and I hope they would not presently in the same moment that they debarred him from the Lords Supper excommunicate him There must be some time required to pray for him to rebuke convince and lay open his sinne before he be excommunicated which moved me to thinke that there was necessity of expresse Scripture to prove Excommunication but that abstention as Divines calleth it or suspension from the Lords Supper may well be sufficiently proved by Analogie by consequent and by the nature of the holy things of God and Pearles that are not to be given to the prophane 3. A visible scandall is a sufficient ground of the lesser excommunication or debarring from the Lords Supper and so we put a Testimony of one banished from the holy things of God on him who hath committed a scandalous offence which is a sufficient ground thereof though the offender be not formally excommunicated This Author saith without the consent of the Church no man though contumacious should be excommunicated What this is against us or for Erastus I see not we say the same He saith The Magistrate may chuse some of the congregation to Excommunicate which if he say I consent not to him and see no warrant for it in Scripture But I rather believe his sense to be That the godly Magistrate may command the Church to Excommunicate and punish them if they be negligent in this But hence it followeth not that the Magistrate may Excommunicate them as Erastus inferreth no more then of old it followeth King Vzziah might command the Priests to burn incense to the Lord and punish them if in this they should neglect their duty Ergo King Vzziah might lawfully in his own person burn incense to the Lord Erastus himself will deny this consequence Erastus saith It is evident this Author meaneth That God commanded not a Presbytery to be but that it is necessary for orders cause But I had rather that he had proved it from the Authors words And so I deny it while Erastus bring his own words to prove it I believe he fancies many things of this worthy Author as that he subjects not the Magistrate to the Presbytery And why Because he saith None ought to be Excommunicated without the consent of the Magistrate Truly it is a weak reason for if the Magistrate be a godly man and a Member of the Church it is necessary that his positive consent be had that he may in light and faith use the sword against him as against other evil doers But I give him no negative voyce nor any authoritative or Ecclesiastically judiciall voyce in Excommunication which can be due to him as a Magistrate So the Author doth not at all disagree from us Erastus is mistasten Erastus God hath Excommunicated Drunkards Hypocrites from the Sacraments except they repent But where hath God commanded such being Circumcised and Baptized to be excluded from the Sacraments especially if they professe that they repent of their former wayes for it is one thing to be excluded of God another thing to be cast out of the visible society of the godly Ans God hath Excommunicated Drunkards and Hypocrites who are not known openly to be such to the Church and therefore the Church cannot debar such from the Sacraments and so we grant all That it is one thing to be Excommunicated of the Church and another to be Excommunicated of God 2. He asketh where hath God commanded to debar such from the Sacraments being circumcised and baptized I Answer then If they be uncircumcised and unbaptised God will have the Church to debar them But let Erastus shew any Scripture for their exclusion but such as warranteth us to exclude the openly scandalous though circumcised and baptized 3. What warrant hath the Church or Magistrate if Erastus so will to debar all the uncircumcised and â—nbaptised from the Sacraments Job the Eunuch are not Excommunicated of God Ergo if the Lords non-Excommunication be our rule we cannot Excommunicate all the uncircumcised and baptized as such 4. Erastus addeth They cannot be excluded from the Sacraments Presertim sâ— pâ—nitentiam vitae anteactae prae se â—erant especially if they professe repentance But this presertim especially seemeth to infer though they professe no repentance but be dogs and swine they ought not to be debarred from the Seale Is this piety or rather prophanity But only he would say they are far lesse to be debarred if they professe repentance But we know to professe repentance in Erastus his way is to say by word of mouth they repent Now this saying so may consist with being openly dogs and swine Hence we see the contradicent of Erastus his saying to wit that the most openly scandalous are not to be excluded from the Sacraments especially if they say they repent that is especially if they lye and dissemble before the Sun yea though they mock God and repent noâ— I should think their saying they repent when their flagitious and impure conversation doth belye their profession maketh them so much rather worthy to be debarred being both dogs and Hypocrites So far I am from Erastus his presertim especially if they professe that they repent Erastus I grant it â—ighteth with Gods will that pardon should be denied to any by the Word and yet pardon sealed to those same men in the Sacrament But when the Word denyeth remission of sins absolutely to those the Sacraments are not due to them but the Word denieth not remission to them upon condition they repent and so neither should the Sacraments be denied to them Ans But the word denyeth absolutely remission of sins to dogs and swine so long as they repent not and that so much the more that they say they repent and their life belies their words and testifies to their face and before the Sun that they are plaâ—stered Hypocrites Ergo the Sacraments should be denyed to them Erastus But it followeth not that the Sacraments belongeth not to him who is not a member of the invisible Church so he be a member of the visible Church but as he partaketh only of the externall Communion so he receiveth but the externall elements from an externall Minister Ans But if he be visibly no Member of the invisible Church but in the eyes of the Church visibly a dog or a swine neither ought the externall symbols that are even externally the holy things of God to be given to him for otherwise this Argument shall conclude if one be baptised and a member of the Church though a dog yet the pearls of the Gospel are to be cast to such a dog which Erastus himself denieth And so this Argument hurteth Erastus as much as us That this Author saith God commanded those that transgressed his holy Law with an high hand and presumptuously to be killed lest they should live and prophane his holy things I defend not But sure Erastus erreth who will have all such to be killed by
Proposition is made good Because 1. to walk according to the spirituall Policie of the Lords house must be a good work and so a Morall and Lawfull work and a due conversing in the spirituall Society of the Church according to the Rule of the Word 2. If this Morall walking be according to a Rule that may crook bow and varie according as Civill Customes of men and Cities alter and varie at mens pleasure It is a Morall walking no more according to the Rule of Scripture then the contradicâ—nt thereof is according to this Rule but falleth and riseth hath its ups and downs at the meer nod and pleasure of men who may change Customes and Manners every year twice if so it please them For what Scripture teacheth me a Civill Custome of a City as not to carry Armour in the night to take up the Names of all between sixteen years of age and sixty Or what Scripture teacheth me a Bishop may be above the Pastors of the Church or a Bishop may not be Surplice Crossing Bowing and Cringing to wooden Altars may be or may not be Deacons may be or may not be even as customes and guises of the Civill State appear as Meteors in the Aire and in the fourth part of a night disappear and vanish to nothing to say that the word teacheth the Church to abstain from blood is a part of the perfection of the Scripture and yet the Scripture teaches that abstinence from blood not as an eternall and unalterable Law for we are not now tied to abstain from blood therefore the Scripture may make the man of God perfect in some works that are alterable and changeable This I say is no Answer for saying that God should now make abstinence from blood and things strangled indifferent as he made them in that intervall of time Acts 15. When the Ceremonies were mortall but not deadly and unlawfull as is clear in that Paul Act. 16. 1 2 3. circumcised Timothy that Rite being then indifferent and yet he writeth in another case when the Gospel is now fully promulgated that to be circumcised maketh a man a debtor in conscience to keep the whole Law of Moses and so to abstaine from eating of blood and things strangled must be a falling from the Grace of Christ and an Apostacy from the Gospel Gal. 5 1 2 3. 4 5 6 7. The like I say of observing of dayes which Rom. 14. 5 6. were indifferent and in another case Gal. 4. 9 10. Col. 2. 16 17. Deadly unlawfull and not necessary so the matter Acts 15. which in the case of scandilizing the weak is abstinence from things indifferent say that they are indifferent bindeth as a perpetuall Law to the end of the world and bindeth us this same very day Rom. 14. 20. In the Morality of it as abstinence from murthering One for whom Christ died Rom. 14. 15. 1 Cor. 8. 12 13. 1 Cor. 10. 26 27 28. And upon the ground laid by Prelates which is most false and untrue to wit that many Positive things in Church-Government such as are Prelats deemed to be warranted by Apostolick though not by Divine right Ceremonies and Crossing kneeling to bread Altars Surplice Rochet corner-Cap yea and Circumcision a Passeover-Lambe and all the Jewish Ceremonies though with another spirit and intention then to shadow forth Christ to come in the flesh imagined to be indifferent and alterable things we hold that all these are to be abstained from as eating of blood and things strangled of old were if you say they are as indifferent as blood and some meats were in the case Act. 15. Rom. 14. 1 Cor. 8. 1 Cor. 10. It s a most false principle as we shall hear and therefore the Scripture if it make the man of God perfect to every good work as the Apostle saith it must teach us to abstain from all these as scandalous and must set down as perfect and particular directions for Church-Government as Paul doth Rom. 14. Set down a particular Platform how we shall eschew Murther for scandalizing our Brethren in the use of things indifferent is spirituall Murther Rom. 14. 15. 20. 2. Arg. That which is a lamp to the feet and a light to the path Psal 119. 105. And causeth us understand Equity Iudgement Righteousnesse and every good way Prov. 2. 9. And to walk safely so that our feet stumble not Prov. 3. 25. Prov. 4 11 12. Prov. 6. 23. That must be a lamp and light to our feet and walking in a Platform of Church-Discipline so as we shall not erre sin or stumble therein But if the light be so various doubtfull alterable as we may walk this way or the contrary way according to the Civill Laws alterable Customes and Manners of the people we shall not so be guided in our path as our feet shall not stumble the Church might then suffer Jezabell to Prophecie and these that hath the Doctrine of Balaam or not suffer them as the Civill Laws and alterable Customes of the people should require Now the Scriptures doth clearly insinuate that the Law and will of God revealed in the Word is a Rule of walking straightly and of declining sin and any stumbling in our way which deserveth a rebuke and a threatning such as Christ uttereth against the Church of Pergamos Rev. 2. 14 15 16. And of Thyatira v. 17 18. Now if these Churches had no certain Rule or Word of God from which they should deviate and erre in their path of Discipline but the Customes and alterable Civill Laws and Manners of men they were unjustly rebuked by Christ which to aver were Blasphemy Prelats say Some things in Church-Policie are Fundamentals not to be altered but there be other things alterable And of things of Policie of the former notion we have a certain Platform in Scripture but of the latter not any at all is necessary and the not suffering of false Teachers in the Church is of the former sort But I Answer some Scripture or reason ought to be given of this distinction If all be Morall and unalterable that are necessary to Salvation its good But to suppresse Jezabell and false teachers is not necessary Necessitate medii for then the Salvation of that Church were desperate and past remedy which should suffer false teachers surely then Pergamos and Thyatira were in a certain irremedâ—lâ—sse way of Eternall Damnation as are these who are void of all Faith and knowledge of Fundamentall Articles I conceive Prelats will hold their hand and not be so rash as to say this If these other things of Policie be necessary necessitate precepti in regard that Iesus Christ hath commanded them to be observed why then are some things alterable which Christ hath commanded to be observed some things unalterable Crosse Surplice which Prelats say have been in the Church these twelve hundred yeers are in themselves as positive have as small affinity with the Civil Laws Customes
scripta reâ—nuimus and August Lib. de pasto c. 11. Quicquid inde è scriptura Andieritis hoc nobis bene sapiat Quicquid extraest respuite nâ— erretis in nebulâ Now to say we may receive some truths of things Arbitrary or mutable crosseth Cyrill Allexand Glaphyre in Gen. l. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That which the holy Scripture hath not said by what means should we receive and account it amongst these things that be true Cyrill would deny all your Ceremonies to speak any thing but lies and so would I Yea to bring in any thing that is not written Basilius saith it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a demonstration of Pride and Origen in Levit. Hom. 5. Si quid autem superfuerit quod non Divina Scriptura decernat nullam aliam debere tertiam Scripturam ad autoritatem scientiae suscipi licet I think some third Scripture which is neither the old or the New-Testament must be sought to make good the Doctrines that dumbe humane Ceremonies teach us 2. That the blind lead the blinde is not safe but it is no Argument to prove that this is an immutable thing in policy that there should be Leaders and some that are led except you suppose the Prelates to be the seeing men and the Pastors and People to be blinde 3. I utterly deny this consequence The Clergy is a great multitude Ergo order necessarily requireth that by degrees they be distinguished in Prelates and Pastors for the Prelats are a multitude Ergo order requireth that one be Pope to command all the rest The Apostles were a multitude Ergo There was a necessiâ—y of a Monarch-Apostle the Prelaticall Government is Monarchicall doth order require in all multitude no Government but a Monarchy Nor do we finde any warrant that Apostles had jurisdiction over Pastors in the Scripture nor in any Ecclesiasticall Records but where Papacy was working Paul as if he had been to go out of this life and never to see the faces of the Elders of Ephesus Act. 20. 25. Left unto them as Elders all of equall degrees of power of jurisdiction the feeding and Governing of the Church of God Act. 20. 28 29 30. 4. The particulars of Policy as Surplice Crossing are no more circumstances of Worship then Aarons Ephod a vesture is a circumstance but a Religious vesture teaching us of Pastorall holinesse is worship not a Circumstance Men can place no Religion in Circumstances Hooker Eccle. Poli. l. 3. p. 125. It is in vain to argue from Christs office if there be an immutable Platforme in Scripture it is as if one should demand a Legacy by vertue of some written Testament wherein there being no such thing specified he pleadeth that there it must needs be and bringeth Arguments from love and good will which awayes the Testator bore him imagining that these or the like proofes will convict a Testament to have that in it which other men can no where by reading finde it s our part to admire what he hath done rather then to dispute what he in congruity of reason ought to do how unsearchable are his judgements Ans 1. It is very true a Platforme of discipline is questio facti A question of Fact rather then Law we hear nothing in this comparison but what Papists with equall strength of reason do bring for their unwritten Traditions for they say Protestants are to prove a fact and deed of Jesus Christ that he hath left in his written Testament a perfect and immutable Platforme of Doctrine and manners to which nothing can be added and this they prove from the care wisdom and love of Christ to his Church for he ought to reveale his will perfectly and compleatly in his Scripture otherwise he hath not the love care and wisdom of a Law-giver to his own people if he leave them in the mist and in the dark and write not down all things touching Faith and manners Now we can no where finde by reading Scripture any thing for the Baptizing of Infants or a remedy for women to be cured of Originall sin in the Old-Testament in lieu of circumcision we finde no warrant for the Feast of Dedication in the Law of Moses nor for the dayes of puring observed by the Iewes nor for Images invocation of Saints Prayer for the dead the perpetuall Virginity of the Virgin Mary and many such Doctrines which the Church believeth But we answer because these vain doctrines we except the Baptizing of Infants warranted by Scripture are not in Scripture they are the vaine and saplesse doctrines of men and will-worship But to presse the comparison If any should demand a Legacy by vertue of a Testament in which the Testator hath testified his good will wisdom care to his Brethren in such a manner that he had said I have left in my Testament to my Brethren my mind to instruct them for every good worke to lead them in all truth to teach them every good way to understand equity judgement and righteousnesse to cause them walke safely so that their feet shall not stumble and I have left them my word to be a Lamp and light to their feet in walking Then I would inferre from this Testament two things 1. That the love and care of our Testator Christ so revealed warranteth us to plead for light in Christs Testament how to walk in every good way and so how to walk in all the wayes of the orderly worship of God and of Governing of Gods house by Pastors Teachers Elders Deacons by their Lawfull calling qualifications duties by the Churches Courts in admonition excommunication by the use of the keys 2. Because the Testament is perfect to instruct in every good way particularly and in all duties of worship and this Testament forbiddeth all adding and diminishing and speaketh not one word of Crossing Cringing and bowing to Altars of wearing of Surplice Therefore these are not Gods Lawfull wayes and if I walk in them I can do nothing but fall and stumble 3. We do not here argue simply from the wise and congruous dealing of God what he ought to do nor from the love of Christ as a King and heâ—d simply but from the love care and wisdom of Christ as he is such a King and Head upon whose shoulder is the whole Government and upon whom are all the vessels of the house great and small 4. It is no lesse then blasphemy to ascribe the not particularizing of Ceremonies such as Crossing Surplice humane Feasts to the unsearchable Wisdom and wayes of God to which Paul Romanes 11. referreth the great deeps of Supernaturall Providence in Gods Election and Reprobation his calling of the Gentiles and rejecting of the Iewes and observe I pray this consequence the wayes of the Lord past finding out Ergo The Lord hath set down no Platforme of Church-Policy in his Sons Testament but hath left it to the wisdom of the Church to devise Crossing kneeling to Creatures
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
observe Saints-dayes and believe Crossing and Surplice hath this Religious signification because the Church saith so then is our obedience of conscience finally resolved in the Testimony of men so speaking at their own discretion without any warrant of scripture 2. To believe and obey in any Religious Positives because it is the pleasure of men so to Command is to be servants of men and to make their will the formall reason of our obedience which is unlawfull If it be said that we are to believe and Practise many things in naturall necessity as to eat move sleep and many circumstantials of Church-Policy because the Law of naturall reason saith so and because there is an intrinsecall conveniency and an aptitude to edifie to decore and beautifie in an orderly and a decent way the service of God and not simply because the Church saith so nor yet because the Lord speaketh so in the Scripture and therefore all our obedience is not Ultimately and finally resolved into the Testimony of the Scripture I Answer That there be some things that the Law of Nature commandeth as to move eat sleepe and here with leave I distinguish Factum the common practise of men from the jus what men in conscience ought to do as concerning the former morall and naturall mens practise is all resolved in their own carnall will and lusts and so they eat move and sleep because nature and carnall will leadeth them thereinto not because God in the Law of nature which I humbly conceive to be a part of the first elements and principles of the Morall Law or Decalogue and so a part of Scripture doth so warrant us to do and therefore the moving eating drinking of naturall Moralists are materially lawfull and conforme to scripture for God by the Law of nature commandeth both Heathen men and pure Moralists within the visible Church to do naturall acts of this kinde because the Lord hath revealed that to be his will in the Book of nature But these Heathen do these acts because they are suitable to their Lusts and carnall will and not because God hath commanded them so to do in the Book of nature and this is their sin in the manner of doing though materially Et quod substantiam actus the action be good and the same is the sin of naturall men within the visible Church and a greater sin for God not only commandeth them in the Law of nature but also in Scripture to do all these naturall acts because God hath revealed his will in these naturall actions as they are morall to naturall men within the visible Church both in the Law of nature and in the scripture and De jure they ought to obey because God so commandeth in both and in regard all within the visible Church are obliged to all naturall actions in a spirituall way though their eating moving sleeping be lawfull materially Et quod substantiam actus yet because they do them without any the least habituall reference to God so commanding in natures Law and scripture they are in the manner of doing sinfull otherwise Formalists go on with Papists and Arminians to justifie the actions of the unregenerated as simply Lawfull and good though performed by them with no respect to God or his Commandment 2. As concerning actions of Church-Policy that cannot be warranted by the light of nature and yet have intrinsecall conveniency and aptitude to edifie and decently to Accomodate the worship of God I conceive these may be done but not because the Church so commandeth as if their commandment were the formall reason of our obedience but because partly the light of the Law of reason partly scripture doth warrant them but that Crosse and Surplice can be thus warranted is utterly denied Again I conceive that there be two sort of positives in the externals of Government or worship 1. Some Divine as that there be in the Publique Worship Prayers Praising Preaching Sacraments and these are substantials that there be such Officers Pastors Teachers Elders and Deacons that there be such censures as rebuking Excommunication and the like are morally Divine or Divinely Morall and when the Church formeth a Directory for worship and Government the Directory it self is in the Form not simply Divine And if it be said that neither the Church of the Jews nor the Church Apostolique had more a written Directory nor they had a written Leiturgy or book of Common Prayers or Publick Church-service I answer nor had either the Iewish or Apostolick Church any written Creed or systeme written of fundamentall Articles such as is that which is commonly called the Apostolick Creed but they had materially in the scripture the Apostolick Creed and the Directory they had also the same way for they practised all the Ordinances directed though they had no written Directory in a formall contexture or frame for Prayers Preaching Praising Sacraments and Censures never Church wanted in some one order or other though we cannot say that the Apostolick Church had this same very order and forme But a Leiturgy which is a commanded imposed stinted Form in such words and no other is another thing then a Directory as an unlawfull thing is different from a Lawfull 2. There be some things Positive humane as the Ordering of some parts or worship or Prayer the forme of words or phrases and some things of the Circumstantials of the Sacrament as what Cups Wood or Mettall in these the Directory layeth a tie upon no man nor can the Church in this make a Directory to be a Church Compulsory to strain men And this way the Directory is not ordered and commanded in the frame and contexture as was the Service-Book and the Pastor or people in these are not properly Morall Agents nor do we presse that scripture should regulate men in these But sure in Crossing in Surplice men must be Morall Agents no lesse then in eating and drinking at the Lords-Supper and therefore they ought to be as particularly regulated by Scripture in the one as in the other Quest But who shall be judge of these things which you say are Circumstantials only as time place c. and of these that Formalists say are adjuncts and Circumstances of worship though also they have a Symbolicall and Religious signification must not the Church judge what things are indifferent what necessary what are expedient what Lawfull Answer There is no such question imaginable but in the Synagogue of Antichrist For as concerning Norma judiâ—andi the Rule of judging without all exception the scripture ought to be the only rule and measure of all practicall truths how Formalists can make the Scripture the rule of judging of unwritten Ceremonies which have no warrant in Scripture more then Papists can admit scripture to regulate and warrant their unwritten Traditions I see not we yield that the Church is the Politick Ministeriall and visible judge of things necessary and expedient or of things not necessary
Ahasureosh did to continue for an hundred and fourscore dayes Esther 1. 4. More might and ought to have been done by David and Solomon if it had been a morall ground to build a house to be a witnesse of Almightinesse 3. And God appointed sacrifices and Sacraments in both Testaments as Testimonies of the great Lord Iesus yet in base and obvious creatures we may not devise Symbols or witnessing Images of the Almightinesse of that God whom we serve at our pleasure 4. If our Lord love mercy better then Sacrifice especially under the New Testament when his worship must be more spirituall Then the Argument may be strongly retorted we are to bestow more on feeding the living Members of Christs body which yet is not secular vanity then on dead stones except Master Hooker can warrant us to serve God under the New Testament in precious stones and gold for which we can see no Warrant 5. All these Arguments are broadly used by Papists for Images and rich Churches Nor doth Hooker give us any Argument for this but what Papists gave before him Have ye not houses saith he to eat and drink in Ergo He teacheth a difference between house and house and what is fit for the dwelling place of God and what for mans habitation the one for common food the other for none but for heavenly food Ans That there was publick meeting places and Churches in Corinth now under Heathen Rulers 1 Cor. 6. is denyed by all both Protestant and Popish writers far lesse had they then any consecrated Churches and from the inconveniency of taking their Supper while some were full and drunk in the place where the Lords Supper was Celebrated whereas they ought to have Supped in their own houses to infer that the Church is a holier place then their own house I professe is Logick I do not understand it only concludes these two sort of houses are destinated from two sort of different uses sacred and prophane and no more Neither am I much moved at that Psal 74. which is said ver 8. They have burnt all the convening places or all the Congregations of God in the land Vatablus expoundeth it of the Temple Exusserunt totum Templum Dei terrenum Or all the question will be why the Synagogues are called Gods Synagogues as they called the Temple Ier. 7. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Temple of the Lord and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The house of the Lord Whither because every Synagogue was no lesse in its own kinde a house holy to the Lord then the Temple Certainly there is no rationall ground to say that Synagogues were Typicall that the people were to pray with their faces toward the Synagogue and to offer Sacrifices in the Synagogue But that a Synagogue is called the house of God from the use and end because it was ordained for the worship of God as that which God hath appointed for a speciall end and work in that the Lord assumeth the propriety thereof to himself so saith the Lord of Cyrus Isa 45. 1. Thus saith the Lord to his Anointed to Cyrus whose right hand I have holden yet was not Cyrus Typically or Religiously holy as the Temple of Ierusalem and c. 44. v. 28. He saith of Cyrus He is my shepherd and why He shall perform all my pleasure so Hos 2. 9. Therefore will I returne saith God and take away my corne in the time thereof and my wine in the season thereof and will recover my wool and my flax given to cover her nakednesse To say nothing that all the holy land was Gods land Hos 9. 3. They shall not dwell in the Lords land and consequently all the Synagogues were Gods houses and the enemy of whom the Church complaineth to God in that Psalme was thus bold as notwithstanding Canaan was Gods Heritage and proper Land in a speciall manner yet it was destroyed and burnt by the enemies even these houses that God was worshipped in not being spared But how God was so present in every Synagogue and that even when there were no actuall worship of God in it as he was in the Temple and that it was so holy a place as they were to put off there shooes who came into the Synagogue God shewing his own immediate presence in every synagogue as he did Exod. 3. 5. To Moses in the burning bush Exod. 5. 1. v. 12. Is a thing that hath no warrant in the word of God for if every synagogue had been thus holy 1. It should have been a house dedicated to God in a Religious way as was the Temple 2. God should dwell in every Synagogue then in every Church under the New Testament now as he said he would dwell in the Temple 3. Then must Heathens and the uncircumcised be forbidden to come into any Synagogue or any Church under the New Testament the contrary whereof was evident in scripture none were forbidden to enter in the Synagogues Paul 1 Cor. 14. 23 24. alloweth that Heathens come into the Churches or meetings where Christians are worshipping God 4. If either the Temple of Ierusulem was holy for the worship in it or for that it was a Type of our Materiall Temples under the New Testament then our Churches under the New Testament shall be more holy yea our private houses in which we may worship God shal be more holy as our worship is more spirituall then carnall Commandments of the Leviticall Law were and the body must be more holy then the shadow yea all the earth now from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same in regard of more spirituall worship even the Stables and Alehouses where we may offer the Incense of Prayer to God and offer the sacrifices of praises Mal. 1. 11. shall be alike holy as either our Churches or the Temple was of old CAP. I. Q. 1. Whether or not Humane Ceremonies in Gods Worship can consist with the perfection of Gods Word THese humane Ceremonies we cannot but reject upon these grounds Our first Argument is Every positive and Religious observance and Rite in Gods worship not warranted by Gods Word is unlawfull But humane Ceremonies are such Ergo The Proposition is sure the holy Spirit useth a Negative Argument Act. 15. 24. We gave no such Commandment Levit. 10. 1. Jer. 7. 30. and 19. 5 6. and 32. 35. 2 Sam. 7. 7. 1 Chron. 15. 13. The Lord Commanded not this Ergo It is not Lawfull Formalists Answer Every worship holden to be of Divine necessity and yet not Commanded by God is unlawfull but not every worship holden as free and not binding the Conscience requireth that God Command it Ans 1. Gods Consequence is from the want of a Lawfull efficient and Author you make him to reason from an Adjunct of the worship But all worship hath necessity and Divinity and a binding power only from the Author God For why is it Lawfull to Abraham to kill or
Barnabas Angels and Cornelius forbade men to worship them 9. It is a shame to adore a beast endowed with sense and life farre more to adore a dumbe and livelesse creature August ps 113. Chrysostome is against Images 1. Because the Law of God forbiddeth them 2. God must be honoured as he willeth himselfe 3. It is a depressing of soules to worship Images It commeth from Satan to take Gods glory from him it is mockerie that man should be the creator of God the Creator of all things Cyrillus Alexandrin who lived An. 415. saith We neither beleeve the martyrs to be gods nor doe we adore them Damascen a superstitious man much for Images acknowledgeth two things 1. That Images are but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unwritten traditions 2. He ackowledgeth that the brazen Serpent the Cherubims were made for signification not for imitation or adoration i Gregorius Magnus though he be alledged by Papists for adoration of Images Yet in his Epistle to Serenus Bishop of Massilia An. 600. he forbiddeth the adoration of Images and alloweth onely the Historicall use of them as is observed by Fran. White by Hospinian and Catol testum veritatis and this man being the first who brought Images into the Church hath this Caveat atque indica saith he to Sirenus quod non tibi ipsa visio historiae quae pictura teste pandebatur displicueri◠sed illa adoratio quae picturis fuerit in competenter exhibita si quis imagines facere voluerit minimè prohibe adorare vero imagines omnibus modis divita sed hoc solicitè admoneas ut ex visione rei gestae ardorem conjunctionis percipiant in adoratione solius Trinitatis prosternantur It is cleare that this man teacheth an adoration of Images though he make them onely bookes to the rude This same Gregorius will have the signe of the crosse adored because when the Devill came to a Iew sleeping in the night in the Temple of an Idoll the Iew being afraid signed himselfe with the Crosse and the Divell fled but when doth Iewes come in any Christian Churches or Idoll-Temples who abhorre the name of Christ and so hate both the Crosse and Christ and what can be proved from a fact of Sathan In the eighth age Beda Imaginum cultus adoratio the worshipping and adoring of Images is unlawfull 1. Because they have no office in the doctrine of the Gospell 2. We are forbidden to adore salute or worship them 3. The d Church is not taught to seeke the Lord by Images but by faith and good workes 4. The Apostolique Church did not worship God in Images 5. Images want documento antiquitatis antiquity example and the Scripture 6. We frustrate God of worship due to him 7. Peter Paul Angels forbad to worship them but God only We forbid the Church saith the civill Law to be obscured with Images Have the Image of God saith Ephrem in thy heart non colorum varietate in ligno not in Images and colours Who can make saith Damascen a representation of the invisible God Gretserus saith the Iewes would not admit of Ensignes and Trophies of the Romans for fear Images should be hidden under them So said Josephus before him Their own men say with us Hulcot who lived an 1346. saith Latreia divine worship belongeth to God onely the Image is not God neither the Crosse saith Ioan. Pic. Mirandula Concl. 3. nor the Image of Christ is to be adored adoratione Latreia eo modo quo ponit Thomas with divine worship the guise of Thomas Aquinas Peresius Ajala a Popish Bishop for adoration of Images saith he there is neither Scripture nor Church tradition nor consent of Fathers nor good reason to make it good For saith Gabriel Biel The image either considered in it self as it is mettall or stone or as it is a holy signe is a sensible Creature to which Latreia Divine honour should not be given and the Romish Decrees saith We commend you that you forbid images of Saints to be Worshipped The Doway Doctors say Idols have eyes and cannot see c. Now if they have Images of God and Christ which can see and hear and speak we exceedingly desire to know Alexander Allensis Durandus say That images in themselves and properly are not to be Worshipped Geo Cassander wisheth That they had continued in majorum suorum sententia in the minde of their forefathers and that the Superstition of people in Worshipping images had been suppressed The Councell convened by Constantius Capronimus condemneth Worshipping of Images or placing them in Churches 1. Because it is forbidden in the second Commandment 2. The Picturing of Christ is a dividing of the two Natures 3. It is against the Ancients Epiphanius Nazianzen Chrysostome Athanasius Amphylocius Theodorus Eusebius Pamphili The Councell of Nice is builded upon lies Adrian Bishiop of Rome writeth to the Councell of Nice That the Emperour Constantine being a Leaper and labouring to cure his Leprosie by shedding of innocent Babes blood Peter and Paul appeared to him by night in a Vision and bade him go to be Baptized by Sylvester and that he to be cured by Sylvesters Baptizing builded a Temple with the Images of Peter and Paul This is as true as the Image of Christ spake to Tho Aquinas at Naples Bene Scripsistti de me Thoma Why is not all Evangell that Aquinas hath written then For their own Platina saith The story of Constantines Leprosie is a fable and Socrates saith That Constantine was sick when he was 65. years and he maketh no mention of his leprosie so Hospinianus saith and our own Simson saith That Sylvester and Marcus his successor were both dead before Constantine was Baptized Genebradus a Papist saith down right that the Councell of Frankford condemned the second Nicene Councell But Bellarmine Suarez Sanderus ' Alanus deny that the Doctrine of the second Nicene Councell for Adoring images is Condemned by the Councell of Frankford they say it is onely expounded and that the right way of Adoring images is made manifest Yea saith Nauclerus Sabellicus and Blandus The Councell of Frankford reserveth due honour to images and saith nothing against the Councell of Nice But this is to deny daylight at Noon-day For Annonius is most clear in it and Abbot Vspergens the Book of Charles the Great saith the same The Synod of Frankford was convened An. 794. of purpose to condemne the second Synod of Nice called the seventh pretended and false Synod Aventinus saith expresly Scita Grecorum in Synodo Nicena decreta de imaginibus adorandis in concili◠francofurtensi rescissa abolita sunt and Vspergensis saith in this Synod it was decreed Vt septima universalis Synodus nec septima nec
saith he But the Magistrate himselfe is the apostate the heretick the idolater 2. He that may debarre from the seals may admit to the seals he that may do both Ex Officio is the formall dispenser of the seals by office that the Magistrate is not He that may put out or take in into the house by supream power is the Lord of the house He who by office may admit some to the Table and debarre other some is the Steward But the Magistrate is neither the lord of the Church nor the steward of the house by office We do not hold this consequence the Lord commanded ill doers to be killed Ergo He ordained in that same commandement that they be Excommunicated Nor do we say all those who were to be Excommunicated were to be killed as Erastus saith Nor that Excommunication in the New Testament succeedeth in place of killing in the Old Testament we see no light of Scripture going before us in these Erastus It is a wonder that you say that the godly Magistrate doth procure the externall Peace of the Common-wealth but not the salvation of the subjects that the Presbyters do only care for Ans The Sword is no intrinsecall mean of the saving of any mans soul It is true the godly Magistrate may procure a godly life but as a cause removens impedimentum removing idolatry heresie wolves and false teachers from the flock and commanding under the paine of the Sword that Pastors do their duty But Christ ascending on high gave Pastors and Teachers to gather a Church but not Magistrates armed with the Sword Erastus The Magistrates Sword is a most efficacious mean to bring men to the knowledge of God nothing more effectuall then affliction and the crosse when right teaching is joyned therewith examples teach us that in danger of death men have seriously turned to God who before could be moved by no exhortations But you say all die not in the Lord nor repent nor say I do they all die in the Lord who are taken away by diseases or are excommunicated yea Excommunication maketh many hypocrites Ans 1. Erastus here extolleth the Sword of the Magistrate as a more effectuall mean to salvation then exhortations or the Gospel But I read that Pastors are the Ministers by whom we beleeve and that they are workers with God and fellow-builders and Fathers to convert edifie to salvation and beget men over again to Christ 1 Cor. 3. 5 9. 1 Cor. 2. 4 15. Ambassadors of God 2 Cor. 5. 20. Friends of the Bridgroome 2 Cor. 11. 2. Ioh. 3. 29. Angels Rev. 2. 1. But I never read any such thing of the Magistrate and that the Gospel is the power of God to salvation Rom. 1. 16. The arme of the Lord Esay 53. 1. Sharper then a two edged sword lively and mighty in operation Heb. 4. 12. You never read any such thing of the Sword of the Magistrate the rest are before answered Erastus Some may be changed in a moment as the publican Luke 18. Zâ—cheus The repenting woman Luke 7. If therefore they professe repentance they are not to be debarred from the Lords supper Ans Put it in forme thus Those who may be changed and translated from darknesse to light in a moment and say that they repent are to be admitted to the Lords supper I assume But doggs and swine and doggish and furious persecutors who are to be debarred from the Sacraments As Erastus saith pag. 207. may be changed in a moment and say they repent Ergo those are to be admitted to the Sacraments who are not to be admitted to the Sacraments let Erastus prove the Major proposition 2. We finde no such sudden change in the Publican Zacheus or the repenting woman as Erastus seemeth to insinuate 3. Christ who knoweth the heart and can change men in a moment can at first welcome persons suddenly converted Ergo Must the stewards and dispensers of the mysteries upon a may be or a may not be reach the pearls of the Gospel to doggs and swine whom they see to be such It is a wide consequence He that bringeth his gift to the Alter may in a moment be changed Ergo He should not leave his gift at the Altar and go and first be reconciled to his brother He is presently without more adoe to offer his gift his heart is straighted in a moment if we beleeve Erastus But the rather of this that the man is in a moment changed He is to be debarred least his scandalous approaching to use the holy things of God make the work of conversion suspitious to others 4. This argument presupposeth that unvisible conversion giveth a man right in foro Ecclesiâ— in the Churches court to the seals of the Covenant and so there should be no need of externall profession at all which is absurd Erastus Shall not then idolaters and apostates be debarred as wâ— saith he deny an idolater and an apostate to be a Member of thâ— Church of Christ so we thinke the man that defendeth his wickednesse is not to be reckoned amongst the Members of the Church Anâ— as we think the former are to be banished out of the society of Christians so we think the latter are not to be suffered in that society Ans The Idolater that maketh defection and the apostate were once Members of the Church what hath made them now no Members Who should judge them and cast them out the Magistrate I answer there is no Christian Magistrate If the Church must do it here truly is all granted by Erastus that he hath disputed against in six books even this very Excommunication But if there be a Christian Magistrate what Scripture is there to warrant that he should cast out a Member out of Christs body Here is an Excommunication without precept promise or practise in the word we read that the Church of Corinth congregated together hath a command to judge and cast out a scandalous Member 1 Cor. 5. 4 5 11 12 13. out from amongst the midst of them Let Erastus say as much from the New Testament for his Magistraticall casting ouâ— 2. What reason is there by Erastus his way for casting out an idolater and a man that defendeth his owne wickednesse 1. May not God convert those suddenly as he did the thiefe on the crosse and Saul Ergo They should not be cast out 2. The Magistrate cannot more cut off those from being Members of Christs body then he can remove their faith and internall communion with Christ Now for this cause Erastus saith the Church cannot Excommunicate pag. 1. 2 Thess 3. and 4. 3. Christ and the Apostles did neither cast out Iudas nor Scribes Pharisees or Publicans out of the Church though they were worse then idolaters 4. No helps of salvation are to be denied even to idolaters and to men that defend their owne wickednesse but their remaining in the Church amongst the godly is a helpe of their salvation
positive Commandements hic nunc for esehewing of Scandall farre more may we hic nunc not crosse not kneele hic nunc when crossing and kneeling murthereth one for whom Christ died even though it offend our Superiours Ergo this provision of the Doctors is vaine and Superiours are unjustly offended if our non-murthering of weake brethren offend them nor are we to care for the Doctors provision here 4. No utilitie can truly redound to the whole Church by practising of an indifferent thing which culpably occasioneth the murthering of a weake brother Except our Doctors meane that sinne may edifie the whole Church 5. They say if the things in our private judgement be inexpedient the second way that is to the Church the Church cannot Command them except the Church command against her conscience 6. If matters in their expediencie be questionable and probable on both sides the Churches determination should end the controversie saith the Doctors this is the Doctrine of the Jesuites Suarez Thomas Sanches and Gregor de valent as I shew before when a thing is probable and I be resolved in conscience against neither of the sides and feare the one side be murthering him for whom Christ died which is against Gods commandement and know that humane authoritie commandeth the contrary and am perswaded it is indifferent and a positive commandement of men if the Churches determination be here to sway my conscience to practise is to me blind obedience for humane authoritie as it is such giveth no light Ergo it cannot remove my doubting and beget faith and also the conscience is so much the bolder to venture on a sinne against God for feare of eschewing a sinne against men which is questionable and in a matter indifferent this is also the stout conscience of Bonaventura 2 sent dist 39. plus est standum praecepto Praelati quam conscientiae 7. Our Doctors say our way is against the peace of the Church But I answer their way is Popish and against the truth of God in commanding our consciences to rest upon the wicked will of men And their instance of a Synod of a hundred Pastors may be brought aswell to prove the Synode of Trent is to be obeyed as for the present purpose Duplyers pag. 69. Yee will say this argument is Popish and leadeth men to acquiesce without tryall upon the determination of the Church But we answer in matters of faith the truth whereof may be infallibly concluded out of the word of God we ought not without tryall to acquiesce unto the Doctors of the Church and in this respect we dissent from Papists who ascribe too much to the authoritie of Councells as if their decrees were infallible But in matters of Policie if we be certaine that in their owne nature they are indifferent and if the expediencie of them onely be called in question seeing no certaine conclusion concerning their expediencie can be infallibly drawn out of Gods word we are to acquiesce to the decrees of the Church 1. Because otherwise it is impossible to agree in one conclusion in matters of this kind 2. Disobedience shall prove more hurtfull then obedience Answer 1. This is a wide step to make all things in Scripture either matters of faith or matters indifferent That there were eight persons in Noahs Arke and that Sampson sâ—ew a thousand with the jaw bone of an asse are not matters of faith as matters of faith are contradistinguished from things indifferent many are saved who neither know nor believe many things of this historicall veritie in Scripture yet are they not matters indifferent But the Doctors are reconcilers with the Belgik Arminians who deny all the things contraverted betwixt Papists and us and betwixt us and Arminians and Anabaptists at least the most part of them to be fundamentall and that either side may be believed and holden without hazard of salvation and therefore we are to leane to the Churches determination in these without farther inquirie 2 They mean that in matters contraverted and in all things indifferent as whether in this or that fact we doe murther him for whom Christ died Wee are to give our faith and conscience over to the Church without further tryall 3. What if wee be not perswaded of the indifferencie of the things commanded but doubt whether they bee commanded or forbidden in the Word as is now the present case of Ceremonies to us for we cannot be perswaded of their indifferencie and the Doctors saith they are not matters of faith Ergo by their own doctrine their distinction is defective 4. Scripture is also perfect in resolving us what is scandall and murthering of our brother as what is Idolatrie and Blasphemie and therefore we are not to hang our faith here upon the Churches Canons without farther tryall as you say 5. That the Scripture is perfect in matters of faith but imperfect in matters of Policie that is in matters wherein we may kill him for whom Christ died is no better then the Papists distinction who teach us that the Scripture is perfect in the articles of faith not in traditions so Scotus saith True Theologie according to Divine revelation is onely of things in Scripture or which may be deduced out of Scripture And Suarez saith Things that belong to accidentarie rites are left to the Churches determination but the Scripture implicitly containeth all articles of feare faith And so saith Bannes and Duvallius 6. Your feare is vain that we shall have no order nor peace if Scripture be judge and not the authoritie of the Church in matters which you call indifferent for the Church giveth out Canons concerning things strangled blood which were matters indifferent and that from the word of God Act. 15. and that in great unitie and peace Gods word maketh unitie and not mens authoritie 7. Disobedience to Church Canons in case of given Scandall is neither disobedience nor hurteth at all It possibly offendeth men who will tyrannize over the Conscience and if any be induced thereby to sin it is a scandall taken not given Abstinence from murthering a weak brother is obedience to God and so no active Scandall In the 48 Section The Duplyers doe but redouble over again the arguments already brought and answered by me divers times to D Robert Barron in private while he was silenced and as I conceived satisfied Especially they say our disobedience to superiours in things lawfull and expedient is most scandalous to others and that because we by nature are most unwilling to be curbed and to have our libertie restrained Therefore Calvin saith God that he may allure us to obedience to â—â—â—â—riours called superiours Parents I answer 1. The Doctors are too hastie to call that obedience to Superiours which is in question We say it is disobedience to the â—ixt Commandement because it is a scandalizing of our brother Ergo it is not obedience to the fift Commandement to practise
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
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
Papists as Vasquez Becanus and others say that neither the Pope nor the Church can adde or devise a new Article of Faith Yet doth Horantius Loco Catholice l. 2. c. 11. fol. 129. teach That Christ hath not taught us all fully in the New Testament but that the holy spirit shall to the end of the world teach other new things as occasion shall require And this he bringeth as an Argument to prove that there must be unwritten Traditions not contained in Scripture even as the Formalists contend for unwritten Positives of Church-Policie 3. Morals of the Law of nature and the Morall Law do more respect occasions of Providence customes Laws and the manners of people they doing so nearly concerne our Morall practise then any Ceremonies of Moses his Law which did shadow out Christ to us and therefore this reason shall prove the just contrary of that for which its alledged for the Morall Law should be rather alterable at the Churches lust then Ceremonials for there be far more occurrences of Providence in regard of which the Laws Morall touching what is Sabbath breaking whether is leading an Ox to the water on the Sabbath a breach of the Sabbath the Jews held the affirmative Christ the negative touching obedience to Superiors Homicide Polygamie Incest Fornication Oppression Lying Equivocating Then there can be occasions to change the Law of sacrificing which clearly did adumbrat Christ who was to be offered as a sacrifice for the sins of the world yea all significant Symbolicall Ceremonies have their spirituall signification independent from all occasions of Providence and depending on the meer will of the Instituter Surplice or white linnen signifieth the Priests holinesse without any regard to time place or nationall customes for Christ might have made an immutable Law touching the Symbolicall and Religious signification and use of Saints-dayes white linnen Crossing and all the rest of humane Ceremonies which should stand to Christs second coming notwithstanding of any occurrences of Providence no lesse then he made an immutable Law touching the Sacramentall obsignation of water in Baptisme and of Bread and Wine in the Lords Supper if it had not been his will never to burden his Churches with such dumb and tooth-lesse mysteries as humane positives 4. The assumption is false for divers Ceremoniall Laws now altered were made without any regard to occasions of Providence and many Doctrinals that are unalterable were made with speciall regard to such occurrences 5. If positives of Policy be alterable because the occasions of such are alterable by God it shall follow that God who hath all revolutions of Providence in his hand must change these Positives and not the Authority of the Church and thus Doctrinals are alterable by God not by men which is now our question for Christ hath given a Commandment Take ye Eat ye Drink ye all of this Yet hath he not tyed us in the time of persecution to conveen in publick and Celebrate the Lords Supper but the Church doth not then change the Law nor liberate us from obedience to a Command given by God but God liberateth us himself Hooker But that which most of all maketh to the clearing of this point is that the Iews who had Laws so particularly determining and so fully instructing them in all affairs what to do were not withstanding continually inured with causes exorbitant and such as their Laws had not provided for and so for one thing which we have left to the order of the Church they had twenty which were undecided by the expresse word of God so that by this reason if we may devise one Law they may devise twenty Before the Fact of the sons of Shelomith there was no Law that did appoint any punishment for blasphemers nor what should be done to the man that gathered sticks on the Sabbath And by this means God instructed them in all things from heaven what to do Shall we against experience think that God must keep the same or a course by Analogy answering thereunto with us as with them Or should we not rather admire the various and harmonious dissimilitude of Gods wayes in guiding his Church from age to age Others would not only have the Church of the Iews a pattern to us but they would as learned Master Prynne with them saith take out of our hand the Apostolick Church that it should be no rule to us for saith he There was no Vniforme Church-government in the Apostles times at the first they had only Apostles and Brethren Acts 1. 13. no Elders or Deacons Their Churches increasing they ordained Dâ—acons Act. 6. And long after the Apostles ordained Elders in every Church after that widowes in some Churches not at all In the primitive times some Congregations had Apostles Acts 4. 11 12. 1 Cor. 12. 4. to 33. Evangelists Prophets workers of miracles Healers c. Other Churches at that time had none of these Officers or Members and all Churches have been deprived of them since those dayes Ans 1. What Hooker saith is that which Bellarmine Sanderus Horantius and all Popists say for their Traditions against the perfection of the word to wit that the word of God for 2373. years between Adam and Moses saith Horantius was not written so Turrianus Bellarmine and the reason is just nothing to say the Jews might devise twenty Laws where we may devise one because the Jews were continually inured with causes exorbitant such as their written Laws had not provided for This must be said which is in question and so is a begging of the controversie that the Iews of their own head and Moses without any speciall word from God or without any pattern shown in the mount might devise what Laws they pleased and might punish the blasphemer and the man that gathered stâ—cks on the Sabbath and determine without God the matter of the Daughters oâ— Zelophehad as the Formalists teach that the Church without any word of God or pattern from the word may devise humane Ceremonial Prelats Officers of Gods house shapen in a shop on earth in the Antichrists head and the Kings Court the Surplice the Crosse in Baptisme and the like Now we answer both them and Papists with one answer that it is true there was no written Scripture between Adam and Moses which was some thousands of years Yea nor a long time after till God wrote the Law on Mount Sinai But withall what God spake in visions dreams and apparitions to the Patriarchs was as binding and obliging a pattern interditing men then to adde the visions of their own brain to what he spake from heaven as the written word is to us so that the Iews might neither devise twenty Laws nor any one of their own head without expresse warrant of Gods immediate Tradition which was the same very will and truth of God which Moses committed to writing if then Formalists will assure us of that which Papists could never assure us we shall
First the Canonick Scripture is not Uniform and perpetual Why for certainly once there was no Canonick Scripture but the Books of Moses and after the holy Ghost added the Book of the Psalmes and the Prophets and after the Nativity and Ascension of our Lord to Heaven the Apostles did write Canonick Scripture I hope this is but a poor Argument to infer that there is no Vniform and unalterable Platform of Divinity in the Old and New Testament and yet the Argument is as concludent the one way as it is the other 3. We do not so contend for an Vniform and unalterable Platform of Church-Government in the Word as it was not free to the Lord and Law-giver to adde and alter at his pleasure only we hold it so Vniform and unalterable that this Platform is not shaped like a coat to the Moon or alterable at the will of men without expresse warrant of the Lords Word and to rise and fall with the climate and the elevation of Nationall customes and therefore the Argument is nothing concludent and judge what can be made of these words of the learned Mr. Prynne The Government and Officers of all Churches not being De facto one and the same in all particulars in the very Primitive times as well as since it can never be proved to be of Divine right and the self same in all succeeding Ages without the least variation â—inee it was not so in the Apostles dayes For this is all one as to say the Canonick Scripture was not one and the same in the Apostles and Prophets times but admitted of divers additions Ergo now in our daies Canonick Scripture is not one and the same but may also suffer the like additions 2. Because God himself added to Canonick Scripture and to the Government of the Church in the Apostles dayes Ergo men may without Warrant from God adde in our dayes to Canonick Scripture and to the Government and Officers of the Church 3. The Government and Officers in the Apostles time were not of Divine right but alterable by God Ergo Apostles Evangelists Pastors Teachers Workers of miracles were not of Divine right in the Apostles times but might have been altered by men without the expresse Warrant of God But will any wise man believe that Pauls Apostleship was alterable and might be changed by the Church Since he saith Gal. â— 1. Paul an Apostle not of men neither by men but by Iesus Christ and 1 Cor. 12. 28. When Paul saith And God hath set 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or instituted some in the Church first Apostles secondly Prophets thirdly Teachers after that miracles then gifts of healing c. and Eph. 4. 11. When Christ ascended on high he gave some Apostles some Prophets and some Evangelists and some to be Pastors and Teachers 12. For the perfecting of the Saints c. Can it enter into the head of any man to say some Churches had Apostles and Evangelists and Pastors and miracles and some not Ergo Apostles and Pastors are not by Divine right Ergo because they were not in all Churches therefore they were alterable at the will of men and a Surplice and Crosse in Baptisme hath as much of Divine institution as the calling of the Apostle or of a Pastor and truly to me it is bold Divinity to say that Pastors set over the flock by the holy Ghost Act. 20. 28. and whos 's due qualifications are so specified 1 Tim. 3. and Elders 1 Tim. 5. 17. and Teachers placed by God in the Church 1 Cor. 12 28. may be all turned out of the Church by men as having no Divine right to be there and that men may set up other alterable Officers in their place for by this reason the Apostles by that ordinary spirit that is now in Church-Rulers might without their Apostolick spirit or any immediate Warrant from Christ have altered the whole frame of Apostolick-Government and Church-Officers as the Church may upon motives from themselves not warranted from the word turne out Surplice Crosse and all such stuffe out of the Church Master Prynne The Apostles speech 1 Cor 12. 4 5 6. There are diversity of gifts but the same spirit there are diversity of operations but the same God compared with chap. 8. to 13. and c. 9. v. 19. to 24. I made my self a servant to all that I might gain all c. parallel'd with Act. 15. 1 2 5 6 10. to 32. and chap. 21. 18. to 30. The Churches of Judea did retain the use of Circumcision Purification and other Iewish Rites which the Gentiles by the Apostles resolution were not to observe and Act. 2. 22. The Apostles frequented the Iewish Temple and Synagogues conforming themselves to the Order and Discipline thereof and their own private Christian Assemblies all this will clear that all Churches had not one and the self same Church-Government Ans If diversity of Gifts as to be a speaker with Tongues a Prophet a Pastor will prove the Discipline to be alterable at the Churches will as are Surplice Crosse c. I shall think men may infer any thing they please out of the Scripture and that to be Apostles Pastâ—rs are as indifferent and variable as eating of meats 1 Cor. 8. and Pauls taking of wages at Corinth 1 Cor. 9. Which none can say for if the Church should now command us to abstain from such and such meats as the Apostle doth 1 Cor. 8. We should call that and do call it in the Romish Church a Doctrine of Devils 1 Tim. 4 1 2 3. All brought for this from Act. 15. Act. 21. tendeth to this the Lord himself for the then weaknesse of the Jews of meer indulgence appointed some things to be indifferent and abstained from in the case of scandall Therefore Circumcision Purification Sacrifices of Bullocks and sheep And all the Ceremonies of Moses his Law may be commanded by the Church so they have another signification then they had before and shadow out Christ who is already come But because God hath made some things indifferent shall it follow that the Pope yea or any Church on earth can create an indifferency in things they must then take from things their Morall goodnesse or conveniency with Gods Law and take from them their moral badnes disconveniency to Gods Law which to me is to change the nature of things and to abrogate and change Gods Laws it is true P. Martyr 1 Cor. 9. 19. saith Paul was made all things to all men Quoad Ceremonias res medias in that he Circumcised Timotheus The Law saith he was abrogated Vâ—rum id non adhuc Judaeis liquebat The Jews were to be spared for a time but only for a time and therefore when the Gospel was sufficiently promulgated Paul said Gal. 5. to be Circumcised was to lose Christ and he refused to be a servant to Peter in his sinful Iudaizing Gal. 2. And withstood him in the face Now certain it
of the Church and is indeed a teaching sign and so should not be counted a Positive of Church-Policy 2. Most false it is that the Tabernacle and Temple were nothing but a meeting place of the people for Worship as our Churches or Chappels are 1. Because it is to Argue the Holy Ghost of want of wisdom to spend so much Canonick Scripture in setting down things idely not tending at all to edification and teaching us nothing of God and in specifying the Form Height Length Bredth Curtains Candlesticks Sockets Rings of naturall places that contained their bodies for what should it edifie us if God should describe so particularly all the Churches and meeting places of the people under the New Testament Now certain it is Whatsoever things were written afore time were written for our Learning Rom. 15. 4. 2. Many things in the Tabernacle as Candles in day light Rings Sockets Shew-bread belonged nothing to a naturall place as our Chappels or Meeting houses do 3. Expresly the Scripture maketh them more then places to wit Holy Religious and Typicall signes of Divine institution as the Tahernacle was a Type Heb. 8. 2. 5. Heb. 9. 1 2. c. Heb. 10. 1 2 3. And the Temple a Type of Christs body Ioh. 2. 19. Ioh. 1. 14 15. And all these were Types and shadows of Heavenly things Heb. chap. 8 9 10. Gal. 4. 1. 2. c. Col. 2. 16. 17. Which our Churches and Chappels are not being only places common to sacred and Civill actions 2. God therefore can no more in expresse words set down the form matter dimensions of Christian Churches and Chappels then of the Synagogues of the Iews which had no Morall use for edification and instruction 3. Yea because the Tabernacle and Temple and their implements were teaching shadows of good things to come and our Churches and Chappels are not so nor have they any Morall or Religious use or influence on our spirits as the Tabernacle and Temple had therefore the Lord who is expresse in all Morals which of their own nature do teach and edifie he behoved to name Bezaliel and Aholiah and the form and colour of the Priests garments which also are Typicall and could not name our Elders or the colour or form of their Garments 4. All these weak retortions suppose that the Tabernacle and Temple were types of our meeting houses for Worship which is a meer conjecture they were no more types of our Chappels then of the Iewish Synagogues we may not expound types at will but as the Holy Ghost expoundeth them to us in the New Testament And this is a conjecturall Exposition and a dream to make Bezaliel and Aholiah types of Embroyderers and Tradesmen 5. We know the Tabernacle and Temple were corporall things made with hands and that they are things different from the spirituall things that they signifie as the sign and the thing signified as therefore the Lord is expresse in the elements and Rites of the Supper of the Lord because all of them Bread Wine taking eating breaking pouring out the Wine drinking are teaching and edifying signes and our Lord never left it to the wisdom of men to devise signes to teach themselves so in like manner should the Lord expresly specifie all the teaching and signifying signes in the Old Testament and as Moses might devise none of his own but was tyed to follow the patern which the Lord himself shewed to him in the Mount So are we now under the New Testament tyed to the patern of that same will revealed in the Word and it is laid on us Not to be wise above that which was written and it is of perpetuall equity The supream Law-giver never left it to the wisdom of Angels or Men or Prophet Apostle or Church to serve and Worship God as they thought good But he himself particularly prescribed the way signes and means And because God hath not been pleased in the New Testament to specifie types of Christ incarnate and come in the flesh already therefore are we obliged in Conscience to believe and practise no more either in Doctrinals or teaching types or Positives of Church-Policy then our Patern in the Mount the Scripture hath warranted to us to be the will of God and in this and this only standeth the force of the present Argument unanswered by paterns of unwritten Traditions and not in these loose consequences that we under the New Testament should have these types and Policy that the Church of the Iews had which is the Doctrine of Papists and Formalists following them not ours for they prove their Pope and Prelat from the Iewish High Priest their Surplice from the linnen Ephod of Jewish Priests their Humane Holidayes from the Iewish dayes their kneeling to bread from their bowing toward the Ark. 6. It is not true that the Tabernacle and Temple were meer corporall things no more then bread and wine in their spirituall relation are meer corporall things The Lords end use and intent in the Tabernacle and Temple was that they should be to the people Images and shadows of heavenly and spirituall things Heb. 8. 5. Heb. 10. 1. 7. That all the things of the Tabernacle were delivered to Moses as a King and not as a Prophet and writer of Canonick Scripture Heb. 3. 5. Heb. 8. Luk. 24. 44. 27. Luk. 16. 31. is an untruth except Formalists make the King so the head of the Church in prescribing Laws for the Policy thereof as they make him a Canonick writer as were David Moses Solomon from whose example they would prove the King to be the head of the Church But I judge Moses saw the patern in the Mount and God face to face as a Prophet whose words are Scripture to us Deut. 34. 10. And there arose not a Prophet since in Israel like unto Moses whom the Lord knevv face to face And as a Prophet not as a King his face did shine Exod. 34 27 28 29. And he was commanded as a Prophet to write the Law not as a King Numb 12. 6. 7. Moses is made the most eminent Prophet that was in the Old Testament And why Because God spake to other Prophets by Dreams and Visions But he spake the Law and written Scripture to Moses mouth to mouth This should not be a comparison between Prophet and Prophet but between Prophet and King by this learning 8. We judge Noahs Ark doth prove the same it being a speciall type of the Church 1 Pet. 3. 20 21. And he built it by Faith Heb. 11. 7. And so by a Word of God and at Gods speciall direction in all the length bredth formes of it and not of his own head Gen. 6. 14 15 c. And is commended by the spirit of God for so doing Gen. 6. 22. Thus did Noah according to all that God commanded him so did he And Formalists should deserve the like Testimony if it could be said of them And as the Lord commanded the
dicitur Scriptura sacra aliud est verbum dei non scriptum dicitur ecclesiae traditio There is one vvord of God vvritten called the holy Scripture And there is another vvord of God not vvritten and it is called the Tradition of the Church Now their Tradition is no more a part of the Scripture but another part of the word of God contradistinguished from Scripture then the body is a part of the soul or Scotland a part of England for both England and Scotland are collaterall parts of great Brittain the Scripture say they is the unperfect rule of Faith and not the compleat will of God as touching Faith or manners but Scripture and Tradition together are the perfect and totall rule so say Formalists that Scripture is the compleat and perfect rule of Faith and manners to regulate all our Morall acts But the other part of the distinction is that Scripture is not a compleat and full rule to regulate all our Morall Acts whatsoever whither of Faith or manners or Church-Policy as it is no rule to my conscience and practise to believe for orders cause and obedience to my Superiours and for decency that I am to wear a Religious significant linnen creature called a Surplice or not to wear it or that I am to excercise or not exercise that grave action of drawing my thumb Crosse the Air above the face of a Baptized Childe vvhile I baptize to betoken his dedication to Christs service And hitherto neither Traditions nor Positives of Church-Policy are added as necessary parts of written Scripture 2. Traditions are not added to the Scripture by Papists as coming from the immediatly inspiring spirit that dyted and wrote Scripture more then our Ceremoniall Positives of policy It s true Papists say they come from an infallible spirit But Formalists I hope refer not their unwritten Positives to so noble blood yet in this they agree that Traditions are not added by them as descending from the immediate inspiring spirit of written Scripture Therefore Cornelius a Lapide saith Non addetis ad verbum quod vobis loquor aliquid scilicet tanquam meum vel a me dictum aut jussum nulli enim homini licet prescripta aut precepta sua pro preceptis a deo a spiritu sancto immediatè inspirante dictatis aut pro Scripturis sacris addere It is not lavvfull for any man to adde to the vvord any thing of his ovvn as his ovvn or as spoken and commanded by himself For no man may broach his own injunctions and precepts as if they were the precepts taught by the immediate inspiring spirit speaking in the Scriptures Hence Papists teach that their Traditions flow from a little lower Spring then from the immediately inspiring Scripturall spirit So I make this good from famous Iesuites Cornelius a Lapide in Deut. 4. 1 2. saith Sed et ipsi judaei multa addiderunt legi ut coelaturas omnemque ornatum templi ut festum sortium sub Eester festum dati ignis festum Encaeniorum c. Hec enim non a deâ— sed a judaeis sancita et instituta sunt denique hec non sunt addita sed potius inclusa legi dei Quia Lex jubet obedire parentibus Magistratibuâ— pontificibus eorumque legibus The Jevvs saith he objecting the instances of Formalists added many things to the Lavv as the ingraving and adorning of the Temple the feast of Purim of Dedication c. And these traditions vvere not ordained and instituted by God Ergo not by the immediate inspiring spirit as is the Holy Scripture but by the Iews and they were not added to the Law but included in the Law because the Law biddeth obey Superiors and their Laws whence it is evident that these very Ceremoniall traditions of Papists for which Formalists contend are not added to the word as coming from God or the immediatly inspiring spirit that diteth scripture but from the Church without warrant of Scripture just as Popish traditions which we count unlawfull additions to the word And Tannerus the Iesuit saith Tom. 3. in 22. de fide spe et cha dis 1. de fide Q. 1. Dub. 8. That the assistance of the spirit that the Church hath in proposing unwritten traditions requireth no positive inspiration or speech made by God to the Church but it is enough that the Church have a very negativehelp of God only by which she is permitted not to erre His words are these Nam assistentia illa dei quà ecclesiae adest ne ejusmodo rebus fidei in traditionibus non scriptis proponendis erret por se non dicit nec requirit positivam inspirationem seâ— locuâ—â—onâ—m Divinam ipsi ecclesiae factam sed contenta est quovis auxilio dei etiam mere negativo quo fit ut ecclesia ijs in rebuus non sinatur errare Cum tamen nova revelatio utique novam inspirrtionem seu Locutionem dei aliquid positivè notificantem significet And the like saith Malderus in 22. de virtu Theolog. That though traditions come from an infallible spirit no lesse then Scripture yet traditions are the Word of God because they are heard and constantly believed But the Holy Scripture is the Word of God because written by the inspiration of the holy spirit Q. 2. Art 1. Dub. 4. pag. 83. And therefore he maketh two sorts of traditions some meerly Divine vvhich the Apostles received either immediately from the Holy Ghost or from the mouth of Christ as those touching the matter and form of the Sacraments Others saith he are properly Apostolick as those touching the Lent Fast instituted by the Apostles ib. tract de trad Q. Vnic Dub. 1. Traditiones inquit per apostolos traditae aliae sunt Divinâ— quas immediatè ipsi a spiritu sancto dictante vâ—l ex ore Christi acceperunt ut de materia et potissimum de formis sacramentorum aliae autem propriâ— dicuntur Apostolica ut de Iejunijo Quadragesimali quod Apostoli Iâ—stituerunt Hence it is evident if Papists cannot but be condemned of impious additions to the Scriptures by these places Deut. 4. Deut. 12. Formalists are equally deep in the same crime and the same is the answer of Malderus ibid. Dub. 2. vetat Apoc. 22. Ne quis audeat Divinam prophetiam depravare assuendo aliquid aut abradendo Turrianus tom de fide spe et cha de traditio disp 20. Dub. 2. pag. 255. Respondetur Joannem planè probibere corruptionem Libri illius non tamen prohibet ne alij Libri scribantur vel alia Dogmata tradantur Stapletonus Relect. Prin. fidei Doct. Contaver 4. q. 1 Art 3. Sed non prohibet vel legis interpretationem per sacerdotes faciendam imò hoc disertè prescribit Deut. 17. Vel aliquid aliud in fidem admittendum qúod lege scriptâ non contineatur Alioqui quicquid postea prophetâ— predicaverunt et Divinis Scripturis adjectum est contra hoc dei mandatum factum
censeri debet Learned D. Roynald Answereth Apolog. Thes de sac Script pag. 211 212. and saith This very Law of Moses promiseth life Eternall to those that love the Lord vvith all their heart and that the Prophets added to the Writings of Moses no Article of Faith necessary to be believed but did expound and apply to the use of the Church in all the parts of piety and Religion that vvhich Moses had taught Lorinus followeth them in Deut. 4. 1. Christus inquit et Apostoli pentateucho plura adjecerunt immò in vetere Testamento Iosue Prophetae Reges Christ saith he and the Apostles added many things to the five Books of Moses yea in the Old Testament Ioshua the Prophets and the Kings David and Solomon did also adde to Moses But the truth is suppose any should arise after Moses not called of God to be a Canonick writer Prophet or Apostle and should take on him to write Canonick Scripture though his additions for matter were the same Orthodox and sound Doctrine of Faith and manners which are contained in the Law of Moses and the Prophets he should violate this Commandment of God Thou shalt not adde For Scripture containeth more then the sound matter of Faith it containeth a formall a heavenly form stile Majesty and expression of Language which for the form is sharper then a two edged sword piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit and of the joynts and marrow and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart Heb. 4. 12. If therefore the Prophets and Apostles had not had a Commandment of God to write Canonick Scripture which may be proved from many places of the Word they could not have added Canonick Scripture to the writings of Moses But the Answer of D. Roynald is sufficient and valid against Papists who hold that their Traditions are beside not contrary to the Scripture just as Formalists do who say the same for their unwritten Positives of Church-policy But our Divines Answer That traditions beside the Scripture are also traditions against the Scripture according to that Gal. 1. 8. But if we or an Angel from Heaven preach any other Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beside that which we have preached unto you Let him be accursed And Papists more ingenious then Formalists in this confesse That if that of the Apostles Gal. 1. 8. be not restricted to the written Word but applyed to the Word of God in its Latitude as it comprehendeth both the written word or Scripture and the unwritten word or Traditions then beside the word is all one with this contrary to the word which Formalists constantly deny For Lorinus the Jesuit saith Comment In Deut. 4. 2. Quo pacto Paulus Anathèma dicit Gal. 1. 8. Iis qui aliud Evangelizant preter id quod ipsi Evangelizaverit id est adversum et contrarium So doth Cornelius a Lapide and Estius expound the place Gal. 1. 8. And they say that Paul doth denounce a Curse against those that would bring in a new Religion and Judaism beside the Gospel But withall they teach that the Traditions of the Church are not contrary to Scripture but beside Scripture and that the Church which cannot eâ—re and is led in all truth can no more be accused of adding to the Scripture then the Prophets Apostles and Evangelists who wrote after Moses can be accused of adding to Moses his writings because the Prophets Apostles and Evangelists had the same very warrant to write Canonick Scripture that Moses had and so the Church hath the same warrant to adde Traditions to that which the Prophets Evangelists and Apostles did write which they had to adde to Moses And therefore the Councel of Trent saith S. 4. c. 1. That unwritten traditions coming either from the mouth of Christ or the ditement of the holy spirit are to be recieved and Religiously Reverenced with the like pious affection and Reverence that the holy Scriptures are received Pari pietatis affectu ac Reverentiâ And the truth is laying down this ground that the Scripture is unperfect and not an adequat rule of Faith and manners as Papists do then it must be inconsequent that because Traditions are beside the Scripture which is to to them but the half of the Word of God Yea it followeth not this Popish ground supposed that Traditions are therefore contrary to the Scripture because beside the Scripture no more then it followeth that the Sacraments of the New Testament Baptisme and the Supper of the Lord in all their positive Rites and Elements are not ordained and instituted in the Old Testament and in that sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beside the Old Testament that therefore they are against the Old Testament though we should imagine they had been added in the New Testament without all warrant of speciall direction from God by the sole will of men or because some Ceremonials commanded of God are not commanded in the Morall Law or Decalogue either expresly or by consequence and so these Ceremonials though instituted by the Lord be beside the Morall Law that therefore they are contrary to the Morall Law Yea to come nearer because the third Chapter of the Book of Genesis containing the Doctrine of mans fall and misery and Redemption by the promised seed is beside the first and second Chapters of the same Book it doth not follow that it is contrary or that Moses adding the third Chapter and all the rest of the five Books did therefore â—ail against this precept Thou shalt not adde to that which I command thee for certain it is that there are new Articles of Faith in the third chapter of Genesis which are neither in the first two Chapters expresly nor by just consequence but if the Church or any other of Jews or Gentiles should take upon them to adde the third Chapter of Genesis to the first and second except they had the same warrant of Divine inspiration that Moses had to adde it that addition had been contrary to the first two Chapters and beside also and a violation of the Commandment of not adding to the word so do Formalists and the Prelate Vsher in the place cited presuppose that the Scripture excludeth all Traditions of Papists because the Scripture is perfect in all things belonging to faith and manners but it excludeth not all Ceremonies which are left to the disposition of the Church and be not of Divine but of Positive and humane Right Hence it must infer the principle of Papists that the Scripture is not perfect in all Morals for it is a Morall of Decency and Religious signification that a childe be dedicated to the service of Christ by the sign of the crosse Now what can be said to thiâ— I know not but that the sufficiency and perfection of scripture doth no whit consist in holding forth Ceremonials but only in setting down doctrinals Why and Papists say the same that the scripture is
3 4 5. And Moses and all Canonick writers were only to receive the word at Gods mouth and to hear it Ezek. 3. 8. As meer servants and in this the Church of Prophets and of Apostles and the Church that now is were alike I know no Authority of the one above the other Indeed in writing and relating to the Church the will of God and the Scriptures Canonick writers are agents inspired with the Holy spirit immediately breathing on them in Prophecying and in writing Scripture But the Proclaimer of a Law as such hath no influence in making the Law Let it be also remembred that as Papists say two things to the place so do Formalists 1. That it is not against Ceremonies 2. That the Church is limited in making Ceremonies beside the Word that they may not make them too numerous and burdensome This I make good in the words of a famous Iesuit who citeth the words of a Learned Papist approving them Lorinus Coment in Loc. Refellit idem Oleaster Hereticos hinc inserentes institui non posse Ceremonias ac ritus novos circa cultum dei Quam vis ipse optat moderationem in preceptis ac censuris ut facilius suavius possint servari To whom I oppose that golden sentence of a man endued with the spirit of God above any Papist Calvin Com. in Deut. 4. v. 2. Insignis locus quo apertè damnatur quicquid hominum ingenio excogitari potest Ibid. Quoniam preposter â lasciviâ rapitur totus ferè mundus ad cultus fictitios qui tamen precise une verbo damnantur ubi deus ita jubet suos acquiescere positae legi ne justiores esse appetant quam illic docentur All Worship is precisely condemned here or any thing devised about the Worship by the wit of men I would here meet with a Grand exception of Mr. Hooker Eccles Polic. 3. Book pag. 111. Their distinction of matters of substance and of circumstance though true will not serve for be they great things or be they small if God have Commanded them in the Gospel and if his Commanding them in the Gospel do make them unchangeable there is no reason that we should change the one more then the other if the authority of the maker do prove their unchangeablenesse which God hath made then must all Laws which he hath made be necessarily for ever permanent though they be but of circumstances only and not of Substance Ans 1. Our distinction of matters of substance and circumstance rightly taken will serve the turn But the mistake is in that 1. Many things are but circumstances of worship such as are Positives and Religious significant Ceremonies to Formalists that are not so to us for to wear a surplice in sacrificing to Jupiter were to make the Act of wearing that Religious habit an act of Religious honouring of Jupiter but to wear Surplice and to sacrifice in that habit to Iupiter at eight of clock in the morning rather then at ten in this place Physicall rather then this is no worshipping of Iupiter but a meer Physicall circumstance neither up nor down to the worship and time and place Physicall are neither worship nor Religious means of worship 2. Time and Place Name Country Form Figure Habit or Garments to hold off injuries of Sun and Heaven as such â—re never commanded never forbidden of God and therefore the change of these circumstances can be no change of a Commandment of God We never advanced circumstances as such to the orbe and spheare of Morals Formalists do so advance their Ceremonies and therefore if God command Surplice though by the intervening authority of his Church such cannot be altered except God command to alter the Religious signification of white linnen but we know not where God hath commanded the alteration of any Ceremonies except that the Lords coming in the flesh as a thing to come must alter all Ceremonies which shadow forth Christ to come when the body Christ is come already Let us know such a ground for alteration of corner Cap Altar Surplice except to drive such Oxen out of the Temple 3. We hold that the Lords commanding such a thing in the Gospel is a reason why it should be necessarily permanent for ever except the Lord hath commanded it should be for a time only as he commanded Moses's Ceremonies and so Gods Authority of commanding a thing to be unchangeably in his worship is a reason why it should be unchangeably in his worship and his commanding any thing to be for a time only and alterably in his worship is a reason why it should be for a time only alterably in his worship so to us Gods Commandment is a reason why his own Ceremonies and Sacraments of the New Testament should be in the Church because the Law-giver hath in scripture commanded them to be and the reason why Hookers surplice and crossing should not be is because he hath commanded no such thing Now the reasons of alteration of any Laws in the Gospel is from God never from the Church as 1. If God immediately inspire Moses to make a tabernacle and thereafter inspire David and Solomon to make the Temple in the place of the tabernacle and give them no Commandment for a tabernacle its evident that God hath altered and removed the Tabernacle and that the alteration is not from David nor Solomon 2. If God command types and Ceremonies to be in his Church till the body Christ come Col. 2. 17. then when Christ is come and his coming sufficiently published to the world then are his own Ceremonies altered and removed but not by the discretion of Peter and Paul or the Church but by God himself 3. When God commandeth such Offices to be in his house which dependeth immediately upon his own immediate will of giving gifts essentially required to these Offices then these offices are so long in his Church as God is pleased by his immediate will to give these gifts and when God denyeth these gifts essentially requisite sure it is his immediate wil hath altered and removed the office not the will of the Church so the Lord hath alterd and removed these Offices and gifts of Apostles who could speak with tongues and seal their doctrine with Miracles Evangelists Prophets extraordinarily inspired gifts of healing c. 4. Some things are not matters of worship at all but of goods as the community of goods love-Feasts matters of civill conversation these are only in their morality as touching distribution to the necessities of the Saints and brotherly kindenesse unalterable and no otherwise Now for these things that are smaller or weightier we hold they are not in their weightinesse or smallnesse of importance to be considered but as the Authority of God hath imprinted a necessity on them so are they obligatory to us I am obliged to receive this as scripture that Paul left his cloak at Troas no lesse then this Christ came
into the world to save sinners in regard of Canonicall authority stamped upon both R. Hooker with other Formalists Will have the lightnesse of matter to make the Law alterable Truly to eat of the Tree of knowledge of good and ill being put in the ballance with the love of God in it self is but a light thing yet the breach of that Law involved all the world in condemnation And what else is this but that which Papists say that there be two sort of things in scripture so saith Cornelius a Lapide Comem on 2 Tim. 3. 16. 1. The Law and the Prophets these God revealed and dyted to Moses and the Prophets but there are other things in Scripture as Histories and morall exhortations which Canonick writers learned either by hearing seeing reading or meditation there was no need these should be dyted by the inspiration of the holy Spirit for they know them themselves though they were assisted 2. Excited by the holy spirit to write Conceptum memoriam eorum quae sciebant non iis suggessit spiritus sanctus sed inspiravit ut hunc potius conceptum quam illum scriberent omnes eorum sententias conceptus ordinavit digessit direxit spiritus sanctus v. g. Vt hanc sententiam primò illam secundò aliam tertiò collocarent Yet Estius saith on the place The Scriptures are given by divine inspiration ita ut non solum sententiae sed verba singula verborum ordo ac tota dispositio fit a deo tanquam per seipsum loquente ac scribente So as not only the sentences but every word and the order and disposition of words is of or from God as if he were speaking and writing himself Now for the additions Canonicall that the Prophets and Apostles made to the writing of Moses I hope Papists and Formalists cannot with any forehead alledge them to prove that the Church may adde Traditions and alterable Positives of Church-Policy to the written word of God except upon the same ground they conclude That the Church now hath the same immediatly inspired spirit that the Prophets and Apostles had and that our Prelats saw the visions of God when they saw but the visiones aulae the visions of Court and that their calling was as Pauls was Gal. 1. 1. not of men neither by men but by Iesus Christ When as it is not by Divine right and was both of the King and by Court 2. Except they infer that the Church that now is may adde Canonicall and Scripturall additions to the Scripture for such additions the Prophets and Apostles added to the writings of Moses and 3. that that precept Thou shalt not adde c. was given to the Lord himself to binde up his hands that no Canonick Scripture should ever be but the only writings of Moses which is as some write the dream of Saduces whereas inhibition is given to the Church of God not to God himself for what the Prophets and Apostles added God himself added yea to me it is a doubt while I be better informed if the Lord did ever give any power of adding to his Scripture at all without his own immediate inspiration to either Prophet or Apostle or that God did never command Moses or Prophet or Apostle to write Canonick Scripture of their own head or that his Commandment to write Scripture was any other then an immediate inspiration which essentially did include every syllable and word that the Apostles and Prophets were to write For I do not coaceive that 1. God gave to Apostles and Prophets power to devise a Gospel and write it I suppose Angels or men could not have devised it yea that they could no more have devised the very Law of nature then they could create such a piece as a reasonable soul which to me is a rare and curious book on which essentially is written by the immediate finger of God that naturall Theology that we had in our first creation 2. I do not conceive that as Princes and Nobles do give the Contents or rude thoughts of a curious Epistle to a Forraign Prince to their Secretary and go to bed and sleep and leaves it to the wit and eloquence of the Secretary to put it in forme and stile and then signes it and seals it without any more ado so the Lord gave the rude draughts of Law and Gospel and all the pins of Tabernacle and Temple Church-officers and Government and left it to the wit and eloquence of Shepherds Heardsmen Fishers such as were the Prophets Moses David Amos and Peter and divers of the Apostles who were unlettered men to write words and stile as they pleased but that in writing every jot tittle or word of Scripture they were immediatly inspired as touching the matter words phrases expression order method majesty stile and all So I think they were but Organs the mouth pen and Amanuenses God as it were immediately dyting and leading their hand at the pen Deut 4. 5. Deut. 31. 24 25 26. Mal. 4. 4. 2 Pet. 1. 19. 20 21. 2 Tim. 3. 16. Gal. 1. 11 12. 1 Cor. 11. 23. so Luk. 1. 70. God borrowed the mouth of the Prophets As he spake by the mouth of his holy Prophets which hath been since the world began Now when we ask from Prelates what sort of additionall or accidentall worship touching Surplice Crosse and other Religious Positives of Church Policy it is that they are warranted to adde to the word and how they are distinguished from Scriptures Doctrinals They give us these Characters of it 1. God is the Author of Doctrinals and hath expressed them fully in scripture But the Church is the Author of their Accidentals and this is essentiall to it that it is not specified particularly in scripture as Bread and Wine Taking and Eating in the Lords Supper is for then it should be a Doctrinall point and not Accidentall 2. It is not in the particular a point of faith and manners as Doctrinals are But hear the very Language of Papists for Papists putteth this essentiall Character on their Tradition that it is not written but by word of mouth derived from the Apostles and so distinguished from the written word for if it were written in scripture it should not be a Tradition So the Jesuit Malderus in 22. tom de virtut de obj fidei Q. 1. Dub. 3. Pro Apostolica traditione habendum est quod eum non inveneatur in Divinis literis tamen Vniversa tenet ecclesia nec consiliis institutum sed semper retentum 2. That the Traditions are necessary and how far Papists do clear as I have before said for the Church may coin no Articles of faith these are all in Scripture For the Iews two Suppers and their additions to the passeover as Hooker saith and their fasting till the sixth hour every Feast day we reject as dreams because they are not warranted by any word of institution not to adde that
the Church of the Jews never took on them to command the observation of these forgeries under the pain of Church-censures as Papists and prelats did their Crossing and their Surplice Hooker saith A Question it is whither containing in Scripture do import expresse setting down in plain terms or else comprehending in such sort that by reason we may thence conclude all things which are necessary to salvation The Faith of the Trinity the Co-eternity of the Son with the Father are not the former way in Scripture for the other let us not think that as long as the World doth indure the wit of man shall be able to sound to the bottom of that which may be concluded out of Scripture Traditions we do not reject because they are not in Scripture but because they are neither in Scripture nor can otherwise sufficiently by any reason be proved to be of God That which is of God and may be evidently proved to be so we deny not but it hath in its kinde although unwritten yet the self same force and authority with the Written Laws of God Such as are alterable Rites and Cystomes for being Apostolicall it is not the manner of delivering them to the Church but the Author from whom they proceed which gave them their force and credit Ans 1. The consequences of Scriptures are doublesse many and more then are known to us and the particulars of that Government that we contend for are in Scripture that is there should be no Government but what is either expresly in Scripture or may be made our by just consequence we believe if they cannot be proved from Scripture let them fall as mens hay and stubble But in the mean time these are two different questions Whither there be an immutable Platform of Discipline in the Word Or whither ours be the only Platform and no other If we carry the first Ceremonies must fall And certainly in all reason we are on the surest side If we cannot observe all that is written it is not like that God hath laid upon us unwritten burdens 2. Hooker doth not reject all the Popish Traditions as our Divines Reformed do because they are not warranted by the Word so that if the Images of God and Christ and the Worshipping of them and Purgatory and the Supremacy of the Pope can be proved to be of God though they be no more in Scripture then Crossing and Surplice then would he receive all these as Having the self same force and authority with the Written Laws Now we know no other weightier Argument to prove there 's no Purgatory but because the scripture speaketh of Heaven and Hell and is silent of Purgatory 2. That naturall reason can warrant a positive instituted Worship such as Surplice betokening Pastorall Holinesse without any Scripture is a great untruth for naturall reason may warrant new Sacraments as well as new Sacramentals 3. If Traditions have their force and credit from God not from the manner of delivering them that is from being contained in scripture or not contained in it then certainly they must be of the same Divine necessity with scripture For whither Christ Command that the Baereans believe in the Messiah by the Vocall Preaching of Paul or by the written scriptures of the Prophets and Apostles it is all one it is the same word and coming from Christ must be of the same Divine authority But this is to beg the question for that we are to believe no unwritten tradition because it is unwritten to have the self same force and authority with the Written Laws of God For Lorinus Cornelius a Lapide Com. in 4. Deuter. Estius Com. in 2. Thes 2. 15. Bellarmine Tannerus Malderus Becanus say Whither the Lord deliver his minde to us in his Written Scripture or by Tradition it is still the Word of God and hath authority from God But the truth is to us it is not the Word of God if it be not a part of the Counsel of God written in Moses or the Prophets and Apostles for though the Word have authority only from God not from the Church nor from men or the manner of delivering of it by word or writ yet we with the Fathers and Protestant Divines and evidence of scripture stand to that of Basilius Homil. 29. Advers câ—lâ—mnianâ—es S. Trinit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Believe what are written vvhat are not vvritten â—eek not after And so seek not after Surâ—lice Crossiâ—g and the like And that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Every word and so this That Crossing Surplice are Religious signes of spirituall duties and every thing or action must be made good by the Testimony of the heavenly inspired Scripture these things that are good and so Religiously decent and significant may be fully confirmed and these that are evil corfounded And to us for our Faith and practise if it be not Law and Testimony it is darknesse and not light And as Gregor Nyssen the Brother of Basyl saith Dialog de anim et Resurrect tom 2. ed. Grecolaâ— pag. 639. Edit Greâ— pag. 325. That only must be acknowledged for truth in which is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the seal of the Scriptures Testimony 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And how shall it be true to us iâ— Scripture say it not Or how shall it appear to us to be from God For Cyril Alexandrin saith What the holy Scripture saith not such as are your Positives of mens devising how shall we receive it and account it amongst things that are true And it is not that which Hereticks of old said for their Heresies to say â—s Hooker doth that any thing may be proved to be of God which is not written in Scripture For saith Hieronimus in Hag. c. 1. Sed alia quae absque authoritate testimoniis Scripturarum quasi Traditione Apostolica sponte reperiunt atque confingunt percutit Gladius dei The Scripture doth bar the door upon Hereticks saith Chrysostome And he is a Theef that taketh another unlawfull way then the Scripture And by what Argument can reason without Scripture prove that Crosse and Suplice are of God But by that same reason Papists without Scripture can and may prove their Traditions to be of God And if we admit reason and exclude Scripture it is as easie to prove their Traditions as our Positive additions to Worship And what Answers Papists give for their Traditions to â—lude the power of Scripture and evidence of Testimonies of fathers all these same are given by Prelats for their additions to say nothing that Hooker asserteth unwritten Traditions to be Gods Word and in the very stile of the Councel of Trent we are to acknowledge Traditions though unwritten yet to have the self same authority and force with the Written Laws of God And shal the Surplice and Crosse and such stuffe be of the self same force and authority with the Evangel according to Luke and John
meer Physicall or naturall means to â—ence off the injuries of sun and Heaven we do not think that the Lord in all or any place of the Old or New Testament setteth down any Laws concerning garments simply as they do fence off cold or heat that belongeth to Art only he speaketh of garments as contrary to gravity as signes of vanity and lightnesse Isa 3. 16 c. Zepha 1. 8. 1 Pet. 3. 3 4. And of garments as Religious observances of which sort was the attire and garments of the Priests and High-Priests in their service in which consideration the Religious times holy places and Mosaicall garments were Divine Worship by which God was immediatly honored but not adjuncts only or actions but Religious things or performances 3. It is such a performance as from thence honour doth immediatly redound to God but that this may be the clearer I conceive that there is a twofold immediate honouring of God in the worship of God 1. An honouring of God lesse immediate as hearing of the word is an immediate honouring of God because honour floweth immediatly from God both Ex conditione operis and Ex conditione operantis from the nature of the work and intention of the worker yet it is a lesse immediate honouring of God in regard that I may also hear the word even from the condition of the work and so from the intrinsecall end of the worker that I may learn to know God and believe for thus far I am led to honour God immediatly in hearing the word that action of its own nature conveying honour to God there interveeneth also a medium amidst between me and honouring of God to wit the Preacher or the Bible to which no externall adoration is due There is another more immediate worship to wit praising of God from which by an immediate result God is honoured and in worship especially strictly immediate God is immediatly honoured both in the intention of the work and the intrinsecall end of it and the intention of the worker though no other thing be done and others be not edified either in knowledge increase of Faith or any other wayes And in this duties of the second Table of mercy and justice differ from worship in that such acts of love and mercy as to give almes to save the life of my brother or of his beast are not acts of worshipping God their intrinsecall end and the nature of the work being to do good to the creature principally Ex naturâ conditione operis though God also thereby be honoured yet in a more secundary consideration For I praying to God do immediately from the nature of the action honour God though no good should either redound to my self or to the creature thereby it is true God by acts of love and mercy to our neighbour is honoured two wayes 1. In that men seeing our good works do thence take occasion to glorifie our Heavenly â—ather whose truth teacheth us by the grace of God to do these works but the intrinsecall and proper use of these is to do good to our selves as in works of sobriety and to our neighbour as in works of righteous dealing but not immediatly and iâ— the first and primary consideration to honour God as in works of Piety holinesse and worship the honouring of God by secondary resultance doth issue also from these duties of righteousnesse but not as from the acts of praying praising Sacramentall eating drinking 2. The doer of these acts of mercy may and is to intend the honouring of God There is a twofold intention in worship one formall and properly Religious and is expounded Morall Ex naturâ rei to be Religious it being such an intention as can have no other state in worship but a Religious State as if the three Children should bow at the Commmandment of the King of Babylon though intending to worship the true God Here should be an intrinsecall intention Ex naturâ conditione operis to worship and that from two grounds conjoyned together 1. Here is bowing down 2. Bowing down to a Religious Object commanded by a Prince and so cometh under the Morall notion of the command of a Judge When the object of bowing down is Religious the signication that we give divine honour to God by kneeling is as inseparable saith Raphael de la Torres from kneeling or bowing down as a bearing testimony by word that God is true and knoweth all secrets and will be avenged on perjury is inseparable from vocall swearing by the name of God or as any man should be an Idolater who in expresse words should say to an Idol O my God Jupiter help me though that Adoration were fained and he who so prayeth should in his heart abhor and detest Jupiter and all false Gods But there is another intention not Religious if a Childe reade a Chapter of the Bible that he may learn to read and spell that is an action of Art not of Worship because the object of the Childes reading is not Scripture as Scripture but only the Printed Characters as they are Signa rerum ut rerum non ut rerum sacrarum signes of things not of holy things and here the object not being Religious the intrinsecall operation cannot raise up any Religious intention of the Childe Upon this ground it is easie to determine whether or no an intention of Worship be essentiall to Worship or not the former intention which is intrinsecall and Intentio operis may be essentiall it resulting from the object but the latter intention of the worker is so far extraneous to Worship as whether it be or be not the nature of Worship is not impaired nor violated Hence Adoration is worship But every worship is not Adoration Uncovering the head seemeth to be little older then Pauls Epistles to the Corinthians The Learned Salmasius thinketh it but a Nationall sign of honour no wayes universally received But certainly it is not Adoration Though therefore we receive the Supper of the Lord uncovered no man can conclude from thence Adoration of the Elements as we do from kneeling conclude the same as we shall here for all bodily worship or expression of our affection to the means of graces though these means be but creatures is not Adoration properly either of God or of these means it is Lawfull to tremble at the word and for Josiah to weep before the Book of the Law read and for the Martyrs to kisse the Stake as the Instrument by which they glorified God in dying for the truth all these being Objectam quo and means by the which they conveyed their worship to the true God and naturall and Lawfull expressions of their affection to God For uncovering the head it is a sort of Veneration or Reverence not Adoration and Paul insinuateth so much when he saith 1 Cor. 11. 4. Every man praying and prophecying having his head covered dishonoureth his head But it is not his meaning
Moses the Prince is Commanded to make all according to the Patern in the Mount 2. God speaketh to all Israel and not to the Princes only Deut. 4. 1. Hearken O Israel he speaketh to these who are bidden to keep their soul diligently v. 6. 3. It is Bellarmines groundlesse charity to think private heads who were not Princes and Law-givers did not take on an hâ—iry Mantle to deceive Zach. 13. 4. And say Thus saith the Lord when God had not spoken to them Ier. 23. 16. 32. Yea and Private women added their own dreams to the word of God Ezech. 13. 17 18. 3. They say Traditions are from Gods Spirit But hath Gods Spirit lost all Majesty Divinity and power in speaking If the Popes Decretals the Councels the dirty Traditions wanting life Language and power be from Gods Spirit Formalists admit Traditions from an humane spirit and in this are shamed even by Papists who say God only â—an adde to his own Word whereas they say men and the worst of men Prelates may adde to Gods vvord 4. But that additions perfecting are forbidden is clear 1. Additions perfecting as Didoclavius saith argueth the word of imperfection and that Baptisme is not perfect without Crossing 2. It is Gods Prerogative to adde Canonick Scripture to the five books of Moses and the Nevv-Testament and the doctrine of the Sacraments which cannot be Syllogistically deduced out of the Old Testament Matth. 28. 19 20. Ioh. 21. 31. Heb. 3. 2. Rev. 1. 19. and these are perfecting and explaining additions therefore men may by as good reason adde Canonick Scripture to the Revelation as adde new Positive Doctrines like this The holy Surplice is a sacred signe of Pastorall Holinesse Crossing is a signe of dedicating the childe to Christs service for Papists â—ay even Vasquez That the Pope neither in a generall Councell nor out of it can ordain any nevv points of Faith vvhich are not contained in the principles or Articles revealed and may not be evidently concluded out of them Formalists answer It is not lavvfull to adde any thing as a part of divine worship but it is Lawfull to addâ— something as an indifferent Rite coming from Authority grounded upon common equity And this is the ansvver of the Jesuite Vasquez The Pope and Church cannot make an Article of Faith for that is believed by divine Faith to come from God only but as Law-givers they may give Laws that bindeth the conscience and yet are not altogether essentiall in worship If additions as divine parts of Gods worship say we be forbidden God then forbidding to adde such Traditions forbiddeth his own spirit to adde to Gods word for no man but God can adde additions Divine that is coming from God but God himself by good consequence the forbidding men to add additions as really coming from God should forbid men to be Gods for divine additions are essentially additions coming from God but if he forbid additions only of mens divising but obtruded to have the like efficacy and power over the conscience that Canonick Scripture hath then were it lawfull to adde killing of our children to Molech so it were counted not really to come from God with opinion of divine necessity and by this God should not forbid things to be added to his Word by either private or publick men but only he should forbid things to be added with such a quality as that they should by Divine Faith be received as coming from God and having the heavenly stamp of Canonick Scripture when as they are come only from the Pope and his bastard Bishops so all the fables of the Evangell of Nicodemus The materials of the Iewish and Turkish Religion might be received as lawfull additions so they do not contradict the Scripture as contrary to what is written but only beside what is written and with all so they be received as from the Church Also 3. Additions contrary to the word are diminutions to adde to the eight Command this addition The Church saith it is lawfull to steal were no addition to the ten Commandments but should destroy the eight Commandment and make nine Commandments only and the meaning of Gods precept Deut. 12. Thou shalt neither adde nor diminish should be Thou shalt neither diminish neither shalt thou diminish And so our Masters make Moses to forbid no additions at all 6. Commentaries and Expositions of the Word if sound shall be the word of God it self the true sense of a speech is the form and essence of a speech and so no additions thereunto but explanations except you make all sound Sermons Arbitrary Ceremonies and Traditions whereas Articles of Faith expounded are Sermons and so the Scripture it self materially taken is but a Tradition QUEST II. Whether Scripture be such a perfect rule of all our Morall Actions aâ— that the distinction of essentiall and necessary and of accidentall and Arbitrary worship cannot stand And if it forbid all worship not only contrary but also beside the word of God as false though it be not reputed as divine and necessary FOrmalists do acknowledge as Morton Burges Hooker and others teach us that Ceremonies which are meer Ceremonies indifferent in nature and opinion are not forbidden yea that in the generall they are commanded upon common equity and in particular according to their specification Surplice Crossing Knâ—eling before consecrated Images and representations of Christ are not forbidden and negatively Lawfull having Gods allowing if not his commanding will but only God forbiddeth such Ceremonies wherein men place opinion of divine necessity holinesse and efficacy in which case they become Doctrinall and essentiall and so mens inventions are not Arbitrary and accidentall worship But let these considerations be weighed 1. Distinct The Word of Go being given to man as a Morall Agent is a rule of all his Morall Actions but not of actions of Art Sciences Disciplines yea on of meer nature 2. Distinct Beside the Word in actions Morall and in Gods worship is all one with that which is contrary to the Word and what is not commanded is forbidden as not seeing in a creature capable of all the five senses is down right blindenesse 3. Lawfulnesse is essentiall to worship instituted of God but it is not essentiall to worship iâ— generall neither is opinion of sanctity efficacy or Divine necessity essentiall to worship but only to Divine worship and its opinion not actuall nor formall but fundamentall and materiall 4. Seeing the Apostles were no lesse immediatly inspired of God then the Prophets it is a vain thing to seek a knot in a rush and put a difference betwixt Apostolick Commandments or Traditions and divine Commandments as it is a vain and Scripturelesse curiosity to difference betwixt the Propheticall truths of Moses Samuel Isaiah Ieremiah Ezekiel c. And Divine Prophecies which is as if you would difference betwixt the fair writing of Titus the writer and the writing made by the pen of Titus
are not regulated by the word 2. Some agree to man as he liveth as to sleep eat drink and these are considered as animall actions Actiones animales and do not belong to our Question But as they are in man they be two wayes regulated by the word 1. According to the substance of the act the Law of nature and consequently the word of God Commandeth them If one should kill himself through totall abstinence from meat and sleep he should sin against the Law of nature 2. These actions according as they are to be moderated by reason are to be performed soberly and are in Gods word Commanded 3. Some actions agree to man as he is an Artificiall or Scientifick agent as to speak right Latine to make accurate demonstrations in Geometry and these are ruled by Art man in these as they be such is not a Morall Agent but an Artificiall Agent I say as they are such because while one speaketh Latine according to the Art of Disputer or Linacer he should not lie and all morality in these actions are to be ruled by Gods vvord and as actions of Art they are not every good path or every good Morall vvay that Solomon speaketh of Prov. 2. 9. and therefore it is a vain Argument against the perfection of Gods word 2. Hooker saith God teacheth us something by spirituall influence Ans If without the word by only influence spirituall as he taught the Prophets it was a vain instance for influence visions inspirations were of old in place of Scripture If Ceremonies as Crossing Surplice come this way from God they be as nobly born as the Old and New-Testament If God teach any thing now by influence spirituall without Scripture Hooker is an Enthusiast and an Anabaptist If experience and sense teach many things now which Scripture doth not teach and yet is worship or a Morall Action we desire to know these 3. The instance of Thomas learning that Christ is risen from the dead by sence and not by Scripture and of the Iews believing by miracles and not by Scripture might make a Iesuit blush for Christs Resurrection and the Doctrine of the Gospel confirmed by Miracles are not Arbitrary Rites beside Gods word but fundamentals of salvation Hence the man will have us believe God revealeth Articles of faith to us by other means then by his word Thomas was helped by his sense and some Iews to believe Christs Death and Resurrection by miracles But the formall Object of their Faith was the Lord speaking in his scriptures 2. Hooker Objecteth When many meats are set before me in the Table all are indifferent none unlawfull if I must be ruled by Scripture and eat in faith and not by natures light and common discretion I shall sin in eating one meat before another How many things saith Sanderson do Parents and Masters command their servants and sons Shall they disobey while they finde a warrant from Scripture Ans For eating in measure the Scripture doth regulate us for eating for Gods glory the scripture also doth regulate us and the action of eating according to the substance of the action is warranted by the Law of nature which is a part of the word the meer order in eating is not a Morall action and so without the lists of the question If the question be of the order of eating I think not that a Morall action 2. Eating of divers meats is a mixt action and so requireth not a warrant in the Morality every way if you eat such meats where there be variety to choose as you know doth ingender a Stone or a Cholick you sin against the sixth Commandment 3. Masters Parents Commanders of Armies may command Apprentices servants sons souldiers many Artificiall actions in Trades in War where both Commanders and obeyers are artificiall not morall Agents and so they touch not the question but what is morall in all actions of Art Oeconomy Sciences is ruled by the word except our Masters offend that Paul said Children should obey their Parents in the Lord That men are not both in commanding inferiours and obeying Superiours vexed with scruples cometh not from the insufficiency of Gods word but from this that mens consciences are all made of stoutnesse But if this be true Seth Enoch Noah Shem could not eat nor sleep saith Hooker but by revelation which was Scripture to them Answer Supernaturall Revelation was to these Fathers the rule of Gods worship and all their actions supernaturall and of all their actions morall in relation to the last end but for eating and drinking they being actions naturall they were to be regulated in these by naturall reason and the Law of nature which was apart then of the Divine Tradition that then ruled the Church while as yet the word was not written Hooker urgeth thus It will follow that Moses the Prophets and Apostles should not have used naturall Arguments to move people to do their dutie they should only have used this Argument As it is written else they taught them other grounds and warrants for their actions then Scripture Ans None can deny naturall Arguments to be a part of the word of God as is clear Rom. 1. 19. 1 Cor. 15. 36 37. 1 Cor. 11. 14. Yea Christ Mat. 7. 12. teacheth that this principle of nature whatsoever ye would men should do to you do ye so to them is the Law and the Prophets because it is a great part of the Law and the Prophets and therefore they say in effect As it vvritten in the Scripture when they say as it is written in mans heart by nature 2. Principles of nature are made scripture by the Pen-men of the holy Ghost and do binde as the Scripture 3. It will be long ere the Law of nature teach Crossing and kneeling to bread to be good Ceremonie They Object I could not then ride ten miles to solace my self with my friends except I had warrant from Scripture and seeing the Scripture is as perfect in acts of the second Table as in acts of the first I must have a reason of all the businesse betwixt man and man of all humane and municipall Laws but it is certain saith Sanderson faith as certain as Logick can make it is not required in these but onely Ethicall and Conjecturall faith whereby we know things to be Lawfull Negatively It s not required that we know them to be Positively conform to Gods Word Ans If you ride ten miles with your friend and do not advise with his word who sayes Redeem the time you must give account for idle actions if Christ say you must give an account for idle Words 2. Though there seem to be more Liberty in actions of the second Table then of the first because there be far moe Positive actions not meerly Morall which concerneth the second Table because of Oeconomy Policy Municipall and Civill Laws Arts Sciences Contracts amongst men that are not
will was not determinatrix in this 5. The man jumbleth together godly discretion and will they be much different but for godlinesse in short sleeves and Crossing a finger in the Aire I understand it not nor can reason dream of any warrant for it but will as will that is mans lust made it Neither do Formalists go from Suarez and Bellarmine who call that will-worship which is devised only by a manâ— wit and is not conforme to the principles of Faith and wanteth all reason and the received use of the Church But we are disputing here against the Churches use as if it were not yet a received use But upon these grounds I go 1. Reason not binding and strongly concluding is no reason but meer will So Ceremonies have no reason If the reason binde they are essentiall worship 2. Authority is only ministeriall in ordering Gods worship and hath no place to invent new worship 3. Authority as Authority especially humane giveth no light nor no warrant of conscience to obey and therefore authority naked and void of scriptures-light is here bastard authority 11. In all this Formalists but give the Papists distinction of Divine and Apostolick Traditions for power of inventing Ceremonies to them is Apostolick but not infallible and Divine Suarez giveth the difference God saith he Is the Immediate Author of Divine Traditions and the Apostles only publishers But the Apostles are immediate Authors of Apostolick Traditions God in speciall manner guiding their will So Cajetan Sotus Bellar. So our Formalists Duname Hooker Sutluvius But I like better what Cyprian saith That no Tradition but what is in the word of God is to be received But this distinction is blasphemous and contrary to Scripture 1 Cor 14 57. The things that I write unto you even of decency and order as v. 29. 40. Are the Commandment of the Lord 2. Pet. 3. 2. Peter willeth them to be mindefull of the vvords which were spoken before by the holy Prophets and of the Commandments of us the Apostles of the Lord and Sâ—vioâ—â— Then the Apostles Commandments are equall with the Commandments of the Prophets But in the Old Testament there were not some Traditions Divine and some not every way Divine but Propheticall for the Prophets were the mouth of God as is clear 2 Pet. â— 19 20 21. Luk. 1. 70. Rom. 1. 2. So 1 Tim. 6. 13. I give thee charge in the sight of God 14. That thou keep this Commandment without spot unrebukable untill the appearing of the Lord Iesus Now the Commandment as Beza noteth Are all that he writ of discipline which Formalists say are for the most Apostolicke but not Divine Traditions 2. If Ceremonies seem good to the holy Ghost as they say they do from Act. 15. then they must seeme good to the Father and the Son as the Canon is Act. 15. But that Canon was proved from expresse Scripture as Peter proveth v. 7 8 9. and James v. 13 14 15 16. If they come from the Spirit inspiring the Apostles they cannot erre in such Traditions If from the spirit guided by the holy Ghost they come from Scripture 3. If these traditions come from no spirit led by light of Scripture we shall not know whether they be Lawfull or not for the Scripture is a Canonick rule of lawfull and unlawfull 4. If any Apostolick spirit be given to Authors of Ceremonies why not also in preaching and praying How then do many of them turn Arminians Papists Socinians 5. The Apostolick spirit leading institutors of Ceremonies doth either infuse light naturall supernaturall or Scripturall in devising Ceremonies and so Eatenus in so far they were essential worship or the Apostolick spirit doth lead them with no light at all which is brutish Enthusiasme or 3. Gods Apostolick spirit infuseth the generall equity and negative Lawfulnesse of these truths Surplice is an Apostolicall signe of Pastorall holinesse and Crossing a signe of Dedication of a childe to Christs service Now light for this we would exceedingly have If this light be immediatly infused then Surplice Crossing are as Divine as if God spake them for truths immediatly inspired lost no divinity because they come through sinfull men for Balaam his Prophesie of the star of Jacob was as Divine in regard of Authority as if God had spoken it but if these trash come from an inferiour spirit we desire to know what spirit speaketh without the word But some may object The preaching of the word is somewhat humane because it s not from the infallible spirit that dited the word Ergo Ceremonies may come from the holy Spirit though they be not as lawfull as Scripture Ans Let them be proved to be from the warrant that the word is preached and we yeeld to all 5. Apostolick Ceremonies but not Divine have Gods generall allowing will for the accepting of them Now Sampsons mother Judg. 13. 23. proveth well The Lord hath accepted our offering Ergo it is Lawfull and he will not kill us So God atcepted Abel and Noah their Sacrifices Ergo they were Lawfull and Divine worship So Hosea 8. 8. They sacrifice flesh for the sacrifices of my offerings and they eat it but the Lord accepteth them not Ergo offerings of flesh without offering of themselves as living sacrifices to God are now unlawfull If God accept of Ceremonies they must be Divine service if he accept them not they must be unlawfull They Answer He accepteth them as Arbitrary worship not as essentiall I Answer God might have accepted so Sampsons sacrifice and Noahs as arbitrary worship and yet not be gracious to them nor reward their sacrificing as good service contrary to the Texts alledged but I doubt much if the Lord be gracious to men and accept in Christ corner Caps Surplice Crossing humane holy dayes They object Our Circumstances of time place persons c. are no more warranted by the Scripture then Ceremonies are And God might in his wisdom â—aith Burges have calculated the order of times and places such climats and seasons but he hath left these as he hath left our Ceremonies to the Churches liberty Ans Time and place as I observed already being circumstances Physicall not Morall nor having any Religious influence to make the worship new and different in nature from that which is commanded in the Law though they be not expresly in the Word do not hinder but you may say Such an act of worship is according as it is written for as Praying Preaching hearing is according as it is written so is Praying and Preaching in this convenient place proved by that same Scripture As it is written but one and the same Scripture doth not warrant Order and Surplice 2. The question is not what Gods wisdom can do for he could setdown all the names of Preaching Pastors Doctors Deacons Elders in the Word but his wisdom thus should have made ten Bibles more then there be But
because what it teacheth is a lie for what it teacheth is Scripture Isa 52. 11. That these who beareth the Vessels of the Lord that is Pastors should be holy but it is a Doctrine of lies because it representeth Pastorall holinesse by humane institution without all warrant of the Word of God And when Paul calleth holidayes Elements Gal. 4. 6. He meaneth that they spell to us and teach us some truth as Estius saith That holidayes do teach us Articles of Faith To which meaning Paludanus Cajetan Vasquez say God may well be painted in such expressions as Scripture putteth on God as in the likenesse of a Dove as a man with hands eyes ears feet all which are given to God in Scripture 4. It is essentiall to the Word to set down the means of Gods worship which is the very scope of the second Commandment and therefore the Iews washings and Traditions are condemned because they be Doctrines of men appointed by men to be means of the fear or worship of God as Math. 15. 9. Mar. 7. 8. Isa 29. 13. Hence we owe subjection of Conscience to Ceremonies as to lawfull means of Worship 1. Stirring up our dull senses And 2. as lawfull signes representing in a Sacramentall signification holy things 3. As teaching signes 4. As means of Gods fear and worship Whereas God as Ainsworth observeth well in the second Commandment forbiddeth all images and representations 2. All shapes Exod. 20. 4. Temniah 3. Forms of figures Tabuith Deut. 4. 16. 5. Any type of shadow Tselem Ezek. 7. 20. 16 17. 6. Any pictured shape Maskith Levit. 26. 1. Any Statue Monument Pillar Mattesebah any Graven or Molten Portraict Hos 13. 2. 5. We are obliged to obey the Word Exod. 20. 7. Prov. 3. 20 21. Prov. 8. 13. Ier. 6. 16. Ier. 5. 7. 2. We owe to the Word belief Luk. 1. 20. Love Psal 119. 49. 81. Hope 3. And are to expect a reward therefore Psal 19. 11. Rev. 2. 7. 10. 27 28. Gal. 4. 11. Rom. 6. 23. Coloss 2. 18. Hebrew 11. 25. Psal 34. 9. Psalme 58. 11. Then if Decency be commanded and order in the third Commandment Ergo this and that orderly mean of Worship as Surplice But can we say I hope in the Surplice O how love I crossing and Capping can we believe in Ceremonies as means of Gods worship 6. The word is Gods mean to work supernaturall effects to convert the soul Psal 19. 7. To work Faith John 20. 3. To edifie Act. 20. 32. To save Rom. 1. 16. The obedience to Gods word bringeth Peace Psal 119. 165. Comfort v. 50. Gen. 49. 18. Isa 38. 3. But Ceremonies being apt to stir up the dull minde must be apt to remove Naturall dulnesse which is a supernaturall effect and so to bring Peace joy comfort Organs are now holden by the same right that they were in Moses-Law then they must stir up supernaturall joy There must be peace and comfort in practising them Hear how this soundeth This is my comfort O Lord in my affliction that thy Surplice Organs and holy-dayes have quickened my dull heart Now what comfort except comfort in the Scriptures Rom. 15. 4. Ceremonies be innocent of all Scriptures What joy a proper fruit of the Kingdom of heaven Rom. 14. 17. can be in saplesse Ceremonies yea observe 1. Who truly converred from Popery who inwardly humbled in soul doth not abhor Ceremonies by the instinct of the new birth 2. What slave of hell and prophane person call not for Ceremonies 3. Who hath peace in dying that Ceremonies were their joy 7. All Lawfull Ordinances may by prayer be recommended to God for a blessed successe as all the means of salvation Psal 119. 18. Matth. 26. 26. Act. 4. 29 30. 2. We may thank God for a blessed successe which they have by the working of the spirit of Grace 2 Cor. 2. 24. 1 Cor. 1. 4 5. 2 Thes 1. 2 3. Ephes 1. 3. 3. We are to have heat of zeal against prophaning of word Sacraments Prayer or other Ordinances of God But what faith in praying Lord work with Crossing Capping Surplice For where the word is not nor any promise there be no Faith Rom. 10. 14. What praising can there be for Ceremonies working upon the soul What zeal except void of knowledge and light of the word and so but wilde-fire Gal. 4. 17 18. Phil. 3. 6. 2 Sam. 21. 2. can there be though the Surplice be imployed to cleanse Cups and Crossing be scorned If the subject be nothing the accidents be lesse if Surplice be not commanded nor forbidden the reverent or irreverent usage thereof cannot be forbidden nor commanded true zeal is incensed only at sin and kindled toward Gods warranted service 8. I take it to be Gods appointment that the Spirit worketh by a supernaturall operation with his own Ordinances in the regenerated but we desire to know how the Spirit worketh with Ceremonies Formalists are forced by these grounds to maintain the Lawfulnesse of Images So 1. They be not adored 2. If they be reputed as indifferent memorative Objects and books to help the memory But 1. It shall be proved that at first Papists did give no adoration to Images nor doth Durandus Hulcot Pic. Mirandula acknowledge any adoration due to them but proper to God before the Images as objects 2. We may liken God and Christ to a stock so we count it indifferent to make or not to make such an image yet likening him to any thing is forbidden Isa 40. 18. Also we esteem it Idolatry interpretative to take Gods place in his word and to make any thing to be a mean of grace except Gods own Ordinances Against all these Formalists have diverse exceptions As 1. Our Ceremonies say they do not respect the honour of God immediatly and in themselves but by accident and as parts of Divine worship by reduction as it containeth all the adjuncts of worship Ans Such Logick was never heard of 1. If he mean a Surplice in the materials to wit Linnen and Crossing Physically considered as separated from their signification do not tend immediatly to the honour of God but as an adjunct he speaketh non-sense for so Bread Wine eating drinking Water in Baptisme do not immediatly respect the honour of God but only as they have a Morall consideration and stand under Divine institution But yet so the materiall of worship is not the adjunct thereof but the matter as the body of a living man is not one adjunct of a man If he mean that Ceremonies in a Morall not in a Physicall consideration do not immediatly respect the honour of God but reductively and by accident Let him show us if the Surplice doth not as immediatly and without the intervening mediation of any other thing signifie and stir up our mindes to the remembrance of Pastorall holinesse as eating all of one bread doth immediatly stir up our mindes to the remembrance of our Communion of love that
as God that they intended to worship not the work of mens hands as such Papists believe that the Image is not God and yet give the highest worship that is to them 4. Bellarmine saith with us when he saith They saw a Calf in Aegypt and Adored it they believed Jehovah himself to be a Calf therefore they made the image of a Calf and Dedicated it to Jehovah But I Answer That Image so Dedicated they worshipped as Iehovah and called the very materiall Calf Iehovah and Dedicated it to the Honour of Iehovah therefore they believed the Lord Iehovah and the Calf Dedicated to his Honour which Calf also they worshipped to be two divers things as the Image and the thing signified are Relata and opposite Ergo they believed not that that Image which Aaron had made was Iehovah essentially therefore in setting up that Image they worshipped it not as a creature All the Prophets saith he proveth that the Idols are not gods because they speak not they neither see nor hear Isa 46. Psal 113. But say some Papists there was no question if they did see and hear by way of naked representation because they represented gods and men in shape who see and hear Ans first If all granted they were living things which did hear and see by representation the Prophets did well to prove they should not be trusted in nor feared as Images nor should that Godhead within them inclosed be feared because it cannot speak with the mouth nor see nor hear nor walk with their eyes eares and feet and so it was a vain thing to make it a representation of God who by serving these dead things did help them But the Prophets strongly prove these Images and the supposed Godheads in them were dumbe deafe blinde and dead and therefore neither sign nor supposed deity represented by the sign was to be Adored Also Isa 40. 18. To whom then will ye liken God Or what likenesse will ye compare unto him 19. The Workman melteth a graven Image and the Goldsmith spreadeth it over with gold c. Isa 46. 5 6. To whom will ye liken me and make me equall and compare me that we may be alike 9. I am God and there is none else I am God and there is none like me Then it is more then clear that they made a likenesse a comparison and a similitude betwixt the golden Image and Iehovah Ergo they believed not that the Image was essentially God for every thing like to another must be divers from that to which it is like they being relatives and opposites the one cannot be essentially the other and he proveth they are not God by representation Isa 46. They cannot move out of their places except they be born upon Asses or mens shoulders And this is the Holy Ghosts Argument I am God Ergo there is none like me by representation to be worshipped All assimilation or comparative likenesse made by man betwixt Iehovah and God is an Idolatrous assimilation yea the Lords Argument Isa 46. is this every thing made like unto me before which ye fall down to worship as a memorative Image of me must be a living thing at least that can move out of his place and answer your cry when ye pray and save you out of trouble ver 7. Isa 46. And yet it is but a likenesse of God ver 6. Now I Assume but the Papists Image and the Formalists Sacramentall elements before which they Religiously kneel cannot move out of their place nor answer the Prayers of those who bow to them nor save them out of trouble Ergo they cannot be Adored as Images with Religious bowing nor can they say the Images or Sacramentall elements can teach and represent God I Answer So did the Iewish Images represent God and yet God convinceth them of Idolatry Isa 40. 18. Isa 46. 6 7. Ier. 10. They were but Doctrines of Vanity and Lyes and Hab. 2 19. Woe be to him who saith to the Wood Awake and to the dumbe stone Arise it shall teach And though the Sacramentall elements be lawfull teaching and representing signes as being the Ordinances of Christ Jesus yet the office of teaching cannot elevate and extoll them to the state of Religious worship because though the elements be lawfull Images and in this they differ from Iewish and Popish Images yet that which is Adored must be such as can hear Prayers Isa 46. 7. though it be the Image of God But the Sacramentall elements are not such as can hear Prayer c. Also that the Adoring of Images is not forbidden by a Ceremoniall Law only is clear 1. By Gods Argument Isa 40. 18. To whom will ye liken me That is no created thing can represent God which is of mans devising for the elements of Gods institution do represent Christ and Isa 46. 9. I am God and there is none beside me Ergo no invention of man can represent me This Argument is taken from Gods nature and therefore is of perpetuall verity 2. The Apostle Paul in the New-Testament repeateth this same Argument Act. 17. to the heathen Athenians who were tyed by no Ceremoniall Law of God ver 29. We ought not to think that the God-head is like unto Gold You see these people are challenged of Idolatry who did but erect an Altar to the golden likenesse and Image of God and yet they did not worship that golden Image as such but they worshipped in and by the Image v. 23 24. The God preached by Paul who made the world Hear what Suarez Bellarmine and Papists say It is not Lawfull to represent God by a proper and formall similitude which representeth his essence but it is Lawfull to represent him by Images Analogically signifying such a forme or shape in the which he appeared in Scripture according to these metaphors and mysticall significations that are given to him in Gods word Ans 1. Why should not unwritten Traditions which to Papists are Gods word expresse to us Gods nature in Images no lesse then the written word 2. The Heathen did represent God by the Image of a man with eyes nose tongue ears head hands feet heart understanding all which are given to God in Scripture yet were they Idolaters in so doing because God saith Isa 46. 9. I am God and there is none like to me 3. If we may portraict God according to all metaphors given unto him in Scripture then ye may Portraict him in the shape of a Lyon a Leopard a Bear a Man full of wine a Theef stealing in the night an unjust Iudge a Gyant a man of War on horse-back c. All which were folly and we might worship a Lyon a Bear an unjust Iudge a theef stealing in the night a man mad with the spirit of jealousie 4. The Essence and specifick nature of nothing in Heaven and earth can be portraicted or painted no more then Gods essence all painted things are but such and such things
window in the conscience of others 4. Pauls practise at Corinth is but a negative ex particulari and not concludent The heathen came to hear the word at Corinth 1 Cor. 14. 23. And Paul doth no where command the Heathen should be excluded from the Sacraments Will Erastus then have them admitted 5. When Paul saith that unworthy Communicants were guilty of the Lords body and blood and required fidelity in the Stewards 1 Cor. 4. He taketh for confessed scandalous persons should not be admitted by the Church its true the sin of others who communicate unworthily is not the sin of another fellow-communicant who hath not authority to debar his fellow-communicant Erastus The Scripture debarred no Iews of old neither from sacrifices nor other sacraments but commandeth that all the male children Iews or Strangers that were not legally unclean nor from their homes should thrice a year appear before the Lord in Ierusalem for to partake of the holy things of God Ergo None were Excommunicated from the holy things of God for morall wickednesse Ans Erastus counteth this an Argument that cannot be Answered but it Answers it self to me And Erastus proposeth a Law that is Catholick to all the males yet he maketh it not Catholick himself but propoundeth a number of males that are excepted as he excepteth those that were legally unclean those that are from home and yet Deut. 16. 16. Exod. 23. 17. Exod. 34. 23. in the Letter of the Law there is no such exception as Erastus maketh I hope if he make an exception so may we according to the word of God Though we should give but not grant that there was no Excommunicaâ—ion amongst the Iews but only for Ceremoniall uncleannesse yet it proveth not there is no Excommunication in the Christian Church but the contrary for if for touching the dead by Gods Law men were separated from the holy things in that Church far more for Morall uncleannesse are men to be separated from the holy things of God under the New Testament for undeniably Ceremoniall separation signified and typed out Morall separation Col. 2. 21. 2. What ground Erastus hath to except those that were Ceremonially unclean and so as uncircumcised in flesh that they were not to appeare before the Lord let him shew the Letter of Scripture for it the same ground have we to shew that the uncircumcised in heart are not to appeare before the Lord Ezek. 44. 7 8 9. Ezek. 22. 26. Nor shall I thinke God would both command all the male without exception to compeare before him thrice a yeare whether they were Adulterers Theeves Murtherers Idolaters or not such but truly sanctified and holy and that he would expresly rebuke the Males that were Adulterers Theeves Murtherers Idolaters because they compeared for him in his House Ier. 7. 8 9 10. So then as he commandeth the the Males to compeare except they be legally uncleane or Lepers and would rebuke them if they should appeare before him being Ceremonially unclean and therefore in that case God would have them not to come So also if they should be Morally unclean he would have them not to come that is it is not their sin that they appeare before the Lord quoad substantiam actus but their obedience but it is their sinne that they appeare â—ali mâ—do in their unrepented guiltinesse yet is it the sinne of the Priests in not differencing betweene the cleane and the uncleane that they suffer them to come tali modo that as Swine they pollute the holy things of God to the Male it is their sinne that they come so and so guilty and that they come not it is their sinne but to the Priests it is their sinne that they admit the uncleane and cast Pearles to Dogs But as God would not rebuke unworthy Eaters at the Lords Table 1 Cor. 11. if they might eate unworthily by Gods Law so neither would he rebuke Theeves and Murtherers for appearing before him in his Temple if they ought not by Law not to appeare in that state No doubt saith Erastus pag. 106. there were many wicked persons in the time of Ioshua Iudges and the Kings in such a multitude yet they were bidden all to compeare before the Lord and none are excepted for their wickednesse and it is certaine God would not both bid them compeare and not compeare Ans All that sinned in Israel were bidden offer Sacrifice yet those who are wicked as Sodom are expresly debarred from Sacrifices except they were morally clean Esai 1. 13. Bring me no more vaine oblation incense is an abomination unto me 16 Wash you make you cleane So say I here God said expresly Ier. 7. 9 10. Except you be washed from your lying stealing come not before me to stand in my house to prophane my holy Name Ergo the Morally unclean are excommunicated from those holy things so all the wicked by the same reason were forbidden they remaining in their wickednes without Repentance to eate the Passeover yea to take the Name of God in their mouth Psal 50. 16 17. to Sacrifice Esai 66. 3. to touch the Altar of God except their hands were washed in innocency Psal 26. 6. And the Priests had the charge of the house of God to put difference betweene the cleane and the uncleane and the Priests are said to violate the holy things of God if the wicked as well as the Ceremonially unclean were not debarred Hag. 2. 11 12. Ezek. 22. 25 26. Ezek. 44. 7 8 9. and certainly the Males that were Leapers were expresly excepted and forbidden to come in the Congregation of Gods people as is before proved Erastus The Pharisees and Sadduces debarred none from the Sacraments for their wicked life Ans What will Erastus make the Pharisees practise our Rule they killed the Lord of Glory and then eat the Passeover with bloody hearts and hands Is such a Practise our Rule Erastus Iohn Baptist refused Baptisme to none willing to bee baptized and referred the inward Baptisme by the Spirit and fire to Iesus Christ Ans Iohn baptized those who confessed their sinnes and professed their Repentance and the like we crave of those that are admitted to the other Sacrament And the instance of Iohn or an Apostles baptizing cannot warrant the Baptizing of all Murtherers Idolatrous persons or the wickedst living as Erastus saith and the vildest on earth if they should but desire Baptisme and give no confession of their Faith nor profession of their Repentance Erastus Christ who rebuked many abuses and cast the buyers and sellers out of the Temple would have rebuked the pollution of the Sacraments also but that he never did and Christ said that Peter should forgive his offending Brother often in one day if he but say It repenteth me and he saith This transaction shall be ratified in heaven Will you be more cruell then God Do not we often lie to God in our Confession to God He meaneth well who desires to
come to the Supper Be not Iudges of mens Conscience Ans Christ Commanding not to cast Pearls to Swine and scourging out those that polluted that Temple that was a type of his body doth Argue clearly that the holy things of God should not be prophaned But that Christ rebuked all abuses in the worship of God in particular Erastus cannot say 2. It is one thing to forgive our brother by putting away private grudge and a church-pardoning in the name of Christ is another in the former sense we are to forgive our enemy though he repent not Mat. 6. 12. 14 15. Rom. 12. 19 20. Luk. 23. 34. But this forgivenesse Luk. 17. is not said to be ratified in heaven for God doth not alway forgive when we forgive God doth forgive when the sinner repenteth Erastus will have a lying confession ratified in Heaven 3. When the Church in Christs Name forgiveth not upon words and lies but upon Visible Testimonies of repentance they are no more Iudges of the heart then Isaiah when he said Except ye believe ye shall not be established and Paul when he said to the Jaylor Believe and thou shalt be saved for without more then lying words of mouth yea without true lively faith neither could the one be established nor the other saved Erastus When Paul dehorteth the Corinthians to eat things Sacrificed to Idols in the Idols Temple because they could not be partakers of the Table of the Lord and of the Table of Devils he bids them not forsake the Supper of the Lord but only not to go to the Feast of Idols because the Supper and these Tables of Devils are inconsistant therefore he saith I will not have you to have fellowship with Devils but he saith not I will not have you to come to the Supper of the Lord nor deth he bid them approve their repentance â—re they come to some I know not what Presbyters And in this place he speaketh of an externall Communion as the purpose and words prove because he speaketh of Israel according to the flesh 3. Because those that eat things Sacrificed to Idols were perswaded there was no difference between those meats and other meats Ans Erastus his Argument is this being reduced to form is if Paul say not 1 Cor. 10. I will not have you come to the Lords Supper but only I will not have you to have fellowship with the Devil in his Table then he will have none debarred by the Elders from the Lords Supper But the latter is true I deny the Proposition it is a connexion that one who taketh on him to refute such a precious and eminent divine as Theod. Beza may be ashamed of and yet his book from head to foot standeth most upon a negative Argument from some particular place of Scripture for he speaketh nothing of the power of Elders to keep the holy things of God pure What if he should say Moses in the first of Genesis saith not I will not have you not to come to the Lords Supper Ergo there is no authoritative debarring of men from the Lords Supper Such sandy consequences no learned Divines would ever dream of 2. Beza nor any of our Divines never dreamed that God in the Old or New Testament said Nolo vos ad mensam domini ad sacramenta venire which are the words of Erastus so his conclusion cometh not near the controversie Iews and Gentiles are invited and commanded to come to Christ and so to all the Ordinances and Sacraments but I hope this will not infer that all should come to the Sacraments hand over head and whether they be clean or unclean circumcised or Baptized or not circumcised not Baptized God commanded Aarons sons to serve in the sanctuary and appear before him in their charge What Ergo it is not Gods will that they come not to the Sanctuary and before him unwashed and with strange fire and without their holy garments this is the very consequence of Erastus Our question I conceive is whither all must be admitted promiscuously and whether even those that come immediatly from the Devils Table without any preparation known to the Church should be set at Christs elbow to eat the Lords body and blood Erastus saith Paul never said Nolo vos ad mensam domini venire then because two negatives make one affirmative Paul must say I will that all that are partakers of the table of the Devil come and be partakers of the Lords body But the conclusion is contradicent to Erastus himself who faith right down I judge that he vvho vvill but trample the Sacraments should not be admitted unto them and to Paul 1 Cor. 11. 27 c. 3. Erastus confoundeth two Questions one is whither all should be admitted to the Lords Supper Erastus saith every where in his book none are to be debarred another by whom are they to be admitted or debarred By the civill Magistrates saith Erastus by the Stewâ—rds and Officers of the house of God the rest of the Church consenting say we 4. The Argument will conclude that not onely the Church or Magistrate ought to admit those that have fellowship with the Devil to the Table of Christ but they ought to command them to come it being Christs will they should be admitted and that they themselves who are Communicants are obliged though keeping fellowship with the Devil to come and eat their own damnation for Paul saith by this reason in the place 1 Cor. 10. No more I will not have the partakers of the Devils table to come to the Lords table nor he saith I will not have the Elders to debar them if Erastus say they should try and examine themselves and come He flees from the controversie which is not whether the worthy but whether the scandalous and unworthy should come Erastus saith all should come 5. Whereas Erastus will have the Apostle to speak of the externall Communion of the Elements onely 1. It is false 2. Nothing to the purpose it is false 1. ver 16. It is called the Communion of the body and blood of Christ and that must be more then externall Communion 2. ver 17. We many are one body this is not an externall body only for it is the unity of the body of Christ signified by one bread 3. It is not externall only but internall and spiritual fellowship with Devils that is condemned ver 20. 21. Ergo It must be internall Communion with Christ in his death that is sealed and commanded 4. This is meer Socinianisme to have the Sacraments only memorative signes as is clear 2. It is not to a purpose for if the Church debar only from externall society from the Church and externall Seals this debarring being ratified in Heaven Matth. 18. It is sufficient for our conclusion 5. Paul his condemning of eating at the Idols Table as inconsistent with eating and drinking of the Lords body he must expresly forbid those who eateth
rebuking the rod of Church-discipline to reject Hereticks after admonitions Hence I argue negatively in all the Scripture never did the Lord command that they should pray to God and mourne that he would inflict bodily vengeance and death or yet sicknesse on any scandalous professor nor is there promise precept or practise in any Scripture of this Church censure 5. Erastus doth thinke a court of the Church that hath power to lead Witnesses judge and censure offenders an extream wronging of the Magistrate and an incroaching on his Liberties but here is a more bloody Court for if the whole faithfull are to pray for bodily death by the Ministery of the Devill upon one of their own brethren because he hath lyen with his fathers wife or fallen in Adultery or Murther as David did Surely they must pray in faith and upon certaine knowledge that he is guilty the Law of God and Nature must then have warranted the whole Saints Women and Children to meet in a grand Jurie and Inquest either to have the fact proved by Witnesses or to heare his owne confession else how could they pray in faith if it was not sure to their conscience that the man had done this deed Here is a Jury of men and women I am sure unknowne to the Apostolique Church 2. A greater abridging of the Magistrates power then we teach The Church shall take away the life of a Subject never aske the Magistrates leave 6. It is against Christs minde Mat. 18. â—s Erastus expoundeth it that Christians should go any further against an offending brother then implead him before an Heathen though he adde injurie to injurie But this waâ— maketh the Holy Ghost sharply to rebuke all the Saints when they are offâ—â—ded before the barre of Heaven by crying miraculous bloodâ—e vengeance upon the Offender 7. It is evident this man repenâ—ed and that the Corinthians confirmed their love to him and did forgive him 2 Cor. 2. 7. 10. Ergo He was not miraculously killed But we never read where it was Gods will and Law that an â—ll doers life should be spared though he should repent because his taking away is for example that others may feare 2. That evill and as it is here leaven may be taken away if then it had been bodily death I see not how Paul and the Corinthians could have dispensed with it 8. Erastus doth not nor can he confirme his unknown Exposition by any parallel Scripture of the Old and New Testament which I objected to him in his Exposition of Matth. 18. Let the Reader therefore observe how weak Erastus is in arguing against pregnant Scriptures for Excommunication Erastus You must prove that to mourn because the man is not taken away is all one as to mourn that he is not debarred from the Sacraments by the Ministers and Elders Ans That is denyed to be debarred from the Sacraments is but a consequent of Excommunication 2. It is a putting of the man from amongst them not by death that we have refuted not from eating and drinking with him onely that I improved before Ergo it must be a Church ouâ—-casting Erastus Paul might deliver the man to Satan though he did Repent as the Magistrate did punish Malefactors whether they Repented or noâ— An. Ergo he repen ed and was pardoned by the Corinthians 2 Cor. 2. 10. after he had been killed which is absurd Erastus If to deliver to Satan were nothing but to debar the man from the Sacraments ever while he should repent Why should Paul with a great deal of pains and many words have excused himself to the Corinthians 2 Cor. 2. and cap. 7. and as it were deprecate the offending of them for they should know that this manner of coercing and punishing was and ought to be exercised in the Church if it was but a saving remedy and invitation to repentance Why were they sad They should rather have rejoyced as the Angels of Heaven doth at the Conversion of a sinner then Paul must have intended another thing Ans This is a meer conjecture as Erastus granteth most he saith against the place is for he saith Aliam conjecturam etiam addidi such a violent remedy of repentance as is the cutting off of a member from Christs body being the most dreadfull sentence of the King of the Church nearest to the last sentence was to Paul and ought to be a matter of sorrow to all the Servants of God as the foretelling of sad Iudgements moved Christ to tears Matth. 23. 37 Luke 19. 41 42. And moved Ieremiah to sorrow cap. 9. 1. And yet Christ was glad at the home-coming of sinners Luke 15. 6 7 c. These two are not contrary as Erastus dreameth but subordinate to wit That Christ should inflict the extreamest vengeance of Excommunication which also being blessed of God is a saving though a violent remedy of repentance and To rejoyce at the blessed fruit of Excommunication which is the mans repentance And the Apostle 2 Cor. 7. professeth his sorrow That he made them sad ver 8. and also rejoyceth at their gracious disposition who were made sorry He is far from excusing himself as if he had done any thing in weaknesse this were enough and it is an Argument of our Protestant Divines to prove that the Books of the Macabees are not Dited by the Holy Ghost as Canonick Scripture is because the Author 2 Macab 15. 38. excuseth himself in that History as if he might have erred which no Pen-man of holy Scripture can do And Erastus layeth the like blame on Paul as if he had repented that he made them sorry by chiding them for not praying for a miraculous killing of a Brother This is enough to make the Epistles of Paul to be suspected as not Canonick Scripture yea Paul saith the contrary 2 Cor. 7. 9. Now I reioyce not that yee were made sorry but that yee sorrowed to repentance for yee were made sorry after a godly manner that ye might receive dammage by us in nothing and 2 Cor. 2. 8 9. he exhorteth them to rejoycing at the mans Repentance and to confirme their love to him which demonstrates that he was now a living man and not miraculously killed and commendeth their obedience v. 9. in sorrowing as he did chide them that they sorrowed not 1 Cor. 5. 2. So that Paul is so farre from accusing himselfe for making them sad that by the contrary he commends himselfe for that and rejoyceth thereat And if the matter had been Excommunication while the man should repent saith Erastus they knowing this ought to be in the Church they should rather have reioyced then bin sorry And I answer if the matter had been a miraculous killing of him that his Spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord should they not reioyce at his saving in the day of the Lord whether this saving be wrought by bodily killing or by Excommunication And so this conjecture may well be
till we all meet in the Vnity of the Spirit and the knowledge of the son of God unto a perfect man Eph. 4. Now neither in that place nor in any other place did Christ give a Magistrate for the edifying his Body the Church but only those that are but his Delegates Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors Teachers iâ— the Magistrate be the only Governour of the Church and he who sendeth into the Vineyard those who edifie the Body the King should have been first in this Role as the only supream gatherer edifier and builder of the Church It cannot be said The Ruling Elder then because he is omitted here should not be the gift of Christ given to Edifiâ— the Church and by this it must be denied that the King the Nurse father of the Church who is to take care that the Children be fed with the sincere milk of the Word is given of God to edfâ—ie the Church because he is not nameâ— here Ans Our Divines as Calvin Beza Marlorate do strongly gather from this place that because the Pope pretended to be the Catholick edifier of the Church is not here in this Text nor in any other scripture that therefore he is not the head of the Church and the King being pretended to be the only eminent gatherer of the Church and Supream Governour in all Causes Civill and Ecclesiasticall he should especially have been set down here he being a mixed person and more then half a Church-officer in the minde of the Adversary And there was no colour of reason why the supream and only Head and principall Governour of the Church should be omitted at least the Magistrate should be in some other Scripture as the only Church Governor seeing the Adversaries make Pastors Doctors Elders and Deacons only the Delegates and Servants of the Magistrate 1. As God calleth the King to governe the people by the free election of the people so if the Magistrate be called of God to teach and govern the Church this calling of his should be in the Scripture as his calling to the Throne or Bench is Deut. 17. 14. 15 c. 1. 15 16. Rom. 13. Tit. 3. 1 2. But in neither the Old nor the New Testament finde we any Prince or Ruler separated for the holy things of God to be ` Priest Apostle Pastor Prophet Teacher by vertue of his office as if he were a mixed person as the Adversarie say No David is called to Sacrifice no Constantine to preach and Administrate the Sacraments by vertue of the Magistrates place 2. If any Reply that the Christian Magistrate is a means ordained for that spirituall end the gathering and edifying the Church in regard the keepeth not only the second Table of the Law and so promoteth not only the Temporall good of the State in promoting mercy and Justice only but also in procuring spirituall good to the people in preserving the first Table of the Law I Answer That the Christian Magistrate doth both but 1. Not directly by being the intrinsecall means in actibus elicitis in elicite and intrinsecall acts promoting edification in both Tables of the Law of which the Scripture speaketh Eph. 4 11. but a far other way 1. In imperated and commanded acts extrinsecally as he doth command with the sword for Peaces cause in all callingâ— in sailing trading painting c. promoting it by carnall means by the sword which belongeth not to the officers of Christs Kingdom 2. Not necessarily as the Pastors and Elders without which Christ hath no externall visible Kingdom on earth whereas he hath had often hath a compleat flourishing externall visible Kingdom without Magistrates yea where Magistrates have been open enemies to the Gospel 3. Not directly the Magistrate doth this but in so far as he admitteth as Triglandius saith the Church of Christ within his State which he may and often doth refuse to do and yet be a compleat Magistrate and therefore the Magistrate may two wayes procure the spirituall good of the Church 1. By procuring that the Nurses give good and wholesome milk to the Church 2. Permodum removent is prohibens which is also a cause for he may save the flock from great temptations when by his sword he driveth away the Wolves from the flock But not any of these bringeth the Magistrate within the lisâ— of the number of these intrinsecall 2. Necessary 3. Spirituall gifts which Christ ascending on high gave for the Edifying of his Body the Church Two powers so different as spirituall and temporall 2. As powers carnall of this world and spirituall not of this world And 3. Both immediatly subject the one to God the creator the other to Christ the Redeemer and Head of the Church and so co-ordinate and supream both of them in their own kinde cannot be so subordinate as the temporall should be the supream in the same kinde the spirituall the inferiour and subordinate But these two powers are so different as spirituall and temporall carnall of this world spirituall not of this world the one subject as supream immediatly to God creator the other supream immediately subject to God the redeemer Ergo Those powers of Governing are not so subordinate as the Temporall should be supream the spirituall subordinate to it The Major is undeniable for it involveth a contradiction that two supreame co-ordinate powers should be two not Supreame but subornidate powers The same way I prove the Assumption 1. The Magistrates power is supreame from God Rom. 13. 1. The Powers that are be of God Prov. 8. By me Kings reigne for no Ecclesiasticall power nor any power on earth interveenes between God the Creator and the power of the civill Magistrates But God who giveth being to a society of men hoc ipso because they are a society of reasonable men hath given to them a power immediately from himselfe to designe such and such to be their Rulers Shew us any higher power above the Magistrates but God the creator making the civill power Never man dreamt that the Spirituall power of the Church doth interveen as an instrumentall cause of the politick power 2. By order of nature a politick power is first men are first men in naturall and politick society ere they be in a supernaturall pollicy or a Church and Christ did not make a spirituall power by the intervention of a civill power 2. The power of the two Kingdoms are distinguished by Christ Iohn 18. 36. Iesus answered my Kingdome is not of this World then the power thereof is not of this World if my Kingdome were of this World then would my servants fight that I should not be delivered to the Iewes The one power is coactive by the Sword the other free voluntary by the Word Erastus had no reason to infer thence that Christs Kingdome is onely internall and invisible not externall and visible because Christ opposeth his Kingdom to a fighting Kingdom using the sword to defend him from
names and most superstitious and cannot be used in a religious state I grant we may not term our Jehovah Jupiter or Baal nor Christ Mercurius though he be the word of Gods mind to us for God teacheth us other words and language in his Word The truth is that learned noble Lord said well and judiciously all the indifferencie in the world lyeth in our understandings and the darkenesse thereof but there is none in the things themselves or actions which are still either unlawfull or necessarie And this is most true in actions morall and humane The Church putteth indifferencie on nothing there a necessitie in respect of our darknesse many be scandalized at things which seeme not necessarie to them yet are they in re in themselves necessarie But conformists object That the very will of the Church Act. 15. made things indifferent before the act now to become necessarie if then the Church may take away indifferencie she may give also But I answer The antecedent is most false Junius Calvin Beza Bullinger Brentius Pomeranus Marloret and the text clearly saith by the law of Nature these were scandalous So Origen thinketh to eat blâ—oà was scandalous And Strabo saith the heathen in their sacrifice dranke blood Yea saith Tertullian the heathen dranke mens blood and Augustine saith they forbade these for a time in the case of scandall that the ancient Synogogue might be buried with honour Yea Ireneus Tertullian and Cyprian will have these drawne to a spirituall sense that they should abstaine from Idolatrie shedding of blood and fornication And the Jesuit Lorinus saith this was a positive Law which without the case of scandall doeth not strictly abolish Cajetanus Fornication by Gods law was forbidden the other things in the Canon were forbidden to gratifie the Jews Philippus Gamethaeus a Sorbenist saith they were forbidden to nourish concord betwixt Jew and Gentile for the infirmitie of the Jewes 2. That the will of the Councell made them not necessarie whereas before the act they were indifferent is cleare 1. It had then been needlesse to discusse the matter by Scripture 2. To alledge the holy Ghost as author of the Synod It seemed good to the Holy Ghost c. if the bare will of men had made them necessâ—rie But saith Paybodie Any good thing may become an occasion of evill by accident and through our fault the Word condemneth not occasions of ill by accident but such only as are occasions of evill and in themselves evill things indifferent are not in themselves evill Ans All occasions whether ill in themselves or indifferent are occasions of sinne by accident and through our fault who abuse them but all occasions because occasions and not because evill are forbidden when as they are not necessarie and this is Gods argument to prove that the Jewes are not to marry with the Canaanites for saith the law they will turne away your heart after their Gods to send abroad a goaring oxe to seeke his food hath no sinne in it save only it may occasion the killing of men and the building of houses without battlements and the going by the doore of the whoore or comming neere her house are not of themselves ill but only forbidden under this reduplication because they are occasions of ill sinnes as sinnes are forbidden and as occasions of sinnes they are also new sinnes having a distinct illegalitie and guiltinesse in them from this that they occasion sinne and Gods law as all Divines reach forbiddeth sinne and all occasions of sinne Drunkennesse is both forbidden as intemperancie and also as an occasion of lust and of speaking perverse things as is evident Pro. 23. 33. For then the spirit of Gods argument were null to disswade from drunkennesse as he doth in these woâ—ds Thine eye shall behold strange women and thine heart shall utter perverse things Now we can shew that many wayes Ceremonies occasion sinne as 1. they trimme and decore a Church for harlot lovers from Rome forbidden Jer. 2. 33. Suarez Franciscus de sancta clara Gretserus and other Papists for these werein love with the Church of England 2. They occasion dissention in Gods house and are contrary to peace Ps 34. 14. Heb. 12. 19. Rom. 12. 18. and so to be rejected 3. They beare false witnesse of Poperie which we disclaime 4. They are against the spirituall worshiping of God and lead us backe to the carnall commandements and beggerly rudiments of the law from the Gospell against the word of God Joh 4. 24. Gal. 4 9 10. Heb. 7. 16. Heb. 9. 8. 9. Gal. 3. 25. 26. Gal. 4. 1. 2. Coll. 2. 20. They are torches in day light and vaine and uselesse 5. They bring us under bondage to men contrary to the Apostle Col. 2. 20. and to the ordinances of men and under the power of things 1 Cor. 6. 12. 6. They are against our Christian libertie They answer especially Paybodie and D. Forbes that Christian libertie is not restrained by doing or not doing a thing indifferent for so there should be no lawes made at all by the Church concerning things indifferent but Christian libertie not hurt if 1. the Ceremonies be free to the conscience and not made necessarie 2. If they be not made necessarie to salvation 3. If they be holden alterable by mans authoritie Ans The question is perverted for we question not if the use of things indifferent lay a bond on Christian libertie but if the will of authoritie can make a law of things indifferent when there is no intrinsecall necessitie in the things themselves when necessitie of edification layeth on a tye Christian libertie is not indeed restrained for God then layeth on a bond 2. Externall eating of meats and observing of dayes is a part of the libertie wherewith Christ hath made us free Coll. 2. 21. Eat not touch not taste not men eat not meat with their minde or conscience but with the teeth of their body and to such externall eating men are dead with Christ as touching externall observation thereof and Paul Gal. 2. 19. as dead to the Law living to God and crucified with Christ is freed from such Judaizing as Peter fell into but that Judaizing did not bind Peters conscience neither was it repute of him as necessarie to salvation as he had taught Act. 10. And the false Apostles pressed Circumcision not as tying the conscience or as necessarie for salvation but Gal. 6. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. only that they may not suffer affliction for the crosse of Christ and yet to be circumcised externally without necessitie of conscience before God crossed directly the libertie wherewith Christ had made them free Gal. 5. 1. and 1 Cor. 9. Have we not power to lead about a wife and sister aswell as others Yet if the Prelates at Corinth should have made an act forbidding Church-men to marry though they had esteemed not
of God a matter of laughter to men 2. Where as Hooker would have God to forbid not the same Ceremonies Materially or an utter dis-similitude but the same Ceremonies of the Heathen with the signification which the Heathen did put on them contrary to Scripture as upon the cutting of their flesh they did impose this signification that they should sorrow for the dead as those that have no hope 1 Thess 3. we see then 1. all the Ceremonies of the Heathen as the cutting of the flesh the killing of their Children to Molech So they be formallized and charactered with a signification according to the word of God shall be lawfull Put then Scripturall and lawfull significations either of faith in Christ already incarnate or of Christian conversation as of moderate mourning for the dead such as was in Abraham who mourned for Sarahs death and in our Lord Jesus who wept for the death of Lazarus And so the Sacrificing of Bullocks Sheep Rams yea Circâ—â—cising and Sacrificing of children to Molech shall not be condemned as a complyance and Symbolizing with the Jewes and Idolaters Nor can any say that shedding of blood to God and killing of men must be now forbidden I answered before shedding of blood with this Scripturall and lawfull signification and as an indifferent means of the worshiping of God is no other way forbidden in the first 7. blâ— then because it is not commanded in Scripture But this is no forbiding at all of worship or of new positive meanes of worship So you 1. make it not a part of the word of God and necessarie worship 2. So it be materially indifferent and be instamped with a lawfull and Scripturall signification as we suppose it to be 3. Nor doth the Word any where condemne killing of men as a worship except that iâ— commandeth it not as a worship which we say as it is a breach of the sixt Commandement it is forbidden as man-flaughter but not as unlawfull worship But then how will Morton and Burges justifie Circumcision which they say is lawfull yet so it have not a Jewish intention nor any necessitie or efficacie imposed on it it is a degree of murther and why may not upon the same ground cutting the flesh for the dead launcing of the body with knives the Popish selfescourging be lawfull Now the text signifieth no allowance at all of the rounding of the corners of the head and the cutting of the body and how shall Hooker prove that only heathenish and Pagan-rounding of the haire and cutting of the flesh as they betoken mourning in a hopelesse manner for the dead were forbidden 1 Thess 3. divers of the Pagans amongst whom is Phocillides and many others taught the resurrection of the dead They might then sow their land with divers seeds cut their flesh for the dead yea and observe times be dismayed at the signes of the heaven as the heathen And what ever the Pagans did in their worship they might doe so to the Lord their God and doe all the judgements ordinances and lawes of Egypt Canaan Turkie of Rome materially even to the falling downe before Bread sacrisicing of Beasts cutting of the haire c. 3. What Hooker meaneth by a dis-similitude with the heathen of set purpose is easily knowne Only in things wicked and unlawfull saith he or Idolatrous or against the law of God we are to be dislike to the heathen because it is said Yee shall doe my judgements for he expresly denyeth that there was any danger of infection by reason of nearnesse to the Egyptians and Canaanites in these indifferent things or that they were forbidden because the Pagans used them they were unlawfull though the Pagans bad ever used them Ans Tannerus the Jesuite saith tom 3. in 22. disp 9. de fide spe q. 6. dub 9. abstinendum est ab omni speciè male prâ—pter scandalum ratio quia scandalum tali casâ— oritur ex vi actionis ipsius non aliter fâ—râ— quam si mala esset then though the Nations heathenish rites were not ill yet being not necessarie to the Jewes and having appearance of ill in that they are Characters of the worship of strange Gods scandall must refâ—â—e from the using heathenish Ceremonies vi actionis from the nature of the using of them as if they were intrinâ—ecally ill 2. If it were no more but this they were so much the worse and more scandalous that beside that they are intrinsâ—cally evill yet they are the Statutes of Egypt and Canâ—aâ— and not the Statutes of the Lord. So either these words must bee idly set downe amongst whom yee dwels and to which the Lord bringeth you Or they must adde a degree of wickednesse to the sinnes that they were the sinnes of Egypt and of Canaan and so they are forbidden both as sinnes and also for the bare Similitude as the words imply for God will not only have them to walke in right judgements but also in his righteous judgements because â—aith hee I am the Lord and ye shall not doe after such and such a way because such are the doings and wayes of Egypt and Canaan Ergo Though all were intrinsecally evill that are forbidden of this kinde they partake also of a farther degree of morall evill in that Egypt Canaan and Idolatroâ—s Papiâ—â—â— doe these same things to their Idols Hooker addeth Wee must be unlike to Rome not only in Doctrine but in Ceremonies and Governâ—â—â—â— and especially Government not commanded in the Word for all is Papish though lawfull and agreeable to the word of God whatsoever Rome hâ—â— received without commandement of Gods word Ans Theâ—e is not required properly a conformitie in us with Rome in doctrinals as if Rome were our Rule nor is the word of God properly conforme to the Protestant religion but the Protestant religion must be conforme to the Word Whâ—â—nesse is not properly like to Snow or Milke but Milke or Snow are like to whitenesse Nor have we properly a 〈…〉 with Papists in doctrine they are not our patterne nor wee theirs 2. We do not plead for a Government in all things to be commanded in the Word but to be warranted by the Word either according to command or promise or morall practise foâ— the Scripture is our Rule but 1. not in miraculous things 2. Not in things temporarie as Communitie of Goods 3. Not in things Literally exponed as to cut off our hands and feet 4. Not in things of Art and Science as to speake Latine to demonstrate conclusions of Astronomie 5. It is not properly our Rule in Circumstances which are but naturall conveniences of time place and person and such like But it is our Rule 1. in fundamentalls of salvation 2. In all morals of both first and second table 3. In all institutions and wee conceive the Government of the Church to be a proper institution to wit it is a supernaturall ordinance or helpe above nature to guide the