and this which the Prophet speaketh ver 9. is a prophecie never fulfilled after this in the persons of the people of God therefore it must have its spirituall truth fulfilled under the New Testament as is clear ver 11. Yet the Levites that are gone away far from me shall be Ministers in my Sanctuarie having charge at the gates of the House and Ministering to the House 14. And I will make them keepers of the charge of the House for all the service thereof and for all that shall be done therein Ver. 15. And the Priests and the Levites the sons of Zadok that kept the charge of my Sanctuary when the children of Israel went astray from me they shall enter into my Sanctuary and they shall come neer to my Table to minister unto me and to keep my charge 23. And they shall teach my people the difference betweene the holy and prophane and cause men to discerne between the uncleane and the cleane 24. And in controversie they shall stand in judgement and they shall judge it according to my judgement and they shall keepe my Lawes and my Statutes in all mine assemblies and they shall hallow my Sabbaths Now this Temple was another house then Solomons Temple as is evident out of the Text it having roomes dimensions structures so different that none can imagine them one house and these chapters containe the division of the Holy Land which after the captivity was never done for the ten Tribes never returned and this Temple is clearely a type of the new Ierusalem and agreeth to that City spoken of Revelation chapters 21. and 22. As may appeare especially by the foure last chapters of Ezekiel and in the last words of the last chapter And the name of the city from that day shall be The Lord is there And the Priests after the captivity as well as before brake the covenant of Levi Mal. 2. And therefore I see it not fulfilled except in the visible Church of the New Testament and in the Assemblies of Christian Churches Mat. 18. Act. 15. and the rest of the Church-assemblies under the New Testament As for the Lords personall raigne on earth it is acknowledged there shall be no Church policy in it no Word Sacraments Ordinances no Temple as they say from Rev. 21. 22. And with correction and submission the Priests and Levites that Ezek. 44. 15. are said to keep the charge of the Lords
repent and die devoutly Beza saith Pastors should give food to the hungry sheep though they know not the moment when they do repent Erastus Replyeth Then give Word and Sacraments to those who seek them Ans This is more Charity then the Scripture knoweth belike Erastus will have all those that seek God daily and delight to know his wayes and ask for the Ordinances of Iustice and take delight in approaching to God to be all hungry souls hungring for Righteousnesse and so blessed Matth. 5. 6. Luk. 1. 52. Isa 55. 1. Whereas Isaiah saith They may do all that and be but plaistred Hypocrites Isa 58. 1 2 3 4 5 6. Erastus But if the Excommunicated man repent whether soon or late he was never cut off from inward communion with Christ for then the elect might perish if David and Manasseh had been excommunicate and died they had been saved except we deny the perseverance of the Saints Ans Erastus evidenceth he hath little skill in Divinity he thinks a regenerate man not capable of Excommunication why and the sad falls of David Peter and others prove they may fall in as great sins as not hearing of the Church 2. If one repent in his death as the repenting Theef will that infer he was never all his life separated from Christ The contrary is true and cleare in the Ephes 2. 1â— 12 13. Tit. 3. 3. â— Tim. 1. 13 14 15. 3. This is as strong as it is weake as water against all the threatnings denounced against such sinners as the Lord gisteth with Repentance for Excommunication to the regenerated is a sort of Evangelick conditionall threatning Erastus To give internall communion with Christ is a spirituall thing Ergo The Church cannot take it from any and that same power that giveth taketh away then the Presbytery cannot by loosing give salvation nor by binding take it away Excommunication on earth is nothing except God binde first in heaven then it is but a declaration of what God doth to shew the sentence that another judge hath given out is not to judge there is a difference between those that by authority give out a sentence and those who as servants doth promulgate the sentence So Luther tom German 1. fol. 239. Excommunicare non est ut quidam opinantur animam Satanae tradere precum fructu à piis factarum spoliare Nam ubi vera fides charîtas in corde remanent etiam vera communio Dei precum Christianitatis fructus permanent postquam aliud est excommunicatio nec fieri aliud potest quam privatio externi Sacramenti ac commercii cum hominibus ac si in custodiam traditus externâ amicorum consuetudine priver amore favore eorum interea non spolier Ans This is but the old argument of Erastus repeated almost a hundred times to please the people We never taught that either Presbytery or Minister can give or take away inward Communion with God But hence it will not follow that Excommunication is an empty thing for all we doe is but a Ministery Christ doth make the whole Gospel promises threatning Sacraments effectuall else What is Paul What is Apollo but the Ministers by whom ye beleeve And what is the planting of Paul or the watering of Apollo except God give the increase If this anull Excommunication because Excommunicators are not properly judges but onely Servants and Heralds to declare what Christ doth in Heaven then may Erastus prove that the Word Promises threatnings of the Gospel The Apostles Evangelists Pastors Teachers are nothing for all of themselves are meere declarations of Gods will 2. Those who Excommunicate because they judge not but declare the will of Christ they are not for that void of all authority for their declaration is authoritative What did Ieremiah but declare Gods will yet it is such a propheticall and authoritative declaration as I conceive Baruch or any other not sent as a Prophet of God could not beare that which God putteth on Ieremiah c. 1. 10. See I have this day set thee over the Nations and over the Kingdomes to root out and to pull downe to destroy and to pull downe to build and to plant Hath Ieremiah no Propheticall authority over the Nations and Kingdomes to whom he prophesieth in the Name of the Lord to build and destroy to root out and to plant because he declareth and prophesieth that such Nations shall be destroyed and rooted out for their wickednes and such shall be builded and planted Then meer declaration saith nothing against Excommunication Paul saith he and the rest of the Apostles were nothing but Ministers 1 Cor. 3. 5. and yet authoritie they had else he could not say 2 Cor. â—0 6. We have in readinesse vengeance against all disobedience Verse 8. For though I should boast somewhat more of our Authority c. I should not be ashamed and 2 Cor. 5. 20. Now then we are Ambassadors for Christ but I pray you 1 Cor. 12. 29. Are all Apostles Are all Prophets Are all Teachers 3. What Luther saith is true Excommunication can put none out of the state of saving Faith and inward Communion with God nor doth deprive men of the fruit of the Prayers of the godly for the godly pray that Excommunication may be medicine effectually blessed of God for the saving of the mans soul yea Gods not hearing of the prayers of the godly praying in a Church way that he may be humbled is a mean to humble the cast out man nor is the man delivered to Satan morally to be hardned but judicially and withall medicinally to be softned that his spirit may be saved Nor is the Church to hate him but to admonish him as a brother 2 Thes 3. 15. And he is so deprived of the externall society and meanes as the operation of the ordinances is suspended Erastus If any should die in their typicall uncleannesse were they so Excommunicated that their salvation was in hazard Ans Not so they repented What then Ergo Excommunication was not ratified in Heaven it followeth not Erastus Beza saith Those that were morally polluted with hainous sins were more unclean then those who were typically only unclean Ergo They should be far rather excluded from the holy things of God Erastus answers If God had commanded them to be punished with the same punishment and not with diverse it would follow that those that are morally impure should rather be debarred then the other Ans But the Ceremoniall uncleannesse was punished so to signifie Gods detestation of morall uncleannesse and how hatefull they were who would multiply sacrifices and yet had hands full of blood Esa 1. And who would steal murther whore and yet come and stand before God in his house and cry The Temple of the Lord are these Ier. 7. 49. And that God punished the one with heavier plagues then the other is much for us that adulterers far more and the uncircumcised in heart were to be
come to the Supper Be not Iudges of mens Conscience Ans Christ Commanding not to cast Pearls to Swine and scourging out those that polluted that Temple that was a type of his body doth Argue clearly that the holy things of God should not be prophaned But that Christ rebuked all abuses in the worship of God in particular Erastus cannot say 2. It is one thing to forgive our brother by putting away private grudge and a church-pardoning in the name of Christ is another in the former sense we are to forgive our enemy though he repent not Mat. 6. 12. 14 15. Rom. 12. 19 20. Luk. 23. 34. But this forgivenesse Luk. 17. is not said to be ratified in heaven for God doth not alway forgive when we forgive God doth forgive when the sinner repenteth Erastus will have a lying confession ratified in Heaven 3. When the Church in Christs Name forgiveth not upon words and lies but upon Visible Testimonies of repentance they are no more Iudges of the heart then Isaiah when he said Except ye believe ye shall not be established and Paul when he said to the Jaylor Believe and thou shalt be saved for without more then lying words of mouth yea without true lively faith neither could the one be established nor the other saved Erastus When Paul dehorteth the Corinthians to eat things Sacrificed to Idols in the Idols Temple because they could not be partakers of the Table of the Lord and of the Table of Devils he bids them not forsake the Supper of the Lord but only not to go to the Feast of Idols because the Supper and these Tables of Devils are inconsistant therefore he saith I will not have you to have fellowship with Devils but he saith not I will not have you to come to the Supper of the Lord nor deth he bid them approve their repentance â—re they come to some I know not what Presbyters And in this place he speaketh of an externall Communion as the purpose and words prove because he speaketh of Israel according to the flesh 3. Because those that eat things Sacrificed to Idols were perswaded there was no difference between those meats and other meats Ans Erastus his Argument is this being reduced to form is if Paul say not 1 Cor. 10. I will not have you come to the Lords Supper but only I will not have you to have fellowship with the Devil in his Table then he will have none debarred by the Elders from the Lords Supper But the latter is true I deny the Proposition it is a connexion that one who taketh on him to refute such a precious and eminent divine as Theod. Beza may be ashamed of and yet his book from head to foot standeth most upon a negative Argument from some particular place of Scripture for he speaketh nothing of the power of Elders to keep the holy things of God pure What if he should say Moses in the first of Genesis saith not I will not have you not to come to the Lords Supper Ergo there is no authoritative debarring of men from the Lords Supper Such sandy consequences no learned Divines would ever dream of 2. Beza nor any of our Divines never dreamed that God in the Old or New Testament said Nolo vos ad mensam domini ad sacramenta venire which are the words of Erastus so his conclusion cometh not near the controversie Iews and Gentiles are invited and commanded to come to Christ and so to all the Ordinances and Sacraments but I hope this will not infer that all should come to the Sacraments hand over head and whether they be clean or unclean circumcised or Baptized or not circumcised not Baptized God commanded Aarons sons to serve in the sanctuary and appear before him in their charge What Ergo it is not Gods will that they come not to the Sanctuary and before him unwashed and with strange fire and without their holy garments this is the very consequence of Erastus Our question I conceive is whither all must be admitted promiscuously and whether even those that come immediatly from the Devils Table without any preparation known to the Church should be set at Christs elbow to eat the Lords body and blood Erastus saith Paul never said Nolo vos ad mensam domini venire then because two negatives make one affirmative Paul must say I will that all that are partakers of the table of the Devil come and be partakers of the Lords body But the conclusion is contradicent to Erastus himself who faith right down I judge that he vvho vvill but trample the Sacraments should not be admitted unto them and to Paul 1 Cor. 11. 27 c. 3. Erastus confoundeth two Questions one is whither all should be admitted to the Lords Supper Erastus saith every where in his book none are to be debarred another by whom are they to be admitted or debarred By the civill Magistrates saith Erastus by the Stewâ—rds and Officers of the house of God the rest of the Church consenting say we 4. The Argument will conclude that not onely the Church or Magistrate ought to admit those that have fellowship with the Devil to the Table of Christ but they ought to command them to come it being Christs will they should be admitted and that they themselves who are Communicants are obliged though keeping fellowship with the Devil to come and eat their own damnation for Paul saith by this reason in the place 1 Cor. 10. No more I will not have the partakers of the Devils table to come to the Lords table nor he saith I will not have the Elders to debar them if Erastus say they should try and examine themselves and come He flees from the controversie which is not whether the worthy but whether the scandalous and unworthy should come Erastus saith all should come 5. Whereas Erastus will have the Apostle to speak of the externall Communion of the Elements onely 1. It is false 2. Nothing to the purpose it is false 1. ver 16. It is called the Communion of the body and blood of Christ and that must be more then externall Communion 2. ver 17. We many are one body this is not an externall body only for it is the unity of the body of Christ signified by one bread 3. It is not externall only but internall and spiritual fellowship with Devils that is condemned ver 20. 21. Ergo It must be internall Communion with Christ in his death that is sealed and commanded 4. This is meer Socinianisme to have the Sacraments only memorative signes as is clear 2. It is not to a purpose for if the Church debar only from externall society from the Church and externall Seals this debarring being ratified in Heaven Matth. 18. It is sufficient for our conclusion 5. Paul his condemning of eating at the Idols Table as inconsistent with eating and drinking of the Lords body he must expresly forbid those who eateth
If one Church shall offend another the offended may admonish and if the Church be not gained the offended Church is to tell more Churches Synodically conveened as may be gathered from Christs Scope to remove all Scandals between brother and brother Church and Church Erastus Tell him between thee and him if it be told me conscio I onely knowing then he hath sinned against me privately should I not reprove him before others if he have sinned against others but Christ will not have me to take any Witnesses at the first Ans 1. I may tell him between me and him a publike fault this proveth onely my admonition to be private when the fault is known to twenty and scandalizeth them and it proveth not the fault to to be private But you will say then I must take these twenty who are offended no lesse then I am to goe my selfe I answer not so For 1. I may be ignorant that any knowes it and I am not to uncover what God hath covered except it were a sin that bringeth wrath on the whole Land as blood and the Canaanites sinnes 2. Though I should know twenty were offended charity will bid me try if I onely can gaine him and then love maketh the worke easier to twenty Erastus But Matthew and Luke compared together doe teach that Christ speaketh of such sinnes as one Brother may pardon another seventy seven times and the question of Peter to Christ how oft shall my brother offend and I forgive him saith that Christ speaketh not of the sinnes that the Church onely can forgive for Peter knew well that he his alone could not forgive these sins which onely the Church and a multitude can pardon Ans Though it be true Matthew and Luke c. 17. speake both of scandals and scandalous sins in generall yet it is evident they speak of two sorts of scandalls Luke speaketh v. 3. of scandals between brother and brother which may at first be taken away by rebukes but he hath nothing of the Churches part touching these But Matthew hath it at length chap. 18. ver 15 16. 17 18. 19. 20. The Luke 17. 4. and Matthew more distinctly chap. 18. ver 21. upon the occasion of Peters question resolveth a case of conscience how Christians are to passe by in love the faults one of another even to seventy times seven they are not scandals of one and the same nature as Erastus conceiveth The former is how we may gain an offending brother from the guilt of active scandall in giving offence to us and that is by free rebuking and if that gain him not then by taking witnesses and rebuking him and if neither that can do it by telling the Church to which Christ hath given a more powerfull way to binde and loose in earth and heaven saith Matthew Luke speaketh onely of simple rebuking which tendeth to the other two The latter way is how we our selves may be freed from passive scandall if our brother provoke us seven times or seventy seven times a day this must be by a private pardoning and laying aside all grudge or hints of revenge toward our brother and this is a great mistake in Erastus that he confoundeth those two scandals which by two Evangelists are distinguished for Peter upon occasion of the former Church-scandals proposeth the second Mat. 18 21. then came Peter to him and said Lord how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him Peter asketh nothing of gaining the offender and Christ answereth nothing of gaining him having satisfied them fully in that before But Peter came in with a new question concerning private forgiving 2. It is evident in the former that Christ speaks not of sins that one brother may forgive another for then it were free to the offended after two admonitions ineffectuall to gain the offender to forgive and desist as he doth in the matter of forgiving But it is not free to him to desist if the offender refuse to be gained and adde contumacy the offended cannot pardon the punishment he ought to remit the private grudge he is under a command of Christ to tell the Church that is one punishment and if he yet be obstinate he is to be reputed as a Heathen and a Publican that is another punishment which a private man cannot dispense with 1. He cannot dispense with Christs command 2. He cannot omit all Lawfull means of gaining the soul of his brother for the Law of nature tyeth him to it Erastus will have it a matter of holding off of an injury only by complaining to the Roman Emperour a carnall way Christ is on a higher and more spirituall strain to gain a soul as is clear If he hear thee thou hast gained thy brother rest there But if he hear thee not go yet on to gain him Take with thee two or three then if he had been gained at first a second admonition before two or three were needlesse But if yet he be not gained then go yet on to seek the gaining of his soul and tell the Church and if the Church cannot gain him then let him be as a Publican and cast out This is also a way of gaining that his spirit may be saved 1 Cor. 5. Therefore this is most false that Christ speaketh of those sins which we may forgive Who can believe that it is credible that our Saviour hath a more noble end and more excellent then to gain a brothers soule or that he doth teach us in these words to discend from such a spirituall end as the repentance of an offender to a far baser end to hold off injuries by fleeing to a heathen Iudicature Erastus Christ speaks of such sins as the offender cannot deny before witnesses But sins to be punished by Excommunication so hainous as deserveth to be delivered to Satan he would deny Ergo he must speak of smaller sins Ans This is for us he speaketh of such sins that the offender will persist in against the Authority of witnesses Synedrie or Church and Magistrates as Erastus thinketh while he be as a Profane Heathen Ergo he may deny them 2. If we suppose three faithfull witnesses who have seen and heard such as will testifie the sin before the Church it is like to be a grievous and publick trespasse Nor would Christ have the Magistrate troubled and the Church offended for such sins as may fall out in a brother seven times yea seventy seven times in one day and may be by private transactions pardoned as Erastus saith How should Erastus his civill throne sink under threescore and ten scandalls in one day Erastus The Church punisheth not the man for such sins but dismisseth him as an injurious person Ans True if we believe Erastus begging the question 2. To declare a brother no brother but a prophane Heathen without Christ in the world nad out of the Covenant of Grace must be the highest Church-censure must be more highly
a word of God for their warrant commanding them to pray O Lord give power to Paul to kill such an incestuous man miraculously For such Faith of miracles had Christ and all the Prophets and Apostles Joh. 11. 41. So did Sampson pray in faith Judg. 16. 28. and Elias 1 Kings 18. 36 37 38. and so did the Apostles pray Act. 4. 24 29 30. and with them the Church of believers for working of miracles in generall for the Apostles had a word of promise in the generall for working of miracles Mar. 16. 17 18. But that the Apostles had before hand revealed to them all the miracles they were to work I cannot believe by any Scripture But that it was revealed to them upon occasion only by an occasionall immediate Revelation Do this particular miracle Hic nunc And this I am confirmed to believe Because Elisha 2 Kin. 4. was mistaken in sending his servant with his staffe to raise the dead son of the Shunamite a Pastor with nothing but a club and naked words cannot give life to the dead ver 31. and therefore the working of a miracle in particular Hic nunc was not alwayes revealed to the most eminent Prophets such as Elisha was and so I beleeve as working of miracles on this and this man came not from an habit in the Prophets and Apostles far lesse from a habit subject to their free will but God reserved that liberty to himself to act his servants immediatly both to pray by the faith of this miracle Hic nunc and to work this miracle Hic nunc Now to the Assumption How can Erastus or any of his followers assure our conscience that God had given the Faith of miracles to all the sanctified in Christ Jesus at Corinth whom Paul so sharply rebuketh 1 Cor. 5. 1 2 3 4 5. That this being revealed to them by God and they having the faith that it was the will of Iesus Christ that Paul should kill or as some say deliver to Satan this incestuous man to be miracuously tormented in the body or flesh as Iob was that he might repent is it like Christ would reveal more of his will touching every particular miracle to be done by Paul to all and every secure one in the Church of Corinth that were puffed up and mourned not for this mans fall then he revealed to the Apostles themselves But I have proved that the Apostles and Prophets knew not nor had they the particular Faith of this and this miracle how then had all and every one of the Church of Corinth this Faith Now they behoved to have this light of Faith of this miracle revealed to them that this was Christs will that Paul should work a miracle for the destruction of the man else the Corinthians could no more be justly rebuked because they prayed not to God that Paul might work this miraculous destruction of the man which yet he never wrought as its clear 2. Cor. 2. he was not killed but repented and was pardoned then because they prayed not that he miraculously might cure the criple man at Lystra Act. 14. or that he might work any other miracle Now how was this revealed to all of the Church of Corinth that this was Christs will If it be said they were to pray conditionally that God would either by a miracle take him away or then in mercy give him repentance to prevent destruction 1. We have no surer ground for a conditionall and dis-junctive Faith of miracles in the Corinthians then for an absolute Faith 2. If it was the will of Christ that the man should by himself be miraculously killed why did not the Apostle immediatly by himself kill him Why It was the Apostles fault as well as the sin of the Corinthians that the man remained as a leaven to sowre and infect the Church yea it was more the Apostles fault then theirs for he had only the immediate power miraculously to purge the Church some may say as the Lord Iesus was hindred some time to work miracles because of the peoples unbelief Matth. 13. 58. So here Paul was hindred to work this miracle on the scandalous man because of their unbeliefe Ans Paul could not professe this for he had not assayed to work any miracle of this kinde as Christ had done Matth. 13. But only sheweth them of a report came to him of the fact and of their security and not mourning 2. Paul should then rather have rebuked their unbelief and not praying that God would miraculously destroy the man but this Paul doth not 3. Paul rebuketh them for not judging him not putting him out of the midst of them Must that be Pauls meaning pray to God that I may have grace and strength immediatly from God to kill him miraculously and to judge him Now they knew the Apostle miraculously thus judged those that are without as he stroke with blindnesse Elymas who was without the visible Church I conceive the whole Churches were to pray as the Apostles do with the Saints Act. 4. 29. 30. That miracles may be wrought both on those that are without and within But of this judging he saith ver 12. What have I to do to judge them also that are without Do not ye judge them that are within 4. It is directly contrary to Christs direction Matth. 18. Which is that by rebukes we gaine the offending brothers soul Now Erastus will have him gained to Christ by removing his soule from his body and by killing him Yea the Apostle writing of the censuring of those in Thessalonica who walked unorderly and obeyed not the Apostles Word which doth include such as breake out in Incest Adulteries Murthers is so farre from giving direction to kill them miraculously that he biddeth onely keep no Church company nor Christian fellowship with them but yet they are to be admonished as brethren Ergo they were not to be miraculously killed for then they should be capable of no admonition at all being killed And could there be worse men then was amongst the Phillipians Enemies of the crosse of Christ whose end is destruction whose God was their belly Yet there was no blood in the Apostles pen he chides not the Phillipians nor the Galathians who had amongst them men of the same mettall Gal. 5. 7 8 9 10. Ver. 19. 20 21. Nor the Timothies who would have to doe with farre worse men 2 Tim 3. 1 2 3 4 5. Nor Titus who had to doe with wicked Cretians Tit. 1. because they cryed not to God for Pauls bloodie sword of vengeance that these wicked men might be cut off by Satan nor doth the Apostle to the Hebrewes draw this Sword against those who sinned against the Holy Ghost c. 10. c. 6. Nor Iames against bloody warriours Murtherers Adulterers Oppressors c. 4. c. 5. Nor doth Peter and Iude use this sword or command the Churches to use such carnall weapons against the wickedest of men but recommended long-suffering
ground of other Scriptures is a thing I can hardly beleeve But since Excommunication is an ordinary censure the Church might well as they see the man penitent or contumacious cast him out or not pardon or not pardon Erastus Paul delivered to Satan Hymeneus and Alexander that they might learne not to blaspheme not that the dead are capable to learne or to be blasphemed but this be saith as a Magistrate when he saith he will give an ill doer to the hangman that he may learn to steale no more and to rob no more Ans 1 Tim. 1. 20. I delivered them to Satan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is like to edifying discipline and agreeable to Pauls use of the rod of discipline 2 Cor. 10. 8. Though I should boast somewhat more of our authoritie which the Lord hath given us for edification and not for destruction Now it were safer to give a sense congruous to the intrinsecall end of discipline which was not for destruction of the body but for the edifying of souls 2. Yea so Paul had no lesse the Sword then the rod of the Word Nero had not so heavy a sword as miraculous killing Should not Paul speake rather as a Pastor of Christ then as a bloody Magistrate Erastus If to deliver to Satan be all one with debarring from the Supper onely yet it is not all one with being cast out of the Church without which there is no salvation but the Supper is not absolutely necessary to Salvation Ans Nor doe we put that necessity on the Sacraments but where the man is excluded from the Sacraments for such a sinne as if he repent not he is excluded from Salvation it concerneth him much to thinke it a weighty judgement to be excluded from the Seales Erastus These two are inconsistent which you teach to wit that he is not debarred from the Sacraments who desireth them and that his desire whether it be a right or a wrong and unlawfull desire shall depend on the judgement of others to wit the Presbytery Ans Erastus should have made others see how these two fights together I see no inconsistencie no more then to say a childe that desireth food is not debarred from food and yet his desire of food may be subject to wise Stewards whether every desire of food be right or no as whether he should be answered by the Stewards when he desireth poyson or bread not to eaâ—e but to cast to dogs and this will fight against preaching of the Word the Professor that longeth for the comforts of the promises of the Gospel is not debarred from them yet are preachers to try whether threatnings be not fitter for him in his security then the comforts of the promises Erastus Paul 2 Cor. 12. and 13. threatneth not exclusion from the Lords Supper to those who had not repented of their schisme drunkennesse denying of the resurrection but he saith he would severely punish them according to the authority and power given him of God and he did this frequently but we read not exclusion from the sacraments Answ 1. It is true he threatneth those who had not repented of their uncleannesse and fornication and lascivionsnesse 2. Cor. 12. 20 21. and c. 13. v. 2. threatneth that he will not spare but use his authority but doth Erastus read that he either threatneth or doth actually miraculously kill any of the beleevers at Corinth and let him answer why the Apostle did not write to the Church that they would conveene and take course with them as he did with the incestuous man 1 Cor. 5. 2. when he saith He will not spare when he comes he must be expounded according to Erastus to come as a miraculous Magistrate to kill them 3. He saith not they were impenitent but he feareth it should be so 4. We hold if any should be contumacious he would not onely deny pearls to such Swine as his Master commanded Mat. 7. But also follow that rule Mat. 18. 4. Erastus himselfe granteth if there shall be found a man that tramples upon the Pearles and holy things of God as there must be some one or other which is such as deserveth to be miraculously killed By this Argument he granteth I say that such a one should not be admitted Hunc ego minimè admittendum censeo but how shall he be not admitted by this Argument Erastus There were many amongst the Ancients who deferred their Baptisme to the end of their life when therefore it is not written that these are damned who are excluded from the Supper against their will and not those who willingly exclude themselves from Baptisme why should the one more then the other be delivered to Satan for he is in a better condition who is excluded by the Presbyters against his will from the Supper then he who doth of his owne free will exclude him selfe from Baptisme Ans That the Ancients in the Apostolique Church which is our rule did deferre baptisme till they died Erastus cannot prove the Ancients after them is not our rule 2. That these were admitted to the Supper a Sacrament of the nourishment of these in whom Christ liveth before they were baptized which is the Sacrament of Regeneration and our first birth cannot be defended by Erastus and so he argues from an unlawfull practise 3. We reach not that any is damned because he is excluded from the Supper that Exclusion is a punishment men are damned for sins not for meer punishments but his sin is bound in heaven because of a great scandall such as incest and that if he repent not is the cause of damnation and therefore Erastus should have compared sinne with sinne the scandall with sinfull refusing of Baptisme and not have made a halting and lame comparilon an argument that concludeth nothing 4. Though those who deferred baptisme till death should not have been delivered to Satan yet will Erastus say they should not have been otherwise censured for these behooved with Socinians to hold Baptisme but an indifferent rite and by this many lived in the contempt of a necessary ordinance though not simply necessary and so died with the sinfull want of Baptisme many times Erastus The exclusion of men from the Sacraments did creep into the Church when men did ascribe salvation to the Sacraments therefore the Supper was given to dying men though excommunicate as the deniall of the Supper damneth Ergo the receiving of it saveth And so of Baptisme they reasoned Answ Erastus nameth this his own probable conjecture But it is to beg the question he may know how singular Augustine was for the necessity of Baptisme and how many of the Ancients were against him in it 2. He may know this consequence to be a conjecture and that it is not stronger because it is his owne 3. He granteth that exclusion of the unworthy from the Sacraments is ancient so much gain we by his conjectures Erastus When the Church wanted a Magistrate
and the sword Paul commanded that the Corinthians might obtain by their prayers that the incestuous man might be put from amongst them that is that he might be killed if he command not that the man be killed but cast out of the Church only he should say as much as if one should bid preserve the chastity of a Virgin by casting her out of the society of chaste matrons into a bordell-house and Paul biddeth not the Corinthians deliver the man to Sathan but only that they would convene that he might as present in Spirit deliver him to Sathan and that they would deliver him to Sathan and put him out of the midst of them by prayers and mourning for in my corrected Thesis I said that this put away evill out of the midst of you Deut. 13. was in sillabs Deut. 17. 19 21. 22 â—er c. 24. once and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in them all Answ 1. That the Church wanted the sword is no wonder the Church as the Church hath no such carnall weapons as the Sword and that Peter in killing Ananias and Saphira and Paul in striking Elymas with blindnesse did supply the place of a Christian Magistrate which the Church then wanted so as it was the Christian Magistrate his place if there had been any to strike Ananias and Saphyra with sudden death I doe not beleeve upon Erastus his word because I finde Nadab and Abihu killed immediately by the Lord from heaven with fire Lev. 10. 1. and at that time when there was Moses and ordinary Magistrates to have killed them and God immediately caused the earth to open her mouth and swallow up quick Corâ—h and his company and yet there was a Magistrate to doe justice on them for their â—reasonable conspiracie and I see not how this may not warrant Ministers when either heathen or Tyrannous Magistrates refuse to use the sword to fall to as Pastors and in an extraordinary manner use the sword against murtherers in the visible Church It is true Peters miraculous killing of Ananias may possibly hold forth the duty analogically of punishing ill doers in a Magistrate where he is a Christian member of the Church But it is a conjecture without Scripture that here Paul doth call the Corinthians in to come and be co-actors with him by their prayers in a particular miracle which was never wrought for Erastus granteth he was never killed 1. Paul reprehendeth their not mourning v. 2. And you are puffed up and have not rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mourned This was an ordinary Christian not a miraculous duty which they should have performed as a Church though he should not have written to them Let Erastus cleare how Paul chideth them for want of an habituall Faith of Miracles and of a sorrow proportioned thereunto 2. That Gal. 5. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would God they were cut off that trouble you if this was in Pauls power by a miracle to cut off the false Apostles how could Paul wish to doe a Miracle and did it not 2. If he wished these should be cut off by the Galathians then as Beza de Presbyt page 82. saith It was in the Galathians power so to doe and why should not they have prayed miraculously for the destruction of such 3. In all the word to deliver to Satan is never to kill by Satan as Beza saith and Erastus can answer nothing to it 4. That Paul here tooke the Magistrates Sword because the Magistrate was a Heathen 5. That the Church when a Magistrate doth not his duty is to pray that God would by some miraculous and immediate providence supply the Magistrates place 6. That Paul doth rebuke the Corinthians not for the omission of an ordinary duty and the want of an ordinary faith but because of the want of extraordinary sorrow and of the faith of Miracles in old and young and women who could pray for the miraculous killing of this man all these look beside the Text for ver 2. he saith such a hainous sin is committed and ye are puffed up 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 blowen up and have not rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mourned this is the defect of an ordinary grace and hardnesse and security that Paul rebuketh in them as the first word signifieth 1 Cor. 8. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 knowledge puffeth up 1 Cor. 13. 4. Love 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not blown up 1 Cor. 4. 6. 1 Cor. 4. 18. Col. 2. 18. and the other word signifieth ordinary sorrow Mat. 5. 4 Blessed are they that mourn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luk. 6. 25. 2 Cor. 12. 21. Iam. 4. 9. Mat. 9. 15. There is not one word of praying by the faith of miracles in the Text for such a faith is required to such a prayer that God would miraculously destroy the man or that Paul rebuked them for not praying in this miraculous faith it is the way of Erastus to obtrude Expositions on the Scripture so unknown and violent as they are darker and harder to be beleeved then the Text. 5. The Apostle commandeth them to put out the man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to kill him What killing is this to pray to God that Paul miraculously may put him out and kill him give us any word of God that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Old or New Testament signifieth any such thing there is not one word of Prayer in the Text 6. They were to conveen not simply as Christians to pray but with the vertue of his spirit as present in minde but absent in body this must put some more in them then a mourning spirit for the want of which he rebuked them it is as much as he and they together were to joyn in putting out the man and judging him as he speaketh ver 12. 7. Nor is this all one as to put a woman out of the company of chaste Matrons to the bordel house to keep her chastity no more then the wisdom of God in Paul doth Rom. 16. 17. 2 Thess 3. 14. 15. put unordinate walkers out of the society of those who walk according to the truth of the Gospel that they may preserve their sound walking especially when exclusion from the godly causeth shame and so humiliation and this reason is against Gods wisdom as much as against us 8. That to put away evil 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deut. 17. and 19. and 21. and 22. is to kill is not denied and that in divers places but not to pray that evil may be miraculously put away as Erastus saith But we are to see whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Hebrew of which Language Erastus professeth his ignorance signifie that alwayes The contrary I have already shown the learned Pagnine and Mercer say the contrary that it signifieth to cur devide or strike a Covenant Gen. 15. 18. Deut. 19. 5. Jer. 34. 8. Esa 55. 3. and Master Leigh in
of men 3. If God have not commanded either Elders or any other as Erastus saith to examine and judge who are fit for the Lords Supper who not Then seeing Erastus saith the prophane the ignorant the impenitently scandalous knowne to be such are to be debarred I aske of Erastus to whom Christ hath commanded the tryall of this who are ignorant and non rectè instituti Men cannot debarre themselves from the Sacraments in a judiciall way most of men conceiting well of themselves rush upon the ordinances of God not knowing that they doe evill Workers of iniquity who cry Lord Lord Adulterers Theeves Idolaters who dare come to the Temple of the Lord and cry The temple of the Lord The temple of the Lord are these Ier. 7. 9 10 11. will also fast and professe Repentance Esa 57. 3 4 5. even when their wickednes testifieth to their face against them in the eies of all Ier. 2. 1 c. Ier. 2. 34. Esa 1. 9. and they will desire â—o partake of the Lords Supper as is evident Esa 57. 2. Now there are none on earth neither Elders or any any others to debarre them Erastus saith Taceo jam quod Deus non praecepit vel Presbyteris vel aliis tale examen Let Erastus answer us in this and by what charity is Erastus obliged to beleeve all that seeketh the Lords supper do it in truth God has given to us mens works not their words of which hypocrites are liberall and shall we foment hypocrisie and mens eating their owne damnation under Erastus his pretence of incouraging and not suffocating seeming godly desires Lastly Erastus saith it doth not concern the Church that the man deferre to do that which Christ commands him to do this is to beg the question Doth Christ command a man to eat his owne damnation CHAP. XIII Quest 9. Other Arguments for Excommunication vindicated Erastus The Apostle writeth if any man love not the Lord Jesus let him be accursed Ergo Paul will have the Elders to sit and judge who truely repent who not that they may admit the one to the supper not the other if this be excommunication excommunication is grounded on a thousand places to love Christ is to kâ—ep his commandements Ioh. 13. and 15. then who ever saith those that keep not the commandements of Christ are cursed of God he shall this way excommunicate then Moses did often excommunicate But because the false Apostles did strive to make Paul contemptible therefore Paul saith God be judge which of us loveth Christ and let God destroy him who loves him not this is the true meaning Ans Erastus perverteth the sense of Beza his words for Beza has no such conclusion as to prove a formall excommunication by the Elders or Church judicature this is Erastus sained conclusion Beza inferreth from these words that there is here gravissimae excommunicationis species a kind of heavy excommunication materially to be eternally separated from Christ called the great excommunication And it was to be accursed while the Lord come and therefore this may prove there is a kind of lesser excommunication in the Church and Moses his cursing by way of preaching may well inserre that because there be Church censures therefore there is a Church cursing heavy and lesse heavy But Beza intendeth not to prove excommunication by the Church from this but only that Christs enemies are cursed though they be other wayes in the Church and this kinde of excommunication of shutting impenitent sinners out of heaven is in a thousand places of scripture and nothing can hence be concluded against Beza and the like excommunication is Gal. 1. And when Ioh. 2. Ep. forbiddeth to receive a faâ—â—e teacher into your house if he be a member of the Church he is to be farre lesse kept in Christs greater house the Church but is to be cast out Erastus When Paul saith Gal. 5. I would they were cut off who trouble you he saith not conveene the Elders and cast such men out of the Church or deliver them to Satan but he wisheth that they were cut off by God Ans 1. The place Gal. 5. 12. I wish they were cut off that trouble you is expounded by Piscator of cutting off from the visible Church Yea he saith conveene the Church when he saith v. 9. a little leaven leaveneth the whole lumpe that is a little false Doctrine infecteth the whole Church and v. 10. I am confident of you that ye will be no otherwise minded but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgement who ever he be then he hopeth well of the Galathians that they will be of one mind to judge and cast out the false teacher this is parallel to 1 Cor. 5. though Paul do not so right downe chide them for neglect of Church censures as he doth 1 Cor. 5. But saith Erastus if Paul wished them to be cut off that troubled them why did he not cut off those false teachers and deliver them to Satan Erastus answereth it was not Gods will so to do and the Apostles could not in every place and at every time kill miraculously but when it was profitable and necessary Ans Then Paul 1 Cor. 5. farre lesse could rebuke the Corinthians because they prayed not that the incestuous Corinthian might be miraculously killed by Paul for Paul had not power to kill him because it was not necessary nor profitable the man repented and was never killed 2. Iudge if it be probable that Paul would wish to work a miracle in killing false teachers when it was neither profitable necessary nor saâ—e for the Church to have them killed 3. Paul was confident the man who troubled them should beare his judgement Erastus saith it was not Gods will he should be miraculously killed Ergo it was not miraculous killing but some Church censure or then Erastus must find out another kind of judgement And why may some say doth not Paul write to Excommunicate him as he did the incestuous Corinthian Beza Answereth Paul would not 1 Cor. 5. take that Authority to himself but would do it by the suffrages of the Church So here he sheweth what he desireth but happily it was not expedient that they should be presently cut off So Beza Yea the words do well bear that Paul thought fit That they should bear their Iudgement who had troubled them and that that leaven should be purged out 2. Yea if this cutting off be miraculous it is clear Paul could not Communicate it to others for it was Pauls will that the incestuous Corinthian should be delivered to Satan by the suffrages of the Corinthians Nor do we read that the Apostles wished to cut off men miraculously but were not able to do it Erastus It is false That Paul willed the man to be delivered to Satan by the suffrages of the Corinthians For he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have already Concluded Ordained Decreed to deliver him
to Satan though I be absent in body what then would he have done he would all the Church being gathered together not some Presbyters only by his own spirit and the power of the Lord Iesus granted to him deliver the man to Satan that he might strike fear and terror on others and that the man might bear the just punishment of his wickednesse Ans Paul chideth them that they were puffed up and mourned not that the man might be put out of the midst of them Then whereas it might be said we want the presence of the Apostle Paul and his privity to the businesse To this Paul saith ver 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For me saith he I have as if I were present in body when you are Convened together c. Iudged to deliver such a one to Satan Now that this Decree was the judiciall Decree and sentence of Paul as a miraculous Magistrate giving sentence judicially when Paul himself was absent and had not convinced the man nor spoken with him I do not believe 1. Because though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may signifie such a sentence of a man when the guilty is before him yet the word doth not necessitate us to this Exposition Luk. 19. 22. Out of thy own mouth will I judge thee for it doth as often signifie a simple act of the minde and the opinion of any not sitting in judgement as Act. 13. 46. Ye judge your selves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unworthy of life Eternall 1 Cor. 2. 2. I determined 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to know nothing but Christ Luk. 7. 43. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Christ to Simon the Pharisee who was not on the bench Thou hast judged rightly Tit. 3. 12. I have determined there to winter 1 Cor. 10. 15. Iudge ye what I say Act. 27. 1. When it was determined to sail into Italy 2. We do not read that Apostle Prophet or Iudge gave out a sentence of death against any the person condemned not being present nor heard the Lord himself did it not to Adam nor to Sodom he came down to see he examined Adam Moses did not so condemn the man that gathered sticks on the Sabbath day Joshua convinced Achan the Prophet convinced Gehazi ere he smote him with Leprosie Peter convinced Aâ—anias and Saphira to their faces ere he killed them so did Paul convince Elimas the sorcerer in his face so did Christ in his miraculous purging of the Temple convince them that His Fathers house should be a house of Prayer Now Paul here giveth a judiciall sentence of death on a man he never spake of being at Philippi whence he wrote and the delinquent at Corinth if we beleeve Erastus 3. Erastus judgeth that Paul knew this man to be penitent and how knew Paul this It must be a miraculous knowledge by which Paul at Philippi looked upon the mans heart at Corinth one of the greatest miracles that ever Paul wrought for Paul had the knowledge of the mans sinne only by report v. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is reported between Pauls writing the first verse of that Chapter and his writing the third verse there must interveene a miraculous discovery of the incestuous mans heart Paul being at Philippi and the man at Corinth and Paul knowing the man to be penitent and because of his penitency as Erastus saith Paul did not kill him Yet Paul so farre absent must have given out a miraculous sentence as a miraculous Magistrate I saith he by revelation as having the sword of God now in my hand have judged and given out sentence that this man shall be miraculously killed by Satan before your eyes that all may feare and do so no more and yet I know him to be penitent and that he shall not be killed by Satan a monstrous and irrationall sentence if it be said that by report Paul had knowledge of his sinne and by report also he had knowledge of his repentence and that his spirit would be saved in the day of the Lord and that this knowledge came not to Paul by any immediate revelation I answer Yet the sentence must stand by Erastus his mind touching 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have judged and condemned him as a miraculous Magistrate to dye upon a report though I never heard him and I know he shall not dye for this sault for can it be said that Paul retracted a sentence which he gave out as the deputy of God and he even then when he wrote the sentence knâ—w there was so much repentance in the man as he would for it be moved not to kill him 4. There is no ground in the Text why Paul should be said to seek the naked presence of the whole people to do such a miracle before them he being himselfe absent for there is more then a naked presence of the Corinthians as only witnesses that they might be affraid do so no more for they were present as instructed with the spirit of Paul and the power of the Lord Jesus Christ to deliver such a one to Satan as the words bear v. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For to be conveened in the name of Christ being spoken Mat. 18. v. 20. of a Church meeting or in reference thereunto in the same phrase and to be conveened with the power and spirit of Paul and of the Lord Iesus cannot agree to Paul nor can it be said I Paul absent in body and present in spirit in the name of the Lord Jesus and with my spirit and the power of the Lord Jesus have decreed to deliver such a one to Satan For 1. the Grammer of the words cannot beare that for being conveened in the name of the Lord with my spirit are constructed together in the Text. 2. It is no sence nor any Scripture phrase I present in spirit and with my spirit have decreed to deliver such a one to Satan 3. It is evident that Paul would as it were absent recompence his bodily absence with the presence of the spirit and road of Church censure which the Lord had communicated to them 5. Erastus needeth not object that there was a conveening of the Church not of some Elders for as there is no word of the word Elders in the Text so is there no word of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Text and so the debate will be what is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether Elders or people or both but though every one in their owne place were understood yet the words beare a juridicall convention being conveened in the name of the Lord Jesus and with my spirit and the power of the Lord Jesus Erastus The questions why Paul did not command to excommunicate the false Apostles in Galathia Or why he did not miraculousty kill them are both urgent But the latter is most urgent for the power of miraculous afflicting men was given to few men and to Apostles But it is a wonder if excommunication was ever
should not delay to pray till he were first delivered from the gall of bitternesse and then pray Sure if Peter had said to Simon Magus First labour to be freed of the gall of bitternesse and to have thy thoughts pardoned and then pray that the thoughts of thy heart may be pardoned as Christ saith First bee reconciled to thy brother and then offer and as Paul saith First Let a man try and examine himselfe and so let him eate and drinke the reply of Erastus should have nerves 2. It is true Christ speaketh not of the externall government of the Church but it is as false that he speaketh of the internall acts of the minde but he speaketh of the right ordering of the externall acts of divine worship which are regulable though not quatenus as regulable by the Church and draweth an argument from the words by necessary consequence which consequence Erastus cannot elude 3. But how doth Erastus prove this consequence if our Exposition stand and if we were to doe nothing in offering gifts at the Altar except we bee first reconciled to our brother and if God approve nothing which we doe which deviates from this perfection we should doe nothing that is good and right and so all must be excommunicated 1. Is Christ here injoyning a work of perfection and of supererogation Is Erastus popish in this 2. As it is impossible not to offer gifts aright so is it not to eate and drinke worthily while first we be reconciled to our brother Erastus was so surfetred with charity as we heard before that if any but desire the Sacrament and professe repentance he thinketh he is obliged to beleeve he is fit for the Lords Supper and here if Christ require but that the partie be reconciled to his brother ere he offer his gift and come to the Sacrament this is too great strictnesse it should excommunicate us all and we shall so never doe any thing that is right and good 4. It is false that Christ speaketh here of internall acts onely and of that which our minde injoyneth for the Lord speaketh of three externall visible acts 1. Of offering a gift at the Altar 2. Of delaying and suspending of the offering 3. Of a previous visible reconciliation to an offended brother 5. He saith not if the Presbyters bid you saith he leave your offering true he saith not that in words but supposing this that the Presbyters know that the same very day that he bringeth his offering he had beene killing his owne sonne to Molech as Ezek. 23. 38. 39. Whether were the Presbyters to forbid him to come and offer while he should testifie his repentance and finding him impenitent whether should they not judge him both to be debarred from the holy things of God and to be cast out of the Church as 1 Cor. 5. Certaine this is Christs order Be first reconciled to thy Brother and then offer try thy selfe first and then eate and if the Church see this order neglected whether are they to suffer clean and unclean to come and eat and holy things to be prophaned Erastus He shall expede himselfe out of this doubt easily who can distinguish the internall governing of the Church which is proper to God onely who knoweth the thoughts and can judge them without error from the externall governing of the Church in qua falli infinitè omnes possumus in the which we may all infinitely erre and in which we can doe nothing nisi quod mandatum expessè nobis legimus except what vve read to be expresly commanded for here he vvho is not against us is vvith us Marke 9. and no man ought to forbid those which God hath commanded so they bee externally done all externall actions quoad nos to us are good vvhich are done according to the prescript of Gods Word though to God vvho judgeth the heart they be not good every vvay many to day the Pharisees of old many in Pauls time preach for gaine many are ambitious and some out of envy preach Christ never for bad them to teach nor Paul but rejoyced Phil. 1. that Christ was preached hovvever since no man can understand the internall actions or thoughts and without error judge them there is no punishment by mans Law for them onely God vvithout error judgeth and punisheth them Ans There be many untruths here 1. If this distinction of internall and externall governing of the Church remove most of the doubts here he that eates and drinkes unworthily which is an act of externall worship which may be regulated and ordered by the Church for the Church may not administer the Sacraments to Pagans without the Church is no sinne to the unworthy eater because God commanded that externall act expresly as Erastus saith and so it is a good action quoad nos even to the unworthy eater for he knoweth not his owne thoughts nor can he judge them without error especially being unregenerated 2. If Erastus himselfe acknowledge this his owne disâ—inction he must acknowledge an externall Church-government and who then are the Governours especially in the Apostolick-Church where heathen Magistrates are Pastors and Teachers no doubt what meaneth this then my Brother trespasseth against me and will not be gained I tell the Church Erastus saith I tell the Christian Magistrate but there is no Christian Magistrate then there was no externall Government in the Church the first hundreth nay nor three hundred yeers in the Church or then it must follow that the Apostles and Pastors were the deputies of heathen Magistrates Ergo the heathen Magistrates should with imposition of hands have been ordained the officers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in every Church And that they were not it was their owne fault for the principall officer must be more principally called to office by Christ and given by him as a gift when he ascended on high to edifie the body of the Church Eph. 4. 11. 3. Erastus will have men debarred from judging the inward actions because God only can judge them sine errore without error But so God only should judge all things internall and externall and there should be no Magistrates because men may erre in judging the externall actions of men and will not this gratifie the Papists who say in this Tell the Church that is the Pope who cannot erre Then the Synod cannot erre Protestants deny the consequence Synods may judge as Act. 15. and yet Synods may erre 4. Erastus will have us lyable to infinite errors in externall actions therefore saith he we should do nothing in externalls but what is expresly commanded but first may we not infinite falli infinitely erre in internall actions and thought and acts of beleeving are we more infallible in internall then in externall actions New Theologie and are we not as well tyed to what is expresly commanded in internall as in externall actions I think the word is as strict a rule and the Law of the Lord as
their office Preach the Word and dispense the Sacraments which is against the word Heb. 5. 7. Mat. 9. 38. 10. 5. 28. 19 20. Joh. 21. 20 21. Rom. 10. 14 15. 3. Where doth Erastus reade in the New Testament that Kings may not write Canonick Scripture as King David did and build a Typicall Temple to the Lord as Solomon did and give out Laws of Divine institution as Moses did Kings in the Old Testament did these and he can finde the contrary no where written 4. If the Church as the Church cannot chuse a Senate of Elders to Govern themselves without wronging the Magistrate how did the Apostolick Church without so much as asking advice of the Civill Magistrate set up a new Gospel new Sacraments new officers a new Government Did the Lord Iesus and the Gospel teach them to spoil Cesar Christ had said the contrary Give unto Cesar those things that are Cesars 5. To subject Magistrates to Excommunication is no more to subject them to externall dominion then to subject them as Erastus doth to rebukes warnings and threatnings for the former hath no more of coaction of dominion or of coercive power then the latter yea if to subject Kings to the rebukes of the Ministers of Christ be nothing but to subject them to internall and spirituall dominion no more is suspension from the Sacraments and Excommunication any thing but internall and spirituall dominion In this sense that neither of these two are bodily dominions no more then rebuking of Kings 2. Yet both these work upon the conscience in a spirituall way for the humiliation of the King and putting him to shame and fear 2 Thes 3. 14 15. that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord as rebukes do work 1 Tim. 5. 20. Gal. 2. 11. 1 Cor. 5. 6. Iude ver 23. Yea to say to a King He shall be buried with the buriall of an Asse as Ieremiah did cap. 22. And to call the Rulers Princes of Sodome Isa 1. 10. And King Herod a Fox and Rulers and Princes Dogs Psal 22. ver 16. and Bulls and Lyons ver 12. 13. and Wolves ravening for the prey Ezek. 22. 27. putteth no lesse shame upon Magistrates before men and so externall dominion on them and over them then Excommunication and debarring from the Seals of the Covenant doth Now Erastus subjecteth Magistrates to rebukings threatnings and reprehensions no lesse then we do Well Erastus will have one single Minister to exercise externall dominion over the Magistrates because this is manifest out of the Word but because he would flatter Princes as much as he can he denies that a Colledge of Elders may rebuke the Magistrate or convene him before them though he were the most flagitious Prince that lived and yet one man may summon him before the Tribunall of Christ and charge him to come to hear a Sermon and rebuke him in the face of the Congregation and denounce the Iudgements of God against him openly Is not this the Lord arming one single man against the Magistrate to put shame and confusion on him for his sins And if many Pastors convened should do this This were to arm the subjects against the Magistrate and to take the power from him that God hath given to him as Erastus talketh CHAP. XXII Quest 18. Of exclusion from the Sacrament of profession of repententance the judiciall Law bindeth not Christians The sword not a mean of conversion Of Idolaters and Apostates in the judgement of Erastus IN this Chapter Erastus disputeth against a Treatise written in the German Tongue in which he acknowledgeth there is more learning and truth then in the other writtings All the opinions that Erastus ascribeth to this Author justly or unjustly I know not but Erastus his faith may be justly suspected I cannot defend Erastus Touching those to be admitted to the Sacrament we speak alwayes de illis solis c. of those only who rightly understand the Doctrine of the Gospel and do approve and imbrace the same and who desire with others to use the Sacraments aright in regard of the externals of which only the Church can judge for the heart is rightly knowne to God only so the Author and we agree Ans The agreement is but poore by your owne relation But 1. Let Erastus answer what if the Christian Magistrate as Achab be a dog and sell himselfe to do wickedly What if he understand not the Doctrine of the Gospel Magistrates as Magistrates by vertue of the throne or place are not priviledged to be Orthodox and holy Let one Iulian once a Christian yet turning a sow an enemy to the Gospel be witnesse if we descend to the Iustices and to Master Constables it may be we finde even of those dogs and swine in their conversation though their place be a power lawfull and ordained of God We thinke saith Erastus the custome of the Church should be observed What by the custome of the Church onely by no precept or command of Christ should the holy things of God the pearls of the Gospel be denied to dogs and swine contrary to Christs command Mat. 7 2. Erastus must exclude the Magistrate out of the lists of his disputation in six books and say If the Christian Magistrate be ignorant and scandalous and yet desire to use the Sacraments right and professe he will learne to know God and to beleeve soundly and walke holily Yet the Sacraments are not to be denied to him Tell Erastus in sincerity who should debarre the Magistrate For in all your six books you by these words de illis solis c. professe that you plead not that he should be admitted to the Sacraments who shall exclude him not he himselfe for his credites sake he shall desire to come to the Sacraments as many for gaine and loaves follow Christ Ioh. 6. will they not follow him also to be seen of men as the Pharisees prayed in the streets 2. Let Erastus say when our Saviour said Give not holy things to dogs Did he mean to accept the persons of Kings and Iudges and professe though Kings and Iudges be dogs and swine yet deny not holy things to them 3. Hath Christ appointed no way in the New Testament as he did in the Old to debarre unclean men from our Passeover Or shall there be no Government no charge in the Ministers of the New Testament to keep the holy things of God from pollution If Master Iustice be an incestnous man a drunkard a dog shall he not be cast out of the midst of the Church Vzziah though a King yet for bodily leprosie was separated from the people of God and men of high places though doggs and swine shall be admitted to all the holy things of God under the New Testament 2. Erastus will have all admitted who desire to use the Sacraments right As touching all externalls of which onely the Church doth judge But 1. Where did we assert that the
Church judgeth of internalls and that they may debarre men from the Sacraments for only heart-unbeleefe knowne to God only This must lye on Erastus as a calumnie while he make it good from our writings and Doctrine that we thus teach exclude those that are visibly scandalous and prophane and we are satisfied 2. He that brings his offering to the Altar and hath done a knowne offence to his brother for it is a sinfull and visible scandall which scandalizeth one brother He useth not the holy things of God right even as touching externals He that comes to the Lords supper desiring and asking the ordinance of righteousnesse as Isaiah speaketh and promiseth amendment and yet is openly ignorant and not sound in the faith he useth not aright the Sacraments even in externals of which only the Church judgeth rightly as he that in the same day commeth to the temple to worship now the very personall presence of a Iew in the Temple which was a Type of Iesus Christ was a worship and a holy thing of God whereas our presence in the place of meeting for worship is no such thing when he hath killed his sonne to Moloch prophaned the Temple and the name of God even in externals for the Priests of old who were to put differences between the clean and the unclean no more were to judge the inward thoughts and heart-dispositions of men knowne to God only then we can now judge them in the New Testament 1 Chro. 29. 17. 1 King 8. 39. 1 Chro. 28. 9. Prov. 15. 11. Hence that is an ignorant speach of Erastus Quistatuit malus esse non prodibit in ecclesiae faciem ut se poenuere prioris vite testetur ac meliorem promittat That man shall never come before the face of the Church to testifie that he repenteth of his former wicked life and promise amendment who purposeth to be wicked Will not men purpose not to be reconciled to their brethren and suffer many suns to go downe in their wrath and malice who come and bring their offring to the Altar why did then Christ forbid offring at the Altar without being reconciled to an offended brother Mat. 5. might not the offending brother offer his gift and were not the Priests to except his offring He could say all that Erastus requireth I acknowledge I have offended my brother I promise to crave him pardon and I desire to offer according to the Law Then the Priest was obliged to beleeve he dealt sincerely and lay his gift upon the Altar though he should not obey the command of Christ and go and leave his gift at the Altar and not offer while he were first reconciled to his brother and the like I say of one that hath killed his brother and cometh with hot blood to the Table of the Lord and goeth not to the Widdow and Orphanes whose Husband and Father he had killed to be reconciled Surely the man that should thus offer should not come to offer nor to eat at the Lords table rightly even in regard of externals which the Church may judge for he should omit this externall Be first reconciled to the Widdow and then offer and eat as Christ commanded 3. It is against Scripture and experience that a man that hath a purpose to kill his Father and in the highest point of treason to invade King Davids throne as Absolon did to say he will not professe to pay his vows at Hebron And might not Judas by his very eating the Passeover professe he beleeved in the Lambe of God that taketh away the sins of the world and that he would serve Christ and yet purpose in his heart to sell his Master Christ for 30 peeces of silver They seeme to be little acquainted with the mysterie of the hypocrisie naturally in men who put in print such a position The Author against whom Erastus writeth saith We have reason to rejoyce if we finde any such who will not professe faith and repentance though they be Hypocrites and therefore there is need of Excommunication and his meaning is that there is need of Excommunication alwayes and therefore there will be many who professe Repentance in words whose life and conversation belie their Repentance and Erastus cannot deny this if he know what it is â—o have a forme of godlinesse and deny the power which forme many have who are to be debarred from the Sacraments and to be Excommunicated in regard they are lovers of their owne selves covetous boasters proud blasphemers disobedient to parents unthankefull without naturall affection truce breakers false accusers incontinent fierce despisers of those that are good traitors headie high minded c. 2 Tim. 3. 1 2 c. and such they are in the eies of men otherwise Paul would not forbid to withdraw from such Erastus The Author I thinke would yeeld that the Sacraments should not be denyed to those who seeke them and desire to use them aright and are not excommunicated for the writeth that the deniall of the Sacraments is onely a Testimony of excommunication So when we give not a Testimony of a thing for example of learning to any to whom the thing it selfe to wit learning doth not agree we cannot deny the Sacraments to those who are not Excommunicated for hee should not be blotted with a Testimony of a banished man who is not declared to be banished Ans 1. The Author I thinke would never yeeld but the Sacraments ought to be denied to those who aske for them and desire to use them aright if they be otherwise Truce-breakers false accusers incontinent traitors for those have and may have a forme of godlines and aske the Sacraments and desire to use them aright I meane they may say they desire to use them aright for of their inward desire God onely can judge who knoweth the heart yet the Author cannot he will not say that such are to be admitted to the Lords Supper all thaâ— Erastus goeth on iâ— That the Church is obliged to beleeve that those doe repent and use the Sacraments aright who say in word of mouth they doe so and therefore are to be admitted to the Sacraments though they come but an houre before out of the Bordell house and have hands and sword hot and smoking with innocent blood Now Dogs and Swine Câ—in Iudas known to be scandalous may give faire words and cry Lord Lord and professe all this as is cleare Isa 58. 2. Mat. 7. 21 22. Rom. 16. 18 Mat. 23. 13 14 23 c. 2. Exclusion from the Sacraments is a Testimony of Excommunication but not testimonium proprium quarto modo for some that are not excommunicated are to be debarred from the Sacraments as the thing it selfe will force us to acknowledge should any come with his sword hot in blood from killing his father and Pastor to the Lords Table I hope the Church knowing this would not admit him to the Sacrament and yet he is not yet excommunicated
sinfully separate the one from the other and sin is no ordinance of God 4. What word of Christ hath Mr. Pryn for extraordinary conversion of men by Miracles without the Word He must conceive with Arminians and Socinians that many are converted that never heard of that precious name of Iesus without which there is no salvation Act. 4. 11. or of a faith in Christ as Moses Amyraldus dreameth without the knowledge of Christ and may write books de salute Ethnicorum for this externall conversion doth lead of its owne nature to internall conversion and salvation This may make us fancie somewhat of the salvation of Aristotle Seneca Cicero Aristides Scipio Regulus without the Law or Gospell this way of extraordinarily saving men by Miracles without the Gospell is the doctrine of Arminians and Socinians so say the Arminians at the Synod of Dort pag. 334 335. Those whom God hath deprived of the Gospell he hath not precisely rejected them from a communion of the benefits of the Gospell Adolphus Venator adver Dracenos p. 84. saith The heathen are saved without the Gospell if they â—â—n but pray Ens Entium miserere mei Socinus praelec Thelo c. 3. telleth us of an inspired word that saveth us called verbum interius You may please Schoolmen thus such as Granadus Contr. 8. de grat tract 6. disp 1. numb 43. did Ruiz de Predesti se 8. numb 7. Alexand. Alens 8. p. q. 69. memb 5. art 3. De bonis Philosophis sic credo c. Roa lib. 1. De Provident quest 7. n. 50. Vega lib. 13. in Trident. cap. 12. Enriquez Tom. 2. De ultimo fine c. 14. num 6. quod lib. 8. quest 5. Vasquez 1. par disp 97. and c. 5. Soto lib. 1. de nat grat c. 18. ad 2. Francis Sonnius in demonstrat Tract 12. de consiliis c. 8. Camerarius lib. 1. de grat c. 8. lib. 7. c. 8. who doe all of them send all the good Philosophers and white Morallists to heaven by Miracles inspirations extraordinary workes of providence and that without any rumour of Christ and the Gospell famous Papists to their owne shame yeeld that Divine faith cannot be produced by Miracles Andradius saith often they may be false Maldonatus saith That no necessary argument of faith can be drawn from Miracles Gregorius de Valen. saith Miracles give us no infallible certainty of Doctrine Bellarmine saith Miracles cannot convince the minde Durandus giveth a sure reason why miracles cannot produce faith Because saith he suppose it were known of it self that this miracle of the raising e. g. of Lazarus were true yet it is not known by it self that it testifieth that this is a true Doctrine which he preacheth who worketh the miracle Mr. Prynne then hath put the salvation of those who never heard the Gospel upon extraordinary Pillars when he bottometh them on miracles without the word which are extraordinary rotten Pillars 5. The Lords Supper of which we now dispute is not the mean of our first conversion from formall profession to inward embracing the Gospel For the word must go before and not simply the externall letter of the word but the word first believed and received by the efficacions working of the holy Ghost And so the word is indeed the first converting Ordinance and so the Lords Supper is given to one who already believes and the Sacrament concurreth as a mean to make good corroborate and increase the conversion which was before Mr. Prynne might have spared his pains in proving That the Lords Supper is a converting Ordinance because it applieth Christ â—o uâ— we grant it to be a converting and quickning and lively applicatory Ordinance But how He may know that what ever Ordinance addeth a new degree of Faith of conversion of saving application of Christ and the Promises must be a converting Ordinance But it is so converting that it is a confirming Ordinance and necessarily it presupposeth Faith and conversion already wrought by the word it is not a first-converting Ordinance such as is the word but as nourishing or accretion is a sort of vitall generation in the body of a growing childe so as Physicians make nutrition in children to be Aggeneration or Congeneration or a vitall generation with or in the body and it presupposeth the first generation by which life is given to the childe now nourishing doth not give life things void of life are not capable of nourishing therefore nourishing is the continuing of life and as it were prorogated and continued generation so here Sacramentall eating by faith is a spirituall feeding and nourishing of the soul on the crucified Lords body broken his blood shed it is not the act of our first conversion Regeneration is sealed in Baptisme and Christ given as sealing and confirming Regeneration but the Lords Supper is that which exhibiteth Christ to us as food and sealeth our spirituall growing and coalition in Christ I say not this as if the Church could give the Supper of the Lord to none but such as are inwardly and really Regenerated but to shew that the Church taketh such as are externally called to be internally called when they dispense this Supper to them that they are nearer Christ then those that hear the Gospel which Heathen may do ere they can be admitted to the Supper And this Erast every where and Mr. Pryn in terminis teach when they say That those that are recte instituti rightly instructed who earnestly desire the Lords Supper professe sincere Repentance and promise amendment are only to be admitted to the Sacrament and those only excluded who are convicted to be grosse and scandalous and obstinate offenders Whence it is clear they professe Repentance and to the Church they are converts who are to be admitted to the Supper before they come to the Lords Supper Now this must be done by the word Preached and received by faith in profession Ergo this Supper in the Church-way cannot be dreamt to be a mean of their first conversion far lesse in foro Dei in Gods court can men first receive the Lords Supper having never heard the word and then be converted in foro Dei really and inwardly by receiving the Lords Supper then might the Sacrament before and without the word be given if it be a converting Ordinance belonging to all to whom the word belongeth For Mr. Prynne saith It can be denyed to none within the visible Church And what reason if it be no lesse the first converting Ordinance but that it may be administred to those that never heard the word and are Members of the visible Church And by this Mr. Prynne cannot deny but the Lords Supper should be dispensed to infants and children who cannot try themselves nor yet discern the Lords Body Yea those that are convicted of obstinacy in scandalous sins are Members of the Church for how could they be judged convicted and sentenced if they be not within
King was to use the sword in defence of the Law and punishing Idolaters for 1. the King is neither commanded to teach Priests and people out of the booke of the Law Nor 2. rebuked for his neglect in this both these we may read of the Priests every where in the Prophets Deut. 33. 10. Mal. 2. 7. Lev. 10. 10 11. Ier. 2. 8. and 6. 13 14. Hos 4. 6 7 8. Deut. 17. 11 12. yea the booke of the Law is put in the keeping of the Priests and Levites Deut. 31. 25. And Moses commanded the Levites which bare the Arke of the Covenant of the Lord saying 26. Take this book of the Law and put it in the side of the Arke of the Covenant of the Lord your God Now if the Priests had been onely the Kings servants immediately subordinate to the King and mediately onely to Iesus Christ the Arke all the holy things the booke of the covenant the burning of incense before the Lord had been principally and first injoyned to the King Ezra the Priest read the book of the Law not Nehemiah nor was it ever commanded that the King should read it in the hearing of the people and give the sense of it as the Priests were to doe by their office Hilkiah 2 Kin. 22. found the booke of the Law that was lost and Shaphan the Scribe read it before the King that they might see their Apostacie and Iosiah might accordingly reforme 2 King 22 9 10. Object 11. Isai 49. Kings shall be thy Nurse-fathers Ergo Kings were Fathers and heads of the Church Ans This text is brought for the Popes Supremacy but it is Isai 60. 10. Their Kings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall serve thee this is no dominion And the breasts of Kings which the Church is to suck is not the sincere milk of the Word which the King preacheth by himself or others but the externall strength dignity that the King shall adde by his Authority to the Church but the Tutor cannot â—ob the Pupil of the Law and priviledges of the inheritance 2. The Prince is not a father spirituall of the second birth of the Church as Paul was 1 Cor. 4. 15. Object 12. He for whom we are to pray that under him we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godlinesse and honesty and procureth the good of the Church as the Church to him as the supream Officer and Shepherd is the Church as the Church subject but the Magistrate is such 1 Tim. 2. 1 2. Ergo. Ans The Major is false and the Assumption untrue also and all that the conclusion can bring forth is that the Prince hath 1. An externall coactive care by way of dominion to procure the removall of Wolves from the fold 2. To procure the good of the Church in order to a naturall and civill good 3. To procure good to the Church as the Church in a coactive way by the sword in punishing Idolators 2. The Church as the Church is not subordinate to the Prince but as Subjects of the common wealth because he by a coactive power may procure the good of the Church as the Church for indirectly and by the sword the Magistrate defending godlines and procuring the good of souls doth not prove that his dominion and sword extendeth to their soules or that he watcheth for their soules as Heb. 13. 17. Obj. 13. The Kings of Israel and Iudah have reformed Religion Ans I cannot trouble the Reader to adde here what I have answered elsewhere but let the Reader see Triglandius Ant. Walens Gabel Iavius in the cited places they have in the defection of the Priests which is extraordinary Reformed Religion 2. They did many things as Prophets not as Magistrates 3. They have done much in Religion quoad actus imperatos non elicitos by their civill power commanding Priests to doe their dutie Object 14. It s true in severall respects he that is a Governour may be a subject but in one and the same spirituall respect to judge and to be judged to sit on the Bench and stand at the barre of Christ Iesus is as impossible as to reconcile the East and the VVest together so The Bloodie Tenent I demand if the Church be a Delinquent who shall judge It is answered the magistrate Again if the magistrate be a delinquent I ask who shall judge it It is answered The Church Whence I observe which is in most cases of the world monstrous that one person to wit the Church or the Magistrate shall be at one time the delinquent at the Barre and the judge upon the Bench for the Church must judge when the magistrate offends and yet the magistrate must judge when the Church offends whether she contemâ—â— civill authority in the Second Table for thus dealing with him or whether she hath broken the rules of the first table of which say they God hath made him a keeper and preserver what blood what tumults hath been and must be spilt upon these grounds Ib. so the Church calleth one of her members to office and ordaineth him an officer The Magistrate opposeth him as an unworthy officer and according to his conscience suppresseth him upon this the Church complaineth of the Magistrates violation of her priviledges and that he is turned persecutor and not prevailing with admonition She excommunicateth the Magistrate The Magistrate again not induring such violation of ordinances he cutteth off with the sword such prophaners of ordinances Ans All this is but wind devised against the Magistrates punishing of Idolaters and I shew the same followeth upon the Magistrates or Church erring the one in abusing civill authority or the other in prophaning ordinances or preaching the word for instance The Iudges of a land or of Ierusalem make grievous and bloody decrees against the poor the widdows and the Orphane A faithfull Isaiah a zealous preacher by authority from the Lord judgeth and condemneth according to his conscience these judges and cryeth out as Isai 10. 1 in the name of the Lord before all the Congregation Woe be to you who decree unrighteous decrees and write in the Bench grievousnesse to turne aside the needy from judgement and to take away right from the poore Now the Magistrate that decreed those decrees judgeth in his conscience they are righteous decrees and he according to his conscience noâ— induring that Isaiah or any preacher should thus abuse and prophane so holy an Ordinance of prophecying and preaching as to preach lies in the name of the Lord he proceedeth in his civill court and cuâ—teth off with the sword such false Prophets because they â—lander the Lords annoynted and preach lies of him is not here a reciprocation of judging in the same cause What will the Author say to this O saith he the Magistrate ought not to use his sword against those Prophets for they preach according to their conscience the truth of God But say that Shimei were a Prophet and
he calls David his Prince a bloody murtherer and saith this evill is come on him for rising up against Saul his Master The Magistrate may not punish him with the Sword for railing against the Lords anoynted 2. And if the Magistrate ought not to strike with the sword any Prophet for preaching according to his conscience for that is persecution to this Author how shall the Prophets judge and condemne the Magistrate for those same decrees which he hath given out according to his conscience for this is a persecution with the tongue Mat. 5. 11. Iob 19. 22. and it is one and the same spirituall cause saith this Author 3. The same very Author and the Parliament do reciprocally judge and condemne one another for the Parliament make warre against Papists for drawing the King on their side and causing him make warre against the Lambe and his followers that is against godly Protestants Now suppose Priests and Iesuits preach this to the Queen and other Papists and they according to their conscience make warre against the flock of Christ and the Parliament according to their conscience make warre against them this Author sitteth downe and judgeth and condemneth both sides as bloody persecutors for point of conscience Now though the Author in his Bench with his penne condemneth and judgeth both according to his conscience yet if the Papists or possibly the Parliament had this Author in their fingers might not they reciprocally judge and condemne him I think he cannot deny how justly they should reciprocally judge the Author I cannot say 3. This Author would have a contradiction such as is to make East and West both one that one and the same man both sit in the Bench and stand at the barre that the Church judge the Magistrate and the Magistrate judge the Church But I hope contradictions were no more under the Old Testament to be admitted nor under the New Now in the Old Testament the King might put to death the Prophet who should prophecy blasphemies and again the Prophet might judge the King by denouncing the judgement of the Lord against the King let the Author say how the King both did sit in the Bench and stand at the baâ—â—e in divers respects I think Aâ—hab might judge and punish Micaiah unjustly for prophecying that he should dye at Ramoth Gilead and Micaiah might in prophecy give out the sentence of death justly against him but here be two contrary sentences the like may fall out in Synodicall constitutions 2. To answer to his reasons 1. It followeth not that in one and the same spirituall respect one and the same person judgeth on the Bench and is judged at the Bar for the Churches judging is in a spirituall respect as the officer ordained may promote the building of Gods House the Magistrates suppressing him is no spirituall respect but as it disturbeth the peace of the State that so unworthy a person is an officer in Gods House and is hurtfull to the Church of God in their ediâ—icatioâ— which the Magistrate is to promote not in spirituall but in a civill coactive way by the power of the sword 3. That one judge on the Bench and the same stand at the Barre and be judged at divers and sundry times is not so impossible by farre as to reconcile East and West together Aâ—â—â—b may judge Naboath to be condemned and stoned for his vineyard to day and immediately after Elias the Prophet may arraigne him before the Barre and tribunall of God to be condemned and adjudged to dye in the portion of Iezreel where the dogs may lick his blood It is true Elias is not properly a judge but a declarer in a propheticall and authoritative way of the judgement of God but this is all the judiciall power which we ascribe to Church or Presbytery and Pastors they are meer Ministers or servants to declare the will and sentence of God When the Minister preacheth wrath against the King for his sins he judgeth the King in a Pastorall and Ministeriall way which is all we contend for in many officers united in a Church way and at that same time the King hath power after that to judge him for preaching treason for â—ound Doctrine if it be found to be treason by the Church and this reciprocation of judging we maintaine as consistent and necessary in Ministers of Gospel and Magistrates But such a distance betweene them as between East and West we see not The Author should have shewne it to us by his owne grounds The Church may excommunicate a Magistrate as a persecutor who cutteth off Idolaters for their conscience yet the godly Magistrate may judge and punish them with the sword for abusing the ordinance of Excommunication so as to excommunicate the godly Magistrate because he doth punish evill doing with the Sword Rom. 13. 4. 4. The Author infers that tumults and bloods do arise from these two But that will not prove these two to be inconsistent and contrâ—dictorious tumults and blood arise from preaching the Gospel what then Ergo the Gospel is a masse of contradictions â—â— followeth not The â—umulâ—s and blood have their rise from mens lusts who are impatient of the yoak of Christ not from these two powers to judge Ecclesiastically in the Church and to be judged civilly by the Magistrates The Author draweth his instance to the actuall judging of the same thing contradictory wayes for example the Church ordaineth one to be a preacher and this they do Ecclesiastically and the Magistrate actually condemneth the same man civilly as unworthy to be a preacher It is one thing to say that the Church hath power to judge righteously in an Ecclesiasticall way any matter and another that the Christian Magistrate hath power in a civill way to judge righteously the same matter and a â—ar other thing it is to say The Church hath a power Ecclesiastically to judge a matter righteously according to the word and the Magistrate hath power to judge the same matter civilly in a wrong and unjust way the former we say God hath given a power to the Church to ordaine Ecclesiastically Epaphroditus to be a preacher of the Gospel because these graces and gifts are in him that are requisite to be in a faithfull preacher and God hath also given a power to the Christian Magistrate to adde his civill sanction to the ordination and calling of the same Epaphroditus But we do not teach that God hath given to the Church a power to call Epaphroditus to the Ministery in an Ecclesiasticall way and that God hath given a power to the Christian Magistrate to anull this lawfull ordination of Epaphroditus Now the Author putteth such a supposition that Church and Magistrate have two lawfull powers toward contrary acts the one of them a power to give out a just sentence the other a power to give out an unjust sentence in one and the same cause which we teach not God gave to none either in Church
c. 12. Zozomen l. 7. e. 8. Theodoretus l. 5. c. 9. Historia tripartit l. 9. c. 14. say that the Emperor ordained him the Synod named him the truth is the Bishops were devided in judgement and its like they referred the matter to the godly Emperour In the mean time Athanasius Epist de solit vita Ambros l. 5. orat ad auxentium and l. 5. Epist 32. ad valentinianum Zozomen l. 6. c. 7. Concilium Toletanum III. Concilium milevitanum and divers others which I have cited elsewhere make the Emperor a Son of the Church not a Head and Lord intra Ecclesiam filium Ecclesiae non judicem non dominum supra Ecclesiam I might adde Augustin Epist 48. 50. 162. l. 1. de doctr Christ c. 18. Cyril Alexandrinus in an Epistle to the Synod of Antioch all Protestant Divines of note and learning CHAP. XXVII Quest 23. Whether the subjecting of the Magistrates to the Church and Pastors be any papal Tyranny and whether we differ not more from Papists in this then our adversaries The Magistrate not the Vicar of the mediator Christ The Testimonies of some learned Divines on the contrary answered IT is most unjustly imputed to us that we lay a Law upon the conscience of the Magistrates that they are bound to assist with their power the decrees of the Church taking cognizance only of the fact of the Church not inquiring into the Nature of the thing This Doctrine we disclaim as Popish and Antichristian It hath its rise from Bonifacius the III. who obtained from Phocas a bloody tyrant who murthered Mauritius and his Children as Baronius confesseth and yet he saith of this murtherer optimortum imperatorum vestigia sequutus he made an Edict that the Bishop of Constantinople should not be called Oecumenick nor universall Bishop but that this should be given only to the Bishop of Rome So Baronius yieldeth this tyranny was inlarged by Hildebrande named Gregorius the seventh a monster of tyrannicall wickednesse and yet by Papists he is sanctitate et miraculis clarus Baronius extolleth him these and others invaded both the swords Bishops would be civill judges and trample first upon the neck then upon the consciences of Emperors and make Kings the hornes of the beast and seclude them from all Church businesses except that with blind obedience having given their power to the beast as slaves they must execute the decrees of the Church Paul the III. the confirmer of the order of Iesuits who indicted the Councell of Trent as Onuphrius saith up braideth Charles the V. for meddling with Church businesse They write that Magistrates do not see in Church matters with their owne eyes but with Bishops eyes and that they must obey without examining the decrees of Councels and this they write of all subject to the Church Toletus in Instruct Sacerdâ—t l. 4. c. 3. Si Rusticus circa articulos fidei credat suo episcopo proponenti-aliquod dogma hereticum morâ—tur in credendo licet sit error Card. Cusanus excit l. 6. sermon obedientia irrationalis est consumata et perfectissima obedientia sicut Iumentum obedit domino Ib. sententia pastoris ligat te pro tua salute etiam si injusta fuerit Envy cannot ascribe this to us Calvin Beza yea all our writers condemne blind obedience as brutish But our Adversaries in this are more Popish for they substitute King and Parliament in a headship over the Church giving to the King all the same power in causes Ecclesiastick that the Pope usurped 2. They make the King a mixed person to exercise spirituall jurisdiction to ordaine Bishops and deprive them and Mr. Prinne calleth the opinion of those who deny Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction legislative a high word proper to God only coercive power of Christian Emperors Kings Magistrates Parliaments in all matters of Religion what in fundamentall Articles of salvation Church-government Discipline Ceremonies c. Anti-monarchicall Anti-parliamentarie Anarchicall as holden by Papists Prelates Anabaptists Arminians Socinians c. It s that which Arminians objects to us and calleth the soul heart and forme of papall tyranny But that the Magistrate is not obliged to execute the decrees of the Church without further examination whither they be right or wrong as Papists teach that the Magistrate is to execute the decrees of their Popish councels with blind obedience and submit his faith to them because he is a layman and may not dare to examine whether the Church doth erre or not is clear 1. Because if in hearing the word all should follow the example of the men of Berea not relying on the Testimony of Paul or any preacher try whether thâ—â— which concerneth their conscience and faith be agreeable to the Scriptures or no and accordingly receive or reject so in all things of Discipline the Magistrate is to try by the word whether he ought to adde his sanction to these decrees which the Church gives out for edification and whether he should draw the sword against such a one as a heretick and a perverter of souls But the former is true the Magistrates practise in adding his civill sanction and in punishing herericks concerneth his conscience knowing that he must do it in faith as he doth all his moral actions Ergo the Magistrate must examine what he practiseth in his office according to the word and must not take it upon the meer authority of the Church else his faith in these moral acts of his office should be resolved ultimaté on the authority of the Church not on the word of God which no doubt is Popery for so the warrant of the Magistrates conscience should not be Thus saith the Lord but Thus saith the Church in their decrees 2. The Magistrate and all men have a command to try all things Ergo to try the decrees of the Church and to retain what is good 1 Thes 5. 21. To try the spirits even of the Church in their decrees 1 Joh. 3. 1. 3. We behooved to lay down this Popish ground that 1. The Church cannot erre in their decrees 2. It s against Scripture and reason that Magistrates and by the like reason all others should obey the decrees of the Church with a blinde faith without inquiring in the warrants and grounds of their decrees which is as good Popery as Magistrates and all men are to beleeve as the Church beleeveth with an implicite faith so ignorance shall be the mother of Devotion who ever impute this to us who have suffered for non-conformity and upon this ground that Synods can erre refused the Ceremonies are to consult with their own conscience whether this be not to make us appear disloyall odious to Magistracy in that which we never thought â—ar lesse to teach and professe it to the world 4. Their chiefe reason is the Magistrate by our doctrine by his office is obliged 1. To follow the judgement of the Church and in that he is a servant or inslaved Qui enim
his enemies his footstool and subdue all things to himselfe Ergo his Kingdome is as large as all things Ans The Lord Iesus Christs power Kingly and his power mediatory which includeth a power as God for he is Mediator and a mediatory King according to both natures doth no way make him King of Devils of Hell of sin of the reprobate and damned no more then Davids power over Ammonites and Moabites makes him King and feeder of the Ammonites and Moabites Never Divine said that Christ was King of Devils and King of Hell though he subdue Devils and Hell and make them his footstool Col. 2. 15. But as hability and gifts was not sufficient to make Christ a Priest but he behooved to have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 authority and a lawfull calling Heb. 5. 4 5. so he behooved to be called set and established on the Holy-hill of Zion as a King of the Fathers making Psal 2. 5 6. Psal 89. 26 27 28 29. Luk. 1. 32 33. ver 68 69. 54 55. And therefore though as King and an eternall King he subdue all things even his enemies yet it followeth not he is King and Mediator and Head of his enemies Arg. 8. All those whom Christ maketh officers Legats and Ambassadors of his mediatory Kingdom they have either the word of the Kingdom committed to them as Pastors and Doctors and of old Apostles Evangelists Prophets that they may make work on the consciences of men to make them Kings and Priests unto God or they are by the word of admonition and rebuke to deal for the same end as governours and Elders 1 Cor. 12. 28. 1 Tim. 5. 17. for the officers of the Kingdome and sword or scepter of the Kingdome the Word of God Psal 45. 4. Rev. 19. 15. Heb. 4. 11. Rev. 1. 16. which are the means are congruously proportioned to the end the gathering of the Saints the perfecting of his body Eph. 2. 11 12. But never did Christ appoint the Magistrate with his sword and his temporary rewards and praise of well doing to have any action on the conscience of men or to co-operate for so high an end directly and kindly for sure the sword cannot reach that end except indirectly and by accident in some imperated acts He may procure that there be such means as word and seals and Church-officers and so be an intrinsecall mean to set up those which are the spirituall and truly intrinsecall means and this is all Object 1. Was not this the first step of papal tyranny that the Church-men would be exempted from the power of the Magistrate and sâ—t themselves up as supream collaterall Independent powers in all Ecclesiasticall affairs as the Magistrate was supream in all politick businesse Ans It is a calumnious consequence Pastors and Teachers will not be judged by the Magistrate in things meerly Ecclesisticall â—o stand to his Ecclesiasticall decision as if his lips ex officio should preserve knowledge Ergo Pastors and Doctors do exempt themselves from the Lawfull power of the Magistrate in his civill judging by the sword it is as if they would say Church-men refuse to submit to an usurped and unlawfull power of the Magistrate Ergo they refuse to submit to their lawfull power 2. They bring not one word to prove that this was the first step of papal tyranny now a supremacy and independency in doctrinals and civill things the adversaries deny not If King Ahab finde the Priests of Iehovah turn Priests of Baal and the Prophets prophesie lies we and the adversaries agree that King Ahab hath a supream independent power to judge and punish them with the sword and if King Ahab will take on him to burne incense to the Lord the Priests and Prophets of the Lord have an immediate supream independent power to rebuke King Ahab for usurping that which is independently and incommunicably proper to the Priests onely and they may refuse to bee judged by King Ahab when he would judge them for giving out this sentence It belongeth not to King Ahab or King Vzziah to burne incense to the Lord but to the Priests the sons of Aaron 2 Chron. 26. Will they say this supremacy of the Priests is a step to papall Tyranny 3. This is rather papall Tyranny it selfe that the Magistrate as head of the Church and as an Ecclesiasticall person may as a Magistrate governe in all externalls the Church as he pleaseth with a royall supream independent power and because the Magistrate may send others to rule for him 2 Chron. 19. 8 9. 1 Pet. 2. 13 14. Ergo he may commit this royall power to a creature called a Prelate as to his Deputie in his name to judge as Phocas gave first a supremacy to Boniface the third which no Bishop of Rome had before and judge if this be not the first step to Papall Tyranny They possibly may say The Magistrate can commit no Magistraticall power to any Churchman for Christ for bad them to take on them the civill domination of the Lords of Gentiles Luke 22. 26 27. Ans But this is an Ecclesiastick not a civill administration and if it be a lawfull Ecclesiasticall supremacy why may not the Magistrate who hath power to send Deputies to act in his name depute a lawfull Ecclesiasticall power to Ecclesiasticall persons Pastors and Doctors who in the mind of the adversaries are all but the Deputies of the Magistrate in all that they doe Obj. 2. But is it not Popery that the Magistrate shall be obliged as a Lictor to execute the decrees of the Church Ans I know not if the Lictor with blind obedience be to behead Iohn Baptist or if Doeg should kill the Lords Priests because King Saul commandeth him 2. This Argument concludeth that neither Magistrate nor people should beleeve Articles of faith because the Church and Pastors saith so but because Iehovah saith so nor is the Ruler to beleeve or execute what the Church decrees because they decree it but because he beleeveth it is the will of Christ what they give out in Name of Christ 3. Is it not Popery that the Pastors and Teachers should execute the lawes of the Magistrate both in dispensing Word Sacraments and Discipline for they may not as Pastors and Doctors judge whether the Ecclesiasticall decrees of the Magistrate be the will and minde of Jesus Christ or no. The Magistrate in doctrine and discipline is the onely supream judge here as in all causes civill as he exerciseth a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and a dominion in the on Luke 22. 27. so also in the other except the Adversaries shew us a difference Yea as Mr. Pryn with the Erastians say Because there is no certain form of the government of the Church in Scripture he hath an Arbitrary power as Magistrate to appoint any government in the Church not contrary to the Word any Officers Prelates and Cardinals any ceremonies as pleaseth him and may impose them on the consciences of Pastors
the Church in his dominion leave to live under him as Nebuchadnezzar did to the Church in captivity The Christian Magistrate is a Governour for the Church 1. Men are governed as men politically by Magistrates though Heathen 2. Men are governed as Christians and Citizens of Heaven and Members of Christs invisible body by the inward government of the Spirit and Word 3. Men are governed as Members of Christs visible Body in Church-society Ecclesiastically by Church-officers called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 13. 7. 13. who watcheth for our Souls and are over us in the Lord and must give an account to God whom we are to obey in a Church-society so Pilate is called Mat. 27. 2. it is given to Kings and Rulers 1 Pet. 2. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 23. 24. so it is opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to one that serveth Luk. 22. 26. no question it is a word borrowed from the seventy interpreters who use it Iosh 13. 21. Mich. 3. 9. Ezech. 44. 3. Dan. 3. 2. the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 5. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 12. 8. 1 Thes 5. 12. are ascribed to Church-officers Yea the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Ruler or a Commander Act. 23. 5. is ascribed to the High-Priest who was but a Church-officer and the stile given to Rulers Exod. 22. 28. from which these words are taken is Gods so Ioh. 10. 35 36. compared with Psal 82. 1. Exod. 21. 6. and proveth the same though Church-officers be onely Ministers not Lords not Princes having any dominion over the Lords inheritance Obj. 8. But is not this an easie way to extricate our selves out of all doubts if we say in Church-government that the doctrinal and declarative part is in the Ministers of Christ as Mat. 28. Go teach c. and the punitive and censuring part in the Christian Magistrate Rom. 13. according to that for the punishing of evill doers as Mr. Coleman saith Ans This Erastian way will intricate us not a little and is destructive of the Covenant of both Kingdoms 1. It s a distinction void of Scripture and reason for the Apostolick Churches by it must have no Government as Churches at all for to publish the Gospel which is made the one half Yea all Church-government for this punitive part is a dream is not Church-government nor any part thereof 1. Master Coleman desires that the Parliament would give to preachers Doctrine and power of preaching and wages learning and competency as for Governing of the Church let the Magistrate have that Ministers have other work to do and such as will take up the whole man Sermon Pag. 24 25. Then preaching the Word to the Church cannot be any part of Governing of the Church 2. Because Church government is properly acted by the Church with the power of the keyes to bind and loose in earth as in Heaven by Church-censures and pardoning of an offender and committed to many to the Church to a society gathered together Mat. 18. 18. 1 Cor. 5. 1 2 3 4 5. But publishing of the Gospel is done by one single Pastor even to the end of the world even where there is no Church even in the hearts of the Athenienses Act. 17. 33 34. of Felix Act. 24. 25. of the Iayler not Baptised Act. 16. 29 30 31. of the woman of Samaria Ioh. 4. 28 29 30. The Gospel exerciseth a doctrinall and externall government on thousands the like without the Church visible yea and who never are members of a visible Church is this any Church-government of which we now speak and in all the Scripture a power of the keyes to govern the visible Church was never committed to any one single man by Iesus Christ if an Apostolick-priviledge of Pauls excommunicating his alone be objected I can easily answer Apostles continue not to the end of the world 2. This doctrinal publishing of the word is the plants and flowers of the Gardens but Church-government is the hedge and those two are not to be confounded 3. Paul differenceth them as two distinct qualities of a Preacher 1 Tim. 3. while he will have him apt to teach ver 2. and v. 4 5. one that can rule the Church of God well and 1 Tim. 5. 17. ruling well is distinguished from labouring in the Word and Doctrine as a charge worthy of lesse honour from a charge worthy of double honour 4. All Protestant Divines distinguish Doctrine and Government the former belonging to the being and essence of a visible Church as an essentiall note thereof I mean the publike and settled publishing of the Gospel the other is only a thing belonging to the well being of the visible Church and an accident thereof so it is a heedlesse tenent to make the former a part with the latter 5. When we swear a conformity of Doctrine and worship in one Confession one Catechisme one Directory we do not swear the same over again when we swear to endeavour the nearest uniformity in Church-government c. which we cannot but do if the Doctrine and Worship be nothing but a part of Church-government or if it be all Church-government nâ—w if Mr. Colemans punitive part be but his own dream as I hope is easily proved there is no Church Government at all Now how Mr. Coleman did swear to indeavour the nearest uniformity of a Chimera and a thing that is just nothing let himself consider As for Mr. Colemans punitive part of Church Government by the Magistrate this by his way is done by the power of the sword of the Magistrate saith he and therefore citeth Rom. 13. He beareth not the sword in vain c. Hence either the Apostolique Church had no censures at all and so no visible government and order but preaching of the Word was all and except we would adde to our pattern and be more wise then the Holy Ghost and the Apostles we ought to have no Church Government but onely preaching the Word or then the Apostles Pastors and Teachers medled with the sword of the Emperour Nero in discharging the punitive part for with no other instrument doth the Magistrate punish ill-doers but with the sword Rom. 13. 4 5. This text Mr. Coleman citeth to make bloody Nero a Church-governour But no ground is for this in the Word that Paul Peter Timothy Archippus meddled with the Emperours sword or that the weapons of their warfare were carnal or that Paul was the Minister of God bearing the sword for the punishment of evil doers I think Paul speaketh of civil bodily punishing Rom. 13. and no violence greater can be offered to the Word of God for if that power be an Ecclesiastical administration every soul and so the Christian Magistrate is to be subject to this Ecclesiastical and Church power and if so then to the Church If Mr. Coleman deny the consequence I conceive to be subject to the Magistrate is Rom. 13. to be subject
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
as he had said Yet a band of men had been more necessarie then the Ceremonies So 2 King 23. 10 Josiah is commended for defiling Tophet to prevent occasion of offering Children to Molech for this cause God iudgeth an house without Battlement and the sending abroad a goaring Oxe to be murther Deut. 27. 28. Exod. 22. 28. 29. 33. Exod. 23. â— Deut. 7. 3. and Levit. 19. 14. Thou shalt not lay a stumbling block before the blind Marrying with the Canaanites was forbidden for the ruine occasioned by that to the soules of Gods people I prove the Assumption Gretzer saith In Ceremonies Calvinists are the apes of Catholicks 2. If such a worship had been in the Temple or Synagogue so as the Jewes in the same act might have worshipped Jehovah and the Canaanites Baall or Dagon as at one table the Papists may kneele and adore bread with the Protestant receiving the Sacrament it would be a raigning scandall 3. Atheists have mocked Religion for the Surplice and other Masse-toyes 4. Papists say Protestants are returning to their Mother Church of Rome 5. Wee cannot in zeale preach against Popish traditions and practise Popish Ceremonies 6. Lascivious carousings drunkenness harlatrie come from observing of holy dayes That this may be more cleare 1. The nature of a scandall would bee cleared 2 The Doctrine of the Apostle Paul about Scandall proponed A Scandall is a word or action or the omission of both inordinately spoken or done whence we know or ought to know the fall of weake wilfull or both is occasioned to thâ—se who are within or without the Church 1. It is a word or deed seene to others Sinfull thoughts not being seen are not publick scandalls though to the man himselfe they occasion sinne Hence non-conformitie simply to a thing indifferent must onely be scandalous as joyned with contempt formall contempt in things indifferent is inward and invisible to men 2. Omission of words and deeds scandalize Silence in Preachers when God matters go wrong is scandalous So Sanches 3. Not every word deed doth scandalize but such as are done unorderly Sanches saith these words and deeds Quae carent rectitudine which want some morall rectitude oâ— as Aquinas saith of themselves are inductive to sinne doth scandâ—lize or that M. Anton. De Dominis Archiep. Spalatens saith which is indictive to sinne or the cause of great evill or hindereth good as our faith zeale love c. that scundalizeth For though none of these fall out if the work or word or omission of either be such as of it selfe is apt to scandalize it is an active scandall Hence every little scandall is a sinne either in it selfe or in the unordinate way of doing â— But what objects are properly scandalous shall be discussed 3. When we know such words and deeds doe scandalize and they be not necessarie to be done yea and if wee ought to know for though the pronness and proclivitiâ— of our brethren or others to sinne be in some respect questio facti yet is it also questio juris a question of Law the ignorance whereof condemneth when the things themselves are doubtsomely evill but not necessary to be done Hence the practice of a thing indifferent when there be none that probably can be scandalized and hath some necessitie is lawfull as Colos 2. 16. Let no man therfore judge you in meat â—r drinke c. yet in case of scandall it is unlawfull to cat See 1 Cor. 10. 27. Eat whatsoever is set before you asking no question for conscience sake 28. But if any say this is offered in sacrifice to Idolls eat not for his sake who shewedit for conscience sake Conscience I say not thine owne but of others Therefore practising of things indifferent or non-practising are both lawfull according as persons are present who may be scandalized or not scandalized but this is in things though in nature indifferent yet in use having some necessitie as eating of meats but the case is otherwayes in things altogether indifferent as our Ceremonies are which are supponed to lay no ty on the conscience before God o incline to either side as they say to crosse or not to crosse laying aside the Commandement of men For if no-crossing be all 's good as crossing then though there be non-scandalized yet because it is such an action in Gods worship as is acknowledged to be indifferent and hath appearance of adding to Gods word and worship it is inductive to sinne and scandalous though none should hence be actu secundo ruinated and made to stumble But if any in Pauls time as the case was in the Church of Corinth should eat meates at a table forbidden in the Law he not knowing that a Jew was there this may seeme invincible ignorance because ignorance of a meere fact not of a law if that Jew should be scandalized through his eating it should seeme to me to be scandall taken but not culpably given 4. It is said in the definition That these inordinate words or deeds occasioneth the fall of others 1. Because the will of the scandalized or his ignorance is the efficacious and neerest cause why he is scandalized that is why he sinneth actions or words are occasions onely or causes by accident for none ought to be scandalized as none ought to sinne ad peccatum nulla est obligatiâ— 2. Because as to be scandalized is sinne so to scandalize actively is sinne though actuall scandall follow not as Peter scandalized Christ culpably when he counselled him not to die for sinners though it was impossible that Christ could be scandalized 5. It is said whereby weake or wilfull within or withoâ—t the Church may be scandalized For I hope to prove that it is no lesse sinne actively to scandalize the wilfull and malicious then the weak though there be degrees of sinning here and we must eschew things scandalous for their sake who are without the Church For the Second I set down these Propositions 1. from Rom. 14. 1. Proposit The weake are not to be thraled in judgement or practice in thornie and intricate disputes in matters indifferent This is cleare Rom. 14. v. 1. Ergo When people know not mistie distinctions of relative and absolute adoration of worship essentiall or accidentall they are not to be here thraled by a Law to practice Ceremonies humane 2 Proposit If a weake one eat herbs fearing the practice of things forbidden by Gods law he is commended and his abstinence praise-worthy as Rom. 14. v. 2. 3. and he ought not to be judged and so ought not to be a wed by a Law Then abstinence and non-conformitie is lawfull in such a case 3. Proposit He that eateth he that eateth not he that practiseth he that practiseth not indifferent things is not to be judged 1. God hath received the eater 2. You are not to judge another mans servant It is against the Law of Nations 3. If the weake fall God is able
to raise them Ergo if he be not to be judged as a contemner of Gods law in things indifferent farre lesse should he be judged by the Church law 4. Proposit Observers of dayes or non-observers of dayes should have certaintie of Faith in these indifferent things Ergo the light of the Word should lead Rulers and People here v. 5. in things indifferent 5. Proposit The observer of indifferent things as dayes in that case at Rome and the non-observers of dayes should not trouble one another because both are to observe and not observe indifferent things for Gods glory 1. Both gives thankes 2. Both liveth and dieth as Christs for Gods glorie 6. 7. 8. 9. Therefore Gods glorie is the end that ruleth the use of Ceremonies as they are indifferent Proposit 6. v. 10. 11. 12. a Christian should not condemne a Jew noâ— one brother another in things indifferent 1. Because we are brethren 2. Because it is Christs place to judge and condemne 3. Because every man must give an account for himself Ergo. Lawes of Rulers to condemne or punish are not to be made in such cases Proposit 7. v. 13. When the use of things indifferent is a stumbling block and scandall to our brethren they are against charitie and unlawfull Proposit 8. v. 14. there is a Prolepsis Meats clean or not clean may be eaten but all meats are clean and Paul is perswaded of that by Iesus Christ Ergo The Apostle answereth 1. by denying the major Proposition in two cases and setteth downe a distinction All things are clean in themselves but they become unclean in two cases 1. If one weake in the faith believe that the meat that he eateth is against the word of God the me at to him is unclean 2 If he eat before one that believeth it is forbidden in Gods Law to eat such meats his eating is a stumbling blocke to the weake But one might say It is a taken Scandall and not given for it is lawfull to eat thy brother deemeth it unlawfull out of ignorance of Christian libertie so say Formalists Ceremonies be indifferent if any offend at the use of them it is ascandall taken not given O but Paul forbiddeth to scandalize or to eat Hence the 9. Proposit The use of things indifferent as Ceremonies before any Law â—e made of them by confession of Formalists is indifferent and may be done and not done but if they scandalize Paul proveth by eight arguments they are unlawfull 1. If fighteth with Charitie that for meat so lâ—tle a thing for the knot of a straw a Ceremonie thou slay thy brother for whom Christ died v. 15. Where these reasons be 1. It is uncharitable walking 2. It is murther slay not him 3. It is contrary to Christs love who died for thy brother 4. It maketh Religion and Christian libertie to be evill spoken of v. 16. 5. From the nature of these things which are indifferent these in which the Kingdome of God consisteth not as Meats and Surplicâ— crossing kneeling c. when they scandalize ought to be omitted as being against righteousness and being sinnes of murther 2. Against Peace sinnes of contention 3. against joy of the Holy Ghost making sad and discouraging thy brother in his Christian â—ace and he that serveth God in peace and righteousnesse and joy is acceptable v. 18 6. The use of things indifferent in case of scandall conduce not to peace and edification v. 19. 7. It is a destroying of the worke of God v. 20. illustrated by a repeated prolepsis but the meat is clean â—ea but saith Paul it is evill and so morally unclean to him that eateth with offence v. 20. 8. Ab equo â—ono we are to doe good but to eat and drink with the scandalizing of our brother and to practise Ceremonies is not Good Proposit 10. The practising of things indifferent or Ceremonies for the very â—â—â—â—ing of the â—aith that we have Christian libertie to practise or noâ— practise in the case of scandall is not lawfull v. 22. set downe by a proâ—epsis Keep the faith of thy Christian libertie in case of scandall to thy selfe and to God Proposit 11. In the use of things indifferent we are to allow our selves that is to have the approbation of our Conscience that what we doe is lawfully v 22. Proposit 12. He that practiseth indifferent things with a doubting conscience and not in faith sinneth and is condemned v. 23. 1 Cor. 6 v 12 All things indifferent are lawfull in themselves but they are not expedient If we be brought under the power or band of them by law Ergo in the meanes of worship not onely must we see what is lawfull but also what is profitable and conducing to the end He reasoneth upon a given but not granted hypothesis that Fornication is indifferent as the Gentiles taught as we doe in the matter of Ceremonies 1 Cor. 7. v. 6. But this I speake by permission not of Commandement Ergo in things in which God hath granted us libertie to doe or not to doe permission hath place not obliedging necessitie or penall lawes 13 Proposit There cannot be commanding Lawes in things that are polltickly good or evill according to the individuall complexion temperature or gifts of singular men to marry or not to marry cannot be commanded for where God looseth no power on earth can bind v. 33. 1 Cor. 8. v. 7. Paul condemneth them in the use of their libertie Christian Howbeit there be not in every man this knowledge then that Rulers may make lawes in things indifferent without scandall they must remove ignorance 2. If there be but one person weake there is not in every man that knowledge in knowledge a Law obliedging all in things indifferent cannot be made V. 8. There is a definition of a thing indifferent It is a thing that commendeth us not to God which neither helpeth nor hindereth pietie nor maketh a man better or worse before God Then Ceremonies pretended to be for order decencie edification to stirre up the dull minde to spirituall duties cannot be things indifferent Hence observe 1. The materialls of worship as linnen cloathes habites gestures may be in their physicall consideration indifferent but as applyed by formulistes they cannot be indifferent for in their use kneeling appropriated to sacramentall bread linnen appropriated to the body of a Priest while he officiateth cannot be but religious or prophane 2. If God command gestures he commandeth this gesture hic nunc If in generall â—â—ealing be forbidden then for Achan to steale this Babylonish garment must be forbidden 3. It seemeth to have been after-noon with Henry Lesly of after cuppes when he saith if Papists and Protestants be two divers kindes of worshippers then their actions of worship must be indifferent as be their agents for actions are distinguished by their objects and ends Papists in kneeling worship their God of bread we in kneeling at the Sacrament worship the true God For when
marrying both free to the conscience and also not necessarie to salvation they had laid bands upon Pauls libertie 3. We see not how the Ceremonies are left free to the conscience because they are alterable by the Church for the reason of kneeling to bread of humane dayes of Surplice is morall not Nationall there is no reason why prophaning of the Lords Supper should not be eschewed in all the world and at all times as in Britaine and at this time and Crossing and Surplice doth signifie dedication to Christs service and Pastorall holinesse in all the world as in Britaine and therefore they cannot be nationall rites and alterable but must be universall and at all times and in all places doctrinall 4. The very externall Washings Feasts New-Moones Offerings though they should be thought free toward the conscience are externall burdens against Christian libertie as our Divines Calvin Chemnitius Polanus teacheth and Bellarmine answereth the places alledged speaketh of Jewish servitude But our Divines especially Junius and Whittakerus answer Bellarmine that Paul Coll. 2. speaketh against all Commandements of men yea hee speaketh against Angel worship which is not a Jewish shadow whereof Christ is the bodie But they say it is a wide rule that all things that may be wanting in Gods worship are to be omitted in the case of scandall I answer there be three sort of things here considerable 1. Things not commanded of God as all religious observances these are utterly unlawfull when the using of them scandalizeth 2. Things that fall under an affirmative precept and these cannot be totally omitted for eschewing scandall for what ever God hath commanded is some way necessarie Ergo it some wayes and in some cases may be done though offence be taken at it but branches or parts of affirmative precepts may be omitted for eschewing of scandall as such a particular kneeling in prayer in such a place but Gods affirmatiue precepts leave not off to be alwayes scandalous actively though information be given for where the use hurteth the abuse and scandall is not taken away by teaching to teach how Images should not be abused make not Images to leave off to be scandalous objects 3. There bee some things of meere civill use as Bells Gownes Pulpits preaching on Tuesday or Thursday These be considered two wayes 1 As necessarie with necessitie of conveniencie simply 2. With necessitie of conveniencie secundum prevalentiam graduum as convenient in the highest degree of necessitie or that morall maximum quod sit in the first degree what scandalizeth is to be rejected in the last respect they oblige and if any be scandalized thereat it is taken and not given It may be the Church sees not alwayes the highest and superlative conveniencie in these Physicall circumstances but they oblige not because of the Churches authoritie no more then the word of God borroweth authority from the Church but they have an intrinsecall necessitie in themselves though right reason in the Church see not alwayes this necessitie therefore that a signe be given for convening the people that the Preacher officiate in the most grave and convenient habite is necessarie Jure divino by Gods law and that tolling of Bells and a Gowne a Pulpit bee as particulars most convenient for these ends the Church Ministerially doth judge so as the obligatorie power is from the things themselves not from the will of humane Superiours No necessitie of peace which is posterior to truth no necessitie of obedience to authoritie no necessitie of uniformitie in these externals simply and as they are such are necessities obliging us to obedience for things must first in themselves be necessarie before they can oblige to obedience I must obey Superiours in these things of convenient necessitie because they are convenient and most convenient in themselves and so intrinsecally most necessarie but they are not necessarily to be done in themselves because I must obey Superiours and because I must keep uniformitie with the Church The will of Superiours doe find in things necessitie and good of uniformitie but they doe not make necessitie nor the good of uniformitie We should be servants of men if our obedience were ultimatè resolved in the meere will of Superiours in any the least circumstance of worship and what I say of actions holdeth in matters of meere custome also But Master Sanderson D. Forbes M. Paybodie teach that we are not to regard the scandall of the malitious as of Pharisees To which I answer We are to have alike regard in case of scandall to wicked and malitious as to weake and infirme For we are not to regard the passive scandall of the weake more nor of the wicked for who ever stumble at the necessarie ordinances of God they take a scandall which is not culpably given But that we are to regard the active scandall of all even the most malitious I demonstrate thus 1 Rom. 14. 15. Paul proveth that we are not to scandalize our brother 1. because it is against charitie 2. Because we are not to destroy him for whom Christ died but we owe love to the malitious even to our enemies and must not walke uncharitably toward him as the law of God requireth 3. A malitious man is one for whom Christ died very often as is cleare in Paul before his conversion 2. 1 Cor. 10. 32. Wherefore give no scandall neither to the Jewes nor to the Gentiles nor to the Church of God 33. Even as I please all men in all things not seeking mine owne profit but the profit of many that they may be saved Here be many arguments for our purpose All men whether weake or wilfull are either Jewes or Gentiles and none more malitious against Paul and the Gospell then the Jewes yet must we take heed that we give them no scandall 3. If we must please all men in all things indifferent Ergo also malitious men 4. If we must seeke the profit not of our selves but of all men and seeke to save them and so seeke the salvation even of the malitious as Christ prayed for his malitious enemies so must we not scandalize them 5. I argue from the nature of scandall scandall is spirituall murther but the sixt Commandement for biddeth murthering of any man either weake or wilfull for no murtherer can have life eternall 1 Joh. 3. 15. Now weaknesse or malice in the scandalized is accidentall to the nature of scandall active for active scandalizing is to doe inordinately and unseasonably that which hic nunc may be omitted from which any is scandalized either weake or wilfull to lay a snare to kill a wicked man except it be by the authoritie of him who beareth the sword under God is murther no lesse then to kill an innocent man 6. To scandalize actively is to be accessarie to the sinne of the partie scandalized but we may not be accessarie to the sinne of either wilfull wicked or weake