that Feast pointed out holinesse all our life is utterly denyed for eating of leavened bread except in these dayes forbidden was not a sin nor any Ceremoniall type at all no more then our common bread and wine are signes of Christs body and blood 2. Paul compareth the Feast to the lump of the Visible Church so as the leaven was to be removed out of all houses of Israel because it did Ceremonially infect corrupt and leaven them and so was to be purged so did the inâ—â—stuons man leaven the Visible Church of Corinth and was to be purged out Nor do I contend that the Lords Supper here is meant though I know no solemn Spirituall Feast that the visible Church now hath but the Supper of the Lord But rather I understand Church-Communion in the dainâ—ies of the Gospel which are set forth to us under the similitude of a Feast Matth. 22. Luke 14. 16 17 18 c. Prov. 9. 2 3 4 5. Cant. 5. 1. Erastus The leaven of the Passeover does not so signifie impurity of life that Excommunication can be hence gathered therefore the Apostle alludeth to that place that or the like way as the Jews did Celebrate their Passeover without leaven so it becometh us to Celebrate our Passeover without the leaven of malice and wickednesse Leaven simply may either signifie good or evil as Matth. 13. and 16. and Potuit it might signifie our naturall corruption For God not only forbiddeth to eat leaven but to have it in the house and leaven signifieth 〈…〉 sse so to be punished as yeâ— say even by death Ans The Leaven of the Passeover signified so impurity as we are to put out the person that leaveneth the Church out of the Church as they were to put leaven out of the house and not only simply not to eat it so are we not only not to eat and drink with a scandalous man but he is to be reputed no member of the Church but a leavening and contagious man and therefore Paul doth not here as Erastus dreameth show what way every one in his own personall practise and duty as a single Christian is to do that he may save his own soul and therefore every one was to celebrate a Christian Passeover in his own soul laying aside the leaven of malice Though I grant That Paul ver 8. doth infer and draw a conclusion of a personall purging out of the leaven of malice and hypocrisie out of every mans heart But Paul doth expresly command the Corinthians as a convened Church to put out from amongst them another man for the saving of that other mans soul And what they should do in a Church society toward the man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Who hath done this to wit down right they should Iudge him Cast him out purge him out as a leavening peece And the world cannot give any other meaning of the words then that as the Iews were to put all leaven from amongst them when they were to celebrate their Passeover So the Corinthians were to exercise the like work upon this incestuous man and to put him out from amongst them as one delivered to Satan as a lump of sowre leaven and we seek no more for Excommunication 2. Leaven signifieth Matth. 13. good the Kingdom of God is compared to leaven But here it is corruption of contagious scandall in this incestuous man and such leaven as is to be cast out and purged away Now I hope we must not purge out and cast away the Kingdom of heaven and Matth. 16. 6. The leaven of the corrupt and false Doctrine of Pharisees and Sadduces that corrupteth the hearts of men is meant and of this leaven we are to beware But why doth Erastus strive to bring the reader in a good opinion of leaven which Paul would have us to detest I know not a reason but because the place is so evident for the casting out of an incestuous man from amongst the Corinthians lest he should infect the flock and that by the Church convened together in the name and power of Christ that his soul may be saved and this is the very excommunication that we assert 3. This leaven saith he may signifie naturall corruption Now Erastus putteth us to a may be but a may be will not do it For the Text saith not I hope by Erastus his confession that the poor man must be delivered to Satan that is miraculously killed for naturall concupiscence All the world thus are delivered to Satan as being heirs of wrath for sin Originall at least in demerit 2. The man was not judged purged out and cast out as leaven that sowred the Church for naturall corruption 3. Paul offendeth not with them that they were puffed and mourned not for the mans Originall sin but for his actuall wickednesse because he had gone in to his fathers wife an Abomination that the Gentiles are ashamed to name Erastus Then the man must be killed as he that eat leavened bread was killed and though the punishments of Moses Law as such must not be brought in the Christian Church yet if God subject men to the Magistrates Sword men cannot free them from it though there may be degrees of punishment Ans We denyed that those that eat leavened bread with the Passeover were killed but onely excommunicated and cut off from the congregation God never subjected any to the sword for that cause 2. We deny that therefore by proportion the incestuous man should be killed by what consequence will Erastus prove that those that gathered sticks on the Lords day those that are stubborn to Father or Mother those who commit fornication now in the Israel of God under the New Testament must be stened to death by the Magistrate or miraculously killed by the Apostles it must be by the same consequence that Erastus reasoneth here But did God kill immediatly any offenders at all for originall sin some one more nor other as Erastus dreameth this man was killed 3. What warrant hath Erastus that the Devill killeth any one of the visible Church now under the New Testament and any of the children of God whose spirit are saved in the day of the Lord proferat tabulas Erastus saith it neither Prophet nor Apostle in the Old or New Testament ever said it Erastus said an Anagogicall sense is not concludent Ans Where the Holy Ghost giveth the sense it is false saith Beza 2. Why doth then Erastus conclude miraculous killing from the Types of the Old Testament Erastus Where I pray you doth Paul say that the punishment of eating leavened bread did typifie your Excommunication Ans The word Excommunication may be by the Church used as the Word Sacrament Trinity But the thing is not ours but an ordinance of Iesus Christ 2. Paul saith in this very place as Israel were to put away leaven in their Passeover so is the convened Church of Corinth in the name and power of Christ to put out judge and purge
dicitur Scriptura sacra aliud est verbum dei non scriptum dicitur ecclesiae traditio There is one vvord of God vvritten called the holy Scripture And there is another vvord of God not vvritten and it is called the Tradition of the Church Now their Tradition is no more a part of the Scripture but another part of the word of God contradistinguished from Scripture then the body is a part of the soul or Scotland a part of England for both England and Scotland are collaterall parts of great Brittain the Scripture say they is the unperfect rule of Faith and not the compleat will of God as touching Faith or manners but Scripture and Tradition together are the perfect and totall rule so say Formalists that Scripture is the compleat and perfect rule of Faith and manners to regulate all our Morall acts But the other part of the distinction is that Scripture is not a compleat and full rule to regulate all our Morall Acts whatsoever whither of Faith or manners or Church-Policy as it is no rule to my conscience and practise to believe for orders cause and obedience to my Superiours and for decency that I am to wear a Religious significant linnen creature called a Surplice or not to wear it or that I am to excercise or not exercise that grave action of drawing my thumb Crosse the Air above the face of a Baptized Childe vvhile I baptize to betoken his dedication to Christs service And hitherto neither Traditions nor Positives of Church-Policy are added as necessary parts of written Scripture 2. Traditions are not added to the Scripture by Papists as coming from the immediatly inspiring spirit that dyted and wrote Scripture more then our Ceremoniall Positives of policy It s true Papists say they come from an infallible spirit But Formalists I hope refer not their unwritten Positives to so noble blood yet in this they agree that Traditions are not added by them as descending from the immediate inspiring spirit of written Scripture Therefore Cornelius a Lapide saith Non addetis ad verbum quod vobis loquor aliquid scilicet tanquam meum vel a me dictum aut jussum nulli enim homini licet prescripta aut precepta sua pro preceptis a deo a spiritu sancto immediatè inspirante dictatis aut pro Scripturis sacris addere It is not lavvfull for any man to adde to the vvord any thing of his ovvn as his ovvn or as spoken and commanded by himself For no man may broach his own injunctions and precepts as if they were the precepts taught by the immediate inspiring spirit speaking in the Scriptures Hence Papists teach that their Traditions flow from a little lower Spring then from the immediately inspiring Scripturall spirit So I make this good from famous Iesuites Cornelius a Lapide in Deut. 4. 1 2. saith Sed et ipsi judaei multa addiderunt legi ut coelaturas omnemque ornatum templi ut festum sortium sub Eester festum dati ignis festum Encaeniorum c. Hec enim non a deâ— sed a judaeis sancita et instituta sunt denique hec non sunt addita sed potius inclusa legi dei Quia Lex jubet obedire parentibus Magistratibuâ— pontificibus eorumque legibus The Jevvs saith he objecting the instances of Formalists added many things to the Lavv as the ingraving and adorning of the Temple the feast of Purim of Dedication c. And these traditions vvere not ordained and instituted by God Ergo not by the immediate inspiring spirit as is the Holy Scripture but by the Iews and they were not added to the Law but included in the Law because the Law biddeth obey Superiors and their Laws whence it is evident that these very Ceremoniall traditions of Papists for which Formalists contend are not added to the word as coming from God or the immediatly inspiring spirit that diteth scripture but from the Church without warrant of Scripture just as Popish traditions which we count unlawfull additions to the word And Tannerus the Iesuit saith Tom. 3. in 22. de fide spe et cha dis 1. de fide Q. 1. Dub. 8. That the assistance of the spirit that the Church hath in proposing unwritten traditions requireth no positive inspiration or speech made by God to the Church but it is enough that the Church have a very negativehelp of God only by which she is permitted not to erre His words are these Nam assistentia illa dei quà ecclesiae adest ne ejusmodo rebus fidei in traditionibus non scriptis proponendis erret por se non dicit nec requirit positivam inspirationem seâ— locuâ—â—onâ—m Divinam ipsi ecclesiae factam sed contenta est quovis auxilio dei etiam mere negativo quo fit ut ecclesia ijs in rebuus non sinatur errare Cum tamen nova revelatio utique novam inspirrtionem seu Locutionem dei aliquid positivè notificantem significet And the like saith Malderus in 22. de virtu Theolog. That though traditions come from an infallible spirit no lesse then Scripture yet traditions are the Word of God because they are heard and constantly believed But the Holy Scripture is the Word of God because written by the inspiration of the holy spirit Q. 2. Art 1. Dub. 4. pag. 83. And therefore he maketh two sorts of traditions some meerly Divine vvhich the Apostles received either immediately from the Holy Ghost or from the mouth of Christ as those touching the matter and form of the Sacraments Others saith he are properly Apostolick as those touching the Lent Fast instituted by the Apostles ib. tract de trad Q. Vnic Dub. 1. Traditiones inquit per apostolos traditae aliae sunt Divinâ— quas immediatè ipsi a spiritu sancto dictante vâ—l ex ore Christi acceperunt ut de materia et potissimum de formis sacramentorum aliae autem propriâ— dicuntur Apostolica ut de Iejunijo Quadragesimali quod Apostoli Iâ—stituerunt Hence it is evident if Papists cannot but be condemned of impious additions to the Scriptures by these places Deut. 4. Deut. 12. Formalists are equally deep in the same crime and the same is the answer of Malderus ibid. Dub. 2. vetat Apoc. 22. Ne quis audeat Divinam prophetiam depravare assuendo aliquid aut abradendo Turrianus tom de fide spe et cha de traditio disp 20. Dub. 2. pag. 255. Respondetur Joannem planè probibere corruptionem Libri illius non tamen prohibet ne alij Libri scribantur vel alia Dogmata tradantur Stapletonus Relect. Prin. fidei Doct. Contaver 4. q. 1 Art 3. Sed non prohibet vel legis interpretationem per sacerdotes faciendam imò hoc disertè prescribit Deut. 17. Vel aliquid aliud in fidem admittendum qúod lege scriptâ non contineatur Alioqui quicquid postea prophetâ— predicaverunt et Divinis Scripturis adjectum est contra hoc dei mandatum factum
will was not determinatrix in this 5. The man jumbleth together godly discretion and will they be much different but for godlinesse in short sleeves and Crossing a finger in the Aire I understand it not nor can reason dream of any warrant for it but will as will that is mans lust made it Neither do Formalists go from Suarez and Bellarmine who call that will-worship which is devised only by a manâ— wit and is not conforme to the principles of Faith and wanteth all reason and the received use of the Church But we are disputing here against the Churches use as if it were not yet a received use But upon these grounds I go 1. Reason not binding and strongly concluding is no reason but meer will So Ceremonies have no reason If the reason binde they are essentiall worship 2. Authority is only ministeriall in ordering Gods worship and hath no place to invent new worship 3. Authority as Authority especially humane giveth no light nor no warrant of conscience to obey and therefore authority naked and void of scriptures-light is here bastard authority 11. In all this Formalists but give the Papists distinction of Divine and Apostolick Traditions for power of inventing Ceremonies to them is Apostolick but not infallible and Divine Suarez giveth the difference God saith he Is the Immediate Author of Divine Traditions and the Apostles only publishers But the Apostles are immediate Authors of Apostolick Traditions God in speciall manner guiding their will So Cajetan Sotus Bellar. So our Formalists Duname Hooker Sutluvius But I like better what Cyprian saith That no Tradition but what is in the word of God is to be received But this distinction is blasphemous and contrary to Scripture 1 Cor 14 57. The things that I write unto you even of decency and order as v. 29. 40. Are the Commandment of the Lord 2. Pet. 3. 2. Peter willeth them to be mindefull of the vvords which were spoken before by the holy Prophets and of the Commandments of us the Apostles of the Lord and Sâ—vioâ—â— Then the Apostles Commandments are equall with the Commandments of the Prophets But in the Old Testament there were not some Traditions Divine and some not every way Divine but Propheticall for the Prophets were the mouth of God as is clear 2 Pet. â— 19 20 21. Luk. 1. 70. Rom. 1. 2. So 1 Tim. 6. 13. I give thee charge in the sight of God 14. That thou keep this Commandment without spot unrebukable untill the appearing of the Lord Iesus Now the Commandment as Beza noteth Are all that he writ of discipline which Formalists say are for the most Apostolicke but not Divine Traditions 2. If Ceremonies seem good to the holy Ghost as they say they do from Act. 15. then they must seeme good to the Father and the Son as the Canon is Act. 15. But that Canon was proved from expresse Scripture as Peter proveth v. 7 8 9. and James v. 13 14 15 16. If they come from the Spirit inspiring the Apostles they cannot erre in such Traditions If from the spirit guided by the holy Ghost they come from Scripture 3. If these traditions come from no spirit led by light of Scripture we shall not know whether they be Lawfull or not for the Scripture is a Canonick rule of lawfull and unlawfull 4. If any Apostolick spirit be given to Authors of Ceremonies why not also in preaching and praying How then do many of them turn Arminians Papists Socinians 5. The Apostolick spirit leading institutors of Ceremonies doth either infuse light naturall supernaturall or Scripturall in devising Ceremonies and so Eatenus in so far they were essential worship or the Apostolick spirit doth lead them with no light at all which is brutish Enthusiasme or 3. Gods Apostolick spirit infuseth the generall equity and negative Lawfulnesse of these truths Surplice is an Apostolicall signe of Pastorall holinesse and Crossing a signe of Dedication of a childe to Christs service Now light for this we would exceedingly have If this light be immediatly infused then Surplice Crossing are as Divine as if God spake them for truths immediatly inspired lost no divinity because they come through sinfull men for Balaam his Prophesie of the star of Jacob was as Divine in regard of Authority as if God had spoken it but if these trash come from an inferiour spirit we desire to know what spirit speaketh without the word But some may object The preaching of the word is somewhat humane because it s not from the infallible spirit that dited the word Ergo Ceremonies may come from the holy Spirit though they be not as lawfull as Scripture Ans Let them be proved to be from the warrant that the word is preached and we yeeld to all 5. Apostolick Ceremonies but not Divine have Gods generall allowing will for the accepting of them Now Sampsons mother Judg. 13. 23. proveth well The Lord hath accepted our offering Ergo it is Lawfull and he will not kill us So God atcepted Abel and Noah their Sacrifices Ergo they were Lawfull and Divine worship So Hosea 8. 8. They sacrifice flesh for the sacrifices of my offerings and they eat it but the Lord accepteth them not Ergo offerings of flesh without offering of themselves as living sacrifices to God are now unlawfull If God accept of Ceremonies they must be Divine service if he accept them not they must be unlawfull They Answer He accepteth them as Arbitrary worship not as essentiall I Answer God might have accepted so Sampsons sacrifice and Noahs as arbitrary worship and yet not be gracious to them nor reward their sacrificing as good service contrary to the Texts alledged but I doubt much if the Lord be gracious to men and accept in Christ corner Caps Surplice Crossing humane holy dayes They object Our Circumstances of time place persons c. are no more warranted by the Scripture then Ceremonies are And God might in his wisdom â—aith Burges have calculated the order of times and places such climats and seasons but he hath left these as he hath left our Ceremonies to the Churches liberty Ans Time and place as I observed already being circumstances Physicall not Morall nor having any Religious influence to make the worship new and different in nature from that which is commanded in the Law though they be not expresly in the Word do not hinder but you may say Such an act of worship is according as it is written for as Praying Preaching hearing is according as it is written so is Praying and Preaching in this convenient place proved by that same Scripture As it is written but one and the same Scripture doth not warrant Order and Surplice 2. The question is not what Gods wisdom can do for he could setdown all the names of Preaching Pastors Doctors Deacons Elders in the Word but his wisdom thus should have made ten Bibles more then there be But
unlawfull teaching means doth bring to our memory because they have no warrant of Christ to speak or spell us the very language and minde of God which God hath spoken in his word by his holy Prophets and Apostles Yea though crosses and afflictions work only upon us as occasions and externall objects yet are we to submit our Conscience to them as to warnings because they be sent as Gods Messengers appointed by him as Mic. 6. 9. Hear the Rod and who hath appointed it 4. Ceremonies work saith Burges as sensible objects and as other Creatures yea but he is far wide the Creature doth book as the word is Psal 19. v. 1. the glory of God and that which may be known of God is made manifest in them and God hath manifested 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these things by the Creatures Rom. 1. 19. But Ceremonies are not books of Gods writing God hath not written nor booked this upon a Surplice Be holy ye who bear the Vessels of the Lord he hath written it in Isaiahs book c. 52. 11. And we submit to the teaching of the Creatures though they work not upon the soul as the Word and Sacraments do because God hath appointed such books to teach us Erg◠we are in no sort to submit to the Devils books Printed by Prelats or to their Ceremoniall Volumnes because God hath written nothing upon them and here by the way I say it is unlawfull yea and Hypocrisie to be devouter then God will have us as to enlarge the Phylacteries and make them above Gods measure Numb 15. 38. To be humble by a mean not appointed of God Ioh. 13. Or to do what God only should do as to make Annointing Oyl besides Gods Oyl Exod. 30. 31 32 33. Or to set a threshold and a post beside Gods own threshold Ezek. 43. 8. is presumption Lastly Gods spirit worketh not with Ceremonies and so they are as the offering of Swines blood and the slaying of a man and so Abomination to God Isa 66. 1 2. The holy spirit is merited to us by Christ Ioh. 16. 14. He shall receive of mine and shew unto you But who can say that the grace of joy in the holy Ghost wrought by the droning of Organs and the holinesse taught by Surplice is a work of the spirit merited by Christ as our High Priest 3. God hath made no promise that he will work by Ceremonies for the spirit worketh not without the Word so then I might resist the working of the spirit and not sin against the Word and this is Anabaptists Enthusiasme If God work not by them they be vain and fruitlesse and the Idol is unlawfull for this that it profiteth not Also the spirits action is either naturall or supernaturall here If naturall it is a naturall work and a naturall spirit and to be rejected If supernaturall we may devise means to produce supernaturall effects mens Ceremonies can produce supernaturall joy comfort peace and acts of grace purchased to us by Christs merit this is a miracle 3. They say All this may be said against your Circumstances of time and place for they are appropriated to Religious uses and not for that made holy parts of Divine Worship 2. Time and place are new things as our Ceremonies are 3. Spirituall signification maketh Ceremonies so much the better but hindreth them not but that they may be Rites of meer Order Burges Ans Time Place Pulpit Table-cloath are new Physically often not new Morally or Religiously they have no Spirituall influence in worship A civill declamation hath the same time place pulpit with a Preaching for then if for application you call them Religious as D. Ammes saith well An hill whereon a Preacher Preacheth a Iudge perswadeth a Law a Captain speaketh to his Souldiers is both a Sacred a judiciall a Military hill 2. Signification spirituall maketh Ceremonies capable of being ordered for Surplice wearing and Crossing being Doctrinall as teaching signifying stirring up the dull affections as doth the Word and Sacrament they require order and decency Now things of meer order requireth no ordering as time place require not other time place to circumstance them right 2. This is that which Papists say as Suarez that by consequent only they have signification putupon them Now fourthly The place Matth. 15. where Christ reproveth the Traditions of Pharisees as Doctrines of men The Jesuit Vasquez his Answer is their Answer Vasquez Tom. 2. in 12. disp 152. cap. 4. That Christ reproveth them not because they kept the Traditions of the Elders Sed quod in falsis praeceptis Divinae legi contrari isputarent esse summam Religionis Because they believed all Religion to stand in their Traditions which were contrary to Gods Law and for their own omitted Gods Commandments And Suarez Tom. de legib lib 4. cap. 2. He reproveth what they added Tanquam nova as new things Corduba Ad. victor rel 1. de potestate Ecclesiae q. 3. Prop. 6. But Chrysostom Hom. 32. in Matth. Thinketh better that they had no power to make Laws yea he condemneth the Laws written in their forehead But this exposition is false 1. They brought in Traditions at first for vain glory to be called Rabbi Matth. 23. 7 8. Ergo they thought them not at first of Religious necessity 2. Mark saith cap. 7. 5. Why walk not thy Disciples according to the Traditions of the Elders Therefore the externall practice and not the internall opinion of necessity and holinesse is condemned as is clear And when the Pharisees saw some of the Disciples eat bread with unwashen hands they found fault The challenge was for an external omission of an outward observance which may be seen with the eyes Ergo these Traditions are not condemned by Christ because they were contrary to Gods Word or impious but in this that they were contrary because not Commanded for in the externall Religious act of washing hands there was no other impiety of a wicked opinion objected to Christs Disciples for if the Pharisees eye had been satisfied in that the Disciples should wash before they eat they would not have contended with Christs Disciples about the Piety of these Traditions nor about any inward opinion that they added under this Reduplication as new as Suarez saith But the Church which cannot erre including the Jewish Pope the High Priest can adde nothing as new contrary to Gods Law nor is there any question betwixt the Pharisees and the Lords Disciples Whether the Traditions of the Elders should be esteemed the marrow and sum of all Religion as Vasquez saith But only anent externall conformity with walking in the Traditions of the Elders or not walking as is most clear in the Text It is true Christ objected they accounted more of mens Traditions nor of Gods Commandments as Papists and Formalists do But that was not the state of the question betwixt the Disciples of Christ and the Pharisees 2. Christ rejecteth
that Christ should direct the Jews who were to be dispersed through all the earth to go up to Jerusalem for judgement seeing Ierusalem was to be laid equall with the ground and the Iews their state Church policy and the Scepter now removed from Iudah let wise men judge 11. The complaining to an Heathen Magistrate or the punishing of an offender by the sword by no Scripture is such a binding on earth by the power of the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven as this is expounded Matth. 16. 19. And such a binding as is ratified in Heaven and that by the joynt Prayers of two or three on earth as is here spoken ver 18 19 20. A Heathen Magistrates Sentence though never so just should not be valued except it were confirmed by the Prayers of the Church as the Sentence of Excommunication must be 12. The Iewish Saenedrim was now to take an end and expire with all the Iewish policy it is not to be imagined that Iesus Christ would appoint a perishing remedy for a perâ—etuall and ever-enduring disease now offences and scandals between brother and brother were to be in the world to the end ver 15. If thy brother offend c. And Christ saith Offences must be and the remedy here is morall and perpetuall as 1. That Christ shall have a Church visible on earth against which the gates of Hell shall not prevail 2. That we first deal to gain our brother in private ere to his greater shame he be brought in publick before the Church 3. The Lords ratifying in Heaven what his servants shall binde and loose on earth 4. The agreeing of two to pray together the convâ—ening of two or three in the name of Christ with a promise of the presence of Christ all these are Morall and perpetuall The Lord never did the like of this before or after 13. In all the New-Testament we do not read that Christ who was the end of the Law and the body now come in the flesh to abolish all Ceremonials and temporary Laws of the Iewish Church and policy as Iewish did institute any old-Testament Law such as the Sanedrim was for offending brethren if it be said that this was but the right expounding of an old divine Law now almost buried through the corruption of men then must Erastus shew that this was an old Law of divine institution that the Iews were to keep this threefold order in gaining an offending brother and that this is now abolished and that the power of the Magistrate in Church-businesse by this place is not established to the end of the world both which are contrary to the Principles of Erastus not to say that there is not in this whole Chapter or Luk. 17. where the same purpose is handled any shadow of reason to assert that Christ is restoring any Ceremoniall or Iudiciall Law to its genuine and sound meaning and sense but by the contrary Christ speaketh of the Morall and perpetuall Doctrine of scandall and how we are to deal with an offending brother to gain him to repentance either by our selves or the Church and to forgive private injuries even to seventy seven times Lastly since Publicans and Romans converted to the Christian saith from Paganisme even at this time were Brethren who might both give and take scandals it shall follow that Christ commandeth Gentiles to submit to the Jewish Magistrates this was against Christian liberty and to take from Cesar those things that are Cesars which is unjust But saith Erastus Publicans were not in Iuda excluded from sacrifices Luâ— 18. A Pharisee and a Publican went up to the Temple to pray Christ himself did eat with Publicans and sinners therefore this phrase Let him be unto thee as an Heathen and a Publican cannot expresse this Let him be excommunicated except you say that all heathen and Publicans were so served by Christ and the Iews as if they had been excommunicated Ans 1. Publicans that were by Nation Heathens were excluded from sacrifices and the Temple jure by Gods Law but not de facto because the Iews being under bondage to the Romane Emperour and spoiled of their Liberties and Laws might not put their Laws in execution against Heathen and Publicans it is sufficient to us saith Beza that Publicans were execrable and hatefull to the Iews and say I that Heathen and Publicans remaining such are without the Church and not to be reputed as brethren but enemies to the true Church of God and this is that which to us is Excommunication I do not doubt but Publicans went to the Temple to pray but that is but to Argue A facto ad jus not the right way A jure ad factum Publicans ought not to have done so 2. Christ the Supream Lawgiver who is above the Law did often dispense with sacrifice and positive Laws for a work of mercy and if he touched the dead and touched the skin of the Leaper and suffered his disciples to pluck the ears of Corne on the Sabbath day what marvell then he did eat with Publicans and sinners contrary to the Letter of a positive Law Knowing his own whom the Father had given to him from eternity were to be brought in to himself by his familiar conversing with them why should not the Physitian converse with the sick the shepheard with the lost sheep the Redeemer with his ransomed ones But this is no warrant that therefore the cleansed Leaper should not shevv himself to the Priest or that an obstinate offender should not be reputed as a Heathen and not admitted into the Sanctuary 3. That simple Publicans or Heathen remaining such should sacrifice I never read sacrifices were offered for Iobs friends who were not within the visible Church But 1. by Gods own speciall and immediate command as we read Iob 42. 7 8. A positive Law for it which yet was requisite for ordinary worship of that kinde we read not 2. I think Iobs friends cannot in knowledge Religion Profession be esteemed meer Heathens and therefore as God tied not himself to a positive and standing Law here so neither was Christ being the same God equall with the Father so restrained from not familiar conversing with Heathen and Publicans but he might leap over a Ceremony to save a lost soul Object 6. But the adversaries say Christ here useth words proper to the Iewish Synedry and the Old-Testament as witnesses Ecclesia or congregation Heathen Publican and these are not New Testament words nor was there such a thing as a New Testament Church on earth at this time and Christ having not yet ascended to Heaven nor sent down the holy spirit cannot be thought to hold forth the power and jurisdiction of a thing yet destitute of all being such as was the Christian Church nor can he here speak of Christs spirituall Kingdom Ans 1. Christ did well to use these words Witnesses Church Congregation Heathen Publican as well known to his hearers and these
supponit The Scripture saith not That the Worship of God must have a time a place when and where it s to be performed a person who is to perform it a habit or garments on the person that Worshippeth the Scripture teacheth none of these but supposeth that they are and must be because nature teacheth that without time place person habit gesture its unpossible that these or any humane actions can be and therefore Prelaticall Formalists do without all sense or reason require that we should prove by Scripture the lawfulnesse of time place person habit gesture in Gods Worship for these are presupposed in all actions Naturall Civill Religious Private Publike Lawfull unlawfull in acts of Arts Sciences of Morall conversing and all yea there is as good reason that they demand Scripture to prove he must be a living man who hath a reasonable soul and senses and is born of a woman who Preacheth and Administrateth Sacraments which is presupposed by nature When the Heretick willeth me to prove from Scripture that Christ is very man it is a vain thing he should demand of me beside to prove by Scripture that Christ is such a one also as can laugh weep admire sing sigh c. for these are presupposed to follow mans nature and if Scripture prove Christ to be a true man it presupposeth by natures light that he can laugh he can weep and that in some time some place in some habit in some gesture so he be a man for that is presupposed by the light of nature and known by the most Barbarous who never heard of Scripture and therefore there is no greater reason to put us to prove all the naturall and unseparable circumstances of Worship such as time and place without which it is impossible any action at all can be performed then that we should presse Prelats to prove by Scripture that Iames Vsher is born of English or Irish Parents for sense and nature can prove all these without Scripture But because their Ceremonies of Crossing bowing to Altars Festivall dayes Oyl Salt Spittle Masse clothes are nothing warrantable by natures light and must have Morall and Symbolicall influence in Worship as positive Religious observances having some spirituall signification and use except they be reasonlesse fancies we have just reason to demand a warrant and speciall Charter for all Morals and so for their Ceremonies in the Scripture and to call their c. humane Ceremonies and the like a blind For if Prelats can prove these Ceremonies to be from Christ and warranted by his Testament we shal yield that their natural circumstances of time when you should Bow to Altars and Crosse a Baptized Infant and where or in what place you should wear Surplice and that the person that useth Oyl Spittle Salt in Baptisme must do it in some habit and with some gesture either sitting standing lying or kneeling are all warrantable and lawfull from the light of nature for if Gods light of Scripture warrant wearing of a Surplice as it doth warrant Sacramentall eating and drinking the light of nature must warrant these concreated naturall and unseparable circumstances of time place person habit gesture used in both the former and the latter But because I said that circumstances of time and place have a threefold consideration Physicall Morall and Mixt and I have spoken onely of these circumstances in a Physicall or naturall consideration therefore in the other two considerations there being involved some Morall goodnesse and because there is no Morall goodnesse imaginable but it must have its essentiall form and being from a Law or word of God therefore all the former circumstances as they are clothed with either morall conveniency and expediency or with some Religious positive goodnesse must be warranted by the Word of God or the Rules of sinlesse and spirituall Prudence which cannot deviate from the word of God For circumstances clothed with Religious Positive goodnesse such as are the Sabbath day the holy of Holiest the Temple these are not meer circumstances but worship it self So a Religious habit as an Ephod or a Surplice is not a meer circumstance or a meer habit but a worship or such a part or limb of worship as must be warranted by the word of truth else it is nothing but a will-device and a forgery and so to be rejected And as touching things of Prudence they are things properly mixt as at what hour Sermon shall begin in such a Church at eight or nine or ten of the clock how the worship shall be ordered whether you should begin the Worship with a word of Prayer or a word of Praising or a word of Exhorting to stir up for the duty of the day is a matter of Prudence and because God hath not laid the band of a Precept on us to begin with either of the three therefore it would seem that though the things themselves be Morall and must be warranted by a Word of God yet the order is not Morall but Prudentiall and so cannot fall under a command of the Church for to me it is hard that men and the Church should lay on a tie or bond of a Precept where God hath laid on no such bond The Church in these mixt things where the Morality is not clear at farthest can but go on to directive advises as Paul doth 1 Cor. 7. 6. 12. Not to imposing of Laws nor to injunctions or Commandments under the pain of Church-censures for Christ must bind and ratifie in Heaven all Church-censures on earth and so the Church cannot command nor censure but as Christ himself would command or censure Now because the rest of the conclusion shall be farther cleared I prove that Christ hath so far forth set down a perfect Plat-form of Church-Government in the Scripture as he hath not given a liberty to Rulers Prelats or to the Church her self to set up a variable Plat-form sutable to their particular Civill Government Laws Manners and Customes 1 Arg. What ever maketh the man of God perfect thorowly furnished unto all good workes and is written for this end that any Timothy or Faithfull Pastor might know how he ought to behave himself in the House of God That must make the man of God perfect in this good work of holy walking as a perfect Governour or a perfect Church-member to be governed in all Morall acts of Discipline and godly behaviour according to the spirituall policie of the Lords house and so must hold forth a perfect Plat-form of Discipline which doth not varie ebbe and flow and alter according to the Civill Government Laws Manners and Customs of men But the Scriptures of God doth so instruct all Members of the visible Church both Governours and governed 2 Tim. 3. 16 17. 1 Tim. 3. 14 15. Ergo the Scripture must hold forth a perfect form of Discipline which doth not varie ebbe flow and alter according to the Civill Governments Laws Manners and Customes of men The
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
and expedient But we know no such question in this Controversie as who shall be judge but supposing the Church to be a ministeriall judge and the Scripture the infallible Rule the question is whether this judge have any such power as to prescribe Laws touching things indifferent and to injoyne these though they have no warrant from Scripture as things necessary and to binde where God hath not bound Quest But doth not the Church determine things that of themselves are indifferent as whether Sermon should begin at nine of clock or ten in the morning and after the Church hath past a determination for the dyet of ten a clock the indifferency of either nine or ten is removed and the practise without any warrant of Scripture restricted to one for order and peace sake and why may not the like be done in Positives of Church-Government Ans The truth is the Church by her will putteth no determination on the time but only ministerially declareth that which Gods providence accomodating it self to the season climate the conveniency of the congregation as they lie in distance from the place of meeting hath determined already But neither Providence scripture nor naturall reason hath determined that there should be in every Diocesan Church a Monarch-Prelate Pastor of Pastors with majority of power of jurisdiction and ordination over Pastors more then there should be one Pope Catholick Pastor of the Catholick visible Church or that Crossing should betoken Dedication to Christs service only will as will must determine positive Religious observances such as these are SECT VI. What Honour Praise Glory Reverence Veneration Devotion Service Worship c. are FOr the more clear opening of the ensuing Treatise it is necessary to speak somewhat of worship and Adoration and especially of these 1. Honour 2. Praise 3. Glory 4. Reverence 5. Veneration 6. Devotion 7. Religion 8. Service 9. Worship 10. Love 11. Obedience 12. Adoration 1. Honour is a testification of the excellency of any Arist Ethic. l. 8. c. 8. Aquinas Honos est signum quoddam excellentiae Honour is a signe or expression of Excellency in any it doth not import any superiority in the party whom we honor as Adoration doth Praise is a speciall honouring of any consisting in words Glory is formally the effect of Honour though it be taken Pro claritatè for the celebrity or renownednesse of any yet glory seemeth to be founded upon celebrity as its foundation Reverence is a sort of Veneration of a person for excellency connotating a sort of fear Veneration is a sort of fear and reverencing of a person I see not well any difference between Reverence and Veneration except that Veneration seemeth to be some more and cometh nearer to Adoration Devotion is the promptitude cheerfulnesse or spirituall propension of the will to serve God Religion is formally in this when a man subjecteth himself to God as to his supreame Lord and thence ariseth to give him honour as his God and absolute Lord. The two integral parts of Religion are the subjection of the reasonable creature to God 2. An exhibition of honour if any object that the subjection of the creature to God is humility not Religion Raphael de la Torres in 22. tom 1. de obj adorat q. 81. art 1. disp unic n. 8. answereth that subjection to God as it issueth from a principle of tendering due Honour to God for his excellency its Religion but as it abandoneth the passion of hope in the way of attaining honour it is an act of humility to God as the giving of money for the paying of debt is an act of justice but as it is given to moderate the desire of money it is an act of Liberality The acts of Riligion are of two sorts some internall and elicite as to Adore Sacrifice Pray by these a man is rightly ordered toward the Honouring of God only But there be other acts imperated and Commanded by Religion which flow immediately from other vertues as it may be from mercy and compassion to our brother but are Commanded by Religion as Jam. 1. 27. Pure Religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this to visit the father lesse and the widows c. Service is from the bond of subjection to reverence God as an inferior or servant doth his Lord and Master A servant doth properly do the will of his Master for the gain or profit that redoundeth to his Master but because we cannot be profitable to the Almighty by way of gain therefore we are to serve him in relation to an higher end then accession of gain of which the Lord is not capable Psal 16. 2. Iob 22. 3. For the declaration of his glory For Worship formally is to give reverence to God for his excellency in one and the same act we may both Worship God and serve him Only service doth include the obligation of a servant to a Lord. As concerning Love Faith and Hope they are internall Worship not properly Adoration Love as Love doth rather import an equality with the thing loved and a desire of an Union rather then a submission It is true there is a perfection in that which we Love but not essentially to perfect the Lover that possibly may agree to the Love between man and man but not to Love as Love for the Father Loves Christ his Son and did delight in him from eternity Prov. 8. 30. A superior Angel may Love an inferior yet the Father cannot be perfected by Loving Christ nor a superior Angâ—l by Loving any inferior Faith and Hope may suppose a resting on a helper as a helper and so are internall Worship if they be adoration formally may be a Question It is an untruth which Raphael de la Torres with other schoolmen say That with the same Religion by which we Honour holy men we Honour God upon this reason because holinesse in them is a participation of the Divine Nature therefore God must be the intrinsecall end and formall reason for which we Honour the Saints For Holinesse in Saints is a participation of the Divine nature but it is a Temporary and a created participation it is not the same very holinesse that is in God but the created effect thereof and so the Love I bear to any Creature because there is somewhat of God in every Creature And the Love to our Neighbour Commanded in the second Table of the Law should be the Love of God Commanded in the first Table of the Law 2. When I bow to the gray-haired and to the King I then do an act of obedience to the fifth Commandment No man can say that when I bow to the King or to an holy man that I am then bowing to the God of heaven and Worshipping God No acts terminated upon Saints living or dead are acts of Worshipping God yea reverencing of the Ordinances of God as the delighting in or trembling at the Word are not properly acts
Ahasureosh did to continue for an hundred and fourscore dayes Esther 1. 4. More might and ought to have been done by David and Solomon if it had been a morall ground to build a house to be a witnesse of Almightinesse 3. And God appointed sacrifices and Sacraments in both Testaments as Testimonies of the great Lord Iesus yet in base and obvious creatures we may not devise Symbols or witnessing Images of the Almightinesse of that God whom we serve at our pleasure 4. If our Lord love mercy better then Sacrifice especially under the New Testament when his worship must be more spirituall Then the Argument may be strongly retorted we are to bestow more on feeding the living Members of Christs body which yet is not secular vanity then on dead stones except Master Hooker can warrant us to serve God under the New Testament in precious stones and gold for which we can see no Warrant 5. All these Arguments are broadly used by Papists for Images and rich Churches Nor doth Hooker give us any Argument for this but what Papists gave before him Have ye not houses saith he to eat and drink in Ergo He teacheth a difference between house and house and what is fit for the dwelling place of God and what for mans habitation the one for common food the other for none but for heavenly food Ans That there was publick meeting places and Churches in Corinth now under Heathen Rulers 1 Cor. 6. is denyed by all both Protestant and Popish writers far lesse had they then any consecrated Churches and from the inconveniency of taking their Supper while some were full and drunk in the place where the Lords Supper was Celebrated whereas they ought to have Supped in their own houses to infer that the Church is a holier place then their own house I professe is Logick I do not understand it only concludes these two sort of houses are destinated from two sort of different uses sacred and prophane and no more Neither am I much moved at that Psal 74. which is said ver 8. They have burnt all the convening places or all the Congregations of God in the land Vatablus expoundeth it of the Temple Exusserunt totum Templum Dei terrenum Or all the question will be why the Synagogues are called Gods Synagogues as they called the Temple Ier. 7. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Temple of the Lord and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The house of the Lord Whither because every Synagogue was no lesse in its own kinde a house holy to the Lord then the Temple Certainly there is no rationall ground to say that Synagogues were Typicall that the people were to pray with their faces toward the Synagogue and to offer Sacrifices in the Synagogue But that a Synagogue is called the house of God from the use and end because it was ordained for the worship of God as that which God hath appointed for a speciall end and work in that the Lord assumeth the propriety thereof to himself so saith the Lord of Cyrus Isa 45. 1. Thus saith the Lord to his Anointed to Cyrus whose right hand I have holden yet was not Cyrus Typically or Religiously holy as the Temple of Ierusalem and c. 44. v. 28. He saith of Cyrus He is my shepherd and why He shall perform all my pleasure so Hos 2. 9. Therefore will I returne saith God and take away my corne in the time thereof and my wine in the season thereof and will recover my wool and my flax given to cover her nakednesse To say nothing that all the holy land was Gods land Hos 9. 3. They shall not dwell in the Lords land and consequently all the Synagogues were Gods houses and the enemy of whom the Church complaineth to God in that Psalme was thus bold as notwithstanding Canaan was Gods Heritage and proper Land in a speciall manner yet it was destroyed and burnt by the enemies even these houses that God was worshipped in not being spared But how God was so present in every Synagogue and that even when there were no actuall worship of God in it as he was in the Temple and that it was so holy a place as they were to put off there shooes who came into the Synagogue God shewing his own immediate presence in every synagogue as he did Exod. 3. 5. To Moses in the burning bush Exod. 5. 1. v. 12. Is a thing that hath no warrant in the word of God for if every synagogue had been thus holy 1. It should have been a house dedicated to God in a Religious way as was the Temple 2. God should dwell in every Synagogue then in every Church under the New Testament now as he said he would dwell in the Temple 3. Then must Heathens and the uncircumcised be forbidden to come into any Synagogue or any Church under the New Testament the contrary whereof was evident in scripture none were forbidden to enter in the Synagogues Paul 1 Cor. 14. 23 24. alloweth that Heathens come into the Churches or meetings where Christians are worshipping God 4. If either the Temple of Ierusulem was holy for the worship in it or for that it was a Type of our Materiall Temples under the New Testament then our Churches under the New Testament shall be more holy yea our private houses in which we may worship God shal be more holy as our worship is more spirituall then carnall Commandments of the Leviticall Law were and the body must be more holy then the shadow yea all the earth now from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same in regard of more spirituall worship even the Stables and Alehouses where we may offer the Incense of Prayer to God and offer the sacrifices of praises Mal. 1. 11. shall be alike holy as either our Churches or the Temple was of old CAP. I. Q. 1. Whether or not Humane Ceremonies in Gods Worship can consist with the perfection of Gods Word THese humane Ceremonies we cannot but reject upon these grounds Our first Argument is Every positive and Religious observance and Rite in Gods worship not warranted by Gods Word is unlawfull But humane Ceremonies are such Ergo The Proposition is sure the holy Spirit useth a Negative Argument Act. 15. 24. We gave no such Commandment Levit. 10. 1. Jer. 7. 30. and 19. 5 6. and 32. 35. 2 Sam. 7. 7. 1 Chron. 15. 13. The Lord Commanded not this Ergo It is not Lawfull Formalists Answer Every worship holden to be of Divine necessity and yet not Commanded by God is unlawfull but not every worship holden as free and not binding the Conscience requireth that God Command it Ans 1. Gods Consequence is from the want of a Lawfull efficient and Author you make him to reason from an Adjunct of the worship But all worship hath necessity and Divinity and a binding power only from the Author God For why is it Lawfull to Abraham to kill or
or betwixt Peters words and the words spoken by Peteâ—â— tongue mouth and lips for Prophets and Apostles were both Gods mouth 5. Worship essentiall and Worship Arbitrary vvhich Formalists inculcate or worship positively lavvfull or negatively lavvfull are to be acknowledged as worship Lawfull and Will-worship and vvorship Lawfull and unlawfull 6. What is vvarranted by naturall reason is vvarranted by Scripture for the Law of nature is but a part of Scripture 7. Actions are either purely morall or purely not morall or mixed of both The first hath vvarrant in Scripture the second none at all the third requireth not a vvarrant of Scripture every vvay concludent but only in so far as they be Morall 8. Matters of meer fact knovvn by sence and humane testimonie are to be considered according to their Physicall existence if they be done or not done if Titus did such a thing or not such are not in that notion to be proved by Scripture 2. They may be considered according to their essence and Morall quality of good and lawfull â—ad or unlawfull and so they are to be warranted by Scripture 9. There is a generall vvarrant in Scripture for Worship and morall actions tvvofold either vvhen the Major proposition is only in Scripture and the Assumption is the vvill of men or vvhen both the Proposition and Assumption are warranted by Scripture the former vvarrant I think not sufficient and therefore the latter is necessary to prove the thing lavvfull Hence our 1. conclusion Every worship and Positive observance of Religion and all Morall actions are to be made good by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according as it is vvritten though their individuall circumstances be not in the word 2. The offering for the Babe Iesus tvvo Turtle Doves and â—vvo Pigeons are according as it is vvritten in the Lavv and yet Ioseph and Mary the Priest the Offerer the day and hour when the male childe Iesus for whom are not in the Law Exod. 13. 1. Numbers 8. 26. In the second Table Amaziah his Fact of mercy in not killing the children for the Fathers sin is said to be 2 Kin. 24. 6. performed by the King 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As it is vvritten in the Book of the Law of Moses yet in that Law Deut 24. 6. There is not a word of Amaziah or the children whom he spared because these be Physicall and not Morall circumstances as concerning the essence of the Law of God Hence in the Categorie of all Lawfull Worship and Morall actions both Proposition and Assumption is made good by this As it is vvritten even to the lowest specifice degree of morality as all these 1. The Worship of God 2. Sacramentall worship under that 3. Under that participation of the Lords Supper 4. Under all the most speciall participation of the Lords Supper by Iohn Anna in such a Congregation such a day All these I say both in Proposition and Assumption are proved by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And can bid this according as it is written the like I may instance in all other Worship in all acts of Discipline in all Morall acts of justice and mercy in the second Table But come to the Prelats Kalendar They cry Order and decency is Commanded in Gods Worship And we hear Pauls cry not theirs but under this is 2. Orderly and decent Ceremonies of humane institution And here they have lost Pauls cry and the Scriptures as it is written 3. Under this be Symbolicall signes of Religious worship instituted by men according as it is written is to seek And 4. under all Thomas his Crossing of such an Infant is written on the back of the Prelats Bible or Service book but no where else So do Papists say What ever the Church teach that is Divine truth Under this cometh in invocations of Saints Purgatory and all other fatherlesse Traditions which though Papists should teach to be Arbitrary and indifferent yet would we never allow them room in Gods house seeing they cannot abide this touchstone according as it is written 2. Because Scripture condemneth in Gods Worship what ever is ours as will-worship Hence 2. All worship and new Positive means of worship devised by men are unlawfull but humane Ceremonies are such Ergo The Proposition is proved many wayes as 1. What is mans in Gods Worship and came from Lord-man is challenged as false vain and unlawfull because not from God as Idols according to their own understanding Hos 13. 2. So from Israel it was the workman made it Hos 8. 6. Hence Zanchius and Pareus infer all invented by men are false and vain and so are condemned Ier. 18. 12. The imaginations of their â—vil heart and Psal 106. 39. Their own devises their ovvn vvorks their ovvn inventions as Act. 7. 41. Figures vvhich yâ— made Act. 7. 43. Had they been figures of Gods making as the Cherubins and Oxen in the Temple as 1 King 7. They had been Lawfull dayes devised by Iâ—robâ—ams heart 1 King 12. 32 33. The light of your ovvâ—â—â—irâ— Isa 50. 11. A plant that the Heavenly Father planted not Ergo By man Math. 15. 14. 2. The Proposition is proved from the wisdom of Christ who is no lesse faithfull then Moses who followed his Copy that he saw in the Mount Exod. 40. 19. 21. 23. Exod. 25. 40. Heb. 8. 5. Heb. 3. 1 2. Ioh. 15. 15. Or Solomon 2 Chron. 29. 25. 1. Chron. 28. 11 12. Gal. 3. 15. Also I prove our Conclusion 3. thus If the word be a rule to direct a young mans vvay Psal 119. 9. A light to the Paths of men v. 105. If the Wisdom of God cause us to understand Equity Iudgement Righteousnesse and every good vvay Prov. 2. 9. And cause us vvalk safely so that our feet stumble not Prov. 3. 25. So that vvhen vve go our steps shall not be straightned and vvhen vve run our feet shall not stumble Prov. 4. 11 12. If wisdom lead us as a Lamp and and a Light Prov. 6. 23. Then all our actions Morall of first or second Table all the Worship and right means of the Worship must be ruled by this according as it is Written else in our actions we walk in darknesse we fall stumble go aside and are taught some good way and instructed about the use of some holy Crossing some Doctrine of Purgatory and Saint-worship without the light of the Word But this latter is absurd Ergo So is the former It is poor what Hooker saith against us If Wisdom of Scripture teach us every good path Prov. 2. 9. By Sccripture onely and by no other mean then there is no art and trade but Sripture should teach But Wisdom teacheth something by Scripture something by spirituall influence something by Worldy experience Thomas believed Christ vvas risen by sence because he savv him not by Scripture the Ievvs believed by Christs miracles Ans 1. Some actions in man are meerly naturall as to grow these
so that this element bread and wine and this water is not Arbitrary Ergo If decency be of divine institution and Gods approving will then that Surplice or Crossing or not Surplice and Crossing be decent is not Arbitrary and only from Gods permitting will If the generall must be warranted by the word so also specials under the generall else mens will may make a horned Bullock a decent Sacrifice to represent Christ already come in the fâ—â—sh for if the written word warrant not the specials of Religious observances a door is open for all humane inventions The uniting of these two The Crossing of the finger in the Air above a childes face and the dedication of the childe to Christs service are every way like to the uniting Of Bread and Wine eaten and drunken and the souls nourishing by Christ crucified and apprehended by Faith If there be oddes it is in the Authority of the institutors Our Formalists say the one is essentiall because ordained by Christ and so bindeth the conscience and the other Arbitrary accidentall and of lesse authority We owe them thanks indeed the sin is the greater that the Authority is the lesse but the externall worship is alike There be oddes betwixt the kissing of a wife by a stranger and the kissing by her own husband and oddes betwixt an act of Royall Majesty performed by the King and that same Act performed by a Traitor faining the same Act as there be oddes betwixt money stroken by a Tinker and by the Kings master of Coyne will this distinction serve the whorish woman the kisses of a strange man be Arbitrary indifferent and accidentall but the kisses of my own husband be essentiall and kindely And the Tinker might save his head for his false coyne the Kings money is essentially Legall and currant but money stroken by me is Arbitrary and of lesse Authority then the Kings Lawfull Coyn. 2. If it be necessary and good to honour God by decency and order the particular goodnesse and holynesse of Surplice and Crossing is also good and holy But God hath particularly Micah 6. 8. Shewed thee what is good O man Ergo he hath also shewed what is particularly holy But God hath not shewed us in his Word any goodnesse in Crossing Surplice because they are of mans devising If it be said the particular goodnesse of Surplice and Crossing is good and shewed to us in the generall I Answer goodnesse of indifferent Rites is Repugnantia in adjecto and a flat contradiction as who would say cold fire indifferent is neither good nor evil neither Lawfull nor unlawfull 2. Then God hath not shewed us all Morall goodnesse in his word because he hath not shewed to us the goodnesse of Ceremonies 3. Lawfulnesse is an essentiall property of Divine worship resulting from Gods particular approving will in his word as is clear Hosea 8. 5. 1 Chro. 15. 13. Lev. 10. 1. 2 Sam. 7. 7. Ier. 7. 30. Act. 15. 24. Ergo Arbitrary worship must have Gods approving will commanding it else it is not Lawfull I prove the Antecedent from the causes of worship 1. The end of worship which is the honouring of God maketh not worship Lawfull Idolaters may intend to honour God in their Idolatry as well as true worshippers 2. The matter of worship is not essentiall to Lawfull worship for Lawfull and unlawfull worship may have the same common matter as Solomons Calves in the Temple were lawfull because ordained of God and Samaria's Calves were unlawfull because they were from men the matter of both might be one and the same mettall Hosea 8. 3. The Form of worship in generall is not the essentiall and specifice Form of Lawfull worship as the specifice Form of a living creature is not the specifice form of a man the specifice form of a man is not the specifice form of a just man as just Also I may conceive Sacramentall eating in generall and not conceive whether it be Lawfull or unlawfull For if Lawfulnesse were the specifice form of worship I could not conceive worship but I behooved to conceive Lawfulnesse in it Now then Gods commanding will being wanting to Arbitrary worship it cannot be Lawfull Ergo unlawfull If it be answered Ceremonies are negatively lawfull not positively lawfull and the Argument proceedeth of Lawfulnesse positive which is commanded in the word But this is 1. a begging of the question 2. Negative Lawfulnesse is from mans will which should not be a Creatrix of the goodnesse of things or of Lawfulnesse nor can it Create goodnesse except you make man to be God 4. Arbitrary goodnesse and Lawfulnesse hath either a particular warrant and cause of its goodnesse and Lawfulnesse from Gods expresse Commandment or 2. From the light of nature or 3. From the sole will of men or 4. partly from natures light partly from mans will but any of these wayes it cannot be Lawfull I prove the Antecedent for it cannot have its warrant from Gods generall will whereby the Proposition of a Syllogisme is warranted but not the Assumption for thuâ— the golden Calse of Ieroboam the worshipping of Satan should be lawfull for I can forme a Syllogisme to it from Scripture all worship commanded in the Word is Lawfull but Ieroboams golden Calf is Commanded in the Word Ergo It is Lawfull And if both Major Proposition and Assumption be warranted by the Word then are Ceremonies essentiall and not Arbitrary worship If Ceremonies be warranted by the light of nature this is a part of Gods Word and Rom. 1. 19 20. God hath shewed it to us as Rom. 2. 14 15. We would see natures light to prove that whitenesse of linnen signifieth Pastorall holinesse rather then whitenesse in the wall and that the crosse signifieth dedication of a childe to Christs service rather then lifting up of the childe toward Heaven signifieth the same and yet Ceremonieâ— must be by this reason essentiall worship yea to Sacrifice a sheep to represent Christ already Crucified is as Lawfull this way as all our Ceremonies If the third be said that Ceremonies have their goodnesse and Lawfulnesse from the sole will of men then Ceremonies are Will-worship for worship instituted by the sole will of men without light of Scripture or nature is Will-worship 2. The devisers of them are either Brutish or void of reason and the practicers are servants of men because they serve will or rather lust of men without any reason Commanding 3. If Ceremonies come partly from mens will partly from the light of reason then do they conclude the Lawfulnesse of Ceremonies either â—allibly or necessarily If the former be said we have little warrant of conscience to practice them nor can God be honoured nor these things Lawfull good and edificative more then unlawfull evil and unapt to edifie seeing there be no light of Scripture or nature to make them good to us and because a fallible and unnecessary consequence is over fallible and unnecessary and standeth as
all our Ceremonies might have been Comprehended in one Chapter of the Revelation if God had thought good to Honour them with inserting them in the Canon 3. He hath determined these by natures light and prudence which dwelleth with that light revealed in the Word That a Bishop be thus qualified as 1 Tim. 3. is Morall and determined but that they call him John Thomas and be of such Parents Country stature of body is Physicall and in Christs wisdom is not determined nor could it be conveninetly Lastly that generall permissive will of God is good for all the Ceremonies of Rome taught by Papists As for ours as Suarez de Trip lic virt tract 1. disp 2. Sect. 6. n. 3. Dicendum fidem quoad substantiam credibilium semper fuisse eandem a principio generis humani And so faith Alensis 3. p. q. 69. Lombard 3. dist 25. and Durandus 3. dist 25. Bonaventura 16. Art 2. q. 1. Hugo de sancto victore de sacram â— 1. part 10. cap. 4. This they have from the Fathers Vincentius Lyrinensis coâ—t prop. voc nov cap. 37. Jreneus contr hereticos lib. 3. cap. 2. Hyerom in Psal 86. Aug. de civitate Dei lib. 11. cap. 3. lib. 14. cap. 7. Chrysost de Lazero homil 4. Cyprianus sermone de Baptismo Optatus Milevitanus contr parmeni de caelo l. 5. And I might cite many others who all affirm All truth Divine is in Scripture all not in Scripture is to be rejected So Suarez de leg tom 4. cap. 1. Haec enim praecepta Ecclesiastica pro universali Ecclesia tantum sunt quatuor qut quinque quae solum sunt determinationes quaedam juris Divini moraliter necessaria homini Reliqua omnia vel pertinent ad particulares status qui voluntarie suscipiuntur vel ad ordinem judicialâ—m Et idâ—m contra seotae Anglica Erro lib. 2. cap. 16. Dicimus authoritatem Dei in benedictione Campanarum non de esse saltem in radice origine quia ipse dedit authoritatem Pastoribus Ecclesiae ad regendam Ecclesiam disponenda eaequae ad accidentarios ritus Ecclesiae pertinent Bannes tom 3. in 22. q. 10. dub 2. Notandum quod neque Pontifex neque tota Ecclesia possunt novum articulum novum dogma quoad substantiam aut novum Sacramentum instituere Andr. Duvallius in 2. de legib q. 4. Art 2. Ceremoniae judicialia in vetere lege erant juris Divini in Nova lege sunt juris tantum Ecclesiastici And Valdensis de Doctrina fidei l. 2. cap. 22. Ecclesia non potest Novum articulum proponere So Alphas a Castro in summa lib. 1. cap. 8. And Canus loc lib. 2. cap. 7. Cameracensis 2. sentent q. 1. Art 1. Principia Theologia sunt ipsae sâ—cri Canonis veritates quoniam adipsa fit ultima resolutiâ— Theologici discursus ex iis primo singulae propositiones Theologiae deducuntur V. Conclus Matters of fact are not and need not be proved by Scripture 1. Because sense maketh them known to us 2. Their Morality is sufficiently known from Gods Word 3. In matters offact there may be invincible ignorance Christs Resurrection is not a matter of fact as Hugo Grotius saith but also a matter of Law as all the miracles and Histories in the Word and to be believed because God hath so spoken in the Word QUEST III. Whether Ceremonies have any Divinity in them ALL means of worship devised by men pretending holinesse by teaching exciting our dull affections to Devotion as if they were powerfull means of grace and did lay a band on the conscience when as yet they be no such thing and want all warrant from God and are contrary to devotion are unlawfull But humane Ceremonies be such Ergo The Proposition is certain I prove the Assumption by parts 1. Whatever holinesse be pretended to be in Ceremonies yet God onely sanctifieth people offices in his house as the sons of Aaron Altars Temples Vestures Sacrifices by his expresse institution as we are taught yet are Ceremonies holy their Author be the Apostles successours 2. Their end to honour God 3. Their matter is not civill or naturall 4. Their signification mysticall is Religious 2. They be means of teaching and stirring up the dull affections to the remembrance of duties by some notable and speciall signification whereby the beholders may be edified and since to stir up the minde as a memorative object be the word of Gods due property or the works of Providence and Creation would not a Prelat in his Epistle to his under-Pastors speak Peter-like as 2 Pet. 1. 13. I think it meet so long as I am in this Tabernacle to stir up your dull mindes by way of remembrance to your Christian duty by Crossing kneeling to Gods board and Altar and Surplice To be memorials were due to Phylacteries Commanded in the Law to minde heavenly duties Numb 15. 38 39. Deut. 22. 12. And the twelve stones set up by Gods speciall Commandment Ioshu 4. 2 3. to be a memoriall of their miraculous entry into the holy Land and Manna Commanded to be kept in the Ark as a sign of Gods feeding his people with Christ the bread of life Joh. 6. 48 49. 51. are Ordinances of God to call to remembrance duties and speciall mercies And Sacraments do signifie as tokens ordained of God Gen. 17. 11. Gen. 9. 13. Heb. 9. 8. The Holy Ghost thus signifying that the way to the holiest was not yet made manifest So Heb. 8. 5. Heb. 10. 1. And so must it be here said The holy Prelats thus signifying that Crossing should betoken the childes dedication to Christs service So Hooker Actions leave a more deep and strong impression then the word What blasphemy that Crossing and Surplice leave a deeper impression in the soul then Gods Word the power of God to salvation Rom. 1. 16. And mighty through God to cast down strong holds in the soul 2 Cor. 10. 4 I wonder if Crossing Capping kneeling to stocks can bring every thought Captive to the Obedience of Christ 3. It is essentiall to the word to teach and make wise the simple Psal 19. 7. Psal 119. 99. Prov. 6. 23. And Ceremonies are made Symbolicall and Religious teaching signes yet is the stock called a Doctrine of lies Jer. 10. 8. Habac. 2. 18. Though it teach and represent the same Iehovah that the Word teacheth Isa 40. 18. So it is not a living teacher because it representeth a false god or not the true God for the true Iehovah saith To whom will ye liken me But now the stock by mans institution took on it without a warrant from God to represent God Now if God had warranted the stock to be an image representing God as he warranteth the Temple the Ark Bread and Wine to be images and representations of the true God Iesus Christ the stock should be a Doctrine of truth and not of lies so Surplice is a Doctrine of lies not
because what it teacheth is a lie for what it teacheth is Scripture Isa 52. 11. That these who beareth the Vessels of the Lord that is Pastors should be holy but it is a Doctrine of lies because it representeth Pastorall holinesse by humane institution without all warrant of the Word of God And when Paul calleth holidayes Elements Gal. 4. 6. He meaneth that they spell to us and teach us some truth as Estius saith That holidayes do teach us Articles of Faith To which meaning Paludanus Cajetan Vasquez say God may well be painted in such expressions as Scripture putteth on God as in the likenesse of a Dove as a man with hands eyes ears feet all which are given to God in Scripture 4. It is essentiall to the Word to set down the means of Gods worship which is the very scope of the second Commandment and therefore the Iews washings and Traditions are condemned because they be Doctrines of men appointed by men to be means of the fear or worship of God as Math. 15. 9. Mar. 7. 8. Isa 29. 13. Hence we owe subjection of Conscience to Ceremonies as to lawfull means of Worship 1. Stirring up our dull senses And 2. as lawfull signes representing in a Sacramentall signification holy things 3. As teaching signes 4. As means of Gods fear and worship Whereas God as Ainsworth observeth well in the second Commandment forbiddeth all images and representations 2. All shapes Exod. 20. 4. Temniah 3. Forms of figures Tabuith Deut. 4. 16. 5. Any type of shadow Tselem Ezek. 7. 20. 16 17. 6. Any pictured shape Maskith Levit. 26. 1. Any Statue Monument Pillar Mattesebah any Graven or Molten Portraict Hos 13. 2. 5. We are obliged to obey the Word Exod. 20. 7. Prov. 3. 20 21. Prov. 8. 13. Ier. 6. 16. Ier. 5. 7. 2. We owe to the Word belief Luk. 1. 20. Love Psal 119. 49. 81. Hope 3. And are to expect a reward therefore Psal 19. 11. Rev. 2. 7. 10. 27 28. Gal. 4. 11. Rom. 6. 23. Coloss 2. 18. Hebrew 11. 25. Psal 34. 9. Psalme 58. 11. Then if Decency be commanded and order in the third Commandment Ergo this and that orderly mean of Worship as Surplice But can we say I hope in the Surplice O how love I crossing and Capping can we believe in Ceremonies as means of Gods worship 6. The word is Gods mean to work supernaturall effects to convert the soul Psal 19. 7. To work Faith John 20. 3. To edifie Act. 20. 32. To save Rom. 1. 16. The obedience to Gods word bringeth Peace Psal 119. 165. Comfort v. 50. Gen. 49. 18. Isa 38. 3. But Ceremonies being apt to stir up the dull minde must be apt to remove Naturall dulnesse which is a supernaturall effect and so to bring Peace joy comfort Organs are now holden by the same right that they were in Moses-Law then they must stir up supernaturall joy There must be peace and comfort in practising them Hear how this soundeth This is my comfort O Lord in my affliction that thy Surplice Organs and holy-dayes have quickened my dull heart Now what comfort except comfort in the Scriptures Rom. 15. 4. Ceremonies be innocent of all Scriptures What joy a proper fruit of the Kingdom of heaven Rom. 14. 17. can be in saplesse Ceremonies yea observe 1. Who truly converred from Popery who inwardly humbled in soul doth not abhor Ceremonies by the instinct of the new birth 2. What slave of hell and prophane person call not for Ceremonies 3. Who hath peace in dying that Ceremonies were their joy 7. All Lawfull Ordinances may by prayer be recommended to God for a blessed successe as all the means of salvation Psal 119. 18. Matth. 26. 26. Act. 4. 29 30. 2. We may thank God for a blessed successe which they have by the working of the spirit of Grace 2 Cor. 2. 24. 1 Cor. 1. 4 5. 2 Thes 1. 2 3. Ephes 1. 3. 3. We are to have heat of zeal against prophaning of word Sacraments Prayer or other Ordinances of God But what faith in praying Lord work with Crossing Capping Surplice For where the word is not nor any promise there be no Faith Rom. 10. 14. What praising can there be for Ceremonies working upon the soul What zeal except void of knowledge and light of the word and so but wilde-fire Gal. 4. 17 18. Phil. 3. 6. 2 Sam. 21. 2. can there be though the Surplice be imployed to cleanse Cups and Crossing be scorned If the subject be nothing the accidents be lesse if Surplice be not commanded nor forbidden the reverent or irreverent usage thereof cannot be forbidden nor commanded true zeal is incensed only at sin and kindled toward Gods warranted service 8. I take it to be Gods appointment that the Spirit worketh by a supernaturall operation with his own Ordinances in the regenerated but we desire to know how the Spirit worketh with Ceremonies Formalists are forced by these grounds to maintain the Lawfulnesse of Images So 1. They be not adored 2. If they be reputed as indifferent memorative Objects and books to help the memory But 1. It shall be proved that at first Papists did give no adoration to Images nor doth Durandus Hulcot Pic. Mirandula acknowledge any adoration due to them but proper to God before the Images as objects 2. We may liken God and Christ to a stock so we count it indifferent to make or not to make such an image yet likening him to any thing is forbidden Isa 40. 18. Also we esteem it Idolatry interpretative to take Gods place in his word and to make any thing to be a mean of grace except Gods own Ordinances Against all these Formalists have diverse exceptions As 1. Our Ceremonies say they do not respect the honour of God immediatly and in themselves but by accident and as parts of Divine worship by reduction as it containeth all the adjuncts of worship Ans Such Logick was never heard of 1. If he mean a Surplice in the materials to wit Linnen and Crossing Physically considered as separated from their signification do not tend immediatly to the honour of God but as an adjunct he speaketh non-sense for so Bread Wine eating drinking Water in Baptisme do not immediatly respect the honour of God but only as they have a Morall consideration and stand under Divine institution But yet so the materiall of worship is not the adjunct thereof but the matter as the body of a living man is not one adjunct of a man If he mean that Ceremonies in a Morall not in a Physicall consideration do not immediatly respect the honour of God but reductively and by accident Let him show us if the Surplice doth not as immediatly and without the intervening mediation of any other thing signifie and stir up our mindes to the remembrance of Pastorall holinesse as eating all of one bread doth immediatly stir up our mindes to the remembrance of our Communion of love that
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.
iis tribuamus divinitatis aliquid Grave Athanasius saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The invention of Images is from an evil fountain and not from good and whatsoever hath a bad beginning cannot be deemed in any thing good being altogether bad The Papist Harding bringeth in a counterfeit Dialogue of Athanasius betwixt Christ and his Church and Christ comforting his Church because she was persecuted for worshipping Christs Image but when and where this persecution was none knoweth for many times hath the Church been persecured for not worshipping Images but see the answer of the learned Jewell thereunto Epiphanius who lived Anno 370. proveth against the Collyridiams That Mary nor no creature should be adored Vnde est simulachrificum hoc studium et diabolious conantus praetextâ— enim justitiae sempersubiens hominum mentem drabolus mortalem naturam in hominum oculis deificans Statuas humanas imagines pre se ferentes per artum veritatem expressit et mortui quidem sunt qui adorantur Item Revera sanctum erat corpus Mariae non tamen Deus honorata non in adorationem data Mary was not God and therefore is not to be adored He professeth that he did rive a vail that had painted in it the Image of Christ or of some man Cum ego videssem in Ecclesia Christi contra authoritatem scripturarum hominis pendere imaginem scidi illud c. Lactantius Formianus Images are to represent these who are absent God is every where present it is vanity therefore to forme an image of God Also There is no Religion where there is an image Also your gods be either in Heaven or not if they be not in Heaven why do ye worship them If they be in Heaven why do ye not lift your eyes to Heaven while you adore them Why do you convert your eyes toward walls stocks and stones rather then toward that place where you imagine your gods to be His Arguments against Images be these 1. They forget reason when they fear the work of their own hands 2. God is not absent but present every where 3. The image is a dead thing void of sense God is the eternall and everliving God 4. Nothing mortall should be worshipped 5. What vanity to hope for protection from these things which cannot defend themselves â— 6. The image is lesse and viler then the worshipper 7. Man according to Gods image is the image of God 8. s God needeth nothing neither torches because he made the light nor images This man lived Anno 300. Before which time the Church of Christ being persecuted they had no Churches nor Images to be ornaments in their Churches as saith t Ambrosius and also Chrysostom who was displeased with the fooleries in Temples in his time and saith They were not like the Templâ—s of the Apostolick Churches and Tertullian and Eusebius saith They had then Simplices domos Simple houses void of paintries and pictures And the want of Temples was objected against Christian Religion as Origen cleareth in the time of Constantine the son of Chlorus as saith Sozomen and Eusebius Temples were builded but as Joan. Quintinus expoundeth Tertullian without the ornaments of images and Tertullian himself maketh building of Altars and portracts Idolâ—tricos cultus Idolatrous worship In the fourty years space betwixt the reign of Valerian and the 19. year of Dicclesian there were Oratories and Temples builded but neither painted Pictures nor Images in them as saith e Eusebius Yea of thirty Bishops of Rome even from Peter and Paul to Sylvester and Constantine the Emperour to wit three hundred years there were none who were not persecuted to blood or to death or some other way It is a vain thing to say they had breathing time to build Temples and erect Altars and golden Images of Christ and the Virgin Mary and the Saints It is true in the two hundreth year after Christ under Alexander Severus Gordianus Philippus Gallienus Churches were builded as Nicephorus saith but again under Dioclesian they were demolished to the ground but observe well there were no Images of Christ broken which that Tyrant in despite of Christ would not have omitted see Eusebius they were builded again under great Constantine so Sozomen Otho Phrisingensis and Nicephorus The dream of Platina for the building of a Church by the donation of Constantine with twelve portions of earth equall to the number of the twelve Apostles and of another Church with the title of the holy Crosse at Ierusalem which Helena found in that place and Constantine placed in this Church at Rome is refuted by Hospinian yet is there no word of any Images in these Churches Arnobius An. 330. maintaineth against the heathen that the Christians ought to have no Images 1. Because the device of images is a novelty and was not before two thousand years but God and Religion are no new things 2. Because either the Gods dwelleth in their images against their will or of their own accord if the former be said they are compelled which is absurd If the latter then they do either bide alwayes in their images and so are miserable or they go out of the images when they please and then the images are empty things Eusebius Caesariensis who lived An. 300. when Constantia Augusta wrote to him for the Image of Christ answered That could not be 1. Because his manhood was joyned with his Godhead and could not be separated therefrom 2. Because his Godhead cannot be represented Mortuis inanimatis coloribus with dead and livelesse colours Hieronimus who lived An. 331. under Constantine denyeth that any Creature Angel or Virgin Mary should be worshipped Ruffinus faith Helena the mother of Constantine adored crucified Christ but antiquity saith not that she adored the nails that fixed him to the Crosse because they were but creatures Ambrosius who lived Anno 370. condemneth Images 1. Because they change the images of the dead in the glory of God who worshippeth images 2. The living serve the dead 3. They take from stocks and stones what they are and give to them what they are not 4. Idols are unclean 5. It is undecent to worship what men maketh with their hands 6. Because images are but shadows Augustine condemneth Images 1. Because they infect the vveak mindes of rude people to worship them 2. They have eyes and see not 3. The creatures are images of God not stocks 4. Idols are huskes and empty 5. These who brought in Images tooke away the feare of God and increased error 6. Martyrs are not gods 7. Confounded be they who worship stones our living stone Christ is in heaven 8. Though worshippers of Images say they worship God in Images yet they worship devills for good men as Paul and
things of God Leviticus 10. 10. The Priests were not to drink wine when they went into the Tabernacle That ye may saith the Lord put difference between holy and unholy and between unclean and clean Now Haggai expresly saith cap. 2. 11 12. That it was the Priests part to put this difference and so to admit to or exclude from the holy things of God Hence for this cause it is said as 2 Chron. 23. 19. Iehoiada appointed the officers of the Lords house so he set porters at the gates of the house of the Lord that none which are unclean in any thing might enter in so Ezra 9. 21 22. None did eat the Passeover but such as were pure and had separated themselves from the filthinesse of the Heathen of the land for this cause doth the Lord complain of the Priests Ezech. 22. 26. Her Priests have violated my law and have polluted my holy things they have put no difference between the holy and the prophane neither have they shewed the difference between the unclean and the clean Ezech. 44. 6. And thou shalt say to the Rebellious even to the house of Israel thus saith the Lord God O ye house of Israel let it suffice you of all your abominations 7. That ye have brought into my sanctuary strangers uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh to be in my sanctuary to pollute it even my house when ye offered my bread the fat and the blood and they have broken my Covenant because of all your abominations 8. And ye have not kept the charge of my holy things But ye have set keepers of my Charge in my Sanctuary for your selves 9. Thus saith the Lord God no stranger uncircumcised in heart nor uncircumcised in flesh shall enter into my sanctuary of any stranger that is among the children of Israel Here is a complaint that those that have the charge of the holy things should suffer the holy things to be polluted I grant it cannot bear this sense that none should be admitted to be Members of the Visible Church under the New Testament but such as are conceived to be regenerate except it can be proved that the Sanctuary was a type of the visible Church 2. That the Apostles constituted their Churches thus but we read not in all the New Testament of any admission of Church Members at all but only of baptizing of those who were willing to be baptized and from this resulted the capacity of a Church Relation in all Churches visible Nor 2. Do we finde any shadow in all the word of God of tryall of Church Members by way of electing and choosing of such and such as qualified by reason of a conceived regeneration in the persons chosen or of rejecting and refusing others as conceived to have no inward work of grace in them this I believe can never be made good out of the word of God 3. They must prove the Apostles admitted into the Sanctuary of the Visible Church Ananias Saphira Simon Magus and others uncircumcised in heart to pollute the holy things of God and that the Apostles erred and were deceived in the moulding of the first Apostolick Church in the world which was to be a rule and pattern to all Churches in the New Testament to all Ages I deny not but they might have erred according to the grounds of these who urge the comparison for a Church of visible Saints but that the Apostles De facto did erre in their Election and judgement in that wherein the holy Ghost holdeth them forth and their acts to be our rule and pattern I utterly deny I grant Act. 15. In that Synod they did Act as men and Elders not as Apostles but that it could fall out that they should uctually erre and obtrude false Doctrine instead of truth to the Churches in that Synod which is the first rule and pattern of Synods I shall not believe But there is this Morall and perpetuall truth in these Scriptures 1. That there are under the New Testament some over the people of God in the Lord some that watch for their souls and govern them as here there were Priests Levites that taught and governed the people 2. That the Rulers of the Churches alwayes are to have the charge of the holy things and to see that these holy things the Seals and Sacraments and word of promise be not polluted and that therefore they have power given them to debar such and such profane from the Seals and so are to discern between the clean and the unclean and this which the Prophet speaketh ver 9. is a prophecie never fulfilled after this in the persons of the people of God therefore it must have its spirituall truth fulfilled under the New Testament as is clear ver 11. Yet the Levites that are gone away far from me shall be Ministers in my Sanctuarie having charge at the gates of the House and Ministering to the House 14. And I will make them keepers of the charge of the House for all the service thereof and for all that shall be done therein Ver. 15. And the Priests and the Levites the sons of Zadok that kept the charge of my Sanctuary when the children of Israel went astray from me they shall enter into my Sanctuary and they shall come neer to my Table to minister unto me and to keep my charge 23. And they shall teach my people the difference betweene the holy and prophane and cause men to discerne between the uncleane and the cleane 24. And in controversie they shall stand in judgement and they shall judge it according to my judgement and they shall keepe my Lawes and my Statutes in all mine assemblies and they shall hallow my Sabbaths Now this Temple was another house then Solomons Temple as is evident out of the Text it having roomes dimensions structures so different that none can imagine them one house and these chapters containe the division of the Holy Land which after the captivity was never done for the ten Tribes never returned and this Temple is clearely a type of the new Ierusalem and agreeth to that City spoken of Revelation chapters 21. and 22. As may appeare especially by the foure last chapters of Ezekiel and in the last words of the last chapter And the name of the city from that day shall be The Lord is there And the Priests after the captivity as well as before brake the covenant of Levi Mal. 2. And therefore I see it not fulfilled except in the visible Church of the New Testament and in the Assemblies of Christian Churches Mat. 18. Act. 15. and the rest of the Church-assemblies under the New Testament As for the Lords personall raigne on earth it is acknowledged there shall be no Church policy in it no Word Sacraments Ordinances no Temple as they say from Rev. 21. 22. And with correction and submission the Priests and Levites that Ezek. 44. 15. are said to keep the charge of the Lords
House when others went astray I take to be a prophecie of these Pastors under the New Testament to wit the Apostles of Iesus Christ and Pastors and teachers that Christ left in his Church for the edifying of his body Ephes 4. 11. 12. When these Scribes and Pharises did sit in Moses his chaire for a while Mat. 23. but onely as porters and inferiour Officers in Gods house yet they were to be heard while God should cut them off as he prophecied Zach. 11. 8. We cannot say as some doe that persons were deprived amongst the Iewes of Church communion in the holy things of God because of Ceremoniall not of Morall uncleannes but now under the new Testament only Morall uncleannes can exclude persons from the holy things of God and therefore to argue from ceremoniall uncleannes in the old to morall uncleannesse in the new is no good consequence I answer the Ceremoniall uncleannesse in the Old which did exclude from the holy things of God doth strongly conclude that morall uncleannesse under the New Testament doth exclude from the holy things of God if that exclusion of the Leaper out of the campe seven dayes and the touching of the dead though imprudently did typifie some other exclusion from the holy things of God as no question it did then the consequence must be strong 2. It is also false that morall uncleannesse did not exclude from the holy things of God under the Old Testament For 1. what was more ordinary then that sacrifices should be offered for sins of ignorance for trespasâ—es and while this was done the person was not admitted to partake of the holy things of God 2. Whence was the Lords frequent complaints of wearying his soule with sacrifices solemne assemblies feast dayes and new Moones when they were morally uncleane and their hands were full of blood and they had not put away the evill of their doings did not love judgement and justice Isaiah 10. 11 12 13 16 17 18 19. And when God complaineth so of them Ier. 7. 8. Will ye steale murther and commit adultery and sweare falsely and burne incense unto Baal and walke after other Gods whom ye know not 10. And come and stand before me in this house which is called by my Name Ergo Murtherers and adulterers were debarred from entring into the Congregation of the Lord and partaking of the holy things of God while they repented Let none say by prophecying or the keyes of knowledge in preaching the Word they were declared unworthy to enter into the Temple but that will not conclude that it was the Priests office by power of discipline to exclude them from coming unto the Sanctuary of God Ans But if the Porters were set at doores of the Lords house to hold out the uncleane and if the Lord charge the Priests with this crime that they Ezek. 44. 8. set keepers of the charge of the Lords house for themselves that is for their owne carnall ends and not for the honour of the Lord And that ver 7. They brought into the Sanctuary of the Lords house uncircumcised in heart that is such as were morally uncleane then had the Priests a power to debarre from the Sanctuary such as were morally uncleane and if the Priests are said to beare rule by their meanes Ier. 5. 31. Then the Priests did beare rule and governe though they abused their Power and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth to have dominion over any Psal 72. 8. Psal 110. 2. 1 Kin. 4. 24. Levit. 26. 17. And the Scripture gives a power of judging and governing to the Priests And 2 Chron. 30. 6 7. The Posts that Hezekiah and the Congregation of Israel sent through the Land commandeth a morall preparation to those that were to keepe the Lords Passeover to wit that they should turne againe unto the Lord God of Abraham and should not be like their Fathers nor like their Brethren that trespassed against the Lord God of their Fathers And ver 11. divers of Ashur and Manasseh and Zebulun humblid themselvs and came to Ierusalem to keepe the feast of the Passeover This proveth clearly that people under the Old Testament were no lesse to try and examine themselves by the King and Priests commandment carried to them by Postes before they should eate the Passeover then they are to try themselves before they eate and drinke at the Lords Supper onely the adversaries say the Priests by preaching were to debarre from the Passeover those who were morally unclean but not to debarre those who were morally uncleane so they were not typically and ceremonially unclean by any power of Discipline or by Porters set at the gates to keepe them out of the Sanctuary But I answer 1. How are the Priests Ezek. 22. 26. reproved for violating the Law of God and prophaning his holy things in that they put no difference between the holy and prophane the clean and the unclean Surely the Priests prophaned in the highest way the holy things of God in admitting into the Sanctuary those who were not onely ceremonially but morally uncleane as murtherers adulterers Who cryed the temple of the Lord Ier. 7. And they put no difference betweene the Holy and Prophane when they admitted to the holy things of God and into the Sanctuary the uncircumcised in heart for they doe more pollute the holy things of God who partake of them being morally uncleane and uncircumcised in heart then those who are onely uncircumcised in flesh Object But the Church under the New Testament can no other way but morally and by preaching as it would seeme onely debarre scandalous persons from the Seales and Prayers of the Church for should a scandalous person or an excommunicate person obtrude himselfe on the Lords Supper against the will and sentence of the Church the Church cannot use any bodily violence to hinder such prophane intrusion upon the holy things of God because the Churches weapons are not carnall but spirituall bodily violence can be no spirituall weapon that the Church as the Church can use so do the Remonstrant Arminians argue and some other for the congregationall way Ans This Argument is against all Church-censures but though the Church as the Church cannot hinder scandalous intruders upon the holy things of God by bodily violence it doth not follow Ergo The Church can keep the holy things pure no way but morally that is by preaching only for we can give a third way The rebukes admonitions and Excommunication or delivering to Satan are all transacted without any bodily and externnll violence Christs Kingdom resigneth all such carnall weapons to the Magistrate who is the only Governour of the Church of Christ as the Opponents say All Church Censures are by way of Declaration applied to such men by name and there co-action though penall is not by bodily violence but by acting upon the conscience of men and putting them to shame Hence 2. We argue if beside
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
the Churches not to the Pastors only 2. The removing of the Candlestick is not from the Angel but from the Church and repentance and the fighting and overcomming a reward of the crown of life and many other things are evidently spoken to the Churches not to the Angels of the Churches And therefore the tryall of false Apostles must be by a Church a Court a colledge of church rulers as Paul speaketh unto Act. 20. 17. Where it is said Paul called the Elders of the Church of Ephesus and exhorted them to beware of false teachers that should not spare the flocke and should teach perverse things v. 28. 29. 30. and of this sort were these lying and seducing Apostles now how can one Angell or many Pastors by preaching onely try false Apostles and finde them lyars This trying and sentencing of lying seducers Rev. 2. 2. must be by a court such as we find to be the practise of the Apostles and Elders at Ierusalem who in a Synod Act. 15. did finde these who taught a necessitie of Circumcision to be perverters of soules and liars saying They had the Apostles authority for what they taught whereas they had no such thing and Schismatick troublers of the people Acts 15. See what further I have said for Excommunication before cap. 2. and sect 7. which proveth also the same thing The Church of Thyatira would not be rebuked for suffering Jezabel to teach if they had no power of Church censures to hinder her It is not enough to say that the Angel of that Church did sufficiently hinder Jezabell to teach when in publike he declared and preached against her false doctrine and by the same reason Pastors exoner their conscience if they preach that such and such scandalous persons are not to eate and drinke their owne damnation though they debarre them not in a visible court by name from the Lords table and though they never excommunicate them and therefore there is not any censure but Pastorall rebukes by way of preaching not any other by way of discipline Ans The Angel of Thyatira had not sufficiently hindered Jezabel to seduce the servants of God by only preaching against her false doctrine in regard that Paul and Barnabas not only hindred those that teached that the Gentiles ought to be circumcised Act. 14. cap. 16. by Preaching but also had recourse to the power and authority of a Synod that in a Synod which is a Court essentially consisting of many Pastors and Elders they might be declared to be perverters of souls and liars as indeed they were judicially declared to be such Act. 15. 24. Hence I argue if the Apostles could not be said sufficiently to hinder Jezabels and Seducers by only Preaching and Disputing against their errors except in case of their persisting in their errors they should tell the Church convened in a Synod as Christs order is Mat. 18. Then the Angel of Thyatira or any one Pastor do not sufficiently hinder scandals but may be well said to suffer them by only private rebuking and publick Preaching except they use all these means to hinder Iezabels false Teachers and all scandalous persons that the Apostles used and therefore the Angel of the Church of Thyatira must be rebuked for not using the Authority and power of the Church against Iezabel And here by the way when these false Teachers had sinned against their brethren in perverting their souls they take not the course that Erastus dreameth to be taken according to Matth. 18. They complain not to the Synedrim or Civill Magistrate who should use the sword against them but to the Church Synodically convened at Ierusalem who used against them the Spirituall power that Christ the head of the Church had given them 6. Arg. If there be an Ecclesiasticall debarring of scandalous persons from the holy things of God especially from the Supper of the Lord by Censures and not by the preaching of the word only then there be Censures and power of jurisdiction in the word beside preaching of the word But the former I make good by these following Arguments 1. Arg. If the Stewards and dispensers of the mysteries of God are to cut the word aright as approved workmen 2 Tim. 2. 15. And are to give every one their portion of bread according to their need and measure Matth. 24. 45 46 47. 1 Cor. 4. 1. 2. 3. and must not sâ—ay the souls which should not die by denouncing wrath against the righteous nor save the souls alive that should not live by lying words Ezec. 13. 19. by offering mercy to the wicked and impenitent then as they should not deny the seals of salvation to Believers hungring and thirsting for Christ neither should they give the seals of life to those that are walking openly in the way of destruction But the former is true Ergo so is the latter The Proposition is clear As the word should not be divided aright if wrath should be Preached to believing Saints and life and salvation offered to the obdurate and wicked so neither should the Stewards cut the seals of the word aright if the Supper were given to wicked men If they should say This is the blood of the Covenant shed for the Remission of your sins Drink ye all of it They should save alive those that should die with lying words for the seals speak to the Communicant and apply to him in particular the very promise that in generall is made to him and this will prove as the Magistrate being no Steward of the word and not called of God thereunto as Aaron was Heb. 5. 4. can no more distribute the word and seals to whom he pleaseth Ex officio then he can Preach and Administer the Sacraments nor should another man who is no Steward but a Porter or Cook Teach and that by his office how and to whom the Steward should distribute Bread nor is it sufficient to say by this one man not the Church is to debar from the Sacraments for the seals being proper to the Church as the Church he must act here in and with the power of the Church 2. It is another question whether by the Minister or by the Church any ought to be debarred and whether there be any such Censure as debarring from the Seals and it s another question by what power whether by the power of order or by the power of jurisdiction Ministers may debar the scandalous from the seals I conceive by both powers they may keep the Ordinances pure and if it belong to the Magistrate to debar any more then to preach the word and by the way of Erastus The Magistrate by his office as he is a Magistrate only is deputed of Iesus Christ to Steward the seals to whom he pleaseth Ergo say I to cut the word aright to whom he pleaseth must be his due 2. Arg. As the dispensers of the word must not partake of other mens sins 1 Tim. 5. 22. so neither should
they distribute to wicked and scandalous men such Ordinances as they see shall certainly be judgement and damnation to them and as maketh the Communicants guilty of the body and blood of our Lord Now that the Stewards Communicate with the sins of these manifestly scandalous to whom they administrate the Supper I prove 1. Because they that sow pillows under the head of the openly wicked preaching peace to these who should die do hunt souls Ezech. 13. 20. and partake of their presumption and they that heal the wound of the people with smooth words are false dealers and concurreth to the wound of the people Ier. 8. 10 11. As the Prophet that preacheth lies partaketh of the peoples presumption which believe those lies Ier. 14. 14 15 16. 2. If Eve should but reach the fruit of the forbidden Tree to Adam and say take and eat she partakes of Adams sin if the mother give poyson willingly and wittingly to a childe she killeth her childe though it be told the childe that it is poyson The Supper to those who knowingly to us eat unworthily is forbidden meat and poyson 3. A third Argument is from the nature of holy things It is not lawfull to give that which is holy to dogs nor to cast pearles before swine least they trample them under their feet Matth. 7. 6. But the Sacraments are holy things saith Erastus and no man can deny it Ergo we are not to give the Sacraments to the scandalous and openly prophane But Erastus answereth That the Lord preached the word to Pharisees and the word is a holy thing and a pearl and by Dogs and swine he meaneth open persecutors They that will seem members of the Church and confesse their fault and promise amendment are not such as will trample on the Sacraments and will turn again to tear you Et si quis talis reperiatur hunc ego admittendum minime censeo for such saith he Are not to be admitted to the Sacrament Ans These holy things which prophane men and openly scandalous can make no use of but pollute them to their own destruction and the abusing of the Ordinances no more then Dogs and Swine can make use of Pearls to feed them but onely trample on them are not to be given to the prophane and openly scandalous But the Lords Supper is such a thing being Ordained only for those that have saving Grace not for Dogs Now the Assumption applied to the word is most false as it is applied to the Lords Supper it is most true for the Word is Ordained by speciall Command to be Preached to Dogs and Lions that thereby they may be made Isa 11. 4 5 6 7. Isa 2. 3. 4. Lambs and Converts the Supper is not a mean of Conversion and since Dogs can make no use of it but trample it under foot we are forbidden to give such holy things to them It is true They 'll trample the Pearl of the word but we are Commanded to offer the word to all even while they turn Apostates 2. If Christ Commanded the word to be Preached to Pharisees and Saduces these were such persecuters as sinned against the Holy Ghost Dogs in the Superlative degree Matth. 12. 31 32. Joh. 9. 39 40 41. Joh. 7. 28. Joh. 8. 21. Ergo Christ Commanded some holy things the word to be given to Dogs and yet his precept cannot be obeyed if we give them the Sacrament 3. By what Doctrine of Scripture will Erastus have these that trampleth on Ordinances and turn again to tear us debarred from the Supper For in his Thes 26. 27 28 29. he holdeth it unlawfull to debar any Judas from the Supper doth he think there be no Dogs in the Visible Church Peter saith There be such Dogs as have known the way of truth and turn to their vomit and such may promise amendment confesse their sin and desire the Sacrament 4. Arg. Those who will not hear the Church but doth scandalize not only their Brethren but also a whole Church and are to be esteemed as Heathen and Publicans are not to be admitted to the highest priviledge and to feast with Christ when the Church knoweth they want their wedding garment But there may be and are many in the Church of this sort Ergo such should not be admitted For the Major I set down the words of Erastus granting it The Assumption both Scripture and experience proveth for there be in the Visible Church Dogs Persecuters Jezabels as there be many called and few chosen 5. Arg. If the incestuous man must be cast out lest he leaven the Church then can he not be admitted to Communicate with the Church in that which is the highest seal of Christs love but the incestuous man must be cast out lest he leaven the whole Church 1 Cor. 5. 4 5 c. Ergo The Proposition is clear because none can be put out of the Church but they must be separated from the Table of the Children of the Church the Assumption is 1 Cor. 5 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Put him out ver 7. Purge him out Now the Church hath no power by bodily violence to attempt a locall separating of him in person from them as they are men though they may separate themselves from him then it must be a declarative casting of him out as unworthy to Communicate with the Church in such holy Ordinances as distinguisheth the Church from other Societies and these be the Seals of the Covenant 6. We are not to suffer sin in any Levit. 18. 17. Rev. 2. 20. but to hinder it so far as we can according to our vocation 1 Sam. 3. 13. As the Priests hindred Vzziah to Sacrafice 2 Chron. 26. 18 19 20. And must pull them out of the fire Jude ver 23. As the Law of nature would teach the Mother not only not to co-operate with her sonne attempting to kill himself but to hinder and stop him by pulling a knife or sword out of his hand when he is about to destroy himself if so then ought not the Church and her Officers to co-operate so far with those who do Eat and drink their own Damnation as to exhibite and give to such the seals of the Covenant to pray that these seals may be blessed to scandalons ones which is to pray directly contrary to the revealed will of God in his word and against that which the faithfull Pastors and Paul Preacheth That every one should try and examine themselves and so eat and drink Now a reall and physicall co-operating of the Church with such manifest impiety must then be the Churches suffering of sin in a brother or not hindring him â—o eat his own Damnation if the Lord have committed a power of dispensing the seals to Christians not to Pagans and Turks Let Erastus show any precept or practise why we might not admit Jews Turks Indians though never Baptized to eat and drink the Lords body and blood we are to Preach
in the Idoll-Temple to come to the Lords Table except they repent and try themselves Hence it must follow that if Christ have commanded his Stewards to dispense the word of promise and threatnings and comforts according to the temper of the flock so must they dispense the Seals and so by good consequence Paul said I will not have the Lord and Satan mingled nor a partaker of Satans Table admitted to the Lords Table 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Erastus his Arg. 13. 1 Cor. 10. God spared not idolaters and murmurers yet they eat we and they of the same spirituall meat and drinke the same spirituall drinke and so had the same Sacraments otherwise the Argument of the Apostle were nothing if ours and their Sacraments were not all one if then those that were idolators fornicators were admitted to their Sacraments then also to ouâ—â— under the New Testament Ans Beza answereth well to that Manna and the water ouf of the Rock as they had a spirituall Relation to Christ were holy things and types of Christ just as our Sacraments are signes of Christ already come in the flesh and so agreed in the kinde of holy signes with our Sacraments yet Manna and the water out of the Rock were also ordained to be bodily food for the famishing and thirsty people good or bad holy or unholy these two Manna and water out of the Rock were given by the Commandment of God and the Priests to the people both as Gods people in Covenant with God and to them as men starving in the wildernesse and dying for thirst for they had not plowing earing harvest bread vineyards wine fountains in the wildernesse and therefore no marvell then such holy things being also beside that they were holy things such as were necessary to keep them from starving and bodily death as the shewbread which was also a type of the word of life revealed to the Ministers of God was given to keep David and his men from starving No marvell I say then these bodily helps though in another higher signification they were Sacramentalls were by Gods command bestowed on many wicked men who often partake both of outward Ordinances and temporall deliverance from death and famishing because they are mixt with the people of God But Erastus if he would prove any thing against us should have proved that circumcision the Passeover and other holy things of God ordained for the visible Saints to shew forth our spirituall Communion with Christ and which were never ordained for necessiry helps to sustain the naturall life were to be administred to those that were openly prophane and wicked and therefore we deny this connexion Manna signified the very same thing to wit Christ our food of life which bread and wine signifies Ergo As Manna was given both as a holy signe to figure out Christ our life and to feed the bodies of openly holy or openly prophane to sustain their bodily life so also baptisme and the Lords Supper which serve for no bodily use should be administred to those that are openly prophane Erastus is put to a poor shift with this solid Answer of that Reverend Learned and holy Divine Theod. Bezâ— he saith Vis dicam quod sentio Tui ubique similises The sea and the cloud saith he were not necessary to feed the body It is true Erastus the Physician would think the cloud and pillar of fire can neither be Physick for the sick nor food for the whole yet Physitians say Manna is apt for both not is the dvided Red-Sea food or Physick But good man he knowes the cloud was their guide and convey by night and day through the wildernesse and appointed by God to convey the Leapers the unclean and all those who were Excommunicated from the holy things and the Idolators and openly wicked as well as the clean and the holy and he knew the sâ—me that the people had no food but Manna a holy signe that those who were unclean seven dayes and often many times longer were not to starve for hunger but must eat Manna though a holy yet their only necessary food then without which they could not live But I hope Erastus cannot prove while they were unclean or put out of the Camp or yet extreamly wicked that they might eat the Passeover which was a meer holy Sacrament not ordained for the feeding of the body as Manna and water out of the Rock were Erastus may know the dividing of the Sea was necessary to preserve the life of the most wicked and unclean God being pleased for his Churches cause to bestow Temporall deliverances on wicked men mingled with the godly from being drowned with the Egyptians and that God who will have mercy and not sacrifice may well by a positive Law appoint that holy and unholy clean and unclean shall have the use of such holy things as are not meerly holy but mixt being both means of Divine institution and also necessary Subsidies for mans life but it followeth not therefore holy things that are purely holy should be prostitute to holy and unholy the clean and unclean Erastus God in the Church of the Jews punished wicked men with bodily punishments not with Exclusion from the Sacraments and Paul threatneth death and sicknesse not Excommunication to those that did eat and drink unworthily Ans Then putting out of the Campe was no Exclusion from the holy things of God all the world not onely will cry shame on this Divinity But they will say Erastus his Logick is bad God punisheth some wicked men with death and the sword of the Magistrate and stoning Ergo he appointed no Ecclesiasticall debarring of the unclean from Circumcision 2. It is false that Paul threatneth death to unworthy Communicants only he saith God â—lew many of them for that sin and hence it follows well the Officers should hinder the scandalous to rush into such a sin as is the not discerning the Lords body which bringeth death and diseases on the actors What consequence is this God punisheth wicked men Ergo the Officers should not rebuke them for those sins nor the Magistrate or Church punish wicked men God punisheth â—â—ubborn Rebels to parents Ergo the judge should not stone them the contrary Logick is the arguing of the Spirit of God Erastus Every one is to try himself therefore there is no need of any other to try him for Paul speaketh of that which is proper to every mans conscience Ans It is an unlearned and vain consequence It is commanded that every one try if he be in the Faith or no for the peace of his conscience and this is so proper to a man himself and so personall that no man can try or know certainly whether be in the state of grace but he himself 2 Cor. 13. 5. Rev. 2. 17. None can joyn with him in this as none can joyn with a man to try if he have faith to discern the Lords body and eat worthily
neglect to hear them he was to tell the Church Ergo If he should hear them he was gained and was not to tell the Church Ergo spirituall gaining must be Christs scope 2. If to tell the Church be as Erastus dreameth to tell the Civill Magistrate and then the Roman Emperour this was no suitable mean to gain the mans soul a club was never dreamed of by our Saviour to compasse the spirituall end or neerest scope of gaining any to repentance for the end of the Magistrate as a Magistrate is to bring no man to repentance but to take avvay evil out of the land to cause Israel fear and do so no more to be an avenger of evil doing far lesse is there any shadow of reason to dream that Christ intended by Cesars or any Heathen Magistrates sword to gain an offending brother to repentance and that he commandeth the offended brother to use such a carnal mean so unsuitable to such a spirituall end Lastly How a private brother cannot be said to binde and loose I have cleared already Erastus Least these words Let him be to thee as an Heathen should seem to make the offender every way as an Heathen therefore he addeth a restrictive word and a Publican and he addeth the article ◠common to them both so as he speaketh not of every Heathen and Publican but of those who were conversant amongst the Jews and none of those would answer to any Judge but the Roman Emperour or his deputies being the servants of the Romans to vex the people of the Jews Ans Here is a groundlesse conjecture for a Publican was large as odious as a Heathen being a companion to sinners and the worst of the Heathen 2. How proveth he that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Heathen is meant of those Heathen only that were servants to the Romans and would acknowledge no Iudge but Cesar 1. The Iews themselves said We have no King but Cesar 2. The holy Ghost doth not restrict the Heathen so What warrant hath Erastus to be narrower in his glosse then the holy Ghost is in the Text. If in these Let him be as an Heathen the threatning be perpetuall to remove all scandals to the end of the world when most of the Heathen shall not acknowledge the Iudicatures of Heathen Rome then the word Heathen must be as large as all Heathen all wicked and all scandalous men such as Publicans and so there is no hint at the Heathen Romish Iudge here which is the way of Erastus But the former is true or this Law of Christ is to remove scandals amongst the Disciples when the Roman Empire shall fall as the Lord in his word hath prophecied The Scripture speaks not so Mat. 6. 7. Vse no vain repitition in prayer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here is the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can Erastus say none use babling prayers but such heathen as were subject to the Roman Empire Gal. 2. 9. That we should goe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Heathen here is an Article also belike Paul should preach to no Gentiles but those under the Roman Empire A frothie dream Gal. 3. 8. The Scripture foreseeing God would justifie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Gentiles Here also an Article belike then no Gentiles are justified by faith but these that are Officers to the Romans and vexed the Iewes Act. 18. 6. Henceforth I will goe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Gentiles Act. 21. 19. Paul told what things the Lord had done by his Ministery 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 amongst the Heathen Act. 26. 23. that Christ should shew light to the people 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to the Heathen not the Romish heathen onely except Christ be a Saviour to no other Heathen in the world I need not weary the Reader to resute these unsolid conjectures of Erastus Erastus Converted Publicans were not scandalous as touching their office Ergo A publican signifieth not one that is none of the Church Zachens after his conversion remained a Publican Ans Converted Publicans left not off to be Publicans but they left off to be such as went under the name of Publicans that is abominable Extortioners and grinders of the Poore and therefore it followes well that to be as a Publican in the common speech of the Iewes familiar to our Saviour was to be a wretched godlesse prophane man without the Church and without God and Christ in the world as also the Heathen were Eph. 2. 11 12. 1 Cor. 5. 1. 1 Pet. 4. 3 4. Acts 21. 11. Rom. 2. 24 blasphemers of the Name of God and 1 Cor. 12. 2. Yee know that yee were Gentiles carried away with dumbe Idols Eph. 4. 17. That ye walke not as other Gentiles in the vanity of their minde 18. Having the understanding darkned being strangers from the life of God These and many other Scriptures confirmeth me much that in Christs time to be as a Heathen and a Publican was to be cast out whereas the man was once a brother a beleever and a member of the Church and in profession in the covenant of God and a brother to Peter Iohn and the Lords Disciples and a Christian and professing Saint as the disciples of Christ were but now one who is turned out of that society and as a Gentile serving Satan walking in the vanity of the minde as an uncircumcised man c. This is as like Excommunication as one egge is like another we have cleare Scripture for this Exposition but it is good Erastus never gave us one syllable of Scripture for his exposition Nor can it be shewen that to be as a Heathen and a Publican by Scripture or any that ever spoke Greeke is to be in subjection to the Roman Empire or lyable to their lawes onely we have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Erastus for it Erastus Who ever by no law of God or command was execrable and could for no just cause be hated by no Law of God could bee debarred from the Temple and holy things of God But such were the Publicans Ergo Ans 1. The Major is false The Leper because a Leper was by no Law of God cursed and execrable nor was he worthy of hatred but of pitty yet was he by an expresse Law debarred from the Temple and holy things of God 2. The Minor is false in the sense we contend for the office of a Publican in abstracto was not execrable nor worthy of hatred but the thing signified and that which proverbially went under the name of a Publican amongst the Iewes to wit a professed extortioner a robber a grinder of the face of the poore is both execrable and hatefull the conclusion in the former sense is granted and it is nothing against us But in the latter sense the Assumption being false the conclusion followeth not not to say that in ordinary none was a Publican but he that was either an heathen and so execrable or then an
Apostate wretched leud Iew. Erastus But I have demonstrated that no man was debarred from holy things for Morall uncleannesse then neither should a Publican be counted a separated man will Christ command him to be cast out whom the Iewes could by no Law cast out Ans If we give the matter to Erastus his word all he sayes are demonstrations Let the reader read and judge 2. All his argument here proceedeth on a false ground while he contendeth so much to justifie Publicans he presumeth to be as a Publican to â—e in our sense all one with this to be excommunicated But 1. we lay the least weight on the word Publican and more on this to be as an heathen 2. We take them not divisively but as Christ speaketh them copulatively We say not to be excommunicated is all one as let him be as a Publican but that to be excommunicated is to be as an Heathen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and as a Publican Erastus The article â— is set before both the word Heathen and the word Publican by the holy Spirit which signifies either the very nature of the predicate heathen and Publican or must put a great Emphasis and a great edge of difference between the Heathen and Publican here and in other places as these be not one Petrus est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 et Petrus est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Peter is a man and Peter is the man or that man So when we say pleasure is that good thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that chiefe happinesse We say more then when we say pleasure is good so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Publican must signifie a Publican as a Publican if there be an Emphasis here common to both the heathen and the Publican now there can be no other thing in the matter of eschewing Scandals common to both but that both acknowledged no other but the Roman Magistrate and therefore except you make to be a Publican to be debarred from the Sacraments all one you have not another place in all the New Testament for your Excommunication for no Publican because a Publican was debarred by Gods Law Jure divino from the Sacraments Ans 2. All the wits on earth cannot make us see another place for Erastus his explication of this place Matth. 18. and of 1 Cor. 5. But we hope it shall appeare we have more from Scripture to say for Excommunication then this one place or then Erastus and all his party can say against it here is all that Erastus can say against this strong place builded upon one Article â— a poore and ignorant Grammattication 1. He culleth out the word Publican of lesse weight with us from the word Heathen and would prove that no Publican because a Publican and for the office was debarred from the Iewish Sacraments which we grant for no office or place lawfull in it selfe debarred any from Christ Centurions were hatefull to the Iewes and put over them by the Romans yet I should conceive the Centurion whose servant Christ cured Luke 7. was a Proselite and a member of the Iewish Church a lover of the Nation else I see not how the Iewes would have accepted that he should build them a Synagogue as he did v 5. and Publicans might have bin Proseliâ—es also but that which was signified by a Publican to the Iews was no lesse odious then the name of a hangman or a most wicked and flagitioâ—s man as Matth. 5. 45 46 47. and by Christ decourted from the number of the children of our heavenly Father Amongst the Iews it was counted abomination to eat with Publicans Matth. 9. 11. Matth. 11. 19. Luk. 7. 34. And when Christ saith Matth. 21. 31. of the Rebellious Iews Verely I say unto you that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the publicans and harlots shall enter into the Kingdom of God before you He clearly maketh Publicans the wickedst of men shall these two 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make us think Erastus were not dreaming if he should from these words gather that Christ meaneth only of such Publicans and Harlots as acknowledged no other Magistrate but the Roman Magistrate And the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is doubled in the following verse also 2. Let us retort this Argument he that heareth not the admonitions of brethren in secret and of the Church in publick is to be reputed not as a Iew or a brother and member of the Church having right to the holy things of God but as a Heathen Now a Heathen to the Iews was no brother and had no right to the Sacraments either of the Iewish or Christian Church as is clear by the word of God therfore he that heareth not a brother in secret or the Church in publick is to be reputed as no brother I mean in that publick visible way he once was but as a Heathen who hath no right Iure divino by Gods Law to the Sacraments 3. What means all this trifling about the Article Say that the Article should restrict Heathens and Publicans to such and such Heathens and Publicans I shall deny In eternum this consequence Ergo He means no other but only such Heathens and Publicans as did acknowledge no other Magistrate but a Roman Magistrate There is no shadow in the Scripture or any Greek author for the Word but rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth the qualitie and spirituall condition of any especially when Christ speaketh of gaining of souls as here Mat. 18. 15. so I am sure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth Ioh. 1. 14. Maâ— 6 â—0 1 Pet. 1. 19. so doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie Mat. 6. 5. and elsewhere enough I deny not but it may signifie a civill or naturall siâ—â—â—â—tude but Christ doth here speake of neither as is cleare 4. If here a Publican as a Publican be meant as Erastus saith Ergo All Heathens and all Publicans are here to be understood Ergo Not these only that had this common to them both to wit that they both acknowledged no civill Magistrate but the Romans the contrary of which Erastus asserteth 5. Yea this is not emphatick and discretive of Heathen and Publican Christ acknowledged no civill Iudge as King over the Iewes at this time but onely Cesar when he said Mat. 22. Give unto Cesar the things that are Cesars and to God the things that are Gods And the Iewes themselves did so when they said We have no King but Cesar If then to be as an Heathen and a Publican bee all one as to acknowledge no King nor judge but Cesar then to be as a Heathen and Publican must be all one with this to be as Christ and the Iewes for this was common to Heathens Publicans Iewes and Christ to acknowledge Cesar was their onely King and civill Judge 6. They were the worst of the Heathens and Publicans who in a peculiar manner acknowledged no lawfull Iudge but Cesar and hated the Iewes the onely Church of God
his late Critica Sacra on the Old Testament saith it signifieth to stay to cut off by death by banishment or any other way whereby a thing in use before afterward ceaseth Joel 1. 8. Amos 1. 5. Yea to cut off by divorce as I noted before and Exod. 12. 15. To cut off from Israel is expounded ver 19. to cut off from the Church of Israel Yea the Law forbiddeth that not only in the time of the Passeover they should not eat leaven but it should not be in their houses Now must they be killed if it was found in their houses beside their knowledge see Deut. 16. 3. Exod. 13. 7. What Erastus saith to the end of the Chapter is but repeated reasons before answered CHAP. X. Quest 6. Arguments for Excommunication from 1 Corinthians 5. vindicated REverend Beza said The world is the Kingdom of Satan and he that is delivered to Satan is cast out of Christs Kingdom to Satans Kingdom Erastus saith Is it not easier to heal them by remaining in the Church having the Magistrate to compell them to their duty then to cast them out of the Church The world is a kingdom of wickednesse and impiety may you not more easily reforme a wanton and lascivious virgin within the house then by casting her out of the house into a Bordel Will not slaves of Satan be more easily healed amongst the children of God then amongst wicked men Ans Whether to be delivered to Satan be to be put formally in his power that he may vex the spirit that the man may be humbled for sin or if it be to be given to Satan only consequenter and cast out of the Church that is Christs office-house of Grace to live as the world of which Satan is God and Prince 2 Cor. 4. 4. Joh. 12. 31. Ioh. 14. 30. It is not much to be disputed But this reason is against the wisdom of God who hath appointed that the shame grief and sorrow of being put out of Christs family should exceedingly humble the spirit of any in whom there is any thing of God And Erastus might as well say to Paul why dost thou command the Saints not to eat and drink with those that are called brethren and yet are fornicators covetous extortioners 1 Cor. 4. 11. and such as cause divisions and walk inordinately as Rom. 16. 17. 2 Thes 3. 14 15. and to withdraw from their company they must then converse only with the slaves of Satan and the wicked of the world when they are deprived of the society of the godly and that is the way to loose them were it not better to command the just contrary that the godly should eat drink and converse with inordinate walkers for they may turn them from their evil way for will an unchaste virgin be made chaste by being cast out of her fathers house into a Bordel-house Will not slaves of Satan rather be healed amongst the children of God then amongst the wicked But Erastus seeth not that Gods aime in this separation is not only that the cast out man may be ashamed 2 Thes 3. 14 15. and so humbled and brought to repentance when he findeth he is deprived of the blessings of the Saints of their society Ordinances But also God hath a higher aime to the end the whole lump of Christs body be not leavened and infected with the contagion of one man 1 Cor. 4. 6 7. Gal. 5. 9. 10. Erastus The similitude of a rotten Member proveth nothing for 1. There be no such sinners desperately uncurable of whom there is no hope so long as they live except pertinacious Hereticks erring in the foundation of salvation and such as sin against the holy Ghost 2. It is not necessary that men using reason and free will be defiled and corrupted by other sinners as the whole Member is by the rotten Member for as a Tree cannot but be burnt by the fire that seaseth on it so neither can the Members continuated by touching escape corruption 3. None can be cast out of the Church into the world as it is the kingdom of Satan for if they keep the faith though they were amongst Turks they are not in the world that is in the Kingdom of Satan nor in the world 4. Paul would not have him cast out into the world that his soul may be saved for this were to make the weak dispair and make them hypocrites Ans This similitude is the holy Ghosts in the very sense we use it 2 Tim. 2. 17. Their word shall eat as a canker a Metaphor as Calvin Piscator Marlorate observe from a rotten member that corrupteth the whole body and to say because a man hath reason and so free-will that he will not be corrupted whereas the whole member by necessity of nature cannot but be corrupted by a rotten member is to speak not like a Divine but as Pelagius speaketh for except we use the remedy appointed of God to eschew the contagion of the wicked and eschew their company as we are commanded and as the godly have done and the wicked have not done and therefore have been infected with the way of other evil men Prov. 22. 24. Prov. 5 8 9. Psa 26. 4 5. Esa 2. 6 7. Psa 119. 63. Psa 139. 21 22. Rev. 18. 4. 2 Chro. 19. 2. though we should not actually be corrupted yet we sin and tempt the Lord in that we seek a temptation to our selves yea as all the reasons of Erastus are naturall and against the wisdom of God in his Ordinances so expresly this God forbiddeth his people to marry with the Canaanites or to make Covenants with them Exod. 34. 12 c. Because saith the Lord they will insnare thee and draw away thy heart after their Gods May not Erastus say But men have reason and free-will not to consent to the inticing counsels of the Canaanites though they be joyned in Covenant and marriage with them Preterea non est necesse sic alios a malis contaminari 3. It is good that Erastus granteth that pertinacious Hereticks because uncurable may infect others for so the word expresly saith what shall be done with them Erastus granteth they be rotten members Ergo either they must by Excommunication be separated from the body as we teach or the body must seperate from them if this latter be said all that Erastus inferreth against us shall fall against himself 1. We shall not need to be infected with the Heresie of such Vtimur ratione We have the Armour of reason and freewill against this rotten and rotting member saith Erastus 2. We shall expose Hereticks to the Kingdom of Satan and the world by which they shall be hardned in their pernicious Heresies Beside 3. We make them Hypocrites 4. I see no warrant Erastus hath to say That Hereticks erring in fundamentals are more contagious and rotten members then slaves of Satan failing against the second Table 5. He that is cast out of
you never read that the Priests yea or the High Priest said fall upon such an ill doer and kill him nor was this any Law of God that the Ecclesiastick Sanedrim should put to death and politically condemne any man to die or command any mans blood to be shed they but declared and resolved a case of conscience to the judges and a plea and said This is a matter of blood and deserveth death by the Law of God and he that hath done such a fact in point of Law ought to die But there were two things left to the civilâ— Iudges 1. Whether this man hath done such a fact 2. A sitting in the Tribunall and saying I or we command and decree such a man who hath shed such blood hath inflicted such a stroake on this woman who is with childe of living birth to be stoned to death to be hanged Erastus hath not proved nor never shall prove that the High Priests Priests or Levites by Gods Law did thus judge any That Ananias commanded Paul to be beaten and the lictors of the High Priest smote Christ on the face at the command of the Priests was against Law they had no power so to doe by Law yea and our Presbyteries that judge of sorceries witchcrafts incests adulteries and other capitall crimes and of bloods in point of Gods Law what is witchcraft what is incest that the husband that striketh his wife being with quick child and killeth the birth is a Murtherer but that they judicially say such a woman is a Witch and so ordain her to be hanged and burnt and such a husband is a Murtherer and decerne him to die is utterly unlawfull therefore this is an ignorant speech of Erastus This synedrie of Priests and Levites whether in point of Law or in point of â—act did give out sentences of death therefore they were politick judges it followeth not and that the Priests said this man deserveth to die and therefore they gave out as civill judges sentences of death for the civill judge draweth not the sword with his owne hand is a foul consequence for lawyers do say such a man is worthy to die but it followeth not that Lawyers are civill judges to condemne a man to die for the Priests said this man deserveth to die in point of Law not absolutely as this man but upon supposition that he hath committed the fact deserveth to die and their meaning is any man whosoever he be though they never hear nor see the man who hath committed such a fact ought to die Now Gods Law never appointed any judge to condemn a man to die whom the judge never did accuse heare or see this were extreame unjustice Now this supposition is and was to be proved and judged by the civill Iudge and whereas Erastus saith the judge draweth the sword with his owne hand against no man 1. It is not to purpose for the hangman is in Law the hand and instrument of the judge but he is neither hand nor instrument of the Lawyer of the Priests and Levites who in matters criminall of life and death judge of the Maior proposition and of the Law except Erastus would have a Major proposition to prove an Assumption which were to shame all Logick For the Priest never commanded this or this man because he had done this fault to be stoned by such such executioners 2. It is doubtful whether the judge did never with his owne hand cast a stone at any stoned to death Lastly there was no provocation from the great Sanedrim at Ierusalem true in matter of Law what then Ergo they were politick judges it followeth as the like consequences of Erastus doth follow Yea for the fact and the judiciall condemning of the man they were neither the highest judicature nor any judicature at all the civill Iudges of the high Sanedrim did that onely It is true he was to die who would not stand to the sentence of the judge or Priest in the matter of Law the man being judged to be guilty of the fact by the civill judge but this shall never prove that the Priests were civill judges Erastus The late Iewes referre to this Sanedrim at Ierusalem questions of making warre or consecrating the Priest of tributes of charges of the Temple of judging of Tribes of the censuring of false Prophets and of Soothsayers c. How then is it not a politick judicature in which all causes belonging to worship Ceremonies civill policy bloods and capitall punishments were handled for when Moses had spoken of the punishing of Idolaters he presently addeth Deut. 17. If any thing be hard for thee c Ans It is like enough the Iewes referred such as these to the Sanedrim but we contend for two Sanedrims one civill and another of Priests Levites and Elders who judged of matters onely of Ecclesiasticall cognizance and of bloods and punishing Idolaters and false Prophets with death onely in a spirituall way in point of Law and I judge the holy Ghost Deut. 17. hath so framed the words that it is evident as I have proved that capitall crimes belonged to them in point of Law for he saith not he that refuseth to die when the Priests and Levites condemne him to die hee shall surely die and have the benefit of appeal to no higher judicature Now this he should have said by Erastus his way but he that will not stand to the sentence of the Priest or judge shall die Hence it is clear he speaketh of things in matters of Law in which the guilty might dis-assent and alledge the Priests had not judged according to Law But how was it the minde of the holy Ghost that any could refuse the Sentence of death given out by the Priests for the meaning must be by Erastus his way he that refuseth to die when the Priest condemneth him to die he shall surely die 2. He saith not that the Priests and Levites shall give out sentences of death and blood against any man but they shall shew and teach thee when thou shalt inquire the sentences of judgement even of Idolaters blasphemers of Murthers and blood according to the Law of God the knowledge of which the Priests lips should preserve Erastus Moses instituted no other publike judicatures for punishing of wickednes but those he maketh mention of Exod. 18. Numb 11. Deut. 1. 16 17. But all thâ—se were onely civill not Ecclesiasticall Iudges The seventy that were indued with the spirit of prophecy were given to helpe Moses and â—ase him not to be assistants to helpe Aaron and it cannot be doubted but Moses his government was civill Ans Both the Major the Minor is false the Major is from some particular places negativè he should argue from all the Old Testament and he argueth from some places onely he leaveth out Levit. 10. and all the places where the Priests were onely to judge the Leper the uncleane which are spirituall judicatures not civill 2.
excommunicated without the consent of the Magistrate Where did Christ divide the externall Government of the Church in Civill Government and Ecclesiasticall as you distinguish them Ans 1. That it is expedient that the Christian Magistrate should be acquainted with the Excommunication of any under his jurisdiction that he may satisfie his own Conscience in punishing him civilly it is like some of our Divines do teach But that the Magistrate have a negative voice in Excommunication none of ours teach 2. We make no such division as that of the Civill and the Ecclesiasticall Government of the Church Erastus may dream of such a distinction We know all Government of the Church as the Church to us is Ecclesiasticall There is a Government of men of the Church that is Civill but we dreamed never of a Civill Government of the Church All the Government of the Church as the Church though externall is Spirituall Heavenly and subordinate to Jesus Christ as Lord and King of his own house as the Government of a house a Kingdom an Army a City is subordinate to the Lord of the house to the King Generall Commander and Lord Mayor and it is no more a Civill Government subordinate to the Magistrate and his Sword then Christs Kingdom visible and externall or invisible and internall is of this world When therefore Erastus denyeth that there is any Church-Government he meaneth there is no Spirituall Church Government in the hands of Presbyters but because we know no Government of the Church as the Church but it is Spirituall and the Government of the Church by the Christian Magistrate is a Civill Government of men as men and that by the power of the Sword and so it is no Church-Government at all and therefore we justly say that Erastus denyeth all Church-Government Erastus When Paul saith Act. 23. Thou sittest to judge me according to the Law Doth he not acknowledge the High Priest to be his Judge Paul denieth that he had done any thing contrary to the Law And Tertullus saith We would have judged him according to our Law if Lysias had not without Law violently taken him from us Ans Ananias was to judge him only in an Ecclesiasticall way and when Paul saw that they went beyond their line to take his life he appealed from their inferior judicature to Caesar who only had power of his life 2. Lysias had Law to vindicate an innocent man accused on his life before a most uncompetent judicature Tertullus knew the Iews had favour and connivence in many Lawlesse Facts CHAP. XVIII Quest 14. Whether Erastus do strongly confute the Presbytery of the New Testament BEza saith there vvas need of same select men in the Apostles time to lay hands on Ministers to appoint Deacons for there vvas no Jevvish Synedrie no Magistrate to do it and vvhen Paul forbiddeth Christians for things of this life to implead other before the heathen Magistrate would he send them in spirituall businesse to such or must that Tell the Church have no use for a hundreth years after Christ So Beza yea if the Lord ascending to heaven left Officers for the building and Governing his Church Eph. 4. 11. and some to be over the people in the Lord 1 Thes 5. 12. 13. some to watch for their souls whom they were to obey some to feed the flock and to drive away the wolves Act. 20. 28 29 30. some to Govern the house of God no lesse then their owne house 1 Tim. 3. 4. a Presbytery in generall Erastus cannot deny only he denieth such a Presbytery and saith that it is like this such a one is a living creature Ergo such an one is a dog But if I can demonstrate there is a Presbytery and they were not all Bishops as is clear Rom. 12. 89. 1 Cor. 12. 28 29. 1 Tim. 5. 17. and if Tell the Church by no Grammer can be Tell the Bishop except you make the Queen the Bride and the servant or friend of the Bridegroome all one It must follow there is both a Presbytery and such a Presbytery in the Church nor do we argue from a generall to specials Erastus The Church may not kill men but she may pray that God would destroy them or convert her enemies Ans To pray that God would destroy him whom we are to admonish as a brother is a strange discipline Erastus will never make good from Scripture that God hath appointed praying for the destruction of men to be a saving ordinance appointed of Christ for gaining of souls such as we take rebuking admonishing excommunication eschewing the company of scandalous brethren which have for their intrinsecall end the repentance of a brother under these censures and therefore this of Erastus his killing of men is a new forged censure Erastus Whereever the Scripture speaketh in the New Testament of a Presbytery there is no other understood but that of preachers therefore it is false that the Apostles have commanded any other Elders beside those that labour in the word Ans The antecedent is false 1 Tim. 5. 17. as I have demonstrate in another place I repeat it not here let any disciple of Erastus answer if he can 2. The consequence is vaine for if in every place of the New Testament where mention is made of an Elder the Holy Ghost mean only a Preaching Elder it followeth only that any other officers as Deacons and those that labour not in the Word yet Govern well are not called with the name of Presbyters And so the Argument is against the name not against the office and thing What if the Presbytery be named from the most principall part as is ordinary in Scripture doth it follow that there be none members of the Presbytery but only Preachers of the Word In no sort Paul saith of the visible Church of Corinth Ye are bought with a price ye are justified ye are sanctified Ergo none were members of the visible Church but those that are redeemed justified and sanctified it is like the consequence of Erastus 3. I retort this vaine argument thus none in Scripture have the name of Apostles But the Eleven and Mathias none are called the witnesses of the Lord but they 1 Ioh. 1. 1 2. Ergo there be no preaching Ministers neither Timothy Titus Epaphroditus that are to be called witnesses of the Lord but the twelve Apostles so where doth Erastus finde that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a deaconrie or office of labour in the Ministery is given to any but to those that labour in the word Rom. 11. 13. Ergo must there be no deaconry but labouring in the word the plaine contrary is Act. 6. Erastus Beside Levites and Priests there belonged to the Synedry of the Iews other heads of families Ergo beside Ministers there must be Prophets and Doctors in the Presbytery it followeth not Ans Erastus fancies a conclusion of an Argument that Beza saith not for he
The Church of the Iews was tyed to one certaine place but every particular Church hath alike power To be cast out of the Synagogue then with the Iews must be another thing then to be Excommunicated now for he that is cast out of one particular Church is cast out of the whole Catholick Church But it was not so in Iudea for Sacrifices and Sacraments except circumcision and expiation were only at Ierusalem not in Synagogues how then could they deny Sacraments which they wanted themselves they could not deny what was not in their power to give Moses was read in their Synagogues every Sabbath No man could be forbidden to heare the word read this had been against a manifest precept It is like they admitted heathens to the Synagogue Act. 13. 14. c. 12. c. 18. But it was not lawfull for heathen to enter into the Temple And when Moses commanded all the clean to go to Ierusalem no Synagogue could forbid them to go Ans That the Synod might have divers significations I deny not but that to be cast out of the Synagogue had divers significations we deny Yea it signified no other thing but to be cast out of the Church and the Lord Iesus speaketh of it and the Evangelists as of a standing censure in the Jewish Church which the spirit of God condemneth no where except when it was abused Ioh. 9. 22. Ioh. 12. 42. Ioh. 16. 2. Luk. 6. 22. Ioh. 9. 35. so is the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nadah to Excommunicate as an unclean thing Esay 66. 5. Your Brethren that cast you out Pagnin and Mercer expound it of casting out of the Synagogue and they cite Ioh. 9. and 12. and 16. to make it signifie Excommunication 2. That a circumcised Iew could by no Law be cast out of Iudea seemeth to say that banishment was not a lawfull punishment Surely David against all Law then did banish Absolon 2 Sam. 14. 13. and when the King of Persia Ezra 7. 25 26. commandeth Ezra to restore judicatures as at the beginning It would seem that banishment was an ancient punishment amongst the Iews Therefore Erastus craftily saith that no born Iews were so cast out of Iudea that they were compelled to say they were not Iews Surely we never dreamed of such an Excommunication that the excommunicated should be compelled to lie and say that though they were Iews and Christians yet they should say they were not Iews or Christians 2. When the people was in Egypt 2 Mac. they were killed who denyed themselves to be Iews and deservedly for they denied their Religion and their God What is this against Excommunication We plead not for such an Excommunication as was a locall extrusion of a person out of the land of Iudea nor for such a one wherey they denyed their Nation that was a sinfull lying But such whereby Church priviledges were denyed to some for scandals 3. Nor do we expound casting out of the Synagogue literally as Erastus doth to be a casting out of the Synagogue or from the Ordinances there and from hearing the word or the Law of Moses for the Synagogue is the Church and it was to be debarred from the Temple Passeover and other Holy things though these should be tyed to one certaine place to wit to the Temple and I doubt if the excommunicated be to be debarred from hearing the word 1. Because the excommunicated is to be admonished as a brother 2 Thes 3. 15. and the word preached is a mean simply necessary for the mans gaining 2. Because heathens were not excluded from hearing the word 1 Chron. 14 23. Act. 17. 16. 17 18 19 20. c. Act. 14. v. 15 16 17. But from the Temple and Sacraments they were excluded We have often answered that all the Morally unclean though they were ceremonially clean are not only not commanded to go up to Ierusalem that is to the Temple and holy things that they are rebuked and accused because they stood in the Lords Temple with their bloods and idolatries and other abominations in their skirts Ieremiah 7. verse 9. 10. Ezekiel 23. 38 39. Esay 1. verse 10 11 12 13 14 15 16. Erastus They call Christ a Samaritan Ioh. 8. Those of Nazareth not onely cast him out of the Synagogue but out of the town and strove to throw him over the brow of a mountain Who dâ—ubts then but they cast Christ out of the Synagogue when they made a Law that if any should confesse him he should be cast out of the Synagogue Yet never man objected to Christ It is not lawfull to thee to go into the Temple for thou art cast out of the Synagogue Ergo to be cast out of the Synagogue was not to be excommunicated Ans All these are poor conjectures for Erastus granteth there was such a censure as casting out of the Synagogue But he sheweth not what it is But I retort this argument if Christ had been cast out of the Synagogue those that called him a Samaritane and cast out of their Synagogues such as confessed him would have sometime said it is not lawfull to thee to go into the Synagogues and teach for thou art cast out of the Synagogue But by the contrary Christ till the day of his death openly taught in the Synagogues Ioh. 18. 20. I spake openly to the world I ever taught in the Synagogue and in the Temple whither the Iews alwayes resort Luke 4. 15. he taught in their Synagogues Luke 4. 16. as his custome was he went into the Synagogues Mat. 4. 23. Mark 1. 39. Mark 3. 1. Luk. 6. 6. Mat. 9. 35. Luke 13. 10. and therefore it is a demonstration to me that they never cast Christ out of the Synagogue what hindred them saith Erastus I answer Let him shew me what hindred them to stone him Ioh. 10. and not to put him to death till his houre came Erastus speaketh not like a divine who scoffeth at the secret Counsell of God For God had the sufferings of his owne sonne Christ in a speciall manner determined and weighed in number weight and measure And therefore though they made a Law that all that confesseth Christ should be cast out of the Synagogue and though those that sinned against the Holy Ghost Matt. 12. called him a Samaritane and out of a sudden passion those that wondred at the gracious words that proceeded out of his mouth would cast him over the brow of a Mountaine Yet I hold they never made any Law noâ— did execute any Law nor did cast out of their Sgnagogue or excommunicate the Lord Iesus I leave Erastus to his conjectures Erastus Act. 4. and 5. The Apostles were scourged and cast out by the high Synagogue summa Synagoga yet presently they teach in the Temple and use the Sacramenâ—s Act. 21. When Paul Act. 21. was to go to the Temple to sacrifice the Apostles who counselled him so to do do not object that he was excommunicated and so could not
Law of God so the seventy translate it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hieronym intrabunt in Ecclesiam Domini Vatablus in Not. erint de consortio populi Sancti The English Annotators cite for this Nehe. 13. 1 2. the Law is that the Moabite and the Ammonite should not enter into the Congregation of the Lord for ever It is said v. 3. They separated from Israel all the mixed multitude so that cleare it is to enter into the Congregation is to become a Member of the Church then to be separated from the Congregation must be to be cast out of the Church and deprived of the holy things of God as heathens and strangers were according to that Levit. 22. 10. There shall no stranger eate of the holy thing What is this but Excommunication call it with another name we care not it is really to be separated from the Church 7. It is admirable to me to heare Erastus say It cannot be that God who is no accepter of of persons will not receive into his Kingdome a Bastard an Ammonite a Moabite Is not this to reason against the Law of God and the wisedome of God Deut. 23. 1. 2 3. who saith that he will not receive such into his Church which is his Kingdome and a company of Kings and Priests unto God which he hath freely loved Exod. 19. 5 6. Psal 149. 1. Deut. 7. 7. Deut. 26. 16 17 18. as â—oâ— the rejecting of men from his heavenly Kingdome according to Gods decree of eternall Reprobation I deny Excommunication to be any such rejection of men it being onely a casting them out from the visible Church and the speciall Church priviledges that their Spirits may be saved in the day of the Lord and what can be more contrary to the Word then that Erastus should say God declared not that it was his will that Moabites Ammonites should not be circumcised anâ— admitted to the Sacraments Why then did hee not chuse Moabites and Ammonites for his people and make a covenant with them and give Circumcision a Seale of the Covenant as he dealt with the Iewes if he mean God will not exclude Moabites and Ammonites from the Sacraments so they repent and turne to him but now Erastus fights with his owneshaddow Who denieth but Iewes and Gentiles so they call on him are welcome to all the holy things of God and not to be cast out of either Church or Synagogue 8. To say to cast out of the Synagogue is a meeker word then to Excommunicate is but to beg the question Yea but saith Erastus it is lesse and a milder thing then to destroy and pro deplorato habere to esteeme a person lost we say Excommunication is not to destroy or to give for lost but though it be the most violent yet it is a saving remedy that the man may be ashamed humbled and his Spirit saved 9. We reason not from the fact of Pharisees if they cast any out of the Synagogue for a just cause they ought also by Gods Law to debarre them from Temple and Sacraments and therefore if they did not debarre it was their sinne not our Rule CHAP. XXI Quest 17. Divers other Arguments vindicated as from Communion with the Church subjection of Magistrates and Ministers The Ceremonially unclean from Matth. 18. Tell the Church Erastus Christ hath given a power to his Church to loose Ergo also to binde The Church admitteth Believers into Communion Ergo they cast out the impenitent Erastus Answereth Such a power as they have to Ioose and to admit such and no other have they to binde and to cast out but it follovveth not Ergo it is a povver to debar from the Sacraments and to Excommunicate it is à Genere and Speciem affirmativè Ans Erastus is mistaken and formeth the Argument as he pleaseth The Church pardoneth as a Church and receiveth into her body believers to participate of Church-priviledges and Sacraments in a Church Communion Ergo the Church hath power to binde and cast out from this same Church-Communion those that leaveneth the whole lump as a City may admit a stranger to all the City priviledges Ergo the same City may for offences against the City cast out and deprive of City priviledges offenders is this a Genere ad speciem affirmativè If the Church have a power to cast out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from amongst them a Member we shall not contend for the name of Excommunication Erastus The Ministers have none by whom in their office they can be corrected But saith Erastus If every soul be subject to the higher powers how are Ministers excepted if Ministers correct Ministers they play to others hands spare thou the nails and I shall spare the teeth Ans The Author doth not except Ministers from civill subjection to Magistrates But only he saith In Ecclesiasticall censures the Magistrate is not to judge the Ministers because a Ministery being an Ecclesiasticall office as such it is not liable to the civill power only the Ministers as they erre and sin in their persons are liable to civill punishment but not to Ecclesiasticall to be inflicted by the Magistrate 2. Through the corruption of mens nature every one may wink at anothers faults It is true But consider if this slow from the nature of Gods Ordinance to wit that the Citizen obey the Laws of the City whereof he is a member This is an Argument against any Senate Parliament Counsell of State or War or Aristocracy on earth if of an hundreth Lords of the States Generall one or ten play the Traytor to the State who shall take order with them Their Collegues and fellow-Senators Partiall judging falls out here through mens corruption spare thou the nails and I le spare the teeth and from Erastus his way if you Argue from mens corruption the same will follow May not the Magistrate say to the Minister Honour me before the people and Preach not against the sins of King and Court and I will oversee and wink at thy Pluralities non-residencies soul-murthers And may not the Minister say to the Magistrate Let me be above all Civill Laws and be Lord Prelat and sit on the necks of my Brethren and defraud oppresse and I shall be silent and preach nothing against the idolatry oppressions Sodomy uncleannesse of Magistrate and court Erastus The Ceremonially unclean were excluded from the Sacraments Ergo far more the Morally unclean But how saith he doth this follow You Excommunicate none but the obstinate for those that were Ceremonially unclean against their will were excluded from the holy things Ergo far more he that is Morally unclean is to be debarred though he be not obstinate How could Paul Excommunicate the incestuous man 1 Cor. 5. he was never admonished or Peter Excommunicate Annanias as you say Ans All Types or comparisons hold only in that for which the spirit of God doth bring them Now the Ceremonially unclean were debarred from
Christ spake many things to them that they bothforgot knew not till the holy Ghost came upon them And their not asking Question will not prove they understood all he spake sometimes they were afraid to ask him 2. The Jewish and Christian Church have not such essentiall differences but they knew by the ordinary notion of the word Church a Convention that professed the Doctrine of the Prophets and of the Law and Gospel And what such great difference is there between a brother and a brother Iew and a Brother Gentile as they behoved to understand the one and be utterly ignorant of the other And what necessity to restrict it to Iews only Christ had often spoken to them of the incoming of the Gentiles as Matth. 8. 11. Joh. 10. 16. Matth. 10. 18. Did the Disciples know the Kings Councels Indicatures of the Gentiles that Christ said they should be convented before Matth. 10. 17 18 19 And because Erastus is so confident that the word Church here is the Civill Magistrate Let any Erastian teach me what is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Church Matth. 16. 19. Is it the Civill Magistrate Is the Civill Magistrate built on a Rock Shall the Ports of Hell never prevail against the Civill Magistrate Can no Magistrate make defection from the truth And doth Erastus or his believe in their conscience that the Disciples understood Christ Matth. 16. for he spake of both to the Disciples to speak of the stability and strength and perseverance of the Christian Magistrate And that the Ports of Hell should never prevail against the Iewish Sanedrim and Church which crucified the Lord of glory and persecuted his Apostles and all professing the Name of Iesus to the death 3. Heathen and Publican in generall were names as opposite to Christian Brethren as to Iewish Brethren as I have proved before Erastus The vvord Church to the Hebrevvs signifieth either a multitude or the Senate or Magistrate as Num. 35. Church is four times Josh 20. Tvvâ—ce Psal 82. Once and it signifies the Magistrate So vve say the Empire hath done vvhat the Emperour vvith the States of the Empire hath done So the Church or Convention think so because the chief amongst them think so the Common Wealth hath done this because the Senate hath done this Ans The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Num. 35. 12. But in all that Chapter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now how this signifieth one Magistrate which ever signifieth a collection or multitude of rulers I leave to the learned so Erast faileth yet in his probation 2. Suppose the word Church signifie the heads of the people how shall Erastus prove that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth the senate of Civill Magistrates for in this Congregation were the Priests and Levites especially that judge between blood and blood voluntary or involuntary homicide Deut. 17. â—2 13 14. 2 Chr. 19. 8 9. It is true also that the man that killed another unwittingly was to be protected in the City of refuge while he should stand before the faces 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Congregation But let Erastus and all who will have the Bishop or the Pope the representative Church know that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Congregation ever and alwayes be a collective word as populus the people signifieth a multitude never by Grammer one single man hoc nomen saith Pagnine certum conventum sive cetum significat certum Collegium it alwayes signifieth a socâ—eâ—ie as the Princes of the Congregation Num. 16. 2. all the Princes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Congregation Exo. 34. 31. here is a number and a societie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Aristotle can be atributed to no fewer then to three at least Speak to all the Congregation of Israel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Exodus 12. 3. and the Congregations of peoples 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall compasse thee about Psal 7. 8. Nor shall sinners stand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Congregation of the just Psal 1. 5. Thou hast made desolate all my Congregation Iob. 16 7. 2. The word is from a root that signifieth to conveene and gather together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Therefore Iud. 14. 8. a swarme or a Congregation of Bees is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Congregation And that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Church since the world began never signified one single man either King Magistrate Pope or Prelate But alwayes a multitude either of rulers or people I appeal to Demosthenes Homer Phoâ—illides Hesiod Lucian Pluto Aristotle to Suidâ—â— Stephanus Scapula or for the word Cetus Congâ—egatio to all Latine Authors to the seventy interpreters in the Old Testament to Hyâ—ronimus all the Greek Fathers and to the Evangelists and Apostles in the New Testament to Act. 19. 32. Eph. 5. 23. Act. 8. 13. Rom. 16. 5. 1 Cor. 1. 2. 2 Cor. 1. 1. Gal. 1. 2. 1 Thes 1. 1. 2 Thess 1. 1. Act. 15. 3 4 22. Act. 16. 5. Act. 14. 23. Rev. 1. 20. Rev. 2. 1. and for Psal 82. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is a Congregation of Gods or Magistrates and v. 6. All of you are Children of the most high he speaketh evidently of a multitude of Iudges 3. Suppose the Empire be said to do what the Senate Parliament or great Councell of the Empire or Kingdome doth This will not prove that the word Church in either of the Originall Tongues Hebrew or Greek doth signifie one man so as Tell the Church must be all one with Tell one single Magistrate or Tell one Prelate or one Pope and he that will not hear the Magistrate that is the King or one single Magistrate alone without any fellow Magistrates he being a Christian is to be dealt with as an heathen and a publican and not as a Christian brother For what the King doth alone without his Senate is never called the deed of the Senate farre lesse the act or deed of the whole Ecclesia of the Kingdome produce any shaddow of Grammer for this Now to Erastus Tell the Church is all one with Tell the single Christian Magistrate alone separated from Fellow-judges or Councell Senate Parliament Ecclesiasticall Assemblies and if he hear not and obey not this one single Christian Magistrate let him be to thee as a heathen and a publican For Erastus will have the Civill Magistrate though the whole Church and Pastors should judge the contrary to have power by vertue of his office to determine against Pastors and Elders Yea by his office he is to command them to preach and synodically to determine this and this and what they determine they do à et sub Magistratu under and from this one single Magistrate as his servants instruments Vicars and deputies and therefore the Magistrate cannot sentence in the name of Pastors Elders when they are but his servants And 2. When he may by his office do
no sinne nor any prophaning of the Sanctuary of God Then all their sinne was that being Morally unclean they came to the Sanctuary Ergo God forbade such bloody men to come to his Sanctuary because God forbiddeth all sinne in his perfect Law Ergo those that deserved to dye by the hand of the Magistrate for open murther deserved for that open murther to be debarred from the holy things of God what ever Erastus say on the contrary Erastus The adversaries contend that some are to be excommunicated who deserve not to dye as if any to a light injury adde contumacy But they should have a warrant for this for this is a contradiction Every one who is clean according to the Law should keep the Passeover and this some who is clean according to the Law to wit who liveth wickedly and scandalously and yet is Ceremonially clean should not keep the Passeover Ans We finde no distinction made by Christ Matth. 18 and therefore we make none He that offendeth his brother Christ maketh no exceptions of light or small offences if he cannot be gained by admonitions and be contumacious against the Church he is reputed as a heathen and a publican and this is our warrant 2. Let Erastus answer this contradiction according to his owne way Every one who is Ceremonially clean should come to the Temple Some who are Ceremonially clean to wit who the same day have slaine their sons to Molech should not come into the Temple The affirmative is holden as a truth by Erastus The negative is the word of the Lord Ezech. 23. 38 39. 3. It is no contradiction which Erastus proposeth For every one who is Ceremonially clean should not keep the Passeover except also he be Morally clean For he that discerneth not the Lords body should not eat and the Lambe was no lesse Sacramentally the Lords body then the Bread and Wine is his body so the former is false in rei veritate The latter to wit Every one Ceremonially cleane should not keepe the Passeover to Erastus is false Now of two propositions contradicent both cannot be false Erastus may know this is bad Logick Erastus The Prophets rebuked the abuse and prophaning of the Sacraments but they interdicted none circumcised of the use of the Sacraments they said the sacrifices of the wicked were no more welcome to God then if they offered things forbidden dogs and swines blood to God but they never say the Priests are to be accused for admitting such into the Sacraments They accuse and rebuke the Priests that they transgressed and taught not the people aright but never that they admitted such into the holy things of God The Prophets say alwayes those things are wicked before God but not in the face of the Church Ans If the Prophets rebuked the prophaning of the Sacraments then they also forbade prophane men to use the Sacraments could the Prophets rebuke any thing but sin Ergo they forbade the sinne which they rebuked Ergo they forbade the man that had murthered his sonne to Molech to come to the Sanctuary while he repented for they could not rebuke but what they forbad 2. If the bloody mans comming to the Sanctuary in that case was nothing more acceptable to God then the offering of a dog to God then as the offering of a dog to God was both forbidden to the people and to the Priest so was the people and Priest both accused for the bloody mans comming into the Temple the one should sin in comming the other in admitting him to come 3. The Priests are expresly accused for this Ezek. 22 25 26. and 44. 23 24. Hag. 2. 11 12 13. 4. Those were not onely sinnes in foro Dei before God for so when they were secret they were sinnes before God but when openly knowen as Jer. 7. 9 10 c. Ezek. 23. 38 39. they were the Priests sins The bloody are forbidden to come to the Sanctuary what then were not the Porters whose calling it was to hold out the uncleane to debar all whom the Lord forbade to come Certainly they excluded to their knowledge all whom God excluded else how had they the charge to keepe the doores of the Lords House and the Priests are not onely rebuked for not instructing the people but for erring in governing Ier. 5. 31. they are not Prophets but Priests and Governours both Ecclesiasticall and civill that the Prophet complaineth of who did rule with rigour cruelty over the people beside that they feed not the flocke but themselves Ezek. 34. 1 2 3 c. Ier. 23. 1 2 3 4. and 10. 21. and 22. 22. and 50. 6. Micah 2. 11. Hos 4. 18. Micah 7. 3. Erastus Though ill doers be not killed by the Magistrate yet it followeth not that God for any such cause deserving death would have them debarred à recto usu from the right use of holy things by some that are not Magistrates nor are manifest Idolaters Apostates and Hereticks though they be not put to death by the Magistrate to be debarred by these fancied or imaginary Presbyters Ans 1. Erastus taketh ever for confessed without any probation that it is rectus usus the right use of the holy things of God that men with bloodie hands use them which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a most false principle for he that killeth his children to Molech and that same day cometh into the Sanctuary of God is so farre from the right using of the holy things of God that the Lord saith expresly his comming in in that condition to the Sanctuary is saith the Lord the prophaning of my Sanctuary Ezek. 23. 39. is this rectus usus Ceremoniarum the right use of the holy things of God It is not 1. It is a forbidden use of holy things Isa 1. 13. Mat. 7. 6. Mat. 5. 23. 2. It is a rebuked use of holy things Ier. 7. 9 10 11. Isa 66. 3. 3. It is a prophaning of holy things Ezek. 23. 38 39. 4. It is such a use as bringeth damnation to the party that useth it 1 Cor. 11. 27 29. and it is all these quoad externa in externall things 2. Erastus could yeeld they be debarred but by the Magistrate not by Imaginary Presbyters But all his Arguments as I shew before doe prove they should be debarred à recto usu from the right use of holy things by no man no more then they should be debarred from giving of almes or reading the word this is Erastus his owne Argument I pray you may the Magistrate or any on earth by any authority inhibite a Malefactor or a Murtherer who ought to die by the Magistrate to read the Word to give almes to pray for mercy to God because he hath killed a man 3. If hereticks apostates open idolaters are to be debarred by whom shall they be debarred Erastus pag. 207. thinketh they ought not to be admitted to the Sacraments who shall debar them The Magistrate
corrupt Heterodox and all the Pastors have corrupted their wayes 5. Civill punishing of Church-men when they are Hereticall and scandalous we heartily yield to Magistrates But that Magistrates as such should Excommunicate and admit such to the Sacrament and reject other such and rebuke or that the Magistrate as the Magistrate did of old judge between the clean and the unclean cast out from the congregation and camp and receive in and so governe the Church is altogether unwarranttable Now the adversaries as Erastus grant that Idolaters Apostates and extreamly prophane men are to be cast out of the Christian society and not to be suffered there and also that Dogs and Swine and Apostates persecutâ—rs are neither to be admitted to hear the Word nor partake of the Sacraments So also Mr. Pryn if Magistrates must cast them out of the Church by vertue of their office and judge as Magistrates who are prophane and who truly feare God and who are dogs and Apostates who not surely then Magistrates as Magistrates must discerne between the cleane and the uncleane as Priest of old and must separate the precious from the vile as the Prophets did of old and so were the mouth of God and must stand before the Lord leâ— 15. 19. Then must Magistrates as Magistrates be Pastors called in the Pulpit as well as in the Throne and the Bench and that by vertue of their calling which neither Erastus nor the reverend Mr. Pryn will owne Now if the Elders of the Church with the consent of the people must cast such out of the Church and from communion in the holy things of God here is in expresse termes the very Ecclesiasticall Excommunication which Mr. Pryn denieth to be an Ordinance of God and yet it must be commanded by Iesus Christ in these words Mat. 7. 6. Give not holy things unto dogs and therefore keep not in Church communion the prophane and by the way Mr. Pryn to me yeeldeth the cause and granteth that Excommunication and suspension from the Sacraments doe both fall under this precept of Christ Mat. 7. That which falleth under a command of Christ to me is a Divine Ordinance 2. He saith also reasoning against are suspension from the Sacraments Obstinate scandalous sinners make no conscience at all of receiving the Sacrament and voluntarily suspend themselves there-from in case they be freely admitted to other Ordinances it being onely the totall Exclusion from the Church and all Christian society not any bare suspension from the Sacrament which worketh both shame and remorse in excommunicate persons as Paul resolveth 1 Thes 3. 14. 1 Cor. 5. 13. compared with 1 Cor. 1. to v. 10. 3. This is in terminis excommunication proved from divers places of Scripture for it is a totall Exclusion from the Church and all Christian society working shame and remorse as Paul resolveth We seeke no more Pauls resolution to us is a Divine right Those words of that Learned and Reverend man have give me leave by the way to say for I hope worthier then I am do answer fully all he hath said in this subject all that we crave For 1. obstinate men will voluntarily suspend themselves from the Sacrament Ergo the Church should not suspend them onely but also Excommunicate them I grant all if they be obstinate they are to be not only suspended but also excommunicated Ergo they are not solie and onely to be suspended Pro hac vice for this time it followeth no waies all that this Reverend Lawyer saith against sole suspension from the Sacrament of an obstinate offender is nothing against us if he be obstinate he is not onely to be suspended from the Sacrament but also if he goe on in refusing to heare the admonitions of brethren and of the Church he is to be excommunicated Ergo he is not first hac vice to be suspended from a confirming Ordinance given to those onely who are supposed to have the life of faith and can onely eat and drinke spiritually and by faith the body and blood of Christ It followeth not I thinke Mr. Pryn would not have Hereticks and Apostates suddenly and at the first totally as he saith excluded from the Church and all Christian society sure we owe some gentlenes and patience even to them If God peradventure may give them Repentance to scape out of the snare of the Devil 2 Tim. 2. 24. 25 26. yet if an Heretick and Apostate that same day that the Lords Supper were to be celebrated should deny the Resurrection and Iesus Christ to be God blessed for ever and not equall with the Father nor consubstantiall with him and withall should that same day have offered his childe to Molech and yet professe his desire to come to the Lords Supper professing he had tryed and examined himselfe and his desire to come to eate and drinke with Iesus Christ the great Prophet of his Church Would not Mr. Prynne thinke he should not be admitted to the Lords Supper and yet that he should not totally be excluded from the Church and all communion from the Church and holy things of God I should think if he cannot be presently excommunicated yet he should not be admitted to the Sacrament for sure he cannot but be in a doggish and swinish disposition in one degree or other And my reason is he is as Erastus saith non rectè institutus not rightly instructed but heterodoxe and so cannot try and examine himselfe while he be better principled in the faith so a suspension for a time from the Lords supper and ex natura rei without totall exclusion from the Church and all Christian society were as necessary whether the Magistrate or Church suspend I dispute not now as a degree of punishment or a preventing of eating of damnation is necessary hiâ— nunc O but saith Master Prinne Christ knew that Iudas was worse than an heretick and yet he denied not to admit him to the Supper Ergo though we knew such a one the Sacrament being a converting Ordinance it followeth not that we should debarre him from the Sacrament Ans Whether Iudas did eat the Supper of the Lord or not I think nothing of the matter only Master Prinne hath duram provinciam and a very hard task to prove it from Scripture If I were to examine his book I should deny his consequences from the Evangelists for not any of them can prove that Iudas did communicate at the last Supper But 1. Christs example in this being an act of Christ as God permitting the greatest hypocrisie on earth is no rule to the Church to give the Lords Supper to Iuddasses First Iudas was visibly and infallibly to Christ a man who deserved to be totally excluded out of the Church and all Christian societie and to Christ a knowne traitor a Devill an hypocrite Ergo as Christ did not exclude him out of the Church neither should the Saints now exclude from their society nor should the Christian
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
1 Cor. 5. 12. Ergo their being Members of the Church is not enough to admit them to the Lords Supper except they be to the Church otherwise qualified and fitted for it And this doth clearly evidence That the word of the Kingdom may ought to be Preached to many within the Church that they may be converted to whom the Supper is not to be dispensed that they may be cōverted which is enough for our point to exclude promiscuous admission of all to the Supper and to prove some other qualification must be requisite in those that come to the Supper before the Ministers without violation of the holy things of God and being guilty of not distributing aright can administer the Supper to them and this is another visible qualification then is requisite in those that hear the word For Erastus and Mr. Prynne require That all that come to the Supper be rightly instructed 2. That they promise amendment of life But they cannot say none are to be admitted to hear the word while they be qualified thus you exclude the ignorant from the Sacrament do you exclude the ignorant from hearing the word Farther I desire to be resolved why Erastus and his require any qualification at all in the one more then in the other according to their way For suppose persons Baptized be only negatively blamelesse and not visibly scandalous yet Erastus and Mr. Prynne cannot deny the Supper to such Suppose they know not whether they be as ignorant of God as Indians and suppose they promise no amendment and do positively professe no repentance at all 1. Ministers can deny no converting Ordinances to persons because ignorant for if the Supper of the Lord be a converting Ordinance it shall convert men from their ignorance and an Indian ignorant of Christ ought to be Baptized to the end that Baptisme may convert him from his ignorance Now I think our Brethren cannot say this and therefore they must yield that Ministers dare not admit all within the Church to the Seals except they would be guilty of their sin in eating to themselves damnation and yet they dare not debar the ignorant within the Church from hearing the word and so are no way compartners with them in the sin of unprofitable hearing 2. Mr. Prynne may here see some ignorants debarred from the Lords Supper yet I hope he would not be so rigid as to Excommunicate all ignorants because ignorant the most rigid Novatians would condemne that and here is sole suspension without Excommunication which Mr. Prynne saith is not to be found in all the word of God I wondred much when I read those words of the learned and reverend Master Prynne That God who bestoweth no Ordinances on men in vaine must intend in instituting the Supper that visible morall unregenerate Christians may be converted thereby as well as reall Saints be confirmed to which I reply 1. Neither word nor Sacraments nor any thing on the part of the Almighty can be intended in vaine though the end of the Ordinance be not obtained I should have expected some such divinity from the pen of Arminians and Socinians who make God to intend the salvation of all and every one in both the promises of the Gospel precepts and Sacraments and yet he falleth from this end so you may read in Arminius Anti-Perkins pag. 60. that God is disappointed in his end in both Law and Gospel and God shooting beside his mark misseth the salvation of many say the Remonstrants at the Synod of Dort pag. 216. and in their confession c. 7. sect 3. and because Socinus thought it hard thus to take from God wise intentions he did no lesse then blasphemously deprive him of his omniscience So Socians contra puccium c. 10. and in prelectionib Theolog. c. 11. made all things that are contingently to come uncertaine to God But if you speak of intentio operis non operantis that the Supper in its nature is ordained this may rather be your meaning that morall men like Cicero and Seneca and Iudas and the like for all are alike in regard of the nature of the ordinances and of that which is the genuine intention not of God but of this Sacrament then you speak not of the supper as divided from the word but as the word going before the Sacrament hath converted the man and the Sacrament following doth adde to and confirme in grace So Sir you depart from the question for we grant that the Sermon going before in the same day of the celebration of the Supper may and doth convert and thus if an Indian heare a Sermon to which the celebration of the Supper is annexed if he be converted by that Sermon as you teach the heart in those is only knowne to God the Church is not to judge he may forthwith ere he be baptised come at the same time to the Lords supper which were much precipitation little speed and so the word formally converteth not the Sacrament But if you mean that the Sacrament formally as the Sacrament is of its nature a mean of converting a morall Seneca you mistake the nature of the seal very farre God never intended that food as food should give life to the dead the Supper as the Supper is spirituall food and presupposeth the eater hath life and how gate he life but by the word of God 2. Doth the Sacrament as the Sacrament humble or speak one word of the Law doth the Sacrament say any thing here but Christ died for thee O Seneca and there is a pledge of his love in dying for thee and the like it speaketh to Iudas as Master Prinne thinketh and can this convert a morall man never yet humbled for sinne But I have gone thus out of the way in this purpose I returne and desire pardon for this digression not I hope fruitlesse at this time If the Magistrate be the chiefe Church-officer how is it that the Church was without Christian Magistrates in the Apostles time then is there no exact paterne of a Christian Church what it should be de jure hath Christ in the New Testament not moulded the Church the second temple in all the dimensions of it as Moses David Solomon did by immediate inspiration shew us the measure of the first Tabernacle Sanctuary and Temple finally should Cesar suppose he had been a Christian have received imposition of hands from the Elders a◠his deputies the Ministers do and be over the Church in the Lord as King and receive accusations against Elders ordaine Elders in every Church put out and cast out the unworthy only for the iniquity of the time Ministers were forced to do these Erastus and his have not one word of Scripture for this or were the keys of the Kingdome of heaven given to Cesar and because Cesar was without the Church therefore Peter received them Matth. 16. while Cesar should be converted what Scripture have we for this for to rule the Church
1 2 3. ver 8 9 10. cap. 3. 8 9 10. Coming behinde in no gift 1 Cor. 1. 7. In Covenant with God casting out the incestuous 1 Cor. 5. Separated from Idols 2 Cor. 6. 16 17 18. Espoused to one husband Christ 2 Cor. 11. 2. Established in the faith and increasing in number daily Act. 16. 5. Yea the Churches had rest throughout all Judea and Galile and Samaria and were edified walking in the â—ear of the Lord and in the comforts of the holy Ghost and were multiplied Act. 9. 31. Now if the Christian Magistrate be their only Head and chief Feeder and all Elders but his servants Edifying à sub Magistratu from and under the Magistrate How were they edified and the compleat house of God the house wanting a head and the Church of the living God without the chief feeder and shepheard the Magistrate when all this time the Lord set spirituall Pastors and watchmen over them It is true it might be some defect that they wanted a Christian Magistrate who was their Nurse-father and keeper and avenger of both Tables of the Law But this defect was 1. A defect of the Church as men who may be injured and do violence one to another as men if they want one who beareth the sword to be avenged on evil doers But it is no defect of the Church as the Church 2. There might be some defect in the Church as a Church in this regard that without the Magistrate his accumulative power the edification of the Church extrinsecally might be slower Church Laws lesse vigorous extrinsecally without the sword and evil doers might infest the Church more but there should be no privation or intrinsecall defect or want in the Church either of an officer or integrall part of the Church because they wanted the Magistrate 3. When the first three hundreth year the Churches wanted Christian Magistrates afterward Constantinus convocated the Councell of Nice against Arrius yet professing that he was Episcopus without After him the Empire being divided into three Constantinus Constantius and Constans the second adhered to Arrius oppressed the godly Constans and Constantinus lived not long Though Jovianus Theodosius elder yonger Gratianus Martianus were favourers of the Church yet most of the Northern Kings were persecuters In the sixth hundreth year they began to be obstinate favourers of Heresie In the West Antichristianisme in the East Mahumetisme rose for the most part the Church wanted godly Magistrates and alway hath wanted Whatever power or means of life Christ hath given to his Church or pastors for the edifying of their soules either in Doctrine or Discipline by these is the holy Ghost efficacious on the hearts and conscience of the people of God as immediatly given by Iesus Christ without the mediation or intervention of any other means But Christ hath given power and means of life to preach the word to admonish rebuke Excommunicate to the Church and Pastors by which the holy Ghost worketh efficaciously on the hearts of the people of God which God hath given immediatly to the Church and Pastors especially in the Apostolick Church when there were no Magistrates and the holy Ghost is no wayes efficacious in the hearts of the children of God by the Laws Statutes and sword of the Magistrate Ergo God hath given to his Church and Pastors not to the Magistrate power and means of life in which the holy Ghost is effectuall and that immediatly and not to the Magistrate Or thus Whoever is the supream officer and head of the Church having under him all Church-officers as his servants by such God is effectuall in the consciences of men But Pastors Teachers Elders are such and no wayes the Magistrate Ergo The Proposition is thus made good by the word of reconciliation and the rod of the Lords power in the hands of men The holy Ghost worketh efficaciously in men Now the question will only be to whom this word of reconciliation is committed and the rod of God the Scripture saith to the Ministers never to the Magistrate 2 Cor. 5. 18. And hath committed to us the word of Reconciliation ver 20. Now then we are Ambassadors for Christ 2 Cor. 10. 8. Though I should boast somewhat more of our Authority which the Lord hath given us for edification 2 Cor. 2. 13. If I come again I will not spare 1 Cor. 4. 21. What will ye Shall I come unto you with a rod or in love 1 Tim. 5. 17. Act. 20. 28. 29. 30. 1 Cor. 5. 12. Do not you judge them that are within Matth. 16. 19 18. 18. Ioh. 20. 21 22. This word is no where committed to the Magistaate nor is the holy Ghost efficacious by the Laws and sword of the Magistrate to convert souls we know not Magistrates to be Ministers by whom we believe but Ministers only 1 Cor. 3. ver 5. Nor is the sword a kindely and intrinsecall mean of conversion This Argument may be further confirmed by all the notable differences that the Scripture holdeth forth to be between the Magistrate and the Ministers and Church As 1. The Church judgeth only those that are within the Church 1 Cor. 5. 11 12. The heathen Magistrate may â—udge both those that are within and without the Church and every soul is under his power Rom. 13. 1 2 3. Tit. 3. 1 2. 1 Tim. 2. 1 2 3. 1 Pet. 2. 13 14 15. Matth. 22. 21. And by these same Scriptures the Christian Magistrate being a lawfull Magistrate having under him both believers and heathen may and ought to judge both Ergo the Magistrate as the Magistrate cannot judge those that are within by the word as the Church doth but only in some common coactive way by the sword to compell them to do their duty 3. The Magistrates Kingdom is of this world and he may fight with his sword to defend his own subjects and his subjects may fight for him But the Church and Kingdom of Christ are not of this world nor can the Church as the Church and the Ministers thereof fight or use the sword as is clear Joh. 18. 36. Rom. 13. 4. The Magistrate beareth not the Sword in vain but he beareth the sword in vain over the consciences of men or to judge those that are within for the Church judgeth those that are within with no such weapon as the bloody Sword There is neither sword nor dagger nor any weapon of War required in the Church of Ephesus their censuring of grievous Wolves or false Teachers Act. 20. 28 c. Nor in the Apostles and Elders determining truth against perverters of souls Act. 15. 21 22 c. and 16. 4. Nor in the Church of Thyatira their not suffering Jezabell to teach Rev. 2. 20. Nor in Pergamus their not suffering those that held the Doctrine of Balaam Rev. 2. 14. Erastus l. 4. c. 6. p. 285. saith The Church can kill no man with the Sword There was no sword ever
dreamt of in rejecting an heretick after the first and second admonition Tit. 1. 10. Let our Adversaries shew what influence the Magistrates sword hath here yea say they The Magistrate may banish the heretick ou◠of the Church True Ans Not out of the Church as the Church but out from amongst his subjects as his subjects whom he is to defend in peace and godlinesse 2. It is evident Titus had no power of the sword but was an Evangelist Paul wrote not to Titus to banish the heretick the rejecting here is a spirituall censure performed by previous admonitions 3. What can the Magistrate as the Magistrate do to this 4. The Magistrate is a Lord and hath by Gods appointment a Lordly dominion over those that are under him the Minister is only a Minister a Servant a Preco or Herald and hath dominion in the Church Luk. 22. 24 c. Now those over whom the Magistrate hath a civill dominion as a Magistrate over those he may exercise that Lordly dominion of the sword But the Magistrate as the Magistrate may use no Lordly dominion of the sword over the Church as the Church to Preach Exhort Rebuke Admonish Excommunicate to judge those that are within as the Church may do 1 Cor. 5. 12. Ergo the Magistrate as the Magistrate cannot be the supream and highest Church officer having under him Church officers as his servants and deputies to Preach and censure as à sub under and from him because as a Magistrate he carrieth not that which hath any power over the conscience that is he carrieth no◠the word of the spirit as a Magistrate but the sword bodily to punish evil doers 5. He who by office is chief overseer and watchman in the Church he must by office keep his own vineyard and not be put to keep the vineyard of others Cant. 1. 6. He must watch for the souls of those whom by office he keepeth as one that must give an accompt Heb. 13. 17. He must as a speciall watchman by his office Take heed to grievous Wolves not sparing the Flock speaking perverse things Act. 20. 29. And as a watchman he must blow the Trumpet and give early and seasonable warning to the people of the sword Ezek. 34. 1 c. Yea he must watch for the souls of ministers and teachers and by office rebuke admonish censure and punish them and by office judge of their Doctrine and Discipline and is over the people in the Lord and to admonish them as 1 Thes 5. And worthy of Honour for well Ruling 1 Tim. 5. 17. But these the Magistrate as the Magistrate cannot do 1. He keepeth another vineyard of the Civill state he is not Pastor to the Church as the Church over which the Holy Ghost hath set him Act. 20. 28. 1 Peter 5. 1 2 3. he is not to give an accompt for the soul◠and for the souls of Pastors by his office he may as a Christian be his brothers keeper to teach admonish Col. 3. 15. and exhort Heb. 3. 13. he is not by office to blow the trumpet as Ezekiel was Ezek. 33. 7 8. Ezek. 3. 17 18 19 20. he is not over the people in the Lord to admonish them as a Magistrate as a Magistrate he only is either to praise and reward well doing or take vengence on evill doing Rom. 13. 4. nor doth Paul think Nero 1 Tim. 5. 17. worthy of double honour all those are proper to Church-officers the proposition is necessary because if the Magistrate be the eminent and supream watchman over the Pastors as his under deputies and servants then must the Magistrate more eminently keepe the vineyard and watch for the souls both of Pastors and people feed the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath set him be over the people in the Lord be worthy of double honour as one that ruleth well and is worthy of double honour and that by office Now 1. The word never warranted him in the Old Testament to sacrifice to burne incense to Minister before the Lord to carry the ark But God separated the Priests and Levites for this only and was it such a sinne for Vzziah to burne incense and for Vzziah to touch the Ark and for any to bear the Ark but the Levites and are not these things written for our instruction are we all now to bear the Ark and are we all to dispense the word and Sacraments When Paul will not have women to teach in the Church and when God hath no lesse in the New Testament separated some by the laying on of hands and appointed a Ministery in the New Testament then he did in the Old 2. Where hath God in Old or New Testament set downe that all those qualifications in an eminent manner and as principally due to the Magistrate as he hath described the qualification of the officers of the New Testament in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus and the Ephesians Ch. 4. v. 11 12 13 14 15 16. 1 Tim. 2. 1 Cor. 12. Rom. 12. 3. Did Christ put upon Church-officers in the New Testament all the proper titles priviledges and peculiar Characters of their calling as they are the deputies of Claudius Tiberius and Nero so they had been Christian Princes this the adversaries must prove and must all the Epistles of Paul to the Churches of Christ and of Iames and Peter Iohn and Iude which concern Church-officers be written First and principally to the heathen Emperours as they be Church Magistrates and Church-officers jure though they be in very deed enemies of the Gospel de facto It must put Erastus and all his to paines to prove that Magistrates as Magistrates were separated in the Old Testament to sacrifice to burne incense to bear the Ark of the Lord and Priests and Levites and Prophets were only the under servants and instruments of Kings and the like they must do in the New Testament But this is carefully to be observed that the adversaries though they speake of Government and some yield as Master Prynne doth that there is such a thing as Excommunication especially 1 Cor. 5. yet the truth is they deny all Church-government for I desire to know why they give to Ministers of the Gospel a power to try who are hereticks apostates and unworthy partakers of the holy things of God Yea such as may ordaine Ministers and reject hereticks after admonitions if Iesus Christ hath given this power of Government beside preaching the word I aske quo jure by what Scripture if by no warrant of Christ then it is unjustly given to them and the Apostles and Teachers then had no right to it if there be a right that by office Pastors should know what is soundnesse in the faith and integrity of conversation and so who are to be called to the Ministery who not who are to be excluded totally from the Church as Erastus and Master Prynne say who not Then what warrant hath the Magistrate to limit the
ordinary right to Ordinances Word Sacraments discipline but by the magistrate and all that the Churches did in the Apostles times or the first three hundred yeers after Christ being contrary to the magistrates will must be either seditious or then it was by no rule of the Gospell but by an extraordinary dispensation and we shall have no warrant for any dispensing of the Word and of Seals or Government from the Apostolique Church because all that must have beene beside the rule and extraordinary 6. From this pretended subordination as the supream magistrate may doe all that the inferiour magistrate may doe because the King is eminently all that the inferiour Magistrate is and something more so may he dispense the Word and Sacraments in regard that the King is by the same officiall power over the Church as the Church in sacris in all matters of Religion as in civill things and containeth in him in a high and eminent manner all that the Church and Pastors can doe as they are such and because the King hath the same power in all Arts and Trades then by his Royal power he might if he had time and leasure build houses because of his royall Eminency over all Trades he might sit at the helme of any ship and steer and rule it he might paint Images he might plow the ground because he hath the like Royall power over masons Sailors Painters Husband-men carpenters and the like as he hath over the common-wealth and the Church we must then say that God hath called the King to all these to be a minister a mason a Sailor a Painter and if he had leasure he hath Gods calling to be a Preacher a Sailor as to be a King yea and that as King he is all these Now the Apostle clearly distinguisheth between him who exhorteth and teacheth in the Church Rom. 12. and him who is the Minister of God and beareth not the sword in vaine Rom. 13. and clearly insinuateth a distinction of calling so that God never called one man to all callings as it is 1 Cor. 7. 17. But as God hath distributed to every man as the Lord hath called every one so let him walke ver 20. Let every one abide in the same calling wherein he was called And it is clear if the King be a Head in the body 1 Cor. 12. then he is not the feet though he have need of the feet for then the eye should be both eye and eare and hand and therefore the King cannot be all Pareus in Rom. 13. saith the King cannot doe some things ob defectum juris ex Dei limitatione He cannot preach Ans Ergo Preaching belongeth by Divine right to another and it s not subordinate to him jure Divino 2. Saith Pareus he wanteth law to use the wiâ—â— of another man as his owne Ans Then the right of Husband and Wife is not subordinate to the King so as he may use the right of a Husband because it is against the seventh Commandement nor can he invade the right of Pastors to dispense Word and Sacraments it being against the second Commandment he not being called thereunto 3. Other things saith he he cannot doe for want of skill as to teach in a Colledge and others he cannot doe because they are fordid as to sew shooes Ans If God have not called the Prince to these it is not onely sordid but unlawfull for him to thrust his sickle in another mans field for God must call to a lawfull calling else men use a lawful thing unlawfully so it is sordid and unlawfull for him to judge those and the like Erastus I know roundly granteth that the King or any Magistrate may lawfully dispence the Word and Sacraments nothing hindereth him but want of time which is a better Answer then others give who hold the same principles with Erastus and that the King hath the same Royall power in things civill and Ecclesiastick except the adversary flee to our distinction of power and persons and of things civill and sacred they shall never expede themselves But the King say they is not capable of 1. The power of Order he cannot be a Pastor or a Doctor 2. He cannot as King be capable of internall power of jurisdiction he cannot preach he cannot dispense the Sacraments but he is say they capable of externall power of jurisdiction to governe the Church excommunicate to debarre Apostates and Hereticks from the Sacraments to create Prelates Primates Metropolitans and such cattell to call and ordaine make and unmake Ministers to make all Canons and Ecclesiasticall Lawes and appoint religious Ceremonies as holy Surplice crossing oyle and spittle in Baptisme to create holy dayes to command men to kneel to bread and to order all the externall worship of God and beside the Word to order many little and smaller things in the borders of worship externall such as is some little Idolatry and Superstition And for ought I know by their way who hold there is no certaine forme of Government of Gods House in the Scripture some harmelesse and innocent golden Calves as lawfull as religious symbolicall Ceremonies This power is no more due to the Magistrate as the Magistrate then to dispense the Sacraments as I have said before Nor doe the Arminians much honour the Magistrate who walking in the steps of Erastus doe hold that the Magistrate having power of publique places Preachers are obliged not to preach in publike places if the Magistrate forbid them but they may preach in private places But 1. These same Arminians hold that Pastors are to preach whatever in their conscience seems to be the truth of God a principle of those who are for tolleration of all Religions though Iudaisme Turcisme a way I am perswaded most abominable and which the Lord of his Church will crush when he shal bring down other AntichristiaÌ„ untruths to the ground Now it seems to the conscience of Papists and many Hereticall teachers that they are obliged to preach Turcisme Iudaisme in the Temple and in publike that distinction is false vain as it is in very deed contrary to the truth of God to preach what they think the truth of God to preach it in publike or private or in any place is indifferent as touching the place 2. The Lord hath no more given to Magistrates power of places or actions religious in places then he hath given to them power of truths Ergo they must be obliged in conscience rejecting a â—â—iâ— and saplesse distinction to preach in publike places for as that juditioâ—s and learned professor Iac. Triglandius saith The place is accident all to the worship and changeth not the nature of it and truly as that learned professor saith it is a poor honour that they put on the Magistrate to limit all his power to places and stipends 3. The Apostles knew not this distinction for they not only preached truth the Scribes and Pharisees forbidding
fail in their judging the Magistrate is to command the Church to judge it over againe but the Magistrate cannot judge it himself as there is a complaint made to the Magistrate that the Pâ—inter hath not drawn the image exactly according to the samplar the Magistrate judgeth not of the Art of the Painter nor can the Magistrate as the Magistrate draw the image himselfe But the Magistrate may judge of the Painters breach of promise who did â—action to draw it exactly according to the samplar and hath not kept faith to the man who payeth him wages and therefore the Magistrate may either punish his morall error his breach of promise not his error of Art the faculty or company of Painters must judge of of that or then command the Painter to paint the same image again according as the Painter convenanted But it may be objected You then make the Magistrate to meddle no more with matters of faith and preaching truth or falsehood and giving out Ecclesiasticall rules in Church government as Act. 15. then he meddleth with painting according to the principles of Art now painting according to Art belongeth not at all to the conscience of the Magistrate but sound preaching right ruling in Gods house belongeth in a far nearer relation to the conscience of the godly Magistrate I Answer As touching the formall judging Ecclesiastâ—cally and as concerning this that the Magistrate should say it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to me or his dispensing of Word and Sacraments or his burning incense before the Lord it no more belongeth to him as a Magistrate to do these in his owne person formally because God hath not called him to act these then it belongeth to him to paint an Image to sew shooes to siâ— at the helme of a Ship and stir and guide her to such a Port as is clearer Heb. 5. 4. 1 Cor. 7. 17. 21. Rom. 10. 14. 1 Tim. 5. 17. and 3. 1 2 3. Act. 13. 23. and 20. 28 29 30. Heb. 13. 17. 2 Chro. 26. 18 19 20 21. But in another consideration as sound or unsound dispensing of Word and Sacraments as right or unjust ruling in the house of God may more or lesse hurt or benefit the souls of men which he is to care for indirectly in ordine ad penas vel premia civilia et corporalia it belongeth more to the Magistrate to take care of the Church of Religion of preaching and governing Gods house then any painting or Arts in the earth Again the Church proceeding in these things that are against common iustice in all judicatures no lesse then in the Church as to condemn the party never heard or not convinced either by confession or under two sufficient witnesses or to do manifest unjustice in the manner of proceeding leaveth a clear place to the wronged party by the Law of nature if not to appeal yet to flee and have re-course to the Christian Magistrate who is Parâ—ns Patrie the father of the Common wealth 6. The question may either be of any really wronged by the Church whether he may appeal to the Magistrate or whether he who either beleeveth or thinketh or falsly lyeth and saith that he was wronged may appeal to the Magistrate 7. An Appeal is different from a Declinature a Declinature is properly a refusing to be judged because the judge is incompetent and the businesse belongeth not to him those who follow Erastus and deny all power of censures to the Church doe decline but not appeal from the Church thinking the Church hath no power at all to judge or censure the scandalous An Appeal is properly from the same inferiour judicature to a superiour judge in eadem serie in the same kind and it is either proper or unproper Proper it is when a particular Church doth appeal to a Synod of many Churches in the same place Unproper when either a wronged person hath recourse to one or many Pastors of Authority as Chrysostome Flavianus Athanasius appealed to the Bishop of Rome that he would request the Church to proceed orderly Or 2. The godly Magistrate would command that the Church would unpartially proceed to right an oppressed man as Cabeljavius saith Or 3. When there is no Synods to be had then as Triglandius saith well from Beza the Christian Magistrate may provide â—it meanes of releeving the oppressed 8. This would ever be remembred that in case of the Churches erring in judgement which must be thought of as a sort of extraordinary case the godly Magistrate may do more then what ordinarily he can doe and so may the Church when the Magistrate oppresseth in judgement as great Iunius saith 9. We grant when any complaineth to the Magistrate that they are oppressed in judgement by the Church that the Church is obliged to give an account of their doings but that from common charitie to remove the scandall and that they owe to all Christians as may be evidently collected from 1 Pet. 4. 15. but this will not prove a subordination to common Christians as to Iudges nor yet to the Magistrate 2. The Magistrate when his judging is deemed scandalous is to give an account to the preachers of the Gospel who watch for his soul as King Saul gave an account to Samuel with a false Apologie I grant that he had obeyed the Commandement of the Lord but if Saul had been faultlesse in sparing â—gag and the cattell yet was he obliged to give an account to Samuel But that will not prove that King Saul was subordinate to Samuel to be judged of him because Prophets are but servants and Ministers to declare Gods will yet is it all the subordination that we require in this according to that And the people beleeved the Lord and Moses Now all the Arguments before alledged to prove that Pastors as Pastors are not subordinate in their pastorall acts to the civill Magistrate do also prove that there is no appeal from the Church in an Ecclesiasticall businesse to the civill Magistrate For 1. If two Painters contend touching any controversie in the mysterie of their Art they cannot appeal to the King as Iudge the King then should formally be a painter and which is absurd not by accident but as a King and so here if the King were the judge to whose determination we might appeale from the Church in a Church controversie sure the King as King should be a Church Officer if the Priests in controversie touching burning incense or offering strange fire to God should appeal to the decision of the King as the King sure the King in that as King should be an eminent High Priest and right of burning incense to the Lord should belong to him in as farre as the Kings lips in that controversie should preserve knowledge and they should seek the Law from his mouth which is proper to the Priests Mal. 2. 7. Ezek. 22 26. and 44. 23 24. Deut. 17. 11. 2. The Church of Antioch should have
the Church in his dominion leave to live under him as Nebuchadnezzar did to the Church in captivity The Christian Magistrate is a Governour for the Church 1. Men are governed as men politically by Magistrates though Heathen 2. Men are governed as Christians and Citizens of Heaven and Members of Christs invisible body by the inward government of the Spirit and Word 3. Men are governed as Members of Christs visible Body in Church-society Ecclesiastically by Church-officers called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 13. 7. 13. who watcheth for our Souls and are over us in the Lord and must give an account to God whom we are to obey in a Church-society so Pilate is called Mat. 27. 2. it is given to Kings and Rulers 1 Pet. 2. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 23. 24. so it is opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to one that serveth Luk. 22. 26. no question it is a word borrowed from the seventy interpreters who use it Iosh 13. 21. Mich. 3. 9. Ezech. 44. 3. Dan. 3. 2. the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 5. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 12. 8. 1 Thes 5. 12. are ascribed to Church-officers Yea the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Ruler or a Commander Act. 23. 5. is ascribed to the High-Priest who was but a Church-officer and the stile given to Rulers Exod. 22. 28. from which these words are taken is Gods so Ioh. 10. 35 36. compared with Psal 82. 1. Exod. 21. 6. and proveth the same though Church-officers be onely Ministers not Lords not Princes having any dominion over the Lords inheritance Obj. 8. But is not this an easie way to extricate our selves out of all doubts if we say in Church-government that the doctrinal and declarative part is in the Ministers of Christ as Mat. 28. Go teach c. and the punitive and censuring part in the Christian Magistrate Rom. 13. according to that for the punishing of evill doers as Mr. Coleman saith Ans This Erastian way will intricate us not a little and is destructive of the Covenant of both Kingdoms 1. It s a distinction void of Scripture and reason for the Apostolick Churches by it must have no Government as Churches at all for to publish the Gospel which is made the one half Yea all Church-government for this punitive part is a dream is not Church-government nor any part thereof 1. Master Coleman desires that the Parliament would give to preachers Doctrine and power of preaching and wages learning and competency as for Governing of the Church let the Magistrate have that Ministers have other work to do and such as will take up the whole man Sermon Pag. 24 25. Then preaching the Word to the Church cannot be any part of Governing of the Church 2. Because Church government is properly acted by the Church with the power of the keyes to bind and loose in earth as in Heaven by Church-censures and pardoning of an offender and committed to many to the Church to a society gathered together Mat. 18. 18. 1 Cor. 5. 1 2 3 4 5. But publishing of the Gospel is done by one single Pastor even to the end of the world even where there is no Church even in the hearts of the Athenienses Act. 17. 33 34. of Felix Act. 24. 25. of the Iayler not Baptised Act. 16. 29 30 31. of the woman of Samaria Ioh. 4. 28 29 30. The Gospel exerciseth a doctrinall and externall government on thousands the like without the Church visible yea and who never are members of a visible Church is this any Church-government of which we now speak and in all the Scripture a power of the keyes to govern the visible Church was never committed to any one single man by Iesus Christ if an Apostolick-priviledge of Pauls excommunicating his alone be objected I can easily answer Apostles continue not to the end of the world 2. This doctrinal publishing of the word is the plants and flowers of the Gardens but Church-government is the hedge and those two are not to be confounded 3. Paul differenceth them as two distinct qualities of a Preacher 1 Tim. 3. while he will have him apt to teach ver 2. and v. 4 5. one that can rule the Church of God well and 1 Tim. 5. 17. ruling well is distinguished from labouring in the Word and Doctrine as a charge worthy of lesse honour from a charge worthy of double honour 4. All Protestant Divines distinguish Doctrine and Government the former belonging to the being and essence of a visible Church as an essentiall note thereof I mean the publike and settled publishing of the Gospel the other is only a thing belonging to the well being of the visible Church and an accident thereof so it is a heedlesse tenent to make the former a part with the latter 5. When we swear a conformity of Doctrine and worship in one Confession one Catechisme one Directory we do not swear the same over again when we swear to endeavour the nearest uniformity in Church-government c. which we cannot but do if the Doctrine and Worship be nothing but a part of Church-government or if it be all Church-government nâ—w if Mr. Colemans punitive part be but his own dream as I hope is easily proved there is no Church Government at all Now how Mr. Coleman did swear to indeavour the nearest uniformity of a Chimera and a thing that is just nothing let himself consider As for Mr. Colemans punitive part of Church Government by the Magistrate this by his way is done by the power of the sword of the Magistrate saith he and therefore citeth Rom. 13. He beareth not the sword in vain c. Hence either the Apostolique Church had no censures at all and so no visible government and order but preaching of the Word was all and except we would adde to our pattern and be more wise then the Holy Ghost and the Apostles we ought to have no Church Government but onely preaching the Word or then the Apostles Pastors and Teachers medled with the sword of the Emperour Nero in discharging the punitive part for with no other instrument doth the Magistrate punish ill-doers but with the sword Rom. 13. 4 5. This text Mr. Coleman citeth to make bloody Nero a Church-governour But no ground is for this in the Word that Paul Peter Timothy Archippus meddled with the Emperours sword or that the weapons of their warfare were carnal or that Paul was the Minister of God bearing the sword for the punishment of evil doers I think Paul speaketh of civil bodily punishing Rom. 13. and no violence greater can be offered to the Word of God for if that power be an Ecclesiastical administration every soul and so the Christian Magistrate is to be subject to this Ecclesiastical and Church power and if so then to the Church If Mr. Coleman deny the consequence I conceive to be subject to the Magistrate is Rom. 13. to be subject
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
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
names and most superstitious and cannot be used in a religious state I grant we may not term our Jehovah Jupiter or Baal nor Christ Mercurius though he be the word of Gods mind to us for God teacheth us other words and language in his Word The truth is that learned noble Lord said well and judiciously all the indifferencie in the world lyeth in our understandings and the darkenesse thereof but there is none in the things themselves or actions which are still either unlawfull or necessarie And this is most true in actions morall and humane The Church putteth indifferencie on nothing there a necessitie in respect of our darknesse many be scandalized at things which seeme not necessarie to them yet are they in re in themselves necessarie But conformists object That the very will of the Church Act. 15. made things indifferent before the act now to become necessarie if then the Church may take away indifferencie she may give also But I answer The antecedent is most false Junius Calvin Beza Bullinger Brentius Pomeranus Marloret and the text clearly saith by the law of Nature these were scandalous So Origen thinketh to eat blâ—oà was scandalous And Strabo saith the heathen in their sacrifice dranke blood Yea saith Tertullian the heathen dranke mens blood and Augustine saith they forbade these for a time in the case of scandall that the ancient Synogogue might be buried with honour Yea Ireneus Tertullian and Cyprian will have these drawne to a spirituall sense that they should abstaine from Idolatrie shedding of blood and fornication And the Jesuit Lorinus saith this was a positive Law which without the case of scandall doeth not strictly abolish Cajetanus Fornication by Gods law was forbidden the other things in the Canon were forbidden to gratifie the Jews Philippus Gamethaeus a Sorbenist saith they were forbidden to nourish concord betwixt Jew and Gentile for the infirmitie of the Jewes 2. That the will of the Councell made them not necessarie whereas before the act they were indifferent is cleare 1. It had then been needlesse to discusse the matter by Scripture 2. To alledge the holy Ghost as author of the Synod It seemed good to the Holy Ghost c. if the bare will of men had made them necessâ—rie But saith Paybodie Any good thing may become an occasion of evill by accident and through our fault the Word condemneth not occasions of ill by accident but such only as are occasions of evill and in themselves evill things indifferent are not in themselves evill Ans All occasions whether ill in themselves or indifferent are occasions of sinne by accident and through our fault who abuse them but all occasions because occasions and not because evill are forbidden when as they are not necessarie and this is Gods argument to prove that the Jewes are not to marry with the Canaanites for saith the law they will turne away your heart after their Gods to send abroad a goaring oxe to seeke his food hath no sinne in it save only it may occasion the killing of men and the building of houses without battlements and the going by the doore of the whoore or comming neere her house are not of themselves ill but only forbidden under this reduplication because they are occasions of ill sinnes as sinnes are forbidden and as occasions of sinnes they are also new sinnes having a distinct illegalitie and guiltinesse in them from this that they occasion sinne and Gods law as all Divines reach forbiddeth sinne and all occasions of sinne Drunkennesse is both forbidden as intemperancie and also as an occasion of lust and of speaking perverse things as is evident Pro. 23. 33. For then the spirit of Gods argument were null to disswade from drunkennesse as he doth in these woâ—ds Thine eye shall behold strange women and thine heart shall utter perverse things Now we can shew that many wayes Ceremonies occasion sinne as 1. they trimme and decore a Church for harlot lovers from Rome forbidden Jer. 2. 33. Suarez Franciscus de sancta clara Gretserus and other Papists for these werein love with the Church of England 2. They occasion dissention in Gods house and are contrary to peace Ps 34. 14. Heb. 12. 19. Rom. 12. 18. and so to be rejected 3. They beare false witnesse of Poperie which we disclaime 4. They are against the spirituall worshiping of God and lead us backe to the carnall commandements and beggerly rudiments of the law from the Gospell against the word of God Joh 4. 24. Gal. 4 9 10. Heb. 7. 16. Heb. 9. 8. 9. Gal. 3. 25. 26. Gal. 4. 1. 2. Coll. 2. 20. They are torches in day light and vaine and uselesse 5. They bring us under bondage to men contrary to the Apostle Col. 2. 20. and to the ordinances of men and under the power of things 1 Cor. 6. 12. 6. They are against our Christian libertie They answer especially Paybodie and D. Forbes that Christian libertie is not restrained by doing or not doing a thing indifferent for so there should be no lawes made at all by the Church concerning things indifferent but Christian libertie not hurt if 1. the Ceremonies be free to the conscience and not made necessarie 2. If they be not made necessarie to salvation 3. If they be holden alterable by mans authoritie Ans The question is perverted for we question not if the use of things indifferent lay a bond on Christian libertie but if the will of authoritie can make a law of things indifferent when there is no intrinsecall necessitie in the things themselves when necessitie of edification layeth on a tye Christian libertie is not indeed restrained for God then layeth on a bond 2. Externall eating of meats and observing of dayes is a part of the libertie wherewith Christ hath made us free Coll. 2. 21. Eat not touch not taste not men eat not meat with their minde or conscience but with the teeth of their body and to such externall eating men are dead with Christ as touching externall observation thereof and Paul Gal. 2. 19. as dead to the Law living to God and crucified with Christ is freed from such Judaizing as Peter fell into but that Judaizing did not bind Peters conscience neither was it repute of him as necessarie to salvation as he had taught Act. 10. And the false Apostles pressed Circumcision not as tying the conscience or as necessarie for salvation but Gal. 6. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. only that they may not suffer affliction for the crosse of Christ and yet to be circumcised externally without necessitie of conscience before God crossed directly the libertie wherewith Christ had made them free Gal. 5. 1. and 1 Cor. 9. Have we not power to lead about a wife and sister aswell as others Yet if the Prelates at Corinth should have made an act forbidding Church-men to marry though they had esteemed not
Bellar. de Pont if Rom l. 4. cap. 16. Quiounque potest precipere polest etiam actum indifferentem suo precepto facere necessarium per se bonum p Silvest in voce abrogat q Tartar in moral cap. 5. 7. r River catho orth tom 1. q. 9. tract 2. q. 2 Å¿ Field l. 4. cap. 33. t Pareus u Soto l. 1. de just q. 6. art 3. x Sylvest Verbâ— in obedientia in â—iâ—c y Jo Eselius in ezpos Decall praecept 4. cap. 36. z Cap. 2. De constit Rem quae culpa caret in damnum vocari non convenit Other Arguments for the obligation of humane Laws Answered a Ambros b Anselm c Theodoretus in loc Rom 13. d Chrysos in Rom. 13. hom 23. e Navar. in sum cap. 23. numb 54. f Felinus cap. 1. de sponsalib n. 18. g Taraqu Prefat de utroque retractu n. 74. What it is to resist the Ruler h Lodovi Merat par 1. tract de leg disp 1. Sect. 13. i Merat ib. Sect. 2. Why men cannot make laws that layeth a tye on the Conscience That Christ hath a spirituall kingdom not only in the power of preaching the word but also in the power of the keys by discipline That there is such a divine ordinance as Excommunication Objections against excommunication removed Praelee in Math. 18. ver 15. page 144. We mayrebuke our brother in a prudent way 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Erastus Mat. 18. Object 4. The church Mat. 18. is not the Civill Sanedrim How Publicans were excluded from the Temple a Dâ—uâ— 23. 1 2 3 4 5. I'sa 79. 1. Lam. 1. 10. b Lev. 25 44. Lev. 26. 45 2 Kin. 16. 3. 2 Kin. 17. 8. 11. â— Chro. 16. 35. 2 Chro. 33. 2 9. Neh. 5. 8 9 Psa 9. 19. Psal 10. 16. Psal 33. 10. Psal 44. 2. Psa 80. 9. Ier. 10. 2. Ezech. 23. 30. Eze. 25. 7. Ioel 2. 7. Obad. v. 15 Miâ— 5. 15. Hag. 2. 22. Zach. 1. 15. Theophylact in Math. 18 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Object 8. Beza de de Presbyterio excom p. 60. Joseph de bello Iudaiâ— l. 1. c. 4. Pharisaei omnia pro arbitrio administrabant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lucian dialo 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So doth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Num. 11. 28. signifie Binding and loosing acts judiciall a Camero prelect in Mat. 16. b Vatablus on Esay 22. c Calvin prelect in Esay 22 d Muscu com ibid e Gualther Homil. in loc f Piscator shol in Esa g Beza on Mat. 16. h Pareus comment in Mat. 16. i Cotton Keyes of the Kingdome p. 2. Beza de Pres byter pag. 63 64. That Excommunication is a divine Ordinance is proved by 1 Cor. 5. To deliver to Satan is not miraculous killing The essentials of excommunication 1 Cor 5. Cutting off not alwaies killing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ab interiâ—re populâ—rum sacrum Morall guiltinesse excluded men from holy things amongst the Iews The place Ezekiel 44. v. 11. 12. 13. 14. to be fulfilled under the New Testament Object Ceremoniall exclusion from holy things under the old did tipifie exclusion for morall uncleannesse under the New Testament Levit. 5. 2â— The Churches exclusion from the Seales declarative not coactive by violence Remonstrant in Apollo Censures applied to some by name Arg. 2. Eschewing the society of scandalous church members must be a church censure The hindering of Jezabel by preaching onely not sufficient Debarring of the scandalous from the seals proâ—ed It belongeth not to the Magistrate to â— debar from the seals Thomas Erastus lib. 3. confirmat Thesium lib. 3. â— 3. pag. 207. Nam et sacramenta sub sub 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nomine comprehendi concedo Erastus Confi thes l. 3. c. 3. pag. 207. Qui membra externae volunt ecclesiae videri illi non calcabunt Sacramenta nec offereâ—tem laniare tentabunt fiquis talis reperiatur hune ego minime admittendum censeâ— Confirmatiâ— Thosium Erast Consâ—â— thes l. 1. c. 1. p. 72. Erast will have no man excluded from the Sacraments pag. 86. Si per subductionem pabuli intelligis verbi aut sacramentorum negationem de tuâ— hoc dicis non lâ—queris cum scripturis quae nusquam jubent pabula haec subducere According to Erastus his way we cannot deny the seals to a Turk P. 75 76. Toexclude men from the Kingdom of Heaven not one with Excommunication Pag. 78. Excommunication is no reall separation of one from Christs invisible body Pag. 79. P. 81 82. Pag. 83. Pag. 86. Pag. 88. 8â— Though Excommunication be onely declarative yet it is not empty Cap. 2. l. 1. p. 93. Putting out 1 Cor. 5. Excommunicating Lib. â— c. 2. pag. 103. Whether Erastus doth prove that none were excluded amongst the Iewes from the Sacraments for Morall uncleannesse A twofold forgivenesse Pag. 117. All are invited to the SacrameÌ„ts but not that they come any way they please The question whether all should be admitted to the Lords Supper perverted by Erastus Cap. 3. l. 1. p. 117. Lib. 3. c. 3. pag. 207. Et si quis talis qui caleabit sacramenta reperiatur hunc ego numinè admittendum censeo Pag. 118. Two sorts of signes some purely holy some partly holy partly necessary for the bodily life Pag. 120. P. 120 121. All are commanded to hear the Word but not to come to the Supper Arg. 16. Page 124. Page 124. Confirm Thes l. 2. c. 1. p. 130. 131. 133. 134. 136. 137. Ceremoniall uncleannes typified Exclusion out of the visible Church for Scandals not out of the Kingdome of Heaven Page 140. Page 142 143 144 145. Page 146. Page 140. At nemo propter ingenitam naturae corruptionem pâ—nitur Page 147. Legall uncleannesse was sin Page 150. Lib. â— c. 2. p. 154. 155. The scope and sense of Mat. 18. perverted by Erastus Our Saviour speaks of all not of private and lesser scandals onely Page 26. in Thes 41. By the word brother is not meant a Iew onely Erast conf Thes l. 2. â— 1. p. 133. Sive facinorosos facinoris paeniteret sive non paeniteret paena non minuebatur L. 2. cap. 2. page 155. Thes 41. p. 46. Pag. 156. Christs speaking in the second person argueth not the privacy of the scandall Page 158. Page 156. 157. A twofold forgiving Thes 42. page 27. Page 16. Christ speaketh not of such sins as private men may forgive as Erastus dreameth Christs scope spiritual Erast his way is carnall Thes 42. pag. 28. Lib. 3. c. p. 181. Pag. 186. 187. Pag. 188. A Publican most odious to the Iews Lib. 3. c. 3. p. 190 191. Page 191. P. 192. 193. Pag. 195. 196. A publican most odious to the Iewes No private forgivenesse Mat. 18. pag. 198 â—ed si docendo priâ—atus aliquem ad duxcrit ut peccata sua agnoscat et ex certa side â—â— Dei be â—â—gnitate propter meritum Christi acquiescat an non solutus erit Si frustraÌ„