alterable and may put out Pastors and Teachers because God hath put out Apostles we have a new world of alterable Church-Policy 5. Reverent Beza referreth the Commandment to the Platforme of Discipline So Ambrose in Loc. and Chrysostome Homil. 18. so Diodat This Commandment which is ver 11 12. Or generally all other Commandments which are contained in this Epistle Popish Writers confesse the same though to the disadvantage of their Cause who maintain unwritten Church-Policy and Ceremonies So Lyra and Nicol. Gorran Mandatum quod Deus ego mandavimus the Commandment of the Lord and of me his Apostle Corneâ—a lapide Quicquid tibi O Episcope hac Epistolâ prescripsi demandavi hoc serva Salmeron alii per mandatum intelligunt Quecunque mandavi spectantia ad munus boni Episcopi SECT II. THE Adversaries amongst these things of Church-Policy do reckon such things as concerne the outward man and externals only and therefore Bilson Hooker and the rest as Cameron and others will have Christs kingdom altogether Spirituall Mysticall and invisible and Christ to them is not a King to binde the externall man nor doth he as King take care of the externall government of his own house that belongeth say they as other externall things to the Civill Magistrate who with advise and counsell of the Church Bishops and their unhallowed Members may make Lawes in all externals for the Government of the Church and all these externals though Positive are alterable yea and added to the word though not as additions corrupting but as perfecting and adorning the word of God and his worship In opposition to this our fourth Argument shall be he who is the only Head Lord and King of his Church must governe the politick externall body his Church perfectly by Laws of his own spirituall policy and that more perfectly then any earthly Monarch or State doth their subjects or any Commanders or any Lord or Master of Family doth their Army Souldiers and members of their Family But Christ is the head and only head of the Church for by what title Christ is before all things he in whom all things consist and is the beginning the first borne fram the dead and hath the preheminence in all things and he is onely soâ—ely and absolutely all these by the same title he is the Head and so the onely Head of the Body the Church Col. 1. 17 18. And he is the head of his Politick body and so a head in all externals as well as of mysticall and invâ—sible body for if his Church be an externall Politicall body and ruled by Organs Eyes Watchmen Rulers Feeders and such as externally guideth the flock as it is Eph. 4 11 12 13 14 15 16. 1 Cor. 12. 28. Matth. 16 17 18. A society to which Christ hath given the keys of his House and so externall power in a visible Politick Court on earth to binde and loose to take in and put out to open and shut the doors of his visible Politick house then this Politick body must have a head in externall policy and this head in externals must as a head governe by Laws all the members in their externall society for a body without a head is a monster and a Politick body without a head Politick and one that ruleth Politically is a Monster And Christ is the King yea the only King of his own Kingdom either as this Kingdom is mysticall and invisible or as it is Politick externall and visible on earth as these Scriptures proveth 1. Mat. 28. 18. Iesus â—aith unto me is all power given in Heaven and in earth I hope this power is only given to Christ not to Pope or earthly Prince It is the name above all names Phil. 2. 9. King of Kings Rev. 17. 14. And upon this Kingly power Christ doth an exâ—ernall Act of Royall power and giveth not only an inward but also a Politicall externall power to his disciples ver â—9 Go Teach and Baptize all Nations Is this only inward and heart-â—eaching and inward Baptizing by the spirit I think not God hath reserved that to himself only Isa 54. 13. Ioh. 6 44. 45. Joh. 1. 33. and Ioh. 20 21. 22. Upon this that the Father sent Christ and so set him his King upon his holy hill of Zion Psa 2. 6. Christ performeth an externall Politick mission and sendeth his disciples with power in a Politick externall way to remit and retain sins in an externall way for there is clearly two remittings and retainings of sins in the Text None can say of the Church it s my Church but he who is King of the Church and Christ saith Matth 16. 18. that it is his Church and upon this it is his Kingdom and the keyes are his keys and they are keys of a Kingdom visible and Politick on earth as is evident ver 19. I will give unto thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt binde on earth in an externall Politicall court of Church Rulers as it is differenced from an internal and mysticall binding in Heaven shall be bound in Heaven c. For it is clear that there is an internall binding in Heaven and a Politicall and externall binding on earth and both are done by the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven But Christ can have or give no Politicall or exâ—ernall keys of an externall and Politicall King but as he is a King Yea and Excommunication doth not only binde the inward man in Heaven but also the externall man on earth excluding him from the Society of the Church as a Heathen and a Publican and purging him out from the externall communion of the Church as if he were now no brother Matth. 18. â—7 18. 1 Cor. 5. 7. 10 11 12. Now this externall separating and judging of an offender by the Church is done by the keys of the Kingdom Ergo by Christ as a King ruling the externall man Politically and so by the key of the house of David which is laid upon Christs shoulder Isa 22. 22. And by a Royall Act of him upon whose shoulder is the Government Is 9 6. Who sitteth upon the throne of David to order the kingdom to establish it with judgement justice For the Church doth bind and loose in the externall Court either by a Commission from him who as head of the Church and who as King gave to her the Keys of the Kingdom or by a generall Arbitrary power given to the Magistrate and Church to do in these things as they please so they do nothing contrary to the Word though not according to the Word as they are to do in Doctrinals if the former be said then must the externall Government be upon the shoulder of Christ as King which is that which we teach If the latter be said then might the Magistrate Church appoint such an Ordinance as excommunication and so they may by their Artitrary power make a Gospel Promise of
by externall proportion and shape and it is unreasonable to say that Portraicts and Pictures of God Physically impossible to the Art of Craftsmen are forbidden only whereas the Lords word setteth down to us no precepts for Art as for painting Musick speaking right Latine whereas the Lord forbiddeth universally Gods pictures in any thing in heaven on earth or under the earth Deut. 4. 15. Take ye therefore good heed to your selves for ye saw no manner of Image on the day that the Lord spake to you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire Gregor de Valent. saith We give not divine honour to the creature as to God or to Christ for that honour pertaineth to God or Christ which conciliateth to him reverence due to God only and that opinion of divine honour is conciliated to God or Christ Coram in imaginibus before and in or through the Image Ans The people of God had not that opinion every way of Egypt and their horses that they had of God and yet when they Isa 31. give that to Egypt and horses which is due to God to wit their Faith and confidence that they could save in the time of trouble therefore interpretatively they made Gods of them otherwayes they knew literally that Pharaohs horses were flesh and not spirit but Morally and spiritually they knew them not to be no Gods to save them It is no more absurd that the Prophets say The Idol hath eyes and see not and that it is not God though by sense they knew it not to be God but by representation they trusting in the Idol as in God then it was for Isaiah to say The horses of Egypt are flesh and not spirit A wife if she give her body to a stranger though not with that opinion of love and respect which is only due to her husband is yet an harlot and the people who sware by Iehovah and by Malcome who worship Iehovah and Ieroboams Calves and those who worship the Image of an Ash-Tree representing Iehovah Isa 40. 18. Isa 46. 6 7. did not give honour to Malcom to the Calves to the Images Sicut Iehovae as to God See Roinalds Answer But saith he we cannot worship God but we must conceive some Image of God in our minde are we therefore Idolaters because in these Images we worship God and Valent. saith and so doth the Formalist Lindsey say That God may be adored before the Sacramentall elements as Images Ans We are not forbidden to adore God in the inward conception of minde Deut. 4. Ye saw no manner of similitude but not yea thought no manner of thoughts of God 2. The internall image of God in the minde is the objective conception of God as conceived in the minde there is no hazard of Idolatry there for that Image is not adorable at all because then it must be conceived by a new different Image and that new different Image must be cognoscible by another new Image and so in infinitum The externall Image is both made an active object to represent God and when we religiously bow to it it is made an object passive that is adored with God Lastly If the Iews and heathen had adored their Images as they were such creatures consecrated and as essentially Gods the Lord would not have rebuked them for making an Ash Tree the similitude of a God as he doth Isa 40. 18. Isa 44. 9 c. And all that I said in the former question proveth the same So that though Divine honour in the Act of kneeling before the elements be intended to Christ yet because the elements are there as actuall signes and Vicegerent Images of Christ if we kneel to Christ Religiously through them we give them divine honour though we should intend to honour Christ Iesus only SECT III. Whether Papists and Formalists give that divine honour that is proper only to God and his son Iesus Christ to Images and the elements of Bread and Wine I. Con. TO adore Images is to give worship to God before Images or in or through the Images without any Faith of a Godhead or divine power in the Image according to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome I prove this out of their Councels The Councell of Trent saith Due honour and veneration is due to the Images not because it is believed that there is any Divinity and vertue in them for the which they should be worshipped but because the honour given to them is referred to the samplar which they represent that by these Images vvhich vve kisse and before vvhich vve uncover our head and bow dovvn vve may adore Christ and the Saints which these Images resembleth Hence 1. the Image doth but as a memorative object excite the affection to give honour to God in and through the Images but 2. Let these words be examined the Councell denyeth any divinity to be in Images but if they mean no divinity really to be in Images so they say nothing against us for we do not ascribe to Papists that they teach there is a reall God-head in the Image but that all that is really in it is Wood Gold or Mettall and so did the Gentiles believe their Images to be teaching books Hab. 29. Ier. 10 8. Deut. 4. 19. Isa 40. 18. 46. 6 7. Act. 17. 29. and gold and silver but say they What needed the Prophets to prove that gold and silver could not see nor hear nor deliver in time of trouble reason would here convince them to be ten times blinde who believed any such thing Ans The Prophets do well to do so Nor that the Heathen believed there was any Godhead in them formally but because they ascribed actions to these images that were due to living creatures and made them to be such as did see hear move deliver So Isaiah proveth Egypts horses not to be God but flesh yet they did not believe there was a Godhead in the horses but Consequenter by good consequence when they laid that hope on the horse that they were to lay upon God he had need to say the horse vvas flesh and not God So when men give to these things bowing of the body and say unto a stock Thou art my Father God may prove the stock is not a living man and hath no sences to convince them the more that they can far lesse be Gods Vicar for a Vicar or Deputy creature representing the living God should be such as can do what God doth else we should put on it the honour due to God But if the Councell mean They have no divinity in them but by way of representation because they be Vicaria dei signa signes resembling the Creator God Now if this be denyed the images must be naked memorials before which people do adore God as Mirandula Durandus and others said and yet latter Papists say more of their own Images But I would have it remembred that there be two sorts
sendeth his Apostles and Pastors to the end of the world as is clear if we compare Matth. 18. 18. and Matth. 16. 19. with Ioh. 20. 20 21 22. 23. Mar. 16. ver 15 20. Matth. 28. 18 19 20. Luk. 24. 45 46 47 48. 5. It is against the course of the Text that we should restrain this to private pardoning of light injuries between brother and brother 1. Becase Christ labours to decline this that one shall be both his brothers judge to put him in the condition of an Heathen and Publican and binde his brothers sins in Heaven and Earth and also that he should be his party and accuser Now Christ will have the private brother do no more personally but admonish his brother and gain him 2. If that prevail not then he is to admonish him before two or three witnesses See here the brother is not both party and judge but witnesses have place 3. If that prevail not the businesse is to ascend higher even to the Church which undoubtedly is an Organicall body 1 Cor. 12. 28. Rom. 8. 6 7 c. Act. 20. 28 29 30. Whereas two or three private Christians are not a Church but an homogeneal body Now who would believe that Christ is to bring down the businesse which is so high as before the Church to the lowest step again to a private binding and loosing to one brother who both as judge and party judgeth his brother yea and may do this though there were no Chuâ—ch on earth What power hath the Church above the offended brother or the offender if the one may binde the other under guiltinesse in earth and heaven 2. Erastus will have light and private offences only spoken of here Now Christ speaketh of offences that God taketh notice of in Heaven and earth 3. Christs way is a wise and meek way that that which one cannot do and the offence that two three four cannot remove the Church shall remove but Erastus maketh one private man to remove it and to Excommunicate and binde in heaven and earth I might cite Tertullian Cyprian Augustine Chrysostom The ophylact Hyeronimus and all modern interpreters both Popish and Orthodox for this interpretation not any of them dreaming of the insolent opinion of Erastus who misapplieth Augustine and Theophylact for his own way as Beza cleareth CAP. IV. Quest 1. That the place 1 Corinthians 5. doth evince that Excommunication is an Ordinance of God THE Argument for Excommunication may be thus framed from 1 Cor. 5. If Paul command that the incestuous man should be delivered to Satan ver 5. purged out of the Church least as leaven he should corrupt the Church ver 6 7. That they should iudge him ver 12. And put him avvay from amongst them ver 13. So as they vvere not to eat vvith him ver 9. 10. Then is there a divine command for Excommunication for the Commandments of the Apostles are the Commandments of the Lord 1 Cor. 14. 37. 2 Pet. 3. 2. But the former is true Ergo so is the latter There is no ground or shadow of reason to expound this expelling of the incestuous man by the preaching of the word without any Church-censures for all that is required in Excommunication is here 1. This putting out was not done by one single Pastor as putting out by the preaching of the word is done but by a company and Church ver 4. In the name of the Lord Iesus vvhen ye are gathered together and my spirit 2. Paul should have written to any one Pastor to cast him out by preaching but here he writeth to a Church 3. He forbiddeth company or eating with such like men v. 10. Now this is more then rebuking by preaching 4. This is a judging of the incestuous man and a casting of him out of their society which is another thing then preaching the word Erastus and others expound the giving to Satan of a delivering of the man to Satan to be miraculously killed as were Ananias and Saphira Act. 5. 5. And because at this time there was no Christian Magistrate to use the sword against the man therefore he writeth to the Church that they by their prayers would obtain of God that Satan might take him out of the midst of them Ans This insolent interpretation wanteth all warrant of the word For 1. To deliver to Satan hath no Scripture to make this sense of it to pray that Satan would destroy the man 2. It wanteth an example in the old or new Testament that the whole Church are fellow-Agents and joynt causes in the bodily destruction of any or in working of miracles such as was the killing of Ananias and Saphira The Apostles wrought miracles and that by their Faith and Prayers and Christ and the Prophets but that the Believers who should have mourned for this scandall 1. Who were puffed up 2. Who were in danger to be leavened with the mans sin and had their consent in Excommunication should joyn in a miraculous delivering to Satan is an unparalleld practise in the word 3. To deliver to Satan cannot be expounded here but as 1 Tim. 1. 20. Where Paul saith he had delivered Hymenaeus and Alexander to Satan now that was not to kill them but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they might receive instruction and be disciplined by this medicinall Church-revenge not to blaspheme I know of no instructing of these who are dead if there be two deliverings to Satan let Erastus and his expound it to us 4. The Apostle expresly saith he wrote to them not to keep company with such men nor with Fornicators covetous men Drunkards Extortioners Idolators Now Erastus his minde must be that the Apostles and Churches of Corinth Philippi Thessalonica grievouâ—ly sinned against God in that they did not miraculously kill all the Drunkards the covetous persons the fornicators whereas they are commauded to admonish them as brethren 2 Thess 3 14 15. and to pray for them if they sin not against the holy Ghost 1 Ioh. 5. 16. 1 Tim. 2. 3. 5. Paul rebuketh this as a morall fault amongst the Corinthians such as is not to mourn for this mans fault and to keep him as leaven in the midst of them and not to cast him out Whereas in all the Scripture you finde none ever rebuked because they put not forth in Acts an extraordinary and miraculous power to work miracles working of miracles came upon persons called thereunto by extraordinary rapts and were in men not as habits under the power of free-will but as immediate Acts of God even as fire-flaughts are in the Aire So I conceive while I be better informed 6. And shall it not follow that now when the Churches have Christian Magistrates it is the will of our meek saviour that they kill with the sword all the Drunkards Fornicators and all that walketh unorderly which should make the Church of Christ a Butcher-house whereas we are to admonish all such as brethren 2 Thess 3.
members of the Church and that they are to be cast out of the Church as he doth also he must either grant that Christian Magistrates cannot turn Apostates and Idolaters which is against Scripture and experience or that if they turn Apostates and Idolaters they remain no longer members of the Church but are to be excommunicated or then Christ must have made some speciall exception that Kings though Idolaters and Apostates do yet remain members of the Church and are not to be cast out of the Church which beside that Erastus cannot shew is contradictory to his words Hence it is clear the Magistrate if he turn as Saul did a wicked man he is to be excommunicated But 1. By whom by the Church Erastus will deny he can be judged by the Church because he is above the Church by himselfe that is against reason By other Magistrates he is the only supream in that Church and by what reason he is above the Church he is above the other Magistrates and other Magistrates are guilty of the same fault Obj. 5. The supream and principall power called Architectonica of governing the Church in externals either agree to the Magistrate or to the Church not to the Magistrate as they say if to the Church Then 1. The universall care and inspection over the Church is taken from the Magistrate and given to the Church Ergo 2. Then the Christian Magistrate not indirectly only but directly must be obliged to follow the judgement of the Church in ordaining depriving punishing of Ministers or of any excommunicated 3. The subjects must be obliged not to obey yea to disobey the Magistrate if he decern any thing contrary to the Church and the Magistrate as a lictor and servant must execute all Ans 1. There is no reason to say that the supream and principall power by way of royall dominion as the argument supposeth in Church matters should agree to either Magistrate on earth or Church it is a Rose of the Crown of him who is the only King of Kings and Lord of Lords and so the Major is false Nor is that care and inspection which is due to the Magistrate taken from him when we ascribe to Christ what is his due 2. Neither doth it follow that the Magistrate is directly obliged to follow the judgement of the Church except we did make the judgement of the Church supream and absolute and armed with such a dominion as the adversaries give to the Magistrate in which case it followeth that the Church is directly and absolutely obliged to follow the judgement of the Magistrate according to the way of the adversaries and that if this argument be good they must ascribe blind obedience either to the Church or Magistrate not to the Magistrate they say Ergo to the Church Nor can they take it off by saying that the Magistrates dominon is limited by the Word of God for they know that we teach that all the constitutions and decrees of Synods made by the Church as the Church is limited by the Word of God yet they cease not to object to us that we make the Magistrate a servant and a lictor to the Church and obliged by his place to give blind obedience to the Church and therefore they are obliged to answer the argument and remove papal dominion from their way according to their owne argument if they will be willing to take in to themselves with the same measure that they give out to others But if they give a ministeriall power of judging to the Church the argument is easily answered which they cannot give to the Magistrate except they make his office to oblige the conscience and his commands as magistraticall to be given out under the pain of the second death Now his sword is too short to reach to this I hope except you make the vengence that he executeth on evil doers Rom. 13. to be eternall fire and his sword to be no materiall nor visible sword but such as commandeth Devils and Hell which is absurd for the Magistrates power of judging and commanding is commensurable to his power of rewarding and punishing that is both is temporary within time on the body of this world The Pastors have a power of commanding though only ministeriall but free of all domination or externall coaction which is spirituall and the punishment is accordingly spirituall a binding in earth and heaven I borrow only the word of punishment it being no such thing properly Obj. 6. If the end of the Church be a spirituall and of the Magistrate be a temporall good and if the Magistrate have no spirituall power to attain to his temporall end no more then the Church hath any temporall power to attain to her spirituall end is not this a contradiction that the Magistrate should determine what the true Church and Ordinances are and then set them up with the power of the sword for the Magistrates power to judge and punish in spirituall causes must be either spirituall or civill or then he hath none and so acts without commission Now for civill power the Magistrate hath it only over the bodies and goods of men and hath it not over the soul nor can he have it say â— in soul cases It is confessed that the Magistrate hath no spirituall power to attain a temporall end and therefore those who provoke the Magistrate without either civill or spirituall power to punish or prosecute in spirituall causes are to fear that they come too near to those frogs that proceed out of the mouth of the Dragon and Beast and false Prophet who with the same argument stirre up the Kings of the earth to make war against the Lambe and his followers Rev. 17. Bloody Tenent Answ 1. All this argument is builded on a great mistake and a conseqence never proved except by this one word of the Author Therefore say I and it is this The Magistrate hath no civill power over the soul therefore say I he hath no power in soul matters and cannot judge and punish in spirituall causes Sir this is a non sequitur The learned Divine Rivetus saith well The Magistrates power in spirituall things to judge and punish is formaliter and in it self and intrinsecally civill but objective in regard of the object and extrinsecally it is spirituall 1. I ask when the Author and his take a professor into Church-communion they judge whether he be just mercifull and peaceable when they excommunicate any member for murther for unjustice in taking away the goods of his brother whether the Church doth judge and punish in the causes of justice mercy and peace which properly belongeth to the civill Magistrate not to the Church properly but only ratione scandali as they are offensive in the Church of God I ask I say if the Churches power in judging and punishing be civill or spirituall not civill for this Author will say that the Church hath no power over the lives and goods
as the precept of believing in Christ and of repentance from dead works yet I hope it shall be a weak inference from thence to inser we may therefore alter and change any thing of the Sacrament for the same Christ who commanded us to believe in him said also Drink ye all of this and if we may not remove drinking from the last Supper because injoyned by Christ upon the authority of the Law-giver as signifying the spirituall drinking of Christs Blood how can any dare to adde Crossing to Baptisme which signifieth the dedication of the Baptized to Christs service But 1. Divine Ceremonials and positives which were to be changed have these notes and impressions of God which Surplice Crosse in Baptisme Corner-cap which by Analogie answereth to Moses his Ceremonies hath not and yet if they be of the New Testament and so of a more excellent spirits devising then the people of the Iews were capable of in regard of their Bondage under Carnall Precepts they ought to have them in a more excellent manner As 1. In regard of the manner of Revelation all the Laws and Ceremoniall Ordinances were revealed to Moses when he was forty dayes in the Mount with God and was in Heaven and above men Exod. 25. 40. Heb. 8. 5. The length measure and patern of the Temple was revealed to Ezechiel when he was in the spirit and saw the Visions of God Ezech. 40. 2 3. And a writing of the form of the Temple by Gods hand was delivered to David 1 Chro. 28. 19. Now if a more free and glorious spirit teach the Positives of policy under the New-Testament such as Surplice Crossing then Prelates must be in a higher mount with God then Moses was and in a deeper extasie of the visions of God then Ezechiel was in Ezec. 40. 1 2 3. When they are in the childe-birth pain of devising and bring forth such defaced and dirty whelpes as Surplice Crossing Altars c. 1. I should think it blasphemy so to think 2. In regard of the Doctrine revealed When I read the 40 41 42. Chapters of Ezekiel touching the forme of the Temple and the Antitipe Chapters the Revelation c. 21. c. 22. Yea and the very Ceremoniall Laws of Moses as the scape-goats going to the wildernesse with the sins of the people of God and all the rest of the Lawes that pointeth at Christ to be slain for us and the heavenly mysteries of the Gospel explained especially in the Epistle to the Hebrews when I read these I finde a strong smell of the ointments of a precious Redeemer the extream love of God to man the Majesty the divinity and efficacy of divine power in these as in other Scriptures But should our Prelats put in Print by the spirit of the new Testament some Epistles touching Ceremonies in Generall or of Surplice Corner-cap Crossing and their heavenly relation to the mysteries of the Gospel in particular I should not think men would dare to say a nobler spirit speaketh like God and heaven in these then in the other It is without all Warrant to expound Christian Liberty of a power of devising a mutable Church-Policy and lawes not warranted in Gods word seeing Christian Liberty expresly exempteth us altogether from obedience to mens Laws not warranted by Christs word Gal. 5. 1. Col. 2. 20 c. Let us hear what Hooker saith for his mutable Policie under the New Testament Christ is not lesse faithfull then Moses because Moses delivered to the Iewes some Lawes that were durable and Christ some Laws that are changeable otherwayes by this reason Christ shall be lesse faithfull then Moses for Moses erected in the wildernesse a Tabernacle which was moveable from place to place Solomon a stately Temple which was not moveablâ— Therefore Solomon was faithfuller then Moses which no man indued with reason will think Christ was faithfull and saith I have given to them the words that thou gavest me He concealed not any part of his Fathers will But did any part of that will require the immutability of Laws concerning Church-Policy Ans I answer as Christ did to the Jews in another case Ioh. 6. 32. Moses gave you not that bread from heaven but my Father giveth you that true bread So in this neither Moses nor Solomon erected either that Tabernacle or Temple as Law-givers but the Father of our Lord Iesus as the true Law-giver Now both were but meer servants and Heralds in all that they did for God shewed to Moses the pattern of the Tabernacle and to David and Solomon the forme of the Temple in all the pins rings chambers cubits length and breadth Exod. 24 40. 1 Chron. 28. 11 19. And the question is not if ever the Lord himself delivered mutable or immutable Laws either in Doctrine or Policy We grant he did and may deliver Laws changeable and to indure for a time only in both the old and new Testament Heb. 7. 18. Col. 2. 17. Act. 15. 28 29. But the question is if Moses as a man if Christ as a man only if the Church of Prelates yea or of Lawfull Officers can be faithfull if they deliver lawes to the Church which may be altered without the expresse will of God speaking in his word at the pleasure of men and which are positives of worship and Policy such as humane Prelates Surplice Crosse c. which varieth dieth and liveth falleth and riseth with the climate Nation civill-Government Lawes Manners and customes of People and this is all one as to move the question whither the Ambassadour as a man may alter the Articles of his Commission according to his own private lust without an expresse and evident Warrant of the Prince and State whose servant and Messenger he is in all that he doth and if he be a faithfull Ambassadour who doth his own will and not the will of those that sent him and if Christ be as faithfull as Moses if he had given Laws of policy under the New-Testament to be altered without an expresse and evident Warrant from the will of the Father at the pleasure and will of men This we deny and certainly say that Moses had erected a changeable Tabernacle at the will of man and Solomon a Temple unchangeable at the will and expresse Commandment of God then had Solomon been faithfuller then Moses our Arguments nerves do not consist in the immutability or the mutability of things themselves or of the Laws but on the immutability or mutability of things positive or Laws positive under this reduplication so as they be immutable or mutable at the pleasure and will of men without and beside the word of God such as Crosse and Surplice and such like Romish stuffe are pretended to be 2. Certain it is that Christ concealed not any part of his Fathers will Ioh. 17. 8. But delivered all and this place with the place Ioh. 15. 15. We urge against the traditions of Papists and say because Christ
humane Ceremonies take the room and place of God from God and give it to creatures because to ordain worship and all Religious means of worship is proper to the only wise Law-giver But for the clearing of this Question I divide it in some subordinate Questions SECT I. Whether Religious kneeling laying aside our intention and will to Adore that before which we kneel of its own nature be Adoration This Question is most necessary both against Papists and Formalists But first remember that Raphael de la Torres a late Schoolman maketh seaven Adorations 1. Bowing of the knee 2. Prostration 3. The lifting up of the eyes 4. Of the hands to Heaven 5. Kissing 6. Knocking on the Breast 7. Uncovering of the head Though this last be not Adoration but a Nationall sign of Reverence and is not every where Adoration yet Abulensis saith the Iews did pray and Sacrifice with covered heads So saith Virgill and Lod. Vives Therefore the Corinthians had this from the Grecians as a civil sign of gravity which should not be banished from Gods worship and if it be appropriate to an Idol it should in that case be made Veneration But no Reverence at all is due to an Idol Jesuits as Suarez and others and Formalists Morton Burges Hooker teach us That Religious bowing before a creature if there be no intention of Adoring is not Adoration But it is to be considered 1. Bowing of the knee Physically or civilly is indifferent and is not Adoration for we bow to Kings and Artificers may bow the knee to drive a nail in a bed and yet are not Adoring but Religious Adoration whither ye will or not by natures impression is a Religious note of Religious submission 2. I consider four acts of the soul that may convoy externall Adoration 1. One of the minde a consideration of the excellency of what we Adore 2. A will to submit to this excellency 3. The judgements diting this to be honest to submit 4. A purpose or intention habituall or actuall of Adoring many of these may be where there is no Adoring and the Religious externall bowing of the body is essentially Adoring when that bowing is in a state of worship kneeling before consecrated Elements for Reverence of either God or the Elements must be Adoration though we should wash it with foul water and say that there is no intention to tender Gods glory to these Elements 3. Let it be considered what is said by the Jesuit Joannes de Lugo the Popes Professor at Rome which I propound with some change 1. There is a purpose of externall Adoring with an inward submission of the heart whether this be an habituall or actuall intention it is sure it is an Adoration when it cometh forth in a gesture of Adoring 2. A will to bow the body in scorn and derision as the Souldiers bowed the knee before Iesus and this being not in a state of worshipping but in a state and â—ase of disgracing is not Religious bowing or Adoration This is not a naturall expression of inward submission but rather of disgrace 3. There is a willed or voluntary Religious bowing for fear for gain or for glory yet without any internall estimation of the excellency of the thing Adored This Suarez denyeth to be worshipping it being only a faining of worship not a worshipping But I prove the contrary 1. Because then no enacted worshipping of Idols were indeed a worshipping of an Idol and yet all the time that the Adorer boweth his knee to the Idol though he have no inward purpose of heart to Adore the externall bowing must be a naturall expression of actuall submission to the thing before which we bow and a conciliating of an opinion with others of Religious eminency and subjection of Divine dignity to that thing before which we kneel 2. Religious kissing of the Calves of Samaria Hos 8. is a naturall expression of Religious love to these Calves though the kisser have no intention of worshipping 3. Act. 14. 11 12 13. The men of Lystra are reproved for Sacrificing and so for Adoring-men 15. Sirs Why do ye these things for we also are men of like passions as you and Preach to you that ye should turn from these Vanities to the living God Barnabas and Paul rebuketh the men of Lystra because they worshipped men with humane passions yet did they not intend to worship men for they were to them in that act of worshipping Gods in mens shape as they say v. 11. Gods are come down to us in the likenesse of men if they conceived them not to be men indeed but Gods come down from heaven then could they not intend to worship men but Gods So Iohn would not nor had any purpose to worship a created Angel but taking him to be God he fell down and worshipped as is clear by the Angels reproofe Rev. 19. 10. He said unto me See thou do it not I am thy fellow servant Likewise Act. 17. The Athenians set up an Altar not to the Pourtraict of gold which yet they worshipped v. 2. 4 5. but intended not to worship it But the God which made heaven and earth whom Paul preached So are the Gentiles said to offer to Devils not to God what they offer 1 Cor. 10. 20. Deut. 37. 17. Psal 106. 37. and 2 Chron. 11. 15. Peroboams Calves are Devils and yet they intended not to worship Devils but God that brought them out of the Land of Aegypt 1 King 12. 28. 4. If Religious kneeling require that we intend to worship every thing before which as an object we do Religiously kneel then Religious kneeling should not signifie in ernall submission of the heart by natures impression or Divine institution but by the voluntary and the free institution of him that kneeleth But this â—aâ—ter is absurd for if kneeling should signifie what it doth signifie by our free and voluntary appointment Then we might 1. put upon naturall gestures what sigâ—ificâ—tion we pleased and were not to stand to the signification which God and nature have put upon kneeling 2. So it were in mans power to impose upon Religious kneeling to God civill curtesie such as a subject expresseth to his Prince or a son to his Father and it were free to us to kneel to a stock and that Religiously and yet put upon kneeling the negative reverence that we give to the Bible and it were in the three childrens will to kneel to Nâ—buchadnezzars Image and impose this signification on the gâ—sture that they were kneeling to God only all which are manifestly false so Field saith kneeling hath institution from the instinct of nature They Object 1. The externall act of kneeling signifyeth the inward submission of heart but there is no inward submission of the heart to a thing to which we kneel when we are compelled to kneel only for fear of men or induced to kneel for hope of glory or some by-respect without
same words in use amongst the Iews are used in the New Testament as 1 Cor. 16. 22. 1 Tim. 5. 19. Act. 15. 7 17. Revel 11. 2 8. 1 Pet. 4. 3. 2 Pet. 1 19. 20 21. Anathema Maeranatha Witnesses Gentiles sinners of the Gentiles imposition of hands c. Indeed in ordinary the Pastor under the New Testament is not called Priest nor high Priest nor the Communion Table an Altar But the words here used are obvious and very significant and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Church is a most obvious word in both the Old and New Testament and doth signifie any Assembly Religious civill or prophane according as the nature person and use or end of the meeting or Assembly was Religious and Prophane as is evident by many places of the Old and New Testament where the seventy Interpreters use the word for a Church-Assembly for which see the due right of Presbyters page 349 350. and page 473 474. And since the word Church here is cleerely a company convened to gaine an offending brothers soule by rebukes and censures and which hath power to binde and loose on earth so as their fact is ratified in heaven it cannot be any other then a New Testament Church-meeting seeing we find the Church of Corinth commanded to conveene and exercise such a power 1 Cor. 5. 1 2 3 4. And therfore it cannot be expounded of the â—ivill judge not to adde that Erastus who objecteth this saith the Synâ—dre had both civill and spirituall or Ecclâ—siasticall power and therefore he hath no ground to expound the place of the Civill Magistrate 2. Because he was not yet ascended to heaven and had not sent downe the Holy Spirit it is no consequence to say he speaketh nothing of the Christian Church of the Nevv Testament for before his Ascension he appointed the Ministery the Sacraments the power of Censures and the keyes given to the Church of the New Testament Math. 28. 19 20. Joh. 20. v. 2â— 22. Math. 26. 20 21 22 23 c. Now it is as inconvenient that precepts such as Do this in remembrance of me take yee eate yee and he that heareth you heareth me should be given to the christian Church which yet had no being as for Christ to hold forth the power of jurisdiction of a Christian church destitute of all being Yea this recurreth upon Erastus who will have Christ here to hold forth the power of the Christian Magistrate as yet remoter from being all Magistrates being professed Enemies to Iesus Christ whereas there was at this time a seed a bottome of a christian visible Church There being eleven Apostles seventy Disciples and many others who professed faith in Christ already come Yea though there be no formed instituted visible Church of the New Testament yet it became our great Prophet who taught that Gospell yea all that he heard of the Father Ioh. 15. 15. to his Disciples which was to be a rule of the Faith of the Christian visible Church not yet instituted and who erected a Ministery to teach them before his ascension also to furnish that Ministery with the powerof the keyes censures as he expresly doth before his death Mat. 16. 17 18 19. Not to adde what Camero saith that he spake these words when he was now to offer himselfe on the Crosse and Math. 2. 16. He mentioneth the edifying of the Church of the New Testament and the Disciples aske vvho is to be greatest in the Kingdome of God ver 1. Object 7. Let him be unto thee as an Heathen and Publican can not meane as much as Let him bee excommunicated but onely let him plead vvith his obstinate brother vvho contemneth the Christian Magistrate before the heathen Magistrate and in preserving the offendor vvho is novv obstinate let him deale vvith him as with a Heathen and a Publican onely in this matter of pursuit but otherwise the Publican was not excommunicate 1. Because the Publicans place and office was good and lawfull and from God then to repute him as a Publican is not to repute him as a prophane man 2. When Iohn Baptist is demanded by the Publicans what they shall doe he doth not bid them lay downe the office of a Publican but onely not abuse it to rapine and extortion nor is Zacheus compelled by Christ to lay downe his office but onely to make restitution Answ 1. There is no necessity to condemne the office of the Publican or the birth and condition of the Heathen as unlawfull But a Publican went for a prophane man and for a man who is a stranger to the true church of God as Mat. 5. 46. If you love them that love you what reward have you Doe not even the Publicans the same Ergo It is Christs mind to exclude the Publicans from any spirituall or eternall reward promised to these within the visible Church and when Christ was slandered by the Jewes because he went in to be a Guest with a Publican Luke 19. 7. And because hee did eate vvith Publicans Mat. 9. 12 13. Christ taketh it as granted that Publicans were prophane men and sinners But he saith they were sicke sinners and lost that is such as were sensible of their by-past prophanity and desired the Physitian Christ to cure them and Gentiles or Heathen is taken for these who are without the Church and are void of Religion 1 Cor. 5. 1. Such fornication as is not so much as named amongst the Gentiles 1 Pet. 4. 3. Let it suffice you that ye have vvrought the vvill of the Gentiles Eph. 2. 11. Ye vvere in times past Gentiles what is that but Ver. 2. Ye vvalked according to the course of the World according to the Prince of the povver of the aire So a Samaritan is taken for one that hath a Devill yet to be a Samaritan by birth and nation is not unlawfull it is then a distinctive terme spoken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be an Heathen or counted an Heathen and a Publican that is counted a prophane wicked person not a brother not a member of the church Theophylact expoundeth this with us If he heare not the Church let him be an out-cast least he rub any of his vvickednes upon others vvithin the Church And these words Let him be to thee is a word of command as Mat. 5. 37. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let your speech be yea yea Mat. 20. he that vvould be greatest let him be your servant and let him be to thee is not to exclude the Church but it is set downe in a Law-manner in the second person for farre more must the obstinate offender be as an Heathen and a Publican to the Church Ver. 18. Verily I say unto you What yee bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and what yee loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven These words contain a reason why he who contemneth the Church is to be holden as a Heathen and a Publican Why is it such
the Sacraments to a Turk and yet we may Preach the Gospel and make offer of Christ in the word to him 1 Cor. 14. 23. And this Scripture shall also conclude we are not to admit scandalous persons to the Sacraments being both uncapable of them as also because they can but trample on these pearls no lesse then the Turk should do the Argument then is just nothing We exclude many from the Kingdom of Heaven whom we do not excommunicate on earth But he should say we Excommunicate many whom we do not exclude out of Heaven Erastus These two are not one to declare a person hatefull in Heaven to God and to be cast out of the visible Church for if they be both one then one private Pastor may Excommunicate for he may declare from Gods word that an offender is excluded out of Heaven hath not the word of God in the mouth of one as much authority and power as out of the mouth of many the authority of the word dependeth not on a multitude also why should this be as good a consequence God judgeth not this man worthy of the Kingdom of God Ergo he is to be cast out of the visible Church as this God judgeth not this man worthy of life eternall Ergo God will not have him to live in this temporall life Are we ignorant that God esteemeth many not worthy of life eternall to whom he hath given power to cast out devils in his name Matth. 7. Ans All this is but with carnall reason to speak against the wayes of God for 1. Not every denouncing of a sinner unworthy of Heaven is Excommunication So Iudas might have Excommunicated himself and when one Pastor declareth an offender unworthy of Heaven he is not formally excommunicated out of the visible Church he is cast out of the invisible Church But that is not Excommunication except it be done for a publick scandall that offendeth the Church 2. Except it be done by the visible Church 3. According to the rule of Christ Matth. 18. 4. That he may be ashamed and repent and be saved Gods binding of the offender in Heaven is a part of Excommunication but not all nor the very same with Excommunication 2. The Churches casting out for Christs institutions cause is of more Authority then the Conscionall casting out performed by one Pastor and yet the Conscional casting out by one insuo genere is as valid as the other subordinata non pugnant 3. We are not to take our compasse and rule of Gods waies by his outward dispensation but the revealed will of Christ is our Rule God thinketh those who walketh inordinately and causeth divisions not worthie of the Christian society of the Saints and must binde them in heaven to that censure in regard he expresly so commandeth in his Word Rom. 16 17. 18. 2 Thes 3. 14 15. 1 Cor. 5. 11. Yet he thinketh them worthy of Salvation and may give repentance and Iesus Christ to many of these he may deny salvation to the wicked and upon that feed them to the day of slaughter dare flesh and blood quarrell this consequence God hath appointed the wicked for the day of wrath Ergo he giveth them more of this life then heart can wish This consequence dependeth on the meer dispensation of God nor is this our Consequence God judgeth such unworthy of heaven Ergo they must be cast out of the visible Church we never made Excōmunication a necessary consequent of the Lords judging men unworthy of Heaven for then all these that God judgeth unworthy of life eternall should be excommunicated and only these which is false for God may judge some worthy of life eternall in Christ and yet they are to be excommunicated if they refuse to hear the Church as many regenerate may go that sar in scandalous obstinacy and many whom God judges unworthy of life eternall may so belie a Profession as they deserve not to be excommunicated and both these may fall out and do fall out according to the revealed will of Christ Erastus 4. objecteth Excommunication must exclude men from only the externall society of the Church for he only can joyne us to Christ or separate us from internall and spirituall society of Christ who can beget lively faith in us and extinguish lively faith when it is begotten for by faith only we are made living members of Christs body and by only infidelity we leave off to be members of his bodie But no Church no creatures can either beget lively faith in us or extinguish it in us or thus men can neither give to us nor take from us salvation therefore Excommunication should not be defined by cutting men off from salvation Ans This is the only Argument of Erastus that seemeth to bear weight But it is false and groundlesse it supposeth the false principle that Erastus goeth on that Excommunication is a reall separation of a member from Christs Invisible and Mysticall body and that the Excommunicated person who may be an Invisible member of Christ and regenerated may be an Apostate and fall from Christ and leave off to be a member The contrary of which all our Protestant Divines teach against Papists whereas Excommunication is only a Declarative but withall an Authoritative Act or Sentence of the Church and no reall cutting off of a believer from Christ But you will say It presupposeth a cutting off in heaven from Christ and therefore the Excommunicated person is declared to be cut off Let me Answer I conceive Excommunication hath neither Election nor Reprobation Regeneration or non-Regeneration for its object or terminus but only it cutteth a contumacious person off from the Visible Church on earth and from the head Christ in heaven not in regard of his state of Regeneration as if Christ ratifying the Sentence in heaven did cut him off so much as conditionally from being a member of his body No but in regard of the second Acts of the life of God and the sweet efficacy and operation of the spirit by which the Ordinances are lesse lively lesse operative and lesse vigorous the man being as the Learned and Reverend Mr. Cotton saith As a palsie Member in which life remaineth but a little withered and blunted and he in Satans power to ve◠his spirit and therefore I grant all to wit that Excommunication is not a reall separating of a member from Christs body only unbelief doth that but it followeth not Ergo it is a separation only from the externall society of the Church For 1. This externall cutting off is ratified in heaven And 2. Christ hath ratified it by a real internal suspension of the influence of his spirit in heaven But I deny that this universall doth follow from Christs binding in heaven That whomever God judgeth unworthy of heaven all these are to be cast out of the Church he cannot prove this consequence from our grounds Erastus Argueth thus If God dam any as
a sinner in heaven he will have the Elders to cast him out of the Church Visible in earth so they know him to be such yet this is not sure Ans It is most sure so all the Church know him Elders only Iudicially Excommunicate the people also by consent and by Execution of the Sentence and avoiding the offender and if it be Iudicially proved the Church is to Excommunicate But 1. he must not be without the Church 1 Cor. 5. 12. Though the Church know Turks and Pagans and those who live without Christ to be damned in heaven yet they Excommunicate them not for they are without the Church 1 Cor. 5. 12. and yet damned Act. 4. 12. 2. They may know many unregenerated Ioh. 15. 18. Yet they cannot Excommunicate them for non-regeneration or non election to glory which they cannot know judicially except they be externally scandalous Matth. 18. 17. 1 Cor. 5. 1. 2. Erastus By Preaching Drunkards are excluded out of Heaven and God declareth by the Preaching of the word that they are not of the faithfull on earth but you cannot prove these four from Scripture 1. That God hath Commanded to cast them out of the Church whom he hath judged unworthy of life Eternall 2. That they should not be admitted to the Sacrament who have polluted themselves with some sin though they say they repent except it please the Elders 3. That it is Gods will that they â—e debarred from the Sacrament by the voyces of a Court of Elders 4. That God hath Commanded such a Court of Elders under a Christian Magistrate who should have a power of jurisdiction different from the power of the Magistrate Ans 1. Declaring by Preaching that a Drunkard is not of the number of the faithfull in the Visible Church is materially Excommunication This Erastus saith We want only a Court of Elders But how proveth he that one Pastor should cast out of the Church by Preaching all those that God judgeth unworthy of life eternall Erastus saith A Presbytery cannot do this 1. Because the heart is known to God only pag. 83. And doth one single Pastor know the heart and a Senate of Pastors knoweth it not 2. Must Pastors know the heart which God only knoweth 2 Chron. 29 30. Ier. 17. 10. Otherwise they cannot judicially Excommunicate and one Pastor may by way of Preaching Excommunicate and yet he knoweth not the heart 3. For the first of his four we need not prove it we assert it not 4. Though a Turk or an Apostate should say that he repents yet he lyes and Erastus saith l. 3. cap. 3. pag. 207. Hunc ego minime admittendum censeo I think such a one is not to be admitted to the Sacrament 5. What Christ saith Matth. 18. we take to be Gods will 6. If there were no Christian Magistrate belike a Church-Court might excommunicate and shall the Magistrate because Christian spoil the Church of the power she had while she wanted a Magistrate 7. The power of Excommunicating and binding and loosing in earth and heaven must then be principally in the Magistrate And who gave the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to the Magistrate Erastus If Excommunication be a cutting off from Salvation then all who are Excommunicated must perish But many Excommunicated persons are saved many relaxed are Condemned Ans We define not so Excommunication Nor did Beza put mens Salvation in hazard because they are Excommunicated so they repent if their sins be retained in Heaven and they never repent Let Erastus see how they shall be saved 2. Those against whom one Pastor denounceth the just deserved wrath of God are Conscionally cut off from Salvation But many of those are saved Let Erastus Answer this himself Erastus He only can cast out of the Church who seeth the heart But men or the Church seeth not the heart Ergo men can do no more but debar from the Sacraments It is not enough to say that whom they cast out as the Ambassadors of God in the name of Christ declaring those to be bound on earth whom Christ hath bound in heaven are excommunicated for the Argument is not whether Pastors may proâ—ounce on earth that which God hath ratified in Heavâ—n but whether they may so cast out of the Church as they may cut men off from Salvation and whether one Pastor may not do this no lesse then a Presbytery Anâ— So I may Argue a Prophet cannot warn a wicked man that he shall dye eternally because a Prophet in ordinary knoweth not the heart more then a Senate of prophets yet are all prophets to exclude from Salvation wicked and impenitent men but conditionally so they repent not in which God goeth before them Ezech. 3. 18 19 20. Cap. 33. 6 7. Act. 20. 20. Nor are we to doubt but all Prophets to the end of the world must do the same 2. If men debar from the Sacraments as having warrant from Christ they do also exclude men from Christ and Salvation offered in the Word and is there not need that Pastors see the heart if they exclude men from Christ and Salvation in the Word and Seals as from Salvation simply And how can men know binding in Heaven more then the hearts of men on earth The one is as far from our intuitive knowledge as the other except that we know both by fruits and effects otherwise this is but a Popish Argument if the Church do binde on earth as God bindeth in Heaven say Stapleton Becanus Suarez and other Papists then must the Church be infallible in judgement But we deny the Consequence in the one as in the other 2. It is that which offendeth Erastus 1. That a Senate not one man doth this 2. That the Christian Magistrate doth it not But I pray you doth one Pastor or the Christian Magistrate know the heart but a Presbytery cannot do it because a Presbytery knoweth not the heart Is not this too partiall Logick Erastus Many Excommunicated persons have repented in the end of their life and dyed devoutly then he who is cast out of the Visible Society of the Church is not cast out of the internall and spirituall Society of Christ Ans This is as much against Christs words as against us may not many whose sins are bound in heaven and against whom the Pastors denounce exclusion out of heaven repent in the end of their life and die devoutly Ergo The very threatnings of the Gospel must be wind and by these none are excluded from Heaven 2. Excommunication is but a conditionall excluding out of Heaven if men repent the condition not being placed Nihil ponitur in esse they are saved though it may fall out that they want the externall relaxation of the Church not through their own fault but by some externall providence insuperable to them But it is to beg the Question to say Those that are justly Excommuniated and seek not to be reconciled to the Church do
as Christ did forgive as man those that Crucified him though they did not repent 1 Pet. 2. 21 22 23. Luk. 24. 35 36 5. Erastus cannot deny but great injuries should be brought before the Magistrate and a little injury when an offender refuseth to obey the Christian Magistrate must be a great injury which maketh the man as a heathen and a publican What is before answered I shall not need to trouble the Reader withall to repeat Erastus The reason vvhy Christ speaketh here of the transaction of private iniuries is because he speaketh alvvaies in the singular numher if thy brother offend thee rebuke him betvveen him and thee alone take tvvo other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tell thou the Church Let him be to thee as a Publican he that is Excommunicated is not Excommunicated to one only but to all the Church Ans This shall make the whole ten Commandments Exod. 20 and the whole Gospel and the profession of it Rom. 10. 9. which are all spoken to one in the singular number often in the second person to command private vertues and forbid private sins only and not to be Laws obliging the Church in publick duties and to eschew publick sins Erastus Answereth Let him be to thee vvho art injured and to all that are injured as a Publican not to the vvhole Church for there be some lawes that agree privatly to the Magistrate and to none other some to Parents not to children to Masters not servants so neither is this precept to all Christians as the Decalogue is and such like but only to those that are privately hurt he saith not rebuke every brother thou meetest with but the brother that sins against thee Christ speaketh not in the third person nor to the Church for the Disciples were not the Synedrie or that Church Ans 1. It s most false that all the precepts of the Decalogue are all of them spoken to all and every man Honour thy Father and mother that begat thee is one of the Commandments and it is not spoken to those that are onely Parents themselves and have their naturall parents dead but doth it follow that that Command doth injoyne private obedience and forbid onely private not publick disobedience to naturall Parents So the sixth Command saith If thy brother fall in a Lyons den to the hazard of his life pull him out if thou cannot rescue him thy self alone take three with thee and assay it if thou cannot so rescue him tell it to twenty The man is not to rescue every brother here but onely the brother that is in danger to be devoured with the Lyon will any say the Law of the sixth Commandment is given here to one private man to help another in a private danger This rebuke thy brother is the Law of nature and it is under this Levit. 19. 17. Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart And if I rebuke him not for sinne any sinne and the most publick and so most offensive and scandalous to many I hate him nay I am not so much to rebuke him and gain his soul because the sin is an injury done to me as because it is done against the Majesty of God and destructive to the offenders soule and I must labour to gaine his soule 2. Erastus dreames that that is a private sin which is done to one man or one ranke of men to a Magistrate not a subject he is beguiled an offence and publick stumbling-block may be laid before one man and it is often a publick sin 3. The speaking of it in the second person is nothing for If thou beleeve thou art saved Rom. 10. 9. is as publike and universall as Iohn 3. 16. Whosoever beleeveth he is saved The second person in all precepts of Law and Gospel and this rebuke an offending brother is both is as broad as the third person and as large in extent except you say the verse Iohn 3. 16. comprehendeth some more beleevers that are saved then Rom. 10. 9. which is against sense 4. Christ ought not to have spoken to his Disciples as a Church because he is directing them as members and parts of a Church how to deale with an offender but if he heare not the Church that is the Christian Magistrate he should die saith Beza Erastus answereth But the Church or Iewish Synedrie had not power of life and death now they were under the Roman Empire Ans Christ here then sheweth not a way to remove Scandals because the Roman Emperors sword is not Christs Spirituall way 2 Cor. 10. The weapons of our warfare are not carnall but mighty through God Erastus By this same place I cannot prove there is such a thing as Excommunication what is said to one is said to the whole Church but it is said to one that he should forgive an offending brother seventy seven times in one day if he acknowledge his fault Ergo there can be no just cause vvhy the vvhole Church should not doe that vvhich every member is obliged to doe but your Presbyters vvill punish though any one should confesse his fault Ans There is a twofold forgiving one private in passing the private revenge of the fault and grudge against the person of the offender thus the whole argument is granted for Members and Church both are to pray Forgive us our sinnes as vve forgive them that sin against us I hope the Synedrie the Roman President the Magistrate thus are obliged to forgive those whose heads they justly take from them so Luke 17. We are to forgive our brother seventy seven times a day though he neither repent nor crave pardon but far more if he crave pardon But by this Argument the Christian Magistrate should use the sword against no bloody Parracide for he is thus to forgive him and much more if he say he repenteth 2. To forgive is to remit all punishment and so what is said to one Member of the Church is not said to the whole Church Private men have not power of Church-punishment to forgive it The Church hath a power limited by Christ that is to forgive and open heaven in so farre as they see Christ goe before and see the man penitent and therefore Erastus his consequence is short it followes not that the Church should no more excommunicate then one Member Erastus looks farre beside the booke in that he thinkes it is all one to forgive an injury and to remove a scandall in the way of Christ in labouring to gaine a brother I may forgive one that offendeth me and not labour at all to gaine his soul Erastus We cannot expound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against thee against the Church because he saith after tell the Church then the sense should be O Church tell the Church Ans It is not denyed by us but that the Scandall in the rise may be private but Erastus will have our Saviour to speake onely of private Scandals 2.
most at this time Ergo If the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inferre that a disobedient brother is most like these Heathen they must be greatest enemies to the Iewes and so remotest from Circumcision and all right to the holy things of God being the worst of the Heathen and so Erastus hath gained nothing but lost much by his poore Grammattication Yea if the offended brother should repute the offender as the worst of the Heathen he is to esteeme him who was once a Member of the Church in that he was obliged to heare the Church now as a Heathen and so no brother no Member of the Church and here Erastus must grant that one brother may un-church and Excommunicate any other for disobedience to the Church but the Church may not Erastus They are as absurd who say by Publicans here are understood wicked men for then by Heathen must be understood also the wickedest of the Heathen and not all the Heathen dwelling in Judea Ans I deny the consequence for by Publicans are meant men wicked and unpure by conversation and by Heathen men unclean by condition because without the Church and strangers to the Israel of God and without Christ and God in the world 2. We have proved what is meant by a Publican by evident Scriptures but that by a Publican is understood one who acknowledged no Magistrate but a Roman no Scripture no Greeke Author warranteth us to thinke it never man dreamed it but Erastus Erastus The Pharises hindred not Christ and his Apostles to come to the Temple Ans Christ was a born Jew and circumcised yea and what can the Practise of the Murtherers of Christ prove It is no Law But the Romans never sacrificed in the Temple but gave Liberty to the Iews to serve God according to his word and to hear Christ preach and that Christ kept the Ceremoniall Law and taught others even the cleansed Leapers so to do Matth. 8. is clear Erastus Private men do forgive sins Matth. 18. Luk. 17. Ergo to binde and loose is not a proper judiciall act of a Court Matth. 16. Christ speaketh not to Peter only but to all the faithfull who by teaching one another may bring one another to acknowledge their sin and if they do it they are pardoned if not their sins are bound in Heaven Ans To these the keys are given who retain and remit sins as Erastus saith But these be such as are sent of Christ as the Father sent his son Ioh. 20. 2. Either in this place there is given power to binde and loose by publick preaching the word or by some other place but this power to binde and loose by publick preaching is only given to Pastors and Teachers 1 Cor. 12. 29. Eph. 4. 11. 12. And Erastus granteth elsewhere that every private man by his office cannot preach nor administer the Sacraments and by no other place is this given to Pastors for I could elude all places with the like answer and say there is a publick Baptizing and Administration of the Supper by Ministers and sent Pastors only and a private also performed by private Christians yea by a woman and both are valid in Heaven and the binding and loosing of both ratified in Heaven 3. Christ spake this to the Disciples who before were sent to Preach and cast out Devils Matth. 10. and saith not Whom thou bindes on earth but in the plurall number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What things you binde on earth shall be bound in Heaven Erastus saith all this upon the fancy that binding and loosing of the Church and Peters private forgiving of his brother seven times a day must be all one which I do prove in another place to be different and amongst other reasons this is one because the Church pardoning hath a threefold order 1. between brother and brother 2. before two or three 3. Before the Church and the end of all is the gaining of the offending brother Matth. 18 15 16 17 18 19 20. But the private forgiving of a brother of which Peter speaketh Mat. 18. 21 22 23. and Luke 17 4 5. is of an inferiour nature for I know not if you can gain a brothers soule seven times a day if he but say It repenteth me Luke 17. 4. or seventy seven times Mat. 18. 22. These words It repenteth me said seventy times a day to the Church cannot satisfie to the gaining of a soule whereas to the private remitting of revenge it were enough We have the Text to warrant us that Christ spaâ—e to Stewards to whom the keyes are committed Erastus doth but wickedly assert he spoke to those who were as Christians in that act but the Text is cleare he speaketh of binding and loosing spiriâ—ually which is nothing to the holding off of a civill injurie which Erastus saith is the scope of our Saviour here and how hungry must that sense be That you deal with him as with an Heathen who acknowledgeth no Iudge but a Roman judge is a matter ratified in heaven 4. A private man is to forgive an injury even though the offender repent not Mat. 14. 15. Rom. 12. 19 20. Col. 3. 13. but that pardon cannot be ratified in heaven 5. See what we have said of binding and loosing before Erastus Though Christ should speake this onely to Ministers yet it followeth not that he speaketh this to other Presbyters Ans That dependeth on the proving that there be ruling Elders in the Church which I conceived have proved else where from Rom. 12. 8. 1 Cor. 12. 28. 1 Tim. 5. 17. I conceive when Christ spake this there was neither a formed Presbytery nor a formed Church Erastus Christ saith not if two or three Presbyters or two or three Ministers agree in one I will heare them but where two or three Christians agree Ans Nor doe we say that two or three can make an Excommunicating Church but Christ argueth a minore if the Lord heare two or three on earth farre more will he heare a Church and ratifie in heaven what they doe in binding and loosing offenders in Earth But how shall these words agree to the interpretation of Erastus for he expoundeth two or three and the whole Church to be but one Christian Magistrate can he be said to agree to himselfe Or can one or two or three meet together in Christs Name And what coherence is here Two or three conveeneth to pray that he that will not hear the Christian Magistrate may be dealt with as a Heathen man before the Roman judge how violent and farre off is this glosse and how unsuitable to the Text Erastus What other thing is it to a private brother to gain another to himselfe and to God then binding and loosing in Heaven Ans To bring him before the civill Magistrate either Christian or Heathen whose intrinsecall end by vertue of their office is not to gaine soules but to draw the blood of ill doers is farre
retorted 2. They were not to bee sorry at the mans repentance but to rejoyce yet were they to be sorry at the violent mean of cutting him off from Christs body as a father may be glad at the life and health of his childe and and yet be sorry that by no other mean his health can be procured but by cutting off a finger or a hand of his childe 3. They knew that miraculous killing as Erastus dreameth was also a saving ordinance the remaining in the Church or not remaining is all one because Paul chideth them as he dreameth that the man might be miraculously killed Erastus What need was there that the Corinthians with such diligence should intercede for the man if they knew when he repented he was to be received againe into the Church Now that they interceded for him is clear for Paul saith 2 Cor. 2. 10. To whom yee forgive any thing I forgive also Ans Because there is a great hazard in Excommunication of an higher degree of obduration and condemnation if the party be not gained 2. I see no ground for this conjecture that the Corinthians interceded for him at Pauls hand for if he ought to have been miraculously killed then whether he repented or repented not both Paul and the interceders sinned Paul in being broken they in requesting for a dispensation of a Law in which God would not dispense as he that would request to spare the life of a repenting Murtherer against Gods expresse Law should sinne and Paul should sinne in pardoning upon request where God would not pardon Erastus How excuseth Paul himselfe that he would try their obedience that c. 7. he would have their care for him made manifest if he had not commanded a greater thing then to debarre a wicked man from the Sacraments Ans This is but a shadow of a reason against the Word of God for to be cast out of Christs body and not acknowledged for an Israelite of God and that in heaven and earth and so to be debarred from the Seals is a higher thing then bodily killing as to be received as a Member againe and to be written amongst the living in Ierusalem is like the rising from the dead as may be gathered from Rom. 11. 15. and is farre more then deliverance from miraculous killing Erastus These words ye was made sorry according to God that ye might receive dammage of us in nothing cannot agree with the purpose they should have suffered no losse by obtaining pardon to a miserable man excluded from the Sacraments while he should repent but if he was to be killed they should have lost a brother and so suffered dammage Ans The hazard of losing his soule repentance not being so easie as Erastus imagineth had been a greater losse then the losse of a temporall life the soule being to be saved in the day of the Lord. Erastus Paul requireth his Spirit and the power of the Lord Iesus to this worke Ergo It was more then to debarre from the Sacraments Ans Erastus should prove Ergo It was more then to Excommunicate 2. Ergo It was rather more then bodily death His seventh reason I hope after to examine Erastus Paul saith he decreed to doe this and does not command the Church to doe it or that the Church alone should doe it We never read that Paul whether alive or dead did write to one or many to deliver any to Satan for the destruction of the flesh that was proper to the Apostles onely as the gift of healing was Act. 5. and c. 13. and he writeth he will come himselfe with the rod and he himself 1 Tim. 1. delivered Hymeneus and Alexander to Satan Ans This is much for us you never read that Paul did write to one or many and did chide them because they prayed not that he might worke this and this particular miracle or that without error he might write this or that Canonick Scripture and therefore because this delivering to Satan was commanded to the conveened together Church with his Apostolique spirit and warrant to deliver such a one to Satan and to judge him v. 12. And to purge him out and cast him out therefore am I perswaded it was no miracle proper to Paul onely 2. How prove you that Paul his alone without the Church Excommunicated Hymeneus Paul saith that Timothy received the gift of God by his laying on him hands 2 Tim. 1. 6. Ergo By the laying on of his hands onely and not of the whole Presbytery It followeth not the contrary is 1 Tim. 4. 14. 3. Delivering to Satan v. 5. is all one with purging out v. 7. as is cleare by the Illation I have decreed though absent to deliver such a one to Satan Hence his consequence v. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Purge out therefore 2. To deliver to Satan is either all one with judgeing those that are within v. 12. And so with judging this man and with putting of him out v. 13. or it is not all one if these be all one then hath the Church a hand in this delivering to Satan and so it is not a miraculous killing Erastus granteth the consequence if these be not all one this is two judgings of the man one of Pauls v. 5. by miraculous killing and another of Pauls and the Church v. 12. This latter must be some Church judgeing of those that are within the Church common to Paul and the Corinthians as the words cleare and which is opposed to Gods judging of those that are without and this is so like Excommunication that Erastus must make some other thing of it Now we cannot say that there was any miraculous judging of this man common to Paul as an Apostle and to the Corinthians the ordinary beleevers and Saints as Erastus yeeldeth 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to put away the man which is expresly commanded to the Church of Corinth v. 13. must be the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and putting away 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is v. 2. But that taking out of the midst of them is a miraculous killing of the man as Erastus saith now this cannot be for then the people must be joyned in the same work of miraculous killing with the Apostle Paul now both we and Erastus must disclaim this Ergo there must be some common Church casting out common to both Erastus To put away out of the midst of them is not to debar from the Sacraments but to kill if it were but to extrude the man out of the society of the faithfull what need was there of publick mourning and if he had been to be cast out amongst the heathen how could the spirit be saved as is said for without the Church there is no salvation Ans To put away out of the midst of them is to put the man out of the Congregation as the word Careh is expounded before and
the sinnes of wicked Magistrates in heaven is this good Thoma no Ecclesiasticall coaction no jurisdiction and this is to receive the distinction whether you will or not 2. The rejecting of this distinction is a tenet of Royalists for certainly we use no defensive armes against the King as King but as he is a misled man and I think the King will say he useth not offensive armes against the Parliament as the Parliament but under another very undeserved notion as Rebels 3. It is lesse that we may not rail on rulers which is a sinne for to rail upon any cursing-wise is unlawfull then that we cannot punish the ruler which is more To punish the ruler as a sinfull and wicked man is a work of justice and so lesse unlawfull then sin Erastus taketh for confessed as his custome is that which we deny that to punish rulers with an Ecclesiastick censure is a sin as to rail on them and curse them is a greater sin But to binde the rulers sinnes in heaven is a punishment and this the Elders may lawfully do and to eschew the company of a ruler if he be a fornicator an extortioner and idolater is either to punish him or put shame upon him 2 Thes 3. 14. But one private Christian farre more a Church may do that Rom. 16. 17. 1 Cor. 5. 9 10. 2 Thes 3. 14. except Erastus except the Magistrate from being under a Divine and Apostolick command this he must say and so we have the Apostles meaning withdraw from those that cause divisions and walk unordinately and are fornicators coveteous extortioners least they infect you and that they may be ashamed and repent except they be Magistrates though in the lowest rank if they be Magistrates they are gods and you their subjects and you may in no sort shame them I should think God both accepted persons and would not have us to indeavour the repentance and gaining of the souls of Magistrates because they are above Gospel-rules by this way of Erastus and because the Presbytery may not rail on Magistrates for that is sinne it followeth not the Presbytery may inflict no Ecclesiasticall censure on them Yea let me retort this The Magistrate may not rail on or curse and revile the Priests So Paul expoundeth it Act. 23. 5. against reviling of Priests nor may the Magistrate revile or curse any subject for I conceive reviling to be sinne Mat. 5. 11. and 27. 39. Joh. 9. 28. 1 Cor. 4. 12. 1 Pet. 2. 23. 1 Cor. 6. 10. Isai 51. 7. Zepha 2. 8. 1 Pet. 3. 9. Jude 9. and the Magistrate is under the Moral Law Hence I inferre by Erastus his reasoning that the Magistrate may not punish Priests Prophets Pastors or any subject though they most hainously trespasse against all Lawes which is absurd 3. That the Magistrate is made a servant not a Magistrate if the Elders may use the rod of Christ against him is a vaine consequence Paul preached himself a servant in a spirituall Ministery to all the Christians in Corinth 2 Cor. 4. 5. and all Elders are thus servants to Magistrates and flock Yet Erastus knoweth that Paul had a rod of miraculous killing the disobedient as Erastus expoundeth 1 Cor. 5. 1 Cor. 4. 21. What will ye shall I come unto you with a rod or in love Suppose there had been a Christian Magistrate at Corinth that should fall in incest as one did 1 Cor. 5. 1. Paul could not come to him with the rod or suppose the Roman Emperour had been a Christian and within the Church and should have his Fathers wife Paul could use no rod against him and should he not have in readinesse revenge against all disobedience 2 Cor. 10 6. and authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 given him by the Lord for edification v. 8. against all offenders within the Christian Church in regard that Christ is head and King of the Church but he should have neither rod nor revenge in readinesse against the disobedience of the Emperour why is not the rod of Paul the rod of Christ 2 Cor. 10. 8. yea certainly is not then the Christian Emperour the subject of Christs Kingdome and subject to the King Christ and his rod No but saith Erastus Paul Is the Emperour subject to thee and if Paul should have a rod to punish the Emperour then the Apostle could not be the Emperours subject nor obey him as a God on earth for saith Erastus no subject may punish the Magistrate This is downe right to make God an accepter of persons nor can Erastus deny but sharp rebuking was a punishment Tit. 1. Rebuke them sharply that they may be sound in the â—aith And this the Apostle urgeth all Ministers and watchmen to do not being afraid of the faces of Kings Iere. 1. 17 18. Joh. 2. 1 2 3 4. 2 Tim. 4. 1 2 3. Erastus teacheth Magistrates to break Christs bounds and to say we will not have this man to reigne over us he needed not employ a wicked pen for this they need no teacher vitia discuntur sine Magistro Erastus Some of yours say there is need of the Magistrates consent to Excommunication but certainly he will never consent to be Excommunicated himself Theodosius was not willing nor will good Magistrates consent when they see the danger on themselves you would not bring in again the Church-penances of the ancients Ans 1. We all think the Cumulative consent of the godly Magistrate is necessary to Excommunication Because he is obliged to joyne his sanction and authority to all Christs Ordinances but we think not the privative or negative consent is required so as no mans sinnes should be bound in heaven except the Magistrate say Amen 2. Put Erastus his Arguments in forme and you shall see their weaknesse as thus He whose consent is required to Excommunication cannot be punished with Excommunication himselfe because no man will consent not Theodosius nor the godliest man that he be punished himselfe But the Magistrates consent say the Presbyterians is to be had to Excommunication Ergo the Magistrate cannot be punished with Excommunication himselfe Ans I retort it he whose consent is required for threatning wrath â—o and rebuking of offenders and scandalous men he is not to be threatned with wrath and rebuked for his own offences and scandals because no man no Theodosius no godly Magistrate when he seeth the present danger will consent that he be threatned with the wrath of God and rebuked himselfe We know Nathan was afraid to rebuke a Magistrate according to Gods heart but in the third Person But Erastians teach that the Magistrate when he scandalously offends should be threatned and rebuked Ergo the Magistrates consent is not requisite to threatnings and rebukings of Pastors But the conclusion is against Erastus for the Pastors preach and rebuke and threaten as the deputies and servants of the Magistrate and as sent by him and the Magistrate preacheth rebuketh threatneth all offenders and
civill use in our ordinarie dwelling to wit to fence our bodies in religious in naturall in civill actions from injuries of heaven clouds and sin The adjuncts of the Church as Crucifixes Images Altars Ravels Masse-clothes and the like are properly Monuments and instruments of Idolatrie because these are not necessary as is the materiall house nor have they any common and physicall influence in the worship as the Temple hath yea all the necessitie or influence that they have in the worship is only religious and humane flowing from the will of men without either necessitie from our naturall Constitution of body or any word of Scripture and therefore they are to be removed upon this ground because they are unnecessarie snares to Idolatrie Object This particular Temple or house builded for Saint Peter S. Paul S. Cutbert is not necessarie for the worship of God because other houses of as convenient use and necessitie may be had for the worship of God and this particular house ought to be demolished as Jehu 2 King 10. 27. destroyed the house of Baal and made it a draught-house as the law saith expresly Deut. 7. 25. The graven Images of their Gods shall yee burne with fire thou shalt not desire the silver or gold that is on them nor take it unto thee lest thou be snared therein for it is an abomination unto the Lord thy God v. 26. Neither shalt thou bring an abomination unto thy house lest thou be a cursed thing like it but thou shalt utterly detest it and thou shalt utterly abhorre it for it is a cursed thing Or at least these Churches may be imployed for some other use then for the worship of God where they may bee snares Ans 1. We are carefully to distinguish betweene a law of Nature or a perpetuall binding Morall law which standeth for an eternall rule to us except the Law-giver himselfe by a supervenâ—ent positive law which serveth but for a time doe loose us from an obligation thereunto and a positive temporarie law God saith in an exoresse law of nature that obligeth us perpetually The sunne shall not be put to death for the sins of the father no Magistrate on earth can lawfully take away the life of the son for the sin of the father for this eternally obligeth Yet Saul was to destroy the sucking children of the Amalekites for the sinnes of their fathers but he had a positive temporarie command of God to warrant his fact 1 Sam. 15. 2. 3. none can inferre that we are from this law which was a particular exception from a Catholick perpetually obliging morall law that Magistrates are now to take away the lives of the sucking infants of Papists So this is perpetuall and morall and warranteth us for ever to use all the creatures of God for our use 1. Tim. 4. 4. Gen. 1. 27. 28. then we may lawfully use Gold Silver Houses all creatures for meats except some particular positive law or some providentiall emergent necessitie forbid us as the Ceremoniall lawes of the Jewes forbidding the eating of swines flesh and some other meats were no other thing but Divine positive exceptions from the law of nature and creation in the which God had created swines flesh and all these other forbidden meats for the use of Man and so by the same reason God hath ordained Church and houses to fence off us the injuries of Sunne and Aire in all our actions civill and religious except that by a peculiar Precept he forbid the use of the house of Baal to the Jewes to be a typicall teaching to us of Gods hating of Idols and Idolatrie but not of our demolishing and making uselesse all houses builded to the honour of Idols and Saints under the New Testament except wee had the like Commandement that the Jewes had These who oppose us in this can no more inhibite us by any law of God of the â—se of a creature granted to us by the law of the creation then they can interdyte us of the use of another creature nor are we more warranted to demolish Temples and materiall houses which have only a physicall and common use alike in all our actions Naturall civill and Ecclesiasticall or Religious then of eating swines flesh or of other meats forbidden in the Ceremâ—nial Law and to answer to the Argument this or that materiall house builded to the honour of Paul and Peter is every way as necessarie in the worship of God as a Temple builded of purpose for the worship of God though another house may conduce as much for the worshipping of God as this yea it hath the same very necessarie Use and Physicall conveniencie for the serving of God that any other house hath which was never builded for the honour of a Saint which I prove 1. because no creature of God that is usefull to us by the law of creation is capable of any morall contagion to makeâ— it unlawfull to us but from the meeâ— will of God as the Gold and Silver and Idol houses of the false Gods and Images of Canaan are inâ—â—â—secally and by the Law of creation as pure and morally clean as the Gold and Silver and Synagogues of the Jewes and had their Physicall and civill necessitie the one as the other had But from whence was it that the Jewes might make use of their owne Silver and Gold and houses and not of the houses or silver and gold of the heathen Gods and Idols Certainly this was from Gods meer positive will and command fobidding the Gold and houses of the Idols of Cannan and not forbidding the other the Adversaries can give no other reason therefore they must give us the same positive Commandement for not making use of the Gold and Silver and Temples of the Popish Idols and Saints under the New Testament that the Iewes had for refusing the Gold and Silver and demolishing the Temples of the heathenish Idols of Canaan And if they say Thâ—â— the very command that warranted the Iewes to abstaine from the use of the heatheâ—s Gold and Idol-temples doth warrant us to abstainâ— from the use of the Gold and Idol-temples of Papists It is answered we have no warrant from the Word but it shall warrant us as well to abstaine from swines flesh if it be replyed every creature of God eatable iâ— Good and may be received lawfully 1 Tim 4 6 Rom 14 14 I answer so all gold all silver all houses serving to â—â—ncâ— off the injuries of heaven and aire are good and fit for Mans use and now blessed in Christ under the New Testament except you say that it is not lawfull to make use of the Gold and Silver of a Papisâ—â— Image noâ— of crees of the Papists fields that bâ—aretâ—â—â— fruit for these also were discharged to the Iewes Deut 20. v. 19 20 and the reason why they â—ight not cut downe the tâ—â—â—â— thâ—â— beâ—â—â—â— fruit because these trees were mans life Deuter. 20 19 whereas tâ—â—â—â—
that beare no fruit were to be cut down as not so necessarie for mans life Now this reason is morall and perpetuall and so are houses to sence off the injuries of the clouds a Manslife except they bee forbidden by a positive law of God and so necessarie as without the â—se of houses no worshipping of God can be ordinarily And therefore in the second place as we use Gold Silver Tamples and materiall houses though abused to Idolatrie because the Lord hath created them for our use his law of Creation warranting us to use them so can we not refraine from the use of them though abused by Papists except wee have a speciall positive law to warrant us to refraine from the use of these necessarie creatures of God so usefull for the life of man For according to the grounds of these against whom we now dispute the Garments of silke or cloth of Gold that hath covered Popish Images the Gold and Silver of the Popish Images though melted and dissolved into innocent mettall the Materiall Temples builded to the honour of Saints are to be cast away and utterly abolished as unlawfull to be used in any sort for the Jewes according to the Law Deut. 7. 19. 20. might make no use of the gold or silver of the Heathen-Image and Achan brought a curse on himselfe for the simple taking for his use the wedge of Gold and the Babilonâ—sh Garment Now we have no law in the New Testament to abandon the use of the creatures for as Cornelius was not to count that meat uncleane which God â—ad clâ—nsed Act. 10. 15. So neither are we to count Silver and Gold and houses uselesse which God in the Creation made Good and usefull for our life and therefore no morall contagion can adhere so to these creatures as we are utterly to disuse them as creatures cursed because they were abused except it can be proved that the abuse of them hath deprived us of the necessarie use that they have by the law of Creation for certaine it is as the killing of the sucking infants of the Amalakites was typicall and tyeth not us to kill the young children of Papists so was the disusing or not using of Gold Silver and Houses abused to Idolatrie typicall And before I come to the second Conclusion An house for the worship of God is amongst the things that are necessarie by way of dis-junction in speciè not in individuo that is a house is necessarie in its Physicall use to fence off our bodies the injuries of Sunne Aire and heaven but not this house for another house may serve the turne as conveniently But some object Then this or this house Dedicated superstitiously to the religious honour of a Saint ought to be removed out of the worship of God 1 because by your owne confession Thâ—â— individual house so abused is not necessarie God may will be worshipped without this house though it never had been in rerum naturâ 2. From the worshipping of God in so Superstitious a place many truly godly are so scandalized that for worshipping God in such Superstitious and Idolatrous places they have Separated from your Church conceiving that in so doing you heale the wounds of the Beast It is true it may be their weaknesse yea but be it so that it were their wickedness that they are scandalized yet by your doctrine in things not necessarie you are not to doe any thing by which either the weake or the wicked may be scandalized as is cleare in the eating of meats Rom. 14. Ans This argument may 1. be retorted against these who hold with us the same doctrine of Scandal for without eating of Swines flesh my life may be preserved and a malitious Iew may be and necessarily is highly scandalized that I who possibly am a Iew converted to the Christian faith doe eat Swines flesh before him for he conceiveth me to be an Apostate from Moses his law therefore I should abstaine from eating Swines flesh before a Iew who out of Malice is scandalized by my doing a thing not necessarie hic nunc But the conclusion is absurd nor doe I think that many truly godly of the Strictest Separation doe stumble at our Churches out of wickednesse Many truly Godly and Sincere refuse to come to our Churches whereas many scandalous well lustered hypocrites who knoweth nothing of the power of godlinesse but are sitten downe in the Scorners Chaire are admitted to the Lords Supper and as the former cannot be excused so I pray God that the latter draw not downe the wrath of God upon both Kingdomes 2. Things not necessarie which actively produce scandall must not be only indifferent Physically in their naturall use as This or this house but they must be indifferent both Physically and Morally for the Meats spoken of Rom. 14. at that time were both wayes indifferent 1. They were not necessary but indifferent Physically in an ordinarie providence both then and now for ordinarily my life may be preserved and suffer little losse by not eating Swines flesh or such meats in case of extreame necessitie of sterving if any could have no other meat they might eat then as the case was Rom. 14. because Mercie is better then Sacriâ—â—â— at alltimes 2. These things Rom. 14. were indifferent Theologically or Morally in their owne nature 1. v. 3. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth for God hath received him 2. Because v. 17. The kingdome of God is not meat and drink Sure in Moses his time to abstaine from such meats and eat such as the Lambe of the Passeover the Manna to drinke of the water of the Rock was worship and so some part of the kingdome of heaven but it is not so now saith Paul 3 Paul clearly maketh them Morally indifferent 1 Cor. 8. 8 But meat commendeth us not to God for neither if we eat are wee better morally and before God neither if we eat not a e we Morally theworse Now this Temple or House Physically is indifferent and not necessarie for the worship of God for men may be defended from the injuries of Sunne and aire Though this house had never been in rerum naturâ But this Temple or house though dedicated to a Saint is not Morally indifferent but Morally necessarie so as if you remove it from the worship because abused to Idolatrie and give it in no use in the defending of our bodies from the injuries of the Wind Raine and Sunne you Iudaize and doe actively scandalize the Iewes and harden them in their Apostasie and so this house though abused to Idolatrie is not indifferent Morally as the meats Rom. 14. But the using of it is necessarie and an asserting of our Christian libertie as to eat blood and things strangled and Swines flesh even before a Iew so to use all houses for a physicall end to defend our bodies from heat