into the world to save sinners in regard of Canonicall authority stamped upon both R. Hooker with other Formalists Will have the lightnesse of matter to make the Law alterable Truly to eat of the Tree of knowledge of good and ill being put in the ballance with the love of God in it self is but a light thing yet the breach of that Law involved all the world in condemnation And what else is this but that which Papists say that there be two sort of things in scripture so saith Cornelius a Lapide Comem on 2 Tim. 3. 16. 1. The Law and the Prophets these God revealed and dyted to Moses and the Prophets but there are other things in Scripture as Histories and morall exhortations which Canonick writers learned either by hearing seeing reading or meditation there was no need these should be dyted by the inspiration of the holy Spirit for they know them themselves though they were assisted 2. Excited by the holy spirit to write Conceptum memoriam eorum quae sciebant non iis suggessit spiritus sanctus sed inspiravit ut hunc potius conceptum quam illum scriberent omnes eorum sententias conceptus ordinavit digessit direxit spiritus sanctus v. g. Vt hanc sententiam primò illam secundò aliam tertiò collocarent Yet Estius saith on the place The Scriptures are given by divine inspiration ita ut non solum sententiae sed verba singula verborum ordo ac tota dispositio fit a deo tanquam per seipsum loquente ac scribente So as not only the sentences but every word and the order and disposition of words is of or from God as if he were speaking and writing himself Now for the additions Canonicall that the Prophets and Apostles made to the writing of Moses I hope Papists and Formalists cannot with any forehead alledge them to prove that the Church may adde Traditions and alterable Positives of Church-Policy to the written word of God except upon the same ground they conclude That the Church now hath the same immediatly inspired spirit that the Prophets and Apostles had and that our Prelats saw the visions of God when they saw but the visiones aulae the visions of Court and that their calling was as Pauls was Gal. 1. 1. not of men neither by men but by Iesus Christ When as it is not by Divine right and was both of the King and by Court 2. Except they infer that the Church that now is may adde Canonicall and Scripturall additions to the Scripture for such additions the Prophets and Apostles added to the writings of Moses and 3. that that precept Thou shalt not adde c. was given to the Lord himself to binde up his hands that no Canonick Scripture should ever be but the only writings of Moses which is as some write the dream of Saduces whereas inhibition is given to the Church of God not to God himself for what the Prophets and Apostles added God himself added yea to me it is a doubt while I be better informed if the Lord did ever give any power of adding to his Scripture at all without his own immediate inspiration to either Prophet or Apostle or that God did never command Moses or Prophet or Apostle to write Canonick Scripture of their own head or that his Commandment to write Scripture was any other then an immediate inspiration which essentially did include every syllable and word that the Apostles and Prophets were to write For I do not coaceive that 1. God gave to Apostles and Prophets power to devise a Gospel and write it I suppose Angels or men could not have devised it yea that they could no more have devised the very Law of nature then they could create such a piece as a reasonable soul which to me is a rare and curious book on which essentially is written by the immediate finger of God that naturall Theology that we had in our first creation 2. I do not conceive that as Princes and Nobles do give the Contents or rude thoughts of a curious Epistle to a Forraign Prince to their Secretary and go to bed and sleep and leaves it to the wit and eloquence of the Secretary to put it in forme and stile and then signes it and seals it without any more ado so the Lord gave the rude draughts of Law and Gospel and all the pins of Tabernacle and Temple Church-officers and Government and left it to the wit and eloquence of Shepherds Heardsmen Fishers such as were the Prophets Moses David Amos and Peter and divers of the Apostles who were unlettered men to write words and stile as they pleased but that in writing every jot tittle or word of Scripture they were immediatly inspired as touching the matter words phrases expression order method majesty stile and all So I think they were but Organs the mouth pen and Amanuenses God as it were immediately dyting and leading their hand at the pen Deut 4. 5. Deut. 31. 24 25 26. Mal. 4. 4. 2 Pet. 1. 19. 20 21. 2 Tim. 3. 16. Gal. 1. 11 12. 1 Cor. 11. 23. so Luk. 1. 70. God borrowed the mouth of the Prophets As he spake by the mouth of his holy Prophets which hath been since the world began Now when we ask from Prelates what sort of additionall or accidentall worship touching Surplice Crosse and other Religious Positives of Church Policy it is that they are warranted to adde to the word and how they are distinguished from Scriptures Doctrinals They give us these Characters of it 1. God is the Author of Doctrinals and hath expressed them fully in scripture But the Church is the Author of their Accidentals and this is essentiall to it that it is not specified particularly in scripture as Bread and Wine Taking and Eating in the Lords Supper is for then it should be a Doctrinall point and not Accidentall 2. It is not in the particular a point of faith and manners as Doctrinals are But hear the very Language of Papists for Papists putteth this essentiall Character on their Tradition that it is not written but by word of mouth derived from the Apostles and so distinguished from the written word for if it were written in scripture it should not be a Tradition So the Jesuit Malderus in 22. tom de virtut de obj fidei Q. 1. Dub. 3. Pro Apostolica traditione habendum est quod eum non inveneatur in Divinis literis tamen Vniversa tenet ecclesia nec consiliis institutum sed semper retentum 2. That the Traditions are necessary and how far Papists do clear as I have before said for the Church may coin no Articles of faith these are all in Scripture For the Iews two Suppers and their additions to the passeover as Hooker saith and their fasting till the sixth hour every Feast day we reject as dreams because they are not warranted by any word of institution not to adde that
Aristotle faith well in an indivisible point It is a non-consequence and so mens will is the best house that Ceremonies are descended of If they can be proved by a necessary and infallible consequence we desire to hear it for it must be thus or the like Things not contrary to the Word and commanded as apt to edifie may be Lawfull Arbitrary Worship But Ceremonies are such Ergo the Proposition is not true because Rulers judge either such things apt to edifie because they see them to be so in themselves or because they judge them to be so in themselves therefore they are so in themselves the former cannot be said because this light whereby Rulers see Ceremonies to be apt to edifie is either light of Scripture or nature or both If this be said they can make others see this light Also if there be goodnesse and aptitude to edifie souls in Ceremonies by natures light sound reason or the Word of God they cannot be Arbitrary or indifferent worship but must be essentiall worship having warrant and Commandment from God for what natures light or Scripture Commandeth that God himself Commandeth and what God Commandeth is essentiall not Arbitrary worship 2. And secondly they are not Arbitrary things but necessary and Lawfull by natures light by Scripture or both which they deny if the latter be true then is the will of Rulers that which maketh Ceremonies good and Lawfull aâ—â—in and blasphemous assertion for Pope or Prince or mens pleasure finde pre-existent goodnesse and Lawfulnesse in things and they do not make them good It is proper to God alone who calleth things that are not to create both beings and goodnesse of beings 5. If Arbitrary goodnesse and Lawfulnesse of Ceremonies be thus warrantable because nor contrary to the word and esteemed Arbitrary I might fail against the first four Commandments by superstition and idolary so I esteem these to wit Idolatry and superstition Arbitrary and not of Divine necessity and yet in so doing I should neither sin nor commit acts of false worship because superstition and Idolatry are indeed forbidden but superstition and Idolatry with the opinion that they have neither holinesse merit nor Divine necessity but are meerly Arbitrary are no where forbidden in the word Let Formalists by their grounds shew us a Scripture for it for they cannot by their Doctrine be forbidden as false worship seeing they want that which essentially constituteth false worship as they teach for they as the Argument supposeth want opinion of necessity Divine merit and holinesse 6. If the Churches will commanding Crossing and Surplice make them Lawfull then their forbidding them shall make them unlawfull and mans will shall be a Pope and God 7. If Rulers conclude them Lawfull then either upon Nationall reasons concerning Britain rather then other Nations or upon reasons immutable eternal if the latter be said they be essential worship not Arbitrary if the former be said they be more apt to stir up the dull senses of Brittish men then otheâ—s which is a dream Dull senses are alike every where sin originall alike in all places and God in his perfect word hath provided alike remedies against naturall dulnesse to all mankinde else we in Britaine do supererogate and the word must be perfect to some Nations in that which is common to all and not to others 8. By as good reason Arbitrary mercy and Arbittary justice is holden as Arbitrary worship for the Lords word is as perfect in works of charity for the second Table as in works of Religion for the first and if so be then it were in mens will to do things conducing for the murthering or not murthering of our brethren of their own wit and will without the word of God and there should be some lawfull acts of will-love or will-murther 9. Laws oblige as Papists grant as Driedo and Vasquez say after Gerson Occam Almain and other Papists from the goodnesse of the matter commanded in the Law not from the will of the Law-giver If then the generall will and command of God constitute Arbitrary worship this worship from Gods will layeth a band on the conscience no lesse then essentiall worship For Hezechiah is no lesse obliged in conscience to apply Figs to his boyle and Moses to make every little ring in the Tabernacle when God commandeth these then the Prophets are to write Canonick Scripture for Gods Authority in Commanding is equall in all though in respect of the matter there be great things and lesse things of the Law therefore Gods generall permissive-will doth no lesse oblige the conscience then his approving will 10. To this Arbitrary worship agreeth all the properties of will-worship as 1 Colos 2. 18. It beguileth us of our reward for no promise of God is made of a Bishoprick for conformity 2. It is will-humility to be devouter then God willeth us 3. It intrudeth in things not known in the word 4. It holdeth not the head Christ for it maketh him not a perfect Law-giver if Prelares under him give Laws added to his word and that after the Traditions of men 5. It inthralleth men dead with Christ to a yoak They object But not to yoak upon the conscience Answer yea but we are in Christ freed also from the externall yoak as from shedding of blood in Circumcision removall out of the Campe seven dayes many Ceremoniall Sabbaths presenting of the male-children and going up to sacrifica at Jerusalem yea expensive offerings all called burdens Act. 15. 10. Col. 2. 20. Gal 4. 3 4 5. Col. 2. 14. 15. And multiplied holy dayes Surplice Crossing keeping us in that same bondage though lesse they may say Magis minus non variant speciem 6. This worship perisheth vvith the use 7. Subjecteth us to the Ordinances of men 8. Hath a shew of wisdom Mr. Burges saith Some will-worship iâ— not unlavvfull aâ— three Sermons in one day The free-vvill offerings and vows vvere in some sort vvill-Worship The Church at her godly discretion and will may appoint some Formalities to attend the Worship Answer Gregor de valent saith That some Idolatry is Lawfull some unlawfull This man saith some will-worship is lawfull some unlawfull that is some sin is Lawfull some unlawfull 2. Three preachings come from zeal not from will and is no new worship different from preaching and there may be reason therefore where all cannot be present in one day at all the three there is reason for three preachings none for Crossing 3. Will as will is carver of will-worship Will createth not the worship but determineth the circumstances according to the light of reason in Lawfull worship But where will as will void of reason hath influence in the worship it is wills brood 4 The Freewill offerings were determined by God the poor should offer a pair of Doves in the Free-will offering But the rich a Lamb and it was sin for the rich to offer a pair of doves and therefore
but will it follow therefore the Pastor should not watch over him to try in another way in a Pastorall way by his walking profession and practicall knowledge whether he be in Christ or no. The contrary is Heb. 13. 17. They watch for the souls of the people as they that must give an accompt And they are so far to try that are Shepherds that they are obliged in a Pastorall way to know those of the flock that are diseased Ezech. 34. 4. Sick broken driven away and lost And to what end should they try themselves least they eat damnation to themselves Ergo the Stewards should try the stomacks that they eat not poyson If then the Lords Law bid men beware they be not tempted to Sorcery Sodomy Murthers and if every man ought to have personall watchfulnesse over his own conscience that he be not insnared to those sins and Achan was to try if his heart was ingaged to the wedge of Gold and to be wary to meddle with it but it doth not follow that Magistrates as Joshua should not try out Sorcerers Sodomites and other Achans to punish them Erastus 2 Cor. 13. is against this a person is to try himselfe Will it follow when he hath tryed himselfe that he cannot come to the Lords Supper except he seem meet to the Elders And this not our consequence let Erastus owne it we care not In a constitute Church he should else Erastus provides no way against a Pagan who hath heard the Word as he may doe 1 Cor. 14. 23. may without the Elders and Church sit downe at the Lords Supper for Erastus provides no stop for him but only his own pagan Conscience and so may one by that rule but trample on the Sacrament his owne Conscience is all his rule contrary to what he saith himselfe lib. 3. c. â— p. 207. Erastus 1 Cor. 11. Paul forbiddeth none to come to the Supper but upon supposition that they come as the manner is he biddeth them come worthily as all are bidden hear the Word though they â—e forbidden to he are it as if it were some prophane History nor doth the Lord command sinfull coming for no act commanded of God is evill Ans 1. Paul then forbiddeth not Pagans more to come to the Supper and Children then he forbiddeth them to heare the Word which is absurd he commandeth all to heare but he commandeth not all to come to the Supper but those onely that can discerne the Lords body for to heare the Word though I be not prepared is simply necessary if I would be saved and to sacrifice if I would be reconciled and to pray if I would obtaine any blessing though the manner of doing all these be commanded that I heare sacrifice and pray in faith But to come to the Supper is not commanded to all not to Pagans not to children not to the unregenerated but onely to the regenerated and to those who discerne the Lords body and for a child to come to the Lords Supper or an unrenewed man is forbidden not commanded and no ill act is commanded and it is a sinne that they come at all But Erastus will have it lawfull as it is to heare the Word then doth Christ command Turks and children to come to the Supper for he commandeth them to heare the Word and Peter bade Simon Magus pray Act. 8. 22. but he neither bids give the Supper to him nor bids he him receive it but by the contrary forbids pearles to be cast unto Swine Erastus Arg. 16. God will not have fewer Christians to be members of the Church now then of Iewes to be members of the Iewish Church But God would have all circumcised even the most flagitious that were punished by the Magistrate to be members of the Iewes Church Ergo God will have all the baptized to be Members of the Church Ans This will prove that all baptized even children should come to the Supper 2. I deny the Minor to wit that all the most wicked remained Members of the visible Iewish Church jure before God the wicked Iewes to God were as Sodom and Gomorrah Esa 1. 10. Yea he saith Amos 9. 7. Are ye not unto me as children of Ethiopians O children of Israel saith the Lord What they were de facto and not cast out was the fault of the Priests and that the Church does tollerate Iezabels Wolves Lions in the flock and admitteth them to holy things is their sin Erastus But Repentance was not alwaies commanded to those Iewes especially who were unclean by touching an unclean thing against their will and ignorantly and the purging of them depended on their owne will so they observed the Ceremonies of Moses Ans That is much for us if those who were uncleane against their will and cast out of the campe it being a trying Type that far more those that are wickedly scandalous are to be cast out of the Church Erastus The Church is a draw-â—et a field a marriage Supper there be good and ill in it and it was not the sinne of the inviters who are bidden invite all good and bad Mat. 22. But the man that came himselfe without the wedding garment he is cast into utter darkenesse Ergo The Officers are to invite all and forbid none Ans They are to invite all to all Ordinances and Seals even Dogs and Swine that is false They are to invite all to some Ordinances to heare the Law and Gospel preached but not the Seales that were to cast Pearles to Swine 2. The way of Erastus is that none are to be debarred nor to debarre themselves from the Seales more then from the Word The Lords forbidding Adam to touch the tree of Life and his casting of him out of Paradise and Cains being cast out from the presence of the Lord to me are rather Types presignifying Excommunication and that God will have wicked men debarred from holy things then patternes of Excommunications and so are they alledged by Beza and our Divines CHAP. VII Quest 3. Whether Erastus doth justly deny that Excommunication was typified in the Old Testament VVEe take types of uncleannesse in the Old Testament to be rightly expounded when the holy Ghost in the New-Testament doth expound them Now that Ceremoniall uncleannes did typifie Morall uncleannesse is cleare 2 Cor. 7. 17. Touch no uncleane thing and I will receive you 18. And I will be a Father unto you and yee shall be my Sonnes and Daughters saith the Lord Almighty This is a manifest Exposition of the Ceremoniall holinesse and cleannesse commanded in the booke of Leviticus for after the Lord hath given them a number of Lawes about eschewing of uncleane things he saith in generall Lev. 26. 3. If ye walke in my Statutes and keepe my Commandements and doe them 11. I will set my Tabernacle amongst you and I will be your God and ye shall be my people And it is a cleare allusion to Numb 19. 11. He that toucheth
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
the Sacraments Heathen remaiing Heathen they should prostitute holy things to Dogs and be guilty of an Heathen mans eating of his owne damnation Hence this Assertion of Mr. Prynne must be a great mistake That Ministers may as well refuse to preach the Word to such unexcommunicated grosse impenitent scandalous Christians whom they would suspend from the Sacrament for feare of partaking with them in their sinne as to administer the Sacrament to them because saith he unprofitable hearing is as damning a sinne as unworthie receiving of the Sacrament 1. Because there is and may be discovered to bee in the congregation persons as unworthy as Heathen such as Simon Magus yea latent Iudasses Parricides who are in the visible Church while God discover their hypocrisie but we may lawfully preach the Word to men as uncapable of the Word as Heathen and as unworthie as Christ and the Apostles did who did not contravene that Cast not Pearles to Swine yet we cannot give the Sacraments to men knowne to be as scandalous uncapable and unworthy as Heathen but we must prostitute holy things to Dogs and partake of their sinne for this is non causa pro causa that Mr. Prynne bringeth to say we may as well refuse to preach the Gospell to scandalous impenitents as to administer the Sacrament without partaking of the sinnes of either because unprofitable hearing is as damning a sinne as unworthy receiving the Supper This Because is no cause it is true they are both damnable sinnes but how proveth he that Preachers partake equally of both I can shew him a clear difference which demonstrateth the weaknesse of this connexion 1. Vnprofitable hearing of the Gospell in a Heathen is as damning a sin as hypocriticall receiving of the Sacrament is a sinne they are not equalia peccata but sure they are â—què peccata but I may preach the Gospel to a Heathen and not partake of his sinne of unprofitable hearing for I may be commanded to preach to a Heathen remaining a Heathen as Paul preached to Felix to the scoffing Athenians to the persecuting Iews and giving obedience to the command of God freeth me from partaking of his unprofitable hearing But I cannot administer the Lords Supper to an Heathen remaining a Heathen without sharing in his sin and suppose a Heathen remaining a Heathen would croud in to the Lords Table as of old many Heathen fained themselves to be Iewes desiring to serve the time 1 Sam. 14. 21. yet I should partake of the Heathens unworthy receiving if knowing him to be a Heathen serving the time and crouding in amongst the people of God I should administer the Lords Supper because I have no command of God to administer the Lords Supper to a Heathen man nor could Paul administer the Sacrament to the scoffing Athenians or to Felix without taking part with them in their prophaning of the Lords Table 2. The necessity of preaching the Word it being simply necessary to the first conversion of a sinner putteth Pastors in a case that they may and ought to preach the Gospell to Heathen and to thousands knowne to be unconverted without any participation of their unprofitable hearing and the non-necessity of the Lords Supper or the Seale of the Covenant and the nourishing of their souls to life eternall who visibly and to the knowledge of those who are dispensers of the Sacrament prophane and abominably wicked putteth those same dispensers in a condition of being compartners with them in the prophaning of the holy things of God if they dispence the bread to those that are knowingly dead in sinnes so the Gospell may be taught in Catechisme to Children Deut. 6. 6 7. 2 Tim. 3. 15. Exod. 12. 26 27. Gen. 18. 19. Prov. 22. 6. because there is a necessity they be saved by hearing Rom. 10. 14. 1 Cor. 1. 23. but there is no necessity but a command on the contrary that the Lords Supper be dispensed to no children nor to any that cannot examine themselves and they may be saved without the Sacrament but not ordinarily without the Word nor were it enough to forwarne Apostates and persecutors and Hypocriticall heathen and children that if they eate unworthily they eate their owne damnation as Mr. Pryn saith and yet reach the Sacrament to those for the dispensers then should â—ast Pearls to some Dogs and Swine contrary to Mat. 5. 6. and they should be free of the guilt in polluting of holy things if they should give them a watch-word say they were about to prophane the holy things of God before they committed such wickednesse Nor doe we as Mr. Pryn saith nor know we or the Scriptures any such distinction as sealing externally to the senses of any receiving the Lords Supper lawfully divided sinfully it may be divided but there is no Law for sinne no print no authority of men for it from the internall sealing nor heard we ever of two sorts of conversion one externall from Paganisme to the externall profession of the faith wrought extraordinarily by Miracles without the Word and ordinarily by Baptisme in Infants and another internall from formall profession to an inward imbracing of Christ and his merits 1. Because the Stewards and Ambassadors of Christ may notdare to play with the Sacraments as children doe with nuts to seal to mens senses and fancies Christ and spirituall nourishment in him and part in his body broken and blood shed in those who visibly have nothing of faith to their discerning and of the life of Christ but onely senses and fancie such as all visibly and notoriously scandalous walking after the flesh all Herericks Apostates knowne and unwashen Hypocrites have and no more 2. All heathen and unbaptized have senses and are capable of externall washing and externall and Sacramentall eating as well as others are but are they capable of the Seals because they have bodies to be washed and teeth and stomacke to eat Sacramentally And have Ministers warrant enough to dispense the Sacraments to all that have senses But they must be within the visible Church also ere they be capable of Sacraments Mr. Pryn will say but I aske by what warrant Mr. Pryn alledgeth that the Supper of the Lord is a converting ordinance as well as the Word and that Pastors may without sinne dispense the Sacraments to those to whom they preach the Word but they may preach the Word to Heathen remaining Heathen Ergo may they dispense the Lords Supper to Heathen remaining Heathen What more absurd yet remaining Heathen they are as capable of Mr. Pryn his sense-sealing and sense-converting Sacraments as any sound beleever 3. A sealing to the senses cannot be divided from the inward sealing by the Spirit neither in the intention of God for the externall sealing without the internall is Hypocrisie and God cannot intend Hypocrisie nor can this division be in regard of the nature of the Sacrament for it doth seal to us our spirituall nourishment in Christ except we
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
appealed to Cesar if he had been a Christian in the controversie touching circumcision he should have determined who were perverters of souls who not and should have said by his office as Emperour It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to me 3. We have not any practise or precept or promise in the Old or New Testament for any such appeal except they say all hard questions belonging to the Priests office were to come before Moses as a civill Magistrate and not as the great Prophet to whom God revealed his minde 4. If so then all Church controversies in doctrine and discipline should be ultimately resolved into the will of the Magistrate speaking according to the word and faith in most points should come by hearing a Magistrate determining against Arrius that Christ is God consubstantiall with the Father and all binding and loosing in Earth as in heaven should be from the Magistrate as the Magistrate he should forgive and retaine sins and Christ should have given the keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven to the Magistrate as the Magistrate certainly we should have the doctrine of the Church of Christ and the building and edifying thereof most obscure in the New Testament in which there is not one word of such a supream and chiefe officer as the Magistrate 5. The Parliament colledge of civill judges as they are civill Magistrates should be the Church assemblies and determine all doctrines debarre the ignorant and Hereticks and Apostates from the Sacraments and totally cast them out of the Church and excommunicate them I see not but then the Parliament as the Parliament is the Church and the two Kingdomes Ioh. 18. 36. must be confounded and no difference at all made between the civill state and the Church because the Magistrate as the Magistrate is made by the adversaries the chiefe officer over the Church the Ecclesiasticall head the mixt Governour halfe civill whole Ecclesiasticall in whose power all Pastors Elders preach dispense Sacraments make Church-canons as his Ministers and Servants Christ when any brother trespasseth against a Christian brother saith Tell the Church never Tell the christian Magistrate But truly it is a great mistake in the learned Mr. Pryn to call them Anti-Monarchicall Anti-Parliamentary and Novators who deny that the Parliament hath any Nomothetick power in Church-canons Nor hath hee in any measure answered the Arguments of those Learned and godly Divines Mr. Iohn Goodwin and Mr. Hen Burton he is pleased to cite the practise of many Parliaments of England who laudably impatient of the Popes yoke have made Church-canons when the man of sin sate upon the neck of the Christian church but these numerous citations of Parliaments and Councels in time of Popery conclude nothing against us who grant when the Church is not her selfe the christian Magistrate may extraordinarily reform and take from the man of sin his usurped power but in a constituted Church the case must be otherwise and 1. Whereas he proveth Emperors and Kings to have a power to convocate Councels It hath not strength against us all our Divines teach so But how 1. an accumulative civill power so Iewel Alley Bilson Whitaker Willet White Roger he might have cited more but no privative no Ecclesiasticall power so as Synods may not lawfully conveen without the command of the civill Magistrate our Divines say many Synods and Church meetings were in the Apostolique Church without the consent and against the will of the civill Magistrate our Divines oppose the Pope who claimeth the only accumulative civill privative and Ecclesiastick power to convocate Synods and that no Synods are lawfull without the consent and mandate of the holinesse of such a Beast 2. Master Prinne saith The Magistrate hath power to direct for time and place and to limit for matter and manner the proceedings liberty and freedome of all Church Assemblies But 1. he asserteth this in the most from corrupt practises 2. He proveth Laymen should have hand as well in Synods as Clergymen the one having interest in the faith as well as the other Ans Then must all the people be members of Synods for all have alike interest of Faith but this proveth not interest of defining which is the question in dispensing Word and Sacraments they have interest of trying all things as well as Pastors but it followeth not Ergo they may dispense Word and Sacraments no lesse yea more principally then Pastors as Erastus saith the Magistrate more principally determineth Synodicall constitutions Hence this is easily answered we may appeal in Church businesse to him as to the supream judge who may punish the erring Church and Pastors but the Magistrate may in Church businesse do this For answer 1. I retort it the Magistrate in making civill Lawes that must in their moralitie be determined by the Word of God may appeal to Pastors whose lips by office should preserve knowledge Ergo the Magistrate in making civill Lawes may appeal to the Pastor which is absurd 2. If men in Church-constitutions may appeal to the Magistrate as to one who may in his person determine Synodically in Assemblies above all the Pastors 1. Because Magistrates may punish the Pastors erring and oppressing in Synods 2. Because the Magistrate and all laymen have interest in the faith as well as Pastors then may people in hearing the Word and receiving the Sacraments and in all Pastorall rebukings and threatnings in believing of all Gospel promises and threatnings and fundamentall truths appeal from Pastors to Magistrates as Magistrates and Magistrates as such may determine all fundamentall truths all conscionall promises and rebukes and that is formally they may preach for he that can distinguish these hath a good engine Because Magistrates may punish hereticall preaching and superstitions and idolatrous abusing of the Sacraments by preachers and Magistrates and all Laymen have interest of Faith in Word Doctrine and Sacraments as in Discipline yea the Magistrate may punish the Priest that offered strange fire to the Lord offered bastard incense and the people had their interest of saith in sacrifices offered for their own sins but can it follow therefore the Magistrate might sacrifice and burne incense in his own person as Mr. Pryn will have him to make Church-laws in his own person Other Arguments of Mr. Pryns are light as that there were brethren and Lay-men that had hand in the Councell at Hierusalem Acts 15. Ans This is nothing for Magistrates as Magistrates but all Christians as Christians so must have hand in Synods which I grant in so far as concerneth their faith and practise that they try all things and try the Spirits whether they be of God or not but will it follow Ergo Magistrates as Magistrates are those only who govern the Church and make all Ecclesiasticall constitutions as having in them all power of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction and deriving it to Bishops and Pastors at the second hand as Mr. Pryn saith in the same booke Obj.
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
of spirituall falls and warned to beware of them yet love and incline to Idolatrie and therefore to warne them to beware and yet set the powder neere the fire is but to scorne the craft and to mock men Yea in that they desire and require that the people beware of the Ceremonies and require that Pastours informe them of the danger they grant that Ceremonies are powder amongst the pitchers and yet they be innocent and indifferent creatures as if they would call them indifferent pitts indifferent whoores to allure beware of them indifferent pest-cloathes see that your inclination touch them not Yea then Ezechiah had given no scandall if he had commanded the brazen Serpent still to stand and had commanded the Priests to preach that the Serpent was not God and therefore warned the people of their Idolatrie in burning Incence to it onely let it stand as a memoriall of Gods power in curing the people who were stinged with Serpents in the Wildernesse So if the Israelites should give their sonnes and daughters to marry strange women of the Canaanites if they should ordaine the Priests to teach carefully their married children to beware that they were not drawne away by these idolatrous marriages to serve the Gods of the Canaanites they should not lay a stumbling-block before their sonnes and daughters Yea these who excell in light may be weake in grace and in hazard to be insnared by the idolatrie and superstition of Ceremonies 4. The law of nature provideth all possible and lawfull meanes for the removall of every thing that may rnine his soule for whom Christ died but not onely information of the danger of Ceremonies but also the removall of the pitts themselves to wit the Ceremonies are possible and lawfull meanes 5. 1. This were an idle Sabbath work to expound such theams as these Sacramentall bowing is an humble adoring of God not of bread and as it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save beleevers so it pleased Prelates by the foolishnes of holy dayes and Saints dayes to teach the people articles of faith and by the Surplice to teach pastorall innocencie and by confirmation to blesse children 2 Calvin and Luther teach that no word should be heard in the Church nisi purum Dei verbum but the pure word of God Surplice humane and Saints dayes crossing kneeling cannot be a text that Ministers can preach on and expound for they are commanded to speak Gods word Ezech. 7. To read Gods law and give the meaning and sense thereof Nehem. 8. 8. and to expone the Scriptures Luk. 24. 27. not to teach the meaning of wretched Ceremonies for in that they should not be the Pastours of Christ but speak with the mouth of Antichrist and Exod. 12. 26. 27. If the children ask the fathers what mean yee by this Passeover they were to answer It is the Sacrifice of the Lords Passeover So if they ask what meaneth your kneeling to Bread your Saints dayes your Surplice and Crossing you must answer they are the Ceremonies of the Lords Supper and Baptisme What uncouth bleating were this 6. Shall people saith D. Ammes be fedde with this East wind the vertue of Surplice when there be so little time to learne the maine things of the Gospell also some preach none some studie never Ceremonies some blush to speake of such toyes Yea and alas often saith Bannes the weake are not capable of distinctions it is hard to draw the wits of rude people along the untwisted threed of distinctions that the elements are objectum adorationis à quo significative and objectum adorationis relativae materiale non adorationis formale I conceive the Doctors of Aberdeen have adoe with their wits to understand them they must be taught of D. Mortounes essentiall and accidentall worship of Bellarmines additions perfecting and additions corrupting the word of God And whereas D. Forbes saith It is a shame for Ministers and teachers of others to pretend weaknes though the flock might be ignorant Answer Weakness is weakness of faith Rom. 14. 1. and weaknesse of grace not weakness in literall light And I thinke Ministers may pretend this upon too good grounds and weaknes of faith is often a great inclination to superstition 2. Though the Ministers refusing the Ceremonies should understand them as well as these who writ bookes for their defence yet it will not follow that they should practise them for their forbearance is for feare of scandalizing the weak Paul had perfect knowledge of his Christian libertie as any man yet he would not eat meats to the worlds end which should offend his brother The stronger should not scandalize the weak because they are stronger Duplyers pag. 63. n. 38. Thirdly if for Scandalls taken especially by the malicious we may disclaime the authority of a Law then we may ever disclaime the authoritie of all lawes of Church and State for there is nothing commanded by lawes but some either through weaknes or through malice may take offence at it Answer 1. For scandalls taken and also given by either weak or wilfull when the matter is indifferent and hath evident conformitie with Jewish and Popish rites and is not necessarie we may disclaim the authoritie of all such lawes true Ergo we may for scandall maliciously taken deny the authority of all lawes it followeth not Ex affirmatione spâ—ciei male colligitur negatio generis It is not for taken scandall but for given scandall that we disclaime the authoritie of these lawes 2. The Doctors will have us believe upon the sole light of their conscience n. 36. that they thinke the Ceremonies lawfull and expedient But for us they will not credit us in that but out of malice we are soandalized and not out of weaknesse Duplyers n. 39. 4. arg Fourthly We ought not for eschewing scandall causlesly taken to injure or offend any man by denying to him that which is due to him and therefore we ought not for eschewing scandall causlesly taken to offend and injure our Superiours The Antecedent is proved for if a man be excommâ—nicated shall his wife children and servants flie his company and so deny these duties which they owe to him for feare that others be scandalized and if we may not for scandall causlesly taken abstaine from these duties that we owe to private persons farre lesse may we abstaine from obedience which we owe to Superiours c. Answer Against the Law of disputing you lay downe a ground which is a principall part of the question that is practising these Ceremonies be obedience due to Superiours and none practising for a time an injuring of Superiours in their due though Gods affirmative precepts be omitted for a time as the not hearing the Word the not receiving the Sacraments in case of Scandall Gods due is not taken from him If you will be more zealous for the honour of Prelates and men then for the honour of God Answer the Argument
receive both the unwritten Traditions of the one and the unwritten Positive inventions of Crosse and Surplice devised by the other as 1. Make us sure as God himself immediatly spake to the Patriarchs and to Moses nothing but what after was committed to writing by Moses and the Prophets at Gods speciall Commandment as Papists say their unwritten Traditions are agreeable to the word and though beside Scripture yet not against it And the very will of God no lesse then the written word and let Formalists assure us that their positive additaments of Surplice and Crosse are the same which God commandeth in the Scriptures by the Prophets and Apostles and though beside yet not contrary to the vvord But I pray you what better is the distinction of beside the vvord not contrary to the vvord of God out of the mouth of Papists to maintain unvvritten Traditions which to them is the expresse word of God then out of the mouth of Formalists for their unwritten Positives which are worse then Popish Traditions in that they are not the expresse word of God by their own grant 2. Let the Formalist assure us that after this some Moses and Elias shall arise and write Scripture touching the Surplice and Crosse that they are the very minde of God as the Lord could assure the Church between Adam and Moses that all Divine truths which he had delivered by Tradition should in Gods due time be written in Scripture by Moses the Prophets and Apostles I think they shall here fail in their undertakings Hence the Argument standeth strong the Jevvs might devise nothing in doctrine Worship or Government nay neither the Patriarchs nor Moses nor the Prophets of their own head without Gods immediate Tradition or the written Scripture which are all one Ergo Neither can the Church except she would be wiser then God in the Scriptures 2. Hookers Various and Harmonious Dissimilicude of Gods gâ—iding his Châ—rch is his fancy This variety we admire as it is expressed Heâ— 1. 1. But Hooker would say for he hath reference to that place God at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the Fathers by the Prophets and now to us by hiâ— Son But test of all he hath revealed his Will by the Pope of Rome and his cursed Clergy that we should Worship Images pray to Saints and for the dead beleeve Purgatory c. and now by humane Prelates he hath shown his will to us touching Crossing Surplice Now Papists as Horantius Sanderus Malderus Bellarmine and others say Most of the points that are in Question between them and Protestants and particularly Church-Ceremonies are unwritten Traditions delivered by the Church beside the warrant of Scripture 3. We grant that there was no Uniform Church-Government in the Apostles time Deacons were not at the first Elders were not ordained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in every Church But this is nothing against a Platform of Vniform Government which cannot be altered in Gods Word For by this reason the Learned and Reverend Mr. Prynne because points of Government did grow by succession of time cannot infer therefore that Government which the immediately inspired Apostles did ordain in Scripture is alterable by men then because 1. Fundamentals of Faith and Salvation were not all delivered at first by God there is no Uniform no unalterable Platform of Doctrinals and Fundamentals set down in Scripture For first the Article of Christs death and incarnation was obscurely delivered to the Church in Paradise Sure the Article of Christs making his Grave with the wicked of his being put to death for out Transgressions though he himself was innocent his justifying of many by Faith were after delivered by Isaiah Chap. 53. And by succession â—f time many other Fundamentals as the Doctrine of the written Moral Law in the Moral Positives thereof were delivered to the Church But I hope from this successive Addition of Fundamentals no man can infer 1. There is no Uniform Platform of the doctrine of Faith set down in the Old Testament 2. None can hence infer because all points Fundamental were not delivered to the Church at first the refore the Church without any expresse warrant from God may alter the Platform of Fundamentals of Faith as they take on them to adde Surplice Crossing c. and many other Positives to the Government of Christ without any expresse warrant of the Word 3. Our Argument is close mistaken we argue not from the Patern of Government which was in the Apostles times at the laying of the first stone in that Church then the Apostolike Church had indeed no Officers but the Apostles and the seventy Disciples we reason not from one peece but from the whole frame as perfected by the Ministery of the Lords Apostles 2. We argue not from the Apostolike Church as it is such a Church for Apostles were necessary then as was community of goods miracles speaking with tongues c. but we draw an argument from the Apostolike Church as the first Christian Church and since the Law was to come from Zion and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem Isai 2. 3. And the Lord was to reign in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem before his Ancients gloriously Isai 24. 23. And the Lord was to reign over his people in Mount Zion from henceforth and for ever Micah 4. 2 7. And Christ for that gave a special command to his Disciples not to depart from Jerusalem but wait for the promise of the Father which they had heard from Christ therefore this Church of Jerusalem was to be a rule a patern and copy for the Government of the Visible Kingdom and Church of Christ in which Christ was to reign by his own Word and Law Miâ— 4. 2 7. And so the Spirit descended upon the Apostles in the framing and Governing of the first Church in so far as it was a Christian Church and they were to act all not of their own heads but as the Holy Ghost led them in all Truth in these things that are of perpetual necessity and in such as these the first Church is propounded as imitable Now we do not say in Apostles which had infallibility of writing Canonick Scripture in Miracles speaking with Tongues and such like that agreed to the Apostolike Church not as a Church but as such a determinate Church in relation to these times when the Gospel and Mystery of God now manifested in the flesh was new taught and never heard of before did require Miracles gift of Tongues that the Gospel might openly be preached to the Gentiles we do not I say urge the Apostâ—like Church and all the particulars for Government in it for a rule and patern to be imitated And if Master Prynne deny that there is an Uniform Government in the Apostles times because God himself added to them Deacons Elders which at first they had not removed Apostles miracles gifts of healing and tongues then say I
of the Church and is indeed a teaching sign and so should not be counted a Positive of Church-Policy 2. Most false it is that the Tabernacle and Temple were nothing but a meeting place of the people for Worship as our Churches or Chappels are 1. Because it is to Argue the Holy Ghost of want of wisdom to spend so much Canonick Scripture in setting down things idely not tending at all to edification and teaching us nothing of God and in specifying the Form Height Length Bredth Curtains Candlesticks Sockets Rings of naturall places that contained their bodies for what should it edifie us if God should describe so particularly all the Churches and meeting places of the people under the New Testament Now certain it is Whatsoever things were written afore time were written for our Learning Rom. 15. 4. 2. Many things in the Tabernacle as Candles in day light Rings Sockets Shew-bread belonged nothing to a naturall place as our Chappels or Meeting houses do 3. Expresly the Scripture maketh them more then places to wit Holy Religious and Typicall signes of Divine institution as the Tahernacle was a Type Heb. 8. 2. 5. Heb. 9. 1 2. c. Heb. 10. 1 2 3. And the Temple a Type of Christs body Ioh. 2. 19. Ioh. 1. 14 15. And all these were Types and shadows of Heavenly things Heb. chap. 8 9 10. Gal. 4. 1. 2. c. Col. 2. 16. 17. Which our Churches and Chappels are not being only places common to sacred and Civill actions 2. God therefore can no more in expresse words set down the form matter dimensions of Christian Churches and Chappels then of the Synagogues of the Iews which had no Morall use for edification and instruction 3. Yea because the Tabernacle and Temple and their implements were teaching shadows of good things to come and our Churches and Chappels are not so nor have they any Morall or Religious use or influence on our spirits as the Tabernacle and Temple had therefore the Lord who is expresse in all Morals which of their own nature do teach and edifie he behoved to name Bezaliel and Aholiah and the form and colour of the Priests garments which also are Typicall and could not name our Elders or the colour or form of their Garments 4. All these weak retortions suppose that the Tabernacle and Temple were types of our meeting houses for Worship which is a meer conjecture they were no more types of our Chappels then of the Iewish Synagogues we may not expound types at will but as the Holy Ghost expoundeth them to us in the New Testament And this is a conjecturall Exposition and a dream to make Bezaliel and Aholiah types of Embroyderers and Tradesmen 5. We know the Tabernacle and Temple were corporall things made with hands and that they are things different from the spirituall things that they signifie as the sign and the thing signified as therefore the Lord is expresse in the elements and Rites of the Supper of the Lord because all of them Bread Wine taking eating breaking pouring out the Wine drinking are teaching and edifying signes and our Lord never left it to the wisdom of men to devise signes to teach themselves so in like manner should the Lord expresly specifie all the teaching and signifying signes in the Old Testament and as Moses might devise none of his own but was tyed to follow the patern which the Lord himself shewed to him in the Mount So are we now under the New Testament tyed to the patern of that same will revealed in the Word and it is laid on us Not to be wise above that which was written and it is of perpetuall equity The supream Law-giver never left it to the wisdom of Angels or Men or Prophet Apostle or Church to serve and Worship God as they thought good But he himself particularly prescribed the way signes and means And because God hath not been pleased in the New Testament to specifie types of Christ incarnate and come in the flesh already therefore are we obliged in Conscience to believe and practise no more either in Doctrinals or teaching types or Positives of Church-Policy then our Patern in the Mount the Scripture hath warranted to us to be the will of God and in this and this only standeth the force of the present Argument unanswered by paterns of unwritten Traditions and not in these loose consequences that we under the New Testament should have these types and Policy that the Church of the Iews had which is the Doctrine of Papists and Formalists following them not ours for they prove their Pope and Prelat from the Iewish High Priest their Surplice from the linnen Ephod of Jewish Priests their Humane Holidayes from the Iewish dayes their kneeling to bread from their bowing toward the Ark. 6. It is not true that the Tabernacle and Temple were meer corporall things no more then bread and wine in their spirituall relation are meer corporall things The Lords end use and intent in the Tabernacle and Temple was that they should be to the people Images and shadows of heavenly and spirituall things Heb. 8. 5. Heb. 10. 1. 7. That all the things of the Tabernacle were delivered to Moses as a King and not as a Prophet and writer of Canonick Scripture Heb. 3. 5. Heb. 8. Luk. 24. 44. 27. Luk. 16. 31. is an untruth except Formalists make the King so the head of the Church in prescribing Laws for the Policy thereof as they make him a Canonick writer as were David Moses Solomon from whose example they would prove the King to be the head of the Church But I judge Moses saw the patern in the Mount and God face to face as a Prophet whose words are Scripture to us Deut. 34. 10. And there arose not a Prophet since in Israel like unto Moses whom the Lord knevv face to face And as a Prophet not as a King his face did shine Exod. 34 27 28 29. And he was commanded as a Prophet to write the Law not as a King Numb 12. 6. 7. Moses is made the most eminent Prophet that was in the Old Testament And why Because God spake to other Prophets by Dreams and Visions But he spake the Law and written Scripture to Moses mouth to mouth This should not be a comparison between Prophet and Prophet but between Prophet and King by this learning 8. We judge Noahs Ark doth prove the same it being a speciall type of the Church 1 Pet. 3. 20 21. And he built it by Faith Heb. 11. 7. And so by a Word of God and at Gods speciall direction in all the length bredth formes of it and not of his own head Gen. 6. 14 15 c. And is commended by the spirit of God for so doing Gen. 6. 22. Thus did Noah according to all that God commanded him so did he And Formalists should deserve the like Testimony if it could be said of them And as the Lord commanded the
censeri debet Learned D. Roynald Answereth Apolog. Thes de sac Script pag. 211 212. and saith This very Law of Moses promiseth life Eternall to those that love the Lord vvith all their heart and that the Prophets added to the Writings of Moses no Article of Faith necessary to be believed but did expound and apply to the use of the Church in all the parts of piety and Religion that vvhich Moses had taught Lorinus followeth them in Deut. 4. 1. Christus inquit et Apostoli pentateucho plura adjecerunt immò in vetere Testamento Iosue Prophetae Reges Christ saith he and the Apostles added many things to the five Books of Moses yea in the Old Testament Ioshua the Prophets and the Kings David and Solomon did also adde to Moses But the truth is suppose any should arise after Moses not called of God to be a Canonick writer Prophet or Apostle and should take on him to write Canonick Scripture though his additions for matter were the same Orthodox and sound Doctrine of Faith and manners which are contained in the Law of Moses and the Prophets he should violate this Commandment of God Thou shalt not adde For Scripture containeth more then the sound matter of Faith it containeth a formall a heavenly form stile Majesty and expression of Language which for the form is sharper then a two edged sword piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit and of the joynts and marrow and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart Heb. 4. 12. If therefore the Prophets and Apostles had not had a Commandment of God to write Canonick Scripture which may be proved from many places of the Word they could not have added Canonick Scripture to the writings of Moses But the Answer of D. Roynald is sufficient and valid against Papists who hold that their Traditions are beside not contrary to the Scripture just as Formalists do who say the same for their unwritten Positives of Church-policy But our Divines Answer That traditions beside the Scripture are also traditions against the Scripture according to that Gal. 1. 8. But if we or an Angel from Heaven preach any other Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beside that which we have preached unto you Let him be accursed And Papists more ingenious then Formalists in this confesse That if that of the Apostles Gal. 1. 8. be not restricted to the written Word but applyed to the Word of God in its Latitude as it comprehendeth both the written word or Scripture and the unwritten word or Traditions then beside the word is all one with this contrary to the word which Formalists constantly deny For Lorinus the Jesuit saith Comment In Deut. 4. 2. Quo pacto Paulus Anathèma dicit Gal. 1. 8. Iis qui aliud Evangelizant preter id quod ipsi Evangelizaverit id est adversum et contrarium So doth Cornelius a Lapide and Estius expound the place Gal. 1. 8. And they say that Paul doth denounce a Curse against those that would bring in a new Religion and Judaism beside the Gospel But withall they teach that the Traditions of the Church are not contrary to Scripture but beside Scripture and that the Church which cannot eâ—re and is led in all truth can no more be accused of adding to the Scripture then the Prophets Apostles and Evangelists who wrote after Moses can be accused of adding to Moses his writings because the Prophets Apostles and Evangelists had the same very warrant to write Canonick Scripture that Moses had and so the Church hath the same warrant to adde Traditions to that which the Prophets Evangelists and Apostles did write which they had to adde to Moses And therefore the Councel of Trent saith S. 4. c. 1. That unwritten traditions coming either from the mouth of Christ or the ditement of the holy spirit are to be recieved and Religiously Reverenced with the like pious affection and Reverence that the holy Scriptures are received Pari pietatis affectu ac Reverentiâ And the truth is laying down this ground that the Scripture is unperfect and not an adequat rule of Faith and manners as Papists do then it must be inconsequent that because Traditions are beside the Scripture which is to to them but the half of the Word of God Yea it followeth not this Popish ground supposed that Traditions are therefore contrary to the Scripture because beside the Scripture no more then it followeth that the Sacraments of the New Testament Baptisme and the Supper of the Lord in all their positive Rites and Elements are not ordained and instituted in the Old Testament and in that sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beside the Old Testament that therefore they are against the Old Testament though we should imagine they had been added in the New Testament without all warrant of speciall direction from God by the sole will of men or because some Ceremonials commanded of God are not commanded in the Morall Law or Decalogue either expresly or by consequence and so these Ceremonials though instituted by the Lord be beside the Morall Law that therefore they are contrary to the Morall Law Yea to come nearer because the third Chapter of the Book of Genesis containing the Doctrine of mans fall and misery and Redemption by the promised seed is beside the first and second Chapters of the same Book it doth not follow that it is contrary or that Moses adding the third Chapter and all the rest of the five Books did therefore â—ail against this precept Thou shalt not adde to that which I command thee for certain it is that there are new Articles of Faith in the third chapter of Genesis which are neither in the first two Chapters expresly nor by just consequence but if the Church or any other of Jews or Gentiles should take upon them to adde the third Chapter of Genesis to the first and second except they had the same warrant of Divine inspiration that Moses had to adde it that addition had been contrary to the first two Chapters and beside also and a violation of the Commandment of not adding to the word so do Formalists and the Prelate Vsher in the place cited presuppose that the Scripture excludeth all Traditions of Papists because the Scripture is perfect in all things belonging to faith and manners but it excludeth not all Ceremonies which are left to the disposition of the Church and be not of Divine but of Positive and humane Right Hence it must infer the principle of Papists that the Scripture is not perfect in all Morals for it is a Morall of Decency and Religious signification that a childe be dedicated to the service of Christ by the sign of the crosse Now what can be said to thiâ— I know not but that the sufficiency and perfection of scripture doth no whit consist in holding forth Ceremonials but only in setting down doctrinals Why and Papists say the same that the scripture is
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
Moses the Prince is Commanded to make all according to the Patern in the Mount 2. God speaketh to all Israel and not to the Princes only Deut. 4. 1. Hearken O Israel he speaketh to these who are bidden to keep their soul diligently v. 6. 3. It is Bellarmines groundlesse charity to think private heads who were not Princes and Law-givers did not take on an hâ—iry Mantle to deceive Zach. 13. 4. And say Thus saith the Lord when God had not spoken to them Ier. 23. 16. 32. Yea and Private women added their own dreams to the word of God Ezech. 13. 17 18. 3. They say Traditions are from Gods Spirit But hath Gods Spirit lost all Majesty Divinity and power in speaking If the Popes Decretals the Councels the dirty Traditions wanting life Language and power be from Gods Spirit Formalists admit Traditions from an humane spirit and in this are shamed even by Papists who say God only â—an adde to his own Word whereas they say men and the worst of men Prelates may adde to Gods vvord 4. But that additions perfecting are forbidden is clear 1. Additions perfecting as Didoclavius saith argueth the word of imperfection and that Baptisme is not perfect without Crossing 2. It is Gods Prerogative to adde Canonick Scripture to the five books of Moses and the Nevv-Testament and the doctrine of the Sacraments which cannot be Syllogistically deduced out of the Old Testament Matth. 28. 19 20. Ioh. 21. 31. Heb. 3. 2. Rev. 1. 19. and these are perfecting and explaining additions therefore men may by as good reason adde Canonick Scripture to the Revelation as adde new Positive Doctrines like this The holy Surplice is a sacred signe of Pastorall Holinesse Crossing is a signe of dedicating the childe to Christs service for Papists â—ay even Vasquez That the Pope neither in a generall Councell nor out of it can ordain any nevv points of Faith vvhich are not contained in the principles or Articles revealed and may not be evidently concluded out of them Formalists answer It is not lavvfull to adde any thing as a part of divine worship but it is Lawfull to addâ— something as an indifferent Rite coming from Authority grounded upon common equity And this is the ansvver of the Jesuite Vasquez The Pope and Church cannot make an Article of Faith for that is believed by divine Faith to come from God only but as Law-givers they may give Laws that bindeth the conscience and yet are not altogether essentiall in worship If additions as divine parts of Gods worship say we be forbidden God then forbidding to adde such Traditions forbiddeth his own spirit to adde to Gods word for no man but God can adde additions Divine that is coming from God but God himself by good consequence the forbidding men to add additions as really coming from God should forbid men to be Gods for divine additions are essentially additions coming from God but if he forbid additions only of mens divising but obtruded to have the like efficacy and power over the conscience that Canonick Scripture hath then were it lawfull to adde killing of our children to Molech so it were counted not really to come from God with opinion of divine necessity and by this God should not forbid things to be added to his Word by either private or publick men but only he should forbid things to be added with such a quality as that they should by Divine Faith be received as coming from God and having the heavenly stamp of Canonick Scripture when as they are come only from the Pope and his bastard Bishops so all the fables of the Evangell of Nicodemus The materials of the Iewish and Turkish Religion might be received as lawfull additions so they do not contradict the Scripture as contrary to what is written but only beside what is written and with all so they be received as from the Church Also 3. Additions contrary to the word are diminutions to adde to the eight Command this addition The Church saith it is lawfull to steal were no addition to the ten Commandments but should destroy the eight Commandment and make nine Commandments only and the meaning of Gods precept Deut. 12. Thou shalt neither adde nor diminish should be Thou shalt neither diminish neither shalt thou diminish And so our Masters make Moses to forbid no additions at all 6. Commentaries and Expositions of the Word if sound shall be the word of God it self the true sense of a speech is the form and essence of a speech and so no additions thereunto but explanations except you make all sound Sermons Arbitrary Ceremonies and Traditions whereas Articles of Faith expounded are Sermons and so the Scripture it self materially taken is but a Tradition QUEST II. Whether Scripture be such a perfect rule of all our Morall Actions aâ— that the distinction of essentiall and necessary and of accidentall and Arbitrary worship cannot stand And if it forbid all worship not only contrary but also beside the word of God as false though it be not reputed as divine and necessary FOrmalists do acknowledge as Morton Burges Hooker and others teach us that Ceremonies which are meer Ceremonies indifferent in nature and opinion are not forbidden yea that in the generall they are commanded upon common equity and in particular according to their specification Surplice Crossing Knâ—eling before consecrated Images and representations of Christ are not forbidden and negatively Lawfull having Gods allowing if not his commanding will but only God forbiddeth such Ceremonies wherein men place opinion of divine necessity holinesse and efficacy in which case they become Doctrinall and essentiall and so mens inventions are not Arbitrary and accidentall worship But let these considerations be weighed 1. Distinct The Word of Go being given to man as a Morall Agent is a rule of all his Morall Actions but not of actions of Art Sciences Disciplines yea on of meer nature 2. Distinct Beside the Word in actions Morall and in Gods worship is all one with that which is contrary to the Word and what is not commanded is forbidden as not seeing in a creature capable of all the five senses is down right blindenesse 3. Lawfulnesse is essentiall to worship instituted of God but it is not essentiall to worship iâ— generall neither is opinion of sanctity efficacy or Divine necessity essentiall to worship but only to Divine worship and its opinion not actuall nor formall but fundamentall and materiall 4. Seeing the Apostles were no lesse immediatly inspired of God then the Prophets it is a vain thing to seek a knot in a rush and put a difference betwixt Apostolick Commandments or Traditions and divine Commandments as it is a vain and Scripturelesse curiosity to difference betwixt the Propheticall truths of Moses Samuel Isaiah Ieremiah Ezekiel c. And Divine Prophecies which is as if you would difference betwixt the fair writing of Titus the writer and the writing made by the pen of Titus
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
in the first Table yet the Morallity of the second Table is as expresly in Gods Word as the Worship of the first Table 1. Because what is justice and mercy and love toward man in the second Table doth no more depend upon mans sole will but upon Gods Morall Law the Law of nature then it dependeth upon mans will or human wisdom how God should be worshipped according to the first Table For Gods will in his Word is called by our Divines a perfect Canon and rule of Faith and also of Manners And as the grace of God T it 2. teacheth us what is Piety so also what is Righteousnesse and Sobriety 2. Because as Gods Word condemneth will-worship which is come of no Nobler blood then mans will so condemneth it idle words and idle actions which are but will-works and will-words and deeds of will-justice and will-mercy and a will-conscience in the second Table putteth no lesse a rub upon the wisdom of the Lord the Law giver then a will conscience in the first Table But Formalists say If mans will and authority cannot appoint Crossing Holy humane-dayes Surplice and such the decent expressions and incitements of Devotion in the kinde of Arbitrary Mutable and Ambulatory Worship but they must be therein guilty of adding to the Doctrine of Piety and Religion in the first Table by that same reason they cannot make humane Civill and Positive Laws in War and Peace to be means of conserving justice and mercy tovvard humane societies in the kinde of duties of Righteousnesse and sobriety tovvards our selves and Neighbours but they must be guilty of adding to the Doctrine of the second Table I Answer 1. The case is not alike we cannot be Agents in the performing of any worship to God nor can we use any Religious means for honouring God which belong to the first Table But in these we are Morall Agents doing with speciall reference to conscience and to true happinesse and the glory of God as the ends both of the work and workers and therefore in these we are precisely ruled by the wisdom of God who hath in his word set down what Worship and what means of exciting Devotion and decoring of his Worship pleaseth him and hath not left men to Lord-will or Lord-wit but in many actions that belong to humane societies we are not Morall Agents but often Agents by Art as in Military discipline Trades usefull for mans life Oeconomy and Policy in Kingdoms and Cities in Sciences as Logick Physick Mathematicks in these Finis operis the end of the work is operation according to the principles of Arts and Policy and we are not in them Morall Agents and so not to be regulated by Gods Word For the Scripture giveth not to us precepts of Grammar of War of Trades and Arts teaching us to speak right Latine to make accurat demonstrations nor is the end of the work here a thing that pitcheth upon that tender and excellentest peece in us our Conscience and our Morall duties to God and men but to make such humane Laws just and suitable with sobriety and justice is not left to Lord-will but right reason the principles of a naturall Conscience which are parts to us of Scripture and the Word of God it self hath determined whether to carry Armour in the night in such a case Whether to eat flesh in such a season of the year when the eating thereof hurteth the Common-Wealth and the like belong to works of justice and mercy or no Now it is no marvel that in things belonging to our naturall life peace societies policy where the end of the work is naturall or civill and belongeth not as such to the Conscience and Salvation of the soul that there men be Artificers or Agents according to Art Oeconomy Policy whereas the end of the work Finis operis in the Worship of God is Morall and a matter of an higher nature and so the means and manner of Worship here are determined by Gods Word But when actions of Arts Sciences Trades Oeconomy Policy and Laws positive are elevated above themselves Ad finem operantium to the end that Agents are to look unto as they be Morall Agents Gods Word is as perfect a rule for acts of good manners in the second Table as in the first For example that I speak good Latine I am to see to Disputers Precepts but that I lie not and speak not Scandals or Blasphemies while I speak Latine there I am to look to Gods Law given by Moses That a Tradesman make works according to Art he is to advise with Art but that he sell not his work at too dear a price he is to advise with the eight Commandment and when all these acts of Art are referred to Conscience Salvation and the glory of God as they ought to be Respectus finis operantis in respect of the Morall intention of the doer all their Morallity is squared by Gods-Word Hence there be no actions of Worshipping God but they be purely Morall Et respectu finis operis Et respectu finis operantiis but many actions belonging to the second Table are either purely not Morall as actions of meer Art or they be mixed and Respectu finis operis in respect of the end of the work they are not Morall nor to be squared by the Word at all and in respect of the Morall intention of the doer they be Morall and so mixed actions and partly ruled by the Word and partly ruled by Art or Policy according to our seventh distinction II. Conclusion In actions or Religious means of Worship and actions Morall whatever is beside the Word of God is against the Word of God I say in Religious means for there be means of Worship or Circumstances Physicall not Morall not Religious as whether the Pulpit be of stone or of timber the Bell of this or this Mettall the house of Worship stand thus or thus in Situation Our Formalists will have it in the power of rulers to Command in the matter of Worship that which is beside the Word of God and so is negatively Lawfull though it be not Positively conform to Gods Word nor Commanded or warranted by practice which I grant is a witty way of Romes devising to make entry for Religious humane Ceremonies But 1. Whatever is not of Faith and a sure perswasion that what I do pleaseth God is sin Rom. 14. 14. 23. And therefore neither can be Commanded by Rulers nor practiced by inferiours But things besides Scripture and negatively Lawfull are things not of Faith Ergo The Assumption I Prove 1. I doubt if Lord-will be the Lord-carver of what pleaseth God 2. If it may stand with the wisdom of Christ the Law-giver for no Ceremonies maketh Christ a perfect Law-giver 3. In things doubtsome abstinence is the surest side Ergo Rulers ought not to command them 4. Samuel David even wicked Saul abstained in things doubtsome while the Oracle of
God removed the doubts and answered him 5. Paul in eating or not eating which are things most indifferent requireth a certain perswasion of positive assurance Rom. 14. 14. I know and am perswaded by the Lord Iesus that there is nothing unclean of it self but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean it is unclean Master Sanderson saith In things substantiall of Gods Worship and in things to be done upon necessity of salvation what is not of Faith certainly assuring us it is conforme positively to Gods word it is sin so we abhor Popish Additions But in the actions of our life as the lifting of a straw and in Ceremoniall worship or accidentals it holdeth not saith Morton and Doctor Burges not in all particulars saith Paybodie for there should be no end saith Doct. Iackson of doubting for Papists might doubt to assist our King against Roman Catholicks Ans 1. Let Formalists explain themselves Doctrinals Substantials and essentiall worship is such as God hath commanded in the Proposition and in the Assumption and particularly in Gods word Accidentals are such as he hath commanded in generall but left particulars to mens will so they define like Mâ—sters of Arts. But this our Masters say in all that Christ hath particularly Commanded his Testament is perfect and so I believe what God hath set down he hath set down and so we have Scripture right down as perfect as the Fables of Esop Nasoes Metamorphosis what is in Esopes and Nasoes books is in their books and what they command you are with certainty of Faith to believe they command and what the Prophets and Apostles writ that they writ and that is essentiall worship what they writ not they writ not 2. Mr. Sandersons lifting up a straw is a straw for an instance actions of imagination are not Morall we give him leave to ruh his beard without Faith as he weareth white sheets above his garments in Divine service against Faith 3. To do in Faith is to know that in that I serve Christ and am accepted of God Rom. 14. 2. To do that which condemneth me not and maketh me happy in the doing thereof v. 21. 3. It is a Faith that I have before God in my conscience v. 2â— 4. It is a perswasion by the Lord Iesus that it is clean 5. It is such as I know is positively Lawfull by Scriptures expresse warrant 1 Cor. 10. 26. The earth is the Lords and the fulnesse thereof Ergo I have certainty of faith that it is positively conform to Scripture what I do but in things negatively Lawfull as lifting a straw wearing a Surplice I have no perswasion by the Lord Iesus that I serve Christ and am accepted of God in so doing and know not from Psa 24. 1. or from any other scripture that it is lawfull what I do 3. A generall warrant is either when the major Proposition only is sure by Scripture but you must take the Assumption upon the Formalists Merchant-word or where both Proposition and assumption can indure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according as it is written this latter wee imbrace with both our hands but Formalists deny it to us The first is their meaning This what is decent and not contrary to Gods Word that the Rulers may command But Surplice Crossing c. are decent and not contrary to Gods Word Ergo. So one Giles Widdows saith Man and Wife are one flesh Ergo the Ring in Marriage is good And Fine linnen is the Righteousnesse of the Saints Rev. 19. Ergo a Surplice is good And Matth. 16. Take up your crosse Ergo the Crossing in Baptisme is lawfull Enough of this But so the worship of the Devil is lawfull and Aarons golden Calf is lawfull for I can finde a major Proposition for them in Scripture of which you have a Faith both Negative and Positive as this Whatever God commandeth in his Word that is lawfull But God commandeth the Indians Devil vvorship in his Word Ergo c. I am not holden to give my Faith for the Assumption Yet it is as good as our Masters reasoning 4. Jackson is wide in his lawfull Negatives for to fight against Roman Catholicks at our Kings Command upon good grounds is not an indifferent thing Except to kill men and shed blood be indifferent and lawfull Negatively I thought to make War had been amongst the Substantials and Positively conform to Gods Word 5. The Fathers as Origen Ambrose Chrysostom Theophylact Oecumenius Theodoret Anselm and Ierome upon the place Rom. 14. 23. as Vasquez saith from this place Rom 14 23. that What any doth must be warranted by the light of the conscience as lawfull If Formalist stand to this they must give us some things against conscience and something beside conscience that is morally lawfull and therefore if conscience see not such a thing against Scripture though it have no warrant in Scripture yet it is lawfull and done in a certain perswasion of a well informed conscience but these who eat things thought to be unclean by Gods Law to the scandall of others who knew these meats were not against Piety and Gods Lavv nor yet that the eating of them was against charity while Paul delivered the Doctrine of Scandall yet their eating was unlawfull 6. Formalists say nothing here but what Papists said before them they say Men may go to War doubting of the lawfulnesse thereof and therefore Vasquez Angelus Corduba and Navarr will us While the doubt remaineth to choose the surest side as conscience ought to do And Vasquez saith Manente dubio c. To do so long as the doubt remaineth is to do against the judgement of conscience And Adrianus saith While they doubt and yet go to War they expose themselves to the danger of Man-slaughter and by not going to War they should onely sin by not obeying Suarez saith It is a speculative doubt vvhen Superiors commandeth it And Sylvester saith Such a doubt should be expelled at the commandment of Superiors And no marvell the command of Superiors to Papists is an Oracle and blinde obedience is good meriting therefore Gratian and the Iesuit Sanches saith Inferiors are not holden to examine the commandments of Superiors 5. Iackson saith This Whatsoever is not of Faith is Sin holdeth in omission of good as in commission of evil Ergo Your not practising indifferent Ceremonies is not of Faith and so Sin Ans He that obeyeth doubtingly is condemned and he that obeyeth not doubtingly is condemned But Master Doctor your enumeration is not sufficient and may strike against doubting to worship a Romish Idol at the command of Superiors for I shew you a third and its Pauls way Eat not obey not and abstain with perswasion of Faith that what you do is agreeable Positively to Gods Word Jackson saith They sin not by doubting if the fear of evil after mature
deliberation be not extraordinary and such as cannot be recompenced by the goodnes which appeareth in the act of Obedience Doubting is no internall part or essentiall cause of sin vve sin not because vve doubt but because vvhile vve doubt vve prefer an evil or a lesse good before a good or a greater good So their sin vvas not doubting but they preferred not eating vvhich vvas a bodily losse onely to the evil feared vvhich vvas to be partakers of the Table of Devils and being Apostates from the Israel of God Ans Paul expresly saith doubting is sin and condemneth it ver 23. and requireth ver 5. Let every man be perswaded in his conscience v. 21. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that which he alloweth v. 23. Whatsoever more or lesse in Morall actions is not of Faith is sin 2. Internall perswasion Rom. 14. 14. Is an internall cause of obedience as v. 21. And therefore doubting being a sin that condemneth Rom. 14. 23. must be such a sinfull ingredient as maketh the action sinfull 3. We both sin because we doubt and also because we prefer a lesse good or an evil to a greater good 4. No feared evil though never so evil whether of sin or punishment if it follow not kindly but only by accident and through the corruption of our nature should or can make us do any thing doubtingly or sinfully for then we might do evil that good might come of it No good of obedience can warrant me to sin and disobey God nor should that be called obedience nor is it obedience to men which is disobedience to God 5. It is an untruth that non-eating was only a bodily losse for non-eating Physicall is a bodily losse but Paul urgeth non-eating morall to eschew the fall of one for whom Christ died 6. The Doctor saith Ibidem No power under the Heaven could make a Law over the Romans injoyning such meats because Gods law as they conceive condemned them Now how pleasant are right words I assume we conceive God hath denounced all the plagues written in his Book upon practisers of humane Ceremonies as upon adders to the word of God Rev. 22. 19. Yea Heresies to with that Christ is not the consubstantiall Son of God may seem probable to us shall the good of obedience in believing my Pastor whom God hath set over me hinder me to obey 7. Papists say also that Scripture is perfect in generall allowing that Ceremonies should be when Paul saith Let all things be done in order and decency 1 Cor. 14. But the Scripture giveth no particular warrant for these but onely the Churches determination So Scotus Suarez Bellarmine Vasquez Bannes and Duvallius The Scripture implicitely and generally containeth all the substantials necessary for salvation but not traditions in particular that is the Churches part just as Formalists say order and decency is commanded in the word but Crossing Surplice Humane dayes and such are left to the Prelates Kalender to fill up what his Lordship thinketh good So Hooker c Speech is necessary but it is not necessary that all speak one kinde of Language Government is necessary but the particulars Surplice Crossing c. Are left to the Church 2. What is negatively Lawfull here cannot be admitted If Rulers may Command one thing that is negatively Lawfull they may Command all things because what they Command under this formall reason as not against Scripture they should not adde nor devise new worship though they Command all of that kinde But the latter is absurd for so they might Command in Gods worship 1. The actions of sole imagination the lifting of a straw and all idle actions that cannot edifie 2. They might Command a new Ark to represent Christ incarnat as the Jews Ark did represent him to be incarnat a new Passeover to represent the Lambe already slain and all the materials of the Ceremoniall Law with reference to Christ already incarnat dead and risen again For all these are by Formalists Learning negatively Lawfull Shew us a Scripture where they are forbidden more then Surplice Crossing except because they be not Commanded If it be said They do not Command things negatively Lawfull as such but as they edifie and teach Well then 1. As they edifie and teach they are positively good and apt to edifie and so must be proved by the Word as Commanded and so not negatively Lawfull and not as beside but as Commanded in the Word 2. Yet it will follow that all these may be used in Faith that is out of a sure perswasion that they are not contrary to Gods Word and so Lawfull I might dance in a new linnen Ephod before a new Iewish Ark representing Christ already incarnat and that in the negative Faith of Mr. Sanderson Hooker and Jackson for this Ark is not against Scripture yet this Ark is not Commanded and so not forbidden 3. Idle actions that have no use or end might be Lawfully Commanded by this because they are not forbidden yet are such unlawfull Quia carent justâ necessitate et utilitate as Gregorius saith I prove the connexion because an action Morall such as to Sign with the Crosse performed by a Subject of Christs visible Kingdom for Gods glory and edification of the Church which yet is neither Commanded nor forbidden by God nor Commanded by natures light for none but those that are beside reason will say this nor light of Gods word or the habit of Religion hath no more reason then the making or forming a Syllogisme in Barbara which of it self cometh only from Art and as such hath no Morall use and by as good reason may the Church Command dancing before a new devised Ark yea such an action involveth a contradiction and is Morall and not Morall for of its own nature it tendeth to no edification for then it might be proved by good reason to be edificative and an action cannot be edificative from the will of men for Gods will not mens will giveth being to things 4. What is beside Scripture as a thing not repugnant thereunto wanteth that by which every thing is essentially Lawfull Ergo It is not Lawfull The Consequence is sure I prove the Antecedent Gods Commanding will doth essentially constitute a thing Lawfull Gods Commanding will only maketh eating and drinking bread and wine in the Lords Supper Lawfull and the Lords forbidding will should make it unlawfull and Gods forbidding to eat of the Fruit of the Tree of knowledge of good and evil maketh the non-eating obedience and the eating disobedience As the killing of Isaac by Abraham is Lawfull and that because God Commandeth it and the not killing of him again is Lawfull when God forbiddeth it But things negatively Lawfull and beside the word of God wanteth Gods Commanding will for God Commandeth not the materials of Jewish Ceremonies to represent Christ already come and such like for if he should Command them they
because what it teacheth is a lie for what it teacheth is Scripture Isa 52. 11. That these who beareth the Vessels of the Lord that is Pastors should be holy but it is a Doctrine of lies because it representeth Pastorall holinesse by humane institution without all warrant of the Word of God And when Paul calleth holidayes Elements Gal. 4. 6. He meaneth that they spell to us and teach us some truth as Estius saith That holidayes do teach us Articles of Faith To which meaning Paludanus Cajetan Vasquez say God may well be painted in such expressions as Scripture putteth on God as in the likenesse of a Dove as a man with hands eyes ears feet all which are given to God in Scripture 4. It is essentiall to the Word to set down the means of Gods worship which is the very scope of the second Commandment and therefore the Iews washings and Traditions are condemned because they be Doctrines of men appointed by men to be means of the fear or worship of God as Math. 15. 9. Mar. 7. 8. Isa 29. 13. Hence we owe subjection of Conscience to Ceremonies as to lawfull means of Worship 1. Stirring up our dull senses And 2. as lawfull signes representing in a Sacramentall signification holy things 3. As teaching signes 4. As means of Gods fear and worship Whereas God as Ainsworth observeth well in the second Commandment forbiddeth all images and representations 2. All shapes Exod. 20. 4. Temniah 3. Forms of figures Tabuith Deut. 4. 16. 5. Any type of shadow Tselem Ezek. 7. 20. 16 17. 6. Any pictured shape Maskith Levit. 26. 1. Any Statue Monument Pillar Mattesebah any Graven or Molten Portraict Hos 13. 2. 5. We are obliged to obey the Word Exod. 20. 7. Prov. 3. 20 21. Prov. 8. 13. Ier. 6. 16. Ier. 5. 7. 2. We owe to the Word belief Luk. 1. 20. Love Psal 119. 49. 81. Hope 3. And are to expect a reward therefore Psal 19. 11. Rev. 2. 7. 10. 27 28. Gal. 4. 11. Rom. 6. 23. Coloss 2. 18. Hebrew 11. 25. Psal 34. 9. Psalme 58. 11. Then if Decency be commanded and order in the third Commandment Ergo this and that orderly mean of Worship as Surplice But can we say I hope in the Surplice O how love I crossing and Capping can we believe in Ceremonies as means of Gods worship 6. The word is Gods mean to work supernaturall effects to convert the soul Psal 19. 7. To work Faith John 20. 3. To edifie Act. 20. 32. To save Rom. 1. 16. The obedience to Gods word bringeth Peace Psal 119. 165. Comfort v. 50. Gen. 49. 18. Isa 38. 3. But Ceremonies being apt to stir up the dull minde must be apt to remove Naturall dulnesse which is a supernaturall effect and so to bring Peace joy comfort Organs are now holden by the same right that they were in Moses-Law then they must stir up supernaturall joy There must be peace and comfort in practising them Hear how this soundeth This is my comfort O Lord in my affliction that thy Surplice Organs and holy-dayes have quickened my dull heart Now what comfort except comfort in the Scriptures Rom. 15. 4. Ceremonies be innocent of all Scriptures What joy a proper fruit of the Kingdom of heaven Rom. 14. 17. can be in saplesse Ceremonies yea observe 1. Who truly converred from Popery who inwardly humbled in soul doth not abhor Ceremonies by the instinct of the new birth 2. What slave of hell and prophane person call not for Ceremonies 3. Who hath peace in dying that Ceremonies were their joy 7. All Lawfull Ordinances may by prayer be recommended to God for a blessed successe as all the means of salvation Psal 119. 18. Matth. 26. 26. Act. 4. 29 30. 2. We may thank God for a blessed successe which they have by the working of the spirit of Grace 2 Cor. 2. 24. 1 Cor. 1. 4 5. 2 Thes 1. 2 3. Ephes 1. 3. 3. We are to have heat of zeal against prophaning of word Sacraments Prayer or other Ordinances of God But what faith in praying Lord work with Crossing Capping Surplice For where the word is not nor any promise there be no Faith Rom. 10. 14. What praising can there be for Ceremonies working upon the soul What zeal except void of knowledge and light of the word and so but wilde-fire Gal. 4. 17 18. Phil. 3. 6. 2 Sam. 21. 2. can there be though the Surplice be imployed to cleanse Cups and Crossing be scorned If the subject be nothing the accidents be lesse if Surplice be not commanded nor forbidden the reverent or irreverent usage thereof cannot be forbidden nor commanded true zeal is incensed only at sin and kindled toward Gods warranted service 8. I take it to be Gods appointment that the Spirit worketh by a supernaturall operation with his own Ordinances in the regenerated but we desire to know how the Spirit worketh with Ceremonies Formalists are forced by these grounds to maintain the Lawfulnesse of Images So 1. They be not adored 2. If they be reputed as indifferent memorative Objects and books to help the memory But 1. It shall be proved that at first Papists did give no adoration to Images nor doth Durandus Hulcot Pic. Mirandula acknowledge any adoration due to them but proper to God before the Images as objects 2. We may liken God and Christ to a stock so we count it indifferent to make or not to make such an image yet likening him to any thing is forbidden Isa 40. 18. Also we esteem it Idolatry interpretative to take Gods place in his word and to make any thing to be a mean of grace except Gods own Ordinances Against all these Formalists have diverse exceptions As 1. Our Ceremonies say they do not respect the honour of God immediatly and in themselves but by accident and as parts of Divine worship by reduction as it containeth all the adjuncts of worship Ans Such Logick was never heard of 1. If he mean a Surplice in the materials to wit Linnen and Crossing Physically considered as separated from their signification do not tend immediatly to the honour of God but as an adjunct he speaketh non-sense for so Bread Wine eating drinking Water in Baptisme do not immediatly respect the honour of God but only as they have a Morall consideration and stand under Divine institution But yet so the materiall of worship is not the adjunct thereof but the matter as the body of a living man is not one adjunct of a man If he mean that Ceremonies in a Morall not in a Physicall consideration do not immediatly respect the honour of God but reductively and by accident Let him show us if the Surplice doth not as immediatly and without the intervening mediation of any other thing signifie and stir up our mindes to the remembrance of Pastorall holinesse as eating all of one bread doth immediatly stir up our mindes to the remembrance of our Communion of love that
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
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
of sincere obedience to lawfull authority as well as we conceited good probably included in the very obiect of the action he that doth that which in his private opinion he suspecteth to be evil because injoyned by lawfull authority doth not evil that good may come of it seeing the goodnesse of obedience is no consequent of the action but a motive precedent authority maketh actions indifferent to be good and necessary Ans He beggeth the question The goodnesse of sincere obedience to authority saith he may countervail the evil that we in our private choice fear to be in the action But first obedience to authority in things wanting Gods word whereof he speaketh now is not obedience but sinning because doing without faith 2. I take the Doctor at his word refusing obedience to mens will-worship or to practise even to the ruin of the weak things indifferent for fear of the greatest evil the offending of God by adding to his worship Rev. 22. 18 19. is obedience to God and not a privation the purpose I say of this obedience to God may countervail all evil that can be imagined in non-obedience to men and sure obedience to God though probably obedience is as good and better then obedience to men though probably obedience Jesuites and Formalists say Rulers are in possession to command Ergo We cannot thrust them out of possession where we are not perswaded that they command against reason saith Sanches So I say God is in just possession commanding us to venture upon no indifferent action where the conscience doubteth and shall we not no lesse contend for Gods just possession as time-servers do for mortall Rulers unjust possession in this 2. I prove that it were Lawfull then to sin against God A Iew is alike perswaded that Maries Son iâ— the true Messiah and that he is a deceiver Opinions about a man might seem indifferent to the Iews And it is all one saith Jackson as if the thing be indifferent Now the Pharisees in a Councell determine that Maries Son is a deceiver Then it is lawfull for the Jew upon purpose of sincere obedience to Pharisees who sit in Moses chair to believe that Maries son is a deceiver because the conceit of sincere obedience is an essentiall motive to transubstantiate unbelief into sincere obedience and the Iew may venture upon the faith that Maries Son is a deceiver and crucifie the Lord of glory being commanded thereunto by his Commanders because Gods providence favoureth more positive actions then privations 3. He saith He that obeyeth for the sole authority of Rulers doth not evil that good may come of it 1. Because the goodnesse of obedience countervaileth the evil of the actions But 1 The question is if it be obedience Ergo If it be no obedience it cannot countervail the evil 2. If it be the evil of sin with a doubting conscience to do what judges commandeth having no warrant of faith but the will and lust of men no purpose of good though it were to save all the world can counter-redeem the evil of sin against God 2. Because saith he such a one doth not evil that good may come of it Then he that stealeth moneys to give to the poor doth not evil that good may come of it by Dr. Jacksons reason Because the goodnesse of purposing to help the poor is not a consequent but a precedent motive of the action and so maketh it good We all know the intention of the end goeth in the intention before the action but not as an essentiall cause to make an evil action good or make an indifferent action necessary and honest A good intention doth make a good action good and better but that a good intention as Idolators are full of good intentions can never so season the means as this Doctor saith that it can make evil to be good Vasquez condemneth the Fathers of ignorance because they said Propositum bonum excusat malum opus so Cassianus said It was lawfull to lie for a good end and Chrysostoâ— and Ambrose said the same as Vasquez saith see Aquinas for this 3. It is the doctrine of the man of sin That Pope or Rulers sole and bare authority can make an action indifferent and so neither good nor evil to be indifferent and good as Bellarmine saith for God only by his institution createth morall goodnesse in actions mans will is no creatrix of goodnesse 4. Neither resolutions nor skill are to be credited or followed because private or publick because authority of man as such is no light nor warrant to the conscience to adventure upon moral actions and the Lord giveth light to private men to obey Psal 25. 8 9. 1 Cor. 2. 14 15. Ioh. 7. 17 â—8 Ioh. 7. 27. 2 Cor 3. 18. 2 Cor. 4. 4. As he doth to Rulers to Command So Sylvester Tartaretus so Rivetus Doctot Field I proceed to answer other Arguments As 1. We must not obey Not only for wrath but for conscience the violation of a speciall Law necessarily draweth with it the violation of the generall Law of the fift Commandment But the violation of the generall saith Learned Pareus hurteth the Conscience and the Magistrate punisheth not for generall Violation but for the Violation of this speciall Law Ergo this speciall Law obligeth in Conscience And it seemeth to carry reason Every just punishment presupposeth essentially a sin else it is not a just punishment but the Ruler doth justly punish the particular Transgression of an humane Law Ergo the Transgression of a particular Law of Rulers is sin The Proposition is confirmed by grave School-men Soto Sylvester and Ioan Eselius Who thinke that there cannot be a Law obliging to a punishment and not to a fault because punishment hath an intrinsecall relation to a sin nor can it be a just punishment that is not proportioned to a sin for the Law saith That cometh not under damage which cometh not under fault Ans Though the Violation of the generall Law hurteth the Conscience it being against the fifth Commandment it followeth not that the Violation of every particular Law even that that is meerly Positive hurteth the Conscience before God For then the carrying of Armour in the Night Suppose no Ruler on earth make a Law there anent should be a sin before God which no wise man can say 2. The other reason is more important and draweth with it that School-question agitated by Iurists also and Ganonists An ulla detur lox pure paenalis If there be a Law purely Penall without sin in it And if the Law of Rulers in things meerly Positive be meerly Penall and co-active and not formally obliging to sin But I Answer Rulers do justly punish the Transgression of a Positive Law not as particularly humane and Positive But as 1. It hath connexion with the Morall Reason of the Law 2. As the particular transgression is scandalous
sendeth his Apostles and Pastors to the end of the world as is clear if we compare Matth. 18. 18. and Matth. 16. 19. with Ioh. 20. 20 21 22. 23. Mar. 16. ver 15 20. Matth. 28. 18 19 20. Luk. 24. 45 46 47 48. 5. It is against the course of the Text that we should restrain this to private pardoning of light injuries between brother and brother 1. Becase Christ labours to decline this that one shall be both his brothers judge to put him in the condition of an Heathen and Publican and binde his brothers sins in Heaven and Earth and also that he should be his party and accuser Now Christ will have the private brother do no more personally but admonish his brother and gain him 2. If that prevail not then he is to admonish him before two or three witnesses See here the brother is not both party and judge but witnesses have place 3. If that prevail not the businesse is to ascend higher even to the Church which undoubtedly is an Organicall body 1 Cor. 12. 28. Rom. 8. 6 7 c. Act. 20. 28 29 30. Whereas two or three private Christians are not a Church but an homogeneal body Now who would believe that Christ is to bring down the businesse which is so high as before the Church to the lowest step again to a private binding and loosing to one brother who both as judge and party judgeth his brother yea and may do this though there were no Chuâ—ch on earth What power hath the Church above the offended brother or the offender if the one may binde the other under guiltinesse in earth and heaven 2. Erastus will have light and private offences only spoken of here Now Christ speaketh of offences that God taketh notice of in Heaven and earth 3. Christs way is a wise and meek way that that which one cannot do and the offence that two three four cannot remove the Church shall remove but Erastus maketh one private man to remove it and to Excommunicate and binde in heaven and earth I might cite Tertullian Cyprian Augustine Chrysostom The ophylact Hyeronimus and all modern interpreters both Popish and Orthodox for this interpretation not any of them dreaming of the insolent opinion of Erastus who misapplieth Augustine and Theophylact for his own way as Beza cleareth CAP. IV. Quest 1. That the place 1 Corinthians 5. doth evince that Excommunication is an Ordinance of God THE Argument for Excommunication may be thus framed from 1 Cor. 5. If Paul command that the incestuous man should be delivered to Satan ver 5. purged out of the Church least as leaven he should corrupt the Church ver 6 7. That they should iudge him ver 12. And put him avvay from amongst them ver 13. So as they vvere not to eat vvith him ver 9. 10. Then is there a divine command for Excommunication for the Commandments of the Apostles are the Commandments of the Lord 1 Cor. 14. 37. 2 Pet. 3. 2. But the former is true Ergo so is the latter There is no ground or shadow of reason to expound this expelling of the incestuous man by the preaching of the word without any Church-censures for all that is required in Excommunication is here 1. This putting out was not done by one single Pastor as putting out by the preaching of the word is done but by a company and Church ver 4. In the name of the Lord Iesus vvhen ye are gathered together and my spirit 2. Paul should have written to any one Pastor to cast him out by preaching but here he writeth to a Church 3. He forbiddeth company or eating with such like men v. 10. Now this is more then rebuking by preaching 4. This is a judging of the incestuous man and a casting of him out of their society which is another thing then preaching the word Erastus and others expound the giving to Satan of a delivering of the man to Satan to be miraculously killed as were Ananias and Saphira Act. 5. 5. And because at this time there was no Christian Magistrate to use the sword against the man therefore he writeth to the Church that they by their prayers would obtain of God that Satan might take him out of the midst of them Ans This insolent interpretation wanteth all warrant of the word For 1. To deliver to Satan hath no Scripture to make this sense of it to pray that Satan would destroy the man 2. It wanteth an example in the old or new Testament that the whole Church are fellow-Agents and joynt causes in the bodily destruction of any or in working of miracles such as was the killing of Ananias and Saphira The Apostles wrought miracles and that by their Faith and Prayers and Christ and the Prophets but that the Believers who should have mourned for this scandall 1. Who were puffed up 2. Who were in danger to be leavened with the mans sin and had their consent in Excommunication should joyn in a miraculous delivering to Satan is an unparalleld practise in the word 3. To deliver to Satan cannot be expounded here but as 1 Tim. 1. 20. Where Paul saith he had delivered Hymenaeus and Alexander to Satan now that was not to kill them but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they might receive instruction and be disciplined by this medicinall Church-revenge not to blaspheme I know of no instructing of these who are dead if there be two deliverings to Satan let Erastus and his expound it to us 4. The Apostle expresly saith he wrote to them not to keep company with such men nor with Fornicators covetous men Drunkards Extortioners Idolators Now Erastus his minde must be that the Apostles and Churches of Corinth Philippi Thessalonica grievouâ—ly sinned against God in that they did not miraculously kill all the Drunkards the covetous persons the fornicators whereas they are commauded to admonish them as brethren 2 Thess 3 14 15. and to pray for them if they sin not against the holy Ghost 1 Ioh. 5. 16. 1 Tim. 2. 3. 5. Paul rebuketh this as a morall fault amongst the Corinthians such as is not to mourn for this mans fault and to keep him as leaven in the midst of them and not to cast him out Whereas in all the Scripture you finde none ever rebuked because they put not forth in Acts an extraordinary and miraculous power to work miracles working of miracles came upon persons called thereunto by extraordinary rapts and were in men not as habits under the power of free-will but as immediate Acts of God even as fire-flaughts are in the Aire So I conceive while I be better informed 6. And shall it not follow that now when the Churches have Christian Magistrates it is the will of our meek saviour that they kill with the sword all the Drunkards Fornicators and all that walketh unorderly which should make the Church of Christ a Butcher-house whereas we are to admonish all such as brethren 2 Thess 3.
the preaching of the word in which Commandments Promises and threatnings are proposed to all in generall there be rebukes of the Church the sentencing of such and such persons by name as Hymeneus and Philetus and other Blasphemers the Authoritative Declaration that such a brother is to be esteemed as a Heathen and a Publican and brotherly fellowship of eating and drinking with such an one denied that he may be ashamed if these be then are some debarred from the holy things of God by Church-Censures beside the preaching of the word of God But the former is true Ergo so is the latter The Proposition is proved because all wicked persons and heart-hypocrites are excluded from the holy things of God by the Preaching of the Word But only these that are notoriously and by testimony of witnesses convinced to be scandalous or contumacious in atrocious sins after they are by name rebuked and are declared to be esteemed as Heathen and Publicans and from whom we are to withdraw brotherly fellowship are excluded from the holy things of God by Discipline and Church Censures The Assumption I prove Because the word is preached to all by one in office and that a Steward and dispenser of the mysteries of God and he excludeth all unworthy ones known to be such or invisible only from the kingdom of God But the Censure 1. Is inflicted by many 2 Cor. 26. by the Church Matth. 18. 17. conveened together 1 Cor. 54. 2. It is applied to such persons by name 1 Cor. 5. 5. He that hath done such a deed ver 2. Hymeneus Alexander 1 Tim. 1. 20. Jezabel Rev. 2. 20. 3 The whole congregation is not to eat or Table with such an one 1 Cor. 5. 11. We are to note and observe him and to have no company with him that he may b ashamed 2 Thes 3. 14. to esteeme him as an Heathen and a Publican and exclude him from the Seals of the Covenant so long as he remaineth in that state 3. Arg. If a person may for not hearing the Church be judged as an Heathen and a Publican and his sinnes bound in heaven by the Church then by discipline he is excluded from the holy things of God in a peculiar way in the which contumacious persons uncircumcised in heart are excluded in foro interno Dei in Gods secret Court But the former is true Matt. 18. 15. 16 17 18. Ergo c. Now if there be two Courts one before God Rom. 2. 16. Rom. 14. 4. 1 Cor. 14. 25. 1 Ioh. 3. 21. Another of the Church Mat. 18. 15. 16 c. 1 Cor. 5. 4 5 6 11 12. and two sorts of bindings two sorts of Witnesses two sorts of Sentences then can it not be dedenyed but the Church hath a spirituall Court for censures as well as for preaching the Word 4. Arg. Exclusion of an offender from the societie of the Saints and not to eate or drinke with him is some other reall visible censure accompanied with shame then any censure by the preaching of the Word but there is such a censure inflicted by the Church Ergo The Proposition is cleare from Rom. 16. 17. Now I beseech you brethren marke them that cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which yee learned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and avoid them Here is a reall visible and personall note of shame put on Schismaticks a bodily declining and avoiding of their company which could not possibly be done by preaching of the Word But some may say this was not done by the Church court but every one as private christians were to eschew the society of Schismaticks and by this you cannot conclude any Church censure Answ Not to say that it were unjustice to decline any and renounce society with him before he were convinced to be factious according to Christs order Mat. 18. which to Erastus is a way of common and naturall equity And so in order to some publique censure before the Church Paul wâ—iâ—eth to a constitute Church at Rome in which he prescribeth Rom. 12. the Officers duty as what Pastor Doctor Elder Deacon ought to doe in a Church body We cannot imagine he could command every private Christian to inflict the censure and punishment for a punishment it is in order to a publike sin of avoiding any in Church communion professing they serve the Lord Iesus Christ as these doe verse 18. upon their owne private opinion Iesus Christ and his Apostles must have left men loose in all order and discipline by this way howbeit the adversary would deny a church punishment here is a punishment inflicted by many 2 Cor. 2. 6. And it is not inflicted by way of preaching so 2 Thes 3. 14. If any man obey not our word by this Epistle note that man have no company with him that he may be ashamed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the learned is to put a publike church note on him that he may be confounded make him a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a publike wonder that he may be ashamed as Piscator and P. Baynes observe on the place expounding it of excommunication and the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is here is used toward the incestuous man who was to be excommunicated 1 Cor. 5. 9. I wrote unto you in an Epistle not to keepe company with fornicators the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ver 1. is ascribed to the incestuous man and here they are not to be mixed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with fornicators vers 11. But now I have written unto you not to keepe company if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator or covetous or an idolater or a railer or an extortioner with such a one no not to eate And that we may know that this is a church censure he addeth ver 12. For what have I to doe to judge them also that are without Ergo this no keeping company with such is a Church judging 5. Arg. The Church of Pergamus is rebuked for having amongst them such as hold the doctrine of Balaam and Revel 2. 14. and Thyatira that they suffered Iezabel to preach and seduce the servants of God ver 20. as the Church of Ephesus is praised v. 2. that they cannot beare with them that are evill but had tryed such that said they were Apostles and were not and had found them liars Rev. 2. 3. Here is it clearely supposed that these churches were to censure false teachers if any shall say they were to censure them no other waies but by preaching against their errors 1. This would establish a Prelate above the Church contrary to that of Mat. 18. Tell the Church and 1 Cor. 5. Where the Church gathered together was to excommunicate 2. The Angel of the Church is taken collectively for all the Rulers and the whole Church to whom Christ writeth as is cleare in that he saith so often He that hath an eare let him heare what the Spirit saith to
most at this time Ergo If the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inferre that a disobedient brother is most like these Heathen they must be greatest enemies to the Iewes and so remotest from Circumcision and all right to the holy things of God being the worst of the Heathen and so Erastus hath gained nothing but lost much by his poore Grammattication Yea if the offended brother should repute the offender as the worst of the Heathen he is to esteeme him who was once a Member of the Church in that he was obliged to heare the Church now as a Heathen and so no brother no Member of the Church and here Erastus must grant that one brother may un-church and Excommunicate any other for disobedience to the Church but the Church may not Erastus They are as absurd who say by Publicans here are understood wicked men for then by Heathen must be understood also the wickedest of the Heathen and not all the Heathen dwelling in Judea Ans I deny the consequence for by Publicans are meant men wicked and unpure by conversation and by Heathen men unclean by condition because without the Church and strangers to the Israel of God and without Christ and God in the world 2. We have proved what is meant by a Publican by evident Scriptures but that by a Publican is understood one who acknowledged no Magistrate but a Roman no Scripture no Greeke Author warranteth us to thinke it never man dreamed it but Erastus Erastus The Pharises hindred not Christ and his Apostles to come to the Temple Ans Christ was a born Jew and circumcised yea and what can the Practise of the Murtherers of Christ prove It is no Law But the Romans never sacrificed in the Temple but gave Liberty to the Iews to serve God according to his word and to hear Christ preach and that Christ kept the Ceremoniall Law and taught others even the cleansed Leapers so to do Matth. 8. is clear Erastus Private men do forgive sins Matth. 18. Luk. 17. Ergo to binde and loose is not a proper judiciall act of a Court Matth. 16. Christ speaketh not to Peter only but to all the faithfull who by teaching one another may bring one another to acknowledge their sin and if they do it they are pardoned if not their sins are bound in Heaven Ans To these the keys are given who retain and remit sins as Erastus saith But these be such as are sent of Christ as the Father sent his son Ioh. 20. 2. Either in this place there is given power to binde and loose by publick preaching the word or by some other place but this power to binde and loose by publick preaching is only given to Pastors and Teachers 1 Cor. 12. 29. Eph. 4. 11. 12. And Erastus granteth elsewhere that every private man by his office cannot preach nor administer the Sacraments and by no other place is this given to Pastors for I could elude all places with the like answer and say there is a publick Baptizing and Administration of the Supper by Ministers and sent Pastors only and a private also performed by private Christians yea by a woman and both are valid in Heaven and the binding and loosing of both ratified in Heaven 3. Christ spake this to the Disciples who before were sent to Preach and cast out Devils Matth. 10. and saith not Whom thou bindes on earth but in the plurall number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What things you binde on earth shall be bound in Heaven Erastus saith all this upon the fancy that binding and loosing of the Church and Peters private forgiving of his brother seven times a day must be all one which I do prove in another place to be different and amongst other reasons this is one because the Church pardoning hath a threefold order 1. between brother and brother 2. before two or three 3. Before the Church and the end of all is the gaining of the offending brother Matth. 18 15 16 17 18 19 20. But the private forgiving of a brother of which Peter speaketh Mat. 18. 21 22 23. and Luke 17 4 5. is of an inferiour nature for I know not if you can gain a brothers soule seven times a day if he but say It repenteth me Luke 17. 4. or seventy seven times Mat. 18. 22. These words It repenteth me said seventy times a day to the Church cannot satisfie to the gaining of a soule whereas to the private remitting of revenge it were enough We have the Text to warrant us that Christ spaâ—e to Stewards to whom the keyes are committed Erastus doth but wickedly assert he spoke to those who were as Christians in that act but the Text is cleare he speaketh of binding and loosing spiriâ—ually which is nothing to the holding off of a civill injurie which Erastus saith is the scope of our Saviour here and how hungry must that sense be That you deal with him as with an Heathen who acknowledgeth no Iudge but a Roman judge is a matter ratified in heaven 4. A private man is to forgive an injury even though the offender repent not Mat. 14. 15. Rom. 12. 19 20. Col. 3. 13. but that pardon cannot be ratified in heaven 5. See what we have said of binding and loosing before Erastus Though Christ should speake this onely to Ministers yet it followeth not that he speaketh this to other Presbyters Ans That dependeth on the proving that there be ruling Elders in the Church which I conceived have proved else where from Rom. 12. 8. 1 Cor. 12. 28. 1 Tim. 5. 17. I conceive when Christ spake this there was neither a formed Presbytery nor a formed Church Erastus Christ saith not if two or three Presbyters or two or three Ministers agree in one I will heare them but where two or three Christians agree Ans Nor doe we say that two or three can make an Excommunicating Church but Christ argueth a minore if the Lord heare two or three on earth farre more will he heare a Church and ratifie in heaven what they doe in binding and loosing offenders in Earth But how shall these words agree to the interpretation of Erastus for he expoundeth two or three and the whole Church to be but one Christian Magistrate can he be said to agree to himselfe Or can one or two or three meet together in Christs Name And what coherence is here Two or three conveeneth to pray that he that will not hear the Christian Magistrate may be dealt with as a Heathen man before the Roman judge how violent and farre off is this glosse and how unsuitable to the Text Erastus What other thing is it to a private brother to gain another to himselfe and to God then binding and loosing in Heaven Ans To bring him before the civill Magistrate either Christian or Heathen whose intrinsecall end by vertue of their office is not to gaine soules but to draw the blood of ill doers is farre
Paul for fear of the iniquity of this Church or Sanedrim dealt with them as Heathen and appealed to Cesar Ans But by what Law of God did they this It is not denyed but the Iews Synedrim being two courts did inflict punishment But that Christ establisheth a civill Sanedrim as a mean Matth. 18. To gain the soul of a brother is now the question we utterly deny this and gave reasons before thereof to which I adde if any obeyed not the Church that is the Sanedrim as Erastus saith they might be stoned to death as Steven was Was this Christs milde way to cite them onely before the Romane Senate Were dead men capable of answering to any further Iudicatures 2. The last step of conveening Heathens and Publicans before the Romane Senate according to Christs order is not to be observed with them for even Heathens and Publicans are so far forth our brethren that 1. We are not when they offend us to suffer sin in them but to rebuke them as Christians Lev. 19. 18. For this is the Law of nature The Law of nature will teach us not to hate an Heathen in our heart 2. We are to labour to gain all even those that are without the Church 1 Cor. 9. 19 20 21 22. 1 Pet. 3. 1. And this is Christs way of gaining all to rebuke and admonish them Ergo it was never Christs meaning to deal with Heathens and Publicans so as at the first we are to drag them before the Heathen Magistrate that by his sword he may gain them or take away their life yea and Erastus granteth in Ecclesiasticall crimes that the Iews had power of life and death in the matter of Steven and of Paul if he had not appealed to Cesar to save his head Josephus de bel Judaic Lib. 5. Cap. 26. Antiquit. Lib. 14. Cap. 12. But in things politick Cesar took all power of life and death from them Hence only is Christs time the footsteps of the two distinct courts remained and the Priests not the civill Magistrate had the power of Church-discipline But all was now corrupt CHAP. IX Quest 5. The place 1 Cor. 5. for Excommunication vindicated from the Objections of Erastus Erastus Paul did nothing contrary to the Command of Christ But Christ excluded no man from the Passeover not Iudas Ergo Neither minded â—e to exclude the incestuous man he saith not 1 Cor. 5. Why debarred you him not from the Sacrament But why did you not obtain by your tears and prayers as Augustine expoundeth it that the man might be cut off by death Ans Christ would not take the part of a visible Church on him to teachus that none should be cast out of the Church for secret and latent crimes 2. Paul did nothing without the Command of Christ But Christ neither in the Old or New Testament commanded his Church to pray for the miraculous cutting off of a scandalous person give an instance in all Scripture except you make this one which is contraverted your instance Erastus Paul 2 Cor. 2. absolveth the man from all punishment and nameth onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rebuking Ergo He was not excluded from the Sacrament Ans Exclusion from the Sacrament is but one of the fruits of Excommunication not formally Excommunication yet he harpeth on this alway that to be excommunicated or to be delivered to Satan is but to be debarred from the Sacrament 2. The answer presupposeth he was Excommunicated we urge the place for a precept only of Excommunication if he repented to the satisfying of the Church there was no need of Excommunication 3. If the man 2 Cor. 2. was delivered from rebuke onely and if that was all his punishment Ergo he was not miraculously cut off for then he must have been miraculously cut off and raised from death to life againe unlesse miraculous cutting off had been no punishment But if he was not miraculously cut off because he prevented it then with what faith could the whole Church pray for the miraculous killing of a brother and not rather that he might repent and live 4. In all the Word of God the intrinsecall end of putting to death a Malefactor is to avenge Gods quarrell Rom. 13. 4. That all Israel may hear and feare and doe no more any such wickednes Deut. 13. 11. To put away the guilt of sinne off the Land Numb 34. 33 34. that the Lords anger may be turned away and a common plague on the Church stayed when justice is executed on the ill doer Psal 106. 28 29 30 31. And it concerneth the Church and Common-wealth more then the soule of the Malefactor and there is nothing of such an end here But the intrinsecall end here is that the mans Spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus and this delivering to Satan is in the Name and authority and by the power of the Lord Iesus 1 Cor. 5. 4. 5. Now the Sonne of man came to save soules not to destroy bodies and burne cities and though by the power of Christ Peter miraculously killed Ananias and Saphira and Paul stroke Elimas the Socererer blinde yet these being Miracles we heare not that this was done by any interveening act of the Church conveened or by their prayers to bring vengeance by a miracle on the ill doâ—r Peter and Paul doe both these not asking any consent or intervention of the peoples prayers but by immediate power in themselves from the Lord Jesus 2. If any such power were given to the Church by their Prayers to obtain from God a miraculous killing of all scandalous persons who infecteth the Church in case the civill Magistrate were an Heathen and an enemy to Christian Religion and refused to purge the Church Christ who provideth standing remedies for standing diseases must have left this miraculous power to all the christian Churches in the earth that are under Heathen Magistrates or some power by way of Analogie like to this to remove the scandalous person but we finde not any such power in the Churches under Heathen Magistrates except power of refusing to the offender the Communion and rejecting him as an Heathen and Publican that he may be ashamed and repent 3. The whole faithfull at Corinth men women and children and all the Saints for to those all iâ— this power given as Erastus saith must have had a word of promise if they ought to have prayed in faith as the Prophets and Apostles prayed in faith that they might work miracles that Paul was miraculously to kill the incestuous man But that all and every one who were puffed up and mourned not at this mans fall had any such word of promise I conceive not imaginable by the Scriptures for the Proposition I take it as undeniable if Paul rebuked the Corinthians all and every one because they prayed not and mourned not to God that Paul wrought not this miracle in killing the incestuous man they behoved to have
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
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
Seniores et diaconi c. Anglicana Art 33. Qui per publicam Ecclesiae denunciationem ritâ— ab unitate Ecclesiae praecisus et excommunicatus is ab universa fidelium multitudine habendus est tanquam Ethnicus et publicanus Art 37. Cum Regiae Majestati Summam gubernationem tribuimâ—â— non damus Regibus nostris aut verbi Dei aut Sacramentorum administrationem sed eam tantum praerogativam quam in sacriâ— scripturis a deo ipso omnibus piis princibus semper fuisse attributam hoc est ut omnes status atque ordines fidei suae commissos sive illi Ecclesiastici sint sive civiles in officio contineant et conâ—umaces ac delinquentes gladio civili coerceant Scoticana Art 18. postremo loco nota verae Ecclesiae est disciplina Ecclesistica rectè administrata sicut Dei verbum praescribit ad reprimendum vitium et vertatem fovendam 24. Insuper Regum principum gubernatorum esse potissimum et imprimis Religionis purgationem et conservationem affirmamus adeo ut non tantum propter civilem politiâ—â—â— sed et propter conservationem verae religionis ut Idololatria et superstitio quaevis supprimatur a deo sint ordinati The Belgick confession hath the same Art 30 31 32. and 36. Confessio Augustana nonnulli incommodè commiscue runt potestatem Ecclestasticam potestatem gladii It distinguisheth well between the power of the keyes in the Church and the power of the sword in the Magistrate To this agreeth Confessio Swevica Art 13. and Confessio Bohemica Saxonica Basiliensis Tetrapolitana Amongst our late writers I should conceive that renowned Salmasius that rich treasure of Antiquity can stand as one for all to speak for us in this point The Emperours saith he had of old a suffrage in chusing of Metropolitans Patriarchs and Popes and of convocating General Councels So as Ierome maketh it a Mark of a General Councel that it was indicted by the Emperour and there was reason because it concerned the consciences of the Magistrate as the Magistrate what Pastors Popes and Doctors there were in their dominions to watch over their souls and the souls of their subjects It is true de facto Honorius the Emperour did ordain Marcellinus moderator of the conference at Carthage between the Catholicks and the Donatists The Emperours added the force of a civil Law to the Councels So Iustinian Constitut 130. sanxit ut quatuor conciliorum Canoneâ— pro legibus haberentur Ergo the Councels had the force of Ecclesiastical Lawes without the Emperours But they had not the force of civil Lawes having civil penalties annexed to them without the Emperours Ergo the confirmation of Councels made by the Emperours were politick and civil confirmations for the decrees of the Councel of Ierusalem were Ecclesiastical decrees without the will Law and Authority of any Emperour on earth and laid an Ecclesiastical tye on the Churches without the Emperour Act. 16. 4 5. So is that of Salmasius to be expounded as he expoundeth himself Principis est leges de Religione condere de fide Catholicâ de Episcopis de Clericis deque aliis huiusmodi que externam potestatem spectant five 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 circa res et personas Ecclesiasticas eaque fecere Christiani Imperatores in Ecclesia sui temporis haeo enim est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 potestas qua principles legum sanctionibus non uni generi sibi subditorum consulere debent sed in universum omnibus tam laicis quam Ecclesiasticis quatenus Ecclesia est in Repub et Reip. pars non Respublica Ecclesiae Now that Emperours appointed time and place of Synods which were external circumstances is clear But that the Emperours nominated the persons who should come appointed an Ecclesiastical president in the Synod to moderate and that they defined the number of Bishops is denied Except 1. That they did this in a great schisme and when the Church could not agree amongst themselves Or 2. In such a general defection as was under Arrius which was an extraordinary case 3. That the Emperour requested by Letters that such and such godly Bishops â—ight come to the Synod not such But whereas dâ— facto he as a Magistrate commanded such to come and did discharge others under pains to come except they were other wayes incarcerated and known parties and so could not be judges is against the liberty of the Church and the freedom of Synods So Salmasius Non igitur leges tantum facere dâ— religione ac fide omnibus observandas dummodo verbo divino rei contraveniant potest princeps Christianus vel summus Magistratus sed etiam suos subditos ad decreta Synodalia observanda quae verbo Dei conformia sunt obligare et Cogere ubicunque sane imperio opus est per vim agente ac jubente aut jurisdictione cogentâ—â— et â—â—erâ—eâ—te nihil istic habent quâ—d agant verbi Ministri neque jus agendi ullum etiamsi de re aut persona Ecclesiasticâ questiâ— sit aut de religione agatur sed ad principes aut Magistratus ea vis coactiva oe illud jus imperativum et coâ—â—â—ivum pertinet There is a Law making unproper I grant because declarative in Mortal men constitutive in the head Christ only touching Faith and Religion which is politick but it is when there is a constituâ—e Church subsequent not antecedent and in order to bodily coaction by the sword which is due to the Magistrate Oâ— this Law-giving doth Salmasius speak as his words clear and because bodily and externall co-action is not the Churches therefore the Magistrate as the Magistrate according to Salmasius hath no proper Ecclesiastick power The reciprecation of subordination of Pastors and Magistrates is clearly taught by Salmasius Minister Ecclesiae principem Christianum ligare et solvere id est suspendere et excommunicare aque potest ut alium quem libet de grege per illam internam potestatem et 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quam a deo accâ—pit At princeps rursus potest Episcopum per illam suam exteriorem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quae noâ— animam sed corpus curat cogere coercere ad officium compâ—â—â—ere si exorbitet etiam deponere et abijcere et exilio punire vita quoqâ—â— si meruerit sâ—ntâ—ntiam dicere privare a principe abjectus Episcopus Ministerij tantum atque officij functionem amittit atque exercitium intra limites jurisdictionis duntaxatvel ditionis quae principi subjecta est at non potestatem quam in ordinatione accepit per impositionem manuum potest eripere princeps cum nec eam possit dare Cum sit duplex potestas Ecclesiastica altera interna externa altera tam peccant qui utramque principi vel Magistratui civili tribunt quam qui utramque denegant ministro Ecclesiastico And he proveth that the Pastors have received immediately from Christ and
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
positive Commandements hic nunc for esehewing of Scandall farre more may we hic nunc not crosse not kneele hic nunc when crossing and kneeling murthereth one for whom Christ died even though it offend our Superiours Ergo this provision of the Doctors is vaine and Superiours are unjustly offended if our non-murthering of weake brethren offend them nor are we to care for the Doctors provision here 4. No utilitie can truly redound to the whole Church by practising of an indifferent thing which culpably occasioneth the murthering of a weake brother Except our Doctors meane that sinne may edifie the whole Church 5. They say if the things in our private judgement be inexpedient the second way that is to the Church the Church cannot Command them except the Church command against her conscience 6. If matters in their expediencie be questionable and probable on both sides the Churches determination should end the controversie saith the Doctors this is the Doctrine of the Jesuites Suarez Thomas Sanches and Gregor de valent as I shew before when a thing is probable and I be resolved in conscience against neither of the sides and feare the one side be murthering him for whom Christ died which is against Gods commandement and know that humane authoritie commandeth the contrary and am perswaded it is indifferent and a positive commandement of men if the Churches determination be here to sway my conscience to practise is to me blind obedience for humane authoritie as it is such giveth no light Ergo it cannot remove my doubting and beget faith and also the conscience is so much the bolder to venture on a sinne against God for feare of eschewing a sinne against men which is questionable and in a matter indifferent this is also the stout conscience of Bonaventura 2 sent dist 39. plus est standum praecepto Praelati quam conscientiae 7. Our Doctors say our way is against the peace of the Church But I answer their way is Popish and against the truth of God in commanding our consciences to rest upon the wicked will of men And their instance of a Synod of a hundred Pastors may be brought aswell to prove the Synode of Trent is to be obeyed as for the present purpose Duplyers pag. 69. Yee will say this argument is Popish and leadeth men to acquiesce without tryall upon the determination of the Church But we answer in matters of faith the truth whereof may be infallibly concluded out of the word of God we ought not without tryall to acquiesce unto the Doctors of the Church and in this respect we dissent from Papists who ascribe too much to the authoritie of Councells as if their decrees were infallible But in matters of Policie if we be certaine that in their owne nature they are indifferent and if the expediencie of them onely be called in question seeing no certaine conclusion concerning their expediencie can be infallibly drawn out of Gods word we are to acquiesce to the decrees of the Church 1. Because otherwise it is impossible to agree in one conclusion in matters of this kind 2. Disobedience shall prove more hurtfull then obedience Answer 1. This is a wide step to make all things in Scripture either matters of faith or matters indifferent That there were eight persons in Noahs Arke and that Sampson sâ—ew a thousand with the jaw bone of an asse are not matters of faith as matters of faith are contradistinguished from things indifferent many are saved who neither know nor believe many things of this historicall veritie in Scripture yet are they not matters indifferent But the Doctors are reconcilers with the Belgik Arminians who deny all the things contraverted betwixt Papists and us and betwixt us and Arminians and Anabaptists at least the most part of them to be fundamentall and that either side may be believed and holden without hazard of salvation and therefore we are to leane to the Churches determination in these without farther inquirie 2 They mean that in matters contraverted and in all things indifferent as whether in this or that fact we doe murther him for whom Christ died Wee are to give our faith and conscience over to the Church without further tryall 3. What if wee be not perswaded of the indifferencie of the things commanded but doubt whether they bee commanded or forbidden in the Word as is now the present case of Ceremonies to us for we cannot be perswaded of their indifferencie and the Doctors saith they are not matters of faith Ergo by their own doctrine their distinction is defective 4. Scripture is also perfect in resolving us what is scandall and murthering of our brother as what is Idolatrie and Blasphemie and therefore we are not to hang our faith here upon the Churches Canons without farther tryall as you say 5. That the Scripture is perfect in matters of faith but imperfect in matters of Policie that is in matters wherein we may kill him for whom Christ died is no better then the Papists distinction who teach us that the Scripture is perfect in the articles of faith not in traditions so Scotus saith True Theologie according to Divine revelation is onely of things in Scripture or which may be deduced out of Scripture And Suarez saith Things that belong to accidentarie rites are left to the Churches determination but the Scripture implicitly containeth all articles of feare faith And so saith Bannes and Duvallius 6. Your feare is vain that we shall have no order nor peace if Scripture be judge and not the authoritie of the Church in matters which you call indifferent for the Church giveth out Canons concerning things strangled blood which were matters indifferent and that from the word of God Act. 15. and that in great unitie and peace Gods word maketh unitie and not mens authoritie 7. Disobedience to Church Canons in case of given Scandall is neither disobedience nor hurteth at all It possibly offendeth men who will tyrannize over the Conscience and if any be induced thereby to sin it is a scandall taken not given Abstinence from murthering a weak brother is obedience to God and so no active Scandall In the 48 Section The Duplyers doe but redouble over again the arguments already brought and answered by me divers times to D Robert Barron in private while he was silenced and as I conceived satisfied Especially they say our disobedience to superiours in things lawfull and expedient is most scandalous to others and that because we by nature are most unwilling to be curbed and to have our libertie restrained Therefore Calvin saith God that he may allure us to obedience to â—â—â—â—riours called superiours Parents I answer 1. The Doctors are too hastie to call that obedience to Superiours which is in question We say it is disobedience to the â—ixt Commandement because it is a scandalizing of our brother Ergo it is not obedience to the fift Commandement to practise