gather the Ordinances of God together distinctly and orderly to set them down according to their kindes for each Publique duty and Law But the Laws of Christ we rather finde mentioned by occasion in the writings of the Apostles then any solemn thing directly written to comprehend them in a Legall sort 1. The Law Moral and Ceremonial were not delivered one the same way the former was uttered by the Voice of God in the hearing of six hundred thousand 2. Written with Gods finger 3. Termedâ—a Covenant 4. Given to be kept without time how long or place where The latter not so and restricted to the Land of Jury Deut. 4. 5. 12. Deut. 5. 22. And if God had respect in Positive Laws to time and place and the Manners of that Nation seeing Nations are not all alike then the giving of one kinde of Positive Laws unto one only people without any Liberty to alter them is but a slender proof that therefore one kinde should be given to serve everlastingly for all Ans This Argument reduced to form shall want both matter and form and reason If the Laws of Moses be distinctly and orderly set down and gathered together according to their severall kindes for each Duty and the Laws of Christ be occasionally only written then Christ did not mean to set down particular Positive Laws for all things in such sort as Moses did But this difference is true Ergo c. Both the Major Proposition and the Assumption are false and neither of them can be proved For the occasionall writing of some Articles of Faith and of Dogmaticall points should then prove that Christ meant not to set down all Articles of Faith particularly for Christ Matth. 22. upon occasion of the Saduces tempting Paul upon occasion of some at Corinth who denied the Resurrection 1 Cor. 15. And of some that mourned for the dead 1 Thess 4. Set down and proved an Article of Faith to wit the Resurrection of the dead By this Argument the Scripture is not full and perfect in Fundamentals as Moses is in Ceremonials but hath left such and such Fundamentals to be altered added or omitted by the Church in that way that Surplice Crosse and Altars are alterable things Most of Dogmatick points concerning Christs sufferings are occasionall as his taking his betraying by Judas who knew the place he was in the valuing of him at Thirty pieces the giving him Gall and Vinegar a punishment not intended by the Iudge but occasionall in that Christ said he thirsted Yea the Crucifying of him rather then Barrabas upon occasion of the malice of the people when Pilate had scourged him upon a Policie to see if the people would demand he might be released the casting Lots for his garment the Crucifying of him between two Theeves the not breaking of his bones upon occasion he was dead the piercing of his side all which in regard of second causes were occasionall and so though Dogmaticall and Doctrinall these must be all such alterable and Ambulatory points of Doctrine as the Church and Prelats may change at their godly discretion and Christ meant not in these to set down particular Positive Laws in such sort as Moses did Yea the Evangel according to Luke is set forth occasionally because many have taken in hand to set forth in order a Declaration of these things which are most firmly believed therefore is seemed good to Luke also to write Luk. 1. 1 2 3 4. Upon occasion of Onesimus his fleeing from his master The Epistle to Philemon was written upon occasion of the unconstancy of the Galathians whose faith was perverted by false teachers that of Iustification by Faith without the works of the Law And the Epistle to the Galathians was written most if not all the Canonicâ— Epistles were written either upon occasion of false Teachers or for fear they should be scandalized at Pauls bonds By this vain Argument the most part of Canonick Scripture should be alterable imperfect not particular in most Doctrinals no lesse then in Ceremonials And so the Major Proposition is most false for its a vain thing to Collect Christs meaning to set down particulars of either Doctrine or Ceremonies from occasions of Providence for most of the Scripture is penned upon occasions from men and from second causes shall these things leave off to be of Divine Institution that hath their rise from occasions even sinfull occasions Yea the death of Christ is occasioned from mans fall in sin What then Is it an alterable Doctrine left to the determination of the Church that Christ died But this is no other then the shift of Papists for their unwritten Tradition Sanderus de Visib Monarch Lib. 1. c. 5. pag. 13. Si ergo per solas conscriptas leges dei civitas gubernaretur in valdè magnâ parte corum que passim contingunt quid faceret nesciret quia legem de his loquentâ—m non haberet Imo si tantum una Lex toti reipub necessaria esse posset eaque ipsa scriberetur a prudentissimis viris ac singulis annis ab orbe condito novae interpretationes eidem adderentur tamen nunquam eveniret ut ea lex tam plenè interpretata foret quin causae novae possent intervenire ob quas lex et legis interpretatio novam iterim postularet interpretationem adeo et foecunda est natura in suis eventis et Angustum ingenium humanum et varia surisperitorum sententia et verba tum pauca tum ambigua All cometh to this that this Papist saith That there cannot be one written unchangeable Law that is necessary for the whole Church for new events occasions and occurences of Providence should so change the case that there should be a necessity of a new interpretation and of a new Law 2. Nor can we say that Laws made upon occasion as that Law of transferring the inheritance to the Daughter made upon occasion of the Daughters of Zelophehad are in this sense occasionall that the Iews might at their pleasure alter or change a Law made by God and substitute one of their own in place thereof for then might the Iews change all the Ceremonies and Iudgements that God gave them for a time and occasionally Now then they might have abolished Circumcision the passeover and substitute other Sacraments in their place for these Sacraments were not given by Gods own voice 2. Nor written by Gods own finger Nor 3. Are they termed a Covenant in that sense that the Morall Law is termed a Covenant 4. Nor are they given without limitting of time and place expresly when and where Now if the Church of the Iews could change Sacraments at their pleasure because their Sacraments were no part of the Eternall Law Morall they might alter all Gods Law as the Church may alter Surplice Crossing and I see not but the Church of the New Testament upon the same ground may alter the Sacraments of the New Testament
warranted by Scripture it followeth only to him that so doth it is unlawfull Rom. 14. 14. In that he doth Bonum non benè a thing lawfull not lawfully 4. It is unpossible to deduce all truth out of any truth For then because the Sun riseth to day it should follow Ergo Crosse and Surplice are Lawfull I might as well deduce the contrary Ergo they are unlawfull Hooker Some things are good in so mean a degree of goodnesse that men are only not disproved nor disallowed of God for them as Eph. 5. 20. No man hateth his own flesh Matth. 5. 46. If ye do good unto them that do so to you the very Publicans themselves do as much They are worse then Infidels that provide not for their own 1. Tim. 5. 8. The light of nature alone maketh these actions in the sight of God allowable 2. Some things are required to salvation by way of direct immediate and proper necessity finall so that without performance of them we cannot in ordinary course be saved In these our chiefest direction is from Scipture for nature is no sufficient director what we should do to attain life Eternall 3. Some things although not so required of necessity that to leave them undone excludeth from salvation are yet of so great dignity and acceptation with God that most ample reward is laid up in Heaven for them as Matth. 10. A Cup of cold Water shall not go unrewarded And the first Christians sold their possessions and 1 Thess 2. 7. 9. Paul would not be burdensome to the Thessalonians Hence nothing can be evil that God approveth and he approveth much more then he doth Command and the precepts of the law of Nature may be otherwise known then by the Scripture then the bare mandat of Scripture is not the only rule of all good and evil in the actions of Morall men Ans 1. The Popery in this Author in disputing for a Platform of Government that is up and down and changeable at the will of men made me first out of love with their way for his first classe of things allowable by the light of Nature without Scripture is far wide for Eph. 5. 20. That a man love his own flesh is Commanded in the sixth Commandment and the contrary forbidden otherwise for a man to kill himself which is self-hatred should not be forbidden in Scripture the very light of nature alone will forbid ungratitude in Publicans and condemn a man that provideth not for his own But that this light of nature excludeth Scripture and the Doctrine of Faith is an untruth for Hooker leaveth out the words that are in the Text and most against his cause He that provideth not for his own is worse then an Infidel and hath denied the Faith Ergo the Doctrine of Faith commandeth a man to provide for his own What Morall goodnesse nature teacheth that same doth the Morall Law teach so the one excludeth not the other 2. It is false that Scripture only as conâ—adistinguished from the Law of Nature doth direct us to Heaven for both concurreth in a speciall manner nor is the one exclusive of the other 3. For his third classe it s expresly the Popish Works of supererogation of which Hooker and Papists both give two Characters 1. That they are not Commanded 2. That they merit a greater degree of glory Both are false To give a Cup of cold water to a needy Disciple is commanded in Scripture Isa 57. 9 10. Matth. 25. 41 42. And the contrary punished with everlasting fire in Hell For Paul not to be burdensome to the Thessalonians and not to take stipend or wages for Preaching is commanded for considering the condition that Paul was in was 1 Thess 2. 6. To seek glory of men was a thing forbidden in Scripture and so the contrary cannot be a thing not commanded and not to be gentle v. 7. As the servant of God ought to be even to the enemies of the truth 1 Tim. 2. 24. Not to be affectionately desirous to impart soul Gospel and all to those to whom he Preached as it is v. 8. is a sin forbidden and for the merit of increase of glory it is a dream Hence I draw an Argument against this mutable form of Government The changeable Positives of this Government such as Crossing Surplice and the like are none of these three enumerated by Hooker 1. They are not warranted by the Law of nature for then all Nations should know by the light of nature that God is decently worshipped in Crosse and linnen Surplice which is against experience 2. That these Positives are not necessary to salvation with a proper finall necessity as I take is granted by all 3. I think Crosse and Surplice cannot deserve a greater measure of glory for Formalists deny either merit or efficacy to their Positives The Jesuit Tannerus confirmeth all which is said by Hooker as did Aquinas before him And Eâ—kiâ—s in his conference with Luther and Oecolampadius who say for imagery and their Traditions that it is sufficient that the Church say such a thing is truth and to be done and the scripture doth not gain-say it SECT V. Morall Obedience resolved ultimately in Scripture FOR farther light in this point it is a Question What is the formall object of our obedience in all our our Morall actions that is Whether is the Faith practicall of our obedience the obedience itself in all the externals of Church Government resolved in this ultimately and finally This and this we do and this point of Government we believe and practise because the Lord hath so appointed it in an immutable Platform of Government in Scripture or because the Church hath so appointed or because there is an intrinsecall conveniency in the thing it self which is discernable by the light of nature Ans This Question is near of blood to the Controversie between Papists and us concerning the formall object of our faith that is Whither are we to believe the scripture to be the Word of God because so saith the Church or upon this objective ground because the Lord so speaketh in his own Word Now we hold that scripture it self furnisheth light and faith of it self from it self and that the Church doth but hold forth the light as I see the light of the Candle because of the light itself not because of the Candlestick Hence in this same very Question the Iews were not to believe that the smallest pin of the Tabernacle or that any officer High-Priest Priest or Levite were necessary nor were they to obey in the smallest Ceremoniall observance because Moses and the Priests or Church at their godly discretion without Gods own speciall warrant said so But because so the Lord spake to Moses so the Lord gave in writing to David and Solomon 1 Chron. 28. 11. 19. And so must it be in the Church of the New Testament in all the Positives of Government otherwise if we
punished then so Erastus I call them light faults only compared with crimes punished by the Law Ans Such as contumaciously defended makes a man none of Christs but the prophanest living yea of a believing Jew an Apostate and a Heathen deserveth to be punished by the judge Erastus If the offended be willinger to suffer the injury then to compeer before a heathen judge he may Ans There be no smell of an Heathen or Roman Judge in the Text Id Erastus adjecit de suo 2. It is not free to gain or not gain my brothers soul or obey Christs command or not obey it Paul 1 Cor. 6. forbiddeth us to implead our brethren before Heathen Judges Erastus saith Christ commandeth the contrary Erastus answers Paul saith in these that are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in smaller matters as of goods we should not Ans It s true Paul giveth instance in those that he calleth things of this life but in opposition to the great matter of Judging the world and Angels 2. Paul saith generally Ye go to law one vvith another 1 Cor. 6. 1 2 3 4. And he esteemeth it such a fault that he saith of it v. 9. Knovv ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God Erastus Paul himself appealed to a heathen judge Cesar Ans True but not for small offences falling out seventy seven times a day for which the Magistrate will not punish such as these offences be saith Erastus pag. 181. pag. 28. Thes 42. But being accused of a high crime of life and death 2. He appealed not from a godly Magistracy such as the Synedâ—y holdeth forth but from bloody judges 3. In matters not with Saints as 1 Cor. 6. And brethren to whom you are to grant pardons seven and seventy seven times a day but with Blasphemers and Murtherers of Christ Act. 18. 6. 1 Thes 2. 15. Erastus Christ teacheth how private iniuries may be removed vvithout offence by the Magistrate but not hovv vve may reduce to repentance a brother that giveth scandall Ans There 's not a footstep of injuries or Magistrate or sword in the Text 2. ver 7. And all along he speaketh of scandalls that may hinder our entring to heaven and these words rebuke him Thou hast gained thy brother are clear as the Sun that he intendeth the offended in all these steps is to gain the soul of the offender Erastus This is no Argument at all he speaketh of gaining an offending brother Ergo His scope is not to repair any civill losse But I pray you a brother argueth an iniurious man and convinceth him of his error hath he not first gained him to God and then to himself vvhile he maketh him of his enemy his friend can there be a better way of compounding private iniuries if his conscience be healed will he not leave off to be iniurious Ans I may say as he saith to that Apostolick servant of God holy Beza Egregia vero ratiocinatio The question is now touching the scope of Christ Matth. 18. Erastus proveth repairing of civill injuries to be Christs scope and how proveth he it Because he that is gained to God by repentance is a made friend and vvill leave off to do civill vvrongs Iust as if one should say the scope of the holy Ghost in the history of the Creation in the two first chapters of Genesis is to make the Reader a good Philosopher Why because he that understandeth the works of Creation the Heaven Stars Sun Moon Seas dry Land Trees Herbs c. Must not this man be an excellent Astronomer Geographer Physiloge c So may he say the scope of the holy Ghost in the ten Commandments is to make a man an excellent Citizen of London or Paris Why how is that the scope of the ten Commandments by Erastus his Argument What better way can there be to make a good sociall Civilian then if he be well versed in the Doctrine of the ten Commandments so may I say the scope of Paul in the first eleven Chapters of the Epistle to the Romanes is to make a man love his brother why Because if he know God and free justification by faith in Christ and our freedom from the Law and the Doctrine of Election by Free-grace and the like he cannot but love his brother Now how can that be Christs scope which is neither spoken In terminis Nor so much as insinuated Now to gain an offending brother is In terminis spoken ver 15. Thou hast gained thy brother so Erastus granteth this is Christs scope but not his last scope and gaining of his soul he will have but a scope for a civil end to hold off injuries How carnall is the glosâ—e of Erastus Now the scope of Erastus is never spoken never hinted at Erastus cannot deny our scope onely he will not have it the chief scope of the words the best ground he hath for his scope is that Tell the Church is Tell the Civill Magistrate Erastus to put a good face on the businesse saith scanning on the sense of the words Christ therefore saith rebuke him Matth. 18. That we may understand that he is to be convinced of his error and iniquity that he may acknowledge it not onely to us and before men but far more to God and so thou hast gained thy brother and lost him if he refuse to hear thee that is If he suffer not himself to be convinced and do not acknowledge his fault he is bound in Heaven and this is that which I would say this gaining of him is the pardoning of a civill wrong that he may be received in friendship Ans If Christs intenâ—ion be that he may rather acknowledge his fault to God then to the offender as Erastus granteth then Christs scope in these words must be his spirituall gaining to God not a civil depulsion of a civill wrong but the former Erastus granteth 2. If spirituall gaining be intended in all the steps of our Saviours progresse and when this is obtained the progresse doth cease then means rather crossing and thwarting that scope then suitable spiritually thereunto are not to be attempted then is not civill depulsion of injuries our Saviours scope in the words but the former is true Ergo So is the latter the Proposition is evident from the nature of a scope and end in any speech I prove the Assumption by parts 1. If rebuking of an offending brother gain him to repentance then it is clear the offended man is to rest there and not to Tell the Church or Magistrate for he hath obtained even the end for which Erastus contendeth and who goeth about new means to compasse an end already obtained Christ would never command that yea when Christ saith ver 16. If he hear not thee then take with thee one or two more Ergo If he had heard him he was not to take one or two more and ver 17. If he should
in things onely necessary for the Churches Commandment is neither a lawful nor obliging necessity Introd Actions meerly indifferent cannot be done in faith Introd The unlawfulnesse unseparably adhering to actions indifferent maketh them unlawful Introd How exsuperancy of goodnesse is to sway the will of Rulers and people Introd The will of Rulers not a law to us in things indifferent Introd The definition of a Scandal p. â— Propositions touching Scandal from Rom. 14. p 4 5 6 Propositions and Rules touching Scandal from 1 Cor. 7. and 8 and 10. p. 7 8 9 An object scandalous two wayes p. 9 Four things may be scandalous objects ibid. What is malum aparens appearance of evil p. 11 Rules touching Scandal p. 12 13 14 Whether or no we may deny obedience to the Laws of Superiors for fear of Scandal causelesly taken p. 15 16 17 Whether Information can remove Scandal from things not necessary but only through the necessity of mans commandment p. 20 21 Whether the precept of obedience to superiors or the precept of eschewing Scandal be more obligatory p. 28 29 c. The essence of an active Scandal p. 36 37 How the fifth Commandment is more obligatory then following precepts and how noâ— p. 46 47 c. Whether or not in every indifferent things we are to eschew the Scandal of all even of the malicious Affirmatur p. 53 c. Occasions of sins as occasions are forbidden p. 56 What is Christian liberty in things indifferent p. 57 58 A further consideration of things not necessary how they he scandalous p. 60 Of the necessity of things which remove Scandal p. 61 62 Some things necessary from the onely pâ—â—iâ—ive Will of God some thing necessary from something in the things themselves p. 62 Two sorts of monuments of Idolatry p. 63 We cannot devise the use of any thing in worship when we cannot devise the thing it self p 63 The place Deut. 7. 25. The graven Image of their gods shall ye burn with fire cleared p. 64 How Houseâ— and Temples builded to Saints are not to be demolished p. 65 Temples and Houses have a like physical use in Gods worship as out of Gods worship p. 65 66 No Houses no Temple no Creatures are now unclean under the New Testament p. 67 How things not necessary are to be abstained from or used in the case of Scandal p 67 c Things scandalous under the New Testament are forbidden in a far other sense then meats dayes and other things in the Ceremonial Law p. 73 How far a Moral and perpetual reason maketh a Law perpetual p 74 75 Difusing of houses because abused to idolatry a Iudaising p. 75 76 77 Bells for convening of the people to publike worship not to be abolished though they haye been abused to superstition p. 77 c. A most necessary rule to be observed in the doctrine of Scandal That emergent providences of natural necessity are to us in place of divine commands in some cases p. 81 Eight considerable Rules touching the kindes and degrees of necessity in eschewing Scandal p. 82 83 84 The 1 2 3 4 5 Rule p. 82 83 the 6. Rule ib. A scandal may flow from ignorance and corruption and so be taken when it also kindly issueth from the sinful or unseasonable fact of another and so is also kindly given p. 84 85. the 7. Rule 84 A false rule of Papists that men may co operate in a sinful act and be free of scandal because of some necessity p. 85 No relation of servant or câ—ptive can render it lawfuâ— to cooperate with sin p. 86 What things not necessary are to be removed from the worship of God as scandalous p. 87 the 8. Rule ibid. Ceremonies not so much as necessary by way of disjunction which necessity agreeth to many circumstances of worship in the Directory p. 8â— Religious monuments of Idolatry are to be removed p. 89 90 c. What conformity with Idolaters is unlawful p 93 Conformity with Idolaters in things in Gods worship not necessary unlawful p. 94 95 The same Ceremonies in Idolaters and in the true Church may be judged the same three wayes p. 96 Formalists grant conformity with Heathen and Idolaters in Ceremonies cloathed with a scriptural signification p. 96 97 98 How the Scripture is a Rule p. 99 Church-Government properly an Institution ibid. The worship of God needeth no religious Ceremonies but what God hath himself prescribed p. 100 101 We need not say that conformity with Idolaters was the onely cause why God forbad his people heathenish rites p. 102 103 ⧠Places of Scripture cleared in both these â—REATISES Gensis Ch. Ver. Page 6. 14. 51 17. 11 129 9. 13 ibid. Exodus Ch. Ver. Page 32. 22 117 20. 4 130 32. 4 5 151 152 12. 8 15 347 348 18. 15. 16 404 405 406 Leviticus Ch. Ver. Page 4. 5 6 439 440 6. 4 5 6 289 290 8. 6 7 8 384 385  9 c.  10. 11 398 399 10. 10 379 380   453 242 9. 13 347 348 16. 2 3 285 4 5 c.   18. 3 4 94 9â— 19. 19 ibid. 22. 20 21 455 22. 10 470 21. 2 3 288 289  4 5  23. 27 28 286 287 19. 11 282 283 13. 3. 4 386 Number Ch. Ver. Page 5. 1 2 41 242 9. 3 4 5 6 â—48 9. 6 7 â—53 8. 6 7 8 9 391 39â— 11. 16 17 â—04 405 16. 9 91 392 25. 7 8 â—28 35. what â—76 477 478 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—â— 12  31 21 22 â—7 78 Deuter. Ch. Ver. Page 1. 16 404 415 â— â— 51 52 53 54 55 56 c. 98 99 100 4. 5 155 156 157 12. 32 51 52 53 c. 7. 25 26 64 65 Tâ— of Scan. 66 67 74 14. 1 2 362 363 17. 8 9 10 11 12 13 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 340 402 303 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 505 17. 18 547 548 571 572 19 20.  20. 19 66 67 22. 9 ibid. 23. 18 455 456 32. 2 455 Jeshua Ch. Ver. Page 1 2 507 22. 15 16 ibid. Judges Ch. Ver. Page 18. 17 567 1 Sam. Ch. Ver. Page 8. 7 208 209 210 3. 13 453 454 15. 1 2 3 65 66. 1 Kings Ch. Ver. Page 8. 17 96 97 98 11. 12 571 572 12. 27 127 18. 40 41 428 2 Kings Ch. Ver. Page 11. 1â— 18 572 1 Chron. Ch. Ver. Page 26 â— c. 410 411 28. 11 27 28 26. 30 31 414 415 29. 20 159 170 2 Chron Ch. Ver. Page 10. 8 468 469 15. 12 13 463 464 19. 9 545 23. 19 241 242 19. 6 7 8 9 10 11 386 387 388 389 c. 405 406 408 409 410 411 412 507 30. 6 7 346 347 30. 18 19 348 Ezra Ch. Ver. Page 9. 21 22 242 243 6. 9 290 10. 11 12 ibid. Psalmes Ch. Ver. Page 2. 8 9 605 606 607 610 611 34. 11 202 50 1â— 272 368 79. 8 93 94 99. 5
supponit The Scripture saith not That the Worship of God must have a time a place when and where it s to be performed a person who is to perform it a habit or garments on the person that Worshippeth the Scripture teacheth none of these but supposeth that they are and must be because nature teacheth that without time place person habit gesture its unpossible that these or any humane actions can be and therefore Prelaticall Formalists do without all sense or reason require that we should prove by Scripture the lawfulnesse of time place person habit gesture in Gods Worship for these are presupposed in all actions Naturall Civill Religious Private Publike Lawfull unlawfull in acts of Arts Sciences of Morall conversing and all yea there is as good reason that they demand Scripture to prove he must be a living man who hath a reasonable soul and senses and is born of a woman who Preacheth and Administrateth Sacraments which is presupposed by nature When the Heretick willeth me to prove from Scripture that Christ is very man it is a vain thing he should demand of me beside to prove by Scripture that Christ is such a one also as can laugh weep admire sing sigh c. for these are presupposed to follow mans nature and if Scripture prove Christ to be a true man it presupposeth by natures light that he can laugh he can weep and that in some time some place in some habit in some gesture so he be a man for that is presupposed by the light of nature and known by the most Barbarous who never heard of Scripture and therefore there is no greater reason to put us to prove all the naturall and unseparable circumstances of Worship such as time and place without which it is impossible any action at all can be performed then that we should presse Prelats to prove by Scripture that Iames Vsher is born of English or Irish Parents for sense and nature can prove all these without Scripture But because their Ceremonies of Crossing bowing to Altars Festivall dayes Oyl Salt Spittle Masse clothes are nothing warrantable by natures light and must have Morall and Symbolicall influence in Worship as positive Religious observances having some spirituall signification and use except they be reasonlesse fancies we have just reason to demand a warrant and speciall Charter for all Morals and so for their Ceremonies in the Scripture and to call their c. humane Ceremonies and the like a blind For if Prelats can prove these Ceremonies to be from Christ and warranted by his Testament we shal yield that their natural circumstances of time when you should Bow to Altars and Crosse a Baptized Infant and where or in what place you should wear Surplice and that the person that useth Oyl Spittle Salt in Baptisme must do it in some habit and with some gesture either sitting standing lying or kneeling are all warrantable and lawfull from the light of nature for if Gods light of Scripture warrant wearing of a Surplice as it doth warrant Sacramentall eating and drinking the light of nature must warrant these concreated naturall and unseparable circumstances of time place person habit gesture used in both the former and the latter But because I said that circumstances of time and place have a threefold consideration Physicall Morall and Mixt and I have spoken onely of these circumstances in a Physicall or naturall consideration therefore in the other two considerations there being involved some Morall goodnesse and because there is no Morall goodnesse imaginable but it must have its essentiall form and being from a Law or word of God therefore all the former circumstances as they are clothed with either morall conveniency and expediency or with some Religious positive goodnesse must be warranted by the Word of God or the Rules of sinlesse and spirituall Prudence which cannot deviate from the word of God For circumstances clothed with Religious Positive goodnesse such as are the Sabbath day the holy of Holiest the Temple these are not meer circumstances but worship it self So a Religious habit as an Ephod or a Surplice is not a meer circumstance or a meer habit but a worship or such a part or limb of worship as must be warranted by the word of truth else it is nothing but a will-device and a forgery and so to be rejected And as touching things of Prudence they are things properly mixt as at what hour Sermon shall begin in such a Church at eight or nine or ten of the clock how the worship shall be ordered whether you should begin the Worship with a word of Prayer or a word of Praising or a word of Exhorting to stir up for the duty of the day is a matter of Prudence and because God hath not laid the band of a Precept on us to begin with either of the three therefore it would seem that though the things themselves be Morall and must be warranted by a Word of God yet the order is not Morall but Prudentiall and so cannot fall under a command of the Church for to me it is hard that men and the Church should lay on a tie or bond of a Precept where God hath laid on no such bond The Church in these mixt things where the Morality is not clear at farthest can but go on to directive advises as Paul doth 1 Cor. 7. 6. 12. Not to imposing of Laws nor to injunctions or Commandments under the pain of Church-censures for Christ must bind and ratifie in Heaven all Church-censures on earth and so the Church cannot command nor censure but as Christ himself would command or censure Now because the rest of the conclusion shall be farther cleared I prove that Christ hath so far forth set down a perfect Plat-form of Church-Government in the Scripture as he hath not given a liberty to Rulers Prelats or to the Church her self to set up a variable Plat-form sutable to their particular Civill Government Laws Manners and Customes 1 Arg. What ever maketh the man of God perfect thorowly furnished unto all good workes and is written for this end that any Timothy or Faithfull Pastor might know how he ought to behave himself in the House of God That must make the man of God perfect in this good work of holy walking as a perfect Governour or a perfect Church-member to be governed in all Morall acts of Discipline and godly behaviour according to the spirituall policie of the Lords house and so must hold forth a perfect Plat-form of Discipline which doth not varie ebbe and flow and alter according to the Civill Government Laws Manners and Customs of men But the Scriptures of God doth so instruct all Members of the visible Church both Governours and governed 2 Tim. 3. 16 17. 1 Tim. 3. 14 15. Ergo the Scripture must hold forth a perfect form of Discipline which doth not varie ebbe flow and alter according to the Civill Governments Laws Manners and Customes of men The
Proposition is made good Because 1. to walk according to the spirituall Policie of the Lords house must be a good work and so a Morall and Lawfull work and a due conversing in the spirituall Society of the Church according to the Rule of the Word 2. If this Morall walking be according to a Rule that may crook bow and varie according as Civill Customes of men and Cities alter and varie at mens pleasure It is a Morall walking no more according to the Rule of Scripture then the contradicâ—nt thereof is according to this Rule but falleth and riseth hath its ups and downs at the meer nod and pleasure of men who may change Customes and Manners every year twice if so it please them For what Scripture teacheth me a Civill Custome of a City as not to carry Armour in the night to take up the Names of all between sixteen years of age and sixty Or what Scripture teacheth me a Bishop may be above the Pastors of the Church or a Bishop may not be Surplice Crossing Bowing and Cringing to wooden Altars may be or may not be Deacons may be or may not be even as customes and guises of the Civill State appear as Meteors in the Aire and in the fourth part of a night disappear and vanish to nothing to say that the word teacheth the Church to abstain from blood is a part of the perfection of the Scripture and yet the Scripture teaches that abstinence from blood not as an eternall and unalterable Law for we are not now tied to abstain from blood therefore the Scripture may make the man of God perfect in some works that are alterable and changeable This I say is no Answer for saying that God should now make abstinence from blood and things strangled indifferent as he made them in that intervall of time Acts 15. When the Ceremonies were mortall but not deadly and unlawfull as is clear in that Paul Act. 16. 1 2 3. circumcised Timothy that Rite being then indifferent and yet he writeth in another case when the Gospel is now fully promulgated that to be circumcised maketh a man a debtor in conscience to keep the whole Law of Moses and so to abstaine from eating of blood and things strangled must be a falling from the Grace of Christ and an Apostacy from the Gospel Gal. 5 1 2 3. 4 5 6 7. The like I say of observing of dayes which Rom. 14. 5 6. were indifferent and in another case Gal. 4. 9 10. Col. 2. 16 17. Deadly unlawfull and not necessary so the matter Acts 15. which in the case of scandilizing the weak is abstinence from things indifferent say that they are indifferent bindeth as a perpetuall Law to the end of the world and bindeth us this same very day Rom. 14. 20. In the Morality of it as abstinence from murthering One for whom Christ died Rom. 14. 15. 1 Cor. 8. 12 13. 1 Cor. 10. 26 27 28. And upon the ground laid by Prelates which is most false and untrue to wit that many Positive things in Church-Government such as are Prelats deemed to be warranted by Apostolick though not by Divine right Ceremonies and Crossing kneeling to bread Altars Surplice Rochet corner-Cap yea and Circumcision a Passeover-Lambe and all the Jewish Ceremonies though with another spirit and intention then to shadow forth Christ to come in the flesh imagined to be indifferent and alterable things we hold that all these are to be abstained from as eating of blood and things strangled of old were if you say they are as indifferent as blood and some meats were in the case Act. 15. Rom. 14. 1 Cor. 8. 1 Cor. 10. It s a most false principle as we shall hear and therefore the Scripture if it make the man of God perfect to every good work as the Apostle saith it must teach us to abstain from all these as scandalous and must set down as perfect and particular directions for Church-Government as Paul doth Rom. 14. Set down a particular Platform how we shall eschew Murther for scandalizing our Brethren in the use of things indifferent is spirituall Murther Rom. 14. 15. 20. 2. Arg. That which is a lamp to the feet and a light to the path Psal 119. 105. And causeth us understand Equity Iudgement Righteousnesse and every good way Prov. 2. 9. And to walk safely so that our feet stumble not Prov. 3. 25. Prov. 4 11 12. Prov. 6. 23. That must be a lamp and light to our feet and walking in a Platform of Church-Discipline so as we shall not erre sin or stumble therein But if the light be so various doubtfull alterable as we may walk this way or the contrary way according to the Civill Laws alterable Customes and Manners of the people we shall not so be guided in our path as our feet shall not stumble the Church might then suffer Jezabell to Prophecie and these that hath the Doctrine of Balaam or not suffer them as the Civill Laws and alterable Customes of the people should require Now the Scriptures doth clearly insinuate that the Law and will of God revealed in the Word is a Rule of walking straightly and of declining sin and any stumbling in our way which deserveth a rebuke and a threatning such as Christ uttereth against the Church of Pergamos Rev. 2. 14 15 16. And of Thyatira v. 17 18. Now if these Churches had no certain Rule or Word of God from which they should deviate and erre in their path of Discipline but the Customes and alterable Civill Laws and Manners of men they were unjustly rebuked by Christ which to aver were Blasphemy Prelats say Some things in Church-Policie are Fundamentals not to be altered but there be other things alterable And of things of Policie of the former notion we have a certain Platform in Scripture but of the latter not any at all is necessary and the not suffering of false Teachers in the Church is of the former sort But I Answer some Scripture or reason ought to be given of this distinction If all be Morall and unalterable that are necessary to Salvation its good But to suppresse Jezabell and false teachers is not necessary Necessitate medii for then the Salvation of that Church were desperate and past remedy which should suffer false teachers surely then Pergamos and Thyatira were in a certain irremedâ—lâ—sse way of Eternall Damnation as are these who are void of all Faith and knowledge of Fundamentall Articles I conceive Prelats will hold their hand and not be so rash as to say this If these other things of Policie be necessary necessitate precepti in regard that Iesus Christ hath commanded them to be observed why then are some things alterable which Christ hath commanded to be observed some things unalterable Crosse Surplice which Prelats say have been in the Church these twelve hundred yeers are in themselves as positive have as small affinity with the Civil Laws Customes
scripta reâ—nuimus and August Lib. de pasto c. 11. Quicquid inde è scriptura Andieritis hoc nobis bene sapiat Quicquid extraest respuite nâ— erretis in nebulâ Now to say we may receive some truths of things Arbitrary or mutable crosseth Cyrill Allexand Glaphyre in Gen. l. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That which the holy Scripture hath not said by what means should we receive and account it amongst these things that be true Cyrill would deny all your Ceremonies to speak any thing but lies and so would I Yea to bring in any thing that is not written Basilius saith it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a demonstration of Pride and Origen in Levit. Hom. 5. Si quid autem superfuerit quod non Divina Scriptura decernat nullam aliam debere tertiam Scripturam ad autoritatem scientiae suscipi licet I think some third Scripture which is neither the old or the New-Testament must be sought to make good the Doctrines that dumbe humane Ceremonies teach us 2. That the blind lead the blinde is not safe but it is no Argument to prove that this is an immutable thing in policy that there should be Leaders and some that are led except you suppose the Prelates to be the seeing men and the Pastors and People to be blinde 3. I utterly deny this consequence The Clergy is a great multitude Ergo order necessarily requireth that by degrees they be distinguished in Prelates and Pastors for the Prelats are a multitude Ergo order requireth that one be Pope to command all the rest The Apostles were a multitude Ergo There was a necessiâ—y of a Monarch-Apostle the Prelaticall Government is Monarchicall doth order require in all multitude no Government but a Monarchy Nor do we finde any warrant that Apostles had jurisdiction over Pastors in the Scripture nor in any Ecclesiasticall Records but where Papacy was working Paul as if he had been to go out of this life and never to see the faces of the Elders of Ephesus Act. 20. 25. Left unto them as Elders all of equall degrees of power of jurisdiction the feeding and Governing of the Church of God Act. 20. 28 29 30. 4. The particulars of Policy as Surplice Crossing are no more circumstances of Worship then Aarons Ephod a vesture is a circumstance but a Religious vesture teaching us of Pastorall holinesse is worship not a Circumstance Men can place no Religion in Circumstances Hooker Eccle. Poli. l. 3. p. 125. It is in vain to argue from Christs office if there be an immutable Platforme in Scripture it is as if one should demand a Legacy by vertue of some written Testament wherein there being no such thing specified he pleadeth that there it must needs be and bringeth Arguments from love and good will which awayes the Testator bore him imagining that these or the like proofes will convict a Testament to have that in it which other men can no where by reading finde it s our part to admire what he hath done rather then to dispute what he in congruity of reason ought to do how unsearchable are his judgements Ans 1. It is very true a Platforme of discipline is questio facti A question of Fact rather then Law we hear nothing in this comparison but what Papists with equall strength of reason do bring for their unwritten Traditions for they say Protestants are to prove a fact and deed of Jesus Christ that he hath left in his written Testament a perfect and immutable Platforme of Doctrine and manners to which nothing can be added and this they prove from the care wisdom and love of Christ to his Church for he ought to reveale his will perfectly and compleatly in his Scripture otherwise he hath not the love care and wisdom of a Law-giver to his own people if he leave them in the mist and in the dark and write not down all things touching Faith and manners Now we can no where finde by reading Scripture any thing for the Baptizing of Infants or a remedy for women to be cured of Originall sin in the Old-Testament in lieu of circumcision we finde no warrant for the Feast of Dedication in the Law of Moses nor for the dayes of puring observed by the Iewes nor for Images invocation of Saints Prayer for the dead the perpetuall Virginity of the Virgin Mary and many such Doctrines which the Church believeth But we answer because these vain doctrines we except the Baptizing of Infants warranted by Scripture are not in Scripture they are the vaine and saplesse doctrines of men and will-worship But to presse the comparison If any should demand a Legacy by vertue of a Testament in which the Testator hath testified his good will wisdom care to his Brethren in such a manner that he had said I have left in my Testament to my Brethren my mind to instruct them for every good worke to lead them in all truth to teach them every good way to understand equity judgement and righteousnesse to cause them walke safely so that their feet shall not stumble and I have left them my word to be a Lamp and light to their feet in walking Then I would inferre from this Testament two things 1. That the love and care of our Testator Christ so revealed warranteth us to plead for light in Christs Testament how to walk in every good way and so how to walk in all the wayes of the orderly worship of God and of Governing of Gods house by Pastors Teachers Elders Deacons by their Lawfull calling qualifications duties by the Churches Courts in admonition excommunication by the use of the keys 2. Because the Testament is perfect to instruct in every good way particularly and in all duties of worship and this Testament forbiddeth all adding and diminishing and speaketh not one word of Crossing Cringing and bowing to Altars of wearing of Surplice Therefore these are not Gods Lawfull wayes and if I walk in them I can do nothing but fall and stumble 3. We do not here argue simply from the wise and congruous dealing of God what he ought to do nor from the love of Christ as a King and heâ—d simply but from the love care and wisdom of Christ as he is such a King and Head upon whose shoulder is the whole Government and upon whom are all the vessels of the house great and small 4. It is no lesse then blasphemy to ascribe the not particularizing of Ceremonies such as Crossing Surplice humane Feasts to the unsearchable Wisdom and wayes of God to which Paul Romanes 11. referreth the great deeps of Supernaturall Providence in Gods Election and Reprobation his calling of the Gentiles and rejecting of the Iewes and observe I pray this consequence the wayes of the Lord past finding out Ergo The Lord hath set down no Platforme of Church-Policy in his Sons Testament but hath left it to the wisdom of the Church to devise Crossing kneeling to Creatures
receive both the unwritten Traditions of the one and the unwritten Positive inventions of Crosse and Surplice devised by the other as 1. Make us sure as God himself immediatly spake to the Patriarchs and to Moses nothing but what after was committed to writing by Moses and the Prophets at Gods speciall Commandment as Papists say their unwritten Traditions are agreeable to the word and though beside Scripture yet not against it And the very will of God no lesse then the written word and let Formalists assure us that their positive additaments of Surplice and Crosse are the same which God commandeth in the Scriptures by the Prophets and Apostles and though beside yet not contrary to the vvord But I pray you what better is the distinction of beside the vvord not contrary to the vvord of God out of the mouth of Papists to maintain unvvritten Traditions which to them is the expresse word of God then out of the mouth of Formalists for their unwritten Positives which are worse then Popish Traditions in that they are not the expresse word of God by their own grant 2. Let the Formalist assure us that after this some Moses and Elias shall arise and write Scripture touching the Surplice and Crosse that they are the very minde of God as the Lord could assure the Church between Adam and Moses that all Divine truths which he had delivered by Tradition should in Gods due time be written in Scripture by Moses the Prophets and Apostles I think they shall here fail in their undertakings Hence the Argument standeth strong the Jevvs might devise nothing in doctrine Worship or Government nay neither the Patriarchs nor Moses nor the Prophets of their own head without Gods immediate Tradition or the written Scripture which are all one Ergo Neither can the Church except she would be wiser then God in the Scriptures 2. Hookers Various and Harmonious Dissimilicude of Gods gâ—iding his Châ—rch is his fancy This variety we admire as it is expressed Heâ— 1. 1. But Hooker would say for he hath reference to that place God at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the Fathers by the Prophets and now to us by hiâ— Son But test of all he hath revealed his Will by the Pope of Rome and his cursed Clergy that we should Worship Images pray to Saints and for the dead beleeve Purgatory c. and now by humane Prelates he hath shown his will to us touching Crossing Surplice Now Papists as Horantius Sanderus Malderus Bellarmine and others say Most of the points that are in Question between them and Protestants and particularly Church-Ceremonies are unwritten Traditions delivered by the Church beside the warrant of Scripture 3. We grant that there was no Uniform Church-Government in the Apostles time Deacons were not at the first Elders were not ordained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in every Church But this is nothing against a Platform of Vniform Government which cannot be altered in Gods Word For by this reason the Learned and Reverend Mr. Prynne because points of Government did grow by succession of time cannot infer therefore that Government which the immediately inspired Apostles did ordain in Scripture is alterable by men then because 1. Fundamentals of Faith and Salvation were not all delivered at first by God there is no Uniform no unalterable Platform of Doctrinals and Fundamentals set down in Scripture For first the Article of Christs death and incarnation was obscurely delivered to the Church in Paradise Sure the Article of Christs making his Grave with the wicked of his being put to death for out Transgressions though he himself was innocent his justifying of many by Faith were after delivered by Isaiah Chap. 53. And by succession â—f time many other Fundamentals as the Doctrine of the written Moral Law in the Moral Positives thereof were delivered to the Church But I hope from this successive Addition of Fundamentals no man can infer 1. There is no Uniform Platform of the doctrine of Faith set down in the Old Testament 2. None can hence infer because all points Fundamental were not delivered to the Church at first the refore the Church without any expresse warrant from God may alter the Platform of Fundamentals of Faith as they take on them to adde Surplice Crossing c. and many other Positives to the Government of Christ without any expresse warrant of the Word 3. Our Argument is close mistaken we argue not from the Patern of Government which was in the Apostles times at the laying of the first stone in that Church then the Apostolike Church had indeed no Officers but the Apostles and the seventy Disciples we reason not from one peece but from the whole frame as perfected by the Ministery of the Lords Apostles 2. We argue not from the Apostolike Church as it is such a Church for Apostles were necessary then as was community of goods miracles speaking with tongues c. but we draw an argument from the Apostolike Church as the first Christian Church and since the Law was to come from Zion and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem Isai 2. 3. And the Lord was to reign in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem before his Ancients gloriously Isai 24. 23. And the Lord was to reign over his people in Mount Zion from henceforth and for ever Micah 4. 2 7. And Christ for that gave a special command to his Disciples not to depart from Jerusalem but wait for the promise of the Father which they had heard from Christ therefore this Church of Jerusalem was to be a rule a patern and copy for the Government of the Visible Kingdom and Church of Christ in which Christ was to reign by his own Word and Law Miâ— 4. 2 7. And so the Spirit descended upon the Apostles in the framing and Governing of the first Church in so far as it was a Christian Church and they were to act all not of their own heads but as the Holy Ghost led them in all Truth in these things that are of perpetual necessity and in such as these the first Church is propounded as imitable Now we do not say in Apostles which had infallibility of writing Canonick Scripture in Miracles speaking with Tongues and such like that agreed to the Apostolike Church not as a Church but as such a determinate Church in relation to these times when the Gospel and Mystery of God now manifested in the flesh was new taught and never heard of before did require Miracles gift of Tongues that the Gospel might openly be preached to the Gentiles we do not I say urge the Apostâ—like Church and all the particulars for Government in it for a rule and patern to be imitated And if Master Prynne deny that there is an Uniform Government in the Apostles times because God himself added to them Deacons Elders which at first they had not removed Apostles miracles gifts of healing and tongues then say I
censeri debet Learned D. Roynald Answereth Apolog. Thes de sac Script pag. 211 212. and saith This very Law of Moses promiseth life Eternall to those that love the Lord vvith all their heart and that the Prophets added to the Writings of Moses no Article of Faith necessary to be believed but did expound and apply to the use of the Church in all the parts of piety and Religion that vvhich Moses had taught Lorinus followeth them in Deut. 4. 1. Christus inquit et Apostoli pentateucho plura adjecerunt immò in vetere Testamento Iosue Prophetae Reges Christ saith he and the Apostles added many things to the five Books of Moses yea in the Old Testament Ioshua the Prophets and the Kings David and Solomon did also adde to Moses But the truth is suppose any should arise after Moses not called of God to be a Canonick writer Prophet or Apostle and should take on him to write Canonick Scripture though his additions for matter were the same Orthodox and sound Doctrine of Faith and manners which are contained in the Law of Moses and the Prophets he should violate this Commandment of God Thou shalt not adde For Scripture containeth more then the sound matter of Faith it containeth a formall a heavenly form stile Majesty and expression of Language which for the form is sharper then a two edged sword piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit and of the joynts and marrow and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart Heb. 4. 12. If therefore the Prophets and Apostles had not had a Commandment of God to write Canonick Scripture which may be proved from many places of the Word they could not have added Canonick Scripture to the writings of Moses But the Answer of D. Roynald is sufficient and valid against Papists who hold that their Traditions are beside not contrary to the Scripture just as Formalists do who say the same for their unwritten Positives of Church-policy But our Divines Answer That traditions beside the Scripture are also traditions against the Scripture according to that Gal. 1. 8. But if we or an Angel from Heaven preach any other Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beside that which we have preached unto you Let him be accursed And Papists more ingenious then Formalists in this confesse That if that of the Apostles Gal. 1. 8. be not restricted to the written Word but applyed to the Word of God in its Latitude as it comprehendeth both the written word or Scripture and the unwritten word or Traditions then beside the word is all one with this contrary to the word which Formalists constantly deny For Lorinus the Jesuit saith Comment In Deut. 4. 2. Quo pacto Paulus Anathèma dicit Gal. 1. 8. Iis qui aliud Evangelizant preter id quod ipsi Evangelizaverit id est adversum et contrarium So doth Cornelius a Lapide and Estius expound the place Gal. 1. 8. And they say that Paul doth denounce a Curse against those that would bring in a new Religion and Judaism beside the Gospel But withall they teach that the Traditions of the Church are not contrary to Scripture but beside Scripture and that the Church which cannot eâ—re and is led in all truth can no more be accused of adding to the Scripture then the Prophets Apostles and Evangelists who wrote after Moses can be accused of adding to Moses his writings because the Prophets Apostles and Evangelists had the same very warrant to write Canonick Scripture that Moses had and so the Church hath the same warrant to adde Traditions to that which the Prophets Evangelists and Apostles did write which they had to adde to Moses And therefore the Councel of Trent saith S. 4. c. 1. That unwritten traditions coming either from the mouth of Christ or the ditement of the holy spirit are to be recieved and Religiously Reverenced with the like pious affection and Reverence that the holy Scriptures are received Pari pietatis affectu ac Reverentiâ And the truth is laying down this ground that the Scripture is unperfect and not an adequat rule of Faith and manners as Papists do then it must be inconsequent that because Traditions are beside the Scripture which is to to them but the half of the Word of God Yea it followeth not this Popish ground supposed that Traditions are therefore contrary to the Scripture because beside the Scripture no more then it followeth that the Sacraments of the New Testament Baptisme and the Supper of the Lord in all their positive Rites and Elements are not ordained and instituted in the Old Testament and in that sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beside the Old Testament that therefore they are against the Old Testament though we should imagine they had been added in the New Testament without all warrant of speciall direction from God by the sole will of men or because some Ceremonials commanded of God are not commanded in the Morall Law or Decalogue either expresly or by consequence and so these Ceremonials though instituted by the Lord be beside the Morall Law that therefore they are contrary to the Morall Law Yea to come nearer because the third Chapter of the Book of Genesis containing the Doctrine of mans fall and misery and Redemption by the promised seed is beside the first and second Chapters of the same Book it doth not follow that it is contrary or that Moses adding the third Chapter and all the rest of the five Books did therefore â—ail against this precept Thou shalt not adde to that which I command thee for certain it is that there are new Articles of Faith in the third chapter of Genesis which are neither in the first two Chapters expresly nor by just consequence but if the Church or any other of Jews or Gentiles should take upon them to adde the third Chapter of Genesis to the first and second except they had the same warrant of Divine inspiration that Moses had to adde it that addition had been contrary to the first two Chapters and beside also and a violation of the Commandment of not adding to the word so do Formalists and the Prelate Vsher in the place cited presuppose that the Scripture excludeth all Traditions of Papists because the Scripture is perfect in all things belonging to faith and manners but it excludeth not all Ceremonies which are left to the disposition of the Church and be not of Divine but of Positive and humane Right Hence it must infer the principle of Papists that the Scripture is not perfect in all Morals for it is a Morall of Decency and Religious signification that a childe be dedicated to the service of Christ by the sign of the crosse Now what can be said to thiâ— I know not but that the sufficiency and perfection of scripture doth no whit consist in holding forth Ceremonials but only in setting down doctrinals Why and Papists say the same that the scripture is
the Church of the Jews never took on them to command the observation of these forgeries under the pain of Church-censures as Papists and prelats did their Crossing and their Surplice Hooker saith A Question it is whither containing in Scripture do import expresse setting down in plain terms or else comprehending in such sort that by reason we may thence conclude all things which are necessary to salvation The Faith of the Trinity the Co-eternity of the Son with the Father are not the former way in Scripture for the other let us not think that as long as the World doth indure the wit of man shall be able to sound to the bottom of that which may be concluded out of Scripture Traditions we do not reject because they are not in Scripture but because they are neither in Scripture nor can otherwise sufficiently by any reason be proved to be of God That which is of God and may be evidently proved to be so we deny not but it hath in its kinde although unwritten yet the self same force and authority with the Written Laws of God Such as are alterable Rites and Cystomes for being Apostolicall it is not the manner of delivering them to the Church but the Author from whom they proceed which gave them their force and credit Ans 1. The consequences of Scriptures are doublesse many and more then are known to us and the particulars of that Government that we contend for are in Scripture that is there should be no Government but what is either expresly in Scripture or may be made our by just consequence we believe if they cannot be proved from Scripture let them fall as mens hay and stubble But in the mean time these are two different questions Whither there be an immutable Platform of Discipline in the Word Or whither ours be the only Platform and no other If we carry the first Ceremonies must fall And certainly in all reason we are on the surest side If we cannot observe all that is written it is not like that God hath laid upon us unwritten burdens 2. Hooker doth not reject all the Popish Traditions as our Divines Reformed do because they are not warranted by the Word so that if the Images of God and Christ and the Worshipping of them and Purgatory and the Supremacy of the Pope can be proved to be of God though they be no more in Scripture then Crossing and Surplice then would he receive all these as Having the self same force and authority with the Written Laws Now we know no other weightier Argument to prove there 's no Purgatory but because the scripture speaketh of Heaven and Hell and is silent of Purgatory 2. That naturall reason can warrant a positive instituted Worship such as Surplice betokening Pastorall Holinesse without any Scripture is a great untruth for naturall reason may warrant new Sacraments as well as new Sacramentals 3. If Traditions have their force and credit from God not from the manner of delivering them that is from being contained in scripture or not contained in it then certainly they must be of the same Divine necessity with scripture For whither Christ Command that the Baereans believe in the Messiah by the Vocall Preaching of Paul or by the written scriptures of the Prophets and Apostles it is all one it is the same word and coming from Christ must be of the same Divine authority But this is to beg the question for that we are to believe no unwritten tradition because it is unwritten to have the self same force and authority with the Written Laws of God For Lorinus Cornelius a Lapide Com. in 4. Deuter. Estius Com. in 2. Thes 2. 15. Bellarmine Tannerus Malderus Becanus say Whither the Lord deliver his minde to us in his Written Scripture or by Tradition it is still the Word of God and hath authority from God But the truth is to us it is not the Word of God if it be not a part of the Counsel of God written in Moses or the Prophets and Apostles for though the Word have authority only from God not from the Church nor from men or the manner of delivering of it by word or writ yet we with the Fathers and Protestant Divines and evidence of scripture stand to that of Basilius Homil. 29. Advers câ—lâ—mnianâ—es S. Trinit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Believe what are written vvhat are not vvritten â—eek not after And so seek not after Surâ—lice Crossiâ—g and the like And that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Every word and so this That Crossing Surplice are Religious signes of spirituall duties and every thing or action must be made good by the Testimony of the heavenly inspired Scripture these things that are good and so Religiously decent and significant may be fully confirmed and these that are evil corfounded And to us for our Faith and practise if it be not Law and Testimony it is darknesse and not light And as Gregor Nyssen the Brother of Basyl saith Dialog de anim et Resurrect tom 2. ed. Grecolaâ— pag. 639. Edit Greâ— pag. 325. That only must be acknowledged for truth in which is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the seal of the Scriptures Testimony 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And how shall it be true to us iâ— Scripture say it not Or how shall it appear to us to be from God For Cyril Alexandrin saith What the holy Scripture saith not such as are your Positives of mens devising how shall we receive it and account it amongst things that are true And it is not that which Hereticks of old said for their Heresies to say â—s Hooker doth that any thing may be proved to be of God which is not written in Scripture For saith Hieronimus in Hag. c. 1. Sed alia quae absque authoritate testimoniis Scripturarum quasi Traditione Apostolica sponte reperiunt atque confingunt percutit Gladius dei The Scripture doth bar the door upon Hereticks saith Chrysostome And he is a Theef that taketh another unlawfull way then the Scripture And by what Argument can reason without Scripture prove that Crosse and Suplice are of God But by that same reason Papists without Scripture can and may prove their Traditions to be of God And if we admit reason and exclude Scripture it is as easie to prove their Traditions as our Positive additions to Worship And what Answers Papists give for their Traditions to â—lude the power of Scripture and evidence of Testimonies of fathers all these same are given by Prelats for their additions to say nothing that Hooker asserteth unwritten Traditions to be Gods Word and in the very stile of the Councel of Trent we are to acknowledge Traditions though unwritten yet to have the self same authority and force with the Written Laws of God And shal the Surplice and Crosse and such stuffe be of the self same force and authority with the Evangel according to Luke and John
Moses the Prince is Commanded to make all according to the Patern in the Mount 2. God speaketh to all Israel and not to the Princes only Deut. 4. 1. Hearken O Israel he speaketh to these who are bidden to keep their soul diligently v. 6. 3. It is Bellarmines groundlesse charity to think private heads who were not Princes and Law-givers did not take on an hâ—iry Mantle to deceive Zach. 13. 4. And say Thus saith the Lord when God had not spoken to them Ier. 23. 16. 32. Yea and Private women added their own dreams to the word of God Ezech. 13. 17 18. 3. They say Traditions are from Gods Spirit But hath Gods Spirit lost all Majesty Divinity and power in speaking If the Popes Decretals the Councels the dirty Traditions wanting life Language and power be from Gods Spirit Formalists admit Traditions from an humane spirit and in this are shamed even by Papists who say God only â—an adde to his own Word whereas they say men and the worst of men Prelates may adde to Gods vvord 4. But that additions perfecting are forbidden is clear 1. Additions perfecting as Didoclavius saith argueth the word of imperfection and that Baptisme is not perfect without Crossing 2. It is Gods Prerogative to adde Canonick Scripture to the five books of Moses and the Nevv-Testament and the doctrine of the Sacraments which cannot be Syllogistically deduced out of the Old Testament Matth. 28. 19 20. Ioh. 21. 31. Heb. 3. 2. Rev. 1. 19. and these are perfecting and explaining additions therefore men may by as good reason adde Canonick Scripture to the Revelation as adde new Positive Doctrines like this The holy Surplice is a sacred signe of Pastorall Holinesse Crossing is a signe of dedicating the childe to Christs service for Papists â—ay even Vasquez That the Pope neither in a generall Councell nor out of it can ordain any nevv points of Faith vvhich are not contained in the principles or Articles revealed and may not be evidently concluded out of them Formalists answer It is not lavvfull to adde any thing as a part of divine worship but it is Lawfull to addâ— something as an indifferent Rite coming from Authority grounded upon common equity And this is the ansvver of the Jesuite Vasquez The Pope and Church cannot make an Article of Faith for that is believed by divine Faith to come from God only but as Law-givers they may give Laws that bindeth the conscience and yet are not altogether essentiall in worship If additions as divine parts of Gods worship say we be forbidden God then forbidding to adde such Traditions forbiddeth his own spirit to adde to Gods word for no man but God can adde additions Divine that is coming from God but God himself by good consequence the forbidding men to add additions as really coming from God should forbid men to be Gods for divine additions are essentially additions coming from God but if he forbid additions only of mens divising but obtruded to have the like efficacy and power over the conscience that Canonick Scripture hath then were it lawfull to adde killing of our children to Molech so it were counted not really to come from God with opinion of divine necessity and by this God should not forbid things to be added to his Word by either private or publick men but only he should forbid things to be added with such a quality as that they should by Divine Faith be received as coming from God and having the heavenly stamp of Canonick Scripture when as they are come only from the Pope and his bastard Bishops so all the fables of the Evangell of Nicodemus The materials of the Iewish and Turkish Religion might be received as lawfull additions so they do not contradict the Scripture as contrary to what is written but only beside what is written and with all so they be received as from the Church Also 3. Additions contrary to the word are diminutions to adde to the eight Command this addition The Church saith it is lawfull to steal were no addition to the ten Commandments but should destroy the eight Commandment and make nine Commandments only and the meaning of Gods precept Deut. 12. Thou shalt neither adde nor diminish should be Thou shalt neither diminish neither shalt thou diminish And so our Masters make Moses to forbid no additions at all 6. Commentaries and Expositions of the Word if sound shall be the word of God it self the true sense of a speech is the form and essence of a speech and so no additions thereunto but explanations except you make all sound Sermons Arbitrary Ceremonies and Traditions whereas Articles of Faith expounded are Sermons and so the Scripture it self materially taken is but a Tradition QUEST II. Whether Scripture be such a perfect rule of all our Morall Actions aâ— that the distinction of essentiall and necessary and of accidentall and Arbitrary worship cannot stand And if it forbid all worship not only contrary but also beside the word of God as false though it be not reputed as divine and necessary FOrmalists do acknowledge as Morton Burges Hooker and others teach us that Ceremonies which are meer Ceremonies indifferent in nature and opinion are not forbidden yea that in the generall they are commanded upon common equity and in particular according to their specification Surplice Crossing Knâ—eling before consecrated Images and representations of Christ are not forbidden and negatively Lawfull having Gods allowing if not his commanding will but only God forbiddeth such Ceremonies wherein men place opinion of divine necessity holinesse and efficacy in which case they become Doctrinall and essentiall and so mens inventions are not Arbitrary and accidentall worship But let these considerations be weighed 1. Distinct The Word of Go being given to man as a Morall Agent is a rule of all his Morall Actions but not of actions of Art Sciences Disciplines yea on of meer nature 2. Distinct Beside the Word in actions Morall and in Gods worship is all one with that which is contrary to the Word and what is not commanded is forbidden as not seeing in a creature capable of all the five senses is down right blindenesse 3. Lawfulnesse is essentiall to worship instituted of God but it is not essentiall to worship iâ— generall neither is opinion of sanctity efficacy or Divine necessity essentiall to worship but only to Divine worship and its opinion not actuall nor formall but fundamentall and materiall 4. Seeing the Apostles were no lesse immediatly inspired of God then the Prophets it is a vain thing to seek a knot in a rush and put a difference betwixt Apostolick Commandments or Traditions and divine Commandments as it is a vain and Scripturelesse curiosity to difference betwixt the Propheticall truths of Moses Samuel Isaiah Ieremiah Ezekiel c. And Divine Prophecies which is as if you would difference betwixt the fair writing of Titus the writer and the writing made by the pen of Titus
in the first Table yet the Morallity of the second Table is as expresly in Gods Word as the Worship of the first Table 1. Because what is justice and mercy and love toward man in the second Table doth no more depend upon mans sole will but upon Gods Morall Law the Law of nature then it dependeth upon mans will or human wisdom how God should be worshipped according to the first Table For Gods will in his Word is called by our Divines a perfect Canon and rule of Faith and also of Manners And as the grace of God T it 2. teacheth us what is Piety so also what is Righteousnesse and Sobriety 2. Because as Gods Word condemneth will-worship which is come of no Nobler blood then mans will so condemneth it idle words and idle actions which are but will-works and will-words and deeds of will-justice and will-mercy and a will-conscience in the second Table putteth no lesse a rub upon the wisdom of the Lord the Law giver then a will conscience in the first Table But Formalists say If mans will and authority cannot appoint Crossing Holy humane-dayes Surplice and such the decent expressions and incitements of Devotion in the kinde of Arbitrary Mutable and Ambulatory Worship but they must be therein guilty of adding to the Doctrine of Piety and Religion in the first Table by that same reason they cannot make humane Civill and Positive Laws in War and Peace to be means of conserving justice and mercy tovvard humane societies in the kinde of duties of Righteousnesse and sobriety tovvards our selves and Neighbours but they must be guilty of adding to the Doctrine of the second Table I Answer 1. The case is not alike we cannot be Agents in the performing of any worship to God nor can we use any Religious means for honouring God which belong to the first Table But in these we are Morall Agents doing with speciall reference to conscience and to true happinesse and the glory of God as the ends both of the work and workers and therefore in these we are precisely ruled by the wisdom of God who hath in his word set down what Worship and what means of exciting Devotion and decoring of his Worship pleaseth him and hath not left men to Lord-will or Lord-wit but in many actions that belong to humane societies we are not Morall Agents but often Agents by Art as in Military discipline Trades usefull for mans life Oeconomy and Policy in Kingdoms and Cities in Sciences as Logick Physick Mathematicks in these Finis operis the end of the work is operation according to the principles of Arts and Policy and we are not in them Morall Agents and so not to be regulated by Gods Word For the Scripture giveth not to us precepts of Grammar of War of Trades and Arts teaching us to speak right Latine to make accurat demonstrations nor is the end of the work here a thing that pitcheth upon that tender and excellentest peece in us our Conscience and our Morall duties to God and men but to make such humane Laws just and suitable with sobriety and justice is not left to Lord-will but right reason the principles of a naturall Conscience which are parts to us of Scripture and the Word of God it self hath determined whether to carry Armour in the night in such a case Whether to eat flesh in such a season of the year when the eating thereof hurteth the Common-Wealth and the like belong to works of justice and mercy or no Now it is no marvel that in things belonging to our naturall life peace societies policy where the end of the work is naturall or civill and belongeth not as such to the Conscience and Salvation of the soul that there men be Artificers or Agents according to Art Oeconomy Policy whereas the end of the work Finis operis in the Worship of God is Morall and a matter of an higher nature and so the means and manner of Worship here are determined by Gods Word But when actions of Arts Sciences Trades Oeconomy Policy and Laws positive are elevated above themselves Ad finem operantium to the end that Agents are to look unto as they be Morall Agents Gods Word is as perfect a rule for acts of good manners in the second Table as in the first For example that I speak good Latine I am to see to Disputers Precepts but that I lie not and speak not Scandals or Blasphemies while I speak Latine there I am to look to Gods Law given by Moses That a Tradesman make works according to Art he is to advise with Art but that he sell not his work at too dear a price he is to advise with the eight Commandment and when all these acts of Art are referred to Conscience Salvation and the glory of God as they ought to be Respectus finis operantis in respect of the Morall intention of the doer all their Morallity is squared by Gods-Word Hence there be no actions of Worshipping God but they be purely Morall Et respectu finis operis Et respectu finis operantiis but many actions belonging to the second Table are either purely not Morall as actions of meer Art or they be mixed and Respectu finis operis in respect of the end of the work they are not Morall nor to be squared by the Word at all and in respect of the Morall intention of the doer they be Morall and so mixed actions and partly ruled by the Word and partly ruled by Art or Policy according to our seventh distinction II. Conclusion In actions or Religious means of Worship and actions Morall whatever is beside the Word of God is against the Word of God I say in Religious means for there be means of Worship or Circumstances Physicall not Morall not Religious as whether the Pulpit be of stone or of timber the Bell of this or this Mettall the house of Worship stand thus or thus in Situation Our Formalists will have it in the power of rulers to Command in the matter of Worship that which is beside the Word of God and so is negatively Lawfull though it be not Positively conform to Gods Word nor Commanded or warranted by practice which I grant is a witty way of Romes devising to make entry for Religious humane Ceremonies But 1. Whatever is not of Faith and a sure perswasion that what I do pleaseth God is sin Rom. 14. 14. 23. And therefore neither can be Commanded by Rulers nor practiced by inferiours But things besides Scripture and negatively Lawfull are things not of Faith Ergo The Assumption I Prove 1. I doubt if Lord-will be the Lord-carver of what pleaseth God 2. If it may stand with the wisdom of Christ the Law-giver for no Ceremonies maketh Christ a perfect Law-giver 3. In things doubtsome abstinence is the surest side Ergo Rulers ought not to command them 4. Samuel David even wicked Saul abstained in things doubtsome while the Oracle of
a lege aeternâ as they depend on the eternall law Ergo they oblige in Conscience it followeth not They oblige in Conscience as their Major and Minor proposition in that which is morall can be proved out of Gods word but so in their morallity they are meerely divine and not humane and positive and so the argument concludeth not against us They oblige in Conscience as they depend upon the eternall law that is as they are deduced from the eternall Law of God in a Major proposition without probation of the assumption that we deny and it is in question now The people 1 Sam. 8. in rejecting Samuel from being their judge rejected God not because Samuel had a power of making lawes without the warrant of Gods word Neither Moses nor Jeremiah nor Ezekiel nor any Prophet were in that servants subordinate to God for they vvere onely to heare the vvord at Gods mouth 3. We could have no more at Bellarmines hand then Jackson saith For Bellarmine saith In a good sense Christ gave to Peter a power to make that which is sinne to be no sin and that which is no sinne to be sinne So Iackson the interposition of derived authority maketh that which would be murther other wayes to bee a good worke that is men may doe what God onely can doe If Isaac then at the commandement of Abraham his father offer his sonne Iacob to God in a bloody Sacrifice then Abrahams derived authority maketh that a lawfull sacrifice as to strike a Prophet of it selfe is a degree of murther but when a Prophet commandeth another to strike a Prophet it is lawfull But can any blasphemer say that this was humane derived authority without warrant of the word of the Lord such as are humane positive lawes and our humane ceremonies see the text 1 King 20. 35. And a certaine man of the sonnes of the Prophets said unto his neighbour in the word of the Lord smite me This was immediate divine and Propheticall authoritie and not humane Doth the Kings letter of Mart make robbing a Spaniard lawfull Court Parasites speake so he refuteth himselfe The Kings letter of Mart for wrongs done to the State maketh that which is Piracy lawfull then the Kings authority doth not here by a nomothetick power and a law laid upon the Conscience but the wrongs of Piracy by Spaine done to the State of England may make the robbing of Spaniards an act of lawfull warre and an act of justice flowing from the King as a lawfull Magistrate Now Iackson is speaking of mandates of Rulers in that place which have no warrant of the word of God Yea even Stapleton a Papist saith as Doctor Field also observeth That humane laws binde for the utility and neoessity of the matter and not from the will of the Lawgiver And so saith Gerson Almain Decius Mencha and our owne Iunius saith The plenitude of power of lawes is onely in the princpall agent not in the instrument Doctor Iackson saith unlimited and absolute faith or submission of conscience we owe not to rulers that is due to God but we owe to them conditionall assent and cautionary obedience if they speake from God suppose they fetch not an expresse commission from Scripture for if Pastors be then onely to be obeyed when they bring evident commission out of Scripture I were no more bound to beleeve obey my governours then they are bound to beleeve and obey in Bellarm. contr 3. lih 4. cap. 6. not 89. my Governours then ther are bound to believe and obey me for equals are oblieged to obey equalls when they bring a warrant from Gods word and so the povver of Rulers vvere not reall but titular and the same do th Sutluvius and Bellarmine say Answ We owe to equalls to Mahomet conditionall and cautionary faith and obedience thus I beleeve what Mahomet saith so he speake Gods word yea so Samaritans who worshipped they knew not what John 4. 26. gave saith to their Teachers in a blinde way so they speake according to Gods word 2. It followeth in no sort if Rulers are onely to be obeyed when they bring Gods Word that then they are no more to be obeyed then equalls Infetiours because there is a double obedience one of conscience and objective coming from the thing commanded And in respect of this the word hath no lesse authority and doth no lesse challenge obedience of Confcience and objective when my equall speaketh it in a private way yea when I writ it in my muse then when a Pastor speaketh it by publike authority for we teach against Papists that the word borroweth â—o authority from men nor is it with certainty of faith to be received as the Word of man but as indeed the Word of God as the Scripture saith 1. There is another obedience officiall which is also obedience of Conscience because the fifth Commandement injoyneth it Yet not obedience of Conscience coming from the particular commanded in humane Lawes as humane so I owe obedience of subjection and submission of affection of feare love honour respect by vertue of the fift Commandement to Rulers when they command according to Gods Word and this I owe not to equals or inferiours and so it followeth not that the power of Rulers and Synods is titular because they must warrant their mandates from the Word But it s alwayes this mans hap to be against sound truth But 3. That I owe no more objective subjection of conscience to this Thou shalt not murther Beleeve in Iesus Christ when Rulers and Pastors command them then when I read them in Gods word I prove 1. If this from a Ruler Thou shalt not murther challenge faith and subjection of Conscience of six degrees but as I read it my selfe or as my equall in a private way saith Thou shalt not murther it challenge saith and subjection of foure degrees onely then is it more obligatory of Conscience and so of more intrinsecall authority and so more the word of God when the Ruler commandeth it then when I read it or my equall speaketh it to me This were absurd for the speaker whether publike or private person addeth not any intrinsecall authority to the word for then the word should be more or lesse Gods word as the bearers were publike or private more or lesse worthy As Gods word spoken by Amos a Prophet should not be a word of such intrinfecall authority as spoken by Moses both a Prince and a Prophet 2. My faith of subjection of Conscience should be resolved as concerning the two degrees of obedience of faith to the word spoken by the Ruler on the sole authority of the Ruler and not on the authority of God the Author of his own word 4. I answer to Sutluvius That Christ in the externall policy of his owne house is a Lawgiver ordaining such and such officers himselfe Ezek. 4. 11. commanding order and decency
that Christ should direct the Jews who were to be dispersed through all the earth to go up to Jerusalem for judgement seeing Ierusalem was to be laid equall with the ground and the Iews their state Church policy and the Scepter now removed from Iudah let wise men judge 11. The complaining to an Heathen Magistrate or the punishing of an offender by the sword by no Scripture is such a binding on earth by the power of the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven as this is expounded Matth. 16. 19. And such a binding as is ratified in Heaven and that by the joynt Prayers of two or three on earth as is here spoken ver 18 19 20. A Heathen Magistrates Sentence though never so just should not be valued except it were confirmed by the Prayers of the Church as the Sentence of Excommunication must be 12. The Iewish Saenedrim was now to take an end and expire with all the Iewish policy it is not to be imagined that Iesus Christ would appoint a perishing remedy for a perâ—etuall and ever-enduring disease now offences and scandals between brother and brother were to be in the world to the end ver 15. If thy brother offend c. And Christ saith Offences must be and the remedy here is morall and perpetuall as 1. That Christ shall have a Church visible on earth against which the gates of Hell shall not prevail 2. That we first deal to gain our brother in private ere to his greater shame he be brought in publick before the Church 3. The Lords ratifying in Heaven what his servants shall binde and loose on earth 4. The agreeing of two to pray together the convâ—ening of two or three in the name of Christ with a promise of the presence of Christ all these are Morall and perpetuall The Lord never did the like of this before or after 13. In all the New-Testament we do not read that Christ who was the end of the Law and the body now come in the flesh to abolish all Ceremonials and temporary Laws of the Iewish Church and policy as Iewish did institute any old-Testament Law such as the Sanedrim was for offending brethren if it be said that this was but the right expounding of an old divine Law now almost buried through the corruption of men then must Erastus shew that this was an old Law of divine institution that the Iews were to keep this threefold order in gaining an offending brother and that this is now abolished and that the power of the Magistrate in Church-businesse by this place is not established to the end of the world both which are contrary to the Principles of Erastus not to say that there is not in this whole Chapter or Luk. 17. where the same purpose is handled any shadow of reason to assert that Christ is restoring any Ceremoniall or Iudiciall Law to its genuine and sound meaning and sense but by the contrary Christ speaketh of the Morall and perpetuall Doctrine of scandall and how we are to deal with an offending brother to gain him to repentance either by our selves or the Church and to forgive private injuries even to seventy seven times Lastly since Publicans and Romans converted to the Christian saith from Paganisme even at this time were Brethren who might both give and take scandals it shall follow that Christ commandeth Gentiles to submit to the Jewish Magistrates this was against Christian liberty and to take from Cesar those things that are Cesars which is unjust But saith Erastus Publicans were not in Iuda excluded from sacrifices Luâ— 18. A Pharisee and a Publican went up to the Temple to pray Christ himself did eat with Publicans and sinners therefore this phrase Let him be unto thee as an Heathen and a Publican cannot expresse this Let him be excommunicated except you say that all heathen and Publicans were so served by Christ and the Iews as if they had been excommunicated Ans 1. Publicans that were by Nation Heathens were excluded from sacrifices and the Temple jure by Gods Law but not de facto because the Iews being under bondage to the Romane Emperour and spoiled of their Liberties and Laws might not put their Laws in execution against Heathen and Publicans it is sufficient to us saith Beza that Publicans were execrable and hatefull to the Iews and say I that Heathen and Publicans remaining such are without the Church and not to be reputed as brethren but enemies to the true Church of God and this is that which to us is Excommunication I do not doubt but Publicans went to the Temple to pray but that is but to Argue A facto ad jus not the right way A jure ad factum Publicans ought not to have done so 2. Christ the Supream Lawgiver who is above the Law did often dispense with sacrifice and positive Laws for a work of mercy and if he touched the dead and touched the skin of the Leaper and suffered his disciples to pluck the ears of Corne on the Sabbath day what marvell then he did eat with Publicans and sinners contrary to the Letter of a positive Law Knowing his own whom the Father had given to him from eternity were to be brought in to himself by his familiar conversing with them why should not the Physitian converse with the sick the shepheard with the lost sheep the Redeemer with his ransomed ones But this is no warrant that therefore the cleansed Leaper should not shevv himself to the Priest or that an obstinate offender should not be reputed as a Heathen and not admitted into the Sanctuary 3. That simple Publicans or Heathen remaining such should sacrifice I never read sacrifices were offered for Iobs friends who were not within the visible Church But 1. by Gods own speciall and immediate command as we read Iob 42. 7 8. A positive Law for it which yet was requisite for ordinary worship of that kinde we read not 2. I think Iobs friends cannot in knowledge Religion Profession be esteemed meer Heathens and therefore as God tied not himself to a positive and standing Law here so neither was Christ being the same God equall with the Father so restrained from not familiar conversing with Heathen and Publicans but he might leap over a Ceremony to save a lost soul Object 6. But the adversaries say Christ here useth words proper to the Iewish Synedry and the Old-Testament as witnesses Ecclesia or congregation Heathen Publican and these are not New Testament words nor was there such a thing as a New Testament Church on earth at this time and Christ having not yet ascended to Heaven nor sent down the holy spirit cannot be thought to hold forth the power and jurisdiction of a thing yet destitute of all being such as was the Christian Church nor can he here speak of Christs spirituall Kingdom Ans 1. Christ did well to use these words Witnesses Church Congregation Heathen Publican as well known to his hearers and these
rebuking the rod of Church-discipline to reject Hereticks after admonitions Hence I argue negatively in all the Scripture never did the Lord command that they should pray to God and mourne that he would inflict bodily vengeance and death or yet sicknesse on any scandalous professor nor is there promise precept or practise in any Scripture of this Church censure 5. Erastus doth thinke a court of the Church that hath power to lead Witnesses judge and censure offenders an extream wronging of the Magistrate and an incroaching on his Liberties but here is a more bloody Court for if the whole faithfull are to pray for bodily death by the Ministery of the Devill upon one of their own brethren because he hath lyen with his fathers wife or fallen in Adultery or Murther as David did Surely they must pray in faith and upon certaine knowledge that he is guilty the Law of God and Nature must then have warranted the whole Saints Women and Children to meet in a grand Jurie and Inquest either to have the fact proved by Witnesses or to heare his owne confession else how could they pray in faith if it was not sure to their conscience that the man had done this deed Here is a Jury of men and women I am sure unknowne to the Apostolique Church 2. A greater abridging of the Magistrates power then we teach The Church shall take away the life of a Subject never aske the Magistrates leave 6. It is against Christs minde Mat. 18. â—s Erastus expoundeth it that Christians should go any further against an offending brother then implead him before an Heathen though he adde injurie to injurie But this waâ— maketh the Holy Ghost sharply to rebuke all the Saints when they are offâ—â—ded before the barre of Heaven by crying miraculous bloodâ—e vengeance upon the Offender 7. It is evident this man repenâ—ed and that the Corinthians confirmed their love to him and did forgive him 2 Cor. 2. 7. 10. Ergo He was not miraculously killed But we never read where it was Gods will and Law that an â—ll doers life should be spared though he should repent because his taking away is for example that others may feare 2. That evill and as it is here leaven may be taken away if then it had been bodily death I see not how Paul and the Corinthians could have dispensed with it 8. Erastus doth not nor can he confirme his unknown Exposition by any parallel Scripture of the Old and New Testament which I objected to him in his Exposition of Matth. 18. Let the Reader therefore observe how weak Erastus is in arguing against pregnant Scriptures for Excommunication Erastus You must prove that to mourn because the man is not taken away is all one as to mourn that he is not debarred from the Sacraments by the Ministers and Elders Ans That is denyed to be debarred from the Sacraments is but a consequent of Excommunication 2. It is a putting of the man from amongst them not by death that we have refuted not from eating and drinking with him onely that I improved before Ergo it must be a Church ouâ—-casting Erastus Paul might deliver the man to Satan though he did Repent as the Magistrate did punish Malefactors whether they Repented or noâ— An. Ergo he repen ed and was pardoned by the Corinthians 2 Cor. 2. 10. after he had been killed which is absurd Erastus If to deliver to Satan were nothing but to debar the man from the Sacraments ever while he should repent Why should Paul with a great deal of pains and many words have excused himself to the Corinthians 2 Cor. 2. and cap. 7. and as it were deprecate the offending of them for they should know that this manner of coercing and punishing was and ought to be exercised in the Church if it was but a saving remedy and invitation to repentance Why were they sad They should rather have rejoyced as the Angels of Heaven doth at the Conversion of a sinner then Paul must have intended another thing Ans This is a meer conjecture as Erastus granteth most he saith against the place is for he saith Aliam conjecturam etiam addidi such a violent remedy of repentance as is the cutting off of a member from Christs body being the most dreadfull sentence of the King of the Church nearest to the last sentence was to Paul and ought to be a matter of sorrow to all the Servants of God as the foretelling of sad Iudgements moved Christ to tears Matth. 23. 37 Luke 19. 41 42. And moved Ieremiah to sorrow cap. 9. 1. And yet Christ was glad at the home-coming of sinners Luke 15. 6 7 c. These two are not contrary as Erastus dreameth but subordinate to wit That Christ should inflict the extreamest vengeance of Excommunication which also being blessed of God is a saving though a violent remedy of repentance and To rejoyce at the blessed fruit of Excommunication which is the mans repentance And the Apostle 2 Cor. 7. professeth his sorrow That he made them sad ver 8. and also rejoyceth at their gracious disposition who were made sorry He is far from excusing himself as if he had done any thing in weaknesse this were enough and it is an Argument of our Protestant Divines to prove that the Books of the Macabees are not Dited by the Holy Ghost as Canonick Scripture is because the Author 2 Macab 15. 38. excuseth himself in that History as if he might have erred which no Pen-man of holy Scripture can do And Erastus layeth the like blame on Paul as if he had repented that he made them sorry by chiding them for not praying for a miraculous killing of a Brother This is enough to make the Epistles of Paul to be suspected as not Canonick Scripture yea Paul saith the contrary 2 Cor. 7. 9. Now I reioyce not that yee were made sorry but that yee sorrowed to repentance for yee were made sorry after a godly manner that ye might receive dammage by us in nothing and 2 Cor. 2. 8 9. he exhorteth them to rejoycing at the mans Repentance and to confirme their love to him which demonstrates that he was now a living man and not miraculously killed and commendeth their obedience v. 9. in sorrowing as he did chide them that they sorrowed not 1 Cor. 5. 2. So that Paul is so farre from accusing himselfe for making them sad that by the contrary he commends himselfe for that and rejoyceth thereat And if the matter had been Excommunication while the man should repent saith Erastus they knowing this ought to be in the Church they should rather have reioyced then bin sorry And I answer if the matter had been a miraculous killing of him that his Spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord should they not reioyce at his saving in the day of the Lord whether this saving be wrought by bodily killing or by Excommunication And so this conjecture may well be
But the King is head of the Church Ergo he maketh lawes to regulate the Family Ans The Antecedent is false if not blasphemous it is proper to Iesus Christ only Col. 1. 18. Eph. 1. 22. The King is the head of men who are the Church materialiter he is not formally as King Head of the Church as the Church and therefore we see not how this Statute agreeth with the Word of God Henric. 8. Stat. 37. c. 17. The Archbishops Bishops Arch-deacons and other Ecclesiasticall persons have no manner of Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall but by under and from the Kings Royall Majesty the onely and undoubted supream head of the Church of England and Ireland to whom by holy Scripture is given all authority and power to hear and determine all manner of causes Ecclesiasticall and to correct all vice and sin whatsoever for neither is the subject the Archbishops Bishops c. lawfull nor is the limitation of the subject lawful for Ecclesiasticall officers are the Ambassadors of Christ not of the King Obj. All Christians are to try the Spirits Ergo Much more Magistrates Ans This proveth that Christians as Christians and Magistrates as Christians may judge determine of all things that concerneth their practise and that they are not with blinde obedience to receive things Mr. Pryn cannot say that 1 Iohn 4. 1. is meant of a Royall Parliamentary or Magistraticall tryall Iohn speaketh to Christians as such But this is nothing to prove the power of the Magistrate as the Magistrate for thought the man were neither King nor Magistrate he ought to try the Spirits 1 Iohn 4. 1. The speciall objection moved for Appeals is that which Paul did in a matter of Religion that we may do in the like case but Paul Acts 25. did appeal from a Church Iudge to a civill and a heathen Iudge in a matter of Religion when he said before Festus Acts 25. I appeal to Cesar Ergo so may the Ministers of Christ far more appeal to the Christian Magistrate and that Paul did this jure by Law not by Priviledge but by the impulsion of the Holy Ghost is clear in that he saith He ought to be judged by Cesar so Maccovius so Videlius so Vtenbogardus so Erastus Ans 1. This Argument if it have nerves shall make the great Turk when he subdueth people and Churches of the Protestant Religion to be the head of the Church and as Erastus saith by his place and office as he is a Magistrate he may preach and dispense the Sacraments and a Heathen Nero may make Church constitutions and say It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to me and by this Nero by office is to excommunicate make or unmake Pastors and Teachers judge what is Orthodoxe Doctrine what not debarre hereticks Apostates and mockers from the Table and admit the worthie and Paul the Apostle must have been the Ambassador and Deputie of Nero in preaching the Gospel and governing the Church and Nero is the mixt person and invested by Iesus Christ with spirituall jurisdiction and the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven This Argument to the Adversaries cannot quit its cost â—or by this way Paul appealed from the Church in a controversie of Religion to a Nero a Heathen unbaptized Head of the Church and referred his faith over to the will judgement and determination of a professed Enemy of the Christian Church and Paul must both jure by the Law of God and the impulsion of the Holy Ghost appeale from the Church to a Heathen without the Church in a matter of Religion and Conscience then Nebuchadnezzar was head of the Church of Iudah and supreame judge and governour in all causes and controversies of Religion how can we beleeve the adversarie who doe not beleeve themselves and shall we make Domitian Dioclesian Trajan and such heads of the Church of Christ 2. It is not said that Paul appealed from the Church or any Ecclesiasticall judicature to the civill judge for Paul appealed from Festus who was neither Church nor Church officer and so Paul appealeth from an inferiour civill judge to a superiour or civill judge as is clear Acts 28. 6. And when Festus had tarried amongst them more then ten dayes he went downe to Cesarea and the next day sitting in the judgement seat commanded Paul to be brought vers 10. And Paul said I stand at Cesars judgement seat where I ought to be judged he refused v. 9 10. to be judged by Festus at Ierusalem but saith v. 11. I appeal to Cesar Now he had reason to appeal from Festus to Cesar for the Iews laid many grievous complaints against Paul which they could not prove vers 7. And it is said vers 8. That Festus was willing to doe the Iewes a pleasure and so was manifestly a partiall Iudge and though the Sanedrim at Ierusalem could have judged in point of Law that Paul was a blasphemer and so by their Law he ought to die for so Caiphas and the Priests and Pharisees dealt with Iesus Christ yet his appeal from the Sanedrim 1. corrupted and having manifestly declared their bloodie intentions against Paul 2. From a Sanedrim in its constitution false and degenered far from what it ought to be by Gods institution Deut. 17. 8 9 10. it now usurping civill businesse which belonged not to them Paul might also lawfully appeal from a bloodie and degenerating Church judicature acting according to the bloodie lusts of men against an innocent man to a more unpartiall judge and yet be no contemner of the Church this is nothing against our Thesis which is that it is not lawfull to appeal in a constituted Church from a lawfull unmixt Church Judicature to the civill Magistrate in a matter of life and death 3. Paul appealed from the Sanedrim armed with the unjust and tyrannicall power of Festus a man willing to please the bloodie accusers of Paul as is clear v. 9. And Festus willing to doe the Iewes a pleasure answered Paul and said Wilt thou go up to Ierusalem and there be judged of these things before me 3. The cause was not properly a Church businesse but a crime of bodily death and sedition I deny not but in Pauls accusation prophaning of the Temple teaching against the Law of Moses was objected to him Materialiter the enemies made the cause of Paul a Church businesse but formally it was sedition 1. It was a businesse for which the Sanedrim sought Pauls life and blood for which they had neither authority nor Law by divine Institution therefore they sought the helpe of Felix Festus and the Roman Deputies so Lysias vvrote to Felix Act. 23. 29. I perceived Paul to be accused of questions of their law but to have nothing layd to his charge worthy of death or of bonds Now it is clear the Roman Deputies thought not any accusation for the Iewish Religion a matter of death and bonds and therefore Gallio the Deputie of Achaia Acts 18. 14. saith
to raise them Ergo if he be not to be judged as a contemner of Gods law in things indifferent farre lesse should he be judged by the Church law 4. Proposit Observers of dayes or non-observers of dayes should have certaintie of Faith in these indifferent things Ergo the light of the Word should lead Rulers and People here v. 5. in things indifferent 5. Proposit The observer of indifferent things as dayes in that case at Rome and the non-observers of dayes should not trouble one another because both are to observe and not observe indifferent things for Gods glory 1. Both gives thankes 2. Both liveth and dieth as Christs for Gods glorie 6. 7. 8. 9. Therefore Gods glorie is the end that ruleth the use of Ceremonies as they are indifferent Proposit 6. v. 10. 11. 12. a Christian should not condemne a Jew noâ— one brother another in things indifferent 1. Because we are brethren 2. Because it is Christs place to judge and condemne 3. Because every man must give an account for himself Ergo. Lawes of Rulers to condemne or punish are not to be made in such cases Proposit 7. v. 13. When the use of things indifferent is a stumbling block and scandall to our brethren they are against charitie and unlawfull Proposit 8. v. 14. there is a Prolepsis Meats clean or not clean may be eaten but all meats are clean and Paul is perswaded of that by Iesus Christ Ergo The Apostle answereth 1. by denying the major Proposition in two cases and setteth downe a distinction All things are clean in themselves but they become unclean in two cases 1. If one weake in the faith believe that the meat that he eateth is against the word of God the me at to him is unclean 2 If he eat before one that believeth it is forbidden in Gods Law to eat such meats his eating is a stumbling blocke to the weake But one might say It is a taken Scandall and not given for it is lawfull to eat thy brother deemeth it unlawfull out of ignorance of Christian libertie so say Formalists Ceremonies be indifferent if any offend at the use of them it is ascandall taken not given O but Paul forbiddeth to scandalize or to eat Hence the 9. Proposit The use of things indifferent as Ceremonies before any Law â—e made of them by confession of Formalists is indifferent and may be done and not done but if they scandalize Paul proveth by eight arguments they are unlawfull 1. If fighteth with Charitie that for meat so lâ—tle a thing for the knot of a straw a Ceremonie thou slay thy brother for whom Christ died v. 15. Where these reasons be 1. It is uncharitable walking 2. It is murther slay not him 3. It is contrary to Christs love who died for thy brother 4. It maketh Religion and Christian libertie to be evill spoken of v. 16. 5. From the nature of these things which are indifferent these in which the Kingdome of God consisteth not as Meats and Surplicâ— crossing kneeling c. when they scandalize ought to be omitted as being against righteousness and being sinnes of murther 2. Against Peace sinnes of contention 3. against joy of the Holy Ghost making sad and discouraging thy brother in his Christian â—ace and he that serveth God in peace and righteousnesse and joy is acceptable v. 18 6. The use of things indifferent in case of scandall conduce not to peace and edification v. 19. 7. It is a destroying of the worke of God v. 20. illustrated by a repeated prolepsis but the meat is clean â—ea but saith Paul it is evill and so morally unclean to him that eateth with offence v. 20. 8. Ab equo â—ono we are to doe good but to eat and drink with the scandalizing of our brother and to practise Ceremonies is not Good Proposit 10. The practising of things indifferent or Ceremonies for the very â—â—â—â—ing of the â—aith that we have Christian libertie to practise or noâ— practise in the case of scandall is not lawfull v. 22. set downe by a proâ—epsis Keep the faith of thy Christian libertie in case of scandall to thy selfe and to God Proposit 11. In the use of things indifferent we are to allow our selves that is to have the approbation of our Conscience that what we doe is lawfully v 22. Proposit 12. He that practiseth indifferent things with a doubting conscience and not in faith sinneth and is condemned v. 23. 1 Cor. 6 v 12 All things indifferent are lawfull in themselves but they are not expedient If we be brought under the power or band of them by law Ergo in the meanes of worship not onely must we see what is lawfull but also what is profitable and conducing to the end He reasoneth upon a given but not granted hypothesis that Fornication is indifferent as the Gentiles taught as we doe in the matter of Ceremonies 1 Cor. 7. v. 6. But this I speake by permission not of Commandement Ergo in things in which God hath granted us libertie to doe or not to doe permission hath place not obliedging necessitie or penall lawes 13 Proposit There cannot be commanding Lawes in things that are polltickly good or evill according to the individuall complexion temperature or gifts of singular men to marry or not to marry cannot be commanded for where God looseth no power on earth can bind v. 33. 1 Cor. 8. v. 7. Paul condemneth them in the use of their libertie Christian Howbeit there be not in every man this knowledge then that Rulers may make lawes in things indifferent without scandall they must remove ignorance 2. If there be but one person weake there is not in every man that knowledge in knowledge a Law obliedging all in things indifferent cannot be made V. 8. There is a definition of a thing indifferent It is a thing that commendeth us not to God which neither helpeth nor hindereth pietie nor maketh a man better or worse before God Then Ceremonies pretended to be for order decencie edification to stirre up the dull minde to spirituall duties cannot be things indifferent Hence observe 1. The materialls of worship as linnen cloathes habites gestures may be in their physicall consideration indifferent but as applyed by formulistes they cannot be indifferent for in their use kneeling appropriated to sacramentall bread linnen appropriated to the body of a Priest while he officiateth cannot be but religious or prophane 2. If God command gestures he commandeth this gesture hic nunc If in generall â—â—ealing be forbidden then for Achan to steale this Babylonish garment must be forbidden 3. It seemeth to have been after-noon with Henry Lesly of after cuppes when he saith if Papists and Protestants be two divers kindes of worshippers then their actions of worship must be indifferent as be their agents for actions are distinguished by their objects and ends Papists in kneeling worship their God of bread we in kneeling at the Sacrament worship the true God For when
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
so in a Physicall and naturall necessitie to save his owne temporall life that by all probabilitie was in great danger and these who being in no such necessitie did eat such meats scandalous and so distructive to the soules of weake ones and having varietie of other meats to keep them from sterving and so a meere necessitie of preserving the bodily life if we compare one affirmative command of God with another may remove that which may be supposed a soule necessitie And the reason is because in the doctrine of scandall which is more intricate and obscure then every Divine conceives God placeth acts of providentiall necessitie as emergent significations of his approving will which are so to us in place of a divine Commandement of Gods revealed will and these providentiall acts of necessitie doe no lesse oblige us to morall obedience then any of the expresse written Commandements of God I cleare it thus There is an expresse law It is sâ—â— and unlawfull for David or any man who is not one of the Lords Priests to eat shew-bread But God commeth in and putteth David in such a posture of divine providence that if he eat not shew-bread he shall be sinfully guiltie of violating a higher morall law of God who saith I will have mercie and not sacrifice Then David shall be cruell to his owne life and sinne against the sixt Commandement Thou shalt doe no murther If he eat not for not to eat when you are in a providentiall condition of sterving if you may have it is to kill your selfe and this providentiall condition doth no lesse oblige you to the Morall obedience of the sixt Command then if God in the letter of the Law should command you to eat This fact of David was not done by any extraordinarie impulsion of the Spirit but by a constant chanell that Providence ordinarily runneth in according to which I or any Professor must be obliged to preferre a worke of Mercie to Sacrifice that is by which we are to give obedience to the sixt Command which is not to kill even as without extraordinarie impulsion I may absent my selfe from hearing the Word when I find going to Church may indanger my life for non-obedience to affirmatives in a greater necessitie is ordinarie And therefore Christian prudence with which the Wisdome of God keeps house Prov. 8. 12. doth determine many things of scandall And prudence is a vertue commanded in the word of God for a wise man observes times and so will he observe all other circumstances yet there be rules here which standeth alwayes and they be these 1. Comparing a physicall and meerely naturall necessitie with a morall necessitie if we yeeld to the physicall necessitie and neglect the moral we sinne against God and may lay a stumbling blocke before others as to eat such meats where the losse is small and the necessitie of eating meerely physicall and the eating be a scandall to the weake we sinne and give scandall the case is cleare Rom. 14. for eating the case being indifferent as it was Rom. 14. is a meere physicall necessitie and not scandalizing a weake brother is a morall necessitie 2. Rule if we compare a greater morall necessitie with a lesse morall necessitie the lesse necessitie must yeeld to the greater a necessitie of mercie must yeeld to a necessitie of sacrificeing if David then should not have eaten the shew-bread in his providentiall necessitie of samine he should have been guiltie both of active scandalizing the soules of others in killing himselfe and should have killed himselfe and the lesse morall necessitie ceaseth and is no necessitie when a greater moral necessitie interveneth 3. Rule Where there is a physicall necessitie of the thing yet not extreame and a morall necessitie of abstinence we are to abstaine The Jewes had a physicall necessitie of the Babylonish Garments but not so extreame in point of perishing through cold as David had of Shew-bread in point of sterving for famine therefore Achan should have obeyed the morall necessitie of not touching the accursed thing and neglected the physicall necessitie which if it had amounted to the degrees of necessitie of mercie rather then obeying a Ceremoniall Command such as was Touch nâ—t the accursed spoyle Achâ—â— might without sinne or scandall to himselfe or others have medled with the spoyle 4. Rule That which is necessarie in speciè in the kind as to goe to Church and heare the Word to come to the house of God and Worship may be in individuo in a particular exigence of providence not morally necessarie but the contradicent thereof morally lawfull David doth lawfully forbeare to come to the Lords house if he knew Saul may kill him by the way â— The things which we are to forbeare only for necessitie of scandall and upon no other ground these I may doe in private if I know they cannot come to the notice of these who shall be scandalized upon the ground of lesse physicall necessitie as Rom. 14. beleevers for their necessitie ordinarie and for nourishment might eat fleshes in private though before a weak Jew they could nâ—â— because the sinne is not in the act of eating but wholly in the scandall and in the manner of the unseasonable doing of it But these things which are morally not necessarie because tâ—â—â—â—bstance of the fact is against a law we are to forbeare both in private because they are against a law and in publick before others for the scandall as Achan sinned in taking the Babilonish Garment though in private and his sinne should have been more scandalous if he had done it publickly Now these we are upon no ordinarie necessitie to doe but such as may incroach upon the hazard of the losse of life in which case an exigence of providence does stand for a Command of non-murthering had Saul and his Army been reduced to a danger of starving in a wildernesse and could have no food except they should kill and eat the Cattell of the Amâ—lâ—kites â— conceive The Lords preferring of Mercie before Sacrifice should warrant them to eat of the Amalakites Cattell yet would this providentiall necessitie be so limited as it may fall out that it stand not for a divine Command for it holdeth in affirmative commands only and 2. so positives as there must be yea there can be no sin eligible by such and such a case as Lot sinned in exposing his daughters to the lust of men to redeeme abstinence from Sodomie Hence it is cleare we may not doe a lesse nor counsell another to commit a lesse sinne to eschew a greater as the Jesuites wickedly teach So Tannerus so Turrianus and others who make a scandalum permissum a scandall that a Christian may hinder another to fall in and yet he permitteth him to fall in it But God hath a prerogative to permit sinfull scandals men have no such power when they are obliged to hinder it The divinite of
1. disp 54. Sect. 3. Actus Adorandi respectu prototypi est proprie Latreia c. Respectu vero imaginis est inferior Veneratio 5. Distin r Burges Lawfulnes of kneeling cap. 8. p. 14 15. s p. 34 35. t p. 84 85. w Edward 6. book of Engl. serv rubr 5. x Joan. Giseniue in â—uo Patisiâ—o disp 25 n. 40. y Didocl in Altari damasc Hospinianus de originc festorum Christian contra Gretser Profeste corporis Christi fol 94. 7. Arca non est babâ—â—a pro dâ—â— vivente nec propterea adorata So answereth Molinaus in his buckler of faith of Images Sect. 118. and Fran. Whites way to the Church Cap. 9. pag. 3. z Weames 3. Volumn of the Ceremon Law Cap. 3. pag. 12. The place worship at his footstool discussed a Arias Montanus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 b Musculus c Calvine comment in Psal 99. 5. d Junius Annotation ibid. Lyranus a dorandam Deum aute arcam non ipsam arcam Tylenus in syntag nat de preca disp 49. th 2. nu 29. particula 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Notat idem quod versus Vatablus adorate ad scabellum i. e. in templo ante arcam e Gratian de conser dist 1. cap. 68. Prayer may as lawfully be given to the Creature as Adoration There is a Prayer made to the image of the face of Jesus written in linnen Salve Sancta facies nostri redemptoris salve vultus domini imago beata nos deduc ad propria â— felix figura ad videndum faciem qua est Christi pura f Concilium Tridentinum Sessione 25. g Raphael de la Torres in 22. q. 95 art 2. disp 6. dub 5. Eusebius lib. 3. De praeparat Evang. teacheth us that Rudiores tantum ad ligna lapides respiciunt sapientes autem Gentiles voluerunt Deum dci virtutes sensibus nostris per imagines nobis familiariter deferri They made Images books of God Athanasius in orat contr idolat Dieunt Philosophi statuas quidem non essedcos sed simulacbra deorum ideo baberi ut dys sub istis imaginibus respondeant h Suarez in 3. Tho. q. 25. art 3. disp 54. Sect. 4. * O crux ave We may pray to Images and the elements in the Supper as well as we may kneel to them i Suarez de tripli virt supr dis 51. Sect. 1. pag. 757. k Antonius Capellus adversusprimatum Regis Angliae contrav 2. Cap. 30. l Vasquez to 1 part 3. q 25. art 23. disp 109. cap. 4. m Suarez tom 1. in 3. q. 25. art 3. disp 54. Sect. 5. Si tantum coram imaginibus Adoratur deus hoc multum derogat imaginum venerationi nam â—x eo non tantum sequitur imagines clementa Sacramentalia minus coli quam exemplaria sed etiam sequitur illas non coli omnius sed exemplaria tantum n Vasquez tom 1. part 3. q. 25. disp 108. cap. 14. Nam iconomachi qui ad solam recordationem imaginibus utuntur ante illas genuâ— a non flectunt nec se prostemunt sic enim ipsas notâ— exteriore adorarent sed erecti absque ullo corporis gestu qui reverentiam indicet â—oram imagine exemplaris recordantur ipsum spiritu solum adorant o Gregorius Mag. l. 7. Epist 53. if these be his Epistles p Vasquez ibid. Hee who adoreth a saint saith Ioan. dâ— lugo de myster inincarnat disp 36. sect 3. n. 29. for friendship and grace which hee hath arguitivè by consequence hee worshipeth God of whom the man hath grace yet it is not needfull that he formally adore God and in recto in so doing for he may honour the saint and not formally honour God for the saint and God are two divers objects Answ This proveth our point that when I adore an Image intending to adore God some â—oule-adoration adhereth to the Image and that is a taste of Gods proper glory given to a stocke or a stone q Ioan. de lugo de myst incar disp 36. sect 3. n. 25 26 27. seq Respectus imaginis est quasi materialis inanimatus quia sic apâ—rimus caput imagini ut per illam actionem nihil velimus imagini dicere aut significare sed soli exemplari ad quod dirigitur ille actus pro ut significativus prout civilis communicatio ideo respectu illius solum videtur esse actio animata De Lugo ibid. Hoc enim esset stultum mendacium quia absoluté loquendâ— meliores sumus nos quam Imago sancti Petri. And conforme to this the seventh pretended and bastard Councell calleth them halfe holy and halfe true halfe false worshipers of God Antonius Capellus citeth it Advers prim regis Anglia c. 30. Who will have Images to stand onely for memorialls but not to be worshipped Concil seventh art 1. p. 458. Qui vero dicunt suâ—â—icere usum imaginum ad memoriam solum non vero ad salutationem â—as habentes illud quidem recipientes hoc vero reâ—icienâ—es sâ—miprobi quadantenus falso vâ—ti ut ita dicam deprehenduntur Answ r De Lugo ibid. 39. imagiâ—s vere cedo exterius daudo illi melioreÌ„ superiorem loâ—um honorifice eam tractaâ—do s Orat. 5. dâ— imagin t 7. Synod act 4. x Iuo 4. part sui decret c. 38. y Nicephorus hist lib. 2. c. 17. z Nicephorus hist li. 2. c. 43. lib. 6. c. â—6 a Lib. 7. c. 33. b Canisius lib. 5. De Beata virgine c. 22. Divers Fables touching Images c Sâ—p 14. d De idolo vanit e Euseb lib. 7. c. 8. f August contra Adamant c. 13. g Gregor mag Epist ad Serenum Massilien sem lib. 7. Ep. 109. h Voetius in desper caus papat lib. 3. c. 6. sect 2. i Sympson 6. Century of the worshipping of Images p. 38. k Pet. Molinâ—us Buckler of Faith of Images Sect. 118. pag. 308. l Bellarm de scrip in Chron. m Genebrard â—hron an 794. p. 308. n Barronius An. 726. Observe that Aeneas Sylvius epist 301. saith ante Nicenam Synodum unusquisque sibi vivebat quemadmodum sibi visum est paroâ—s respectus ad Romanam ecclesiam â—abeâ—atur a Metropolitan Bishop a step to the Popedome was first created here in Romes Carâ—bage Constantinâ—ple Antiochia o Pontific p Paulus diaconus lib. 13. q Bergomensis lib. 10. r Synod Franckford s Aventinus lib. 4. t Hincmarus cap. 20. contra Ianduâ—â—nsâ—m w Vrspergens in Histor x Hincmarin Archiepiscopus Remorum c. 10. cont Hincmarin â—andunensem Episcop y Eccius in Eâ—chirid z Hospin dâ— orig imag p 197. a Calvin justit lib. 1. cap. 11. Sect. 13. b Iosephus antiq lib. 18. cap. 11. c Euseâ— bistor lib. 2. cap. 6. d Epist Plinii 2 ad Imporat Trajan e Euseb Histor lib. 3. cap. 33. f Bucolâ— in Alexand. severo g Symson 1. Century cap. 1. h Justin Martyr in Dialog cum Trypho apolog 2. i Tertullian apo cap.
resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God 4. Conclus Nothing in non-obeying unwarrantable Commandments must be done that redoundeth to the discredit of the Ruler or the hurting of his Majesty and honour 1 Pet. 2. 17. Honour the King Eccles 10. 20. Curse not the King For even when we deny subjection or obedience objective to that which they command yet owe we obedience officiall and all due respect and reverence to the person and eminent place of the Ruler as Act. 7. 2. Steven calleth them Men brethren and fathers Act. 7. 51. And yet stiffe-necked resisters of the holy Ghost 5. Conclus Humane Laws whither civill or Ecclesiastick in that particular positive matter which they have of Art Oeconomy policy and in Gods matters of meer humane coyne and stamp do not bindes the conscience at all per se kindely and of themselves 1. Nothing but what is either Gods expresse word or his word by consequence doth lay a band on the conscience of it self But not to eat flesh in Lâ—nt upon civill reasons Not to carry Armour in the night To wear Surplice and to Crosse infants in Baptisme are neither Gods word expresly nor by consequence The major is sure because the word is the perfect and adequate object of matters of Faith and morall practice which concerneth the conscience Psal 19. 7. 8. Psal 119. 9. Iohn 20. 31. Prov. 8. 9. 2. Because whatever thing layeth a band on the conscience the not doing of that would be a sin before God if the Ruler should never command it But the carrying Armour in the night the not wearing Surplice in Divine service should be no sin before God if the ruler should never command them as reason Scriptures and adversaries teach The Proposition I instruct from the diffinition of an obligation of conscience for to lay a band on the conscience is defined to lay a command on the soul which ye are obliged before God to do as you would eschew sin and obtain eternall salvation So the learned Pareus so Dr. Field so Gerson and so teach Gregorius de Valentia and Suarez 3. None can lay on a band of not doing under the hazard of sin but they that can remit sins for the power that looseth the same bindeth But mortall men cannot binde to sin nor loose men from sin but where God goeth before them in binding and loosing for they cannot bestow the grace of pardoning sin But he onely who hath the keys of David who openeth and no man shutteth and shutteth and no man openeth 4. Whoever can lay on bands of Laws to bring any under the debt of sin must lay on bands of obligation to eternall punishment but God only can do this Mat. 10. 28. The Proposition is clear because sin against God essentially includeth a relative obligation to eternall punishment 5. In matters of Gods worship this is clear The School-men as Aquinaâ— Suarez Ferrariensis Conradus teach us that there is a twofold good The first is an objective and primordiall goodnesse whereby things are agreeable to Gods Law if rulers finde not this in that good which they command they are not just and so not to be obeyed There is another goodnesse that cometh from the will of authority so only divine authority must make things good the will and authority of Rulers findeth objective goodnes in them and therefore enacteth Laws of things but because they enact Laws of things they do not therefore become good and Lawfull It is the will of the Creator of all beings which is the measure rule and cause of the goodnesse of things as Adams not eating of the tree of knowledge is good and gratefull obedience from Gods forbidding will and it should have been as gratefull obedience to eat of that tree if God had commanded so Men cannot make worlds nor can their will create goodnesse in acts indifferent nor can their forbidding will illegittimate or make evil any actions indifferent and therefore things must be morally good and so intrinsecally good without the creative influence of humane Authority and from God only are they apt to edifie and to oblige the conscience in the termes of goodnesse morall And this is strengthened by that which in reason cannot be denied to wit that it is essentiall to every human Law that layeth any obligation on the conscience that it be just nor is it to be called a Law except it be just and justice and equity humane Laws have from God the law of nature and his word not from the Authority and will of men therefore Iurists expound that What pleaseth the Prince hath the vigour of a Law of just things Also the School-men as Carduba Thomas Soto Medina Adrianus Navar Driedo Castro as I gather out of their writings give strong reasons why Rulers cannot lay an obligation on the conscience when the matter of the Law is light and naughty for this were to make a man a trangressor before God for a word a straw a toy which is unjust Because the just weight of the matter is the only just ground of the Laws obligation Ergo the will of the Lawgiver except he make a moat a mountaine cannot lay an obligation of necessity on man 2. It were a foolish law and so no law to oblige to eternall punishment and the offending of 2. God for a light thing for this were to place the way of salvation in that wherein the way consisteth not 3. Such a law were not for edification but for destruction of soules 4. This was the Pharises fault Mat. 23. to lay on intollerable burthens on mens soules 5. The law of God and nature freeth us in positive lawes from guilt in case of necessity as David did lawfully eat Shew-bread 6. A Civill law may not take away a mans life for a straw farre lesse can it bind to Gods wrath 7. Augustine saith they be unjust ballances to esteeme things great or small for our sole will Out of all which I conclude that no law as a Law doth oblige the Conscience but that which hath from the matter morall equity and not from the intention of the Law-giver as Cajetan Silvester Angelus and Corduba teach which intention must take a rule from the matter of the law and not give a rule Gerson No law saith he is a law to be called as necessary to salvation as all good lavves should be but that vvhich de jure Divino is according to Gods lavv yea vve are not saith Durandus to obey the Pope if he command a Monke to doe somthing vvhen he is not moved to command by the necessity the profit of the Church but by his ovvne free vvill and if this be knovven If the Pope faith he for his ovvne vvill and vvithout necessity and utility should seclude vvorkes of supererogation that command should tend to destruction and vve
are to obey Christ vvho is above the Pope And therefore his mind is that all obligation of Conscience in humane commandments commeth from Gods will and law that is from the just and necessary matter of the law not from the will of men 6. Conclus All humane or Ecclesiastick lawes binding the conscience have necessarie and not probable deduction onely by the warrant of both the Mâ—jor Proposition and Assumption from the Word of God and Law of Nature This conclusion is against Suarez he seeketh onely a probable connexion betwixt obliging Lawes and the Divine law And Gregorius de valent is in very deed against Gerson who teacheth three things of all humane lawes 1. That they are in so farre just 2. That they in so farre oblige the Conscience as they have necessary dependance upon natures law or Gods word and therefore compareth them to these precepts that Physitians give to sicke persons they oblige the conscience of the sicke as I thinke from the sixt Commandement Thou shalt doe no murther for if the patient sleepe at such a time or drinke wine in such a case he killeth himselfe but they have not obliging power from the fift Commandement not as if the King being sicke were obliged by the fift Commandement to obey the Physitian as his superiour 3. He will have all humane laws that properly obligeth to be onely declaratory and to manifest onely the Divine law and to apply it to such and such a matter The Conclusion is clear from what is said before because all civil laws as meerly positive in the cafe of non-contempt doe not oblige and in the case of non-scandall as Medin Almaine Gerson teach And it followeth from a sure ground that Vasquez layeth downe and he hath it from Driedo to wit that the efficacy of obligation in humane lawes cometh not from the will of Lawgivers or their intention but from the dignity or waightines of the matter If then the matter be not from Gods law just the obligation is none at all for if the law from mans will shall lay on an obligation of three degrees whereas Gods law from Gods vvill before men inacted this in a Law laid on an obligation of two degrees onely tying the Conscience then the will of man createth obligation or the obligative power of conscience in the matter of the Law and by that same reason he createth goodnes which is absurd for that is proper to God onely I grant it is hard because of the variety of singular actions in mans life to see the connexion betwixt particulars of humane lawes and Gods lawes yet a connexion there is and for this cause the learned worthy Divine Pareus will have humane lawes in particulari per se in the particular and of themselves to binde the Conscience Whereas Calvin and Beza Iunius Tilenus Sibrandus Whittakerus and others deny this But the truth is humane civill lawes are two waies considered 1. As they are meerly Positive according to the letter of the Law 2. As they have a connexion with 1. The principles of nature of right and wrong 2. With the end of the law which is the supream law The safety of the people as the Civill law saith he who entreth to an inheritance and maketh no Inventory of all his goods shall pay debts above the-whole heritage this law according to the letter in the Court of conscience is unjust and so cannot oblige in Conscience so as he is guilty before God and deserveth the vengeance of everlasting wrath who doth not make an inventory of all his goods and produce it to the Iudge so he that goeth up to the walls of a City may by the Law be commanded to be put to death yet is he not guiltie of eternall death before God and therefore if the presumption which is the ground of the law cease as this He that maketh not an inventory with a purpose to enjoy the whole inheritance and pay no debts sinneth before God against conscience as famous jurists to wit Jason Bartolus and others teach for this Law considered as having connexion with a principle of nature that every man should pay his debts is a law binding the Conscience and the truth is the end of these Lawes oblige the Conscience they being divine expressions of justice and righteousnesse but not the Lawes themselves for whatever obligeth the conscience as a divine truth the ignorance thereof is a sinfull ignorance and maketh a man guilty of eternall wrath but men are not guilty lyable to the eternal wrath of God because they are ignorant of all the civill Lawes in Iustinians book then were we obliged to be no lesse versed in all the civill lawes that bindeth in foro humano then of the Bible and law of God The adversaries strive to prove that these lawes oblige the conscience we may heare Bellarmine Vasquez Valentinian and the Formalist and Arminian Doctor Jackson say To resist the Rulers in giving and making lawes is to resist God as 1 Sam. 8. They have not refused thee but they have refused me that I should not raigne over them Suarez â—aith An humane law is the neerest cause of obligation of conscience as the eternall law is the remote cause And â—ackson as the immediate interposition of divine authority made the killing of Abrahams sonne holy which otherwise would have been cruelty so the interposition of authority derived from God make some actions that barely considered would be apparently evill and desperate to be honest and lawfull to strike a Prophet would seem sin but when a Prophet coÌ„mandeth to strike not to strike is disobedience 1 Kin. 20. 35 36. to rob a Spaniard is Piracie but to do it upon the Kings letter of Mart for wrongs done to the State is obedience to the King Answ To resist the servant in that wherein he is a servant and as a servant is to resist God as 1 Sam. 8. proveth well But the assumption then is most false for rulers in making lawes and creating by their sole pleasure goodnes morall in particular matters without the word of God are not Gods servants nor is humane authoritie as humane the nearest cause of obligation of conscience instamped in these lawes nor is it the cause at all and therefore to resist them is not to resist God They be Gods instruments and Ministers in 1. Propounding and expounding Gods laws 2. In executing them and defending them from the violence of men 3. In making positive and directory civil lawes for civill government that are lawes improperly so called which bind the conscience as above is said in so far as they have dependance upon Gods Law for Iames saith There is but one Law-giver As for Church-canons all except Physicall circumstances in them are to be warranted by the word Therefore it is a vaine consequence of Valentia humane lawes oblige dependenter