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
Magistrate as Erastus and Master Prinne thinketh exclude Iudasses and knowne traitors and knowne Devills and knowne children of the Devil out of the Church this is to Erastus and Master Prinne both absurd 2. Christ did eat and drink with Iudas knowing him to be all these Ergo we may eat and drink with knowne traitors also the contrary is a truth 1 Cor. 5. 9 10. 11. 2 Thess 3 14 15 Rom. 16. 17. evident enough 3. Christ preached the Gospel to those that he knew sinned against the Holy Ghost to the Pharisees who persecuted Christ to death and others Math. 12. 31 32 33 34. Ioh. 15. 22 23 24 25. Ioh. 7. 28 29. Ioh. 12. 35 36 37 38. Ioh. 10. 31 32. Ioh. 11. 47 48. and this is by the exposition of Erastus l. 3. c. 3. pag. 307. 308. and Master Prinne his vindication pag. 38 39. To give holy things to dogs so Mr. Prinne saith that by doggs and swine are meant only such infidels and heathen who refuse to imbrace and beleeve the Gospel or harbour or entertain the preachers of it of which the text is principally intended as well as the Sacraments or of such open contemners persecutors of the Gospel and Ministers who runne upon and teare the preachers thereof trampling the pearls of the Gospel and the tenderers of them under their feet as the Text resolves in terminis Mat. 7. 6. Mat. 10 14 15. Luk. 9 5. Act. 13. 46. or open Apostates 2. Pet. 1. 2 21 22 c hence by this we may give the pearls of the Gospel to such dogs as the Pharisees for to them Christ tendred the pearle of the Gospel 4. Christ might have hindred being God equall with the Father the Pharisees and Iews to malice him Ergo he being above the Laws that he gives to us doth not in this example warrant us to cast the pearls of the Gospel to such as we know to be Iudasses Pharisees and malicious haters and heart-murtherers of Christ 2. There is not the like reason of preaching the word and dispensing the seals 1. Because the word is a converting ordinance out of question and preached to heathen and to the non-converted though they refuse to imbrace and beleeve the Gospel and refuse to entertaine the preachers of it as is clear Act. 19. 22 23 24 25. Tit. 1. 10 11 12 13. 2 Tim. 3. 25 26 27. The Texts that Master Prinne alledgeth that the Gospel should not be preached to heathen who refuse to imbrace and beleeve the Gospel to wit Mat. 10. 14 15. Luk. 9. 5. Act. 13. 46. are to no purpose for Mat. 10. Luk. 9. is but a Temporary Commandement given for a time that the Disciples should depart from those houses of Iudea there is nothing of the heathen But by the contrary the Apostles are forbidden to go to Samaritanes or Gentiles at all Mat. 10. 5 6. who would not receive the peace of God in the Gospel which precept the Apostles in the story of the Acts did not observe but preached the Gospel to many heathen who refused to imbrace and beleeve the Gospel As Act. 16. and 17. and 19. 2. The place Act. 13. 15. is meant of the blaspheming Iews to whom Paul preached long after they persecuted and stoned the Prophets and had killed the Lord of life Act 2. and 4. and 8. and 9. Mat. 23. 37 38. 3. Those places are to better colour of purpose brought by Arminians and Socinians to prove that the Gospel is preached to people for their good entertainment thereof and denied to others for their unworthinesse and because they will not welcome it So the Arminians in the conference at Hague pag. 87 88 89. God sendeth the Gospel not according to his absolute will sed ob alias causas in homine latentâ—s for secret causes in man Arminius against Perkins p. 199. The will of God in sending the Gospell hath causes in the will of man according to that habenti dabitur So Corvinus ad Wallachros p. 44. Socinus Comment in 1. Epist Ioh. c. 4. p. 307. saith the same and Mr. Pryn is pleased in the same sense to cite them I conceive imprudently for I beleeve that Reverend and learned man doth hate those impious Sects the Enemies of the grace of God but truly if this be a rule to Pastors to spread the Gospell that they are to offer and give the pearle of the preached Gospell to those that willingly receive it and harbour the preachers and presently to depart and preach no more the word of the Kingdom to those who refuse it as the places Mat. 10. 14. Luke 9. 5. carry that sense because they are Heathens who refuse to embrace and beleeve the Gospell and harbour the Preachers as the worthy Divine saith conceiving that to be a casting of Pearles to Dogs and Swine I see not how the Preachers spreaders of the Gospel to the Heathen are to beleeve that God out of meer grace the good pleasure of his will without respect to good or bad deserving sendeth the Gospel to some and denieth it to others 3. Though the Sacrament of the Supper be a converting Ordinance in this sense that it corroborateth faith and conversion where it was once and so applyeth the Promises to one who before beleeved yet it is not a converting ordinance that is to be administred to one dead in sins and trespasses as the word is for then at the first Sermon that ever is preached to a Heathen if he should say though for base worldly ends known to the Church that he desired to have the Sacraments we are obliged to beleeve that he sincerely desireth these Seals and instantly at the same sermon to baptise him administer the other Seal of the Lords Supper to him for how can we deny converting Ordinances to those who desire them say our adversaries 4. An ordinance that cannot be dispensed to a Heathen remaining a Heathen and to an unconverted man knowne to be an unconverted man is not an Ordinance that ought to be dispensed as the ordinance of the Word and as the first converting ordinance to so many as we may safely dispense the Word unto and if it be first a converting ordinance as the preaching of the Word is then it is to be dispensed to all those to whom we are to preach the Word But Erastus and Mr. Pryn grant we may preach the Word to Heathen remaining Heathen and if they deny it as they yeeld it the Apostles did preach the Gospel to the Heathen remaining Heathen but they never admitted nor can we admit to the Lords Supper Heathen remaining Heathen nor could the Iewes upon the same ground admit to the Passeover the uncircumcised now then the preaching of the Word to some cannot make the Church and preachers guilty of casting pearles to Swine and of partaking of their siâ— whose hearing is not mixed with faith and yet if the Church and Ministers should admit to
or betwixt Peters words and the words spoken by Peteâ—â— tongue mouth and lips for Prophets and Apostles were both Gods mouth 5. Worship essentiall and Worship Arbitrary vvhich Formalists inculcate or worship positively lavvfull or negatively lavvfull are to be acknowledged as worship Lawfull and Will-worship and vvorship Lawfull and unlawfull 6. What is vvarranted by naturall reason is vvarranted by Scripture for the Law of nature is but a part of Scripture 7. Actions are either purely morall or purely not morall or mixed of both The first hath vvarrant in Scripture the second none at all the third requireth not a vvarrant of Scripture every vvay concludent but only in so far as they be Morall 8. Matters of meer fact knovvn by sence and humane testimonie are to be considered according to their Physicall existence if they be done or not done if Titus did such a thing or not such are not in that notion to be proved by Scripture 2. They may be considered according to their essence and Morall quality of good and lawfull â—ad or unlawfull and so they are to be warranted by Scripture 9. There is a generall vvarrant in Scripture for Worship and morall actions tvvofold either vvhen the Major proposition is only in Scripture and the Assumption is the vvill of men or vvhen both the Proposition and Assumption are warranted by Scripture the former vvarrant I think not sufficient and therefore the latter is necessary to prove the thing lavvfull Hence our 1. conclusion Every worship and Positive observance of Religion and all Morall actions are to be made good by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according as it is vvritten though their individuall circumstances be not in the word 2. The offering for the Babe Iesus tvvo Turtle Doves and â—vvo Pigeons are according as it is vvritten in the Lavv and yet Ioseph and Mary the Priest the Offerer the day and hour when the male childe Iesus for whom are not in the Law Exod. 13. 1. Numbers 8. 26. In the second Table Amaziah his Fact of mercy in not killing the children for the Fathers sin is said to be 2 Kin. 24. 6. performed by the King 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As it is vvritten in the Book of the Law of Moses yet in that Law Deut 24. 6. There is not a word of Amaziah or the children whom he spared because these be Physicall and not Morall circumstances as concerning the essence of the Law of God Hence in the Categorie of all Lawfull Worship and Morall actions both Proposition and Assumption is made good by this As it is vvritten even to the lowest specifice degree of morality as all these 1. The Worship of God 2. Sacramentall worship under that 3. Under that participation of the Lords Supper 4. Under all the most speciall participation of the Lords Supper by Iohn Anna in such a Congregation such a day All these I say both in Proposition and Assumption are proved by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And can bid this according as it is written the like I may instance in all other Worship in all acts of Discipline in all Morall acts of justice and mercy in the second Table But come to the Prelats Kalendar They cry Order and decency is Commanded in Gods Worship And we hear Pauls cry not theirs but under this is 2. Orderly and decent Ceremonies of humane institution And here they have lost Pauls cry and the Scriptures as it is written 3. Under this be Symbolicall signes of Religious worship instituted by men according as it is written is to seek And 4. under all Thomas his Crossing of such an Infant is written on the back of the Prelats Bible or Service book but no where else So do Papists say What ever the Church teach that is Divine truth Under this cometh in invocations of Saints Purgatory and all other fatherlesse Traditions which though Papists should teach to be Arbitrary and indifferent yet would we never allow them room in Gods house seeing they cannot abide this touchstone according as it is written 2. Because Scripture condemneth in Gods Worship what ever is ours as will-worship Hence 2. All worship and new Positive means of worship devised by men are unlawfull but humane Ceremonies are such Ergo The Proposition is proved many wayes as 1. What is mans in Gods Worship and came from Lord-man is challenged as false vain and unlawfull because not from God as Idols according to their own understanding Hos 13. 2. So from Israel it was the workman made it Hos 8. 6. Hence Zanchius and Pareus infer all invented by men are false and vain and so are condemned Ier. 18. 12. The imaginations of their â—vil heart and Psal 106. 39. Their own devises their ovvn vvorks their ovvn inventions as Act. 7. 41. Figures vvhich yâ— made Act. 7. 43. Had they been figures of Gods making as the Cherubins and Oxen in the Temple as 1 King 7. They had been Lawfull dayes devised by Iâ—robâ—ams heart 1 King 12. 32 33. The light of your ovvâ—â—â—irâ— Isa 50. 11. A plant that the Heavenly Father planted not Ergo By man Math. 15. 14. 2. The Proposition is proved from the wisdom of Christ who is no lesse faithfull then Moses who followed his Copy that he saw in the Mount Exod. 40. 19. 21. 23. Exod. 25. 40. Heb. 8. 5. Heb. 3. 1 2. Ioh. 15. 15. Or Solomon 2 Chron. 29. 25. 1. Chron. 28. 11 12. Gal. 3. 15. Also I prove our Conclusion 3. thus If the word be a rule to direct a young mans vvay Psal 119. 9. A light to the Paths of men v. 105. If the Wisdom of God cause us to understand Equity Iudgement Righteousnesse and every good vvay Prov. 2. 9. And cause us vvalk safely so that our feet stumble not Prov. 3. 25. So that vvhen vve go our steps shall not be straightned and vvhen vve run our feet shall not stumble Prov. 4. 11 12. If wisdom lead us as a Lamp and and a Light Prov. 6. 23. Then all our actions Morall of first or second Table all the Worship and right means of the Worship must be ruled by this according as it is Written else in our actions we walk in darknesse we fall stumble go aside and are taught some good way and instructed about the use of some holy Crossing some Doctrine of Purgatory and Saint-worship without the light of the Word But this latter is absurd Ergo So is the former It is poor what Hooker saith against us If Wisdom of Scripture teach us every good path Prov. 2. 9. By Sccripture onely and by no other mean then there is no art and trade but Sripture should teach But Wisdom teacheth something by Scripture something by spirituall influence something by Worldy experience Thomas believed Christ vvas risen by sence because he savv him not by Scripture the Ievvs believed by Christs miracles Ans 1. Some actions in man are meerly naturall as to grow these
intention signifieth divine adoration p. 147 148 Objections of Swarez contending that intention of adoration is essential to adoration removed p. 148 149 Of the Idolatrous worship of the Iews and Papists p. 150 The relative expressioÌ„ of God in the creature is no ground of adoring the creature p. 151 The Iews beleeved not the Golden ca lt to be really God p. 151 152 The adoring of Images not forbidden by the Ceremonial law but by the Moral law p 154 The evasions of Bellarmine and Swarez answered p. 155 Papists did of old adore before or at the presence of the Image as a memorative signe and yet were Idolators p. 158 Two sort of signes ibid. Divers evasions of Papists touching the adoring of Images p. 161 162 scq Swarez is not content at the hungry expressions of Durandus Mirandula Hulcot in the worshipping of Images p. 165 166 The place worship at his footstool discussed Psal 99 ibid. Prayer may as lawfully be given to the creature as Adoration p. 169 170 Divers Fables touching Images p. 179 180 The original of Images p. 181 Images not in the ancient Church neither worshippeâ— therein p. 182 â—83 184 c. Vasquez will have all things to be adored p. 190 Joan. dâ— Lugo proveth the same by four Reasons p. 191 Whether sitting or kneeling be the most convenient and lawful gesture in the act of receiving the Sacrament of Christs Body and Blood p. 192 Sitting the onely convenient and lawful gesture p. 193 What is occasional in the first Supper ibid. Christ sate at the first Supper p. 194 195 Sitting a sign of our coheirship p. 197 198 199 A signe of our coheirship may well consist with our inferiority in worshipping Christ p. 198 Ceremonies fail against the Authority of Rulers p. 201 Whether humane Laws binde the conscience or not p. 201 202 seq How civil positive Laws binde not the conscience p. 202 203 A twofold goodnesse p. 207 The will of created Authority cannot create goodnesse in things p. 204 205 Humane Laws obliâ—ge onely in so far as they agree with the Law of God p. 206 A twofold consideration of Humane Laws p. 208 How Rulers are subordinate to God in commanding p. 209 Humane authority is not the nearest nor the instrumental cause of Laws p. 208 209 A double obedience due to Rulers objective and subjective p. 210 Objective obedience no more due to Rulers then to equals p 210 211 False Rules of obedience to Rulers proposed by D. Jackson refuted p. 212. The goodnesse of supposed obedience to Rulers cannot countervalue the evil in the sinful manner of doing with a doubting conscience p. 214 Other arguments for the obligation of humane Laws answered p. 216 What it is to resist to Ruler p. 217 Why men cannot make Laws that layeth a tie on the conscience p. 219 That Christ hath a spiritual Kingdom not onely in the power of Preaching but also in the power of the Keys by censures p. 220 That there is such a divine Ordinance as Excommunication p. 223 Objections against Excommunication removed p. 224 How we are to rebuke our Brother p. 225 The Church Matth. 18. is not the civil Sanedrim p. 226 227 229 How Heathen and Publicans were excluded from the Church p. 230 Binding and loosing acts judicial p. 235 236 Excommunication is a divine Ordinance proved by 1 Cor. 5. p. 238 239 seq fuse To deliver to Satan is not miraculous killing p. 238 239 The essentials of Excommunication 1 Cor. 5. p. 238 239 c. Whether the Word doth warrant censures and exclusion from the Seals ibid. Cutting off not alwayes killing p. 241 Moral scandals excluded men from holy things amongst the Iews p. 243 The prophecy Ezek 44. 11 12 c. to be fulfilled under the New Testament p. 244 245 Ceremonial exclusion from holy things under the old did typiâ—ie exclusion for moral uncleannesse under the N. Test p. 247 248 The Churches exclusion from the Seals declarative non coactive by violence ibid. Censures applyed to some by name ibid. Eschuing the society of scandalous Church-members must be a Church-censure p. 249 The hindering of Jezabel by preaching not sufficient p. 251 Debarring of the scandalous from the Seals proved p. 252. seq It belongeth not to the Magistrate to debar from the Seals p. 253 Erastus against exclusion from the Sacraments refuted p. 253 seq fuse By Erastus his way we cannot deny the Seals to a Turk p. 258 259 To exclude from the Kingdom of Heaven not one with Excommunication p. 260 Excommunication is no real separation of one from Christs invisible body p. 261 262 264 Though Excommunication be onely declarative yet it s not empty p. 266 Putting out 1 Cor. 5. p. 269 Whether Erastus doth prove that none were excluded amongst the Iews for moral uncleannesse from the holy things of God p. 271 A twofold forgivenesse p. 273 All are invited to come to the Sacraments but not that they come any way p. 274 The question whether all should be admitted to the Lords Supper perverted by Erastus p. 275 Two sort of signes amongst the Iews some purely holy some partly holy partly necessary for the bodily life the latter clean and unclean might eat but not the former p. 277 All are commanded to hear but not to â—ome to the Supper p. 280 Whether Erastus doth justly deny Excommucation to be typified of Old p. 281 Ceremonial uncleannesse typified exclusion out of the visible Church for scandals not out of the Kingdom of Heaven p 287 288 Legal uncleannesse was sin p. 289 The scope and sense of Matth. 18. perverted by Erastus p. 290 Our Saviour speaketh of all not of private or lesser scandals onely p. 291 By the word Brother is not meaned a Iew onely ib. Christs speaking in the second person argueth not the privacy of the scandal p. 294 A twofold forgiving p. 295 Christ speaketh not of such sins as private men may forgive as Erastus dreameth p. 297 Christs scope spiritual Erastus his way carnal p. 298 A Publican most odious to the Iews p. 305 It s not private forgivenesse which is holden forth Matth. 18. 17. p. 308 Binding and loosing proper to Stewarts p. 309 To excommunicate is not formally to debar from the Seals p. 311 Christ might well give directions touching a Church not yet erected p. 314 c. The place 1 Cor. 5. vindicated from Erastus his glosse p. 316 317 c. The prayers of the Church intervene not for this particular miracle p. 318 319 Faith of miracles not in all the faithful at Corinth p. 320 Delivering to Satan not miraculous p. 321 The Church not Paul alone had hand in delivering the man to Satan p. 326 What delivering to Satan is p. 327 The destruction of the flesh what it is p. 328 Hymeneus and Alexander not killed by Satan p. 332 Delivering to Satan not miraclous p 336 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to put away not alwayes to kill p. 337 To eschew the
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
intend to kill his Son Why is not eating the forbidden fruit Lawfull Only because God Commandeth and if God forbid Abraham to kill his Son and Command Adam to eat it is Lawfull 2. If this be good observe all the Ceremoniall Law so you lay not Divine necessity upon the observance thereof offer Sacrifices to God under the New Testament and you cannot fail in the worship against the Institutor So slaying of the Children to Molech so you count it free and changeable shall not fail against Gods Commandments of the first Table I Command it not They Answer To kill Children is Man slaughter but I Reply God doth noâ— Ier. 7. Reason against Offering the seed to Molech as it was murther and forbidden in the sixth Commandment but as false worship and forbidden in the second Commandment Else he proveth not that it was unlawfull worship against piety but that it was an act of cruelty Yea so it be thought free and bind not the Conscience it may be Lawfull worship and is not condemned by this God Commanded it not Ergo It is not Lawfull I Commanded not saith Morton and D. Burges that is I discommanded or forbade Ans So saith the Iesuit Valentia but so Circumcising of women boyling of the Paschall Lambe another Ark then Moses made should not be unlawfull for these are not expresly discommanded But Gods Commanding to Circumcise the Male-childe to Roast the Paschall Lambe to make this Ark and his silence of Circumcision of women and boyling the Passeover and silence of another Ark is a Command 2. The Text Jer. 7. Is wronged I Commanded not neither came it in my heart to Command this Abomination That is I never purposed it as worship else they knew to kill their Children except to God as Abraham was Commanded was unlawfull as Isa 63. 4. The day of Vengeance is in mine heart 2 King 10. 30. 1 King 8. 18. Gen 27. 41. To be in ones heart is to purpose a thing 3. Valentia saith Exod. 18. 20. I Commanded not the false Prophet to speak But how By not sending or calling him Else God did not say by a Positive Commandment to every false Prophet Prophecy not but because God bâ—de him not Prophecy he was to know God forbade him Else to speak Arbitrary Doctrines and Prophesies not tying the Conscience were no false Prophecying They Object 1 King 8. 17. It was well that it was in Davids heart to build a house to God and yet David had no warrant in Gods Word for to build an house to God So Morton Burges Ans David had a twofold will and purpose to build Gods house 1. Conditionall It was revealed to David that God would have an house built therefore David might conditionally purpose to build it so it was Gods will he should be the man This wanteth not Gods word We may desire what ever may promove Gods glory conditionally As that Petition teacheth Thy Kingdom come This was recommended of God and approved 2 Kin. 8. 17. 2. A resolute will upon Nathans mistake the blinde leading the blinde this was not Commanded though the desire of the end was good that is that a house should be built Morton 16. It was Lawfull upon common equity considering Gods mercy to him in subduing his enemies and that he dwelt in Cedars whereas God wanted an house but he could not actually perform it without Gods word So Burges Ans 1. The consequence without Gods word is as good to conclude that David might actually build Gods house as to will and purpose to build it Because the word is a perfect rule to our thoughts and purposes no lesse then to our actions if to build without Gods Word was unlawfull Ergo to purpose this without Gods Word was unlawfull A purpose of sin as of Adultery is sin a purpose of will worship is will-worship and sin 2. A man of blood is as unfit to purpose to be a type of a peaceable Saviour as to be a type of a Saviour 3. If God reprove Samuels light for judging according to the eye 1 Sam. 16. 7. Far more he rebuketh his purpose to Anoint a man without his word Who giveth Kingdoms to whom he pleaseth Yet Samuel had a good intention and Gods word in generall that one of Iesse's Sons should be King 4. Iâ— that good purpose had remained with David deliberately to build the Lords house after the Lord had said Solomon not David must build the house it would have been sinfull yet the reasons upon common equity and a generall warrant that God would have an house had been as good as before if Mortons consequence be once good it s ever good 5. By this without the warrant of the Word we may purpose to glorifie God The Baptist without Gods warrant may purpose a New Sacrament Cajaphas may purpose that he shall be the man who shall dye for the people I may purpose to glorifie God by a thousand new means of worshipping Papists have good intentions in all they do 6. A purpose of heart is an inward substantiall worship warranted by Gods Word Psal 19. 14. Psal 50. 21. Psal 74. 11. Ier. 4. 14. Gen. 8. 2. Eccles 2 3. Isa 55. 7. Ergo The word is not a rule in substantiall and Morall Duties heart-purposes cannot be indifferent heart-ceremonies 7. David needed not aske counsell at Gods mouth and word for an indifferent heart-purpose grounded upon sufficient warrant of common equity whether he should act it or noâ— that which warranteth the good purpose warranteth the enacting of the good purpose 8. Who knoweth if God rewardeth additions to the word with a sure house and all indifferent Ceremonies All additions to Gods Word are unlawfull Deut. 4 â— Deut. 12. 32. Prov. 30. 6. Rev. 22. 18. Ioh. 20. 31. Luk. 16. 29 30. 2 Tim 3 17. Psalme 19. 7 8. So Basilius Hieron Cyprian Chrysostome Procopius Turtullian All the Fathers all Protestant Divines opposing Traditions put their seal and Pen to the plenitude of Scripture But humane Rites are Additions to Gods word Morton and Burges say God forbiddeth in the foresaid places additions of any thing as Divine and a part of Gods Word or additions contrary to Gods Word and corrupting the sense thereof but not additions perfecting and â—â—â—plaining his Word aâ— Commentaries and Annotations of the text So do Papists Answer Duvallius a Sorbonist He forbiddeth other new Sacrifices as of the Gentiles who offered their Sons and Daughters So Valentia Vasquez Bellarmine Suarez Cajetan They are not added which the Church addeth they are from the spirit of God So Bannes but all these do elude not expound the Texts 1. Because if the Iewish Princes had Commanded Arbitrary and conditionall Arâ—s Sacrifices places of worship so they addâ— not heathenish and wicked as the Gentiles Sacrificing their Children they had noâ— failed by this answer yet
Aristotle faith well in an indivisible point It is a non-consequence and so mens will is the best house that Ceremonies are descended of If they can be proved by a necessary and infallible consequence we desire to hear it for it must be thus or the like Things not contrary to the Word and commanded as apt to edifie may be Lawfull Arbitrary Worship But Ceremonies are such Ergo the Proposition is not true because Rulers judge either such things apt to edifie because they see them to be so in themselves or because they judge them to be so in themselves therefore they are so in themselves the former cannot be said because this light whereby Rulers see Ceremonies to be apt to edifie is either light of Scripture or nature or both If this be said they can make others see this light Also if there be goodnesse and aptitude to edifie souls in Ceremonies by natures light sound reason or the Word of God they cannot be Arbitrary or indifferent worship but must be essentiall worship having warrant and Commandment from God for what natures light or Scripture Commandeth that God himself Commandeth and what God Commandeth is essentiall not Arbitrary worship 2. And secondly they are not Arbitrary things but necessary and Lawfull by natures light by Scripture or both which they deny if the latter be true then is the will of Rulers that which maketh Ceremonies good and Lawfull aâ—â—in and blasphemous assertion for Pope or Prince or mens pleasure finde pre-existent goodnesse and Lawfulnesse in things and they do not make them good It is proper to God alone who calleth things that are not to create both beings and goodnesse of beings 5. If Arbitrary goodnesse and Lawfulnesse of Ceremonies be thus warrantable because nor contrary to the word and esteemed Arbitrary I might fail against the first four Commandments by superstition and idolary so I esteem these to wit Idolatry and superstition Arbitrary and not of Divine necessity and yet in so doing I should neither sin nor commit acts of false worship because superstition and Idolatry are indeed forbidden but superstition and Idolatry with the opinion that they have neither holinesse merit nor Divine necessity but are meerly Arbitrary are no where forbidden in the word Let Formalists by their grounds shew us a Scripture for it for they cannot by their Doctrine be forbidden as false worship seeing they want that which essentially constituteth false worship as they teach for they as the Argument supposeth want opinion of necessity Divine merit and holinesse 6. If the Churches will commanding Crossing and Surplice make them Lawfull then their forbidding them shall make them unlawfull and mans will shall be a Pope and God 7. If Rulers conclude them Lawfull then either upon Nationall reasons concerning Britain rather then other Nations or upon reasons immutable eternal if the latter be said they be essential worship not Arbitrary if the former be said they be more apt to stir up the dull senses of Brittish men then otheâ—s which is a dream Dull senses are alike every where sin originall alike in all places and God in his perfect word hath provided alike remedies against naturall dulnesse to all mankinde else we in Britaine do supererogate and the word must be perfect to some Nations in that which is common to all and not to others 8. By as good reason Arbitrary mercy and Arbittary justice is holden as Arbitrary worship for the Lords word is as perfect in works of charity for the second Table as in works of Religion for the first and if so be then it were in mens will to do things conducing for the murthering or not murthering of our brethren of their own wit and will without the word of God and there should be some lawfull acts of will-love or will-murther 9. Laws oblige as Papists grant as Driedo and Vasquez say after Gerson Occam Almain and other Papists from the goodnesse of the matter commanded in the Law not from the will of the Law-giver If then the generall will and command of God constitute Arbitrary worship this worship from Gods will layeth a band on the conscience no lesse then essentiall worship For Hezechiah is no lesse obliged in conscience to apply Figs to his boyle and Moses to make every little ring in the Tabernacle when God commandeth these then the Prophets are to write Canonick Scripture for Gods Authority in Commanding is equall in all though in respect of the matter there be great things and lesse things of the Law therefore Gods generall permissive-will doth no lesse oblige the conscience then his approving will 10. To this Arbitrary worship agreeth all the properties of will-worship as 1 Colos 2. 18. It beguileth us of our reward for no promise of God is made of a Bishoprick for conformity 2. It is will-humility to be devouter then God willeth us 3. It intrudeth in things not known in the word 4. It holdeth not the head Christ for it maketh him not a perfect Law-giver if Prelares under him give Laws added to his word and that after the Traditions of men 5. It inthralleth men dead with Christ to a yoak They object But not to yoak upon the conscience Answer yea but we are in Christ freed also from the externall yoak as from shedding of blood in Circumcision removall out of the Campe seven dayes many Ceremoniall Sabbaths presenting of the male-children and going up to sacrifica at Jerusalem yea expensive offerings all called burdens Act. 15. 10. Col. 2. 20. Gal 4. 3 4 5. Col. 2. 14. 15. And multiplied holy dayes Surplice Crossing keeping us in that same bondage though lesse they may say Magis minus non variant speciem 6. This worship perisheth vvith the use 7. Subjecteth us to the Ordinances of men 8. Hath a shew of wisdom Mr. Burges saith Some will-worship iâ— not unlavvfull aâ— three Sermons in one day The free-vvill offerings and vows vvere in some sort vvill-Worship The Church at her godly discretion and will may appoint some Formalities to attend the Worship Answer Gregor de valent saith That some Idolatry is Lawfull some unlawfull This man saith some will-worship is lawfull some unlawfull that is some sin is Lawfull some unlawfull 2. Three preachings come from zeal not from will and is no new worship different from preaching and there may be reason therefore where all cannot be present in one day at all the three there is reason for three preachings none for Crossing 3. Will as will is carver of will-worship Will createth not the worship but determineth the circumstances according to the light of reason in Lawfull worship But where will as will void of reason hath influence in the worship it is wills brood 4 The Freewill offerings were determined by God the poor should offer a pair of Doves in the Free-will offering But the rich a Lamb and it was sin for the rich to offer a pair of doves and therefore
all our Ceremonies might have been Comprehended in one Chapter of the Revelation if God had thought good to Honour them with inserting them in the Canon 3. He hath determined these by natures light and prudence which dwelleth with that light revealed in the Word That a Bishop be thus qualified as 1 Tim. 3. is Morall and determined but that they call him John Thomas and be of such Parents Country stature of body is Physicall and in Christs wisdom is not determined nor could it be conveninetly Lastly that generall permissive will of God is good for all the Ceremonies of Rome taught by Papists As for ours as Suarez de Trip lic virt tract 1. disp 2. Sect. 6. n. 3. Dicendum fidem quoad substantiam credibilium semper fuisse eandem a principio generis humani And so faith Alensis 3. p. q. 69. Lombard 3. dist 25. and Durandus 3. dist 25. Bonaventura 16. Art 2. q. 1. Hugo de sancto victore de sacram â— 1. part 10. cap. 4. This they have from the Fathers Vincentius Lyrinensis coâ—t prop. voc nov cap. 37. Jreneus contr hereticos lib. 3. cap. 2. Hyerom in Psal 86. Aug. de civitate Dei lib. 11. cap. 3. lib. 14. cap. 7. Chrysost de Lazero homil 4. Cyprianus sermone de Baptismo Optatus Milevitanus contr parmeni de caelo l. 5. And I might cite many others who all affirm All truth Divine is in Scripture all not in Scripture is to be rejected So Suarez de leg tom 4. cap. 1. Haec enim praecepta Ecclesiastica pro universali Ecclesia tantum sunt quatuor qut quinque quae solum sunt determinationes quaedam juris Divini moraliter necessaria homini Reliqua omnia vel pertinent ad particulares status qui voluntarie suscipiuntur vel ad ordinem judicialâ—m Et idâ—m contra seotae Anglica Erro lib. 2. cap. 16. Dicimus authoritatem Dei in benedictione Campanarum non de esse saltem in radice origine quia ipse dedit authoritatem Pastoribus Ecclesiae ad regendam Ecclesiam disponenda eaequae ad accidentarios ritus Ecclesiae pertinent Bannes tom 3. in 22. q. 10. dub 2. Notandum quod neque Pontifex neque tota Ecclesia possunt novum articulum novum dogma quoad substantiam aut novum Sacramentum instituere Andr. Duvallius in 2. de legib q. 4. Art 2. Ceremoniae judicialia in vetere lege erant juris Divini in Nova lege sunt juris tantum Ecclesiastici And Valdensis de Doctrina fidei l. 2. cap. 22. Ecclesia non potest Novum articulum proponere So Alphas a Castro in summa lib. 1. cap. 8. And Canus loc lib. 2. cap. 7. Cameracensis 2. sentent q. 1. Art 1. Principia Theologia sunt ipsae sâ—cri Canonis veritates quoniam adipsa fit ultima resolutiâ— Theologici discursus ex iis primo singulae propositiones Theologiae deducuntur V. Conclus Matters of fact are not and need not be proved by Scripture 1. Because sense maketh them known to us 2. Their Morality is sufficiently known from Gods Word 3. In matters offact there may be invincible ignorance Christs Resurrection is not a matter of fact as Hugo Grotius saith but also a matter of Law as all the miracles and Histories in the Word and to be believed because God hath so spoken in the Word QUEST III. Whether Ceremonies have any Divinity in them ALL means of worship devised by men pretending holinesse by teaching exciting our dull affections to Devotion as if they were powerfull means of grace and did lay a band on the conscience when as yet they be no such thing and want all warrant from God and are contrary to devotion are unlawfull But humane Ceremonies be such Ergo The Proposition is certain I prove the Assumption by parts 1. Whatever holinesse be pretended to be in Ceremonies yet God onely sanctifieth people offices in his house as the sons of Aaron Altars Temples Vestures Sacrifices by his expresse institution as we are taught yet are Ceremonies holy their Author be the Apostles successours 2. Their end to honour God 3. Their matter is not civill or naturall 4. Their signification mysticall is Religious 2. They be means of teaching and stirring up the dull affections to the remembrance of duties by some notable and speciall signification whereby the beholders may be edified and since to stir up the minde as a memorative object be the word of Gods due property or the works of Providence and Creation would not a Prelat in his Epistle to his under-Pastors speak Peter-like as 2 Pet. 1. 13. I think it meet so long as I am in this Tabernacle to stir up your dull mindes by way of remembrance to your Christian duty by Crossing kneeling to Gods board and Altar and Surplice To be memorials were due to Phylacteries Commanded in the Law to minde heavenly duties Numb 15. 38 39. Deut. 22. 12. And the twelve stones set up by Gods speciall Commandment Ioshu 4. 2 3. to be a memoriall of their miraculous entry into the holy Land and Manna Commanded to be kept in the Ark as a sign of Gods feeding his people with Christ the bread of life Joh. 6. 48 49. 51. are Ordinances of God to call to remembrance duties and speciall mercies And Sacraments do signifie as tokens ordained of God Gen. 17. 11. Gen. 9. 13. Heb. 9. 8. The Holy Ghost thus signifying that the way to the holiest was not yet made manifest So Heb. 8. 5. Heb. 10. 1. And so must it be here said The holy Prelats thus signifying that Crossing should betoken the childes dedication to Christs service So Hooker Actions leave a more deep and strong impression then the word What blasphemy that Crossing and Surplice leave a deeper impression in the soul then Gods Word the power of God to salvation Rom. 1. 16. And mighty through God to cast down strong holds in the soul 2 Cor. 10. 4 I wonder if Crossing Capping kneeling to stocks can bring every thought Captive to the Obedience of Christ 3. It is essentiall to the word to teach and make wise the simple Psal 19. 7. Psal 119. 99. Prov. 6. 23. And Ceremonies are made Symbolicall and Religious teaching signes yet is the stock called a Doctrine of lies Jer. 10. 8. Habac. 2. 18. Though it teach and represent the same Iehovah that the Word teacheth Isa 40. 18. So it is not a living teacher because it representeth a false god or not the true God for the true Iehovah saith To whom will ye liken me But now the stock by mans institution took on it without a warrant from God to represent God Now if God had warranted the stock to be an image representing God as he warranteth the Temple the Ark Bread and Wine to be images and representations of the true God Iesus Christ the stock should be a Doctrine of truth and not of lies so Surplice is a Doctrine of lies not
we be all one body in Christ 1 Cor. 10. 16. 2. If he mean Ceremonies as such speciall materialls to wit Surplice c. as ordained of man who may ordain another Ceremony doth not immediatly respect the honour of God 1. This is to beg the question 2. A white garment upon a priest of Jupiter Sacrificing to that Idoll should immediatly respect the honour of Iupiter though the Priest might honour Iupiter with garments of white Roses or some other like device while he officiateth So bowing of the knee in prayer doth immediatly honour God though I may pray sitting or standing 3. It is a dream that the honour of the subject is given to the adjunct yea and properly is the adjunct and agreeth to the adjunct as Surplice hath the very Office and place of Gods word and Sacramentâ— to teach and signifie and yet they are but adjuncts if a mans Coat or his Hat or Shooes could discourse and reason as only the man can do in reason we should say the Coat is the man 2. They say God forbiddeth efficient and operative means of worship and grace in the second Commandment or means immediate which worketh by vertue in themselves or wrapped in them for so the word and Sacraments are means of grace and worship yea the Sacraments be exhibitive seals and therefore we owe to such means subjection of conscience immediatly both to the things instituted and particular means of admonition and to the duties admonished or called to our remembrance by them for they have vertue residing and inherent in them by divine institution to work upon us But God forbiddeth not in the second Commandment means that teach occasionally as Objectum a quo therefore we owe subjection of conscience to the things admonished but not to the particular means of admonition therefore we are tied in conscience to Ceremonies only collaterally and propter aliud they be only externall objects or occasions For whoever saith he expected that men should be stirred up by Ceremonies as by causes or any otherwayes but as by sensible objects as we are by the sight of the creatures or other memorials therefore saith he they are not means by the which grace is wrought by the power of God wrapped in them but resident in God himself that freely giveth the grace by the right use of them so D. Burges Ans All cometh to this Ceremonies taketh the place of Word and Sacraments but cannot fill the chaire and discharge the office so well as Gods Ordinances doth A Clown taketh on the Crown and usurpeth the Throne and cannot do Regall Acts with such grace of Royall Majesty as the Lawfull King what is he for that no usurping Traitor 2. He will not have Ceremonies to be causes of worship but occasions so do Papists say Images saith Vasquez do only set before us the History and effects of God Bellarmine Suarez as all know do say That Images cannot so represent Iehovah as he is in himself or described in his word nor can the Idoll or Image of God represent God as a cause but onely as an object externall and occasion and yet God forbiddeth it Isa 40. 18. Hab. 2. 19. 20. 2. Gods word to the reprobate is a sealed Book and is as if you would teach letters to a new weaned childe Isa 29. 11. c. 29. 9. It worketh by no inherent vertue wrapped in it self but though it be mighty yet is it mighty through God 2 Cor. 10. 4. Ioshuahs twelve stones the Phylacteries the Manna the Rainbow did only as Aquinas saith well worke upon the senses and memory The word it self doth but work morally or objectively and is not a cause having the power of God wrapped in it If Surplice work only as an occasion the Preachers Napkin the bands of women doth so excite the memory and the affection 3. All our Divines teach that the Sacraments are exhibitive seals but not of themselves or by any vertue inherent in them as Papists say but by the power of God which worketh by the right receiving of the Sacraments and the Sacraments Actu Primo and essentially are only signes which worketh objectively and occasionally as you say your unhallowed Ceremonies do 1. because they are Sacraments essentially whether they be received by Faith or not and they are exhibitive seals only to believers 2. Vnbelievers should not prophane the Sacraments by their unworthy receiving of them if they were not Sacraments to them only signifying and if they were exhibiting seals to them then should they receive them worthily which is against what we suppose 3. The Fathers as Justine Martyr Ireneus Epiphanius Chrysostom Ambrose prove that Circumcision in its nature except to believers did only signifie Grace 5. Here be a most vilde distinction That we owe subjection of conscience to the thing admonished but not to Surplice or to such means and particular admonishers but only collaterally But â— is the Church ordaining Ceremonies a collaterall Mistresse over the conscience who is the other collaterall judge here who but Christ 2. We owe this collaterall subjection of Conscience to the Image of the Trinity for though we owe not subjection of Conscience to the image as such an admonisher or such an exhorting object seeing the Word of God may also admonish us of God yet we owe subjection of conscience to the thing admonished to wit to the blessed trinity 3. Neither owe we subjection of conscience to the word as written with ink on paper nor to the sound of the word Preached yea nor do we owe subjection of Faith to the Word as the Word but only collaterall when we say I hope in the Word I believe the Word I rejoyce in the Word of God we take the Word for Objetum quo and God for Objectum quod for the word is not the formall object of any subjection of Conscience I owe to the Word not a subjection of Conscience collaterall or coequall with the subjection that I owe to God but only subordinate as to a mean and to the Word for God and because it is instituted by God but I owe subjection of Conscience to God solely independently and onely yea subjection of Conscience is not due to the Word for its manner of working and not due to the Ceremonies because they work not as the Word of God doth as no wonder they being but hay and stubble but subjection of Conscience is due to the Word because God is the Author of it and speaketh in it himself as is clear Ier. 13. 15. Amos 3. 8. Heb. 2. 3. Hear for the Lord hath spoken and it is to be received only and in Conscience yielded unto as it is the Word of God Isa 1. 2. 1 Thess 2. 13. Now because we cannot receive the Surplice Crossing Capping as the Surplice of God and as the Crossing of Christ therefore are we not to submit at all to the Doctrines which these
his glory laid down in the hand of any creature as it dishonoureth the Husband that his wife give her body to another representing his person For this cause Bernardus Puiol faith Images are properly to be Adored contrary to that which Durandus saith And Azorius saith It is the common opinion that Images are to be worshipped with Latreia the highest honour due to God So saith he Thomas Alexander Bonaventura Richardus Albertus Paludanus Alman Marsilius Capreolus Cajetanus caeteri juniores sic sentiunt The fourth expression of wit is this distinction of Vasquez That that internall submission to God as to the Creator and chief God is due to God only and that the image seeing it is a Creature is not capable of that high honour But the externall act of kissing and kneeling he will have due to the image for the excellency of the Samplar And so he denyeth contrary to Suarez That the image separated from the Samplar or the humanity of Christ separated from Divinity can be Adored But if externall Adoration may be given to images so also internall submission Thou shalt not bow down to them Religiously it is expounded in the second Commandment Thou shalt not Worship them It is grossenesse in Vasquez to say The Worshipping of images was forbidden the Iews in the second Commandment as a Ceremoniall inhibition because of the Iews propension to idolatry But Act. 17. 29. Paul expoundeth the second Commandment Forbidding the similitude of God And the Athenians were not under the Law of Ceremonies Ioannes de Lugo saith This is a probable opinion But it is clear Cornelius a devout man one who feared and worshipped God whose Prayers were heard in heaven for Christs sake knew that Peter was a man which lodged in the house of Simon a Tanner yet his Religious externall bowing though he knew Peter was not God but a Divine man resembling God by Peter is rebuked as idolatry Act. 10. v. 25 26. I cannot help Ioan. de Lugo to say That Peter forbade Cornelius to worship him not because it was a sin but for modesties cause But 1. Peters Argument striketh against idolatry ver 26. Stand up he forbiddeth Religious kneeling for I my self also a man The very Argument that Paul and Barnabas useth Act. 14. â—er 15. We also are men c. and used against the idolatry of Lystra expresly condemned in that place And the Angels Argument against the idolatry of Iohn Rev. 19. 10. I am thy fellow servant Worship God Ergo externall Religious bowing should not be given to any save to God 2. Peter and the Angel should have opened the Jesuits and Formalists distinction if worshipping of Saints and dumbe images be worshipping of God and the honour principally of inward acknowledgment of the Supremacy and Soveraignty of God be intended in bowing to images and modesty should not forbid honouring of God And whereas Ioannes de Lugo saith Iohn was forbidden to Worship the Angel to signifie that our nature in Christ was advanced to a dignity above the Angels But 1. then it is unlawfull to any to worship Angels 2. Nor is it Lawfull to give the Virgine Mary Divine worship as Suarez saith 1. For her excellency in touching Christ 2. For her Grace and Sanctity 3. For her mothers place in bearing Christ because her nature in Christ is not exalted above the nature of other believers for the nature common to all believers and Eadem specie was assumed by Christ 3. The Angel saith Worship God he therefore believed the Worshipping of Angels was not the Worshipping of God All these fight against Religious bowing before the elements in due regard of so Divine mysteries the Bread would say if it could speak See thou do it not for I also am a Creature The fifth trick of wit is a distinction of Suarez That one and the same act of Adoration may be given and is given in externall Worship to the image and to God but in reference to God it is Latreia the high Honouring of God and in reference to the image it is an inferior Veneration So do our Formalists say as Burges saith Adoration and Veneration differ not but by mens will and if it be lawfull to Adore God before the Ark Why not at the Sacrament The Bread and the Wine are Christ significative as the Ark had the title of Iehovah by occasion of the elements not as they are but as they signify we may tender a knee-worship not at all to them but only to God or Christ And again he holdeth it lawfull to Adore the elements but then Adoration as given to the elements is Veneration and Adoration in a large sence 1 Chron. 29. 20. The people Worshipped God and the King The outward Adoration was one as the word by which it is expressed was one but the Religious and Civill worship were distinct in the minde and intention of the worshippers Edward the 6. Book saith Kneeling is to eschew prophaning of the Sacrament Opposit to prophaning is externall Religious honouring expressed by kneeling and that is Adoring Hence one and that same Adoration and externall bowing is given to Bread and to Christ but the minde and will of the Adorer maketh the same act in reference to Christ Adoration or Latreia of the highest degree of honour but in reference to the Bread lawfull Veneration of an inferior nature Answer 1. If it were possible that the Wise could transmit her body in the act of Harlotry by or through a strange Lover to her Husband her will and minde might change Adultery if she saith she giveth her body to a stranger but in her minde and will intendeth to bring forth children to her own Husband So if divers acts of the minde make Religious kneeling to a stock or Bread lawfull if one should Adore the man Iudas as a memoriall of Christ his intention of will might save his Soul if he say I give one and the same externall worship to Iudas and to Christ Or if Cornelius should say I give one and the same knee worship to Peter and to Christ but in my intention they be far different For I Worship Iudas and Peter in that act with Civill homage Commanded in the fifth Commandment as they be Christs Apostles and represent him but in that same I Worship Christ with the highest honour called Latreia Vasquez and Burges make them one externall Worship The three Children might have kneeled to the Image of Nebuchadnezzer for their minde and will as Formalists say might have put another signification of honouring the Lord Iehovah upon their knee-worship and externall kneeling could not have been denyed to the Lord Iehovah and so the three Children should not have given Divine honour and knee-glory to the Image and they were fooles who did hazard their bodies to the fire But wisemen think if they had given knee-worship what ever their heart thought they should
or more brethren and a Church of brethren whose helpe he may seeke to gaine a brother it is cleare he must speake of a Church-gaining or of a gaining in order to a Church and not with reference to any civill Sanedrim or Court of Magistrates Object 3. The place saith Erastus is to be understood of lighter faults for which one brother may pardon another and which a private brother hath power to conceale it cannot therefore in good sense be extended to weighty scandals that are to be punished with Excommunication Ans 1. A fault may be light and small in its rise so long as it is private which deserveth not excommunication but if contumacie shall come to the fault as it is here in its growth and tendencie to scandalize many it is not small 2. A private fault is not hence concluded to be small because a brother may pardon it and conconceale it For Christ saith to scandalize on of the least of these that beleeveth in him is so great an offence that it were good for the man so offending to be cast in the Sea having a milstone hanged about his necke ver 6. And yet a brother is to forgive such an offence Luke 17. 2 3 4. 3. In that a brother is obliged to gaine his brother from this fault it is cleare it is not so small a fault and 2. Because it is a fault to be brought to the Church and 3. If the Offender remaine obstinate he is therefore to be esteemed as an Heathen and a Publican or as no brother nor any member of the Church and 4. This sinne is bound in earth and heaven 5. The text will not bear that all weigh y faults such as Muâ—ther that defileth the Land or solicitation to follow strange Gods may be transacted betweene brother and brother and concealed Deut. 13. 8. Though Ioseph be in this called a just man as Beza observeth in that he would not make Mary his wife a publike example nor reveale her Adultery which was by the Law to be punished by death for so Ioseph conceived of her Tell the Church that is saith Erastus tell the civill Synedry of the Iewes and therefore this place is nothing for excommunication or any Spirituall Church Discipline and if the Offendor refuse to heare the Orthodoxe Magistrate then may the offended brother plead his right before the Heathen Magistrate and deale with the Offendor as with a Heathen and a Publican Answ In the Word of God the word Ecclesia Church applyed to matters of Religion as it is evidently here where it is said that the offended brother is to labour to gaine the soule of his offending brother doth never signifie a civill judicature and therefore the exposition is insolent and the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can never beare such a sense we desire one paralell place in the old or new Testament for it 2. The scope of the place is the removall of scandals in Christs meek brotherly and Christian way ver 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Who ever shall scandalize c. and ver 7. Wo to the world because of offences ver 8. Wherefore if thy hand or foot 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cause thee to offend cut them off ver 10. Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones c. And then he cometh from active scandals whereby we offend others and the way of removall of them to passive scandals whereby others offendeth us and the way of removall of them ver 15. Moreover if thy brother shall trespasse against thee go tell him the fault betvveen thee and him Now these sins that are to be punished by the sword of the Civill Magistrate or not such sins as may be transacted between brother and brother for homicide blasphemy sorcery extortion are to be taken away by the publick sword and this must have place Thou shalt not conceal it thy eye shall not spare him and the Magistrate is the minister of God a revenger to execute wrath on him that doth evil Rom. 13. 4. 3. Christ hinteth not in any sort at any word of blood wrath vengeance the sword evil doing fear and terrour for the sword such as are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the office of the civil magistrate is holden forth to us in other places as Rom. 13. 1 Pet. 2. No man except he intended violence to the text can dream of such a latent forrain and co-acted sense in the words and if such a sense had been intended by our Saviour he behoved in this place to erect a throne from a divine institution for the Magistrate which no impartiall interpreter can with any half side of a shadow perceive in the words 4. The end of this processe is spirituall If he hear thee thou hast gained thy brother to repentance as is confirmed already from Scripture But whether the offender be gained to repentance or not the Magistrate is to use the sword that others may fear as a Magistrate he is to regard the peace of the Common-wealth not the salvation of the offender directly 5. Christs way of proceeding to take away scandals between brother and brother is spirituall Tell him admonish the offender tell the Church that they may rebuke and admonish and this is a Morall way all along But the Magistrates proceeding is not Morall by requests orations admonitions but by the reall use of the sword to compell for he beareth not the sword in vain Rom. 13. 4. 6. The proceeding here is with much lenity patience and long suffering to gain an offender but having recourse to the Magistrate to use his club and sword is rather a way of irritation to make the gap the wider and therefore Paul 1 Cor. 6. condemnes this as repugnant to love that they should go to law one with another before the heathen Magistrate 7. Such an expression as this Let him to thee as an heathen man and a Publican is never taken for the civill complaining of him before an Heathen judge nor doth it expresse the use of the sword by the Magistrate it s so insolent a phrase that all the Greek Authors that ever wrote cannot parallel it for this is a Spirituall and Morall reproach put on the offender the Magistrates way is a reall inflicting of punishment 8. This remedy is contrary to Pauls 1 Cor. 6. For there the offended brother though the offending party be never so contumacious hath not this remedy of Christs to implead his brother before an heathen Magistrate that the Apostle taketh for a sinfull scandall and sin cannot be Christs remedy Pauls remedy is Suffer rather wrong and defraudation Paul by this interpretation should have commanded them the contrary 9. Where is ever the supreame Magistrate who cannot be excluded if this exposition stand called by the name of the Church 10. How incongruous is it
2. He saith indefinitè If thy brother shall trespasse against thee this is comprehensive of all offences 3. Hee speakes of such offences from which I am to gaine my brother Verse 15. But I am to gaine him from all great or small 4. He speaketh of such as I must bring before the Church in case of my brothers obstinacy but that is comprehensive of all verse 17. 5. He speaketh of such as are bound in heaven these be great and small verse 19. 6. He speakes of such as I must forgive v. 15. but I must forgive all to seventy seven times as Luke 17. 7. He speaketh of such as being persisted in maketh a brother no brother but as a Heathen and a Publican but great and publike Scandals rather doe this then small and private ones Erastus The sense is when thy brother that is any Iew doth thee an injurie study to reconcile him to thee thy self alone if thou speed not so assay the same before two or three Witnesses but if neither so thou can free thy self of injurie tell the Synedrie that is tell the Magistrate of thy people or thy own Religion but if he will not heare the Magistrate then thou mayest without the offence of any deale against him as a Publican and aninjurious Heathen who will acknowledge onely the Roman judicature and pursue him there Ans If this be the sense it is farther from the understanding many miles then the words a common reader may come after and finde a more native sense 1. If thy brother offend thee c. should not be restricted to the Iews onely nor the Gentiles onely the Disciples for the most were Gentiles and neerer Christians then Iewes 2. Brother is as large as the offender as those of the Church 3. As large as the offender to be gained Paul was to doe what he could to gaine Iewes and Gentiles and both may offend 2. Christs scope is not so much to free the Plaintiffe from injuries it is a carnall like glosse as to remove Scandals and Stumbling blocks out of the way of both and gaine the offenders soule Observe that the Exposition of Erastus is so wilde that sense scriptures or Greeke Authors cannot dream that let him be as a Heathen can be in sense all one with this Pursue him for his injury before the Roman judicatures But the Exposition we give according to the word in its first notion doth offer it selfe to the understanding For Let him be to thee as an Heathen is let him be counted as one that is without the Church and not of the people of God as the word Heathen is tâ—â—en Levit. 25. 44. 2 King 17. 8. Psal 2. 1. Psal 44. 2. Psal 46. 6. Jer. 9. 16. Lam. 1. 3. Ezek. 20. 23. Lam. 1. 10. Act. 4. 27. Cor. 5. 1. Eph. 2. 11. 1 Thes 4. 5. 1 Pet. 2. 12. Rev. 11. 12. 3. It will be long ere Scripture make a parallell to this Tell the Church that is Tell the King tell the civill judge that is tell not the Church For the Church dealeth with spirituall Armour and the King is not the Church 2. with no force or violence but the word and discipline 3. with the mans conscience to gain the man to repentance for so all Christs three steps is to save the soul and to gain him to repentance Erastus layes a good Iron club over the offenders shoulders and brings the offender to a Civilian to whom Christ never committed the Gospel What shall the justice of peace preach Christ to the offender and wield the rod of Christs power out of Zion to him Is there no way but that to gain a soul 2. He brings him to one who hath no weapon to a Magistrate but a weapon of steel the sharp sword or 3. will this Magistrate not labour to gain him which clearly is Christs intent O he is greedy in his stairs to have the lost gained as is ver 11. 12. then Christ misseth his end But whether the man repent or no saith Erastus the Magistrate as such must cudgell the offender 4. It is admirable that Let him be to thee as a publican and a Heathen must be a new Judicature and this is to drive him to Cesars Tribunall a strange glosse but 1. This will loose him out of hand will Nero and the Heathen judge Preach him back a submissive Lamb to the Iews But. 2. How do you this Citrà offensionem without scandalizing Paul cannot advise what Erastus doth he thinks Christians should rather suffer injuries then to implead a brother before a Heathen judge 1 Cor. 6. Yea but ere you suffer so saith Erastus cause him to compear and answer the highest Heathen judge on earth to teach him better manners This is a vindictive-like way 2. Scandalous heathens will say See how these Disciples of Jesus agree 3. It s the highest rupture of love 1 Cor. 6. Erastus By my exposition I do not as Beza saith take away a brotherly pardoning of all injuries for though Christ teach us how to compose and remove only private iniuries piously and without the scandalizing of the vveak it followeth not therefore Christ teacheth that only private injuries are to be pardoned doth Christ teach no other thing I never thought that only light injuries are to 〈◊〉 pardoned when either we chide him or he vvillingly acknovvledge his fault vve are to pardon him for if vve must bring a small injury to the Church far more must vve bring a greater injury Ans 1. Christ would so many injuries to be pardoned as is comprehended in this generall If thy brother trespasse against thee rebuke him but this comprehendeth great injuries and all injurieâ— It being as Erastus saith parallel to Lev. 19. 18. Thou shalt not suffer sin in thy Brother What must we not suffer a small sin in our Brother because that were to hate him in our heart But we may suffer great sins in him and not rebuke him yet that should not be hatred of our Brother 2. Christ is not only teaching how to remove scandals but how to remove them by gaining our Brother even by telling the Church If need be that they may labour to gain him also if one brother and if one with two or three witnesses cannot gain him to repentance and so he would have all injuries pardoned out of which we are to gain our brother 3. It is too narrow a compasse to which Erastus draweth Christ in his words only to remove the scandall without offending the weak to labour to remove only petty scandals and not great yea and publick to our whole Church 4. Erastus seemeth to imagine if we draw our brother before the Church that is the Civill Magistrate we do not then forgive him it being now a great injury but he is deceived we are to forgive our brother and to pray for his forgivenesse even when we make the offence publick and when he repenteth not
punished then so Erastus I call them light faults only compared with crimes punished by the Law Ans Such as contumaciously defended makes a man none of Christs but the prophanest living yea of a believing Jew an Apostate and a Heathen deserveth to be punished by the judge Erastus If the offended be willinger to suffer the injury then to compeer before a heathen judge he may Ans There be no smell of an Heathen or Roman Judge in the Text Id Erastus adjecit de suo 2. It is not free to gain or not gain my brothers soul or obey Christs command or not obey it Paul 1 Cor. 6. forbiddeth us to implead our brethren before Heathen Judges Erastus saith Christ commandeth the contrary Erastus answers Paul saith in these that are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in smaller matters as of goods we should not Ans It s true Paul giveth instance in those that he calleth things of this life but in opposition to the great matter of Judging the world and Angels 2. Paul saith generally Ye go to law one vvith another 1 Cor. 6. 1 2 3 4. And he esteemeth it such a fault that he saith of it v. 9. Knovv ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God Erastus Paul himself appealed to a heathen judge Cesar Ans True but not for small offences falling out seventy seven times a day for which the Magistrate will not punish such as these offences be saith Erastus pag. 181. pag. 28. Thes 42. But being accused of a high crime of life and death 2. He appealed not from a godly Magistracy such as the Synedâ—y holdeth forth but from bloody judges 3. In matters not with Saints as 1 Cor. 6. And brethren to whom you are to grant pardons seven and seventy seven times a day but with Blasphemers and Murtherers of Christ Act. 18. 6. 1 Thes 2. 15. Erastus Christ teacheth how private iniuries may be removed vvithout offence by the Magistrate but not hovv vve may reduce to repentance a brother that giveth scandall Ans There 's not a footstep of injuries or Magistrate or sword in the Text 2. ver 7. And all along he speaketh of scandalls that may hinder our entring to heaven and these words rebuke him Thou hast gained thy brother are clear as the Sun that he intendeth the offended in all these steps is to gain the soul of the offender Erastus This is no Argument at all he speaketh of gaining an offending brother Ergo His scope is not to repair any civill losse But I pray you a brother argueth an iniurious man and convinceth him of his error hath he not first gained him to God and then to himself vvhile he maketh him of his enemy his friend can there be a better way of compounding private iniuries if his conscience be healed will he not leave off to be iniurious Ans I may say as he saith to that Apostolick servant of God holy Beza Egregia vero ratiocinatio The question is now touching the scope of Christ Matth. 18. Erastus proveth repairing of civill injuries to be Christs scope and how proveth he it Because he that is gained to God by repentance is a made friend and vvill leave off to do civill vvrongs Iust as if one should say the scope of the holy Ghost in the history of the Creation in the two first chapters of Genesis is to make the Reader a good Philosopher Why because he that understandeth the works of Creation the Heaven Stars Sun Moon Seas dry Land Trees Herbs c. Must not this man be an excellent Astronomer Geographer Physiloge c So may he say the scope of the holy Ghost in the ten Commandments is to make a man an excellent Citizen of London or Paris Why how is that the scope of the ten Commandments by Erastus his Argument What better way can there be to make a good sociall Civilian then if he be well versed in the Doctrine of the ten Commandments so may I say the scope of Paul in the first eleven Chapters of the Epistle to the Romanes is to make a man love his brother why Because if he know God and free justification by faith in Christ and our freedom from the Law and the Doctrine of Election by Free-grace and the like he cannot but love his brother Now how can that be Christs scope which is neither spoken In terminis Nor so much as insinuated Now to gain an offending brother is In terminis spoken ver 15. Thou hast gained thy brother so Erastus granteth this is Christs scope but not his last scope and gaining of his soul he will have but a scope for a civil end to hold off injuries How carnall is the glosâ—e of Erastus Now the scope of Erastus is never spoken never hinted at Erastus cannot deny our scope onely he will not have it the chief scope of the words the best ground he hath for his scope is that Tell the Church is Tell the Civill Magistrate Erastus to put a good face on the businesse saith scanning on the sense of the words Christ therefore saith rebuke him Matth. 18. That we may understand that he is to be convinced of his error and iniquity that he may acknowledge it not onely to us and before men but far more to God and so thou hast gained thy brother and lost him if he refuse to hear thee that is If he suffer not himself to be convinced and do not acknowledge his fault he is bound in Heaven and this is that which I would say this gaining of him is the pardoning of a civill wrong that he may be received in friendship Ans If Christs intenâ—ion be that he may rather acknowledge his fault to God then to the offender as Erastus granteth then Christs scope in these words must be his spirituall gaining to God not a civil depulsion of a civill wrong but the former Erastus granteth 2. If spirituall gaining be intended in all the steps of our Saviours progresse and when this is obtained the progresse doth cease then means rather crossing and thwarting that scope then suitable spiritually thereunto are not to be attempted then is not civill depulsion of injuries our Saviours scope in the words but the former is true Ergo So is the latter the Proposition is evident from the nature of a scope and end in any speech I prove the Assumption by parts 1. If rebuking of an offending brother gain him to repentance then it is clear the offended man is to rest there and not to Tell the Church or Magistrate for he hath obtained even the end for which Erastus contendeth and who goeth about new means to compasse an end already obtained Christ would never command that yea when Christ saith ver 16. If he hear not thee then take with thee one or two more Ergo If he had heard him he was not to take one or two more and ver 17. If he should
Apostate wretched leud Iew. Erastus But I have demonstrated that no man was debarred from holy things for Morall uncleannesse then neither should a Publican be counted a separated man will Christ command him to be cast out whom the Iewes could by no Law cast out Ans If we give the matter to Erastus his word all he sayes are demonstrations Let the reader read and judge 2. All his argument here proceedeth on a false ground while he contendeth so much to justifie Publicans he presumeth to be as a Publican to â—e in our sense all one with this to be excommunicated But 1. we lay the least weight on the word Publican and more on this to be as an heathen 2. We take them not divisively but as Christ speaketh them copulatively We say not to be excommunicated is all one as let him be as a Publican but that to be excommunicated is to be as an Heathen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and as a Publican Erastus The article â— is set before both the word Heathen and the word Publican by the holy Spirit which signifies either the very nature of the predicate heathen and Publican or must put a great Emphasis and a great edge of difference between the Heathen and Publican here and in other places as these be not one Petrus est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 et Petrus est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Peter is a man and Peter is the man or that man So when we say pleasure is that good thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that chiefe happinesse We say more then when we say pleasure is good so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Publican must signifie a Publican as a Publican if there be an Emphasis here common to both the heathen and the Publican now there can be no other thing in the matter of eschewing Scandals common to both but that both acknowledged no other but the Roman Magistrate and therefore except you make to be a Publican to be debarred from the Sacraments all one you have not another place in all the New Testament for your Excommunication for no Publican because a Publican was debarred by Gods Law Jure divino from the Sacraments Ans 2. All the wits on earth cannot make us see another place for Erastus his explication of this place Matth. 18. and of 1 Cor. 5. But we hope it shall appeare we have more from Scripture to say for Excommunication then this one place or then Erastus and all his party can say against it here is all that Erastus can say against this strong place builded upon one Article â— a poore and ignorant Grammattication 1. He culleth out the word Publican of lesse weight with us from the word Heathen and would prove that no Publican because a Publican and for the office was debarred from the Iewish Sacraments which we grant for no office or place lawfull in it selfe debarred any from Christ Centurions were hatefull to the Iewes and put over them by the Romans yet I should conceive the Centurion whose servant Christ cured Luke 7. was a Proselite and a member of the Iewish Church a lover of the Nation else I see not how the Iewes would have accepted that he should build them a Synagogue as he did v 5. and Publicans might have bin Proseliâ—es also but that which was signified by a Publican to the Iews was no lesse odious then the name of a hangman or a most wicked and flagitioâ—s man as Matth. 5. 45 46 47. and by Christ decourted from the number of the children of our heavenly Father Amongst the Iews it was counted abomination to eat with Publicans Matth. 9. 11. Matth. 11. 19. Luk. 7. 34. And when Christ saith Matth. 21. 31. of the Rebellious Iews Verely I say unto you that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the publicans and harlots shall enter into the Kingdom of God before you He clearly maketh Publicans the wickedst of men shall these two 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make us think Erastus were not dreaming if he should from these words gather that Christ meaneth only of such Publicans and Harlots as acknowledged no other Magistrate but the Roman Magistrate And the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is doubled in the following verse also 2. Let us retort this Argument he that heareth not the admonitions of brethren in secret and of the Church in publick is to be reputed not as a Iew or a brother and member of the Church having right to the holy things of God but as a Heathen Now a Heathen to the Iews was no brother and had no right to the Sacraments either of the Iewish or Christian Church as is clear by the word of God therfore he that heareth not a brother in secret or the Church in publick is to be reputed as no brother I mean in that publick visible way he once was but as a Heathen who hath no right Iure divino by Gods Law to the Sacraments 3. What means all this trifling about the Article Say that the Article should restrict Heathens and Publicans to such and such Heathens and Publicans I shall deny In eternum this consequence Ergo He means no other but only such Heathens and Publicans as did acknowledge no other Magistrate but a Roman Magistrate There is no shadow in the Scripture or any Greek author for the Word but rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth the qualitie and spirituall condition of any especially when Christ speaketh of gaining of souls as here Mat. 18. 15. so I am sure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth Ioh. 1. 14. Maâ— 6 â—0 1 Pet. 1. 19. so doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie Mat. 6. 5. and elsewhere enough I deny not but it may signifie a civill or naturall siâ—â—â—â—tude but Christ doth here speake of neither as is cleare 4. If here a Publican as a Publican be meant as Erastus saith Ergo All Heathens and all Publicans are here to be understood Ergo Not these only that had this common to them both to wit that they both acknowledged no civill Magistrate but the Romans the contrary of which Erastus asserteth 5. Yea this is not emphatick and discretive of Heathen and Publican Christ acknowledged no civill Iudge as King over the Iewes at this time but onely Cesar when he said Mat. 22. Give unto Cesar the things that are Cesars and to God the things that are Gods And the Iewes themselves did so when they said We have no King but Cesar If then to be as an Heathen and a Publican bee all one as to acknowledge no King nor judge but Cesar then to be as a Heathen and Publican must be all one with this to be as Christ and the Iewes for this was common to Heathens Publicans Iewes and Christ to acknowledge Cesar was their onely King and civill Judge 6. They were the worst of the Heathens and Publicans who in a peculiar manner acknowledged no lawfull Iudge but Cesar and hated the Iewes the onely Church of God
with the Church it followeth not that the binding of the Church is not a Church-binding as the binding of the two private men is also a binding but no publick no Church-binding 4. How shall Christs words keep either sense or Logick with the exposition of Erastus If he will not hear the Christian Magistrate complain to the Heathen Magistrate and again I say if the Lord hear two praying on earth far more will he ratifie in Heaven what a prophane Heathen Magistrate doth on earth against a Christian offender judge what sense is in this glosse Erastus hath no reason to divide these words ver 19. Again I say if two agree c. from ver 17. 18. Because they are meant of the Magistrate saith Erastus against all sense and joyne them to the words of the. 15. and 16. verses for there is no mention of binding and loosing by prayer ver 15 16. But only of rebuking and here Erastus shall be as far from keeping his proportion of rebuking and praying as he saith we do keep proportion between Church-sentencing and praying To Theophylact Chrisostom and Augustine Beza answered well and Erastus cannot reply 6. If there be binding and loosing between brother and brother in the first and second Admonition before the cause be brought to the Church what need is there of binding the man as a Heathen before the Heathen Magistrate And what need of the Heathen Magistrates prayer to binde in Heaven Was there ever such Divinity dreamed of in the world Erastus These words Tell the Church prove only that the Church hath the same povver to rebuke the injurious man that a private man hath this then is poor reason The Church hath power to rebuke an offender Ergo it hath power to Excommunicate him Ans All know that Christ ascendeth in these three steps 2. Erastus granteth the cause is not brought to the Church but by two or three witnesses which is a judiciall power as in the Law of Moses and in all Laws is evident if he hear not a brother he is not to be esteemed as a Heathen and a Publican but if he hear not the Church he is to be reputed so 3. We reason never from power of rebuking to the power of Excommunication but thus The Church hath power to rebuke an offender and if he will not hear the Church then is the man to thee that is to all men as a Heathen and a Publican Ergo The Church hath power to Excommunicate Erastus Christ speaketh of the Church that then was How could he bid them go to a Church that was not in the world they having heard nothing of the constitution of iâ— did he bid them erect a new frame of Government not in the world Ans He could as well direct them to remove scandals for time to come as he could after his Resurrection say Mat. 28. 19 20. Go teach and baptize all Nations which commandment they were not presently to follow but Act. 1. 4. to stay at Jerusalem and not To teach all Nations while the Holy Ghost should come I ask of Erastus how Christ could lay a Ministery on his Disciples which was not in the world What directions doth Christ Mat. 24. and Luk. 21. give to his Church and Disciples that they had not occasion to obey many years after is how they should behave themselves when they should be called before Kings and Rulers 2. Nor were the Apostles who were already in the room of Priests and Prophets to Teach and Baptize he after being to institute the other Sacrament to wonder at a new forme already half instituted and which differed not in nature from the former Government save that the Ceremonies were to be abolâ—shed Erastus Only Matthew mentioneth this pretended new institution not Luke not Mark the Disciples understood him well they aske no questions of him as of a thing unknown only Peter asked how often he should forgive his brother Ans This wil prove nothing Iohn hath much which we believe with equall certainty of Faith as we do any Divine institutions shall therefore Erastus call the turning of water into wine the raising of Lazarus The healing of the man born blinde and of him that lay at the Pool of Bethesda Christs heavenly Sermons Ioâ— cap. 14. 15 16. his prayer cap. 17 which the other Evangelists mention not Fiâ—menâ—a hominum mens fancies as he calleth Excommunication 2. Did the Disciples understand well the dream that Erastus hath on the place and took they it as granted that to tell the Church is to tell the civill Magistrate And that not to hear the Church is civill Rebellion and to be as a Heathen is to be impleaded before Cesar or his Deputies only This is a wonder to me Matthew setteth up this way an institution of all Church-Government which no Evangelist no word in the Old or New Testament establisheth Erastus Christ would not draw his disciples who were otherwise most observant of the Law from the Synedry then in use to a new Court where witnesses are led before a multitude and sentences judicially set up it had been much against the Authority of the civil Magistrate and a scandall to the Pharisees and the people had no power in Christs time to choose their own Magistrate therefore he must mean the Jewish Synedry If by the Church we understand the multitude we must understand such a multitude as hath power to choose such a Senate but there was no such Church in the Jews at this time Ans That the Church here is the multitude of Believers men women and children is not easily believed by us 2. And we are as far from the dream of a meer civill Synedry which to me is no suitable mean of gaining a soul to Christ which is our Saviours intention in the Text. 3. Erastus setteth up a christian Magistrate to intercept causes and persons to examine rebuke lead witnesses against a Iew before ever Cesar their only King of the Iews or his Deputies hear any such thing this is as far against the only supream Magistrate and as scandalous to the Pharisees as any thing else could be 4. Had not Iohn Baptist and Christs disciples drawn many of the Iews and Profylites to a new Sacrament of Baptisme and to the Lamb of God now in his flesh present amongst them this was a more new Law then any Ordinance of Excommunication was especially since this Church was not to be in its full constitution till after the Lords Ascension Erastus It is known this anedrim delivered Christ bound unto Pilate condemned Steven commanded the Apostles to be scourâ—eâ— and put in Prison Tertullins saith of Paul before Felix we would have judged him according to our Law Paul said Act. 23. to Ananiâ—s thou sittest to judge me according to the Law Act. 26. Pâ—ul confesseth before Agrippa and Festus that he obtained power from the high Priests to hale to prison and beat the Christians and
ground of other Scriptures is a thing I can hardly beleeve But since Excommunication is an ordinary censure the Church might well as they see the man penitent or contumacious cast him out or not pardon or not pardon Erastus Paul delivered to Satan Hymeneus and Alexander that they might learne not to blaspheme not that the dead are capable to learne or to be blasphemed but this be saith as a Magistrate when he saith he will give an ill doer to the hangman that he may learn to steale no more and to rob no more Ans 1 Tim. 1. 20. I delivered them to Satan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is like to edifying discipline and agreeable to Pauls use of the rod of discipline 2 Cor. 10. 8. Though I should boast somewhat more of our authoritie which the Lord hath given us for edification and not for destruction Now it were safer to give a sense congruous to the intrinsecall end of discipline which was not for destruction of the body but for the edifying of souls 2. Yea so Paul had no lesse the Sword then the rod of the Word Nero had not so heavy a sword as miraculous killing Should not Paul speake rather as a Pastor of Christ then as a bloody Magistrate Erastus If to deliver to Satan be all one with debarring from the Supper onely yet it is not all one with being cast out of the Church without which there is no salvation but the Supper is not absolutely necessary to Salvation Ans Nor doe we put that necessity on the Sacraments but where the man is excluded from the Sacraments for such a sinne as if he repent not he is excluded from Salvation it concerneth him much to thinke it a weighty judgement to be excluded from the Seales Erastus These two are inconsistent which you teach to wit that he is not debarred from the Sacraments who desireth them and that his desire whether it be a right or a wrong and unlawfull desire shall depend on the judgement of others to wit the Presbytery Ans Erastus should have made others see how these two fights together I see no inconsistencie no more then to say a childe that desireth food is not debarred from food and yet his desire of food may be subject to wise Stewards whether every desire of food be right or no as whether he should be answered by the Stewards when he desireth poyson or bread not to eaâ—e but to cast to dogs and this will fight against preaching of the Word the Professor that longeth for the comforts of the promises of the Gospel is not debarred from them yet are preachers to try whether threatnings be not fitter for him in his security then the comforts of the promises Erastus Paul 2 Cor. 12. and 13. threatneth not exclusion from the Lords Supper to those who had not repented of their schisme drunkennesse denying of the resurrection but he saith he would severely punish them according to the authority and power given him of God and he did this frequently but we read not exclusion from the sacraments Answ 1. It is true he threatneth those who had not repented of their uncleannesse and fornication and lascivionsnesse 2. Cor. 12. 20 21. and c. 13. v. 2. threatneth that he will not spare but use his authority but doth Erastus read that he either threatneth or doth actually miraculously kill any of the beleevers at Corinth and let him answer why the Apostle did not write to the Church that they would conveene and take course with them as he did with the incestuous man 1 Cor. 5. 2. when he saith He will not spare when he comes he must be expounded according to Erastus to come as a miraculous Magistrate to kill them 3. He saith not they were impenitent but he feareth it should be so 4. We hold if any should be contumacious he would not onely deny pearls to such Swine as his Master commanded Mat. 7. But also follow that rule Mat. 18. 4. Erastus himselfe granteth if there shall be found a man that tramples upon the Pearles and holy things of God as there must be some one or other which is such as deserveth to be miraculously killed By this Argument he granteth I say that such a one should not be admitted Hunc ego minimè admittendum censeo but how shall he be not admitted by this Argument Erastus There were many amongst the Ancients who deferred their Baptisme to the end of their life when therefore it is not written that these are damned who are excluded from the Supper against their will and not those who willingly exclude themselves from Baptisme why should the one more then the other be delivered to Satan for he is in a better condition who is excluded by the Presbyters against his will from the Supper then he who doth of his owne free will exclude him selfe from Baptisme Ans That the Ancients in the Apostolique Church which is our rule did deferre baptisme till they died Erastus cannot prove the Ancients after them is not our rule 2. That these were admitted to the Supper a Sacrament of the nourishment of these in whom Christ liveth before they were baptized which is the Sacrament of Regeneration and our first birth cannot be defended by Erastus and so he argues from an unlawfull practise 3. We reach not that any is damned because he is excluded from the Supper that Exclusion is a punishment men are damned for sins not for meer punishments but his sin is bound in heaven because of a great scandall such as incest and that if he repent not is the cause of damnation and therefore Erastus should have compared sinne with sinne the scandall with sinfull refusing of Baptisme and not have made a halting and lame comparilon an argument that concludeth nothing 4. Though those who deferred baptisme till death should not have been delivered to Satan yet will Erastus say they should not have been otherwise censured for these behooved with Socinians to hold Baptisme but an indifferent rite and by this many lived in the contempt of a necessary ordinance though not simply necessary and so died with the sinfull want of Baptisme many times Erastus The exclusion of men from the Sacraments did creep into the Church when men did ascribe salvation to the Sacraments therefore the Supper was given to dying men though excommunicate as the deniall of the Supper damneth Ergo the receiving of it saveth And so of Baptisme they reasoned Answ Erastus nameth this his own probable conjecture But it is to beg the question he may know how singular Augustine was for the necessity of Baptisme and how many of the Ancients were against him in it 2. He may know this consequence to be a conjecture and that it is not stronger because it is his owne 3. He granteth that exclusion of the unworthy from the Sacraments is ancient so much gain we by his conjectures Erastus When the Church wanted a Magistrate
his late Critica Sacra on the Old Testament saith it signifieth to stay to cut off by death by banishment or any other way whereby a thing in use before afterward ceaseth Joel 1. 8. Amos 1. 5. Yea to cut off by divorce as I noted before and Exod. 12. 15. To cut off from Israel is expounded ver 19. to cut off from the Church of Israel Yea the Law forbiddeth that not only in the time of the Passeover they should not eat leaven but it should not be in their houses Now must they be killed if it was found in their houses beside their knowledge see Deut. 16. 3. Exod. 13. 7. What Erastus saith to the end of the Chapter is but repeated reasons before answered CHAP. X. Quest 6. Arguments for Excommunication from 1 Corinthians 5. vindicated REverend Beza said The world is the Kingdom of Satan and he that is delivered to Satan is cast out of Christs Kingdom to Satans Kingdom Erastus saith Is it not easier to heal them by remaining in the Church having the Magistrate to compell them to their duty then to cast them out of the Church The world is a kingdom of wickednesse and impiety may you not more easily reforme a wanton and lascivious virgin within the house then by casting her out of the house into a Bordel Will not slaves of Satan be more easily healed amongst the children of God then amongst wicked men Ans Whether to be delivered to Satan be to be put formally in his power that he may vex the spirit that the man may be humbled for sin or if it be to be given to Satan only consequenter and cast out of the Church that is Christs office-house of Grace to live as the world of which Satan is God and Prince 2 Cor. 4. 4. Joh. 12. 31. Ioh. 14. 30. It is not much to be disputed But this reason is against the wisdom of God who hath appointed that the shame grief and sorrow of being put out of Christs family should exceedingly humble the spirit of any in whom there is any thing of God And Erastus might as well say to Paul why dost thou command the Saints not to eat and drink with those that are called brethren and yet are fornicators covetous extortioners 1 Cor. 4. 11. and such as cause divisions and walk inordinately as Rom. 16. 17. 2 Thes 3. 14 15. and to withdraw from their company they must then converse only with the slaves of Satan and the wicked of the world when they are deprived of the society of the godly and that is the way to loose them were it not better to command the just contrary that the godly should eat drink and converse with inordinate walkers for they may turn them from their evil way for will an unchaste virgin be made chaste by being cast out of her fathers house into a Bordel-house Will not slaves of Satan rather be healed amongst the children of God then amongst the wicked But Erastus seeth not that Gods aime in this separation is not only that the cast out man may be ashamed 2 Thes 3. 14 15. and so humbled and brought to repentance when he findeth he is deprived of the blessings of the Saints of their society Ordinances But also God hath a higher aime to the end the whole lump of Christs body be not leavened and infected with the contagion of one man 1 Cor. 4. 6 7. Gal. 5. 9. 10. Erastus The similitude of a rotten Member proveth nothing for 1. There be no such sinners desperately uncurable of whom there is no hope so long as they live except pertinacious Hereticks erring in the foundation of salvation and such as sin against the holy Ghost 2. It is not necessary that men using reason and free will be defiled and corrupted by other sinners as the whole Member is by the rotten Member for as a Tree cannot but be burnt by the fire that seaseth on it so neither can the Members continuated by touching escape corruption 3. None can be cast out of the Church into the world as it is the kingdom of Satan for if they keep the faith though they were amongst Turks they are not in the world that is in the Kingdom of Satan nor in the world 4. Paul would not have him cast out into the world that his soul may be saved for this were to make the weak dispair and make them hypocrites Ans This similitude is the holy Ghosts in the very sense we use it 2 Tim. 2. 17. Their word shall eat as a canker a Metaphor as Calvin Piscator Marlorate observe from a rotten member that corrupteth the whole body and to say because a man hath reason and so free-will that he will not be corrupted whereas the whole member by necessity of nature cannot but be corrupted by a rotten member is to speak not like a Divine but as Pelagius speaketh for except we use the remedy appointed of God to eschew the contagion of the wicked and eschew their company as we are commanded and as the godly have done and the wicked have not done and therefore have been infected with the way of other evil men Prov. 22. 24. Prov. 5 8 9. Psa 26. 4 5. Esa 2. 6 7. Psa 119. 63. Psa 139. 21 22. Rev. 18. 4. 2 Chro. 19. 2. though we should not actually be corrupted yet we sin and tempt the Lord in that we seek a temptation to our selves yea as all the reasons of Erastus are naturall and against the wisdom of God in his Ordinances so expresly this God forbiddeth his people to marry with the Canaanites or to make Covenants with them Exod. 34. 12 c. Because saith the Lord they will insnare thee and draw away thy heart after their Gods May not Erastus say But men have reason and free-will not to consent to the inticing counsels of the Canaanites though they be joyned in Covenant and marriage with them Preterea non est necesse sic alios a malis contaminari 3. It is good that Erastus granteth that pertinacious Hereticks because uncurable may infect others for so the word expresly saith what shall be done with them Erastus granteth they be rotten members Ergo either they must by Excommunication be separated from the body as we teach or the body must seperate from them if this latter be said all that Erastus inferreth against us shall fall against himself 1. We shall not need to be infected with the Heresie of such Vtimur ratione We have the Armour of reason and freewill against this rotten and rotting member saith Erastus 2. We shall expose Hereticks to the Kingdom of Satan and the world by which they shall be hardned in their pernicious Heresies Beside 3. We make them Hypocrites 4. I see no warrant Erastus hath to say That Hereticks erring in fundamentals are more contagious and rotten members then slaves of Satan failing against the second Table 5. He that is cast out of
that Feast pointed out holinesse all our life is utterly denyed for eating of leavened bread except in these dayes forbidden was not a sin nor any Ceremoniall type at all no more then our common bread and wine are signes of Christs body and blood 2. Paul compareth the Feast to the lump of the Visible Church so as the leaven was to be removed out of all houses of Israel because it did Ceremonially infect corrupt and leaven them and so was to be purged so did the inâ—â—stuons man leaven the Visible Church of Corinth and was to be purged out Nor do I contend that the Lords Supper here is meant though I know no solemn Spirituall Feast that the visible Church now hath but the Supper of the Lord But rather I understand Church-Communion in the dainâ—ies of the Gospel which are set forth to us under the similitude of a Feast Matth. 22. Luke 14. 16 17 18 c. Prov. 9. 2 3 4 5. Cant. 5. 1. Erastus The leaven of the Passeover does not so signifie impurity of life that Excommunication can be hence gathered therefore the Apostle alludeth to that place that or the like way as the Jews did Celebrate their Passeover without leaven so it becometh us to Celebrate our Passeover without the leaven of malice and wickednesse Leaven simply may either signifie good or evil as Matth. 13. and 16. and Potuit it might signifie our naturall corruption For God not only forbiddeth to eat leaven but to have it in the house and leaven signifieth 〈…〉 sse so to be punished as yeâ— say even by death Ans The Leaven of the Passeover signified so impurity as we are to put out the person that leaveneth the Church out of the Church as they were to put leaven out of the house and not only simply not to eat it so are we not only not to eat and drink with a scandalous man but he is to be reputed no member of the Church but a leavening and contagious man and therefore Paul doth not here as Erastus dreameth show what way every one in his own personall practise and duty as a single Christian is to do that he may save his own soul and therefore every one was to celebrate a Christian Passeover in his own soul laying aside the leaven of malice Though I grant That Paul ver 8. doth infer and draw a conclusion of a personall purging out of the leaven of malice and hypocrisie out of every mans heart But Paul doth expresly command the Corinthians as a convened Church to put out from amongst them another man for the saving of that other mans soul And what they should do in a Church society toward the man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Who hath done this to wit down right they should Iudge him Cast him out purge him out as a leavening peece And the world cannot give any other meaning of the words then that as the Iews were to put all leaven from amongst them when they were to celebrate their Passeover So the Corinthians were to exercise the like work upon this incestuous man and to put him out from amongst them as one delivered to Satan as a lump of sowre leaven and we seek no more for Excommunication 2. Leaven signifieth Matth. 13. good the Kingdom of God is compared to leaven But here it is corruption of contagious scandall in this incestuous man and such leaven as is to be cast out and purged away Now I hope we must not purge out and cast away the Kingdom of heaven and Matth. 16. 6. The leaven of the corrupt and false Doctrine of Pharisees and Sadduces that corrupteth the hearts of men is meant and of this leaven we are to beware But why doth Erastus strive to bring the reader in a good opinion of leaven which Paul would have us to detest I know not a reason but because the place is so evident for the casting out of an incestuous man from amongst the Corinthians lest he should infect the flock and that by the Church convened together in the name and power of Christ that his soul may be saved and this is the very excommunication that we assert 3. This leaven saith he may signifie naturall corruption Now Erastus putteth us to a may be but a may be will not do it For the Text saith not I hope by Erastus his confession that the poor man must be delivered to Satan that is miraculously killed for naturall concupiscence All the world thus are delivered to Satan as being heirs of wrath for sin Originall at least in demerit 2. The man was not judged purged out and cast out as leaven that sowred the Church for naturall corruption 3. Paul offendeth not with them that they were puffed and mourned not for the mans Originall sin but for his actuall wickednesse because he had gone in to his fathers wife an Abomination that the Gentiles are ashamed to name Erastus Then the man must be killed as he that eat leavened bread was killed and though the punishments of Moses Law as such must not be brought in the Christian Church yet if God subject men to the Magistrates Sword men cannot free them from it though there may be degrees of punishment Ans We denyed that those that eat leavened bread with the Passeover were killed but onely excommunicated and cut off from the congregation God never subjected any to the sword for that cause 2. We deny that therefore by proportion the incestuous man should be killed by what consequence will Erastus prove that those that gathered sticks on the Lords day those that are stubborn to Father or Mother those who commit fornication now in the Israel of God under the New Testament must be stened to death by the Magistrate or miraculously killed by the Apostles it must be by the same consequence that Erastus reasoneth here But did God kill immediatly any offenders at all for originall sin some one more nor other as Erastus dreameth this man was killed 3. What warrant hath Erastus that the Devill killeth any one of the visible Church now under the New Testament and any of the children of God whose spirit are saved in the day of the Lord proferat tabulas Erastus saith it neither Prophet nor Apostle in the Old or New Testament ever said it Erastus said an Anagogicall sense is not concludent Ans Where the Holy Ghost giveth the sense it is false saith Beza 2. Why doth then Erastus conclude miraculous killing from the Types of the Old Testament Erastus Where I pray you doth Paul say that the punishment of eating leavened bread did typifie your Excommunication Ans The word Excommunication may be by the Church used as the Word Sacrament Trinity But the thing is not ours but an ordinance of Iesus Christ 2. Paul saith in this very place as Israel were to put away leaven in their Passeover so is the convened Church of Corinth in the name and power of Christ to put out judge and purge
Lords table were one and the same punishment Beza saith the one is a lesse the other a greater punishment 2. If it be true in gifts that he to whom lesse is given more is given then it holdeth here in our case because private fellowship with the Saints is a gift of God and if the Lords body given for us and to us in the Lords supper be not a greater gift it is nothing so then if a lesse gift be denied the Lords supper a greater gift is denied 2. It must hold in the private punishments inflicted for an higher punishments cause private communion with the Saints is denied because the man is cast out of the Church Ergo farre more are the highest priviledges of the Church denied as liberty is denied to a man because he is condemned to dye Ergo farre more is life denied to him a mans house is denied to him because he is banished Ergo farre more is his city and countrey denied to him But a man is not punished in his purse because he is condemned to dye it followeth noâ— Ergo he should rather dye because the one punishment is not relative to the other 3 Because not eating with a scandalous man is a spirituall punishment as I have proved therefore it is of that same kind with excommunication and therefore it holdeth here 4. Abstinence from the private fellowship of a scandalous brother is not free but commanded of God and so is debarring from the Lords supper not free but commanded Erastus when he forbiddeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no not to eat he forbiddeth 1. Neer communion of familiarity 2. Not to eat with them which is to forbid all signes of neer communion Ans It is clear he proveth they should cast him out because I wrote to you that you should not keep company with such v. 9. no more to eat with such Ergo farre lesse would he say should he be a leavening member in the lumpe and masse of Christs body Erastus I wrote unto you that ye should not keep company with such then Paul speaketh here of a thing concerning which he had spoken before though they understood him not it is like they sought Pauls judgement of their conversing with men But of delivering the man to Satan he had not spoken before as is clear in the Text. Ans This is a strong argument for us if Paul had never spoken nor written to them of the delivering of the man to Satan that is of the miraculous killing of him how could he in reason and conscience chide them because they prayed not that he might be miraculoâ—sly killed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is not possible they could mourn for not joyning in a businesse that Paul had never revealed to them to be Gods will Yea it is a strong argument to me that delivering to Satan was excommunication of which he had taught them before else their mourning had been unreasonble and which he pointed at to them as a limbe of excommunication to wit their not familier conversing with the scandalous Erastus And when he has showâ—n how they ought to flee the company of the scandalous he returneth to his former purpose commanding the wicked man to be killed This then he saith I commanded you to eschew the company of wicked brethren not of the heathen whom the Lord shall judge Ans 1. The Text can bear no such exposition for the reasons I have given before 2. The coherence is clear I wrote before that you should not keep company with wicked brethren therefore put out that wicked man from amongst you But by Erastus his glosse there is neither sense nor coherence in the words Erastus The end of refusing familiar conversing with the scandalous is that he may be ashamed and you say that same is the end of debarring from the supper then it must follow as private conversing can do the contrary to wit it can soment and nourish sinnes both in the brother we converse with and in us so the frequent use of the Lords supper should nourish vices in us vvhich vvere vvickednesse to think Ans This presumeth that to avoyd a scandalous brother and to debarre him from the Sacraments must be formally one which we teach not 2. Hence it followeth since they be divers formally they cannot have the same formall and intrinsecall ends 3. The frequent eating at the Lords table in a scandalous man doth dispose him more and more to sinne as frequently sinning inclineth more to sinne but this is by the frequent abusing of Gods ordinance and not from the nature of the Sacrament Erastus Paul forbiddeth not ill men of the company of good men but he admonisheth good men to flee ill men that they may be ashamed But vvhen you deuy the Sacraments to any you command not the Godly not to come to the supper with the wicked but you forbid the scandalous to come to the supper Ans There is no solidity in this conjecture it leaneth upon the perpetuall mâ—stake of Erastus in all this dispute as if we held That to be debabred from familiar fellowship with the Saints and from the Sacrament were one and the same thing Else I see no conclusion that Erastus doth or can infer against us 2. It is false that wicked men are not discharged the company of Saints for in so far as fellowship with the Saints is a spirituall mean of the gaining of their souls by Teaching Exhorting Edifying Comforting the wicked and scandalous being Dogs and Swine are forbidden to touch such a Pearl Yea God layeth a charge on wicked men while they remain in that case not to meddle with Confirming Ordinances with some Converting Ordinances they may as Psal 50. 16. But to the wicked God said What hast thou to do to declare my Statutes or that thou takest my Convenant in thy mouth 17. Seeing thou hatest Instruction and castest my Word behinde thee Here the wicked are forbidden to Teach or speak to the instructing of others which is a speciall act of Christian fellowship between Brother and Brother Col. 3. 16. Heb. 3. 13. Heb. 10. 24. 1 Thes 5. 11. 14. Because they hate to be Instructed of others And you know how Christ speaketh to the unworthy intruder of himself on the secrets and spirituall marrow and comforts of the Gospel Matth. 22. ver 12. Friend How camest thou here not having thy Wedding garment Ezra 4. 3. But Zerubbabel and Joshua and the rest of the chief of the Fathers came and said unto the Adversaries of Iudah and Benjamin You have nothing to do with us to build an house unto our God But we our selves together will build unto the Lord God of Israel Doth not God expresly forbid David to build an house to his name 1 Chron. 22. 8. 2 Chron. 6. 9. And we know it is a typicall discharge layed upon men of blood not to touch the holiest things of God but that men of Peace must meddle
of men 3. If God have not commanded either Elders or any other as Erastus saith to examine and judge who are fit for the Lords Supper who not Then seeing Erastus saith the prophane the ignorant the impenitently scandalous knowne to be such are to be debarred I aske of Erastus to whom Christ hath commanded the tryall of this who are ignorant and non rectè instituti Men cannot debarre themselves from the Sacraments in a judiciall way most of men conceiting well of themselves rush upon the ordinances of God not knowing that they doe evill Workers of iniquity who cry Lord Lord Adulterers Theeves Idolaters who dare come to the Temple of the Lord and cry The temple of the Lord The temple of the Lord are these Ier. 7. 9 10 11. will also fast and professe Repentance Esa 57. 3 4 5. even when their wickednes testifieth to their face against them in the eies of all Ier. 2. 1 c. Ier. 2. 34. Esa 1. 9. and they will desire â—o partake of the Lords Supper as is evident Esa 57. 2. Now there are none on earth neither Elders or any any others to debarre them Erastus saith Taceo jam quod Deus non praecepit vel Presbyteris vel aliis tale examen Let Erastus answer us in this and by what charity is Erastus obliged to beleeve all that seeketh the Lords supper do it in truth God has given to us mens works not their words of which hypocrites are liberall and shall we foment hypocrisie and mens eating their owne damnation under Erastus his pretence of incouraging and not suffocating seeming godly desires Lastly Erastus saith it doth not concern the Church that the man deferre to do that which Christ commands him to do this is to beg the question Doth Christ command a man to eat his owne damnation CHAP. XIII Quest 9. Other Arguments for Excommunication vindicated Erastus The Apostle writeth if any man love not the Lord Jesus let him be accursed Ergo Paul will have the Elders to sit and judge who truely repent who not that they may admit the one to the supper not the other if this be excommunication excommunication is grounded on a thousand places to love Christ is to kâ—ep his commandements Ioh. 13. and 15. then who ever saith those that keep not the commandements of Christ are cursed of God he shall this way excommunicate then Moses did often excommunicate But because the false Apostles did strive to make Paul contemptible therefore Paul saith God be judge which of us loveth Christ and let God destroy him who loves him not this is the true meaning Ans Erastus perverteth the sense of Beza his words for Beza has no such conclusion as to prove a formall excommunication by the Elders or Church judicature this is Erastus sained conclusion Beza inferreth from these words that there is here gravissimae excommunicationis species a kind of heavy excommunication materially to be eternally separated from Christ called the great excommunication And it was to be accursed while the Lord come and therefore this may prove there is a kind of lesser excommunication in the Church and Moses his cursing by way of preaching may well inserre that because there be Church censures therefore there is a Church cursing heavy and lesse heavy But Beza intendeth not to prove excommunication by the Church from this but only that Christs enemies are cursed though they be other wayes in the Church and this kinde of excommunication of shutting impenitent sinners out of heaven is in a thousand places of scripture and nothing can hence be concluded against Beza and the like excommunication is Gal. 1. And when Ioh. 2. Ep. forbiddeth to receive a faâ—â—e teacher into your house if he be a member of the Church he is to be farre lesse kept in Christs greater house the Church but is to be cast out Erastus When Paul saith Gal. 5. I would they were cut off who trouble you he saith not conveene the Elders and cast such men out of the Church or deliver them to Satan but he wisheth that they were cut off by God Ans 1. The place Gal. 5. 12. I wish they were cut off that trouble you is expounded by Piscator of cutting off from the visible Church Yea he saith conveene the Church when he saith v. 9. a little leaven leaveneth the whole lumpe that is a little false Doctrine infecteth the whole Church and v. 10. I am confident of you that ye will be no otherwise minded but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgement who ever he be then he hopeth well of the Galathians that they will be of one mind to judge and cast out the false teacher this is parallel to 1 Cor. 5. though Paul do not so right downe chide them for neglect of Church censures as he doth 1 Cor. 5. But saith Erastus if Paul wished them to be cut off that troubled them why did he not cut off those false teachers and deliver them to Satan Erastus answereth it was not Gods will so to do and the Apostles could not in every place and at every time kill miraculously but when it was profitable and necessary Ans Then Paul 1 Cor. 5. farre lesse could rebuke the Corinthians because they prayed not that the incestuous Corinthian might be miraculously killed by Paul for Paul had not power to kill him because it was not necessary nor profitable the man repented and was never killed 2. Iudge if it be probable that Paul would wish to work a miracle in killing false teachers when it was neither profitable necessary nor saâ—e for the Church to have them killed 3. Paul was confident the man who troubled them should beare his judgement Erastus saith it was not Gods will he should be miraculously killed Ergo it was not miraculous killing but some Church censure or then Erastus must find out another kind of judgement And why may some say doth not Paul write to Excommunicate him as he did the incestuous Corinthian Beza Answereth Paul would not 1 Cor. 5. take that Authority to himself but would do it by the suffrages of the Church So here he sheweth what he desireth but happily it was not expedient that they should be presently cut off So Beza Yea the words do well bear that Paul thought fit That they should bear their Iudgement who had troubled them and that that leaven should be purged out 2. Yea if this cutting off be miraculous it is clear Paul could not Communicate it to others for it was Pauls will that the incestuous Corinthian should be delivered to Satan by the suffrages of the Corinthians Nor do we read that the Apostles wished to cut off men miraculously but were not able to do it Erastus It is false That Paul willed the man to be delivered to Satan by the suffrages of the Corinthians For he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have already Concluded Ordained Decreed to deliver him
cleane and uncleane 2. A Presbytery of arbitrators in matters civill to keep Christians from going to law one with another before heathen judges Is not a Presbytery 1 Cor. 6. one wise man might do that and he is no Presbytery 2. There is no judicatures of Officers there they were but gifted men arbitrarily chosen for a certaine businesse and were not judges habitu 3. A Presbytery for Doctrine only is further to seek in the word I hope then our Presbytery Erastus should teach us where it is 4. He denieth a Presbytery for manners then all scandals must come before the civill Magistrate Who made him a Church officer to judge of the affairs of the Church Who is to be admitted to the seals who not For two supream Courts I shall speak God-willing Erastus There is no Colledge of Presbyters at Corinth but every man was to judge himselfe Ans There is a company gathered together in the name of our Lord Jesus with the spirit of Paul and the power of our Lord Iesus 1 Cor. 5. 4. 5. who did judge those that are within and put out from amongst them an incestuous man v. 12 13. least he should leaven the whole Church v. 6. this is a Colledge of judges 2. There is a number of builders and labourers with God 1 Cor. 3. 9 10 11 12. Ministers of God dispensers of the misteries of Word and Sacraments of God 1 Cor. 4. 1. such as Paul Apollos Cephas and others 1 Cor. 1. 12 13. 1 Cor. 4. 6. A number that had power to punish to forgive 2 Cor. 1. 2 6 7 8 9 10. 3. A number of Prophets who judged of the Doctrine of the Prophets 1 Cor. 14. 30 31 32. these be very like a Colledge of Presbyters O but Paul writeth not to those but to those who were puffed up and mourned not 1 Cor. 5. 2. These were the people and Church Ans Yea these were the eyes eares and principall parts of the Church 1 Cor. 12. 14 15 16 17 18. now he writeth to the Church 1 Cor. 1. 1 2. Erastus Before this time Paul must have instituted this Presbytery who seeth not that this is false for so he would have accused the Presbytery not the whole Church but he accuseth not the Elders because they admitted the man to the Lords supper and there is no word of excommunication here There is no mention of one judgement of one election of one office but he chideth the whole Church because they mourned not it was not the Elders office to remove this they dream who say there is a Presbytery instituted here and there was none instituted before this Epistle was written he biddeth them not ask suffrages whether he should be excommunicated or no. Ans All that Erastus saith against a Presbytery is to improve excommunication But there may be excommunication by the people as many hold where there be no Elders at all 2. Let Erastus point out the time when a number of preaching Prophets were instituted at Corinth whether in this Chapter which to me is a dream or before 3. He had cause to rebuke all All were secure the Elders who cast him not out the people who said not to their Elders as the Colossians are bidden say Col. 4. 17. to Archippus and will Erastus say that preaching Elders who by office are the eyes of the Church 1 Cor. 12. 17 28. were not to be chiefe in mourning to God and praying that the man might be miraculously killed and yet he reproveth all equally 4. He reproveth them all that the man was not cast out of the Church and this includeth a reproofe that he injoyed all the Church priviledges especially the Sacraments 5. It is false that there is no mention of judgement v. 12. Do not ye judge those that are within for election there is none in the Chapter nor any Presbytery instituted in this Chapter it was before Erastus hath the like reason to say that there was no instituted Church at Corinth because in the 1. or 2. Epistle to the Corinthians we reade not where he instituted any such Church if we finde the thing instituted we know it had an institution and let Erastus shew us when Paul received the institution of the Lords supper from the Lord shall we deny he received any such thing contrary to 1 Cor. 11. 23. because we finde not where and how he received from the Lord 6. There is no asking of suffrages mentioned Act. 1. at the choosing of Mathias nor Act. 6. at the choosing of the Deacons that we reade of Ergo there were no suffrages there it followeth not 7. And ought not farre rather suffrages to have been asked before the people should take on their heads the mans blood by consenting thereunto and praying for it as Erastus saith Erastus If these words v. 3. I verily as absent in body but present in spirit have decreed c. signifie choose out of your company Presbyters who are to censure the manners of the people who shall debarre the unworthy from the Sacraments I am willing to suffer any thing Ans I know no man but Erastus that dreameth of any such sense there is no institution of a Presbytery in this Chapter no calling of Ministers but it presupposeth a ministery before sâ—â—led But if thâ—se words I have decreed c. have the Erastian sense I have given sâ—â—â—eâ—câ— as a Magistrate that the man be killed by the ministery of the Devill and that you shall be my Heralds to proclaime this sentence it is a wonder the Text give not any hint of such a sense Erastus v. 12. he speaketh not of the judgement of Presbyters but of all the people Ans 1. This Erastus on his word asserteth without probation We deny it it is but parâ—llel with Gods judging 2. It is an act of the keys 3. It is relative to casting out by those that are conveened in the name of the Lord Iesus with the spirit of Paul and the power of our Lord Iesus Was every Girle and beleeving servant capable of this spirit and power Erastus I grant before any come to age be baptized he is to be examined whether he understand the Doctrine of saith and assent to it with his heart I grant it is profitable that young ones be examined before they be admitted to the supper but I deny God hath for either of those instituted a Presbytery But there is no ground that a Presbytery must try wicked men ere they be admitted to the Lords supper Ans 1. We owe Erastus thanks for granting this but what if the aged be sound grosly ignorant and uncapable of the seals and some wicked men will trample the seals as swine and yet they desire the seals Erastus said before such should not be admitted who should debarre them either the Church of beleevers or those that are over them in the Lord or the Magistrate must debarre them if the first and second be
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
the Sacraments Heathen remaiing Heathen they should prostitute holy things to Dogs and be guilty of an Heathen mans eating of his owne damnation Hence this Assertion of Mr. Prynne must be a great mistake That Ministers may as well refuse to preach the Word to such unexcommunicated grosse impenitent scandalous Christians whom they would suspend from the Sacrament for feare of partaking with them in their sinne as to administer the Sacrament to them because saith he unprofitable hearing is as damning a sinne as unworthie receiving of the Sacrament 1. Because there is and may be discovered to bee in the congregation persons as unworthy as Heathen such as Simon Magus yea latent Iudasses Parricides who are in the visible Church while God discover their hypocrisie but we may lawfully preach the Word to men as uncapable of the Word as Heathen and as unworthie as Christ and the Apostles did who did not contravene that Cast not Pearles to Swine yet we cannot give the Sacraments to men knowne to be as scandalous uncapable and unworthy as Heathen but we must prostitute holy things to Dogs and partake of their sinne for this is non causa pro causa that Mr. Prynne bringeth to say we may as well refuse to preach the Gospell to scandalous impenitents as to administer the Sacrament without partaking of the sinnes of either because unprofitable hearing is as damning a sinne as unworthy receiving the Supper This Because is no cause it is true they are both damnable sinnes but how proveth he that Preachers partake equally of both I can shew him a clear difference which demonstrateth the weaknesse of this connexion 1. Vnprofitable hearing of the Gospell in a Heathen is as damning a sin as hypocriticall receiving of the Sacrament is a sinne they are not equalia peccata but sure they are â—què peccata but I may preach the Gospel to a Heathen and not partake of his sinne of unprofitable hearing for I may be commanded to preach to a Heathen remaining a Heathen as Paul preached to Felix to the scoffing Athenians to the persecuting Iews and giving obedience to the command of God freeth me from partaking of his unprofitable hearing But I cannot administer the Lords Supper to an Heathen remaining a Heathen without sharing in his sin and suppose a Heathen remaining a Heathen would croud in to the Lords Table as of old many Heathen fained themselves to be Iewes desiring to serve the time 1 Sam. 14. 21. yet I should partake of the Heathens unworthy receiving if knowing him to be a Heathen serving the time and crouding in amongst the people of God I should administer the Lords Supper because I have no command of God to administer the Lords Supper to a Heathen man nor could Paul administer the Sacrament to the scoffing Athenians or to Felix without taking part with them in their prophaning of the Lords Table 2. The necessity of preaching the Word it being simply necessary to the first conversion of a sinner putteth Pastors in a case that they may and ought to preach the Gospell to Heathen and to thousands knowne to be unconverted without any participation of their unprofitable hearing and the non-necessity of the Lords Supper or the Seale of the Covenant and the nourishing of their souls to life eternall who visibly and to the knowledge of those who are dispensers of the Sacrament prophane and abominably wicked putteth those same dispensers in a condition of being compartners with them in the prophaning of the holy things of God if they dispence the bread to those that are knowingly dead in sinnes so the Gospell may be taught in Catechisme to Children Deut. 6. 6 7. 2 Tim. 3. 15. Exod. 12. 26 27. Gen. 18. 19. Prov. 22. 6. because there is a necessity they be saved by hearing Rom. 10. 14. 1 Cor. 1. 23. but there is no necessity but a command on the contrary that the Lords Supper be dispensed to no children nor to any that cannot examine themselves and they may be saved without the Sacrament but not ordinarily without the Word nor were it enough to forwarne Apostates and persecutors and Hypocriticall heathen and children that if they eate unworthily they eate their owne damnation as Mr. Pryn saith and yet reach the Sacrament to those for the dispensers then should â—ast Pearls to some Dogs and Swine contrary to Mat. 5. 6. and they should be free of the guilt in polluting of holy things if they should give them a watch-word say they were about to prophane the holy things of God before they committed such wickednesse Nor doe we as Mr. Pryn saith nor know we or the Scriptures any such distinction as sealing externally to the senses of any receiving the Lords Supper lawfully divided sinfully it may be divided but there is no Law for sinne no print no authority of men for it from the internall sealing nor heard we ever of two sorts of conversion one externall from Paganisme to the externall profession of the faith wrought extraordinarily by Miracles without the Word and ordinarily by Baptisme in Infants and another internall from formall profession to an inward imbracing of Christ and his merits 1. Because the Stewards and Ambassadors of Christ may notdare to play with the Sacraments as children doe with nuts to seal to mens senses and fancies Christ and spirituall nourishment in him and part in his body broken and blood shed in those who visibly have nothing of faith to their discerning and of the life of Christ but onely senses and fancie such as all visibly and notoriously scandalous walking after the flesh all Herericks Apostates knowne and unwashen Hypocrites have and no more 2. All heathen and unbaptized have senses and are capable of externall washing and externall and Sacramentall eating as well as others are but are they capable of the Seals because they have bodies to be washed and teeth and stomacke to eat Sacramentally And have Ministers warrant enough to dispense the Sacraments to all that have senses But they must be within the visible Church also ere they be capable of Sacraments Mr. Pryn will say but I aske by what warrant Mr. Pryn alledgeth that the Supper of the Lord is a converting ordinance as well as the Word and that Pastors may without sinne dispense the Sacraments to those to whom they preach the Word but they may preach the Word to Heathen remaining Heathen Ergo may they dispense the Lords Supper to Heathen remaining Heathen What more absurd yet remaining Heathen they are as capable of Mr. Pryn his sense-sealing and sense-converting Sacraments as any sound beleever 3. A sealing to the senses cannot be divided from the inward sealing by the Spirit neither in the intention of God for the externall sealing without the internall is Hypocrisie and God cannot intend Hypocrisie nor can this division be in regard of the nature of the Sacrament for it doth seal to us our spirituall nourishment in Christ except we
Bellar. de Pont if Rom l. 4. cap. 16. Quiounque potest precipere polest etiam actum indifferentem suo precepto facere necessarium per se bonum p Silvest in voce abrogat q Tartar in moral cap. 5. 7. r River catho orth tom 1. q. 9. tract 2. q. 2 Å¿ Field l. 4. cap. 33. t Pareus u Soto l. 1. de just q. 6. art 3. x Sylvest Verbâ— in obedientia in â—iâ—c y Jo Eselius in ezpos Decall praecept 4. cap. 36. z Cap. 2. De constit Rem quae culpa caret in damnum vocari non convenit Other Arguments for the obligation of humane Laws Answered a Ambros b Anselm c Theodoretus in loc Rom 13. d Chrysos in Rom. 13. hom 23. e Navar. in sum cap. 23. numb 54. f Felinus cap. 1. de sponsalib n. 18. g Taraqu Prefat de utroque retractu n. 74. What it is to resist the Ruler h Lodovi Merat par 1. tract de leg disp 1. Sect. 13. i Merat ib. Sect. 2. Why men cannot make laws that layeth a tye on the Conscience That Christ hath a spirituall kingdom not only in the power of preaching the word but also in the power of the keys by discipline That there is such a divine ordinance as Excommunication Objections against excommunication removed Praelee in Math. 18. ver 15. page 144. We mayrebuke our brother in a prudent way 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Erastus Mat. 18. Object 4. The church Mat. 18. is not the Civill Sanedrim How Publicans were excluded from the Temple a Dâ—uâ— 23. 1 2 3 4 5. I'sa 79. 1. Lam. 1. 10. b Lev. 25 44. Lev. 26. 45 2 Kin. 16. 3. 2 Kin. 17. 8. 11. â— Chro. 16. 35. 2 Chro. 33. 2 9. Neh. 5. 8 9 Psa 9. 19. Psal 10. 16. Psal 33. 10. Psal 44. 2. Psa 80. 9. Ier. 10. 2. Ezech. 23. 30. Eze. 25. 7. Ioel 2. 7. Obad. v. 15 Miâ— 5. 15. Hag. 2. 22. Zach. 1. 15. Theophylact in Math. 18 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Object 8. Beza de de Presbyterio excom p. 60. Joseph de bello Iudaiâ— l. 1. c. 4. Pharisaei omnia pro arbitrio administrabant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lucian dialo 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So doth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Num. 11. 28. signifie Binding and loosing acts judiciall a Camero prelect in Mat. 16. b Vatablus on Esay 22. c Calvin prelect in Esay 22 d Muscu com ibid e Gualther Homil. in loc f Piscator shol in Esa g Beza on Mat. 16. h Pareus comment in Mat. 16. i Cotton Keyes of the Kingdome p. 2. Beza de Pres byter pag. 63 64. That Excommunication is a divine Ordinance is proved by 1 Cor. 5. To deliver to Satan is not miraculous killing The essentials of excommunication 1 Cor 5. Cutting off not alwaies killing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ab interiâ—re populâ—rum sacrum Morall guiltinesse excluded men from holy things amongst the Iews The place Ezekiel 44. v. 11. 12. 13. 14. to be fulfilled under the New Testament Object Ceremoniall exclusion from holy things under the old did tipifie exclusion for morall uncleannesse under the New Testament Levit. 5. 2â— The Churches exclusion from the Seales declarative not coactive by violence Remonstrant in Apollo Censures applied to some by name Arg. 2. Eschewing the society of scandalous church members must be a church censure The hindering of Jezabel by preaching onely not sufficient Debarring of the scandalous from the seals proâ—ed It belongeth not to the Magistrate to â— debar from the seals Thomas Erastus lib. 3. confirmat Thesium lib. 3. â— 3. pag. 207. Nam et sacramenta sub sub 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nomine comprehendi concedo Erastus Confi thes l. 3. c. 3. pag. 207. Qui membra externae volunt ecclesiae videri illi non calcabunt Sacramenta nec offereâ—tem laniare tentabunt fiquis talis reperiatur hune ego minime admittendum censeâ— Confirmatiâ— Thosium Erast Consâ—â— thes l. 1. c. 1. p. 72. Erast will have no man excluded from the Sacraments pag. 86. Si per subductionem pabuli intelligis verbi aut sacramentorum negationem de tuâ— hoc dicis non lâ—queris cum scripturis quae nusquam jubent pabula haec subducere According to Erastus his way we cannot deny the seals to a Turk P. 75 76. Toexclude men from the Kingdom of Heaven not one with Excommunication Pag. 78. Excommunication is no reall separation of one from Christs invisible body Pag. 79. P. 81 82. Pag. 83. Pag. 86. Pag. 88. 8â— Though Excommunication be onely declarative yet it is not empty Cap. 2. l. 1. p. 93. Putting out 1 Cor. 5. Excommunicating Lib. â— c. 2. pag. 103. Whether Erastus doth prove that none were excluded amongst the Iewes from the Sacraments for Morall uncleannesse A twofold forgivenesse Pag. 117. All are invited to the SacrameÌ„ts but not that they come any way they please The question whether all should be admitted to the Lords Supper perverted by Erastus Cap. 3. l. 1. p. 117. Lib. 3. c. 3. pag. 207. Et si quis talis qui caleabit sacramenta reperiatur hunc ego numinè admittendum censeo Pag. 118. Two sorts of signes some purely holy some partly holy partly necessary for the bodily life Pag. 120. P. 120 121. All are commanded to hear the Word but not to come to the Supper Arg. 16. Page 124. Page 124. Confirm Thes l. 2. c. 1. p. 130. 131. 133. 134. 136. 137. Ceremoniall uncleannes typified Exclusion out of the visible Church for Scandals not out of the Kingdome of Heaven Page 140. Page 142 143 144 145. Page 146. Page 140. At nemo propter ingenitam naturae corruptionem pâ—nitur Page 147. Legall uncleannesse was sin Page 150. Lib. â— c. 2. p. 154. 155. The scope and sense of Mat. 18. perverted by Erastus Our Saviour speaks of all not of private and lesser scandals onely Page 26. in Thes 41. By the word brother is not meant a Iew onely Erast conf Thes l. 2. â— 1. p. 133. Sive facinorosos facinoris paeniteret sive non paeniteret paena non minuebatur L. 2. cap. 2. page 155. Thes 41. p. 46. Pag. 156. Christs speaking in the second person argueth not the privacy of the scandall Page 158. Page 156. 157. A twofold forgiving Thes 42. page 27. Page 16. Christ speaketh not of such sins as private men may forgive as Erastus dreameth Christs scope spiritual Erast his way is carnall Thes 42. pag. 28. Lib. 3. c. p. 181. Pag. 186. 187. Pag. 188. A Publican most odious to the Iews Lib. 3. c. 3. p. 190 191. Page 191. P. 192. 193. Pag. 195. 196. A publican most odious to the Iewes No private forgivenesse Mat. 18. pag. 198 â—ed si docendo priâ—atus aliquem ad duxcrit ut peccata sua agnoscat et ex certa side â—â— Dei be â—â—gnitate propter meritum Christi acquiescat an non solutus erit Si frustraÌ„