Religions colour is supernaturally white ingenuous not whorish 2. Or then it addeth order of parts and this is by right grave and convenient circumstantiating of things in Gods worship and Paul dreamed never of Crossing to grace baptizing 3. Or it addeth due quantity Religious worship hath no quantity but time 4. It is against sense that order is commanded in the third Commandment but not Surplice Crossing because they are by accident orderly what agreeth essentially to the generall agreeth not essentially and necessarily to the speces and particulars which are by accident under that generall as what agreeth to a man agreeth not to white and black men Decency is commanded but by accident and by mans will Surplice is decent But then God commanding Sacraments should not command Bread and Wine sor they are by accident and by Gods will Sacraments he might have chosen other Elements yet the will of God commanding Sacraments commandeth this and this Sacrament also What agreeth essentially to man agreeth essentially to all men black and white If Gods will essentially concur to constitute decency in his own worship then must that same will essentially concur to constitute this decency in Surplice Crossing 2. It supposeth a great untruth that Crossing is not worship because not ordained of God but that proveth it is not Lawfull worship but not that it is non-worship for Crossing used to the honour of Baal and to edifie souls in performing their duty to Baal is essentially a worshipping of Baal otherwayes worshipping of Idols is not Worship and yet it is an Act of Religious honouring of the Idol 3. The Command that commandeth or forbiddeth the end commandeth and forbiddeth the means Thou shalt not murther forbiddeth the Master not to command his servant to ride an extreamly deep and impetuous River though the not riding of such a River be not set down in the word and it is not forbidden as an Arbitrary action If therefore decency binde the conscience then the decency of this Rite to wit Crossing bindeth the conscience Our Ceremonies are not Nationall for Crossing being a Religious Rite in all the world it s alike decent Ergo non Crossing in some Country cannot be undecent Things meerly Religious as all significant Ceremonies are of alike nature every where and admit not of heat and cold with divers climates are of good or evil manners with divers Nations therefore they must be determined in the word the man who Preâ—aced on our Service book said without some Ceremonies it is impossible to keep any order or quiet Discipline in the Church I am sure he must think that Paul preached in some Surplice that he might teach holinesse with his garments one way or other he hath a stronger Faith then I can reach without circumstances worship cannot be but without Romish dirt the Worship and Discipline are better kept then with such whorish busking Also whatever is a profession in fact of a false Religion by Ceremonies indifferent and yet proper to a false Religion is a denying of the true Religion but the using of these Ceremonies used by Papists and Iews is such Ergo The Proposition is Scripture Gal. 2. 14. Peter lived after the manner of the Iews in using the Religious materials of the Jews though he had no Iewish intention or opinion yea Acts 10. he disputeth against that So Circumcision Galathians 6. 14 15 is put for the Jewish Church Now Altars Organs Iewish Ephods or Surplice Masse cloaths and Romish Crossing bowing to Altars Images are badges of Iewish and Popish Religion We know the dispute betwixt Augustine and Ierome who defended Peters dâ—ssimulation Gal. 2. to gain the Iews But Augustine saith Epist 9. Si propterea illa Sacramenta celebravit Paulus quia simularet se judaeum ut illos lucrifaceret cur non etiam Sacrificavit cum Gentibus quia iis qui sine lege erant tanquam sine lege factus est ut eos quoque lucrifaceret Yea then as Augustine saith to Ierome Epist ad Hyeronym 19. We might use all the Iewish Ceremonies to gain the Ievvs and so fall in the Herersie of Ebion and the Nazarites Duvallius 2. Thom tract de legib q. 3. Art 3. would defend Peter in that but he saith Magis placet Barronii Responsio Tom. 1. Annal. an 51. Petrum venialiter peccasse As for Pauls Circumcising of Timothy Papists clear him Vasquez Tom. 1. in 12. disp 181. cap. 8. Loâ—o tempore accomodato He did it when he could not offend the Gentiles Aquinas 12. q. 103. Art 4. Yea so the Fathers as Augustine Epist 19. Chrysostom Cyrill Hyeronym Also Papists Bensonius tractat de fuga lib. 1. disp 1. q. 4. ad Articul 4. Vasquez Tom 1. 12. disp 182. cap. 4. Brove to use Iewish Ceremonies though with no Iewish minde is unlawfull Suarez Tom. de legib lib. 9. de leg Divin pos cap. 14. Vsus Circumcisionis ex prohibitione est factus malus actus malus non honestatur propter intentionem bonam Aquinas 22. q. 11. câ— 12. q. 103. Art 4. As one should mortally sin who should say Christum nunc nasâ—iturum Christ is yet to be incarnat So the using of the Iewish Ceremonies were a lie in fact Cajetan and Toletus acknowledge a lie in fact Salmeron in Gal. 5. q. 2. saith It is unlawfull to use the Iewish Ceremonies Aegidius Comick de actib supernatural lib. 2. disp 15. dub 3. â— 39. Nullo modo licet obullum finem uti Ceremoniis propriis falsae Religionis Vasquez 12. disp 182. â— 48. Patres Doctores communiter tenent non licere Lodo. Meratius Iesuita to 1. in Thom. tract de legib disp 19. Sect. 2. n. 5. Mentiti fuissent Apostoli usurpantes exteriores legis Mosaicae Ceremonias si non ex animâ— usurpabant tanquam sibi vere licitas ex animo vere colendi Deum per illas sicut ab aliis per easdem colebatur So Grego Valent. Tom. 2. disp 7. punct 7. q. 7. Soto de justif l. 2. q. 5. It is a Religious scandall to the users of these Ceremonies for Ceremonies devised by men of no necessary use in Gods worship are monuments of Idolatry snares drawing the practisers to Idolatry and so unlawfull as the High places Groves Images though not Adored of the Canaanites This Argument is so learnedly prosecuted by D. Ammes that I adde nothing to it QUEST V. Whether the Ceremonies especially kneeling in the act of receiving the Sacrament be guilty of idolatry VVHoever presumeth to invent a worship of his own committeth Idolatry interpretatively because he worshippeth a God whom he conceiveth is pleased with false worship But that is not the true God for he is pleased with no worship but what he hath prescribed himself but all inventers and practisers of humane Ceremonies worship such a God Also all who usurpeth the room and place of God give the glory of God to creatures but all Authors and practisers of
the spirituall right and power of the keyes of the Kingdome of God from the Church and Pastors the former should complaine as do the latter Object 8. But if the Kingdome be heathenish and the heart of the King be first supernaturally affected then Religion beginneth at him as a Magistrate and he may appoint gifted men after they are converted to preach the Gospell Ergo The first rise of Religion is from the Magistrate as the Magistrate Ans If the King be converted first as a Christian not as a Magistrate he may spread the Gospell to others and preach himselfe but not as a Magistrate as Iehoshaphat commanded the Levites to do their dutie so might he command those of the house of Aaron who had deserted the Priests office to take the office on them to which God had called them so here gifts and faithfulnes appearing to the new converted Prince he is to command those so gifted for their gifts and faithfulnes is as evident a call as to be borne the sonnes of Aaron to take on them the calling of preaching and of dispensing the Seals But 1. he ordaineth them not Pastors as a Prince but commandeth them to follow the calling which now the Church not constitute cannot give 2. He can preach himselfe as a gifted beleever in an extraordinary exigence but he cannot doe this as a Magistrate yea Moses did never prophecy as a Magistrate nor David as a King 2. All the rise that Religion hath from the Prince as the Prince in this case is civill that men gifted may be commanded by civill Authority to dispence Word and Sacraments but nothing Ecclesiasticall is here done by the Prince as the Prince 3. The highest power in the Church as the Church and the highest amongst men as men are much different The Magistrates power in commanding that this Religion that is true and consonant to the Word of God be set up and others that are false be not set up in his Kingdome is a civill power and due to him as a Magistrate but a highest Church power to dispense Word and Sacraments agreeth to no Magistrate as a Magistrate but it followeth not that when the true Religion is erected by his power as a Magistrate that he may as a Magistrate dispence Word Sacraments and Synodicall acts and censures except God have called him to preach the Word and to use the sword of the other Kingdome as a Member of the Church joyned with the Church Object 9. But the Magistrate is unproperly subject to the Pastor who is but a meer Herald servant and Minister who hath all his authority from the word of another and so it is but imperium alienum a borrowed power he is subject properly to Christ speaking in his Word Titius is subject to the King properly but unproperly to the Kings Herald Ans 1. Let the subjection be unproper there can no conclusion from thence be drawn against us If 1. The Pastors as Pastors have their commissions from Christ and be his immediate Servants and have no Commission Pastorall from the Magistrate as the power of the Herald floweth immediately from the royall power of the King and he is the Kings immediate servant then to obey him in those acts which he performeth in the Kings name is to obey the King and in those acts subjects doe properly obey the Herald and so here Heb. 13. Obey those that are over you in the Lord according to that He that heareth you heareth me he that despiseth you despiseth me 2. It is enough for our purpose that Magistrates are so to obey Pastors in the Lord and Pastors are so supreame under Christ as the Magistrate is not above them and they have their Ambassage calling and commission immediately from Iesus Christ without the intervention of the Magistrates Authority Obj. But the obedience of the Magistrate to the Pastors is not absolute but conditionall if they command in the Lord Ergo It is no kindly obedience and subjection Ans It followeth not for so we should give no kindly obedience to Kings to Parents to Masters for we obey them onely conditionally in the Lord as they warrant their Commandement from the Word Yet Vedelius will not say it is unproper subjection we owe to the King nor can he say that the Royall power is imperium alienum a begged power all obedience to men this way is begged and if we come to Logick if I should say the nature and definition of obedience agreeth not univocally to obedience to God and to obedience to the creature Vedelius should hardly refute me It is enough Ministers of the Gospell discharge an Ambassage in the roome and place of God 2 Cor. 5. 20. God commandeth in his Ministers a limited obedience is kindly obedience Obj. 10. The keeping of the booke of the Law is given to the King Deut. 17. and 2 Kin. 11. v. 12. Iehoiada the Priest gave the booke of the Testimony to King Iehoash when they made him King the Priests indeed kept the booke of the Law in the side of the Arke but as servants of the King and custodes Templi Ans You may see solid answers to this in Walens Cabel Iavius and Iac. Triglandius 1. The booke of the Law was given to the King for his practise that he might feare the Lord his God and his heart not be lifted up above his brethren Deut. 17. 18 19 20. and this was common to him with the Priests and all the people of God but to the King in an exemplary and speciall manner that 1. The people might follow his Example and therefore these same words which concerne the practice of the King Deut. 17. 19. are also given to the people Deut. 6. 2. and 10. 13. and 111 2 13 22. and 12. 1 2 28. and 13. 4. and 27. 1. and 28. 1. with a little change sure no change that by any consequent will make the book of the Law to be delivered to the King to this end that his lips by his Royall office should preserve knowledge and that the people should require the Law at the Kings mouth which was the speciall office of the Priest Mal. 2. 7. as proper and peculiar to the Priest as the Covenant of Levi ver 8. and that they should not be partiall in the Law but should teach the people the difference between the cleane and the unclean the precious and the vile in Iudgement not accepting the persons of father and mother Ezek. 44. 23 24. and 22 26. Lev. 10. 10 11 Ieremiah 15. 19. Deut. 33. 9. Yea it was no lesse peculiar to the Priests then to offer Sacrifice to the Lord Leviticuâ— 10. 10 11 12 13. Mal. 2. 7 8. compared with v. 2. and with c. 1. v. 6 7 8. Now the King as King was not a confederate in the Covenant of Levi to burne incense and teach the people but in a farre other Covenant â— Kin. 11. 17 18. 2. In which the
to the Iewes if it were a matter of wrong and wicked lewdnes O yee Iewes reason were that I should bear with you 15. But if it be a question of words and names and of your Law looke yee to it for I will be no judge of such matters Ergo to the Romans all the blasphemies of the Iewish law was not a matter of wicked lewdnesse nor of death Now the story is clear they were seeking Pauls life and for names and words the Iewes should not reach Paul nor move the Romans to put to death a Roman except they could prove sedition or treason against him and Acts 25. Festus saith to Agrippa That the Priests and Elders desired to have judgement against Paul 18. But against him they brought no accusation of such things as I supposed 19. But had certain questions against him of their owne Superstition and of one Iesus who was dead whom Paul affirmed to be alive Here it is clear all are but words nothing worthy of death which the Iewes chiefly intended therefore they accuse him of treason as we may collect from Pauls Apologie Acts 25. 8. Neither against the Law of the Iewes neither against the Temple nor yet against Cesar have I offended any thing at all Therefore Act. 24. Tertullus a witty man burdeneth Paul with that which might cost him his head v. 5. For we have found this man a pestilent fellow a mover of sedition amongst all the Iewes throughout all the world see Acts 21. 38. of all which though blasphemy according to the Iewish Law was something yet sedition to the Romans who only now had power of Pauls life was all and some and when the Deputies counted so little of Religion the Iews knew sedition and treason against Cesar behooved to do the turn and Paul seeing they pursued him for his life appealed to Cesar to be judged in that Now except the adversaries prove that Paul referred the resurrection of Iesus and of the dead and his preaching Christ and the abolishing of sacrifices the Temple the Ceremoniall Law to be judicially determined by Nero as by the head of the Church they prove nothing against us Hence their chiefe argument is soone answered in what cause Paul was accused of the Iews in that he appealed to Cesar But he was accused not for his sedition but for his Doctrine Act. 26. 18. Ergo Paul appealed to Cesar in the cause of Doctrine not of sedition For 1. The Major is dubious for in what cause he was accused of his head which was the intent of the Iews in that he appealed true but in what cause he was accused in all and every Article of the points of his accusation and challenge I deny that for as touching doctrinals and his being judged by a lawfull Church and rightly constituted he appealed neither from the Sanedrim nor from Festus but declined Festus nor in these did he appeal to Cesar he only appealed in all cases which might concern his head and blood 2. The assumption is false for he was accused of sedition as is evident from Act. 25. 8. and 24. 5. 3. Though the Priests and Elders were most corrupt men yet that they believed that Cesar or bloody Nero his lips should preserve knowledge and that the Law should be sought from the mouth of Nero as the head of the Church can never be proved which must be proved to justifie Pauls appeal in the tearms of the adversary Obj. But may not Nero accuse Paul that he dare preach his Iesus Christ in the Emperours dominions Ans If his dominions be the Christian Churches conquered by his sword he may accuse as he conquered that is he may oppresse the consciences of men in accusing as he oppressed them in their bodies and liberties in the conquering of them But he may not as a conquerour accuse them for their conscience he may if he conquer those that worship Sathan cause instruct them in all meeknesse and lenity But this he doth by the sword as a Christian ruler to inlarge the dominions of Christ for when â—â— conquereth their bodies it is not to be thought that he conquereth their souls or acquireth any new dominion over their consâ—iâ—nces But though he do as a Magistrate command them to be instructed I doubt if he have a negative voice in imposing any Religion that he will though they be heathens though some learned Divines say be have a definitive voice in setting up what Religion he will or tollerating it I conceive though he have a definitive voyce in erecting the only true Religion in his heathenish dominions when there be no Ministers of the Gospel there yet not for any false Religions that being of perpetuall truth God never gave authority or power of the sword to do ill ad malum non est potestas what other things Videlius and Vtenbogard have on the contrary are answered Hence we ask 1. If the intrinsecall end of judging and censuring Ecclesiastically be not the inlightning of the mind the gaining of souls and if Nero or Christian or Heathen Magistrates be appointed for that spirituall end 2. If Paul aymed to refer the judging of the Gospel to Nero 3. If Paul knowing the Sanedrim sought his blood not the gaining of his soul might not appeal to the Magistrate to save his life 4. If it was not the Law of natures dictate in Paul so to do and not any positive constitution of the Magistrates Headship over the Church and Gospel 5. If the Ecclesiasticall judicature will swell without its sphere of activity to dispose of the life and blood of the Saints if then the state of the question be not changed and if then it be not lawfull to appeal and decline and provoke to the civill Magistrate 4. Moreover Paul appealed not to Cesar in ordine ad censuram auâ— penâ—m Ecclesiasticam in order to a Church censure as if he thought Cesar should principally excommunicate and cast him out of the â—ynagogue or judge him in an Ecclesiasticall way whether he had done or preached against the Temple and Law of Moses or not which must be proved if the adversaries will prove a proper appeal from the Church to the Prince which is now our question All this which is our mind is well explained by our Countryman Ioh. Camero prelectio in Mat. 18. 15. p. 151. Christiani principes sunt precipui in Ecclesia in sensu diviso sunt precipui et sunt in Ecclesia non in sensu conjuncto non sunt precâ—pui Ecclesiastici Non enim obtinent principes directe authoritatem Ecclesiasticam sed indirectè non quod velimus ulla in causa ullum eximi jurisdictione principis sed quia ejus jurisdictio non nisi per media Ecclesiastica pertinet ad conscientiam nempe princeps non predicat Evangelium non ligat et solvit peceatores at de officio principis est dare operam ut sint qui predicent Evangelium ut sint qui ligent
judicia aliorum sequi tenetur is non regit sed regitur adeoque servus est mancipium brutum eorum quorum judicium sequi obligatur and the Magistrate say they as such is neither to judge nor try what the Church decrees but as a Burrio or Hangman to execute that which the Church hath decreed But 1. I put it in forme and retort it thus They are servants and slaves who are obliged not to despise but to hear and obey and so to follow the judgement of the Prophets the faithfull Pastors of Christ preaching the Word of God soundly and Orthodoxly But not onely Magistrates but all within the visible Church are obliged not to despise but to hear and obey and so to follow the judgement of the Prophets the faithfull Pastors of Christ preaching the Word of God soundly and Orthodoxely Ergo Magistrates and all within the visible Church are slaves and servants But the conclusion is absurd Ergo some of the premises but the Assumption is the word of God Iudah was carried captive because they would not hear the Prophets rising early in the morning and speaking to them Also in the New Testament this is true to the second coming of Christ He that heareth you heareth me he that despiseth you despiseth me And this He that will not obey the servant of the supream Magistrate in that wherein he is a servant and holdeth forth the Lawfull commands of the supream Magistrate he will not obey the supream Magistrate The Major proposition is the adversaries the assumption is expresse Scripture let them see then to the conclusion 2. When the adversary shall answer this argument with equal strength made against preaching and hearing the word they will answer their owne argument made against Church-government 3. This argument is made against Synods Popish that cannot erre as our Protestant Divines object and therefore the adversarie is Popish here not we Thus they are servants and slaves who are obliged to follow the judgement of Councels absolutely without limitation and because they say it whether they warrant their decrees by the word of God or not that is a true Major proposition But now the assumption is most false for neither Magistrates nor any other are to follow the judgement of the Church absolutely without limitation and because they say it The other part is they are servants and slaves who are to follow the judgement of the Church and Councels with a reserve and a condition and limitation in so far as they agree with the word now the Major is false 2. He that is obliged to follow the judgement of another does not rule but is ruled true in that in which he followeth the judgement of another the Magistrate in so far as in matters of Religion that concerneth his conscience faith and practise he followeth Pastors he is not a ruler formally to those whose judgement he is obliged to follow But in civill matters he may be and is a ruler to those same for we answer to Papists who by this same argument would prove that Churchmen are not subject to the Magistrate nor to civill Laws He that is a sheep is not to rule and command his shepheard but the Magistrate is a sheep and a member of the Church and Pastors and Doctors are shepheards We answer in divers considerations a Magistrate as a Magistrate in civill things is not ruled by Pastors and Doctors but he is to rule them But a Magistrate as a member of the Church as a Christian in things that concerneth his conscience is a sheep and to be ruled not a ruler to Pastors and Doctors and so here and therefore non concluditur quod est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. The adversaries are to answer this also for if Pastors and Doctors be as such but servants under the Magistrate and if he have that same Architectonica potestas that same supremacy and headship in Ecclesiasticall matters as in civill matters to command alike in both by the same power Then 1. The Pastors and Doctors are obliged to follow his judgement without appeal or examination and they are servants and slaves and ruled and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not over the Magistrates as Christians neither over the people in the Lord. 2. The Elders as Elders are not to examine what the Magistrates as Magistrates command in Ecclesiasticall matters or in Religion they may possibly not as Elders but as as Christians judge with the judgement of discretion as all other Christians may do For Videlius Erastus and other Adversaries say the Magistrate may not command what he pleaseth for in Church matters he may command but according to the rule of the word and in civill matters according to equity justice and prudence True But 1. The Magistrate as supream head of the Church is by office to judge what government of the Church is most agreeable to the word what is sinfull Antichristian and tyrannicall and the Magistrates lips in thus judging as he is a Magistrate and not the Pastors are to preserve knowledge and both Pastors as Pastors and the people as members of the Church and as they may worship and serve God in this government or may sin are to seek the Law at the Magistrates mouth and directions for their conscience from him as from a Magistrate and not as from a Christian not from Pastors as Pastors that handle the Law And if the government as a way of serving God may be prescribed and held forth to the consciences of all by the Magistrate as the Magistrate by the same reason all the wayes of God in which the Church of Ephesus Pergamus Thyatira may so approve themselves to Christ and as he is to walk in the midst of the Golden Candlesticks and as a Magistrate he is to forbid such sins in Government as may procure the removing of the Candlestick and why may he not by the same reason hold forth to their conscience all the other parts of the Gospel If any say who can deny but the Magistrate as the Magistrate may command that which is obedience to Christ and reward it and forbid sin and punish it Ans But the Magistrate as such forbiddeth not sin as sin for then as a Magistrate he should forbid sin under the punishment of eternall wrath which he cannot do as a Magistrate he onely can forbid sin under the pain of his temporary punishment which he can inflict and as it disturbes societies and incorporations Obj. The Magistrate as the Magistrate shall not serve Christ as Mediator if he doe not command the dispensing of Word and Sacraments as they are spirituall meanes leading us to a supernaturall end and if he forbid not Idolatry and blasphemie against Christ as they are sins and Gospel sins done against Christ as Mediator Ans I utterly deny this consequence For 1. the Magistrate may serve Christ as Christ and promote and advance the Kingdome of Iesus Christ as Mediator
Disputing your self and not Christ say some to make Preachers the Alpha and Omega of mens Consciences and the Circle which beginneth and endeth at it self you would be satisfied if Scandals be punished by the Magistrate Is not the Magistrate a Christian as you are Paul was glad that the Gospel was Preached he made no account by whom But I should be grieved that such a hard conclusion should be drawn out of such innocent Principles This were to extract Blood out of Milk a Domination out of a meer Ministery and I confesse Self is a great Sophist in Debates and that any man is inclinable to miscount himself and to think he may stand for an hundred when the product is scarce one if not a cypher I conceive nothing is here taught that may reach a blow to the Honour and Majesty of the Godly Magistrate The Magistrate is a Christian as well as the Preacher and in some sense so all the People were holy as were Moses Aaron and the Levites Uzziah who burned Incense was a Member of the Church of the Jews and Circumcised no lesse then the Sons of Aaron Yet I hope these stretched themselves beyond their line when they usurped what was due to the Priests and Levites It s another thing to punish evil doing with the Sword the Magistrate is to do this But there is a Spiritual removing of Scandals by the saving of the Spirit in the day of the Lord 1 Cor. 5. 5. Matth. 18. 15. 2 Cor. 10. 8. and a gaining of the Soul of an Offender This Spiritual removing of Scandals doth only bring Christ and the Gospel in request in the hearts of both such as are within and without the Church as Scandals raiseth up an evil report of Christ and the Truth Now the Sword can never this way remove Scandals and because Christ hath appointed Spiritual means and Spiritual Censures to restore the Lord Jesus to his Honour 2 Cor. 2. It is presumption with all submission I speak it for men to horse out and decourt such Censures Spiritual as the Apostles in the Spirit and Wisdom of Christ used as most sutable to that end and which the Lord commandeth in the second Command and to substitute in their room nothing but a Sword void of all activity on the Conscience I do also here plead for the perfection of the Word of God against Humane Ceremonies which are deservedly by the Honorable Houses of Parliament and Reverend Assembly laid aside Religion needeth not any such Ornaments except men would make the Worship of God when naked under shame and so under sin for Justice Married shame and sin once But as Roses Lillies the Sun and other glorious Creatures are most beautiful without Garments and not capable of shame so is the Worship of God I confesse Ceremonies were the Seas and Rivers that Prelats delighted to swim in and if their Element be dried up they have the lesse pleasure to live But if they would repent of their bloody Persecution that their Souls might be saved no matter Ceremonies as they have nothing of Christ in them so have they been injurious to Magistrates It is but a Ceremony that the Emperour kisse the sole of the Popes foot because there is indented on it a curious Crucifix And when Prelacy was yong and its beard not grown a Deacon was sent to Theodosius the Emperor by the Prelats to chide him because he presumed to sit in the Chancel a place too holy for Lay-men What I have here said against Erastus a friend too dear to worthy Bullinger and Rodolp Gualther often we love both the Friend and his Error I humbly submit to the Judgement of the Godly and Learned But I conceive I am unwilling that Error should lodge with me willingly and I professe I am afraid that wrath is gone out from the Lord against the Rulers if they shall after a Reformation obtained with the Lives Blood Tears and Prayers of so many of the Saints whereof a great number are asleep in the Lord rear up a building to the Lord so maimed and lame as Jesus Christ shall say Offer it now to your Governour will he be pleased with you or accept your persons But it is a Controversie say some whether the Government of the Church of the New-Testament belong to the Magistrate or to the Church to which I say 1. It was a Controversie created by men willing to please Princes with more power in the Courts of Christ then ever the Law-giver and Apostles gave them and that against the minde of glorious Lights the first Reformers and the whole Troops of Protestant Divines who Studied the Controversie against the usurped Monarchy of the Man of sin more exactly then one Physitian who in a cursory way diverted off his road of Medicine of which he wrote Learnedly and broke in on the By upon the deepest Polemicks of Divinity and reached a Riders blow unawares to his friends 2. In things doubtful Conscience hath refuge to the surest side Now it s granted by all and not controverted by any That in the Apostolick Church the Government of the Church of the New Testament was in the hands of Apostles Pastors Teachers and therefore Conscience would sway to that in which there can be no Error except on supposal of abuse and Christian Rulers would not do well to venture upon Eternity Wrath the Judgement to come confiding on the poor Plea of an Erastian Distinction to incroach upon the Prerogative Royal of Jesus Christ This very God of Peace build Zion and make her an Habitation of Peace Yours in Jesus Christ S. R. A Table of the CONTENTS of the Book Introduction SECT 1. CHrist hath not instituted a mutable Church-Government Page 1 2 Some things moral some things natural in Gods worship Ibid. Physical Circumstances are all easily known and numbred p. 2 Circumstances and such and such Circumstances p. 3 Time and place of Ceremonies need not be proved by Scripture as being supposed p. 4 5 1. Argument to prove that the platform of Ch. governmâ—is not mutable at mens wil p. 7 The Script way of teaching that indifferent things are alterable is it self unalterable p. 8 2. Argument p. 9 The Scripture shall not teach when we sin in Church-policy when not if the platform be alterable at mens will Ibid. There is no reason why some things positive are alterable in Ch. -policy some not p. 10 3. Argument ibid. The place 1 Tim. 6. 13. touching the unviolable coÌ„mand given to Timothy discussed p. 10 11 12 Pauls cloak of lesse consequence then Positions of policy p. 11 Widows p. 12 SECT 2. 4. Argument p. 13 Christ is the head of the Church even in the external policy thereof p. 13 14 A promise of pardon of sin made to the right use of the Keys proveth Discipline to be a part of the Gospel p. 15 16 The will of Christ as King is the rule of the Government of his house p. 17 18 Things
of policy because lesse weighty then the greater things of the Law are not therefore alterable at the will of men p. 19 20 Order requireth not a Monarchical pâ—elate p. 21 22 How the care wisdom of Christ hath left an immutable platform of Discipline p. 22 23 Christ the onely immediate King Head and Law-giver of his Church without any deputy heads or Vicars p. 24 25 SECT 3. 5. Argument p. 26 27 Moses and David might not alter or devise any thing in Worship or Government nor may the Church now p. 27 28 Two notes of Divinity ought to be in the New Testament Ceremonials as were in the Old p. 29 30 How Moses his doing all according to the patern proveth an immutable platform The Objections of Mr. Hooker and Mr. Pryn answered at length p. 30 31 32 33 34 c. Gods care to us leadeth us to think he hath given us a better guide theÌ„ natural Reason in all morals of Church-Discipline p. 33 34 The occasional writing of things in Scripture no reason why they are alterable p. 35 36 Papists pretend as Formalists do that things are not written in the Word because of the various occurrences of providence p. 36 37 That there was no uniform platform of Government written in the time of Moses and the Apostles is no Argument that there is none now p. 39 40 Fundamentals because successively delivered are not alterable p 41 42 The Church of Ierusalem as perfect in Doctrine and Discipline is our patern p. 42 43 The indifferency of some things in the Apostolick Church cannot infer that the Government is alterable p. 45 46 The Argument of Moses his doing all in the Tabernacle to the least pin according to special direction further considered p. 47. 50 The Ark of Noah proveth the same ib. Formalists acknowledge Additions to the Scripture contrary to Deut. 4. 2. 12. 32. the same way that Papists do p. 51 -56 c. Moses and Canonick Writers are not Law-givers under God but Organs of God in writing and meer reporters of the Law of God p. 62 63 Papists say that the Church is limited in the making of Ceremonies both in the matter and the number and so do Formalists p 62 63 64 Four wayes Positives are alterable but by God onely p. 64 All things never so small are alike unalterable if they be stamped with Gods authority speaking in the Scripture p. 64 65 By what authority Canonical Additions of the Prophets and Apostles were added to the Books of Moses p. 65 Canonick Writers how immediately led by God p 66 The Characters of Formalists Ceremonies Papists Traditions one and the same p. 67 What is it to be contained in Scripture and how far it maketh any thing lawful according to Hooker p. 68 The Fathers teach that all things are to be rejected that are not in Scripture p. 69 70 â—t derogateth nothing fâ—om the honour of God in Scripture that hee be consulted in the meanest things p. 70 How things are in Scripture p. 71 Some actions are supernaturally moral some naturally or civilly moral some mixt p. 72 Some habitual reference to Scripture is required in all our moral actions p 73 Works of Supererogation holden by Hooker p. 77 Whether our obedience be resolved in all Church policy in This saith the Lord in his Word or in This saith the Church p. 79 Two thingâ— in the external worship 1. Substantials 2. Accidentals or Circumstantials p. 80 SECT 5. The question who should be judge of things necessary or indifferent in Church-policy not to purpose in this question p. 81 82 c. SECT 6. What are Honour Praise Glory Reverence Veneration Devotion Religion Service Worship Love Adoration p. 82 83 84 85 Two acts of Religion imperated and elicite p. 83 Honouring of holy men is not worship p 84 The Religions object with the act of reverencing maketh adoration to be Religious but a civil object except the intention concuâ—s maketh not religious adoration of a civil object p. 85 86 What Worship is p. 86 87 Worship is an immediate honouring of God but some worship honoureth him more immediately some lesse p. 87 88 A twofold intention in worship p. 88 89 Vncovering the head is veneration not adoration p. 89 Consecration of Churches taken two wayes condemned p. 90 Master Hookers moral grounds of the holinesse of Temples under the N. T. answered p. 92 The place 1 Cor. 11. Have ye not houses to eat and drink in c. maketh nothing for hallowing of Churches p. 93 Nor the place Psa 74 8. p. 94 The Synagogue not Gods house as the Temple was ib. Question 1. The negative argument from Scripture valid p 95 Not to command is to forbid p. 96 How far Davids purpose to build the Temple was lawful p. 97 Of additions to the Word p. 98 Even perfecting additions of men are unlawful p. 99 Every moral action is to be warranted by the Word p. 102 What is man's in worship is not lawful p. 103 Not all actions in man as actions of meer nature of arts or trades of sciences but only moral actions are regulated by Scripture p 104 Helps of faith and the formal object of faith are different p 105 What certitude of saith is required in all our actions of our daily conversation p. 107 The Scripture a Warrant for the morality of our acts of the second Table p. 107 Many actions of the second Table are purely moral all actions of the first Table are purely moral p. 107 108 What ever is beside the Word of God in morals is contrary to it p. 109 The vanity of the perfection of Scriptures in Essentials not in Accidentals p. 110 Whatsoever is not of faith how true p. 110 111 Doubting condemneth p 113 Papists say the Scripture in general is perfect but not in particulars and so Form lists p 114 What is onely negative in Gods worship cannot be commanded ibid. Opinion of sanctity and divine necessity not essential to false-worship ibid. The distinction of worship essential and accidental of Gods general and particular will is to be rejected p. 118 119 The distinction of divine and apostolike traditions rejected p. 125 126 Circumstances not positive religious observances as ceremonies are p. 127 Ceremonies usurpe essential properties of divine Ordinances p. 128 129 130 We owe subjection of conscience collateral onely to Gods Ordinances p. 135 The spirit worketh not with Ceremonies p. 136 The place Matth. 15. concerning the traditions of the Elders discussed p 137 138 Ceremonies Magical p. 141 If the third command shall enjoyn decency in general then must it enjoyn this special decency Crosse and Surplice p. 141 142 Iewish and Popish Ceremonies are fruitlesse professions of unlawful worship p. 142 143 Whether the Ceremonies be Idolatry p 144 Of religious kneeling ibid. Four things in adoration ibid. Intention of worship not essential to worship p. 145 Religious bowing of its nature and not by mans arbitrary and free
Church in creating Prelats Surplice and all the positives of Church-policy so did she And so saith Calvin on Genesis 6. 22. And P. Martyr and Musculus piously on this place and with them Vatablus Hence I judge all other things in this and the following Arguments Answer SECT IV. ANy Positives not warranted by some speciall word of God shall be additions to the word of God But these are expresly forbidden Deut. 4. 2. Deut. 12. 32. Prov. 30. 6. Rev. 22. 18 19. To this Formalists answer 1. They have a generall Commandment of God though not a speciall Ans So have all the unwritten Traditions of Papists hear the Church she is Magistra fidei so doth the Papist Horantius answer Calvin That the spirit of God hath given a generall and universall knowledge of mysteries of Faith and Ceremonies belonging to Religion but many particulars are to be received by tradition from the Church but of this hereafter 2. Master Prynne answereth that is a wresting These Texts saith he speak only of additions to books or doctrines of Canonical Scriptures then written not of Church-Government or Ceremonies yea God himself after the writing of Deutronomy caused many Canonicall books of the old and New Testament to be written Many additions were made to the service of God in the Temple not mentioned by Moses Another answer R. Hooker giveth teaching with Papists Bellarmine as in another place after I cite with Cajetane Tannerus and others That additions that corrupt the word are here forbidden not additions that expound and perfect the word True it is concerning the word of God whither it be by misconstruction of the sense or by falcification of the words wittingly to endeavor that any thing may seem Divine which is not or any thing not seem which is were plainly to abuse even to falcifie divine evidence To quote by-speeches in some Historicall narration as if they were written in some exact form of Law is to adde to the Law of God We must condemn if we condemn all adding the Jevvs dividing the supper in tvvo courses their lifting up of hands unvvashed to God in Prayer as Aristaeus saith Their Fasting every Festivall day till the sixth hour Though there be no expresse word for every thing in speciality yet there are general Commandments for all things say the Puritans observing general Rules of 1. Not scandalizing 2. Of decency 3. Of edification 4. Of doing all for Gods glory The Prelate Vsher in the question touching traditions We speak not of Rites Ceremonies vvhich are left to the disposition of the Church and be not of Divine but of Positive and Humane right But that traditions should be obtruded for Articles of Religion parts of Worship or parcels of Gods vvord beside the Scriptures and such Doctrines as are either in Scriptures expresly or by good inference we have reason to gainsay Here is a good will to make all Popish Traditions that are only beside not contrary to Scripture and in the Popish way all are only beside Scripture as Lawfull as our Ceremoniall additions so they be not urged as parts of Canonicall Scripture Well the places Deut. 4. 12. Prov. 30. Rev. 22. say our Masters of mutable Policy forbid only Scripturall or Canonicall additions not Ceremonial additions But I wonder who took on them to adde additionals Scripturall if Baals Priests should adde a worship of Iehovah and not equall it with Scripture nor obtrude it as a part of Moses's Books by this means they should not violate this precept Thou shalt not adde to the word c. 2. Additions explaining the Word or beside the Word as Crossing the bread in the Lords-Supper are Lawfull only additions corrupting or detracting from the word and everting the sense of it are here forbidden and in effect these are detractions from the word and so no additions at all by this distinction are forbidden but only detractions The word for all this wil not be mocked it saith Thou shalt not add Thou shalt not diminish But the truth is a Nation of Papists answer this very thing for their Traditions 1. Bishop Ans to the 2. part of Refor Catho of Trad. § 5. pag. 848. The words signifie no more but that we must not either by addition or substraction change or pervert Gods Commandments be they written or unwritten Else why were the Books of the Old Testament written aftervvard if God had forbidden any more to be written or taught beside that one Book of Deutronomy Shall we think that none of the Prophets that lived and wrote many Volumns after this had read these vvords or understood them not or did vvilfully transgresse them D. Abbot answereth What the Prophets vvrote serve to explain the Law they added no point of Doctrine to Moses Lavv for Exod. 24 4. Moses vvrote all the vvords of God Deut. 31. 9 10. Moses wrote this Lavv then he vvrote not a part of the Law and left another part unvvritten The Iesuit Tannerus answereth the same in terminis with the Formalists Colloquio Ratisbonensi foll 11. 13. D. Gretserus ad dicta Resp Prohiberi additionem quae repugnet verbo scripto non autem illam quae verbo scripto est consentanea cujusmodi sunt traditiones Post pentateuchum accesserunt libri josue Prophetarum c. Tamen nemo reprehendit quia illi libri fuerunt consentanei sacrae Scripturae Additions contrary say they to the vvord are forbidden not such as agree vvith the vvord such as are all the traditions of the Church for after Deutronomy vvere vvritten the Books of Ioshua and the Prophets so Cajetan Coment in Loc. Prohibemur ne â—ingamus contineri in lege quod in ea non continetur nec subtrahamus quod in ea continetur Gloss Interline Non prohibet veritatem veritati addere sed falsitatem omnino removet Lira Hic prohibetur additio deprâ—vans intellectum legis non autem additio declarns aut clucidans Tostatus in Loc. Q. 2. Ille pecat qui addit addit tanquam aliquid de textu vel necessarium sicut alia quâ— sunt in textu velut dictum a spiritu sancto hoc vocatur propriè addere Formalists as Dr. Morton say It is sin to adde to the vvord any thing as a part of the written vvord as if Ceremonies were a part of the vvritten Scripture and spoken by the immediate inspiring spirit that dyteth Canonick Scripture they come only aâ— Arbitrary and ambulatory adjuncts of Worship from the ordinary spirit of the Church and are not added as necessary parts of Scripture or as Doctrinals so Papists say their traditions are not additions to the written vvord nor necessary parts of the vvritten Scripture but inferiour to the Scripture 1. They say their Traditions are no part of the written word or Scripture for they divide the word of God in two parts as Bellarmine Turrian Tannerus Stapleton Becanus all of them say Aliud est verbum dei scriptum
and expedient But we know no such question in this Controversie as who shall be judge but supposing the Church to be a ministeriall judge and the Scripture the infallible Rule the question is whether this judge have any such power as to prescribe Laws touching things indifferent and to injoyne these though they have no warrant from Scripture as things necessary and to binde where God hath not bound Quest But doth not the Church determine things that of themselves are indifferent as whether Sermon should begin at nine of clock or ten in the morning and after the Church hath past a determination for the dyet of ten a clock the indifferency of either nine or ten is removed and the practise without any warrant of Scripture restricted to one for order and peace sake and why may not the like be done in Positives of Church-Government Ans The truth is the Church by her will putteth no determination on the time but only ministerially declareth that which Gods providence accomodating it self to the season climate the conveniency of the congregation as they lie in distance from the place of meeting hath determined already But neither Providence scripture nor naturall reason hath determined that there should be in every Diocesan Church a Monarch-Prelate Pastor of Pastors with majority of power of jurisdiction and ordination over Pastors more then there should be one Pope Catholick Pastor of the Catholick visible Church or that Crossing should betoken Dedication to Christs service only will as will must determine positive Religious observances such as these are SECT VI. What Honour Praise Glory Reverence Veneration Devotion Service Worship c. are FOr the more clear opening of the ensuing Treatise it is necessary to speak somewhat of worship and Adoration and especially of these 1. Honour 2. Praise 3. Glory 4. Reverence 5. Veneration 6. Devotion 7. Religion 8. Service 9. Worship 10. Love 11. Obedience 12. Adoration 1. Honour is a testification of the excellency of any Arist Ethic. l. 8. c. 8. Aquinas Honos est signum quoddam excellentiae Honour is a signe or expression of Excellency in any it doth not import any superiority in the party whom we honor as Adoration doth Praise is a speciall honouring of any consisting in words Glory is formally the effect of Honour though it be taken Pro claritatè for the celebrity or renownednesse of any yet glory seemeth to be founded upon celebrity as its foundation Reverence is a sort of Veneration of a person for excellency connotating a sort of fear Veneration is a sort of fear and reverencing of a person I see not well any difference between Reverence and Veneration except that Veneration seemeth to be some more and cometh nearer to Adoration Devotion is the promptitude cheerfulnesse or spirituall propension of the will to serve God Religion is formally in this when a man subjecteth himself to God as to his supreame Lord and thence ariseth to give him honour as his God and absolute Lord. The two integral parts of Religion are the subjection of the reasonable creature to God 2. An exhibition of honour if any object that the subjection of the creature to God is humility not Religion Raphael de la Torres in 22. tom 1. de obj adorat q. 81. art 1. disp unic n. 8. answereth that subjection to God as it issueth from a principle of tendering due Honour to God for his excellency its Religion but as it abandoneth the passion of hope in the way of attaining honour it is an act of humility to God as the giving of money for the paying of debt is an act of justice but as it is given to moderate the desire of money it is an act of Liberality The acts of Riligion are of two sorts some internall and elicite as to Adore Sacrifice Pray by these a man is rightly ordered toward the Honouring of God only But there be other acts imperated and Commanded by Religion which flow immediately from other vertues as it may be from mercy and compassion to our brother but are Commanded by Religion as Jam. 1. 27. Pure Religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this to visit the father lesse and the widows c. Service is from the bond of subjection to reverence God as an inferior or servant doth his Lord and Master A servant doth properly do the will of his Master for the gain or profit that redoundeth to his Master but because we cannot be profitable to the Almighty by way of gain therefore we are to serve him in relation to an higher end then accession of gain of which the Lord is not capable Psal 16. 2. Iob 22. 3. For the declaration of his glory For Worship formally is to give reverence to God for his excellency in one and the same act we may both Worship God and serve him Only service doth include the obligation of a servant to a Lord. As concerning Love Faith and Hope they are internall Worship not properly Adoration Love as Love doth rather import an equality with the thing loved and a desire of an Union rather then a submission It is true there is a perfection in that which we Love but not essentially to perfect the Lover that possibly may agree to the Love between man and man but not to Love as Love for the Father Loves Christ his Son and did delight in him from eternity Prov. 8. 30. A superior Angel may Love an inferior yet the Father cannot be perfected by Loving Christ nor a superior Angâ—l by Loving any inferior Faith and Hope may suppose a resting on a helper as a helper and so are internall Worship if they be adoration formally may be a Question It is an untruth which Raphael de la Torres with other schoolmen say That with the same Religion by which we Honour holy men we Honour God upon this reason because holinesse in them is a participation of the Divine Nature therefore God must be the intrinsecall end and formall reason for which we Honour the Saints For Holinesse in Saints is a participation of the Divine nature but it is a Temporary and a created participation it is not the same very holinesse that is in God but the created effect thereof and so the Love I bear to any Creature because there is somewhat of God in every Creature And the Love to our Neighbour Commanded in the second Table of the Law should be the Love of God Commanded in the first Table of the Law 2. When I bow to the gray-haired and to the King I then do an act of obedience to the fifth Commandment No man can say that when I bow to the King or to an holy man that I am then bowing to the God of heaven and Worshipping God No acts terminated upon Saints living or dead are acts of Worshipping God yea reverencing of the Ordinances of God as the delighting in or trembling at the Word are not properly acts
these Traditions by an Argument taken from the want of a lawfull Author while he calleth them Precepts of men opposed to the Commandments of God and while he saith v. 13. That every plant not rooted by his heavenly Father shall be rooted out Yea and Christ expresly proveth their worship vain because they taught the fear and worship of God by the precepts of men and not by the word of God and Ceremonies are the precepts of men 3. Mar. 7. 10 11 12. He alledgeth their corrupt and false exposition of the fifth Commandment in saying It is a gift whereby Parents may benefit which Children offer to God though they help not their Parents in their poverty necessity so you free them from obedience to the fifth Commandment of God by setting up your false glosse saith Christ which is a human tradition Then to Christ this is a good argument your corrupting of the fift Cōmandment with your false glosses is a rejecting of Gods 5. Commandment why because it is a doctrine of men and one of the Pharisees Traditions For whether they placed operative sanctity in preferring mens Commandment to Gods or not none can deny but Christ reasoneth against these evils because they were mens Traditions otherway Formalists shall be forced to say that if the Pharisees have esteemed them Arbitrary and of no operative sanctity mens Commandments had not been vain worship Christs Argument from Isa 29. should prove nothing for false glosses and corrupting the fifth Commandment is not vain worship because it is a doctrine of men for Doctrines of men as only coming from men and esteemed Arbitrary are not vain saith Formalists yea except they be contrary in the matter to Gods Law and proffered or equalized in the opinion of sanctity to Gods Law they are not a whit vain because they come from men or are doctrines of men 4. Christ defendeth his Disciples practice in abstaining from externall not-washing Ergo he esteemed the externall washing unlawfull But if the Disciples abstinence was because of the impiety of washing and the opinion of sanctity put upon washing otherwayes Lawfull he should have defended his Disciples in a thing unlawfull for to disobey the Elders and Church-guides who sate in Moses's chair and were to he obeyed Matth. 23. 2 3. in an externall indifferent act of washing not contrary to the washings commanded in Moses Law and so negatively conforme to Gods Law is Lawfull as Formalists and Papists both teach but Christ defended his Disciples in their non-obedience externall for they were not challenged for denying the opinion of operative holinesse to these Ceremonies Christ who commanded obedience to sitters in Moses his chair in all things Lawfull would have obeyed himself and cleared his Disciples in so far as they ought to obey or not to obey 5. Vasquez sayes These Traditions were unlawfull because they were invented Sola voluntate hominum absque ratione by the sole will of men without reason But so are Popish Ceremonies for if they can be proved by the word of God and the light of nature they are essentiall parts of Gods word and not accidentall nor left to the Churches will 2. It is good then the Iesuit confesseth the Church from sole will and so the Pope and Prelat can make no Laws but either Scripture or natures light must warrant them and sole will cannot rule them 3. They had as good reason in generall from Moses his writings and the Law-washings as Pope and Prelats have for their Traditions But saith Vasquez Christ complaineth of these traditions because they held them to be Summam Religionis the marrow of Religion and took no care of Gods Law Ans That will no more prove them to be vain worship and that the Disciples were to be justified in their non-conformity to these Church washings then that Gods Disciples and sound believers under the Old Testament should abstain from keeping Gods Sabbaths his new-Moons and from offering Sacrifices because the people placed all holinesse in these of old and neglected works of mercy and justice Isa 1. 11 c. Jer. 7. 4 5 6. But say Formalists Christ condemneth them because the Pharisees thought eating with unwashen hands defiled the conscience and meat defiled the soul when the eaters did not wash as the elders commanded Whereas Christ saith It is not that which goeth in at the mouth which defileth the man but the wickednesse that cometh out at the heart Ans It is true and I think Pharisees believed meat eaten contrary to the Elders Traditions defiled the conscience as is clear Mat. 15. 16 17 18. And that also Christ condemneth as a Doctrine of men and of ignorant men and so doth non-conformity to your Ceremonies pollute the conscience as a breach of the fifth and second Command as you say QUEST IV. Whether humane Ceremonies can consist with Order Decency and the sincerity of our profession of true Religion CEremonies fight with Order and Decency 1. These Rites pretended by Gods command to adde order and decency to Gods worship and yet deface his worship and addeth none thereunto be unlawfull But humane Ceremonies be such Ergo That they pretend Order is proved D. Burges saith They have no place in all the New-Testament save only 1 Cor. 14. 26. Let all things be done in order and decency a place as a Estius citeth Magnified by Papists for all their Ceremonies The Major is undeniable I prove the Assumption 1. Because Magick-like Rites honoured with Gods name as Christian-Masse Christs-Masse an Adored Tree called Gods board when there is no use for a Table a Crossing honoured with dedication to Christs service is like Gods name used by sorcerers in Charming Spelling Divining where vertue is ascribed to signes characters and words which have no such vertue from God or nature and this Valentia justly calleth Superstition So the Iews called the Calfe Jehovah Papists call a creature of their making Agnus Dei a stile due to Christ only Joh. 1. 29. 2. All creatures are means of glorifying God Rev. 4. 11. Prov. 16. 4. Rom. 11. 36. And may be invited to praise God as Psal 148. Now it were strange bleating to say O Crossing Surplice Praise ye the Lord when things ordained by mans sole will and so idle and sinfull are made means to glorifie God with as good reason dancing in the Church and blowing feathers in the Aire which have by nature or reason no aptitude for these ends may be decent means of glorifying God 2. Order and decency supernaturall in the Church is in the Word Cant. 6. 4. Clear as the Sun terrible as an Army with Banners Nothing wanting Gods institution can reach a supernaturall end as our Ceremonies are 2. But also Ceremonies relatively sacred in Religious state must be more then civilly decent as also right order produceth supernaturall joy Gal. 2. 5. Civill order cannot do this Or 3. Ceremonies adde naturall order but this is not in colour
any intention or purpose to adore therefore this externall Adoration is a false signe and signifieth not a thing as it is and so is no worship Ans That externall bowing is not true but false I distinguish it is not true Morally because it is a false signe and a sinfull abusing of worship for there ought to be a bowâ—d heart when there is a bowed knee but if the meaning be this externall bowing is not true metaphysically and partaketh not of the nature of Religious worshipping it is false for it is truly worship and the essence and definition of worship agreeth to it for from Religious bowing there resulteth by the nature of the externall Act which is of divine institution an honouring of that before which we do bow as before a proposed object what ever be the present purpose or intention of the bower else if I bow to an Idol intending and conveying in my heart-purpose all honour to God only I should not worship an Idol The three Children cast into the fiery Furnace did but refuse externall bowing to Nebuchadnezzar and would hazard upon burning quick before they should give that to the Image for the Kings commandment was not that all should give and convey in purpose of heart to that Image all divine glory but only Religious prostration before it yet the three Children say Dan. 3. Well be it known to thee O king that we will not serve thy Gods nor worship thy golden Image 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They expresly refuse knee-bowing the reason is because if ye bow your knee Religiously to a stock it is not in your power or free choice to stay the flux and motion of Religious honour off or from the stock but because Religious bowing doth not convey honour to the thing before which ye bow by your free will but by God and natures institution even as weeping naturally expresseth sorrow laughing gladnesse so doth Religious bowing signifie Religious honouring without any act of the free choice of the worshipped intervening It is impossible to adore God in and through an Image and give no Religious reverence to the Image at all as it is impossible to hear the word and tremble at it and yet none of that Religious trembling be bounded and terminated upon the Word as it is impossible to kneel to the Kings Ambassador conveying all and whole that civill honour to the King but some honour must redound to the Ambassador a father cannot love the Doctor for his sons cause but some love he must confer really upon the Doctor if not absolute yet relative for his sons cause Jacob could not kisse Joseph his sons coat and yet refer that whole expressed affection to Ioseph and nothing at all to the coat for then should there be no reason why he should kisse the coat rather then the skin of the beast supposed to be the devourer of his son if therefore the Communicant should kisse the Sacramentall Bread as he boweth Religiously before it as the object of his Sacramentall worship which he receiveth I hope it would be thought very like the kissing of the Calves of Samaria and a Religious expression of love to the bread and by the same case Religious bowing to God by the interveening of bread a representative object must be an expression of Religious honouring of Bread but no Religious honouring by Religious bowing can be expressed but Adoration of bread for as I have proved it is not in our free Election that Religious kneeling signifie what honour we please as if it were in our power that Religious kneeling signifie Religious or civill honour or more or lesse Religious honour but our will or thoughts cannot change the nature of things kneeling is essentially Religious as Iohannes Delugo defineth it Nota submission is internae 2. Suarez objecteth Adoration is a voluntary action proceeding from the will of the Adorer and therefore excluding this will it is not Adorations but only the materiall action of adoring also adoration is honouring but none can honour without an intention of honoring and therefore he who externally giveth signes of honour to an Idol without an intention to honour the Idol doth not truly honour and adore the Idol but only dissembleth Ans Qui bené distinguit benè solvit Our third distinction doth well answer this The naked materiall action of bowing Physically considered wanting all Religious will of adoring is not an honouring if a Carpenter bow before an Image to drive a naile in it he doth not worship the Image because that is an action In statu artis non in statu Religionis In a state of Art not in 〈◊〉 Religious state But the voluntary bowing before any thing in a state of worship or Religion as it s here is Adoration for there is voluntary bowing in a Religious way of a state but there is not required a particular intention to Adore the signe that is accidentall to the nature of worship Suarez objecteth The eâ—â—â—nce of Adoration requireth the intention of the Adorer therefore the adoring of this or that thing requireth a proportionable intention of adoring the thing Ans 1. The Antecedent is not universally true and is a begging of the question because externall adoring of an Idol may be without intention to adore an Idol 2. Though the Antecedent were true that an absolute Adoration of God requireth the intention of the doer as it is not true Lawfull and sincere Adoration indeed requireth the intention but not absolute adoration Though I say it were true yet it followeth not that a relative adoration requireth an intention of giving co-adoration or relative worship to the signe Suarez 3. Objecteth The honouring of one thing cannot properly be called the honouring of another thing different therefrom except that honouring be some way referred by the minde to that other thing or except they be partakers one of another but the Image and first samplar or prototype are different things therefore the honouring of the first samplar cannot be called the honouring of the Image except the honouring by the intention be referred to the Image I answer The Image and Samplar are one in a sinfull imagination as Jehovah and the Golden Calf are one but it followeth not that there must be two distinct intentions one in adoring the Prototype and in coadoring the Image another But he who intendeth to honour the King in his Ambassadors person needeth not two intentions one by which he intendeth to honour the King another whereby he intendeth to honour his Ambassador SECT II. Whether the Idolatrous Jevvs were charged with the crime of Idolatry because they adored the creature as such or because they adored the Godhead in with or under the creatures shape and whether or no do Papists commit Idolatry with them in this point LEt these considerations go before 1. That the Jews believed the Image to be God by vvay of representation not essentially or really they believed
and subjects are Christians but where the Magistrate is of a false Religion two different Governments are tollerable Ans 1. This argument destroâ—eth all Aristocracy Parliaments and Senates where many good men have equall power and so the Common-wealth may not have 70. Heads and Rulers of equall power which is against the Scripture which commandeth subjection to every Civill ordinance of man as lawfull Rom. 13. 1 2 3. Tit. 3. 1 2 3. 1 Pet. 2. 13 14. Deut. 1. 16. It maketh no Government lawfull but Popedome and Monarchy in both Church and state 2. It is to beg the question that there cannot be two supream powers both supream in their owne kinde for they are both supream in their owne sphere as Pastors dispense Sacraments and Word without subjection to the Magistrate as they are Pastors and Magistrates use the Sword without dependence on Pastors and yet is there mutuall and reciprocall subjection of each to other in divers considerations Pastors as subjects in a Civill relation are subject to the Magistrate as every soul on earth is and Magistrates as they have souls and stand in need to be led to heaven are under Pastors and Elders For if they hear not the Church and if they commit incest they are to be cast out of the Church Mat. 18. 1 Cor. 5. Rom. 16. 17. 1 Thes 3. 14. 15. If they walk inordinately we are to eschew their company if they despise the Ministers of Christ they despise him who sent them Math. 10. 40. Luk. 10. 16. God respecteth not the persons of Kings and we finding them not excepted if the preachers of the Gospel be to all beleevers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 over them in the Lord 1 Thess 5. 12. 1 Tim. 5. 17. call it authority or no Authority they have some oversight over the Christian Magistrate and here be two supreams two highest powers one Ecclesiasticall another Civill nor should any deny Moses to be above Aaron as the supream judge Aaron not having the power of the sword as Moses had and Aaron must be above Moses in sacrificing in burning incensâ— in judging between the clean and the unclean which Moses could not do 2. The excellency of the Civill power in regard of earthly honour and eminency in the fifth Commandment above the servants of God in the Ministry of Christs spirituall Kingdom which is not of this world we heartily acknowledge 3. That the King Preacheth and dispenseth the Sacraments by Pastors as by his servants is wilde Divinty Pastors then must have Magistraticall Authority and power of the sword committed to them as the Deputies and inferior judges of the Lords of the Gentiles which Christ forbade his Disciples Luk. 22. 25 26 27. For the servant must have some power committed to him from the principall cause in that wherein he is a servant 4. What reason is there that where the Magistrate is a Heathen two Governments and so two heads in one body should be for then there is and must be a Church-Government where the Magistrate is a Heathen and that in the hands of the Church if then the Magistrate turn Christian must he spoile the Church of what was her due before Erastus The Lord Jesus changed nothing in the New Testament of that most wise Government in the Iewish Church now there all Government was in the hands of Moses I say not that the Magistrate might sacrifice or do what was proper to the Priests but he did dispose and order what was to be done by the Priests Ans Yea but Erastus saith the Magistrate may dispense word and Sacraments in the New Testament if he had leisure Why might he not sacrifice in the Old Testament also 2. Pastors do by their Doctrine and Discipline order and regulate all callings in their Moralls of right and wrong of just and unjust yet is not the Pastor the only Governour in all externals 3. If Christ changed nothing of the Iewish Government we have all their exclusion of men out of the Campe their separating of the unclean and their politick and Ceremoniall Lawes which is unsound Divinity Erastus Moses Ruled all before there was a Priesthood instituted God Exod. 4. Numb 12. calleth Aaron to his office and maugurateth him by Moses nor doth he command him to exercise a peculiar judgement when he declareth his office to him and when Aaron dieth Moses substituteth Eleazar in his place Ioshua c. 3 4 teacheth the Priests what they should doe and commanded them to circumcise Israel so did Samuel David Solomon and in the time of the Maccabees it was so Ans Moses was once a Prophet and Iudge both Ergo so it may be now it followeth not except Moses as a Magistrate did reveale what was the Priesthood What Aaron and Eleazer his sonnes might doe by as good reason Moses David Solomon Ioshua as Magistrates wrote Canonick Scripture and prophecied Then may Magistrates as Magistrates build new Temples typicall to God give new Laws write Canonick Scripture as these men did by the Spirit of prophecy no doubt not as Magistrates for why but they might sacrifice as Magistrates and why should Moses rather have committed the Priesthood and the service of the Tabernacle due to him as a Magistrate so to Aaron and his sonnes as it should be unlawfull to him as a King and unlawfull to Vzziah to burn incense and to sacrifice and to doe the office of the Priest If the Magistrate as the Magistrate doe all that the Priests are to doe as Priests and that by a supream principle and radicall power in him he ought not to cast off that which is proper to him as a Magistrate to take that which is lesse proper he casteth the care and ruling of souls on the Priests and reserveth the lesser part to himself to rule the bodies of men with the Sword all these are sufficiently answered before Erastus The King of Persia Ezra 7. appointed Iudges to judge the people and teach them but there is no word of Excommunication or any Ecclesiastick punishment but of death imprisonment fines nor did Nehemiah punish the false Prophets with any other punishment Iosephus speaketh nothing of it nor Antiochus Ans I shew before that there is forâ—eiting and separation from the Congregation Ezra 10. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he shall be separated from the Church 2. If the King of Persia appointed men to judge and teach the people why should he deny any judicature at all 3. Where ever Iosephus speaketh of the judging of the Priests as he doth antiq l. 11. c. 7. ant l. 11. c. 8. l. 12. c. 9. he hinteth at this Erastus Christ dischargeth his Disciples to exercise dominion Christ would not condemne the adulterous woman nor judge between the brethren Luke 12. Paul calleth Ministers dispensators stewards Peter forbiddeth a dominion Ans Let Erastus be mindfull of this himselfe who yet saith that the Magistrate may both judge also if he have time dispence the
any Law-power except usurped when the Iews were now riper for destruction and had taken on them the blood of the Lord of glory and so growing more daring and insolent against the Roman povver to their own just desolation that came on them under Vespasian That they used witnesses will not prove they had Law to stone Steven for Timothy had no power of life and death over Elders one brother hath no power of life and death over another as Erastus will grant yet with both there is use of witnesses 1 Tim. 5. 19. Matth. 18. 16. This I hope concludeth but weakly any lawfull civill power so all this is from a naked practise of those that alvvayes resisted the holy Ghost And the like I say of Paul who saith Act. 26. 10. of himself Many of the Saints did I shut up in prison having received authority from the high Priests 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 suppose it were true that Saul had Law and Authority from the high Priests to imprison the Saints and to murther the Saints no high Priest can make over a Law-power to another which he hath not himself now certain this Law-power of the Pharisees and High Priests by Gods Law is the question Let us see Law or institution where the High Priests for of these only the Text speaketh did imprison and put to death either blasphemer or false Prophet or if by Moses his Law which must be a rule to all the High Priests in the time of persecuting Saul it was either Law or practise that the High Priest had power to imprison or scourge or put to death any man and this was most proper to the King and the Civill judge and the Elders and Iudges in every City 2 Sam. 1. 14. 15 16. 1 Kin. 2. 9. 2. 6 7. Isa 1. 23. Ier. 22. 1 c. Ier. 22. 27. Numb 35. 12. 24. Deut. 22. 18. 7. 5. 19. 12. 13. ver 18 19 20 21. 21. 19. 1 Kin. 21. 11. Hos 6. 8. Zeph. 3. 1 2 3. Rom. 13. 4. We know undoubtedly the King the Civill Iudge had power of all bodily punishments as of scourging death stoning strangling crucifying hanging But shew meany Vestigium or the least consequence where the Priests or High Priests had such power or did execute such power in any one man it is true Deut. 17. the Priests might determine in Law what was blasphemy and so what deserved the punishment of blasphemy which is death But so the written Law of God the very letter of it could in many cases clearly resolve the Civill judge even though there had been no controversie about the fact whether it was condemned in the Law of God or not we know Samuel not being judge but Saul being King supream Magistrate not executing judgement on the Amalekites he killed Agag certainly all Divines even Popish not excepted say Saul the Civil Magistrate ought to have killed Agag that Samuel not by vertue of his place as a prophet or as a Priest or a Member of the Sanedrim as Erastus would say but excited by an extraordinary motion of Gods spirit killed him as Phineas the son of Aaron slew Num. 25. Zimri and Cosbi 7 8. And Elijah slew Baals Priests 1 Kin. 18. 40. 2 Kin. 1. 10. If Phineas by office and Elias by office killed those ill doers as Erastus would dream The Prophets and Priests by their office were Civill Iudges and had power to put to death evil doers Now Erastus denyeth and with good reason that the Lords disciples should bear civill dominion over men as the Lords of the Gentiles Luk. 22. 24 25 26. and that Christ though both a Prophet and a Priest could not take on him to be a Iudge and a Ruler Luk. 12. yet here Erastus will have the High Priest by a Law-power to imprison and put to death 2. Erastus may with as good reason say that the high Priests had a Law-power by Gods institution to punish and to compell Christians to blaspheme God and to persecute them to strange Cities and to murther the Saints that believed in the Lord Iesus for he went to Damascus for this effect Act. 26. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with povver and Commission from the chief Priests This was not a Law-power in generall to punish such as the Law of Moses discerned to be blasphemers but a limited particular Commission to murther the Saints who should hear and obey the Prophet like unto Moses whom the Lord should raise up Deut. 18. What Law had the High Priests for this Had they not a Law on the contrary Deut. 18. Erastus Paul confesseth ingenuously before the Roman Judges that he persecuted the Saints and that he had authority and power from the Priests and Elders so to do Act. 22. 26. and we read not that the Priests or Paul were censured for these things as having done any thing against the Laws or will of the Romans Act. 5. They send their Officer the Captain of the Temple they imprison the Apostles they convene a Councell give out a sentence and agitate the killing of the Apostles amongst them while Gamaliel impede them Ans It is true the Romans heard that the Sanedrim exercised Civill jurisdiction and inflicted bodily punishment But for false Doctrine the Romans I conceive took as little care as Gallio did of any of Gods matters and whether the Sanedrim kept the rule of the Lords first institution Deut. 17. yea they looked not much whether the Priests might put to death false Prophets or if the Civill judges only might do it and Erastus said before that the Romans gave the Iews liberty of all their own laws and customes in matters of Religion 2. What care would the Romans take whether the Iews killed and oppressed Iews for questions of their owne Religion so they remained loyall and true to Cesar 3. We know Herod Felix Festus Agrippa being willing to pleasure the Iews did oversee many breaches of Law in them especially in matters of the Gospel Act. 12. 3. and 24. 27. and 16. 36 37 38 39 40. Ioh. 19. 15 16 17. 4. How doth he prove that the Romans did not take this for a breach of their Lawes Because they accuse not the Sanedrim for this surely it followeth not We read not that the Romans challenged them for a manifest breach of Law when they scourged and cast in prison Paul and Silas who were Romans and had not condemned them Act. 16. 38 39. 5. We deny not a lawfull judicature of the Sanedrim Act. 5. But that they had any Law of God to scourge and imprison and put to death the Apostles is the question we say they neither had Gods law nor durst be answerable to the Romans Laws for that fact and so this is a fact brought to prove a Law Erastus If this was insolencie in the Jevvs which rose from the confusion of the two jurisdictions hovv say some of yours none can be
not subordinate to the Ministers of the Gospel as Ministers far lesse to the Magistrate as the Magistrate because it dependeth upon none on earth Minister or Magistrate but the only good pleasure of him who when he ascended to heaven gave gifts unto men that there is such an office as Minister Pastor or teacher And the Church cannot create a new office of a Prelate because of its nature it tendeth to a supernaturall end the governing of Christs body in a way to life eternall purchased by Christ Now the question in this sense whether the power of the Ministery be subordinate to the Magistrate in its constitution it is alike in its subordination to Magistrate and Minister certain it is subordinate to neither Other lawfull and profitable offices and Arts are from God mediately possibly by the intervening acts of rationall nature though Magistracy be from God Rom. 13. 1. yet it would seeme God by the naturall reason of men might devise and constitute the very office of Magistracy in abstracto and the Art of sayling painting c. yet is there no subjection of power to power here by way of dominion Hence the question must be of the subordination of the power quoad exercitium whether Ministers in the exercising of their Ministeriall calling be subordinate to the Magistrate as the Magistrate 5. Dist A judge is one thing and a just judge another thing so here are we to distinguish between a Magistrate and a Christian Magistrate As 1. a husband is one thing and a Christian husband another thing a Captaine is one thing and a Christian and a beleeving Centurion or Captain such as Cornelius Acts 10. is another a Physitian is one thing and a gracious Physitian is another thing sure a heathen Husband hath the same jus Maritale the same Husband power in regard of Marriage union that a Christian and beleeving Husband hath 2. A Magistrate and a Christian Magistrate may be one and the same Magistrate with one and the same Magistraticall power as being first heathen Magistrate as Sergius Paulus Act. 13. 7 12. and there after converted to the faith Paulus was no lesse a civill Deputie when Heathen then when Christian and not more a Deputy as touching the essence of a Magistrate when a Christian beleever then he was before when a Heathen yet to be a Magistrate and to be a beleeving Magistrate are two different things even as Christianity is a noble ornament and a gracious accident and to be a Magistrate is as it were the Subject even as a man and the accidents of the man are two different things 6. There be two things here considerable in the Magistrates office 1. There is his jus and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Magistraticall power or the authority officiall the power of office to beare the sword 2. There is aptitudo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a speciall heavenly grace of well governing this is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a gift or grace of God to use that power for Christ These two make one Christian husband one Christian captain Physitian Master in relation to to the wife souldiers sick servants Now the Magistrate heathen as Magistrate even Nero when the Church of God is in his court and dominions hath the same jus the same Authority and Officiall power to be a keeper of both Tables of the Law and to defend the Gospell and to command the Preachers and Synods to fulfill their charge and to see that the officers doe their dutie and to punish dumbe dogs Idolaters excommunicated persons to drive away with the sword false Teachers from the flock he hath I say the same Magistraticall power while he is a Heatheâ— and when he is converted to the Christian faith and he is equally head of men that professe Christ when Heathenish as when Christian but in neither States is he the Head of the body the Church and you give not to Cesar the things that are Cesars if you make converted Nero because a Magistrate now the head of the Church and deny non-converted and heathenish Nero to be the Head of the Church for he is a Magistrate with compleat power of the Sword in the one case as in the other that he neither doth nor can use the sword for the Church it is from Nero his state of infidelity that he is in as a man and not the fault of his office for when Paul saith the Husband is the head of the Wife doth hee meane a Christian husband onely and exclude all heathen Husbands No for then the wife were not to be subject to the Husband if a Heathen and an unbeleever which is against Pauls mind 1 Cor. 7. and the Law of Nature But the converted Magistrate who was before a heathen Magistrate hath a new aptitude faculâ—y and grace to keep both Tables of the Law and to govern in a civill way and indirectly the affaires of Christs Kingdome Hence the adversaries clearly contradict themselves by confounding those two a Magistrate and a Christian Magistrate one while they give supream power over the Church to the Magistrate as the Magistrate sometime to the Magistrate as Christian So Vtenbogard in his book De officio authoritate supremi Magistratus Christiani in rebus Ecclesiasticis p. 7. and p. 8. hoc addo ut intelligatur Magistratum cum religioneÌ„ Christianam amplectitur non acquirere novam authoritatem sed quod eam authoritatem quam ante etiam in rebus religiâ—nis â—ultus divini habebat authoritateÌ„ rectè utitur If the Magistrate when he becommeth a Christian acquireth no new authority as a Magistrate but onely useth well his old Authority in matters of Religion and of Gods worship which he had before while he was Heathen as he saith then the Heathen Magistrate as a Magistrate hath a supreame power in Church matters and yet in the same place he draweth the state of the question to a Christian Magistrate De solo Christiano Magistratu acturus The Arminians in their Apologie fol. 297. as saith their Declaration speake onely of the Christian Magistrate and yet page 298. potestati enim supremae sive Architectonicae qua potestas suprema est jus hoc ut competat ratio ordinis sive boni Regiminis natura sua postulat si Magistratui qua tali jus hoo competit â—rgo multo magis competit Magistratui Christiano Sure if the Magistrate in generall and as the Magistrate have a supream Authority in the Government of the Church such as the Adversaries contend for then the Christian Magistrate farre more must be Head of the Church and so the Magistrate as the Magistrate must be supreame Governour and judge in all Ecclesiasticall causes and in these same causes he must not be Iudge as a Magistrate but as a Christian Nor can they make a Christian Magistrate à medium per participationem utriusque extremi a middle betweene a Magistrate and a Christian 1. For where is there such an
in the second table Rom. 13. 3 4. Isai 49 23. and you said elsewhere that externall peace is too narrow an object for the Magistrate for the intrinsecall end of a Magistrate is also a supernaturall good and not only a peaceable but also a godly life 1 Tim. 2. 2. Ans It is true the Magistrate as the Magistrate doth care for the supernaturall good of subjects and the duties of Religion and the first table but how intrinsecally and as a magistrate that is that men worship God according to his word But 1. The magistrate as such hath nothing to do with the spirit nor can he command the sincerity of the worship his care is that there be a divine worship that is materially and externally right and consonant externally to the rules of the word and for this cause learned divines make the externall man the object of the magistrates office but not the externall man as doing the duties of the second table only but also as serving God in the duties of the first table for which cause I said Augustine meant the same when he said that Kings serve God as men and as Kings 2. Magistrates as magistrates are to extend their power for Christ that is that not only there be Iustice and Peace amongst men but also that there be Religion in the land yea that the Gospel be preached so all our Divines make the King to be custos â—t vindex utriusque tabule Yea I think he is a keeper and preserver of the Gospel also and is to command men to serve Christ and professe the Gospel and to punish the blaspheming of Iesus Christ and this is royall and magistraticall service that the King as King performeth to God and to Iesus Christ the mediator ex conditione operis in regard that good which he procureth as King materially and externally is consonant to the supernaturall Law of the Gospel but it is not magistraticall service to Christ ex intentione operantis Obj. 4. When it s required that the Magistrates be men fearing God hating coveteousnesse c. is not this an essentiall ingredient of an King as a King that he read in the book of the Law that he may feare God Deut. 17 Ans There is a twofold goodnesse here to be considered one of the magistrate as a magistrate another as a good and Christian magistrate The former is an officiall goodnesse or a magistraticall prudence justice and goodnesse this is required of all magistrates as such to judge the people so the acts of an heathen magistrate done according to common naturall equity by Nebuchadnezzar Pilate Cesar Felix Festus are to be acknowledged as acts of a Lawfull Magistrate valide and no lesse essentially Magistraticall then if performed by King David and of this goodnesse the Scriptures speak not as essentiall to a Magistrate as a Magistrate But there is another goodnesse required of Magistrates as they are Members of the Iewish Church and as they are Christians and of these the Scripture speaketh and so Magistrates not as Magistrates but as good and Christian are to be such as feare God hate covetousnesse respect not the face and favour of men so it s denied that the fear of God hating of covteousnesse are essentiall ingredients of Kings as Kings For Kings as Kings intend justice peace godlinesse materially considered both ex conditione operis and operantium But for justice and righteous judgement in a spirituall and an Evangelick way that belongeth not to the essence of a Magistrate nec ex conditione seu ex intentione operis nec ex conditione operantis The Holy Ghost requireth it of judges as they would approve themselves as truly Holy and Religious and would be accepted of God and in this sense Kings as Kings do not serve God nor the mediator Christ nor yet as men only they serve God and the mediator Christ as Christian Kings or as Christian men rather III. According to that third member of our seventh Distinction The unjust and evil exercise of the Ministeriall power is obnoxious to the magistrate as the magistrate thus in that he beareth the sword against all evil doers Ro. 13. 1. The magistrate as the magistrate doth only command well doing in order to praise and a good name or temporall reward amongst men Rom. 13. 3. Do that which is good and thou shalt have praise of the power 1 Tim. 5. 17. Matth. 10. 10. Nor can the magistrate as the magistrate promise or command the Elders to feed the Flock with the promise of the reward that Peter promiseth 1 Pet. 5. 4. to wit That when the chief shepheard shall appear they shall receive a Crown of glory that fadeth not away The magistrate as a Preacher if he be one as David and Solomon were both or as a godly religious Christian man may hold forth such a promise but not as a Magistrate and upon the same ground the Magistrate as the Magistrate cannot forbid careles unsound preaching and rigorous and tyrannicall ruling or rather domineering over the Flock under the pain of death eternall for he can but kill the body and hath but the carnall and temporall sword Rom. 13. 4. and so he can inhibite ill doing only in order to temporary punishment and though the duty of the former be spirituall and the sinne of the latter also yet the externall man is capable only of the Magistrates promises and threatnings as they respect evill or good temporary so that it is a wonder to me that M. Pryn or any learned man can say that magistrates can make Lawes to binde the conscience sure it is ill divinity 2. If there never had been sin there should have been no government but of Fathers and Husbands there should have been no magistraticall dominion not any magistraticall allurement to weldoing by temporall rewards not any terrifying from evill doing from fear of the sword death stripes or bands and God governed the Apostolick Church and they attained the Crowne and supernaturall end of life eternall without the accessory hire of a a temporary reward from the magistrate and the subsidy of his sword Ergo it is evident that the magistrate is neither an essentiall nor an integrall part of the visible Church as the visible Church injoying all the Ordinances of God Word Sacraments Discipline Censures Rebukes Admonition Excommunication Prayers Mutuall edification in as great perfection as is happily attainable in this life without yea against the will of the civill magistrate Though it be a great incouragement to have the King a Nurse-father yet hath not Christ counted it simply necessary to his visible Church injoying all the Ordinances of God to the full 3. If the magistrate do only command the teachers and Pastors to preach and determine synodically in order to a temporall reward and forbid them to abuse their ministeriall power in order to temporary punishment by the temporary sword then surely the Pastors and Teachers are
them but in publick places and at all occasions and dayly in the Temple and in every house they câ—â—sed not to teach and preach Iesus Christ Act. 6. 2 4. 4. 1. 20. 5. 20 21. The Magistrate being Antichristian forbiddeth not preaching of saving truths because of the place be it private or publick but he forbiddeth them because they are saving and if Iesus Christ have called a man to preach in publick in the house tops the Magistrate hath no power from God to silence him in publick more then in private the Magistrate forbiddeth that any teach false Doctrine not for the place but because it is injurious and hurtfull to humane societies that men should be principled in a false Religion and cannot but disturbe the publick peace IX Asser The Christian magistrate must here come under a threefold consideration 1. As the Object of that high office is meerly and purely civill and positive relating only to a civill end of Peace as in importing or exporting of goods of wooll waxe moneys for the good of the common-wealth the crying up or crying downe of the value of coyned Gold or Silver the making of Lawes meerly civill as not to carry Armor in the night in such a City So in Warre Commanders Captains and Colonels are Magistrates to order the Battle lay stratagems the way of besieging Townes of fortifying Castles of issuing out mandates for the Navy The Parliaments power in disposing of Fouling Fishing Hunting Eating of Flesh or not eating at such a time all these as the Word of God doth not particularly warrant the one side more then the other are meerly civill and positive It is sure the Magistrate hath a supremacy and an independency above the Church or Ministers of the Gospel in all these and as these prescinde from all Morality of the first and second Table I hold that neither the power nor person of the Magistrate is subordinate to the Church and Church-assemblies and Ministers of the Gospel should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and exceed the limits and bounds of their calling if they should meddle with these as the Church should exceed their bounds if they should make Canons touching the way of sayling painting tilling the earth according to such and such principles of Art for these are without the sphere of the Churches activity in this consideration that learned and grave Divine Doctor Andrew Rivetus in Decalo in c. 5. saith well pag. 204. That as we beleeve a man well skilled in his owne Art so that his judgement is a supream rule so the supream authority of the Magistrate to us in things positive is a rule for indeed it cannot be denied but there be Arcana Imperiâ— secrets of State that are not to be communicated to Pastors or to any in which the Rulers have a supremacy The Magistrate falleth under a second consideration as he giveth out Lawes just or unjust and executeth judgement in the morning or suffereth the eyes of the poore the widdow and Orphane to faile for went of justice and in these he is not subject to the Church and Pastors so but only as if he sinne in making Lawes the Pastors may humbly supplicate that he would recall those unjust Lawes and judge over againe righteous judgement and this exhorting of the Pastors is a subjecting of the Magistrate to the Pastors quoad actus imperatos so have Generall assemblies in the Church of Scotland humbly supplicated the King and Parliament to retreat Laws made against the liberties of the Church in savour of Antichristian Prelates and Ceremonies but quoad actus elicitos The Church and Pastors themselves cannot usurpe the throne and give out civill Lawes that are righteous and judge righteously for the poor in the place of King Parliament and Iudges for in this also the judges are supream and independent and subject only to God the Creator as his Vicars and Deputies in Gods universall Kingdome of power called universale regnum potentiae by Divines they are Gods and the shields of the world and here only as they erre not as they iudge are they subject to rebukes and threatnings and admonitions of the Church and Ministers of the Gospel Even as the Magistrate may command the Pastors to preach and dispense the Sacraments aright but the Magistrate himselfe can neither preach nor dispense the Sacraments so the Schoolmen say that the actions of the understanding depend on the will quoad excercitium the will may set the mind to think on this or that truth but not quoad specificationem The will it selfe can neither assent nor dissent from a truth nor can the will command the mind to assent to a known untruth or dissent from a known truth the mind or understanding naturally doth both and this distinction holdeth in acts of the civill power and in acts meerly Ecclesiasticall The third consideration of the Christian Magistrate is as he is a man and a member of a Christian Church who hath a soul to be saved and in this he is to submit to Pastors as those that watch for his soul Heb. 13. 17. as others who have souls to be saved X. Ass Hence I am not affraid to assert a reciprocation of subordinations between the Church and the Magistrate and a sort of collaterality and independent supremacy in their own kind common to both for every soul Pastors and others are subject to the Magistrate as the higher power in all civill things Rom. 13. 1 2 3 4. Tit. 3 1. 1 Pet. 2. 13 14. Mat. 22. 21. and all members of the common-wealth being members of the Church in soul-matters are subject to the Church and Pastors in their authoritative dispensing of Word Sacraments and Church censures Nor are any Magistrates or other who have souls excepted Heb. 13. 17. Mat. 16. 19. Mat. 18. â—8 Joh. 20. 21. Act. 15. 20 21 22 23. Mat. 10. 4â— 41 42. So Protestant writers who have written on this subject Teach As the learned Walens judicious Trig. that most learned Divine And. Rivetus the grave and learned professors of Leyden Zipperus Calv. Petr. Cabel Javiâ—â— reverend and pious M. Iohn Cotton judicious P. Mar. D. Pareus all the Protestant confessions The Augustine confession distinctly of Helvetia The confession of Sweden the Saxon. The English confession and that of Scotland all our Divines while Erastus Vtenbogard Hu. Grotius Vedelius Bullinger Gualthâ—rus going before them yet not every way theirs did teach the contrary The Arminians in Holland did thus flatter the Magistrate for their owne politick ends and some Court Divines made the King of England Head of the Church in the place of the Pope which P. Mar. excused and expounded benignly some say it is against reason that there should be two supream collaterall powers and especially in a mutuall subordination But can we deny this reciprocation of subordinations it is evident in many things if the King be in an extream feaver one of his own subjects a
command of my Master and Conqueror for in so doing Utor meo jure I use my right as a servant For God forbiddeth me in what relation I be in servant or Captive to sinne at the command of any or for declining any ill of punishment Though as weightie as the torment of hell separated from sinfull dispairing and blaspheming of God Now to co-operate with that which I know to be a sinne is to partake in other mens sinnes which is forbidden as a sinne 1 Tim. 5. 22. Eph. 5. 11. But to runne with the theefe and to helpe an Arch-robber Prov. 1. 13. 14. is a consenting to his robberie and bloodshed And to help any to digge thorow a house or to climbe in at a window to Incest Sodomie Buggerie to fetch a beast to the Master who rageth in the sinne of Beastialitie or to setch a young man to the Master or Conqueror to the sinne of abominable Sodomie knowing the Master and conquerors minde is to co-operate to Beastialitie and Sodomie is as high a measure of sinfull cooperating in these abominations as for the servant to helpe up or life up his Master to goe in at a window to an harlot for this is a consent to these sinnes and a consent in the highest degree so to give a knife to a Master who seeketh it from his servant to kill his Father Mother Prince Pastor is to consent formally to such horrible paricides and therefore Caspensis should have brought instances in Bugrie Sodomie Parricide when as he used softer Names of fornication and harlotrie 8. The non-necessaries or such things as need not be in the worship of God which do bring scandall Must 1. be such as are neither necessarie in speciè nor in individuo in kind or in spece or nature or in their individuals and particulars as the whole Categorie of Mens devises as 1. Unwritten traditions not necessary not written 2. Humane mysticall symbolical signes and Ceremonies not necessarie not written 3. Humane holy dayes crossing kneeling to Elements Altars Crossing Surplice Rochets c not necessary not written 4. This and this humane holy day this crossing not necessarie not written 2. These things are judged not necessarie that are not necessarie by way of dis-junction as Surplice is not necessarie by way of dis-junction for neither is Surplice necessarie nor any other white or red habit that hath some mysticall religious signification like unto Surplice So kneeling to the Elements is neither Necessarie nor any the like religious honouring of them by prostration before them oâ— kissing them But the things of the Directorie for the publick worship as many of them are necessarie and have expresse warrant in the Word as Praying Preaching Sacraments Praising c. So 2. some things that are non-necessaries in the individual or particular words or things yet are they not to be removed in their alternative necessitie either this or the like though some be therby scandalized Because though they be not necessarie simply yet are they necessarie by way of dis-junction as that the Minister say either these or the like words for words to that sense are necessarie So the order that the Directorie prescribes in citing such and such acts of Divine worship is necessarie either this way or a way as convenient not different from this for some order of necessity there must be So the Liturgie or Service Booke what ever Jos Hall say on the contrary as it is little that he doth or can say though it should containe many things necessarie in speciè in the kind sit for the externall publick worshipping of God yet because these words in Individuo in their particulars are not necessarie is to be reâ—oved because though all the matter were good as much of it is Popish yet that booke in its structure frame style Grammer methode and forme is popish and framed after the model of the Roman Missale especially performed with the cursed Authoritie of the Councell of Trent under Pius the fift in all the Masses Rubricks Epistles Gospels c. is scandalous and a Directorie in Scripture words is better and is therefore justly layd aside by the Revevent Assemblie and honourable Court of parliament because there is scandall in words in style and language in divine worship And these who will abstaine from practising of some things in the Directorie for feare of scandalizing others must give reasons from the Word that these things they forbeare are neither necessarie simply nor by way of dis-junction Because as I conceive Things neither necessarie in the same individuals nor by way of dis-junction are such Non-necessaries as are to be removed out of the worship of God for feare of scandall And that any such non-necessaries can be found in the Directorie I doe not see as yet Ob. The people had the more opinion of Dietie in the thing they adored the baser it was None hath any such opinion of the crosse Ergo it is no scandalous object Ans All our Divines hold that Heathens of old and Papists of late worship Images as religious memorative signes of God Hooker with one dash of his Pen against the Prophets and Scriptures acquiteth them of Idolatrie therefore the Crosse may be adored without any opinion of Dietie in it Obj. Be it true that crosses were purposely appointed to â—â—â— adored yet not so now The Jewes would not admit of the Image of Caesar in the Church yet they abolished it not but admitted it in their coyne The adored cross differeth as farre from this as the Brazen Serpent that Salomon made to beare up the Cisterne of the Temple and that which Israel adored in the wilderness And the Altars that Josiah destroyid as being meere Instruments of Idolatrie and that which the Tribe of Reuben â—rected beyond Jordan Salomon distroyed not the Temple and Idols framed only of purpose for the worship of forrains Gods because they stood now as forlorne and did no harme Josiah afterward razed them for some inconvenients yet God saith both these Kings in religion walked straightly Ans 1. Though the Cross were first framed for no adoration yet we plead against the Images and Crosses of Lutherans as not necessarie in divine worship and therefore to be removed though never adored 2. The people thinke Baptisme incompleat without the Crosse Ergo to them it has the like necessitie as water 3. How will Hooker prove never any burnt Incense to the Brazen Serpent but beleeved it really to be God that is his dreame beside the Text. 4. By this Luther â—â—â— have their desire for actuall intention that Images be lawfull remembrancers of Christ without intention of adoration shall make Images as lawfull teaching Ceremonies as Hooker will have the sigue of the Crosse 5. We remove not crosses from coyne no more then the Jewes did the image of Câ—sâ—r But wee agree with them Hooker being judge in Banishing them from the worship 6. Ezechiah then might have broken
speciè and in individuo The like Papists say for adoring of Images that Hooker here saith for Surplice and the like Scandals So doth the Jesuit Tannerus say in 22. to 3 dis 5. de religione q. â— dub 3. Quando dicitur Adorationem imaginum non esse licitam qui non est scripta Respo inquit apostolâ— familiari Spiritus instinctu quadam Ecclesiis tradiderâ—nt Servanda que non reliquerunt in scriptis inter hujusmodi Traditiones est Imaginum Christi adoratio Quest VII Whether or no to use the indifferent Customes of heathen and Papists in the worship of God be scandalous WE are altogether of this mind that a materiall Similitude between the truee Church and the false is not scandalous Because Rome holdeth that there is one God it followeth not therefore it is unlawfull for us to hold there is one God 2. There is a formall Similitude as because the heathen kill their children to Molech ergo the Children of Israel should not doe so to the Lord their God M. Hooker granteth there should be a dis-similitude betweene the true Church and Heathens in this and the Similitude say they is unlawfull But 3. the Adversaries draw us to a third dis-similitude betweene the true Church and the Popish and heathenish Church and this is a mixt Similitude that we should use indifferent Râ—tes and Customes in Gods worship as Crossing new devised dayes Surplice c. which are used by Papists and Heathens This say our Adversaries is not an unlawfull Similitude yea with edification and profit say they we may thus farre conforme with them 2. This conformitie doth gaine them not Scandalize them say they But we hold that this conformitie is unlawfull and a dissimilitude commanded 1. It is expresly said Levit. 18. 3. I am the Lord your God after the doings of the Land of Egypt wherein â—eâ— dwelt shall yee not doe And after the doings of the Land of Canaan whither I bring you shall ye not doe Neither shall yee walks in their ordinances 4. Ye shall doe my judgements and keep minâ— ordinances to walke therein I am the Lord your God Hence if God bee a God in a peculiar manner in covenant with his Church then may not his Church take a rule of worship and walking from other prophane Churches and people such as Egypt Canaan and whorish Rome There is an Instance given in things of their owne nature indifferent Levit. 19. with the same Argument 27. Ye shall not round the corners of your heads neither shalt thoâ— marre the corners of thy Beard 28. Yee shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead I am the Lord. Certaine a greater scandall cannot be then that those who are in Covenant with God should borrow significant Ceremonies of sorrowing for the dead Levit. 19. 19. Yee shall keepe my Statutes Thou shalt not let thy cattell gender with divers kinde Thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed Neither shall a garment mingled of linnen and wooll come upon thee Hence there is a cleare opposition made betweene Gods statutes Yee shall heepe my statutes and the statutes of Canaan The Canâ—â—â—â—tes might weare Garments of linnen and wooll and and â—owe mingled seed But Deut. 2â— 9. Thou the Israel of God shall not sowe thy Vineyard with divers seeds Why leâ—t the fruit of the seed which thou hast sowen and the fruit of thy viâ—â—yard be defiled The seed of the Nations was not defiled though they did sowe mingled seed Ergo the Lord putteth some peculiar Character on his people by this to distinguish them from other Nations by giving these lawes to them which did not oblige other Natioâ—â— 3. Wee make the Papists and the Heathen that have used white Garments in the worship of God and crossing in the Sacraments and the like to be our fathers where as wee are to disclaime them and not to harden them so as Israel did Egypt who said Yee cannot serve your God except in our golden Calves by Gods argument Levit. 19 Israel and Canaan Protestants and Idolatrous Papists have one God they have the same externall statutes 4. What â—veâ— is a professed way of being infected and snaâ—ed with the false religion of those who are at our doores as Egypt and Canaan was to Israel and Papists to us must be scandalous conformitie with them and this argument is cleare Levit. 18. 3. Yee shall not doe after the doings of the Land of Egypt wherein yeâ— dwell nor after the doings of the Land of Canaan whither I bring you Ergo the danger is the greater that we dwell beside Idolaters and the publick practising of their rites the more scandalous 5. Wee sadden the spirits of the Godly and lay a stumbling-block before the blind and weak in that wee build Jeriche again and with our tongue we lick and heale the wound of the daughter of Babel where as with our teeth we should byte it 6. Learned and godly Cartwright the Author of the booke of Discipline Amesius and others have cited Councels as Concil Braca 73. decreed That Christians should not deck their houses with Bay leaves and greene boughs that they should not keepe the first day of the moneth because the Pagans did so And another Councell Concil African c. 27. forbade Christians to Celebrate Feastâ— on the Birth day of the Martyrs because Pagans did so Tertullian would not have Christians to sit after they had prayed because Pagans did so 7. The mark and Character of the Beast is an externall discriminating note of its owne nature indifferent Yet to receive it is a matter of Plagueâ— and wrath from God Rev. 13. 15 1â— To these they reply 1. Those same Ceremonâ—es because the saâ—â—â— which the heathen used were not forbidden the Jewes But thâ—se things saith M. Hooker are not indifferent being used as signes of immederate and hopelesse lamentation for the dead and in effect it is that which Paul saith 1 Thess 4. â—3 Sorrow not as they doe which have no hope as Deut. 14. 1. Yee are the children of the Lord your God yeâ— shall not cut your selves nor make you baldnesse betweenâ— your eyes for the dead nor iâ—â—â— hence proven saith Hooker That God did frame his people of set purpose unto any utter dis-siâ—â—ilitude with either Egyptians or other Nations Ans 1. Ceremonies may be either the same 1. in number or 2. materially or 3. formally and Theologically The first identitie and samenes is most proper And whereas Morton and M. Burges would insinuate that God forbade these same Ceremonies in number it needeth no refutation God never forbade things physically and by way of contradiction unpossible The same murthering of our brother forbidden to Cain the same in number is forbidden in number and individually to no mortall man except the Jewes had had the same heads haire beards browes that the Canaanites had the same I meane in number this were to make the lawes
de fide spe et Charit disp 20. duo 2. Bellâ—rm de Verb dei non script l. 4. c. 3. That there was no Vnifâ—rm Platform of Government in the time of Moses and the Apostles is no Argument that there is none now Horantius in loe Catholic l 2. c. 12. fol. 1 â—1 Sanderus de visib Monarch l. 1. c. 5. â— 13. Malderus in 22. de virtu Theolog q. 1. de Object fidei tract de trad q. unic dub 1. Fundamentals were by succession delivered to the church yet are they not alterable The church of Ierusalem as perfected in Doctrine and Discipline is our patern Acts 1. 4. Mr. Prynne Truth Triumphing c. p. 128. Mr. Prynne Truth Triumphing p. 128. The indifferency of some things in the Apostolick Church cannot infer that the Government is alterable Ibid. Ib. p. 129. Mr. Prynne Truth triuphing p. 130 131 132 133. The Argument of Moses his doing all to the least pin in the Tabernacle by speciall direction considered The Ark of Noah proveth the same Calvin Com. in Gen. 6. 22. Quare discamus per omnegenus impedimenta perrumpâ—re nec locum dare pravis cogitationibus quae sâ— Dei verbo opponunt hunc enim honorem haberi sibi flagitat Deus ut â—um siâ—amâ—â—s pronobis seperâ— P. Martyr in loc Nihil negligit fides omnia pro viribus exoquitur quaecunque scit deum vâ—lle Musculus Moses fidem obedientiam Noah comprehendit qua secundum verbum dei arcam construxit Vatablus Hebraismus pro quo fecit Noah prorsus ut ci preceperat deus Horantius in loc Catholic l. 2. c. 12. so 13â— Constatcom plura Dei spiritum post Christi ascensionem ecclesiam do euisse quorum etsi a Christo universalâ—m quandam in genere cognitionem habuissent fideles non tamen in specie aut certè in numero singulariter unde universa fidei nostrae mysteria que ad religionem spectarent intelligit Ceremonias Ecclesiae omnia literis conscripta esse non sine igno ratione affirmare potest Calvinus Mr. Prynne Truth Triumphing p. 134. Hooker 3. book Eccle. pol. p 93. Usher in his Answer to the Jesuits challenge of Traditions pag. 3â— 36. Formalists acknowledge additions to the word of God contraâ—y to Deut 4. 2. 12. 32. The same way that Papists do Moses and Canonick writers are not Law-givers under God but organs of God in writing meer reporters of the Law of God Papists say that the Chrch is limited in making Ceremonies both in matter and number and so do Forma lists Four wayes positives are alterable by God only All things though never so smal are a like unalterable if they be stamped with Gods authority speaking in the Scripture By what authority Canonicall additions of the Prophets and Apostles were added to the Books of Moses Canonick writers how immediatly led by God The Characters of Formalists Ceremonies Papists Traditions one and the same 1 Book eccles Pol. p. 42. Pag. 44. What is it to be contained in Scripture and how far it maketh any thing unlawfull according to Hooker The Fathers teach that all things in Worship are to be rejected that are noâ— in scripture Basil in Ethicis Reg 26. Cyril Alex. Glaphyro in Gâ—â—t l. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys hom 10. in Ioan. 59. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concilen Tridenti c. 1. Sess 4. Synodus traditiones â—ine scripto atque scripturam paripictat is affectu ac reverentia suscipit ac veneratur Ibib. p. 46. It derogateth nothing from the honour of God in Scripture that he be consulted in the meanest things Hooker l. 2. p. 60. How things are in Scripture Pag. 56. Some actions super naturally morall some morall naturally or civilly others are mixt Some habituall reference to Scripture is required in all our Morall actions Book â— Eccl. pol. p. 54. 2. Book p. 78. Works of Superogation holden by Hooker Tanner in 22. to 3. disp 5. de Relig. q. 2. Dub. 3. Aquinas 22. q. 25. Art 3. Quando dicitur adorationem imaginum non esse Scriptam adeoque non esse licitam in cultu dei respondetur Apostoli familiari spiritus instinctu quaedam ecclesiis tradiderunt servanda quae non reliquerunt in scriptis sed in observatione fidelium per successionem Colloquio Helvâ—tiorum ita Eckius Collat. 44. concl 4. Audet Hen. Linick disserit enim Cont. Luther Zwinglium dicere deum in nostris imaginibus Christianis nullam habere Complacentiam Quis â—oe ei retulit sacrae literae non contradicunt Whither our obedience in Church-policy be ultimately resolved in this saith the Lord or in this saith the church Two things in the externall worship 1. Substantials 2. Accidentals The question who should be judge of things necessary or indifferent is nothing to the present controversie 1. Honour 2. Praise 3. Glory 4. Reverence 5. Veneration 6. Devotion 7. Religion 8. Service 9. Worship 10. Love 11. Adoration what they are Two acts of Religion imperated or commanded and elicite Raphael to â— in 22. q. 81. Art 4. disp vnica Honoring of Holy men is not worship Obedience Adoration The Religious object with the act of reverencing maketh adoration to be Religious but a civill object except the intention concur maketh not Religious adoration of a civill object Martyr comment in 1 King c. 1. v. 16. What worship is Worship is an immediate honoring of God but some worship honâ—reth him more immediately some lesse A twofold intention in worship De la Tor. tom 2. in 22. q. 94. Art 2. Si quis interâ—ellarit idolum dicens expressis verbis Jupiter deus meus adjuva me quamvis conarctur fingere istam invocationem deâ—estans interius Jovem et omnes falsos dâ—os vere idolatra esset quia ab illis verbis in separabilis est significatio ex hibendi cultum Divinum idolo Vncovering of the head is Veneration not Adoration Corduba l. 1. q. 5. dub 6. Consecration of Churches taken two wayes Consecration of Churches condemned Durand Rati l. 1. c. 6. Eusebius l. 8. c. 8. 9 l. 10. c. 2 3. Hooker ecl pol. 5. book p 208. Mr. Hookers fancied Morall grounds of the holinesse of Churches under the New Testament answered The place 1 Cor 11. Have ye not houses c. Makethnothing for hallowing of Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nor the place Psal 74. 8. The Synague not Gods house as the Temple was Arg. 1. The negative Argument from Scripture valid a Morton defense of Cere gener q 1. Sect. 12. b Burges rejoynder p. 41. c Gregor de Valent. to 3 dis 6. q. 2. reâ— ad 2. obj Constat quandoquo dici non preceptum id quod adeo non est preceptum ut sit etiam contra preceptum Not to command is to forbid d Morton gener defe c. 1. Sect. 6 7. e Burges rejoynder c. 1. Sect. 7. p. 34. Of Davids purpose to build the Temple how far
sed adduntur ut crâ—denda servanda The distinction of worship essentiall and accidentall of Gods generall and particular will is to be rejected a Morton gener def cap. 1. S. 22. b Burges Treatise of kneeling cap. 2. p. 2. a Driedo de Libert Christ l. 3. c. 3. ad arg 3. Non est in potestate legislatoris prout voluerit obligare ad mortale veniale sed hoe provient ex materiaegravitate b Vasquez Tom. 2. in 12. disput 154. c. 3. Neque enim in voluntate legislator is est obligare vel non obligare a Burges rejoynd c. 2. S. 7. p. 179. a Suarez de relig to 2. de houest vâ—ti lib. 1. c. 1. n. 8. 9. b Bellar. de esfic Sacram. l. 2 c. 32. ad arg 2. c Suarez de tripl virtut tract 1. dis 5. Sect. 4. d Cajetan opusc to 1. tract 27. e Sotus de justific l. 7 c. 6. ar 1 f Bellar. de verbo non Scripto g Douna l. 3. c. 36. h 3 Book p. 153. i Sutluvius de Presbyt c. 11. p. 67. k Cyprian epist 74. Vnde ista traditio c. si in Evangelio praecipitur aut in Apostolorum Epistolis aut actibus continetur observetur Divina et sanctahaes traditio The distinction of divine and of Apostolick Traditions rejected l Beza an in loc a Burges rejoynder cap. 1. Sect. 16. p. 90. Circumstances not positive religious observances as Ceremonies are a Hogo Grotius de jure belli l. c. 20. n. 48. Arg. 4. Against humane Ceremonies because they usurp the essential properties of Divine ordinances b Levit. 20. 8. Exod. 20. 11. 16 17. Exod. 29. 29. 33. 36 37. Exod. 40. 9. cap. 2. 10. cap. 26. 1 2 3. cap. 27. 1 2. a Hooker Book 3. p. 129. a Estius 1 3. dist 37. S. 14. b Palud m. 3. d. 9. q. 1. art 2. c Cajet in 3. q. 25. art 3. d Vasquez to 3. de Ado. disp 103. c. 4. e Ainsworth commu of Saints b Burges Rejoinder c. 3. Sect. 9. p. 279. And in a Treatise of kneeling c. 18. q. 4. p. 57. c Vasquez 3. p. To. 1. de ador 103. c. 4. Cum nos eas form as quibus Deus apparuit dâ—pingimus nolumus aliud quam bistoriam illam effectum ob oculos ponâ—re d Aquin. 12. q. 102. art 6. ad 7. Et idco per aspectum hujus signi induccbantur in memoriam suae legis a Just Martyre Dialog cum Tryph. ante medium b Irenaeus l. 4. c. 30. c Epiphanius heres d Chrys hom 27. in Gen. e Ambros lib. 1. de Abraham cap. 4. We owe subjection of Conscience collaterall only to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The spirit worketh not with Ceremonies Burges rejoynder c. 1. S. 15. p. 57 58. b Ammes his fresh suit against Ceremonies ib. c Suarez tom de legib lib. 4. cap. 1. n. 10. Praecepta Ecclesiastica feruntur quatenus convenientiâ— sunt ad bonos more 's ut res sacrae cum debito honore fiant consequenter vero interdum habent significationem moralem quae homines excitat ad virtutem spem gloriae The place Matth. 15. touching Traditions of the Elders discussed d Janseâ—ius Concord Evange p. 120. Becanus the Iesuit in opusc to 2. de Analog vet et New Test cap. 1. q. 7. n. 13 14 15. reckoneth out three causes why Christ reproved all the Traditions of the Pharisees 1. Because they sought vain glory in some of them Matth. 23. v. 5. 2. They sought gain of others of their Traditions Matth. 23. 14. â—3 They preferred some of them to weightier matters of Gods Law Ans None of these toucheth the point in this text because the Tradition of washing hands is reproved by Christ for want of a lawfull Author and so the matter of it also was unlawfull for Christ calleth it a Doctrine of men IV. Arg. Estius l. 3. â— 37. p. 139 b Gregor de valent to 3. dis 6. q 13. pun 1. Sâ— effectus intentus superet vimmedii erit superstitio Ceremonies Magicall If the third CommaÌ„dment command Decency in its generality as they say then it must command decency in this or this Rite as in Surplice Crossing c. V. Arg. Iewish and Popish Ceremonies are professions of a false Religion Arg. 6. D. Ammes fresh suit Arg. 7. Of Religious kneeling a Rathael de la Torres or din. praedicat tom 1. in 22. Tho. q. 84. tra 2. disp 5. b Abulensis in Levit cap. 13. q. 10. c Virgil. An. 3. Et capiteante aras phrygio velatus amictu d Lod. vives com in August de civit dei lib. 15. c. 2. e Suarez Tom. 1. in 3. Thom. q. 25 art 5. Sect. 4. Four things in Adoration f Joannes de Lugo de myster incarnaâ— dis 23. Sect. 2. n. 23. Intention of worship not essentiall to worship Also to intend worship is essentiall to worship as sincere and hearty Ergo â—â— is not essentiall to worship in generall as what is essentiall to the spece as such is not essentiall to the general that com prehendeth that spâ—ce g Field of the Church 4. book cap. 31. Religious bowing of its nature not by mans free and Arbitrary intention signifieth divine Adoration a Ioannes de Lugo de mystei incarnat disp 13. S. 2. n. 14. b Suarez to 1. in 3. q. 25. art 5. S. 4. Objection of Suarez contending that intention of adoring is essentiall to Adoration removed Of the Idolatrous worship of the Iews and Papists The relative expression of God in the creature no ground of Adoring the creature The Iews believed not the golden Calf to be really God a Bellar. contr tom 2. l. 2 c. 13. b Gregor de Valent. to 3. dis 6. q. 11. de Idolat punct 6. c Aquinas par 3. q. 25. art 3. ad 2. Adorabant Gentiles ipsas imagines ut res quasdans credcutes iis in esse alâ— quid numi nis propter responsa quae daemones in ipsis dabant alios mirabilcs effectus d Vasquez in 3. tom 1. q. 25. disp 91. art 3. Verâ—ssimum est quod tradit Augustinus Gentiles pro dijs habuisse ipsamet simulachra putantes in ipsis numen aliquod latere cum illis responsa darent e Bellar. ibid. f Abulensis in Exodus 23. g Cajetan in Exodus 23. The Adoring of Images not forbidden by the Ceremoniall but by the Morall Law a Suarez tom 3. q. 25. dis 1. in 54. art 3 Sect. 2. b Bellar. to 2. de relig sanct lib. 2. c. 8. The evasions of Bellarmine and Suarez answered c Joannes Rotnaldus de idolatriâ— Ecclesiae Roman lib. 2. cap. 9. d Valent. ibid. c Lindsey pretended Bishop of Edinbrough parth Assembly pag. 29. a Concil triden Sess 25. Statuimus imagines in templis habendas retinendas ijsquedebitum honorem vencrationem impertiendam non quod credatur esse aliqua in his di vinitas vel virtus propter